Coerced or Forced Abortions in America

 

"Over half of abortions in America are unwanted or coerced. Learn more."

http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm

"Contrary to popular belief, a growing body of evidence indicates that most abortions in America involve coercion. Those in positions of power, authority or influence may apply pressure, blackmail, deceptive or negligent information, threats or even violence -- or all of the above -- to coerce or even force an unwanted abortion."

"Research shows that most women don't want abortion. Coercion often exploits or endangers women who want to have their babies, or works against individuals and families seeking answers, guidance and personal or practical help, yet not told of alternatives ... or falsely told that no practical or personal support or resources are available."

 

"Coercion may involve an abusive partner, family or authority figure; negligent or coercive professionals in the helping professions or elsewhere; a passive, coercive or even violent support network; deceptive, agenda- or profit-driven experts presenting false information as fact, etc.

 

These things often happen when women, couples or families are seeking answers -- such as a pregnancy test -- guidance or a helping hand, often from trusted authorities or other professionals.

 

Employers and others have threatened or inflicted physical harm, loss of job or financial support, abandonment, or even death when women resisted an unwanted abortion.'"

How Common Is Coercion?

http://www.theunchoice.com/articles/howcommoniscoercion.htm 

"In America and elsewhere, pressure or even forced abortion, deceptive

or negligent counseling, and direct or indirect forms of blackmail,

assembly-line or profit-driven clinics, substandard medical practices and

other factors work in concert to funnel women toward unwanted abortions.

Coercion can escalate to violence or homicide, the leading killer of pregnant women."

Death penalty - a letter to the Democratic party

Last night was reportedly the first case of a federal execution in any years.  However, supported by the Democratic party, federally funded executions are occurring by the thousands every day in abortion clinics. Human life begins at conception, biology 101.  Since Roe v. Wade, there have been 62+ million executions of unborn human individuals in the United States, all under the guise of health care. I am using the word execution as abortion is the willful termination of the life of a unique human individual.

Once upon a time, the Democratic party did not think that abortion was so wonderful. Remember legal, safe and RARE? Now, the DNC platform only wants to keep abortion legal.  States, that try to enact regulations that require abortions clinics to maintain conditions required of other medical facilities, such as dental offices and outpatient surgical centers, are bombarded by so-called choice supporters with objections that women’s right to abortion are being denied.  But, it costs money to maintain sanitary conditions or design a clinic so that EMT’s can safely and quickly transport a woman who has had a complication to an ER.  Listen to the objections and follow the money.

So, money trumps safe. What about rare?  Despite the denials of choice supporters, many women say that they did not think that they had a choice other than an abortion. Where is the Democratic party’s concern for these women? Women say that they felt pressured by others, by their economic status, by their healthcare status, by the numbers in the family that they were already caring for, by the choice between a baby, and getting and education that would support them both.  But these women can choose abortion with no regrets, according to the so-called choice supporters. No regrets?  Many years ago, I read of a woman in her 70’s who found that the underlying sadness in her life was the result of an abortion.  Another woman felt that she was unable to love her living children since she had ended the life of her first child. Regret, depression and family problems have arisen from abortions.  Post-abortive programs would not exist if women did not regret having abortions.

Women are given options at the abortion clinics. Just how true is that?  Women, who were once abortion clinic counselors, have related how they had a script which skewed the options toward abortions, like putting the cost of raising a child versus the cost of an abortion.  How many clinics offer guidance to social programs that would enable women to raise her baby?  Oh, that would require a social worker.  Abortion clinics are not into social work.  Adoption is mentioned, but so also the life-long grief of giving the baby to another person. What of the grief of an abortion? Oh, women are supposed to feel relief. Feeling grief from an abortion means someone shamed them into feeling grief.  Supposedly pro-choice supporters rail against pro-life clinics that offer information on fetal developments and ultrasounds of the baby. They say that it shames women into not choosing an abortion. Since when is having all the information one can have before undergoing a life-changing procedure be shameful? Would they say the same if a woman was undergoing surgery for breast cancer? How many women have said that if they only knew they were not aborting “just a clump of cells” they would never have had the abortion? 

What is the Democratic party, the party that is portraying itself as caring for the people, going to do for the women who do not want an abortion but think that because of their life circumstances they do not have any choice?  Will the Democratic party push for the regulation of abortion clinics that will at least compare to standards of other clinics or even hair salons?  Will the Democratic party promote more programs for women, and men, who want to care for their babies? (There are men who are willing to raise their baby on their own, but then the women would be unwilling incubators, according to the supposedly pro-choice people. How ‘it’s all about me’ have we become to put one’s convenience over the life of another?)  Will the Democratic party promote adoption and fund adoption agencies as much as it funds abortion clinics, under the guise of health care? (This would include religious organizations with acceptance of their adoption parameters, if the woman chooses them.) 

Or, will the Democratic party buckle to the so-called pro-choice people?  They say that they are for ‘my body, my choice’, but their actions say that is a lie.  Every baby kept or adopted is a loss for an abortion clinic’s profits, or excess revenue over expenses if Planned Parenthood.  Hear the objections and follow the money.  Is the Democratic party really for the welfare of the people or a slave to the abortion lobby and a minority of people, just as the Republican party is to the NRA?

Time to put your policies where your mouth is.  Give women real choices.  That will make abortion rare. 

Want some ideas?  Democrats for Life have ideas. https://www.democratsforlife.org/

Proposed Platform Language to Unites Democrats Around Historic Democratic Principles

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion and the death penalty.  We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

However, we can find common ground.  We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies.  We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy – including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, and childcare; and appropriate child support.  We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

An Appeal to Men to Stand up for Women and Care for and Defend Their Children

By Randy Alcorn, September 16, 2015

http://www.epm.org/blog/2015/Sep/16/appeal-men

The tenth video exposé about Planned Parenthood from The Center for Bioethical Reform was released yesterday. You can view it, and more related articles, on the ERLC site.

The history of abortion in America should bring more shame to men than to anyone. No pregnancy happens without a man. Men should take the responsibility for their own purity and to protect that of women. When they fail to do this, they should be the first to accept full responsibility for the consequences of their actions, including the conception of a child.

As George Gilder argues in Men and Marriage, [i] when men exercise deep loyalties to women and children, when we take responsibility to protect and defend them, we are at our best; when we violate those loyalties, we are at our worst. We become abusers on the one hand, or passive cowards on the other. We place ourselves under the rightful scorn of women and under the judgment of God.

When I spoke on this subject at my church, a man in his sixties told me of a girl he got pregnant thirty-nine years ago. She gave him the choice of what to do, and he chose an abortion. He said it has haunted him since. He thinks about the woman he failed and the son or daughter he lost and wonders about the grandchildren he’d now be holding. He said to me, “Tell people about the consequences. Warn our young men—tell them God will hold them accountable for what they do with their children.” Then he broke down in tears and said, “I don’t want our young men to do what I did thirty-nine years ago.”

One of our home Bible study leaders came to me, tears in his eyes. He told me of an abortion he paid for years ago and the devastating impact it had on his life. A quarter of a million babies are aborted each year by women who describe themselves as “evangelical” or “born again." [ii] Most of these women no doubt have some church affiliation. In many cases the father of the child attends the same church. It is not only a moral crisis, but a matter of great shame that Christian men have been so weak that they not only commit sexual immorality, but allow a child to be killed to cover up their sin and make their lives easier (until their conscience takes revenge).
For the sake of women and children—and for our own sakes—it is time for men to stand up and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to care for children they have fathered. If this means begging the forgiveness of women, or standing in front of church leaders or a congregation and confessing their sin, so be it. If this were done more often, more young men in the church would be encouraged to pursue purity and discouraged from ever letting a child die for their sins.

Abortion isn’t a women’s issue. It’s a human issue, and its effects are devastating to women and men alike. But it’s high time for men to take personal responsibility, stand up for women and children, and exercise the kind of leadership God expects of us.

Sources[i] George Gilder, Men and Marriage (Gretna, La.: Pelican, 1992).
[ii] Family Planning Perspectives, July–August 1996, 12.

http://www.epm.org/blog/2015/Sep/16/appeal-men

Six Reasons Why Men Can Speak on Abortion

by Marc Barnes | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/16/13 1:34 PM
Opinion

The injustice of abortion is the free choice of a woman who sees it working towards her good. This has lead to the common call for men to remove themselves from the debate surrounding the injustice. It is, after all, a woman’s issue.
While I sympathize with the thought, it doesn’t hold to the light of reason. Women bear pregnancy and birth, as they physically and emotionally bear the sad experience of abortion. As such, they are certainly the most experientially trustworthy spokeswomen for the issue. But this pride of place does not exclude the male voice. Here’s why.

1. Josiah Presley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4Jb_aA2RZVU
Men can speak about abortion because men are aborted. Is it wrong for Josiah — who survived an abortion with only a deformed left arm — to speak in favor of rendering illegal the cause of his suffering? It’s certainly a popular thought, that he should shut up over an obviously women-only issue, but he stands against all odds as a living, breathing testament to the fact that it’s not. It’s a human rights issue, and men and women hold the marvelous distinction of being human in common along, with the less-than-marvelous distinction of being threatened, maimed, or killed by abortion.

