Donors sought for women's refuge

Donors sought for women's refuge

CHAMPAIGN — Greta Henry sees women in the midst of crisis pregnancies and women trying to escape abusive relationships.

Many of these women need a real refuge, she says, and her organization, Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center, is asking donors to help provide it.

Living Alternatives plans to start construction this spring on a new Champaign home for women in crisis called Merci's Refuge.

Plans are for this residential program to open in the fall, says Henry, Living Alternatives' director of Champaign ministries.

Merci's Refuge will be built just east of the Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center at 205 Wilbur Ave., C, behind the Salvation Army's Red Shield Center on North Market Street, Henry said.

Living Alternatives needs to raise about half the $600,000 project cost to start building, she said, and donations got a big boost recently with a $100,000 check sent by a donor who wishes to remain anonymous.

Living Alternatives is a Christian anti-abortion organization, and its resource center offers counseling and information about unplanned pregnancies, pregnancy tests and ultrasounds along with new-parent education classes.

The residential program next door is intended to help some of the women who turn up at the resource center, "to nurture them to be the women God meant them to be," Henry says.

Some women need more help than the resource center can provide.

In fact, Henry said, she and her husband have taken some of the women who come to the resource center into their home for a time because the women think their situations are hopeless and they have no place else to turn.

"This is so needed in our community," she says of Merci's Refuge.

The home will open with space enough for eight teens and women age 18 to about age 28 to stay, without cost to them, for up to a year while they focus on making lasting changes, undergo professional and biblically based counseling and life skills classes, Henry said.

The women will also be linked to mentors in the community who can become positive role models and lasting supporters as they move out of the home later.

Not all the women who come to live at Merci's Refuge will be in crisis pregnancies, she said.

Some may be seeking healing after abortion or trying to get their lives on track after escaping an abusive relationship or in other crisis situations, she said.

She tells of one woman who came to the resource center who might have been helped by this residential program: The woman had been forced into prostitution by an abusive boyfriend, wasn't allowed to eat unless she earned enough money, and was pregnant.

"Her heart was just broken. She ended up coming here," Henry said.

Donations are coming in for Merci's Refuge, but more help is needed to reach the goal, she said. Money donations and donated help with the labor are both welcome, she said.

If you are interested in contributing:

Online: http://www.mercisrefuge.org

By mail: Merci's Refuge, P.O. Box 1563, Champaign, Ill. 61824.

Drop off donation in person: Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center, 205 Wilbur Ave., C.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am
Profile Picture

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

 

Just sayin' is all.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

 

Time to get out of the Old Testament and start reading the New Testament.  A new covenant has been brought to this earth, and it is one of love and compassion.  Thank you God for bringing your son to this earth so that we strive to live in a different way than that of our ancestors in the Old Testament.

I am so thankful for the work being done at the Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center.  God Bless you all and the women and men you encourage each day!

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

Ya. Down with all of Christianity!  It's served society so well to abandon the moral notion of the two-parent household in the raising of children. So oppressive to the 'adults.' Baby daddys and no-fault divorce. It's all good.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 10:01 am

Actually, society has continually improved for hundreds of years by pretty much every major measuring stick. People always decry society's downfall, while taking for granted that such a downfall is actually happening.

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 10:01 am

Oh. I wasn't aware of the outcome measures that show the positive effects of one-parent households. Huh. I guess that explains to some degree why communities in which the baby-daddy culture thrives are almost devoid of poverty. I also wasn't aware of outcome measures showing that women prosper and have a higher standard of living after divorce. I agree that the standard of 'poor' has risen (cell phones, cable, internet), but, I would not say that the moral culture of our society is on an upward path.  

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Well, your statement was a sarcastic "It's served society so well..."

The answer is, it has. Society on the whole has a significantly higher standard of living. And for the record, I could not care less about the "moral culture" of our society as judged by a random Internet commenter in East Central Illinois.

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Data please re: how one-parent households (currently) produce better outcomes for children. As per my original post, I was not speaking in generalities. Your replies speak in generalities. With respect to children, I don't find data that demonstrate any sort of standard-of-living or outcome-measure advantage of the one-parent household relative to the two-parent/'intact' family household.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Freedom promotes better outcomes for society as a whole. THAT is my point.

asparagus wrote on February 03, 2013 at 10:02 am

Steven Pinker has written a wonderful book:

Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of our Nature. New York: Viking.

The book makes the case in line with your comments with lots of data to back up his assertions.

 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 03, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Just added it to my kindle wish list. Thanks for the recommendation! I continually have arguments with people who think that Education, for instance, is failing relative to the "good old days." These people do not understand that the United States was never number 1 in any measurable educational statistic, and that the book "Why Johnny Can't Read" came out in 1954. There are a lot of cognitive biases that trigger a reference to a nebulous golden age that never existed.

Of course, since I "continually have arguments," it's fair to assume that it's mostly my fault.

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm

I always wondered where the inspiration for the Kenny Rogers song "Ruby" came from. Now I know, thanks.

americanproud wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

As usual, the News-Gazette reporting is motivated by political correctness and not by accuracy. 

"Living Alternatives is a Christian anti-abortion organization" is the term Pressey chose to use, instead of the accurate term "Christian crisis pregnancy organization"  These were Pressey's words, NOT  those of anyone representating Living Alternatives or Merci's Refuge.  FOR THE RECORD:  I do not work for, or volunteer with, Living Alternatives.  I am simply a supporter of the wonderful work they do to help moms choose life for their precious babies when the world around them pushes them to abort those valuable lives.

