Abortion as birth control: Porn star kills 4th baby; may have been Sheen’s
This woman is messed up.
On February 12 porn star Kacey Jordan reportedly texted troubled actor Charlie Sheen that she was pregnant with a baby who might have been his, but not to worry, she was getting an abortion:
Charlie I’m so sorry how things turned out, I want u to know something before it hits the press…I’m pregnant and I don’t believe its yours, but I’m going to Oregon to take care of the situation.
I don’t remember who forwarded me that text, making the point to me that there was absolutely no reason for Jordan to send Sheen such a message other than to secretly hope he would urge her not to follow through, which he apparently did not.
This was also reportedly 22-yr-old Jordan’s 4th abortion, which is tragic and crazy. Furthermore, she understands she is killing her own children. After her most recent abortion she told the paparazzi (see video), “I don’t have a baby anymore.”
In that video she also said, “No, I’m not on birth control now. I’ve never been on birth control” – apparently speaking about hormonal contraception. Jordan apparently – and haphazardly – relies solely on condoms to engage in prolific sex, knowing she’s quite fertile. According to Radaronline.com:
Now, Jordan has admitted the couple did not use contraception, leading her to question whether Charlie was the father when she discovered she was pregnant.
“I had the abortion last Thursday[February 17], I went home to Oregon to have it because that is where I grew up. I was sick and on the couch all day,” revealed Jordan, who has already terminated three previous pregnancies.
“I think it might have been too soon to be Charlie’s baby, but you never know. I get pregnant very easily.
“Charlie and I tried to use protection… I kept having to put it on again. I don’t want people to think I just had sex with him and didn’t try to use one.
But if the baby wasn’t Sheen’s Jordan says it could also have been another A-list star’s.
“A week earlier I had been with another celebrity, so it could of been his, but I can’t talk about him because I had to sign a release.”
I can’t tell if the girl is purposefully trying to kill herself or just stupid. On February 1 she told Howard Stern she was urinating blood due to a kidney infection. That was only 17 days before her abortion.
[Top photo via Radaronline.com; bottom photo via Exposay.com]
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.
Boy oh boy ! What a claim to fame: “I sleep with celebrities and abort their babies.” She’s a real debutante isn’t she ?
Now watch: She’ll be the next harlot from hollyweird that teenage girls will be idolizing. Move over Lindsay Lohan, you’ve got competetion.
The definition of depraved. I suppose the proaborts think this is just fine. I mean, condoms count as contraception, right? That’s why they pass them out like candy at a parade. And, clearly, they’re working… So, it seems that Ms. Jordan is just living the PP dream.
THE DAMAGE our society has done to our girls, use them, lose them or throw them away – the POWER they are promised with the FREE Love society as they are used into oblivian!! She is not stupid, she’s lost and hurting. She has no where to go and no one who is willing to guiding her in the right direction. She’s so very lost. It’s so painful to watch her…
She is absolutely sick to think this is something perfectly normal to do and be perfectly happy and hunky-dorry with it as well. “I get pregnant very easily.” Well then stop having sex so much. When one has done this so many times, when they finally want a child, they might have an issue carrying a child full term or getting pregnant at all. I guess it is the lifestyle she lives and maybe it is perfectly normal for that type of behavior.
My heart breaks for her.
Sheen is a fool.
Two very sick people that need our prayers
HAppy to see the face of the ignorent at its best. Im sorry but the girl is one of the dumbest people I have ever read about .You can tell all she cares about is money look at her perfession and her caliming a listers she has slept with how sad. I am glad to see that she puts it out their like that.
I think it’s disgraceful how some of us feel the need to point, judge and smerk at this woman. Yes, she has free will and Yes, her actions are horrendous, but she needs PRAYER!! She needs someone in her life who will guide her and give her the courage and confidence to leave that industry. We don’t know her past. We don’t know how she was treated in her youth, where she comes from, we just don’t know –
It’s interesting how everyone loves babies, treats children and youth like crap and then expect good, moral citizens! Pray for this woman! Please!
Now watch: She’ll be the next harlot from hollyweird that teenage girls will be idolizing.
Why do you have to call her a harlot? She obviously has a whole boatload of psychological problems and needs help. This whole thing sounds like a cry for help. Calling Kacey Jordan names isn’t going to help her or bring her babies back to life, and it makes you look like a cold, uncompassionate person. By the way, I suspect I’m a lot closer in age to teenagers than you are, and teenage girls don’t idolize Lindsay Lohan. They just see her as sort of pathetic.
Both Kasey Jordan and Charlie Sheen are in need of some serious intervention. Charlie Sheen’s just destroying his life piece by piece – first his marriage, then his next marriage, then his legal history, then his ability to be a good father to his kids, then his job. I think it says a lot for Denise Richardson and his most recent wife that they’ve managed to carry on raising their kids without contributing to the media circus that their father’s life has become.
Rosalinda, thank you for your double post.
Kacey is indeed also a victim in all this. I do have a little trouble myself labeling Charlie this way, but he too is clearly troubled. But your observation that the pro-life movement in America focuses on the baby far too much is absolutely correct. I do think it is beginning to change, but a huge number of women hurt by abortion cannot make common cause with us because they feel that we do not care about them as victims or even really just people.
Praying that one day Jordan find true healing and hope. She is caught in a vicious cycle.
My heart aches for her.
She is only 22. :(
The compassion and forgiveness shown here is a truly inspiring thing to witness.
Also: “there was absolutely no reason for Jordan to send Sheen such a message other than to secretly hope he would urge her not to follow through”. Or to, you know, let him know about something that affected him.
Marauder
Webster’s says
Harlot: a prostitute.
Prostitute: to offer one’s self as a paid sexual partner.
