Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Point is 6 Miles That Way

abortion, prochoice, prolife, poverty,

The pro-life movie starring Christian songstress Rebecca St. James in her first leading role made its world premiere last Friday at the Great Boston Christian Film Festival.

“Sarah’s Choice,” which will hit theaters Nov. 17, centers on the life of Sarah Collins (St. James), a young junior account executive at a major advertising agency who becomes pregnant while climbing the ladder of success.

Though her friends and co-workers insist that she has the right to choose a path that offers a successful career and seemingly unlimited material rewards, Collins comes to consider another choice following a series of nightly visions and the words of a mysterious stranger.



Wow. Talk about missing the point. Do prolifers really think that most abortions are obtained by beautiful, rich white women who don't want to miss out on being even more rich? Really?

According to the Guttmacher Institute:

• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.

• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women)

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner



So, to summarize, most abortions are obtained by poor women who already have a child, who recognize that they cannot afford (another) child.

I say we produce a realistic movie about abortion. In this movie, we will follow a poor, young woman with a child through their life of crushing poverty. We will watch as our heroine works two jobs to support her children, and still can't make ends meet. We will follow her through a string of low-paying, dead-end jobs, her trips from one ill-maintained, possibly dangerous apartment to the next, as she does without food so her children can eat less than they'd like. We'll watch her as she freezes in the winter without a coat while her children wear ill-fitting hand me downs. We'll watch the family on Christmas morning as her children open their one present each from a charity.

It'll be heartwarming, I'm sure.

36 comments:

  1. That's a very good idea. The Christian idea sounds predictably cloying. How would you end your movie, with a person who is happy to be alive and contributing to society despite the adversity they faced? Or with an embittered individual who has made the lives around them worse?

    ReplyDelete
  2. But, but, you see, there you go again with the poor. Would you just let it go? Don't you know all serious policies, etc, need to be made with a certain state of mind - where you imagine the world is perfect????

    Also, obviously, having kids is not selfish at all.

    (I'm being sarcastic)

    ReplyDelete
  3. atimetorend: good question. i don't really know. i mean, most people are always happy to be alive as opposed to the alternative. who can imagine what it would be like to not be? and very women, if any, will admit to resenting their own children, that's just not acceptable.

    i have two friends that were both the result of a nonchoice to not have an abortion. both grew up in horrible situations and both ended up drug addicts with lives that were constantly in crisis. the mothers just weren't capable of raising a child (another child in one case), nor were they, due to social reasons, able to give away their child.

    it's really heartbreaking, though they're both in therapy and getting better.

    i dunno. what does anyone else think?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know, the kiddo and I are poor, but I did the chose to have a kid in spite of my life thing, and it worked out OK. Sure, we shop at the Sal. Army and we buy generic everything, but we have out own house, and my career is doing OK. So I guess we'd be that sappy feel good movie, which is OK with me. You could end your movie as my story ends, they enter the Habitat for Humanity program, the scrape and penny pinch and finally get a house and get on their way to better their lives. Kind of sappy, but at least real and no cloying Christian over-tones.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's see here, combine a real-world look at abortion and choice with a plug for a fantastic social(ist) program?

    i'd call that a win.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While all of your points were true about people struggling in various situations, I personally do not think having an abortion is a good solution. I think people forget that brain development begins at 5 weeks. That means a sentient being's life is being ended. For me, I don't support killing sentient life when we have a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PF, you imagine the worst possible scenario. Keep the kid. Better yet, exercise greater personal resposibility in the first place and these things are less likely to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Granamyr, your facts are wrong; there is no significant brain development at the embryonic stage. The fetus can't even feel pain until the third trimester.

    JD, just because it's the worst scenario doesn't mean it's rare.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also, JD? It's not about responsibility. Having an abortion is a way of exercising personal responsibility and not bringing children into the world that you cannot care for. People who cite personal responsibility are in reality just trying to punish women for being sexual creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “Sarah’s Choice,” which will hit theaters Nov. 17, centers on the life of Sarah Collins (St. James), a young junior account executive at a major advertising agency who becomes pregnant while climbing the ladder of success.

    They way they phrase it("becomes pregnant while climbing the ladder of success")implies that Rebecca St. James' character sleeps her way to the top, which doesn't sound like the plot of a Christian film at all but a...

    OH MY GOD! Rebecca St. James is doing PORN!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is there Christian porn? I find the idea incredibly amusing.

    (errrr. there's a site called themarriagebed or something like that that explains what kinds of sex, in their view, are okay for religious Christians - like is strip-tease for your spouse OK - and they have a section on roleplaying that explains that it's OK as long as your characters are married, and suggests some scenarios, one of which is "husband and wife on a spaceship, exploring the bounds of the universe and of weightless sex" - which made me think "...they're suggesting Zoe/Wash roleplay!"


    ...DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Having an abortion is a way of exercising personal responsibility and not bringing children into the world that you cannot care for. I disagree. Abortion is a cop-out, plain and simple, in which an innocent life is lost. Adoption is an option if a poor girl cannot in any way raise the child. It sure beats abortion. Just askDave Thomas.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Adoption is a "cop-out" too - after all, the woman who gets pregnant doesn't have to raise the child for eighteen-plus years. What you need to do is stop seeing the issue from the point of view of someone who wants women to be punished for having sex, and start seeing it like a reasonable person.

    I think you'd better explain why a hamburger magnate is an authority on abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Adoption is a "cop-out" too - after all, the woman who gets pregnant doesn't have to raise the child for eighteen-plus years.

    This would make sense if you can cite a reliable statistic that states that the overwhelming majority of mature adults who were orphans as children wish that they had never been born. It would be a breathtakingly stupid statement if you could not.

    What you need to do is stop seeing the issue from the point of view of someone who wants women to be punished for having sex, and start seeing it like a reasonable person.

    You read me completely wrong. It would be better if you saw the "issue" as a living, innocent human. Desensitizing people by dehumanizing victims of extermination is a tactic of

    A. The Nazis, or
    B. The Vatican

    I think you'd better explain why a hamburger magnate is an authority on abortion.

    Apparently you didnt read the first paragraph of the link I provided. Such "Fire, Aim Ready" argumentation gets tiring after awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "This would make sense if you can cite a reliable statistic that states that the overwhelming majority of mature adults who were orphans as children wish that they had never been born. It would be a breathtakingly stupid statement if you could not."

    I don't follow. You go on about personal responsibility. I argue that adoption displays an unwillingness to take responsibility for a child one has created. You ask me to prove that a majority of orphans wish they hadn't been born...?

    "You read me completely wrong. It would be better if you saw the "issue" as a living, innocent human. Desensitizing people by dehumanizing victims of extermination is a tactic of

    A. The Nazis, or
    B. The Vatican"

    Uh-huh. So if it's not about punishing women for having sex, why don't you stop rambling on about personal responsibility? If the woman's done nothing to cause it, you'd still want her to be forced to have a child, so stop with the derailing.

    "Apparently you didnt read the first paragraph of the link I provided. Such "Fire, Aim Ready" argumentation gets tiring after awhile."

    I read it. So he was adopted - so what? Since you've already Godwinned the thread, I could just as easily say that the world would have been a better place had Adolf Hitler's mother had an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't follow. You go on about personal responsibility. I argue that adoption displays an unwillingness to take responsibility for a child one has created.

    Pardon me. I'll try to clock down to your speed and see if I can get my point across. The "personal responsibility" here involves bringing the child to term. THEN if there is no way possible for the girl to raise it, then give the baby up for adoption.


    So if it's not about punishing women for having sex, why don't you stop rambling on about personal responsibility?

    When did I ever state that I want women punished? The "personal responsibility" thing was from an earlier post. That is, exercising appropriate behaviour to prevent a potential pregnancy before it starts.

    If the woman's done nothing to cause it, you'd still want her to be forced to have a child, so stop with the derailing

    The woman has done nothing to cause it? Please tell me about this spontaneous generation of babies in women's wombs. Is this something I missed?

    I read it. So he was adopted - so what?

    Is it your belief that Mr Thomas would have preferred to have been aborted and his mother not carry him to term? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Pardon me. I'll try to clock down to your speed and see if I can get my point across. The "personal responsibility" here involves bringing the child to term. THEN if there is no way possible for the girl to raise it, then give the baby up for adoption."

    Which is an arbitrary standard no more valid than my arbitrary standard. Nor have you explained why you brought up depressed orphans, who were not part of the original conversation.

    "When did I ever state that I want women punished? The "personal responsibility" thing was from an earlier post. That is, exercising appropriate behaviour to prevent a potential pregnancy before it starts."

