More Basic Q&A

 

Do unplanned or "unwanted" children result in more cases of child abuse?

Absolutely not. Within only 10 years after abortion was legalized, child abuse increased by 500%. This massive increase since the legalization of abortion should come as no surprise. Since the law says it’s fine to kill our unborn children, why not our already-born children?

 

Devaluing human life at any stage of development devalues all human life. This is consistent with studies which show child abuse is more common among mothers who have had abortions than those who have not. Martin Luther King saw the same logic regarding the civil rights movement for African Americans when he said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

 

Most abused children were wanted by their parents. Edward Lenoski, a professor at the University of California, found that 91% of abused children were from planned pregnancies. In society today, 64% of pregnancies are planned. Comparing these statistics shows that child abuse is more prevalent among children from planned pregnancies rather than unplanned pregnancies.

 

Dr. Fontana, author of “The Maltreated Child,” investigated thousands of child abuse cases nationwide and found that the prevalence of child abuse had nothing to do with wanted or unwanted children.  Instead, the most common elements related to child abuse included: Parents who were abused themselves as children; parents who had bouts of uncontrollable anger; and parents who struggled with loneliness and guilt due to various circumstances.

 

Finally, we must ask ourselves whether we really believe a child is better off dead than abused. Many notable and accomplished people in our society today have come forth to reveal the abuse they endured in childhood. Should we tell them they are better off dead? Or that society is better off without them?

 

“You have to dismember the fetus. You have to actually pull pieces of the fetus out.” (Ref:  Abortionist Brian Finkel, “A Woman’s Right, A Woman’s Risk”, ABC 20/20 Transcript # 99030802-j11, 3-8-1999)

 

Why are post-abortive women more likely to abuse their children?

A recent study, published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica, showed women who had an abortion were significantly more likely to physically abuse their children - a 144% greater risk - than women who did not have an abortion. Self-directed anger and guilt were cited as the likely reasons.

Priscilla Coleman, lead researcher, said: "There’s a good number of women who have abortions, experience it as a … loss with bereavement, some guilt — guilt is a pretty common experience with abortion. Those kinds of effects could cause anger, and we know parents who abuse their children often have anger-control issues."

"[Researchers] didn’t get the same effects for miscarriage, even though women have difficulties and adjustments afterwards," she continued, adding that the emotional impact of a miscarriage "...tends to resolve over time, within two years, but with abortion, it kind of lingers on." (Washington Times, "Abuse Risk Linked to Abortion", 11/2/05). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/02/20051102-110138-9468r/#ixzz2YmKZZVW9

If you don't like abortion, then don't get one!
Rephrased, the statement is intended to say "stop your interference in my business". This is a common reaction among perpetrators of injustice.

 

Historically, slave owners used it in an attempt to maintain the legality of slavery in America - "if you don't like slavery, then don't own one!". In modern times, when American leaders speak out against human rights violations in other countries, they're often told to "mind their own business" as if human rights violations in another country are merely an internal or private matter. For anyone with a conscience, however, human rights violations - anywhere in the world - can never be ignored. If an abusive situation of any kind comes to our attention, it BECOMES our responsibility to act. This is what makes us responsible members of society.

 

It will be a sad and regretful day when each of us decides to turn a blind eye to situations of injustice around us. If we don't like human trafficking, for example, should we merely avoid working in the industry? Or are we responsible to do more - to put a stop to the suffering/killing?

 

“ it is necessary to insert our forceps, open them as wide as possible to try to capture the head within the opening of the forceps and then crush the head using external force applied against the head."  (Ref:  Abortionist Carolyn Westhoff testifying in court, “Forum: Abortion Trials and Tribulations”, Washington Times, 4/25/2004)

 

Common Reasons for Abortions: If the reasons aren't justified after birth, why are they justified before birth?

The common reasons for wanting an abortion - the baby was conceived by rape or outside of wedlock, the parents are too young to care for the baby, the baby will have an inferior quality of life, the premature fetus is not able to survive outside the mother's body by itself, the baby has defects, the baby won't live very long, etc. - are presumed to be valid before birth but not after birth. Also, some pro-choice groups are increasingly using the same reasons used to justify pre-birth abortions to also justify post-birth abortions - otherwise known as infanticide.

 

However, there is no scientific basis for any of this. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, a pro-choice group based in England, said: “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.” And this is precisely why killing our children before birth is no more justified than killing them after birth. (See http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/29/after-birth-abortion-justifying-infanticide/).

