Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Executioner’s Hill--The pro-abortion movement has a dirty little secret
www.catholicexchange.com ^ | 9/06/03 | Steve Kellmeyer

Posted on 09/06/2003 7:25:14 PM PDT by Polycarp

"The pro-abortion movement has a dirty little secret. More abortion opponents have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters...the NAF reports 125 incidents of less serious physical injury against abortionists. The NAF does not bother to mention that abortion-rights supporters committed 1001 similar incidents of less serious physical injury against pro-lifers during the same time period.

The Executioner’s Hill
9/06/03


Paul Hill is dead. Like many newborns in China, the former Presbyterian minister who gunned down an abortionist and his bodyguard was killed by lethal injection. The are differences, of course. Paul Hill is a murderer. The Chinese newborns aren’t.

Paul Hill got his injection intravenously. The newborns get their poisoned needle through the base of the skull or directly into the heart. In the US, where technology is much more advanced, we shake our heads at the barbaric Chinese. We know enough deliver the baby feet-first, punch a knife through the base of the skull and suction out the child’s brains before the head pops out of the birth canal. Contemplating the beauty of a woman exercising her right to choose can bring tears to one’s eyes.

As far as we know, Paul Hill didn’t cry when he pulled out his shotgun. The state has the right to execute an unrepentant murderer, and Paul Hill was certainly that. Some fear his execution may cause problems, though. The fear is that executing a murderer like Paul Hill will set off a wave of violence. It seems likely that this fear is justified. You see, for thirty years, a concerted effort has been made to paint pro-lifers as wild-eyed, violent fanatics. By concentrating on aberrations like Paul Hill, the media increases the likelihood that someone, somewhere, will again decide to kill a pro-life advocate simply because she is pro-life.

The word “again” is used deliberately. The pro-abortion movement has a dirty little secret. More abortion opponents have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters. The National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) own statistics bear this out. While the NAF reports 81,973 incidents of violence since 1977, nearly 68,000 (that is, 82%) of these “violent” acts consisted entirely of picketing. Yes, that’s right. Walking a picket line is a violent act (sshhhhh! Don’t tell your union). Twelve percent were harassing phone calls or e-mails, while an additional 2.8% consisted of trespass, stink-bomb attacks, and similarly juvenile stunts. The remaining three percent of attacks is where the problems lie.

When you finish drilling through the smoke and mirrors, it turns out that in twenty-six years of opposition to legal abortion, there have been 27 incidents of deadly or extreme physical violence against abortionists: seven murders, seventeen attempted murders and three attempted kidnappings. That’s about one a year. Certainly nothing to be proud of from a movement that claims to venerate life. In that sense, people like Paul Hill are news.

However, in that same time period, there were 337 incidents of deadly or extreme violence committed by supporters of legal abortion against those acting on pro-life convictions. In 1999 alone, American abortionists killed six of their own girlfriends and one wife. These women refused to have abortions, you see. As these seven adults were murdered, four children were also murdered to prevent their becoming witnesses. Now, admittedly, 1999 was not a good year for women who happened to be pregnant by an abortionist. But it is an unusual six-month period where we don’t read a small squib buried on page C-6 about some red-blooded American man who injured or killed his girlfriend because she refuses to exercise her constitutional rights. Really, this kind of thing is barely news.

Real news has more meat to it. For instance, the NAF reports 125 incidents of less serious physical injury against abortionists. The NAF does not bother to mention that abortion-rights supporters committed 1001 similar incidents of less serious physical injury against pro-lifers during the same time period. Clearly, the NAF has a nose for news.

While pro-life organizations regularly repudiate the violence done in their name, there is not one documented case of any pro-abortion organization decrying the mayhem perpetrated by their supporters. Pro-lifers engaged in violence or mayhem that’s news. Pro-abortionists engaged in violence or mayhem that’s not news.

We may, from these rules, make the obvious conclusion: violence and mayhem are only to be expected from abortion supporters. You know the old story: dog bites man is nothing. But man bites dog? Run it, page one, below the fold. News reporting tells us what is considered normal and what isn’t. Another abortionist killed his pregnant girlfriend? Hmmm, well. Pass the comics, honey. Anything in sports?

We can’t blame the media for not reporting this trifling kind of event. It really isn’t news. There really isn’t anything else to say.

