To pro-lifers: Have you ever been pro-choice? If so, describe what you thought and felt then and what triggered your conversion.
To pro-choicers: Have you ever been pro-life? If so, describe what you thought and felt then and what triggered your conversion.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
I was. I thought it was all about being a woman and the common statement “it’s my body.” Then I realized there’s a life inside me. A living, breathing, heart beating baby. And it dawned on me that abortion is taking a life. A life where the victim cannot speak or protest or cry to live. Now I can say I’ve felt both ways but could not ever believe it’s my body alone. There’s a beautiful life to think about. A boy or a girl with beautiful smiles and laughs that will make you cry because they are so sweet and innocent.
It make me cry now to think that a person can have no regard for that life. It seems that abortion is used a birth control these days. I say grow up and be responsible enough to take birth control and keep this from happening. And if it does, think about adoption. There are so many that don’t have a baby and would love to have one. We have to think past the moment and think what will be.
I was prochoice after my abortion. After all I had one! I believed the lie of my body, my choice and the lies that it was just a bunch of cells. I was angry at ANYONE that dare tell me different and actually counseled two of my sisters to abort. Thank God that they didn’t listen to me and I have two beautiful nephews!!
Looking through fetal development books when pregnant after my abortion began to stir something in me. I tried to skip over the 10 week photos(the age of my child when I aborted) Miscarrying my 2nd baby into my hand only revealed the humanity of the preborn!! There was no mistaking it. No denying it anymore.
Found my way to abortion recovery and embraced the truth!!
In my 20s, I thought that it was better to have an abortion than an unwanted baby. I worked with too many teenagers who were having babies and not finishing their education. I watched them drop out of school and continue the welfare cycle.
Somewhere in my mid to late 30s I adopted the “I’d never have one, but women should have a choice” philosophy. I guess I thought that was a safe middle ground.
Seven years ago as I became a conservative, I started to do some research. I began to learn about what the effect of an abortion truly was on a woman. The pro-choicers dismiss and deny this information but there was just to much research to ignore.
Also as I got older, I saw family and friends who wanted to have children but were unable to. I couldn’t help but think if those babies were adopted and not aborted, everyone inovled would be so much happier.
Now I annoy the heck out of people with my pro-life stance. I’m obviously doing something right!
I was pro-choice. Basically, I thought that “women have to have a choice” even though I personally would not have had an abortion.
I actually wrote a really scathing critique of graphic abortion signs back then that is somewhere on livejournal. I remember making fun of the crosses that a church put out. I was pretty mean spirited about the whole thing.
What changed my mind was the way “pro-choice” people acted when I found out I was pregnant. Without exception, they pushed abortion. Planned Parenthood, who I thought helped women with “reproductive healthcare” would provide nothing but an abortion. They “referred” me to a doctor who wasn’t even taking new patients.
I had a terrible pregnancy, which required many ultrasounds. There was no question that there was a human being inside of me, not a “clump of cells.” Then my water broke just shy of 23 weeks and I was given the option to do nothing and let my son die. I couldn’t even imagine anyone NOT fighting for the life of her child. Of course, we chose to seek medical intervention, and I was able to stay pregnant for another 7 weeks!
Right before my son was born I was given the opportunity to tour the NICU so that I’d have an idea of what to expect. During the tour, the showed me a little girl who had been born at 25 weeks. She was in her blanket covered incubator and just looked so tiny, and so perfect. I remember thinking, dear God, people can go down to the planned parenthood down the street (it aborted up to 26 weeks) and kill a baby that looks just like this one.
I didn’t really start declaring myself pro-life at that point, but I certainly couldn’t support abortion. I don’t remember what happened, but for some reason I stumbled upon abort73 a few months later. I started debating others and began developing the ethical underpinnings as to *why* abortion was wrong.
So, I guess for me it was a gradual revelation of the truth about the humanity of the unborn. There is no question that abortion kills another human being, and there is no question that this is wrong. Everything that the pro-choice side throws up is really a bunch of smoke and mirrors to obscure this simple truth.
I was pro “choice.” I thought it was my body, my business, and that if it was an early termination, it was virtually without consequence. I sincerely thought pro-lifers were just being judgmental, nosy, and controlling.
Then I got pregnant. I realized what pregnancy is, what an unborn baby is. I was a senior in college, and getting ready to go to grad school. I knew having a baby would change my plans, but I simply could not go through with an abortion. I did my research; I asked questions. This was my baby, no doubt, not a blob of cells, not “tissue”….it was my baby. To kill this child would be the cruellest and most selfish thing I could do. My heart began to change.
I had a miscarriage.
Then, I became pregnant “accidentally” six years later. Watching her on the ultrasound, her heart beating and flickering like a light at only 8 weeks, my heart was changed forever. These are babies, beautiful little lives. They should be loved and protected. They are not part of a woman’s body…they are separate people, with their own bodies. I did more research, for ten years….biology, psychology, sociology. And there is NOTHING true or good about abortion. It is based on lies and obfuscation. I am sorry I was duped. There is nothing good or life-affirming about abortion. My love for my babies changed me. One is in heaven, and one is over here next to me, with her feet on my lap. She is ten years old.
To prochoicers that want to comment please read Jill’s question carefully and answer minus the Catholic Church ranting. Thank you.
Yes. I grew up in a culture where the “default” position was “pro-choice.” Then, while sitting in a law school class, my mind wandered and for the first time I thought about the issue for more than 15 minutes. From then on I was pro-life.
That is how I like to approach “pro-choice” people today. I invite them to really think about the issue for more than 15 minutes. People are “pro-choice” because they have not seriously thought about it.
I think. Therefore I am pro-life.
I have never been pro-choice. When I was 7 years old I was shocked to learn that a woman could kill a baby in her womb, after reading a pamphlet from the unborn baby’s perspective- a diary that ended with, “Today my mother killed me”. That was never erased from my mind. I never had any other experience regarding abortion again until after I got married and started becoming actively involved in the pro-life work.
I grew up extremely pro-life. I participated in the Life Chain every year, read Gianna Jensen’s book in the 9th grade, talked to my friends about why abortion was wrong and harmful to everyone.
My perspective changed slowly.
First, I stopped aligning myself with the pro-life side of the argument when I realized that they wanted to make abortion illegal. I can understand wanting to stop abortions from being necessary, but to make them illegal? What kind of punishment, exactly, do people want to put on women who have had abortions? Prison time? Probation? Community service?
My position outside of the pro-life community was only solidified once I began to talk to women whose abortions were clearly the right choice for them. Women whose abortions did not scar them psychologically for life, did not render them infertile, did not do all of the things that the rhetoric from the pro-life community so often claims will happen. (I read a lot of pro-life blogs–the misinformation and hateful rhetoric here is at times astounding!)
Finally, my position was cemented when I became pregnant with my own daughter. I can’t yet explain well how pregnancy led me to be more pro-choice, especially not in a simple blog comment, but it was an incredibly experience that humbled me and made me re-think a lot of things I thought I already understood.
Personally, I believe that if pro-lifers took the legality issue off the table, and instead focused on helping women and preventing unplanned pregnancy through education and accessibility, then I think everyone could find more common ground and begin to work toward ensuring that abortion becomes unnecessary.
I know that this comment will be unsatisfactory to many of you, so I hope you don’t read it as something to pick apart, but rather as an honest answer to the question that Jill posed.
I am the survivor of a failed abortion attempt. I never knew this until I was in my thirties. As a young teen I would become very angry if someone mentioned abortion in a positive way. I had no idea why I felt that way and became active in the prolife movement directing a crisis pregnancy center and peacefully picketing and praying in front of abortion clinics all before I ever knew that I was almost aborted. Somehow some part of me knew I think. So, I guess you can say that my pro-life conversion started in the womb. You can read my full story on my blog by clicking on my name above.
I was on the fence for many years. I was very complacent and silent. I knew what abortion did, because I did a research project in 8th grade, and I remember being very conflicted, because most books leaned pro-choice in a public school library. It wasn’t until I learned more about my catholic faith, and learned the real evil of abortion that I got off the fence. I would never say I was.
pro- choice, but at the same time during my teens and early 20s I would never defend the prolife cause publicly. My silence was just as bad.
To prochoicers that want to comment please read Jill’s question carefully and answer minus the Catholic Church ranting. Thank you
Carla, I’m just recounting what formed my views and the role of the Catholic Church, in my personal life, is intrinsic to my philosophy. I have seen many comments, on this blog, about how non Catholic, pro-choice religions are instruments of evil or what not. That’s an opinion. My opinion was formed by real, life experiences – particularly those experiences of a parochial school and a family in which the Catholic religion was, for me, oppressive. Obviously, life experiences are different for all people. I’m just telling mine. The celibacy comment reflected some situations in which it was clear that this was not followed. That’s a reality.
Lauren, I was like you….I believed that I would never personally go through an abortion but thought that it was vital that other women should have that “choice”. In fact, I screamed at a radio show one time when they were interviewing Randall Terry. My typical response was “Oh yeah? So are YOU going to raise all these ‘unwanted’ children?” By the way, I had young kids at the time.
Somewhere along the way though (and don’t remember exactly when), I changed over and I can only assume what really got me was that I saw a picture of the aborted baby. I don’t remember anyone challenging me in discussion on my views. I held the belief for a short while that “I am pro-life EXCEPT in rape, incest and life of the mother”. That came crashing down soon after and I held a 100% no exceptions stance since about 1997 and have stayed with that ever since. A family friend came to visit and challenged me on “if your daughter was raped, would you make her have the baby?” My answer was, in short, yes, noting how he was prhasing it. I did explain to him that it wasn’t the BABY’S fault to be conceived and we would support her through that rough time whether she wanted to adopt or keep the baby. I don’t remember his reaction to that.
The more research I did, the more I realized how many lies it took to prop up Planned Parenthood, the legislation the whole industry and how much a lie all that “choice” slogan truly was. I attended church the entire journey of this pro-abortion to pro-life changeover. My church HAS changed as well, since my last church was very pro-abortion and now my present church is very pro-life.
Is this post and question inspired by our interview Jill?
It is intriguing.
Duck aka Jessica
I’ve always worn a pro-life label… but my sentiment would waiver depending on circumstances and I truly don’t know that I had the conviction to live pro-life had circumstances backed me into a corner. Philosophically I was very much boxed in by the feelings of the woman in distress.
I think what gave my pro-life belief a backbone is that my firstborn died at birth. Suddenly life and death took on a whole new realness. I began to understand abortion more like a suicide, in that it is deliberate death designed to remedy/relieve circumstances that are most often temporary.
And more importantly, I experienced how God works so beautifully in the most grievious of circumstances. Only hours before my daughter died I never would have expected or imagined the glorious way God’s strength shows up in our darkest hour, but after her death, as He held me in my mourning, I found myself almost wishing that others that I loved might know righteous suffering so that they could know His purest comfort.
I am so sorry for the loss of your daughter, Laurie.
I never even realized there was any significant, organized opposition to abortion rights until I was in college and started to become politically aware. It really struck me as incredible, and it still strikes me as incredible, that there’s a major political party in this country that caters to people who want to take what is currently a constitutional right and abolish or at least circumvent it, based on their religious and moral beliefs. Before that, I had simply taken for granted that although there are sharp political divides in America, there’s a basic, universal underlying respect for the concept of inalienable rights that reasonable people would not encroach upon. Lesson learned.
Joan, if you were raised Catholic, then you were fully aware of the pro-life position. Also, abortion is NOT a constitutional right. It is literally NOT a constitutional right.
I was pro-choice. Then I realized what the choice was. Dismembering a baby and incinerating it? Elsa, you said that some women felt abortion “helped” them…..but to what end? Even if I didn’t miscarry my first baby, I would not have gone through with an abortion because I realized how violent and selfish it would be. It kills someone. It is a mother choosing herself over the life of her child; it is backwards and frightening. I am not that religious, but abortion seems to be the definition of evil.
MaryLee, I understand your point of view.
I grew up in a family that rejected church-going and glorified being “smart” and doing the intelligent thing. When confronted with the pictures of dead babies in the trash, I thought out loud, “Well that’s unfair- you’re trying to make me feel sorry for being pro-choice, it’s not logical.” Well, it wasn’t until I experienced being abandoned by my pro-abortion “friends” when I dared raise a question “choice” and political correctness, and they were nowhere to be found when I went through a personal crisis, that I started to realize where true love and friendship are to be found – always on the side of LIFE.
Of course I was aware of the “pro-life position”, Mary, I just took it to be something that is arrived at as a personal conviction applicable only to one’s own behavior, in the way that some people personally feel that gambling or drinking is wrong and thus refrain from indulging in them, and not a policy preference to be enforced with the coercive power of government. If someone believes that abortion is wrong and not something they would ever feel comfortable doing, then more power to them. If, on the other hand, someone not only feels this but also feels that it is within the realm of acceptable government intervention to forcibly prevent other people from doing the same, regardless of their beliefs, then I regard that as an illiberal, inherently un-American position to take.
Elsa, I am a “liberal” pro-lifer. I support birth control, and I am a huge advocate for gay rights. I cannot support a “choice” which is really a procedure to kill someone else. This is not an abstract right. If a woman wants to get a breast augmentation, I might not agree, but it is her right. It is not a procedure designed to destroy another human being. The unborn are little persons, with their own bodily autonomy, and their own right to exist. Nobody has the right to kill their baby because the mere existence of that child “upsets” a woman’s “plans” for “her destiny.” I am a secular pro-lifer. But a pro-lifer nonetheless….to support abortion is to support biological ignorance, to scoff at logic, to thumb your nose at justice and true liberty. Women can not achieve liberty by killing their own babies. What a dangerous thought. No wonder our world is such a mess.
I’ve read through all the comments. I’m in awe of the stories of the ones who used to be pro-choice, but are now pro-life. I’m sorry for the death of your daughter, Laurie, but comforted in the knowledge that you experienced such grace. I’m also sorry for those who had an abortion and regretted it that you’ve had to go through such pain–but glad you’ve received comfort.
I too have always been pro-life. When I was around 19 (maybe younger, but I think I was 19) I remember the conversation about abortion coming up online. That night I knelt in front of a crucifix and with tears streaming down my cheeks begged God for the end to abortion because I couldn’t imagine all those little babies dying inside their mother’s wombs. I’ve attended several pro-life talks over the years, participated in PEACEFUL/PRAYERFUL protest, debated the topic on more than one website and in person, and gone through pregnancy and birth myself. (All these things happened over the course of my life, and I still attend pro-life events–such as dinners which use the money for services to pregnant women and for education and have attended Catholic talks that talked about being pro-life and abortion facts).
Later in life, after I had gotten married, I got pregnant. It was intentional–we were (and still are) practicing Natural Family Planning (NFP)–we had learned the Sympo-Thermal Method.
My chart was very obvious about telling me I was pregnant–and I suspected I was, but I went ahead and had a pregnancy test anyway. Holding that “Pregnant” EPT you could’ve knocked me over with a feather–even though I wanted to have a baby, it still was a shock. My parents were thrilled (they’re parents of 6 children, 2 adopted, and 5 miscarriages). My husband was happy, but subdued because he knew how I was feeling, even if he wasn’t nearly as nervous/scared as I was.
There were times I was so nervous about being a mom that the thought of abortion flickered for about 3 seconds through my head more than once. I rejected it and was totally freaked out by it. I cried over the fact that the thought would even enter my head. I sought answers about it and found out that the fact I rejected the temptation meant I hadn’t done anything wrong.
The whole experience made me even more pro-life. Even though I was scared and my birthing experience was traumatic, I could never, ever abort my baby. (I had a doctor with a bedside manner of a statue, a trioge nurse that I should’ve reported, and a shot in my thigh right after or during the birth itself). It looked like I lost a ton of blood (apparently it wasn’t as much as it looked) the doc pumped me so full of pictoin my mother was surprised (I had an epidural which I loved, but the pictoin levels were so high that anytime I tell anyone how high the doc made them they raise their eyebrows in shock, including doctors and other nurses and people in the medical field, and my sisters who have all given birth more than once). (Offspring and I are okay, but now that I know the level was high, I’ll know to make sure another doc doesn’t do that to me. My mother and my doc speculate that that might’ve been the reason offspring had such bad colic the first 3 months of life).
Now I have wonderful offspring to show for it, and I’m relieved I had the faith, strength, and courage to say NO to abortion no matter how scared I was.
I know that just because one is afraid of something, doesn’t mean a person can’t do it. In the movie, “The Princess Diaries” Mia’s father says in his letter to her that “courage isn’t the absence of fear, but rather the knowledge that something is more important than the fear.” I hold onto that because no matter how afraid I was about being a Mom and how much the enorminity of the responsibility of parenthood was to me, I knew the life of my offspring was way more important than how scared I was and way more important than any negative experience I had.
So, being pregnant and facing that fear (and having a doctor I will never go back to) only solidified the fact that I’m pro-life. Being a married woman and having support of family didn’t matter when I faced that fear. What mattered was whether or not I was going to let that fear rule my life and I didn’t and I couldn’t be happier or more blest for it.
”Have you ever been pro-choice?”
—————————————————————————————–
I have always been pro-choice, but I have not always ‘chosen’ to set reason and logic and above my prejudices and preferences.
I used to be a chauvenist and a bigot. That was my ‘norm’ from my earliest memories.
I did not ‘choose’ to be a sexist and a racist.
It was thrust upon me before I was mature enough to reject it.
But when I reached the age of accountability, I determined to know for my self if the attitudes and understandings imparted to me by my family and my community were true.
Love and truth showed me a more perfect way.
When I was confronted with my bigotry, I chose to reject the lie and embrace the truth. I chose to judge people by the content of their character and not their pigmentation or their plumbing, by their actions and not just their words.
Humanism, with it’s ever morphing and ever more coercisive codes of leagallistic political correctness, was not responsible for my change in attitude, but rather the lovingkindness of the merciful GOD who gave me life and gives me breath.
Humanism never results in equality. It always produces division and death. The ‘more than equals’ rule by the law of the jungle. The ‘fit’, as moral relativism defines ‘fit’, will survive by the elimination of the unfit.
The body of Christ is not divided.
There are no distinctions, there is neither male nor female, free nor slave, Jew or gentile, but we are all one new man [gender neutral term] in Jesus.
” there’s a major political party in this country that caters to people who want to take what is currently a constitutional right and abolish or at least circumvent it, based on their religious and moral beliefs.”
This “argument” could be used, word for word, to defend slavery.
Elsa, you don’t mention the unborn in your conversion story. Why not?
“and not a policy preference to be enforced with the coercive power of government. If someone believes that abortion is wrong and not something they would ever feel comfortable doing, then more power to them. If, on the other hand, someone not only feels this but also feels that it is within the realm of acceptable government intervention to forcibly prevent other people from doing the same, regardless of their beliefs, then I regard that as an illiberal, inherently un-American position to take.”
-Joan
Joan, we have laws in this country. Some of these laws dictate how we behave in relation to others. These laws are not “un-American.” America is not an anarchistic society.
I support laws that ban killing another innocent human being not only because I do not wish to be killed, but also because I believe it to be immoral to allow anyone to be killed. This is really not a difficult concept.
CC,
Yeah. We know.
I used to be pro choice. I used to feel that abortion would happen anyway. I didnt want women seeking unsafe back-alley abortions and dying as a result. I knew in my heart it was wrong but I didnt want to impose my beliefs on others.
Then I began my road back to the catholic faith. I started helping out at my local catholic youth group I was once a part of. We did a whole night on pro-life issues. I had to to research on what the abortion procedure was actually like. I was turned on to Live Action and I saw all of the other shady things that were going on at Planned Parenthood. I realized the money that was made on the lost lives of unborn children. I realized what the pill actually does. How it can prevent a newly formed embryo from implanting into the uterus. How the definition of pregnancy was changed. I realized how the safety of women was not the first priority of these places. Abortion in some cases especially late term are very unsafe. However psychologically its never safe. I know women who suffer 20-30 years later with their decision. Its not as simple. They dont skip out of the clinic like nothing happened. I realized the culture of death in our society. How we treat infants that were born alive after abortion procedures. How in some places they dont see it neccessary to treat pre-mature infants (below a certain number of weeks) because of the cost outweighing the benefits (they will most likely die… ect). Making abortion legal allows for a lot of ugliness.
So I went on my first March for Life this year. I realized I have alot more reasons to be pro-life than pro-choice.
I was never “pro-choice.” I had a friend who told me at age 17 that she had had an abortion. Her new boyfriend had taken her to get one. The baby was her former boyfriend’s. The “new” boyfriend proceeded to abuse her. I watched her life spiral downward. But even that didn’t fully wake me up.
Years later I rented a video from the bookstore where I worked, called “The Hard Truth.” It’s only 9 minutes long, I thought – how bad could it be?
And at the end of that 9 minutes, I was shaking with outrage and sobbing almost uncontrollably. From that moment on, literally, I asked God, “What would you have me to do? I can’t pretend I didn’t see this.” Two years later, I found myself managing a pregnancy resource center, talking directly with women who were considering abortion.
My life was literally changed forever by a 9 minute video. It was then that I became truly “pro-life.”
I was pro-“choice” in middle school/high school.
Someone asked me if I was pro-choice and I asked what that was and they said, “It means you believe the government can’t force you to have a baby if you don’t want to.” I immediately imagined that there was some bill in congress trying to make a law that government officials could come into your home, detain you, IVF you against your will, and force you to have a baby ‘for the state’! “Oh heck yeah I’m pro-choice!” I responded. And argued against that imaginary scenario for years after.
“My body, My choice!” was my mantra. Years later in high school I finally heard the word abortion. “What’s that?” I ask. “It means terminating a pregnancy.” I knew from elementary school and middle school health classes and seeing/knowing pregnant mothers (including some classmates) what pregnancy was, and I was always interested in child-development. I could study for hours every detail of every life stage in our development. It boggled my mind, “How do you ‘terminate’ a pregnancy once it’s already started?” They stumbled and stuttered and finally gave up, they simply couldn’t admit it involved the death of the baby, and I had to research it to find out.
I WAS HORRIFIED! ABORTION WAS KILLING A PRE-BORN BABY! I saw D&E’s, read the medical terminologies, saw the results of D&E’s and D&X’s, and finally asked in shock, “Is this the ‘choice’ I’ve been defending??? Is this really what happens? Are people really doing this to their children???” They refused to discuss it. They truly thought the violent death of these tiny people was irrelevant to the cause! I knew then what I had been defending. All this time. ‘choice’ meant ‘access to abortion’ and insuring that women could commit murder at whim. I searched government websites and there were no bills trying to be passed that would force pregnancy on women. Women were still getting pregnant the NATURAL way, through sex, either unprotected or using failing “birth-control”. No one was strapping them to tables in government facilities and IVFing them as they screamed and kicked. I had been deceived by the pro-death’s carefully crafted rhetoric.
I was Pro-LIFE from then on. Since then I’ve learned a great deal more through my work in the pro-life field including talking to women going in for abortions. I learned that the majority of abortions aren’t committed ‘at whim’ but are forced and coerced on women through pressure from their families or partners and the pro-death society at large, belittling women’s God-given strength and convincing them they are too weak to have a child and improve themselves at the same time and threatening to abandon them utterly if they have their baby! They convince women “it’s either you or the baby” repeating the lies “ruin your life” and “it’s too hard to have a baby” and “won’t be able to finish school” and lock them in this life and death struggle against their own innocent child and out of panic or fear, or even cold logic, they choose themselves over their child! This must stop! The lies and coercion, and pressure, and propaganda, and lack of support, must stop! Pregnant women don’t need abortion, they need encouragement and empowerment. They CAN be mothers and have a career. The CAN be mothers and graduate high school/college. They ARE strong enough. They just need to know they are. They just need support. Many pro-life organizations and all CPC’s provide that and more. So I’ve been a part of that support network for 3yrs now and am proud to be a part of true woman empowerment.
My becoming pro-life was not a “Religious” decision. Actually I was atheist when I became pro-life. It is simply impossible, except for determined stubborn insistence on ignorance or cold indifference and selfishness, to deny the humanity of the pre-born person. I cannot witness facts and simply ignore them at my convenience.
I’ve been a Christian for only 3 1/2 years. God is now all the reason I need to be pro-life because He is! God gave us the awesome privilege of carrying and birthing His precious children. He chooses when we conceive, He carefully knits us in our mother’s wombs, He works a miracle within us! How can we deny that and destroy it with violence and throw a miracle in the garbage?
Abortion should be illegal. No, the mothers shouldn’t be criminalized, they are just as much victims as their children are. The abortion machine at large should be criminalized. The doctors should be tried. Everyone complicit to it should be held responsible for their actions in victimizing and exploiting these mothers and murdering their children.
Hi Jessica @ 11:13.
I think only Jill can really answer your question about why she posted this question, however, I can appreciate an authentic, measured dialogue with those who hold opposing views. By authentic, I mean sincere and intellectually honest. So often in the abortion debates there are demands for accuracy on both sides, but then when it comes to verifiable facts, many on either side will refuse to concede that because they think in doing so, they’ll appear weak or giving in.
Elsa:
I grew up extremely pro-life. I participated in the Life Chain every year, read Gianna Jensen’s book in the 9th grade, talked to my friends about why abortion was wrong and harmful to everyone.
My perspective changed slowly.
First, I stopped aligning myself with the pro-life side of the argument when I realized that they wanted to make abortion illegal. I can understand wanting to stop abortions from being necessary, but to make them illegal?
Elsa, what reasons did you give your friends about why abortion was wrong? If it is because it kills the life of a human being, why wouldn’t you want that to be made illegal? Should the unborn baby not be taken into account?
Also, why do you believe abortions are necessary today? (because you said you can understand wanting to stop them from ‘being necessary’)
Chris,
I also believe in dialogue. That’s why I say I’m not an extremist. I’m not your average fit into a box type person. I am eccentric. I do my best, and I’m not afraid to say I don’t know. However, I also believe that just because someone doesn’t know all the answers doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to believe as they wish.
Duck aka Jessica
Duck – I’d carry on the conversation, however I don’t want to undermine the interviews or articles you and Jill are working on. Perhaps after those are posted, we can carry on the dialogue?
Duck.
Sure someone can “believe as they wish” but that doesn’t mean that the beliefs are actually factually correct. If they are exposed to evidence that proves that their beliefs are unfounded, yet they continue to hold onto such beliefs, they are being intellectually dishonest.
Lauren,
So what happens when evidence is inconclusive by those not on one side or the other? That’s all I’m saying about that. And people can be intellectually dishonest if they feel like it. I think those who believe Obama is not a Citizen are being intellectually dishonest, but I can’t stop them from thinking that. What about those who believe there’s life on other planets vs those who don’t? The evidence is inconclusive, so is either side intellectually dishonest for believing one way or the other? Just some thoughts. :)
Duck
Chris,
Understandable. For that reason, I have refrained from commenting on the issue topic itself. Feel free to check out my blog link and facebook link though.
http://www.highonquack.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/HighOnQuack
Blessed Be
Duck
Duck,
If the evidence were truely inconclusive, than there is no intellectual dishonesty.
However, in the case of abortion, the scientific evidence is 100% conclusive that a unique human life begins at amphimixis and 100% conclusive that abortion kills that unique human life. There’s no debate. Faced with those facts, pretending that abortion does anything other than kill another human being is, at best, intellectually dishonest.
Lauren,
No debate = no discourse. No discourse = no dialogue. No dialogue means that the war between two opposing sides of extremes continues, while all those in the middle feel lost and angry. Angry and lost, because the two sides can’t talk, and there is so little information not published, guided, or researched by one extreme or the other. Angry, because if those two sides can’t talk, what hope is there for understanding?
Just some thoughts,
Duck
No, I have never been pro-life. I don’t remember ever thinking seriously about abortion one way or another until my mid-teens. Once I did start thinking about it, my views aligned with what I generally was familiar with as pro-choice.
Of course as I left home for college, came into contact with a wider array of people with a whole spectrum of beliefs, and eventually became a clinic escort for several years, I realized that both the pro-choice and pro-life positions were far more of a spectrum than I’d originally believed them to be, and that there were things I could agree with (or at least understand) on both sides of the fence. As well as things I think are misguided on both sides of the fence. But I’ve always identified as pro-choice, and I can’t imagine what would change my mind at this point in my life.
Um, when I learned where babies come from (who knows when, seven, eight, or was it 28? :) ) I kinda was of the opinion that it would be rude to kill them!
“No debate = no discourse. ”
That’s not true. The discourse come in explaining the facts of the matter to someone who is otherwise ignorant of the truth.
TheChristianHippie is a great example of someone who just didn’t have all the facts yet. Once she was exposed to the truth, she completely changed her mind about the situation. Discourse is important, but it doesn’t mean that the facts of the situation are mutable.
Duck,
How exactly do you debate someone who disagrees with facts?
Me: Abortion is wrong because it unjustly kills a human.
Pro-Choice Person: What do you mean? Abortion does nothing but give the mother awesome laser eye powers! Why not support lazer eye powers?
Me: No, abortion doesn’t do that. That is completely made up.
Pro-Choice Person: Hey, I thought we were having a debate here! Don’t try to force your morals on me. If I think there are lazer eye beam powers granted by abortion, then that’s my right to think that!
See? Meaningless right? So, when a pro-choice type person says that a fetus is not human, he or she is making sh*t up. That person might as well say something like “abortion doesnt kill any cells at all, actually” or “abortion never results in the death of anything at all!” If you are going to make sh*t up, you might as well not have a discussion.
How we interpret evidence is up for debate. Evidence itself? It is immutable fact, not subject to your unique butterfly whims.
Oliver,
If you’re just going to mock me, what incentive is there for me to contribute to the dialogue?
Duck
@Duck – I really don’t read that as mocking you, and he asked a very legitimate question (“How exactly do you debate someone who disagrees with facts?”), then merely used a rather far-fetched example of said disagreement. But then compares the commonly-used argument (“a fetus is not human”) to the far-fetched one, quite accurately, imo. I think you should just try to answer the question of how you debate someone who is willing to ignore, or flat out DENY factual information. But I guess accusing someone of mocking you is a good way to avoid that.
I have never been pro-choice. I was horrified to see pictures of aborted babies by mistake when I was around 7ish. Very upsetting! My parents then explained how and why the babies got that way and I could not believe it.
From that point on, all the typical pro-choice slogans fell on deaf ears. “MY BODY MY CHOICE!” I already knew that was a lie. “IT’s NOT A BABY!” Wrong. It also made me realize how important it was to stand up for the babies because I didn’t want them to wind up like the poor little ones I saw in the pictures.
Also my dad is a counselor and told me stories about women (obviously no names or anything like that) who he had known or seen professionally who had had abortions and regreted them deeply. Those stories broke my heart. And when I was in college that feeling was cemented when a coworker confided in me about how she couldnt look at babies or preg women bc they reminded her of her abortion she had had several years prior. That made me want to fight even harder to make sure women would never have to suffer so much.
As I got older, I got more into abortion statistics and answers to typical pro-choice questions. I wound up becoming a local pro-life speaker and have spoken to a couple thousand teens in the past few years in my spare time of being a mommy of 3. Now I am helping to bring a CPC to town. And of course am raising 3 pro-life warriors. Woohoo. ;)
I’ve never been pro-choice but because of abuse in my own life I could always understand how a woman could come to the conclusion that she and only she had the right to say what went on with her body. Thankfully, though I’ve always been able to see that babies are a gift. I think most of the time when a woman is in a crisis situation it’s very important who she allows to give her counsel. And who she allows to be part of her life. I’ve alway known abortion was wrong.
Helena,
As I’ve said to Chris before, I’m avoiding discussing the topic’s original question because of the ongoing interview. To answer your question would fall under the same category. As for the mocking, how would you feel if I said, crazy people hear voices and so does your Priest? Would you feel you were being mocked by having the two together like that? Just some thoughts.
Duck
@Duck
Since I don’t have a priest, or minister, or any other form of religious leader, I wouldn’t care in the least. What Oliver said was not mocking.
I’m with Duck on this one. While Oliver might have been trying to make a point that is very legitimate and worthwhile, he did so in a way that was belittling, insulting, and mocking. The fact that the underlying point is a good one doesn’t undo the negativity in the communication of the message. I don’t blame her for refusing to answer on those terms. I certainly wouldn’t.
How we interpret evidence is up for debate. Evidence itself? It is immutable fact, not subject to your unique butterfly whims.
Very true. Comparing actual, observable, scientific fact is pretty different than talking about “hearing voices.” We’re not talking about philosophical or religious belief when it comes to the evidence for the humanity of the unborn.
I didn’t feel that Oliver was directly mocking Jessica/Duck, either, but maybe I just read his comment differently. I thought he was making a point about facts vs. beliefs and the often unscientific pro-choice view.
I don’t care whether Duck was insulted by my post. Duck has sidestepped all relevant points again his/her argument. That is a much greater offense in my opinion. I’d rather have discussion with a foul-mouthed “meany” than a limp wrist argument dodger.
Is it hard to answer directly? Lauren asked the same question in a nice way. Did duck respond? Nope. So, if it’s mean, Duck makes a post saying how mean someone is. If it is nice…Duck simply ignores the post. Which is worse really, me or Duck?
How about I put it in a kind way.
Duck, how do you have a discussion about a factual piece of information? For example, how do you argue over the number of legs a dog has?
Oliver,
Just because I state a philosophical point of view, that some facts are facts, while some “facts” are gleened opinions doesn’t mean I disagree with facts. However, since the core of your question is perteninent (sp) to the already mentioned ongoing interview that is happening between Jill and I, I am refraining from answering. I’ve said it before, I started this thread only asking Jill if her inspiration for the question had to do with our interview. Chris was the first person to address the fact that I commented. He made a comment about useful dialogue. I agreed with him, that real dialogue between two different views is important. I then exchanged a philosophical remark about dialogue with Lauren, while ignoring the questions dealing with the interview.
As I’ve already said, I am not going to answer questions dealing with the interview. I simply made a comment about the inspiration of this post. I attempted to bridge a gap of agreement between other commenters and myself about dialogue. If that is not sufficient for you, than I’m sorry.
Duck
(and yes, I’m female you can use her, she)
Yes, Jill, I suppose I was technically “pro-choice” before I was pro-life. I had an abortion at 17 and was not raised in a family that expressed any beliefs that abortion was wrong. For probably 20 years after that, I just believed abortion just ”was”. I would not have campaigned for it, but would not have tried to convince anyone it should not be legal, either. It wasn’t until I had children that I started to feel I’d done something bad. Then, the more I learned, the stronger my faith, the better I understood the unborn, well, I realized that not only had I done something terribly wrong, but that it had left scars on me. Now, pro-life all the way!
Duck,
Bull. You cannot throw a bomb into the thread and then say “hey I am not here to debate any points!”
You said this originally: “So what happens when evidence is inconclusive by those not on one side or the other?”
When the response was “the evidence is not inconclusive. It is fact. Human blastocysts are unique human organisms.” you came back with “No debate = no discourse.”
When you were then call out that you can’t debate established facts, you “ducked” out of the debate with your weak “I’m not here to debate!” line.
If you aren’t here to debate, don’t ask loaded questions aiming for discussion. Either discuss, or don’t post.
(Anyone else notice that a good 50% of pro-choicers “aren’t here for debate” by the way?)
Oliver,
Maybe you should read all the comments I’ve made before, and then decide if I threw a bomb and left. I am the subject of Jill’s interview, as she is also the subject of my interview. As Chris stated earlier, and I agreed, for the integrity of the interview, I’m not going to debate with you all about those questions. I made one question to Jill, I made one comment about sharing ideas with Chris, and I made a philosophical comment to Lauren specifically about discourse itself, not about abortion pro or con. Outside of that, I have not addressed nor suggested anything about debate. So stop trying to beat the war drum of everyone against me, and read my posts first. You’ll see I made it quite clear.
Duck
I never heard of abortion when I was a kid. When I was 8 I was flipping through my mom’s “The New American” magazine and there was an ad by human life international. It had a photo of an aborted baby’s head held in forceps. I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. I was hysterical. I ran to my mom. She explained what abortion was and how some people thought it should be legal. I felt like THOSE people were the BOOGY MEN. I really felt like the CC’s, and Joans and Elsas of the world were out there trying to kill little kids like me. Cause they ARE. These people would have gleefully torn me limb from limb when I was in my mother and I instinctively knew that.
So I was always pro-life. Which kept me chaste as a teen too btw. Self-control really isn’t impossible. And I had lots of boyfriends too.
When I finally married and had an unplanned pregnancy at a bad financial time I became even more pro-life. I saw that problems are temporary but abortion is forever. Carrying my son and seeing him twirl and yawn on ultrasound just made it all the more real to me… that unborn humans are real people too!
I am curious as to what Elsa does with the unborn children in the equation of her conversion. She believes they are humans and then what? She abandons all rational and scientific thought and thinks they are little mushrooms now? What?
So glad I was spared being pro-choice. I mean, pro-abortion. Cause thats the choice they are championing after all. Lets be honest.
Duck,
I read all of your comments. Lauren brought the point up, but you responded to the point. Therefore, you engaged her in a discussion about the facts. Your response was that by claiming there is no debate about the facts of the humanity of a fetus, that there is no discourse/etc.
Here’s the exchange so that you can better see what you said.
Duck: I also believe that just because someone doesn’t know all the answers doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to believe as they wish.
Lauren: Sure someone can “believe as they wish” but that doesn’t mean that the beliefs are actually factually correct.
Duck: So what happens when evidence is inconclusive by those not on one side or the other? That’s all I’m saying about that.
Lauren: There’s no debate. Faced with those facts, pretending that abortion does anything other than kill another human being is, at best, intellectually dishonest.
Duck: No debate = no discourse. No discourse = no dialogue.
Lauren: That’s not true. The discourse come in explaining the facts of the matter to someone who is otherwise ignorant of the truth.
Duck: *crickets* I am not here to debate!!!!
So, you can probably see why I am pissed that you refused to respond to the appropriate points. You already responded to points regarding abortion with the claim that adherence to scientific fact is akin to no discourse. So, again I call bullsh*t.
Oliver,
The conversation was no longer about the philosophy of discourse. That’s why I stopped.
And you know what, I’ve never commented on this page before today, and when I did it was a harmless question asked of Jill. I then talked to Chris, and exchanged remarks about philosophy with Lauren, who attempted to get me to talk about topics covered in the interview, but I did not respond. Then you come on here, and attempt to mock me, then discredit me, and then get the whole page against me. You’re not exactly doing a great job of showing the love and compassion and understanding awaiting those who come to dialogue with you all, like you want outsiders to believe. So, I’ll say this again. I’m not here to debate DUE TO THE INTERVIEW. As well, thanks to you Oliver, you all will probably not see me on here to bring dialogue and debate again. Be patient my dear fellow, my self-imposed gag is only until both of our interviews are complete. You rush and push without knowing the consequences of your actions. You instead have made yourself into a mocking bully. So, that being said, goodbye, I will no longer respond to your posts Oliver.
Duck
In answer to the original question, since I am here for the moment, no, I was never pro-choice. I was however of the opinion that the matter was ultimately a difference of opinion. I also used to believe abortion from rape was acceptable. I have since realized that the pro-choice argument is self-contradictory and that no one really believes it is okay to kill children in that case. I have also realized that abortion in the case of rape is equally bad.
Duck: “So, that being said, goodbye, I will no longer respond to your posts Oliver.”
“Shut up!” she thoughtfully argued.
You responded directly to Lauren’s point about abortion. You didn’t quit when she brought it up. You only quit when you had no legitimate response. If it had to do with your interview, why did you respond to Lauren about the facts of abortion?
I am no bully, by the way. I respond to every single point my opponent makes. I don’t dance around the issue. What makes me appear to be a bully is that I never let up. Don’t confuse directness with meanness.
Frankly, I believe anyone that is pro-choice is a murderous monster, devoid of any humanity and worthless to society. Why should I not be tenacious in my argumentation? Come back when you are willing to discuss the points you flatly laid out in this thread.
Duck, I really don’t see how your interview precludes you from answering a generic question about the nature of debate.
Lauren,
I answered the generic question. I just didn’t answer your attempt to get me to discuss abortion.
Duck
No, Duck, you didn’t.
You said “No debate = no discourse. ”
To which I responded: “That’s not true. The discourse comes in explaining the facts of the matter to someone who is otherwise ignorant of the truth. “
And that’s where the discussion ended. I used abortion as an example, but the overarching point dealt with the concept of informed debate.
So, again, I state that discourse does indeed occur, even where there is no scientific debate. People may, in fact, simply be ignorant of the scientific facts. Discourse is important to inform them of these facts.
As the saying goes, people have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
How do you debate someone who refuses to accept facts? Should a baseless opinion be given respect, especially when the holder of said opinion refuses to accept new information?
Oliver,
Until you know what it is like to be impregnated against your will, and have to live the rest of your life supporting the results of that criminal behavior, I suggest you rethink your position regarding abortion and rape.
Since when has the scientific community agreed on the “beginnings” of life? Every opinion on this post has been based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, that is not scientific.
I am pro-life and pro-choice. I would never have had an abortion when I was of childbearing age, but far be it from me to judge another woman does with her body, much less criminalize her for it.
Lauren,
My apologies to you, I thought you were trying to change the topic, not use that as an example. I believe in facts that have been proven by the scientific method. Things hypothesized but not proven by the scientific method are not facts. So yes, you’re entitled to your own opinions, you’re entitled to your own interpretations, you’re not entitled to your own facts. However, in response how to find facts, it’s difficult sometimes when there are two very opposed sides are the only ones funding and publishing the supposed facts. It makes finding the truth difficult for everyone.
Duck
Grandma asks “Since when has the scientific community agreed on the “beginnings” of life”
Since we’ve understood the concepts of haploid and diploid cells and amphimixis.
There is literally zero debate on this issue.
A new, unique human life forms at amphimixis.
You say “but far be it from me to judge another woman does with her body.”
That’s not the debate. The debate is what she does with another human being’s body. There wouldn’t be a debate (outside of Saudi Arabia) if the question were simply what a woman does to her own body. Pierce it, drug it, fill it with saline, it doesn’t matter if her actions don’t affect anyone but herself.
Ask yourself why you would not have an abortion. Why not?
“Things hypothesized but not proven by the scientific method are not facts.”
Ok, but that’s not the case here, or in a plethora of other situations. What if someone still holds on to an incorrect opinion despite the fact that science is clear that he is wrong. What if a man just refuses to accept the chemical make up of water? He says it’s H3O, and he’s not budging! Then what?
Some of the stories here from women who were once “pro-choice” and are now pro-life moved me to tears. The comments from women who are still “pro-choice” made me feel so sad. I can understand the internal “logic” of the “pro-choice” mind-set. It’s a response to real issues that women have to deal with. But my own healing (from abortion, from sexual and other abuse, from poverty, from learned helplessness, etc.) began when I finally got it–what abortion really is, and that abortion is NOT the solution to all those problems, and that it’s evil to say that it is! I still struggle sometimes with ANGER at the women and men, family and friends, and professionals who, instead of protecting me and my child, suggested and reinforced and enabled me to destroy my child–my only child. That the unborn are human beings and that abortion kills them is not a political or philosophical theory or a religious belief or merely an opinion: It’s a fact. It’s reality. That’s what the pictures show. Period.
People still think Obama is not a U.S. citizen, but I can’t change their opinion, nor do I try.
I was pro-choice as a teenager. I was taught all the propaganda: it’s not a baby, it’s only a blob of tissue, so many desperate women die because they can’t get legal abortions, it’s so cruel to force women to have babies they don’t want, etc. etc. etc. This swayed me.
But as I got older, and learned more, my ideas about abortion slowly changed. I wish I could say it was a swift epiphany from one side to the other, but it wasn’t. Slowly over the years, I learned more about fetuses. The more I learned about them, the more they seemed like little miniture people to me. The more they seemed like little miniture people, the harder it became to justify killing them, not even to solve the problems of their mothers. Not that I don’t care about the mothers, I do. It just seems that there’s got to be a better way to solve their problems than by killing their babies.
Also, I met some pro-life people in person and quickly noticed they didn’t fit the stereotype that pro-abortion people tried to portray them as. Instead of being monsters whose only goal was to control and punish women, many of them were caring people. In talking to them, I clearly saw the soundness of their arguments.
Nowdays the pro-aborts and feminists tell their people to never talk to pro-lifers. They say that anyone that against women’s rights isn’t worth talking to. But I think the thing they really fear is that women will see these people aren’t the monsters the pro-aborts try to portray them as, and that they will actually hear the soundness of the pro-life argument. They’re afraid they’ll lose people (like they lost me). In a democratic society, too much of that and Roe v Wade eventually goes bye-bye.
I also learned that the numbers of women who supposedly died from illegal abortion in the pre-Roe days was greatly exagerated. Benard Nathanialson admitted this. Then it dawned on me; I’d never known anyone who’d died that way, nor had I heard anyone tell me that they’d known anyone who died that way. My parents were social workers and I never heard them mention losing a client that way. There were no newspaper accounts of such deaths in my community, no girls who suddenly stopped coming to my school amid talk of her abortion death, and no memorial services for girls or women who died from illegal abortion in all the years I was growing up. If all these massive numbers of women all across the country had died this way, how come I never learned the name of one of them, or the names of anybody their life touched? That’s when I realized that those death figures really were exagerated.
I am now extremely pro-life.
I’m not talking about the insane, Duck. I’ve had countless conversations with seemingly sane individuals who would absolutely not admit that an unborn human was, in fact, a human.
Where do you go from there? Where’s the middle ground?
Every debate must have a common starting point. That is why the “everyone has their own opinions” meme simply doesn’t work. The truth isn’t subjective.
Facts are facts. Intepretations/Opinions/hell even “Truth” are up for debate. As Obi-Wan Kenobi told Skywalker after his death, “the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” The facts are not.
As for finding facts, yes, we attempt as best as possible to try to follow the scientific method to find facts.
If you read all of the comments you notice that the vast majority of folks go from prochoice TO prolife not the other way around.
That is the trend of conversion!
Grandma says Oliver,Until you know what it is like to be impregnated against your will, and have to live the rest of your life supporting the results of that criminal behavior, I suggest you rethink your position regarding abortion and rape.
Since when has the scientific community agreed on the “beginnings” of life? Every opinion on this post has been based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, that is not scientific.
I am pro-life and pro-choice. I would never have had an abortion when I was of childbearing age, but far be it from me to judge another woman does with her body, much less criminalize her for it.
Until you know what its like to be aborted merely for having a dad as a rapist I think you better rethink your position on abortion after rape. Google Rebecca Kiessling. In fact I hope one day you get the chance to look her in the eye and tell her in your wise old age you just know it’d be better for everyone if she were dead. After all, her mother conceived her during a rape. And ya know, how we are conceived and who are parents are dictates our humanity… duh.
Hey Grandma, I also don’t judge other women for what they do to their bodies. joan Rivers looks like a gasping fish but hey, its HER body. Go under the knife. Over eat. Wear hideous clothing. I don’t care. Your body your choice. But when you decide to hurt others… yeah, sorry Grandma. I’m gonna judge. I’m gonna speak up. And I’m gonna fight to make it illegal for women to do so.
If I saw a woman starving and beating her 2 year old I would not say “Well, far be it for me to judge this woman! I mean I wouldn’t beat and starve my two year old but I can’t judge her.” Thats stupid, right? Then how is abortion any different? We have technology now Grandma. We have science that shows a new human being is created at conception. This isn’t the olden days anymore. We now know the baby is moving well before “quickening”. We also don’t believe the earth is flat and that people get sick when their “four humors” are off! Okay, I’m jabbing ya a little bit because you wanted to sound so old and wise with the moniker “Grandma”. The fact that you’re a grandma means you are a mom. So shame on you. You should know better. Its 2011. Pick up a biology textbook or google “human fetal development” and learn something before making ridiculous comments!
Duck, 7:45 that Obama is a U.S. Citizen is not an established fact, but the point at which human life begins is.
Sydney, your posts are always a joy to read! :)
Duck
The concept of truth is much more simple than you’re making it seem. There is nothing mystical about facts.
Injecting relativism into the conversation serves only to obstruct facts.
@Lauren et al,
If you believe it is wrong to take a human life, do you support our troops? Our enemies are human.
“I really felt like the CC’s, and Joans and Elsas of the world were out there trying to kill little kids like me. Cause they ARE. These people would have gleefully torn me limb from limb when I was in my mother and I instinctively knew that.”
This is why I cannot take most of the commenters here seriously. I’ve been reading this blog daily for months, including almost every single comment, and the rhetoric is absurd.
People have asked where the unborn figure into my “conversion story,” as you call it. I didn’t mention the unborn because Jill asked us about what changed in our understanding of the world that led to our shift in perspective. For me, that didn’t play a part, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion. (It is not irrelevant to the topic of abortion–but it is irrelevant to a conversation limited to exploring why I moved from one worldview to another.)
@grandma
I believe most pro-lifers are against the taking of INNOCENT human lives – key word being ‘innocent’. The troops and their opponents are not innocent purely by the fact that they are fighting a war. Who exactly is a fetus fighting, now?
Elsa says “For me, that didn’t play a part, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion”
I think that really says it all, Elsa. You moved to a position of supporting the legalized killing of an entire group of human beings without taking them into consideration.
Your conversion is based on secondary arguments, but completely ignores the primary question:
Does abortion kill a living human being?
People have asked where the unborn figure into my “conversion story,” as you call it. I didn’t mention the unborn because Jill asked us about what changed in our understanding of the world that led to our shift in perspective. For me, that didn’t play a part, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion. (It is not irrelevant to the topic of abortion–but it is irrelevant to a conversation limited to exploring why I moved from one worldview to another.)
**********
The unborn child didn’t play a part in your conversion on the issue of abortion, which is the killing of an unborn child? How does that possibly make sense, Elsa?
Well, I guess it does make sense, because you have to completely ignore the unborn child in order to follow the lie, “My body, my choice”.
Elsa, what arguments did you use to convince other people that abortion was wrong and hurt women?
Grandma asks: “If you believe it is wrong to take a human life, do you support our troops? Our enemies are human. ”
Our enemies are not innocent. I would rather see them detained than killed, but this is not always possible.
“”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder””
Is this a true statement?
“Things hypothesized but not proven by the scientific method are not facts.”
Is this a fact?
Helena,
Who is to judge who is innocent? Have these people been put on trial? Is it okay to have innocent civilians killed? Why not protect these lives? Don’t get me wrong, I’m more conservative than you might think, I happen to support a strong defense . People who base their anti-choice stance on the fact that we should protect human life usually cannot answer that question without hesitation. There is a dichotomy there. How can you justify one and not the other?
Sydney, you are just disrespectful and full of yourself. When you can’t adequately defend your position you rely on rudeness.
Grandma, grown adults choose to go to war knowing full well what they are getting themselves into. Does an unborn child have the same choice? Does the unborn child even have a fighting chance of survival when they are attacked through abortion? Do they have the ability to fight back? Do you not see a difference between a soldier being killed in the midst of battle, and someone being killed simply because they are small and cannot defend themselves? Would you say that a defenseless toddler being murdered is the equivalent of a soldier being killed in battle?
@grandma
How is it even possible to judge an unborn child as ANYTHING but innocent? In a WAR, it is unavoidable that innocent lives will be taken. How can you compare them to a fetus, who is at war with no one, with nothing? I know that even fetuses have been killed in wars, but that is the nature of war. It is sad; it is unfortunate; but it is part of what happens in a war. You cannot compare war with abortion. The only way they are alike is that someone inevitably dies. You may as well compare war with cancer, or abortion with AIDS. It is apples to oranges and makes your argument weak.
I think Sydney more than adequately defended her position, and you have yet to respond to her arguments, Grandma. If you think she was rude and disrespectful to you, you are way too sensitive and seriously need to lighten up a bit.
“How can you justify one and not the other?”
Very simply. The unborn (and young children in general) can in no possible way act upon an ill will because they can not yet form an ill will. They are ethically neutral, at worse.
Those past the age of reason, however, can act in such a way as to carry out an ill will. Thus, their motives are subject to further examination.
The innocence of the unborn is inherent to their current developmental period.
No, I’m saying it doesn’t play a part in the CONVERSATION. The question was, what made you change your mind?
The question was not: what were all of the factors you considered in your journey from one perspective to another? What was every step of the way? What do you think about every aspect of this?
No. The question was: what made you change your mind?
For me, what made me change my mind was A) realizing what making abortion illegal actually means for women I know and love, B) talking to women whose abortions were necessary, and C) being pregnant.
For me, the “what about the unborn?” issue was reconciled when I was pregnant. I’m not going to be able to explain that in a satisfactory way to you, especially not online, but maybe someday you will have a conversation with someone like me. Maybe you’ll realize that I’m not evil or, as Sydney insists, “gleefully tearing babies limb from limb.” Maybe I can explain to you then how being pregnant showed me the amazing coexisting truths of “this is something that is, and yet is not. This is something liminal.”
I embrace the liminality of the experience of being pregnant. But like I’ve said multiple times now, that’s not what this conversation is about.
“Well, I guess it does make sense, because you have to completely ignore the unborn child in order to follow the lie, “My body, my choice”.”
Except that I don’t believe in the “my body, my choice” mantra.
What about “my body, my choice” don’t you believe in, Elsa?
When are abortions “necessary”?
And finally, What arguments did you used to use to convince women that abortion was wrong? (I’ve asked this three times now)
Grandma, you employ straw man arguments……pffft. Typical. I notice that none of the pro-aborts noticed that I am an otherwise “liberal” pro-lifer, and that you are all choosing to ignore what a former pro-choice advocate has to say. I don’t support war. I don’t believe in the death penalty. I am also a pescatarian. I support gay rights. I’ve got two graduate degrees from two of the greatest schools in this country. Don’t even start. None of this changes the fact that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human baby. Even if I meet a pro-lifer who is a diehard conservative pro-war and pro-death penalty supporter, I think “Well at least they got the most important thing right.”
Elsa – did your conversion come during the time you were in college or shortly thereafter?
“And finally, What arguments did you used to use to convince women that abortion was wrong? (I’ve asked this three times now)”
Apologies for not addressing that particular question. With any online conversation, there are multiple threads of the conversation happening at once, and it’s nearly impossible to reply to them all.
Of course I stated that abortion was killing a baby. That is the essential pro-life argument, is it not?
I don’t believe in the “my body, my choice” mantra because I don’t believe it’s as simple as choice. Many of my friends do, and I’m okay with that. For me, it’s more like, “my body, my life, my understanding of the world, my relationship with God, my circumstances = my decision about what to do concerning my pregnancy.”
An abortion is necessary when the woman believes that she has no other choice. Do I agree that every time a woman aborts, there were no other choices? Or that abortion was the best choice? Of course not. But I am not that woman. I can only understand my own life, my own circumstances. I will always do the best that I can to understand what brings people to make the decisions that they do, and none of the women I know who have had abortions did so lightly.
“Elsa – did your conversion come during the time you were in college or shortly thereafter?”
Yes, it occurred while I was attending a conservative Christian college where neither me nor the majority of my friends were having sex, getting pregnant, or having abortions.
Elsa you said “talking to women whose abortions were necessary”
How so?
Lauren, I know these talking points. I know that you can easily point out that “it wasn’t necessary!” They could have given their kid up for adoption, or dealt with the death of their child at the point of delivery, or not had sex to begin with, or gotten help raising the kid, or left their abuser, or joined the church, or. . .I get it. I know where you’re going with this.
Elsa, your entire arguement seems heavily predicated on the completely discredited notion of ethical relativism.
“If she thinks it’s right, it’s right.”
Do you take this stance on other issues. There’s a mother in Enland who believes that she is helping her 8 year old daughter by injecting her with botox. She believes that what she is doing is right.
Should she be able to do this, or should someone step in to protect an innocent child from a dangerous practice?
No, you don’t Elsa. I’m asking you under which circumstance you consider it “necessary”
to kill another human being. It’s a simple enough question. You advocate for children to be killed, the least you can do is justify your own beliefs.
Seriously. I know the rhetoric. I know the apologetics of the pro-life world.
If I didn’t already, I would have learned them from the months I’ve been reading this blog.
“If I saw a woman starving and beating her 2 year old I would not say “Well, far be it for me to judge this woman! I mean I wouldn’t beat and starve my two year old but I can’t judge her.”
What would you do, exactly? Would you physically intervene to stop her if there was no recourse to the police or some other authority? Or, if not you personally, would you at least endorse or accept someone else intervening in such a way? Comparing abortion to child abuse or other explicit violations of a person’s wellbeing and rights–a favorite rhetorical tactic of the anti-abortion movement–reveals an interesting psychological disconnect between the movement’s stated ideals about the supposed inherent, equal value of all human life, no matter the form, and the actual attitudes that are exhibited by its (more or less) normal, well-adjusted members. Why is it that most people here are quick to disown violence, or other avenues that are socially unacceptable in normal circumstances, for “saving the unborn” when they would embrace or at least accept them in situations such as the one I’m responding to in the above quote? Do you accept that the life of a “preborn child” is worth less than the life of a two-year-old? Of course not, because if you do, the logic behind your anti-abortion position collapses on itself. But if the life of a “preborn child” and a two-year-old have equal value, then how you can rationally justify being willing to take one particular action to save one, but not being willing to take the same action to save the other? I believe that most people, regardless of their stated opinion on the value of the “unborn”, subconsciously recognize that an embryo or fetus simply does not have the same moral or social worth that a “born” person does.
You “know the rhetoric” but you refuse to even begin to discuss the very individuals who are targeted by your belief system, or explain under which circumstances their deaths are “necessary”.
Trust me, my dear, I “know the rhetoric” of the pro-choice side forwards and backwards. I still ask people to explain their rationale because it gives insight into their thought process and allows me to examine the issue from every angle. Sometimes someone actually astounds me by coming up with a new pro-choice argument.
Oliver
This is in response to your 7:08 post.
Thank you.
“You advocate for children to be killed, the least you can do is justify your own beliefs.”
Okay. This won’t be a popular point of view, but here it is: I believe that abortion ends the liminal state of pregnancy. I believe it puts an end to the potential of life. That is indeed tragic for me to think about. There is so much potential in every human life.
I loved my daughter from the moment I knew she was the reason I was puking every ten minutes. Had I miscarried (and I am putting miscarriage as pre-20-ish weeks, rather than referring to infant demise or stillbirth), I would have mourned the loss of my child, because I had envisioned our future, whatever it held, and knew that I would love her more than anything in my life. I would have mourned for the idea of the child I never got to know.
However, I would not have mourned for the loss of her physical body, which I had never known, and which she ever understood as hers. I would have wept at losing the promise of a child.
I do not believe that early abortions (which make up the vast percentage of abortions that are performed in the United States) kill a baby.
If I believed that, I would be pro-life.
Duck, see Elsa as the perfect example of someone who ignores the facts in order to support abortion.
Elsa, there is no “potential life” post amphimixis. There is simply an actual human life. Your feelings on the issue do not actually change the reality. You may find it uncomfortable to be confronted with the truth that a unique human being is killed by abortion, but that is the fact of the situation.
You have constructed a false reality in order to support abortion. The unborn, at any gestational age, are not caught in some half-real reality. They are living, physical beings with living, physical bodies. Duck seemed to have a problem with making the truth mystical, but you seem to have a problem with making another human being into some sort of mythical creature.
You do realize that this belief is not rational, don’t you?
As I said before, I believe in liminality. I believe we can be in more than one place at once. I believe we can be both alive and not alive, good and not good, alone and not alone. A good example of this paradox is the Trinity, which allows us to believe that Christ is both God and man at once.
Do I believe that abortion kills a living human being? Yes.
Do I believe that is the same thing as murdering someone? No.
You can call it irrational; I call it making sense of the human experience.
No, Elsa, I call it using flowery language to justify supporting killing another human being.
You have made sense of nothing. You have simply introduced a calming lie into your life in order to quiet the uncomfortable reality that many wome, your friends included, have killed their own children.
Were your delusions benign, I would dismiss them as loopy. However, they are far from benign. Through your reliance upon magical thinking you have abandoned your own values.
Since I’m quoting sayings tonight, I have another:” You can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into. ”
Never have I seen a better example of this. I’ll give you one thing, Elsa, you have made an original claim. I’ve heard the “potential life” line before, but never with such flourish.
Joan
This is in response to your 9:37 post.
What would you do if you were walking through a large abortion clinic and in 10 rooms were mothers about to abort and you knew that these babies resting in their mothers wombs were about to be killed. How much of their pain would you take upon yourself and how do you not see abortion as child abuse? Of course we both know abortion goes beyond child abuse but I’ll save that for another post. And not just the pain of the babies but how much of the moms’ hurt would you be willing to take on also.
What can I say? I’m a writer. I revel in the greyness of life.
No, Elsa, you’re an intellectually dishonest moral relativist of the worst sort who thinks herself sophisticated.
Well, that is going on my book jacket, obviously.
Elsa,
The start of life is not subjective. It is the same life in the first trimester as it is in the second trimester wether you call that life a baby or not and wether you have envisioned a future with the baby or not.
Also, what about the negative spiritual effects of abortion? Isn’t that a really bad experience physically too? I know that I believe we have souls and I can’t think of anything more evil and unnatural than for a mother to kill her own offspring. Do you believe people have souls?
Is the book titled “Everything I Know About Ethics, I Learned While Smoking Weed”?
I’ve never smoked a cigarette or weed.
I did drink marijuana tea when I was a teen missionary, but it was an accident, and I felt no side effects.
That makes your views on reality all the more sad.
What is it like living in a world where facts can be swept aside so easily?
I believe we can be in more than one place at once. I believe we can be both alive and not alive, good and not good, alone and not alone. A good example of this paradox is the Trinity, which allows us to believe that Christ is both God and man at once.
Elsa,there are things about God that are beyond comprehension and thus paradoxical. But every day conversations between mortals are not so dynamic. Physical life is life. And abortion is the end of the life of a mother’s child. And even if there were other dimensions you could escape into wouldn’t your karma (essence or being) follow you from one dimension to the other?
My parents had to give permission before abortion was presented in my religion class. When my parents talked to me about abortion in 6th or 7th grade, it was unbelieveable to me that not everyone loved babies. it never ocurred to me that people can and do kill their tiny sleeping babies inside the womb. I was born pro-life and will stay pro-life
I once believed in the rape exception but I don’t any more. My reason for the exception was because I believe women should have the right to determine for themselves if they want to engage in activity that could make them pregnant and that even trumped my concern for the life of the child ( perhaps it never should have but it did). The reason for my change of heart was when I realized that under any circumstances except to save the mother’s life, commiting abortion on her would harm her even worse and lega;izing her to have an abortion could only hurt her worse if that was the reason she went ahead with it.
I believe we can be in more than one place at once. I believe we can be both alive and not alive, good and not good, alone and not alone.
So if someone rapes and kills someone you love today, please tell me how that is good. Don’t bother explaining how it is not good, I already get that.
Maybe weed would help.
Anti-choice folks are confusing God’s laws with mans. According to the Bible each person is judged by God according to his or her deeds. That’s supposedly when we die, well, while we are here on earth we have to deal with man’s law, and it’s very clear in the Bible we shouldn’t confuse the two. I believe that each person is responsible to God in this matter and not to anyone else. Prove me wrong. You can’t. It’s up to God. Bless you all, I’m out of here.
Grandma… would rather be rude and disrespectful to a know-it-all who advocates baby killing than be the know-it-all who advocates baby killing. Just sayin!
Elsa, what “conservative Christian college” did you go to? I seriously doubt you did. I went to Bob Jones University. Care to name your school?
Thanks Bethany for backing me up. You’ve lost children. Did you mourn the “idea’ of a potential child and the potential life you could have had with them as Elsa did? I haven’t even had a miscarriage but just the act of carrying my son makes me realize what a bunch of caca that is!
I’ll be sure to tell my Aunt and Uncle that the man who murdered their son shouldn’t have been punished by “man’s laws”, Grandma. I’m sure that will bring them a lot of comfort.
Well “Grandma” God says don’t hurt children because they each have an angel that behold God’s face in heaven. (Matthew 18:10)
God also says “Thou shalt not kill”. These are “God’s laws” Grandma. God also says that children are a blessing and the fruit of the womb is His reward. Kinda insulting to God to throw His blessing back in His face through abortion isn’t it? But oh please, drag out the “don’t judge!” hysterics. Try reading the WHOLE Bible Grandma so you get the BIG picture. Your doctrine and ability to understand Scripture is sorely lacking. So is your ability to understand biology. Please do something about that.
As Obi-Wan Kenobi told Skywalker after his death, “the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” The facts are not.
Is anyone else “quacking up” at Star Wars philosophy being used to support to a pro-abortion stance?
When I was 16 years old I had a miscarriage was shown the baby and told everything about it. How big, what the Doctor says, by research, it can do therefor feel. At 8 weeks it was the size of a pinpoint. It hurt, I cried and my boyfriend at the time left me the week following the D&C. Yes they give those for MISCARRIAGES TOO. I was told that women usually naturally miscarry babies that early when there is something genetically wrong with them. Law of nature…. so why if a woman aborts a baby about this time is it so incredibly wrong that people who appose it lash out and are violent towards these women? Why is it that so many Anti Abortion and Anti women laws are being brought up when we are all still out of jobs and with no healthcare? I get none of this. By the way those who are not sinners cast the first stone. Otherwise, please refrain from telling me and other women what we can do with OUR bodies. On top of all this…. where are the men who rape these women?…Molest these women?.,… Leave these women with children and no income? Answer these questions.
Ask yourself why you would not have an abortion. Why not?
You know, Lauren, that is something I’ve asked my pro-choice friends, as well. They never seem to have an answer.
Sydney 8:02. Right on. Love that post.
Hi Samantha. I’m not sure if you received misinformation when you had your miscarriage (and I’m sorry for your loss), but an 8 week preborn child is not a “pinpoint.” Please check out the link. Even if you were 8 weeks pregnant (6 weeks gestational age), your child was about 1/4 inch long.
All of us on this site are aware that a D&C is a procedure often used after a miscarriage. Your child, however, was not “your body.” A miscarriage, which you sound as if you grieved, was the loss of your child – not the loss of your own tissue.
Abortion will not solve domestic abuse, rape, molestation, or abandonment. Abortion will simply kill a woman’s innocent child. This will not cause a man to be less abusive or less violent, or less selfish. It will, however, kill an innocent human being and very possibly emotionally (and sometimes physically) wound the mother.
When my mother discovered her pregnancy with me, she had also just discovered that my father had been carrying on an adulterous affair. They divorced when I was 11 months old and despite my best efforts to establish a relationship with him, he has turned his back on me. My mother was a woman abandoned and with a child, and with $25 dollars a week in child support until I reached adulthood. Aborting me would not have caused my father to stay. It would not have caused him to be less selfish. It would not have changed his heart. But aborting me would have certainly guaranteed that my mother would have been totally and utterly alone. She has worked every day of her life, raising me by herself. We didn’t always have health insurance. I was a latchkey kid for much of my life. We barely scraped by at times. And yet, I look back on my life with gratefulness. My greatest hero is my mother. And now, instead of looking back on a life filled with regret, my mother sees the faces of her three grandchildren.
Abortion would have been anti-THIS woman. Me.
OK, I am no longer going to argue with you all. There is no listening to others with a differing opinion. You will believe what you want no matter the cost. But it was MY body not yours not another beings. The being was not alive, and you were not there in the ER with me so please do not act like you know what I am talking about. By the way Pro Life movements seem to support murder as well. How do you explain that? Maybe because they are living it does not matter?
OK, I am no longer going to argue with you all. There is no listening to others with a differing opinion. You will believe what you want no matter the cost. But it was MY body not yours not another beings. The being was not alive, and you were not there in the ER with me so please do not act like you know what I am talking about.
Samantha, honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about… no one is saying that your miscarried child didn’t die. Your child was alive but miscarried – which means he or she was alive and then died. Your child was in your body. Your child had to originally be alive in order to have miscarried. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, though I am trying. Again, I’m very sorry for your loss.
By the way Pro Life movements seem to support murder as well. How do you explain that? Maybe because they are living it does not matter?
What “supporting” of “murder” are you referring to?
If you want to have a discussion, that’s what this board is for, and we’re happy to do so, but you’ll have to be clearer in your posts as to what you’re referring.
Elsa said: I do not believe that early abortions (which make up the vast percentage of abortions that are performed in the United States) kill a baby.
If I believed that, I would be pro-life.
I used to be pro-choice. I am now pro-life b/c of that exact statement. I was always sort of unthinkingly pro-choice. I didn’t have a lot of contact with pro-life people and assumed that the stereotype was true – religious zealots who wanted to force women to bear children against their will. People who favored this nebulous “potential life” over a “fully actualized” human being. No one “normal” or “educated” was actually pro-life.
I went to a Catholic college and the presence of so many pro-lifers initially made me double down on my pro-choice beliefs. Here I was face to face with these ignorant people, and by God I was going to give them a piece of my mind. (I was the one who passed by the little cemetary displays and wanted to stomp all over the stupid imaginary graves). As I spoke with these people, though, I found two things. 1. They were certainly not ignorant. 2. All of my arguments were absolutely useless if the fetus was a human life. They were really distractions b/c if I had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, I had to acknowledge the internal logic of the pro-life position. If the fetus is a life, then any argument for abortion (poverty, circumstance, etc) that would not apply to an infant or toddler was completely irrelevant.
I assumed that I just hadn’t heard the right argument (having never thought about it much at all) so I went in search of “the winning logic.” I was all over blogs on both sides, becoming increasingly frustrated. Finally I just came back with, “well I don’t think it is a life/a baby so ….so there.” But I wasn’t comfortable in that spot. Was it a baby the second before it was born….surely then. Well what about a week? What about two? I played around w/ all sorts of lines – viability (but that changes), hearbeat, brain waves. Ultimately I couldn’t get passed the idea that they were arbitrary. Then I tried out the “Well it’s probably wrong, but maybe occasionally necessary” camp.
I just couldn’t live under such easily collapsible principles – ones that honestly left all human life in jeopardy. The fetus isn’t a life b/c it’s a fetus, but don’t worry all other human life is safe. We would never eliminate the old, the infirm, or the otherwise inconvenient so long as the human is question is at least 9 mo past conception and breathes air. It doesn’t work. So I became secretly pro-life. Took me a long time to come out of the closet. Lost a bunch of friends who just couldn’t fathom this – and I understand why. I would have done the same thing if I had never been exposed to pro-life people.
And here I am now – whole heartedly pro-life.
Samantha @ 12:15am – the pro-life position makes a distinction between elective and non-elective abortion. In the case of natural miscarriages, the situation is usually non-elective when a D&C or induced labor delivery is performed. The living child did not die by a direct act of the abortionist, but from other circumstances, and the body must be removed. In an elective abortion, the abortionist’s direct act kills the child. The question of life is a legal one – and yes, the child is alive, and at 21 days has a heartbeat.
Samantha said: why if a woman aborts a baby about this time is it so incredibly wrong that people who appose it lash out and are violent towards these women?
You’re discussing two groups: 1) women who electively abort a living child; and 2) those who commit violent acts (?!) against those women.
Who is in group 2? What violent acts?
Samantha said: Why is it that so many Anti Abortion and Anti women laws are being brought up when we are all still out of jobs and with no healthcare?
Do you understand how the President of the United States as well as many elected officials were elected and by whom? Why were some of his first acts as POTUS to remove prior executive directives?
In the larger context, do you understand that having children expands an economy, while killing children contracts it? At the core of this is responsibility.
Samantha said: On top of all this…. where are the men who rape these women?…Molest these women?.,… Leave these women with children and no income? Answer these questions.
You’re asking us to identify rapists, molesters and deadbeat dads?
Rape is wrong and needs to be prosecuted, but less than 1% of abortions are due to reported rape. If rape goes unreported, that doesn’t change the severity of the crime, but there may be circumstances the victim doesn’t wish to make public.
Deadbeat dads are clearly not rapists, but the mother didn’t secure the union prior to sex, for whatever reason. Wouldn’t that be her responsibility?
You’re outraged about abuse, but you don’t see that abortion itself is violently abusive, both to the mother and father (if he didn’t want their child aborted.) and mostly towards the child?
“I believe we can be in more than one place at once. I believe we can be both alive and not alive, good and not good, alone and not alone. A good example of this paradox is the Trinity, which allows us to believe that Christ is both God and man at once.”
Elsa,
You have to be very careful here. For Jesus being both man and God is indeed a paradox because on teh surface, it is hard to see how both can be happening at teh same time. However, your other examples are not paradoxes but contradictions. They claim that both A and not A is true. With teh Jesus example, teh claim is that Jesus is both A and B. It does NOT claim that Jesus is both A and not A. There is a very big difference here. The believe about Jesus is a paradox, but saying that something can be both alive and not alive is a contradiction, from which one can prove anything, absolutely anything. God love you.
Duck, 11:13a: No. The question comes from a poll Fr. Pavone took of pro-life leaders a few months ago. I thought it was simply a great question and that the answers would be quite interesting, which they are.
Samantha,
I am so sorry you miscarried your child.
I had an abortion. After I was told it was just a bunch of cells at 10 weeks along I paid an abortionist to tear my babies body apart. The intent was to kill my child.
5 years later I was pregnant again. At 10 weeks my babies heart stopped beating. I miscarried that baby into my hand. Not a bunch of cells but a perfectly formed innocent human child.
The difference between an abortion and a miscarriage couldn’t be more stark. The intent of an abortion is to kill the living child. A D & C is the same procedure used in an abortion but the child has already died and his/her body is removed.
As for me, I wasn’t always pro-life. Abortion was legalized in 1973, and I drove a friend for an abortion at a PP in Chicago in 1974, when we were both high school seniors. There’s a lot in my life I don’t remember, but I do remember that place, strangely enough.
All I can say is I didn’t think about or understand abortion then. I had fallen away from my faith, and it wasn’t on the Protestant radar screen back then anyway, at least in my little town.
My friend was a cheerleader. We still talk at reunions but never, ever bring it up. She is still beautiful but has an unhappy life. She’s hardened, angry. I wonder if and how her abortion plays into that.
By the time I went to work at Christ Hospital I had returned to my faith and knew I didn’t want to participate in abortion, that was certain. Beyond that, I’m not sure how committed I was. Holding a dying aborted baby boy for 45 minutes instantly converted me into a pro-life activist.
As long as I can remember I’ve been pro-life, however my beliefs became more solidified over time with research and reading.
My boyfriend is pro-life as well, but believed in abortion in the cases of rape or incest. He has a degree in BioChem and a Masters in Cytology, and he watches surgery and discovery channel shows like they’re going out of style, so I thought pretty much nothing could disturb him in the blood and gore arena.
Last year I called him upstairs and told him I was going to show him some certified photos of early abortions at 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks. I clicked through the pictures, and after a few minutes he said “Stop.”
His face was white, and looked like he was going to throw up. He kept saying, “I didn’t know. I didn’t know.”
I kept clicking through them and said, “This is abortion, babe.” You can’t kill a child for the sins of his father.
He is now wholeheartedly pro-life.
I am 52 years old. In 1971 and ’72, when abortion was being debated in D.C., I wrote letters to my congressional delegation begging them to defend the unborn. My mom kept a copy of a Catholic newsletter that had our delegation’s written responses to such letters on the back cover. I still have that and it has helped define my legacy. My mom sat with a group of other ladies from her church at a kitchen table and wrote the Right to Life Charter for our state. While I am no longer attending the Catholic Church, I am eternally grateful to the Church for instilling a correct perspective on LIFE in me.
In my teens and early 20’s I rebelled against everything and participated in a loose and destructive lifestyle. At that time I tried to adopt a pro-choice “I don’t like it but I can’t tell you what to do ” attitude. It didn’t work. Thank God I did not become pregnant during that confusing time.
I became a committed Christian at age 25 and the pro-life mantle that I inherited from my mother manifested fully. I began to pray at the abortion clinic immediately. The woman who was doing the abortions is a friend of mine now; converted and prolife. I hope SHE writes a book; it will give all who stand and pray without giving up a renewed hope that God is ALWAYS working.
I am now on staff with a national pro-life ministry. God is faithful. I am trying.
I believe that we will see abortion significantly reduced and restricted in my lifetime. My hope is that laws will continue to be written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that severely restrict abortion and that our prayers will turn the hearts of the generations who have been devastated by abortion and that the idea of killing another human being growing in one’s own body, like the idea of owning another human being in slavery, will become an abomination to all.
It is a work of darkness that allows one human to own or destroy another under the guise of a “right.” Our fervent prayer is that the Light of the world will shine and destroy this darkness of the mind that hold so many of our brothers and sisters captive.
When I was 16 years old I had a miscarriage was shown the baby and told everything about it. How big, what the Doctor says, by research, it can do therefor feel. At 8 weeks it was the size of a pinpoint.
Samantha, I am very sorry for your loss. I am also sorry that your doctor lied to you about the size and state of your baby. Your baby was certainly alive before he/she died and was definitely not the size of a pin point. I had a miscarriage- the baby died at 6 weeks, and I held the baby in my hand. I have seen for myself with my own eyes that my baby was not the size of a pin point. Here are some pictures:
In my hand:
Closeup of the baby in water:
It hurt, I cried and my boyfriend at the time left me the week following the D&C. Yes they give those for MISCARRIAGES TOO. I was told that women usually naturally miscarry babies that early when there is something genetically wrong with them. Law of nature…. so why if a woman aborts a baby about this time is it so incredibly wrong that people who appose it lash out and are violent towards these women?
The same reason that it is wrong to kill a newborn baby, even though sometimes newborn babies die on their own. One is killing, the other isn’t.
But pro-lifers are not violent and do not lash out against women. That is just something you are making up.
Why do you think it hurt for you to have a miscarriage, Samantha? The reason you hurt is because you lost your child. I am sorry you didn’t have more support from others, to grieve your loss in a way that helped you heal. The fact that others did not acknowledge your child as a baby likely made it harder for you.
Why is it that so many Anti Abortion and Anti women laws are being brought up when we are all still out of jobs and with no healthcare? I get none of this. By the way those who are not sinners cast the first stone. Otherwise, please refrain from telling me and other women what we can do with OUR bodies. On top of all this…. where are the men who rape these women?…Molest these women?.,… Leave these women with children and no income? Answer these questions.
I am not sure what any of this has to do with anything, or what your point is. So I’ll just wait for you to clarify before even attempting to answer.
I wan’t so much pro-choice as I was a fence-sitter. I tell my story here: http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-abortion.html, but long story short, when I saw how much pressure there is put on women to abort, and how abortion mills lie to women and betray their trust, that was the final straw.
Samantha, may I recommend a book for you? It is called “Answers in a Time of Miscarriage” by Bethany Kerr. EXCELLENT book! It may be very comforting to you. It also has pictures of Bethany’s baby Blessing who was miscarried at around 6 weeks and was already perfectly formed. Not the size of a pinpoint by any means. A precious face, eyes, nose, mouth…little body, little arms and legs and little fingers and toes. At 6 weeks! A miracle. Amazing.
Anyhow, I am sorry that you lost your child. I really am. I’m curious as to why you have such obvious anger for us. A D&C after miscarriage is NOT an abortion as others have clearly explained. We are saying that your child was a life and important and that you lost someone precious and irreplaceable and yet you seem very angry at us for that.
If you have questions you can certainly ask us and we will do our best to answer them. But to just jump on here and rant makes it very hard to understand where you’re coming from and how we are supposed to answer you.
Bethany, totally didn’t see you posted pics of Blessing! My computer is possessed I guess. I never knew you were pro-choice Jill! I have learned a LOT about my friends on this site!
I’m not sure why, but I feel compelled to respond to this post.
I was pro-life. I grew up in the Catholic Church. I became very active in the pro-life movement when I was in high school. I regularly attended the March for Life. As a homeschool project, I designed, built, and maintained a pro-life feminist website. I protested outside proposed clinic sites. I helped my mom find a CPC to donate her maternity clothes to after my youngest brother was born. I was a paying member of Feminists for Life. I wrote my college admissions essay about my pro-life feminist position.
It should also be noted that throughout my pro-life activism, I was also a fierce advocate for LGBT equality and believed in comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception for those who desired it (although I felt I would personally abstain from pre-marital sex and contraceptives because of my religious beliefs).
After I got to college, I worked with a group of women and men who were interested in starting a feminist group on campus. We were equally composed of those who identified as pro-life and pro-choice. We came together around the belief that women deserve full, factual information about their options when facing an unplanned pregnancy, and they should have easy access to the support needed to carry a pregnancy to term. We worked together on this goal. In the course of this, I got to know women (some of whom are still my very closest friends) who were pro-choice, in large part because their mothers had had abortions. I got to know their mothers, and found them to be competent, compassionate, even religious women who made the best choice for themselves. They weren’t injured, emotionally or physically, by their abortions. As I began to better understand social science research, I began to question the methods and findings of David Reardon’s “Aborted Women: Silent No More,” (a book I read early in my pro-life activism and convicted me) and found it profoundly lacking. Furthermore, the research “linking” abortion and breast cancer (another piece that sparked my early activism) was disputed and disproven over and over again. I finally changed my position to “personally opposed, but keep it legal and safe.” The final conversion took place when one of my friends said, “Well, that basically means you’re pro-choice. As in, you think women should make their own choice.” Boom. There you have it.
As time went on, I became further convicted. Abortion is a highly personal issue. Women deserve to be able to make their own choice, without coercion in either direction, based on their beliefs. Essentially, this is an issue of bodily autonomy: no one, no government, has the right to compel a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. I have volunteered as a clinic escort and on the boards of pro-choice organizations. That said, I also continue to advocate for women who choose to continue their pregnancies. I volunteer as a doula for women who cannot afford one. My ultimate goal is to be able to provide birth and breastfeeding support for women who don’t have the financial resources to access it.
ProChoiceMom, what arguments did you use in the past to tell others that abortion was wrong?
And what about those arguments is wrong today, in your view?
Prohoicemom, So the fact that there are some women who don’t appear emotionally scarred after abortion made you think abortion was not wrong after all?
There are a lot of women who have killed their born children, and don’t appear to be emotionally scarred from it. If you became friends with them, would you be okay with killing born children too? Your reasoning is terrible.
Sydney, that’s totally fine! :) Thanks for recommending my book! :)
“Elsa, what “conservative Christian college” did you go to? I seriously doubt you did. I went to Bob Jones University. Care to name your school?”
If Bob Jones is your measuring stick for “conservative college,” then yeah, you’ll probably think my school is liberal.
But I went to a CCCU member school somewhere between Indiana Wesleyan and Gordon College in terms of conservativism. It seems strange to me that you think I’m lying about that.
As I said before, I believe in liminality. I believe we can be in more than one place at once. I believe we can be both alive and not alive, good and not good, alone and not alone. A good example of this paradox is the Trinity, which allows us to believe that Christ is both God and man at once.
Um, that’s not the Trinity. And I think Bobby gave a pretty good explanation of the difference between a paradox and contradiction, which you do not seem to have an understanding of.
Do I believe that abortion kills a living human being? Yes.
Do I believe that is the same thing as murdering someone? No.
You can call it irrational; I call it making sense of the human experience.
I can call it irrational because it is. Hey, if someone rapes your friend, are they also not a rapist?
Let’s see if your logic works in this case too…
“Do I believe that rape victimizes a woman? Yes.
Do I believe that is the same thing as assaulting and violating her? No.
You can call it irrational; I call it making sense of the human experience.”
Bethany -
My arguments against abortion were primarily of the “abortion hurts women” variety. From further research during the “conversion” process, and actually getting to know women who have had abortions, I found that to be for the most part not the case. I know there are some women who feel their abortion caused them trauma or emotional pain, and I don’t deny their experience, and I hope they find the healing they need. But, the vast majority of the research, as well as my anecdotal experience, pushed me in the other direction. This hopefully provides clarification for your next question – since I primarily approached anti-abortion activism from the “abortion hurts women” perspective, knowing women had had abortions, and who WEREN’T hurt by them, and were in fact grateful for the opportunity to have access to a safe abortion, and were good and moral people who raised good and moral daughters who I admire made me reconsider one of the foundational places I approached anti-abortion activism from.
I robbed my parents of their grandchild and my boyfriend’s parents of their grandchild. I robbed my nieces and nephews of a cousin. I robbed someone of their friend and classmate. Abortion is wrong because of who it kills, not only ‘what it terminates.’
I was pro-choice until the day of my own abortion. I became more actively pro-life after learning the details of fetal development.
Well that explains it then, Prochoicemom; you never were pro-life.
ProchoiceMom, Like Elsa, you completely ignore the elephant in the room.
What about the unborn?
Lauren, so true. The unborn HAS to be ignored in order for anyone to be pro-abortion. That is the only way it can happen. Which is why Elsa and Prochoicemom both ignore them completely in order to “convert” to a pro-choice position. I don’t think either prochoicemom or Elsa were really ever pro-life….they just liked the way it sounded at the time.
Well then Bethany, perhaps I wasn’t. I certainly believed I was, and did a whole lot of work in that department! Perhaps it would be helpful to pro-life movement makers to know that the “abortion hurts women” aspects aren’t going to bring in the true believers. You’re free to make your own judgements, though.
Lauren, what would like to have said about the unborn? I believe that fetal life does not carry the same moral weight as “born” life, for lack of a better term. I believe that, since no one is compelled to provide life support from their bodies, donate organs, etc, no woman is compelled to do so against her will for a fetus. Furthermore, different religious traditions have different teachings on ensoulment and the moral allowance or necessity of abortion in certain circumstances. While you say, “What about the unborn?” I say, to the other elephant in the room, “What about the women carrying the unborn?” What are her rights? What of her well-being? I think because of this split is why there will never be any agreement between the two “camps.”
You cannot demand “bodily autonomy” while destroying the body of another. A woman doesn’t have the right to “terminate” a pregnancy because nobody has the right to dismember and incinerate another human being, ESPECIALLY her own child. Pro-aborts either ignore what abortion is and use faulty rhetoric to permit killing, or they ignore science and logic completely. Abortion is not necessary, or good, or just. It destroys. Any woman who supports the right to kill her own baby is telling women “pregnancy is a flaw, your unborn baby is a tumor, your property, and you can kill him or her without guilt!” Abortion is ANTI-FEMINIST. It kills. It tells women they decide who lives and who dies. It is selfish and bloody. Women don’t NEED ABORTION.
Concerning the example of the Trinity–I agree that it is not in the same category as my examples. However, I present it as a way to show that we are capable of accepting things that don’t line up with a black-and-white way of looking at the world. We recognize that things can be complex. I think abortion is a very, very complex issue.
ProChoiceMom, the fact that abortion hurts women is only ONE aspect of why abortion is a bad thing. The reason abortion is wrong is because it kills a baby. All other reasons are secondary.
Elsa, I notice you didn’t answer my question about rape. Waiting.
Furthermore, Bethany, by your logic, perhaps all the conversions from pro-choice to pro-life weren’t really conversions – perhaps those folks were never really pro-choice to begin with, they just liked the way it sounded at the time. It certainly seems that way – friends and family identified as pro-choice, so they went along with it.
Prochoicemom, a person who is pro-life is pro-life because abortion kills a baby and they are against killing babies. The people here who were “pro-choice” believed that killing babies was morally acceptable, but now they do not. You never believed that abortion killed babies, apparently…or they never came into the equation of your argument.
If a woman regrets her abortion or doesn’t how does it refute the fact that an innocent human child is killed in an abortion?
My abortion hurt me deeply as I was lied to by omission at the mill. I learned the truth about my child and how she died.
If I change my mind and become proabortion and say that abortion never really did hurt me, how did she NOT die?
Again with beliefs not based on facts! PCM, you can “believe” whatever you want, but it is factually wrong. The question of if the unborn are human beings doesn’t rest on the beliefs of others. It rests on basic science.
As for the tired bodily domain argument, one need look no further than conjoined twins to see that the “right” to control one’s body is not absolute. Of course, you don’t really care about that. You’re ethical system is based not on rational thought, but on emotional weakness.
Bethany, I didn’t answer your question because it’s stupid.
I never made the claim that all experiences are liminal or in-between. If I’d made that claim, you would have caught me in an error. Sure. My whole argument would be absurd.
I said an experience CAN BE multiple things at once. Not that every experience IS.
Elsa, really? How is my argument stupid? It is exactly your argument. Are you admitting your logic is stupid?
So you and only you get to choose which things “are” and “are not” at the same time? I see. Elsa defines what can be good and bad simultaneously.
“We recognize that things can be complex.”
That doesn’t mean that A can equal Not A.
“I said an experience CAN BE multiple things at once”
And you’re the one who defines these circumstances to fit your own preconceived notions.
Well, guess what, I happen to think that infancy is a liminal stage. An infant isn’t even self aware. Without my body, my son wouldn’t survive 2 days. Thus, according to your ethical system, he is in a state of “alive” and “not alive” so if I just stop feeding him…It’s all ok. Right?
I like this discussion, because it so clearly demonstrates that you cannot use logic and be “pro-choice” at the same time.
So true, Bethany. It really is amazing the magical thinking that one must use to defend killing the unborn.
“Up is down, down is sideways, and don’t you dare call me out on my delusions!” – typical prochoicer
When I was pro-choice I just plain didn’t give much thought to the unborn. I knew in my heart that it was wrong because I knew that I could never kill my baby, but I hadn’t thought enough about it to question why I thought that other women should be able to kill theirs.
I just stuck to the “Bodily Autonomy!” “Women must be free to choose for themelves!” “Women will die!!!” talking points. When I actually took 5 minutes to ask myself why I personally could not have an abortion, I came to the inescapable conclusion that it is simply wrong to kill another innocent human being. It’s not just “wrong for me” it’s wrong for everyone.
Actions must be able to be universalized.
I would like Elsa, and pro-coice mom to answer this question if they could… When does human life begin? How do you know?
Don’t say “Well we can’t ever be certain blah blah blah” I want to know if its at birth and if so, why? Or a week before birth? Or 24 weeks? or 8 weeks? Tell me WHEN does human life become worth protecting and when is abortion then wrong? Or is abortion never wrong even if the mother was in labour? And if so,why? don’t talk about things like “viability” because that is an ever changing target. Years ago viability was at 28 weeks… now its down to 25. So I need concrete answers here.
I seriously doubt they will or can answer this.
They can’t and won’t answer that question. Elsa will just use Schrodinger’s Cat to try to explain away how it can be a baby and not a baby at the same time. ProChoiceMom will just claim that women aren’t hurt by abortion so those questions aren’t an issue when life begins…and so on and so forth. These people just don’t live in reality.
I could have been on the fence until I saw the pictures for the first time at 16. For the next 2 1/2 decades, I thought I was pro-life, but fearing criticism, I never mentioned it. I only became active in the pro-life movement when I realized the devastation women go through because of abortion. I now pray at 40 Days for Life Campaigns and talk openly about my pro-life views, no matter the consequences.
For many people, abortion is just a theory. It’s all about the debate. When does life begin? Should women be punished because they’ve had an abortion? The arguments are endless. Unless you are willing to pray and sacrifice and help mothers in crisis after their child is born, you are not truly pro-life. Come to the abortuaries and pray with us. Then do what you can to help mothers and their children.
I agree LifeLetters. I absolutely agree. So many people don’t put their money where their mouth is. Or their time. If everyone who says they are pro-life would do even just a little we would have so much support for those moms in crisis.
I was pro-choice. I was raised that way by my mother, who worked as a public health nurse. I remember clearly a conversation with my high school boyfriend, when I quipped “You know, if I ever got pregnant, I would have an abortion”. He looked horrified and said “Don’t do that, I would take the baby and raise it.” I looked at him like he had grown two heads. Why on earth would he want to do that?
Luckily I never became pregnant with him. When I was 22 and an exchange student, I became pregnant for the first time. Abortion was definitely on my mind as an option. I was in a relationship with a very controlling person and if he had wanted me to have one I probably would have, though it would have made me very sad. Instead he supported me, and in a few months my beautiful boy will turn 18.
When I was pregnant with him, I learned a lot about the development of a baby and I remember thinking that perhaps abortion shouldn’t be legal after 12 weeks because by then the baby really looked like a baby. I also was very aware from early on that I carried someone totally unique, someone who was not me, inside me.
With time, I realized that from the moment of his conception my boy had ALWAYS been himself and my natural mother instincts were always to protect him. To go against that seemed to be a very dark thing, an act of desperation. I guess I gradually became more prolife, but was not completely convicted that the situation needs to change regarding legal protection for the unborn until converting to Catholicism.
It is intellectual dishonesty to claim that abortion does anything else but kill another human being, which is why I admire feminists like Camille Paglia who call it what it is, murder, but still defends a woman’s “right” to choose to do so. I mean, at least she doesn’t try to dress it up as something it’s not!
I also think that there is a lot of progress that could be made in bettering the situation for women in crisis pregnancies by working with women like Jessica and Elsa. Fine, we agree to disagree about legality. But what about defunding PP? Requiring abortions to be done at hospitals or outpatient surgery centers and not freestanding clinics? Better regulation of abortion? Waiting periods, parental notification, a right to neutral counseling (counseling that doesn’t have a financial stake in the womans choice)? Mandatory post-abortion counseling? REAL “CHOICE”?
On these things I believe we could work together.
So let’s get straight.
These former pro-lifers, current pro-deathers, can’t answer the following questions:
1) When is abortion necessary?
2) At what age do the unborn magically stop being mystical creatures and become “real”?
3) Does “liminality” cover other instances in life? Why or why not?
4) If everyone is making binding judgements that can not be universalized, what is to stop a person from deciding that it is within her moral system to kill her toddler?
I am PROCHOICE. I believe a woman has a choice on whether she will have children or not. I believe in IVF for women who have fertility problems. Prolife is against infertile women having that choice. A lot of prolife groups are also against any form of birth control or sex education. That is Rediculous. And that is religious beleif and cannot be used to make laws in the United States of America. Prolife also want to defund any programs that help with reproductive rights, Women’s health, or prenatal programs.(TitleX)
Millions of embryos and fetuses are naturally self aborted. Chromosome problem is number one reason for self abortions. Aborions are just medical miscarriages, Period. Every medical procedure known to the modern world at one time was considered unethical. (Usually considered against God’s wishes.) If we use God and the bible as a defence, then we can’t use ANY medical interventions to save someone’s life.
I know at least 50 women who have had abortions, they are wonderful Mothers, they are healthy physically and mentally,they are not suicidal, they had healthy pregnacies after abortion, and every single one said they have no regrets.
I personally know of a women who had a “late term” abortion. The fetus was dying, to leave it there to die and rot would have killed her. Was it hard for her, Yes it was. She wanted the baby. Prolife would consider her a “Murderer”. I Do Not, she is now a Wonderful Mother of 2, one adopted.
If you are Prolife, fine, don’t have one but the lies and deceit used in your campaign against Women’s Rights are apalling. Everything from fake pictures, unproven medical studies to debunked franken science. Every single situation is different, you cannot judge what you personally are not involved in. A women’s decision is between her and her doctor and her family. It is NOT YOURS.
PROCHOICE because I support Women’s Rights, HEALTHY pregnacies, HEALTHY children and HEALTHY families.
Kat:
I believe a woman has a choice on whether she will have children or not.
What a coincidence…so do I. I just don’t think she can take the life of children already here.
Millions of embryos and fetuses are naturally self aborted. Chromosome problem is number one reason for self abortions. Aborions are just medical miscarriages, Period.
Multitudes of newborns and toddlers naturally die. That doesn’t mean murder is the same as natural death.
Every medical procedure known to the modern world at one time was considered unethical. (Usually considered against God’s wishes.) If we use God and the bible as a defence, then we can’t use ANY medical interventions to save someone’s life.
Chapter and verse, please?
I know at least 50 women who have had abortions, they are wonderful Mothers, they are healthy physically and mentally,they are not suicidal, they had healthy pregnacies after abortion, and every single one said they have no regrets.
Let me guess. You work at an abortion clinic?
I personally know of a women who had a “late term” abortion. The fetus was dying, to leave it there to die and rot would have killed her. Was it hard for her, Yes it was. She wanted the baby. Prolife would consider her a “Murderer”. I Do Not, she is now a Wonderful Mother of 2, one adopted.
How would the baby have killed her?
If you are Prolife, fine, don’t have one but the lies and deceit used in your campaign against Women’s Rights are apalling. Everything from fake pictures, unproven medical studies to debunked franken science.
Source for any of these claims?
Every single situation is different, you cannot judge what you personally are not involved in.
Can I apply that logic to rape and pedophilia?
Kat, You make several claims, and I was going to answer each charge, but ultimately everything you said is secondary to the real question here.
Assume for the moment that you are right, and pro-lifers are really a bunch of heartless jerks who sit around all day manically plotting how we can hurt women and children.
How does this change the scientific fact that a new, unique human life is killed by abortion?
Kat, your post is above our posts. I deleted the extra one for you.
Why do so many people find logical thought so difficult?
Kat, so your argument is that because some pregnancies will naturally “self abort” that abortion is okay? Some people will naturally die as children too. Can I go out and start killing school aged children? What is your point? Life can naturally cease at any age. That does not make artificially ending life at any age okay!
Can you answer ANY of the questions above put to you by Lauren? Or can you only rant and foam at the mouth as you shriek and type furiously that you are PrO-CHoicE! Okay we get it. Answer the questions! Bet you can’t.
Haven’t caught up on all the posts since yesterday yet but just wanted to say to Amy1, thank you for this: “God is faithful; I am trying.” Won’t elaborate on why here, but those few words are precious to me today. God bless you!
Lauren, I have no idea. But you are very good at pointing out logical fallacies, and are much more articulate than I am. You and Bobby, in my opinion, are two of the best.
P.S. Of course I love the rest of your post too!
Thanks, Bethany. You do a great job, too!
Sorry Bethany, didn’t mean to repeat most of what you said. My computer is skipping posts for some reason.
Kat, why now I remember! In Leviticus 3:11 God said open heart surgery and kidney dialysis is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! ;-)
You really need to read the Bible for yourself and not just repeat lies you heard at your monthly “I support fetal dismemberment” meetings
Having been raised Catholic and a teenager when abortion became legal, I was pro-life. I protested against it as a senior in high school. I ended up having an abortion years later but it did not change my stance on being ProLife, which is it is a baby, another human being whose life is being taken away and he/she has a right to that life. That is what Prolife means to me…you acknowledge it is a human being, it has a right to it’s life and you should not kill it.
Why then did I have the abortion, like most women and young girls I was scared out of my mind willing to risk my soul going to hell. I felt like an animal stuck in a trap willing to chew it’s own leg off to survive. But like that animal I suffered deeply from the bloody mess of making that choice.
After the abortion I felt like a hypocrite and kept quite about being prolife…living in fear that I could not allow my true beliefs be spoken because if someone found out I had an abortion what would happen then?!
Today I have no fear of anyone calling me a hypocrite. I am prolife, I believe a child deserves his/her time on this earth as God so deems it. I believe no woman has the right to take her own childs life but if she does, there is hope and healing for her…if and when she comes to understands what she did.
Prolife does not mean it won’t happen, it means it should not.
ProChoiceMom said: <em>While you say, “What about the unborn?” I say, to the other elephant in the room, “What about the women carrying the unborn?” What are her rights? What of her well-being? I think because of this split is why there will never be any agreement between the two “camps.”</em>
I think it’s fascinating you immediately equate the unborn child with her mother – in effect, showing you understand they are living human beings.
Oh and PCM, when you ask “what about the woman?” I respond, she’s not the one facing certain death.
I have always been prolife, I have 9 younger brothers and sisters remember most the pregnancies never once did a dog , cat or some other species come out of there. SO definitely human beings… Grew up real poor I am glad my parents didnt murder us before we were born!!!!!!! for the Its my body rhetoric WRONG its NOT your body being ripped apart, crushed poisoned or burned its an innocent human being!
Awesome movie clips and images of the unborn from the science documentary which I think is the best window into the womb dvd~ Biology of Prenatal Development http://bit.ly/fA0dW1
Biologically speaking, “human development begins at fertilization,” http://bit.ly/baoQCs
Human embryo 4Weeks 4Days old~heartbeat in action http://bit.ly/2pXiim
Between 4 and 5 weeks, the brain continues its rapid growth and divides into 5 distinct sections…. http://bit.ly/94kHiX
5 weeks Liver & Heart http://bit.ly/bsjHUg permanent kidneys appear by 5 weeks
6 weeks the rapidly growing brain http://bit.ly/9hcWWW
6 weeks Primitive brainwaves http://bit.ly/9HdEGT
In females, the ovaries are identifiable by 7 weeks http://bit.ly/eYfX3f
By 8 weeks, 75% of embryos exhibit right-hand dominance http://bit.ly/5KcR28
9 week fetus can also grasp an object & what else http://bit.ly/eR4blo
what a 9-Week Fetus looks like via MRI http://bit.ly/bC76Hj see ribs, lungs
what a 9-Week Fetus looks like via MRI http://bit.ly/bC76Hj
44 sec Movie Theater EHD Morph http://bit.ly/bluMHO
@Kat Naprotechnology can help with infertility even has better results then IVF.
I’m not sure how old you are Kat, but your post..ill-informed and misspelled as it is makes you sound very young.
So, first off. We ALL believe a woman has the choice whether or not to have children, but that’s for a woman to decide BEFORE she conceives. Once she has conceived, the “choice” has been made. She’s a mother. She shouldn’t have the “choice” to decide whether she wants to now be the mother of a LIVING baby or a DEAD one (through abortion).
Secondly, “Pro-life” is not ALL against IVF (BTW- pro-life is a POSITION, not a person). I am pro-life, and I am not against IVF, I am just against throwing away/destroying pre-born children.
Thirdly, the pro-life movement wants to defund PLANNED PARENTHOOD. PP has nothing to do with “Reproductive Rights”….human beings have the “right” to reproduce. PP destroys what is ALREADY reproduced..a human being.
Abortion has nothing to do with “women’s health”, because abortion is not healthy. For a woman, and CERTAINLY not for a pre-born baby. It is nothing that happens “naturally”. An abortion forces open an” un-ripe” cervix by UN-NATURAL means. A cervix is meant to open naturally when labor happens, so an abortion is NOT “just a medical miscarriage” as you put it.
I highly doubt you know “at least 50 women who have had abortions”. Unless you’re an ABORTIONIST (which is pretty obvious you AREN’T). I don’t think ANYONE knows personally THAT many women who have had abortions.
That also takes care of “which side” uses “lies and deceit” to make their point.
If a woman’s baby has died inside her, they induce LABOR to get the baby out. Doctors do not just “let the baby rot inside her”. If the baby has ALREADY DIED , whether early or late in the pregnancy, any procedure used to remove the baby is then NOT AN ABORTION.
As for your humorous attempt at “Biblical” reference…let’s not even go there. Doctors are mentioned in the Bible, and GOD HIMSELF is often referred to as “The Great Physician”. Besides that, not ALL pro-lifers are religious, some are even atheists..so there goes THAT point.
The pro-life side is backed up by FACTS and REAL information (science). It’s the PRO-DEATH side that has to make everything up to make their point.
And lastly, it’s pretty obvious you don’t support “HEALTHY pregnancies, HEALTHY children and HEALTHY families”. If you DID, you wouldn’t be FOR abortion.
The ONLY thing you support is ABORTION.
correction, Duck, Obi Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker “I told you the truth, from a Certain Point of View” when speaking about how he told him that Anakin Skywalker was betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader.
<—- Resident Star Wars Freak.
I have never been pro choice (except for ice cream flavors! Stupid McDonalds discontinuing chocolate soft serve). At one time, for a few seconds, I was okay (not SEROUSLY okay) with an exception for rape until I realized women could LIE about being raped. So, I am 100% pro life, NO EXCEPTIONS. And if a woman is far enough along and she’s in danger of death or has a major health issue, then an emergency c-section should be done.
There are two patients in a pregnancy and both are important.
Liz, thank you for the star wars correction. I get a little rusty with my quotes sometimes.
Liz,
That’s all right, you can’t beat the vanilla soft serve with hot fudge.
Best $1.00 sundae on the planet. :D
I was pro-life until I got pregnant when I was a Sophmore in college. I had already planned everything out on how to raise the baby, etc. Never considered abortion because I thought my family would be against it. Got the shock of my life when my parents offered to pay for an abortion. Because I was still young, I was still stupid, and didn’t know how to tell my own parents “NO”, I went along with it. I knew from the start that it was wrong, I knew they were just embarrassed and this was their way of saving themselves the embarrassment of having to tell the rest of the family that they have yet another unwed, pregnant daughter.
Ten years of depression, poor choices, and running from every problem I created, I finally realized why I was spiraling out of control. I even defended my position by saying I was pro-choice only to make myself feel better about everything.
I became more pro-life when I started to go through the healing process and when I heard Mary telling me to protect the life inside me when I prayed to become pregnant about 4 years later. I knew I was forgiven but I had to work on forgiving myself for being so weak in not standing up for my babies (I had two abortions).
I understand the willingness and pure desire to truly help women. Unfortunately, for those that work with Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics, it’s misguided attempts to help women. They prey on the fear these women present with instead of truly offering them real choices of real help.
I became solidly pro-life after my first child was born. I became vocal without fear after my second was born and I attended a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat. Now I don’t care what people think when I tell them the truth about what happened. My parents embarrassment caused me pain for too many years and my child lost her life because of it. Another child lost his life because of my own fear because I knew no one would help me and I was afraid to be left alone.
Elaine
This is in response to your 10:23 a.m. post.
If women had deluxe care when they aborted their babies the babies would still be getting killed right. Dressing abortion up doesn’t change the fact that it’s still killing a baby.
Samantha, Bethany is full of it. Her stock photos are from the internet and the first picture is a CHICKEN fetus, LOL PROLIFE FAIL with their lies
Hi Kat,
Prove Bethany’s photos of her baby aren’t real. Go on. The burden of proof is on you. Please post the links.
I am always amused when people turn to attacking others personally because they are unsuccessful at countering the prolife message.
Kat, a little education for you. This is a chicken fetus:
This is a human embryo (an actual stock image):
Those pictures I shared with Samantha are my own personal pictures taken at home with a Canon A550 digital camera. That was the camera I had on hand the day I miscarried.
On the question of curtailing a constitutional right and how it’s so bad that the pro-life movement wants to do that, because, you know, constitutional rights are sacrosanct…
Just wanted to paste in here the text of an amendment adopted in 1865 which radically curtailed the rights of many Americans to the free enjoyment of their property. Shameful to impose this on them, huh?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
A lot of people end up on one or the other side because of personal experience. Someone who dealt with females dying in agony during the time abortion was illegal — or who committed suicide because they were pregnant during that time — often believes abortion should be legal. The embryo or fetus couldn’t live without the pregnant female but the female could easily live if her pregnancy was terminated. They think it should be legal because females will seek them anyway so the embryo or fetus is doomed but if abortion is legal it’s a fairly simple procedure and the pregnant female can survive.
Someone who deals with abortions has to re-construct the arms, legs, and head of a fetus ripped to pieces. That person might see an aborted fetus that has been poisoned and burned by saline. They see this as so gruesome that society should try to do as much as it can to dissuade females from having abortions. They believe at least SOME females will carry to term who would otherwise abort if abortion has the dangers associated with illegality and it’s worth sacrificing some pregnant females who get illegal abortions or commit suicide for those babies that will be born because it is unlawful.
Myrtle, I totally agree. Perhaps I am fantasizing to think that something as evil as killing children can possibly ever be “improved” as that evil tends to blight everything (and everyone) it touches. However, I would much rather see 10k abortions a year in this country than 300k+. I would much rather have every abortion a “wanted” abortion (to borrow from the pro-abortionists) than have more than half of women who currently get abortions being coerced into them. Let us start somewhere. Surely there is room for this kind of dialogue with those who think it should be “legal”.
Bethany
Well we’ve already established that you are a fake with your fake CHICKEN embryo picures.
2nd: You are confusing YOUR beleifs with mine. An embryo, which 90% abortions consist of is not a “child”
3rd: I was not speaking of biblical verse, though the church relies heavily on their interpretations to back up whatever the going beleifs are at the time. I was speaking of history of medicine and religion. At one time it was considered heresy to even study science or medicine
4th: No I’ve never worked in an abortion clinic.I have held the hand of someone in an abortion clinic. I worked 25 years in Social Services, working with families and children.BTW 1 in 4 women has an abortion. If you haven’t had one, one of your friends or family members has.Unless ou don’t have any women friends.
5th: A dying fetus or dead fetus causes severe infection. Whatever is killing the fetus CAN KILL YOU
6th: LOL well apparenty YOU ARE the source, with your dead CHICKEN fetus picture. AMA, American Journal of Medicine, Cancer Society, Susan Komen for the Cure,etc etc etc have disproved all the bunk about dangers of abortions.The Milachi baby used in many prolife sites and protest signs was a still born baby in a lab. It was originally in a jar of formaldehyde. They took the baby out, let it rot for a few days and took pictures of it. Prolife are disgusting like that.
And 7th Rape, Pedophila? Funny how prolife seems to bring up those 2 things. Must be fixated on it I guess
In 1972 39 women died from illegal abortions. 39, NOT 10,000 as Bernard Nathanson had claimed.
Those who put together the pieces of aborted babies must not find it all that gruesome as they continue to do it.
How about we stay in the present and talk to women that have been scarred physically and emotionally by “safe and legal” abortion, Denise?
There are thousands of us that are silent no more and refute the lies of the abortion industry.
btw Are you prolife or proabortion?
I am sure that calling it a chicken fetus makes it easier for you to deny reality. But you can easily see look at any biology textbook and see that what you are saying is wrong, and my pictures are accurate. I held my baby in my hand, and you’re not going to convince me I didn’t see what I saw.
It appears to me that you may be post abortive and are having a hard time dealing with the guilt. If that is the case, I am truly sorry and I hope one day you will be able to accept the reality of the situation. Abortion kills a living human being.
double post
Kat please see this movie of a six week fetus. This is not a pro-life site, it’s just a site with information on human development: http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=29
It does your position no good to deny reality.
Kat, it’s obvious that you are a very troubled individual. Bethany took a picture of her own baby following a miscarriage. Many women are able to identify their children following a miscarriage. Most of these women wish to do something to honor their child if possible, such as holding some sort of burial. It’s difficult in this country, because women aren’t given a lot of guidance as to what we should do during the first trimester.
I know that you would like to think that abortion just “removes” a “clump of cells” but that isn’t the case. Go look at any biology text.
Ddw,
May God’s forgiveness be with you and His Holy Spirit grace you with strength. And may the peace of Jesus Christ grace you always. Your testimony is powerful and deserves to be heard.
Not one pro-abort had answers to any of my questions I posed to them. Or one comment about myresponses to what they said…hmmm It would seem that the physical side of things is hard enough for them. They don’t dare tread into the spiritual side and support their actions there because the darkness gets dispelled by the light.
“And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done by God.” Jn 3: 19-21
Great website, Elaine!
Yes truthseeker, I noticed that too. Where are the answers? Keep on sputtering about a “chicken fetus” Kat. You make yourself look idiotic. That is Bethany’s baby and if you knew Bethany you’d know that. But instead you argue with the reality of what you’ve seen (“the emperor is NOT naked!”) and make yourself look utterly foolish in the process.
How can we have rational dialogue with people who REFUSE to answer BASIC questions (When does the fetus become human? When does life begin? When does abortion become wrong, if ever… is it wrong a day before birth? 2 weeks? 2 months? when?) and when confronted with visual evidence that their reasoning is WRONG they go “LA! LA ! LA! LA! I didn’t see that! Its fake! LA! LA! LA! Is NOT a baby! IS NOT! IS NOT! IS NOT!”
Come on Kat. Cut the hysterics and answer the questions for real!
Here’s a great link for those who don’t know much about prenatal development. It’s on the site that Elaine linked to earlier.
http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=b&submit1.x=74&submit1.y=16&s1=on&s5=on&s17=on&s14=on&s2=on&s6=on&s16=on&s0=on&s12=on&s7=on&s11=on&s13=on&s10=on&s18=on&s19=on&s3=on&ops=&r1=on&r3=on&r5=on&r7=on&r2=on&r4=on&r6=on&r0=on&re=on&L1=1&L2=0
Thanks Lauren! I used this website every week in the early weeks of my last pregnancy to know what was going on with her. I was amazed at how infant behaviors like the startle reflex are seen as early as 7-8 weeks post conception.
Oh, and pro-choicers, the site linked specifically says the following:
“The Endowment for Human Development (EHD) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving health science education and public health. EHD equips educators, clinicians, and governments to help everyone appreciate, apply, and communicate the science of health and human development.
We are committed to neutrality regarding all controversial bioethical issues.
Our board of directors, board of advisors, staff, and volunteers include accomplished educators, researchers, authors, programmers, and clinicians from a variety of scientific and business disciplines who share the common goal of improving lifelong health through prenatal development-based education.”
Kat,
Why would a chicken embryo looks more developed than a human embryo? What possible motivation would a pro-lifer have in showing a chicken embryo?
I know what it’s like to be angry at myself and to lash out at others instead. And I know what it’s like to be hurt by others and angry about that but not be able to do express that anger at the one or ones who hurt me and instead aim that anger at others. I wonder what Kat is so angry at herself and others about that she would insult Bethany as she has. I never held my 7 1/2 week old aborted child in my hand like Bethany held her tiny child, but if I had experienced what Bethany did, I’d be heartbroken. To insult someone who has been through that and is brave enough to share about it in public–well, your heart must be wrapped in a thick layer of armor, Kat. And Bethany, your heart must be wrapped in a thick layer of grace to respond with such patience and compassion.
Elaine. I hate to tell you ,but that IS a prolife site and highly inaccurate
Kat, what evidence do you have to support that claim?
What, specifically, about the site is inaccurate?
(Come on, Kat, you’re not really pro-choice are you? You’re just a clever pro-lifer who’s trolling to make the pro-aborts look like complete idiots. There’s no way someone is this stupid. Right? Please tell me this is the case. I’d like to continue to have a bit of faith in humanity.)
Kat, evidence is held in front of you and you still scream “IS NOT! IS NOT! IS NOT!” Good grief lady! There is VIDEO of babies in the womb. A woman shares her own personal photos of her miscarried child and you still scream “Its all fake!” as truth stares you in the face. How can you deny when the truth is right in front of you? What are you so afraid of? how long ago did you have your abortion?
Alice PA, thank you so much for your kind words. I am really sorry to hear about all of the struggles and abuse that you have had to endure throughout your life. I hope that things have become much, much better since then!
I’m waiting, Kat. If the site is “highly inaccurate” surely you can point to at least one inaccuracy.
Also, I’m still waiting for clarification as to why a pro-lifer would show a picture of a chicken fetus but claim it to be human. Why would we do this?
Lauren, I’ll be amazed if Kat actually decides to respond to you on that one.
I think Lauren is actually correct about Kat being a pro-lifer trying to make pro-choicers look bad. Although Lauren may have been joking, I’m not joking at all. I’m pretty sure someone did this once on one of Josh Brahm’s posts a while back. While I appreciate and encourage people being able to argue both sides of the debate, I do not think it is a good idea to purposefully try and make one side look bad. I am happy to try and display the pro-choice arguments in their best light. And it isn’t fair to not only teh pro-lifers on this site, but honest pro-choicers like Hal, Doug, and others. While I strongly disagree with them, it isn’t right to try and make all pro-choicers look like bumbling morons and liars, even if that would end up making someone convert to pro-life. The ends do not justify the means, and I think we should always work to convince people of the pro-life position through science and logic, not deceit.
Bobby and Lauren, I was able to find other message forums where Kat is posting, and I’m pretty sure she’s genuinely that ignorant and is pro-abortion, not pro-life. She spelled many things on the other forums the same way (rediculous, etc) as she did here, so I am pretty sure it’s the same person. She is always pro-abort on every site she has been to.
Sydney,
The nuance I was pointing out is that as feeble as their atempts to jusfify abortion is in the physical realm; it is 1000 times the more impossible for them to justify in the spiritual realm. And they know it so they don’t even attempt to make any spiritual justification for abortion. Wait, except maybe for Westcott right and his ridiculous analogy about the sower of seeds parable. Good grief. Where is Ex-RINO on this thread? lol
ProChoiceMom,
So, human fetuses don’t have the same moral weight as their mothers. How about newborns, toddlers, pre-teens? What good are they? Can’t pay taxes, only leech off someone else.
Funny, we used to think killing young ones was even worse than killing adults. Because they couldn’t put up a fair fight, and were invariably more innocent. Now it’s survival of the eldest.
‘crickets’ from the pro-aborts regarding the spiritual
I believe Elsa doesn’t understand the concept of liminality and is applying it incorrectly to justify her proabort views.
A teenager is in an liminal state – not yet an adult but not a child either.
A unborn child is not in a liminal state – certainly not between being alive and not alive. It is a human child, self directing it’s own development. By the sheer fact that it is undergoing biological processes and chemical ones too, it must be alive. It’s cells are dividing and differentiating also indicators of being alive.
Elsa you are not being honest with yourself.
It’s pretty much crickets all around, Truthseeker. It’s amazing how quickly they run off when called out on anything.
Bethany if you google “Kat prochoice proabort” you should be able to find many comments Kat has made on other blogs.
Perhaps this is her:
http://ohwowimrandom.blogspot.com/2011/01/all-cool-kids-are-pro-choice_7131.html
Maybe she is jealous that Jill got 200+ responses on her blog and crickets are chirping over at her blog. ya gotta love that egg in a bowl “This is not a chicken” and then an egg and sperm “This is not a person”. If she wanted to really get into it why didn’t she show a 10 week old fetus and say “This is not a person”…. not so convincing then though.
I was pro-choice and used to be pretty loud about it, until I had an abortion. The pro-choice feminist movement touts a sisterhood in which we support each other. I found out that is until a woman has abortion regret. I was told by abortion clinic staff they would be there for me and provide any counseling I needed afterward. I was changed after the abortion. Regret set in and hit like a ton of bricks a week later. I was 6 1/2 weeks pregnant and felt I had no other choice. I also thought that since I was aborting so early it shouldn’t be a big deal. Of course, abortion clinic staff pointed that out and explained how so many women miscarry early in pregnancy anyway. Pro-choice friends explained how their abortion experiences weren’t a big deal.
I showed up at the clinic a week after the abortion for my follow-up appointment with counseling. It was a joke. My so-called counselor didn’t show up. I explained I had regret and needed to talk to a counselor. My feelings of regret were dismissed by the medical assistant and I was told I would get over it eventually and could talk to a nurse in between appointments if I felt that bad about it. I left the clinic confused because I thought women’s health and well-being were a priority at these places.
Friends couldn’t understand my regret and were actually quite hateful. I was called a misogynist and told that women like me push us back to the dark ages. I felt like there must be something wrong with me then to feel regret. I lived with depression until I tried to commit suicide twice. I truly believed I was such a failure that I could not pull the trigger those two times with the gun to my head but I was able to sign the papers to have my child scraped out of my womb.
I was referred to an abortion healing program through Care Net. It really helped. I named my child and I mourn her. I am pro-life because of my experience with the pro-choice side. Women with abortion regret are treated horribly, even if they happen to be pro-choice and have regret. Quoting Carla, “Found my way to abortion recovery and embraced the truth!!”
I will never support abortion again. No one deserves to be treated like I was. No one deserves to be lied to like I was. Most importantly, no child deserves to die like mine did.
” We ALL believe a woman has the choice whether or not to have children, but that’s for a woman to decide BEFORE she conceives. Once she has conceived, the “choice” has been made. She’s a mother. She shouldn’t have the “choice” to decide whether she wants to now be the mother of a LIVING baby or a DEAD one (through abortion).”
Ok, this brings up the rape/ incest situation. If I were to be violently raped, do you still feel that it was my choice to conceive? If I’m reading the above statement true to the poster’s intent, it appears that it doesn’t matter. That tells me that the choice to become a mother was made for me, and I’m not ok with that at all.
Do I realize a child of rape can be loved by their mother? Yes, I do. Do I know that it isn’t always the case? Yes, I do. Unless any of us are personally faced with that horrible situation, I don’t think we are at liberty to assert how we, or any Woman, would or should feel. I personally would unquestionably abort the fetus. No questions asked. No second thoughts. Period. The idea that I might bring a child I would resent is enough reason for me not to carry it. To pass judgment on any Woman dealing with that situation is awful. To impart guilt upon a Woman who makes the choice to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape is just awful. From what I understand, many rape victims are given plan-B pills during the ensuing exam (if she goes in immediately after the incident). I might be wrong, so please kindly correct me if this is the case.
To the commenter who mentions that some Women lie about rape- Ummm, yeah! SOME Women do. That’s horrible, isn’t it? Does that mean ALL Women lie about having been raped? Most assuredly not. Your comment makes me very sad, and is horribly degrading to Women who have been raped. How would you feel if you or someone close to you was raped, and people said it didn’t happen?
Ashtar – this is the ‘normal scenario’ for a woman getting an abortion – the rape/incest incident for abortion is rare – less than 5%.
Considering rape – the child is still dead after an abortion. We want BOTH children AND mothers whole and functioning, in every sense of the word. Women, for sure, after a rape deserve the finest help available – especially emotional and counseling support.
While bearing a child conceived in rape can be difficult, many brave women do just that and allow their child to live. After all – that child is still ‘half’ theirs, living and deserves a chance at life.
Why should the child receive the ‘death penalty’ of abortion, when the crimes of the father go punished much less? If you are still sure about aborting children conceived in rape, please see Rebecca Kiessling’s website and after reading her story and looking at her picture if you still are convinced she had no right to live. http://www.rebeccakeissling.com or see her on facebook.
Every child aborted, no matter the circumstances of his or her conception, still winds up dead.
RCH,
THANK YOU for sharing your story. I am sorry for all that you have been through and I know a similar journey. You are not alone and I am so thankful for each and every voice that spoke of their abortion experience here.
God bless you!!
Carla
RCH, I am so sorry for the way you were treated. I am so thankful that you have found healing, forgiveness, and comfort since then!
I second Carla’s God Bless You. :)
Ashtar, someone else had brought up this the scenario the other day that if you found a baby lying on your doorstep? You were not the one who chose to bring this child into the world, but here is this child, depending on you to do something to help. What would you do? Just because you didn’t cause this child to be on your doorstep doesn’t mean you don’t have a responsibility to protect him/her. You couldn’t just leave the child there to die. You would be morally obligated to do something to help the child.
In the same way, though rape is tragic…if a child is somehow conceived as a result, the child is there and one does have a moral obligation to help do what they can to protect the child. Rape is TRAGIC and HORRIBLE. But killing a child is also tragic and horrible. The child conceived is the second victim of the crime of rape, and doesn’t deserve to die because his/her father was a rapist.
Give the woman support, counseling, love, help, and compassion… but don’t kill the baby.
Elsa: If a thing can both be true and not true, logic is impossible. The very foundation of logic is that a thing cannot be both true and false. This is not the same as the dual nature of Christ–that He is both God and Man. If I am 100% fully pro-life and 100% fully human and 100% fully a mom, that’s not a contradiction. You probably don’t see it as one, because you recognize I can be all of these things at the same time.
I am also 100% fully pro-life and 100% fully pro-choice. You probably think this is a contradiction. But that’s because you are mistaken about how I’m using my terms. I am 100% fully pro-choice in that I believe people have the right to determine their own destiny in all matters so long as they don’t hurt anyone else. For instance, I wouldn’t say I’m pro-choice on rape or pro-choice on robbery or pro-choice on abortion. This is not a contradiction, because I’m pro-choice on whether a woman has sex as well as on whether a man has sex. I’m pro-choice on people keeping their money as well as people earning money. I’m pro-choice on the fetus choosing to do as he or she wants with his or her body, as well as a pregnant woman choosing to do as she wishes with her body.
At other times a thing may seem a contradiction because we don’t have enough information. Two girls are siblings who were born on the same day. They have the same mother and the same father. But they are not twins. Is this a contradiction? No. They also have a sister born at the same time as they were, so they are triplets.
Jesus is both fully man and fully God. This is only a contradiction if He cannot be both God and Man at the same time–if they are opposed. But since He is fully man and fully God, they cannot be opposed. Not all men are God; not each member of the trinity is a man. But since Jesus is both, it must be possible. He is God and put on humanness–became a human–to show us how to be human, that we could be perfect as He is perfect.
The trinity is a separate issue which also seems like a contradiction, but isn’t. The trinity is 3 persons–father, son, and spirit–but only one God. How is that possible? I’m not quite sure. But it is possible to be more than one person but only one God–because it is true. This is how God can be love–because there is relationship in God.
I question how well you know your religion if you think that the trinity is the same thing as the dual nature of one of the persons of the trinity. I also question your Christianity if you claim that God is okay with killing children He has created.
I have also been pregnant. I knew from the moment I learned they were growing inside me that my children were people, that I loved them, and that I would miss the unique individual who was my son or daughter if they died–even if I had never really met and known them.
I have had miscarriages, and I do miss those children, even though I lost them very, very early. They might never have had a brain or a heartbeat or fingers and toes, but they were my children and I loved them. It is not my love for them which makes them children, though–it is the fact that they were the living offspring of human beings, and thus they are human. Life cannot arise from nonlife, so there cannot have been a time my children were not alive.
At 11 days when I learned I was pregnant with my son, he was a human person. He already had the genetic code which would set the course of his development. He didn’t have a penis, but he was male. He didn’t have his daddy’s hair or the same nose and mouth as his sister, but the code that would form them was already starting to transform his tiny body. He still doesn’t have facial hair. But packed inside the genetic code in his body is the ability to produce it; he already has the hair follicles that will one day produce it. My children do not look like adults, but the code that will shape their features as adults lies hidden in each cell of their bodies, and you can see the hints of how they will look in their face. They are human beings.
They have the potential to be adults, but they are children, which is what all human beings are when they are young. A child has a right to life even though he or she is not an adult. An embryo has a right to life even though he or she has not yet become a child. The embryo is a potential child, but as a fully realized hiuman embryo, and thus a fully realized human being.
No one expects my 3 year old daughter to do algebra. No one says that she is not human, or even unintelligent, if she has not mastered algebra. As she grows and learns, she becomes closer to mastering algebra. A year ago she could not understand the concept of 3 or count 3 objects. Last week she counted 7 buttons on her grandma’s shirt. She was not less human then and is not more human now. In fact, people say all the time how smart she is–though they likely wouldn’t say the same about an adult that could count to 7 but got confused around fourteen.
Likewise, we don’t expect concrete thought from an embryo; it hasn’t developed enough to be capable of that. This is where it has potential. But it is a full human being doing precisely what we would expect a human being of its age to do.
If your daughter is still young, you probably don’t expect her to understand economics, foreign policy, or quantum mechanics. But that doesn’t make her less important, less human, or even less intelligent than someone who does. Some people never understand these things. Our humanity cannot be dependent on knowledge or level of development. Our humanity depends solely on our membership in the human species–anything else is an unfounded, unscientific, and inhumane religious belief with no evidence to back it up.
Wonderful post, YCW!
RCH: Thank you so much for sharing here. I can’t describe how reading your testimony made me feel. I spent more than 20 years shoving my pain down because no one, including other women, ever validated the regret and anger and sorrow I was feeling, until about five years ago. I will never stop feeling like he unlocked the door of my prison cell and set me free!
Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, edited by David Reardon, Julie Makimaa, and Amy Sobie and published by Acorn Books, is an excellent book about and by women who conceived a child after rape or incest. It makes clear that many such woman who abort suffer much, much more long term from the abortion than from the rape. Highly recommended!
Dear Bethany: They have. So grateful to everyone who has played a part in that. So hard to learn, because it seems counter-intuitive and unnatural, but it’s actually humility rather than hunkering down in my righteous anger that saved me. Remembering all the undeserved suffering that Jesus endured has helped. It is so easy to cross the line from being victimized to being the victimizer. As someone I love once told me, my innocence wasn’t taken away from me by anything anyone ever did to me; I lost it when I gave it away myself through my own sin. We are all in need of a Savior, to heal our wounds and to help us stop perpetuating the damage. Hugs to you!
Pamela, Sorry about any spelling mistakes, I was holding my granddaughter trying to type. I went to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care with Both of my children. The first because i was in school and my husband didn’t have insurance yet with his company. Second child, I had insurance but I liked the facility because they keep up to date with everything, unlike some private OB_GYN.
I have 2 friends and one relative that have used IVF to have their CHILDREN, anyone who says that’s wrong is a very sick person whose mind has been warped and diseased by religion.
1 in 4 women has an abortion, unless you have no women friends, you know someone who has had an abortion. I just know a lot of women. I’ve worked as a social worker with women and children.
You say”If the baby has ALREADY DIED , whether early or late in the pregnancy, any procedure used to remove the baby is then NOT AN ABORTION.” But LETTING it die and making a woman wait is OK with you? Unless YOU have had to make that CHOICE you don’t know what you are talking about.
My references to religion and medicine was about HISTORY, at one time The church considered medicine heresy. And BTW “The Great Physician” kills babies Every day.
I’ve always been a pro-lifer, but until my 15’s I was absolutely convinced that abortion in a case of violation was right and also damandable. Then, I started researching about it and I realized that every non born baby is just as human as I am (even though I already knew it) and discovering that, no matters the way that baby was conceived, nobody could blame it because of the guilts of one of its parents. It was just an inocent baby! And there’s a wide path of options, when you’ve decided not to raise that child, like adoption…
By the time I realized this, I also thought about how important it is to make those women confident… how miserable and shamefull they must feel! One important step fighting for the pro-life cause is to fight agains shame, unhappiness and insecurity.
Good luck!
Hi Kat,
There are quite a few questions that you have left unanswered. I trust you are reading them and getting ready to type out thoughtful, respectful answers to those eager to discuss.
What does PP offer in the way of prenatal care? Vitamins, weigh ins, ultrasounds, parenting classes, free diapers, wipes, cribs, strollers? How did the birth of your children at PP go? Please send me the links. There are quite a few young mothers who want to keep their babies that might be in need of what PP offers.
Many mothers will not willfully kill their children that are dying. I know several that NEVER considered it when given a poor prenatal diagnosis. They waited and cherished every moment that their child lived inside of them. They have peace that they did not pay someone to kill their babies before they died naturally.
http://benotafraid.net
“You say ‘If the baby has ALREADY DIED , whether early or late in the pregnancy, any procedure used to remove the baby is then NOT AN ABORTION.’ But LETTING it die and making a woman wait is OK with you? Unless YOU have had to make that CHOICE you don’t know what you are talking about.”
Kat–you propose killing a sick or disabled baby rather than giving that child’s parents time to say goodbye and love the child. You propose pushing them into murder when they will already have the trauma of losing a child. You want to deny them the closure of holding their child, loving their child, maybe spending a few short hours with a living child after birth.
And you make us out to be the monsters?
Why is it so important to kill a sick or disabled infant rather than letting him or her die?
What about the possibility of a misdiagnosis? How many healthy babies are you willing to kill to make sure we eliminate the ones you judge unworthy?
Have you ever been in a situation where your baby was diagnosed with a condition incompatible with life? If not, why are you butting in?
I know I sound mad. But the idea that there are people out there who would pressure a woman who has just received devastating news about her son or daughter to kill that baby, shortening the precious time they have together and cutting off all chance of hope, makes my blood boil. Can you imagine if a woman was succombing to cancer, or a man had been in a car accident, and while family members were with their loved one saying goodbye and having a last chance to share their love, doctors and nurses kept poking in their heads and saying, “Shall we pull the plug now?” ”This man’s gonna die, don’t you want us to remove his ventilator?”
Samantha, in case you are still reading —
I had an ultrasound last Tuesday, and I saw my 8w4d baby wiggling and waving its arms. I could see his/her heart beating. The pictures are here. I’m sorry you were lied to at the time of your miscarriage but your baby was not a “pinpoint.”
I too had to have a D&C after it was discovered that my second child had died within my womb. S/he was only measuring eight weeks. I could clearly see his/her body, much bigger than a pinpoint, although sadly with no heartbeat. You can see that picture here.
In response to the OP —
I never remember not being mostly pro-life, although in high school and some of college I considered abortion to be a “necessary evil” in the cases of rape and incest. Then, however, I happened upon online discussions about the nature of human rights, and came to the conclusion that it was wrong to determine one’s humanity or right to life on the basis of the circumstances of their conception.
Nothing will change you into being pro-life quicker than being physically forced into being pro-choice.
The only time I’ve ever believed abortion might be okay is in the reduction of multiple pregnancies. Not sure when that changed, but having kids, I know I couldn’t choose which of my children should die. Not to mention being a quadruplet isn’t a death sentence; abortion is. And there are worse things than having 3 or more babies at once, and so much help available to those who need it. One thing worse than having 3 babies would be having only 2 because you killed one.
I have always thought that it is more likely that someone would convert to pro life rather than go from pro life to pro choice, although I’ve never seen any survey results to prove it.
Being adopted, I have always been pro life, but was not always very effective making a pro life argument. Born before 1973, I have always felt somewhat like an abortion survivor, more figuratively than literally, of course. (I have met other adoptees who are pro choice and have had trouble understanding how anyone could so easily homogenize those two conflicting elements in one’s life.) My wife is also adopted, born before 1973 and, at age 22, learned that her biological grandfather took her birth mother for an abortion three times and that her birth mother refused to abort. There were also other at home attempts made to end the pregnancy, which her birth mother fought against.
My own difficulties defending the pro life view were caused by the rape/incest exception. Deep down I knew it did not make sense to say abortion is wrong in 99% of the cases and then not defend the 1% conceived through rape/incest. Unfortunately, about all I would say was, “There are ways to prevent pregnancy immediately after rape” at the time not knowing that contraceptives can cause abortions, or “I think abortion is also wrong in those cases, but I don’t want to have to be the one to tell a woman to stay pregnant.” I uncomfortably yet passively deferred to the pro abortion exceptions with a soothing hope for a perfect world without rape so we wouldn’t have to make any of these tough decisions. I was not supporting life 100%. In 2005, I discovered that I was conceived through rape and that changed everything. With the help of Rebecca (mentioned in a previous post) and all the other rape conceived people and pregnant through rape moms I have met or learned about since then, I now know the pro life side has the truly compassionate and supportive approach to the rape/incest cases. A just and moral society protects all unborn life, through law, without exception.
You say”If the baby has ALREADY DIED , whether early or late in the pregnancy, any procedure used to remove the baby is then NOT AN ABORTION.” But LETTING it die and making a woman wait is OK with you? Unless YOU have had to make that CHOICE you don’t know what you are talking about.
Yes, absolutely that is okay with me. It is okay with me for the same reason that it is okay with me that a mother NOT kill her 9 year old because he is dying of cancer. The same reason that it is okay with me that a wife not kill her husband because he has heart problems and will eventually die a natural death. The same reason that it is okay with me that a woman not drown her child because she was in a car accident and due to complications might die within months. I don’t think it is our CHOICE to kill people just because they are going to die eventually. It’s not our choice, and it’s not our right. It is an evil thing to do, whether the person is inside or outside the womb.
By the way, Kat, both you and I are going to die eventually. Should anyone have the right to speed that process up?
“”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder””
Bobby: Is this a true statement?
Without getting too philosophical, it depends on whether we are talking about things external to the mind, or internal to it.
Yeah, comparing a two month old fetus to a living child left on a doorstep isn’t logical or useful in terms of facilitating an intelligent conversation.
Ashtar, maybe you could be so kind as to explain the difference between the two.
Well Doug, if we are talking about truths external to the mind so that the claim is that ”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” (which as you pointed out was the original statement I was responding to) is a truth that is external to the mind, then that contradicts the claim that ”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” because the truth is not in teh mind of the beholder but external of the mind. If however, the truth of that statement is only internal to the mind, then the is no reason to believe it is true, for it is only true relative to that particular mind that claimed it, and thus there is no reason why I or anyone else should hold to it. Either way, one attempting to try and convince someone that ”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” is a self defensing proposition,one which cannot stand up to its own claims. But I realize that this is not necessarily your position, Doug.
Never have gotten anybody pregnant, never had anybody in the family be pregnant without wanting to be, and I’m glad that’s the deal.
I was vaguely pro-life for a good while, figuring that “if you didn’t want to be pregnant, then you shouldn’t have gotten pregnant,” applied. Then in 1996 got my first computer and started discussing stuff online. In really thinking about it, I didn’t see abortion as all that bad a thing, the same as for miscarriages. It happens, and while a miscarriage in the case of a wanted pregnancy can be very sad for the mother or couple involved, the effect on society is very slight, if there really is any effect at all. Same for abortion.
I don’t see the physical reality of the unborn as being up for debate. The real question is, if a woman or girl wants to have an abortion, do we as a society have a good enough reason to tell her no? In general, I don’t think so. I wouldn’t try to force her to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the same as I wouldn’t try to force her to end a wanted one.
I’m for leaving the situation up to the pregnant woman (again – in general; later in gestation I’m fine with the restrictions we have, and I do see “somebody there as far as the baby then, while earlier in gestation I don’t). The situation does make a difference, and I think that’s so for most people. For example, from what I’ve seen, even among pro-lifers, an exception would be made if rape is the situation.
Ashtar,
Bethany brought up the two month old fetus vs child being left on teh doorstep as a response to your argument that abortion is morally permissible in teh case of rape. In other words, the point of teh analogy is to show that people have certain responsibilities even when they don’t “bring it upon themselves.” Now if you do not believe that the unborn are persons or worthy of life, then that is fine, but that should have been your argument to begin with. If they aren’t persons, then there is no need to try and justify abortion only in teh case of rape- all abortions would be permissible. But teh pro-life claim is that the unborn is a human person just like you or me. So which one is it? Do you wish to defend abortion just in teh case of rape because the woman is innocent of having brought the condition of pregnancy on herself? Or do you wish to defend that many (or all) abortions are morally permissible because the fetus is not a person?
The real question is, if a woman or girl wants to have an abortion, do we as a society have a good enough reason to tell her no?
I disagree. It is the job of a civilized society to protect the rights of all its citizens, and all human beings have the right to life. Life begins at conception, therefore society should protect every human’s right to life whether they are born or unborn.
As a society, we should believe and enforce that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent human being.
Well Doug, if we are talking about truths external to the mind so that the claim is that ”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” (which as you pointed out was the original statement I was responding to) is a truth that is external to the mind, then that contradicts the claim that ”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” because the truth is not in the mind of the beholder but external of the mind.
Agreed, Bobby, external truths would remain even if the given mind did not hold with them, or if the given mind even existed, period.
____
If however, the truth of that statement is only internal to the mind, then the is no reason to believe it is true, for it is only true relative to that particular mind that claimed it, and thus there is no reason why I or anyone else should hold to it. Either way, one attempting to try and convince someone that ”the “truth” is in the mind of the beholder” is a self defensing proposition,one which cannot stand up to its own claims. But I realize that this is not necessarily your position, Doug.
It gets into what I meant about getting philosophical – just what do we agree on, in the first place? I’m taking for granted that we – those reading and posting on this message board – are independent consciousnesses, with both physical reality and with subjective mental perceptions as well.
For external truths, I’d use the example of saying, “there is consciousness in the universe.” How can one argue with that? Or, “there is energy,” same deal.
Then, “are anchovies good on pizza or not?” This I firmly place in the category of subjective mental perception, and whether a given mind says “yes” or “no,” I’m saying that the truth of that is internal to that mind. For another mind, it would not necessarily be the case.
“In really thinking about it, I didn’t see abortion as all that bad a thing, the same as for miscarriages…. I don’t see the physical reality of the unborn as being up for debate…. later in gestation I’m fine with the restrictions we have, and I do see somebody there as far as the baby then, while earlier in gestation I don’t….”
I, I, I! And who ARE you, Doug? Clearly someone who hasn’t been paying attention at all.
I’ve felt pretty calm the past couple of days reading the comments on here that are blind, deaf, and dumb, but I guess this one was just the last straw.
So, before I go I’ll just say it again, one more time: Doug, who are you? Or rather, who do you THINK you are to claim that what YOU think carries more weight than the reality of unborn human life? All of you abortion advocates: who do you think you are! Wake up!!!
OK, rant over.
JoAnna: It is the job of a civilized society to protect the rights of all its citizens, and all human beings have the right to life. Life begins at conception, therefore society should protect every human’s right to life whether they are born or unborn.
No, all human beings – as you use the term – do not have the right to life, and this is the situation you want changed. The unborn aren’t citizens, obviously, and in any case there is the pregnant woman to be considered as well.
As a society, we should believe and enforce that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent human being.
And in general we do, although the unborn being inside the body of a person really changes things. I realize you don’t agree, there, but it’s such a different case, then, that huge numbers of people do feel differently about it.
I’ve felt pretty calm the past couple of days reading the comments on here that are blind, deaf, and dumb, but I guess this one was just the last straw.
So, before I go I’ll just say it again, one more time: Doug, who are you? Or rather, who do you THINK you are to claim that what YOU think carries more weight than the reality of unborn human life? All of you abortion advocates: who do you think you are! Wake up!!!
Alice, no problem on the rant, but the “reality of unborn human life” is not being argued, certainly not by me, anyway. I fully agree that the unborn in this debate are living human organisms. The debate itself *is* our opinions, yours, mine, that of the pregnant woman, etc., and when it comes down to yours against the pregnant woman, I’m going to go with hers, not yours.
When an abortion or miscarriage happens, the unborn life ends – fully agreed there – but what is the real effect on society? Or on you, personally? I can see that you do not like the idea of abortion, but just about all the time, a given woman having an abortion or miscarriage won’t affect you. You would not even know of it. The population does not go up by one, in both cases. Is it so important, case-by-case, that we need to deny women the freedom they currently have? I don’t think so.
Alice, 3:04….Go girl!
Doug: what if the aborted person otherwise would have become my son or daughter (by adoption)? What if my sister aborted my nephew or niece? What if my mom aborted my sibling? What about fathers whose children are aborted–are they affected? What about taxpayers bearing the brunt of taxes that should have been distributed among another few million people? What if the child another woman aborts might have been my son’s wife or my daughter’s best friend?
It doesn’t affect me if others kill their born children, either, if I didn’t know them.
And I have been deeply affected by the miscarriages of friends, and mourned their children with them. I have been affected, usually even more deeply, by my own miscarriages. A person’s value cannot be judged by their impact on others. If I lose another child before birth, that would affect me more than if Doug died. Does that mean Doug has less value?
When an abortion or miscarriage happens, the unborn life ends – fully agreed there – but what is the real effect on society? Or on you, personally? I can see that you do not like the idea of abortion, but just about all the time, a given woman having an abortion or miscarriage won’t affect you. You would not even know of it. The population does not go up by one, in both cases. Is it so important, case-by-case, that we need to deny women the freedom they currently have? I don’t think so.
Hey Doug, when a prostitute or homeless person is killed, what is the real effect on society? Or on you, personally? I can see that you do not like the idea of murdering random people for no reason, but just about the all the time, a homeless person being killed is not going to affect you. You probably wouldn’t even know of it. The population does not go up one by one, in both cases. Is it so important, case-by-case, that we need to worry about whether someone murders a homeless person or a prostitute? I guess according to your logic, probably not.
young christian woman: what if the aborted person otherwise would have become my son or daughter (by adoption)? What if my sister aborted my nephew or niece? What if my mom aborted my sibling? What about fathers whose children are aborted–are they affected? What about taxpayers bearing the brunt of taxes that should have been distributed among another few million people? What if the child another woman aborts might have been my son’s wife or my daughter’s best friend? It doesn’t affect me if others kill their born children, either, if I didn’t know them.
There are any number of “what ifs.” What if the aborted baby hadn’t been aborted, and grew up to run you over with a car…. We don’t know what would happen – how good or how bad the stituation would or could be. But we do know that sometimes a woman will want to have an abortion, and do all the “what ifs” add up to us denying her one? I say no.
___
And I have been deeply affected by the miscarriages of friends, and mourned their children with them. I have been affected, usually even more deeply, by my own miscarriages. A person’s value cannot be judged by their impact on others. If I lose another child before birth, that would affect me more than if Doug died. Does that mean Doug has less value?
I have no doubt that you’ve been affected as you say. Indeed, miscarriages can be very sad. When you know the people involved, then sure – that makes a huge difference.
As to the impact on others, I think it can make a very big difference, too. Wouldn’t you rather see me die, than one of your kids? Or, for that matter, Osama Bin Laden, he who had negative value in the eyes of so many.
Doug, you are great at answering questions without actually answering them.
when a prostitute or homeless person is killed, what is the real effect on society? Or on you, personally? I can see that you do not like the idea of murdering random people for no reason, but just about the all the time, a homeless person being killed is not going to affect you. You probably wouldn’t even know of it. The population does not go up one by one, in both cases. Is it so important, case-by-case, that we need to worry about whether someone murders a homeless person or a prostitute? I guess according to your logic, probably not.
Bethany, I think we’ve covered this ground before. Indeed, such killings would not affect me, likely, but what is the argument for killing them in the first place? Is there anything as compelling as them being inside the body of a person? I sure don’t think so. My logic does not hold that there’s any necessary reason for killing them in the first place.
Doug, you are great at answering questions without actually answering them.
Good grief, woman, be specific! ; ) Just what did you see me not answering?
Doug, explain why any abortion is “necessary”.
I can’t believe I was ever so naive. I really can’t. But I was, and in a way, I’m actually kind of glad it happened, really. It opened my eyes to an entire war that had been going on without me that I didn’t even realize was there. I was Pro-Life before I even knew there was such a thing. However, it wasn’t so much that I didn’t know what being Pro-Life was or what it meant, it was more about the fact I didn’t even realize there was such a thing as Pro-Choice. I was blissfully ignorant to the entire concept of not birthing the baby with which one was pregnant. Once I discovered the existence of such a thing, the horror of it struck me numb.
How I discovered this gruesome fact veiled in terms like “choice”, “freedom”, and “reproductive justice” still haunts me to this day. The “Pro-Choice” are always so fond of accusing me of being “privileged” because of my conclusion, and assuring me that if I had ever been in that position I’d surely have an abortion, but I don’t think they realize that the reason I am so adamantly Pro-Life is precisely because I have been there, and eventually came out the other side with another human life that it pains me every day to look at and know that it would’ve been perfectly legal and acceptable for so many people if I had killed her back then.
My ex-husband, the man who taught me what abortion was and gave me a reason to loathe it, was someone who didn’t believe in marriage. At that time, I didn’t either. His parents had never been married at all, only had a passing relationship if it could even be called that, and he seemed just fine. My own parents had been married for 10 months before I was born, and they always seemed miserable. No, I thought, I’d spare myself such torment and do the progressive thing with this young man I was so enamored with, and we agreed the feeling was mutual. We were young, but he was in school and I had landed a really great job working at a school for children with special needs. After nearly 11 months, this relationship seemed to be going the distance.
As with the few prior committed relationship I’ve been in, there was a sex life between him and myself. Understanding the implications of that, it was quite more active than I wanted. And one occasion in particular it was far more active than I had wanted. But I loved him. I forgave him when he asked forgiveness. Wanting to be the dutiful pseudo-wife I was, I learned to oblige him and expected this was him making a long-term commitment to me. We had promise rings, and assured one another that if we had believed in the institution of marriage as a successful vehicle for our relationship, we certainly would’ve been willing to get married. At one point, we were stopped at a train station by a man asking the time, this man addressing me as “the wife”, to which we just smiled at each other. So we went on in this manner for awhile…until the second line appeared.
I’m the oldest of 6 children in my family. I’d seen my mom have a miscarriage, too. I know a little bit about human reproduction-mostly pregnancy and after-whereas I suppose his expertise was everything up to that point (thanks, California public schools!). To me, a pregnancy was another sibling, without question. I had met and greeted 5 other humans as they were introduced to this world-felt the kicks, bumps, and flutters of new and tiny humans who I knew as my siblings long before they were ever seen by naked eye on this planet. I knew my brother who was lost to miscarriage, and I knew grief when his very short life expired, along with the rest of my family. That marked the first time in my life I had ever seen my father cry, and that was after a decade of my life.
I was staying with my grandparents at the time, because of a fight I had gotten into with my father nearly a year before. He hit me and cracked one of my teeth which then had to be extracted after much pain and cost. The ex and I had been mere friends back then, but he had been there to comfort me, and the incident had ended up bringing us closer together (which is ironic considering my dad had become irate at me in the first place because I had been talking to the boy, who I saw as just a silly kid with a crush back then). When I first moved in with my mother’s parents, I was told that if I were to become pregnant, I would no longer be welcome there, and the message was delivered with nothing less than the sternest Catholic rigidity. I was going to need a new place to live before I started showing.
My job which I excelled at and absolutely adored was a school for children with severe disabilities. These were not so much illnesses as extreme conditions which caused them to pose a threat sometimes to themselves, sometimes others, and rarely both. These were very young children all the way up to young adults who at the drop of a hat could do some serious harm to someone. This was made known to me by other employees about 2 months before I became pregnant. I was told that one of the teachers there had left recently due to medical reasons. She had been kicked in the stomach by one of the students with an emotional disorder which caused her to lose her baby at 4 months gestation. I was going to need a new line of work.
As daunting as those facts were, I was stressed for certain, but to me those seemed to just be hurdles which would have to be overcome, because there was no alternative. He had other ideas in mind. He was in disbelief at first. When I first started feeling like something was amiss, I suspected I was pregnant, but he tried to convince me I was just sick. I took the first test knowing I was pregnant, but it showed negative, and he was relieved. I wasn’t. I knew what was happening to my body. A week later I took another test, this time with him there. We sat in his car outside a restaurant with the test on the dashboard, waiting in silence. When the second line showed up this time, his head hit the steering wheel. He just sat for a moment. He wouldn’t move. Then he started sobbing. I finally convinced him to drive us back to his Mom’s house. He just laid there on the couch in the guest room. He wouldn’t move. It was like he was dead.
The next weekend, I came down to see him again; he seemed to be in a better mood. He said that he wanted us to go out, and I thought that was a good idea, so we did. That was the first time he told me he wanted me to have an abortion. That was something I’d never even thought about. I never thought I’d be with someone who would be capable of even thinking of something like that, let alone wanting to do it to our own children. I loved him, and this was our child, so like any mother should, I wanted to care for and protect that child. The idea of hurting her (I knew she was my daughter from the moment I knew I was pregnant, even before any test showed it) made me physically ill, and I couldn’t believe this was being asked of me. It started with just gentle urging, but eventually when he realized I wasn’t budging, morphed into threats of him killing himself if I didn’t kill our child. I told him since abortion was legal at that time, if I wasn’t expected to have a legal obligation to the child, I wouldn’t expect him to, either. I was planning on moving back in with my parents and taking care of my child as best I could by myself, and he was free to go his own way and forget that the both of us ever existed. He could just go ahead and pretend as though I’d aborted, and live his life as he chose.
For some reason, he decided to come with me. I think he might’ve thought he could still somehow convince me to abort. I think he thought he could have his cake and eat it too with just a little more persuasion. I should’ve told him to stay. I shouldn’t have let him come with me. But he did. He refused to look at sonograms. He took me to my appointments, but just kind of stood in the corner and refused to acknowledge the whole thing. He didn’t tell his mother until I was 8 months along. I had our daughter. He doted on her and forbade me from ever speaking of the fact that he wanted me to abort her ever again. It tainted our relationship for the duration, and after I became pregnant with my second child five years later, my son, the reality of what I had been through really hit me. At that point I became unwaveringly pro-life. The idea that it would’ve been legal to kill the child who lived inside me at that time was finally able to be absorbed by me, as was the fact that I had a daughter who could’ve easily fallen prey to the abortion industry and become just another hatch mark in a Guttmacher statistic. Her life wasn’t just a statistic, and after that, I set out to try my best to make sure that no other child’s life was ever just a statistic, either.
Great post, Xalisae.
Bethany, the “necessary” of the abortion comes from the woman wanting it.
Good grief, woman, be specific! ; ) Just what did you see me not answering?
Are you serious? lol You never answer anything directly. You reply without ever directly answering anything you’re asked. You use many of the same words that the person who asked you the question used, but you never give them an actual answer to the question they asked. You just ramble on and on about related things.
Not to mention, you answer questions that NO ONE ASKED.
Here’s an example of what you do:
Me: Hey Doug, is it ever okay to abuse a dog?
Doug: It is always important to note how things affect society, and sometimes there might be a person who would want to abuse a dog, sure. No one is disputing that. There are also people who might not want to abuse a dog, and that is not being disputed either.
Bethany, the “necessary” of the abortion comes from the woman wanting it.
Doug, that logic makes no sense, because you can’t apply it in other areas. If I ‘want’ to kill you, that wouldn’t make killing you “necessary”. If I “wanted” to kick a puppy, that wouldn’t make it “necessary”. Have you ever even thought about what necessary means?
LOL! Bethany. That is the perfect analysis of Doug’s arguments.
Doug, you are moving the goal posts to avoid answering the question. You claimed that abortion is ok because “the effect on society is very slight, if there really is any effect at all.”
When Bethany introduced another example of a group of people whose deaths would result in a “effect on society that is very slight, if there really is any effect at all” you completely abandoned your argument and swam over to bodily integrity.
Obviously your first justification is not sufficient to defend abortion, right? Admit that your first point is invalid. Or do I need to make another video featuring a running Doug?
Good grief, woman, be specific! ; ) Just what did you see me not answering?
Are you serious? lol You never answer anything directly. You reply without ever directly answering anything you’re asked. You use many of the same words that the person who asked you the question used, but you never give them an actual answer to the question they asked. You just ramble on and on about related things.
And you still cannot quote anything specific, Bethany. Sheesh…. Honestly – if you think I failed to answer something, what is it?
____
Doug, that logic makes no sense, because you can’t apply it in other areas. If I ‘want’ to kill you, that wouldn’t make killing you “necessary”. If I “wanted” to kick a puppy, that wouldn’t make it “necessary”. Have you ever even thought about what necessary means?
Bethany, you asked: “Doug, explain why any abortion is “necessary”.
It is from the pregnant woman’s point of view. She wants the pregnancy ended, thus the necessity of abortion. I’m certainly not saying the world will end if she doesn’t have one, but the reason is hers.
I get what you mean about “necessary,” and of course from many standpoints, yours included, it’s not. Yet you can say that about almost anything, I reckon. Isn’t “necessary” always with something in mind, in the first place, i.e. for A to happen or exist, we have to have B take place, i.e. “B is necessary.”
Bethany, the “necessary” of the abortion comes from the woman wanting it.
LOL! I knew that would be the answer. What do I win?
Doug, you–a mere human being like the rest of us, and a rather small-minded one at that–have no ability, for one, and no right, for two, to claim to know the impact, or lack thereof, of the loss of even one other human life, much less millions. “Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it? Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid the cornerstone, While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” This and much more God said to Job, putting into complete perspective our vision and understanding relative to those of our Maker. And it matters not one iota whether or not you believe in that Maker. Your lack of belief doesn’t change in any way, shape or form who you are. And even if you were right that there is no such Maker–well, Doug, you would still be a very tiny being with a very tiny perspective on the whole of reality. You would do well to keep that in mind before making such arrogant statements in the future.
And you still cannot quote anything specific, Bethany. Sheesh…. Honestly – if you think I failed to answer something, what is it?
I refuse to believe you’re that obtuse, Doug. You’re a lot smarter than that, in my opinion.
You barely ever directly answer a question, which makes it hard to pinpoint one specific question you’ve avoided. Virtually all of them are avoided and redirected by you.
But I will give you one of the most recent examples. “Does Doug have less value”, the comment at 3:28 by YCW. You never directly answered it. You answered in exactly the same way of the example with dog abuse that I posted.
Lauren, please do!
It is from the pregnant woman’s point of view. She wants the pregnancy ended, thus the necessity of abortion. I’m certainly not saying the world will end if she doesn’t have one, but the reason is hers.
Rape is therefore necessary, from the rapists’ point of view. He wants to feel in control of something and he desires to have sex with someone, even if it takes force to achieve it. I’m not saying the world will end if he doesn’t rape her, but the reason is his.
Stealing merchandise from a store is necessary, from the thief’s point of view. He feels the need for things and doesn’t care whether they belong to someone else or not. I’m not saying that the world will end if he doesn’t steal, but the reason is his.
Do you not see how utterly ridiculous this logic is applied to any other situation besides abortion? SO why should it work with abortion?
Doug, necessity is not relative.
I get what you mean about “necessary,” and of course from many standpoints, yours included, it’s not. Yet you can say that about almost anything, I reckon. Isn’t “necessary” always with something in mind, in the first place, i.e. for A to happen or exist, we have to have B take place, i.e. “B is necessary.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say or what it has to do with my point.
Doug, you are moving the goal posts to avoid answering the question. You claimed that abortion is ok because “the effect on society is very slight, if there really is any effect at all.”
Lauren, that is part of it, part of why I’m pro-choice. Another part – a very big part – is that the woman may want to end the pregnancy. It’s not “moving the goal posts” to note this, and surely you don’t think this plays no part in my opinion. In no way have I claimed that the “slight effect” is reason enough itself, in a vacuum.
I see a bigger effect on society, and a worse one, if we take away the freedom that women currently have in this matter.
____
When Bethany introduced another example of a group of people whose deaths would result in a “effect on society that is very slight, if there really is any effect at all” you completely abandoned your argument and swam over to bodily integrity. Obviously your first justification is not sufficient to defend abortion, right? Admit that your first point is invalid. Or do I need to make another video featuring a running Doug?
No, I didn’t abandon my argument. My point with the homeless person or the prostitute is that there isn’t the same motivation at work. Somebody wants to kill them? Well, the fact that they are not inside the body of the person who wants them killed makes one heck of a difference. In no way did I mean that abortion is okay, solely on the basis that it doesn’t affect society all that much. First and foremost is what the woman wants, IMO, and that includes wanted pregnancies – I’d no more force the ending of wanted pregnancies than I’d force the continuance of unwanted ones.
“the effect on society is very slight, if there really is any effect at all.”
Can you prove this?
Well, Doug, you used the ‘ol “nobody cares if a fetus fries” argument as your primary argument. Saying that you’re not moving the goal post doesn’t mean you’re not. You have changed your argument from “The fetus’ death doesn’t matter” to “The fetus’ death doesn’t matter because it is inside another person!”
That’s a completely different argument.
LOL! I knew that would be the answer. What do I win?
LOL Kel! I have no idea how you knew that!
Doug – you may feel that abortion is ‘necessary’ because a woman does – but considering that most women don’t know that there is much help in their communities, churches, families and even governments (local and state/federal), most women make an non-informed choice, basically because of panic.
If there is an immoral answer to questions that can be answered with no moral dilemma, then why not put the energies into answering problems, any problems with moral and good answers. When women know that we think they are capable and are able to get through anything with determination, help and hope – why not have that be the emphasis?
I just talked on the phone with a woman. She is finishing up her schooling, has some challenges, and even has her mom scrambling to try to have her have an abortion (she does not want an abortion). Getting a plan for her health care, her dealing wiht her responsibilities in an adult way goes a long way to getting rid of the fear that drives so many women to abortion. She is right now calling her doctor to make an appointment, check on her medications, and will meet with me later this week. She is planning on attending church weekly and building up relationships that can keep her strong.
Challenges? yes. But challenges can be overcome by community, ingenuity, hope and determination. Not once do we have to get rid of the child by abortion. Not once is death an answer to life.
Why can’t we put our energies to the good? Women FEEL they need abortion because they perceive that there is no other choice. But with no one telling them they are capable, able and strong, where will they turn? They turn to the people who tell them that if they ‘need’ abortion, it’s ok. After all $425 later and all the problems will go away.
This is why standing by while children are slaughtered, families truncated and women violate their very nature is no answer at all. The real answer is to LOVE – let that child live, and let that mom grow into the mom she is meant to be.
Help her? sure. Help her with good cheer and material goods? You bet. Help her discover community – in friends, family, community, church and even agencies. Even in strangers like me and others….She can survive and her baby also. it’s all in the will.
Doug – do you have the will to help women choose ‘the good?’ All she need is someone to tell her she can do a good job, and do the right thing. Love big.
So in short, anything Doug needs to justify abortion at any given time justifies it. If he needs to say it’s just because it benefits society, then that’s what it is-nevermind the lives taken. If he needs to say it’s because women’s desires take priority over their children, then that’s what justifies it that time-once again damning the lives taken. 9_9
I was prochoice, mostly because I was uneducated and had never had to face the question, but none the less, I had 3 abortions while strung out on meth and have to conclude that even though I don’t remember being consciously pro-choice, I made use of my ‘rights’. I became pro-life when I finally got clean and sober and realized what I had done. Now I would give almost anything to have a chance to go back in time and have those children. I believe if I had never had an abortion, but a baby instead, I would have been completely 100% prolife at that point…just being part of the incredible miracle of pregnancy and birth.
But I will give you one of the most recent examples. “Does Doug have less value”, the comment at 3:28 by YCW. You never directly answered it. You answered in exactly the same way of the example with dog abuse that I posted.
Okay, good, and thanks, Bethany. Here is what YCW asked:
A person’s value cannot be judged by their impact on others. If I lose another child before birth, that would affect me more than if Doug died. Does that mean Doug has less value?
Here is what I replied: “As to the impact on others, I think it can make a very big difference, too. Wouldn’t you rather see me die, than one of your kids? Or, for that matter, Osama Bin Laden, he who had negative value in the eyes of so many.”
_____
I am guessing that you want a yes or no answer to the “less value” part. Well, I’m disagreeing with the premise that the impact makes no difference. I think it obviously does, and thus my asking if she wouldn’t rather have me die, versus one of her kids. Or, if that seems too strange, then how about Bin Laden? “The eye of the beholder” definitely applies here, and there is no one “yes or no” answer.
So, she asked a question, implying that there is a concrete, necessary answer, and I am saying that is not the case, that it matters who is being asked. Isn’t it true for most of us with kids, we value our kids more than strangers?
So in short, anything Doug needs to justify abortion at any given time justifies it. If he needs to say it’s just because it benefits society, then that’s what it is-nevermind the lives taken. If he needs to say it’s because women’s desires take priority over their children, then that’s what justifies it that time-once again damning the lives taken.
Xalisae, well..sort of. I don’t see the continuance of every pregnancy as so necessary that we take away the freedom that women now have, no, and agreed that this does sometimes mean the death of the unborn.
It’s not me “justifying” it, it’s the woman deciding for herself.
Here’s where we are so far, Doug.
http://goanimate.com/movie/0WjQEfeihtrY?utm_source=linkshare&uid=0SNUBjQYPq_Y
Well, Doug, you used the ‘ol “nobody cares if a fetus fries” argument as your primary argument.
Lauren, no, I did not. First of all, this is about what makes us pro-life or pro-choice, and in no way was I projecting my own opinion onto other people, and I said nothing about “nobody cares,” or the like.
____
Saying that you’re not moving the goal post doesn’t mean you’re not. You have changed your argument from “The fetus’ death doesn’t matter” to “The fetus’ death doesn’t matter because it is inside another person!” That’s a completely different argument.
My point all along has been that I don’t see society suffering enough from abortions that we should forbid women from having them. As far as the fetus being inside the woman’s body, hey – that’s a given, and I take it into account, even if I don’t spell that out in every paragraph (who doesn’t?) If somebody didn’t know I was considering the woman, they could always ask.
In no way have I ever maintained that abortion is okay solely because “the fetus’s death doesn’t matter.” And I’m not even saying that the fetus’s death doesn’t matter because it’s inside the womb,” period, like that. I am comparing the opinions of people, to whom it definitely does matter, with the opinions of the woman herself, and comparing what I perceive as the best for society in the cases where we permit abortion and where we don’t.
___
necessity is not relative.
Lauren, gotta disagree here too. Isn’t it always relative to some concern, some outcome? Isn’t it always in relation to something occuring pursuant to what we are saying is “necessary” or to something not occuring, i.e. we don’t want X to happen, and thus it’s necessary that Y occurs….?
“Bethany, the “necessary” of the abortion comes from the woman wanting it.”
LOL! I knew that would be the answer. What do I win?
A big floppy hat, Kel. But seriously, what else would you think I’d say?
“I am comparing the opinions of people, to whom it definitely does matter, with the opinions of the woman herself, and comparing what I perceive as the best for society in the cases where we permit abortion and where we don’t.”
Utilitarianism has been long debunked, Doug.
“Isn’t it always relative to some concern, some outcome?”
That is not what I mean by “relative” Doug. I mean that it is not relative from one person to another. If A is necessary for B, it is always necessary for B. If A is not necessary for B, it is never necessary for B.
“I get what you mean about “necessary,” and of course from many standpoints, yours included, it’s not. Yet you can say that about almost anything, I reckon. Isn’t “necessary” always with something in mind, in the first place, i.e. for A to happen or exist, we have to have B take place, i.e. “B is necessary.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say or what it has to do with my point.
Bethany, you had asked: explain why any abortion is “necessary”
I am saying that the pregnant woman may feel it is so. I realize you disagree, and I realize that from other standpoints besides, “necessary” won’t apply. But, seeing as the woman is the one who is pregnant, I’m in favor of letting her decide, not somebody else.
Regardless of who is saying “necessary” or “not necessary,” I do think it’s always in relation to something happening or not happening, as above.
“I am comparing the opinions of people, to whom it definitely does matter, with the opinions of the woman herself, and comparing what I perceive as the best for society in the cases where we permit abortion and where we don’t.”
Utilitarianism has been long debunked, Doug.
Lauren, perhaps – with respect to some philosophical concerns, but like most people, I’m for allowing people liberty unless there is a good enough reason not to do so. As far as abortion, I don’t see a good enough reason to do so.
_____
“Isn’t it always relative to some concern, some outcome?”
That is not what I mean by “relative” Doug. I mean that it is not relative from one person to another. If A is necessary for B, it is always necessary for B. If A is not necessary for B, it is never necessary for B.
Okay, and I agree, as far as cause-and-effect, i.e. external physical reality. In that case, either it happens or not. But when we get to perceptions of “necessary” as far as what we choose to do, then a desired outcome has to come into it. If I’m still missing what you mean, enlighten me further, please.
It seems to me that a thing may be necessary for a person at a given time, but at a different time that may well not be true, in opposition to what you say, above.
____
http://goanimate.com/movie/0WjQEfeihtrY?utm_source=linkshare&uid=0SNUBjQYPq_Y
Ha! pretty good, until the very end. You have me walking away, when the truth is that it’s been dealt with, and that I’m certainly willing to deal with that, further.
What is the argument for rape? Do you see people advocating for it not being a crime?
Abortion is much different because, whether or not you consider it enough of a reason, the unborn are inside the body of the woman. If the unborn were not, do you seriously think there would be anything like the debate there is now?
So Doug: you said abortion was okay because it didn’t affect others/society. I mentioned a half dozen ways an abortion or abortion in general could/does affect society. You then claimed that since we didn’t know how abortion might have affected society (it might be negative, it might be positive). Then you said that didn’t matter more than whether the pregnant woman wanted her child dismembered.
Perhaps this is an example of moving goalposts.
What makes the unborn human being not worthy of the protection and support of his or her parents, since as a society we deem parents of born children responsible for not just not dismembering their offspring, but also feeding, clothing, and supervising them, a situation that often requires bodily presence and always requires at least money they got with the labor of their bodies? Why are the unborn not entitled to 9 months of child support?
Doug, I just ended it there because that’s where we were in the conversation at the time. I can keep adding to it as the conversation continues.
I will give you that you don’t usually slink away. You’re m/o is more to dance around the issue. I actually had you dancing at the end at first, but the dance was happening at the same time as the conversation and I thought it was a little confusing. ;)
Doug “I’m for allowing people liberty unless there is a good enough reason not to do so.”
Killing another human being isn’t a good enough reason, Doug? Really?
“It seems to me that a thing may be necessary for a person at a given time, but at a different time that may well not be true, in opposition to what you say, above.”
Apart from a situation in which both will die, it’s never necessary for a mother to kill her own child. There’s no other circumstance in which one could ever universalize the maxim “I should kill my child.” Allowing the person holding the gun to decide if the death is “necessary” isn’t a sound ethical theory. Of course he’ll claim that it’s necessary for him to shoot the gun.
Doug – you may feel that abortion is ‘necessary’ because a woman does – but considering that most women don’t know that there is much help in their communities, churches, families and even governments (local and state/federal), most women make an non-informed choice, basically because of panic.
If there is an immoral answer to questions that can be answered with no moral dilemma, then why not put the energies into answering problems, any problems with moral and good answers. When women know that we think they are capable and are able to get through anything with determination, help and hope – why not have that be the emphasis?
Joy, very good post, and I agree that a given woman might change her mind, and that that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
_____
I just talked on the phone with a woman. She is finishing up her schooling, has some challenges, and even has her mom scrambling to try to have her have an abortion (she does not want an abortion). Getting a plan for her health care, her dealing wiht her responsibilities in an adult way goes a long way to getting rid of the fear that drives so many women to abortion. She is right now calling her doctor to make an appointment, check on her medications, and will meet with me later this week. She is planning on attending church weekly and building up relationships that can keep her strong.
Challenges? yes. But challenges can be overcome by community, ingenuity, hope and determination. Not once do we have to get rid of the child by abortion. Not once is death an answer to life.
If every woman ended up not wanting an abortion, then the debate wouldn’t even be happening. I’m sure there are cases as you describe, yet there are also cases where a woman originally intends to continue the pregnancy, then later decides to have an abortion. I’m still for letting her be the one who decides.
_____
Why can’t we put our energies to the good? Women FEEL they need abortion because they perceive that there is no other choice. But with no one telling them they are capable, able and strong, where will they turn? They turn to the people who tell them that if they ‘need’ abortion, it’s ok. After all $425 later and all the problems will go away.
This is why standing by while children are slaughtered, families truncated and women violate their very nature is no answer at all. The real answer is to LOVE – let that child live, and let that mom grow into the mom she is meant to be.
Help her? sure. Help her with good cheer and material goods? You bet. Help her discover community – in friends, family, community, church and even agencies. Even in strangers like me and others….She can survive and her baby also. it’s all in the will.
Doug – do you have the will to help women choose ‘the good?’ All she need is someone to tell her she can do a good job, and do the right thing. Love big.
Joy, you’re approaching it as if there is only one “good” or “best” way to go. I don’t think that is the case. You’re an admirable person in your caring, and I have no doubt you do good work, but when it comes to outlawing abortion, I’m still not for it.
And Doug, in answer to your questions:
I would rather you died than one of my children. I would rather Osama bin Laden die than one of my children.
But each of us has equal worth.
I base our worth on the fact that each of us was created uniquely in the image of God. Our worth cannot be based on the opinion of others, or even ourselves, because these change.
If the worth of the fetus is based on his wantedness, is the worth of the mother based on her wantedness? If all us prolifers (as prochoicers like to claim) cared about the fetus, and not the woman, does she then become nothing more than an incubator? Are Irish fetuses, protected by the government by laws upheld by the will of the people, more valuable than US fetuses?
What makes you valuable, Doug? Are you valuable? If you cease to contribute, will you still be valuable?
Attempting to understand the pro-abortion side of this “conversation” has literally given me a headache. Reading the pro-life side, especially the experiences that so many women have shared, gives me joy, peace, and hope. The truth is so simple and straightforward. And beautiful. The lies are . . . well . . . sickening.
YCW: So Doug: you said abortion was okay because it didn’t affect others/society. I mentioned a half dozen ways an abortion or abortion in general could/does affect society. You then claimed that since we didn’t know how abortion might have affected society (it might be negative, it might be positive). Then you said that didn’t matter more than whether the pregnant woman wanted her child dismembered.
Perhaps this is an example of moving goalposts.
Well, that’s not quite it, YCW. Really – I’m not saying anything on the basis of “doesn’t affect society much.” My point is that I don’t see society being affected enough, in a negative way, that it means we should outlaw abortion. This is not in a “vacuum,” either – I take it as a given that some women really do want to end pregnancies. Without that, then in no way am I saying that the effect or lack thereof of abortion on society is the deal-maker or deal-breaker.
I do agree that there are the “could affect society this way” examples as you mentioned. One point I would make is that the effect won’t always be positive. And in the end – yes, I don’t think all the “what ifs” add up to enough that it trumps what the woman wants.
Perhaps I was not complete enough, every step along the way, in my description, but this thread is about why we are pro-life or pro-choice, and at this point I think I’ve said my piece on that.
____
What makes the unborn human being not worthy of the protection and support of his or her parents, since as a society we deem parents of born children responsible for not just not dismembering their offspring, but also feeding, clothing, and supervising them, a situation that often requires bodily presence and always requires at least money they got with the labor of their bodies? Why are the unborn not entitled to 9 months of child support?
Because they are inside the womb. That is the difference. And that’s without regard to what I think about abortion, personally. Whether we agree with it or not, we have the birth standard for full rights and personhood. And not that it cannot ever change, but for now, and for all of history and through all societies that have existed, as far as I know, that’s been the way it is.
Doug, we recognize the impact a prenatal death has on society by criminalizing an attack on a pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn child. Why is it murder if a stranger kills my baby, but a “right” if I do so?
There are several countries that now prohibit abortion, and there used to be more. They thus grant the fetus a right to life.
Do you think a woman should have an absolute right to kill a viable child who is still in the womb? Do you think a mom can kill her preemie? What if she’d been planning to abort?
Why not insist at least that the unborn person not be dismembered? There’s no reason to dismember the unborn child, apart from making sure he or she dies. Can’t the unborn person have a right to his or her own bodily integrity, even if not allowed to “infringe” on its mother in the developmentally appropriate way all of us did for the first nine months or so?
Doug – why is citizenship important in determining the personhood of the unborn?
Do you argue for bodily autonomy for abortion only or do you support a woman’s bodily autonomy 100%, even in the instances when a woman may do harm to herself: suicide, self-mutilation, drug use/abuse, DUI, etc?
And what if a bullet pierces the tiny heart of the unborn. Why does the law bestow personhood and prosecute for her murder?
Does anyone else find it a little strange when the claim is made that “I have met women that have not been scarred psychologically for life by abortion. . .” @Elsa, May 14, 10:46am. How does anyone know whether anything has scarred another person for life when the other person still has 50 or 60 years of life left to live?
YCW: So Doug: you said abortion was okay because it didn’t affect others/society. I mentioned a half dozen ways an abortion or abortion in general could/does affect society. You then claimed that since we didn’t know how abortion might have affected society (it might be negative, it might be positive). Then you said that didn’t matter more than whether the pregnant woman wanted her child dismembered. Perhaps this is an example of moving goalposts.
Well, that’s not quite it, YCW. Really – I’m not saying anything on the basis of “doesn’t affect society much.” My point is that I don’t see society being affected enough, in a negative way, that it means we should outlaw abortion. This is not in a “vacuum,” either – I take it as a given that some women really do want to end pregnancies. Without that, then in no way am I saying that the effect or lack thereof of abortion on society is the deal-maker or deal-breaker.
I do agree that there are the “could affect society this way” examples as you mentioned. One point I would make is that the effect won’t always be positive. And in the end – yes, I don’t think all the “what ifs” add up to enough that it trumps what the woman wants.
Perhaps I was not complete enough, every step along the way, in my description, but this thread is about why we are pro-life or pro-choice, and at this point I think I’ve said my piece on that.
____
What makes the unborn human being not worthy of the protection and support of his or her parents, since as a society we deem parents of born children responsible for not just not dismembering their offspring, but also feeding, clothing, and supervising them, a situation that often requires bodily presence and always requires at least money they got with the labor of their bodies? Why are the unborn not entitled to 9 months of child support?
Because they are inside the womb. That is the difference. And that’s without regard to what I think about abortion, personally. Whether we agree with it or not, we have the birth standard for full rights and personhood. And not that it cannot ever change, but for now, and for all of history and through all societies that have existed, as far as I know, that’s been the way it is.
____
<em>I would rather you died than one of my children. I would rather Osama bin Laden die than one of my children.</em>
Thank you – good, honest answer!
<em>But each of us has equal worth.</em>
I don’t think badly of you for having religious beliefs, but I don’t think making our laws based on such is a good thing.
____
<em>If the worth of the fetus is based on his wantedness, is the worth of the mother based on her wantedness?</em>
Yes, and at birth society says, in effect, “full rights and personhood are now here.” I know you think it should be at conception, but for now, that’s the way it is. Worth is always in the opinion of some entity, and society has its position – we treat born people in such-and-such ways, in general.
____
<em>If all us prolifers (as prochoicers like to claim) cared about the fetus, and not the woman, does she then become nothing more than an incubator? Are Irish fetuses, protected by the government by laws upheld by the will of the people, more valuable than US fetuses?</em>
I don’t say that pro-lifers only care about the unborn. Ireland has different laws than the US – this is a given. That society has made somewhat different valuations, yes. Ireland, in effect, is saying, “the life of the unborn is worth more than allowing women the legal freedom (that they have in the US, for example).”
____
<em>What makes you valuable, Doug? Are you valuable? If you cease to contribute, will you still be valuable?</em>
There is the being a member of society, the contributing, yes, but there is also the relationships I have, and as with my wife, even when I’m really old and not working anymore, I think she’ll still say I have value, for example.
Value is in the eye of the beholder…. what can I say…?
On Bethany’s example–prostitutes spread disease, destroy marriage, lower property values, jack up health care costs, have unwanted pregnancies, contribute to the degradation of morals, and work “under the table” so to speak. They have no positive impact on society. Is this justification to start killing them off? Why or why not? If we as a society were to agree that prostitutes are a menace and need to be eliminated, is there any reason not to carry out this plan? If so, how is the campaign to eliminate “unwanted” fetuses–whose existence is not clearly negative, as you admit–justifiable? If eliminating prostitutes is not okay, clearly your societal implications are just a red herring.
“Well, that’s not quite it, YCW. Really – I’m not saying anything on the basis of “doesn’t affect society much.” My point is that I don’t see society being affected enough, in a negative way, that it means we should outlaw abortion. This is not in a “vacuum,” either – I take it as a given that some women really do want to end pregnancies. Without that, then in no way am I saying that the effect or lack thereof of abortion on society is the deal-maker or deal-breaker.”
So what you are saying is that to you, the overriding issue is the bodily autonomy of the pregnant women, but if abortion could be shown to have a significantly negative effect on the society as a whole, that might outweigh the negatives of disallowing the option of dismemberment? If one could prove sufficiently that allowing abortion damaged every other human being in our culture, helped cause the breakdown of family and morals, and caused rather than preventing the abuse and neglect of those children allowed to live, you might concede that abortion should be outlawed?
“Because they are inside the womb. That is the difference. And that’s without regard to what I think about abortion, personally. Whether we agree with it or not, we have the birth standard for full rights and personhood. And not that it cannot ever change, but for now, and for all of history and through all societies that have existed, as far as I know, that’s been the way it is.”
So your argument here is that because the fetus is infringing upon his or her mother’s bodily integrity, the woman has a right to dismember the child. Your argument that the child does not deserve the mother’s love and protection is based solely on where he or she is. Or is your argument that this is right because society says so?
“I don’t think badly of you for having religious beliefs, but I don’t think making our laws based on such is a good thing.”
Our Constitution declares that our worth comes from being created equal, if I recall correctly. And our laws have to be based on something. Should our laws not hold that all people are equal? Should they hold that some people only count as 3/5 of a person when determining population, or that a penis grants you the right to vote, or that if you kill your children by accident it’s okay as long as the stick you were using to beat them was thinner than your thumb?
“<em>If the worth of the fetus is based on his wantedness, is the worth of the mother based on her wantedness?</em>
Yes, and at birth society says, in effect, “full rights and personhood are now here.” I know you think it should be at conception, but for now, that’s the way it is. Worth is always in the opinion of some entity, and society has its position – we treat born people in such-and-such ways, in general.”
So the worth of a woman is also based on her wantedness. It was okay when women were not allowed to own property, or were treated as property, because that’s what society (or half of it, anyway) had decided.
“I don’t say that pro-lifers only care about the unborn. Ireland has different laws than the US – this is a given. That society has made somewhat different valuations, yes. Ireland, in effect, is saying, ‘the life of the unborn is worth more than allowing women the legal freedom (that they have in the US, for example).'”
So this law isn’t a problem either; whatever is legal is morally okay?
“<em>What makes you valuable, Doug? Are you valuable? If you cease to contribute, will you still be valuable?</em>
There is the being a member of society, the contributing, yes, but there is also the relationships I have, and as with my wife, even when I’m really old and not working anymore, I think she’ll still say I have value, for example.”
So you offer several ways of determining a person’s value:
1. A person’s value is based on the laws of the society that person lives in.
2. A person’s value comes from the positive (or negative) effects he or she has on society.
3. A person’s value depends on his or her wantedness (by some entity, could be any entity).
4. The wantedness of an unborn person depends solely on his or her mother’s whim.
5. A person’s value is based on the relationships he or she has with others.
I am not quite sure which of these is your opinion. I don’t think they all coexist very neatly. I am guessing your position is either:
1. Each society chooses through its laws which human beings have worth and how much, and all of these systems are fine and good for those societies.
or
2. We all make our own decisions about who has value and who does not, and may act on those decisions.
I can’t quite pin down what you are saying for sure. Does a person have intrinsic value? How is that value determined? Who does the determining? If value is arbitrary, is it wrong to attribute an equal value to each member of the human race, and on what grounds?
If you say that a person’s value is arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder, and you assign no specific value to Doug, the fetus next door, or Osama bin Laden, and I believe that a person’s value is in their membership in the human species and their status as imagebearers of the author of creation, it seems my view make more sense (you admit yours is arbitrary), is more easily codified and applied, and it has its basis in logic and history. Why then should your arbitrary logic on the value of people be the basis society uses rather than “my” universal logic that is easily understood? If your belief is just an arbitrary belief with nothing to back it up, why is my belief a weaker one to build law on simply on the grounds that it is one held by religious people?
It is so much easier and wiser to declare all humans as having worth.
Birth is not the determinate of all rights and treatments. After all – when a woman is pregnant, they make sure she sees a doctor to take care of her and the baby, they make sure she has access to pre-natal vitamins, and they start giving her services in a special way because the woman is pregnant.
Because her situation is special and precious, we should treat BOTH humans with respect and care. After all – if there is a situation where surgery is needed – BOTH patients can be taken care of….
Doug – for a really smart man, I hope that one day you will see that we can take care of the woman and help her child live. If she truly does not want to or can not take care of a child, then permanent or temporary accommodations can be made to be sure her child is well taken-care-of. No need to have the child killed by abortion.
The reality is that we do not want anyone killed, even in dire circumstances. every time you say or write abortion, please realize that ‘ a woman has to have the choice to kill her child because…’ is really what you are saying. Maybe if you call it for what it is, you will realize the impact. Flowery language does nothing to reflect the reality of abortion, because truly, with every abortion, a human dies. And when a human dies there must be some sort of affect … and we know for sure that the family tree for that child stops with that abortion.
I hope someday you will get it. Lives depend on this. This is no abstract, no-effect item. Because of not recognizing the humanity of the child, and not helping the moms to help that child live, we have 50 million people missing from our society – and that is a huge impact in all sorts of ways.
Since so many have changed from pro-choice to pro-life, Doug, I hope that someday you will write your change-to-pro-life-story here. I hope that you will help women be strong, and whole. I hope that you will help woman go to bed every night knowing their child lived, instead of knowing they ended the life of their child. And Doug, while I am sure you are sincere – every word championing abortion-decisions as private domain of the mom will eventually help some woman or man decide as much.
Doug – champion humans – all humans. It’s the humane thing to do. We can work on the rest without causing the death of another. Peace.
Doug “I’m for allowing people liberty unless there is a good enough reason not to do so.”
Lauren: Killing another human being isn’t a good enough reason, Doug? Really?
Yes, in lieu of any need for unlimited population growth. In this case – the embryo or fetus inside the body of the woman, before it has mental awareness, personality, etc. – then I don’t think it’s a good enough reason, i.e. it’s not the end of the world if a given pregnancy isn’t continued, be it due to miscarriage or due to the wishes of the woman. My opinion. Worse would be for us to take away the liberty she has in the matter.
____
Well, that “never necessary” is in your opinion, Lauren. Granted, as I said – not everybody will agree (of course) and from some other standpoints abortion is “not necessary,” sure. In the case of a pregnant woman, early enough in gestation, then I think her say-so is enough. Again, my opinion.
If we say that, “abortion is never necessary on the basis of danger to the mother,” that is a different deal. It relates to the woman remaining alive, and that, as I’ve repeatedly mentioned (it’s always going to be related to something else), is another thing, there. In most cases I agree with you – the woman probably won’t die giving birth. Where I would disagree is with the unusual situations like heart disease, high blood pressure, (perhaps gestational diabetes – I can’t remember) and a breech pregnancy, where the doctors did say that delivery presented too much danger to the woman, that she likely could die, and thus, for the sake of the woman’s life, abortion was indicated.
Doug, we recognize the impact a prenatal death has on society by criminalizing an attack on a pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn child. Why is it murder if a stranger kills my baby, but a “right” if I do so?
Lauren, because the desire of the woman matters. If the pregnancy is wanted, few if any people say that somebody should be able to kill the unborn, there, against the will of the pregnant woman. If the situation is different – if the pregnancy is not wanted, then as it’s per the will of the woman, there is vastly more support for abortion being a legal choice.
Even when we are talking about just the cases of unwanted pregnancies, the situation still makes a big difference, i.e. look at the support for legal abortion in cases of rape/incest; much higher than without that being the case.
YCW: On Bethany’s example–prostitutes spread disease, destroy marriage, lower property values, jack up health care costs, have unwanted pregnancies, contribute to the degradation of morals, and work “under the table” so to speak. They have no positive impact on society. Is this justification to start killing them off? Why or why not? If we as a society were to agree that prostitutes are a menace and need to be eliminated, is there any reason not to carry out this plan? If so, how is the campaign to eliminate “unwanted” fetuses–whose existence is not clearly negative, as you admit–justifiable? If eliminating prostitutes is not okay, clearly your societal implications are just a red herring.
Nobody told you that the characteristics of prostitutes,and the effect you think they have, is justification enough to kill them. Now, were they inside the body of a person, that would be a different deal, then the same desire of the person not to have them inside of them would be applicable, and this would make a difference to many other people.
What argument do you have about prostitutes that is as compelling as the fact that it is the woman herself who is pregnant? I don’t think you have any such argument.
Hi Doug! Been lurking here and reading your arguments. I think that you sincerely do not understand a number of things; like that many women are coerced into having an abortion and MOST do not march into an abortion clinic exclaiming “Get this thing outta me!” It is a terrible burden women who have abortions bear because they know, if not before then certainly at some point after, that they have taken the life of their CHILD. Not the fetus, mind you. They KNOW what they have done and they are ashamed because they feel like they shouldn’t feel any shame…because, after all, it’s legal. They are duped into the legal=moral argument until it’s too late.
There IS a high social cost to legalized abortion and if you are honest in your “reasonable” approach you will at least take the time to look into it. I suggest you start at http://afterabortion.org/ and especially take a look at RESEARCH: http://afterabortion.org/1999/more-research-on-post-abortion-issues/. I also must ask you to read to read the reflections of those who were once in the abortion industry and could no longer work there. If you are truly in favor of legalized abortion, they surely you can read all the way through this. A warning, it’s graphic but it’s also reality shared by those whose business it was to perform abortions. Read this Doug and then get back to us, please: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200004/ai_n8880011/.
YCW: So what you are saying is that to you, the overriding issue is the bodily autonomy of the pregnant women, but if abortion could be shown to have a significantly negative effect on the society as a whole, that might outweigh the negatives of disallowing the option of dismemberment? If one could prove sufficiently that allowing abortion damaged every other human being in our culture, helped cause the breakdown of family and morals, and caused rather than preventing the abuse and neglect of those children allowed to live, you might concede that abortion should be outlawed?
Yes, I think the woman’s autonomy is the issue that trumps everything else. If I thought that abortion was such a negative that it outweighed the positives I see in allowing the woman to decide for herself, then yes – I’d think abortion should be illegal.
_____
So your argument here is that because the fetus is infringing upon his or her mother’s bodily integrity, the woman has a right to dismember the child. Your argument that the child does not deserve the mother’s love and protection is based solely on where he or she is. Or is your argument that this is right because society says so?
My own perceptions of right/wrong/good/bad won’t necessarily mirror societal laws. If somebody can be in the military for 2.5 years, get shot at, maybe get shot, and then they can’t get a beer because they’re 20.5 years old rather than 21, well, I think that’s a bunch of ****. I also don’t see the unborn as really “infringing” on the woman’s bodily integrity. To me that implies intent, which of course does not apply, or at least some “wrongdoing,” and I’m not saying that’s the case. It’s not “deserving of love and protection” or not, it’s that not all pregnancies are wanted, it’s that not all the unborn are loved, in the first place.
____
So the worth of a woman is also based on her wantedness. It was okay when women were not allowed to own property, or were treated as property, because that’s what society (or half of it, anyway) had decided.
Well, “wanting” *is* giving worth. But I don’t agree with women not being able to own property, just as I don’t agree with them not being able to have legal abortions to a point in gestation.
____
So you offer several ways of determining a person’s value:
1. A person’s value is based on the laws of the society that person lives in.
2. A person’s value comes from the positive (or negative) effects he or she has on society.
3. A person’s value depends on his or her wantedness (by some entity, could be any entity).
4. The wantedness of an unborn person depends solely on his or her mother’s whim.
5. A person’s value is based on the relationships he or she has with others.
I am not quite sure which of these is your opinion. I don’t think they all coexist very neatly. I am guessing your position is either:
1. Each society chooses through its laws which human beings have worth and how much, and all of these systems are fine and good for those societies.
or
2. We all make our own decisions about who has value and who does not, and may act on those decisions.
Good post, YCW. I think all the above do affect the perceptions of value. The only thing I’d disagree with is the “may act on those decisions,” and some conclusions about society. The rightness/wrongness of that in a given situation is still a question. Certainly, society places value, as with the birth standard for personhood and full rights (whether one agrees with that practice or not). Positive or negative effects on society can and do make for people’s perceptions of value, too. And yeah, “wantedness = value.”
I am not saying the pregnant woman is the only entity that places value – negative or positive – on the unborn. I’m saying I think her opinion trumps the others. And sure – the relationship one has with others greatly affects valuation. No, it’s not really a “neat” coexistence, since some can occasionally be at odds with others. A societal system may end up being bad for it – makes me think of the culture in China and India, and perhaps other places that is resulting in an imbalance of boys over girls. “We all make our own decisions about who has value..” – yes although many times we’ll take what other entities say, and hold that as our opinion.
_____
I can’t quite pin down what you are saying for sure. Does a person have intrinsic value? How is that value determined? Who does the determining? If value is arbitrary, is it wrong to attribute an equal value to each member of the human race, and on what grounds?
If you say that a person’s value is arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder, and you assign no specific value to Doug, the fetus next door, or Osama bin Laden, and I believe that a person’s value is in their membership in the human species and their status as imagebearers of the author of creation, it seems my view make more sense (you admit yours is arbitrary), is more easily codified and applied, and it has its basis in logic and history. Why then should your arbitrary logic on the value of people be the basis society uses rather than “my” universal logic that is easily understood? If your belief is just an arbitrary belief with nothing to back it up, why is my belief a weaker one to build law on simply on the grounds that it is one held by religious people?
I say no intrinsic value. Value is a concept of the mind – has to be a mind making the valuations or there wouldn’t be such a thing. Indeed – me seeing the most important thing being what the pregnant woman wants is just my opinion. Your more “blanket” system would be more easily codified, yeah, but logic and history show that the unborn have, in general, not been treated as the born – I know of no society, anywhere, that has ever done that.
Religious belief, per se, is no disqualifier, IMO – if the pregnant woman would never have an abortion for religious reasons, that’s fine with me as it’s still consistent with her autonomy. What I disagree with is making religious arguments when it comes to our laws. Should her religious beliefs, or yours, make for the law that is applied to all of us? I say no.
Jim Sable: Doug – why is citizenship important in determining the personhood of the unborn?
Do you argue for bodily autonomy for abortion only or do you support a woman’s bodily autonomy 100%, even in the instances when a woman may do harm to herself: suicide, self-mutilation, drug use/abuse, DUI, etc?
And what if a bullet pierces the tiny heart of the unborn. Why does the law bestow personhood and prosecute for her murder?
Does anyone else find it a little strange when the claim is made that “I have met women that have not been scarred psychologically for life by abortion. . .”
Jim, I don’t say that citizenship is important, there. Really has nothing to do with it, i.e. “person” can be present without citizenship, as in the US, being there.
DUI certainly has the direct harm-to-others aspect. Suicide, self-mutilation, drug use – I’d be pretty darm permissive there, even though you’d never see me getting a tattoo. I see the “war on drugs” as being a waste. There are some laws in some states that call for murder charges when the unborn are killed in some situations, the pregancy being wanted being a pre-requisite for them, i.e. if it’s be the wish of the pregnant woman, you’re not going to see murder charges. I don’t think a third-party should be able to harm or kill a woman’s wanted unborn, either.
Millions and millions of women have had abortions in the US, quite a few of them more than once. Some of them can and do have regrets, and some really don’t have much of any of that, and are not “scarred for life, psychologically.”
Joy: Birth is not the determinate of all rights and treatments. After all – when a woman is pregnant, they make sure she sees a doctor to take care of her and the baby, they make sure she has access to pre-natal vitamins, and they start giving her services in a special way because the woman is pregnant.
Joy, certainly not for all “treatments,” no.
I guess the only way to have everybody be happy is no more unwanted pregnancies.
Been lurking here and reading your arguments. I think that you sincerely do not understand a number of things; like that many women are coerced into having an abortion and MOST do not march into an abortion clinic exclaiming “Get this thing outta me!” It is a terrible burden women who have abortions bear because they know, if not before then certainly at some point after, that they have taken the life of their CHILD. Not the fetus, mind you. They KNOW what they have done and they are ashamed because they feel like they shouldn’t feel any shame…because, after all, it’s legal. They are duped into the legal=moral argument until it’s too late.
Hi Elaine. Okay, agreed that “many” women are coerced, but is it really “most” as in over half that have abortions because somebody else is trying to force them to do so, rather than them wanting the pregnancy ended? I don’t think that is true.
That said, I’m not for coercing or forcing the woman any which way – to end the pregnancy or to continue it. “Child” or not is subjective, and if a given woman really feels it’s a “child,” then IMO they should not have an abortion if it’s a significant deal to them.
On studies, the Elliott Institute is hardly unbiased. For years, studies have confirmed that for most women, having an abortion was not all that bad, and that on balance they were glad they had one, and that they would have another in similar circumstances. I am not saying there aren’t hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of women who really do regret it, but among the million+ women who have one each year in the US, they are more the exception than the rule.
“I don’t see society suffering enough from abortions that we should forbid women from having them”
Doug,
1) Abortion makes society less respectful of human life and will surely lead society in a generational move towards a feeling of less responsibility to nurture their offsping.
2) All women who believe in God are hurting their spirits gravely when they submit to abortion.
3) The great majority of women who have abortions are not proud of it and cope by avoiding talking about their ‘choice’ for as long as they can.
4) Their is a huge negative effect to society’s children (including the ones that are not aborted) when we tell women it is ok to kill their offspring? These women will then be less caring in general and they will not be feel as obliged to nurture their born children.
5) This thread is loaded with personal testimony from women who were preyed on by society because abortion is legal. You cannot discount that.
What percent does of post abortive women does that leave who society has not hurt by legalizing abortion?
“5) This thread is loaded with personal testimony from women who were preyed on by society because abortion is legal. You cannot discount that.”
An alternative wording of this statement might be that this thread is loaded with “personal testimony” from women who have a hard time understanding the relationship between the actions they’ve freely chosen to take and the consequences of those actions that they later determined, after the fact, they didn’t like very much, and the role that personal responsibility plays in this relationship.
You can’t really argue with any consistency that a particular action is a gravely immoral crime against another person and then claim that the perpetrator of that crime is somehow the real victim here, because everyone else didn’t do enough to stop them from committing their horrible crime.
Doug – thank you for a little insight into “The Religion of Doug” but it is still difficult to glean any consistent and coherent philosophy from all your submissions here. I asked about citizenship because at 3:07pm yesterday you used citizenship as one of your criteria to assess the value of the unborn. At 3:07 it was significant, at 10:23pm you say it is not.
Maybe you will be a little more specific about how far you will go to support bodily autonomy if you are asked a more specific question. Being “pretty darn permissive there” about self destructive behavior leaves you too much wiggle room and appears to be a less than 100% support of complete bodily autonomy. Would you sit idly by and watch your grandmother, mother, sister, girlfriend or wife inject heroin into herself? Here’s another bodily autonomy test I once heard that was part of a video lecture by Scott Klusendorf. Suppose a pregnant woman not seeking an abortion decides to take thalidomide to help with nausea. Her baby is not “wanted” and she plans to surrender her child for adoption. She does not want to abort because of the physical risks abortion presents to her. Should she be allowed to take thalidomide while pregnant? If you were her doctor, would you prescribe thalidomide for her?
Don’t you see any inconsistencies in the law that prosecutes for murder if an unborn child is shot through the heart but is allowed to be killed by a doctor’s lethal injection to the heart?
Please do not suggest that anyone is able to accurately predict that because a woman has no short term abortion regret that her next 50-60 years are guaranteed to be regret free and devoid of all negative impact. There is no way that you or anyone else can state with confidence that women are not scarred for life unless you continue to monitor them until the day they die. Please at least consider carefully the anecdotal evidence and realize that there may be a majority of post abortive women out there who are suffering in silence.
What if a woman changes her mind during delivery and decides she doesn’t “want” her baby and asks for it to be killed? Do you agree with the partial birth abortion ban? What is your definition of birth? Baby 10% out? 50%? 95%?
Doug:
“Where I would disagree is with the unusual situations like heart disease, high blood pressure, (perhaps gestational diabetes – I can’t remember) and a breech pregnancy, where the doctors did say that delivery presented too much danger to the woman, that she likely could die, and thus, for the sake of the woman’s life, abortion was indicated.”
What is this, the 19th century? I think you are grossly misinformed on the dangers of childbirth.
I’m not as informed about heart disease and high blood pressure, but in almost all cases I’m pretty sure these do not stop women from conceiving wanted children and carrying them to term. Breech pregnancy is quite common, and vaginal birth is sometimes still possible–when it’s not, the answer is a caesarian section, not ripping off the baby’s limbs with forceps so that he can be removed piece by piece. (And most babies are breech until late in pregnancy; most don’t start turning head down until well after viability.) I am very well informed on gestational diabetes, as I have had it with each of my pregnancies. There’s virtually no danger to the mother, especially with medical care and treatment. Without treatment (which can be as simple as a carb-restricted diet), there is an increased possibility of miscarriage and stillbirth. Gestational diabetes is diagnosed in as much as 10 percent of pregnancies, so it’s probably overdiagnosed–usually diet is all that is necessary to control it. I needed insulin. You might be thinking that pregnancy is more risky for diabetic women–I’m not sure it is, but that certainly doesn’t stop most diabetic women who desire pregnancy from getting pregnant and carrying to term. If their diabetes is well controlled, there is little risk. The baby has a much greater risk of disability in a diabetic pregnancy if the diabetes is poorly controlled in the early months, but I’m not sure pregnancy is that risky for the mother–and in gestational diabetes, the risk of disability is normal, because the problems metabolizing carbohydrates and sugar don’t usually appear until after the embryonic stage, so all of the baby’s organs are formed. If the baby makes it through the pregnancy, even without treatment the only possible negative is larger-than-average size.
“What I disagree with is making religious arguments when it comes to our laws. Should her religious beliefs, or yours, make for the law that is applied to all of us? I say no.”
But what beliefs do we codify? If a majority of people hold a belief, does it matter why they do? And for those of us who are religiious, we don’t (and can’t) separate out our “religious beliefs” from our “secular beliefs.” Much of what we see as scientific others claim as religious (the fetus is a human being). What we see as a religious belief others see as secular morality (human beings are deserving of legal protection). I don’t think there is a non-religious argument for not harming other human beings. Why should anyone behave rightly toward non-family, let alone those from other cultures, if evolution is pitting us all against each other? If it’s all about survival and passing on genes, you certainly aren’t very successful–and my priority should be to ensure the survival of first my family, then my extended family, and finally my people group over other people groups. But most people, even though they believe in evolution, consider such a belief system barbaric and racist. You are correct that outside of God, people have no intrinsic value. People whose lives don’t benefit me are using resources that could otherwise belong to those closer to me. Rule of law may prevent chaos–but if I believe my clan would come out on top, why should I be against that?
Most people recognize that such a moral system is wrong–but can you articulate why? Why should anyone have rights if we have no intrinsic value? Why is it wrong for one man to kill another and lay claim to is land and wife? Why should people give up the fruits of their labors to see that the poor and needy among us survive? I recognize that non-Christians don’t live this way, and don’t believe they should. The existence of a conscience and of an inborn knowledge that people are equals explains this–but I don’t see how, outside of God, you can explain this basic impulse we have to care for an unprotected person we do not know. When two dogs have puppies, the higher-status mother will kill the puppies of the lower-status mother, because the resources should belong to her children. Humans are also social animals, and we know that a family sometimes has limited resources–but we take in orphaned children, even if they might never contribute to our family. Why do we not behave like animals?
THANK YOU to those who have been hurt by abortion and told their stories on this thread!! THANK YOU for sharing your pain over the death of your child via abortion.
I am giving you a standing ovation right now!!
To those who are reading and have had abortions and are hurting from them please seek abortion recovery.
http://rachelsvineyard.org
You can also email me carla@jillstanek.com and I will help you find resources near you.
Continue to speak the truth about your experience. Your stories of abortion and how they affected you are irrefutable!
Yes, I think the woman’s autonomy is the issue that trumps everything else. If I thought that abortion was such a negative that it outweighed the positives I see in allowing the woman to decide for herself, then yes – I’d think abortion should be illegal.
Doug, your problem is that you genuinely do not have a true reason that you believe abortion should be legal. You lie when you say it is about bodily autonomy, because you are fine with restrictions against abortion in the third trimester. If it truly were about bodily autonomy then you would not be against abortions in the third trimester, no matter how human you perceive the babies to be. You would say it doesn’t matter if they are fully human by that point- what the woman WANTS should trump all. You tell lie after lie, and change your defense every time someone challenges one of your defenses.
When someone calls you on bodily autonomy, you change your argument to society.
When someone calls you on society, you claim it is bodily autonomy you’re concerned with.
When you’re called on that, you claim that the fetus does not have the brain capacity to understand until the late second trimester or early third.
You just cannot seem to make up your mind.
I personally think you think abortion should exist because Doug wants it here. Plain and simple.
Hi Elaine. Okay, agreed that “many” women are coerced, but is it really “most” as in over half that have abortions because somebody else is trying to force them to do so, rather than them wanting the pregnancy ended? I don’t think that is true.
That said, I’m not for coercing or forcing the woman any which way – to end the pregnancy or to continue it. “Child” or not is subjective, and if a given woman really feels it’s a “child,” then IMO they should not have an abortion if it’s a significant deal to them.
On studies, the Elliott Institute is hardly unbiased. For years, studies have confirmed that for most women, having an abortion was not all that bad, and that on balance they were glad they had one, and that they would have another in similar circumstances. I am not saying there aren’t hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of women who really do regret it, but among the million+ women who have one each year in the US, they are more the exception than the rule.
Prove it, Doug. All you have is your opinion. “I think” “I think” “I think”….well, that isn’t good enough. It isn’t good enough just to think. At least Elaine provided you with studies. You only provide people with the all knowing Doug’s Opinion .
Why isn’t “Elaine’s Opinion” as reasonable as yours, Doug? Because DOUG doesn’t think so?
Oh and I love how you refer to the many studies that show that women really aren’t coerced into abortion, without referencing a single one. I am sure none of those studies are in the LEAST biased. Right.
By the way, even if they have bias, how does that prove their results are incorrect? A person who researches about animal abuse is biased against abuse towards animals -does this mean that any information they gather in their study is to be completely dismissed simply because of their bias?
People who are hurt by abortion don’t matter to Doug. It wouldn’t matter if it were 99 percent of women hurt by abortion- he would still want abortion to remain legal for that 1 percent of women who claim it doesn’t bother them. The reason is because Doug doesn’t truly care about the woman. He cares about abortion being legal, no matter what.
And of course, he’ll come on here and say oh that’s not true. He cares about what the woman wants, and what is good for society, blah blah blah. All of that is just baloney and he doesn’t seem to realize how easily we can see through all of that semantic mess.
Lauren please continue the animation with Doug. You could set it to play on a loop, since we have the same circular arguments time and time again. There really is no end to the insanity.
Nobody told you that the characteristics of prostitutes,and the effect you think they have, is justification enough to kill them. Now, were they inside the body of a person, that would be a different deal, then the same desire of the person not to have them inside of them would be applicable, and this would make a difference to many other people.
What argument do you have about prostitutes that is as compelling as the fact that it is the woman herself who is pregnant? I don’t think you have any such argument.
Prove that being inside the body of a person is a more compelling argument to kill a human than all of the reasons that YCW gave that prostitutes do not benefit society. That is merely your opinion, Doug, and it is not set in stone just because Doug Says So.
I personally see there being much MORE reason to kill a prostitute than killing an innocent baby in the womb. I don’t condone murder of anyone, but if we’re going to compare ‘compelling reasons’, there you go. Prostitutes make conscious choices that hurt people every day, including themselves. Babies don’t make those kinds of choices at all. They simply exist. That they happen to be located inside their mother (not of their own decision either) is NOT a compelling reason to kill them!
I always seem to be arguing with Doug when I am carrying a little sweetheart in my womb. Nothing ticks me off more than him saying my baby is worth killing simply because she resides in my womb. If I decided to kill her today, Doug would support my decision. Therefore, he sees my child as worthless. That is seriously, seriously offensive to me. Too bad he can’t see it. I’m sure he’ll come back on here and say that is not true, that he would never force me to discontinue my pregnancy because I obviously don’t want to, but he misses the point every time. The fact that if I WANTED to he would support my “right” to kill Annah Grace, means he does not think Annah Grace is as important as me, simply because of where she lives….and THAT makes me furious because it is simply disgusting.
I don’t think that Doug has had the experience of being a parent yet, or of holding the lifeless body of a dear one. He hasn’t yet been kicked in the gut by the reality, the finality of death nor the miracle of life in a personal way. It allows him to rest easy in his philosophically fluffy arguments. I don’t think my husband became truly, commitedly pro-life until he held the precious, lifeless body of our daughter who had died at 18 weeks gestation. She was so perfect, so complete, and she had his hands and feet. She was very clearly a baby and not a “pregnancy”. Humans are pretty stubborn creatures until we are hit over the head by life sometimes.
Elaine, I am so very sorry for your loss. I once drew a portrait of two twins who were only 15 weeks when they passed away, and it was heartbreaking. They were so beautiful (and so obviously human) and the sadness that the mother endured after losing them was very great. I can’t imagine how Doug’s words might cut into her heart if she were to ever read them. Doug has no understanding of this kind of thing and likely will never have an understanding of it. He has no idea how cold and heartless his words truly are -I think he really thinks he’s being kind. He speaks from ignorance.
“Why should anyone behave rightly toward non-family, let alone those from other cultures, if evolution is pitting us all against each other?”
You fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Natural selection does not equal a Hobbesian state of war.
Bethany: Doug “sees my child as worthless. That is seriously, seriously offensive to me.”
Agreed. And I don’t have to be pregnant to find that offensive.
But Doug doesn’t seem to see anyone as valuable unless he gains a benefit from them. Doug’s value lies in the fact that he is important to others. Doug doesn’t have an objective measure to define anyone’s value. Doug has no rational basis to feel kindness toward anyone from whom he cannot benefit. If Doug is ever charitable or if he is kind to strangers who do not provide him a service, he acts outside his belief system.
I can only assume that Doug thinks others also are kind and considerate to him insofar as they can get something out of him, and that deep down he believes if he could no longer work, and his wife left him, he would have no worth at all.
So I feel bad for Doug. I have certainly felt that I was worthless, and that no one cared if I lived or died or ever would.
But even though I thought I was worthless, even though I wanted nothing but things which were evil, someone showed me the greatest act of kindness I will ever know. Someone whom I had scorned and mocked, but who was in fact a better person than I with plenty of people who loved him, laid down his life for mine. God himself died for me, though I could never give him back anything or help him or even love him as he deserves. He loves me because of who He is, not because of who I am–He loves me because He created me. And now He loves me because I am His and I am trying to follow Him. Doug doesn’t have that. I hope someday he does–that he will see that there is no goodness, no worth for any person except in God, and that in leaving our lives and following Him we can most truly discover ourselves, knowing that each of us is a uniquely created image of an infinite Love.
Amen, Amen, and Amen to your post, YCM! I could not agree more! I do hope that Doug will one day be able to see that.
We have UNCONDITIONAL love and acceptance and value in Christ.
Here’s a story I’ve been mullling on. My Mom’s next door neighbors are two lesbians who have been together for years and years. Mom has always thought very highly of them and recently she related to me the most incredible story. One of the ladies was raped by her step-father when she was a teenager, and she became pregnant. She was told point blank to get an abortion or get out of the house. When she refused an abortion, she was kicked out and rejected by her family. I believe she worked toward emancipation at that time, but as you can imagine things were very hard for her. She went on to give birth to a daughter whom she gave up for adoption. Recently, she had the extreme if nerve wracking pleasure of her daughter, who is now in college, contacting her and they finally met. She wondered if her daughter would like her…as you can imagine she had nothing to worry about.
This woman risked so much, alone and abandoned, to protect this lovely, intelligent college student for the short period of time she dwelt inside her. If she had had that abortion, she would have killed HER, not simply terminated a pregnancy. THIS WOMAN IS MY HERO.
BTW, thanks for the condolences, but my Maura – her birth and death – brings me joy. Sweet sorrowful joy, but joy nonetheless. :)
Oh, and I hold out hope for folks like Doug. If hardened abortionists can see the truth of what they are doing and change to defend life, so can those folks. May the scales fall from their eyes.
Bethany: Doug “sees my child as worthless. That is seriously, seriously offensive to me.”
I think Doug would say that if YOU value your child, then your child isn’t worthless.
But if you do not value your child, then your child has no value.
He doesn’t believe in intrinsic value.
YCW: “But Doug doesn’t seem to see anyone as valuable unless he gains a benefit from them. Doug’s value lies in the fact that he is important to others. Doug doesn’t have an objective measure to define anyone’s value. Doug has no rational basis to feel kindness toward anyone from whom he cannot benefit.”
I would say in the case of an unborn child, that he “doesn’t seem to see the fetus as valuable unless the mother gains or sees a benefit from him/her.” And I agree with YCW’s statement.
I tried being pro-chocie. That lasted about 15 minutes. It was during the hoopla surrounding the Chantal Daigle/Henry Morgentaler cases in the 1980’s.
I realized that being pro-choice means supporting the killing of a human being. That seemed supremely stupid. Of course you can’t kill a human being!
I was a pretty soft pro-lifer at age 15. What hardened me to a true blue pro-lifer was my religion prof in Grade 10. Openly and militantly pro-life. Showed us the Silent Scream. Had speakers from Campaign Life Coalition come out to talk to us and gave out plastic fetuses.
When I was in college, I wanted to find the facts about prenatal development. I knew that abortion killed a human being. But I wasn’t really aware of prenatal development. I went to the science library and pulled out books on obstetrics. I was profoundly shocked at the level of development of the unborn. I felt like the whole of society had brainwashed everyone on this topic. I knew what my values were. But I didn’t really understand the facts.
I find a lot of prochoice people run from the facts that deal with prenatal development or abortion, or try to minimize them.
” I know of no society, anywhere, that has ever done that.”‘
See Ireland, Doug.
This thread makes me want to intentionally get pregnant so I can exercise my freedom not to have a child. True story.
You have the freedom to not have a child, Ashtar. However, the time to exercise that right is PRIOR to engaging in the act that creates babies, not after.
And with that quote, Ashtar, you have summed up the reason you are considered a pro-abort.
I’m not surprised. Ashtar(oth) is a bloodthirsty mistress. Go ahead and exercise your “power” of death over your weak and helpless children like the good little worshiper you are. http://www.forerunner.com/champion/abigail-seidman-interview-wiccan-rites
Elaine, my husband and I are reading through the Bible together, and are currently in the old testament books which talk about the Ashteroth (and child sacrifice) frequently. I didn’t even think of that when I saw Ashtar’s name till you pointed it out. Very interesting…and disturbing.
I am a pro-life teen.
Abortion kills an innocent and defenseless human being, therefore it is wrong. I always have known it is wrong, but my viewpoint only grows stronger with each passing day. As I learn more and more, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that life needs to be defended. I plan to immerse myself much further in the cause for life as I get older, and look forward to assisting the most innocent among us.
I was when I was very young but at the age of 19 I was confronted with the abortion issue and then saw that abortion was murder. I begged my pregnant girlfriend to keep the baby but she would not.
AAB, so sorry for your loss.
AAB, I am so sorry that this happened to your baby. I can’t imagine how helpless of a feeling that would be… I have a friend whose past girlfriend did the same thing to him. There are places that you can go to for support, if you have not already…here is one that I found:
Fathers and Brothers Ministry
Helping hurting men heal from their abortion losses
777 Panorama Ct.
Boulder, CO 80303
(303)543-0148
wlwms@comcast.net
Training manual and bible study guide available at:
http://www.lifeissues.org
Arual, thank you for your testimony!
Doug – thank you for a little insight into “The Religion of Doug” but it is still difficult to glean any consistent and coherent philosophy from all your submissions here. I asked about citizenship because at 3:07pm yesterday you used citizenship as one of your criteria to assess the value of the unborn. At 3:07 it was significant, at 10:23pm you say it is not.
Jim, I appreciate you giving the specifics. Makes things much easier, especially on a big old thread like this one.
Okay, JoAnna says: “It is the job of a civilized society to protect the rights of all its citizens, and all human beings have the right to life.”
I replied: “No, all human beings – as you use the term – do not have the right to life, and this is the situation you want changed. The unborn aren’t citizens, obviously, and in any case there is the pregnant woman to be considered as well.”
–My point is that what she said about protecting citizens does not apply, since the unborn are not citizens. Nothing more, nothing less, there. Pretty straightforward. Not saying that “citizens” or not is the end-all of the discussion; of course it’s not. But I did not think JoAnna’s statement about citizens is applicable to the unborn, and the unborn are what we’re talking about (in addition to the pregnant woman, o’ course).
Jim, then later, you ask, “Doug – why is citizenship important in determining the personhood of the unborn?”
My reply: “Jim, I don’t say that citizenship is important, there. Really has nothing to do with it, i.e. “person” can be present without citizenship, as in the US, being there.”
–I think that is correct. While citizens are persons, the reverse is not necessarily true. Specific to the unborn, I personally see personhood developing later in pregnancy, and I think the restrictions on abortion we have then constitute a limited form of it. This is without citizenship being involved.
_______
Maybe you will be a little more specific about how far you will go to support bodily autonomy if you are asked a more specific question. Being “pretty darn permissive there” about self destructive behavior leaves you too much wiggle room and appears to be a less than 100% support of complete bodily autonomy. Would you sit idly by and watch your grandmother, mother, sister, girlfriend or wife inject heroin into herself? Here’s another bodily autonomy test I once heard that was part of a video lecture by Scott Klusendorf. Suppose a pregnant woman not seeking an abortion decides to take thalidomide to help with nausea. Her baby is not “wanted” and she plans to surrender her child for adoption. She does not want to abort because of the physical risks abortion presents to her. Should she be allowed to take thalidomide while pregnant? If you were her doctor, would you prescribe thalidomide for her?