2. The majority of women are pressured into having abortions.
The study “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women” published in Medical Science Monitor found that 64% of American women “felt pressured by others” to have an abortion. We can safely assume that some of the individuals doing the pressuring were men.
This is a crime, and it points to a reality glossed over by many in the pro-choice crowd. Men are not absent from the abortion debate in the private sphere, but will and do impose their desires on women. To remove the male voice from the public sphere won’t remove it from the private sphere. It will only reduce the number of men who hear, from their brothers, that abortion is wrong, and pressuring women into an abortion far worse.

3. Children — those human lives threatened by abortion — are under the care of their mother and father.
The logic of abortion would have us believe that a husband bends to his wife’s swelling belly, kisses it and sings a song to her dear cellular clump, which at some arbitrary time decided by his wife (and who knows when? That’s the magical part!) will become his child. This, of course, is stupid. Unborn children are the children of a mother and father.
There is no legal distinction on the duty of parents to their child made on the basis of sex. Every parent has the duty to provide his or her children with the basic necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, and necessary medical care. To do otherwise is child abuse.
Now if parental duties towards children have nothing to do with sex, how can the question of the very life of that child have everything to do with sex? Why are men exempt from duty towards their children before they are born?
The issue here is one of consistency. If we are going to say that the creation of new life is one that, for 9 months, is entirely the responsibility of the mother and entirely not the responsibility of a father, we have to come up with a really good reason for the father receiving the exact same amount of responsibility when the baby does pop from the womb.
It can’t be because he participated in making that new human life. He made it 9 months ago, and had no say in the discussion of its continued existence. We must base the responsibility of the father to his child on something besides creation.
On the fact that he is capable of direct physical contact with the baby? So are others. On the fact that he promised to take care of the baby (once it “became” his baby by virtue of leaving the uterus)? A man must support the child he didn’t “mean” to create with the woman he never liked. What then? Is sex an implicit commitment to being responsible for a new human life (after a 9 month delay)? But why, if not because — by way of sex — a man participates in making a new human life? And if that’s the reason why, we’re back at our primary problem: He participated in making a new human life 9 months ago. Why the delay?
We are left in a shamble of responsibilities, the existence of which have no origin.

4. Male abortionists.
I searched around a break down of the male/female populations of abortionists and abortion-performing doctors without luck, so I don’t know whether most abortionists are male or female. But the fact that there are male abortionists poses an interesting question. It is a woman’s free choice to undergo an abortion. It is a male abortionists free choice to perform an abortion. If a man can’t speak of a woman’s free choice that he could never truly experience, assumedly he can speak of a man’s free choice that he could experience. Thus men are free to enter the debate on abortion.

5. If this moral debate is to be sex specific, so must others.
If abortion is to be a women’s issue because it is a woman choosing to have an abortion, and men cannot know what that’s like, then an obvious problem arises. (It might seem like a ridiculous problem if you believe that the human life within a pregnant woman is not, in fact, a human life, and therefore that abortion is just, but suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine it so, that the position of the other might make a little more sense.)
Sex slavery is an injustice largely — if not entirely — perpetrated by men on women. It is a free choice made by men. This does not mean that the outrage over sex slavery should be limited to male outrage.
Now the differences are obvious, but they don’t change the fundamental truth here.
The victims of sex slavery are mostly women — of course women should protest! Well, the victims of abortion are often men. It follows that they should too.
But the victims of sex slavery are conscious of the injustice perpetrated on them, while the fetus is not! Then we arrive at the real question: Is an injustice only an injustice if the person affected by it knows he is affected by it? Can you kill a man while he’s asleep? Can he you suffocate a coma patient? Can you drink your friend unconscious then slit his wrists, for it is no injustice if the victim of injustice does not experience it?
That’s quite a discussion, but it proves something I suspected all along. Any discussion of whether men can speak on abortion will inevitably lead to and be decided by the question of whether abortion is wrong.

6. Abortion is wrong.    
The human person experiences good and evil as universal. Murder is not wrong-for-some. The fact that rape is a free choice does not negate our ability to protest it, even if we’ve never experienced rape. Abuse is not “complicated” and thereby above the judgment of those unaffected by abuse.
If you come to the conclusion that it is unjust for a human life to be intentionally killed in utero, it is impossible not to apply this realization of reality to the universe. Thus:  We will not rest until we have affected its abolition.