Pro-choice activist wonders where the LGBTQ support has gone
In this spirit, I’m asking where the Black LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) community is on Black women and abortion?
This is an important question for me. My identity is as a Black lesbian feminist who has worked with Black gay and lesbian organizations and who works on women’s rights from a reproductive justice perspective…
But it’s not an easy question to probe.
~ Jasmine Burnett (pictured above), On the Issues Magazine, Winter 2012 Issue
[Photo via Brooklyn Vegan]
Ummm…she did her job too well, and they’ve all been aborted.
Or come over to our side: PLAGAL.ORG
:3
10 likes
You know, I found today a John Piper sermon on precisely the issue of abortion and race. It touches on a lot of these issues in a way that I think is very thoughtful (and very Christian, obviously, so some of you may not agree with quite everything he says, but don’t let that stop you).
3 likes
Trying to read her whole article was an arduous task. Lots of words, not a lot of clarity or meaning. She never condemns the fact that more black babies than any other race are being aborted — she doesn’t seem concerned about it at all. Her only point seems to be that black women need to be more vocal in their support for black GLBQT “reproductive justice.”
Gotta love this line, though: ”As a people who have an ancestral linkage to slavery in this country, we share in the struggle of being affected: being Black provides individuals with unlimited access to oppression in just attempting to think that, as a human being, you have rights that are protected under the law.”
Yeah, Jasmine, those black babies are human beings, too, and they have rights that SHOULD be protected under the law! Talk about oppression — how about being denied the right to live and be recognized as a human person?
12 likes
What exactly is “reproductive justice”? You have the “right” to reproduce..
once you HAVE…the child you reproduced has a right to LIFE. THAT’S justice.
16 likes
A good defense of abortion rights from an atheist perspective is here: http://crossexaminedblog.com/2012/01/04/a-defense-of-abortion-rights-the-spectrum-argument/
FYI.
1 likes
This is something that Jack and I have discussed – on one hand it’s like why does the LGBT community care, when they do not need abortion as a form of “birth control” and wouldn’t they care about the rights of the unborn when they fight so hard for rights themselves?
On the other hand the pro-aborts try to make it out to look like a women’s rights issue – so the LGBT community clings to it in support of “women’s rights” but they have been duped just like everyone else.
Black or white gay or straight – abortion is about human rights – and we need to protect the unborn.
8 likes
Some Blacks get it, like Alveda King. But many of her race have turned against her.
10 likes
I have a gay friend who supports abortion. Though he supports everything that is leftist. But I never could understand why he, a gay male, cares if women can abort unplanned pregnancies. I asked him, if they find a gay gene, did you know that several pro-aborts have come out and stated they support aborting the baby for having the “gay gene”? He didn’t. He didn’t know what to say.
10 likes
@Bob: I’m sorry, but that is most definitely not a good defense of abortion rights from any perspective, atheist or otherwise. I’ll come back and expand on this later, but for the moment, let me point you towards a Secular Pro-Life blog post which addresses the problem with the egg/acorn/silkworm/etc…I hesitate to say “argument” because it really is that problematic, so I will say illustration.
5 likes
Alice, thank you for that link! I recently had an online tussle with a very good friend of mine who is pro-choice and she used that argument. I didn’t have time to debunk it because she (and several indignant other pro-choicers that she is friends with who thought it awful for me to have the audacity to believe differently than them) were typing way too many hackneyed pro-choice quips for me to respond to all of them. I was out-typed and out-numbered. lol. But this helps. I also posted it on “Abolish Human Abortion” on facebook. :)
3 likes
@Bob, thanks, but we’re not interested in abortion rights. We’re interested in all those human lives that have been “reproduced” to HAVE a right to live. This so-called abortion rights is really not a right at all – it is a LICENSE to kill.
7 likes
i hate to break it to pro aborts but i have met and befriended plenty of gays and lesbians who are against abortion. many were in straight relationships before going into a gay one. many of the lesbians have kids.
5 likes
The majority of my friends are gay – most are pro-abortion, sadly – but there’s a few good ones like my best friend who are pro-life :)
X – thanks for that link! Been looking for something like that for a long time!
3 likes
@Alice Yes, I understand that we’re talking about Homo sapiens all along the spectrum. That’s obviously not what I’m talking about. Did my post not make that clear?
