If Anti Abortionists Would Do It Right, They Could Stop Most Abortions.

The screaming of protesters at clinics,  pompous white men claiming moral high ground and sanctimonious Popes and preachers are missing their target.

All make the argument the fetus is a human being.  That argument is supposed to convince young women not to abort.

Today an article said the ultrasound image should be magnified and shown to pregnant women.  Instead of shouting louder, antiabortionists should go analytical,  make a hypothetical model of the woman’s mind.

While, obviously, I’ve never been pregnant, I think I have a more accurate assessment of a pregnant woman’s thinking than antiabortionists.  I think the pregnant woman does see the fetus as a human in some sense and to her, that’s the problem.

I’ll try a metaphor.  If you were in the woods and a grizzly bear appeared in attack mode, you might momentarily think of the bear as a beautiful creature of nature and want it to live.  But, you would quickly realize it is a competitor for your life and would kill it.

At certain times in a woman’s life, a fetus is the most welcome gift of her life.  At the wrong time, it’s the grizzly bear threatening to take away the life she has worked and hoped for.

A wise abortion opponent would recognize this latter situation and offer assistance to this woman, attempt to make possible both the life hoped for and the child.  Countries that want more children do this.

Screaming, “It’s murder”, does not address what’s on her mind.

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to If Anti Abortionists Would Do It Right, They Could Stop Most Abortions.

  1. .e says:

    Jon certainly there were pro-life activists that made the news looked as you describe. But, from what I have witnessed here in Fargo, the people making a stand are much like the civil rights activists of the 60′s. Generally they are standing stoically, many praying. The great masses that will descend on Washington DC this weekend are also peaceful. I have seen some very ugly counter-protesters that sound like what you describe.

    Also, locally, First Choice is one great organization to support these women who choose life.

  2. .e says:

    There are 2 fronts to this battle. At the door of the abortion facility, certainly the point is to draw attention to the reality of the death that occurs there , but also to reach out to those going in the door a choice for life.

    The other front is in the public square. Again the mission is to educate the people of the truth. So that as a nation we choose life.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 2:48 “Again the mission is to educate the people to the truth.”

      That’s the very message that defeats antiabortionists, that they know the truth and pregnant women must accept it. My point is, the women going to the clinic have a different truth, the life they aspired to can only be recovered by getting an abortion. If the antiabortion political operatives could see that woman’s truth and deal with things from her perspective, they might get somewhere.

  3. 50 million murdered unborn babies and counting since January 1973.
    Check out this site:
    “The Beautiful and Efficient Anatomy of a Pregnancy”
    It is written by Alexander Tsiaras.
    If your mother had aborted you…….no Freethinkers blog.
    No more fussing about the horrible God who rules and reigns in spite of your spouting,

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      buffalogal 2:50 Ah yes, the “murder” message. Exactly the one that should be avoided to make inroads toward reducing abortions. Women resolved to get abortions know the truth, what they wanted in life is threatened, calling it murder will not change their perception of their future.

    • Margaret Walsh says:

      Access to affordable birth control would do alot to lower abortion rates and if religious organization would bud out of the birth control ban…….

      • Stanta says:

        Birth control pills, target, walmart $9.condoms less the a $1. One is the price of two glasses of wine at the bar, the other is 1/4th cost of that glass. What we can’t do is sit in the bedroom and remind them to use them.

        • entech says:

          What we can do is remind them that doing so is a sin :) according to some religious groups.

          Abstinence is the only answer, only one known case where it failed and that a couple thousand years ago, some doubt in my mind about that one.

  4. Henry says:

    Jon: “If Anti Abortionists Would Do It Right, They Could Stop Most Abortions.”

    The scourge of abortion is blamed on the pro-life crowd.

    Skepticism is set aside by the “freethinker”. Assumption is embraced by the “freethinker”. They leave high potential for erring on the side of human death. They don’t know and don’t care.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 3:18 “Skepticism is set aside by the ‘freethinker’..They don’t know and don’t care.”

      The part about not caring applies to antiabortionists. If they cared, they would try to see the world from the point of view of the pregnant women instead of only their point of view. Give the woman the chance to achieve her goals with a child and she may agree to no abortion. (I know most antiabortionists will not do that, there is no hate involved.)

      • Matt says:

        Well aparently they care or they wouldnt be doing anything about it…and fyi there are groups out there who reach out to support and help. If a baby would ruin their lives then these women should not be sexually active. even on birth control there is a chance of pregnancy. How about taking some responsibility for our actions.

  5. .e says:

    It is a lie that women recover their aspirations by getting an abortion. Why are the incidence of depression and suicide higher among post-abortive women?
    I do suspect that in general, men cannot appreciate what it is like to carry a baby. Wanted or not, you are a mother from the instance of conception. Whether your child is alive or dead, you will always be a mother. The very physical presence of life within you makes it very different than the experience of men.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 3:19 “It is a lie that women recover their aspirations by getting an abortion. Why are the incidence of depression and suicide higher among post abortive women?”

      I don’t know if women recover their aspirations or not. I’m saying that is what they are attempting to do and that is why they pay no attention to shouts of “murder”. Second, I’ve never read the study that says women who have had abortions have more depression, etc. Exactly who are they compared to, women who were not pregnant or women who gave birth? Is it more common than postpartum depresssion?

      • Margaret Walsh says:

        From my knowledge base, the increase in depression and suicide in some women who have aborted in the past is due to women who have emotional problems in the first place. Emotionally vulnerable women are more likely to be victimized and taken advantage of. Lack of education and opportunity also plays a role.

        I also place some of the blame on the protesters who degrade and humiliate the women who have to run their gauntlet just to enter the clinic. The politics of abortion is not blameless either.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Margaret 11:28 “due to women whohave emotional problems in the first place.”

          Thanks for pointing out this possibility. I remembered it but forgot to post when I was exchanging with .e. Without knowing whether the population of women who seek abortions has the same, lower or higher frequency of mental issues than the average of all women before they experienced abortion, whatever numbers are put out there are completely meaningless.

  6. .e says:

    My statement is antidotal. Studies on this have been difficult if not impossible. Here is some reasons for that.

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/limitations-on-post-abortion-research-why-we-know-so-little

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 3:40 “My statement is anitiodal.”

      I appreciate your sharing this. The statement about more frequent depression is repeated as if it were a statistical study.

      I’m sure research on women who have had abortions is as difficult and that about gay people. It is a population pushed underground and into secrecy by demonization. It would be so much better if women who have had abortions were not so demonized–we could find out if the really have greater problems than women who give birth or not.

  7. .e says:

    Jon do you have personal knowledge that all pro-life supportors do not care or sympathize with these mothers?

  8. .e says:

    By the way, the grizzly bear metaphor made me ill.

    What is the source of the mother’s anguish? What circumstances brought her to that door? What can be done to prevent this dilema?
    .
    .

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e Two good posts.

      Early in my blog I used a phrase, “antiabortionists should go anaytical” and try to picture an abstract approach to all women in general, what most of them thinking might thinking and what a different approach might be. It is a policy approach. Thus, I don’t say all abortion customers are necessarily identical nor so all antiabortionists represent the sceamers I have seen.

      I know the grizzly bear metaphor is grim, but there simply can be no doubt an unexpected baby is a competition to a young woman’s other aspirations.

      “What circumstances brought her to that door? What can be done to prevent this dilemma?”

      My sentiments exactly. I know well women who work in the business and they tell me there is one common theme of their patients, they have resolve. They have thought this through and have no intension of turning back. They are not conflicted. But, as you point out, they would be better off if they did not have to have an abortion. If they have no interest in having a baby, they would be better off by never getting pregnant.

      I don’t know that there is a prefect answer, but, as I wrote, there are countries who have programs to encourage births. These involve money, helping pay for births and child care. This just has to be part of the answer.

      • entech says:

        they would be better off by never getting pregnant. This seems to me to be the sensible solution, yet efficient sex education and efficient contraception are considered almost as bad. There are movements in Australia to remove sex education from the curriculum ( I am sure I have read of the same things in the U.S.) and every time the subject of contraception comes up it gets twisted around until every form of contraception is actually a form of abortion.
        Control seems to a large part of an ulterior motive.

        • Margaret Walsh says:

          Comprehensive sex education and access to birth control is why alot of European countries have a much lower unwed mother birth rate….especially for teens.

          It certainly does not teach kids to have sex, if people needed to be taught how to have sex the earth’s population would be much lower or we never would have been here at all.

  9. buzz marick says:

    Take matters to hand. That way you are involving no one else. You have total responsibility for your actions, which is the way it should be.

  10. Michael Ross says:

    “All make the argument the fetus is a human being. That argument is supposed to convince young women not to abort.”

    During the Roe v Wade hearings the argument was “we can never know when human life begins”. I thought that was long abandoned as the advancing science of fetology has proven the full humanity of the unborn child. The fetus (little one) is treated as a patient just as is the mother. The argument has shifted from life or not life to “quality” and “viability” of the unborn child. If the child is not “viable” or may not have a “quality” life then it ok to kill the kid. If you are arguing from a life/non-life then you are still in the ’70s.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 6:11 “I thought that was long abandoned..has proven the full humanity of the unborn child.”

      No, nothing has changed. There is no evidence one fertilized cell is a human being. Such an idea is a religious concept.

  11. .e says:

    Back to basics, to move the nation forward, these 4 things need to be promoted to our youth in order:

    Finish high school
    Get a job
    Get married
    Have babies

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 12:26 Those are good ones. For those opposed to abortion, there needs to be a recognition of three facts:

      1.) About 3/4 of abortions are purchanced by low income women, the majority over 20 years old. (They are not nieve teenagers.)

      2.) The cost of raising a child to the age of 18 is about $200,000.

      3.) The cost of an abortion is around $600.

      These numbers drive the demand for abortion. Calling it “murder” does not change these numbers. Raising the cost of abortions by legistlative tricks like adding requirements will not change these numbers much.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      CTO 12:45 Thanks for the first time post. I encourage you to post again. Mostly, however, this site is about people writing down their thoughts on issues, not just posting links. In fact, links only posts often get sorting into the spam with the 1000 per day that come in here and are never seen.

      I did look at your link, however, and would encourage other readers to do so also. It points out the relationship of abortions to incomes, low income women purchase most abortions. Screeming “murder” does not change numbers.

  12. Abortion IS murder! If a two- day old baby is killed by its mother or father they are arrested and prosecuted; if the unborn baby is killed it is legal. Does that make sense?
    It is a baby before it is born as much as it is ababy after it is born….and if you would check out the website I gave you perhaps the scales might fall from your eyes….even a few.

    • Henry says:

      Kay: “Does that make sense?”

      No. The abortionists are preying on the loose assumption that human life does not begin until after the birth canal. They assume. Usually when society is forced to assume, it is on the side of life (i.e. death row inmates with free multiple appeals. Self-defense-the victim has certain obligations to ensure their attacker’s life is properly protected, almost to what seems an unreasonable burden.) Life is upheld to the burden of some of the living, except for abortion. The abortionists get a pass.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      buffalogal 5:09 My point is, calling one cell a human, and destroying it “murder”, does not stop people from destroying. What would stop is it understanding the costs faced by the woman and helping her deal with them. Shouting “murder” is just a waste of time.

      The consensus is there were about as many abortions before Roe as there have been since. The number of fatalies from botched abortions is lower. Women have made their calculations since forever. They always will.

      • Margaret Walsh says:

        Unfortunately, alot of abortions before Roe V Wade were done by back alley providers with no attempt at sterility. Alot of these procedures left women (usually poor women) dead, maimed or sterile from pelvic inflammatory disease.

        Affluent women could fly to another country and have the procedure medically done. There were a handful of sympathetic Doctors around the USA but they put themselves at great professional risks by doing abortions on the side.

        For women who had insurance, there were some Doctors who would do a D & C (Dilation & Curettage) for a supposed miscarriage or “fibroids” or some other reason.

        • Henry says:

          Margaret: “Unfortunately, alot of abortions before Roe V Wade were done by back alley providers with no attempt at sterility. Alot of these procedures left women (usually poor women) dead, maimed or sterile from pelvic inflammatory disease.”

          Doesn’t sound like much has changed with the luxuries of RVW:

          http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/kermit-gosnell-trial-abortion-house-horrors

          • Henry says:

            http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/kermit-gosnell-trial-abortion-house-horrors
            “After 1993…the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.”

            Maybe that is why I cannot find the Fargo Abortion Clinic on the ND Health Department list of healthcare providers. They are off the radar. Special rights, just like the homosexual agenda wants.

  13. Anne says:

    I heard a great explanation for Roe v. Wade on the news the other night that I believe is worth sharing and it looks like Jon started this point for me.

    Before RVW, abortions were happening. They were not legal or done with any consideration of harm and a lot of women were killed. RVW was established to make them legal/medical and make it safe for women.
    There are more women today that die from complications in childbirth than those that have an abortion. In fact, abortion is not even in the top 100 causes of death for women. It is because it was made to be a safe, legal practice. If states continue to push for anti-abortion law to be passed (as some are), abortion will not stop. It will become what it was before RVW was passed – harmful to women. It’s a safety issue.

    It is up to the individual woman to decide what to do with her own person – plain and simple.

    • Margaret Walsh says:

      Anne, you are right on target with your wonderful post!

    • Henry says:

      “It is up to the individual woman to decide what to do with her own person – plain and simple.”

      That is untrue. The individual woman cannot do any conceivable action with her own person. Some actions are illegal as they affect other people (i.e. using drugs, not buying sufficient clothing to cover herself, yelling “fire” in certain places when one does not exist). This is not plain and simple.

    • entech says:

      It is up to the individual woman to decide what to do with her own person – plain and simple.
      That is untrue. The individual woman cannot do any conceivable action with her own person

      Actually it is true, even if illegal a woman could still go on the roadway without”sufficient clothing to cover herself”, How much is sufficient? the skimpiest of costumes in Brazil or neck to knee in Saudi – why should it affect anyone, you don’t like – you don’t look.

