Brice Griffin

A post-abortive mother’s response to the ‘I had an abortion’ t-shirt

Brice Griffin
By Brice Griffin
Image

January 16, 2013 (StandTrue.com) - Today I came across a pro-abortion image that made my skin crawl. There was no blood, no little aborted baby parts, no image of death. Instead it was a photo of Gloria Steinem, smiling, arms raised in a celebratory pose, wearing a t-shirt that read, “I had an abortion.” Beneath her it asked, “Do you really need to inconvenience yourself for the next 18 years?”

Where to begin?

As a post-abortive mother of four, this infuriated and disgusted me on many different levels.

Firstly, it rekindles my anger toward the “Women’s Liberation” movement that has so emasculated our men and destroyed our society with things like birth control and abortion on demand until a child’s day of birth. Why is it that men are afraid to speak up for their children as they drive their child’s mother to the abortion mill? Because society has spent the last 40 years telling them that the ultimate display of respect and equality to their female counterparts is the freedom and constitutional right that is killing her child at her simplest whim, as if she were having a tooth or a wart removed. Shut up and let me do what I want.

And going one step further, consider the utter selfishness of the question posed in this graphic. Why inconvenience yourself with a child? Kill it so you can continue your promiscuous lifestyle with no regrets. Tell me, please, the last time you heard a mother say she regretted keeping her child. Women do not regret the children they have; they regret the children they didn’t have.

And on top of that, mothers, did you know that you’re free of your parental responsibility once your child turns 18? WOW! It’s such a relief to know that when my youngest is 18 I will no longer be burdened and tormented by the absolute love and constant worry that envelops my heart for him. Upon their 18th birthday, I can end my relationship with each of my children and resume my wonderful and joyous life that I had without them. They’re on their own for college, so my husband and I can retire early. Really? I can’t imagine a day without them. I miss them when they’re at school, for crying out loud!

In my recent years of pro-life activism, I have been approached by dozens of post-abortive women. Some are ready to begin their healing process. Some don’t want to discuss their experience, but just want to say, “I’ve been there, too, and I appreciate your story.” Some want to know if their destructive behavior is normal. Some want to know if they’ll ever be forgiven. I have never, ever, ever been approached by a woman who said, “Having an abortion was the best decision of my life.” Or even, “My abortion was the right thing to do and I’m ok with it.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The only time I ever met a woman wearing a shirt similar to that of Ms. Steinem was at the DNC, when we were joined at a pro-life prayer vigil by some very loud, dirty, profane women, whose mission was obviously to mock us and our beliefs. When we presented 3,300 flowers to demonstrate the growing number of children killed by abortion in America every day, one of our visitors asked, “CAN I HAVE TWO FLOWERS? ONE FOR EACH OF MY ABORTIONS?” I told her of course and handed her the flowers and she dramatically placed one behind each ear.

My reaction wasn’t enough, I suppose, because as we prayed, she began to yell as loudly as she could that each of these flowers represents a woman who could continue to fulfill her goals, whose life would not be “foreclosed upon,” whose dreams would not be dashed by the burden of a child. If we lunatic pro-lifers had our way, 3,300 women a day would have their futures diminished by being forced to have a child against her will. Her will. Not God’s will, but hers. It’s not about you, or religion, or doing what’s right. It’s about me. I will do what makes me feel good and if I believe I’m a good person then I don’t have to worry about a thing because that God of yours is a forgiving God, isn’t he? I will have sex with whomever I choose, because your God made us sexual beings, didn’t he? Sex feels good for a reason, right? And if that God should make a mistake and create a life in my womb when it’s not convenient for me, then I’ll just take care of it. I’ll kill the child (or remove my uterine contents, as the procedure is described by abortionists) and continue to live my life however I want,  because after all, it was your God who accidentally decided I should be pregnant in the first place. Silly God. Really? Do you really think that God makes mistakes?

I digress. The t-shirt. Would I wear one like it? I had an abortion. That’s not a slogan on a shirt, that’s my reality. There was a time in my early 20s when all I wanted was to get pregnant and have a child. Desperately. I would practically dare my boyfriend, and alternately beg him to begin our little family. Why then, when I finally conceived my first child, was I so easily convinced to “take care of it”? I don’t have an answer. I can say with certainty that if he had reacted with “That’s great news! We’re going to have a family!” that I would have kept the child. Never did I feel like this was my body and my decision. It was us and our decision and he decided that abortion was the answer and I didn’t argue.

The night of the procedure I drank all of the whiskey I could find and I did that for most of the nights following for several months. I wanted to leave the country. I wanted therapy. I wanted to die. I wanted, more than anything in the world, to be INCONVENIENCED FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS. But I chose not to be inconvenienced, to have my uterine contents removed, to spend the next several years suffering from my decision. Now as I stand on the sidewalk in front of Charlotte’s abortion mills, I am joined by friends who are unable to conceive. How must they feel, longing for a child, watching a woman who chooses convenience over a lifetime of love?

And finally, I thought that Planned Parenthood’s intention was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Safe, legal and rare. It’s everyone’s argument now: safe, legal and rare. We don’t want any women dying in back-alley abortion clinics, or resorting to the old coat hanger method, do we? Tonya Reaves. Marla Cardamone. Diana Lopez. Carole Wingo. Nichole Williams. Tanya Williamson. These women weren’t killed in a dark alley. Several of them died immediately after leaving Planned Parenthood.

Safe? For whom? In nearly 100% of abortions, a child is killed. And these and many more women died as a result of a botched abortion. Legal, you betcha. Rare? Planned Parenthood recently released a report that boasted 333,964 children were killed in their facilities during fiscal year 2011-2012. One child was aborted, and one mother diminished, every 90 seconds. Safe, legal and rare. That’s why we need Planned Parenthood; we need to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.

Closing, I wonder, does the question “Do you really need to inconvenience yourself for the next 18 years” sound like it comes from an organization that doesn't want you to have an abortion? Or from an organization that sees you and your uterine contents as nothing more than a dollar sign…?

God, I thank you for blessing me with these four inconveniences. Please tell my baby who sits with you that I love him, I’m sorry, and his sisters and brother will beam when they meet him.

Reprinted with permission from StandTrue.com.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

,

Arguments don’t have genitals

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission from CCBR.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Rachel Daly

,

Gvmt strikes UK Catholic school admission policy that prefers Mass attendees

Rachel Daly
By Rachel Daly

St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Epsom, England, was ordered to change its admissions policy after it was ruled discriminatory by the nation's Office of Schools Adjudicator, according to Your Local Guardian. St. Joseph's reportedly had been granting preferred acceptance to students whose families attended Mass at the affiliated church.

St. Joseph’s School is for students from age 4 to 11 and describes itself as “enjoy[ing] a high level of academic success.” The school furthermore places high priority on its Catholic identity, affirming on its homepage that “We place prayer and worship at the center of everything we do.”

The school states in its current admissions policy that it was "set up primarily to serve the Catholic community in St Joseph’s Parish" and that when the applicant pool exceeds 60 students, its criteria for prioritizing students includes "the strength of evidence of practice of the faith as demonstrated by the level of the family's Mass attendance on Sundays." 

Opponents of this policy reportedly argue that since donations are asked for at Mass, it could allow donation amounts to influence acceptance, and that forcing non-accepted local students to seek education elsewhere imposes a financial burden upon their families. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Your Local Guardian reports, the adjudicators dismissed claims that donation amounts were affecting school acceptance, given that it is impossible to track donations. Nonetheless, the adjudicators maintained that "discrimination ... potentially arises from requiring attendance at the church rather than residency in the parish."

The Office of Schools Adjudicators, according to its website, is appointed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of Education, to perform such functions as mediating disputes over school acceptances. The Office's ruling on St. Joseph's will require the school to release a revised admissions policy, which is expected in the next few days.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Carolyn Moynihan

African women at risk of HIV, hostages to birth control

Carolyn Moynihan
By Carolyn Moynihan

Which should be the priority for a health organisation: preventing an incurable disease, or preventing a natural function that might have adverse physical consequences?

Preventing the disease, you would think. But the World Health Organisation would rather expose African women to HIV-AIDS than withdraw its support from a suspect method of birth control, arguing that childbirth is also risky in Africa. Riskier, apparently, than the said contraceptive. And at least one of WHO’s major partners agrees.

This is one of the stories you will not have read in coverage of the International AIDS Conference held in Melbourne last week, despite the fact that WHO made an announcement about it during the conference and the findings of a highly relevant study were presented there.

The story is this: there is increasing evidence that the method of contraception preferred by family planning organisations working in Africa (and elsewhere) facilitates the transmission of HIV. The method is the progesterone injection in the form of either DMPA (Depo Provera, the most common) or NET-En (Noristerat).

Millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa receive the injection every three months. The method overcomes problems of access. It can be given by nurses or health workers. A wife need not bother her husband for any special consideration; the teenage girl need not remember to take a pill.

But for 30 years evidence has been accumulating that, for all its “effectiveness” in controlling the number of births, the jab may also be very effective in increasing the number of people with HIV.

Three years ago at another AIDS conference in Rome, researchers who had analysed data from a number of previous studies delivered the disturbing news that injectables at least doubled the risk of infection with HIV for women and their male partners.

That study had its weaknesses but one of the experts present in Rome, Charles Morrison of FHI 360 (formerly Family Health International, a family planning organisation that also works in AIDS prevention), considered it a “good study” and subsequently led another meta-analysis that addressed some of the issues with previous research.

Last week at the Melbourne conference he presented the results. His team had re-analysed raw data on the contraceptive use of more than 37,000 women in 18 prospective observational studies. Of these women, 28 percent reported using DMPA, 8 percent NET-En, 19 percent a combined oral contraceptive pill, and 43 percent no form of hormonal contraception. A total of 1830 women had acquired HIV while in a study.

The analysis showed that both injectables raised the risk of infection by 50 percent:

Compared to non-users [of any hormonal contraceptive], women using DMPA had an elevated risk of infection (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86), as did women using NET-En (1.51, 95% CI 1.21-1.90). There was no increased risk for women using oral contraceptives.

Similarly, comparing women using injections with those using oral contraceptives, there was an elevated risk associated with DMPA (1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.67) and NET-En (1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.71).

Morrison also noted:

The results were consistent in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. However, when only studies which were judged to be methodologically more reliable were included, the increased risk appeared smaller.

Morrison acknowledged that observational studies such as the FHI analysis depended on have their limitations. He is looking for funding to conduct a randomised controlled study – something that, after 30 years of suspicions and evidence, still has not been done.

So what is his advice to the birth control industry? Stop using this stuff in regions with a high prevalence of HIV until we are sure that we are not feeding an epidemic?

No.

One reason is that FHI is at least as interested in contraception as it is in HIV prevention. Though its website reflects a broad range of development activities, its core business is integrating birth control programmes with HIV prevention. The WHO – one of its partners -- describes the US based, 83 percent US government funded non-profit as “a global health and development organization working on family planning, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.”

Another reason is that FHI 360 has a vital stake in precisely the kind of contraceptives that are under suspicion. Its annual report refers to:

Our trailblazing work in contraceptive research and development continues, as we develop and introduce high-quality and affordable long-acting contraceptives for women in low-income countries. Research is under way to develop a new biodegradable contraceptive implant that would eliminate the need for removal services. We are also working with partners to develop an injectable contraceptive that would last for up to six months. Currently available injectables require reinjections monthly or quarterly, which can be challenging where health services are limited.

That project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID.

So Morrison did not argue in Melbourne for restrictions on the use of injectables, and neither did the WHO, whose representative at the conference outlined the UN body’s new guidelines on contraception and HIV. Mary Lyn Gaffield said a review of studies up to – but not including Morrison’s – did not warrant a change to WHO’s policy that DMPA and NET-En should be available, without restriction, in areas of high HIV prevalence.

The most WHO will advise is that women should be informed of the risk:

“Women at high risk of HIV infection should be informed that progestogen-only injectables may or may not increase their risk of HIV acquisition. Women and couples at high risk of HIV acquisition considering progestogen-only injectables should also be informed about and have access to HIV preventive measures, including male and female condoms.”

Condoms? How do they defend such cynicism? By equating the risk of HIV with the risks of motherhood – complications of pregnancy or childbirth, maternal death and the effect on infants... And yet motherhood remains risky precisely because 90 percent of the world’s effort is going into contraception!

Seven years ago a meeting of technical experts convened by WHO to study the injectables-HIV link showed the reproductive health establishment worried about that issue, to be sure, but also concerned that funding was flowing disproportionately to HIV-AIDS programmes, setting back the cause of birth control. The integration of family planning and HIV prevention spearheaded by FHI 360 looks like they have found an answer to that problem.

Whether African women are any better off is very doubtful. They remain pawns in a game that is, above all, about controlling their fertility. They and their partners are encouraged to take risks with their health, if not their lives, while researchers scout for funds to do the definitive study.

FHI had an income of $674 million last year, most of it from the US government. Couldn’t it give Charles Morrison the money to do his research today?

Reprinted with permission from Mercatornet.com.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook