Facebook Pixel

Smile: Your Mom Chose Life.

By March 12, 2009 - 2:35pm
Rate This

A group of people were holding signs that had the words: "Smile, Your Mom Chose Life", as I was driving home today.

My first thought was, "yeah, but my mom was 30 and married!". And, why is there no mention of the dad choosing life? Why are the men off the hook?

In hopes of not getting into a political discussion over the merits of being pro-life or pro-choice, I have a question for everyone:

We all ultimately have the same goal of preventing abortions: Do you think pro-lifers and pro-choicers will ever be on the same page in order to accomplish this goal in an effective way?

Imagine if we all put our efforts in this together---putting religion and politics aside---and really looking at what is the MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to prevent abortions. Imagine if we were successful! Everyone would be happy: the women (and men!) who would not have an unwanted pregnancy, the pro-life and pro-choice camps would also be happy.

I can't help but think of the pro-life people, standing in the rain and cold today by an abortion clinic, holding signs, are not having a few thoughts of doubt (am I really making a difference? these women are already in trouble; what about the thousands of other women that I could help before this happens to them...), similar to the pro-choice people, standing in the rain and cold, handing out condoms or brochures (am I really making a difference? is there a better way?).

So, I challenge anyone who would like to respond, to:
a) Write in such a way in your article, that we have to actually guess if you are pro-choice or pro-life (it's difficult!)
b) Be creative! How can these two seemingly opposite viewpoints come together to do some good and be EFFECTIVE and SUCCESSFUL?!

Add a Comment10 Comments

EmpowHER Guest

First of all, I want to dispel the myth that everyone who is anti abortion is religious, (For whatever dumb reason that is, there's a gross misperception that everyone who does not believe in abortion is religious) I am ATHEIST, and I am ANTI-abortion, and have no reservation about saying it for the following reasons:

I am against anything that poses threats to individual, and public health, and abortion does:

1. Acute Hematometra
2.retained fetal and placental tissue)
Retained tissue is the result of an incomplete abortion. This may cause excessive and prolonged hemorrhage. A life-threatening later complication is septic infection of the uterine lining.
3.Endometritis (infection of the lining of the uterus) which can often be fatal
4.Uterine perforation and lacerations
6.Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation which in most cases is fatal
7.Cervical lacerations and injury which often results in death
8.Uterine Rupture
9.Embolism which very often is fatal
10.Breast Cancer the highest rate of this disease is among women who get abortion
And that's just a partial list of the dangerous health risks of abortion.

There is a big difference between abortion, and miscarriage which is simply a biological malfunction that can happen for a variety of reasons, the body is prepared for that. When a miscarriage occurs, the normal biological protocols activate, and all production of pregnancy hormones, and what have you is immediately stopped. In the event of abortion those natural biological protocols are completely bypassed, and that's just one of the reasons for the numerous potentially fatal physiological risks of abortion.

Every issue I address I come at from a scientific standpoint, that's what I believe in, feedback from the environment, universal laws, religion, and politics has no social relevance, and I disregard both of those.

Abortion is not something that any species that values itself would ever engage in, and in fact there is no reported species other than humans that does that.

As a man of color (Black, and Jewish) I take it personal the racial agenda of abortion, and yes there is a racial agenda here. Now to be clear, I don't support any woman subjecting herself to that, and if the occasion arises I will do my best to discourage any woman in my social circle from subjecting herself to that, however, I'm not going to ignore the blatant racial agenda behind the pro-abortion movement.

1. Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood was a belligerent racist, and a eugenicist, she is directly quoted saying in speaking engagements that black people need to be culled from the human population.

2. The anti-abortion movement did NOT begin with Roe V Wade, it began decades prior to Roe V Wade in the black community. The Black Panthers would routinely plant explosive device outside of planned parenthood facilities in protest of the eugenics agenda of the organization, what were they reaction to?

4. Planned Parenthood has approximately 80% of it's facilities located in black and hispanic neighborhoods

5. Despite being 12% of America's population 37% of Planned Parenthood's clientele are pregnant BLACK women, and that is not a mathematically natural phenomenon!

6. Nearly 60% of pregnant black women get abortions, I can assure that is not by accident!

7. Planned Parenthood puts more billboard adds, buss stop, and train station adds in black, and hispanic neighborhoods, than anywhere else!

That is why abortion has always been a plague in the black, and hispanic communities in America. I want to again state the fact that the anti-abortion movement began in the black community. Roe V Wade was the catalyst for the white population getting into the anti-abortion movement.

Ask yourself this question, why is it that when America offers foreign aid to places like Haiti, Zimbabwe, Guyana, Tanzania, and other places where the majority population is people of color there's always a string attached, and that string is for the governments of those countries to adopt eugenics policies for their populations, and that gets no reaction from the public in America. Imagine a natural disaster occurring in Finland, say an ice storm that brought their infrastructure to ruins, and the government of Finland appealed to America for aid, and America offers aid with that same ultimatum as they do to places like Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Haiti, would the public take issue with that? Would the public write to the politicians, and tell them hey don't treat Finland like that, that's wrong?

I have compiled a list of things in society worldwide that are a waste of land, and Planned Parenthood, and other places like it around the world are an offensive waste of land! So that makes my list! A facility that's set up for destructive purposes, and nothing else, what the heck is with that?!

The spaces of land that Planned Parenthood's facilities take up could be used to:

1. Build aeroponic facilities that would produce virtually unlimited amounts of vegetables, fruits, seeds, all organic, high quality for people FOR FREE!

2. Build Geothermal facilities that would provide FREE electricity that's renewable, and totally sustainable!

3. Free Housing For People so people who are low-income don't have to sleep outside!


I say if a woman seriously doesn't want a the child, than leave the child somewhere or give the child up for adoption, there's no purpose for a psychopathic surgical procedure for that purpose of relieving her of the responsibility of a child other than monetary gain for the allopathic cartel, go give birth in an isolated are, and leave the child outside someone's door, that is if the father doesn't want the child. What would a woman have done before Planned Parenthood existed? more than likely as I suggested!

As I state in the beginning of this article, I am an ATHEIST. I deem it necessary to remind folks of that because there are far too many folks who look at the issue of abortion as a religious versus none-religious issue. I urge folks reading this, thinking about this issue to stop thinking about this in terms of religion, politics, or anything else that's cultural, and not socially relevant, and think about this in terms of universal laws, cause=effect, action reaction, feedback from the environment, what has positive results for an individual, and the whole of humanity, and what has negative results, because that's all that's relevant, either something works or not, either something is healthy for, and positive for someone or not, either something is natural or not, either something is supported by natural, and universal laws, or not!

February 3, 2011 - 1:19am
EmpowHER Guest

Not being against abortion, and being pro-choice are exactly the same. Being "Pro-Choice" doesn't mean that you are "Pro-Abortion", it means that you don't care which way it goes. So if you are in the middle, you are Pro-Choice.

May 11, 2009 - 6:05pm
EmpowHER Guest

I think there are two opportunities for a common approach to reducing abortions:
1. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies
2. Making it easier to chose to keep a baby when faced with an unwanted abortion.

These are places where both sides of the debate could work together, imho.

March 15, 2009 - 4:45pm
(reply to Anonymous)

I agree with your #1: reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It's strange...because it seems so easy to do this, yet even this method is a battlefield for politicians, religion, etc.

May 27, 2010 - 5:41pm

Interesting proposal, I teach Ethics for a local University and my undergraduate students have to look at the issue of abortion within a medical ethics perspective. I encourage students to stay away from political statements and focus on the facts of this issue: 1) Is the fetus a human being? and 2) What are recent technological advances telling us about DNA and life or Ultrasounds images of first trimester fetuses? I also present them with some data like:

1. Only 1 percent of abortions are done due to rape or incest. About 93 percent of all abortions are for social reasons. This includes fears the baby will interfere with work, school, relationship with husband or partner, economic situation or social status. Are these reasons strong enough to ethically justify the act of abortion?

2. A cruel twist in this debate is that generally men are more pro-abortion than women. Young men ages 18-25 are the most pro-abortion. Sidewalk counselors at abortion clinics frequently witness the man pushing the woman to abort. Abortion remains a convenient escape of parental responsibility for men.

3. Medical facts include that aborting women suffer more subsequent ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, premature births, handicapped children, infertility, chronic depression and suicides than women who carry their baby to term. Especially disturbing is the connection between abortion and breast cancer, as observed in 27 of 33 studies worldwide.

4. Planned Parenthood is being asked to inform patients of the link between breast cancer and abortion. Reports show termination of pregnancy interrupts cellular changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy. According to recent figures, 28 out of 37 studies link abortion to a 30% to 800% increased risk of breast cancer. Legal precedence linking abortion to breast cancer was first made in Australia on December 28, 2001.

The above are just facts that my students must consider on this issue before jumping to an emotional response in this heated societal issue. From my point of view (I tried to stay neutral when I am teaching on this subject) I would say that first, according to biological definition, we know that the fetus growing in the womb is "alive" from the moment of conception (cell growth/development occurs immediately). Second, we know that the nature of the life in that womb is undeniably "human" (the miracle of DNA). Third, by definition, an abortion terminates the fetus within the womb, which is alive and human by nature of its DNA. Therefore, abortion is the act of terminating a human life in development. Legal or not, medically safe or not, this is not a choice we can make without considering the implications of what it means to disrupt the DNA programming that results in a human being.

