Sorry, kiddo, but you’re post-birth. Take a number.

Quoted from a press release posted on a pro-life organization’s website:

“Abortion is an act that takes the life of an innocent human child,” said Erik Whittington, American Life League’s youth outreach director. “It is shameful that Christians would rally around the physical needs of the poor and ignore the deaths of untold millions of babies. Abortion is poverty and the number one priority of our day should be its demise.”

Shameful to rally around the “physical needs” of the poor? Wow.

One question that seems obvious to the sane observer is this: Wouldn’t eliminating poverty reduce the need for abortion and drastically improve the lives of millions of born people? Wouldn’t this approach cut abortion at its source - the need for it? Doesn’t it seem blatantly cruel to advocate forced pregnancy over prevention and a boost to the standard of living for all?

Short answer: yes. Long answer:

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)

As one commenter at Pandagon noted:

When I volunteered for PP, I saw many women come and go. Most of the poor women that came for abortions scrimped, saved, begged and borrowed to pay for it. Most were willing and wanting to use birth control. Not having a car, not having easy access to the clinics during open hours since they work multiple jobs, not being able to outright buy birth control at a nearby pharmacy- many of them were trying and trying really fucking hard to not get pregnant, but birth control access isn’t EASY for poor women. It can be hard enough for regular women nowadays with asshat pharmacists. You’re basically asking poor people to be PERFECT while giving those that have more access and more ability the right to be imperfect. you’re putting MORE burden on the poor, on those that are most likely to be shafted to access of things like education and birth control and educational opportunities.

By saying that the poor should forgo sex if they can’t afford a child, you’re saying that the poor don’t deserve one of the most important elements of human existence- the need for companionship and intimacy.

So why aren’t they pushing to eliminate poverty?

Because, of course, that takes money. A pregnant woman should be forced through hell and high water if it means she stays pregnant, but the average taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay a dime more to ensure that she has adequate access to birth control, health care, and opportunities to further her education and career. Such is justice for this brand of “Christianity.”

Via Feministe.

It’s “The Big Donor Show” - three Dutch contestants vie for the kidney of one terminally-ill donor, preferring to take their chances on a reality television show than on the organ waiting list. After all, the Netherlands has less than impressive donor rates.

Comparably, a one-in-three shot at life may sound pretty sweet.

The show was briefly the international media’s sweetheart. ‘Experts’ pompously debated the ethics and morality of such a spectacle. Some were sickened by the idea of distributing organs based on the results of a televised popularity contest, while others were just thankful that the organ shortage would finally be highlighted. The latter group wasn’t disappointed - when it finally aired last night, it became apparent that the show was a hoax. All three “contestants” are, however, in genuine need of a kidney, and they willingly appeared on the show to bring attention to their cause.

We could debate whether or not this was ethical or moral. More than 50,000 new requests for organ donor registration forms were received in response to the show - that’s all I need to know to make my judgment.

I no longer have any optimistic doubt over the blatant maliciousness of most “pro-life” leaders. That’s gone, folks. These people have sunk far beyond a heart two sizes too small and straight into compassion limbo. There’s a rift in the antiabortion crowd forming around the “Partial-Birth” Abortion Ban, and it boils down to one simple question:

Does it really hurt women enough?

One group contends that it doesn’t go far enough. After all, when a pregnancy starts to go seriously wrong, many women have access to comprehensive health care - including abortion. When you genuinely believe that any uppity bitch who would dare end her own pregnancy should at least have to stab herself with a coat-hanger to do so, banning just one of the safer procedures seems terribly insufficient.

Carhart is even “more wicked than Roe” because it is “not a ban, but a partial-birth abortion manual” that affirms the legality of late-term abortions “as long as you follow its guidelines,” the ads said.

But the cluster of assholes on the other side of the rift is much more optimistic about the danger to women inherent in this legislation:

Doctors adopted the late-term procedure “out of convenience,” Minnery added. “The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”

Kill or mutilate a few women and make them an example to the rest. Tie the doctors’ hands so that they must choose between illegally performing the safest procedure, legally performing a far more dangerous one, or simply leaving desperate women to deal with serious health risks on their own.

And these people call themselves “pro-life.” Disgusting.

Hat tip, Pandagon.