“More education and more contraception” has long been the rally cry of abortion advocates. In turn, they blame pro-lifers for increasing abortion numbers, as most pro-lifers disagree with contraception as a solution to ending abortion. Turns out that’s for good reason.

More than a thousand girls a year aged under 15 have an abortion [in the UK], figures revealed.

Terminations are being carried out on youngsters aged just 12 or 13 who have only just started secondary school. […]

Norman Wells, director of  the Family Education Trust charity, said: ‘Every abortion involves a personal tragedy for a mother and a child, and none more so than where the mother herself is a child.

‘But these figures are just the tip of the iceberg. For every child who has had an abortion under the age of 16, there will be many more who are engaging in illegal sexual activity and suffering physical and emotional harm as a result.’

Mr Wells pointed to research  showing it was not ignorance of contraception that leads to high rates of teenage abortions, and said instead the ‘contraceptive culture’ was to blame.

‘Those who imagine the answer lies in more sex education and more contraceptive schemes are sadly mistaken,’ he said. ‘As a result of the contraceptive culture we have tended to separate sexual activity from childbearing in our minds. There is always the possibility intimacy will result in the creation of a new life – that is not something to be done lightly.’

The Rev Joanna Jepson, who campaigned against terminations for minor deformities, warned abortions were being offered without any concern for the gravity of the procedure. She said: ‘The figures for underage girls suggests we have to have a debate about the kind of society we’re creating that leads to so many abortions on demand.

I can testify that there is something “different” about me during ovulation, and this is no individual quirk. Evolution has crafted women to desire intercourse more during this fertile period, and a new study suggests that women might even be able to detect which man is most likely to desire her as well.

They buy sexier clothing, are more likely to stare at attractive men and — if they are strippers — they get better tips.

And now science has identified yet another characteristic of the elusive ovulating woman: she is better at picking out straight men from the gays.

A new study led by researchers at the University of Toronto suggests that ovulation significantly improves a woman’s ability to judge a man’s sexual orientation.

[…]

A slew of strange ovulation phenomena have been uncovered in recent years as scientists track how the female cycle impacts mating practices. Other research has suggested that ovulating women emit a scent that is more attractive to men, get better tips as lap dancers andbuy sexier clothing in an unconscious attempt to outdo rivals.

[…]

“That suggests they’re not hyper attentive to everything, just men and sex essentially,” Rule says.

In terms of practical application of the findings, Rule says it may be useful for women to know that they appear to be better at picking partners — at least sexual partners — when they are ovulating.

FYI, if you’re on birth control, you can’t ovulate.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Splitting hairs, perhaps, and I know this wasn’t the point of this post, but if you are on birth control, you most likely don’t ovulate. (I believe the Pill first and foremost attempts to stop ovulation, but if that fails, it makes the womb inhospitable to a fertilized egg.)

…doesn’t mean it’s good for you, or society, or your unborn baby. I’ve written before about how a lack of remorse isn’t necessarily a sign that something is “healthy”. This is as true for abortion as it is for other acts of violence.

Now those who commit abortion don’t yet see it as a crime, and because it’s legal, the rest of us are told we ought not view it that way either. But I can only hope, for this woman’s sake, that one day she will better understand that a feeling of “euphoria” is not an indicator of whether or not something is inhumane:

Though I was raised in a Catholic family and apparently encouraged to participate in a “Right to Life” poster contest as a child, I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t pro-choice.  I remember thinking and even saying aloud that I would abort if I got pregnant as a teenager.  Then, as a young twenty-something, I became eager to have children – and I welcomed two very wanted, well-loved babies into the world.  Once things began to deteriorate between their father and I, I knew without a doubt that any future pregnancy we faced would be terminated.

In October of last year, I made good on that promise to myself…

I felt momentarily guilty when one of the other patients in recovery asked me if I ever stopped smiling, but I quickly reminded myself that it was senseless guilt.  After all, smiling is a natural reaction to happiness, and I was happy sitting there.  When they released me to go home fifteen minutes later, I was gladder still.

Keep in mind this woman had an abortion “to do good on a promise to herself.” If the tone sounds calculating and cold, maybe that’s because what she did and how she experienced it is just that. We as a culture recognize the lack of remorse in other acts as “cold-blooded” and contradictory to humanity. Take for example this article,

“How long do I have to live in prison?”

45-year-old Kim Su-cheol, arrested for brutally sexually assaulting a second-grader, asked that question at the Yeongdeungpo Police Station in Seoul on the 10th. He spoke calmly without inquiry about the condition of his victim. It was a moment that showed he is truly an animal with a human face.

According to a member of the Yeongdeungpo Police Sation, he had spent three days in prison since being arrested on the 7th and had slept well and not missed a single meal.

Kim congratulated the investigators on a job well done and made a full confession but while confined he has shown no signs of a remorseful attitude, caring only about the punishment he is to receive.

An employee of the prison said, “Kim asked us how long he has to stay in prison, thinking only about himself, and doesn’t care at all about the victim or show any sense of guilt.”

Kim, who had jus sexually assaulted an eight-year old-girl, told investigators “I feel good, I slept really well” and made other dumbfounding statements which show what a cold-blooded person he is.

At least in Ireland, it’s still considered criminal.

A “CUNNING and manipulative” man who gave a teenager abortion drugs when she became pregnant has been jailed for seven years.

Handing down the sentence to Christopher Paul Buckham (33) at Belfast Crown Court, the recorder of Belfast, Judge Tom Burgess, said he had looked for a “scintilla of concern for her but no matter how hard one looks, finds none”.

He said that having groomed the 15-year-old girl through internet chat rooms and texting, Buckham lied to her about having fertility problems and then, when she became pregnant, he gave her abortion drugs and then left her to deal with the emotional and physical effects of the termination.

“His behaviour requires to be visited with condign punishment,” the judge said.

Buckham pleaded guilty to eight charges of sexual activity with a child and one of supplying a poison to procure a miscarriage, between June 19th, 2009, and May 22nd last year.

[…]

Using the internet, Buckham ordered abortion drugs and got the teenager to take them.

[…]

As Buckham stood in the dock with his head bowed and his victim being continually hugged by her father just feet away, Judge Burgess told him he had “taken advantage of the immaturity and vulnerability of a young girl half his age on a regular basis . . . for his own personal gratification, only too happy to subjugate her interests to his own pleasures”.

As well as the seven-year jail term, he ordered Buckham to sign the police sex offenders’ register for the rest of his life and, as part of a sexual offences prevention order, barred him from ever contacting his victim again. 

A good article here on how being informed isn’t “anti” anything.

No one can call themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-woman” and stand in opposition to the Women’s Right to Know Act (House bill 854).  This piece of legislation requires that women receive a consultation with a doctor, are given information on alternatives to abortion, offered an ultrasound, and given a 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion. […]

Nevertheless, this bill has generated a series of protests from the pro-choice crowd with arguments that the legislation violates the doctor/patient relationship, it makes the decision to have an abortion more painful for the woman and it is just one more step towards making abortions more difficult to obtain.

But the arguments stem from a misunderstanding of the current situation for women seeking an abortion.  When all the facts are included, this bill is not polarized and does not seek a hidden agenda. […]

I was curious about how much doctor interaction was available to patients seeking an abortion so I called a Woman’s Choice center to schedule the procedure.  They informed me that I could come that same day and wouldn’t have to talk to anyone before my appointment; I could be “in and out.”

Regardless of your stance on abortion, this is not right.  No woman or young girl should be able to have an abortion without a doctor consult.  This is a decision and medical procedure that she will live with for the rest of her life; meanwhile abortion clinics treat patients as if they were customers at a drive-thru fast food restaurant.

This bill cannot violate the doctor/patient relationship because there is no doctor/patient relationship to speak of under the typical abortion procedure.

Emphasis added.

I’ve heard of the concept, but now the concept has a name, ‘Maternity Tourism‘.

NEW YORK, June 21, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Immigration has long been a hotly debated and divisive political issue. A recent Harris Poll sheds light on a new twist in the old debate–the question of “maternity tourism”, or birthing trips where pregnant foreigners travel to the U.S. to give birth, making any child born an automatic U.S. citizen.

[…]

This poll raises some interesting questions, yet the responses showing bi-partisan agreement across several issues and opinion statements is even more interesting. Although immigration has been a politically divisive topic, the issue of maternity tourism is slightly different – it is claimed that many foreigners participating in maternity tourism have no intention of permanently settling in the United States. Rather, they enter the U.S., obtain citizenship for their newborn baby, and then return (with the child) to their home country. While it’s unclear how widespread this practice is, this poll makes clear that Americans see it as an abuse of our system, which they would like to prevent. It will be interesting if legislators pursue this at all, or even if it can be determined how common the practice may be.

What are the motives of such an endeavor? Well, despite the notion that it’s an “abuse” of a system, the parents of these children don’t actually obtain any resident status or receive any services. In the U.S., these out-of-pocket services for traveling mothers-to-be would include medical care and hospital stays. While these women return home to their native countries, they wait and care for their American-born children until they turn 21. At 21, these children could then petition the U.S. government to allow their parents to become residents (a process not easily done and requiring quite a bit of money in your bank account). It seems like an awful lot of trouble for not much pay-off, but if this fraction of women are so desperate to have American children, what’s the problem?

The Center for Health Care Statistics estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in the United States in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is a small fraction of the roughly 4.3 million total births that year.

Canadians have been exposed to photographs and giant warning labels on cigarettes for some time now, but this is all relatively new to your southern neighbors.

WASHINGTON – On June 21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will unveil the final graphic health warnings chosen to appear on every pack of cigarettes sold and on all cigarette advertising in the United States. This represents the most significant change to cigarette labels in more than a quarter century and will affect everything from packaging to advertising. The labels combine graphic imagery with straightforward facts to make the message clear: smoking can kill you.

One of the proposed new images, found here, focuses on fetal health… I meant to say, as the package reads, your baby’s health. Because when you take away the medical cloak of harming an unborn child, it’s harming a baby.

I understand the frustration, I really do. But if an organization does harm to even one human being even when helping so many others, do we still call it philanthropic? Do we still think they work for the love of humanity? Some people think so.

I wish our opponents would stop being so judgmental and so quick to cast stones. I would like to suggest to them to do some research and become educated on exactly all that we offer and do on a daily basis, so they could make informed decisions rather than listen to all of the propaganda. […]

In the shoes that I have walked in for the past 17 years, we have tried to help people who need us by treating and educating our patients and hopefully helping them avoid having to make the choice of having an abortion.

Planned Parenthood does offer many services that I have absolutely no problem with, like breast exams. Yes, I want someone to give breast exams and preventative cancer care to those without insurance. I’m not advocating otherwise. However, abortion provider aside, Planned Parenthood also promotes many other practices that the majority of Americans and Canadians may actually find disturbing. For example, the IPPF gave China its seal of approval in 2006, despite the claims of activists that forced sterilizations and abortions were still taking place.

An article in Time magazine in September 2005 claimed that some 7,000 people had been sterilised against their will in Shandong province.

The very year China joined the IPPF, it hit record highs for sterilizations.

An aggressive, and often coercive, prevention campaign also reduced abortions. In 1983 alone, China sterilized 21 million people and fitted 17.8 million women with intrauterine devices. The next year abortions declined sharply to 8.9 million.

Is this how Planned Parenthood envisions “treating patients” in order to help them avoid abortion? And even if their employees didn’t conceal statutory rape, and even if there are fewer abortions preformed than mammograms, is it really worth the trade-off? Do we really have to settle for a shabby runner-up to handle women’s health? I think we all deserve better than that.

Funding questions don’t only apply to which money is or isn’t being used for abortions. If you happen to live in an EU member country like Hungary, you also can’t use funds to promote abortion alternatives, because that’s not in keeping with “EU values”. This imposing of values can go even further, as Ireland learn back in December.

The European Commission requested Hungary to stop its anti-abortion campaign because it was financed mainly using EU money allotted to gender equality projects.

The Hungarian government earlier this year chose against an outright ban on abortion, but started an ad campaign hoping to reduce the numbers of legal abortions. The campaign is set to run for two months and show a picture of a fetus with the words, “I understand it if you aren’t ready for me, but rather put me up for adoption, let me live!”

Through the Progress Fund, the EU subsidizes projects aimed at gender equality. Some members of the European Parliament asked the European Commission in May whether the Commission was aware that the fund, designed to support the implementation of the EU’s social agenda, was being used to finance an anti-abortion campaign.

In response, commission vice-president Viviane Reding urged Hungarian authorities to immediately stop the campaign, saying its funding using EU money was improper.

 

…everywhere.

(Reuters) – A man convicted of attempted murder under Ohio’s fetal homicide law after he tried to force his girlfriend to get an abortion at gunpoint was sentenced on Thursday to 13 years in prison.

Dominic L. Holt-Reid, 28, was charged last October under the 1996 statute, which defines the unlawful termination of a pregnancy as murder. He pleaded guilty to the charge in April.

According to prosecutors, Yolanda Burgess, Holt-Reid’s 26-year-old girlfriend and the mother of one of his six children, had initially agreed to terminate the pregnancy.

But when Burgess changed her mind on the day the procedure was scheduled, Holt-Reid, a felon out on parole for a federal drug conviction, allegedly pulled a handgun and forced her to drive to the abortion clinic, where he accompanied her inside, the gun hidden in his waistband.

Burgess was able to pass a note, however, to clinic employees, alerting them to her plight. They called police, who arrested Holt-Reid and charged him with attempted murder, abduction and several weapons offenses.

Burgess has since given birth to the child.