If pro-choice advocates support an organization that supports coercive abortion policies are they still pro-choice?  China is notorious for having coercive abortion policies in order to enforce their populations control measures that they have in place.  Another episode of this happening is making news:

Arzigul Tursun, who lives in China’s far northwest region, is more than six months pregnant and is being hounded by authorities who want her to have an abortion. Tursun already has two children with her husband.

Late on Sunday, Tursun fled the hospital that she was staying at while awaiting her abortion. But she was tracked down by police Monday afternoon at a relative’s house and was again taken to the hospital for an abortion, according to Radio Free Asia.

“The police found my wife,” Nurmemet Tohtasin, the woman’s husband, said in a telephone interview from the Women and Children’s Welfare Hospital, to RFA. “My wife’s father was already at the hospital. They will probably do the abortion today.”

The village chief and party secretary had forced her husband to find Tursun after she escaped from the hospital on Sunday. Nurmemet took officials to two of Tursun’s relatives’ homes and to her parents’ home.

“They said if we don’t find Arzigul, they would take our house and our farmland,” he said.

Source: Christian Post

The last eight years the Bush Administration has withheld money from the U.N. Population Fund because of its support of these practices.  It is predicted that President-Elect Barack Obama will reverse that presidential order.

There is the general issue here of why taxpayer money is being used for this purpose at all.  I believe it is entirely unethical to use taxpayer funds to support a practice that most people believe is wrong.  Don’t mistake some people not wanting to outlaw abortion as being a supporters of the practice and feeling like it should be funded with taxes.  This is really should be a bipartisan issue.

More specifically, why would a pro-choice president want to support financially an organization that enables taking a woman’s choice away?  This doesn’t seem pro-choice to me.  As far as I’m concerned this practice is anti-woman, and I don’t believe is representative of the type of change that Americans voted for.

22 comments
  1. Shane, doesn’t it bother you at all that you use such provocative titles to draw people to your website? You bring to mind the people that Jesus warned us about.

  2. Shane, doesn’t it bother you at all that you use such provocative titles to draw people to your website? You bring to mind the people that Jesus warned us about.

  3. Aquariman,

    It’s not a provocative title. It’s what actually happens in China. “Forced Abortions”. And we are poised to help sponsor practices imitating China’s horrendous policy.

    He didn’t use a title like “Obama supports Forced Abortions”. He didn’t say, “Pro Choicers secretly support forcing all women to have abortions.” Those would be provocative titles.

    You are expressing that you don’t like Shane blogging about this topic. Why not just say that? You’re trying to make him into some religious hypocrite or hatemonger.

    Why is it okay for you to air your opinions and not for Shane to air his? I thought we are supposed to tolerate alternative views. Posting your disapproval of alternative views should be okay. That is what you are doing. That is what Shane is doing.

    Lighten up dude.

  4. Aquariman,

    It’s not a provocative title. It’s what actually happens in China. “Forced Abortions”. And we are poised to help sponsor practices imitating China’s horrendous policy.

    He didn’t use a title like “Obama supports Forced Abortions”. He didn’t say, “Pro Choicers secretly support forcing all women to have abortions.” Those would be provocative titles.

    You are expressing that you don’t like Shane blogging about this topic. Why not just say that? You’re trying to make him into some religious hypocrite or hatemonger.

    Why is it okay for you to air your opinions and not for Shane to air his? I thought we are supposed to tolerate alternative views. Posting your disapproval of alternative views should be okay. That is what you are doing. That is what Shane is doing.

    Lighten up dude.

  5. Bob, I came here through a link Shane has created through the DMR website entitled ‘Forced Abortions’. I have absolutely no problem with Shane airing his views. I’ve attempted to address, with Shane, how he uses the DMR site to promote and give validity to his own site. Like the vast majority of people, I am anti-abortion, but then again I’ve never had to have one, nor have you.

  6. Bob, I came here through a link Shane has created through the DMR website entitled ‘Forced Abortions’. I have absolutely no problem with Shane airing his views. I’ve attempted to address, with Shane, how he uses the DMR site to promote and give validity to his own site. Like the vast majority of people, I am anti-abortion, but then again I’ve never had to have one, nor have you.

  7. Bob, the title ‘Forced Abortions’ was most certainly provocative, that you need a more extreme example to make it so doesn’t make it any less provocative.

  8. Bob, the title ‘Forced Abortions’ was most certainly provocative, that you need a more extreme example to make it so doesn’t make it any less provocative.

  9. Bob and Andy – thanks for the encouragement.

    Aquariman – regarding MY blog at the Des Moines Register. Yes I use it for a gate to here. That is my prerogative to do so. If I included the title and just a link I could see your point, but I don’t. I typically include at least two paragraphs. No one is forcing you to come here.

    I also do this for time’s sake. I don’t have time to respond to comments at various sites. If you want to comment, fine. Comment here. I have my RSS feed imported over at Culture 11 (great site BTW) – http://www.culture11.com, it automatically cuts part of the blog post off to encourage people to come here.

    There is nothing unusual about this. Regarding validity… how exactly does the Des Moines Register site do that? If I were on staff and it was a staff blog I could see your point, but mine is a reader blog. Very little of my traffic comes from the Des Moines Register.

  10. Bob and Andy – thanks for the encouragement.

    Aquariman – regarding MY blog at the Des Moines Register. Yes I use it for a gate to here. That is my prerogative to do so. If I included the title and just a link I could see your point, but I don’t. I typically include at least two paragraphs. No one is forcing you to come here.

    I also do this for time’s sake. I don’t have time to respond to comments at various sites. If you want to comment, fine. Comment here. I have my RSS feed imported over at Culture 11 (great site BTW) – http://www.culture11.com, it automatically cuts part of the blog post off to encourage people to come here.

    There is nothing unusual about this. Regarding validity… how exactly does the Des Moines Register site do that? If I were on staff and it was a staff blog I could see your point, but mine is a reader blog. Very little of my traffic comes from the Des Moines Register.

  11. Shane i’d frankly be a lot more inclined to listen to you if your sources were something other than free republic and newsmax.

  12. Shane i’d frankly be a lot more inclined to listen to you if your sources were something other than free republic and newsmax.

  13. Type your comment here.

    The truth is that the pro-abortion leaders in this country are not really pro-choice, like they say they are. They just use that saying for PR purposes.

    It should not surprise us that they support forced abortion in China. To the extent that they can get away with it here in this country, they force women to get abortions here too. Usually they can’t get away with it. But when they see the opportunity, they do.

    At the very least, they fight against laws that would protect women against forced or coerced abortions. If they really supported choice, they would be eager to see laws against coerced abortions passed.

  14. Type your comment here.

    The truth is that the pro-abortion leaders in this country are not really pro-choice, like they say they are. They just use that saying for PR purposes.

    It should not surprise us that they support forced abortion in China. To the extent that they can get away with it here in this country, they force women to get abortions here too. Usually they can’t get away with it. But when they see the opportunity, they do.

    At the very least, they fight against laws that would protect women against forced or coerced abortions. If they really supported choice, they would be eager to see laws against coerced abortions passed.

  15. I think the title of this post is provocative … but it is right on the money. The post is about forced abortions.

    And, the fact that any government would support such a thing is disgusting. It is bad enough we have women in this world that feel that killing their child is their only viable option … forcing a woman to murder her child is unspeakable.

  16. I think the title of this post is provocative … but it is right on the money. The post is about forced abortions.

    And, the fact that any government would support such a thing is disgusting. It is bad enough we have women in this world that feel that killing their child is their only viable option … forcing a woman to murder her child is unspeakable.

  17. One definition of “provocative” is to elicit a strong reaction. If that’s the case, it was provocative. This practice makes my blood boil.

    Does the ending of 50 million+ heartbeats in the U.S. alone not make us one of the most selfish, convenience-based, sadistic societies in history?

    Sorry…maybe that was too provocative.

    Aquariman outs him/herself by saying in comment #4 that anyone’s take on the subject should be weighted less because the commenter isn’t a woman who’s “had” to have an abortion. [rolls eyes]

  18. One definition of “provocative” is to elicit a strong reaction. If that’s the case, it was provocative. This practice makes my blood boil.

    Does the ending of 50 million+ heartbeats in the U.S. alone not make us one of the most selfish, convenience-based, sadistic societies in history?

    Sorry…maybe that was too provocative.

    Aquariman outs him/herself by saying in comment #4 that anyone’s take on the subject should be weighted less because the commenter isn’t a woman who’s “had” to have an abortion. [rolls eyes]

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Eric Holder to GA Democrats: ‘When They Go Low, We Kick Them’

Former Attorney General Eric Holder at an event for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams said Democrats should “kick” Republicans “when they go low.”

If Looks Could Kill…

I don’t want to read too much into this because I know…

Palin on Porkulus and the Fairness Doctrine

Greta Van Susteren was up in Alaska for the Iron Dog race…

A Student’s Right to Religious Speech Upheld in Montana

I applaud the Montana Supreme Court who ruled in favor of a…