Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Overheard: Embrace being "pro-abortion"

Abortion Gang blogger Kaitlyn wants people who favor legal abortion to join her in saying "I am pro-abortion."
We make it so scary, so wrong; it brings so much disapproval and judgment down on us that we’re afraid to just say it. I am not anti-abortion. In fact, I am pro-abortion. I am 100% behind any person who needs an abortion having an abortion, and I place “for the sake of mental and emotional health” in the “needs” column.

Say it with me now, scarier but oh-so-freeing: I am pro-abortion.

I am pro-heart transplant, pro-appendix removal, and pro-abortion, whenever one of those is medically necessary. Now the argument will be, it trivializes abortion to say it’s as easy as appendix removal! But it doesn’t trivialize it. The medical reality is that an abortion in the first eight weeks is easier than getting an appendix removed, and the recovery time is much shorter. If that scares you, ask yourself why. Because it shouldn’t. The shame and stigma around abortion is a social invention. Abortions are a legal medical procedure that many people undergo. People who have children, people who want children, people who will never be parents – from all walks of life, we have abortions. And for that reason amongst so many others, I am pro-abortion. Go on, say it with me now, it’s freeing, I promise: I am pro-abortion.

Also, check out the comments section for a glimpse into Kaitlyn's research methodology. In her post she claims that 46% of American women will have abortions. She is challenged on this statistic by a pro-choicer who notes that the Guttmacher Institute puts the number at 33%. Kaitlyn responds,
I got 46% hot off the press from a prochoice working (worker?) in Kansas. I checked and found an anti-choice group (I’d rather not direct you to their site) putting it at 43%. I believe Guttmacher’s numbers, while accurate and meticulously researched, are outdated.
In fact, 43% is the old, outdated number the Guttmacher Institute used to use.

So let's review Kaitlyn's research methodology. She wants a statistic so she calls some Kansas pro-choice worker. She gets a statistic, doesn't ask where it came from and doesn't verify it. Then when challenged on the statistic, she tries to look it up and finds an old statistic posted on an prolife web site which didn't source the statistic either. She accepts this statistic as true despite having no clue where it came from.


  1. Anonymous7:14 AM

    So Abortion Gang blogger Kaitlyn admits to being … prolife!! She clearly states that she is proabortion whenever "one of those (abortions) is medically necessary." Great news, Kaitlyn!!! Abortion, the intentional killing of a human being within his/her mother's womb, is NEVER medically necessary! Even in the rare circumstance of an ectopic pregnancy involving a living developing baby, s/he does not have to be deliberately killed to save her/his mom. I knew you'd be pleased, since you seemed for a while there to be struggling with such feelings as "scary", "shame", and wanting to be "free" - from your conscience, apparently. Good. Your struggle shows it's still functioning. I strongly recommend a heart-to-heart with one of those post-abortive moms you so dismissively mention, especially if you're blessed to meet one who once felt as stridently as you do about her 'right' to kill her unborn child, and especially if you, dear Kaitlyn, are yourself post-abortive. Listen - really listen - to her journey from ignorance of the humanity of all unborn children to the painful yet TRULY freeing, un-scary realization that every successful abortion kills a human being, and permanently scars her/his mother. Kaitlyn, sayin' so don't make it so. You're not really a Femi-Nazi, preferring abortion over childbirth. You want to be prowoman. So do I. Rest assured you can be, and be pro-child at the same time. Say it: I am prowoman, prochild, prolife. It's freeing, I promise. I will keep you in prayer, Kaitlyn.

  2. Anonymous8:50 AM

    Kaitlyn, it's me again – Anonymous. Forgot to mention that even in high-risk pregnancies involving maternal pre-existing or life-endangering pregnancy-related conditions, even should it be medically necessary to remove her son or daughter, direct killing is not medically necessary, and can actually be more dangerous to do so. Consider that even an early abortion takes a minimum of 10-15 minutes to complete, not including the re-assembly time to ensure no fetal parts left behind, whereas an emergency c-section (I had one with our first son in 1985) takes only 7 minutes, from pre-surgery ultrasound to determine baby’s position, to intact removal of baby, including administering general anesthesia to Mama and monitoring hers and baby’s vital signs. When a child's age is too young for current medical technology and ability to support, a baby can nonetheless be quickly and respectfully removed from Mama intact, then given whatever lifesaving treatment best serves that child's chances of survival, or treated palliatively, acknowledging that this tiny, fragile human being has an inherent right to receive whatever care we can give until s/he dies. Everybody wins. Baby gets to live, or die with loving care, Mama isn't tortured for the rest of the days with the memory of having had her child deliberately killed. Even though she will mourn the death of her child, she won't be blaming herself for making a life-taking decision.