“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

A time for truth on abortion

Star Parker
Star Parker

STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin missed a great opportunity to personally kick off an issue of enormous importance to her state and to the nation.

She was scheduled to appear with me at an Alaska Family Council event in Anchorage to launch Alaska’s Parental Involvement Initiative, which will require parental notification of teenage girls under age 18 before they can get an abortion. But, the schedules of we mortals cannot retard the imperatives of history, so, despite Mrs. Palin’s absence, we’ve gone to war with the army we have.

Currently 35 states have laws that require either parental consent or notification in order for a teenage girl to receive an abortion. Alaska passed one in 1997.

However, after ten years on the books, in 2007 the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that sharing this information with parents violated the privacy of their teenage daughters, found the law unconstitutional. So now a 13 year old can get an abortion without the knowledge of her parents.

Anti-teen pregnancy poster (Credit: Polina Sergeeva)

Anti-teen pregnancy poster (Credit: Polina Sergeeva)

A large percentage of these abortions are paid for with state Medicaid funds, but no one seems to think that parents’ privacy is being violated using their tax funds to pay for these.

Research shows the remedial benefits of parental involvement when a pregnant teenager considers abortion.

And research shows the profound psychological damage caused by teenage abortion.

But, perhaps we should be wondering who we are today that we need to gather data to address an issue as intuitively obvious as whether a teenage girl may abort her child without her parents knowing.

Of course there are exceptional considerations, like abusive parents. But the Alaska initiative deals with this, as did a similar initiative in California, which was defeated last November.

No, this is not about being reasonable. It is about ideology. And what we have are opposing worldviews that cannot be reconciled. It’s about choosing one or the other.

One view is secular, materialistic, and sees only individuals and the rights they claim.

The other view is about truths that precede individuals, and social realities of which individuals are a part, like family.

This contrast and conflict could not have been more clearly laid out than in an exchange at a congressional hearing last April between pro-life New Jersey congressman Chris Smith and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Smith was questioning current Administration policies to promote abortion internationally. As part of his questioning, he waxed philosophic and asked Mrs. Clinton about her recent acceptance of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award. Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

He pointed out to Mrs. Clinton that Sanger was a eugenicist and racist who said “The most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it.”

The Secretary of State listened stoically and then replied: “We have a fundamental disagreement …We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion.”

A century and a half ago, a fundamental conflict in values in our nation came to a head. In one view, black African slaves were not human, so the question of slavery was about political, not moral, reality. The other view saw the slaves as human and slavery as a moral outrage. The conflict fomented at the nation’s grass roots until it exploded in the national arena.

The parental involvement ballot initiative in Alaska is about Americans again grappling at our grass roots with crucial basic questions that divide us that must be resolved.

Are we a people that see the unborn, family, and individuals as all part of the fundamental fabric of life? Or are we a materialistic, secular nation of individuals making political claims on each other?

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay. Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


20 Responses to “A time for truth on abortion”

  1. Thats the way the clintons and the other liberals think,its alright to kill a baby but we better not catch you smokeing around it.This is the kind of thinking that has got us where we are today.We had better find out what kind of people we are sending to Washington from now on.We have got to get control of our country or the idots like the Clintons Obamas and the California and east coast liberals are goinfg to finish it off.There is not much time to waste ,if we dont do it this next election it will be to late.Obama has intention of passing his radical agenda whether we like it ir not.If we dont start spending a lot of time on our knees and get back to serving God and get back as a nation to the protection of Isreal God will remove his protection from us.Iam surprised it hasent happened already.

  2. So you can mind read Liberals. Really? A health decision on smoking around a baby and the choice to abort a fetus are hardly the same issue and no reason for moral conciet. Funnily enough, Liberals like children and want a healthy nation. We also believe I woman should have the right to choose on abortion namely because no force on earth can make a woman carry a fetus to term and something in you can't have more rights to your body than you do. I know you don't agree, but you could be a little more mature and honest than to assert that people who think differently to you on certain issues are monsters. Also please tell me when this time was when everyone righteously served god? When exactly was this perfect time from which we have strayed. Dates? Or is it something you just say like mind reading Liberals

  3. Aside from a couple valid (though ultimately irrelevant) points you make, I can't help but notice your sneaky change of wording: “smoking around a BABY” vs. “aborting a FETUS.” Oh, so if it's unborn it's not really a “baby”? That's just the tip of the iceberg of the kind of blatant dishonesty that comes from the “pro-choice” camp. All the high-sounding rhetoric about “women's rights” cannot disguise the fact that an abortion kills a human who has done nothing worthy of death.

    You can make all the arguments you want about circumstances that might justify abortion, but you'll be describing situations that only apply to a ridiculously small percentage of the actual abortions that take place. (Either that, or you'll be saying that murdering an unborn human for selfish convenience is OK.) When the abortion-rights people are willing to limit legal abortions to those that actually fit the circumstances they mention in defense of abortion, we can maybe start believing some of what they say.

    In the meantime, they're lying to you just as much as to anyone. They are unworthy of your support, and the sooner you recognize that, the better.

  4. If women want to get pregnant thats their choice but dont expest me to pay for the results of their night on the town.You people want to have the fun,pay your own bills.Killing babies is wrong.

  5. A child is an independent entity, a fetus relies on another body for its existence. They are not remotely the same. Also I make no arguements about when it is justified.It is the woman's choice at all times. She doesn't need to justify that decision to anyone, least of all to people whom it has no effect upon. I notice you have no counter arguments so I will try again: How can something in you can't have more rights to your body than you do? And what period in history diid this perfect christian nation exist? And while your at can you show me where banning abortion stopped the practice and didn't just make women sick and dead thru backyard abortion? It's not like we haven't seen the awful effects of banning abortion.

  6. Fairly obviously women who get abortion do not plan to get pregnant? Also not contributing to the medical expenses of the poor imposes a defacto forced preganancy on poor women, which leads to the same circimstances as banning the practice for all. i.e. sick and dead women thru backyard abortion. It is not an opinion or a talking piont, we have seen the consequences of banning abortion.

  7. There's one sure-fire way not to get pregnant: don't have sex. If you have sex, you have to be willing to deal with the consequences, and the new life you create. Killing another human being because they interfere with your plans is morally repugnant.

  8. An infant, a 6-month-old, a toddler, all rely on another person for their existence; can we kill them if they inconvenience us? An invalid and elderly parent relies on another person for their existence; can we kill anyone who depends on us for their existence if we find them inconvenient?

    You have–like I once did–been misled by pro-abortion propaganda. A “fetus,” which is simply an unborn child, is an independent entity. If you check their DNA, you will find that it is human DNA. You will also find that it is unique human DNA, making the unborn child not a part of its mother's body with which she may do as she pleases.

    Again, if you have sex, you should be grown-up enough to accept the potential consequences: creation of a new human being. Only the morally deficient kill another human being because that other human being inconveniences them.

    Some women are in conflict because of the pressures and responsibilities a pregnancy entails. Legally allowing them to kill their own child while under the influence of that pressure is morally derelict of society. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

  9. Ever heard of contraception? Most sex does not result in pregnancy at all. But in rare circumstances one might forget contraception or the contraception could fail due to other health issues. The piont is not everyone wants to lead dead sexless lives or be castrated by religion. Might I piont out that abortion is dealing with the consequences. Forced pregnancy is morally repugnant too.

  10. No, abortion is killing another human being. And except for rapes (which make up a small percentage of abortions), no one forced them to have sex. Grownups accept the consequences of their actions, and even the marginally ethical don't kill another human being to escape those consequences.

  11. Come on. Caring for someone and having something living off your body while inside it are fairly obviously not the same thing. Amazingly I know what DNA is too. Being gentically individual has nothing to do with being dependent on someones body. If it is actually independent, like a child is, once again fairly obviously, abortion is not issue. The issue is pregnancy only and being forced to do it against your will. A pregnancy is not a child and belongs to the woman alone. Also how many pregnancies did Jefferson have again?

    Calling a child an inconvience ridiculously minimises the sacrifices in time and money raising a child entails. A cost that the forced pregnancy crowd never have to incur for their high and mighty remote judgements. You can't force people to be parents. And no force on earth can force a woman to carry a fetus to term no matter what the law is.