The leading cause of death among pregnant women is homicide. Studies show that roughly 25% of the pregnant women who die each year are murdered. Meanwhile, studies also show that women who have an abortion are up to four times more likely to die within twelve months than is the general population. Their rates of suicide skyrockets, as does their drug use and general risk-taking behavior.

On the other hand, pregnant women who give birth are less likely to die than the general population and less likely to indulge in risk-taking behavior.

Apparently, when you choose to preserve someone’s life, you choose life not just for the other person, but for yourself as well.

Paul Hill would have done well to remember that.


Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally known author and lecturer, specializing in apologetics and catechetics. He has written several Scripture studies, an art study, a study of John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and designed the Calendar of Indulgences and the Neophyte Calendar. His books, talks and teaching tools are available through
Bridegroom Press



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; hesbaaaack; paulhill

1 posted on 09/06/2003 7:25:15 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AAABEST; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; ...
More [pro-lifers] have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters...the NAF reports 125 incidents of less serious physical injury against abortionists. The NAF does not bother to mention that abortion-rights supporters committed 1001 similar incidents of less serious physical injury against pro-lifers during the same time period.

Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, just send me a FReepmail. Please realize that some of my "ping" posts are long.)

2 posted on 09/06/2003 7:28:38 PM PDT by Polycarp ("Lex mala, lex nulla." (An evil law, is no law). --Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
While the NAF reports 81,973 incidents of violence since 1977, nearly 68,000 (that is, 82%) of these “violent” acts consisted entirely of picketing.

It's also worth noting that violence against abortion clinics and doctors was almost non-existent until peaceful picketing in front of clinics was severely constrained by the FACE Act and the RICO lawsuits against Operation Rescue.

3 posted on 09/06/2003 7:33:15 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Curious statistics ping.
4 posted on 09/06/2003 7:33:42 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
In addition, thousands of fathers of babies aborted by underage girls go scot-free every year even though they have committed statutory rape, and in most of those cases coerced the underage women into having abortions to literally bury the evidence.
5 posted on 09/06/2003 7:35:39 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
BTTT
6 posted on 09/06/2003 7:36:33 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Great article and thanks for the info.
7 posted on 09/06/2003 7:42:28 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The statistics will never be known, but I suspect that a high percentage of abortions are primarily the "choice" of the parents or the boyfriend, not the pregnant mother.
8 posted on 09/06/2003 7:47:25 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Cicero
I suspect that a high percentage of abortions are primarily the "choice" of the parents or the boyfriend, not the pregnant mother.

Mary Matlin had a talk show several years ago. Once her show was about late term abortions and her guest was a nurse who did some work in an abortion clinic and had testified to the Senate.

She said pretty much all the third term abortions were kids whoses parents finally noticed they were pregnant.(Sad, but I've actually seen it happen)

I've read that abortion clinics are not required to submit data on morbidity and mortality like a hospital have to. Can anyone back this up? There was a Finland study (the results were not pretty), but what about this country?

10 posted on 09/06/2003 8:27:13 PM PDT by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LVjinx
Where did that come from? What's your specific beef?
11 posted on 09/06/2003 8:28:12 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
Well then, if pro-lifers wanted to reduce abortion rates, they should reduce the penalty of statutory rape such that those who do it aren't driven to kill their offspring to hide the crime and thereby escape the penalty.
12 posted on 09/06/2003 8:29:18 PM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
I don't think reducing the penalty for statutory rape would reduce abortions by more than the teeniest bit. Even reducing the age of consent, which I think would be a BIG mistake, would not accomplish anything in reducing abortions.

Boyfriends coerce their girlfriends into getting abortions so they can avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood. If they even think about adoption (which I would guess rarely happens), they would rather avoid the embarrassment of having to admit to civilized people that they "knocked up" (I hate that term but it's the street vernacular they would use) someone 8, 10, or 12 years younger than they are.

If anything, strictly enforcing the statutory rape laws, which are routinely ignored unless the girlfriend files the complaint (even then, it's not a high-priority prosectuion in most jurisdictions), would reduce teen pregnancies by older men, which I understand is (incredibly) the majority of teen pregnancies, pretty quickly. This is something that is SOOO overdue.
13 posted on 09/06/2003 8:51:30 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Meanwhile, studies also show that women who have an abortion are up to four times more likely to die within twelve months than is the general population. Their rates of suicide skyrockets, as does their drug use and general risk-taking behavior.

