Jill Stanek graciously and unselfishly introduced me to most of the Pro-Life Leadership in Washington DC this past week. One of those leaders is Dr. Johnny Hunter, D.D., National Director of LEARN (Life Education And Resource Network). Dr. Hunter’s organization has put together a breathtaking 2 hour documentary on the Eugenics movement entitled Maafa 21, Black Genocide in 21st Century America. This documentary is riveting in its highly historically accurate and well-documented telling of the ongoing genocide against Black Americans. It is relentless and unsparing .
Far from a radical racial polemic, this movie celebrates allies across the spectrum, and damns the conspirators, including large swaths of the African-American Leadership. The intellectual honesty here is exemplary. I’ve watched this three times already. Having purchased eight copies, I’m down to my last.
What follows is a trailer for the movie, and then a short video of Dr. Hunter.
This movie is a must-see by all pro-lifers and people of good will. It especially needs to make its way into the hands of Black Pastors everywhere. It may be purchased here.
I found the newspaper clipping very interesting:
“white supremicists who had already seen possibilities for their cause in birth control for blacks.”
and Leander Perez who was an excommunicated Catholic who was quoted ” The best way to hate the nigger is to hate him before he’s born.”
I found out this man was a Democrat (no suprise there!) and a judge.
From wikipeidia:
Perez was a militant segregationist.
In defending segregation, Perez said: “Do you know what the Negro is? Animal right out of the jungle. Passion. Welfare. Easy life. That’s the Negro.”
The American Civil Rights Movement, according to Perez, was the work of “all those Jews who were supposed to have been cremated at Buchenwald and Dachau but weren’t, and Roosevelt allowed 2 million of them illegal entry into our country.”
In the spring of 1962, the Archdiocese of New Orleans announced its plan to desegregate the New Orleans parochial school system for the 1962–1963 school year. Perez led a movement to pressure businesses into firing any whites who allowed their children to attend the newly desegregated Catholic schools. Catholics in St. Bernard Parish boycotted one school, which the Archdiocese kept open without students for four months until it was burned down. In response, Archbishop Joseph Rummel excommunicated Perez on April 16, 1962. Perez responded by saying the Catholic Church was “being used as a front for clever Jews” and announced that he would form his own church, the “Perezbyterians.”
He eventually reconciled with the church before his death and received a requiem mass at Holy Name of Jesus Christ Church at Loyola University in New Orleans. He is interred at his home in Plaquemines Parish. [2]
end of wikipedia
what a sad human being this man was
let’s hope his reconciliation was true
Mary Catherine, up until the 1960s, people like Leander Perez were ALL Democrats. Like the Alabama Democrat who observed “first the Supreme Court took prayer out of the school and now they’re putting the Negroes in.” Passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in 1964-1965 was the work of
a) all the rest of the Democrats in the nation, and
b) a significant block of Republicans, since both the strongest support for, and opposition to, the civil rights acts were within the Democratic Party.
However, all those southern Democrats moved during the 1970s into the Republican Party, where they now dominate its politics. Most Republicans who represented traditions supportive of civil rights were forced out of the party in the meantime. The same voices who are among the most strident anti-abortion politicians are also closet admirers of Strom Thurmond’s 1948 run for president.
Jill Stanek? Gracious? Good gracious, what trace of grace is there about that venal self-centered ball of political opportunism? Beware the company you keep… the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend!
There may still be people who think of themselves as “white” who dream fondly of black women aborting their babies, but I know from personal association with many families (not as father, husband, or lover, just friend of the family) that there are lots of black families having lots of babies, so there is no danger at all that some shadowy eugenics strategy is going anywhere. It does make catchy propaganda though.
SJ,
I edited your comment slightly regarding the need for another to have remediation in history. Please keep that sort of thing in check.
As for your comments about Jill Stanek, I know Jill, and have found her to be an extraordinarily gracious woman, not at all reflective of your commentary. which BTW is not like you.
“There may still be people who think of themselves as “white” who dream fondly of black women aborting their babies, but I know from personal association with many families (not as father, husband, or lover, just friend of the family) that there are lots of black families having lots of babies, so there is no danger at all that some shadowy eugenics strategy is going anywhere. It does make catchy propaganda though.”
