My abortion would have cost $460

Recently I made a phone call to Planned Parenthood because I wanted to know if they required a client to have an ultrasound before an abortion. So I dialed the number and asked the receptionist if I had to have an ultrasound before an abortion. Her answer was yes, but before she would tell me anything else she asked me if I was married and how much my husband and I made. I made up a number 26 and we make $65,000 a year. She paused for a second and then told me it would cost $460 for my abortion which included the price of an ultrasound.

I was shocked. For my hypothetical situation it would have cost the price of a chair. A piece of furniture in my house would be the same amount to have an abortion. I shared my discoveries with a few people and some thought it was expensive others thought it was cheap. I thought this is insane! What are your thoughts?

s.t-w

The Facts: Abortion Has Side Effects

It is encouraging to some degree that even ardent pro-choice supporters are unwilling to ignore the truth that women who have an abortion do suffer side effects. Professor David M. Fergusson is one such person who should applauded for not suppressing the truth about the effects of abortion.

A New Zealand study "tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age has confirmed that young women who have abortions subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems."

http://www.afterabortion.org/news/Fergusson.htm

What is significant in this study is that they followed the women from birth. This means they were able to assess the women's psychological health before having an abortion. It is irresponsible for the hard line pro-choice crowd to deride these studies as pro-life propaganda and misinformation. When in fact it is these, what I call abortion absolutists, that are suppressing the truth and misleading women about the "choice" they are making.

One has to wonder if the act of abortion itself is the only way to affirm the supposed right found in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and any women choosing not to kill her unborn boy or girl is actually denying that right. This might explain why groups like Planned Parenthood resist any attempt to adequately inform women about abortion or for minor girls to have to inform their parents they are pregnant. The facts are on the side of protecting the unborn, let us keep arguing for their humanity and helping those women in need to make the right choice.

TC

The Fear Mongering of Abortion Absolutists

It seems more and more apparent that the radical pro-choice contingent in America is intolerant of any view that questions abortion on demand. A recent law passed in South Dakota has brought the wrath of abortion absolutists down on this tiny state. And what was this great sin against the abortion absolutist orthodoxy? It is just informing pregnant mothers about what abortion actually does and the possible side effects they might not have thought about.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/009840.html

The two quotes cited are quite telling. First, that doctors have to tell pregnant mothers "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" and second, "Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause them psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide." The state of South Dakota is attacked for mandating that false information be told to expectant mothers.

It is interesting that they attack this policy as advancing "false information". I think they are more upset that the other side of the argument is being heard. If abortion does not terminate life, what exactly does it do? Remove a cancerous growth? Is not the unborn boy and girl a separate individual just spatially located inside his or her mother until birth? Could they seriously be questioning if there is actually a human being inside the mother?

As to the second objection. When ever studies come out dealing with controversial issues there are arguments for both sides. Abortion absolutists do not want the other side of the argument to be allowed to make its way to the pregnant mother. This must be because they are more concerned about ensuring women "choose" to kill their unborn boy or girl then looking at the matter more objectively. Isn't real choice the result of having all the facts and making a decision based on looking at both sides of the issue? I guess the "pro-choice" side of abortion rights doesn't really want pregnant mother's to make real choices.

TC

Time To Stop Funding Planned Parenthood

Senator John McCain finds himself in the political sights of Planned Parenthood.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/16/planned-parenthood-launches-anti-mccain-tv-spot/

I do not want to get into the details of the attack ad but focus more on the conflict about the funding of this organization. This organization receives tax dollars and yet is attacking not only the current President but potentially the next President as well. One needs to ask whether or not Planned Parenthood (PP) truly needs federal funding of around $330 million a year when their total budget is $1 billion? Why would the government fund an organization that uses those same funds to attack it? The answer is that the government ought to stop funding (PP).

What is even more troubling about (PP) is their intolerance of other organizations that provide health care services to women but not from a radical pro-abortion point of view. Just read from their website to see their disdain for any alternatives to themselves. And this comes from a sight for teenagers, the same information can be found from the main (PP) web page.

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2006/if-20061128p467-abortion.php

It seems quite absurd for (PP) to attack the alternatives to themselves as politically motivated and manipulating women with false information and deceptive videos while maintaining their own position as altruistic and objective. How stupid do they think we are. There sole purpose for existing seems to be about aborting unborn boys and girls while using the general term "health care provider" to mask that agenda. Let us also not forget the (PP) was starting by Nazi sympathizer Margaret Sanger.

I think great impact could be made in reducing the number of abortions by taking that $330 million and spreading out to all to the Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country and like the one this blog sight is trying to help. Those alternative videos and information that is shown by these dedicated women and men are telling pregnant women what you do not want them to hear. What is so dangerous about allowing the alternative to be heard? Is it that (PP) is more concerned about making money by killing unborn boys and girls then giving out all the facts? Probably so. In any case please help these good alternative clinics keep doing what they are doing by lending your support financial and otherwise until we can end the funding of (PP).

TC

The Feministing Blogs Get It Wrong On Personhood

The rhetoric of the blogs on "feministing.com" are precisely that, mere rhetoric. The bloggers are woefully prepared to deal with the important issues of the abortion debate. The main one revolves around human personhood. They attack any attempt to define the status of the unborn in terms of personhood, yet provide absolutely no alternative explanation. See the following link...

http://www.feministing.com/archives/009290.html

If human personhood does not begin at conception it will be virtually impossible to say when it does begin and when it ends. One cannot deny the science that shows us life begins at the moment of conception. Just because the unborn baby is depending upon his or her mother during development in the womb, it does not mean that such a dependency overrides the identity and value of the unborn baby. What is in fact so "magical" after birth that suddenly the baby has personhood? The only substantive thing that has changed is the location of the baby, now the newborn boy or girl is still dependent on the mother.

To reject complete personhood at the moment of conception is to leave such a notion void of meaning and subjectively determined by whims. The same arguments that can justify abortion on demand even up to the moment of delivery are arguments that attack the personhood of us all. The radical "pro-choice" ideologues are basing many of their assumptions from the "Dark Ages" of prenatal medicine prior to the 1970's. It is time they adjust their position to the medical advances of the past 30 years and the wealth of philosophical arguments about what it means to be a human person.

TC

Introducing Myself

There comes a time in one's life where a decision must be made. The decision I was forced with was whether or not to remain on the side lines doing practically nothing, or to jump into the mix and get involved. Becoming a father with the birth of my daughter, who will be turning 2 in August, I realized that I could no longer merely oppose abortion with just my voting for pro-life politicians, I had to get active.

Even though there has been some recent gains in the pro-life movement with the passage of bans on "partial birth" abortions that were upheld by the Supreme Court, and a federal law protecting all babies born alive. There are serious challenges to keep those gains from slipping away.

Current events may shape some of the blogs you will read as it is going to be a hotly contested election year. Regardless of that, the personhood/humanity of the unborn is in need of constant defense as is the need to dismantle the arguments that justify abortion for any rhyme or reason, and from the logical slip into outright infanticide which may not be that far away.

This issue is by no means going to be laid to rest anytime soon, so let us work together to make a difference for the unborn boys and girls who are under assault on a daily basis.

TC