It’s not name calling, just the truth… Yes its sick, and sad
“By the way, I suspect I’m a lot closer in age to teenagers than you are, and teenage girls don’t idolize Lindsay Lohan. They just see her as sort of pathetic.”
Hahaha thank you, Marauder – that comment really threw me for a loop. I don’t know anyone who idolizes Lindsay Lohan, and I never have. Well, my friends and I thought she was a cutie pie when she was in The Parent Trap, but that’s about it. And I tutor high school kids, and was in college during Lohan’s more infamous years myself.
She is only 22.
Same age as me. If only she had ONE person in her life to encourage her self-esteem! This is just so sad.
Alexandra, I think myths like the supposed idolization of Lindsay Lohan develop from the desire of older people to demonize or ridicule a culture they cannot understand. It’s the same impulse that leads young people to mock staples of their parents’ generation.
I wish I knew Lohan personally- she so needs trustworthy people around her and not tabloid loving sycophants. We shouldn’t judge young women. They have grown up in a world where 1/3 of their generation has been slaughtered before birth. How can that not effect them? And to be judgemental – first we kill off a third of their friends, siblings, and cousins, and then we criticize them. Jordan is part of a generation that has grown up in broken homes, shuttling between feuding parents who were more concerned with their own love lives than their children’s upbringing. Her generation is comprised of more ‘only children’ than any generation before in the history of mankind. I don’t wonder that young men and women have trouble seeing each other as brothers and sisters and instead relate mainly on a primal, sexual level.
We also shouldn’t confuse a woman’s words to mean she doesn’t feel private pain. Many women try to be stoic, to pretend they’re not hurting, but they are. We don’t know. We can’t judge. She could be my daughter. She is somebody’s daughter, someone’s baby girl.
But look how EMPOWERED abortion has made her ninek!! :(
I totally agree with your post. Many of the younger generation have absolutely swallowed the lies of the abortion industry. Quick, simple, painless procedure with no risks whatsoever. Well, you and I know differently.
I cannot imagine the inner torment of this girl.
I think of the Pink Cross that leads women (and men) out of the porn industry. Porn tears women’s insides apart, the sex is so rough and inhumane that the women’s vaginas have hung out of their bodies. That fact always stuck in my mind. I can’t imagine the damage the porn and the abortions are doing to her, body and soul! I feel so incredibly sad for her. Sheen and Jordan both need the healing love of Christ. They are both obviously searching to fill a deep void in their lives. But sex and drugs will never fill the void only God can fill.
She sounds like she is very ill :( The porn industry is so evil.
And…judgment and hate becomes replaced by condescending pity and moral superiority. Wonderful.
By the way, the myth that so-called “broken homes” lead to morally degenerate children is a common meme among social conservatives, but it is far from a universal truth.
By the way, the myth that so-called “broken homes” lead to morally degenerate children is a common meme among social conservatives, but it is far from a universal truth.
I don’t think anyone here is saying that it’s a universal truth. Statistically speaking, children from broken homes are more likely to end up in prison, become addicted to drugs, or face other serious problems. But there are many, many exceptions. As pro-lifers, we believe that each individual has enormous potential– and that, even if they do not fulfill that potential, they are worthy of life. (I do think that Kacey Jordan can turn her life around, although it’s safe to assume that she’ll need some social supports to do so.)
If anything, it’s YOUR side that thinks the children of broken homes are doomed. How many times have we heard that aborting children from broken or low-income families is good social policy, because if allowed to live they would commit crimes?
Kelsey, can you point me to the studies from which you’re drawing your statistics? I’ve seen a few, but none that adequately control for other factors which are correlated with both divorce and crime. And, in my experience, children from “broken homes” often grow up to be more successful, more well-rounded people than they would have otherwise.
Sides…such a nasty, unproductive concept. Why must we make this about sides, rather than an honest and open exchange of ideas? As to your claim about my “side,” I’ve never heard of the crime-prevention justification for abortion before. Could you point me to where you heard that?
If anything, it’s YOUR side that thinks the children of broken homes are doomed. How many times have we heard that aborting children from broken or low-income families is good social policy, because if allowed to live they would commit crimes?
Or live in poverty. Because, of course, it’s better to be dead than to not know where your next meal might come from. (Tell that to many of the families in our school district. Our church believes that feeding those kids on the weekends with a new program is better than, say, killing them off so they don’t have to suffer.)
“By the way, the myth that so-called “broken homes” lead to morally degenerate children is a common meme among social conservatives, but it is far from a universal truth.”
Way to project, Andrew. And I thought you were going to be different. That is not what I was implying and it’s certainly not what I said.
Broken homes lead to a young person NOT having emotional support during critical times in their lives. I know a ton of people who’s parents ignored them and bought fancy gifts to make it up. It doesn’t.
And sorry that those of us with more compassion didn’t hit the interwebs early enough to beat out the more snarky comments. However, don’t you think you are judging us here on just a few examples?? I mean, shouldn’t we NOT judge based on just a few comments? It in no way indicates a pattern. I’m so disappointed. You just came on, pretended to be polite, and then wham! Just like all the other trolls.
What a tragedy this young woman’s life is! She needs someone to show her what REAL love is. And yes, she probably was abused as a child. That would explain the behavior (doing porn, multiple abortions, etc.)that seems to say “I don’t think much of myself. I don’t think I’m worth anything.”
Gloria Steinem pitched a fit when she donned a little bunny suit and served up drinks. Yet, she’s strangely silent about the plight of young people caught up in the porn industry.
I’ve seen a few, but none that adequately control for other factors which are correlated with both divorce and crime.