On the other hand, pregnant women who give birth are less likely to die than the general population and less likely to indulge in risk-taking behavior. Apparently, when you choose to preserve someone's life, you choose life not just for the other person, but for yourself as well.

We can't blame the media for not reporting this trifling kind of event. It really isn't news. There really isn't anything else to say.

Absolutely not. The media has more important things to report, like Bush dropped his dog or Arnold had consensual group sex 26 years ago.

14 posted on 09/06/2003 9:01:04 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (If you get all the conservatives in CA to vote for McClintock, he would still lose. Deal with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
BUMP
15 posted on 09/06/2003 9:18:42 PM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
The Depravity Potential In America

I’m tapping this out on Friday night, September 5, 2003. This past week, a murderer of a paid serial killer was executed in Florida. The man executed was convicted using the law and courts to convict and sentence him (to be truthful, the executed murderer actually killed more than just his intended victim). The man he murdered was never tried or convicted of the serial killings he is absolutely known to have committed. The people who paid for the killings were easily identifiable, but were never questioned regarding their solicitations. Why you may ask? … Because the serial killer was an abortionist hired by women to kill their alive, unborn children. That’s perfectly legal in America, and only women are granted that horrible right. The fathers have no legal say, though they may aid in the solicitation and the payment to the serial killer.

Argument has flown hot and heavy at various Internet sites over whether the murderer of the abortionists should have been executed, whether the abortionists was just as guilty of criminal acts against humanity, whether one murderer is more evil than the other. Lost in the sometimes-heated exchanges is the reality that already accomplished dehumanization of the unborn is preparing our nation for deep and abiding wrong. We are on the verge of embracing cannibalism as an enlightened application of science and technology because of the accomplished dehumanization inherent in the abortion industry.

If our legal system recognized the provable humanity of the alive –absolutely alive, or abortionists wouldn’t be need to kill them-- prenatal, a myriad of coming evil exploitations would be easily refuted and repudiated. [I wonder, is cannibalizing alive human beings wrong at this juncture in American History? … If you can persuade someone that the thing being cannibalized is not a human being, there is no contest. And that’s where there is an astonishing disconnect, as you will shortly see.]

When the debate centers upon the degrees of wrong between an abortionist and a murderer of an abortionist, the humanity of the little ones the abortionist has slaughtered tends to fade into the background and become a non-issue. And there are folks who actually seek to accomplish that because they do not believe the abortionist was doing wrong as long as the law protects his serial killing … they used to ignore the truth regarding the unborn because it was expedient to deny the unborn were alive human beings, until the nation became numb to the reality and the numbers grew to the tens-of-millions exterminated. In fact, there are people who do not believe the unborn are yet human beings ‘in full’ and thus it is acceptable to slaughter them to avoid consequences of earlier behavioral laxity. [Applied logically, killing of crib-bound and toddlers could be defended since they are not yet fertile, or fully grown, or fully aware, or … well, you get the picture, dehumanization always has a preferred utility making the category quite palatable.]

In a previous essay (Human Embryo/Human Being), we addressed the truth that even an embryo not yet implanted in a woman’s body is a human being, albeit shaped and arranged very differently from we who live in the air world. Let’s look at the dichotomy now at play in defending embryonic stem cell harvesting and cloning for body parts, for that is precisely what is looming in our approaching future, if men like Orrin Hatch have their way with the law.

Many who support abortion on demand do so under the mantra of ‘a woman’s right to choose’ (they mean choose the serial killer, not earlier choice to expose herself to pregnancy, but that is the grist of another essay). These people of whom I write actually acknowledge the humanity of the little ones the serial killers slaughter, but these same defenders claim the woman has a right to kill that child before it becomes a burden to the woman’s lifestyle. [If you have trouble believing this, catch a read of a recent Glamour Magazine article in which the female writer encourages teen readers to ‘have as much sex as possible and get plenty of sleep, enjoy this magical time of your life. And if you do get pregnant, there is always abortion and forgiveness. And there is much more putrid sludge in the article, but I won’t subject you to it here.] These people even have quasi-religious rituals that they will help the abortion seeker perform toward their alive-unborn prior to the killing! They encourage baptizing the soon to be diced being, and/or write Valentines to the little ones slaughtered to free ‘mommy’ from caregiving. Folks, you don’t baptize a non-human. These people condone the killing because of the expedience and they will readily admit the ‘thing’ being killed is a human being, but assert that a woman must have this right to kill a fellow human being.

