Here’s a pitch: Abortion in a sitcom
The Onion has written a satirical piece on how abortion could be written into a t.v. sitcom. The fictitious CBS show is Same Difference, and in an upcoming episode:
… star Kirsten Sumner’s character, Trish O’Connell, the sharp-tongued but beautiful wife of portly Chicago bread-truck driver Greg O’Connell, played by Carl Hubbard, will reveal to her husband she was pregnant and had an abortion without his knowledge. Trish’s revelation comprises the secondary, or “B,” story of the episode, in which Greg eats a meatball sandwich against his wife’s wishes.
The abortion story line had to be written into the show, said fictitious producers, because in real life Sumner had a late term abortion after the show had already acknowledged her pregnancy….
“It would’ve been insulting to our viewers if we never addressed the fact that Kirsten is so obviously post-abortion,” executive producer Aaron Karsch said. “We did consider shooting around the abortion and using lighting tricks and strategically placed plants to cover up her uterus. But everyone would have been able to tell anyhow, so we figured we might as well use it to the show’s advantage.”
Yes, abortion can be funny:
“It wasn’t easy, but in the end, we got some very solid material out of it – the plotline stayed true to the O’Connells’ relationship while still being entertaining,” said co- executive producer Larry Krespie, adding that, thanks to the show’s resourceful writing staff, Sumner’s evacuated womb may be “the best thing that ever happened to Same Difference”….
“Kirsten did some brilliant acting,” said Krespie, who called Sumner’s portrayal of a woman who had recently had an abortion “spot-on.” “Our show does a lot of quiet, observational humor, and I think anyone who’s had an abortion would be hard-pressed not to relate to, and get a chuckle out of, Trish’s situation.”
Continued Krespie: “Kirsten really got into the mind of her character, even in the physical-comedy scenes, like when she was trying to avoid Greg and get out of the house to get the abortion. And later in the packed abortion clinic, when she mistakes the number 81 she received from the receptionist for 18, and finds out she has to wait much longer for her abortion. But it all leads to a nice, poignant ending when both characters realize they should have been honest with each other all along—Trish with her pregnancy, and Greg with his sandwich.”
Witty piece. And I think Hollywood, which so strongly supports abortion, should indeed explore its humorous side.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What the hell? This is ridiculous…no abortion is a laughing matter, and that’s coming from a pro-choicer. It’s a decision not made rashly. Holy crap, this is awful. Comparing an abortion to a sandwich is terrible.
I don’t know what to think about this… on the one hand, it can be helpful to look at things from a humorous perspective. On the other hand, Alyssa is right. The comparison of an abortion to a sandwich is not only terrible, but rather insulting.
Is that the normal niveau for the show? I’ve never watched it.
Alyssa, Ingrid: The show is fictitious. The piece is satire. I think it makes a great point. Why can’t humor be found in abortion?
I realize that the show is fictitious… and I never said that there was humor in abortion. Women making the choice to either have a child or have an abortion are not thinking about celebrating after either process. We never said that it was a happy thing to do. It’s a decision made with careful consideration. It, like other medical procedures, is always considered serious.
Alyssa, Ingrid and anyone else who will post later,
This is what we keep trying to tell you…there is a portion, maybe a large portion, of the pro-choice population that thinks this is a “game”.
Remember the story of the escort who high fived her comrade?
WE know you guys don’t see abortion this way, but our take on it is that the people who began this movement (ie naral, now) do see it this way. We believe it is based on lies (remember the post by Bernard Nathanson saying they laughed, laughed while coming up with the word choice? And we believe that well meaning young men and women have been duped into believing these lies.
I know you don’t see it this way, but I think if you stick around on this sight long enough, you will.
You’ll notice that while we are a “strange” group, with all of our religious mumbo jumbo, we have never, nor will we ever, lied to you. But over and over again we point out the lie that abortion is good for women. No laws regulating the clinics, the breast cancer link (you have to rethink that one after you see how the pro-aborts, and I mean pro-aborts, have lied to you), the dangers of the procedure itself…
Anyway, something to chew on…
MK
I want to know why you abortion proponents find no humor in abortion. We manage to find happiness and humor in all our other constitutional rights. There have even been sitcoms focusing on overcoming racial prejudice like The Jeffersons and Good Times.
Why are you so touchy?
We’re not touchy. I respect your opinions just as much as a pro-choicer’s. Just because it’s a right doesn’t mean that we have to exercise it. Just as we don’t have to vote. Personally, I view the right to vote as less of a serious matter than the right to my bodily autonomy. I don’t think pregnancy, or anything that deals with it, including abortion, is a laughing matter. Voting? eh, I can laugh about candidates and “dimpled chads” and all that junk. But pregnancy? That will always affect any woman much more deeply. It’s not a laughing matter whether or not you decide to maintain a pregnancy (unless of course, the pregnancy is planned…then you can give a ‘high-five’ to your partner and say “GREAT JOB, HONEY”).
