Reducing Abortions: The Untold Story of America's Pregnancy Resource Centers

[Fantine]

What I said is that, in a diverse society such as ours, some women find that "need," and since there are no Constitutional amendments to prevent it, it can't be prevented legally.

The situation exists because some people call abortion "murder," and others don't. And the Constitution agrees with the other people.

I agree that young women who have children out of wedlock face less social disapproval and receive slightly more financial assistance than they did years ago.

Looking in from the outside, it still seems as if they are facing a really tough life (as are their children.) 18% of these kids grow up in poverty. Their moms are much less likely to finish high school.

And so it's still exceptionally, heart breakingly tough to raise a child alone. It's just a little less tough than 50 years ago. And no one much cares (except the government) when the baby becomes a toddler.

I always wonder whether, if abortion were criminalized, young single pregnant women would receive the same compassion and lack of disapproval, and whether the pregnancy help centers would be as active. I guess we'd know then whether what they are practicing is a "bribe" or true compassion.

After all, before abortion was legal, these help centers didn't exist, and these women were looked down upon and scorned.

 

[benedictaoo]

What I said is that, in a diverse society such as ours, some women find that "need," and since there are no Constitutional amendments to prevent it, it can't be prevented legally.

The situation exists because some people call abortion "murder," and others don't. And the Constitution agrees with the other people.

I agree that young women who have children out of wedlock face less social disapproval and receive slightly more financial assistance than they did years ago.

Looking in from the outside, it still seems as if they are facing a really tough life (as are their children.) 18% of these kids grow up in poverty. Their moms are much less likely to finish high school.

And so it's still exceptionally, heart breakingly tough to raise a child alone. It's just a little less tough than 50 years ago. And no one much cares (except the government) when the baby becomes a toddler.

I always wonder whether, if abortion were criminalized, young single pregnant women would receive the same compassion and lack of disapproval, and whether the pregnancy help centers would be as active. I guess we'd know then whether what they are practicing is a "bribe" or true compassion.

After all, before abortion was legal, these help centers didn't exist, and these women were looked down upon and scorned.

Rubbish...

You know Fnatine, it's posts and positions such as this one, is why the pro life movement shows pictures of murdered babies... because folks keep saying it's not murder... oh really? then mind telling me what THIS is?

and the constitution does not objectively state that. Please....It's been subjectively and arbitrarily interpreted by the left for political gain. Do you get that?

and please stop handing me invalid excuses and reasons why a mother HAS to or NEEDS to kill her child. It's all baloney. There is no reason on earth to kill your kid... and no one will convince me it's for the good of any mother to kill her child.

Abortion is a business , it's not a charitable non profit organization out to help and assist women in crisis. It's a service that is SOLD to women and that's why it's legal. It's legal for no other reason other then it makes billions $$$$. Do you get that??

and so what? Life's hard, boo hoo... maybe if people would actually tell the truth, that having a baby is NOT the world's worse thing that can happen... it's actually the most rewarding and joyous thing the can happen. Do you get that lies are told in order to trick women into having an abortion because they want these poor young girls money??

and life being hard is no reason or excuse to kill anybody let alone your own children. Please give me a break. Do you realize you are defending abortion with some really lame reasons?

Fantine, are you a pro abortion-rights Catholic? Yes or no?

 

[Davidnic]

And the Constitution agrees with the other people.

Point...the Constitution does not say it is not murder. People interpret that it can be legally done. Law draws its' authority from God. And all law, from Natural to Revealed agree that Abortion is murder. So no, the Constitution does not agree.

People say, "A woman has the right to choose" Choose, what exactly? If people feel it is a right...say it proudly:

A woman has a right to choose...to kill her baby.

That is the choice. If people think that right should exist then call it what it is...the right to choose to kill a helpless innocent.

Don't cloud it, don't run from it. Embrace it if you agree. The right to choose to kill an innocent child.

Does not sound in keeping with our founding documents to me.

Now tell me how I lack compassion for saying what abortion is. But who really lacks compassion. The person who calls it what it is so a young woman won't be confused, even if it is hard to accept? Or the person who adds the obfuscation and double talk that creates euphemisms so she does it and only later realizes and suffers the post traumatic destruction at the realization.

Very compassionate that.

 

[Davidnic]

If that's true, I'm glad to hear it. I suspect, though, that there are still many disapproving glances at Church and other places.
I wonder if my Catholic HS has gotten rid of their policy of expelling pregnant students, now that it's 2009 and all.

You're a little older than me. By my time in HS and In my Catholic HS they did not expel anyone. Both the boy and the girl had to quit any extra circulars where they would represent the school for one year. For a brief time they were not allowed to wear the school uniform as a representative of the school. That was determined to cause a level of ridicule as a side effect and was ended.

As far as I know the current policy is that they can not be in sports, band, play or anything where they are a direct representative of the school for a year. And there is counseling provided for the two kids and the parents about how to handle the new situation. In two cases I know of a part time job was privately found for the boy in order to help the financial situation.

 

[benedictaoo]

I know a girl who graduated in the early 90's who said her catholic school didn't let her graduate on stage because she was showing, not so much because she was pregnant.

 

[Davidnic]

I get the delicacy of the issue (what HS should do) and why people feel both ways. But also in my student handbook if you were seen by a teacher smoking on summer break you had detention in September. It was a case of people knew you went to the school, what the principles were and that there needed to be a cost for violating them.

In most cases of enforcement they balanced that with compassion, for instance the case of trying to help the boy and the girl expecting the baby to adjust to their new situation. But in the case of the smoking, you were not getting out of that detention and then there was an awareness of lung disease thing to sit through.

 

[benedictaoo]

Well the point is, it's a fine line between being compassionate to the teens. You want to handle the situation because it's happened but you don't want a situation where the behavior is being condoned.

We have to be carful that we are dealing with the situation correctly and morally and not celebrating it as if it's okay. Because if we do that, un wed baby #2 will be right around the corner.

 

[Davidnic]

Well the point is, it's a fine line between being compassionate to the teens. You want to handle the situation because it's happened but you don't want a situation where the behavior is being condoned.

We have to be carful that we are dealing with the situation correctly and morally and not celebrating it as if it's okay. Because if we do that, un wed baby #2 will be right around the corner.

Reading a book right now called: Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters. Just this morning I was reading the part where it says don't fall into the trap to say that kids are developed enough to make the right decision off of how they feel. They do not actually have the cognitive development yet to trust that and feelings will overpower. That does not mean do not trust them, but raise them with good examples and teaching, but remember that if you see something is being handled badly you are a parent. Make sure they know what is wrong is wrong. You can handle it with compassion but that does not mean you excuse it. If you do that the excused action can be habitual.

Good becomes a habit, don't let mistakes become the habit.

 

[benedictaoo]

Sounds good and research now suggests our brains don't fully develop until early 20s... we lack impulse control until we are in our 20's... which would explain why we do incredibly stupid things when we're young. We lack the cognitive ability to discern.

 

[Davidnic]

Sounds good and research now suggests our brains don't fully develop until early 20s... we lack impulse control until we are in our 20's... which would explain why we do incredibly stupid things when we're young. We lack the cognitive ability to discern.

I know mine didn't develop until I met my wife Until then I still had rough mental edges despite my grandmothers best efforts

 

[Fantine]

Rubbish...



and the constitution does not objectively state that. Please....It's been subjectively and arbitrarily interpreted by the left for political gain. Do you get that?

The majority of justices who sat on the Supreme Court at the time Roe v. Wade was decided were appointed by Republican presidents. You can blame the Republicans and their appointees for Roe v. Wade.

I often hear Republicans complain about activist judges and 'legislating from the bench'. The case most often pointed to is Roe V Wade. So I decided to do my own research on who appointed these activists.

The supreme court justices involved in the matter were appointed as follows. The letter 'M' signifies majority or consenting opinion. The 'D' is dissenting:

Renquist - D (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
Powell - M (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
Blackmun - M (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
White - D (appointed by Kennedy - Dem)
Burger - M (appointed by Nixon - Rep)
Brennan - M (appointed by Eisenhower - Rep)
Douglas - M (appointed by FDR - Dem)
Stewart - M (appointed by Eisenhower - Rep)
Marshall - M (appointed by Johnson - Dem)

As you can see, 6 of the 9 justices on the court in 1973 were appointed by Republicans. One of the two dissenting opinions were Democrats. So the next time someone brings up this case pointing to liberal R v W judges, tell them 5 of 7 in the majority were Republican appointees.