Just from my personal observations, among low-income kids, those with a strong home life tend to do better. But you could be right. Poverty and parental stress are obvious confounding factors. It’s hard to do a study that adequately teases everything out. My point was not to suggest that all kids from broken homes are doomed, but simply to say that Kacey would benefit from a role model or mentor who takes a caring, personal interest in her.
And, in my experience, children from “broken homes” often grow up to be more successful, more well-rounded people than they would have otherwise.
So again– why do abortion advocates use “broken homes” as an excuse for abortion?
We shouldn’t judge young women.
But we should judge young men? Please, I’m tired of the women as perpetual victims mantra. If this person where 15 or 16, I could see it, but she’s an adult.
Andrew, contact Shelly from Pink Cross. She was a former porn actress who has led countless broken souls out of porn. Most porn stars were in fact abused as children. That is FACT. Wrap your mind around the point we are trying to make and stop making it so complicated. We did NOT say that every kid who is ever abused grows up to be a porn star or a rapist or whatever. We are saying the majority of sex workers were abused as children. Again, that is TRUE.
So now you’re to get all bent out of shape because we feel sorry for this girl? Because we understand and empathize with her pain? No matter how a pro-lifer responds there will always be a snarky pro-abortion troll to jump all over it. If you have nothing intelligent to say Andrew then go away. I feel sorry for her. She does need Christ. You do too. I do every day. Every single human being needs Christ. Whether you in your pride agree with that or not does not change the fact its true.
Ninek, I’m honestly sorry that I seem to have failed your expectations. If I may have a chance to defend myself?
Way to project, Andrew. And I thought you were going to be different. That is not what I was implying and it’s certainly not what I said.
What you seemed to be saying is that the increase in broken homes is responsible for what you see as the moral degeneracy of the current generation. Is that not true? If so, what was your point about broken homes meant for? As for your claim about emotional support, in many circumstances children of divorce have more emotional support during stressful times, not less.
However, don’t you think you are judging us here on just a few examples?? I mean, shouldn’t we NOT judge based on just a few comments?
My comments were aimed directly at those people being judgmental, morally superior, etc. They were not aimed at anyone who was truly and genuinely compassionate, nor did I mean to imply a general condemnation of this community. If you look at what I wrote, I think that will be clear.
Kelsey, are you more familiar than I am with Kacey’s life? Are you sure she hasn’t had role models and mentors and benefited fully from them? And again, can you show me which abortion advocates use divorce alone as a justification for abortion? I haven’t heard it put that way before.
Sydney, honest question: can you point me to the studies showing that most people working in adult films were abused as children? And the evidence that the actress in this story is suffering from pain? Compassion felt for someone who is not suffering is nothing more than disguised judgment and condemnation.
And again, can you show me which abortion advocates use divorce alone as a justification for abortion? I haven’t heard it put that way before.
That’s actually quite a common statement. I don’t know of any “famous” pro-aborts who have said it, off hand, but I’ve seen it said right here on these comment boards.
Daddy cheats on Mommy and leaves to shack up with the other woman. Mommy finds out she is pregnant by the jerk (the main provider for their household) who just ditched her. What, not enough of a “crisis” situation for you?
My mother was one of those women. She was so ill from the revelation of my father’s unfaithfulness that she had no idea that she was also experiencing nausea from her pregnancy – me. Imagine finding out you are pregnant right after you’ve found out your husband’s been cheating. If my mother hadn’t had the support of my grandparents (and had she not been so pro-life!), it would have been perfectly legal to end my life.
Kel, there’s a lot more at play in your hypothetical/real story than a divorce. Economic instability, emotional distress, illness…
And I’ve always been struck by the sheer selfishness of the “I could have been aborted” arguments. “I’m worth anything,” is what I always hear when people use that strategy. “No matter how much bad shit it put my parents through, I’m worth it. They had no right not to support me.”
“What you seemed to be saying is that the increase in broken homes is responsible for what you see as the moral degeneracy of the current generation.”
What I seem to be saying? I hate to repeat myself: way to project.
“As for your claim about emotional support, in many circumstances children of divorce have more emotional support during stressful times, not less.”
Andrew, I would like you to post a link to some real data showing this to be true.
Kel, there’s a lot more at play in your hypothetical/real story than a divorce. Economic instability, emotional distress, illness…
A divorce can be the root cause of those things – wouldn’t you agree?
And I’ve always been struck by the sheer selfishness of the “I could have been aborted” arguments. “I’m worth anything,” is what I always hear when people use that strategy. “No matter how much bad sh** it put my parents through, I’m worth it. They had no right not to support me.”
First of all, I’m bleeping out your profanity. Secondly, I don’t believe I ever said anything like that. You may hear it, but that’s probably because you have chosen to twist it in such a manner. I asked my mother, point blank, if she had considered abortion. She told me “absolutely not.” So I am well aware that she had a legal “right” to abort me if she would have chosen to do so. My mother supported me out of love for her child. Not because I’m so wonderful, but because she chose to love me, regardless of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy and her life. My father never did so, and that was his choice. Unless you consider $25 a week child support until I was 18 to be some sort of actual support.
Oh, and I’ll bet if you asked my mother that question – “Was it worth all the bad sh** you had to go through for your daughter?” – she wouldn’t blink when she answered. Because there are 3 little grandchildren in her life now that more than make up for that “bad sh**.”
P.S. – I wasn’t aware it was selfish to be happy to be alive. How is it that having an abortion is somehow unselfish?
Have a nice day, Andrew. I know I will. :)
It’s not name calling, just the truth… Yes its sick, and sad
See, if you’d said it was sick and sad in the first place, that would have gotten your point across without making it look like you’re sitting there calling someone a whore. Calling a prostitute a harlot is like calling someone born out of wedlock a bastard; it may be correct in definition, but the connotation adds an insulting element.
Some pro-choice people are like atheists: They don’t have a single worldview or philosophy, but they constantly kick against the goad. What are they rebelling against? “Whaddaya got?”
Actually judging actions to be right/wrong moral or immoral is an exercise in one’s conscience and a person doesn’t have to be religious to have a conscience or morals.
Having 4 abortions is wrong because abortion is wrong.
Murder is wrong because it ends a human life, and abortion ends a human life (not to mention the most innocent of lives, the pre-born human beings) so therefore abortion is wrong.
“No matter how much bad shit it put my parents through, I’m worth it. They had no right not to support me.”
Andrew, so it’s not selfish for a person to say “This pregnancy has been tough and put me through bad s–t so I’ll just have an abortion and end it all.”?
I have seen people go through some pretty rough times with their pregnancies but never once did they ever think that the baby was being selfish by having been conceived and existing. They figured it was part of their pregnancy. They sought help in dealing with the rough parts, and kept in mind they were carrying a life (that wasn’t theirs) within them (which is pretty dang incredible when you think about it).
I lost a lot of blood when I gave birth. Does that mean I should’ve just aborted my offspring before that happened? I mean, maybe I wouldn’t have bled so much.
But then again, I would’ve been minus another person who has taught me a lot about self-LESSness and love. One I’ve looked into the eyes of and seen something precious. Laughed with, cried with, danced with, talked with, all kinds of things that have helped me to learn to grow up and think outside of myself so I can be a more compassionate and loving person.
Should I get pregnant again I could face losing a lot of blood during the birth, but maybe I won’t. Either way, it wouldn’t be right to take that life should I become pregnant again. (Legal doesn’t always mean it’s right). Legally I could have an abortion, but ethically and morally I couldn’t do it.
And, in my experience, children from “broken homes” often grow up to be more successful, more well-rounded people than they would have otherwise.
Depends what you define as success, Andrew. Children of divorce are more likely to divorce themselves so I guess each generation will just become more and more successful and well-rounded. Maybe we should just outlaw marriage.
“No matter how much bad sh** it put my parents through, I’m worth it. They had no right not to support me.”
There it is! The classic devaluation of human life. I didn’t know that your parents going through bad times was a reason to take away basic the most basic human right there is, but I guess you learn something new every day.
I also love how your you started out by sarcastically saying: “The compassion and forgiveness shown here is a truly inspiring thing to witness.” And then turned aroounnd and said: “And the evidence that the actress in this story is suffering from pain? Compassion felt for someone who is not suffering is nothing more than disguised judgment and condemnation.” Very contradictory. :)
Oh, I just found another one! “And…judgment and hate becomes replaced by condescending pity and moral superiority. Wonderful.”
Nothing we say would convince you that we truly care about this poor girl, would it?
“And I thought you were going to be different.”
So did I. :( Ieven complemented him for it yesterday, and he responded by correcting my terminology and condescendingly telling me I haven’t tried to reach out to other proaborts.
Kel, you were worth it! Say it! And even if you turned out to be a terrible brat and your mother suffered that still would not have excused your murder. Yes Andrew I said it.
you know what I hear every time a man gets on here arguing for baby murder. I hear “ME ME ME ME. I want to use women as sexual meat and I don’t want to be bothered with growing up, accepting responsibility and embracing fatherhood” Thats what I hear.
I am the youngest of 4 kids. my mom was approaching 40. I could have very well been aborted. That would have been wrong. Guess what Andrew? I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE. I AM WORTH IT. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. You know what else I think? Even though you are a pompous wombat I think you have the right to be here too. YOU ARE WORTH IT. Because you are a HUMAN BEING. As am I. We have both been human from the moment of our creation. We were never anything else.
The Pink Cross Foundation used to have on their website the statistics of porn performers who had abortions who were abused. You can also read their testimonies. I will leave it up to you to search the site as I didn’t see it on there on first glance. Probably archived? you can always contact Shelly if you really want to know. Since she has actually been in porn and lived that life, she knows better than anyone.
http://www.thepinkcross.org/
Ninek, I’m honestly trying to understand your argument. I’ve told you wha I thought you said, and you’re responding with nothing other than accusing me of projecting. (Either you don’t know what that means, or it’s unclear how you think I’m projecting.) Either way, and whether or not I am projecting, if you actually want to communicate, rather than “win”, or whatever, I would appreciate it if you would explain how I’m misinterpreting your words.
As for emotional support of children from divorced homes, I’m not aware of any data in either direction. That’s why I didn’t make any claim any statistical knowledge, just stated what I know from personal experience: there are many children of divorce who receive more emotional support than their peers from intact families in difficult times.
Kel, forgive me for reading more into your story than was there. However, you also read more into what I wrote than I actually said. Abortion is, in many cases, a selfish act. That alone does not make it wrong, of course, and neither does it have any bearing on the selfishness of the “abortion should be illegal because I could have been aborted” argument.
I also didn’t say that a fetus is selfish for wanting to be alive. It’s the post hoc argument that’s always seemed selfish to me.
Ninek, was that directed to anyone in particular? And by the way, it’s false to say that atheists don’t have a worldview. Most of them do. If anything, you’re probably thinking of agnostics.
Mother in Texas, the simple taking of a life is not the only reason that murder is wrong. There are situations where I’m sure you would agree that a life can justly be taken.
And of course I’m not saying you should have had an abortion. I know of few people who would say you should, though that’s a common strawman raised against the pro-choice position. In fact, I’m saying the opposite: that the decision of whether or not to abort should have been yours, not mine.
NAR, I’m sorry if I came of as snippy in response to your complement: I know that I sometimes come across less graciously in writing than I intend, especially when I’m in the middle of ten discussions. However, “proaborts” is a very misleading term, unless you’re referring to only a small portion of the pro-choice community.
