Cassy Fiano

Pro-choice blogger mocks man in anguish over girlfriend’s decision to abort their child

Cassy Fiano
By Cassy Fiano
Image

June 10, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - A common tale is the man who gets a girl pregnant, and then pressures her into having an abortion. For men just looking to screw around and avoid commitment at any cost, abortion is the perfect solution. Abortion allows them to use a woman and then leave her, have sex and still avoid any kind of consequences or responsibility for their actions.

But what about the other side of the coin? The man who grieves at the abortion of his child, who wants to step up and take responsibility and make a commitment, is not often mentioned in the abortion discussion. When he is, he’s oftentimes mocked and told that he has no right to speak up. Such men are also smeared as misogynists who don’t care about women and want to force a life of misery and servitude onto their unwitting partners. Yet, strangely, these same people will insist that if the woman does want the baby and the man doesn’t, he should be forced to financially support the woman and her child for almost two decades against his will. Seems slightly hypocritical, no?

With that in mind, let’s check out this plea for advice, where a man wrote into a newspaper expressing his anguish and hurt over his girlfriend’s decision to have an abortion.

I’m really confused right now and as I can’t talk to anybody else I’m trying the anonymity of the news paper.

I have a relatively new girlfriend – it’s only a few months since we got together – and as a result of her having a virus, and vomiting all the time, the Pill wasn’t effective, and now she is pregnant.

She wants to have an abortion because she says we don’t know each other well enough to be parents, and I can’t think of anything worse than aborting an unborn child.

All the controversy going on right now doesn’t help, and I am at my wit’s end.

None of our parents has a clue as to what is really going on.

I’m in my late 20s and she is a few years younger. What are your thoughts?

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

While the newspaper columnist does, in fact, tell the man that the decision is solely the woman’s to make, she also points out that he could tell her that adoption is a choice, and that he can and should make his feelings known to her. Another pro-abortion blogger picked up on this plea for advice, though, and her response was slightly more offensive.

Dear Anonymous,

Unlike you, I can think of something worse than aborting an unborn child: a woman who is unwilling to put her health and future at risk and commit to 18 years of parenthood with a near-stranger so that a grown-ass man doesn’t ever have to feel confused or sad about a decision he will never have to make for himself.

What an awful position you’re in, being physically unable to be pregnant and yet knowing exactly what pregnancy is like, and specifically what your girlfriend should do about hers! So many pregnant people experience complicated emotions about unplanned pregnancy and bodily autonomy, while you’re cursed with the absolute knowledge of what’s best for all pregnancies, if only everyone would just listen to your penisfeels for a minute.

But you’re helpless to force every pregnant person ever to carry every pregnancy to term, which is the right thing to do because you personally can’t imagine anything worse than something you literally cannot imagine because it literally will never happen to your body. O, cruel fate!

What can you do? Make a lot of frowns at your girlfriend so she sees how sad you will be if she doesn’t spend the next nine months, and potentially 18 subsequent years, attending to your emotional wellbeing, the most delicate and precious thing on the earth (besides zygotes).

What would the reaction be if a male blogger were to respond to a woman expressing her feelings of guilt, confusion, and anguish over having an abortion to mere “vaginafeels”? Apparently, the idea is that not only must a man let his partner have an abortion without any complaint, but he isn’t allowed to have any personal feelings on the matter, either.

We also see, yet again, the argument that because men can’t get pregnant, they can’t possibly be capable of understanding what pregnancy is like and therefore have no say on the issue. Does that mean that only the Chinese can speak out against the inhumanities of China’s one-child policy and the human rights abuses currently going on there? That the only people allowed to speak about the Holocaust should be Jewish? Issues of human rights have no race, creed, or gender. But pro-aborts need a way to shut down the argument.

Perhaps most disturbing about this viewpoint on men and abortion are the two common views that pregnancy will forever ruin a woman, and that men should actively seek to avoid responsibility for their actions. Women are told, over and over again, that an accidental pregnancy will destroy their lives and their futures, and that their only reasonable choice is to have an abortion. Having the baby will curse them to slave away in poverty, miserable and alone, forever; putting the baby up for adoption is rarely, if ever, mentioned. As for men, they’re shamed and derided when they actually step up and accept the consequences of their actions.

After all, pregnancy isn’t a mystical condition that just mysteriously happens to an unsuspecting woman one day. It requires sex – sex which, most of the time, is consensual – and that requires two people. Having sex, even if you’re using birth control, means you are willingly accepting the risk of becoming pregnant. Yet when men choose to react to their actions by rising to the occasion and accepting responsibility, they’re lambasted by pro-aborts.

This is what we have come to: a world where a man taking responsibility for his actions is portrayed as a bad thing. Yet we also complain about the breakdown of the family and the epidemic of absentee, deadbeat fathers. Is it really that difficult to make the connection? Not only are men given the option of avoiding responsibility for their actions, but they’re encouraged to do so, so how can we then be surprised when more and more men shirk their responsibilities as fathers? Meanwhile, the men who do want to step up and be…well, real men are mocked, insulted, and silenced.

It seems that men are in a lose-lose situation. If they choose to not be involved with their children, then they’re punished. If they choose to step up and be a father when it isn’t what the woman wants, they’re punished. They’re slaves to the whims of women, and if they step out of line at all, then they’re horrible human beings. Is it really that difficult to see that there’s a problem here?

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
'Don’t ever say ‘yes’ to that. It’s terrible,' said Robertson.
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

Phil Robertson: Never vote for politicians who support ‘ripping human fetuses’ from mom’s womb

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Phil Robertson is known for not pulling any punches when it comes to expressing his opinions on controversial issues, and he certainly didn’t disappoint at the Outdoor Extravaganza in Louisiana earlier this month.

Speaking to a massive crowd of some 8,000 outdoors enthusiasts at the CenturyLink Center, Robertson blasted Christians for not getting active in the political sphere.

“There are about 90 to 100 million of us who claim Jesus. The problem is only half of you register to vote and out of the half of you that registers to vote, only half of that group actually goes and votes,” Robertson said, according to the ShrevePort Times.

“Therefore, when you’re looking up there and griping and complaining about what you see in Washington D.C., you might as well shut up,” he added. “The reason they’re there is we’re putting them there. If you don’t get anything else out of this, remember this — register to vote for crying out loud.”

But Robertson reserved his strongest remarks for politicians who support abortion.

“If the dude or woman is for ripping human fetuses out of their mother’s womb, don’t ever vote for that,” Robertson said bluntly. “Don’t ever say ‘yes’ to that. It’s terrible.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Robertson also lamented the increasing secularization of the United States.  

“We’ve lost it folks,” he told the crowd. “We ran God out of our schools. We ran him out of the entertainment business. We ran him out of the news media. We’ve run him out of the judiciary, and we’ve run him out of Washington D.C.

“Well, what you get is what is left up there. They’re ungodly. You agree?”

Ever since A&E’s Duck Dynasty became the most popular reality show in TV history, members of the Robertson family have earned a name as unapologetic defenders of traditional Christian values.

At the Outdoor Extravaganza, Phil was accompanied by his wife, Miss Kay, and eldest son Alan, who also addressed the crowds. 

Phil’s blunt deliveries have occasionally landed him in hot water – most memorably when he addressed the topic of homosexuality in an interview with GQ magazine, earning him a short-lived suspension from his TV show by A&E.

But Robertson refused to apologize for the remarks despite intense pressure from homosexual activists and leftist groups.

“They railed against me for giving them the truth about their sins,” Robertson later said about the response to his GQ interview, pointing out that in the interview he had simply quoted Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality and a variety of other sins.

"The news media didn't even know it was a verse," Robertson said. "They thought I was just mouthing off."

Share this article

Advertisement
Ulrich Klopfer wide
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Four Indiana abortionists could lose their licenses over reporting violations

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

The attorney general of Indiana, Greg Zoeller, has asked a state board to review the medical licenses of four abortionists, including an out-of-state abortionist who failed to report two cases of statutory rape.

The Indiana Medical Licensing Board will review the cases of Dr. Ulrich “George” Klopfer, Dr. Resad Pasic, Dr. Kathleen Glover, and Dr. Raymond Robinson.

A press release from the attorney general's office called Klopfer's “the most egregious complaint.” Klopfer, who lives in Crete, Illinois, failed to report abortions of two 13-year-olds – one at his Women’s Pavilion abortion facility in South Bend and another in his office in Gary.

All abortions must be reported to the Indiana State Department of Health, and abortions performed on minors younger than 14 must also be reported to the Indiana Department of Child Services within three days. Under state law, children under the age of 14 are incapable of consenting to sex, so any sexual relationship with them is considered likely statutory rape.

Klopfer reported the two abortions 116 days and 206 days afterwards, something he described as “an honest mistake.” Klopfer faces a misdemeanor criminal charge in both Lake and St. Joseph county in connection with those allegations.

Every single one of the 1,818 abortion reports Klopfer turned in to state authorities between July 2012 and November 2013 was false or incomplete, Zoeller says. The doctor often omitted the father's name and had a habit of listing the date of every abortion at 88 weeks gestation.

The abortionist is also charged with 13 violations of the state's informed consent law.

“The pending criminal charges brought by county prosecutors along with the sheer volume of unexplained violations...merits review by the Medical Licensing Board to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted,” Zoeller said.

The other three abortionists work at the Clinic for Women in the Indianapolis area. According to a press release from the state attorney general's office, they “are in alleged violation of similar record-keeping and advice and consent laws regarding abortion procedures,” but they face no criminal charges.

The allegations were collected and submitted by Indiana Right to Life, which combed through Klopfer's records. “Our legislators passed laws regarding consent and record keeping to ensure high standards of quality and care for Hoosier women,” Indiana Right to Life President and CEO, Mike Fichter, said. “We're disappointed that these abortion doctors apparently did not willingly comply with Indiana law. We hope the Medical Licensing Board immediately schedules hearings.”

“If found guilty, we believe the abortion doctors should be fined and their licenses to practice in Indiana should be revoked," he added.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

His views were shared by national pro-life leaders. “We are encouraged by the filing of these Administrative Complaints today and urge the Board to revoke Ulrich Klopfer’s medical license due to the fact that he placed young girls in serious risk of continued rape and other abuse by neglecting to report,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Each of these abortionist require stiff discipline in order to impress it upon others that laws are meant to be followed and that they are not above it.”

Zoeller's complaint did not mention a third abortion of a 13-year-old that Klopfer reported after the legal date. The abortion took place in Fort Wayne in February 2012, but he did not report the procedure until July. Police subsequently filed two charges of child molestation against Ronte Lequan Latham, who was then 19-year-old.

Tensions this produced with another physician in his Fort Wayne office led to the first abortion facility closure of 2014.

The epidemic of underreporting presumed statutory rape is not limited to Klopfer. Between 58 and 75 percent of abortions performed on Indiana girls under the age of 14 were not reported in accordance with the law, according to an investigation by Amanda Gray of the South Bend Tribune.

Klopfer had a history of run-ins with authorities. In 2010 and 2012, state inspectors found that he allowed the bodies of aborted babies to be stored in a refrigerator alongside medicine the office gave to women who came in for the procedure.

The board has not yet set a date to hear evidence and make a judgment about their fitness to practice. If the board objects, it could respond by issuing a reprimand, suspending a license, or revoking the abortionists' medical license and imposing fines.

The accused may continue performing abortions until the board makes a final decision. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
President Obama speaks at Planned Parenthood's national conference in 2013.
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Obama remakes the nation’s courts in his image

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins
Image

It has often been said that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is President Obama's greatest achievement as president. However, that claim may soon take second place to his judicial nominees, and especially their effect on marriage in the United States.

In a new graphic, The Daily Signal notes that while President George W. Bush was able to get 50 nominees approved by this time in his second term, Obama has gotten more than 100 approved. According to The Houston Chronicle, "Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals. When Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat."

Three of the five judges who struck down state marriage laws between February 2014 and the Supreme Court's Windsor decision in 2013 were Obama appointees, according to a CBS affiliate in the Washington, D.C. area. Likewise, the Windsor majority that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act included two Obama appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Obama has nominated 11 homosexual judges, the most of any president by far, says the National Law Journal.

Only one federal judge has opposed same-sex "marriage" since the Supreme Court's Windsor decision. He was appointed under the Reagan administration.

This accomplishment, aided by the elimination of Senate filibusters on judicial nominees, could affect how laws and regulations are interpreted by various courts, especially as marriage heads to a probable Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of state laws.

Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial nominees except for Supreme Court candidates last year, saying Republicans were blocking qualified candidates for the bench. However, the filibuster was part of the reason Democrats were able to keep the number of approved Bush appointees so low.

The Supreme Court may hear multiple marriage questions in its 2015 cycle. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook