Posted on 06/26/2015 10:30:10 AM PDT by Morgana
Her abortion is allegedly scheduled for July 10, but one anonymous mother is demanding that pro-lifers give her $1 million to keep her from killing her preborn baby through an abortion.
The woman, who says she will do her “best to remain anonymous in this process as what I aim to prove has nothing to do with me personally,” claims that pro-lifers don’t actually care about the life of a child. She writes:
“On July 7th I will start accepting donations on this page. I will accept donations for 72 hours, the same amount of time this state currently requires a woman to wait after a consultation with a doctor until she can have an abortion. If one million dollars is raised in those 72 hours then I’ll have the baby, give it up for adoption and every cent of that one million dollars will be put in a trust fund for the child, which he or she will have access to when they turn 21.
“I’ll keep none of the money for myself so if I am to be vilified in this process, it can’t be for that. If the one million dollar goal is not met by the end of those 72 hours, any and all donations received will be refunded and I will have an abortion that I have already scheduled for July 10th in my home state. Mathematically this means that every one of the 157 million Americans that identify as pro-life needs to donate less than one cent to stop this abortion.
“The backward direction this country is headed in terms of its treatment of women I feel is due in large part to the influence of the religious right disguised as the pro-life movement. The pro-life movement cares very little about saving lives and far more about controlling women by minimizing their choices in a wide variety of ways not the least of which is readily available reproductive health care.”
At face value it may sound like it’s not about the woman but the cause; however, other factors come into play that indicate it’s much more about her than she would like us to believe.
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek calls it blackmail: “Pro-abort blackmail: Give me $1 million, or I’m having an abortion,” her headline reads.
The Stir says, “It’s like a political Kickstarter — or a ransom note, depending on where you stand on the issue of abortion.”
Indeed, some comments say she trying to hold pro-lifers hostage by saying they must prove it if they want a baby to live. If pro-lifers don’t give her $1 million, she will kill the baby. If she gets the money, she promises to have the baby and give him or her up for adoption, sending the $1 million with her child in the form of a trust fund. She calls it a baby, too, not a fetus, indicating she understands exactly what she’s doing: ransoming the life of her preborn child for self gain. Early human trafficking at it’s (un) finest, some might say.
Her demands leave other questions, though.
First, many accuse her of wanting the money for herself. She says nothing, at least yet, about accountability to show that they money is legally bound to go to her baby.
Second, this ransom is actually a prime money-making opportunity for the 26-year-old graduate student from either Missouri, South Dakota, Utah, or North Carolina – states that have 72-hour waiting period laws. Even if she legally sets up every penny to go to her baby, her personal income from the talk show and book circuit could skyrocket, which makes the ransom more opportunistic than the heartfelt political awareness plea she would like people to see.
The woman insists if she doesn’t raise the money in 72 hours, she will refund all the donations to the people who gave and she will keep her July 10 abortion appointment. What some may wonder is if she will take the media along for the appointment, or will she simply wait until she leaves to stop by the talk show circuit to make her statement?
Countless ways exist to bring awareness to the plight of the child who needs adopting as a solution to abortion, but pro-life blackmail and ransom demands are far more about self-promotion and gain than they are the care about any cause.
One can only hope that since she clearly understands she is carrying a human life, she will choose not to put her baby to death in some political statement she tried to use for publicity. Even animals get treated with more dignity than that.
Back in the good old days, when words had meaning, that would have been called “depraved.” But we don’t use that word now . . . it would be judgmental.
What an *sshole.
You've actually lost money. Sorry.
she would have no problem owning slaves
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.