Also, I should apologize: I should have realized that this was a community where some mild profanity would ruffle feathers, and censored myself more carefully. I’m very sorry.
“NAR, I’m sorry if I came of as snippy in response to your complement: I know that I sometimes come across less graciously in writing than I intend, especially when I’m in the middle of ten discussions.”
It’s no problem, I probably do the same thing.
However, “proaborts” is a very misleading term, unless you’re referring to only a small portion of the pro-choice community”
My issue with “pro-choice” is that it’s really just another phrase to hide behind. Would you disagree that being pro-choice means that you think abortion should be kept legal? Then why not just say it and call yourself pro-abortion? Because really “pro-choice” could be used for lots of things. If you want marijuana to be legalized, then you could claim your pro-choice because people should be able to choose to smoke marijuana.
Then there’s the fact that many women who have an abortion don’t really have a choice; they’ve been forced into it by family members etc… Either that or they’re not aware of their other options. And, no, I don’t have any statistical data for that, but I’ll see if I can find some.
I admit that I’m not informed on what is currently going on here. But from what I’ve read, it looks like it’s just a bid for notoriety. Why in the world would anyone admit or brag that abortion is her form of birth control? That’s insane! And mentioning celebrities as possibly being the father(s) of the terminated fetuses… like I said, it just looks like a bid for temporary celebrity status. I think it’s very sad.
Please forgive the triple post: I realize that I missed something while trying to respond to everything else and not miss my stop. NAR, you’re right that I wasn’t being consistent in expecting and then condemning it. I wasn’t expressing myself clearly because I wasn’t really sure what I wanted to say. Let me try again.
I expect compassion in the sense of not calling people “harlots” or “depraved”. I condemn it in the sense of “oh, I feel so sorry for her hurting so much” when there’s no evidence she’s hurting. I expect forgiveness in the sense of not condemning her for what she’s done, and reject it in the sense of “we forgive you for the horrible, horrible thing you’ve done.”
NAR, it’s true that pro-choice is ambiguous between causes, although I suspect that it’s well enough established as a reference to abortion so as to cause no real confusion in that sense.
When it comes to abortion, though, pro-choice is much more accurate than pro-abortion. The latter implies not just a support for legality (the core of the pro-choice platform) but actually a belief that abortion is intrinsically good. Pro-choice doesn’t mean going out and pushing abortion onto unwilling people; it doesn’t mean increasing the number of women who choose abortions, it means increasing the number of women who are able to make the choice in the first place.
Being pro-choice also encompasses more beliefs than the label pro-abortion acknowledges. Access to contraceptives and comprehensive education are also (generally speaking) important pro-choice issues because they enable people to more easily make choices, even though they don’t support the abortion right.
Another reasonable term would be pro-legal abortion. It doesn’t capture all of the elements of the pro-choice movement, but at least it doesn’t misrepresent them.
Pro-life, on the other hand, is a “term to hide behind”. Its use implies that one’s opponents are in some way anti-life, which I think you can understand is a misrepresentation. In reality, most people are pro-life, and the anti-legalized abortion (or anti-choice) movement is a subset of pro-life.
Oh brother, who are you kidding!!? There is no such thing as Pro Choice on the left. If a woman chooses life, she isn’t Pro Choice to you all, she’s a dimwit drinking the Kool Aid. That’s why the Left continues to bring down all the CPCs they can because they don’t want women to have a choice, they want them to kill their babies, period!
The true term is Pro Murder. Let’s just stop kidding ourselves and speak the truth.
I realize that I can be snippy myself, and I’ve soul-searched my “webside manner.” I ask myself, “Abby Johnson came over to the pro-life community but why? how?” She didn’t convert because of pro-life arguments. She converted of her own accord, based on her own reaction to a series of events. But, having done that, she personally was aquainted with pro-lifers that she felt comfortable with because of their mild manners. So she went to them with her conversion.
Myself, I wasn’t converted by anyone else. I came to it by myself, and over time sought out other pro-life people to socialize with and for solidarity and fellowship.
So, will I convert more people to be pro-life if I am more sweet? Or is that just being phony? Hmm. I’ve gotten into some heated face-to-face arguments. One stands out. I wasn’t able to convert the woman I was talking to. But guess what? A year later, her daughter (who had been standing next to us while we argued) chose life when she became pregnant. Then, she confided in me because she knew that I would not pressure her to abort. Again, will I convert more people to pro-life if I am sweet? Maybe, or maybe they’d smell my phony sweetness and decide I’m a big hypocrite.
Its use implies that one’s opponents are in some way anti-life, which I think you can understand is a misrepresentation.
Proaborts are anti-life. No phony sweetness from me.
Mods, I have a post that must have got caught up in the filters? I linked to Pink Cross for Andrew’s sake. Can you get it out? Thanks!
“Pro-life, on the other hand, is a “term to hide behind”. Its use implies that one’s opponents are in some way anti-life, which I think you can understand is a misrepresentation. In reality, most people are pro-life, and the anti-legalized abortion (or anti-choice) movement is a subset of pro-life.”
The “anti-choice” movement is the only pro-life movement because we actually believe that ALL humans have a right to life, and not just if their mother chooses to let them live. Pro-abortion DOES NOT believe that ALL human beings have a right to life. They believe it’s someone else’s CHOICE wheather or not a person has a right to life, therefore they are anti-life, and anti-unborn as well.
Being pro-choice also encompasses more beliefs than the label pro-abortion acknowledges. Access to contraceptives and comprehensive education are also (generally speaking) important pro-choice issues because they enable people to more easily make choices, even though they don’t support the abortion right.
Pro-lifers aren’t against having choices in general, we just believe there are good choices and bad choices.
Abortion being a bad choice. Until people believe that, they are going to keep on having abortions.
And pro-lifers are all for education: abstainence/chastity education, Natural Family Planning (NFP) education, education on what abortion really is, education on how artificial hormones (in contraceptions) can negatively affect a person (and in some cases, marriages). We’re always working on educating people.
Got it, Sydney!
Poor child.
Murder is wrong because it ends a human life, and abortion ends a human life (not to mention the most innocent of lives, the pre-born human beings) so therefore abortion is wrong.
A genuine question: what does “innocent” mean as used here? I ask because I suspect there is a difference between the Christian and secular understandings of that word that I am trying to understand. In this context, does innocent mean something more close to “not guilty” or more close to “naive” or something else? Is pre-born more innocent than newborn? Is a child more innocent than an adult? Does innocence gradually ebb with age or experience? Does this have anything to do with being born with the stain of sin (not a concept I fully understand either, I admit)?
Hope it’s not too off-topic… thanks for any thoughts.
If an innocent bystander is killed by a bank robber’s bullets, are you going to ask the same question?
Hi Wendy. I’d be happy to address your question. I think I remember you before from a while back?
“what does “innocent” mean as used here?”
I’m not sure I can give a good definition here, but I think it is used to exclude a case where, for example, someone is coming at your wife with a knife and teh only way to stop him may be to harm him, even if it means mortally. Basically, someone who is threatening another person physically and who we have very good reason to believe will cause harm to someone is not innocent. Though not an actual definition, I think it’s a good working definition. In other words, while you may have had some idea that Christians may have had “original sin” or something like that in mind, I would say that that is not at all teh case.
“Is pre-born more innocent than newborn? Is a child more innocent than an adult? Does innocence gradually ebb with age or experience?”
I would say they are equally innocent because they do not have any capacity to immediately exercise rational thought or free will. Thus, a baby who bites his mother while nursing is innocent. We certainly wouldn’t accuse the baby of assault if he bit his mother. But this idea hold through all stages of development. True, if I bite a woman then I am guilty of causing her harm, but currently, I am not guilty of anything because I am sitting here minding my own business. So in that sense, I am currently just as innocent as a child or fetus, but that could change based on my actions later today (though I sincerely hope not!) I think that addresses all of those questions, but let me knwo if you would like further clarification.
“Does this have anything to do with being born with the stain of sin (not a concept I fully understand either, I admit)?”
Right, certainly not. As you can see, though I do fully believe in the concept of original sin (I would be happy to discuss the theology of it with you sometime, Wendy), I think everything I said above can be appreciated and embraced by any secular mindset. It simply appeals to an individuals actions at a particular stage in life, as well as their knowledge of teh action and culpability. God love you.
Bobby,
Thanks for the reply. I do post on occasion though I am more of a lurker.
while you may have had some idea that Christians may have had “original sin” or something like that in mind, I would say that that is not at all teh case.
My idea was more of an observation that Christians (and/or conservatives? I hadn’t exactly identified the group) seemed more likely to talk about a general state of innocence, whereas the secular/liberal language tends more toward innocence with regard to a particular act (eg. innocent of biting a woman). From this observation I had some hazy guess that the “general innocence” notion might have some ties back to original sin, but apparently not… thanks for addressing that for me. I was particularly interested in the phrase I quoted (“most innocent of lives”) since it seemed to imply that this state of general innocence peaked before birth. I’m now thinking, based on your comments, that my notion of “general innocence” is more of a state where the person is innocent of any specific acts, and maybe pre-birth is particularly “innocent” since he is actually incapable of being guilty of any specific acts. So these two concepts of innocence are more linked than I had previously thought.
I hope that’s consistent with what you presented… sorry for the ramble (been a long time since I’ve tried to write a full coherent paragraph) but thanks for helping me muddle through it!
Wendy,
Sorry I didn’t answer your question, I’ve been away from the computer a good chunk of the day busy with several things. I think Bobby did a good job of answering your question.
I put “most innocent of lives” because of what you said–they really haven’t had any time to do anything–to be guilty of anything–not that newborns aren’t innocent, but since abortion is the end of a pre-born life (which was the topic) so I went with the pre-born human life. I suppose I could’ve clarified and said babies and pre-born the most innocent of lives, but I guess I thought that was implied LOL
Bobby’s doing a really great job of answering you so I’ll let him do the rest of the explaining.
:-)
JohnD, you’re obviously correct. That’s why all liberals and everyone who’s pro-choice has no children. We think children are evil, and that every single one should be aborted. How did I not recognize that before?
Praxedes, people who are pro-choice are anti-life? Really? How would you explain the fact that they would save strangers’ lives? That they wish to continue their own? That they grieve for death, and often oppose war and violence? To be anti-life is an extreme position that very, very few people hold. Those who do either commit suicide or murder. In a narrower sense, many people who are pro-choice would encourage women to keep their babies, and to rejoice in the miracle of life. They’re just not arrogant enough to force other people to follow their morality to the letter.
NAR, every moral system encounters times when they must weigh rights against each other. I know of no person who is actually an absolutist when it comes to any single right, let alone being an absolutist when that right comes into conflict with itself. Do you honestly believe that there is no time when it is justifiable to kill? If so, then we can talk.
“Mother in Texas”, should all decisions about good and bad choices be controlled by your view of morality? Are you that confident that you’re consistently correct?
Sydney, if you want to claim statistics, you can find them: I’m not going to look them up for you. The testimony of a single person also proves nothing about a general population. A former porn actress has basically no more an authoritative stance on whether the majority of people in porn were abused than anyone else does.