  12. Yes, what is a human life in comparison to the tremendous inconvenience of caring for another human being–a human being you created. What was I thinking? I had a momentary lapse of responsibility there. So sorry.

    I can see you're not even close to grown up enough to understand the tremendous responsibility of human sexuality, much less that of parenthood or even the value of human life.

    I've done the best I can to help you stumble across the truth–which is more than most did for me when I was mindlessly pro-abortion. You obviously aren't interested in truth; only convenience and pleasure. I hope someday you can realize what a shallow, self-centered delusion you're living under before it's too late for your soul…or too late for a human life you may take.

  13. A child is an independent entity, a fetus relies on another body for its existence. They are not remotely the same. Also I make no arguements about when it is justified.It is the woman's choice at all times. She doesn't need to justify that decision to anyone, least of all to people whom it has no effect upon. I notice you have no counter arguments so I will try again: How can something in you can't have more rights to your body than you do? And what period in history diid this perfect christian nation exist? And while your at can you show me where banning abortion stopped the practice and didn't just make women sick and dead thru backyard abortion? It's not like we haven't seen the awful effects of banning abortion.

  14. Fairly obviously women who get abortion do not plan to get pregnant? Also not contributing to the medical expenses of the poor imposes a defacto forced preganancy on poor women, which leads to the same circimstances as banning the practice for all. i.e. sick and dead women thru backyard abortion. It is not an opinion or a talking piont, we have seen the consequences of banning abortion.

  15. There's one sure-fire way not to get pregnant: don't have sex. If you have sex, you have to be willing to deal with the consequences, and the new life you create. Killing another human being because they interfere with your plans is morally repugnant.

  16. An infant, a 6-month-old, a toddler, all rely on another person for their existence; can we kill them if they inconvenience us? An invalid and elderly parent relies on another person for their existence; can we kill anyone who depends on us for their existence if we find them inconvenient?

    You have–like I once did–been misled by pro-abortion propaganda. A “fetus,” which is simply an unborn child, is an independent entity. If you check their DNA, you will find that it is human DNA. You will also find that it is unique human DNA, making the unborn child not a part of its mother's body with which she may do as she pleases.

    Again, if you have sex, you should be grown-up enough to accept the potential consequences: creation of a new human being. Only the morally deficient kill another human being because that other human being inconveniences them.

    Some women are in conflict because of the pressures and responsibilities a pregnancy entails. Legally allowing them to kill their own child while under the influence of that pressure is morally derelict of society. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

  17. Ever heard of contraception? Most sex does not result in pregnancy at all. But in rare circumstances one might forget contraception or the contraception could fail due to other health issues. The piont is not everyone wants to lead dead sexless lives or be castrated by religion. Might I piont out that abortion is dealing with the consequences. Forced pregnancy is morally repugnant too.

  18. No, abortion is killing another human being. And except for rapes (which make up a small percentage of abortions), no one forced them to have sex. Grownups accept the consequences of their actions, and even the marginally ethical don't kill another human being to escape those consequences.

  19. Come on. Caring for someone and having something living off your body while inside it are fairly obviously not the same thing. Amazingly I know what DNA is too. Being gentically individual has nothing to do with being dependent on someones body. If it is actually independent, like a child is, once again fairly obviously, abortion is not issue. The issue is pregnancy only and being forced to do it against your will. A pregnancy is not a child and belongs to the woman alone. Also how many pregnancies did Jefferson have again?

    Calling a child an inconvience ridiculously minimises the sacrifices in time and money raising a child entails. A cost that the forced pregnancy crowd never have to incur for their high and mighty remote judgements. You can't force people to be parents. And no force on earth can force a woman to carry a fetus to term no matter what the law is.

  20. Yes, what is a human life in comparison to the tremendous inconvenience of caring for another human being–a human being you created. What was I thinking? I had a momentary lapse of responsibility there. So sorry.

    I can see you're not even close to grown up enough to understand the tremendous responsibility of human sexuality, much less that of parenthood or even the value of human life.

    I've done the best I can to help you stumble across the truth–which is more than most did for me when I was mindlessly pro-abortion. You obviously aren't interested in truth; only convenience and pleasure. I hope someday you can realize what a shallow, self-centered delusion you're living under before it's too late for your soul…or too late for a human life you may take.