      The actual meaning is that a woman should not be able to do anything that does not have the approval of Henry or any other control and dominance minded person like him.

  14. Margaret Walsh says:

    To me, the anti-abortion movement has no credibility until they become involved and concerned about what kind of life the fetus, now child has. The Anti’s want to see every fetus born and then they forget about the child once it is born. They scream about welfare handouts, lazy parents, education and access to birth control, insurance/medical assistance for the child, vouchers for child care, Food Stamps, unemployment benefits, Home Start and other early childhood education programs, WIC (Women’s Infant’s & Children’s) program for the poor, access to good school’s and post secondary education and just some relief once in a while from the kids, including drop off centers for single parents with a fussy/cranky baby who are at risk for abuse! ….and on and on and on!

    In my medical administration career, MOST women struggle with the enormous problem of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and the question of aborting or carrying the fetus to full term. Then comes another diffucult decision, keep or adopt. No matter how many open adoption resources I had for my staff to discuss with patients, I am aware of only one who went through with an adoption.

    I faced this keep or adopt decision almost 40 years ago and it is still the most difficult decision I ever made to keep my child but I never regretted my decision. He is my gay son and a talented, published writer who teaches at a University. It is damn hard to give up a child you carried for 9 months.

    Before I get some vitrolic filled responses, ask yourself if you would be willing to help a Mom for a few years…..the real help of your time and dependability because they often lack this essential component in order to become a good parent.

    • Henry says:

      “The Anti’s want to see every fetus born and then they forget about the child once it is born.”

      A broad, sweeping generalization. The strongest argument used is a logical fallacy?

      • Margaret Walsh says:

        Generalization Henry?

        I certainly saw and read exactly I wrote on Faux News and editorials written to numerous newspapers and web stories. In one sentence or breath the Anti condemned abortion and the next moment they condemned lazy single Moms for being on the dole and lapping up all the government could possibly give them. Does evey anti feel that way? I would hope not but the obnoxious vocal ones get all the media attention.

  15. .e says:

    Condoms are cheap. Sure doesn’t seem to lower the abortion rate. I bet that even if you gave all fertile women birth control pills for free, even to the point of delivering it to their home, the abortion rate would hardly take a dip.

  16. .e says:

    “What we can’t do is sit in the bedroom and remind them to use them.”
    Exactly my point. The pro- choicers keep talking about contraceptives being the magic bullet to make abortion rare. Not going to happen.

    • entech says:

      Remove all objections to contraception and see the result. To many abortion and contraception are synonymous, twin evils.
      Not only remove objections but educate people on how to use them properly and effectively.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        entech 3:07 It’s murder, it’s sin, it’s the work of the Devil. Then, protesters say, the “abortion industry is making million$. They miss to one thing women have in mind. Abortion is 1/100th the cost of a baby. It’s the women who buy abortion are making (saving) more off of it than the abortion providers.

        The solution is to compensate the women for giving birth. If protesters are not willing to do that, which I know they are not, then go home and forget about it.

        • Henry says:

          Jon is placing a price tag on a human.

          • Margaret Walsh says:

            Henry, are you making an unsupported generalization of Jon’s statement?

          • entech says:

            Margaret, Henry is an unsupported generalisation and a logical fallacy all rolled up into one heterogeneous mass of contradiction.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 5:33 “Jon is placing a price tag on a human.”

            A “price” is the number used when something is bought and sold. That is costs $200,000 to raise a child to the age of 18 is a cost, not a price. But, like a price, it has a dollar sign in front of it. The $600 is the price of an abortion.

            Right to lifers do not, generally, support spending tax money on social programs, nor for help to women who are pregnant and cannot afford the $200,000. Right to lifers calculate, apparently, the cost of helping these women to finance raising a child is just too high–the life of the child (children) is not worth that cost and its better for women to pay for cheaper abortions.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “Right to lifers calculate, apparently, the cost of helping these women to finance raising a child is just too high–the life of the child (children) is not worth that cost and its better for women to pay for cheaper abortions.”

            That is a hypothetical argument. The decision to abort is made before the right-to-life crowd is approached for money to raise the child if that is genuinely the issue. Beyond that, resources do exist and are offered to get the child raised. There are a number of excellent organizations that help in this regard, and they are not difficult to find. With that, your argument is not only hypothetical, but it is wrong.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:45 “That is a hypothetical argument.”

            No it is not hypothetical. It is real time. Right now, right-to-life groups could be raising millions of dollars to assist women who are or will become pregnant. Instead, they are doing what they enjoy more, marching in DC. Right-to-life people could be lobbying for public health care for women. But, they are marching in DC.

  17. entech says:

    It does seem to be a matter of convenience for some definitions

    Picked up this from a small piece in an Australian paper.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/25/catholic-hospital-legal-argument-fetus-not-legally-person-under-state-law/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>