:)
But why isn’t abortion a laughing matter, or at least a right to be proud of? Not all Americans may vote, but there’s no American I know who is ashamed of it. Yes, ashamed is the right word here. Otherwise you wouldn’t resist being called pro-abortion.
This particular right is so unusual, isn’t it? So different from the rest.
Jill,
We resist being called pro-abortion because that doesn’t accurately describe how we view it. You resist being called anti-choice or anti-woman, right? It’s just another misleading term to make the other side sound more horrible than they really are. I and many others use the term pro-life. Please give pro-choicers the same respect.
It’s insulting that you use pro-abortion to describe the pro-choice side because we don’t advocate abortion; we only support a woman’s choice to have one if necessary. All the women on these boards have explained this to you, but I have never seen you acknowledge it. And for the record, I am not ashamed to say that I am pro-choice.
Jill,
“I want to know why you abortion proponents find no humor in abortion. We manage to find happiness and humor in all our other constitutional rights”
Erm Jill,I think a lot of fellow Americans cannot find much humor or happiness in the right to bear arms. Not too funny for mothers who lost children in Columbine.
I think it was mentioned once before. People defending the legality of abortion defend civil liberties and equality for both sexes. They defend the rights they perceive as unalienable in a liberal democracy. Though this can entail that women may choose to not carry a pregnancy, for the people defending the legality of abortion forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and violating her civil rights is WORSE than the decisions the women makes. I have not heard anyone pro-choice saying abortion itself was a glorious thing. You would have to be mad to say so.
And about this sitcom- it is The Onion after all, so, I mean…
I said, I don’t even think pregnancy is a laughing matter…so why would something related to pregnancy be one? You’re right…this right is so much different than all of the others because it affects women on a much more deep and profound level. Not all rights are laughable. I wouldn’t laugh about a woman’s right to remain pregnant, nor would I laugh about all the complications it entails (who would laugh at a woman dealing with morning sickness, weight gain, edema, labor, post-partum depression?). Nothing about pregnancy should be a laughing matter. And neither should there be a reason to laugh about abortion.
Jill
“This particular right is so unusual, isn’t it? So different from the rest.”
Actually, it is not. it is quite consistent with your right to liberty and privacy under a due process clause. it is quite consistent with those rights in a liberal democracy that protect you from being enslaved or that the government can claim your organs for benevolent purposes. I think pro-choicers are probably proud of the right to be free from government imposed slavery. The fact that this can entail abortion I think is being disjuncted. Does that make sense at all?!
Thanks, Joe. :)
I like having my right to free speech to be on here to debate, but I’m not laughing about it, nor do I find it particularly humorous. Just because we have a right doesn’t make it funny.
I like having my right to free speech to be on here to debate, but I’m not laughing about it, nor do I find it particularly humorous. Just because we have a right doesn’t make it funny.
But most rights can be made to seem funny, in a joke, or a sitcom… I can easily imagine our right to bear arms being used in jokes, I can see our right to free speech being used in jokes…you can even make most minor or major surgeries into jokes…just watch “Scrubs” on NBC and see how many funnies they work into their show, dealing with different medical situations and surgeries…. and they’re hilarious! But there is really no way to make abortion funny. It’s different. It’s sad. And deep down, I think you know why.
“Women making the choice to either have a child or have an abortion are not thinking about celebrating after either process.”
I can assure you that I joyously celebrated each and every one of my pregnancies. Even the first one, when I was unmarried and barely supporting myself, and even though before I learned I was pregnant I had said if I was, I would abort. It was the unexpected and indescribable joy over the conception of my child that made me pro-life. And I’ve celebrated every pregnancy since then.
A life is a thing to laugh over and celebrate. It’s death that isn’t funny.
Stephanie,
I do not know whether you have a selective memory for posts or what … there have been several (Alyssa being one) who has proposed this same sentiment … over and over – as if the repetition made the observation true. During pregnancy there are at least two beings present … more if there are multiple fetuses. Our DNA says there are multiple humans involved. And they are no doubt alive beings … both the mother AND her offspring are alive and human. So, then it comes down to autonomy … is a fetus then a free-loader? Looks so doesn’t it?
Here are a few of the things happening right now … an immigrant is forced to leave his home and seeks asylum here … he has no documents … do you then say: ‘he is safe with me’ or, is it your patriotic duty to rid your country of this parasite?
…. during pregnancy a fetus will actually send stem cells out to the mother to heal metabolic processes that she has! So, just who benefits from motherhood?
…. in psychology the bond between mother and her child is so strong – that a child of 4 yrs still has a very hard time thinking of his/her being as one that is at all distinct from his/her mother. Is this perception wrong even though it does clash with what chemistry says?
…. a very profound reality can be ‘real’ and very much outside what we call science … there was a test group of people who only had good thoughts & prayers – they had discernible influence several thousands of miles away on mice, burned for this experiment. The people who gathered did not know who they were praying for until just prior to the experiment. ….’Psychology Today’
So what do you have …. a highly selective view of what a pregnancy means … I should ask just who benefits from the view that humans are isolates and women should rightly fear pregnancy? … do not adult male perceptions dominate, here? Science itself is only an adult male take on reality … many claim religion is like this and therefore, should be rejected … reminds me very much about the folks who want history to be herstory – but isn’t science (instead of being ‘objective’) even more-so?