    And where there's an unavailability of birth control, abusive partner/rape, medical inability to use good birth control, or even laziness about condoms or pills...?

    "The woman has done nothing to cause it? Please tell me about this spontaneous generation of babies in women's wombs. Is this something I missed? "

    I.e. rape. I'll simplify it for you:

    --Option 1: You believe that all unborn life is equally valuable, and thus oppose abortion in cases of rape. In such a case, you should shut up about responsibility, since it bears no relation to your position.
    --Option 2: You believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she is raped, because it's not her fault. It's not about protecting life, since the worth of a fetus is unrelated to how it came into existence - it's about making sure that women who voluntarily have sex have to face unpleasant consequences. In such a case, you should stop being disingenuous and just admit it.

    "Is it your belief that Mr Thomas would have preferred to have been aborted and his mother not carry him to term? Really?"

    It is my belief that, had his mother had an abortion, he wouldn't have known about it one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Logic.....+
    Manners...+
    Eloquence.+

    REBECCA WINS!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Huzzah Rebecca, that was beautiful!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Which is an arbitrary standard no more valid than my arbitrary standard. Nor have you explained why you brought up depressed orphans, who were not part of the original conversation"

    If you really believe that giving a child up for adoption is no better than aborting (read: "killing" the child), then no amount of discussion is going to change your mind. Sad. Simply put, one option takes a life, the other one doesnt. Please explain why the death of a completely innocent party is preferable in these cases.

    And where there's an unavailability of birth control?

    Avoid coitus, unless you are so completely callous as to not have a problem with aborting the child should one become pregnant. Then it's a matter of the person so selfish self-abosrbed and desensitized as to be something less than human.

    And where there's a....rape?

    Statistics point out that in maybe one in a thousand cases of violent rape, pregnanct occurs. I think even that number is quite high, but to move the discussion along, let's just accept for arguments sake that a violent rape has occurrred and that the woman is pregnant. Aborting the child in no way "unrapes" the woman. She is still traumatized by the violent act of the rape. In addition to the horrible negative consequences on her mental health after such a traumatic event, you would then subject her to, as one rape victim put it, "I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.".

    The cited article contains more arguments to not abort a child after rape than I have time to list.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "If you really believe that giving a child up for adoption is no better than aborting (read: "killing" the child), then no amount of discussion is going to change your mind. Sad. Simply put, one option takes a life, the other one doesnt. Please explain why the death of a completely innocent party is preferable in these cases."

    We already know that I'm in favor of the right to abortion. Let's not get bogged down in these silly quibbles. I'm asking you to defend your "personal responsibility" argument. Why does personal responsibility end after nine months, in your worldview?

    "Avoid coitus, unless you are so completely callous as to not have a problem with aborting the child should one become pregnant. Then it's a matter of the person so selfish self-abosrbed and desensitized as to be something less than human."

    Women are less than human because they have human desires! Wonderful. No irony there at all.

    "Statistics point out that in maybe one in a thousand cases of violent rape, pregnanct occurs. I think even that number is quite high, but to move the discussion along, let's just accept for arguments sake that a violent rape has occurrred and that the woman is pregnant. Aborting the child in no way "unrapes" the woman. She is still traumatized by the violent act of the rape. In addition to the horrible negative consequences on her mental health after such a traumatic event, you would then subject her to, as one rape victim put it, "I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.".

    The cited article contains more arguments to not abort a child after rape than I have time to list."

    --Not all women, rape victims or not, regret having an abortion. In fact, many see it as a lifesaver.
    --Regret is no reason to ban something. If it were, we would have to ban marriage.
    --Try a non-biased source next time.

    So, you're against abortion even when the woman did nothing to cause the pregnancy. How about you take my advice and stop blathering on about personal responsibility?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm one of those "I would literally die if I got pregnant again" women. I barely made it through pregnancy with my son, and nearly lost him a couple times also. I'm also a carrier for cystic fibrosis, which is a horrible, debilitating and painful disease that kills the afflicted usually before they're 20 years old.

    If, despite my best efforts and contraception, I became pregnant again I would *immediately* go get an abortion! I am barely paying my bills. My son and I HAVE BEEN homeless together. And if I got pregnant again, chances are great I would die and the leave the child I already have an orphan (and ward of the state).

    You can get as idealistic about a 5 weeks cluster of cells as you want, but I'm not leaving my SON who I love without a mother because some people think life starts a lot earlier than others. Even if the fetus and I both are sentient beings, I still pick me. I pick me for the child I already have, and not the hypothetical potential child that a fetus would be. (Also, it's extremely doubtful I'd successfully carry to term anyway, so a first-trimester abortion would by far the safest method. Having a miscarriage late in the night, with no car and a special needs toddler, would not be the ideal solution.

    Abortion has to stay legal. If you want women to have fewer abortions, make sex education comprehensive and mandatory, provide birth control and contraception free of charge to low-income people, and improve the lives of single parents so that we can afford the children we already have.

    (My rantiness is intended for anti-choice commenters, not the original blog poster.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm asking you to defend your "personal responsibility" argument. Why does personal responsibility end after nine months, in your worldview?

    When did I state it should end after nine months? I argued that carrying a child to term and giving him or her up for adoption would be preferable to killing the poor kid whose only misfortune was to be conceived by parents who make sloppy choices. It would be preferable for the child to be raised by his/her parents. If not, then at minimum carry the kid to term and then consider adoption. You are the only one saying it should end after 9 months. I was just pleading for a minimum of that time.

    Women are less than human because they have human desires! Wonderful. No irony there at all.

    It's not the desire we are discussing, but pregnancy.

    Not all women, rape victims or not, regret having an abortion. In fact, many see it as a lifesaver.

    No, not all see it that way. I thought that we were discussing rape and abortion but eh... Some women are desensitized to the point that they probably wouldnt object to abortion during any point during pregnancy. A cursory look online, utilizing a common search engine turned up the following.....

    "Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion." Link

    "An average of eight years after their abortions, married women were 138 percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared to similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term." Link

    "some 54% of post-abortive women report an increase of post-abortion syndrome symptoms around the time of the anniversary of the abortion and/or the due date of the aborted child" Link

    "An Elliot Institute study published in August 2003 edition of the Southern Medical Journal found that women who had abortions were seven times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth." Link

    And I'm not even trying that hard. If all of this isnt enough to give a woman pause before aborting her baby, then probably nothing could convice her.

    Regret is no reason to ban something. If it were, we would have to ban marriage

    Apples and oranges? Is the death of one party (who happens to be completely innocent) the ultimate outcome of a divorce? Brilliant.

    Try a non-biased source next time

    Have you even cited one source so far?

    So, you're against abortion even when the woman did nothing to cause the pregnancy

    Again, I believe that it is extremely rare that a victim of violent rape would conceive. Actually, I'm only aware of one study concerning rape and abortion. Can you cite any? Let's examine the information together.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How about you take my advice and stop blathering on about personal responsibility?

    Ahhh yes, your "advice". I almost forgot about this little "pearl of wisdom".

    You believe that all unborn life is equally valuable, and thus oppose abortion in cases of rape. In such a case, you should shut up about responsibility, since it bears no relation to your position

    Following you logic, then I should just "shut up" because I cannot have children. This would be akin to me telling you to stop criticizing me because, after you just witnessed me dousing a property owner's freshly painted white wall with a forceful, steady stream of vitamin and supplement laden, neon-yellow urine, simply because you lack the ability to do same.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "When did I state it should end after nine months? I argued that carrying a child to term and giving him or her up for adoption would be preferable to killing the poor kid whose only misfortune was to be conceived by parents who make sloppy choices. It would be preferable for the child to be raised by his/her parents. If not, then at minimum carry the kid to term and then consider adoption. You are the only one saying it should end after 9 months. I was just pleading for a minimum of that time."

    You're arguing that "personal responsibility" consists in carrying to term. I'm still asking you why adoption isn't also a shirking of personal responsibility. To make my point painfully clear, I'm asking you why you're talking about "personal responsibility" at all if the real issue is "life."

    "It's not the desire we are discussing, but pregnancy."

    You, previous comment: "Avoid coitus, unless you are so completely callous as to not have a problem with aborting the child should one become pregnant. Then it's a matter of the person so selfish self-abosrbed and desensitized as to be something less than human." Is there a way I'm supposed to be taking this other than "Women who have sex knowing that they won't have a child are subhuman"?

    "....And I'm not even trying that hard. If all of this isnt enough to give a woman pause before aborting her baby, then probably nothing could convice her."

    I'm sorry, you must have missed my previous comment where I asked you to cite a non-biased source.