 

[benedictaoo]

The majority of justices who sat on the Supreme Court at the time Roe v. Wade was decided were appointed by Republican presidents. You can blame the Republicans and their appointees for Roe v. Wade.

I do. So what? This is not about right and left Fantine.

 

[Fantine]

I do. So what? This is not about right and left Fantine.

You specifically mentioned "the left" in your previous post.

 

[benedictaoo]

You specifically mentioned "the left" in your previous post.

fair enough... but they are the ones who are openly pro choice... the other side gives lip service.. what does that tell you? they both are corrupt and both have to go.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yep, pregnancy resource centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, do a lot of good for the pro-life cause. It's no wonder that the pro-abortion side does everything it can to stop the work of these centers.

 

[Fantine]

Yep, pregnancy resource centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, do a lot of good for the pro-life cause. It's no wonder that the pro-abortion side does everything it can to stop the work of these centers.

I have never seen one indication that what you just said is true. I think that they are happy that women who decide to continue their pregnancies have help available.

Are there pro-choicers who go around picketing these centers with pictures of malnourished, neglected children living in tenements? No.

But if you have evidence that this is true, please provide it.

 

[Davidnic]

I have never seen one indication that what you just said is true. I think that they are happy that women who decide to continue their pregnancies have help available.

Are there pro-choicers who go around picketing these centers with pictures of malnourished, neglected children living in tenements? No.

But if you have evidence that this is true, please provide it.

Have you looked for evidence. Like Planned Parenthood in Canada fighting to remove these centers from charity drives? Like the direct statements of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia who oppose the state's funding to the centers. Or Family Planning Advocates and NARAL of NY who pressured for an investigation of them by Spitzer? Or planned parenthood affiliates of Michigan who have pressured for legislation to truncate the ability fo crisis pregnancy centers to do their job.

They oppose anyone who does not offer Abortion as the first and only option and say that these centers "coerce adoption" rather than present abortion as an option.

You have not seen it...look it up.

And again, if people think babies are blobs of cells then pictures of them murdered should not bother them. So the comparison you make to picketers is...again, a logical fallacy.

 

[Fantine]

Canada's not in the US, and I don't live in Virginia, Michigan, or NY, so I wouldn't know what's going on there.

Do the pregnancy help centers not seek to end charity funding, charity tax exemptions, and state aid for Planned Parenthood?

Is it not then a matter of reciprocity? Who fired the first volley?

 

[Davidnic]

Canada's not in the US, and I don't live in Virginia, Michigan, or NY, so I wouldn't know what's going on there.

I don't live in Canada. I also don't live in VA, MI or NY. But since I write my opinions here I seek to be informed on them. So I knew. Pretty basic. The issue matters to me so I seek knowledge on it.

Do the pregnancy help centers not seek to end charity funding, charity tax exemptions, and state aid for Planned Parenthood?

Is it not then a matter of reciprocity? Who fired the first volley?

Poor planned parenthood. Founded by racists to weed out black people from the population and continuing on it's mission. Being attacked by those who want to stop abortion as being pushed as the one and only solution.

Look, you wanted incidents of your sainted planned parenthood opposing the centers that help women. It was given...and now planned parenthood is the victim. You can't be bothered to do research that is not logically flawed and appeals to emotion devoid of facts.

Such victims. Their hands so chafed from trying to wash off the blood. They'd be in a really bad spot Fantine if you wouldn't be trying to lend them so much soap.

 

[Fantine]

Thank you for your information, David. I did not know that Planned Parenthood was retaliating against pregnancy help centers because of the continued campaigns against them.

But I don't know what to say when two organizations with different objectives seek to destroy one another, because a truce or cease fire presupposes that both organizations will stop their attacks.

And obviously both organizations feel justified in their attacks, even if neither feels the other is justified.

It seems to me that both organizations just have to accept that they are attacked as part of the price they pay for attacking.

And criticizing either organization for self-defense is just another attack.