Comments on: States shift money from abortion providers http://www.frcblog.com/2007/02/states-shift-money-from-abortion-providers/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://www.frcblog.com/2007/02/states-shift-money-from-abortion-providers/comment-page-1/#comment-41 John Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:50:26 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=72#comment-41 My own feeling is that in order to reduce abortions to the absolute minimum, it is essential that they remain legal. We have to change the culture, and that means better sex education, more availablity of contraception and a focus on changing people's hearts and minds. There are websites you can go to now to learn the "do-it-yourself" method of abortion. To my mind, the thought of woman resorting to this is frighetening. My own feeling is that in order to reduce abortions to the absolute minimum, it is essential that they remain legal.

We have to change the culture, and that means better sex education, more availablity of contraception and a focus on changing people’s hearts and minds.

There are websites you can go to now to learn the “do-it-yourself” method of abortion. To my mind, the thought of woman resorting to this is frighetening.

]]> By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/02/states-shift-money-from-abortion-providers/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Suricou Raven Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:11:04 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=72#comment-40 Those 'abortion providers' provide many other services in addition to abortion. If campaigners make abortion the decisive issue on where funding goes, then they will end up cutting funding for contraceptive services and vital medical services - in this case, pap smear testing. There is a similar international situation - many of the more effective organisations trying to limit the spread of HIV also provide abortion services, and so lose USAID. A similar situation also exists with regard to prostitution - Brazil had to turn down US funding a few years ago because one condition for accepting it would be criminalising prostitution, which would mean ending the country's very successful STI-testing-and-condom-promotion program. This is the problem with the self-proclaimed moral superiors that now dominate pro-life. They have raised their goal of protecting the embryo/fetus/baby from just a good thing to the ultimate, vital moral act that defines them - and they will happily sacrifice the health, rights, and sometimes lives of women - as well as public health - in persuit of their eventual aim of preventing every single abortion. They are so convinced they are the very definition of 'Good' they cannot see the harm they cause. Those ‘abortion providers’ provide many other services in addition to abortion. If campaigners make abortion the decisive issue on where funding goes, then they will end up cutting funding for contraceptive services and vital medical services – in this case, pap smear testing. There is a similar international situation – many of the more effective organisations trying to limit the spread of HIV also provide abortion services, and so lose USAID.

A similar situation also exists with regard to prostitution – Brazil had to turn down US funding a few years ago because one condition for accepting it would be criminalising prostitution, which would mean ending the country’s very successful STI-testing-and-condom-promotion program.

This is the problem with the self-proclaimed moral superiors that now dominate pro-life. They have raised their goal of protecting the embryo/fetus/baby from just a good thing to the ultimate, vital moral act that defines them – and they will happily sacrifice the health, rights, and sometimes lives of women – as well as public health – in persuit of their eventual aim of preventing every single abortion. They are so convinced they are the very definition of ‘Good’ they cannot see the harm they cause.

]]>