Quote of the Day: “Abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself”

Posted by: ST on March 30, 2011 at 7:18 pm

From Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic’s Politics Power Sex blog (bolded emphasis added by me):

During my first week as a Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic employee, I was given a tour of one our comprehensive health centers, where we do surgical abortions (we provide medication abortions at all of our health centers). The then-director of the center said to me, “We change women’s lives every day here,” and he was smiling as he said it. It made me feel safe. I immediately understood that this was a place where every woman’s life was valued, and where her decisions would be honored.

The majority of health services we provide are preventive. But it seems to me that what is truly life-changing is having an abortion, precisely because, for so many women, having an abortion means your life does not change. You do not become a mother. Or, you already are a mother but you won’t lose your job when you begin to show. Or, you can finish school – high school or college or any kind of school – without worrying that child birth and parenting will interfere with midterms, or finals, or graduation. You simply continue your life without being pregnant, and without having to face the decision to parent or place your child for adoption.

Abortion has value. It is not just the lesser of two evils, but abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself. And I am not talking about cases of rape or life endangerment. I’m talking about everyday women – you, maybe, or your mom, friend, sister, wife, girlfriend, roommate – who simply know that they do not want to be pregnant, and do not want to parent this child, at this time.

me. mE. ME. Did you get that? Abortion is all about “me.” It’s not about anything or anyone else. Not the unborn child whose life you are sustaining inside the womb, whose heartbeat can be heard and seen in as little as five weeks. Frankly, I’m surprised the post above wasn’t gleefully titled “Abortion is like an eraser” due to the way the writer, someone named Gina, focuses on how the life of the busy pregnant woman can simply “go on” business as usual after having a surgical abortion. It’s like you can erase that little ‘clump of cells’ out of your life, and never look back. I’m sure some do, because they’re deceived and deluded about what they’re doing, or they know exactly what they’re doing and don’t care. But for others, the regret and guilt lasts forever.

In any event, it’s refreshing to see someone from a militantly pro-abortion outfit like Planned Parenthood inadvertently be up front about the primary reasons both used for abortion and supported by abortion proponents. Usually when abortion becomes part of our national discussion (as it often does), the focus of pro-aborts is on the emotional arguments surrounding the “health of the mother/baby” “rape/incest” rationales in attempts to imply that the vast majority of abortions are done in this country because the mother could have died if she’d attempted to give birth, that the baby had a life-threatening defect, or the woman was pregnant as a result of incest or rape. These radical pro-aborts know from one of their very own major sources of abortion information that the vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience purposes – like the ones the author mentioned above. But they don’t talk about it much on Good Morning America and the like because those rationales aren’t emotion-based, and thus won’t tug on the heartstrings of the American people. They know that poll after poll (examples here) shows that a majority of Americans oppose abortions in cases other than those involving the health of the mother and/or baby, and those in which the pregnancy was as the result of rape or incest. The best way for radical feminists to get around this fact is to center their arguments around the rationales that are least used by women who have abortions.

Yet, they’re supposed to be “all about the facts.” Right.

It’s interesting that later on in the author’s piece she writes “Women deserve easy access to high-quality, affordable abortion care, without waiting periods, and without biased counseling.” In other words, whenever, for whatever reason – no questions asked. And you have to love the “unbiased” part of that sentence. Is there such a thing as an “unbiased” Planned Parenthood employee when it comes to the issue of abortion? I don’t think so. Follow ANY Planned Parenthood feed on Twitter, for example (start here), and you’ll see that’s the primary issue on which many of them devote their time.

Also – can someone explain to me what “abortion care” actually means? It’s certainly not related to “care” for the unborn baby being aborted …

And speaking of that, here’s a refresher once more as to just what happens during the types of surgical abortions performed at abortion clinics like the Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic clinic. From their own website (WARNING: GRAPHIC):


During an aspiration abortion

  • Your health care provider will examine your uterus.
  • You will get medicine for pain. You may be offered sedation — a medicine that allows you to be awake but deeply relaxed.
  • speculum will be inserted into your vagina.
  • Your health care provider may inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix.
  • The opening of your cervix may be stretched with dilators — a series of increasingly thick rods. Or you may have absorbent dilators inserted a day or a few hours before the procedure. They will absorb fluid and get bigger. This slowly stretches open your cervix. Medication may also be used with or without the dilators to help open your cervix.
  • You will be given antibiotics to prevent infection.
  • A tube is inserted through the cervix into the uterus.
  • Either a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus.
  • Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check that the uterus is empty. When a curette is used, people often call the abortion a D&C — dilation and curettage.