As is the case with most of the mainstream media, the reporting is not only slanted, but all the way tipped over to the immoral liberal way of thought.  Only Fox News, conservative talk radio, and conservative internet news sites give ALL sides of the story and use the accurate terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion." 

For the News-Gazette to have bought into liberal terminology is disgusting.  If the media is going to call pro-life advocates "anti-abortion," then they should call pro-abortion supporters "anti-life."

By the way, talking about terminology, the term "pro-choice" makes no sense.  You either support life or you support death.  You can't have it both ways.  "Pro-choice" sugar-coats the reality of what one of those choices results in:  the slaughter of an innocent pre-born human being for the sake of convenience. 

And now will come the comments of hate from those who are terrified that one of these days mothers might just lose their (legal, but never moral) "right" to choose to kill their own flesh and blood.  The left accuses the right of "hate" because the right believes that a baby, who has his or her OWN body separate from the mother's, has a right to live.  What can be more hateful than sentencing one's own child to death when there are millions of people waiting and hoping to adopt a child?  Is 9 months of a mother's life too much to ask so that her baby can be adopted and given the opportunity to be the next Albert Einstein, Harriet Tubman, or even Barack Hussein Obama? 

Living Alternatives and Merci's Refuge seek only to provide mothers in crisis pregnancies with ALL the options that they will not hear about at abortion centers.  Absolutely crisis pregnancy centers will never advocate abortion as an option and will always encourage adoption or offer help to the mom if she chooses to keep and raise the child herself.  But to label them a "Christian anti-abortion organization" serves no purpose other than to perpetuate divisiveness rather than information.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am
Profile Picture

Well done.

 

I don't think MARK TAYLOR could possibly pack so much crazy in a single satire.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

 

Isn't saying pro-choice just sugar coating the fact that this organization, which I support 100%, is indeed anti-abortion?  Why say it any differently.

I read the article and I support this organization, and I didn't even think twice about what was stated in the article as being one-sided, or throwing out "liberal" terms.  I think when you read something, try removing your opinions and political mindedness and just focus on the fact that the Center got an article in the News-Gazette to promote the great work there doing and hopefully they are able to raise the funds needed to get this project going.

Now we are going to get a bunch of comments on here about abortion instead of what Merci's Refuge is all about, which is caring for ALL women who are in need, and it doesn't have to deal with just pregnancy.

I hope you can find the good in this article instead of nick picking on terminology.

God Bless.

americanproud wrote on January 29, 2013 at 11:01 am

Love Untit It Hurts....the term "Christian anti-abortion organization" was not going to go unnoticed by the abortion supporters in this community.  I was just beating them to the punch.  Like it or not, abortion IS a political issue, and crisis pregnancy centers all over the country are being pulled into the dialogue, the majority of the time in a negative light. 

All I'm doing is reiterating that crisis pregnancy centers are here to help moms (and dads) choose life for their offspring, which is not something abortion centers do.  I don't care who says that abortion centers give ALL the options, it just isn't true.  Their number 1 goal is to increase abortion numbers.  They don't care about the mothers or the babies in the long term.  They only care about bringing in that money and keeping their multi-billion dollar industry afloat. 

Crisis pregnancy centers care about the babies AND their parents in the short AND long term.  Calling any pregnancy center "anti-abortion" gives it a negative tone.  Pregnancy centers are POSITIVE, pro-child, pro-parents, pro-family....pro-life.

 

rsp wrote on January 30, 2013 at 3:01 am

Their number 1 goal is to increase abortion numbers.

I have a child who would disagree with you. I really find it offensive to walk into a center and there are photos of dead babies on the walls. Sometimes people bring children with them to the clothing center and there are the photos to push a political agenda. Pulled into the dialogue? Are you serious? The same people who stand on the street with signs year after year? And protest outside clinics? I've gone to clinics to get any kind of medical care and been yelled at that I was killing my "child" while the photographed me. Good christians one and all. 

Are you even remotely aware that with good access to complete medical care and contraceptives abortion rates go down? 

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

Free speech. 'Protest if vital to our democracy,' or something. Good thing you weren't squirted with mustard. 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 30, 2013 at 6:01 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!

Squirt her with mustard!!!!!!!!1!!!

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!

That's a gooooooooooo-oooooooooood'un!!!!!!

Did you think that one up all by yourself (you should be proud!!!!!!1!)?????2?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!

She mentioned that mustard isn't paint in another story. So let's say we then have the right to slather her house with BBQ sauce.

Let's joke about assaulting her!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yer funny!!!!!!!!!!!11!

HAHA.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I know, right?????22? We all can see PLANE AS DAY that the News-Gazette is nothing but a communo-fasuistic den of stoopid lie-beral lame stream media ruling class elitist SOCIALISTICALS!!!!!!!1!

The left wing bias of their reporting is obvious to anyone who is a REAL AMERICAN. The only people who can't see it are all these ignorant brainwashed stupid sheeple who need to be educated by good, right thinking, REAL AMERICANS who are also REAL CHRISTIANS, not all these fakers who are from the pit of hell.

Women don't have the "right to chose"!!!!!!1! They should have held an aspirin between their knees because they gave up all their rights once they spread 'em!!!!!!1! This whole sad sorry situation is JUST ONE of the MANY sad sorry results of letting them vote.

We need a total ban on abortion (and contraception too -- IT JUST MAKES SENSE!!!!!!1!).

rsp wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Asprin doesn't work, Mark. 