Since it is becoming acceptable to kill individual human beings during their earliest age of their individual lifetime, it no longer requires deceit to lobby for the full exploitation of embryonic and fetal individuals when the goal is to treat older individuals! That, dear Reader, is the onset of cannibalism by utilitarian design. That is the evil we now sink toward because we have allowed dehumanization of the unborn under the guise of ‘a woman’s right to choose’ a serial killer to terminate an inconvenient fellow human being sequestered in the womb by no fault or design of the innocent one.

As usual, the Europeans are ahead of we naïve Americans. I wonder how long it will take the liberal politicians to bring us up to speed so we can compete with the Euro-techs and Chicom-labs in the field of cannibalizing the preborn? I’m sure people like Daschle, Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Clinton, Boxer and Dean have plans already in the works, and they’ll have plenty of help from the likes of Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter. But is that what we really want to be our final … strike that final, for humankind have depravity potential I cannot even imagine. But is that what We the People really want to be, C-A-N-N-I-B-A-L-S?

16 posted on 09/06/2003 9:34:10 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
There was a chemical bomb at a Denver facility last month. But, the only place you'll find any mention of it is on pro-life sites, because the bomb was near a protester's car. It was probably meant for the prolife protestor, not the clinic, so it's not news.

http://www.prolife.org/state106.html
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/972092/posts
17 posted on 09/06/2003 9:34:47 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I believe the choice is still with the mother. she can refuse to have the abortion. lets put the blame where it belongs. the person who actually goes thru with it.
18 posted on 09/06/2003 9:37:00 PM PDT by Walnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
"More abortion opponents have been seriously injured and killed in the last thirty years than have abortion supporters..."

And they never even had the chance to ask the 43 million babies, those most opposed to abortion, who were victims of the most violent act of all.
19 posted on 09/06/2003 9:52:17 PM PDT by luckymom (Prasie God, from whom ALL blessings flow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
BUMP
20 posted on 09/06/2003 9:55:23 PM PDT by semaj ("....by their fruit you will know them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
"In addition, thousands of fathers of babies aborted by underage girls go scot-free every year even though they have committed statutory rape, and in most of those cases coerced the underage women into having abortions to literally bury the evidence."

...which justifies the murder of unborn babies or what?

21 posted on 09/06/2003 9:57:05 PM PDT by semaj ("....by their fruit you will know them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Walnut
I believe the choice is still with the mother.

I alomost agree with this after all I can't get pregnant nor can I have an abortion so why don't you girls get together sort this out amongst yourselfs? Then again If wemen can chose to end a human life simply because it inconviences them to carry it to term why can't I "abort" all the people that inconvience me? I mean fairs fair isn't it?
22 posted on 09/06/2003 9:57:34 PM PDT by edchambers (Peace sells but who's buying?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: semaj
I'm assuming that was sarcasm?
23 posted on 09/06/2003 10:25:02 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Walnut
The mother must bear a large portion of the blame, but the pressure to abort from parents, boyfriends, and other so-called friends must be nearly overwhelming. What does a scared 15 year-old do if her parents threaten to disown her, or her boyfriend threatens violence, or her so-called friends tell her en masse that she's an idiot for going through with her pregnancy (and she isn't lucky enough to have called a true crisis pregnancy center first instead of an abortion factory)?
24 posted on 09/06/2003 10:29:27 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I like the cannibalism concept as a TRUE explanation of what embryonic stem cell use accomplishes-a very useful analogy. Actually not an analogy, a fact. The only difference is that traditional cannibals consume others with their mouths, while the "beneficiaries" of embryo research consume them in other ways.

I pray that God has seen fit to make sure that embryonic stem cells accomplish nothing medically beneficial (I don't think it's been proven yet that they do). I'm afraid that this is the only thing preventing mankind from going over the cliff into the cannibalism you so accurately describe.