Scott,
There are people born with the condition of having no pain receptors and will never experience physical pain in their lifetime. Are these people “rocks”?
Brain dead? If the fetal brain starts out dead it stays that way and will develop no further. A dead brain, fetal or otherwise, does not suddenly come to life. Is the person in the hospital, someone’s loved one, who is declared brain dead a “rock”?
As for humor, who remembers Archie Bunker? His character was racist and bigoted. Maybe you couldn’t call him bigoted since he equally disliked everybody. Anyway, this show certainly was popular, controversial, and yes funny. Bigotry and racism funny? Yes, by showing just how stupid it looks and sounds.
In fact, what life situations have not been made fun of?
There are certainly those I would never consider humorous, among them sexual abuse, domestic violence, and abortion. In fact, programs that have in any way tried to put a nice face on abortion have all too often met with controversy or angry audience reaction. One such example is the movie “Roe v Wade”, which I understand flopped on TV.
As for being for the right to choose abortion while opposing abortion, I just throw this question out there. Can one oppose rape and wife abuse yet at the same time support a man’s right to choose to commit these acts? The only time I hear the argument that one can oppose an action yet support a person’s right to choose to commit it is in reference to abortion. Does this argument apply to all other aspects of life as well or does it exclusively apply to abortion and why is that?
I don’t mind being referred to as “anti-choice” but please specify the choice you assume I oppose before you refer to me as such. There are many choices I support as well as those I oppose.
John
all the aspects you list are true, which is why you probably could call a pregnancy a symbiosis- I know biologists studying symbiosis are sceptical about the comparison, but I like it because it says in a symbiosis both the host and parasite receive benefits from the arrangement. Given that the fetus is of human nature as the mother, it is not really a symbiosis in the technical sense- but you get the idea.
However, only women who want theyr pregnancy get something out of it. Women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies do not seem to perceive any benefits and have a much higher likelyhood to kill the newborn than women who loved their pregnancy.
Women who love their pregnancy and define its meaning for themselves also happily take on the potential health risks associated with pregnancy. Women who did not want to be pregnant at all seem much more sceptical, but that is just an anecdotal claim.
Mary
“Does this argument apply to all other aspects of life as well or does it exclusively apply to abortion and why is that?”
It applies to all those aspects of life that do not affect the social and economic fabric and stability of society. Domestic violence has proven to not only have detrimental effects on women;s status, health and lives, it also affects their children, raises infant mortality and teaches inequality to witnessing children right from the start. it perpetuates detrimental images of inequality. in countries where inequality is rampat, domestic violence is still a ‘private issue’.
as a government you derive your legitimacy mainly from keeping society safe and together. I know there are people who sense a ‘spiritual’ danger for a society in abortion. But there are no links that prove your neighbor having an abortion impacts society, or you, or your life in an indirect or direct way. Which is also why society cannot agree on a clear cut legislature regarding the issue.
And Mary
“The only time I hear the argument that one can oppose an action yet support a person’s right to choose to commit it is in reference to abortion”
How about pornography? I oppose pronography but I support free speech. How about the right to carry guns, do you oppose carrying a gun yourself but can understand why some people demand the constitution to be respected? Actually that is a bad example because the spread of guns actually does endanger society. And the costs for treating gun related injuries run up to the billions. Do you oppose Islam? If yes, would you still allow for others to practice it?
This attitude is not only practiced in regard to abortion. It is practiced everywhere where people realize that tolerance is appropriate when it comes to personal decisions.
Joe,
Do you oppose child pornography yet still support one’s right to read it?
Guns are quite another issue. I have no problem with properly trained and licensed people carrying or possessing guns. In fact, crime rates have dropped where people were allowed to carry concealed weapons. Criminals thought twice when they realized a potential victim might be packing a pistol. As for the costs of treating gun injuries have you ever looked into the costs of treating car accident victims? I support gun ownership, as guaranteed in our constitution, and the right to choose to own a gun.
Concerning Islam, I support our country’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. There are any number of religions I disagree with, including Islam, but I do not oppose them and support everyone’s right to choose to practice or not to practice a particular religious faith.
Scott,When a woman is pregnant she is pregnant with another human being.A rock will never play with dolls,chase puppies,have dreams,write a letter,laugh,draw a breath,cry a tear,get married,make others smile,hug you. Get my point?You may say that an embryo,zygote or fetus wouldn’t either,but it would if it were given a chance to live.We all had to grow in a woman’s womb in order to be here.This is how human beings are made.There is no other way.During pregnancy,there are 2 human beings.
excellent analysis Joe and Mary. (wonder where I’ve heard those names before?)
I’ve always wondered about the nature of power exercised by the will (preference, if you will).