I was also wondering when some sort of gender argument was going to come up, although I expected one that made more sense than the one you presented. How, exactly, does defending a woman’s right to control her own body imply that I am attempting to avoid fatherhood? You seem to think that I’m claiming that men should be able to choose whether the woman will have an abortion, which is obviously a fabrication.
Bobby, do you think that self-defense is only legitimate when the person you’re defending yourself against isn’t innocent? In other words, can you legitimately defend yourself against someone who will harm you, even if they don’t intend to harm you?
Hey Andrew.
“Bobby, do you think that self-defense is only legitimate when the person you’re defending yourself against isn’t innocent? In other words, can you legitimately defend yourself against someone who will harm you, even if they don’t intend to harm you?”
Sure, you can certainly defend yourself against, say, a person whose cognitive faculties are not functioning properly and who is coming at you with a knife. Even though that person would be considered innocent, you may still protect yourself. Thus, the idea is that innocence is a necessary condition for no harm to come to the innocent person but not a sufficient one.
Now there are several main differences between an abortion and the situation I just discussed. First, even if a crazed person is coming at you with a knife, you must do everything you can to do as little harm as possible to them. If simply running away or knocking teh knife out of their hand will do, you must do that. ONly as a last and only resort may you inflict a lethal blow. In almost all abortions, there is no “attack” going on. The embryo or fetus is precisely where an embryo or fetus should be, doing exactly what an embryo or fetus should be doing in that stage of life- namely, growing inside a woman’s womb. This is in stark contrast to the crazy person coming at you with a knife. Even though both are innocent, one is precisely where it should be doing exactly what it should be doing while the other is not. And as I mentioned above, unless we are talking about a life-threatening situation to teh mother, then there is no harm that the fetus is doing hat would warrant a lethal blow (to again, be consistent with teh principle that you do everything you can to preserve the life of the attacker).
Now that is a very brief outline, and clearly I’m trying to anticipate any sort of response, so I shall simply shut up now and stop guessing :)
Bobby, the fetus is “precisely where an embryo or fetus should be” according to what standard of “should”? Wouldn’t you accept that, at least in the general sense, individuals have the right to control their bodies, and thus even if it’s natural for a child to, say, breastfeed, it is perfectly within a mother’s rights to prevent that child from breastfeeding?
And is it your position that lethal force can only be used to resolve a lethal threat?
“Bobby, the fetus is “precisely where an embryo or fetus should be” according to what standard of “should”? ”
The order of nature. In nature, we see that things act to a certain end. I throw a brick at a window and the glass shatters. It doesn’t turn into a flower or become hot. If I strike a match, fire follows. It doesn’t produce cold nor a nuclear explosion. If it does ont produce fire, it is an imperfect match. The match does not realize its end. This understanding of the order of nature is the basis on which all of science is based. Things act (not necessarily consciously) towards an end. This is also a paradigm of how we can understand what is moral and what is not. Unconscious objects and animals without rational cannot help but sometimes not act towards their ends. We, as rational creatures, have the ability to either choose what is good for us (our ends) or not.
“Wouldn’t you accept that, at least in the general sense, individuals have the right to control their bodies”
Yes, in general.
“and thus even if it’s natural for a child to, say, breastfeed, it is perfectly within a mother’s rights to prevent that child from breastfeeding?”
Not if taht means the child does not eat. Sure, a mother may choose to bottle feed with formula, but she does have the duty the feed teh child. In fact, consider teh following thought experiment. Suppose a woman signs a contract with a couple and agrees to carry their embryo to term. After the woman carries the child of the couple, she will have nothing to do with it, and will walk away from it completely. This has all been decided and is part of her contract to the “adopting” couple. Now suppose 3 months before she is due, she goes off camping in her remote cottage up in [insert really remote place here]. During this vacation, she becomes snowed in, and unfortunately goes into premature labor, delivering a young, but healthy baby. Now she is in a situation where she has a child, yet none of this was “planned.” She wrote in a contract that she would have nothing to do with teh child, and the sole responsibility for teh child would be in the hands of teh adopting couple. The question is: does she have a moral obligation to breastfeed the child? There is no formula in the cabin, and the only thing the child can eat is breast milk. It seems that the woman would have a moral obligation to let the child use her body for nourishment, even though she took all reasonable precautions to keep it otherwise.
Actually, now that I read your question more carefully in context, I see what you’re getting at. The point, as I mentioned above, is not so much that it is “natural” to breastfeed (as most people understand the word “natural”), but that the child is being fed at all. Part of teh ends of human beings is to take in nourishment and grow. So it isn’t so much how it happens, just that what is done adheres to the ends of being human.
“And is it your position that lethal force can only be used to resolve a lethal threat?”
That seems right, that the proportion used should be equal to the proportion threatened, but I”m not positive about that. There could be an example that would make me rethink or think more carefully about taht.
Bobby, I think a complete understanding of determinism and physics belies the distinction you’re trying to draw between natural occurrences (fetus nourishing itself from a mother) and unnatural ones (man lunging at someone with a knife.) At the end of the day, it’s the physics of tiny particles that makes it all happen. That’s not to devalue the notions of self, free will, etc, but it does make clear that the distinction between the cause-and-effect of throwing a brick through a window and the cause-and-effect of a human being’s life is merely a matter of degree: the latter simply has a far, far more complex conglomeration of causes leading to a certain effect.
As to the rest: I think you’re positing a more significant duty of care to other human beings than other would accept…or perhaps than you would really carry through to its conclusions. The case with the baby seems a bit cheap, since babies are just so freaking cute and helpless. I’ll posit another hypo, and allow me a little leeway to take things to extremes rather than keeping them perfectly plausible.
Assume that a man is only able to survive if a woman dedicates five hours a day to caring for him. She has no special relationship to him, but for whatever reason she’s his only chance of living. Does she have a moral obligation to care for him for the rest of his life?