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

 

 

SocialinPurple wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

These crisis pregnancy centers have been documented and recorded lying to pregnant women who seek their help.
Women should be trusted to make the decision that is right for them. If you can't trust a woman to decide whether or not she should continue her pregnancy, why would you trust her with a child?

I guess women aren't smart enough to choose a safe medical procedure but they are smart enough to raise another human being for 18+ years.

If you're truly interested in evidence-based practices around abortion, feel free to dig into the archives of the American Journal of Public Health.

If you want to reduce abortion, make birth control accessible and affordable and teach comprehensive sex education in schools (sex education that talks about contraception as well as abstinence).

At least with Planned Parenthood they talk to their clients about ALL of their options. These crisis pregnancy centers will not give you all of the facts and much of the information they dish out is biased. If your cause is so righteous there would be no need to lie to people who walk through your doors.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm

So what do you call the living thing that is growing inside the woman after conception?  A baby? A Fetus? A thing? A human being? A scientific object?

Once you classify what you call it, then debate.  Once conception occurs, it is a human being, a baby, and it has every right that we have outside the womb!

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 29, 2013 at 1:01 pm

And another one.  Supreme Court says that woman can "choose" to do what they want with their bodies.  

But the Government says that woman cannot "choose" to put marijuana in their bodies (and other illegal drugs and prostitution is illegal in most all states).  Why can't they do whatever they want with their bodies?  They have a choice!  What gives the Government the right to regulate any of that, but when it comes to abortions they have the right of "choice".

If it is a pro-choice issue, then look at it at a high level.  It should be all encompassing and not picking and choosing what woman can "choose" to do to their bodies and not do.  Right of "choice" does not exist unless their is political gain to the issue.

To me, the choice by the woman was already made.  She choose to have sex (not getting into rape and incest, but woman that are getting abortions cause they don't want their child). The decision was made, the woman had sex.  Everyone knows the consequences/or blessings that come from sex.  So why is it that we don't view their decision to have sex as the ultimate choice, rather we tell them they have a choice after they made their decision.  This isn't golf, no mulligans please.

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm

How about leaving it up to each individual woman?  Who are you, or I to tell them our preferred choice?  To me, it is like telling someone to worship the god of my choice.  We might not like an individual's choice; but they have the right to choose for themselves.  It is their life, not ours. 

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 am

Lying about what? A Christian path out of the crisis situation is clearly disclosed with the currently proposed facility. Don't like the philosophy? Don't go there, don't support it. If choice is so important, respect a person's right to choose a Godly, Christian, or however you want to characterize it (I am not sure of the proper terminiology) path. Those who feel so strongly about 'accessible' birth control are welcome to open their check books and pay for the birth control and/or healthcare of others. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. There is no law against it. Sponsor some groupon thing, maybe. 'Adopt' the birth control expenses of needy families or groups of college kids. There is one type of birth control that is free, of course. But, the promotion of personal responsibility has been forsaken and replaced by the learned helplessness effects of the victimhood culture deeply woven into the fabric of today's 'society.'

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Ah yes the old right to life debate. No shortage of people who want to manipulate a woman into not exercizing her right to choose until the kid is actually born and then it's out in the street with her. Falwell used to do the same thing at his little "Christian" academy. The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion rights and that's the way it is. The presumption of intrusion into a woman's body is a violation of her rights and medical privacy.

If you want to assuage your personal depression by assigning values to inviable stem cells most of which spontaneously abort making your god the biggest abortionist, then assign away.

Instead you should put your efforts into access to birth control and adequate sex education for everyone regardless of income and social standing and the issue will cease to become a problem.

We unfortunatley also still have people who think that AIDS is bad but condoms are worse and aren't afraid to preach it from the pulpit. So what is the real source of these problems. Guilt, shame, ignorance as it has always been.

 

americanproud wrote on January 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm

The news story is about a crisis pregnancy center that helps a woman make an informed decision about the baby she is carrying.  If there wasn't a 2nd person involved (the baby), then fine....the woman can do whatever she wants to/with her body.  But as long as she is carrying a HUMAN BEING inside, she should at least know what is going to happen to that tiny human being during abortion should she make that choice. 

Bulldogmojo can lie to himself/herself by calling the pre-born child "inviable stem cells," but by the time the mother realizes she is pregnant, usually at 6 weeks, the baby's heart has begun to beat and to circulate blood.  Arm and leg buds begin to emerge. Brain, spinal cord and nervous system are established.  The digestive system is forming. The liver has begun to take over production of blood cells. The brain begins to control the movement of muscles and organs.

Why would anyone want to prevent the mother from knowing this vital information before she makes a life-altering decision, whichever option she chooses?  Crisis pregnancy centers are the only place a mom can get education about the life growing inside her and about the psychological and physical consequences abortion might cause her.  CPCs do not lie to the woman. They provide her with the whole truth, so that she can make an informed decision. 

 

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 pm

AmericanProud states..."Crisis pregnancy centers are the only place a mom can get education about the life growing inside her and about the psychological and physical consequences abortion might cause her."

Really? The only place? Thank you for proving my point for a need for sex education if you think that is the only place. You sound like someone who was on the show, "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant"

The "psychological consequences" as you claim are the scorn and condemnation of those who hold themselves in judgement, usually the white afluent religious, who manipulate these young women into a life shackled to their reproductive cycle and the resultant poverty for her.

The weeks age of the stem cells/fetus doesn't matter because you cannot transgress into a woman's body and hold her hostage to the delivery of a child by holding the loss of a safe place to live for the mother over her head and call it "education". Falwell did that to unwed teen pregnant mothers. The choice was keep the pregnancy or you are out in the street. Not exactly a retribution free position for actual choice. We are a land of laws and the supreme court has made the same ruling again and again. Your nefarious inroads to subvert that decision to suit your own conscience and your own self annointed postulate does not invalidate that.

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted." Christopher Hitchens

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

If a faith-based pregnancy crisis center wants to support only clients who are choosing not to abort, so be it. They can. Who exactly do you think is entitled to show up at a facility, privilege themselves with denouncement of the mission and philosophy of the facility from which  they are seeking help, and then demand that they still be helped? If it's such a free-will concern to you and a large number of others, start your own pregnancy crisis centers with a philosophy you approve of. Go for it. Or is it up to the government to do that.


As for the 'stem cell'/fetus descriptions, you don't speak for me and many others who know what it's like to carry a baby (in the early weeks and beyond).

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

From the article:


'Some may be seeking healing after abortion'


Doesn't sound as though they plan to kick people to the curb, despite your 'oh, how "Christian," narrative.

americanproud wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Bulldogmojo, that much anger is usually the sign of a guilty conscious, quite common in people who have either experienced abortion personally or are close to someone who has.  The bottom line is, the human embryo/fetus/child has a heartbeat of his or her own, making him or her a separate person from the mother.  Pro-aborts are so self-centered, all they care about is what an inconvenience those 9 months will bring them.   People who can't have biological children are eager to adopt those babies.  If a person is not ready to become a parent, then how about using birth control or not having sex until they ARE ready? 

How about this:  I'm for abortion as long as no human dies in the process. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 29, 2013 at 10:01 pm

I have no guilt over confronting the poisonous intrusion of credulity that seeks to enslave other people in whatever form. Even as a 48 year old white educated male secularist and father of two who has never experienced any real discrimination, I have no trouble spotting esoterically veiled imposition of religious fanaticism of the privileged over the disadvantaged.

You are going to have to try harder to make your case for the subjugation of others to your will.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

 

Bulldogmojo....

Using big words and trying to sound educated is not going to score you any points.  You use the word "enslave", what do you mean by that?  So when a woman chooses to have sexual intercourse, and she chooses not to take birth control and does not require the man to wear a condom (let’s say it is not a Friends episode where the man wears a condom and the woman gets pregnant), and she gets pregnant you are saying that woman is "enslaved"? 

You said you had two children; I am horrified that you would let a woman carry those children for that long.  She was "enslaved" carrying your children.  By your way of thought, how can you ever be a father when you think a woman is "enslaved" when she is pregnant?

No one ever made light of the right of choice of a woman to be all-encompassing, rather again we only focus on one issue. 

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review;    nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent.

A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human   life or personhood begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized ...as persons in the whole sense" and thus the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

Lets base the rights of the unborn to old English and American common law and statutes, cause we know how awesome many of our laws were.  I guess with modern science today, the Supreme Court can maybe make a better decision on the "viability" of the baby growing inside the mother.   Therefore, everyone can agree that we have the technology and science to pinpoint the viability of the baby inside the mother.  There really can't be any debate on that, because those that don't believe in a "God", can't really argue with science and size language.  Because that is how they live their lives, they want proof, hard evidence, which is only a portion of how our brains perceive things and they totally ignore the other senses of the brain.

 

     Jane Roe and Mary Doe

      "Jane Roe" of the landmark Roe v. Wade lawsuit, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, is now a pro-life advocate. McCorvey writes that she never had the abortion and became the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers who were looking for a plaintiff who they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. However, attorney Linda Coffee says she does not remember McCorvey having any hesitancy about wanting an abortion.

"Mary Doe" of the companion Doe v. Bolton lawsuit, the mother of three whose real name is Sandra Cano, maintains that she never wanted or had an abortion and that she is "ninety-nine percent certain that [she] did not sign" the affidavit to initiate the suit.

 

 

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 am

I'm pretty sure I was articulate in stating my position quite clearly and will not apologize for that, but I'll try and dumb it down a bit. My wife and I planned our family and did so at a time when we were able to properly provide for them. We both made the choice, hence the term Pro-Choice. I did not pick up a destitute pregnant woman in a compromised position and tell her if she only surrenders her will and medical rights to appease absurd religious beliefs that I will take care of her.

That's the distinction. Your manipulations of the real issues are your own.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm

The compromised position is the one they partake in before conception.  They made a choice to lay with a man, therefore, I don't see abortion as a pro-choice issue, rather as see it as, oh crap, I screwed give me a mulligan.  Also, we always forget about the man in these situations.  What choice does he have in the matter? 

People need to consider there actions, choices before making them, and quit looking for every way out of them.

I guess the Government is not helping especially with all the bail outs they did during the recession.

Just shows that people aren't willing to self-govern and always want the easy way out.

rsp wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Regarding Roe, despite what she may claim now, it isn't true. Unless it was made up by someone else. The correct story is that she wanted the abortion but wasn't able to get it. The legal system takes it's own sweet time. I can't tell about the other woman but doesn't it seem odd that she wouldn't speak up sooner?

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Are you familiar with the history of Planned Parenthood? Your descriptors of 'subjugation of others,' 'veiled imposition,' 'privileged over the disadvantaged' reminded me of it.  

alabaster jones 71 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 am
Profile Picture

Enough of this narrative from the pro-life crowd that adoption is the solution to the abortion issue.   There are already way more children up for adoption than there are prospective parents for them who meet the rigorous standards for adopting a child.  Yes, many children who go up for adoption are adopted into happy families.  Many of them also bounce around foster care until they are 18 and have very unhappy childhoods.

asparagus wrote on February 03, 2013 at 10:02 am
SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 am

The fetus' heart doesn't beat until the 6th week of pregnancy (or the 4th week after conception). http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

I can only assume that this means that you are fine with the morning after pill, then.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

I believe the morning after bill acts like birth control.  All I know about it is what I read here.  Seems to me that it doesn't abort a pregnancy, but does the same thing as birth control.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/MY01190

americanproud wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 am

The truth hurts, doesn't it?  Seeing photos of actual human babies who were slaughtered in one of many ways is repulsive and disgusting, isn't it?  It's not too pleasant for the baby, either, who is the one writhing in pain from being slaughtered.

I'm done posting on this thread and done reading the hate-filled, angry posts of people who obviously have no compassion for innocent babies.  Good-bye and good riddance.

B-Evs wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

Wow, you talk about political correctness in the description of the crisis center and then use 'pro-aborts' instead of pro-choice?  Perhaps we should describe your words as fetus fetishism.  People who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion.  They approve of giving the woman the right of _choice_ about what to do with her own body.  Have you donated your organs yet, citizen?

I would call the clump of cells a zygote.  And also agree with the fact that half of them spontaneously abort on their own with no one even knowing.  But I guess when you have Someone who isn't the woman making the decision to abort the cells, it's okay.  I am a bit flabbergasted at how easily you rattle off talking points.  And how you are forgetting that 'use birth control' isn't always a viable option given that the people who are trying to take away women's health clinics don't approve of birth control either.  (No, not abortion clinics.  Women's health.  Because they do more than abortions.  Only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions.  And even that gives you the vapors.) 

And I don't see any of your pictures that you are talking about.  But, if you go to Wikipedia and look up ectopic pregnancy and scroll down, you will see a picture of fetus at seven weeks, a common time for women who have abortions.  Not much like the little plastic figurines that get handed around at protests, huh?  Someone must have been asleep in biology class that day, or else just figured that that isn't as cute as imagining a tiny baby-figure that just simply gets bigger, instead of actually developing from a clump of cells.  The truth isn't as pretty, is it?  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Tubal_Pregnancy...)

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 10:01 am

What a beautfiul picture of a baby!  Thank you for showing that, living growing baby!

It is amazing how people can say it is a "clump of cells".  Aren't we always a clump of cells, but when parenting gets tough around the time the child is 2 years old, I don't see why people under this belief that they are a "clump of cells" don't go get an abortion of the 2 year old.  Heck, why stop there, anytime that child under the age of 18 (when they are legally on their own and considered an adult), can't was just get rid of the "clump of cells" cause we are "enslaved" and can't do what we want.  We have this "big fetus" always with us and I don't want it anymore. 

Don't just stop when it is in the womb, heck, abortion should be until the child is of age, 18! 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 10:01 am

Wow. Everyone is crazy.

You know what is good? Providing services to people who need them. This would include contraception and sex education which, by the way, REDUCE the number of abortions. Abortions should be legal, safe, and RARE. The best way to do that is with preventative services.

That said, women should certainly be supported in following through with pregnancies. I'm glad that this center seems to do that. People should understand that one's conception of life is very important to one's identity, and people are very vehement about that - for a reason. It's central.

One of the largest problems I have is that a certain segment of society seems to focus on a baby right up until the point that it is born, then it is all free market and no tax dollars for services. You can't have it both ways. You want to protect the most vulnerable among us?  I agree. We should. We should be protecting the poor, the hungry, the unrepresented, the developmentally disabled, the uneducated, the mentally ill, the people who are most likely to fall through the cracks. The problem is that we don't. And then too many of the people who are willing to stand up and proclaim themselves "pro-life" are complicit in it.

 

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Who should be helping the poor: the federal government, state government, local government, communities, churches, individuals?

That is where I think people get upset that their tax dollars are going towards procedures and policies that they don't agree with.  Which, I totally understand.  Communities have let their "poor" down by turning the other cheek and calling on the government (whatever level) to help them.

Shame on us as human beings who don't take up some pride and care for them.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm

The answer to your first question is: YES. It's especially hypocritical for some to stand up and pat themselves on the back as "pro-life" without actually doing anything about it, both personally and politically.

As far as people getting upset that tax dollars go towards things they don't agree wtih, that's the only way it works. To paraphrase Sorkin, "When did people start getting the idea that they didn't have to pay for things they don't like? A lot of people don't like tanks. Even more don't like congress." It's just the only way it can work. Then to whine about your poor tax dollars going to the poor or less fortunate comes across as bitter, spiteful, and, as above, extraordinarily hypocritical.

I'm not sure of the services provided by this center, though. Offering care for pregnant women is not a bad thing - I just hope that people understand that care doesn't stop at birth.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Center is funded by private dollars and does not get its funding from an public sector organization, i.e. City of Champaign.

 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Okay, but I fail to see how that is a response to my comment.

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm

'I just hope people understand that care doesn't stop at birth.'


The most important people to learn that lesson are the parentS of the child. If they're not up to the personal responsibility resulting from their choices, the adoption option might be a good choice to consider (when they are opposed to abortion). It is nobody else's duty to raise other people's kids. It's not up to pregnancy crisis centers to do so, unless that is their stated mission. Is it wrong for such centers to advocate personal responsibililty and attempt to help clients onto a path of self-sufficiency with the support of a religious community that comes with a faith-based style of living? It's not some 'trick.' It's the Christian nature of the faith involved here that is the problem for a lot of people (bulldog).  I don't understand where you get this idea though that the help stops once the baby is born. It doesn't: Medicaid, WIC, LINK, SNAP, Headstart, public schools (do a whole lot of parenting these days), nonprofits, etc.

rsp wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 pm

One of the problems is if you start talking about your issues they give advice and steer you in certain ways. A trained counselor wouldn't do that. If you talk about questioning if you should keep your baby they talk about the wonderful parents they have lined up. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 pm

 I don't understand where you get this idea though that the help stops once the baby is born. It doesn't: Medicaid, WIC, LINK, SNAP, Headstart, public schools (do a whole lot of parenting these days), nonprofits, etc.

That idea comes from the significant overlap of those who proclaim themselves as "pro life" while being vehemently opposed to those programs you mention above. 

rsp wrote on January 30, 2013 at 9:01 pm

Are you aware that a large percentage of the people in prison have been in foster care? Several years of foster care before they can get adopted. If that takes too long they never get a stable home. There was a little girl found in a cage, home alone locked up. Her mom wanted to go to a school event with the other kids and her new boyfriend without her, so they left her at home. The cage was two feet wide, where the police found her. They were adopting her. Her dad called the police when she wasn't at the school. This stuff goes on every day.

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Many of these postings emanate from guilt and shame with its origins in religious doctrine. This is not some unique facility. The Catholic Church has been running these shame houses for centuries to get the pregnant girl away from other girls so she wouldn't corrupt the other unwashed masses. The religious historically have proven an obsession with sex in the same way anorexics and the morbidly obese obsess about food.

Human sexuality is completely normal and healthy as evidenced by earth having 7 billion people on it. Yes sometimes it can be dark, confusing and used as a tool of violence but the solution is open and healthy education for our young people not to isolate them because they got pregnant from lack of knowledge or access to birth control or because we as adults are uncomfortable about the subject of sex.

This is proselytizing plain and simple dressed up as "caring assistance".

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

"...because they got pregnant from lack of knowledge or access to birth control or because we as adults are uncomfortable about the subject of sex."

Seriously? Lack of knowledge that if you have sex that you could get pregnant? Where do this uneducated people live? Come on, you have to read what you write and think to yourself, for every action there is a reaction.  Action here being having sex, reaction is the body getting pregnant.  So, we should then react to the reaction and then for the reaction react again, and again, and again.  Where does self-governance come in?

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

SELF-governance. Not governance by religious fanatics who are fearful of sex education in our schools.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 31, 2013 at 8:01 am

 

Religious fanatics? I think we are all on here stating that we want to protect the baby, it is everyone opposed to that idea that keeps throwing out religion.  I do not believe I have ever stated something about religion.

I am all for the baby, and I think we all need to think long and hard how we are telling young and older people that they do not have to live with the consequences of their choices.  Just go live willy-nilly and if you screw up, do not worry about it, you do not have to face the problem. 

Sadly, that is how many Americans live, looking for handouts and the easy way out instead of facing their obstacles head on.  

Sex education in our schools? Again, why is it up to the schools to teach our kids and not the parents themselves? You will say some kids do not have parents; well they have someone they are living with that is an adult that can talk to them.  Nevertheless, our society tells them that it is the school's job to teach our children about EVERYTHING! I am sorry, but I do not want a teacher telling my children about sex.  That is a job that should be done at home.  However, it is so much easier just to pass legislation so that schools can do it and parents do not have that stressful encounter with their children while talking about sex (does not have to be stressful, interchange any word you want there).  Parents are teaching their children that it is always up to someone else to take care of it, instead of taking on the responsibility for themselves.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

I was using the term religious fanatics as it relates to sex education, not abortion. Though of courst the "pro abortion" label that is repeatedly posted above would also point to a religious fanatic.

Only religious fanatics would demand abstinence-only sex education in schools, which is completely destructive to society and hypocritical when combined with the hatred of abortion. Better sex education = LESS abortion. Isn't that what you want? Or are you more interested in pushing your personal moral and religious code onto everyone else?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

I've got a direct line to Jeebus and I know EXACTLY how he wants each and every one of us to live!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!

if you live counter to what I KNOW to be THE truth, then you are hell bound and your ideas are wrong because they're counter to what I KNOW to be GODs will.

now that you have been defeated by my IRREFUTIATABLE LOGIC, you can apply for forgiveness and enroll in my free program to educate all you ignorant sinning non BIBLE BELIEVING heathens and fake Christians.

You're welcome.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

I don't feel it is up to the State to teach children about sex.  When has parenting become a spectator sport? 

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

So you don't want sex education in schools, despite the fact that it reduces unwanted pregnancy and ALSO REDUCES ABORTION?

I thought abortion was so horrible!  But it seems that it's less important than a little embarrassing and frank discussion in schools...

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on February 01, 2013 at 9:02 am

Everyone is throwing out "statistics", as: "So you don't want sex education in schools, despite the fact that it reduces unwanted pregnancy and ALSO REDUCES ABORTION?"

 

How do you know that is factual, or just something someone throws out there because of a study they did of 100 people? Can't just throw out stats like that without any justification of the figures.  