 

Why should we bring an unwanted child into an overpopulated world?

There is no morally relevant difference between children inside the womb and those outside the womb. Overcrowding does not justify killing children outside the womb, nor does it justify killing children inside the womb.

 

Furthermore, if this world is truly overpopulated, we should admit we ourselves are also a part of the population and, hence, also an integral part of the problem. Ultimately, we all use gas, water, food, etc… which are limited resources. Isn't it a natural human tendency to see "problems" caused by others while being blind to our own contribution to those same problems?

 

Should we intentionally kill our children to save them from having to live in our overcrowded house? Are children really better off dead than living in overcrowded conditions? Should we drive through overcrowded cities, dismembering and killing children as we go - just as it is done in abortion clinics across the country? This deranged thinking sounds like it comes straight out of a futuristic horror movie. But it comes from pro-choice advocates. Does this make any sense?

 

Thankfully, the world is not overpopulated. In recent years, the U.S. and many other countries have seen significant declines in population, mostly due to a birth rate decline. This will have severe financial consequences in the future if not reversed. A smaller younger population will result in a loss of national income due to less productivity and tax revenue, while the aging population will have fewer young people to support them. Russia and many European and Asian nations have already started to offer financial incentives to women and families to encourage them to have more children. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline).

 

“Population control is too important to be stopped by some right wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I’d set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could… When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it’s time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles, having babies for welfare is the only industry these people have.”  (Ref:  Abortionist Dr. Edward Allred, founder of Family Planning Associates Medical Group, quoted in The San Diego Union, October 12, 1980)

 

Why should we bring an unwanted child into a world already filled with starving children?

Pro-choice advocates say we should abort babies and redirect our resources to feed babies already born and starving. Superficially, this may seem to make sense and even sounds caring, generous, and taking the moral high ground. But is it?  Pro-choice advocates who use this argument are basically saying if you can't afford to feed a child, we are justified to kill that child. However, if we saw a news account of a mother who thought and did such a thing, we would be horrified.

 

There is no morally relevant difference between being inside or outside the womb. Passing through the birth canal of a woman makes no morally relevant difference. Killing a starving child already born is unjustified, yet pro-choice advocates encourage us to kill our children inside the womb - just in case they starve when they're born. Where is the humanity in that view? Where is the compassion? Isn't the humane response to feed them, rather than to kill them?

 

The primary cause of starvation in third world countries is political unrest and corruption, and not from overcrowding or a lack of natural resources. Corrupt political leaders use starvation as a weapon to force those under them into submission, and misuse the nation's resources to build their own empires rather than to feed the people. North Korea and some African dictatorial regimes are prime examples.  Resources are squandered or misused so when a drought or disaster strikes, nothing is available to help the people. By contrast, in the U.S., resources are used to build reservoirs to provide water for people and crops even during drought conditions. So while pro-choice groups would have us believe dismembering and killing unborn children is one way to end politically-motivated starvation in other nations, this solution is misdirected at best and ruthless at worst.

 

Also, the vast majority of charities who feed starving children are Christian charities and are the same people who also form pro-life groups, not pro-choice groups. Those who love pre-born children enough to protect them are also the ones who love already-born children enough to feed them.

 

Why should I want to bring a child into a violent, miserable world?

Are pro-choice advocates really being merciful and loving by suggesting we violently dismember and kill a helpless unborn child in order to save that child from suffering violence in this world later? Does this make any sense? Is this really a selfless, caring, thoughtful and motherly mindset? Or is there a more self-centered intent here?

 

Let's apply this philosophy to those of us outside the womb. If someone walks around killing people in order to "save" them from having to live in this "miserable world" any longer, what do we call this? This would be nothing less than a horrific killing spree and a capital offense in most states. This nonsensical reasoning is completely unjustifiable for those outside the womb and also those inside the womb.

 

If this world is truly too violent and miserable to raise a child, isn't the more loving solution to find ways to contribute to society to help those in misery, and to prevent violence rather than to use abortion - a violent and murderous act in itself?  Using violence to prevent violence – does this make any good sense?

 

This question begs a follow-up question: If we honestly believe this world is too miserable to live in, why are we keeping ourselves alive?  Why didn't we commit suicide a long time ago? Why aren't we committing suicide on a mass scale to save ourselves some pain along with aborting our unborn children?  

