They said it.
On February 28, 2021, a doctor who spoke at a conference sponsored by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists presented the following slide.
The slide presents the obstacles to legalizing abortion worldwide discussed at the pro-abortion Women Deliver Conference in 2007:
On the blog The Abortion Gang, an abortion worker says the following:
“Last week, I got into a conversation (as I often do) on access to abortion. The exchange was pleasant and informative, but in the course of the conversation the other party expressed she did not support free choice if “someone is using abortion as birth control.”
In my experience (and other abortion ganger’s experiences as well), conversations about abortion often come to this same limit, or some version of ‘abortion is not an acceptable if’ statement.
And when the ‘if statements’ start flying I wonder: Why are we so afraid of liberating the use of abortion for whatever means an individual may choose? Why is it that when abortion comes up, some “moral limit” (within the legal limit) must be placed on the procedure? …
Abortion, biologically is birth control, in every case, regardless of if contraception was used during sex or not.
Furthermore, safe, legal abortion is one of the most effective forms of birth control; in the US, abortion procedures only “fail” or need to be re-administered less than .5% of the time. …
However, advocating that using abortion for birth control is totally 100% OK/kosher/great/moral usually terrifies people….if someone wants to use abortion as birth control, let him or her do so.”
Quoted in Sarah Terzo “Pro-abortion blog supports abortion as a method of birth control” Live Action News March 31, 2013
This abortion worker has no problem promoting abortion as just another method of birth control.
Share on FacebookAn abortion clinic escort, whose blog can be found here, wrote the following in a post on March 18, 2013:
“There are times a client and/or companion is so empowered they instantly gain my admiration.”
What is she so impressed by? She goes on to explain:
The companion [of the woman who was having an abortion] got out of the car first. E [the pro-lifer] was hovering right behind me, ready to start shaming.
I was able to explain the vests and offer to escort them before he began his spiel. E handed the companion some literature. When I explained he was a protester, they handed it right back to him.
The companion and I escorted the client down the sidewalk. We were in a line: E, companion, client and me. E started with “Women regret their abortions. Don’t lead her into this place.”
The companion waved dismissively at him and said, “Oh, I know all about abortion. I have had 10 already.”
There was a pause then E leaned over towards the client and said “You don’t have to go into that place.”
The client turned to me and said, “I am not listening to him.” I replied that was best.
It was great to witness these two completely ignoring the words meant to hurt and shame them…I felt privileged to witness this calm confidence.”
Elsewhere in her blog, the clinic escort talks about sidewalk counselors offering to help the women with adoption or other alternatives. Pro-lifers often offer free help to pregnant women outside abortion clinics. To the escort, this is “shaming.”
Share on FacebookPro-abortion author Johanna Schoen writes:
“If statistical information about women seeking abortion is almost nonexistent, statistical information about abortion providers is completely unavailable. We do not even know how many of them there are.
Only a fraction of physicians providing abortion care, for instance, are members of NAF [National Abortion Federation, an organization for abortionists], and its membership lists are, for security reasons, confidential.
Nor do we know what kind of abortion services abortion providers perform. Although there is aggregate data on the number of procedures performed across the country, for instance, there is no data that might tell us who performs these procedures – or where they are performed.
Proceedings of the annual meetings of NAF and information collected by the organization are confidential and cannot be disclosed outside the organization.
Sources about the two main participants in the abortion experience, then, are mainly anecdotal in nature, gleaned from correspondence, personal recollections and testimonies, and oral history interviews.”
Johanna Schoen Abortion after Roe (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University Of North Carolina Press, 2015) 17 – 18
Share on FacebookOne pro-choice activist wrote:
“There is nothing moral about giving birth to children we cannot feed and care for … It is precisely because women take lives sacredly – our own as well as our children’s – that some of us choose not to bring into the world those we cannot take care of.”
Quoted in:
Rosalind Pollack Petchesky Abortion and Women’s Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom (New York: Longman, 1984) 376
Pro-choice author and researcher Rosalind Pollack Petchesky writes:
“As I argued initially, the “contraceptive revolution,” especially the pill, has increased rather than decreased women’s need for access to abortion.
This is true because of two interacting developments: the widespread availability of the pill and legal abortion, reinforcing women’s awareness of fertility control as their right; and a newer political consciousness that refuses to accept risk to reproductive health as fate’s decree.
The current status of contraceptive techniques underlines more than ever that as long as it remains possible for a woman to become pregnant without wanting to be, abortion will be a necessity and its denial a punishment of women – for having sex.”