I’ll bet you could ask a whole stadium filled with people to lift a piece of paper, say 1/4″. I’ll bet they cannot. But a lone woman can seek to end the life … of the most sophisticated organization known (her baby). No, a pre-fetus even is not brain dead (we just have not got instruments so sensitive to pick up such tiny waves).
We falsely assume that she knows her best interests and that one of these must include the destruction of her child. I keep hearing: ‘Yes, that’s right!’ but, I never do hear a call to support her as pregnant …. are pregnant women less sexy …. we can’t have that, so let’s kill. … A Star Treck moment: ‘beem me-up Scotty’ (outa here!)
Joe,
I’m afraid you dance around the issue I raise. Whether or not abortion is detrimental to the woman and society is open to debate and is hotly contested. Many post abortive women would beg to differ with you. At one time domestic violence, like abortion, was not seen as detrimental and was considered a private matter.
I abhor domestic violence. I never want anybody saying I am pro-domestic violence. Is it possible for me to say instead that I support a man’s right to choose to beat his wife, but not domestic violence itself?
John, about supporting the pregnant woman. There are over 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers that offer support, financial help, medical care, emergency shelter, and job training for pregnant women and young mothers. We have two shelters for pregnant women and mothers with children in the town I live in.
mary
“Do you oppose child pornography yet still support one’s right to read it?”
No, I would want to outlaw it. Regular Porn most of the time happens between two consenting adults who made the choice to make money this way. It is unlikely a child readily consents to being sexually assaulted and degraded. Also, sexually abused children often grow up to become prostitutes, drug addicts or become abusers themselves. And many have extremely difficult lives which might affect the life of their own children. See how this feeds back into destabilizing society and making everyone else potentially more miserable?
I would be all for supporting a pregnant woman when she feels the only reasons why she has to abort is lack of support! Choice is about being able to make a choice. “choosing” abortion because you felt you had to becasue you were bitter poor or hated because of your pregnancy is not a choice. It is coercion, which is terrible.
I feel more supportive communities and families could catch quite a bit of those women who don;t see another solution. I still believe, when looking at history, records and statistics, that there will always be a residual need of some sort or the other though, a need that a legal ban would not be able to eradicate.
Mary,
“Whether or not abortion is detrimental to the woman and society is open to debate and is hotly contested. Many post abortive women would beg to differ with you.”
i know they would. However, these women suffered because of the choice they themselves made about themselves. It takes two to make domestic violance happen, it takes one woman to decide on an abortion. When the government intervenes in people’s privacy on the basis that people might make decisions that isolatedly harm themselves, you would be on the highway towards Orwell’s 1984.
That women get hurt during abortion is terribly sad and I wish they would have made the better choice for them. But there is something called self-responsibility. If you look for someone to blame after you committed an act you are ashamed of, it is very easy to blame everyone else to diffuse your own burden, you know? And there are about as many testimonies of women who felt positively about their abortion. There are few testimonies about women feeling helped by domestic violance.
I don;t think I am dancing around, really.
Joe,
We certainly agree on the horrors of child pornography and whatever our reasons or rationale, would NEVER support anyone’s choice to produce or possess it. Whatever harm it may do in the longrun, the perversity of using children in this manner can never be a matter of choice. That’s my point Joe, you oppose it and agree that one cannot oppose child pornography and at the same time support its publication.
Your point about supportive communities for pregnant women is also very valid.
A legal ban will never eradicate abortion. But then legal bans have never eradicated car theft, drunk driving, or sexual assault to name only a few. I suppose we shouldn’t have legal bans of any kind since they obviously don’t work.
The women who have been harmed by abortion have not sought pity or to hold others responsible for their decisions. And yes, the decision to abort can hurt others, like the child’s father. Also the woman who is coerced or threatened into aborting is not making a sole decision for herself, but being pressured by others. Again, how abortion affects society is debatable and hotly contested.
Jill, how could you possibly post this article and ask pro-choicers why they dont find humor in the subject matter? Having just yesterday read your brief account of the horribly misguided procedures at Christ Hospital, I find it nauseating that you can even sarcastically suggest such a thing. Even when abortions are carried out with the utmost care and concern, I highly doubt that mother goes home and celebrates.
Mary
“A legal ban will never eradicate abortion. But then legal bans have never eradicated car theft, drunk driving, or sexual assault to name only a few. I suppose we shouldn’t have legal bans of any kind since they obviously don’t work.”
No, I never said that. You completely missed everyhting I said about a government deriving its legitemacy from protecting society and its tenants. Firstly, theft of any kind violates the idea of owning property, which I guess we all appreciate and also NEED in order to work as a society in capitalism. Second, can you imagine the anarchy in a society where sexual assualt and theft can happen with impunity? Just take a look at societies where that is the case. Even look at New Orleans and what happened to it shortly after Katrina broke down legal enforcement mechanisms for a while.
Unlike for theft, prohibiting all abortion has shown to not greatly change the rate of abortions taking place. For example, Nicaragua has a population of almost 6 million. Abortion is completely banned even when the mother dies. Between 30 000 to 34 000 illegal abortions are registered each year in Nicaragua by independant women’s health clinics. This is quite similar to the ratio of abortion we have in the US where abortion is not outlawed yet restricted.
I agree that there are probably people who hotly debate the influence of abortion onto society. But you have to admit the ‘impacts’ are in no way quantifyable and provable as for example the damage child pornography and unregulated murder, drug trafficing and theft do. Besides, it is not like there are NO regulations about abortion in place.
I can also completely understand why people who believe it is a genuine threat and that it is never in any way justifiable would want to legalize against it. The point is, a lot of people, though ambivalent about abortion, set it into context with broader issues, thus the issue becomes situational and more relative, and smacking legislation into it becomes very very difficult. Especially if you look at the motivation of many people who want to legalize against abortion altogether. Many people see it as a social issue in which religion has no place.
Hey I am being devil’s advocate here. You probably assume I am ardently pro-choice but quite honestly I am completely on the fence about the issue.
Jill, how could you possibly post this article and ask pro-choicers why they dont find humor in the subject matter? Having just yesterday read your brief account of the horribly misguided procedures at Christ Hospital, I find it nauseating that you can even sarcastically suggest such a thing. Even when abortions are carried out with the utmost care and concern, I highly doubt that mother goes home and celebrates.
I think that’s the point of the story she posted, isn’t it?
Look, it makes you think…if you are pro-“choice”…please explain… why is abortion not something that can be joked about?
That’s the whole point of this story. This is not told to make fun of abortion, or to laugh about it….this is shared to make a point. You can’t find humor in abortion, and even pro-“choice” supporters find a “humorous” story about abortion disgusting. Why is that, why are they offended, if it’s just a surgery that removes a “blob of tissue”?
I have seen sitcoms that made jokes out of people getting their appendix removed…or their gall bladder. Not once did it ever make me feel uncomfortable. Not once would I expect anyone to be offended by the material.
However, this satire about abortion really offends people. The pro-“choice” crowd supposedly believes that what a woman is doing during abortion is just having something removed that is not human and has no value…if that’s true, there should be nothing offensive about a joke on abortion, should there? Nothing at all. What makes it any different than removing the appendix?
So why is this such a hard thing to read, from a pro-choice stance? I want to know how removing a blob of “meaningless tissue” is such a sensitive matter.
Joe,
Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. On this you are correct.
But it doesn’t make it any less deplorable have a legal sanction on it.
If something horrific is happening and you can’t stop it, at least you can hold your head up and say that you were on the right side of the fight.
Making abortion illegal will say alot about America as a whole. What individuals do is not something we can control, but just like heroine, we can and should make it illegal. In this way we represent ourselves as a whole…and subsequetly bare no responsibility for the actions of individuals.
Heroin use is illegal. People still use heroin. America can hold it’s head high and say, we, as a whole, say heroine use is wrong.
MK
this MAY be a problem Joe,
when people die in massive numbers many people refer to this as ‘war’ …. debate and issues are mental abstractions only. The actuality vs the virtuality of this situation leads some to a more hands-on approach rather than the safety of ‘debate’. Hey, stop the killing ::: and maybe we can iron out the fine points in a debate, then.
Joe,
Are you aware that societies that have legalized abortion have seen a significant increase in the incidence of child abuse, and yes that includes the United States. Weren’t we promised that child abuse, not to mention poverty, welfare dependency, and illegitimacy would be eliminated by legal abortion? I still recall bumper stickers that said “Stop Child Abuse, Support Abortion Reform”. It sure made sense to assume child abuse would be eliminated. That’s the problem, it was assumed. Ever break down the word “assume”? What is the impact on society of abused children?
So why the increase? One theory holds that parents tend to have much higher and more unrealistic expectations of so called “planned and wanted” children and are frustrated when these expectations are not met. Whatever the reason, the incidence of child abuse has increased in every society legalizing abortion. This fact alone opens your theory that abortion does not negatively impact society to some very serious debate.
Concerning laws. My point was that no matter what the crime or how despicable it is or why the government legislates against a certain act, laws do NOT stop those determined to commit illegal acts. The argument that we should not have bans against abortion because abortion will not be stopped could just as easily apply to every criminal statute on the books. Since laws don’t stop crime, then why have them? Police officers and prison guards would be forced to seek employment elsewhere if they did. You mention Nicaragua. I imagine they also have any number of other laws that are broken all the time, and on a far greater scale.
Bethany I am offended by your insinuation that pro-choice advocates should find abortion humorous. Would you be offended if someone wrote a satire about your miscarriage? I dont know where you people keep coming up with the idea that pro-choicers dont consider a z/e/f to be human. What else would we think it is, a fishstick? Many people dont consider it to be a person due to the development of its brain; however, the words “human” and “person” are not accurately interchangable. I dont believe that a fetus has no value; it has potential value, just like a piano hanging from a rope has potential gravitational energy. It doesnt have energy until it is actually dropped, and how much energy it has is dependent on its initial height. The point is that terminating a pregnancy isnt a joy ride; rather, the right of the mother (a contributing member of society) superceeds the “right” of the fetus (a potentially contributing member of society). Just because a woman feels the need to exercise that right does not mean she doesnt grieve the loss of that potential life.