“Homo sapiens” isn’t what you’d call the spectrum because there’s no spectrum there–it’s the same all the way across. That’s like having a rainbow with blue on both ends and an even gradient all the way through–no spectrum. But blue and green? Now you have a spectrum! Similarly, single cell vs. trillion-cell newborn–THAT’S a spectrum. My name for the spectrum is “personhood” (that is, it doesn’t exist for a single cell but it does for a newborn), but I’m flexible. Pick another name if you’d prefer that acknowledges the spectrum.
Of course, you could acknowledge the spectrum and still opt for never aborting. That’s a valid choice. But I’d like to see that choice being given to others as well.
1 likes
@Doe Do all living things have a right to live? A mosquito? A tumor? A single skin cell? The tumor is Homo sapiens just like the rest of the person. The skin cell may well be clonable into a complete human in another decade or so.
Presumably you agree with me that these are quite different than a person. So we agree that killing these things is no big deal and “license to kill” sounds a lot worse than it really is.
If you want to avoid killing a single fertilized human egg cell, go for it. But perhaps you can acknowledge enough fuzzinesss that others can be allowed to choose differently than you.
1 likes
im not sure why pro choicers expect gays and lesbians. i get along with most everyone ( talking about sexual preference isnt at the top of my list) i dont go around saying ” hi my name is heather and im a heterosexual”! however a woman in a lesbian relationship had a grown son. she said to me “heather i respect what you do in trying to discourage women from aborting. i have a grown son and i believe that if you lay down and make a baby you need to lay down and have it.” we hugged each other and i thanked her because i wasnt expecting that.
7 likes
oops shoulda said im not sure why pro aborts expect gays and lesbians to take their side…….also should say a woman i knew in a lesbian relationship.. anyway some are pro choice just like heterosexuals.
1 likes
bob the unborn deserve protection from the law so that we cannot choose to kill them. and embryo and a fetus are living people.
4 likes
@Bob, I wrote all pre-born human lives, not all living things. I think there’s quite a distinction between a mosquito and a pre-born human. This is what the abortion debate is about. Those on the pro-choice, which is pro-abortion, side believe a woman can kill the pre-born human growing inside of her. We on the pro-life side do not agree no matter what stage of development that human growing inside her is in.
7 likes
Oh and prayers needed please, fellow pro-life warriors. I will be praying outside PP in a few days.
3 likes
fetus means the same as baby. funny but no matter how pregnant i was the gals at work would say “we are going to throw a baby shower for ya.” not an embryo or fetus shower. its like saying ” john is an old man. or john is an elderly man. or my daughter is a little kid or my daughter is a toddler” dont use semantics bob. thats what hitler used on the Jews. dehuminize the victim and it makes it easier to kill them.
6 likes
doe my prayers are with you;)
1 likes
*Posting from my Kindle. Please excuse any spelling/grammar errors.
@Bob: I understand the point you’re attempting to make. But it’s very problematic for a number of reasons.
First, human beings are not built or fabricated like a car or a skirt. From conception onwards, a human is a complete organism. In this same sense, an acorn actually is a tree in that both are complete organisms of their species. The only difference between them is the level of maturity they possess, as is the only difference between myself and a child conceived two seconds ago, as Secular Pro-Life so neatly pointed out. Scott Klusendof has written reams on why maturity, or “development” as it is commonly referred to in the abortion debate, is a very poor way to establish where fundamental rights begin and end. Which brings me to point number two.
Both your blog post and your comments here are chock full of what Wikipedia would term “original research.” You say that it is necessarially important that a distinction is made between a blastocyst and a newborn. But other than pointing out that one is more developed than the other, you don’t make any signifficant arguments as to why we should do that. So one has more cells than the other; so what? It’s true that we might feel more emotionally invested in a newborn than a blastocyst, which that takes me to point the third.
The emotional response of the powerful to the weak is an even worse reason than development to withold fundamental rights. The fact that we might respond more viscerally to a newborn than an embryo does not alter the fact of what the embryo is–a complete human organism–and is therefore an insufficient and uncompelling reason to deny the unborn the right to life.
*Again, apologies for the Kindle keyboard. You would not believe how long it’s taken me to type this.
6 likes
Thank you, heather! :)
1 likes
God bless you lyssie for taking them on! proud of you:)
2 likes
Great response Alice.
So Bob… say I ask you when (or where) in the “spectrum” a fetus suddenly becomes a “person”. How many cells must one have to achieve this designation? 100, 1,000? 1,000,000?
And why? WHo says? How do we know?
9 likes
If you want to avoid killing a single fertilized human egg cell, go for it.
What? There’s no such thing as a ‘fertilized human egg cell’. If an egg from a woman. is fertilized, it’s no longer an egg..it’s a HUMAN BEING . An egg CELL would be from an unfertilized egg. It divides rapidly once it is fertilized, so it’s no longer a SINGLE cell, and by the time a woman even SUSPECTS she’s pregnant, the living BEING is already an EMBRYO.
10 likes
@Doe said “I think there’s quite a distinction between a mosquito and a pre-born human.” And I think there’s quite a distinction between a single cell too small to see and a one trillion cell baby.
That’s all I’m saying.
You said, “We on the pro-life side do not agree no matter what stage of development that human growing inside her is in.” That’s fine. I support that choice. But perhaps you can appreciate that not everyone will see things the same way. Some people see a vast difference between a baby with arms, legs, heart, liver, brain, eyes, and so on and a single invisible cell.
1 likes
@Heather said, “funny but no matter how pregnant i was the gals at work would say “we are going to throw a baby shower for ya.” not an embryo or fetus shower.”
Perhaps that’s because you WANTED the baby. Consider the situation for the 14-year-old girl who DOESN’T want the baby–if forced to carry the child to term, her life will be irrevocably changed. That might be a good change, but it also might be a very bad change. Let’s give her the power to choose which path to take.
1 likes
oh bob so it suddenly changes if you want the baby lmao! nope its a baby no matter what.
5 likes
Yes, an acorn and an oak tree are both of the genus Quercus. Similarly, a single human cell and a baby are both Homo sapiens. No spectrum here.
What I keep trying to turn the conversation to is where the spectrum is. You don’t see an acorn and an oak tree as identical; you don’t see a single cell and a baby as identical. Whatever you call that spectrum of development (in the case of the baby, I call it “personhood,” but you can suggest other names), there is a spectrum. Let’s first reach agreement on this point, because you keep trying to change the conversation to the features that AREN’T part of the spectrum (and with which we agree).
“So one has more cells than the other; so what?”
You tell me. When you try to talk someone out of an abortion, do you talk of the horrors of a woman swallowing a Plan B pill? Or do you talk about how baby-like an 8-month-old fetus is and what the D&X procedure does? If the latter, then you understand the spectrum as I do and you see the difference.
BTW, to everyone: I appreciate the input. I’ve posted four articles in favor of the pro-choice position and have a few more in the queue. I encouage you to read them, because the critiques so far seem to have missed the point.
Is my argument off base? If so, I want to change it. (Who wants to back the argument with the weak evidence?)
1 likes
@Sydney asked where the dividing line (person vs. not-yet) is.
I don’t know. I have no strong opinion there.
0 likes
@Pamela: You appreciate the spectrum and object to an abortion once “a woman even suspects she’s pregnant,” but what about when the cell hasn’t even implanted yet? You’re OK with Plan B?
0 likes
“Some people see a vast difference between a baby with arms, legs, heart, liver, brain, eyes, and so on and a single invisible cell.”
So what? Many cultures (most?) in the past saw a vast difference between a newborn baby and an adult, and therefore infanticide was widely practiced. Likewise, some see a vast difference between blacks and whites, or Jews and non-Jews, or women and men, and therefore kill the “different” group. You may argue that these groups are in fact the same, but who are you to tell people they are wrong for seeing this vast difference?
As Alice pointed out, people’s emotions and feelings toward a certain group are completely irrelevant (or should be) in determining the rights of said group.
7 likes
@Heather: I imagine you can appreciate the vast difference woman 1 (for whom the news that she’s pregnant is the best news she’s ever heard) and woman 2 (for whom it’s the WORST news she’s ever heard).
Yeah, there’s a difference.
0 likes
Bob,
In terms of Plan B vs. an abortion of an 8-month old baby, again, personal feelings are irrelevant. For some reason, I personally feel less sad when I hear of a newborn dying than an older child, but a newborn is not any less a human being than a toddler, and it does not mean human beings are on a “spectrum” of personhood. If your premise is accepted that there is a prenatal spectrum of personhood or being human, then it seems to me it would have to apply to born people as well…a toddler is more human than a baby, a teenager is more human than a toddler, etc. since the older are more developed.
5 likes
Our feelings towards other should not determine whether they live or die Bob. Our feelings towards others doesn’t give or take away their humanity/personhood whatever you want to call it. Science is not dictated by feelings.