Rosalind Pollack Petchesky Abortion and Women’s Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom (New York: Longman, 1984) 190
Share on FacebookWriter and researcher Edwin Black, who supports the work of Planned Parenthood, said the following about its founder, Margaret Sanger:
“[Margaret] Sanger was an ardent, self-confessed eugenicist, and she would turn her otherwise noble birth control organizations [which would be renamed Planned Parenthood] into a tool for eugenics, which advocated for mass sterilization of so-called defectives, mass incarceration of the unfit, and draconian immigration restrictions.
Like other staunch eugenicists, Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenicly superior strains could multiply without competition from “the unfit.”
She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as “human waste” not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that human “weeds” should be “exterminated.”
Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists. Both through her publication, Birth Control Review, and her public oratory, Sanger helped legitimize and widen the appeal of eugenic pseudoscience. Indeed, to many, birth control was just another form of eugenics…
[Margaret] Sanger always considered birth control a function of general population control and embraced the Malthusian notion that a world running out of food supplies should halt charitable works and allow the weak to die off.”
Edwin Black War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (Washington DC: Dialog Press, 2003, 2012) 127, 128
Black cites the following sources to back up his claim:
Margaret Sanger The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s, 1922) 101 – 102, 104, 108 – 109, 113 – 117, 120 – 121, 123
Julian Huxley “Toward a Higher Civilization” Birth Control Review (December, 1930) 344
“Editorial” Birth Control Review (March, 1928) 73
Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography (WW Norton & Company, 1938; New York: Dover Publications, 1971) 376 – 377
Margaret Sanger “A Plan for Peace” Birth Control Review April 1932, pp. 107 – 108
Margaret Sanger “Racial Betterment” The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger: Vol. 1: The Woman Rebel, 1900 – 1928, edited by Esther Katz (Chicago: University Of Illinois Press, 2003) 446, 333 – 334
Margaret Sanger “Is Race Suicide Probable?” Collier’s (August 15, 1925) 25
Ellen Chesler Women of Valor (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992) 343 – 344
Margaret Sanger Papers Project “Notes on Sources” The National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control 1929 – 1937
Henry Pratt Fairchild The Melting Pot Mistake (Boston: Little, Brown and Company: 1926) 109 – 112
Roswell H Johnson “The Eugenic Aspects of Population Theory” Birth Control Review (September 1930) 256 – 258
Eleanor Dwight Jones “Practical Race Betterment” Birth Control Review (July 1928) 203 – 204
American Medicine “Intelligent or Unintelligent Birth Control?” Birth Control Review (May 1919) 12
Share on FacebookAfrican pro-life author Kiboko Francoise Machozi writes:
“Several times women come for an abortion [and] I just do a free ultrasound showing them how the fetus is and what he is able to [do] on that particular stage; I explain what abortion really means and that I can never help them doing what I believe it is murder because it is against my calling…
Many come to show me their children later, telling me that it is the product of what I told them. This makes me believe that many lives could be saved if a proper counseling could be done to women willing to abort children.”
Machozi is a registered nurse and midwife in South Africa.
Kiboko Francoise Machozi Abortion! Crime or Right? (Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2014) 29 – 30
Share on FacebookPro-choice writer Carolyn McLeod says there should be “fairly radical changes in obstetrical practice” to dehumanize preborn babies. She says:
“… In some obstetrical contexts it may be appropriate to view fetuses as separate (e.g., in fetal surgery); however, overall, they should not be defined as separate or independent entities.
During ultrasound scanning, sonographers and physicians should try to avoid descriptions which suggests that they are self-sustaining beings.…
We need a model of pregnancy as a relation, but not one that is so exact that it cannot accommodate varying degrees to which women view their fetuses as part of them.”
Carolyn McLeod Self–Trust and Reproductive Autonomy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002) 159 – 160
Of course, scientifically, preborn babies are “separate and independent entities” and not a part of a woman’s body. McLeod seems to see a threat in the way sonographers and obstetricians regard preborn babies and communicate their existence to mothers. This seems to threaten the pro-choice talking point that preborn babies are not human beings.
Pro-Choice author Lisa M Mitchell was unimpressed with the ultrasound she had while pregnant. Nevertheless, she refers to the entity in her womb as a baby:
“What I recall most vividly during my first ultrasound was the technician’s concern when I didn’t seem interested in the swirling grey mass on the screen. From my perspective, lying on my back with an enormous belly and a full bladder, I just wanted the scan to be over. I now understand the technician incorrectly read my reaction to the ultrasound as a sign that I was ambivalent about or possibly even rejecting the baby.”
Lisa M Mitchell Baby’s First Picture: Ultrasound and the Politics of Fetal Subjects (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc., 2001) 50-91
Mitchell spends the entire book defending abortion but seems to know that women are pregnant with babies and that her child was a baby in the womb.
Share on Facebook