Sure, there are lots of babies in black families but there are also lots of PP clinics in black neighborhoods.
Also since a disproportionate number of black families lack a father, many young black women get pregnant under less than idea circumstances – making them prime PP targets.
There have also been recent suggestions (and this isn’t new either) that economic aid to Africa should be dependent upon the continent’s acceptance of family planning policies – much to the chagrin of African leaders who recognize their society’s deep tradition and love of large families.
I don’t think you have a clue as to what you are talking about here.
Jill Stanek? Gracious? Good gracious, what trace of grace is there about that venal self-centered ball of political opportunism? Beware the company you keep… the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend!
Siarlys, that was truly mean spirited and offensive. I know Jill personally, and she is none of those things you mentioned. I don’t know what you have against her but I’m surprised to hear you use such words against anyone, considering your usual style of writing.
Bethany, I suspect that if I knew Jill personally, I would have a more nuanced view of her. Unfortunately, she is a public persona engaged in public discourse. I never paid much attention to her before I found links to her from this site. I found those samples of her writing to be misleading, sometimes bordering on mendacious, graceless, mean-spirited, and opportunistic in the sense that she looks first for a chance to twist the knife in her chosen opponent, and only second at what would actually be good for the nation and the people who inhabit it. I have been very underwhelmed by Jill Stanek’s posted writing. However, it might be true that she would be a perfectly congenial person to have lunch with, a gracious guest or hostess, and I have no doubt that she loves her family and friends.
Mary Catherine, as long as women, of whatever epidermal melanin concentration, are free to carry their pregnancy to term or to seek out a Planned Parenthood clinic, I am satisfied. When we EITHER have a government which uses its police power to REQUIRE abortion (for whatever reason may seem good to whatever administration is in power), OR a government with COERCES women to carry their pregnancy to term, I will worry about it.
I do have a clue. I just draw different conclusions from the clues than you do. Introducing family planning to Africa should be done very carefully, with due respect for family structure and traditions, otherwise it will fail. But it is necessary. When we reduce infant mortality and death from infectious disease, which we should, and strive to prevent and find a cure for malaria, a cause I have contributed to several times, we also need to recognize that the reason for having so many babies (half of them will not live to reach adulthood) is changing, and there really won’t be room for all of us at some point. Coercion in such matters is stupid, as well as wrong.
Siarlys, the majority of abortions in this country are coerced. Perhaps not all by the government, but it is certainly not a “free choice” as many people seem to automatically assume.
The great majority of the time, women make this choice out of desperation, fear, being manipulated and lied to, and many times under threat of violence by a partner or family member.
Where is the “choice” in that? That is coercion.
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to who wanted an abortion because they were afraid of what their parents might do if they were pregnant- or who were going to be abused or abandoned by their boyfriend/partner if they did not abort. Or if they did not abort, they would lose their job, or not be able to complete college. I don’t see where the woman is really getting such a great privilege here, when aborting is the only way to prevent yourself from losing a job, your family, your educational opportunities, or your friends.
(oh and not to mention the coercion of doctors who are authority figures and advise abortion when a defect of any kind is sought and found).
Siarlys,
” … and there really won’t be room for all of us at some point.”
I recommend that those who feel this most strongly be the first to volunteer to leave. Immediately. No coercion. Just a suggestion.
Siarlys, I find it hard to believe that someone of your intelligence believes we are running out of room on this planet.
I don’t feel it’s our place to remind Africa that they are reproducing at too great a speed. It’s non of our business. Do they tell us how to run our country? You also never know, they might wonder about our motives.
I agree with Bethany. Many abortions here are coerced. Just talk to any of the volunteers who work at Birthright and other crisis pregnancy centers. Every pregnant woman who goes to Birthright is seeking assistance to escape coercion (usually from a boyfriend or husband, but often from parents, especially in the case of teenagers). Sadly, about half of them still cave in to the pressure to abort, even after they have sought help. One easily imagines that there are many more who cave in without seeking assistance.
Who says Africans don’t have family planning? I recall an elderly nun, a missionary, on a visit to our parish telling us about her attempt to teach NFP. Her students told her women had figured that out the method out long ago but the Western drug companies had an agenda – sell the Pill and discouraged “primitive”ways.
