Frankly, calling abortion (the termination of a life within a woman’s uterus) “reproductive health,” is a ridiculous – but effective – way of obfuscating the realities. A January 18 report from the Associated Press (which excludes California because its government does not provide data) estimates that in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions – down from a peak of 1.6 million abortions in 1990, but still happening in 20% of the cases where conception has occurred.
Half of the 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 and older, while only 17% are teenagers. Since abortion became legal, there have been roughly 50 million abortions in the US, and more than one-third of adult women are estimated to have had at least one.
“Planned Un-Parenthood,” as I call that group, is launching a major effort to elect so-called “pro-abortion rights” candidates to Congress and the White House in November. According to the Wall Street Journal (January 22, 2008), they plan to spend $10 million to elect candidates who back its priorities. We are just in the beginning of a world wide jihadist movement to eradicate Western Civilization, and they want to focus only on protecting a woman’s right to kill the life growing inside her body. I don’t love special interest groups.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008, the Santa Barbara News-Press published a half-page ad from the “Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition” concerned with what would happen to women in America “if Roe Fell?” They list: “They may have to resort to back alleys, they’ll be forced to travel to states with less restrictive laws, they may be prosecuted for self-induced abortions, [and] poor and low income women will suffer the most.” It is signed by just about every group in Santa Barbara that is dominated by women (except, of course, by religious or pro-life groups).
When I woke up to that ad I thought immediately that “if Roe Fell” maybe women would be more circumspect about when and with whom they had sex; that women might show some proactive responsibility by using the birth control pill, an IUD, etc., or have the maturity to make sure their sex partner (or, if you’re in college, it’s just a hook-up partner) uses a condom. I also thought that maybe they’d have the compassion not to make an innocent child experience capital punishment, and instead be offered for adoption to a two-parent, mature and responsible married couple and thereby create a family instead of terminating a life.
Instead, we’ve got a culture that disdains personal responsibility and elevates freedom from consequences and the impact on others be damned. Think about the so-called reality shows which have young adults mixing and matching sexual exploits, and the popularity of television programs like “Sex in the City” and “Friends.” Sharon wrote to me recently about the second American Idol pilot episode: “Auditioning was a young man who had made a promise to his father never to kiss or be intimate with a girl until his wedding night. He wears a key around his neck that fits into a heart that hangs around his father’s neck. His father will give this heart to his son’s bride when the time comes. It was all very sweet and I admired him so much for his dedication to this promise. I thought that his wife would be a very lucky woman.”
“I was shocked at American Idol’s spin on this young man’s promise. I thought they would respond to it as romantic. Instead, they essentially mocked him. He did not get selected, and when he asked if the judges had any advice, they told him to go kiss a girl. He told his father he would just keep working on his voice and come back next year. The announcer said maybe next year he’ll come back as a man instead of a boy.”
“I was shocked. To me he already was a man. It takes a man to make a sacrifice like that. He was easily 25. In today’s world, boys as young as 12 are having sex, so does that make them men? Who makes the standards on what makes a man today? And does American Idol have any right to make that call?”
About 13 percent of American women are black, yet new figures from the Centers for Disease Control show they account for 35 percent of the abortions and the overwhelming majority of children born to black women are “illegitimate.” Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr., calls herself a “reformed murderer” for undergoing two abortions when she was young. According to the AP report, she is now an outspoken anti-abortion campaigner. She says that the best way to reduce abortions among black women is to dissuade more of them from premarital sex. “‘We give free sex education, free condoms, free birth control,’ she complained. ‘That’s almost like permission to have free sex, and the higher the rate of sexual activity, the higher the rate of unintended pregnancy.’”
Ms. King is so right. The Denver Post (January 7, 2008) reported that pregnant students in a Denver high school are asking for at least four weeks of maternity leave so “they can heal, bond with their newborns, and not be penalized with unexcused absences.” These are unmarried teenagers whose children will now be in ‘other than mom’-care, most likely grow up in poverty, and not have a dad in their lives. Meanwhile, society is telling these girls that their actions should have no consequences on them…what about their children?! The do-gooders who back up these young girls refuse to acknowledge this disaster cast upon innocent children, and instead propagate more such irresponsible behavior by demanding free child-care and elevating these girls to a sacred status.
It would seem that reinstituting shame for being a “bad girl” and having sexual intercourse out-of-wedlock (it works…there were no pregnancies in either of the two high-schools I went to in Long Island, NY), and pushing the heck out of adoption might be better for women in the long run than unfettered abortion rights.
What is ignored or denied by Planned UN-Parenthood types are the wide range of emotional problems that women who have had abortions suffer. To get up to speed with these facts, check out www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp.
Nicole wrote to me about watching a popular morning television talk show where the topic was “hooking up.” “On stage was a fourteen year old girl who mentioned that her friends were having oral sex at the age of 11 and that she had hooked up too. Evidently, when the mother expressed some anger, the host and the ‘expert’ ganged up on her telling her how to be more understanding and go off with her and buy condoms.”
“That’s when I shut the television off. I grew up with parents who had a zero tolerance policy for sexual activity outside of marriage. Sure, when I was a child our conversations about sex were calm and relaxed. We talked openly about the consequences and reasons to wait. However, when I became a teenager I knew that if I had sex and got pregnant, I was on my own. I knew that if I had sex they would not pay for college. I knew that if I had sex there were not only going to be consequences with my parents…and you know what? As a teenager, losing the love and respect of my parents was enough of a consequence for me to abstain when my friends were not.”
“Parents need to be stern about sex outside of marriage – not compassionate. If my parents had told me in advance that I could come to them after I had sex and all I would receive was a big hug and a trip to the drug store, I would have had no reason to abstain.”
Perhaps we should go back to thinking about sex as “making love,” and then wait ’til we actually are…making love.TrackBack URI