Abortion and Marriage

[jcrawford]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses? If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

This way, all reproductive decisions would be made privately, by the parties concerned, and would be no one's else's business at all.

How would that play out in different scenarios, from a Christian or non-Christian POV?

[Cephus]

It makes much more sense to focus on the reprobate doctors who are killing the babies of white and black married American Protestant and Catholic men though, because there are so few of them in the profession and besides all of them being secularists, a good number of them are secular Jews who probably delight in killing Christian babies and destroying the sanctity of Holy Christian Matrimony.

Especially since I'm sure the majority of these so-called "reprobate doctors" are also Christians, right?

[jcrawford]

No one is forcing women to kill their unborn children because their minds have been deluded to not look at the child within them.

Yes, as you say, no one if forcing women to have abortions.

Yes, yes, everyone agrees that no one is forcing women to have their babies killed by abortionists.
http://www.afterabortion.info/petition/ ... rtions.pdf

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

[jcrawford]

It makes much more sense to focus on the reprobate doctors who are killing the babies of white and black married American Protestant and Catholic men though, because there are so few of them in the profession and besides all of them being secularists, a good number of them are secular Jews who probably delight in killing Christian babies and destroying the sanctity of Holy Christian Matrimony.

Especially since I'm sure the majority of these so-called "reprobate doctors" are also Christians, right?

All the abortion centers is the US are run by atheists, secularists and secular Jews. You won't find a cross hanging on the wall in any of them.

That's why I am calling on all Jewish, Muslim and Catholic politicians in the US to demand the religious identification of all abortion clinic owners and operators which advertise and cater to white and black American Protestants.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:

1John wrote:
No one is forcing women to kill their unborn children because their minds have been deluded to not look at the child within them.

Yes, as you say, no one if forcing women to have abortions.

Yes, yes, everyone agrees that no one is forcing women to have their babies killed by abortionists.
http://www.afterabortion.info/petition/ ... rtions.pdf

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

If there are instances of forced abortion, then I would certainly agree that this would be a big problem. Women should never be forced to have an abortion, and if they have misgivings, they should certainly not be prevented from leaving.

I did look at both of these sites. Frankly pretty gruesome stuff. I would certainly not dismiss it out of hand.

However, . . .

I did find this article from BBC news where UNFPA disputes what they call a smear campaign by the Population Research Institute.

But UNFPA officials say they have struggled to counter what is in effect a smear campaign by ideological opponents.

UNFPA says that one of the tactics employed by the Population Research Institute is to peddle false allegations to the media in the developing world.

Once these stories are printed in newspapers in developing countries, they take on an air of credibility, and occasionally, they are picked up by international news agencies.

UNFPA says that in this way, the false allegations of the agency's involvement in coercive abortion and sterilisation campaigns become reinforced in the minds of those who are most ready to believe the charges.

Mr Scruggs said it was a campaign of disinformation.

"This goes out everywhere, and you're on the defensive," he said.

"When we should be talking about supporting women's rights and reproductive health, and safe motherhood, we're having to tell people we're not doing these terrible things that are lies to begin with. It affects our funding both directly, and indirectly, and when our funding is affected, women are affected."

Unfortunately for UNFPA, the lobbying campaign by the Population Research Institute has found willing listeners among right-wing religious conservatives in the Bush administration.

They sympathise with their president's concerns about abortion and the right to life.

Much of PRI's work is in foreign countries. Particularly China whose infamous 'one-child only' policy is just a part of that country's undemocratic behavior and violations of human rights. You won't get any argument from me that this is wrong.

It is pretty clear that PRI has their own agenda. They seem to believe over-population is, if not a myth, at least a largely overblown problem. Their president is certainly committed to the cause of preventing abortion. I have no problem supporting action to prevent coerced abortions. I would have to question the objectivity of information from this group. I would note the following from a NY Times article from a few years back.

Supporters of the fund deny that it facilitates coerced abortions in China. They say it has made considerable progress in reducing the number of abortions through family planning programs in conjunction with the Beijing government.

Two years ago, the administration appeared to agree. A fact-finding trip for the State Department in May 2002, led by William A. Brown, the former ambassador to Israel, recommended the release of $34 million in American payments. "We find no evidence that'' the Population Fund "has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization" in China, it said.

But Mr. Powell, who had praised the agency's activities, abruptly reversed course, contending in a July 21, 2002, letter to Congress that the fund had provided computers and vehicles to Chinese government groups that enforced the country's coercive reproductive policy, which taxes parents who have more than one child. He charged that the fund was in violation of the 1985 law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which prohibits the United States from giving money to agencies involved in coerced abortion or sterilization.