The pro-aborts are SO determined to find a benefit in embryonic stem cells that they minimize the importance of the breakthroughs that I believe are being achieved with adult stem cells and trumpet even the tiniest hint that the embryonic ones will have a benefit.
25 posted on 09/06/2003 10:38:52 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lizma
Depends upon the state. CDC in Atlanta keeps some stats but reporting to them is voluntary. NY, CA, and FL for example don't report to CDC but have huge numbers of abortions.
26 posted on 09/06/2003 10:51:21 PM PDT by Deepest South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
INTSUM
27 posted on 09/06/2003 10:57:48 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Well then, if pro-lifers wanted to reduce abortion rates, they should reduce the penalty of statutory rape such that those who do it aren't driven to kill their offspring to hide the crime and thereby escape the penalty.

And we should take away the three felony strikes rule too because it makes robbers murder people because they've haven't got anything to lose by killing their victims, and everything to lose if there's any witnesses.

28 posted on 09/06/2003 11:45:35 PM PDT by PropheticZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I don't think I'm on this ping list - but I'd like to be, please.
29 posted on 09/07/2003 12:50:27 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies; MHGinTN
I like the cannibalism concept as a TRUE explanation of what embryonic stem cell use accomplishes-a very useful analogy.

From what I've read (and thank you, MHGinTN, for your wonderful essays and comments about all these related topics!), embryonic stem cells haven't been "useful" anyway. Apparently (someone correct me if I'm wrong) some kind of cells from bone marrow? Or at least from adults, taken harmlessly, show more promise medically.

Two points may shed a small amount of light on this.

1. Those who abhor moral absolutes are by definition placing themselves and others like them on the pinnacle of authority, due to envy of God. Therefore, they reject out of spite and hatred His laws, both the laws of nature - life and death - and moral laws, such as equating same sex acts with the conjugal relationship between a husband and wife. Such rebellious souls, since they cannot create life (only God can) want to destroy His creation. You can see how they are attracted to death: abortion, euthanasia, the "right to die", Peter Singer's statement that infanticide has its virtues, and last but not least, sodomy.

2. A corollary is their fanatic attachment to the artificial or unnatural life of the body. Even if embryonic cannibalism COULD extend or improve my physical being, I would reject it with not a second's hesitation, because I know without doubt that life is not physically based. I am not a body with a soul, I am a soul waering a body. Death means I, the eternal soul, leave the body. I am therefore not afraid of death. Death is not a tragedy. Living a life of rebellion against the laws of Nature and Nature's God is a tragedy.

30 posted on 09/07/2003 1:08:34 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
source please?
31 posted on 09/07/2003 1:16:40 AM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
Do you mean source for the stat on the age of fathers of teenagers pregnant out of wedlock? I've read it in various places. I know that Cal Thomas the columnist has cited stats on this in the past. If I remember correctly the average age difference between the older man and underage girl was about 8 years.

Or do you mean the statury rape claim? It follows from the answer to the first question, but also just within the past year a "survey" was done of abortion clinics by a pro-life organization (in Texas, I think). They had an underage girl pose as somone needing an abortion, and were seldom, if ever, even asked about the age of the father, even though in most states health workers are required to do so (and I believe also required to report statutory rape). As usual, stone silence from the mainstream press.
32 posted on 09/07/2003 1:47:34 AM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pram
You and I would reject embryo killing if even if there were scientific and health benefits. Most of the rest of the world, or at least most of the power elites, would not, which is why I pray the benefits aren't there. They get "hard cases" like Christopher Reeve to pull on your heart as he advocates embryonic cannibalism and at the same time attacks our president for trying to halt this practice. If there are ever proven benefits from this cannibalism, I fear that the pro-life movement won't be able to stop it.

The benefits from use of adult stem cells are coming so fast I can't keep up with them any more. I hope someone in the pro-life community is chronicling the benefits as they accumulate.
33 posted on 09/07/2003 1:55:05 AM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
I was refering to the statutory rape claim. "Average" age difference does not support your contention that one follows the other.
34 posted on 09/07/2003 3:14:46 AM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
also mandatory reporting from the clinics to the authorities before the abortion of evidence takes place would be appropriate, however, unlikely since parents of the child with child are not even notified...

35 posted on 09/07/2003 4:59:28 AM PDT by teeman8r (girls need better education on saying no... make that the right choice, keep it zipped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
thousands of fathers of babies aborted by underage girls go scot-free every year ... they have committed statutory rape, and in most of those cases coerced the underage women into having abortions to literally bury the evidence.

Boyfriends coerce their girlfriends into getting abortions

the pressure to abort from parents, boyfriends, and other so-called friends must be nearly overwhelming.

