Abortion Clinics

[Chris†opher Paul]

Amen Vow

 

[Kristine]

Well this thread has raised a lot of comment to which I'd like to respond, but for the sake of staying on topic, I'll probably soon start an abortion debate in the general apologetics forum.

To answer to the original question, no, as pro-lifers and/or Christians, we should not use physical violence to protect the unborn.

The illustration of war is wrong in that if you're going to attack the source of the problem you  need to go right back to the educational system, the government, the supreme-court, the doctors who (along with the media) cover up the truth of what they are doing to the unborn... in other words, society as a whole is responsible, be it actively, passively or permissively for the death of the unborn.

The abortionist is the instrument of the child's death.  But if he is gone, another abortionist will take his place in killing the child, even if her mother must travel a little farther to have her killed.
Even if you could simultaneously kill all abortionists, don't think for a moment there won't be others willing to step out to do the work.

That is why, those of you who said education is the key, are right on.  People are so sure the unborn are not human and that women have a right to abortion, that they some would risk their own lives to see the act protected at all cost.  That's why it's so crucial, especially since media aren't on our side, that we work to get the truth about the unborn and about abortion out to women and men.  Only once we've made abortion unthinkable will we ever stand a chance of seeing it end.

On that note, killing abortionists is actually counter-productive.  Thanks to abortion-related violence and threats, many states and provinces have put 'bubble zones' into place that forbid protest of any kind within 50-500 feet from an abortion clinic (legal distance varries).  This renders what was once an extremely effective means of giving a woman last-minute info that she might not yet have heard, before she makes her final decision inside the clinic, now nearly impossible (even from across the street, gently handing a woman a pamphlet or talking to her is not possible... shouting to her is not desirable at all, and rarely effective. 

So because some chose to kill or threaten abortionists, countless unborn are being killed who once would have been saved, because no one is in front of the clinic to talk to their mothers about the choice they are about to make.  (Not to mention that the whole movement looses credibility and gets painted as violent hypocritic fanatic murderers - who would listen to a maniac?)

So if these are not good reason to fight abortion on the intellectual front, where its roots are buried deep with misconceptions, I don't what is.

Kristine

 

[seebs]

I'd just like to point out that many of my friends have spent some amount of time in these "abortion clinics", many of them getting pre-natal care and treatment, or counseling, or other similar things. I am not a big fan of abortion clinic "protests" - a friend of mine was at a protest, and the "pro-life" protesters pushed a woman to the ground. She was 8 months pregnant; they came very close to giving her an unplanned abortion. She was just there for normal pre-natal care.

I think there are a lot of things that we could do that would be much more effective in reducing the frequency of abortions. Better support for alternatives would be a good start... I think most of the attempts to "give people new information" end up being just plain harassment; the protests I've seen involve no information that anyone there hasn't been told before. I'd rather see some positive approaches.

 

[Kristine]

I'm sorry to hear that.  Perhaps there also needs to be better education available to people who try to help women outside of clinics.  Harassment and bullying is never a good idea. 

But the fact remains that while it's important to work towards better options for women facing unplanned pregnancy, women will blow right past the Crisis Pregnancy Center and other help forums, if they have never been given the truth about abortion and their unborn child.  Countless testimonies of women who changed thier mind as a result of good quality, gentle and loving side-walk counselling, show that there are women who are having abortion precisely because they've never been given the truth.  Most abortion clincs don't tell women about what their unborn looks like and feels, someone needs to be available to these women to give them that info.  They have the right to know, and we have the responsibility to tell them.

Kristine

 

[seebs]

There are probably no women in America who have not been given your side of "the truth". I've never met anyone who hasn't heard it. Over and over....

As to what "abortion clinics" do or don't say, I've never actually seen such a thing as an "abortion clinic" - I've seen more general clinics that happen to also do abortions. As to what unborns feel, we don't *know*, so it's hard to tell anyone; we can make guesses, but we can't tell.

 

[Outspoken]

"As to what "abortion clinics" do or don't say, I've never actually seen such a thing as an "abortion clinic" - I've seen more general clinics that happen to also do abortions."

Hmm..well there are several specific places I know of that are abortion clinics. That is all they do. Do a simple search on a search engine and you will find quite a few locations of abortion clinics where that is their sole buisiness it seems.

 

[Outspoken]

"As to what unborns feel, we don't *know*, so it's hard to tell anyone"

Oh, as a subtopic, I have seen pictures taken of childern as they are aborted and the "face" seems to be distorted in such a way as to be in pain or afraid.

 

[seebs]

Well, keep in mind, the reason "the silent scream" stopped getting shown is that it turned out that the "mouth" was a deformed chest cavity, or something similar.

 

[Havoc]

Why do people use the word "truth" when what they should say is "my opinion"?

 

[Outspoken]

"Well, keep in mind, the reason "the silent scream" stopped getting shown is that it turned out that the "mouth" was a deformed chest cavity, or something similar.
"

Seebs, do you happen to have a link to that picture? It might be the one I was refering to, in that case I would like to retract those statements.

 

[seebs]

I don't know that I have an exact link; if you do a search on "silent scream debunked", you should be able to find links... Some of them will be full of nonsense, so apply a bit of skepticism to them, but the original claims are nonsense.

 

[Outspoken]

So you didn't find a link seebs?

 

[David Gould]

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/silentscream.htm

This is one, and it is fairly detailed. Obviously it is from a biased source but bearing that in mind you can still read their analysis and decide for yourself. I think the info they give is pretty convincing.

 

[Outspoken]

I didn't see a picture? Is this addressing a picture or the whole issue. I just glanced at it as I asked for a link including the picture.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Outspoken
So you didn't find a link seebs?

I didn't find any I was sure one could post here, because some of them may also make statements contrary to some people's beliefs, and we apparently frown on that.

The Planned Parenthood page is pretty good, although I seem to recall someone else did more exhaustive work on the specifics of what the frames show. There are other concerns with the film (e.g., substantial reason to believe that some of the "aborted babies" shown were natural stillbirths, which also happen.)

 

[Outspoken]

"I didn't find any I was sure one could post here, because some of them may also make statements contrary to some people's beliefs, and we apparently frown on that.
"

Just link the picture or PM it to me.

 

[seebs]

Poking around, I found the following brief summary of the concerns:

"Oh, you mean that film that got well and truly debunked when it was shown that the alleged movements were the result of playing the film at a speeded-up rate, the `screaming open mouth' indicated was actually the space between the fetal head and its chest, and the `doubled heart rate' was actually the normal heart rate for an early gestation fetus?"

I would love to have more detailed information, but it appears that the movie was thrown out of favor before the widespread adoption of the Internet as a communications medium; it was an 80's thing.

 

[seebs]

I did find a site which used the picture as "evidence". I'm totally stumped as to how anyone without a medical background could make firm claims based on the pictures shown:

http://shinbone.home.att.net/abort.3.htm

In one picture, they have little arrows saying "nose" and "forehead", but from what little anatomy I remember, I'm pretty sure they've labeled the mouth "nose", because they seem to have forgotten that fetal humans have TINY noses.

It's also worth observing when we can detect brain function in fetal humans... Not that early, as it happens.

 

[Kristine]

Originally posted by Havoc
Why do people use the word "truth" when what they should say is "my opinion"?

Is it true that there is no such thing as truth and that we shouldn't use the word?  Or is that just your opinion? 

If that's really what you believe to be true, your statement is self-refuting.  If it's just your opinion that there is no truth, why bring it up as though it should have any bearing on us, since it isn't true.

 

[Outspoken]

"Poking around, I found the following brief summary of the concerns:"

so in other words you didn't find anything?