Now we hear that Planned Parenthood in Canada is calling out for natural family info because women concerned about what the Pill has done to their bodies and is doing to the environment.
The myth of overcrowding! Why is it that Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated countries in the world has one of the highest per capita income? Somalia, with one of the lowest, is one of the poorest.
Martin Luther King was a Republican, BTW! Checkout the Population Research Institute (Steve Mosher) and family planning/HIV reduction in Uganda.
On a continent the size of Africa, with the devastating death toll from AIDS and manmade famines, talk of birth control is simply genocidal. Africa’s problems are primarily political and secondarily economic.
To really resolve that controversy, we would both need to sit down with numbers: population size, population density, percentage of land arable, soil types, available water supply… it is a complex universe with lots and lots of variables connecting in many ways.
It is worth noting that the arable land is in sufficiently short supply that it is very difficult to keep people from breaking into the last wildlife preserves to grow themselves some food. Further, if that process were allowed to run unchecked, the preserves would be quickly exhausted, and then where would the remaining surplus go?
There are many political and economic factors to be addressed, but there is a limit to sustainable population. Much can be accomplished by reforestation to reduce erosion and sustain water supplies during the dry season, but that too is hard to do if there are people trying to cut down the trees for firewood, or to carve out a farm, not five years from now when the water table is up, NOW.
Stabilizing population is a worthwhile goal, for many reasons. Failure to do so now could open a horrendous future we all want to avoid. In 1949, when China’s population was under 500 million, the new communist government rejected any sort of family planning, because Mao thought the more Chinese there were the more powerful he would be. Too late, they realized that no matter how much they industrialized, or how much they relied on agriculture, either way, China could not sustain the growth in population. We all know the measures the government took at that time. It was avoidable.
Now, to respond separately to the little pot-shots, which I’m afraid is all they are:
Janet, I haven’t asked anyone to leave this planet, and as a matter of fact, I haven’t added to the population either. If I did, I would keep it to 2-3, which is all I would RECOMMEND to anyone else. (If anyone suggested sterlizing Mary Catherine because she’s had too many, I would be the first to defend her). As it happens, I’m in love with a woman who is both opposed to abortion, and has had a complete hysterectomy as a medical necessity, so if she marries me it won’t be an issue.
Coercion is a legitimate issue. I’m sure nobody is going to advocate renewed criminal penalties for abortion when they are denouncing coercion. As I recently noted in another discussion here, I respect the work of Birthright as the highest expression of pro-life philosophy in action. Reach out to pregnant women and offer them whatever it is they need to carry their pregnancy to term. Offering a refuge from coercion is also highly appropriate. Yes indeed, CHOICE includes the right to CHOOSE to carry your pregnancy to term, no matter what anyone else wants to tell you that you should do.
If a man is upset that a woman he impregnated won’t have an abortion, he should have had a conversation about that BEFORE impregnating her. I have no sympathy for him. The same goes for the man who is upset his partner IS having an abortion. He should have made sure they were of one mind before he sowed his seed so carelessly. Either way, the pregnant woman is the one who will either have to do all the work of carrying the pregnancy for nine months, OR the one who runs all the health risks and risks of depression and remorse. So all around, it is HER choice, nobody else’s, and anyone reaching out to help her make her own choice, free of coercion, has my full support.
The same goes for Africa, and Africans. Of course they are free to choose. Assistance of various kinds can be offered. If natural family planning is working, whyever would I object to that? And it is true, American pharmaceutical companies will go to very sleazy lengths to market useless dope to people with much better options, just like American cigarette companies are doing.
SJ
Why are you still buying into the myth of overpopulation? Europe is facing trermendous underpopulation problems with France subsidizing 3 child families. France isn’t unique -Italy, Germany, and Spain don’t have enough young people to support their rapidly aging populations. Shanghai recently requested women to have more than one child because they need help in caring for the elderly.
Interesting filmfrom HLI on Africa’s Culture that discusses Western civilization’s “help” on the AIDs issue.
Even the UN, manic supporters of China’s one child policy, has reported the almost world-wide depopulation problem. See the Population Research Institute and Demographic Winter.