. . . . .

Fund supporters counter that they have nothing to do with abortion policy. Through their programs, they give maternity kits and prenatal care to pregnant women. The administration's cuts, they say, have hurt poor women in China and elsewhere.

Sterling Scruggs, a former official in charge of external relations for the Population Fund, said his agency was being singled out to make an "ideological" point against abortion. "It reminds me of the McCarthy era," he said. "We're blackballed. They've defunded us, and even that isn't enough. It's unbelievable."

It seems this is just more political spin on the part of abortion opponents to try and push their agenda overseas. Certainly China is an easy target. Obviously anyone who does any sort of business over there will have difficulty not being implicated in one way or another with policies that most people in the U.S. would find problematical. Witness the recent flaps concerning google, yahoo, and microsoft.

Yes, we should not support coerced abortions. But we should not smear a UN organization that provides legitimate family planning counseling, pre-natal care, and helps educate women about making reasonable family planning decisions. Abortion is not the be all and end all of family planning policy.



At any rate, I thought we were talking about what happens in the U.S.




Your second citation does include information on the U.S. Again, if the article is accurate, it paints a gruesome picture of 'rampant coercive abortion.'

I haven't had time to track down all the references. I will point out one item that, to me, indicates one might be cautious in accepting this source at face value.

The article claims:

studies show that most women decide against their conscience [to have an abortion]

The support for this is one Los Angles Times poll which indicated that 56% of respondents had 'some guilt feelings' after having an abortion. I'm sorry, this is a bit of spin. Some guilt feelings is not the same as 'deciding against conscience.'

It is also only one poll.

Sure, I can imagine many women having 'guilt feelings' after having an abortion and I do not want to pooh-pooh this. I think it is fair to say that both sexual and child-bearing issues are laden with emotion. We are emotionally geered to want children, and I think it is fair to say women more so than men.

However, let's be fair. This little piece of evidence is being spun here, and it has nothing at all to do with 'coercive abortions.'


I focused on this item because it was one of the few statistical facts provided. Much of the rest is testimony on isolated cases. Certainly these cases, especially those involving incest, domestic abuse, etc. are horrendous. But in these cases their are a lot of big problems other than the alleged coercive abortions.



At any rate, maybe we could agree on a few remedies, assuming there is a problem, even if it isn't to the scale portrayed in your citations.

1. Doctors who perform abortions in a coercive manner or without informed consent should at the very least lose their licenses. My guess is there are already laws on the books to deal with this, but if not, I would support enacting some.

2. Spouses, boyfriends, etc. who coerce or abuse their partners should be legally prosecuted. I think there are laws on the books to handle this already.

3. If we allow minors to have abortions over their parents objections, I think we should also allow them to have babies over their parents objections, provided they are willing to accept responsibility for the child's care. This is not small caveat, of course, for anyone who has taken care of a child. THis is a difficult situation for all, and the parents obviously have a stake in the decision as they are still responsible for the minor, and will in some sense be responsible for the new grandbaby as well, at least until their daughter reaches legal age.

[jcrawford]

micatala wrote:

1John wrote:
No one is forcing women to kill their unborn children because their minds have been deluded to not look at the child within them.

Yes, as you say, no one if forcing women to have abortions.

Yes, yes, everyone agrees that no one is forcing women to have their babies killed by abortionists.
http://www.afterabortion.info/petition/ ... rtions.pdf

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

If there are instances of forced abortion, then I would certainly agree that this would be a big problem. Women should never be forced to have an abortion, and if they have misgivings, they should certainly not be prevented from leaving.

I did look at both of these sites. Frankly pretty gruesome stuff. I would certainly not dismiss it out of hand.

With all due respect to your lengthy post in response to the above, there is no public evidence that any teenage or adult Christian woman in the US has ever signed an 'informed consent agreement' to have her baby aborted by an atheistic feminist or a secular Jewish doctor.

[Wyvern]

With all due respect to your lengthy post in response to the above, there is no public evidence that any teenage or adult Christian woman in the US has ever signed an 'informed consent agreement' to have her baby aborted by an atheistic feminist or a secular Jewish doctor

You are quite correct in this although only because these forms you speak of don't have any place to denote religious affiliation.
Now onto other things, JC I can't help but notice that each of your anti abortion threads(7 and counting) say the same thing with the only difference being who you claim to be the victim or perpetrator(this time the victims are protestants and the perpetrators are nearly everyone else). Face it the majority of the population in the U.S. is protestant so it follows the majority of doctors performing abortions also are protestant and since as you have said a number of times before there are no records which show religious affiliation in regards to abortion clinics what you say is merely heresay and groundless.

[McCulloch]

No one is forcing women to kill their unborn children because their minds have been deluded to not look at the child within them.

Yes, as you say, no one if forcing women to have abortions.

Yes, yes, everyone agrees that no one is forcing women to have their babies killed by abortionists.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

The example you cite is certainly morally wrong. No one should be forced to undergo a forced medical procedure. If the woman did change her mind, then the doctor involved should lose his license to practice, just the same as if he had performed a forced appendectomy or kidney transplant. However, I believe that this issue is a red herring. Prove me wrong, but I don't think that ensuring that the concent of every woman seeking abortion is properly received would eliminate the alleged genocide.

[McCulloch]

All the abortion centers is the US are run by atheists, secularists and secular Jews. You won't find a cross hanging on the wall in any of them.

Let's take this unsupported assertion at face value for now but reserve the right to ask you to substantiate this later. The example of one single abortion center in the US not run by atheists, secularists or secular Jews would invalidate your assertion. However, since secularist could mean anyone who believes that governments should be neutral with regard to religion, then the majority of Americans are secularists and your assertion is just empty rhetoric.

That's why I am calling on all Jewish, Muslim and Catholic politicians in the US to demand the religious identification of all abortion clinic owners and operators which advertise and cater to white and black American Protestants.

Is there any abortion clinic that advertises and caters specifically to white or black American Protestants? I don't think so. So your demand is a bit pointless isn't it? Why should any abortion clinic be required to provide religious identification? My dentist does not provide religions identification. One butcher I go to does provide religious identification (Halal) but it is entirely voluntary.
I suppose that is there were any Christian abortion clinics, they should be allowed to identify themselves as such.

• "Dr. Luke's Shortcut to Heaven Clinic" -- fearful of the future? think that you cannot protect yet another child of yours from the effects of sin in this world? afraid of backsliding and the effect that it might have on your future children? afraid that the evil secular school system will indoctrinate your children with satanic evolution and endanger their souls?
  Don't worry, the good doctor will dispatch your young ones directly to heaven before they are born. Holy Water, religious service of any specified denomination and burial all included in one easy to finance fee!"

[McCulloch]

With all due respect to your lengthy post in response to the above, there is no public evidence that any teenage or adult Christian woman in the US has ever signed an 'informed consent agreement' to have her baby aborted by an atheistic feminist or a secular Jewish doctor.

Now, lets examine why that might be.

• Medical records are private. There is no public evidence that any person in the US has ever signed an 'informed consent agreement' for a kidney transplant.
• Medical consent forms do not include the patient's religion. Religion is a private concern. The medical system rightly assumes that if the patient has religious objections to the procedure that the patient will seek appropriate advice from her religious advisors before consenting to a procedure. Doctors should not have to keep track of and enforce various religious rules.
• Medial consent may concern itself with the medical qualifications of the practitioner to do the procedure, but not the religion. It matters not whether the doctor is an atheistic feminist, a secular Jew, a practicing Wiccan or a liberal Anglican. What matters is that the patient consents to the treatment and the doctor is qualified to perform it.

[jcrawford]

With all due respect to your lengthy post in response to the above, there is no public evidence that any teenage or adult Christian woman in the US has ever signed an 'informed consent agreement' to have her baby aborted by an atheistic feminist or a secular Jewish doctor

You are quite correct in this although only because these forms you speak of don't have any place to denote religious affiliation.

Then a Christian woman is not in a position to give her fully informed consent to a Jewish abortionist, not being informed of her legal rights to ask his religious identity. Neither is a black American woman in a position to give her fully informed consent if there are no black doctors employed in the clinic to advise her of her right to choose a doctor of her choice.

Face it the majority of the population in the U.S. is protestant so it follows the majority of doctors performing abortions also are protestant and since as you have said a number of times before there are no records which show religious affiliation in regards to abortion clinics what you say is merely heresay and groundless.

What you say about the majority of abortionists in the US being Protestants is also hearsay and groundless. Obviously, none are Roman Catholic since there would be a crucifix in the hospital or 'clinic,' and a priest would be on hand to perform last rites over the fetus.

Even if most abortions mills in the US were owned and operated by Protestant doctors, that leaves a lot of Christian women in the NYC area getting their abortions from secular Jews without being fully informed of what they are actually consenting and contributing to.