Bribery for Babies By Sass
Featured Rightgrrl May 1999
October 12, 1999You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Pro-Life Organizations that is, and the action damning us either way, is support for struggling pregnant girls or women. It seems that if we don't, we are accused of being heartless bigots that turn their backs on girls and women only to worship the unborn. If we do offer assistance, we are accused of bribery and removing "choice".
Take the most recent example.
In Scotland, the Catholic Church has acknowledged issuing financial support for a pregnant 12 year old. Head of the National Abortion Campaign, Sarah Colborn, says that this "removes choice". Similarly, Sue Carroll, a writer fro the Daily Mirror, has stated "offering 12 year olds cash for babies is tantamount to bribery," and, "it stinks to high heaven."
Come on now, are they actually serious? Couldn't be.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute reveals some interesting details on the issue of teen pregnancies.
-Each year, almost one million teenage women—11% of all women aged 15–19 and 20% of those who have had sexual intercourse—become pregnant.
-78% of teen pregnancies are unplanned, accounting for about 1/4 of all accidental pregnancies annually.
-In part because most teen mothers come from disadvantaged backgrounds, 28% of them are poor in their 20s and early 30s; only 7% of women who first give birth after adolescence are poor at those ages
The reasons most often given by teens for choosing to have an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, feeling that they are not mature enough to have a child and having financial problems.
It would seem then, even with absolutely no further information on the 12 year old in question, that in order for one to be giving this 12 year old a true "choice" over what becomes of her baby, the responsible and obvious thing to do would be to address the financial issues in her life that may lead her to feel abortion would be necessary; after which, her decision to carry the child (or not) would then be in fact, a true "choice". Sarah Colborn apparently feels that it is better to be forced to make a choice based on unfortunate circumstances rather than conscience and heart. It also seems she'd have us believe that to be "real choice".
Fortunately, we do not have to speculate on the details though, for two separate spokespeople for the organizations responsible for helping out her and her family, as well as the family, have spoken out.
Reports have the girl mid-term in her pregnancy, and it seems it was in fact the girl's parents who contacted the church's Pro-Life Initiative for help. Having been advised by teachers and social workers, to terminate the pregnancy, Roseann Reddy, coordinator of the Pro-Life Initiative, confirmed that her group got involved only after the girl decided to keep the baby. The family was offered immediate financial help. Said Reddy, The parents wanted to support the girl, but could not afford the baby clothes, and that is where we step in."
The Family Planning Association's chief executive Anne Weyman, states that "girls should receive unbiased advice on abortion." Should not they also receive assistance so that should abortion not be their "choice", that they are also able to "choose" not to have one?
This case is a perfect example of Pro-Lifers doing exactly what we've been challenged by the abortion industry to do... care about the girls and the women, not just the unborn. Sadly, those that seem to be more Pro-Abortion than Pro-"Choice" would use it to try to further their abortion agendas.
The church has indicated it will pay for necessary items such as a crib and a stroller. This is a far cry from the bribery accusations and implications made irresponsibly if not maliciously intended by such Pro-"Choice" advocates as Sarah Colborn, Sue Carroll and Anne Weyman. Recall that it was Carroll that accused the church of offering "cash for babies". I understand that helping out by purchasing necessities is not "cash for babies", for if it is, I hope Carroll hasn't participated in any baby showers in her lifetime, or she too is guilty of bribery. Various other groups also provide homes for unmarried mothers, in effect, putting into action what Monsignor Tom Connelly, spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, called a "real choice".
Despite the fact that bastions of Pro-"Choice"-ism themselves, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, offer statistics to show that financial needs often shape the decision for abortion rather than the moral, emotional and intellectual opinions of the pregnant girl or woman, obviously Pro-Abortion advocates seek to misrepresent the good intentions of Pro-Life agencies and the Catholic Church. Instead of applauding these groups for putting their money where their mouth is, and offering those girls and women real choice, they condemn those actions because those actions often result in girls and women making a "choice" not to abort their babies.
Yes, Sue Carroll, something does stink to high heaven, but this Pro-Lifer finds the pungent odour is wafting over from the Pro-"Choice" camp.
Sources:
~Scotland Church Chided on Abortion
~Alan Guttmacher Institute
This article copyright © 1999 by Sass Seagal and may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of its author. All rights reserved.
Home