“If a man is upset that a woman he impregnated won’t have an abortion, he should have had a conversation about that BEFORE impregnating her. I have no sympathy for him.”
So, how is your lack of sympathy for him going to help her? The main beneficiaries of abortion on demand are not women, but rather those men who insist that they should not have to take any responsibility for the natural outcome of their sexual union with a woman. Because the woman “has a choice” she is pressured to use that choice to benefit the man. How do you propose to remedy that?
Dan,
Preach it brother, preach it!!
BHG: I think depopulation is a great idea. If we can bring the world back down to a population of two to three billion, WITHOUT killing the present population, just not replacing them all at the same rate as natural death is occurring, we would all be much healthier, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. People were meant to be in contact with open space and the cycles of nature, not all crammed into cities, much as I also like VISITING New York.
The biggest obstacle is what is commonly known as “the tragedy of the commons.” If I refrain, to leave some space or plant or edible cow or other resource undisturbed, someone else will take it, or move into the empty space, unless it is my private property, which carries its own frictions. So, none of us are going to get exactly what we want, that’s the nature of individual freedom. Still, family planning and stabilized population would be good for all of us.
http://archives.wittenburgdoor.com/archives/noahconference.html
Dan, your question is irrelevant. If a woman sees abortion as a hazard to her health, and declines to have one, then the man has nothing to worry about. Unless, of course, he WANTED her to have an abortion, in which case, he’s out of luck. Either way, my point is that his desires are of no consideration. Her health and her choices are. Don’t preach yourself around in circles, you may get lost. I can still see my way clear of the cloud of dust you’re kicking up.
Siarlys: depopulation is a hugely dangerous idea. We are already in big trouble here in the west. Check this out for starters:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070528_105313_105313
And what do you mean by “he’s out of luck”? He is free to pressure her into having an abortion, and clearly this works for him in a large number of cases. You are wrong when you claim that his desires are of no consideration.
Siarlys, the majority of women today are being coerced into having abortions that they DO NOT WANT. By the abortionists, by family members, by their peers, by boyfriends, etc. Many girls are actually forced into having abortions by their parents, sometimes at gunpoint!
Some women are having abortions against their will, and many times without even their own knowledge, by being drugged with RU-486 or some other poison by a boyfriend or family member.
How do you propose to help these women? You seem to understand that it is happening and you disagree with it, but then when asked how these women will be helped, you imply the problem is already solved? Am I misunderstanding something?
The man is most certainly not “out of luck” when it comes to abortion today. If anything, it’s the exact opposite.
Speaking of which, sexual predators of all kinds are in great luck when it comes to hiding their crimes of pedophilia if they step into a Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinic with their “girlfriend”. No questions asked, no accurate reports filed. The girl is given an abortion and sent back to be molested some more. What a service abortion offers to women and young girls.
Dan, do we really need to get into grammar lessons in order to talk to each other? The man’s desires are of neither moral nor legal standing. If coercion is taking place, then it needs to be stopped. How shall we do that? I hope you aren’t going to say, tie the woman’s hands so she can’t do what she is being coerced into doing.
My position is a consistent pro-CHOICE position. That includes the right to CHOOSE to carry the pregnancy to term, whether her boyfriend likes it or not, whether her parents like it or not. Now, do you want to discuss how we will all work together to stop women being coerced, and leave them free to choose? If so, that’s a conversation I would love to begin.
The fact is there is nothing you can do because his pressure tactics are not illegal. A typical threat would be something like “Have an abortion, or I will leave you.” What kind of choice is that for the woman? Of course, she ought to dump him right off the bat for saying something like that, (although I am amazed at how often a woman will stay with a man like that), but if she then has the child, she will be raising him/her alone.
You can whine all you like that the woman should be stronger and stand up for herself, but that doesn’t change the reality of what is going on.
Well said, Dan.
Dan. Bethany, you have yet to offer a solution. Or rather, Dan says there is none.
It is true, when a man says to a woman “Have an abortion or I’ll leave you,” she has to make a choice: “Is this man more important to me than carrying my pregnancy to term?” But we all face that level of coercion every day in our lives. We all have to choose, shall I sacrifice this for that? Or the other way around? Also, I notice none of you are talking about a man who says “Have an abortion and I’ll kill you.” That IS illegal, and also happens.