I recently finished reading a great book by Francis Collins: "The Language of God", doctor Collins was the Director of the Human Genome project, fascinating book that unveils the wonders of our creation by explaining what it meant to him the discovery of our "map of life" the trillions of genetic coding that makes us human which starts the second an egg is fertilized by the sperm. I highly recommend this reading.

March 14, 2009 - 11:37pm
(reply to Coach Virginia)

Coach Virginia,
I have to respectfully say that the questions you post are not actually "neutral" as you suggested you are trying to be. I didn't know if you realized that or not, but all of the "data" that you chose to present to your ethics students are very clearly towards pro-life (again, am just pointing this out, since you stated you wanted to stay "neutral" with your students). I know...it's difficult to stay neutral on this topic! :-)

May 27, 2010 - 5:39pm

Sometimes I wonder why one couldn't be both pro-choice and pro-life. I guess I see this issue in many different shades of grey rather than black and white. When I read about a Brazilian woman who was brutally raped by her estranged husband the day before their divorce was final, and became pregnant, and yet she couldn't get an abortion legally because although abortions are legal in cases of rape, spousal rape isn't considered true "rape" in Brazil, I was incensed that she didn't have a choice. That her only alternative, according to the choice she wanted to make, was to have an illegal abortion which would put her life at risk. When I read about an African woman who was raped by a group of men and yet chose to keep the baby girl she gave birth to nine months later, I wanted to applaud her brave decision. I'm not sure I would have had that strength. In either case, I felt nothing but compassion and support for these women who were faced with unbelievably difficult decisions.

March 14, 2009 - 10:26pm
(reply to Kristin Davis)

I'm with you, Kristin. The question I posed was really out of my larger question: why can't people be both pro-choice and pro-life? It makes sense that the majority of people fall "in the middle" in regards to politics and religion; they do not succumb to, or advocate, using scare tactics to "scare the health" into people (and, in this case, "scare the "right choice" into people), so isn't it safe to assume that the majority of people would also fall in the middle of this issue as well?

I think it would be truly incredible if there was a group of men and women who are creating some type of group that reaches both pro-choice, pro-lifers, are respected by the majority of people (can't do anything about the extremes), and be ultimately effective in preventing abortions in the first place (when, it is possible to be prevented).

Perhaps that is what some groups are doing, by providing education regarding sexual health (including the spectrum: abstinence to safer sex to contraception to Plan B), but we know how political that has become!

Keep thinking, everyone! Maybe we can find a solution on this site! :)

March 15, 2009 - 8:29am

I have offen wonder what if one of my girls come to me saying they wont abortion how i would react i still dont have a answer to that one i know my daughter chose to have my first grandson after the man want her to have abortion so we have help raise him and he is a pure delight to us.he never had a daddy we tell him that he come from a sperm donater . the guy knows she had him but dont care to day i went and sign him up for t-ball looking for to being there for all the games .he got a brother and sister there dad get them every other weekend now that they are not together dillyn seem to like it when they go it gives him time with us that he do have to share us with the other so to answer your questoin there is no middle it up to the person that in that place .i dont think any one should judge them for there choose

March 14, 2009 - 1:56pm
EmpowHER Guest

Hi Allison,

I have to say that these questions really put my mind in a loop. I tried several times to write in response to this and I cannot seem to muster the words in order to answer the questions in the right light. So after several attempts, this is my response.

This is always a tough subject to talk about and just like politics, it is at least likely as not to convert into a confrontational argument. I cannot say either way that I am for or opposed to this because everyones situation is different. I do, however, believe in a person's right to chose how they want to live their American Dream.

I have friends that I know of that have went both directions. I have a friend who is addicted to sex and had about 10 abortions. One the other hand, I have a friend that was raped and had twin boys that are 12 years old now. This is a wide range of the spectrum of life. We all chose our own destiny whether they are good choices or bad choices...ultimately, it is in our hands. Freewill, right?

I am happy to say that I was never in the position to have to make this choice. The reason I am happy is because I have to respect everyone that had to make this decision because it would be hard either way. Raising children is very hard and choosing to not have a child is a life changing decision. Either way, I respect the process and the options that are available.

I know this doesn't answer the questions that are posed, but this is certainly a hard decision and a hard topic to base an opinion on. Thank you for the brainstorm this morning.

March 14, 2009 - 9:02am
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy
Add a Comment

All user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.