How to tell the difference between “reproductive health clinics” and Crisis Pregnancy Centers

The Curt Jester: How to tell the difference

If they want to kill your baby and want money for the abortion – you are in a “reproductive health center.”

If you tell them you want to keep the baby and need assistance and they give you the boot – you are in a “reproductive health center.”
If you are underage and tell them about your adult boy friend and they ask you to lie about your birth date – you are in a “reproductive health center.”
If the clinic was founded by an organization whose leader was a racist eugenist – you are in Planned Parenthood’s “reproductive health center.”
If the word or phrase fetus, tissue mass, product of conception is used – you are in a “reproductive health center.”
If they use the world baby – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
If they give you a free ultrasound to show you the current development of your child – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
If they offer or connect you with services to help you to deliver your child and to provide assistance after the birth – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
If the clinic is staffed mainly by volunteers or have salaries paid for by donations – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

I might add, if they want your money, you’re in a “Reproductive Health Clinic” If they offer you financial or emotional support you’re in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

Texas State Senator: Choose Adoption and Receive $500

Texas lawmaker offers choice: Abortion or $500 – CNN.com

A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.

Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said Friday the money might persuade the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.

He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.

“If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that’s 3,000 lives. That’s almost as many people as we’ve lost in Iraq,” Patrick said.

This is a great idea. The government’s primary interest is, of course, protecting the lives of its citizens so we should applaud this effort to encourage women not to take the lives of their children. Given that many women cite financial considerations as a reason for seeking an abortion, this financial incentive should be a good thing.

It should surprise no one that Planned Parenthood opposes this attempt to save lives. Is there any abortion they don’t support?

Texas State Senator: Choose Adoption and Receive $500

Texas lawmaker offers choice: Abortion or $500 – CNN.com

A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.

Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said Friday the money might persuade the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.

He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.

“If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that’s 3,000 lives. That’s almost as many people as we’ve lost in Iraq,” Patrick said.

This is a great idea. The government’s primary interest is, of course, protecting the lives of its citizens so we should applaud this effort to encourage women not to take the lives of their children. Given that many women cite financial considerations as a reason for seeking an abortion, this financial incentive should be a good thing.

It should surprise no one that Planned Parenthood opposes this attempt to save lives. Is there any abortion they don’t support?

Disturbing trend: Designer children designed to be disabled

I discussed a while ago about the possibility of genetic manipulation in the womb to modify genes linked to same-sex attractions. I argued against it, saying that it was wrong to “play God” in such a manner. Well, now I’ve come across an article quoting people arguing in favor of genetic manipulation to intentionally give unborn children disabilities. Wow.

For a number of years now, a great deal of discussion has taken place among scientists and in the popular media about the genetic engineering of children. Will it soon be possible, for prices widely affordable at least to the upper-middle class, to guarantee that children have a high IQ, or excellent athletic ability, or be over 6 feet tall, or have blond hair and blue eyes? Is it right to commodify children in this way, and have parents choosing options as they do with cars? And wouldn’t it be boring to live in a world someday where almost everyone is extremely intelligent and beautiful? Variety, or even the politically correct term “diversity,” is the spice of life.

But not everyone wants what seemed to be the three genetic engineering options: refrain and let nature take her course, attempt to repair genetic diseases but otherwise let well enough alone, or select positive qualities in children. There are parents who are deliberately ensuring that their children are born with disabilities, from deafness to dwarfism. A fourth option—inflicting permanent disabling conditions on children—is now being used.

For some years now, some deaf parents have refused to allow their deaf children to receive cochlear implants that would enable them to hear. The devices must often be implanted when children are very young in order to work, so such parents condemn their children to a lifetime of deafness when they could have been able to hear.

Some dwarf couples are even using in-vitro fertilization to create embryos in the lab, then killing the normal ones and implanting the ones with the dwarfness gene to ensure having a dwarf child .

In a Jan. 21, 2007 story, the Associated Press reported that, of American clinics it surveyed that perform embryo screening, 3% admit to screening in favor of disabilities. This story contains perhaps the most revealing statement on the question. It was uttered by a dwarf woman angered that anyone would dare suggest that deliberating inflicting permanent suffering on children is bad:

“Cara Reynolds of Collingswood, N.J., who considered embryo screening but now plans to adopt a dwarf baby, is outraged by the criticism. ‘You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me,’ Reynolds said. ‘It’s just unbelievably presumptuous and they’re playing God.’”

Funny to think that it’s playing God to say it’s wrong to use high-tech techniques to choose certain qualities in children rather than letting nature take her course. Isn’t intervening to choose a major genetic quality in your child much more like playing God?

It’s funny, we have some people using genetic screening to abort children with genetic abnormalities, while we have others destroying children without abnormalities. Seems to me like a simple trade would be in order. That’s the beauty of adoption: Lives can be saved and parents who are looking for a certain kind of child can find one. (For example, here’s a blog post containing pointers for people interested in giving children with Down’s syndrome a good home.) There’s no need to destroy life because it’s imperfect, or not imperfect enough as we’re finding now.

There’s an added wrinkle: what sort of parent would intentionally inflict a disability on their children? Being a parent is about giving your children the best you can, doing what’s best for them, not about making a photocopy of yourself. You want your kids to be better off than you are, not worse. A good friend of mine is “vertically challenged” and seeing what he has to go through just to do routine things, I can’t imagine intentionally inflicting that on someone. Even sitting in a chair takes effort for him. Driving requires special hookups to his pedals and many cars aren’t even an option for him, even with those extenders. How can a parent intentionally inflict that on a child?

We live in truly selfish times.