 

Answer: to abort our child in order to save from misery is nothing more than a dishonest and self-righteous smokescreen. The desire to indulge oneself in a selfish lifestyle, free from the "misery" of parenthood, is a decidedly less noble sentiment which pro-choice advocates are simply unwilling to admit to the public.

 

To remove any doubt about children being glad to have been born into this world rather than aborted:

Read the stories of those who survived abortions:

 

www.TheAbortionSurvivors.com: This Abortion Survivor Network is dedicated toward educating the public about the prevalence of survivors and to give a voice to survivors in a society that is unaware of their existence, or, if there is awareness of survivors, they are silenced due to the societal attitudes and beliefs about abortion, and to provide support to fellow survivors.

 

Can we afford to pay for children born with deformities?

To put things into perspective, the cost of pediatric care for children who need hospitalization in their first year of life due to congenital diseases is approximately $30 billion annually in the U.S.  By comparison, we annually spend approximately $35 billion on gambling, $60 billion on pet care, $65 billion on sodas, and over $100 billion on beer. To suggest our children are not as deserving of our help and resources as our pets, gambling, sodas, and beer-drinking habits, is ridiculous.

 

Whatever rationale used for an unborn child ought to apply to those already born, and vice versa. There is no morally relevant difference between being inside or outside the womb. Passing through the birth canal of a woman makes no morally relevant difference. As such, it would be unthinkable to kill children born with defects, based on their high health costs. Can you imagine walking through a neonatal care unit, casually dismembering and killing those with severe defects? Yet, perfectly healthy unborn children are being casually dismembered and killed in abortion clinics across our country.

 

Furthermore, it would be just as unthinkable to start assigning relative monetary values to ourselves based on our own age and health conditions. Or should we also begin to do this in our society?

 

If pro-life advocates are not willing to adopt every unwanted child, what right do they have to speak out against abortion?

Any argument demanding pro-life advocates to either adopt the unborn child or 'shut up' is akin to demanding an eyewitness in a child abuse case to either adopt that abused child or not report the incident. Many pro-life advocates DO adopt children but our civil laws must protect the helpless in our society - regardless of the action or inaction of any individuals within that society.

 

Isn't it 'judgmental' to call abortion murder?

Is it judgmental to call rape a heinous crime? We must all agree rape IS a heinous crime - and it is a correct judgment to call it so. All of us already make moral judgments on a regular basis, and should. What would happen if a rapist is allowed to live by his own personal standard of morality - in conflict with the moral standard of his victims? So also, in an abortion, the personal and subjective 'moral' standard of an adult is imposed upon the helpless unborn child - resulting in the death of that child. Where is the justice?

 

We should never try to legislate morality.  A pregnant woman should have moral autonomy.

Restricting abortion does not 'legislate morality' any more than restricting acts of rape, murder or theft. Pro-choice groups would have us believe we all have complete moral autonomy and that freedom is in danger of being taken away by pro-life laws.

 

This belief is false. Our laws already legislate morality - daily, and have done so since their inception. None of us who live in a community with others has moral autonomy. Would we prefer a society without any moral code at all?

 

All civil rights movements of the past were aimed at legislation which provided protections for humans who were otherwise helpless and defenseless. During the African American civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, those who wanted to continue to victimize them argued against "legislating morality". To this, Martin Luther King responded, "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

 

Although I believe abortion is wrong, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others.

This statement contradicts current law. If someone comes to one of us and tells us they committed a murder, we are compelled by law to report it to law enforcement authorities. Similar reasoning is seen when a neighbor sees another neighbor physically abusing their child - it must be reported. Although the reporter of the incident is placed in an uncomfortable situation and may put them at risk of retaliation by those they report, it is still our responsibility as members of society to come to the aid of the helpless and less fortunate in our society. To lack courage and remain silent is to condone the harmful activity.

 

What are the similarities between abortion and the slave trade?

The argument for 'moral autonomy' was once used by slave owners regarding their morally autonomous decisions about their slaves. In the same way pro-choice groups shout "It's my body", slave owners shouted "It's my property". Even today, oppressive employers in poor nations still use a ‘moral autonomy’ argument in defense of child labor abuses. In modern India, the caste system falsely dictates those in lower castes to be lower in intrinsic value and unworthy of higher paying work or even an education, thus providing a cheap source of labor for those in higher castes. 'Freedom of conscience' may seem noble in appearance but when one's choices involve the well-being of others including life or death, one's freedoms must be subordinated to laws which protect those who are defenseless and helpless from those who are ruthless.

 

Isn't having an abortion a private matter?

The decision to have an abortion is not a private matter - it involves more than the woman but also her child - that is, two entities. Similar reasoning is seen when civil authorities get involved in the case of an adult who is seen physically abusing their child. The authorities are not merely 'interfering in a private matter' but are coming to the aid of the helpless child.

 

It is a common ploy by those who victimize others to make the claim that others have no say in their "private matter". Slave owners, even dictators of foreign countries, routinely tell those who seek justice for the victims to stop interfering in their "private matter". However, this is nothing more than a dishonest claim by criminals to have sole rights over their victims. Those of us who have knowledge of an unjust situation and can help to bring relief to the helpless, are responsible to do so. In the case of abortion, allowing others to dismember and kill their unborn children because it is a "private matter" is nothing short of turning a blind eye to a massive injustice.

 

"Television interviews in particular should focus on the public issue involved (right to confidential and professional medical care, freedom of choice and so forth) and not on the specific details of the procedure."  (Warren Hern M.D., "Abortion Practice", 1984, p.323)

 

Pro-choice vs. pro-life: Are they merely different views or is one better than the other?

Is killing a human being simply "different" from saving their life? Pro-choice advocates want the right to dismember and kill unborn human beings for ANY reason and at ANY gestational age prior to birth; pro-life advocates want to protect unborn human beings from such an agonizing fate and to save their lives.

 

Is lying to women merely "different" from telling them the truth? Pro-choice advocates want to mislead women - by telling them the unborn child is only a lump of tissue; pro-life advocates want to tell women the whole truth - that the unborn child is, in all scientific reality, a small human being.

 

Is treating women with disrespect merely "different" from treating them with respect? Pro-choice advocates want to stop laws requiring them to give women full disclosure of abortion information; pro-life advocates support laws requiring them to give women full disclosure.

 

Abortion counselors and doctors often take an active part in coercing pregnant women into having abortions; pro-life advocates support laws against coercion of pregnant women.

 

The list of differences goes on... Pro-choice values promote killing, lying, and mistreatment of human beings. Pro-life values promote respect for human life, respect for women, and respect for the truth - all of which are not just "different" from pro-choice views...they're better...for both women and society as a whole.

 

Shouldn't we abort a malformed child who is expected to die or be disabled for life?

Regardless of whether a child is malformed or expected to die, whatever rationale used for an unborn child ought to apply to those already born and vice versa. Since there is no morally relevant difference between those born and unborn, and since killing a malformed child already born - even one expected to die shortly - is unjustified, aborting an unborn child in similar circumstances is also unjustified.

 

The number of cases involving doctors who predicted someone would die or suffer some disability - but didn't - are too numerous to count. Doctors make just as many mistakes as the rest of us. And even if the child is handicapped in some way, do those handicaps consign the child to a lesser value in society?

 

We need to remind ourselves of people like Helen Keller and the amazing impact she had on this world. Or Nick Vujicic, a motivational speaker who uses his unique position to share a message of hope and love to hundreds of thousands around the world. He said, "I am thankful to have been born 30 years ago with no arms and no legs. I won’t pretend my life is easy, but through the love of my parents, loved ones, and faith in God, I have overcome my adversity and my life is now filled with joy and purpose." (See http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/).

 

When pro-choice advocates presume those with disabilities don't want to be born or ought not to be born, is the real reason because they are uncomfortable with people who have disabilities? To imply a child born with birth defects is better off dead, is absolutely heartless.

 

Furthermore, no civilized society would suggest intentionally killing such a child after birth, because that would be murder - even if they were severely handicapped. With this in mind, any suggestion of making abortions allowable for cases of a severe handicap or deformity seem disingenuous in light of the fact that any similar suggestion pertaining to a child already born, even a newborn, would be outrageous.

 

Where is the humanity in a society where those who are expected to live longer healthier lives are allowed to kill those who are less fortunate? Any effort to supposedly eliminate suffering by killing the sufferer, is convoluted. Families and especially mothers can attest to the loving memories of a newborn child who they held in their own arms after birth, even as the child died, as being an experience of love and caring. The child was given comfort measures and died naturally in their mother's arms rather than violently and painfully through dismemberment by abortion.

 

Shouldn't we abort children of drug-addicted mothers?

Superficially, this question appears to attempt to eliminate suffering by killing a child destined to live a life of misery. But is this really compassionate?

 

This question assumes a child born addicted to drugs or damaged by drugs is better off dead. To follow this unproven assumption further, pro-choice advocates are also implying all drug addicts, of all ages, are also better off dead. When we hear pro-choice advocates make such unproven, heartless, and absolutely ruthless assumptions, one must ask where their compassion went. Out the door?

 

Any rationale used to dismember and kill drug-addicted children inside the womb (through abortion) must also apply to those children outside the womb, and vice versa. There is no morally relevant difference between unborn and already-born children. Since killing drug-addicted children outside the womb is murder, it is also murder to kill drug-addicted children inside the womb.

 

Furthermore, since we concern ourselves with the welfare of the unborn child due to drug exposure, and since we discourage and even prosecute women who expose their unborn child to drugs, how much more concerned we should be about the life of that unborn child and speak out against dismembering and aborting them. To be concerned about their health, but not their life, is convoluted.

 

Abortion and Intolerance for the Unborn Down's Syndrome Child?

A survey of parents of Down Syndrome children found the overwhelming majority of parents surveyed (97-99 percent) report they are happy with their decision to have their child and indicate that their sons and daughters are great sources of love and pride (Ref: BG Skotko, SP Levine, and R Goldstein. 'Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: Perspectives from mothers and fathers', American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 155:2335-2347, 2011).

 

Another survey of people with Down's Syndrome found 99 percent said they are happy with their lives - this 99 percent is higher than the general population! (Ref: BG Skotko, SP Levine and R Goldstein. 'Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome', American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 155:2360-2369, 2011).

 

Yet, over 90 percent of unborn children with Down's Syndrome are aborted in Western Nations - even with a waiting list of families who want to specifically adopt a Down's Syndrome child. This should remind us of the Nazi killings of 5000 Down's Syndrome children during their September 1939 euthanasia "T4" program to rid Germany of all those classified as "unworthy to live" (See http://www.holocaust.com.au/mm/nonjewish.htm).

 

Why do we continue to have prejudice and intolerance toward people with Down's Syndrome? Why not let the child live as long as their natural life allows, and regardless of their disabilities? Why should we presume a child won't be happy or want to live with their handicap? Why should we feel it necessary to force our will on someone else - the unborn child in this case, especially when we didn't consider their will - and our will involves killing them? Is that loving? Is it our 'right'?

 

Here is a testimony from a former abortion nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer, who was working with Dr. Martin Haskell's abortion clinic in Dayton, Ohio, in 1993. On her third day at the clinic, she observed the D&E abortion of a Down's Syndrome baby in the sixth month of gestation. She saw Haskell deliver most of the little boy's body, keeping only his head inside the womb. She said, "Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the [surgical] scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched Dr. Haskell doing these things. The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed it to her. She cried the whole time. She kept saying, "I am so sorry, please forgive me." I was crying, too. I couldn't take it." (Ref: 'The Ex-abortionists: Why They Quit', Mary Meehan, The Human Life Review, Spring/Summer 2000).

 

Won't abortion help women forget about the pregnancy they didn't want in the first place?

Far from escaping one's memory, abortion frequently causes lifelong intense and unbearable psychological pain and stress. Some studies show post-abortive women are three to six times more likely to commit suicide in the first year after abortion than the general population.

 

Personal testimonies abound where women who have had abortions felt the guilt and anguish for years, with no apparent or perceived disapproval of the abortion by others as the cause. The human psyche in regards to the connection between mothers, their pregnancies and their children, is extremely complex with many unknowns for which we may never have an answer.

 

"Every woman ... has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy ... This is a part of her own life. When she destroys a pregnancy she is destroying herself."  (Ref: Dr. Julius Fogel, Psychiatrist/OB who has performed over 20,000 abortions)

 

The following words from a 22 year-old woman from Colorado:  "I had an abortion 3 years ago and I have regretted it ever since. I live with this regret and vow to spend the rest of my life trying to inform and support women who are faced with a pregnancy that they are overwhelmed with at the time. I want to be an advocate for these women and a voice to the unborn babies." (Center for Bioethic Reform, CBR Newsletter September 2012).