This is the point where I find a good deal of “pro-life” thinking to be blatant hypocrisy. The only practical step you might be advocating, but you are afraid to say it, is “Let’s coerce the woman into NOT having an abortion by threatening her with huge criminal penalties. That will hit her harder than some man leaving her.”
We got into this because I said I’m all for organizations like Birthright offering a pregnant woman protection and support and advocacy to NOT have an abortion. Then you start caterwauling about how many women are coerced, which was already accepted, and then you don’t have anything to offer that could be done about it. What is the point of all that?
By the way, I don’t understand why some women stay with the men they stay with either. But then, I’ve never been a woman.
This is the point where I find a good deal of “pro-life” thinking to be blatant hypocrisy. The only practical step you might be advocating, but you are afraid to say it, is “Let’s coerce the woman into NOT having an abortion by threatening her with huge criminal penalties. That will hit her harder than some man leaving her.”
Siarlys, you seem to think that it’s okay to sacrifice the needs and lives of the many for the selfish desires of the few.
How is abortion being made illegal coercing the WOMAN not to have an abortion if it is outside pressure coercing her to abort in the first place? That makes no sense. Making abortion illegal would make it easier for a woman to say no.
Is the fact that stealing is illegal mean that potential thieves are “coerced” into not stealing? That makes no sense. Coercion is to cause someone to DO something, not to NOT DO something.
By the way, this is off topic, but you have mentioned before that you think there should be a cut off point of about 16 weeks for abortion. Are you making any efforts to seriously ban abortion after the 16th week? If not, why not?
“Or rather, Dan says there is none.”
No, that is not what I said. What I said was “there is nothing *you* can do” and that is because you are “pro-choice”.
The solution is to recognize and defend the natural rights of every human being, including the unborn. The men who behave so badly do so precisely because they know that society accepts their behaviour, and then aids and abets it by providing easy access to abortion.
Let’s start at the beginning:
You raised the issue that women are being coerced to have abortions. I infer that the coercion is wrong, independently of whether the abortion is wrong or not.
If abortion is wrong, then it is wrong to coerce a woman to have one. If abortion is not wrong, then it is still wrong to coerce a woman to have one.
So I agreed, a woman should not be coerced to have an abortion. I am consistently pro-choice, not an advocate of women having abortions.
Dan says there is nothing a pro-choice person can do to stop a woman being coerced to have an abortion.
Dan and Bethany now both say that the solution to women being coerced to have abortions is to forbid them from having abortions.
I say again, that is hypocrisy.
IF your point is that abortion is always wrong, then you have a logical basis to coerce women to not have one. In that case the fact that they are coerced TO have one is secondary. The main point is, they should never have one, even if they want to.
IF the main problem is coercion, then the primary solution is to protect HER right to CHOOSE, without coercion. But, in a classic example of circular reasoning, you say that a pro-choice person can’t help prevent coercion to have an abortion, because the solution is to not give her a choice at all.
How is making abortion illegal coercing a woman? Making anything illegal is coercion, by its very nature. A criminal penalty is a way of saying “Don’t do this, even if you want to, because we will either kill you, lock you up, or make it very very painful for you.” That is coercion. Criminal law is coercion. You are advocating coercion.
Of course, coercion is morally acceptable, any time we agree that a crime is being committed. What we differ on is whether, when, or in what circumstances, abortion is a crime. I agree that even if it is not a crime, a woman still should not be coerced to have one. But, if coercion is the issue, coercion in the opposite direction is not the solution.
So, make up your mind, in a rational way, what place the issue of coercion has in your thinking about abortion, and then say something that is consistent.
Siarlys, as coercion in your mind is the only problem (not the abortions themselves), and you don’t think making it illegal and recognizing the worth and dignity of those in the womb is a solution, then you should definitely be willing to suggest some kind of other idea for a solution to the problem. I’d like to hear what your solution would be for this widespread coercion.
