Analysis: Guttmacher Institute Equates Abortion Limits With Forced Abortion

C-FAM (Friday Fax) ^ | November 9, 2012 | Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

[SumProVita]

In June of this past year, photos of a Chinese woman and her dead child flooded the Internet, accompanied by the account of how Feng Jianmei was abducted from her home and forced to undergo a late-term abortion by local family-planning officials. Mrs. Feng’s story spread across international news headlines and provoked outrage by national governments. The European Parliament issued a terse statement calling the incident “unacceptable.”

A recent article makes the case that any law which restricts abortion--such as waiting periods or parental consent--is the equivalent of China's brutal forced abortion policy that victimized Mrs. Feng. The article from the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion group Planned Parenthood, says this because both represent “coercion in reproductive decision making.” According to their analysis, “forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy she wants or to continue a pregnancy that she does not want both violate the same human rights.”

[SumProVita]

"In their attempt to characterize restrictions on abortion in the United States as human rights violations comparable to forced abortion in China, the author completely ignores the argument that abortion itself is a violation of the human rights of the child, despite the fact that many Americans believe that life begins at conception."

We ARE indeed in a battle. Read the rest at the link...

[rarestia]

The logic... it hurts my head!

[heartwood]

Which is worse, which is worse, bearing a child you don’t want, or are conflicted about having, at least for the time, or someone killing your child that you want and love? That’s a tough one.

These people do not understand, or pretend not to understand that in order for a government to compel something, that something must first be established as a good or necessary thing, like education or taxes.

Abortion will never be compelled unless it is seen as a good thing. And that may well happen here - a Boston judge backed off her initial decision to require a schizophrenic woman to have an abortion, sedating her or duping her as necessary, and a Nevada judge is holding hearings this month about a pregnant woman named Elizabeth Bauer who suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome...it is not a good thing to have someone mentally defective bear a child, is it?

[SumProVita]

Which is worse, which is worse, bearing a child you don’t want, or are conflicted about having, at least for the time, or someone killing your child that you want and love? That’s a tough one.

_____________________________________

I don’t think it’s tough at all. Which is worse... the killing of a child made in the image and likeness of God...or the killing of a child made in the image and likeness of God?

Here’s an interesting tidbit that many people are unaware of:

“Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1980’s was contacted by Harvard University because they wanted her to give a commencement speech. She refused. The University contacted her again explaining to her that they would be willing to not only pay for her trip from India to the United States, but would also be willing to donate 1 million dollars to her favorite charity. She decided to take them up on their offer.

During the commencement, when it came time for her to deliver her speech; she approached the microphone and said, “Love God, Love Neighbor” – she then sat down to which the whole place erupted in applause and all those present took to their feet – this ovation last more than 3 minutes.

After she had spoken at Harvard, she was boarding a plane back to India, a woman reporter approached her with the question, “Mother Teresa, do you think there will ever be woman president in the United States?” Mother Teresa responded immediately and without missing a beat, “NO,” she said, “you already aborted her.” Very sober and strong words from a future saint about our American way of life.”