If so, why are you on the internet when there are people starving?
As to the obligations of parenthood: the only theoretically sound basis for supposing parental duties to their children that I’m aware of is based on the purely voluntary nature of parenthood. In a sense, then, in order to say that parents have the obligation to care for their children we have to allow them to opt-out of parenthood, whether through abortion or adoption/abandonment.
For lethal force: would a woman who’s being imprisoned and raped daily have the right to kill her captor in order to be free?
Hey Andrew.
My points are metaphysical. As I mentioned above, science makes no sense without a paradigm of final ends for a being. This is not the same thing as cause and effect, BTW. So you can’t even get off teh ground with an understanding of any kind of determinism or particles without presupposing that things act towards an end. Otherwise, what is your basis for believing anything in science? Science, as you know, is based on sound philosophy. Now if “science shows” that teh very foundations that science is based on are incoherent, there seems to be an improper reading of the data.
“The case with the baby seems a bit cheap, since babies are just so freaking cute and helpless.”
Okay, I understand. Sure, it’s cute, but would it be wrong to let it die? We have to put emotions aside and realize that objectively speaking, the woman would have no duty to care for the child, and thus it would be within her moral realm to let teh baby die.
“Assume that a man is only able to survive if a woman dedicates five hours a day to caring for him. She has no special relationship to him, but for whatever reason she’s his only chance of living. Does she have a moral obligation to care for him for the rest of his life?”
No, I don’t see why she would.
“the only theoretically sound basis for supposing parental duties to their children that I’m aware of is based on the purely voluntary nature of parenthood.”
At what point then may a parent no longer volunteer to be a parent? If it wasn’t what they expected, why shouldn’t they be allowed to back out at say 3 months after their child was born? It seems that the response would be that once you say you will take on the duty to be a parent, then you must continue to do so, but I don’t see why your word would need to be binding at all. We back out of things all teh time in life when we realize that it is too much to handle. If we have no obligation to teh child, then we also have no obligation to find someone else to take care of it, and thus it seems as if it would be morally permissible to kill it. That is why we have men like teh chair of the ethics department at Princeton, Peter Singer, openly endorsing infanticide, as well as other philosophers like Michale Tooley.
No, I would argue that the basis for parental duties towards children lies simply in the nature of their relationship. The fact that one has a child is the reason in and of itself for the parent to take care of that child.
“In a sense, then, in order to say that parents have the obligation to care for their children we have to allow them to opt-out of parenthood, whether through abortion or adoption/abandonment.”
So just to make sure I understand you correctly, Andrew, the right to an abortion (moral right, not legal right obviously) is grounded in teh fact that parenthood is a choice. One has no duty to any offspring ever, and hence can abort them or abandon them in order to secure that right of parenthood choice.
“would a woman who’s being imprisoned and raped daily have the right to kill her captor in order to be free?”
Yeah, I think so… I would think so. Take care, Andrew.
Bobby, in what way does science depend on accepting that beings have ultimate ends or a telos, or even accepting that the concept of a “being” makes natural sense? Why does rejecting those premises mean rejecting science?
On parental obligation: I think it’s wrong to say that there can be no binding responsibility once consent is given. We enter into binding contracts all the time. The existence of that contract simply rests on the parent voluntarily and knowingly accepting it. (Of course, even once someone has accepted parenthood there are strong social reasons to still allow them to give their child up for adoption, since an unwilling parent makes a bad parent.)
As for infanticide, a lack of duty of care is not synonymous with a right to kill. The ability of the parent to abandon the child is not synonymous with the right of the parent to kill the child, especially in a society that has taken the (very logical, general will oriented) view that children should, wherever practicable and necessary, be cared for at public expense.
The nature of the parent-child relationship imparts a biological, evolutionary reason for parents to care for their children: genetically speaking, childrearing is the key to immortality. However, there’s no reason to take that natural instinct and suppose that it constitutes a moral or social obligation.
As I see it, pregnancy falls in the same realm as the woman who brings the baby to the cabin, the man who cannot live independently, and the woman being imprisoned and raped. An unwanted pregnancy constitutes the use of one individual’s body by another individual without consent in order to survive. And unless we can derive some special duty of care or unless the pregnant woman consented to the pregnancy, it seems that the woman has the right to use the least invasive means possible to end the bodily intrusion. Until viability, that means abortion.
So, I think there’s room for a ban on post-viability abortions (like what Gosnell is accused of doing, which isn’t even really an abortion) as well as a point when abortions are no longer allowed, so long as the mother is aware of the pregnancy sufficiently in advance of the deadline in order to terminate the pregnancy if she so desires.
Argh, I got a lot going on this afternoon. Will have to bow out, Andrew. We’ll talk again later. God love you.
She is a porn star that seldomly uses protection except occasionally condoms. Porn stars have sex with many many men and she has only been pregnant four times, the last baby alone had a chance at being by one of two A-list stars. Am I the only one that finds that fishy? It sounds to me like she tries to get pregnant by the stars in hopes of them wanting the babies and giving her the rich and famous life. My guess is she uses protection with the no names and conviently doesn’t with the stars. She’s so desperate for the paparazzi’s attention that now she’s using the abortions to get her name out, she doesn’t seem intelligent enough to know that she is killing babies society frowns on that and doesn’t feel a bit of pity on her. No matter why or who you have sex with you know there is always a chance of getting pregnant and you have to be an adult willing to deal with the consequences and abortion is a childish way out in her case.
She is purely evil, stupid, and insane! She should be put on deathrow now! No ifs or ands or buts about it and i will not change my view. She is a murderer! Boo! I wanna hear about babies being born! Not some sluts legalized baby-murder.