The talks aren't embarrassing, that is what schools are telling parents that they don't have to have those embarrassing conversations with their children about sex.  Let us take care of that, we will tell them everything they need to know about sex, and you don't have to do anything.  Therefore, you won't know what your child knows about sex cause you don't have to talk to them about it, and if they do start having sex and get pregnant, you don't have to deal with it, you can take them to get an abortion and act like they never had sex.  This sounds amazing for parents, they don't have to do anything except sign a piece of paper for the sex education classes and abortion.  Wow!  What an easy job it is to be a parent these days!

 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 01, 2013 at 9:02 am

So again, you're against sex education in schools DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT REDUCES ABORTION?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/opinion/06blow.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

If you were pro life, you would be willing to do anything to reduce the number of abortions. Sounds like you're not as pro-life as you initially claimed.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 01, 2013 at 9:02 am

Just like those polls before the election saying Obama was going to win. We all know he only won cause he STOLE the election, not cause those polls were accurate. The unskewed polls and Romney's internals were the only accurate ones (but of course, they didn't account for all the vote fraud and theft by Obamao and his CHICAGO union thugs).

And just like those wrong and biased polls, all your "facts" and "figure" and "statistics" about sex education somehow magially reducing abortion are all fake. I KNOW IT IN MY GUT!!!!!11!

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on February 04, 2013 at 10:02 am

That was in 2008, nothing has changed since then, nothing....

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 04, 2013 at 8:02 pm

So you're going to make excuses, rather than advocate for something you don't like that has been shown to reduce abortions... So you're not as pro-life as you would proclaim, after all?

Nice Davis wrote on February 01, 2013 at 10:02 am

Education is not an either/or proposition. Any parent who declines to talk with their student about ANY subject--especially sex education--just because the school is teaching about it as well is a terrible parent. Fortunately, hardly anybody understands the parent-student-educator relationship in the goofy way that you do.

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

I worked in college healthcare for 8 years and you would not believe how clueless some young people are about their own bodies and health care to no fault of their own. So yes seriously.

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm

'Through no fault of their own.' Hand-holding for every last darn thing these days. I guess if it's not posted on Facebook they would not meet with basic info about their bodies and health. The rest of the internet be damned. That info is more readily accesible than ever before, but, young adults remain in the dark on such information 'through no fault of their own.'  SHAME on them and on you (for giving them a 'pass').  

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Who is giving them a pass? Pass on what? I thought I was being obvious that we DID educate them about their health in a medical facility without pitching a completely unrelated religious ideology. Would you rather we keep them ignorant about their reproductive choices and not be knowledgeable about sexually transmitted diseases? Oh yeah that's right AIDS is bad but condoms are much worse.

If doing your job as a parent is to be derogatorily considered "Holding their hand" then what kind of attitude is that? They arrive in college with a shameful body image and fearful to openly discuss issues that will affect the rest of their lives. Your answer is they have an iPhone and the internet they can talk to?

Yeah yeah, I know the shtick...your god made everyone in "His image" but be ASHAMED of that image, wear a fig leaf, talking snakes will get you. yada yada.

Oh yeah and god needs money, he's really bad with money, he needs lots of money to house those SHAMEFUL harlots. You religious people really like the word SHAME because its all you really have to bring to this conversation.

45solte wrote on January 30, 2013 at 6:01 pm

'open healthy education'


And what would you consider that to be? Viewing and discussing episodes of Teen Mom?


Is any imparting of 'moral'/personal responsibility advice/guidance considered 'proselytizing'?


 


 

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm

The 'proselytizing" has been around for more than 2,000 years.  The human species just like other species has the urge to mate.  It feels good.  It was a problem throughout history with mankind.  Depending on the culture, and time; different approaches were taken regarding the problem.  America is divided on the approaches.  Some prefer to teach their young about sex, and provide them with birth control means.  Others prefer to teach celibacy to their young, and not provide them with birth control means.  Others prefer to impose their view on others.  Puritans, Victorians, Flappers, and Hippies; and all through those times the problem existed.  Each woman made her choice.  It is still her choice, not others choice.   If people are so concerned about unwanted pregnancies, they should adopt the unwanted children.  Sadly, there is no rush to do that.  Americans prefer to get their adopted kids from abroad.  Is anti-abortion about the unborn; or is it about religion, and self righteousness? 

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 31, 2013 at 7:01 am

Do you understand the adoption process in America?  You are throwing out that there is no rush for people to adopt American children, why do you say that?

Is the process so rigourous in the U.S. that people would rather go abroad to welcome a new member to their family?

You keep saying its "her choice", but didn't she already make that choice?

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 31, 2013 at 9:01 am

When I read your comments; I, almost, believe that you would prefer that young, unmarried, pregnant women should wear a large red "A" patch on their blouses.  Who are you to judge another?  Who are you to require someone else to accept your views?

If you feel that the adoption process is "so rigourous in the U.S.", why don't you try to change it?  I know three families that adopted U.S. children.  Yes; they went thru interviews, and it took time.  It was not like going abroad, and "buying a puppy in a window".    

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 31, 2013 at 11:01 am

 

I never said anything about judging another person, or publishing their name in the paper for getting abortion, or if they are pregnant.  

In America, most women that put their babies up for adoption are leaning towards open adoptions, where there is contact and communication with the adopting parents and the birth mother.  Also, post birth, the mother has 72 hours to change her mind, if the man knows, he is in that same time period, but if the birth mother doesn't tell the father about the adoption, and then he finds out, he has 30 days after the child is born to get rights to that child, then 6 months after the child is born, the Child is 100% the adopting parents.  Talk about stressful and very hard time for the adopting parents.  Also, to increase the chances of being accepted as the adopting parents, you more than likely need to choose that the adoption be open and not closed (closed meaning after that 6 month period, there is no communication between mother/father and adopting parents).

Guess what, if you adopt a child overseas, once you get that baby on the plane and go back, that child is yours.  Most abroad adoptions are closed adoptions, and that is something I believe most adopting parents would choose.  Maybe that is why you are hearing more people going abroad to adopt.  

Seems to me that there is a very stringent process to adopt a child, why isn't there a stringent process before a woman aborts her child? I mean very detailed information that the mother is so informed of her decision that she understands what is going on inside her body.

 

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

" I mean very detailed information that the mother is so informed of her decision that she understands what is going on inside her body."

Fortunately it is a LEGAL procedure so she has to give signed informed consent for the medical procedure which is her business not yours so she knows what the risks are. There is no line on that sheet for your signature.

Its obvious your definition of "informed" means an opportunity for you to insert your shame and guilt based delusional religious ideology onto others. If you want to adopt a child so bad put your money where your mouth is and go do so.

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on January 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Do they require a woman to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion? Do we as a society do everything possible to let the woman know what is happening.  

You call it shame and guilt, I just call giving the facts about what is happening.  The shame and guilt is within the internal soul of the human being receiving information.  I can't make somebody feel shameful or guilty for what they are doing, that is a sense that they feel within their own body.

 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Yep. Those women are so dang ignorant that they NEED A MAN WHO KNOWS BEST to tell them what's going on with their bodies.

If only all the ignorant women would just listen to us men tell them all about how stoopidly ignorant they are about their bodies and DO WHAT WE TELL THEM!!!!!!!1!

rsp wrote on January 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Most women who get abortions don't know it's a baby. They've never seen babies before. That's why they need to see all those pictures. So they can become "educated". But not too smart. Because women are supposed to be barefoot and pregnant and if they figure that one out...

mark taylor's ghost wrote on January 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

That's right. She made her choice and gave up her rights when she dropped the aspirin from between her knees.

maybe my fellow anti choicers on here would prefer that she has to now wear a scarlet "S" on her clothes.

wayward wrote on January 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Hey, I'm pro-choice myself, but it always impresses me when the pro-life people are willing to help pregnant women in difficult situations rather than just trying to ban abortion.

sameeker wrote on January 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Like it or not, I support it by paying their share of taxes.

Bulldogmojo wrote on January 31, 2013 at 10:01 pm

 

One last posting on this and a warning to take these faith based charlatans very seriously as a threat to personal freedoms. Lest we forget the narrow but deep crevasse where this rabid “Pro-life” intrusive ideology exists also harbors in its darkest corners the terrorism that erupts in the form of the murder of medical professionals and innocent bystanders such as carried out by Eric Robert Rudolph and many like him. They declare in their murder trials that they are simply responding to a calling from their god to come to the defense of the unborn and carry out justifiable homicide. Using their own syntax against them they are violating their own ideology of “value” of life by ending the life of someone who is in their 120th trimester.  

These fundamentalists use credulity, guilt, shame and esotericism to manipulate and take advantage of women who they deem in advance as incapable of making their own decisions because they are led astray and sinful. The convenient inroad they use is the woman’s inability to support herself and this is the yolk they will hold them in until the woman is no longer of political use for their narcissistic ends. They are not a friend to the poor they are a friend to poverty which they equate with being "Christ like' and have no qualms about keeping women shackled to their reproductive systems and in a perpetual cycle of lost opportunity and multi generational family destitution.

They can’t and won’t help anyone without their religious mandates in place.

Jeer all you like.

Nice Davis wrote on January 31, 2013 at 11:01 pm

Hear hear! For too long, so-called "Christians" have taken it upon themselves to judge others and rain shame down upon lawful individuals making terrible but necessary choices. They often drag other people into the fray as well, even those who are connected only tangentially or not at all. To anybody who is fed up with this disgusting behavior, I recommend joining "Voice of Choice" (vochoice.org). It is a grassroots organization aimed at directly confronting the worst of these hateful anti-choice extremists by teaching them what it's like to get constant unsolicited advice from strangers.

asparagus wrote on February 03, 2013 at 10:02 am

Actually, I have a completely secular viewpoint on this issue.  Just as I oppose capital punishment and animal abuse, I also believe that at some point (rather earlier in the pregnancy than later) there is a life at stake.  Abortion is sometimes necessary but it should not be thought of in the same way as birth control. 

Life is life. Just like gay rights and civil rights, the future tide will ever be moving in the direction of the more humane and against the barbarity of abortion.  I don't need a god to tell me this and I don't need a god to say it to you.

If you don't have the right to abuse your children you should not have the right to kill your unborn child. It is not a "choice" it is a crime.

rsp wrote on February 03, 2013 at 10:02 pm

I have never heard of a single woman getting an abortion for convenience or as a form of birth control. Every woman I have known in that situation has been in a crisis. I have known women who were suicidal because of their situations. These are real women in real situations. Not fantasy women that people subscribe things to. Like they get pregnant and just throw down a whole bunch of money over and over getting abortions. Because painful surgery is so much fun! 

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on February 04, 2013 at 10:02 am

d

Love until it Hurts then Lo... wrote on February 04, 2013 at 10:02 am

www.bizu.tv/declining-baby-rate-could-cause-demographic-cliff-18708