Great questions. No, I wouldn’t let them shoot heroin. That’s beyond where I’d draw the line. Would I let them smoke marijuana? Probably, to some degree. Would I sit by while my grandfather drank alcohol? I did have an alcoholic grandpa, and while it was obvious that he was drinking “too much,” I was young and far away and the old boy was already in his late 70’s, and that wasn’t beyond where I’d draw the line.
On the thalidomide – I sure wouldn’t prescribe it, and I don’t think she should be allowed to take it. Is it even legal for her to get it now? Questions like this apply, IMO, even if abortion were illegal. What do we do when somebody drinks too much booze, smokes like a fiend, takes drugs, etc. – where would we draw the line?
______
Don’t you see any inconsistencies in the law that prosecutes for murder if an unborn child is shot through the heart but is allowed to be killed by a doctor’s lethal injection to the heart?
Well sure, with respect to the unborn that law is not consistent. That is because the unborn are not all that is being considered. There is the pregnant woman or girl, and the individual situation besides.
_____
Please do not suggest that anyone is able to accurately predict that because a woman has no short term abortion regret that her next 50-60 years are guaranteed to be regret free and devoid of all negative impact. There is no way that you or anyone else can state with confidence that women are not scarred for life unless you continue to monitor them until the day they die. Please at least consider carefully the anecdotal evidence and realize that there may be a majority of post abortive women out there who are suffering in silence.
What if a woman changes her mind during delivery and decides she doesn’t “want” her baby and asks for it to be killed? Do you agree with the partial birth abortion ban? What is your definition of birth? Baby 10% out? 50%? 95%?
Birth is the process, to me “born” is all the way out. But I do agree with the ban, and am fine with restrictions on any abortions after 24 weeks, as many states have it. I’d also draw the line at 22 weeks gestation if it were up to me. The woman “changing her mind,” as in your example – I see that as being too late. That’s also the point with viability – if viable outside the womb, the pregnancy can be ended via delivery, thus satisfying the wish not to be pregnant on the woman’s part.
For a given woman, well of course nobody can predict exactly how she’ll feel, and I’ve never said anything to the contrary. “A majority of post-abortive women suffering,” well, that may even be true – how much “suffering,” though, that is the question. If a woman, on balance is glad she had an abortion, that does not preclude her feeling some regret.
Young Christian Woman: Why should anyone have rights if we have no intrinsic value? Why is it wrong for one man to kill another and lay claim to is land and wife? Why should people give up the fruits of their labors to see that the poor and needy among us survive? I recognize that non-Christians don’t live this way, and don’t believe they should. The existence of a conscience and of an inborn knowledge that people are equals explains this–but I don’t see how, outside of God, you can explain this basic impulse we have to care for an unprotected person we do not know. When two dogs have puppies, the higher-status mother will kill the puppies of the lower-status mother, because the resources should belong to her children. Humans are also social animals, and we know that a family sometimes has limited resources–but we take in orphaned children, even if they might never contribute to our family. Why do we not behave like animals?
Those “shoulds” and “should nots” are always in the opinion of “someone,” some entity.
As a society, we are basically a group of people with things in common, and for society to work well enough we have rules. Stay inside the rules and you’re more or less okay. Go outside of them, and you get put out of society, killed, imprisoned, sent away to learn to make better coffee, etc.
We tend to legislate against that which we fear – being killed, having our stuff stolen, etc. We don’t tend to legislate on things which we strive for – wealth, property, love, etc.
On “behaving like animals,” well, we indeed are social animals – we don’t want to be alone, in the main, and we group together in societies. We have great commonality of desire on things like not wanting to die, wanting to be free, etc., and thus we make rules supporting those kinds of things. With orphaned kids, that same commonality of desire is there – to a huge extent we’d rather feed them than let them starve. There really isn’t the counter-argument that “the resources should be used for something else.” It could be made, but there’s no significant number of people making it.
“Yes, I think the woman’s autonomy is the issue that trumps everything else. If I thought that abortion was such a negative that it outweighed the positives I see in allowing the woman to decide for herself, then yes – I’d think abortion should be illegal.”
Bethany: Doug, your problem is that you genuinely do not have a true reason that you believe abortion should be legal.
There are several reasons, all coming together, Bethany.
_____
You lie when you say it is about bodily autonomy, because you are fine with restrictions against abortion in the third trimester. If it truly were about bodily autonomy then you would not be against abortions in the third trimester, no matter how human you perceive the babies to be.
Nonsense – of course bodily autonomy comes into it for me, but it’s not the whole deal. Late enough in gestation, the bodily autonomy of the woman can be satisfied – the wish to not be pregnant – can be satisfied by delivering the baby, abortion not required. It’s silly on your part to call this a “lie.”
I’ve never said I don’t differentiate between the gestational age of the unborn. I’ve never said I favor no restrictions right up to 9 months, birth, etc. In no way have I ever said that bodily autonomy is “all there is” in the debate for me. This is still consistent with bodily autonomy trumping all else for the period in gestation when I favor unrestricted abortion.
____
You would say it doesn’t matter if they are fully human by that point- what the woman WANTS should trump all. You tell lie after lie, and change your defense every time someone challenges one of your defenses.
Nonsense again. I’ve never argued about “fully human” or not. In no way do I say that what the woman wants is the end-all of it, either, thus my support for restrictions later in gestation. As far as DNA, the unborn are “fully human” from conception.
It’s not a “defense,” on my part, in the first place. I have an opinion based on several things. I’ve never said that among them one trumps everything else, period (on a blanket basis). If the woman’s bodily autonomy was the *only* thing I was thinking about, then I would not have the same position that I do.
____
When someone calls you on bodily autonomy, you change your argument to society.
You are acting as if bodily autonomy was the entire argument, to that point, and you are wrong, there. If I mention bodily autonomy and the liberty of the woman, if there is ever a question in anybody’s mind about what else I think or what else forms my opinion, I’m more than willing to tell them.
I do think the woman’s liberty trumps all else, but not all the way through gestation. I don’t think that statement is hard to understand.
____
When someone calls you on society, you claim it is bodily autonomy you’re concerned with.
It’s both of course, and other things besides. Again, all you’re doing is conjuring up straw man arguments.
_____
When you’re called on that, you claim that the fetus does not have the brain capacity to understand until the late second trimester or early third.
Sure, the nature of the unborn in gestation makes a difference to me as well. Why do you think support for abortion is greater for early abortions versus late? Because many people feel as I do.
What is this “calling” you are talking about? If you mean that I say that one thing only matters to me, then I later say that only a different thing matters to me, that’s certainly not true.
Bethany: Prove it, Doug. All you have is your opinion. “I think” “I think” “I think”….well, that isn’t good enough. It isn’t good enough just to think. At least Elaine provided you with studies. You only provide people with the all knowing Doug’s Opinion. Why isn’t “Elaine’s Opinion” as reasonable as yours, Doug? Because DOUG doesn’t think so?
Well, if I say something is my opinion, then it’s just that. Do I think that over half the women who have abortions are coerced into it by other people? No I do not. Do I think the Elliott Institute is biased? HELLO…. ; )
Elaine’s opinion may be reasonable. I don’t know what percentage of abortions she thinks are coerced.
____
Oh and I love how you refer to the many studies that show that women really aren’t coerced into abortion, without referencing a single one. I am sure none of those studies are in the LEAST biased. Right.
Good grief, that is not what I said.
“studies have confirmed that for most women, having an abortion was not all that bad, and that on balance they were glad they had one, and that they would have another in similar circumstances. I am not saying there aren’t hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of women who really do regret it, but among the million+ women who have one each year in the US, they are more the exception than the rule.”
I said nothing about studies and coercion, and for that matter, Elaine did not, either.
Now, I would indeed be interested in seeing what percentage of abortions are coerced by other people. I don’t think I ever have seen a study on this.
My point with past studies is that in general they’ve showed that women who have abortions – in general and for the most part – are glad, on balance that they did, and would do it again in similar situations.
People who are hurt by abortion don’t matter to Doug.
Wrong, Bethany. You were just in a ranting mood, not paying attention to what was really being said.
____
Prove that being inside the body of a person is a more compelling argument to kill a human than all of the reasons that YCW gave that prostitutes do not benefit society. That is merely your opinion, Doug, and it is not set in stone just because Doug Says So.
Good question – but any answer is going to be opinion, in the first place. I agree that it’s my opinion, in this case shared by vast numbers of other people, but opinion nevertheless.
In the here and now of our society, the prostitute had full rights and personhood attributed at birth, and thus is afforded some protections by that. Not that she “cannot be killed,” per se, since in a death-penalty state some situations could have her being killed, but we’re not going to kill her because of the reasons YCW gave.
This is not saying it “has to be that” way, either, as if no other case could be.
_____
I personally see there being much MORE reason to kill a prostitute than killing an innocent baby in the womb. I don’t condone murder of anyone, but if we’re going to compare ‘compelling reasons’, there you go. Prostitutes make conscious choices that hurt people every day, including themselves. Babies don’t make those kinds of choices at all. They simply exist. That they happen to be located inside their mother (not of their own decision either) is NOT a compelling reason to kill them!
Okay, you see prostitutes as “guilty,” to some extent, and I also agree (of course) that the unborn are not “guilty.” There’s no capacity for guilt, there, in the first place.
If we were only comparing the prostitutes and the unborn, that would be one thing. I’d agree with you, then. As it is, since the pregnant woman is there, it’s different for me, if not for you.
I always seem to be arguing with Doug when I am carrying a little sweetheart in my womb. Nothing ticks me off more than him saying my baby is worth killing simply because she resides in my womb. If I decided to kill her today, Doug would support my decision. Therefore, he sees my child as worthless. That is seriously, seriously offensive to me. Too bad he can’t see it. I’m sure he’ll come back on here and say that is not true, that he would never force me to discontinue my pregnancy because I obviously don’t want to, but he misses the point every time.
Bethany – makes sense to me why you were upset. I can see why you’re offended. The flipside to that is you should be able to see why people are offended at the idea of taking away the liberty that women now have, too.
The fact that if I WANTED to he would support my “right” to kill Annah Grace, means he does not think Annah Grace is as important as me, simply because of where she lives….and THAT makes me furious because it is simply disgusting.
Honestly, that is not true. I would never say that the baby is less important to you because of not being born yet. I believe that is not the case with you, and I believe it is not the case for some other people too.
I am not saying the unborn are “worthless.” This is far too much of a generalization to be true. I certainly am not saying “worth killing” on the basis of being unborn, alone. That implies a negative value, and in no way am I saying that is necessarily there.
I don’t think that Doug has had the experience of being a parent yet, or of holding the lifeless body of a dear one. He hasn’t yet been kicked in the gut by the reality, the finality of death nor the miracle of life in a personal way.
Elaine – true. I don’t have any kids, and my wife has had a hysterectomy, so we’re not going to. Nobody closer than a grandparent has died yet. I hear you on the finality of death, though.
It allows him to rest easy in his philosophically fluffy arguments. I don’t think my husband became truly, commitedly pro-life until he held the precious, lifeless body of our daughter who had died at 18 weeks gestation. She was so perfect, so complete, and she had his hands and feet. She was very clearly a baby and not a “pregnancy”. Humans are pretty stubborn creatures until we are hit over the head by life sometimes.
“Unborn baby” is fine with me, and I’m not disagreeing with you – I don’t think the reality of the unborn is at argument here. I’m not saying you should feel any different.
Young Christian Woman: But Doug doesn’t seem to see anyone as valuable unless he gains a benefit from them. Doug’s value lies in the fact that he is important to others. Doug doesn’t have an objective measure to define anyone’s value. Doug has no rational basis to feel kindness toward anyone from whom he cannot benefit. If Doug is ever charitable or if he is kind to strangers who do not provide him a service, he acts outside his belief system.
Well, you’re close on some things. But it doesn’t have to be that I gain for me to see value – heck, most people in the world have no direct impact on me.
Agreed that my value is in my importance to others, and I disagree with “objective value” in the moral sense. This is saying that value exists not in the eye of the beholder, and my point is that there has to be a beholder in the first place. There has to be “somebody” thinking of the good/bad/right/wrong of the moral realm, or else there would be no morality, period.
Feeling kind really isn’t a “rational” deal, IMO, unless we are invoking the “golden rule” or the like. For me, human nature or the nature of any living thing, really is enough – we recognize it and go from there. In other words, we feel as we do, and that can’t be argued.
You’re also wrong about my belief system.
” I know of no society, anywhere, that has ever done that.”‘
Lauren: See Ireland, Doug.
I’m going to partially agree with you, Lauren, believe it or not. ; )
Young Christian Woman had said:
“it seems my view make more sense (you admit yours is arbitrary), is more easily codified and applied, and it has its basis in logic and history.”
I was replying, and in reading over the post, it looks like I was thinking of full rights and personhood for the unborn, and while I do think that has never been done, that was not what YCW said.
To an extent, Ireland has codified it, so I stand corrected.
Hi Doug, I’ve been lurking on here for a long while now.
It seems to me that you are saying that people are valuable based on their wantedness to others, and that although the majority of people in the world are not valued by you, you recognize their value because they are valuable to somebody. It seems that part of your argument lies in saying that because the abortion-minded mother does not place value on her child, this partially justifies the killing of that child.
What it appears to me that you have not considered is the fact that others may value the unborn human, not just his or her mother. What about AAB? He definitely valued his son or daughter, but the value and wantedness he placed on his child was ruled to be irrelevant. Your argument may be that the bodily autonomy of the woman surpasses the value that others place on her child, no matter how much or how many.
As for your views on abortion restriction after 24 weeks, I assume that your reason for this belief is due in part to the concept of viability (if the woman is already that far along she can deliver a living child rather than aborting), which means the child’s development is a deciding factor in your views.
When a young child dies, this is viewed as even more tragic than the death of an older person. The child never got to experience much of life, and we are somehow innately saddened by this fact. We understand to a certain extent the value of this life, and the opportunity to live it. I view abortion as the ultimate tragedy, because the experience of life is robbed from the child. Each time I feel the breeze on my face or hear a song that I like, I think of the millions of people who never got to have that experience; millions of human beings who died so young. The fact that the person is earlier in their development is tragic because they were given the opportunity to experience even less. Aborting a 6 week embryo is an eternal decision. It isn’t simply a matter of “this was living, and now is not”. Everything that person could have experienced over the course of their lifetime was robbed from them. Their first steps. Their first kiss. Their wedding. Having children of their own. Gone. I would gladly give up nine months of my own convenience to give another human being, one I am responsible for creating, their lifetime. And I have.
I remember that in a post of yours, you said something to the effect of “I don’t believe that there is enough to outweigh the mother’s current right to bodily autonomy. If I did I would be pro life”
What the issue comes down to then, for you personally, is this: does the lifetime of one person outweigh the temporary inconvenience of another. I believe that the answer is undeniably yes.
Imagine you have a conjoined twin, and you are seeking separation surgery. You want to be able to live without the inconvenience of another person who needs access to your body to survive. Your twin is naturally weaker than yourself, and would be unable to survive separation surgery for another six months or so, with 9 months being the optimal time frame to ensure a healthy recovery. Do you have a right to say “no, I want to be separated now, go ahead with the surgery and let my twin die”? Is this the ethical decision? Should the rights of your conjoined twin be protected by law? I am interested to hear your response.
Doug, please explain why human beings feel an impulse to be kind to those who have no value to them.
I understand that we feel this; what cannot be explained (except in our creation by God and as a reflection of Him) is why. What is it in us that wants to feed hungry children rather than let them starve, even half a world away? That has the impulse to give to a neighbor in need, even if we covet his land? That tells us to give money to a homeless person? How can the impulse to give out of our own resources, even when they are paltry, be explained evolutionarily?
If the value of a person is in their wantedness and relationships with others, why do we still feel it is wrong to kill born, unwanted people? Why were so many unsure about killing bin Laden, despite the horrible things he has done?
Do you believe all born human beings are equal? Are celebrities better than us because they are loved by more? Are those in large families more valuable than those in small families? It just makes no sense for the value of a human being to be arbitrary and different for each.
Hilary, 10:01, that was beautiful.
If the issue of abortion is irrelevant to you, Doug, why are you here?
And how can one build a government/system where wantedness defines value?
There are several reasons, all coming together, Bethany.
If it’s because of bodily autonomy, then that should trump the baby’s right to life 100% of the time, regardless of the stage of life the baby is in- because it’s not about the baby- it’s about the woman and her right to bodily autonomy.
It makes no sense to say that you believe the woman should be able to do what SHE wants with her body, if you believe she should not be allowed to make the decisions with her body after a certain point in pregnancy. That is a contradiction. Either she has the choice to do what she wants with her body, or she doesn’t.
And if the value of the child truly lies in wantedness, then why does it matter if the unborn child can experience pain, etc at any point of pregnancy? The value is supposed to lie in whether the mother values the child or not, so if she doesn’t, what is your objection to aborting on the due date?
***
Nonsense – of course bodily autonomy comes into it for me, but it’s not the whole deal. Late enough in gestation, the bodily autonomy of the woman can be satisfied – the wish to not be pregnant – can be satisfied by delivering the baby, abortion not required. It’s silly on your part to call this a “lie.”
Abortion is not “required” earlier in pregnancy either, yet you still support it. If bodily autonomy truly was a compelling reason to “end a pregnancy”, it would still be compelling in the case of a full term infant.
****
I’ve never said I don’t differentiate between the gestational age of the unborn. I’ve never said I favor no restrictions right up to 9 months, birth, etc.
I understand that, and therein lies the contradiction, Doug.
****
In no way have I ever said that bodily autonomy is “all there is” in the debate for me.
If you truly believe in bodily autonomy for the woman, and believe that the unborn child existing in her body is a compelling reason to kill it, then it makes no sense to change your position if the child happens to be older. The child is still inside the woman’s body, and the woman may still want to have an abortion, and choose not to give the baby up for adoption. Your bodily autonomy argument is an untruth, even if you do not recognize it.
****
This is still consistent with bodily autonomy trumping all else for the period in gestation when I favor unrestricted abortion.
No, it’s not consistent. Why should bodily autonomy even come into the argument at all, if you don’t respect it all throughout the woman’s pregnancy?
Sure, the nature of the unborn in gestation makes a difference to me as well. Why do you think support for abortion is greater for early abortions versus late? Because many people feel as I do.
Sheesh, Doug. You can’t think for yourself? Why does it have to be about what “many people believe” for you to believe something, Doug? Is it not enough to be against something because you deeply believe it is wrong for some kind of intellectual reason? I don’t base my opinions on what other people think. I have a firm foundation for my rights and wrongs (yes, I am talking about God’s moral code). You have no such foundation, which is why your beliefs are so confusing, unstable, and contradictory. Your beliefs can change based on what the majority of people appears to believe at any given time. Mine cannot and will not change, regardless of what other people feel, even if I am in the minority.
Doug, if 99 percent of people supported rape, what arguments would you use to tell others it was wrong?
If 99 percent of people supported pedophilia, what kind of arguments would you use to tell others it was not justified?
Or would you simply assume it must be okay, because most people agree that it is?
What is this “calling” you are talking about? If you mean that I say that one thing only matters to me, then I later say that only a different thing matters to me, that’s certainly not true.
I am saying that these arguments are just a front. I believe they don’t mean anything. In my opinion, the reason you support abortion is because you want abortion to exist. It has nothing to do with bodily autonomy, the unborn child’s stage of life, or any other reason. Those arguments are just something to hide behind, in my opinion.
Who conducted these studies, Doug? And why are those sources any less biased than the sources we provide studies from?
****
Bethany – makes sense to me why you were upset. I can see why you’re offended. The flipside to that is you should be able to see why people are offended at the idea of taking away the liberty that women now have, too.
If you truly understood what made me upset, you would never suggest me being able to empathize with others who want to kill their babies who they deem worthless.
****
Honestly, that is not true. I would never say that the baby is less important to you because of not being born yet. I believe that is not the case with you, and I believe it is not the case for some other people too.
I never said that you would say the baby was less important to ME. I realize that you would place value on my child based on what *I* believe about my own baby. What I said that to YOU was that you think the baby has no worth and no value and does not deserve protection under the law. If I wanted to kill my baby, you would say go right ahead. That means that you think the baby is worthless, whether you consider it that way or not. It is very offensive, cold, and cruel. But such is life in a world without a loving and caring God who values His creation.
*****
I do not consider anyone’s unborn child to be worthless, or even unwanted. You do not have any foundation, sadly, to realize that value doesn’t lie in
What is the opposite of valuable, Doug? You do not consider the unborn child to be valuable, therefore, the child has no worth. Worthless means “having no worth”. I’m sorry if that has a negative connotation for you and you don’t like the way it sounds, but that is the truth of what your words are saying.
I am not saying the unborn are “worthless.” This is far too much of a generalization to be true. I certainly am not saying “worth killing” on the basis of being unborn, alone. That implies a negative value, and in no way am I saying that is necessarily there.
Doug, that you believe they are worth killing, period, for any reason, means you do not consider them to have value. You consider them to have no worth, therefore you consider them to be worthless. It sounds like a negative value because it is. You don’t like the way it sounds, but that’s just what it is.
It seems to me that you are saying that people are valuable based on their wantedness to others, and that although the majority of people in the world are not valued by you, you recognize their value because they are valuable to somebody. It seems that part of your argument lies in saying that because the abortion-minded mother does not place value on her child, this partially justifies the killing of that child.
Hilary, excellent post.
What it appears to me that you have not considered is the fact that others may value the unborn human, not just his or her mother. What about AAB? He definitely valued his son or daughter, but the value and wantedness he placed on his child was ruled to be irrelevant. Your argument may be that the bodily autonomy of the woman surpasses the value that others place on her child, no matter how much or how many.
I don’t know who AAB is, but I take it his wife or girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes…? I do know this situation happens, and that it can be terrible for the man. That said, I would still go with the wishes of the woman, as she is the one pregnant. Much better to avoid this by both people communication openly and being very clear all along. Indeed, better, IMO, if all unwanted pregnancies were prevented.
____
As for your views on abortion restriction after 24 weeks, I assume that your reason for this belief is due in part to the concept of viability (if the woman is already that far along she can deliver a living child rather than aborting), which means the child’s development is a deciding factor in your views.
Yes, viability and also that most fetuses have some mental awareness by the weeks in the 20’s, certainly by week 30. I see “somebody” there then, versus an insensate, unconscious being. My opinion. If it were up to me to draw the line, I’d place it at 22 weeks.
____
When a young child dies, this is viewed as even more tragic than the death of an older person. The child never got to experience much of life, and we are somehow innately saddened by this fact. We understand to a certain extent the value of this life, and the opportunity to live it. I view abortion as the ultimate tragedy, because the experience of life is robbed from the child. Each time I feel the breeze on my face or hear a song that I like, I think of the millions of people who never got to have that experience; millions of human beings who died so young. The fact that the person is earlier in their development is tragic because they were given the opportunity to experience even less. Aborting a 6 week embryo is an eternal decision. It isn’t simply a matter of “this was living, and now is not”. Everything that person could have experienced over the course of their lifetime was robbed from them. Their first steps. Their first kiss. Their wedding. Having children of their own. Gone. I would gladly give up nine months of my own convenience to give another human being, one I am responsible for creating, their lifetime. And I have.
I understand how you feel, and know that many people feel as you do. I would say here that there is also the pregnant woman to consider.
On “robbing the 6 week embryo,” yes – the life ends. There is not “anybody” there, though, that is aware of anything, no sensation, no desire for anything. Had my mom had an abortion, there never would have been a “me” to know of care about anything. Philosophically, I can see how you consider this thing tragic, but here the sadness is on your part, not on the part of the unborn. If it’s your feelings against those of the pregnant woman, then I give the nod to hers, with the above stipulations.
And Doug, you keep saying this is just your opinion, this is just your opinion, whenever we ask you about this stuff. But since we already know your opinion, and you know ours, what is the point of debating, unless you are trying to convince us of your point of view?
I debate you because I sincerely want to see you become pro-life and defend the unborn.
Doug – you said you’d draw the line at 22 weeks. What about Amillia Taylor, who was born prior to 22 weeks and survived? Was she an “insensate, unconscious being” in the minutes before her birth but magically transformed into a sentient, conscious being as soon as she emerged from her mother’s womb?
What the issue comes down to then, for you personally, is this: does the lifetime of one person outweigh the temporary inconvenience of another. I believe that the answer is undeniably yes.
Hilary, there we have a difference in philosophy, then. As below, there are times I’d say yes, but I’m not always going to feel that way – some situations would have me saying no.
____
Imagine you have a conjoined twin, and you are seeking separation surgery. You want to be able to live without the inconvenience of another person who needs access to your body to survive. Your twin is naturally weaker than yourself, and would be unable to survive separation surgery for another six months or so, with 9 months being the optimal time frame to ensure a healthy recovery. Do you have a right to say “no, I want to be separated now, go ahead with the surgery and let my twin die”? Is this the ethical decision? Should the rights of your conjoined twin be protected by law? I am interested to hear your response.
This – like the question of how do we treat a pregnant woman who takes drugs, drinks too much booze, etc. (whether or not abortion is legal) – is a great topic.
I’m guessing this has come up, in the context of the parents of the twins deciding. If it’s me – let us say with the same mind I have now – then I’m going to say the ethical thing to do is wait the 9 months. This is because I’m presuming the twin has mental awareness, etc. Anencephaly (for example) might make a difference. I think that the rights of the twin would be protected by law, as things are now.
And Doug, you keep saying this is just your opinion, this is just your opinion, whenever we ask you about this stuff. But since we already know your opinion, and you know ours, what is the point of debating, unless you are trying to convince us of your point of view?
I debate you because I sincerely want to see you become pro-life and defend the unborn.
Hi Bethany,
Moral relativists are not concerned with “truth”, only opinions. I’ve been round and round with Doug, and he’s pretty much stated that this debate is only entertainment, or a pastime for him. We can pray for a conversion….
Janet, I have no trouble believing that at all.
I agree with you and I think we should pray, and very fervently, for his conversion. Only God could remove those scales from his eyes. After seeing my husband’s conversion last year, I believe anything is possible with God -even someone like Doug could change. I never have seen such a miraculous change as I have seen in my husband. God can work miracles.
(This doesn’t stop me from getting frustrated with Doug at times, though!)
Young Christian Woman: please explain why human beings feel an impulse to be kind to those who have no value to them. I understand that we feel this; what cannot be explained (except in our creation by God and as a reflection of Him) is why. What is it in us that wants to feed hungry children rather than let them starve, even half a world away? That has the impulse to give to a neighbor in need, even if we covet his land? That tells us to give money to a homeless person? How can the impulse to give out of our own resources, even when they are paltry, be explained evolutionarily?
Ha! Great – you even brought up evolution. You surprised me there, YCW. : )
We’re social animals, as we’ve already noted. Having a group/tribe/society of a given size, versus just one individual or one family group (father, mother, some kids) gives definite survival advantages, whether because it allows for specialization and greater efficiency, or because then we have enough hunters to bring down that nice wooly mammoth. Better to add to the tribe’s numbers, up to a point.
It’s not all just “unexplained instinct” or “explained instinct,” either. There are physical aspects of this in the brain. Most women have the impulse to cuddle their young, and engage in playful activities with them, for example. When certain areas of the brain are removed, that impulse is no longer felt.
____
If the value of a person is in their wantedness and relationships with others, why do we still feel it is wrong to kill born, unwanted people? Why were so many unsure about killing bin Laden, despite the horrible things he has done?
We tend to legislate against that which we fear, and fear of death is a big one. Once we say that one is a citizen, person with full legal rights, etc., in society just as we are, then we don’t want people in society killed (that includes us) without a good enough reason. Some people don’t think there is a good enough reason, period, just about no matter what.
Fear of death – we don’t want to die, ourselves (usually) – we want to be protected in society – makes sense to protect all (since that includes us). Of course it’s not absolute, then; then we get to the question of what’s a good enough reason to kill somebody, since the situation does sometimes arise.
____
Do you believe all born human beings are equal? Are celebrities better than us because they are loved by more? Are those in large families more valuable than those in small families? It just makes no sense for the value of a human being to be arbitrary and different for each.
While I’m fine, pretty much, with the way society does it, I don’t think we’re all equal. At birth I think we’re all pretty much equal (in the sense I think you mean it) but over time some rather large differences develop. This is what I personally think, not what I’m necessarily saying society should do. There are certain criminals who I think should have just been shot, right away, versus giving them room and board for decades.
Don’t think celebrities are better, nor that family size makes a difference. Once we are “adult” enough, and for most people I think this is around 16 year old, then it depends on the situation. Wartime, self-defense, etc., I have no problem with killing. Actually, I think I’m fairly hardcore about it – if somebody uses a gun or knife in the commission of a crime, anything with deadly force or potentially deadly effect, then it wouldn’t bother me if the death penalty was applied there too. And of course, situation by situation, I’d want some exceptions, too.
There is a point when I’d see a “good enough reason to kill,” in other words.
If the issue of abortion is irrelevant to you, Doug, why are you here?
I’ve never said it’s irrelevant to me. I won’t be personally involved with it, in my life situation, but just as with other people, I consider the woman, the baby, etc. The abortion debate is also a profound one, IMO, as it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.
___
And how can one build a government/system where wantedness defines value?
Wantedness *is* value. Wanting is valuing positively, making positive valuations. Not saying it *has* to be this way, in that it would be impossible to have it any other way, but our gov’t/system is to attribute full value at birth. That’s when we are saying the baby is fully “one of us.”
I used AAB as another poster did to reference the man who posted above about his girlfriend aborting his child against his wishes. I believe his posting name was Against Abortion Blog.
“As for your views on abortion restriction after 24 weeks, I assume that your reason for this belief is due in part to the concept of viability (if the woman is already that far along she can deliver a living child rather than aborting), which means the child’s development is a deciding factor in your views.”
“Yes, viability and also that most fetuses have some mental awareness by the weeks in the 20?s, certainly by week 30. I see “somebody” there then, versus an insensate, unconscious being. My opinion. If it were up to me to draw the line, I’d place it at 22 weeks.”
____
By mental awareness are you referring to awareness of the self, or the ability to perceive and to process those perceptions? Perhaps you are referring to any sort of brain activity? Please define this term specifically, as i sense that you may have been misinformed in the area of fetal development if you believe that there is no mental awareness before “the weeks in the 20’s”
Yet again, you are thinking in the present. You are only viewing the unborn human at the specific point of time in which he or she is currently existing. It is illogical to judge the weight of the loss of a person based upon their current state. justifying killing someone because of their current state discounts the future states of being that the person will never achieve as a direct result of the killing. If, heaven forbid, someone were to kill your wife, much of your grief would lie in the fact that her timeline has been ended. You will not see her in the future, from that moment on, and she will not continue living out her life until her natural death. Even if someone is killed and there is no one there to grieve their loss, that person has had their future involuntarily taken away.
Even if there is no brain activity at all (pre 6 weeks gestation), this activity would inevitably develop unless someone intervenes to end the life of the person. In this way, imagine that a person is in a coma, but you have medical knowledge that states that in X amount of time, they will awaken. Is it moral to kill the person because they do not currently have “mental awareness”?
Bethany: If it’s because of bodily autonomy, then that should trump the baby’s right to life 100% of the time, regardless of the stage of life the baby is in- because it’s not about the baby- it’s about the woman and her right to bodily autonomy.
I’ve never said “it’s only about the woman.” If the pregnancy can be ended by delivery, with the baby living, then the woman’s wish to end the pregnancy can be satisfied without an abortion taking place.
Earlier in gestation that is not the case. I do not see abortion as good, per se, and thus would rather see the delivery than the abortion. I also would not support the woman wanting the abortion versus the delivery.
Bethany, it seems to me you’re trying to force the issue to be simpler than it is, at least for me.
____
It makes no sense to say that you believe the woman should be able to do what SHE wants with her body, if you believe she should not be allowed to make the decisions with her body after a certain point in pregnancy. That is a contradiction. Either she has the choice to do what she wants with her body, or she doesn’t.
I’m not for some sort of absolute, cannot-be-limited, theoretical autonomy that exists in a vacuum, us never to be considering anything else. In lieu of more compelling reasons to limit her liberty, I am for the woman being able to do what she wants – that’s the correct way to say it. “Compelling” being a matter of opinion. And really, the same is true for all of us. If the gov’t doesn’t have a good enough reason, then leave us the heck alone.
____
And if the value of the child truly lies in wantedness, then why does it matter if the unborn child can experience pain, etc at any point of pregnancy? The value is supposed to lie in whether the mother values the child or not, so if she doesn’t, what is your objection to aborting on the due date?
Same deal – it’s not only about the woman. There is also the baby to consider. Part of the Roe decision was that the state could be seen to have a compelling interest in protecting the unborn after viability. At that point, as above, the autonomy of the woman can be served via delivering the baby, thus serving the interest of both woman and state, should the state want to keep the baby alive. For me personally, sentience, pain perception, cognizance etc., matters because the baby is getting more personality, more of what my own definition of personhood it. It’s getting to more be one of “us” just as a full-term, born infant is. The zygote versus a normally-developed 9 month fetus: I see a huge difference.
I’m using an “extreme” example for clarity, here. Let’s say a woman gets an egg fertilized, doesn’t even know it, and the egg doesn’t implant. As fas as I know, this does happen, and she may never know it. Contrast that with a 9 month unborn baby. Again, I see a vast amount of difference.
Now, of course the unimplanted egg was not due to the woman’s will, at least in my example. Okay, let us take a woman having an abortion early in gestation, like 4 weeks. Here too, I see an immense difference versus much later on in gestation. My opinion.
____
“Nonsense – of course bodily autonomy comes into it for me, but it’s not the whole deal. Late enough in gestation, the bodily autonomy of the woman can be satisfied – the wish to not be pregnant – can be satisfied by delivering the baby, abortion not required. It’s silly on your part to call this a “lie.”
Abortion is not “required” earlier in pregnancy either, yet you still support it. If bodily autonomy truly was a compelling reason to “end a pregnancy”, it would still be compelling in the case of a full term infant.
You’re still pretending there is nothing else but the bodily autonomy debate.
The “required” or not of abortion prior to viability is really what we’re debating.
____
“This is still consistent with bodily autonomy trumping all else for the period in gestation when I favor unrestricted abortion.”
No, it’s not consistent. Why should bodily autonomy even come into the argument at all, if you don’t respect it all throughout the woman’s pregnancy?
Oh yes it is consistent. Late enough in gestation, the baby is delivered, and the woman’s bodily autonomy is served – she doesn’t want to be pregnant? Well, then she’s not. Her bodily autonomy was still respected.
“Sure, the nature of the unborn in gestation makes a difference to me as well. Why do you think support for abortion is greater for early abortions versus late? Because many people feel as I do.”
Sheesh, Doug. You can’t think for yourself?
Yes, Bethany, I can.
____
Why does it have to be about what “many people believe” for you to believe something, Doug?
It doesn’t, and I said nothing to that effect.
____
Is it not enough to be against something because you deeply believe it is wrong for some kind of intellectual reason?
Who knows? That doesn’t apply here. You’d have to spell out the situation.
Let me try to make it even more clear, if I failed, above in a prior post. The nature of the unborn makes a difference to me. Some of that nature does not change during gestation, and some does. In the beginning, there is no mental activity, sentience, emotion, personality, etc. Late enough in gestation and almost all fetuses do have some of it. I realize that you do not agree that this should make difference in how we treat the legality of abortion, but you also realize that it makes a difference to me, right.
My point in asking you about general support for abortion during different stages of gestation is an illustration of that – that it is the changing nature of the unborn that makes a difference to many people, not just to me. My opinion on this is not dependent on those “many people,” and it’s also not that I’m picking one incredibly obscure or dubious point – again, my point being that many people weigh the changing nature of the unborn, and that it is a valid point of contention in the abortion discussion, even though you yourself may not see things that way.