    "Apples and oranges? Is the death of one party (who happens to be completely innocent) the ultimate outcome of a divorce? Brilliant."

    Then the "regret"/"post-abortion syndrome" aspect is irrelevant, just as I said. Please try to stay on topic.

    "Have you even cited one source so far?"

    I'm not the one making claims about post-abortion syndrome. Nothing I've said requires sourced support, unless you really believe that no rape survivors are relieved to have an abortion and that a statement that some do needs to be cited; likewise, that some women have medical issues that prevent them from using birth control, or that abusive partners sometimes prevent women from taking proper precautions. All this is generally known. You could, however, look at the APA study which disproves the existence of post-abortion syndrome, if you don't mind reading something that contradicts your worldview.

    "Again, I believe that it is extremely rare that a victim of violent rape would conceive. Actually, I'm only aware of one study concerning rape and abortion. Can you cite any? Let's examine the information together."

    It's not my point that rests on the number of pregnancies resulting from rape. I think abortion should be available regardless.

    You still haven't told me your position on abortion of a rape pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Following you logic, then I should just "shut up" because I cannot have children. This would be akin to me telling you to stop criticizing me because, after you just witnessed me dousing a property owner's freshly painted white wall with a forceful, steady stream of vitamin and supplement laden, neon-yellow urine, simply because you lack the ability to do same."

    Relevance?

    To make it, once again, excruciatingly clear for you, I'm not telling you you're not entitled to a position because you can't have children. I'm telling you your position, as stated by you, is wildly inconsistent and recommending that you reformulate it in order to look slightly less foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You can get as idealistic about a 5 weeks cluster of cells as you want, but I'm not leaving my SON who I love without a mother because some people think life starts a lot earlier than others. Even if the fetus and I both are sentient beings, I still pick me.

    It would be amusing if it werent so completely sad. I love how pro-aborts try, much like the Nazis and slaveowners in the antebellum south, to dehumanize the ultimate victims in their charade in order to sleep better at night when they are alone with themselves and have to justify their positions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Shorter JD: So Angie will die and leave her son an orphan. So?

    Here's a math lesson for you, JD: 1+1=2. Even if you believe that an embryo is morally equivalent to a born human being with a life and a family, a pregnancy such as Angie describes will kill her and the embryo. 2 deaths and a parentless child.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You're arguing that "personal responsibility" consists in carrying to term. I'm still asking you why adoption isn't also a shirking of personal responsibility. To make my point painfully clear, I'm asking you why you're talking about "personal responsibility" at all if the real issue is "life."

    It's not an absolute, but a matter of degree as to which would be a better scenario, adoption or abortion. I firmly believe life in this case is better than death. You seem to disagree.

    You, previous comment: "Avoid coitus, unless you are so completely callous as to not have a problem with aborting the child should one become pregnant. Then it's a matter of the person so selfish self-abosrbed and desensitized as to be something less than human." Is there a way I'm supposed to be taking this other than "Women who have sex knowing that they won't have a child are subhuman"?

    If it is, as you say, in a way "knowing that they won't have a child" then the woman is infertile, or for some reason, cannot conceive if they truly "know" this. Thus no pregnancy. Next.

    I'm sorry, you must have missed my previous comment where I asked you to cite a non-biased source.

    This from someone who equates killing the unborn to a divorce proceeding? In how many cases of divorce are human beings killed on an annual basis? Compare this to abortions where the ultimate outcome is nothing other than the death of the unborn child, sometimes the mother (or "host") from the "procedure" as well.

    I'm not the one making claims about post-abortion syndrome. Nothing I've said requires sourced support

    OK, how about statistics that back up your claim of "Not all women, rape victims or not, regret having an abortion. In fact, many see it as a lifesaver." Define "many" as it is used in this instance. Does it mean the majority? (Non biased source if possible)

    You could, however, look at the APA study which disproves the existence of post-abortion syndrome, if you don't mind reading something that contradicts your worldview.

    Would that happen to be the APA study I just found from this article entitled American Psychological Association Pulls Briefing Paper from Web Site Denying Abortion Depression?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "It's not an absolute, but a matter of degree as to which would be a better scenario, adoption or abortion. I firmly believe life in this case is better than death. You seem to disagree."

    I don't believe that an embryo is a person, but entities that are undoubtedly people don't have a right to live off anyone else's body, either. (In case you couldn't tell, I don't actually think adoption is a cop-out, nor abortion. This is what's called playing the devil's advocate.)

    "If it is, as you say, in a way "knowing that they won't have a child" then the woman is infertile, or for some reason, cannot conceive if they truly "know" this. Thus no pregnancy. Next."

    As in knowing that she will have an abortion if she becomes pregnant. I'd hoped you would be able to figure that out, but I'm not sure if you're very stupid or just trying to avoid addressing the issue. It's hard to tell.

    "This from someone who equates killing the unborn to a divorce proceeding? In how many cases of divorce are human beings killed on an annual basis? Compare this to abortions where the ultimate outcome is nothing other than the death of the unborn child, sometimes the mother (or "host") from the "procedure" as well."

    It was you who equated them when you suggested that regret was relevant. It is not.

    Funny that you should mention abortions that result in the woman's death. Those happen when abortions are illegal and dangerous.

    "OK, how about statistics that back up your claim of "Not all women, rape victims or not, regret having an abortion. In fact, many see it as a lifesaver." Define "many" as it is used in this instance. Does it mean the majority? (Non biased source if possible)"

    I'm Not Sorry, A Heartbreaking Choice and FWHC are the obvious places to start. The problem here is that these are personal stories, so there is no unbiased source on either side - there's no unbiased source telling us that some women regret having an abortion, but that's true too, it's a personal reaction. (Although women are under societal pressure to regret having an abortion - the ones that don't aren't fê for talking about their experiences, but it's easy enough to go into the comments of a pro-choice blog and find people.) What we do know, however, is that scientific study tells us that "post-abortion syndrome" is a myth.

    "Would that happen to be the APA study I just found from this article entitled American Psychological Association Pulls Briefing Paper from Web Site Denying Abortion Depression?"

    Ah, sorry, the Johns Hopkins study last year. I was probably thinking of the AMA and ACS abortion-breast cancer studies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Funny that you should mention abortions that result in the woman's death. Those happen when abortions are illegal and dangerous.

    The entire idea of women dying en masse in this country (US) from backalley coathanger abortions is nothing but a complete Hollywood myth. But I'm just some guy on the internet that you wouldnt know from Adam. Simply type the words [back alley coathanger abortion myth] into a common search engine and simply read that which pops up and try to educate yourself on the matter.

    I don't believe that an embryo is a person

    Then was is it going to be as time goes by? A grapefruit? Certain Arabs don't think that Jews are people either, instead referring to them as pigs, and monkeys. Such splendid intellectual company you are in. Just keep repeating it to yourself. That just might make it true. Not.

    there is no unbiased source on either side

    So why is it that you asked me (twice) to cite a source that was not biased?

    For the heck of it, I tried to find such sources anyway anyway, and I would offer that even this admission of your intellectual ineptitude is false. I would like to put forward the following 2 sources which I think are unbiased.

    1. "The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health. This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion." Link

    2."Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences, New Zealand....Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors." Link

    I don't think either one of these two groups is biased. "The researcher in the New Zealand study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it"

    Since you stated that there arent any unbiased sources, prove that these sources are biased and how.

    Ah, sorry, the Johns Hopkins study last year. I was probably thinking of the AMA and ACS abortion-breast cancer studies

    Right. I know what you mean. Why, just last week I tried to type "AMA" but when I looked up at the screen the words "Case Western Reserve" were there. Go figure.

    In reference to the Johns Hopkins study that you are referring to, could you provide a link? I just want to see if it is the same study involving "Robert Blum who heads up one of the most heavily funded population control programs in the world, which is worth roughly $1 billion..." Hardly "unbiased".

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The entire idea of women dying en masse in this country (US) from backalley coathanger abortions is nothing but a complete Hollywood myth. But I'm just some guy on the internet that you wouldnt know from Adam. Simply type the words [back alley coathanger abortion myth] into a common search engine and simply read that which pops up and try to educate yourself on the matter."

    I wasn't the one who brought up women dying from abortions. You might want to read this or , though.

    "Then was is it going to be as time goes by? A grapefruit? Certain Arabs don't think that Jews are people either, instead referring to them as pigs, and monkeys. Such splendid intellectual company you are in. Just keep repeating it to yourself. That just might make it true. Not."

    An embryo, unlike JD Curtis, will eventually develop intelligence.

    "So why is it that you asked me (twice) to cite a source that was not biased?"

    Because scientific studies must be objective, and personal accounts don't have to be.

    "I don't think either one of these two groups is biased. "The researcher in the New Zealand study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it"

    Since you stated that there arent any unbiased sources, prove that these sources are biased and how."

    The Fergusson study is discredited in both the APA report and the Johns Hopkins report; though it was well-conducted generally, it failed to control for wantedness of pregnancy and number of previous pregnancies, a rather important distinction, had a tiny sample size and a small age range, and didn't control properly for preexisting mental health problems. I don't think it's biased, but its methodology was inferior.

    The RCP thing, on the other hand, is not a study; it's a consensus that the data is inconclusive. Pursuant to that, you might be interested in this.

    The best study is the Gilchrist study, 1995; it is the most comprehensive in terms of factors controlled for and has a decent sample size.

    "Right. I know what you mean. Why, just last week I tried to type "AMA" but when I looked up at the screen the words "Case Western Reserve" were there. Go figure."

    When you spend as much time as I do trying to refute idiots who pretend they're trying to limit women's rights for women's sake, the various acronyms start to run together after a while.

    "In reference to the Johns Hopkins study that you are referring to, could you provide a link? I just want to see if it is the same study involving "Robert Blum who heads up one of the most heavily funded population control programs in the world, which is worth roughly $1 billion..." Hardly "unbiased"."

    The one I'm talking about is co-authored by Robert Blum, former president of the Society for Adolescent Medicine and winner of their Outstanding Achievement Award, member of the American Board of Pediatrics, the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Adolescent Health and Development, a consultant to UNICEF, member of the WHO's Technical Advisory Group of the Child and Adolescent Health Department, and the recipient of the APHA’s Needleman Award "for scientific achievement and courageous advocacy" on behalf of children and youth. But do go on, tell me about how much he hates children.

    ReplyDelete
  33. go, Rebecca.

    JD: why the hell were you hung up on pregnancies caused by "violent" rape? in case you didn't realize, state "violent rape" in that manner tends to mean the poster does not believe that there is any sort of rape other than violent stranger rape.
    further, you seem to be missing the point entirely.
    when you are required to DONATE YOUR organs to keep a complete stranger alive, come talk to me about "personal responsibility". because *that* is what you are advocating - the FORCED DONATION OF THEIR BODIES by half of the population. i am legally allowed to kill a person who tries to harm me. i am legally allowed to become a soldier of one type or another, and kill as many "enemy combatants" as i want. the only difference between these and abortion, is that abortion only happens when a woman has sex, or has sex thrust upon her against her will.

    also, if you are Christian (i make no guess) or similiar, A) the Bible actively advocated abortion and B) it is actually better, from a certain Christian viewpoint, to be aborted instead of born - if one is aborted, one dies "with total innocence", and goes immediately to Heaven.

    there *are* days when i wish that *I* had been aborted. and i'm not any sort of adoptee - my mother raised me. my mother also allowed me to be violently and horrible abused by her second husband. he's been dead for 16 years, and i should have been dead for even longer. and there are eight-gajillion people who have lives worse than mine, if one call them "life" at all.

    but i think my biggest problem here is that you are coming to this blog, preaching to us about how abortion is "evil" and is "murder" and etc. you find potential life to be very important, that's great - but if you believe life is so sacred, why are you not agitating for the end of war? the end the death penalty? domestic violence?

    in short, are you really protecting "life" and advocating "responsibility", as you claim - or, as Rebecca claims, are you really saying that women *deserve* to punished with a pregnancy for the sin of having sex? what are you REALLY doing to stop abortion - are you researching ways that *MEN* can carry a fetus if a woman no longer wants it? are you researching artificial wombs? are you researching birth control that is 100% effective without any detrimental side effects, that is totally free, and can NOT be interfered with by an outside party?

    you want to stop abortion, you need to understand the POINT.
    the POINT of abortion is that NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO USE MY BODY IN ANY WAY WITHOUT MY EXPRESS AND SPECIFIC CONSENT. i am suing a doctor who tied me down and tried to force a central line me - should i do less if some jackass rapes me and makes me pregnant? (trick question, that, as i have porphyria and pregnancy will kill me. 80% it will kill me before i hit 5 months. zero chance of any embryo ever growing past that.)

    so again, i say - when you are required to donate organs to a total stranger, against your wishes, come back. because that *IS* what you are advocating.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.