What does a scared 15 year-old do if her parents threaten to disown her

her boyfriend threatens violence

so-called friends tell her en masse that she's an idiot for going through with her pregnancy

The mother must bear a large portion of the blame

What portion of the blame would you assign to the mothers expressed as a percentage?

36 posted on 09/07/2003 6:59:34 AM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
What portion of the blame does the underage girl get?

Oh come on, you know that depends on the circumstances: degree of coerciion, threats, intimidation, abuse, etc. I'm not going to play a percentage game, except to say that everyone involved is 100 responsible for their part in a horrible decision.

Also, the girl gets to carry around the guilt for the rest of her life for permitting or acquiescing to the abortion. More than likely, the other parties involved just blow it off.
37 posted on 09/07/2003 10:59:19 AM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
"Average" age difference does not support your contention that one (statutory rape) follows the other.

I wasn't crystal clear. The average age difference I have read about is between the underage women having the abortions and their partners (women above the age of consent are excluded from the stat). Therefore, with such a large age difference, there's clearly a lot of unreported and therefore unprosecuted statutory rape going on.

38 posted on 09/07/2003 11:06:29 AM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
Oh come on, you know that depends on the circumstances

Yes I do, but I think it's appropriate to point out your projecting like a Cineplex.

86% of your criticism is directed at males. 14% to a rather anemic admission that 'mother' does indeed bear some responsibility.

Just another fine example of the only difference between pro-life women and pro-choice women being their opinion of abortion.

39 posted on 09/07/2003 3:00:18 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
You certainly misread me.

The girl is committing a serious sin in almost all cases (except a credible threat of "I'll kill you and the baby if you don't" that the authorities are ignoring).

86% of the criticism wasn't directed at males, unless the pregnant girl has two fathers and all her other friends are male. (/sarcasm)

And I don't even begin to understand your final sentence.
40 posted on 09/07/2003 7:29:15 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
bump
41 posted on 09/07/2003 7:32:00 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
You certainly misread me.

Yeah, that must be it.

42 posted on 09/07/2003 7:34:48 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pram
I'm sorry bout that, Pram, I thought I had added you to my list a while ago. I just put you on. God Bless!
43 posted on 09/08/2003 12:24:13 PM PDT by Polycarp ("Lex mala, lex nulla." (An evil law, is no law). --Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Thanks! And Thanks!
44 posted on 09/08/2003 6:55:48 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Ah--- I wonder when Americans will wake up to the fact that killing children in the womb leads to other consequences they have yet to imagine.
45 posted on 09/08/2003 9:03:59 PM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: edchambers
I believe the choice to end a life lays with God. Not the mother. there arguent to you would be that you could move away from people who offend you or inconvience you while the pregnant mother can't move away from the child with-in. I still say no abortion is right unless it involves the death of the mother and the child couldn't be born anyway. then save the mother. this goes for all lives. It should be in Gods hands when we die.
46 posted on 09/09/2003 4:42:51 PM PDT by Walnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
I didn't say it would be easy. but its a conscious decision to abort or not to abort. Its not like all these influences are at you at the same time. you can get help today. more than at any other time in history.
47 posted on 09/09/2003 4:48:04 PM PDT by Walnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Walnut
"I didn't say it would be easy. but its a conscious decision to abort or not to abort. Its not like all these influences are at you at the same time. you can get help today. more than at any other time in history."

I don't disagree with you. The positive help is there, with more people involved than ever. But in the larger society, there are also more people than ever, including many who should and often do know better, telling young girls that getting an abortion is the "smart" thing to do, that in the "big picture" it really isn't wrong, that they've got their whole lives ahead of them and they shouldn't "ruin" it, etc. And what I've noted doesn't do anything to mitigate personal responsibility, which doesn't go away.
48 posted on 09/09/2003 4:56:28 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
bump
49 posted on 09/09/2003 4:57:11 PM PDT by votelife (Free Bill Pryor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
I understand what you are trying to say about outside influences telling the pregnant person its for the smart thing. But of everyone I have ever talked to who were fed this kind of input has said they were just looking for someone else to agree with her so she wouldn't feel as guilty when she went thru with it. but knew they were doing the wrong thing. they all know its the wrong thing no matter what the age. so unless they are tricked (and I've seen this happen) there is still no excuse. they still get to choose.
50 posted on 09/10/2003 3:09:55 PM PDT by Walnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson