Kristi Burton Brown

‘Therapeutic abortion,’ and other nonsensical pro-abortion phrases

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown
Image

January 13, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a good source for truth when it comes to the abortion industry.  During the two years he directed an abortion clinic in New York, the clinic performed 60,000 abortions.  He admits to having done 5,000 abortions himself and supervising another 10,000.  In his own words, “I have 75,000 abortions in my life.  Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject.”

And what does Dr. Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, have to say about the slogans so frequently thrown around by the promoters of abortion?  He remembers laughing when his organization made up the slogans “freedom of choice” and “women must have control over their own bodies.”  He reports, “We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion.”  Dr. Nathanson also admits that the abortion movement was based on lies, not women’s rights.

[W]e simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.  We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion….We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S….Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.  The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually.  The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.  These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion laws….[A]bortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.

Times are changing, and while the slogans Dr. Nathanson referred to are still used, there are new and modern ones that have been added to the mix.  Equal to the original slogans, they are meant to capture public opinion, not to promote truth or the actual positions of the people who so frequently spout them.

For instance: “abortion care”.  Um, what does killing a human being have to do with “care”?  How can anyone even include the words murder and care in the same sentence?  This is exactly the same as saying “kidnapping care” or “murder care.”  Ok, except for the fact that abortion isn’t illegal…yet.  But other than that, there’s no difference.  I simply can’t wrap my mind around the concept that killing an innocent, voiceless human being is a way to “care.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

For anyone who claims that abortion cares about women (and is willing to admit it certainly doesn’t care about the baby), why not find a different way to help a mother than kill her child?  How about paying her rent?  How about paying her medical expenses during pregnancy or helping her connect with organizations that do this?  What about adopting her child?  Those are true ways to care about a mother.

To explain myself a little better, if you wanted to help a tired mother who stayed home with her four children under the age of five, you wouldn’t suggest killing the two youngest children to help her out.  You’d go babysit.  You’d pick up groceries, clean her house, make some freezer meals.  I think it’s time pro-choice people stopped taking the easy way out to “help” women and started actually doing something practical for them (like they always say we should do).  Killing is not, cannot be, and never will be the answer.

Another example:  “reproductive justice”. This one particularly irks me.  One Wikipedia definition I found for this lovely term is “a concept linking reproductive health with social justice.”  Excuse me?  Why isn’t my heart health linked with social justice?  What about my brain health?  Or just my overall health in general?  Why does only my reproductive health need special protections?  I’m kind of offended that all of me isn’t included in this idea of social justice.  Obviously, I’m joking.  But I have to make these kind of ridiculous jokes to illustrate the ridiculousness of this new term.  In fact, I’m dedicating a future article solely to this term.  Stay tuned.

One more:  “therapeutic termination”.  Here are a few definitions I found:

1. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.

2. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy in order to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.

3. A legally induced abortion for medical reasons (as when the mother’s life is threatened).

Ok, hold it right there.  The pro-abortion side tries to make this term apply to scenarios that it has no business applying it to.  For instance, they apply it to abortion done because the baby would have been born disabled.  That in no way, shape, or form saves the life or health of the mother.  It kills an innocent baby because he or she was different than the rest of us.

In addition, there is no way “therapeutic” termination should apply to “the termination of a pregnancy by a qualified physician.”  What?  This definition makes it sound like all abortions are therapeutic and helpful.  Please.  They are anything but.  And the fact that this definition has found its way into an actual dictionary just demonstrates how far the deception has sunk into our culture.

Finally, it’s even inaccurate to call an abortion to save the mother’s health or life a “therapeutic termination.”  Any time you intentionally kill a baby, regardless of the reasons, let’s just call it for what it is—an abortion; a killing.  You never need to dismember a living baby to save its mother.  Removing a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is not intentionally killing the baby.  It’s a sad result of what must be done, not an abortion.  Chemotherapy for mothers with cancer is not done with the intention to kill the baby.  It all comes down to intention.

In Abortion: A Doctor’s Perspective, A Woman’s Dilemma, abortionist Don Sloan (who, unlike Dr. Nathanson, has not yet converted to the pro-life side) states:

“In gynecology, there are only three procedures that we consider purely elective…Abortions are elective.  There are very few conditions–now maybe none–that require the termination of a pregnancy….The idea of abortion to save the mother’s life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure–but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist.  It’s a real stretch of our thinking.  Abortions…can be seen as always purely elective–not necessary from a medical standpoint.”

So, instead of making it sound good, let’s call it for what it is.  Straight from the horse’s mouth, they’re elective abortions not therapeutic terminations.

Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org

Only 6 days remain!

Support pro-life news. Help us reach our critical spring fundraising goal by April 1!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Indiana faces backlash as it becomes 20th state to protect religious liberty

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

INDIANAPOLIS, IN, March 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Thursday, Indiana became the 20th state to prevent the government from forcing people of faith to violate their religious beliefs in business or the public square.

Gov. Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 101) into law, saying the freedom of religion is a preeminent American value.

“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action,” Pence said.

Gov. Pence, a possible dark horse candidate for president in 2016, cited court cases brought by religious organizations and employers, including Catholic universities, against the HHS mandate. “One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning the Affordable Care Act. A private business and our own University of Notre Dame had to file lawsuits challenging provisions that required them to offer insurance coverage in violation of their religious views.”

The new law could also prevent Christian business owners from being compelled to bake a cake or take photographs of a same-sex "marriage" ceremony, if doing so violates their faith. In recent years, business owners have seen an increased level of prosecution for denying such services, despite their religious and moral beliefs.

The state's pro-life organization applauded Pence for his stance. "Indiana's pro-life community is grateful to Gov. Mike Pence for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law,” said Indiana Right to Life's president and CEO Mike Fichter. “This bill will give pro-lifers a necessary legal recourse if they are pressured to support abortion against their deeply-held religious beliefs.”

“RFRA is an important bill to protect the religious freedom of Hoosiers who believe the right to life comes from God, not government,” he said.

The state RFRA is based on the federal bill introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The Supreme Court cited the federal law when it ruled that Hobby Lobby had the right to refuse to fund abortion-inducing drugs, if doing so violated its owners' sincerely held religious beliefs.

In signing the measure – similar to the one Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed – Pence and the state of Indiana have faced a torrent of venom from opponents of the bill, who claim it grants a “right to discriminate” and raises the spectre of segregation.

"They've basically said, as long as your religion tells you to, it's OK to discriminate against people," said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national homosexual pressure group.

The Disciples of Christ, a liberal Protestant denomination based in the state capital, has said it will move its 2017 annual convention if the RFRA became state law. The NCAA warned the bill's adoption “might affect future events” in the Hoosier state.

Pence denied such concerns, saying, "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way I would've vetoed it."

The bill's supporters say that, under the Obama administration, it is Christians who are most likely to suffer discrimination.

"Originally RFRA laws were intended to protect small religious groups from undue burdens on practicing their faith in public life,” said Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. “It was not imagined there would come a day when laws might seek to jail or financially destroy nuns, rabbis or Christian camp counselors who prefer to abstain from the next wave of sexual and gender experimentation. And there's always a next wave.”

The bill's supporters note that it does not end the government's right to coerce people of faith into violating their conscience in every situation. However, it requires that doing so has to serve a compelling government interest and the government must use the least restrictive means possible. “There will be times when a state or federal government can show it has a compelling reason for burdening religious expression – to ensure public safety, for instance,” said Sarah Torre, an expert at the Heritage Foundation. “But Religious Freedom Restoration Acts set a high bar for the government to meet in order to restrict religious freedom.”

Restricting the ability of government to interfere in people's private decisions, especially their religious decisions, is the very purpose of the Constitution, its supporters say.

"Religious freedom is the cornerstone of all liberty for all people,” Tooley said. “Deny or reduce it, and there are no ultimate limits on the state's power to coerce."

Advertisement
Featured Image
Fight pornography. Beat pornography. And join the ranks of those who support their fellow men and women still fighting.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Porn is transforming our men from protectors into predators. Fight back.

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

Since I’ve gotten involved in anti-pornography work, I’ve met countless men who struggle, fight, or have beaten pornography. Each person seems to deal with the guilt and shame that accompanies porn use in a different way—some deny that it’s “all that bad,” others pretend that they could “stop whenever they want,” many insist that “everyone is doing it,” and most, when pressed, admit to a deep sense of self-loathing.

One worry surfaces often in conversation: What do my past or current struggles with pornography say about me as a man? Can I ever move past this and have a meaningful and fulfilling relationship?

I want to address this question just briefly, since I’ve encountered it so many times.

First, however, I’ve written before how I at times dislike the language of “struggling” with pornography or pornography “addiction,” not because they aren’t accurate but because too often they are used as an excuse rather than an explanation. It is true, many do in fact “struggle” with what can legitimately be considered an addiction, but when this language is used to describe an interminable battle with no end (and I’ve met dozens of men for whom this is the case), then I prefer we use terminology like “fighting my porn habit.” A semantic debate, certainly, but one I think is important. We need to stop struggling with porn and start fighting it.

Secondly, pornography does do devastating things to one’s sense of masculinity. We know this. Pornography enslaves men by the millions, perverting their role as protector and defender of the more vulnerable and turning them into sexual cannibals, consuming those they see on-screen to satisfy their sexual appetites.

What often starts as mere curiosity or an accidental encounter can turn into something that invades the mind and twists even the most basic attractions. I’ve met porn users who can’t believe the types of things they want to watch. They haven’t simply been using porn. Porn has actively reshaped them into something they don’t recognize and don’t like. 

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Porn is this generation’s great assault on masculinity and the role of men in society. It is essential that we win this battle for the sake of society’s survival. Contrary to what the gender-bending and family-morphing progressive elites claim, good husbands and good fathers and good church leaders are necessary for a healthy society. But pornography is destroying marriages, creating distant and disconnected fathers, and, metaphoricaclly castrating men, hindering their ability and desire to make a positive difference in the society around us.

So, with this sobering set of facts in mind let’s return to the question: what do pornography struggles, past and present, say about a man?

The proper way to respond is with everything that is good about masculinity. We have to fight pornography as men have fought countless evils throughout the ages. We need to fight pornography to protect women, and wives, and children, and our society at large. This is how pornography threatens society, by castrating men, and turning them from protectors into predators. Rooting out the evil in our own lives allows us to better fulfill the role we are called to perform in the lives of others. Battling our own demons enables us to battle the wider cultural demons. Every day without porn is another bit of virtue built. Virtue is not something you’re born with. Virtues are habits that you build. And one day without porn is the first step towards the virtue of being porn-free.

Many men ask me if men who have had past porn addictions are cut out for being in a relationship or working in the pro-life movement or in other areas where we are called to protect and defend the weak and vulnerable. And the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Our society needs men who know what it means to fight battles and win. Our society needs men who can say that they fought porn and they beat porn, because their families and their friends were too important to risk. Our society needs men who rose to the challenge that the evils of their generation threw at them, and became better men as the result. And our society needs men who can help their friends and their sons and those around them fight the plague of pornography and free themselves from it, too—and who can understand better and offer encouragement more relevant than someone who has fought and been freed themselves?

So the answer to men is yes. Fight pornography. Beat pornography. And join the ranks of those who support their fellow men and women still fighting. Lend them support and encouragement. We cannot change the fact that porn has left an enormous path of destruction in its wake. But we can change the fact that too many people aren’t fighting it. We can change our own involvement. And we can rise to the challenge and face this threat to masculinity with all that is good about masculinity.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

Red Alert!

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

I don’t like having to do this, but we have always found it best to be totally upfront with our readers: our Spring fundraising campaign is now worrying us! 

You see, with just 6 days remaining, we have only raised 30% of our goal, with $125,000 still left to raise. That is a long ways to go yet.

We have no choice but to reach our minimum goal of $175,000 if we are going to be able to continue serving the 5+ million readers who rely on us every month for investigative and groundbreaking news reports on life, faith and family issues.

Every year, LifeSite readership continues to grow by leaps and bounds. This year, we are again experiencing record-breaking interest, with over 6 million people visiting our website last month alone!

This unprecedented growth in turn creates its own demand for increased staff and resources, as we struggle to serve these millions of new readers.

And especially keep this in mind. As many more people read LifeSite, our mission of bringing about cultural change gets boosted. Our ultimate goal has always been to educate and activate the public to take well-informed, needed actions.

Another upside to our huge growth in readers is that it should be that much easier to reach our goal. To put it simply: if each person who read this one email donated whatever they could (even just $10) we would easily surpass our goal! 

Today, I hope you will join the many heroes who keep this ship afloat, and enable us to proclaim the truth through our reporting to tens of millions of people every year!

Your donations to LifeSite cause major things to happen! We see that every day and it is very exciting. Please join with us in making a cultural impact with a donation of ANY AMOUNT right now. 

You can also donate by phone or mail. We would love to hear from you!

Thank you so much for your support. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook