#prolife #prochoice Child abuse starts in the womb&won't end until abortion is no more #parents #teens #tcot
This is something I have been trying to say and meaning to write about for awhile on the relation to child abuse and abortion. The Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma has done a great job of presenting this case based on facts, that child abuse rates actually went up after abortion became legal. This confirms my belief abortion is a form of child abuse and, child abuse starts in the womb. In addition, studies have shown women who abort are more likely to abuse other children due to depression, substance abuse and anger, which also proves the 'chosen' child is not always a wanted child, but that many children who are abused are not abused because they were unwanted,but most often because the mother couldn't handle the job of parenting and 'chose' later to kill them to try and improve their situation. One high profile example comes to mind, the case of Caylee Anthony.
Those who claim to 'choose' the children they want when they are 'ready to parent' are not immune to child abuse, because when they decide to end the life of one offspring to serve themselves or the needs of their born children, they are committing a selfish and violent act against the innocent human offspring in the womb. This is also why I believe child abuse starts in the womb and won't end until abortion ends.
For a followup to this post see On-Demand Abortions Encourages Child Abuse Part 2
Abortion-on-Demand Encourages Child AbuseMany are familiar with the old pro-choice mantra: "Every child a wanted child." Many arguments were attached to this particular saying. One argument in particular basically stated that abortion-on-demand would reduce the amount of child abuse in the country by preventing 'unwanted' children from being born. The main problem with this argument is the facts.
Francis Schaeffer writes about this argument in Whatever Happened To The Human Race (1983), "Since 1970 it is conservatively estimated in the United States that there are probably over ten million fewer children who would now be be between the ages of one and seven. Since these ten million were 'unwanted' and supposedly would have been prime targets for child abuse, it would seem reasonable to look for a sharp drop in child abuse in this same period." He goes on to say, "In 1972 there were 60,000 child-abuse incidents which were brought to official attention in the United States. Just four years later, in 1976, the number that received official attention passed the half-million mark." This shows indisputably that the "every child a wanted child" pro-choice logic is patently false.
The numbers seem to indicate that not only did abortion-on-demand not decrease child abuse, it seems to have encouraged it. Some may try to argue that the numbers were always that high and that reporting improved, but it seems very implausible that 440,000 were tacked on to the statistics by simply improving reporting processes. Abortion being legalized seems to be the most dramatic cultural change one can identify in that brief four year period that could have caused such a dramatic degradation in the culture's view of life. The simple fact is that laws affect the conscience of a nation and something being legal increases the cultural permissibility of a particular action.[my emphasis]
The question still remains as to why abortion-on-demand would cause citizens to abuse their children more. Schaeffer gives two reasons from two different sources. The first reason he gives was proposed by West Germany's equivalent to the Supreme Court. This court, in giving a reason why they banned abortion-on-demand in the first trimester said, "We cannot ignore the educational impact of abortion on the respect for life." Schaeffer continued to explain their reasoning, "The German court reasoned that if abortion were made legal for any and every reason during the first trimester, it would prove difficult to persuade people that second and third trimester fetuses deserve protection simply because they are a few weeks older. The court apparently feared that what would happen to older fetuses could also happen to children after birth." Then Schaeffer quotes Harold Brown who summarizes the phenomenon succinctly by saying, "Parents, perhaps unconsciously could reason, 'I didn't have to have him. I could have killed him before he was born. So if I want to knock him around now that he is born, isn't that my right?'"
I'll conclude with one plea to the pro-choicers that I am certain will be infuriated by this post. Please look at the facts. You are perfectly fine with shouting mantras to drown out your opponents because you believe you are right, but could it be that your logic does not hold up when all of the facts are known? Could it be that you have settled for pithy rhetoric instead of truth? Before you get on here and comment some nonsense that probably isn't relevant to this post, please think about the facts that were just presented to you. Think about whether or not your view is supported by facts or if you just think it sounds reasonable. I'll admit that on its face, "every child a wanted child" sounds like it makes sense, but it does not stand when the facts are known. Abortion-on-demand has done nothing to decrease the number of child abuse cases; in fact, it seems to have encouraged it by dehumanizing the unborn, taking away their rights, and giving them to their mother. The facts illustrate with clarity that "every child a wanted child" is gross misinformation designed to deceive. If you are pro-choice and you continue to use this argument despite the facts, you are a sophist. You live to deceive in order to support your position. You have chosen rhetoric over reason.....and that is evil.
via Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma
©2008-2010 Patricia Garza blog comments powered by Disqus