I’ve offered a few before, but I don’t have a complete picture of what is the real situation on the ground. I recently suggested on another of Gerard’s posts that all Birthright clinics and all Planned Parenthood clinics should be locatedin a single building, with a patient entrance opening up to both equally, and a lounge on another floor where women can relax, look over their test results and sonograms, consider information received from either one, perhaps have some internet terminals available to do their own follow-up for more information, and then go home for seven days before making up their mind. Then, they should have the option to make appointments by internet, without talking to a person who might push them, or by phone, if they want to talk to a human voice, or go back in person and talk to both.
Maybe there should be a third facility committed firmly to “we’re here to help you make up your own mind, we have no interest in what your ultimate choice is.” Call it the Dorothy Center — not named after Dorothy Day of course, I’m well aware of her experience with abortion and subsequent thoughts about it — but after the pro-choice voter in Minnesota described in Greg Boyd’s sermon, whose best friend kicked the friend’s pregnant teen daughter out of the house. Dorothy assisted her in obtaining information, considering possibilities, provided her a place to stay, and when the young lady chose to carry the pregnancy to term, supported her decision and helped with the baby. Rev. Boyd’s comment was “Dorothy is more pro-life than I am, and Dorothy votes pro-choice.” A classic example of the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.
Some of the situations you point to might call for legislation, or perhaps for tactical use of medical malpractice law. For example, if a doctor really, truly pushed on a woman the notion that abortion is the only thing to do, its standard procedure, its simple, safe, painless, guilt-free. don’t worry about it, let’s schedule the procedure right now… that’s malpractice, on many counts. Or, perhaps a law should specify what s/he needs to tell the woman to constitute “informed consent.”
I’m cynical about the motives of both the pro-life and pro-abortion lobbies when it comes to laws about notification. What each really wants is to set the stage in favor of its own preference. But, I have no doubt that women are making decisions under pressure that they regret later — probably including some induced to carry the pregnancy to term. I’m all for insuring a balanced presentation of relevant facts, and then letting the woman make the decision in an environment that insulates her from undue pressure. Keep in mind that if doctors are answerable to new informed consent laws, they will understandably ask patients to sign detailed forms acknowledging exactly what they have been told.
I definitely don’t favor making abortion illegal. The law is a blunt instrument. Making abortion illegal comes down to, we’re going to put women in prison for having abortions. I know enough about how the criminal justice system works, including some stints at hospitality houses for families visiting women in prison, to know that “my parents said they’d kick me out of the house” would NOT be an extenuating circumstance leading to aquittal. Even if every pregnant woman in the United States chose to carry her pregnancy to term, even if there was no doctor left who bothered to learn the procedure because no patient desired it, I would still leave the law exactly as it is. On the other hand, if the number of abortions were reduced to zero, that would be what you seek, would it not?
I recently suggested on another of Gerard’s posts that all Birthright clinics and all Planned Parenthood clinics should be locatedin a single building, with a patient entrance opening up to both equally, and a lounge on another floor where women can relax, look over their test results and sonograms, consider information received from either one, perhaps have some internet terminals available to do their own follow-up for more information, and then go home for seven days before making up their mind. Then, they should have the option to make appointments by internet, without talking to a person who might push them, or by phone, if they want to talk to a human voice, or go back in person and talk to both.
This could absolutely never be a solution.
First of all, abortion clinics do whatever they can to prevent women from seeing their ultrasounds. They fight and fight and fight this because they know that seeing the baby would most likely convince the woman not to abort (in fact, I think it was 90 percent of women in a study who chose life after seeing an ultrasound). Thus, less money for them.
Secondly, abortion clinics would never want a CPC close by them- they already fight them when they are within a mile of the clinic, or even in the same state. They create lies about them and try their best to get them shut down or to intimidate women from going to them- why? Because they do not want women to be informed of all of their choices. Again, if they did support women going into a CPC, they would lose business and $$$$$.
Thirdly, a pro-life center and an abortion clinic are NEVER, EVER going to work together, side by side, for any reason. They are diametrically opposed!
Pro-lifers do NOT want women going into an abortion clinic to kill their baby- do you not get that we are protecting human beings lives here? It’s not something we will ever find common ground on. I can’t believe you even created such a scenario in seriousness.
An abortion clinic is NEVER going to work side by side with a CPC because it would mean LESS MONEY for them.
Abortion is big business and is all about $$$ and is not at all about helping women.
Fourthly, pro-abortion organizations have also fought tooth and nail even a 24 hour waiting period before having an abortion. Why? Because they know if the woman has time to think about it, she is going to probably choose life. They want her to hurry and rush into her decision to kill her baby because it means more $$$ for them.
I am not sure whether you were serious when you made that suggestion or not. If you were, I am truly sorry if this offends you but you are going to have to try again with a scenario that is actually plausible…not this utopian world that you have created, where people who oppose abortion on the grounds of it being murder, and those who want abortion on the basis of it being a “woman’s right”, are ever going to come to some kind of mutual understanding and work together. It’s just. not. going. to. happen.
Utopian worlds are the starting point — they define what is desirable, then we all have to scale back to what is feasible. What I suggested would protect a woman from being COERCED. Both the CPC and the Planned Parenthood partisans accuse each other of coercion, and I suspect that both have some basis to the accusation. After all, if you reject my proposal BECAUSE “a pro-life center and an abortion clinic are NEVER, EVER going to work together, side by side, for any reason. They are diametrically opposed! Pro-lifers do NOT want women going into an abortion clinic to kill their baby- do you not get that we are protecting human beings lives here?” … well, that gives me the impression you would feel perfectly justified in doing anything short of kidnapping to stop a woman from having an abortion.
So, you can’t blame the clinics that offer the abortion, you are both complicit in a tug-of-war here. You both feel morally justified too. If nothing else, my proposal shows you both up for the partisans you both are, more concerned with winning your point than with a woman making an uncoerced choice.
I suppose the next possibility would be to establish “Dorothy’s Houses” some distance from the clinics of both partisans, offer basic testing services without prejudice, offer addresses for all the local clinics, with notes as to what philosophy motivates each… But really, that would require a government-established straightjacket within which all of the diametrically opposed services would have to coexist. So maybe we are back to, everyone with a strong conviction should be out there offering what they have to offer, and each woman has a legal right to CHOOSE among them.
Its not entirely true that CPC’s can never coexist right next door to clinics offering abortions. Surely you know that Norma Jean McCorvey was working as a receptionist at a Planned Parenthood clinic, or something of the sort, and began spending time talking to people at the pro-life office next door, eventually finding more and better love and fellowship at the latter, and is now a featured speaker on the pro-life circuit. Surely you also know that Norma Jean McCorvey was the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade.
None of this addresses the coercion that takes place at home, where her “right to choose” becomes *his* right to influence her “choice”.
Sure I did. Just as there are shelters for battered women, there should be shelters where women can go to escape compulsion (also from their parents) to have an abortion they don’t want to have. These shelters should also be available to women who want an abortion, if their sexual partner is saying “Don’t have an abortion or I’ll kill you.” I am familiar with the case of a man whose response to his girlfriend having had an abortion was to deliberately shoot her 4 year old daughter, then shoot her, then shoot himself.
I’m not talking about violent coercion. I am talking about the much more common case of emotional coercion, for which a shelter will be no help at all.
If you want examples of violence, I can dig out some examples where the woman and/or her fetus were deliberately targetted precisely because someone did not want that baby to see the light of day. This is why we need fetal homicide laws.
Most states have fetal homicide laws. But you know what Dan? There is just no way that any number of laws can protect every single person from every possible emotional coercion from each and every person they love or have associated themselves with. At some point, individuals have to be responsible for the choices they make. Society can’t set every little detail straight. We can offer options and legal rights and restraining orders and shelters, but people get themselves into situations, and people have to take some initiative when they are ready to walk out of them.
No, of course we can’t have laws to cover emotional coercion, but neither should we have laws that aid and abet emotional coercion. My point is that, even if we do not directly consider the personhood of the unborn, the availability of abortion on demand does more harm to women than good, because it changes men’s attitudes towards women and towards unborn children.
What this shows us is that the natural rights of the unborn are well aligned with the natural rights of pregnant women. They are not at all opposed to each other, as some people in the pro-choice camp like to claim.
By the way, I currently live in a country where there is no fetal homicide law, and where there have been some horrible cases of fetal homicide.