_____
“What is this “calling” you are talking about? If you mean that I say that one thing only matters to me, then I later say that only a different thing matters to me, that’s certainly not true.”
I am saying that these arguments are just a front. I believe they don’t mean anything. In my opinion, the reason you support abortion is because you want abortion to exist. It has nothing to do with bodily autonomy, the unborn child’s stage of life, or any other reason. Those arguments are just something to hide behind, in my opinion.
Well, you’ve outright been mistaken about what I’ve said, you’ve taken things out of context, and you’ve made some illogical leaps in judgment. Come on… “Hide behind”? I’ve tried very hard to be as complete as I can. I’m not just thinking in silhouette here, I’m thinking of everything that matters to me, and trying to give the best answers I can.
You do seem to be more emotional about it now. I think you’re taking it more personally, and you being pregnant, that makes sense to me. Okay, so do you want just “preaching to the choir”? Do you want no pro-choicers to post at all? Should you and I just cool it for a while?
Doug, your opinion about bodily autonomy/age of fetus may leave you feeling relaxed about legalized abortion, but practically speaking it’s JUST THEORY.
In practice, babies are aborted well beyond the age of viability in this country as it is legal up until the 8th/9th month. That is REALITY. A woman cannot go the hospital and demand to be induced to “get the baby out of her” this is not a LEGAL option for her. It is only legal for the child to be killed by being burned in saline or having a drug injected into his or her heart before he or she is born early.
Now, I assume from your stance that you support bans on abortion beyond the 20th week of pregnancy? I also assume that you would support things like waiting periods, ultrasounds, and access to counseling that doesn’t depend financially on the decision to abort? How about requiring abortions to be performed in surgical outpatient centers rather than free standing clinics (for safety reasons)?
Because that is the REAL frontier line we are battling on.
Bethany: I never said that you would say the baby was less important to ME. I realize that you would place value on my child based on what *I* believe about my own baby. What I said that to YOU was that you think the baby has no worth and no value and does not deserve protection under the law.
Okay – let me take a look at this. If I was wrong, I’ll certainly say so. :: look :: look :: look ::
All right, here is what you said; what I was responding to: (May 17, 0734 hours)
The fact that if I WANTED to he would support my “right” to kill Annah Grace, means he does not think Annah Grace is as important as me, simply because of where she lives….and THAT makes me furious because it is simply disgusting.
The “he does not think Annah Grace is as important to me” part – that sure sounds like I’d be saying the baby was less important to you.
Doug, your opinion about bodily autonomy/age of fetus may leave you feeling relaxed about legalized abortion, but practically speaking it’s JUST THEORY.
Elaine, this is getting to be one whopper of a thread. : )
You make good points, below. Looking at the practical aspects of it, this is indeed something else than what we’ve been talking about, in the main. For one item, in addition to the things you note below, inducing delivery at, say, week 24 will lead to *enormous* costs, and almost always substantial if not enormous problems for the baby. In no way am I saying that I think it would be good, per se, to have a woman not want to be pregnant that late in gestation, period, nor that delivering the baby at that point is a really good deal. I don’t think it is.
But if we are drawing the line somewhere, as the Roe decision, did, then viability is a good place in my opinion, and again – this is agreeing with most of what you say. If we are going to have the state restrictions that most states have, then I’m for having them be “real,” and effective. If a woman is going to have an abortion, then I say let her do it earlier, versus later, and having effective restrictions would be motivation toward that end.
____
In practice, babies are aborted well beyond the age of viability in this country as it is legal up until the 8th/9th month. That is REALITY. A woman cannot go the hospital and demand to be induced to “get the baby out of her” this is not a LEGAL option for her. It is only legal for the child to be killed by being burned in saline or having a drug injected into his or her heart before he or she is born early.
I don’t think salines are really done anymore in the US, are they? If there was one last year, I’d be surprised, but that’s not really what I’m asking – I mean that overall they were discontinued decades ago in the US, I thought….. I know that some states – 8 or 10 – something like that, don’t have restrictions on late-term abortion on the books. However, it comes down to whether there is a clinic that will perform them or not. Last I knew, we were talking about some hundreds of abortions per year after 24 weeks in the whole country. Is this really not the deal?
In any case, we are talking about a miniscule percentage of total abortions, and other than in cases of sufficient danger to the woman – with the agreement that such would be exceedingly rare, if truly present at all – I’d want the real, effective restrictions.
One question right here: is it really illegal for a woman to ask for delivery to be induced, at say, 24 to 30 weeks? Or is it that hospitals/doctors won’t do it because preemies have so many problems? I never dreamed it would actually be “against the law.”
____
Now, I assume from your stance that you support bans on abortion beyond the 20th week of pregnancy? I also assume that you would support things like waiting periods, ultrasounds, and access to counseling that doesn’t depend financially on the decision to abort? How about requiring abortions to be performed in surgical outpatient centers rather than free standing clinics (for safety reasons)? Because that is the REAL frontier line we are battling on.
My “line is drawn” at 22 weeks, Elaine. I don’t support waiting periods. A woman wants an abortion, I do not think she should have to wait. Access to non-coercive counseling (from either a pro-life or pro-choice view), sounds good. Ultrasounds – if the woman wants to see one, fine.
Agreed that some abortion clinics have been substandard as far as safety. If there are enough outpatient centers, then no problem from my point of view, and if not, then the safety standards should be enforced and followed in the clinics.
Looking at “the real frontier” – if we (pro-choicers) agreed to meaningful restrictions at 22 weeks, or at 20 weeks for that matter, are you going to be cool with that? Are you going to quit advocating earlier restrictions, or pretty much a total ban? Well, probably not, huh?
Approaching the issue this way, it’d be natural to say, “well then the heck with it – if pro-lifers are going to continue to try and chip away at the woman’s liberty, why should we – pro-choicers – make any concessions at all to them?” In the real world there are all sorts of political quid pro quos and so forth, cross-agreements on unrelated legislation, etc. So the discussion definitely changes from our own individual opinions.
So you think something ought to happen (restrictions on late term abortions), that human beings who should have rights are dying because of it, but you’re going to ignore that because another group wants the same thing and you don’t agree with other things they want? Some moral code you got there.
If you want to disallow late abortions as a concession, not because you think a fetus has value, then say that.
I am willing to bet even at 35 weeks it’s easier to have an elective abortion than an elective induction. That is probably due to doctors who deliver babies actually caring about them, whereas “doctors” who kill babies have no standards. I don’t think it is illegal to have an early induction.
Do you support conscience protections for doctors? If so, what happens if there are no more “doctors” who will kill babies?
Honestly, it’s not the pregnancy, Doug …for some reason, you just have the ability to frustrate me more than any other individual on the planet. I don’t know why, you just do. Always have. On any other topic than life issues, I could truly enjoy conversation with you. But not this topic.
You say some of the most heartless things, in a friendly, seemingly “easygoing”, but also very robotic way. It’s very perplexing to me.
As for whether a doctor can induce at 24 weeks, from my experience they can’t. My doctor said he couldn’t induce before the 37th week, or would have gotten in trouble. He ended up inducing my third on the day after my 37th week because he was big (he was 9 lb 2 oz.), but couldn’t have done it any sooner.
No, what I said was that you don’t think my daughter is as important as me, not to me…(I can see how you read it that way, though. I also read one of your above posts incorrectly earlier).
You don’t see my daughter as being as valuable as I am. You think that of the two of us, I have more value.
That is what I meant.
That is why I say it is offensive…because I know that in comparison to me, my daughter has equal worth, regardless of her brain capacity, regardless of her age of development, regardless of whether she has anencephaly or not. She is a unique human being who has intrinsic value just like her mother. She deserves to be protected whether I would love her or whether I would not want her.
I haven’t read this entire thread (it’s enormously long!) but there is one thing I don’t think anyone has brought up and that is the fact that with very few exceptions EVERY mother who carries to term and sees her baby changes her mind about wantedness. When we push for abortion rights thinking we’re doing women a favor, we are stripping women of the right to bear a child that will soon be wanted. What I find unfortunate (for lack of a stronger word) is that we as a nation treat the vulnerable woman facing crisis pregnancy so callously. With hormonal surges come mood swings. Pregnancy is full of them. We are talking about decisions a woman makes under extreme stress here. And I believe it’s our duty not to push abortion or even support it as a potential choice but to make sure we are offering enough support to the woman in crisis that she doesn’t feel she has to resort to abortion.
My daughter became pregnant at 18. It never entered her mind to abort because she has always been pro-life, but if it had, even briefly, and she had succombed to that sudden urge to “put this whole thing behind her,” she would not now have her precious son in her life. I’ve seen many women shudder when they remember that they even momentarily considered abortion. The wantedness argument just doesn’t work for me — wantedness is variable.
“When we push for abortion rights thinking we’re doing women a favor, we are stripping women of the right to bear a child that will soon be wanted. ”
Megan,
Amen! It’s a dirty business, isn’t it? It’s about money, population control, and destroying the family. Ugh.
YCW: So you think something ought to happen (restrictions on late term abortions), that human beings who should have rights are dying because of it, but you’re going to ignore that because another group wants the same thing and you don’t agree with other things they want? Some moral code you got there. If you want to disallow late abortions as a concession, not because you think a fetus has value, then say that.
No, it’s not the moral code, it’s how things work, rather than just our theory and ‘druthers, etc. Restrictions on late term abortion are already in place in most of the states now, and some (relatively very few) late-term abortions still are done. I did say, “So the discussion definitely changes from our own individual opinions.”
And Doug, you keep saying this is just your opinion, this is just your opinion, whenever we ask you about this stuff. But since we already know your opinion, and you know ours, what is the point of debating, unless you are trying to convince us of your point of view?
Bethany, this thread is about us being pro-life or pro-choice as individuals. It’s our own individual opinions that determine that. I take it for granted that there will always be people “on both sides of the fence,” so to speak.
Elaine brought up “the real frontier line” which is a more general deal. I’m just saying that as far as the push/pull going on between pro-lifers and pro-choicers there, it’s often necessarily a two-way street, rather than a one-way.
_____
Honestly, it’s not the pregnancy, Doug …for some reason, you just have the ability to frustrate me more than any other individual on the planet. I don’t know why, you just do. Always have. On any other topic than life issues, I could truly enjoy conversation with you. But not this topic.
That ability comes from years of practice, I guess. ; )
Just kidding there, but I hope you know that I wasn’t trying to frustrate you. There’s a fundamental difference in the way you and I view things, and we’re up against that.
____
You say some of the most heartless things, in a friendly, seemingly “easygoing”, but also very robotic way. It’s very perplexing to me.
You see it being heartless not to value the unborn positively enough that they trump everything else, here. Okay, but you also realize that not everybody sees it that way, and that some other people see the most “heartless” thing as not putting the pregnant woman first.
You see it as terrible if the unborn die, others see it as terrible if women aren’t free to have abortions, usually with some restrictions. I know you care very much for the women, but you empathize most with the unborn, seems to me. I don’t see a mind there, with the unborn, to a point in gestation. I empathize more with the pregnant women, where there obviously is a mind.
____
No, what I said was that you don’t think my daughter is as important as me, not to me…(I can see how you read it that way, though. I also read one of your above posts incorrectly earlier).
You don’t see my daughter as being as valuable as I am. You think that of the two of us, I have more value.
That is what I meant.
Okay – so that’s cleared up.
That is why I say it is offensive…because I know that in comparison to me, my daughter has equal worth, regardless of her brain capacity, regardless of her age of development, regardless of whether she has anencephaly or not. She is a unique human being who has intrinsic value just like her mother. She deserves to be protected whether I would love her or whether I would not want her.
Then, IMO, it does matter if you’re pregnant, since now it’s such a personal thing for you, or at least it seems more immediate…? What can I say, Bethany? You know not everybody agrees with the “equal worth” part. You say you’re offended – okay, I believe you’re offended. But it’s just going to be that way, that some other people will not feel the same way.
As far as ways of looking at it, I remember a cultural comparison between the US and another country – I’m thinking it was India, perhaps, or some East-Indian area culture, the question being whether it was worse for one’s child to die, or one’s parent. In the US we frequently see it as worse for a young child to die, versus an older person. In the other country, the prevailing feeling was that the worst was for the older person to die, as with,”I can have more children, but she is my mother.”
You mentioned your “husband’s conversion last year.” Does this mean he was not pro-life until recently? Just very curious there, as I wouldn’t have expected that.
Hilary: By mental awareness are you referring to awareness of the self, or the ability to perceive and to process those perceptions? Perhaps you are referring to any sort of brain activity? Please define this term specifically, as i sense that you may have been misinformed in the area of fetal development if you believe that there is no mental awareness before “the weeks in the 20?s”
Hilary, I mean real mental awareness, not really “of the self,” but I do mean conscious pain perception, emotions, etc. Not just electrical activity in the nervous system or in the brain. True brainwaves, versus the rudimentary impulses we see earlier on in pregnancy. I also know there is still a lot of debate about when true pain perception, etc., begin for the unborn.
___
Yet again, you are thinking in the present. You are only viewing the unborn human at the specific point of time in which he or she is currently existing. It is illogical to judge the weight of the loss of a person based upon their current state. justifying killing someone because of their current state discounts the future states of being that the person will never achieve as a direct result of the killing. If, heaven forbid, someone were to kill your wife, much of your grief would lie in the fact that her timeline has been ended. You will not see her in the future, from that moment on, and she will not continue living out her life until her natural death. Even if someone is killed and there is no one there to grieve their loss, that person has had their future involuntarily taken away.
I agree to some extent, but don’t think it is illogical to not weigh the loss on the basis of “what could be” for the entire life. For one thing, it’s not only a question of the unborn, there is also the pregnant woman, here and now. Philosophically, you mourn that the life won’t be lived out in what you see as its rightful entirety, and here I think that is part and parcel of your main concern. Well okay, and other people’s main concern is the woman. You do have a point about my wife, but that it viewing it by itself, as either she’s here or she’s not. There’s nobody else involved, as there is with the abortion debate and the pregnant woman.
____
Even if there is no brain activity at all (pre 6 weeks gestation), this activity would inevitably develop unless someone intervenes to end the life of the person. In this way, imagine that a person is in a coma, but you have medical knowledge that states that in X amount of time, they will awaken. Is it moral to kill the person because they do not currently have “mental awareness”?
No, I don’t think so, but there isn’t the same motivation, since the coma patient is not inside the body of a person.
JoAnna: Doug – you said you’d draw the line at 22 weeks. What about Amillia Taylor, who was born prior to 22 weeks and survived? Was she an “insensate, unconscious being” in the minutes before her birth but magically transformed into a sentient, conscious being as soon as she emerged from her mother’s womb?
JoAnna, yes – Amillia Taylor has come up before. I don’t know whether sentience and consciousness were there when she was born. I think she beat 22 weeks by one day, and while I’m not saying that viability is the only real determinant of the debate in general, it’s a very unusual case. Don’t know if there is anything special about birth that “wakes up” the mind, but I would not say she changed in any “magical” way in that regard at birth.
There’s a continuum of viability, just as there is for developing consciousness. If we’re going to have a “hard number,” though, I’d draw it at 22 weeks. This is earlier than when most babies would be viable outside the womb.
Now that people have made the good point that doctors won’t induce labor before much later in gestation than the “viability” time frame that we’re talking about, it removes part of the premise from the judicial opinions in the Roe case – that if the state sees an interest in protecting the life of the unborn, and if the woman wants to end the pregnanby right away, then both could be served by the baby being born after viability. If this isn’t going to happen in practice, then the woman’s options are less. It doesn’t change my position, though – I wouldn’t “draw the line” later because of that.
Megan: I haven’t read this entire thread (it’s enormously long!) but there is one thing I don’t think anyone has brought up and that is the fact that with very few exceptions EVERY mother who carries to term and sees her baby changes her mind about wantedness.
Megan, the flip side of that is how many people end up wishing that they would have not had kids, versus having them. In the 1970’s, Ann Landers asked what now is a famous question – “If you had it to do over again, would you have kids?”
Around 10,000 people replied. 70% said no, they would not. This was surprisingly high, to me. However, had it been 50%, or 20%, or 10%, that’s still a lot of people who, on balance, would rather have not had kids.
You may well be right about emotions right after birth. But as to the long-term deal with having kids, it’s not for everybody.
Janet: Moral relativists are not concerned with “truth”, only opinions. I’ve been round and round with Doug, and he’s pretty much stated that this debate is only entertainment, or a pastime for him. We can pray for a conversion….
Hey Janet. Well, the truth is that morality *is* opinions. Without a mind that cared about such, without “somebody” there to feel the good/bad/right/wrong of the moral realm, to think of the “shoulds” and “should nots” involved, what “morality” could there be?
“Entertainment” and “pastime” sound more frivolous that what I think the truth is, but I do get enjoyment out of the discussions. I don’t see it as a bad thing to learn about philosophy (even if others don’t share the same one), and indeed, about oneself.
You mentioned your “husband’s conversion last year.” Does this mean he was not pro-life until recently? Just very curious there, as I wouldn’t have expected that.
No, he’s never supported abortion (of course, he was never actively pro-life like I was).
I had believed since the time we were married (1998) that he was a Christian, because he had made a profession of faith and had been baptized before we were married. But there was no change of heart, no indicators of a true conversion. I was not aware of this, even though sometimes I suspected, because to be honest, I had never witnessed a true conversion and I just assumed that he truly did care about God even though he never acted like it- didn’t want to judge unjustly- (I’ve been a follower of Christ since I was a child so I don’t remember anything before that point in my own life)… I believed that someday things would get better when we would have problems (which I didn’t even acknowledge as problems, I would brush them off and pretend they didn’t exist most of the time) and I always wore rose colored glasses about all of the negative things in our life.. I had a hard time because he barely ever wanted to communicate, would watch TV almost all of the time, and he did end up having problems with alcohol.
I had prayed for the 12 years of our marriage that one day he would step up and be the spiritual leader in our family because I knew we desperately needed it. * I* needed it. However, I never understood that the reason he was not already was because he didn’t even have Christ at all. I just thought he was in a different place and that God would bring him around in time. God did bring him around, but it was totally in a different way than I expected.
One day that everything changed. Without warning, one day he came to me one day crying and told me that he had repented of everything he had ever done wrong, and he had accepted Christ as his Savior. He was crying so hard I didn’t even know if it was real or a dream. I had never seen him like that. I wasn’t sure at first what to think- because he had already made a profession of faith, and so I began with sort of a skeptical outlook on his profession of faith, even though I was extremely glad to hear it. Maybe I was too afraid to believe it was true, afraid of getting my hopes up.
However, as time went on (it has been since November of 2010), I noticed some of the most amazing changes. Things he had tried to do before and had failed, he was doing with little to no effort. He started helping me around the house, something he never had done before and I had never asked him to do. With a happy attitude too, I mean, he would literally be humming and just sounding delighted as he helped me.
He started noticing me more and paying more attention to me- and the kids. We started eating together as a family, something I had always wanted desperately, but didn’t want to nag him about before. He started reading the Bible with me (outloud) every day- we are currently reading through the Bible in a year together. He prays with me every day, and actually wants to go to church now, where before he used to want to stay home all of the time. He has spent more time playing with the kids, talking to me and really communicating, laughing at my jokes… even just the littlest things, you know?
His whole attitude about everything and everyone has changed. He doesn’t use profanity anymore. I thought this change would last maybe a couple of weeks at the most, but he is so different from the man he used to be, even 6 months since that time…that I barely even remember the man he was before. Not that I thought he was horrible back then (I actually thought he was great!) but when I have something to compare it to, you know….I really didn’t realize what I was missing out on.
God’s character was revealed to me through my husband’s conversion. Where he used to treat me coldly at times, he now treats me with affection and kindness. He prays with the kids before going to bed- they look forward to their “prayer and huggy” with daddy every night. My son, Caleb, has even commented on how things have changed since the day it happened. He said, Mom, have you ever noticed that daddy is more involved in our lives since he became a Christian? I told him yes, I have definitely noticed and I am so thankful. James and I had our wedding vows renewed only a month after his conversion- it was an amazing moment in life and I am truly thankful that God chose to give James a new life. He is so much happier now. He used to be a pessimist, and now he is constantly optimistic. It is incredible to see the happiness and the joy that comes from within. He has become a giver, and has helped many people around our community, our church, and other random people he has come across – when he never would have done these things before. He doesn’t have the same concerns and cares that he used to have. God has changed my husband in an amazing way. There is no way it could have happened if God wasn’t real.
Here is a blog post I made with video of our wedding renewal and his baptism: http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/2010/12/06/baptism-and-wedding-renewal.aspx?view=linear
I know you probably didn’t want me to write a book, but this experience has truly opened my eyes to the fact that God can work miracles, even today, and when asked, I felt like I just HAD to share that. I think it might give others hope.
To anyone reading: If you have prayed for years for something and you feel like God isn’t answering you or even listening, don’t give up hope! God still answers prayer- and directly! I prayed for 12 years for my husband, and now this has happened. It was truly a miracle and it can happen for anyone…God answered my prayer better than I ever expected or hoped for.
P.S. Doug, there was one thing I thought of. A lot of times James used to act like he agreed with me on a lot of issues (this is one reason I never knew that he was a different person on the inside), but after his conversion he randomly brought up that he used to never understand my point of view on Terri Schiavo (I always thought we were in agreement on this- he saw me crying the day they pulled her feeding tube out and each day afterwards). He couldn’t understand why people fought for her so much. He said that NOW he understands, and NOW he knows that if anything like that ever happened to me, he would never, ever let anything like that happen to me. Honestly, when he first said that, it kind of scared me that I had been married to someone who might have allowed me to go through what Terri went through- but I was just thankful to know that now he had a different mindset. I know that he couldn’t have had a change of heart about that without God giving the understanding to him.
Hey Janet. Well, the truth is that morality *is* opinions. Without a mind that cared about such, without “somebody” there to feel the good/bad/right/wrong of the moral realm, to think of the “shoulds” and “should nots” involved, what “morality” could there be?
Without God, anyone’s valuation is just as valid as another’s. Therefore, with moral relativism, Hitler is no more evil than Mother Theresa, because they simply had different valuations, etc, and each valuation was just as valid as the others. Who can prove otherwise, without just noting how society happens to perceive it at the time?
So you’re right that morality does exist in someone’s mind- that mind happens to be God’s. If you don’t believe in God, then Doug’s arguments probably make perfect sense. But the implications of believing as Doug does are harmful to society and individuals, not helpful.
Who can truly say that a murderer or rapist is really wrong, when there is no firm foundation on which to assert that they are wrong? How can anyone prove evil even exists without God? They can’t. This is why abortion can be a perfectly logical solution to “unwanted” pregnancy, for people like Doug.
They have no way of saying what is right or wrong, without knowing how other people might perceive it at any given moment.
One century, pedophilia might be okay. Another century, it might be unfathomable. Just depends on how society perceives it. So I guess I should be thankful for Doug rather than frustrated with him. He shows very clearly and consistently what the mindset of people in a world without God would be.
Bethany, no problem on “writing a book.” I’m glad that things are working out so well for your family. : )
____
So you’re right that morality does exist in someone’s mind- that mind happens to be God’s. If you don’t believe in God, then Doug’s arguments probably make perfect sense. But the implications of believing as Doug does are harmful to society and individuals, not helpful.
We have different premises, though I’m glad you said “the mind of God.” I don’t believe in God as you do, but I’ve always said that if there is a God, or Gods, or other “higher” beings than us earthly humans, they too may have their opinions.
I don’t think we have to invoke religion to end up in the same place, however. There is a huge amount of agreement on many things, morally, the world over, since we have such commonality of opinion and desire. This is the case whether or not a given person is religious, and whether or not this or that hundred million people “believe” or not. Either way, we are as we are, and if there is a certain consensus, that’s that.
____
Who can truly say that a murderer or rapist is really wrong, when there is no firm foundation on which to assert that they are wrong? How can anyone prove evil even exists without God? They can’t. This is why abortion can be a perfectly logical solution to “unwanted” pregnancy, for people like Doug.
They have no way of saying what is right or wrong, without knowing how other people might perceive it at any given moment.
My premise is that we already say “wrong” for that which we find undesirable. We don’t want to be killed or raped, and we’re social animals in society, and we apply societal rules on a broad basis. We don’t have to “prove that evil exists.” We already say it’s there in actions or situations that we hate. We don’t have to search for ways “to say what’s right or wrong,” we have those feelings from the get-go.
____
One century, pedophilia might be okay. Another century, it might be unfathomable. Just depends on how society perceives it. So I guess I should be thankful for Doug rather than frustrated with him. He shows very clearly and consistently what the mindset of people in a world without God would be.
Seems to me that it’s not really that way, though, with pedophilia. Has there ever been a century or society where it really was generally accepted? I would not think so since there’s such an overwhelming commonality of opinion on it. I think this is true regardless of how many people at the time believed in God as you do, Bethany.
With something like slavery, then there indeed have been times when it was generally accepted by the citizens of a society. There too, plenty of those citizens believed in God. The mindset of people doesn’t necessarily change by the fact of them believing in God or not.
With something like slavery, then there indeed have been times when it was generally accepted by the citizens of a society. There too, plenty of those citizens believed in God. The mindset of people doesn’t necessarily change by the fact of them believing in God or not.
Absolutely. Some people believe in different gods, or claim to believe in God but do not obey His commands or listen to His words.
Doug,
Did you say 70 of parents wish they had never had children? I find that really hard to believe. I think I need to see more supporting evidence then you read it in an Ann Lander’s survey. How many parents do you know personally that would wish away their children? The ones I know would trade their own lives for any one of their children.
He’s used that Ann Landers survey before. Since Ann Landers is extremely pro-abortion, it makes sense that she would write such statistics, which make no sense in reality. (You could never find 70 percent of the population saying they regretted having a child).
There was a magazine who retaliated to the Ann landers poll by making their own poll, and I think 90 or more percent of that magazine’s readers said they would never regret having their child.
Edited to add: I searched and realized it was Newsday who made their own poll, and it was 93 percent who said they had no regrets.
“Regrets” is not necessarily the right word. Regardless of how Ann Landers felt about abortion, she simply asked what people would do if they could start again. It’s not saying “I hate my kids” or that they wouldn’t protect them, it’s what would people choose if they could go back to before they had kids.
However, does it really matter? As I said, if it’s only 10% (or 7%, for that matter) that’s a lot of people – that’s millions and millions in the US, alone, who feel that way. My point that having kids is not right for everybody certainly stands.
Then there is no point in citing a poll like that, Doug, if the numbers are irrelevant.
Doug, those seven percent probably said yes cause they think if they didn;t have their kids they could have done something else with their lives. And if they never had kids and got asked the same question they would probably respond that they wish they had their lives to do over so they could have had children. The ones who choose not to have kids and don’t have to kill their kids in order to stay that way; I say more power to them.
The ones who choose not to have kids and don’t have to kill their kids in order to stay that way; I say more power to them.
Amen to that, Truthseeker!
Truthseeker, you may have a point there! Indeed, some people are never happy. I don’t think that applies for all who said they’d not have kids if they had it to over, but yeah – hard to say and it’s not impossible.
Agreed 100% on those people who know themselves well enough that they know ahead of time not to have kids. And on those who know themselves well enough that do have kids, for that matter.
Of course, there will still be some people who don’t have kids and wish they did, and others for whom the opposite case is true. People don’t want to be seen saying, I wish my kids weren’t here,” or being seen as not loving their kids, but if they could go back to before they had kids….
_____
Bethany, the numbers are not “irrelevant.” It was still 7000 out of 10,000 people who responded as saying they wouldn’t have kids if they could do it over again. Ann Landers was extremely surprised.
Part of the reason for the high number was that the question was asked in Ann printing a letter from a young couple:
“….All around us we see couples who were so much happier before they were tied down with a family. Will you please ask your readers the question: If you had it to do over again, would you have children?”
Now of course it wasn’t a scientific survey – it depended on people being motivated to write in, and just as with hotels and restaurants, it’s the people with complaints who are more represented than the general populace. And a negative response was rather set-up by the first letter. It explains the big difference between that response and the general population.
These days, more people are remaining childfree by choice, and it stands to reason that if they had kids, many of them would not be happy about it, on balance.
I’m not saying that “people shouldn’t have kids” in general nor that anybody who wants kids shouldn’t have them. Hey, knock yourselves out….
Going back to what Megan said:
with very few exceptions EVERY mother who carries to term and sees her baby changes her mind about wantedness.
In the short-term, after birth, she may be correct about that. But in the long run, she may be overestimating how many people are glad, overall, that they have kids.
Bethany, the numbers are not “irrelevant.” It was still 7000 out of 10,000 people who responded as saying they wouldn’t have kids if they could do it over again. Ann Landers was extremely surprised.
lol no offense Doug, but my opinion is that she pulled those numbers straight out of her hiney. Those stats about as credible as Bernard Nathanson’s old claims of hundreds of thousands of women dying from back alley abortions (which he later admitted were made up). Completely fictitious numbers. It is typical for proabortion people to make up stats. The reason for that survey was to give people the impression that children are a burden to most families, which is definitely not the case.
But let’s just say her numbers were accurate- you yourself admitted that they were irrelevant by saying, “However, does it really matter? As I said, if it’s only 10% (or 7%, for that matter) that’s a lot of people – that’s millions and millions in the US, alone, who feel that way. My point that having kids is not right for everybody certainly stands.”
Bethany, I’ve never heard of anybody suspecting fakery, there. Ann Landers herself said:
“Twenty years of writing the Ann Landers column has made me positively shockproof. Or so I thought. But I was wrong. The results of that poll left me stunned, disturbed, and just plain flummoxed.”
Okay – I do see your point about “irrelevant” – certainly, the exact percentages don’t matter if we just end up saying, “a lot of people.”
Well, of course she had to say that.
If I was going to skew a poll, I would make sure to act flabbergasted at the results too, for appearance sake. How bad would she have looked if she said that she thought the poll results were what she expected? I guess we’ll just disagree on this one. But glad you see my point about the irrelevancy.
Regarding Lander’s poll:
http://www.stats.uwo.ca/faculty/bellhouse/stat353annlanders.pdf
Doug, (this is just speculation of course), your personal philosophy must come with a huge instruction manual.
It amazes me how someone can relax in the comfort of their home, sit at the computer, tap on a few keyboard keys, and, after a quick spellcheck, totally wipe out a huge portion of human existence. Come on Doug, it is impossible to sidestep or short circuit the normal, self directed process of embryonic and fetal development. How did any of us get to 22 weeks if we did not go through weeks 1-21? How can you say that there are increments of human development that are less important than others? Intentionally stopping that development at any point ends the life of a human being. Your rationale punishes the developing fetus just for being the wrong, arbitrarily determined age as though she had the choice of what age to be or had control over the pace of her development. I know you will now say that the early fetus cannot “choose”, “think”, “feel” or “control”. That statement only observes and describes biological reality. Your arbitrary line drawing does not present a level playing field to the pro life side because we cannot arbitrarily change the rules of biology and accelerate development and viability. Besides, abortion supporters draw many different lines.
There is nothing more insulting to someone rape conceived than hearing or reading the coldly declared “Wanted = Value”. The lives of the rape conceived are automatically defined as unwanted by the pro aborts, we are exhibit #1 on their list of disposable lives. And yet here we are. Here I am Doug – explain to me how I have no value, now or at any time during my life. Please take your “Wanted/Unwanted” myth making somewhere else because as soon as one unwanted life is saved, (and of course there have been an uncountable number of unwanted lives saved), your whole argument comes crashing to the ground. My value is not determined by the value granted me by one person. Neither is it determined by the anti-life faction of society.
*applause!* Well-stated, Jim! I didn’t want to be pregnant with my daughter, but her life never lacked value. Pro-abortionists don’t understand why I tend to get so vitriolic towards them, but they don’t realize that every word out of their mouth is an insult to real human beings everywhere that could be considered “abortion survivors”. How can they not see this fact?
Excellent post Jim!
My value is not determined by the value granted me by one person. Neither is it determined by the anti-life faction of society.
jim sable,
You are a blessing to us all. The anti-lifers need to consider their own short-sightedness when it comes to promoting a rape exception or incest exception in abortion law. I think your choice of the phrase “anti-lifer” is very appropriate. I may start using it since “pro-abort” is becoming a bit over-used.
Thank you for sharing your story. God bless!
I want to share this, for women who are post-abortive -
Catholic Relevant Radio just broadcast a wonderful/powerful talk by a post-abortive woman named Jane Brennan who, after many difficult years as an ardent feminist, came to the conclusion that feminism doesn’t empower women, but actually hurts women. She shares her experience in a talk called “Feminism Misunderstood”. (Hopefully Relevant Radio will re-broadcast it; check their website for more info.) Brennan has a website of her own, where she tells you how to obtain a CD of her testimony.
http://janeatmotherhoodinterrupted.blogspot.com/
God bless!
It amazes me how someone can relax in the comfort of their home, sit at the computer, tap on a few keyboard keys, and, after a quick spellcheck, totally wipe out a huge portion of human existence. Come on Doug, it is impossible to sidestep or short circuit the normal, self directed process of embryonic and fetal development. How did any of us get to 22 weeks if we did not go through weeks 1-21? How can you say that there are increments of human development that are less important than others? Intentionally stopping that development at any point ends the life of a human being. Your rationale punishes the developing fetus just for being the wrong, arbitrarily determined age as though she had the choice of what age to be or had control over the pace of her development. I know you will now say that the early fetus cannot “choose”, “think”, “feel” or “control”. That statement only observes and describes biological reality. Your arbitrary line drawing does not present a level playing field to the pro life side because we cannot arbitrarily change the rules of biology and accelerate development and viability. Besides, abortion supporters draw many different lines.
Jim, not denying or “wiping out” anything. Yes, the unborn “are there.” Okay, so we agree on the biological reality of the unborn.
Then we come to valuation. There is also the value and wishes of the pregnant woman. I agree that birth is (to some extent) an arbitrary line, just as me saying that viability, sentience, etc., makes a difference. When I think of the abortion issue, I am weighing the woman and the unborn, considering the desires of the woman, and indeed – the desires of such people as yourself. What can I say? It really does make a difference – born or unborn, sentient or not, developed to a certain stage or not. Not that it *has* to make a difference to you, or to everybody – granted that it will not. The fact remains that it makes a heck of a difference to lots of people.
Prior to having a certain amount of mental awareness, I don’t see the capacity for being “punished” as being there. Had my mom had an abortion, there never would have been a “me” to be aware of anything, to sense anything, to have any emotion, etc. There was a living organism there – no argument about it – but there was not a “me” yet that cared about anything. How would that have been a “punishment”? Those who are getting upset and who feel sadness/wrongness about legal abortion are those who have developed to the sentient, aware point and beyond.
___
There is nothing more insulting to someone rape conceived than hearing or reading the coldly declared “Wanted = Value”. The lives of the rape conceived are automatically defined as unwanted by the pro aborts, we are exhibit #1 on their list of disposable lives. And yet here we are. Here I am Doug – explain to me how I have no value, now or at any time during my life. Please take your “Wanted/Unwanted” myth making somewhere else because as soon as one unwanted life is saved, (and of course there have been an uncountable number of unwanted lives saved), your whole argument comes crashing to the ground. My value is not determined by the value granted me by one person. Neither is it determined by the anti-life faction of society.
You’ve got it wrong, in the first place. No, I don’t say that all rape pregnancies are unwanted, nor do I say the mother will feel any certain way, necessarily. I don’t say you have no value. It’s not up to me to make that call. I do think it’s up to the pregnant woman to make that call, as far as the unborn, to a point in gestation, rape or no.
Xalisae: I didn’t want to be pregnant with my daughter, but her life never lacked value. Pro-abortionists don’t understand why I tend to get so vitriolic towards them, but they don’t realize that every word out of their mouth is an insult to real human beings everywhere that could be considered “abortion survivors”. How can they not see this fact?
Because you’re going with an incorrect pretense. Regardless of the situation with your pregnancy, nobody who is pro-choice is saying that “you had to have an abortion.” Anybody that does is just as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.
I fully accept that you felt value was there, and that you thus chose to continue the pregnancy.