I don’t grieve the loss of my husband’s sperm and my egg, every time we are intimate….THOSE are potential human beings.
Alone, they are just a sperm and an egg. Living, but not a complex human being.
I did grieve, however, and am still grieving over the loss of my actual baby. Why do you think that is? I am not grieving over a potential human. I am grieving over my baby!
Once the sperm and egg unite, they create a new life which is a complete human, needing nothing but oxygen and nutrition to survive. Saying that the fetus is a “potential person” implies that they are missing something, or that something else would have to be added to them in order to become a human. At what point do you think something is added to the fetus to become a “person”…or at what precise moment do you feel it has achieved personhood?
Abortion kills an actual baby, not a potential one. Sperm and egg are potential…embryo and fetus are already actual human life. This has been scientifically proven…it’s kind of silly , in my opinion, that it’s still being argued…especially by the very people who say they are led by scientific facts.
Many people dont consider it to be a person due to the development of its brain;
The development of the baby’s brain has nothing to do with whether it is a person or not. If that were the case, then couldn’t one make the argument that a toddler and an adolescent are both non-persons, because their brains are not developed as a mature adults brain is?
It is unlikely a child readily consents to being sexually assaulted and degraded.
It’s is unlikely a child readily consents to being killed with forceps, scissors, a suction machine, chemicals, or saline.
Bethany, a person is generally considered to be someone who exhibits a consciousness of thought. Since brain waves have not been detected in a fetus until around 22 weeks, the majority of aborted z/e/fs are not considered to have attained personhood. This concept of personhood is a philosophical one that varies, but that is the basic consensus. The law doesnt consider the fetus to be a person until birth. That is why they can be terminated legally by the mother. The fetus is considered a potential person until the moment of birth because its birth is not certain until it occurs. If you are confused about this, I would refer you to Black’s Law Dictionary, which is used by the US Supreme Court. The term “baby” is scientifically appropriate for the delivered fetus, not the fetus in eutero.
No, I’m not confused about any of it. I’m pretty well versed in pro-abortion semantics. ;)
By the way, I read your story in the other topic and I’m sorry for all you have been through.
Thanks Bethany. Your story and especially your blog have been a great source of comfort.
Samantha…that really means a lot to me. (((hugs)))
SamanthaT:
Your self-deception and lack of logic becomes more and more evident the more I read your posts.
Your quote: “Bethany, a person is generally considered to be someone who exhibits a consciousness of thought. Since brain waves have not been detected in a fetus until around 22 weeks, the majority of aborted z/e/fs are not considered to have attained personhood. ”
Does that mean that most of the pro-deathers that blog on this site are not people since they exhibit no evidence of consciousness of thought?
Just a thought…I mean a joke, ha, ha.
“Black’s Law Dictionary”, now let’s see, written by men, 1st edition written in 1891 as “A Dictionary of Law”. That makes it about 106 years old, edited numerous times since. Compare that to The Bible, witten over 6,000 years, in 66 Books, inspired by God Himself. Hmmmmmmmmm….which book do I base the definition of life on?
Bethany, if you had lost a two-year old and Samantha referred you to some definition in a man written book that agreed with her definition that said this two year old was not a person and therefore could be legally and justifiably terminated, then pretended to be sympathetic to your loss, would you still want to hug that person? Please think about this. I mean Hitler justified murdering 6,000,000 Jews as codified Germal law and bought into hook, line, and sinker by the German people. Perhaps Achtung’s Law Dictionary?
The definition of life in a man-made book does not make that definition valid since the definiton can change with the times and circumstances. The definition of life can only be defined by the Creator and He does it in His book, the Bible. Life begins at conception.
I mean there is either a profound difference between a two year old, a 1 minute old, whatever, and a human being in the womb no matter at what stage of development, or there isn’t. And pro-lifers need to treat and view pro-deathers in the same way as they would any that would try to justify killing let’s say a two year old, or a Black, or a Jew by some defintion of personhood found in law dictionaries, or statute, or constitution, that by the way, are continually revised.
And if you think that a brain wave is evidence of a thought, have you ever seen a thought? I can see the effects of thought or lack therefo on this site. Brain waves, or the “EEG”, are electrical signals that can be recorded from the brain, either directly or through the scalp. The kind of brain wave recorded depends on the behavior of the individual, and is the visible evidence of the kind of neuronal (brain cell) processing necessary for that behavior.
If we buy into the lie that a person is generally considered to be someone who exhibits a consciousness of thought, and that the consciouness of thought is deemed only present if it can be measured, how do we know that it’s not that the thought does not exist but simply our technology is not able to detect, measure and amplify the signal?