An aspiration procedure takes about 5 to 10 minutes. But more time may be needed to prepare your cervix. Time is also needed for talking with your provider about the procedure, a physical exam, reading and signing forms, and a recovery period of about one hour.


During a D&E

  • Your health care provider will examine you and check your uterus.
  • You will get medication for pain. You may be offered sedation or IV medication to make you more comfortable.
  • A speculum will be inserted into your vagina.
  • Your cervix will be prepared for the procedure. You may be given medication or have absorbent dilators inserted a day or a few hours before the procedure.  They will absorb fluid and grow bigger. This slowly stretches open your cervix.
  • You will be given antibiotics to prevent infection.
  • In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.
  • Your health care provider will inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix.
  • Medical instruments and a suction machine gently empty your uterus.

A D&E usually takes between 10 and 20 minutes. But more time is needed to prepare your cervix. Time is also needed for talking with your provider about the procedure, a physical exam, reading and signing forms, and a recovery period of about one hour.

After reading that, that anyone in their right mind could think that abortion is a “good, moral decision” absolutely positively boggles the mind.  What’s good about aspiration? What’s moral about a D&E? The fact that in the vast majority of cases the abortions happen before the baby is supposed to be able to feel pain? Does the possibility that the unborn baby can feel no pain make these abortion procedures any less immoral? What about for those babies who do feel pain?  We’re supposed to oppose the death penalty for violent murderers on the grounds that it’s “cruel and inhumane” yet we’re supposed to support procedures on the innocent unborn which are much, much worse?

The answer to all of the above from the standpoint of pro-aborts is, to put it bluntly: “Who cares? Woman’s body, woman’s choice.”  It doesn’t matter to these diehard feministas that fetal organ development starts within just a few weeks of conception, that you can hear and see their little rapid heartbeats at five weeks.  If that doesn’t tug on the heartstrings of staunch pro-aborts, then – quite frankly – they have no heart.  Or not a warm one, anyway.

“Unbiased counseling.”  Hmm.  Takes a lot of nerve to say something like that when you consider that your average abortion clinic prides itself on a “no questions asked” policy, and when there are questions and doubts expressed, there are countless stories out there of women who’ve tried to talk to an abortion “counselor” only to be told that abortion was their best (read: “only”) option.  “Unbiased counseling”? Not at most abortion clinics, including PP.  It’s not just a way of life.  It’s also a business.

Abortion advocates oppose parental consent laws.  They oppose laws that would ban abortions on the basis of sex or race.  They oppose waiting period laws.  They oppose fetal pain laws.  They oppose fetal heartbeat laws. They oppose any law that would require the doctor to show the pregnant woman the ultrasound of the baby.  They oppose any law that would criminalize violence or murder against an unborn baby (while in the act of abusing or killing a pregnant woman).  They oppose partial birth abortion laws.   Strange, isn’t it, how they’re so against protecting the unborn, even in cases where you’d think there would be mutual agreement – like the criminalization of violence agianst the unborn. But no.  They don’t.  Why? Beyond the fact that most dyed-in-the-wool pro-aborts view the unborn child as a “parasite” or a “clump of cells”, most of them will admit that they oppose these laws not so much because they’re ok with things like violence against an unborn baby or aborting a baby on the basis of its race or sex.  They oppose them because they believe that they will be used over time to incrementally ban abortion in all but the most extreme instances.

So abortions on the basis of sex or race must continue (Margaret Sanger would be proud), and violence against pregnant women should be considered a crime against the woman only, 2nd trimester babies who are about to be aborted must continue to feel pain, the heartbeats of the soon-to-be-aborted should still be stopped, the body parts of the unborn must still be allowed to be sucked out of a woman’s body,  all primarily because her mother simply doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of having to juggle college and/or a job  and/or existing motherhood with a (another?) baby.  Life, interrupted? Not an option for pro-aborts – at least not in terms of the mother, anyway.  The life of the baby, well – that’s another story altogether.   They don’t get a say.

Which is why it’s imperative we speak for them.  Because if we don’t, who will?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

13 Responses to “Quote of the Day: “Abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself””


  1. The following statement is equally true — “Killing an abortionist can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself.”

  2. Alex says:

    When does a baby become a baby? When the heart starts to beat? Why is that a better measure than some other sort of measure?

    Clearly 10 minutes after conception there is no baby, and clearly 10 minutes before birth there is a baby; the question is where to draw the line, or whether a line can be drawn at all.

  3. Old Goat says:

    I’m just guessing here, but I tend to doubt that the child who is murdered doesn’t exactly think there is much “value” to it.

  4. Neo says:

    I’m always amazed that these folks never talk about when a “choice: isn’t a choice at all.
    The young woman pressured by her “mate” or parents or friends to “do the right thing” is no “choice”

  5. Marilyn says:

    Clearly 10 minutes after conception there is no baby, and clearly 10 minutes before birth there is a baby; the question is where to draw the line, or whether a line can be drawn at all.Clearly 10 minutes after conception there is no baby, and clearly 10 minutes before birth there is a baby; the question is where to draw the line, or whether a line can be drawn at all.


    From the moment of conception the cells form a completely unique genetic individual. Some do not see the early entity as a “person” because it does not have the visible anatomy that makes us instantly recognize “one of us”, but the individual in the womb is as distinctly human as you and I. All of the DNA that makes that person who they are (or who they will be!) is present.

    I used to be rabidly pro-choice, but I also wrestled with the question of where to draw the line. I realized that no line can be drawn.

    Pro-abortionists will say “it’s not a baby, it’s a potential baby”.

    Well, a 3-month old is not a 1-year old but is a potential one-year old unless someone interrupts. A one-year old is not a two-year old, it is a potential two-year old unless someone interrupts its progress.

    The unborn WILL become a fully formed human unless someone interrupts its progress.

    The time to decide not to mother is before having sex. It’s not that hard to prevent pregnancy.

  6. Carlos says:

    I wonder if I’ll ever cease to be amazed by the way our language is contorted by the left to conform to their personal world view?

    Up is down, black is white, good is evil, evil is good, and abortion is “a good, moral decision”.

    I wonder if they keep a scorecard to keep track of all the words and phrases they tangle into unrecognizable garbage?

  7. Kate says:

    It’s a good moral decision if YOU benefit from it…that’s the message. There are no ground rules, no final judgement, nothing about God, creation/procreation, just ME. I think you nailed this one Sister!

    It’s just now that the Planned Parenthood funding is in question that this warm and fuzzy tripe comes out….who do they think they are fooling? Another generation in the dumpster that’s to the caring folks at PP.

    If peope would look at the history of PP they would know that it was never about “the health of the woman”.

  8. bill glass says:

    #6 Carlos – 110% dead on, couldn’t agree more. Bringing what you said into common parlance would be a great eye opener and public service. Even empty-headed leftists (dims) followers would grasp that changing words and meanings is absolutely a big brother method. Problem with abortion supporters is that many have had friends, sisters, cousins, roommates etc, have this abhorrent procedure, and they will rarely take a stand against this “easy” remedy. Even though it might bother then personally, they’ll find it real hard to voice opposition.

  9. Old Goat says:

    Just saw a video about Planned Parenthood regarding mammograms. After all, that is one of the big reasons that RINOs are hesitating to defund them. It may be just a select number of cities or PP operations that are shown in it, but not one did mammograms. Not one. All of them said there were other agencies to go to, as they (PP) were a basically a surgical facility.

    I’m thinking that PP really needs to have the light of an investigation shined on them. Show each one, the number of murders abortion choices that are made in them per year, the consultation regarding specific health type issues per year, and so on.

    This is something that they would have on record unless they are doing a cover up.

  10. Paul says:

    How can killing be moral ? Please tell me someone…

  11. PE says:

    Nothing personal kid. I just don’t want the hassle of having you around.

  12. Marilyn says:

    #10 Paul–

    Depends on your ethical point of view. The utilitarians (think Jeremy Bentham, John Stewart Mill) would say it is perfectly moral because the abortion serves the “greater good”, the happiness and well-being of the mother.

    Or, as Mr. Spock said as he sacrificed himself for the Enterprise…”the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one”.

    Not saying I agree. I think abortion is wrong. But it is very difficult to convince people who base decisions on utilitarian values.

  13. Carlos says:

    To begin with, leftists/statists have no morals because, to them, there is no absolute right or absolute wrong; it is all relative.

    Therefore, when they speak of “ethics” they speak nonsensicle drivel because ethics is the discipline of morality. Since there is no morality, there can be no ethics.

    They would argue that, but when all the smoke is cleared and bottom lines are drawn, that’s what it amounts to.

    Ya can’t win an argument about morals or ethics with a relativist. You might as well be trying to nail jello to a wall.