Friday, June 10, 2011

What's Worse - Graphic Pictures Or Abortions For Middle-Schoolers Without Parental Consent?

A question that better be considered by all those who believe that showing graphic pictures of aborted babies is (somehow) inappropriate.
TORONTO, Ontario, June 9, 2011 ( – A twelve-year-old in Ontario cannot go on a school field trip without parental permission, or drink alcohol without a parent present. They won’t be able to drive, buy cigarettes, or vote for years. But they can get an abortion all on their own, without their parents ever knowing.

Private abortion facilities across Ontario advertise with pride that they will perform abortions on girls under 16 without informing their parents.
“I’m only 14 can I still have an abortion at your clinic?” their FAQ asks. “Yes, we do not discriminate by age and we do NOT require consent for our clients who are under the age of 18.”

“Furthermore, we do not tell your parents any information even if they call our facility inquiring about your whereabouts.”
And yet, not just the Genocide Awareness Project posters, but even the Watch Me Grow brochure, that merely shows what an unborn baby looks like at certain stages of gestation, is deemed "inappropriate" for school children. Pro-aborts and their accomplices in the school bureaucracy push abortion to middle-schoolers under the guise of "choice", and yet they do everything in their power to prevent young people from finding out what exactly is being chosen.


Gabriel Dzsurdzsa said...

I would submit that it is extremely rare for a twelve year old to get pregnant and subsequently to seek out abortion services on their own.

What do the numbers say about this? How many twelve year olds do we have going incognito to abortion clinics without their parents consent?

Regardless, unless it's your own daughter we're talking about, what business do you have telling what can or cannot go in or come out of some other woman's or girl's body?

And if it is the case that should your daughter get pregnant and subsequently wish to get an abortion still, after your best efforts at persuading her otherwise, hypothetically, what would you do? Would you force her to keep the baby? Would try to defer the question to government and have laws enacted against abortion?

Leonard said...

>what business do you have telling
>what can or cannot go in or come out
>of some other woman's or girl's body?
You are forgetting that the baby in the womb too has a body. Therefore - what business does anyone (including the mother) have destroying that body for his or her own convenience?

Once there is a beating heart it's not up to any of us to stop it. That's why I believe we should do our best to convince every woman (including our own family members of course) to choose life. If this is my cross to bear - than I'd rather be a grandfather of a baby than allow something like this to be done to my grandchild.

As for the rest - it's not really the statistics that matters. It's the fact that it is possible - and therefore - could happen at any time, that's what I find the most disturbing.

And another thing - the age of 12 is the age by which the children have already been exposed to so called "sex ed". That's when the schools bring in foul-mouthed "experts" from "planned parenthood" which tell them that having an abortion is a "five minute procedure" after which "you're fine".

So it's about time the children see what abortion is really like, see the baby in the womb and what's left of him or her after a woman exercises her "choice". Too bad that the schools that are officially Catholic are so hostile to the presentations.

Gabriel Dzsurdzsa said...

So then you are for the forcing of women, either by law or by making it harder for them to seek out abortion services, to give birth against their own will?

And still, you haven't answered my question about, if it were your own daughter that you could not persuade, despite your best efforts, to carry the child to term, would you force her?

Otherwise, on your point about the child's body, I would understand if you were the father and objected to your own child being aborted. But why is it necessary for you to impose your own standards onto others and their individual circumstance?

Leonard said...

Because murder should not be allowed in ANY circumstances.

Let me clarify that we're not talking about a life-threatening situation, when doctors make their best efforts to save both lives. (Considering that even a 20-week baby can now be salvaged, this is hardly an argument nowadays.) We're talking about abortions on demand, when a woman (or, most often - her family members and peers) believe that letting the child live is too much of an inconvenience - so they "choose" to put him to death.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen. The baby's life should be protected by law from the moment of conception. And if the woman (or her family members) don't want the child - there are plenty of other families that do.

You talk about "forcing of women to give birth against their own will" - as if those babies were materializing out of thin air. We know that's not so. And, as grown-ups, we have to be held responsible for our own actions. Including those arising from beliefs in faulty theories such as "safe" sex. Mistakes and even tragedies don't justify putting a baby to death.

Our entire system of human rights arbitration is based on the notion that some people have to endure the hardship to accommodate others. This is one of the few cases when such approach is justified, because human lives are at stake. Let the baby live and if you don't want the baby - there are other families that do.

Finally, to answer your question - yes; if, God forbid, my own daughter wants an abortion so bad - I'll do my best to prevent her from doing that, even if it means blocking the door or the driveway. I won't let her make that tragic mistake and allowing her child (and my grandchild) to be put to death without a fight.

And obviously, if the parents are serious about preventing such a situation from even becoming a possibility, they better become more involved with their children, first and foremost - pulling them out of the public schools.

Gabriel Dzsurdzsa said...

Did God himself not kill all of the Egyptian first born, whom were innocent and defenseless, when delivering Moses and the Israelites to the promise land?

His 10th plague was the most horrible of all!

How many children were aborted that faithfull night, assuming the story is true, when God sent an Angel of Death to all of the doors in Egypt not painted red?

Do not presume to take the moral high ground and maintain it without looking like a hypocrite!

When you say "murder should not be allowed in ANY circumstances.", you're essential going against not only, I would assume God's will, since hundreds of thousands of children are aborted on a daily basis in God's world, but also against the natural order of our existence.

At very least, I would say you have the guts to at least admit the fact that you'd be willing to force someone to carry a child to term against their will, including your own daughter.

But let it be known that there will always be people like myself ready to defend choice against hypocrisy, under any and all circumstances.

Leonard said...

You are not God. And neither is me or anyone else for that matter. If you believe that the story of what God did to the Egyptians (taken out of context) somehow justifies slaughtering innocent preborn babies out of convenience - you're greatly mistaken, to say the least.

Gabriel Dzsurdzsa said...

And neither are you, God, yet you suggest forcing women to carry a child to term.

As far as I'm aware, no man or woman has the authority to override free will.

It's also against the law to do so!

And damn right it's a woman's business what goes in and comes out of her body, what incubates in her womb. After all, without her the child cannot be conceived.

However, on the whole 10th plague example, I got you to say that slaughtering innocent children is wrong.

Very good!

It was wrong for God to do so wasn't it? I think it was.

Now unfortunately, there are idiot women that get abortions on a whim and do not realise the consequences of their actions. Such are the realities of our existence.

And there are wholesale abortions being performed as we speak, around the globe, where the foetuses are healthy and their mothers with a good enough financial backing to take care of them.

Yet they die. Why is that?

Because, those of us more pragmatic realise that the right of a woman to decide whether to conceive or not to conceive supersedes the right of the child to be conceived.

The distinction is simple then: You believe the reverse.

There is one difference however:

We do not try to impose our standards, those of us who believe in the right to choose, on you.

We do not try to enact laws that prevent your wives from carrying a child to term. We don’t have double standards and we reject hypocrisy.

We say it’s none of our business, regardless whether the child is born with a disability or is otherwise healthy.

It's the mother's choice, not yours.

My whole point has been that people like you carry double standards and quite often are hypocritical. You say one thing, like when you said that murder should not be allowed under ANY circumstance, you emphasized any, and then you defended the killing of perhaps tens of thousands of children by someone whom you presumably believe to be the supreme authority on such moral questions, God.

That’s clearly a double standard.

On the hypocrisy point, you people try to look so humble and righteous on the question of abortion, but when it comes to things like homosexuality and trans-gendered rights its vitriol all day, all the time.

There’s about a snowball’s chance in hell that abortion will ever again be made illegal completely. In the U.S. it was illegal for quite some time, yet abortions were still performed regardless.

So just give up!

Stop trying to ram your moral attitudes and dated standards down society’s throat.

Leonard said...

>>As far as I'm aware, no man or woman
>>has the authority to override free will.
>>It's also against the law to do so!
Are you sure? Actually, that's exactly what the law does - puts restrictions on free will, so that one's free will doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

If you, acting out of free will, "choose" to take possession of someone else's property - the law is there to say no. Ditto if your free will means taking away someone else's life. No matter how much of an inconvenience that person is to you - the law says no to that kind of free will.

The only shameful exemption is the legal vacuum concerning the first 9 months of human existence - from conception and until birth; which came to being when the court struk down the old abortion law and the Parliament of the time failed to pass a new one. But again, this is not the rule, but an exemption, an anomaly that must be fixed. Human life should be fully protected from conception to natural death.

>Because, those of us more pragmatic
>realise that the right of a woman to decide ...
>supersedes the right of the child to be conceived.
Actually we're talking about the right of the child to be BORN. By the time most abortions take place, the child not only has a beating heart, but he has all his organs already formed; the only difference between him and a newborn - is the size. You claim that those babies can be destroyed because of the mother's "free will" (which is often not so free) - we disagree.

Your arguments about double standards and hypocrisy make no sense. We're talking about humans, not deities. Thus - there's only one standard on which we insist.

You claim that you do not try to impose your standards - you sure do - through the schools that make pro-abortion "sex ed" curriculum mandatory for all, yet a brochure on fetal development like this one is never allowed. The pro-abortion crowd likes to talk about "choice" but they go hysterical when we try to show what exactly is being chosen.

You claim that abortions were taking place even when they were illegal - there are many things that are illegal, yet people do them anyway. That's not the reason to legalize them. You claim that our cause is lost and that we should give up. I doubt even you believe these words. The tide is turning and it's turning in favor of the pro-life cause. The evidence is clear. In fact, our success is a mathematical certainty.