I mean, would you agree that amoeba’s “think” at some primitive level. They move, and process food don’t they. Has anyone ever measured the brain waves of an amoeba and therefore, even though they are fully developed, said they are not amoebas because we can’t detect, quantitfy and measure the process that causes their behavior? What about a hatched fruit fly? Have their brain waves ever been measured or perhaps we don’t have the ability to do it yet? Just because something can’t be measured does not prove it doesn’t exist.
And what exactly drives a sperm and an egg to unite and then divide and replicate? Can we measure that emotive force?
I’ll stick with God’s definition of life because I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know much but I know enough to know that most pro-deathers simply don’t think about their stand very thoroughly or have just chosen to accept self-deception.
Bethany, you are so vulnerable right now. You lost your child. Don’t let SamanthaT mislead you. Please don’t fall into that trap. She is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing.
116 years old.
Bethany, if you had lost a two-year old and Samantha referred you to some definition in a man written book that agreed with her definition that said this two year old was not a person and therefore could be legally and justifiably terminated, then pretended to be sympathetic to your loss, would you still want to hug that person? Please think about this. I mean Hitler justified murdering 6,000,000 Jews as codified Germal law and bought into hook, line, and sinker by the German people. Perhaps Achtung’s Law Dictionary?
I am not really sure what I would do in that situation. I know I would be terribly hurt, but I don’t know what I would do.
By cyber hugging her I was not condoning her words at all..I still absolutely disagree with her definition of life, and her support of abortion, one hundred percent…
I just know that people can change…and when I saw her say that she had sympathy for my loss and that she was comforted by my blog (which is written in a solid pro-life style, and is expressive of my faith), it gave me hope that maybe she understands what we see and just hasn’t gotten quite there yet. Maybe she hasn’t been totally convinced but could over time.
After seeing her story in the other topic, I saw how at least one of the reasons she comes here is out of hurt over her loss in the past…. I realized that being snide or defensive in my response was not going to change her mind, or make her feel any warmer towards pro-life advocates.
And if I make it easier for her to continue believing abortion is not murder, then am I really helping the pro-life cause?
It would only fuel the fire even more. Even though I feel just as you do about abortion…it sickens me and disgusts me, and I feel that it is an absolute abomination,
I think that some women are truly mislead and need loving guidance to the truth, which is that all human life is precious and all humans deserve the right to life, liberty and justice.
Maybe I am naive to believe that people will come around, but I just really want to hope that everyone deep down really does know the truth, and that some of these people will be awakened before too long.
I mean there is either a profound difference between a two year old, a 1 minute old, whatever, and a human being in the womb no matter at what stage of development, or there isn’t. And pro-lifers need to treat and view pro-deathers in the same way as they would any that would try to justify killing let’s say a two year old, or a Black, or a Jew by some defintion of personhood found in law dictionaries, or statute, or constitution, that by the way, are continually revised.
And if you think that a brain wave is evidence of a thought, have you ever seen a thought? I can see the effects of thought or lack therefo on this site. Brain waves, or the “EEG”, are electrical signals that can be recorded from the brain, either directly or through the scalp. The kind of brain wave recorded depends on the behavior of the individual, and is the visible evidence of the kind of neuronal (brain cell) processing necessary for that behavior.
If we buy into the lie that a person is generally considered to be someone who exhibits a consciousness of thought, and that the consciouness of thought is deemed only present if it can be measured, how do we know that it’s not that the thought does not exist but simply our technology is not able to detect, measure and amplify the signal?
I mean, would you agree that amoeba’s “think” at some primitive level. They move, and process food don’t they. Has anyone ever measured the brain waves of an amoeba and therefore, even though they are fully developed, said they are not amoebas because we can’t detect, quantitfy and measure the process that causes their behavior? What about a hatched fruit fly? Have their brain waves ever been measured or perhaps we don’t have the ability to do it yet? Just because something can’t be measured does not prove it doesn’t exist.
And what exactly drives a sperm and an egg to unite and then divide and replicate? Can we measure that emotive force?
Great thoughts, I completely agree.
I don’t know why but sometimes when I use the HTML coding it doesn’t italicize the whole previous comment… I know I did it right, but for some reason it keeps doing it anyway. Sorry if it’s confusing to read some of my posts because of it. :)
His Man–very telling, isnt it? “Man.” Unless I missed the boat, that’s all there is to it. Not God, not Jesus, just man. Good thing for me, I guess, and a lot of others, because we just dont measure up to your standards. Too bad it’s God who does the judging and not you, huh?
Bethany,
Some of us have the gift of compassion like you do. This obviously came as the result of great suffering and to me this is a privlege. However, the application of the gift of compassion has to be balanced with wisdom.
My point is we need to treat, and have sympathy for, and have compassion on people that approve of and participate in killing innocent human beings in the womb in the same way as we would treat, and have sympathy for, and have compassion on people that would murder me, you or one of my out of the womb children. We arrest them, take them to court, sentence them to jail, inflict punishment and give them an opportunity to change, etc. Otherwise we really don’t believe that human beings in the womb are human beings.
