What is there about abortion that draws pregnant women in? Why have so many infants lost their lives to an abortionist’s tools?
1. Fear is perhaps the most driving force:
Fear or shame of being pregnant .
Fear of trying to raise a child alone.
Fear of parents’ wrath or even rejection.
Fear they’ll lose their boyfriend or husband if they carry the pregnancy to term.
2. Inconvenience of being pregnant:
Inconvenience because of school or career.
Inconvenience because pregnancy itself interferes with wild lifestyle.
Inconvenience of raising a child who will hamper the mother’s lifestyle or career.
Inconvenience because of physical changes that will alter mother’s ‘beauty.’
3. Expense at all levels:
Cannot afford birthing costs; abortion is cheaper.
Cannot afford to raise a child and work.
Cannot afford to go to school and pay a babysitter.
Cannot afford a larger living space to accommodate a baby.
4. Ignorance…
View original post 302 more words
Citizen Tom 
@Tom
Your question of defining human life is a very important one. In fact, it is THE most important one. The disaster we see today in America’s streets is a direct result of the answer that was given to this question in the late 19th century.
The first thing human beings do when they want to exploit, mistreat, enslave or exterminate other human beings is to dehumanize their victims. Using darwinism as the “scientific” basis, racial theories which declared Blacks (and later Jews) as lesser evolved races much nearer to the animal kingdom and not fully human or not human at all, were developed. These theories were widely accepted at the beginning of the 20th century. These theories are to a great extend the cause of today’s race problems. “Pro choice” aka pro murder advocates do basically the same thing that the racists and nazis did. To be clear, slavery existed before Darwin but Darwinism provided the “scientific” excuse for discrimination and mistreatment of Blacks and other groups. Like slavery, antijudaism and persecution of Jews existed before Darwin but only Darwinism could provide the “scientific” excuse for the Holocaust. By declaring the Jews “Untermensch” (subhuman) the nazis justified their murder of milliions of Jews. Interestingly, the term “under man” was first coined by Ku Klux Klan member Lothrop Stoddard in 1922, before the nazis used the term “Untermensch”. Just another example of the Democrats’ poisonous legacy.
@artaxes
I suppose some will scream you are playing the Nazi card, but Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who gave speeches to the Ku Klux Klan and targeted blacks with her abortion rights movement,
When people use the government to pay for the abortion procedure to be used on women we don’t even know, they are abusing the power of government to force their ethical choices on the rest of us. Abusive force is what the arrogant resort to when they are trying to excuse a guilty conscious and someone points out one of their sins.
Cool post, Tom. You did a good job of empathizing. I think fear is a huge problem for most moms and unfortunately we now have a whole industry and social structure that knows how to exploit all those fears. So fear of being unable to make it financially, fear your life will be ruined, fear you’ll never amount to anything, fear you’re not ready to be a parent and you’ll mess it all up. Fear you’re ruining the environment, fear you’ll disappoint people, fear you’re contributing to population problems and increasing the global warming footprint….I wish I was joking, but “they” meaning the culture around us, PP, feminists, pro-abortion advocates, will really mess with women’s heads and heap on shame if you choose to bring a child into the world.
@insanitybytes22
Strange, but true. In the past, people labelled a woman a failure if she did not have children. Now some people have gone to other extreme. Proverbs 31 suggests what a man should look for in a woman. Some ladies need to read that because those are the sorts of things we all need to strive for.
Should you happen to actually be interested in the reasons women gave for having an abortion, e.g.:
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
@marmoewp
This is from that study you referenced.
I am mystified. What is the point? The reasons are not a mystery.
The Guttmacher Institute is a ProChoice outfit. They just try to make abortion sound perfectly harmless, when it is not.
Ok.. seems like a very good list of reasons. Now, I was under the impression that on the state level women wishing an abortion have to jump through some moral vs. reality hoops before an abortion can be authorized. But before you go into some diatribe about how “bad” and inconsequential those counselings are by state.. let’s accept all that you say at face value for a moment.
Referencing your list of seemingly very valid reasons a woman might have to want an abortion, and accepting the idea that any one of those reasons or combinations thereof, make a pregnant woman vulnerable to the alleged “profit subterfuge” of any outfit that does abortions, what are you or anyone else into non-abortion offering to do to in an attempt to offset those reasons?
Yeah.. ok.. pushing the Bible can have some level of spiritual moral offset… but what about the large numbers of tangible, reality-based concerns? Is your solution simply giving up the baby for adoption and everyone lives happily ever after? Because ten years down the line the birth mother is not going to be relishing in her heart that she did the right thing carrying the baby to term, but rather she will be haunted by the wonder if her offspring went to the right family (because, as we all know.. a God-fearing, economically stable, “right” family who wants a child does not guarantee they can parent and nurture anything living). She is going to wonder if her child is resenting her for giving him/her away… any number of apprehensions. In fact… likely her original fears and reasons you outlined may have changed after the passage of time… and now she wants her child back, which of course can’t happen legally nor should it. But the feelings are there nonetheless.
So I again ask… to address the original list of concerns… what does anyone or any charity offer to convince her to keep the baby… other than God doesn’t like murders (which there are far more of those in the world on humans than abortions.. and few give a damn. There are 120,000 Covid deaths that some might assign as murder because of our ill-preparedness, political complacency, a political expediency, or our leaders sticking their heads in the sand.).
@Doug
COVID-19 has nothing to do with this post.
Before I try to figure out your question, I will ask you several of my own.
1. When does taking the life of a developing human being morally become murder? Is it before the mother gives birth? Is after a child starts to talk? Is it after puberty? Is it at 18, when a minor becomes a citizen?
2. The self-righteous use our tax dollars to pay for abortions. If you cannot come up with sound criteria that establishes when a new human being is formed, don’t you think it is inappropriate to help troubled women kill their unborn children.
3. Killing an unborn child is an irreversible decision. The guilt stays with the mother forever. What do you do about that?
1. My opinion is pro-choice.. but my “real” opinion is that there is no right or wrong answer.. just moral arguments. Perhaps more to the point… when there is so much death in the “real” world to deal with, it’s rather difficult to justify a moral policy decision regarding the preservation of life in the “fetal” world.
And yes.. you were talking about death as I was as well with Covid… my point explained in the above paragraph.
2. The argument is not so much “keeping troubled women from killing their unborn” but rather what makes women feel troubled enough to consider the action.. and what can be done to lessen their “troubles”… not debate when and where life begins and who’s tax dollars are gonna pay for the act itself so that there’s no moral conflict with someone’s beliefs.
3. I just explained in my original reply to your post about this.
@Doug
Pathetic!
1. Fetal world? You have no idea when life begins. So it doesn’t matter? It is just the fetal world. Out of sight. Out of mind. When human life is the fundamental concern, and your solution is just to pretend it doesn’t matter.
2. Spending other people’s money no big deal? So long as you approve? Even if you cannot explain why?
3. You have not explained anything. You have just reduced the problem to what you find least inconvenient, and that is BS.
I am saying that there’s another way to “try” and find a remedy that fits more the anti-abortion crowd. You succinctly listed all the reasons a woman might want to get an abortion. I am saying why not try and address those reasons so that a woman will be less likely to want an abortion in the first place.. rather than forcing/imposing/legislating restrictions on medically performing the act itself. Obviously if anti-abortion people were to be successful in managing to legislate away Roe v. Wade it would simply relegate the process to the back alley/underground as it once was because your legislation does nothing to quell the demand for abortion… although it does satisfy the objection from anti-abortion folks of their tax dollars being used in some immoral fashion. Which I suppose relegates the problem to.. is it all about the moral affront in “killing babies” or is it about your moral objection to your tax dollars being used in the process to “kill babies”.. or both?
Regardless.. you’ve not addressed the suggestion I am making that a possible remedy is addressing the reasons a woman would want an abortion in the first place, meaning solving her issues, rather than “guilting” people for indulging in the process itself. You’re so wound up in establishing a right and wrong rather than trying to solve the problem at its core.
@Doug
There is nothing wrong with us all trying to help each other, but to have a free society we each must be responsible for our own actions. We must each do the right thing the right way or accept responsibility for the consequences when we don’t. Yet here you are spreading this pablum as wisdom.
If we are not able to discern right from wrong, how will we know we are doing anything to solve the problem?
Is not the demonstration of charity toward another human being the idea that the other human being failed in some way to “be responsible”, whether it was a situation outside their control or not? You give a homeless person a meal you are paying for that homeless person’s failure to accept some level of personal responsibility to provide for himself. More to the point.. who decides right from wrong? Oh sure.. the Ten Commandments and their hugely interpretive meanings and variants to fit every situation………… as interpreted by man. In civil society right/wrong is determined by the will of the people. If 500 people believe it’s ok to do and 10 people do not…. majority rules the day and not morality, unless morality was part of the 500’s vote.
You’re evading my concept. Let’s just pull one of your reasons to set the example….
3. Expense at all levels:
Cannot afford birthing costs; abortion is cheaper.
Cannot afford to raise a child and work.
Cannot afford to go to school and pay a babysitter.
Cannot afford a larger living space to accommodate a baby.
So.. pregnant girl comes in citing these reasons as her primary reasons for wanting an abortion. Seems to me that the avoidance of “killing an unborn”, if the morality is that killing is wrong, is that we try and do whatever it takes, whatever the expense, to convince this young lady away from carrying through her desire to abort. Ask yourself, what price for a human life is too much? Now it doesn’t necessarily mean a free ride for baby momma but rather enough assistance to increase her own personal confidence in self-survival and in parenting. All this is symbiotic and for sure for any chance of success there has to be a broad public systemic support system… AND followup with mom down the line to assure some measure of actual responsibility that mom is doing her best for her child.
Sorry.. somehow it makes little sense conveying to the mother wanting to abort for her personal reasons that she should have thought about having had sex-out-of-wedlock in the first place against God’s will, so now she must accept responsibility for her faulty choice in life and her penance is parenting her unborn for the next 18 years… or give it up for adoption and wonder about having given it up for the rest of her life. Oh well.. too bad, so sad. Should have made him wear a condom… or simply remain chaste until marriage, according to God’s will.
This imposition of guilt does nothing positive for anyone… least of all the child itself.
@Doug
You are arguing your own notion of what is moral, but you will not explain what defines a human life. Instead, you just contradict yourself.
So, I am not evading anything. There is no there there to evade.
We make laws imperfectly, because people are imperfect. Instead of obeying God, we want to be gods. So, I ask you when does a human life begin? Then you ignore the question and try to make the people who think abortion immoral somehow responsible for young women getting pregnant and getting an abortion. If Prolife advocates were just charitable enough (gave more of our money to politicians to spend?), abortions would not happen?
All you are doing is saying you are proabortion and perfectly happy to spend other people’s money to kill the unborn. And you really don’t care about the ethics. The way you end your comment is just absurd. I have no doubt you support sex education and the Liberal Democrat idol of “safe sex”. Yet you know full well that “safe sex” is a fig leaf. You just said as much.
I am pro-choice, with prejudice.. not pro-abortion.. and there is a distinction. Pro-choice (for me) should include any and all means by which the pregnant woman should have the proper information, practical, biological, mental, and religious, from which she, AND THE FATHER willing to accept responsibility, as is practical, can make a unanimous decision of choice on their/her own. I am NOT about abortion-on-demand.
On the other hand, being male I will NEVER feel what a pregnant woman feels once knowing she carries a growing human life to totally comprehend her emotional quandary… and I most certainly will not know how she has passed through life experiencing the nature vs. nurture to have any idea of her normal predisposition toward life in general to parent properly or not… presuming there is a “proper” way to parent.
You keep asking where I draw the line on what defines a human life… as if that part is important because you favor a black & white decision on the act of abortion in order to legislate it away. Personally I am “ok” with the definition of an established awareness of consciousness to its new environment as soon the baby leaves the womb. That’s hardly scientific at all given some level of consciousness has been indicated within the womb… but the establishment of true instinct the baby exhibits to its surroundings once separated from the umbilical cord. Yet that does not define at what point in a baby’s development inside the womb should be a “limit” for an abortion to take place.. or not. I have no sense at the moment to define that limit other than default to the point where the baby can live outside the womb with little or no assistance other than that normally provided for normal birth. That’s just me… and I am not pushing that, carrying signs, or promoting any definition on when life begins.
But again.. it doesn’t matter if there were an effort to minimize the reasons a mother would want to have an abortion… other than suggest she’s gonna burn in hell with guilt… and you don’t want your tax dollars paying for killing babies… when it’s ok to use your tax dollars to send our military out to kill people elsewhere.
@Doug
You are pro-choice? And that choice is defined by a mother having her unborn child killed, leaving the child dead and without any choices. Pro-choice is a sick joke.
We have plenty of evidence that a human being begins to grow at conception, hence the term conception. With respect its humanity, there is nothing significant about birth. We can see it? Consider why pro-life advocates want to show any woman considering an abortion an ultrasound of her baby. They can see the human being they are about to have killed.
Why do we need a government? You complained about spending money on the military, but what do the military, the police, the courts, legislators, and the chief executive do when they are doing their jobs? They protect us from foreign adversaries and each other. When we do not have a government that protects us, we lose the ability to live as we each would choose.
When you insist upon using government funds to pay for an abortion, you are not protecting anyone. You are just sacrificing a child to your idol, the state. Pro-choice you are not.
Again you ignore my consideration. You are so wrapped up on where your tax dollars go.. if I didn’t know you better, you sound like that means more to you than the abortions themselves. Reduce the tax dollars by working the reasons you stated… not continuing the eternal debate on abortion itself.
@Doug
The tax dollars are just another sign of how pro-choice you are. You are just trying to make others complicit in abortion.