By doing this we send the proper message to society that abortion is murder and committing murder has consequences. If someone then has an unwanted pregnancy, they would then have to choose to commit murder and spend the rest of their life in jail or have the baby and all the blessing that go with that. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I wouldn’t coddle a convicted murderer to try to convince them that what they did was wrong. No, they are hurting people. I would take the neccessary steps to prevent them from hurting someone first, then adminster punishment. That would be the only way to get them to even consider repenting and coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Women who consent to kill their unborn children, the people who support the act, and the abortionists who commit the deed need to understand that murder will not be tolerated by society and will have grave consequences. This is why governments, which are instituted by God, have the duty to make abortion illegal again. That is why we have police, politicians, and the military. Unfortunatley, our governement lost its way as of about 34 years ago.
In the same light, if abortion is made illegal again, we, especially and primarily the church and Christians, and not primarily the government, need to make it as easy as possbile for a women that finds herself in a difficult situation with a pregnancy, to have that baby showing as much compassion and tender mercy to the mother as is possible in a protective environment. This would be the correct application of our gifts of compassion.
SamanthaT:
You forgot the “His” part of “His Man”. It’s about Him not me. Samantha, there you go again, leaving out, and twisting words so that you can decieve and be decieved. Not a good way to live.
Judging you or others would be to say “you’re going to hell”.
So, I have never said that since it is very possible that you will repent, come to a saving knowlege of Jesus Christ and thus be in heaven forever. In fact, that is my hope for you. I will also not lie to you by not opposing your stance on abortion. Now that would really be a disservice to you. Perhaps someday, you will grow up, and understand.
However, I can say what the Bible says which is, if you or anyone rejects Jesus, you or anyone will have no hope of heaven. I am only stating a conditon for which there is a consquence, not making a judgement. Those are His words made by His Man, blame Him not me. Read it for yourself or choose to live in ignorance.
Christians are commanded in the Word to spread the Gospel which is the Good News that forgiveness is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ and rejecting such will damn you to hell, but at the same time we’re admonsihed not to judge. One must take the time to understand the apparent dichotomy and thus, come to, well, an understanding.
The Bible does not contradict itself as others have so foolishly tried to claim in other topics on this site. So, if I am commanded not to judge and to proclaim the Good News and it is interpreted as judgement by the hearers, I must not be judging them, they must be judging themselves and blaming the messenger.
So SamanthaT, while you’re words in these posts can be observed and described as those of a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing (I mean, by your own admission, you’re willing to kill innocent children and clothe that stance in false wisdom, by definiton that’s wolfy and deceptive), there’s still hope for you because of an amazing God that saved even this former wolf in sheep’s clothing.
He did the same for Paul and Peter, who, by the way, Jesus called satan. He became a piilar of the church. Go figure, Christ calling a spade a spade and I think I have the mind of Christ. That’s what the Bible tells me.
I will say this Samantha, if I am wrong, I will be the first to ask for your forgiveness. However, based on my extensive and gut wrenching study of God’s Word over 30 years that I do not believe I am wrong. I have the courage to ask Him to show me if I am wrong. If He shows me such, I’ll repent.
I don’t think He’s going to contradict Himslef because it says that a house divide against itself cannot stand.
“The Bible does not contradict itself as others have so foolishly tried to claim in other topics on this site.”
OT: “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth..,”
NT: “turn the other cheek”
But you accuse *me* of deceiving people? The abililty to accept the Bible in its true context is real faith, His Man.
I think you’re probably right, HisMan.
Samantha, please take a look at this link if you are confused about the passages you mentioned:
http://www.salemreformed.org/pages/articles/turn-the-cheek.php
Why Bethany, thank you, that was most helpful. Perhaps you could look at my numerous other posts pointing out what I found to be contradictory passages in the Bible and help me with them as well, as His Man has continued to ignore them while he claims that I am ignorant and indoctrinated? The loving kindness you and MK and John display makes me very proud to be a Christian.
I’m not sure which ones you had mentioned in the other posts, but here are some pages with numerous questions that people had about what seemed to be contradictions, answered.
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con110.asp
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con110.asp
(Scroll down on this one for a little bit and you’ll get to the list)
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=15
A lot of these kinds of answers helped me at one time when I was beginning to think there actually were contradictions in the Bible. It was a very hard time for me, I knew God was real and I wanted to believe the Bible was 100 percent accurate, but these supposed contradictions made it very difficult for me… I eventually realized that I was not reading enough of the passage or seeing the whole picture, and this is what was causing me to see ‘contradictions’ (also, it didn’t help that athiests were giving me examples of the contradictions and I had no way to answer them, because I had not taken the time to read and find out myself)…sometimes if you read just one verse out of a chapter and don’t read the context around it, it’s very easy to get the wrong idea. (Also, sometimes you have to really, really carefully notice the wording…even little words like “and” or “by” could mean a world of difference in a Bible verse). Once you read around the context (or also compare with other scripture to understand the story line) you’ll usually get the picture much more easily. :)
defense criminal lawyer angeles los federal http://criminal-defense.dogoo.us >los lawyer criminal angeles federal defense