There is a difference in development between a trohpoblast and a full term fetus. Sure. There is difference between a newborn and a teenager. Whats your point? That development = personhood? So is Dr. Nadal more of a person because he has his Ph.D. and I don’t? Obviously his brain is more developed than mine.
There is a difference between black people and white people. I can look and see the difference. Does that make one race worth more than the other? Difference does not equal worth. This is where the feminists got confused. Women are different than men. It doesn’t mean we aren’t equal. But we are different.
A newly conceived human being is alive and human. Sure that new person is less developed than a 2 year old. He/she looks different! No arms and legs and liver and heart yet… but difference does not mean worth less.
7 likes
@everyone: I’m kinda losing patience here (is that perhaps the point … ?). All these arguments are dealt with in my blog posts. I’m seeing no substantial arguments that haven’t been already addressed.
For example: to Sydney’s point that a teenager is different from a newborn: agreed, but that’s trivial. A newborn has hands, feet, eyes, ears, internal organs and on and on and on. Same as a teenager. To be sure, the teenager may be sexually mature, and that’s a difference. But it’s a trivial difference between that baby and a CELL which has none of those body parts.
This is an energetic group of pro-life folks, and any tire-kicking for my arguments would be appreciated. If they’re flawed, I’d like to see why. But please make the comments on target or I’ll wish you the best and take my leave.
1 likes
Civilized people do not intentionally kill innocent human life at any stage of development. If your definition of a person worthy of life requires that person to have hands, feet, etc, then you are indeed shallow in your thinking.
The outcome of a union of human sperm and human egg should not be characterized as a “parasite”, a “blob of tissue” or an affront to the mother’s “bodily autonomy”.
I do not understand why Bob or any other apologist for abortion would ever advocating giving anyone the power to kill her offspring. Don’t we seek a peaceful world of mutual respect, where the weak and vulnerable are safe from the strong and predatory?
Stop the killing.
7 likes
@Bob, you might want to look up the Didache(The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) as a source outside of the Bible that talks about the evil of abortion. Good luck and I pray you cross over the Tiber some day.
0 likes
@Barb: “Stop the killing”? Can we kill nothing? Or is there a spectrum (with mosquitoes on one end and humans on the other, say), with different treatment along the spectrum? You make clear your own opinion (OK–got it), but you simply make a blanket statement that killing at any stage is wrong. Do you have a reason why? And: why this applies not only to you but must be forced on everyone else, even if they don’t share your opinion?
1 likes
@Doe: I’m not sure what relevance the Didache (or any religious book) does in the public debate when we’re governed by a secular constitution. If it informs your own thinking, that’s fine, but it makes no sense to imagine religious thinking being forced on other citizens.
1 likes
Bob Seidensticker: “You don’t see an acorn and an oak tree as identical; you don’t see a single cell and a baby as identical.”
And, has been pointed out, the toddler and the adult are not seen as identical, either. But we do know from science that the fetus, the toddler, and the adult are all human beings. You claim that the fetus or embryo doesn’t “have” the body parts that a born child has. But after fertilization, only growth and development occur. To argue that the fetus doesn’t “have” a nervous system, or fingers or toes is to argue that these components are somehow magically “added” later, which is to argue in favor of spontaneous generation.
4 likes
@Bob:
What I keep trying to turn the conversation to is where the spectrum is.
And what I keep trying to point out is that you have not provided a compelling reason for why the “spectrum” is important. Or that it actually exists anywhere beyond an emotional response one way or the other. There’s not even consensus about this particular line of argument (which I have seen in varying ways many times before) among the abortion apologist community.
When you try to talk someone out of an abortion, do you talk of the horrors of a woman swallowing a Plan B pill? Or do you talk about how baby-like an 8-month-old fetus is and what the D&X procedure does? If the latter, then you understand the spectrum as I do and you see the difference.
I am not a sidewalk counselor. But, putting myself into the situation you suggest, that only means that I understand which arguments are the most emotionally resonant in a given situation. For the record, though, I do discuss the abortifacient problems with Plan B and hormonal birth control with those people who I know are pro-life but aren’t following through very well in these areas. With admittedly frustrating results, but as I said before, the emotional response towards a group of human beings is a really crappy way to define which humans do and don’t have which rights. The fact that someone doesn’t connect all the implications of a pro-life philosophy to what they ought to be doing in their own life only means they haven’t thought things through as well as they ought to. It doesn’t say anything about the rightness or wrongness of the argument. We would still own slaves, murder Native Americans, burn witches, and keep harems of women (along with about a bazillion other massive offenses against human rights) if emotional response were all that was important.
The fact that we look at a blastocyst and don’t feel as if it is a human when we do feel that way about an unborn child at thirty weeks does not an argument make, no matter how spectrumy gestational development is. All that proves is that human emotions are manipulateable, which we all already knew. You keep bringing up the fact that there are developmental differences between a newly conceived human and a newly born one. You have encapsulated these in your “personhood spectrum.” What we are trying to tell you (granted, perhaps too roundaboutly) is that you have not told us why we should agree that how developed a human being is should carry any weight.
7 likes
@bmmg: said, “And, has been pointed out, the toddler and the adult are not seen as identical, either.”
And, as has been pointed out, the developmental difference between the toddler and the adult are TRIVIAL compared to the difference between the baby (with functional arms, legs, eyes, ears, heart, brain, etc.) and the single cell.
“To argue that the fetus doesn’t “have” a nervous system, or fingers or toes is to argue that these components are somehow magically “added” later, which is to argue in favor of spontaneous generation.”
Huh?? A single cell doesn’t have a nervous system, fingers, or toes. Not controversial, right? That’s what we’re talking about–the vast spectrum from trillion-cell baby back to a single cell.
1 likes
Bob, I’m afraid you’re confused. Everything is present within that first single cell. Development needs to take place, yes, but nothing is “added.”
8 likes
@Alice: said, <em>And what I keep trying to point out is that you have not provided a compelling reason for why the “spectrum” is important. </em>
If you acknowledge it, I guess it’s important. Do you? Are Plan B and D&X as identical horrors in your mind? Or are they on a spectrum?
<em>There’s not even consensus about this particular line of argument (which I have seen in varying ways many times before) among the abortion apologist community. </em>
So what? I don’t speak for any consensus; I speak for myself.
<em>the emotional response towards a group of human beings is a <em>really</em> crappy way to define which humans do and don’t have which rights. </em>
Do you have any better ideas? I agree that the intellectual approach makes a lot of sense, but when there is so much emotion (word choice?) involved, when we have visceral reactions about things that guide us to the right path, the emotional path (again, probably a poor choice of words) must be a factor.
Have you seen my post on the <a href=”http://crossexaminedblog.com/2012/01/06/five-emotional-pro-choice-arguments/“>emotional arguments</a>?
<em>The fact that we look at a blastocyst and don’t <em>feel</em> as if it is a human when we do feel that way about an unborn child at thirty weeks does not an argument make</em>
Then give me something better. And try to take the argument a few steps along, considering “So what?” at each step. For example, to “It’s a potential human being!” I say “so what?” The twinkle in my eye is a potential human being, but no one says that my not having unprotected sex is a crime.
<em>you have not told us why we should agree that how developed a human being is should carry any weight. </em>
I don’t need to tell you; you can figure it out for yourself. Consider the arguments in the post referenced above.
0 likes
“For example, to ‘It’s a potential human being!’ I say ‘so what?'”
Straw argument. We’re discussing actual human beings here, not potential ones.
4 likes
If you acknowledge it, I guess it’s important. Do you?
I acknowledge it is a concept you are trying to build. I do not agree that it is a significant factor in determining which human beings have rights.
Are Plan B and D&X as identical horrors in your mind? Or are they on a spectrum?
You’re mixing two things here. Do I respond in an emotionally equivalent way to both and are both morally equivalent wrongs. The answer to the first is no, of course not. The answer to the second is yes, they are.
I’m going to go down a bunny trail here. You may have heard this thought experiment before. In the mountains of Tibet, there is a hermit. He lives alone in a one-man monastery. He has no family or friends. He grows his own food. He kills no animals. His only drinking water is melted snow. He keeps no pets, has no visitors, makes no demonstrations. He is completely out of contact with the rest of the world. I have a box with a button. If I push the button, the hermit dies–immediately and painlessly–and no one will know or care. But I will receive $1,000,000 if I push the button. To push or not to push?
Generally this thought experiment is one where people are asked whether they would push the button. A sort of “what price will you put on a human life” kind of thing. But the question relevant to us here is, would this even be wrong? According to your paradigm–that of emotional relevance–it wouldn’t be wrong. Or at least, not very wrong. Because no one knows this man or cares about him or has any connection to him whatsoever. Which is, to put it in the terms it deserves, barbaric. It is utterly repellent to suggest that we should only care about those lives that are important to us.
Do you have any better ideas? I agree that the intellectual approach makes a lot of sense…
Well, yes. Yes, it does.
…but when there is so much emotion (word choice?) involved, when we have visceral reactions about things that guide us to the right path, the emotional path (again, probably a poor choice of words) must be a factor.
No, I chose the word “emotion” for a reason. Because your entire argument here essentially boils down to “Because we feel more compassion for the unborn as they approach birth, they become more important as they approach birth.” You have utterly bypassed what the unborn is and hung your entire case on how a person feels about them. You even say so in your “Five Emotional Arguments” post. “I’ll try to bypass the intellect to some extent and appeal to emotion.” While I will give you that appeal to emotion is not wrong necessarily, it is–outside of more objective evidenciary offerings–is the very weakest form of argument you can possibly make.
Then give me something better [than my spectrum]. And try to take the argument a few steps along, considering “So what?” at each step.
We already have been saying this, over and over and over. That regardless of our emotional attachment to one or the other level of developed child, regardless of which one we would save from a fire in an IVF clinic, no matter how many pro-life people don’t realize that they could very well be killing their children by using hormonal birth control, we still know what the unborn child is, objectively and scientifically. Our emotional response is irrelevant, because there is consensus on the fact that an unborn human is, from amphimixis onwards, a unique and complete human being. And the fact that they are only one cell big at that time is not a compelling reason to deny them the right to live, since the only reason to differentiate them comes down to the emotional responses towards them. There is no reason whatsoever beyond wishy-washy emotion not to define the unborn as what they are–human beings. And, having thus defined them, to afford them the basic human rights all humans are entitled to.
It’s really precisely that simple.
So, yes, if you want me to accept your assertion that the level of development from blastocyst to neonate is indeed important, you do need to tell me why I should agree. “You feel differently about the one from the other.” only proves that I have emotional responses like every other human. It doesn’t tell me why I should let them overrule my head.
8 likes
I was conceived, therefore I am.
I am because I was conceived.
When conceived: I AM.
4 likes
The special quality of pregnancy is that, in order for the embryo or fetus to live, it must be CARRIED in the girl or woman’s body. Usually, you let someone live by just leaving them alone. The pregnant girl or woman must CARRY the unborn in a manner both most intimate because it is inside, and most public because an advanced pregnancy is so obvious. For the birth to happen, she has to endure its dangers and pains.
We’ve got to bring about a situation in which carrying is done by those for whom it is a blessing and a joy.
1 likes
bob is losing patience? lol youve only just begun. thats what happens when you have exchanged the truth for a lie. we have science in our corner. you have an opinion bob.
2 likes
Bob, I have been listening to all of these ideas and arguments, and as an avid pro-lifer and mother, I need to tell you that when anyone starts using terms like “spectrum” of humanity, I get freaked out. Spectrum is just another word for grades or degrees, and if we begin looking at ANY human beings as “less than” or “more than”, we start down that (and I hate this term because it’s so overused) slippery slope of “isms” where ALL of our civil rights become jeopardized because of our so-call staus.
It is so much more moral, ethical, righteous—whatever you want to call it– to afford ALL human beings equal worth. This means blacks. This means women. This means the unborn. If you INSIST upon using the term spectrum ( I know you like it), then we necessarily need to see everyone included within that spectrum as equal and worthy, ESPECIALLY of the right to live.
In other words, wantedness does not confer personhood. As an American, as a HUMAN, it is in out VERY interest to protect and insure that right. We have built a culture of “choice” upon the timy backs of these tiny babies, and we are no better for it.
10 likes
oh and bob your style of debate is the same old stale bs i hear all the time. i once asked a pro abort …..when does life begin? her response “at the 5th month of pregnancy.” lololol! oh so then if an abortion is done in the 5th month of pregnancy (which they are) then poof its suddenly murder? omg give me a break. doctors know a baby is also a fetus. they will often say “lets listen to the babies heartbeat or the fetal heartbeat.” fetal heartbeat? if a fetus isnt human then why would there be a heartbeat? liberalism is a mental disorder!
3 likes
and bob you left out responsibility. personal responibility. a 14 year old might not be so thrilled to be pregnant. well people need to know that if they are going to have sex then a baby could result. that doesnt give her the right to dispose of her baby.
5 likes
and bob what spectrum. its life or death. and let me tell you that countless women REGRET their abortions. in fact i believe they all do even if they say they dont. the only women who make peace with their abortions are women who repent. many stay lost for years. many may stay lost forever but as the saying goes ” you can scrape a baby from a womans womb but never from her mind.” nah you just like abortion so you can have sex with women and get outta that child support. why else would you be pro abortion? OR a woman in your life has aborted and youre feeling guilty. oh and bob abortion causes breast cancer so is that okay with you?
1 likes
Umm…Bob…we don’t have to acknowledge your spectrum, because it’s just some arbitrary notion you dreamed up one day. According to provable science, you either are a human being or you are not. You are either alive or you are not. And we don’t have to acknowledge some meaningless and I must say fanciful notion you’ve formulated about some “spectrum” that only exists in your own mind.
5 likes
oh and bob when i told the girls at work that i was pregnant they had no idea i was planning to keep my baby. i could have set up an abortion appointment for the next day for all they knew.
3 likes
x love your blog. youre so cute!
2 likes
Bob,
“Some people see a vast difference between a baby with arms, legs, heart, liver, brain, eyes, and so on and a single invisible cell.”
Some people see a vast difference between a newborn and a 2 year old (and there is). Many societies have been fine with infanticide. So ok, there’s a spectrum of human development – we just let people draw their own lines based on where they feel it’s ok to terminate that development?
“A newborn has hands, feet, eyes, ears, internal organs and on and on and on. Same as a teenager.”
So does a fetus from a very young age. A newborns limbs/brain/other organs still have major developing to do before they function competently. They don’t know they have a body, they can’t reason, they can’t see, their digestive systems are immature and can only hold food down with the aid of gravity. They have hardly any voluntary muscle control.
“And, as has been pointed out, the developmental difference between the toddler and the adult are TRIVIAL compared to the difference between the baby (with functional arms, legs, eyes, ears, heart, brain, etc.) and the single cell.”
The difference is always greater the further the points are on the spectrum. But the closer you get, the more problematic it becomes to draw that arbitrary line that is based on NOTHING but individual opinion. An adult is as different from a newborn as a newborn is from a blastocyst. But a newborn is not so different from a late term fetus. And a late term fetus is not so different from a 5 month fetus, etc.
You keep hammering this spectrum of development – but you can’t see that it’s the same entity continuing along it’s own spectrum. It’s not a new entity that develops from something else – a fetus develops into a newborn and that newborn develops into a toddler – they don’t spring forth from something other than what they are.
The fact that some people feel warm and fuzzy about extinguishing life at some phases on the spectrum does not mean that we need to abandon logic and respect their feelings on that any more than we need to respect someone who feels that it’s acceptable to throw a newborn in a trash can or kill a child under 1.
8 likes
For some reason, my computer is not cooperating with me to let me copy and paste!
Anyway: @Bob: Ok with Plan B? Well obviously not! As I previously stated: The second sperm and egg come together, that’s a new HUMAN BEING. It doesn’t matter if it’s implanted yet or not. FERTILIZATION creates a new human being, not implantation. Implantation just helps the new human being grow..it doesn’t make the embryo “suddenly” human…it already IS.
1 likes
@Bob, sorry I did not mean to get off topic. I read your other article “What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? Not Much”, which is why I recommended a non-Biblical religious source, The Didache, that condemns the evil of abortion.
2 likes
Oh, the Bible has oodles to say about killing innocents. Here’s a nice turn of phrase I found in Job last night,
“…They prey on the barren and childless woman
and to the widow show no kindness.
But God drags away the mighty by his power;
though they become established, they have no assurance of life.
He may let them rest in a feeling of security,
But his eyes are on their ways.
For a little while they are exalted, and then they are gone;
they are brought low and gathered up like all the others; they are cut off like heads of grain.
If this is not so, who can prove me false
and reduce my words to nothing?”
-Job, 25:21-25, New International Version
2 likes
@ Bob “Some people see a vast difference between a baby with arms, legs, heart, liver, brain, eyes, and so on and a single invisible cell”
As I kept scrolling down through your comments I kept noticing that you kept mentioning single cells or the lack of body parts. However, if you research fetal development you will see that pretty much immediately after fertilization cells start replicating (so it’s not just a single cell) Likewise after only about 18 days after fertilization the heart appears and in a few more days it will start beating. AND at 5 to six weeks the embryo has arms and leg buds which by the 8th week will be fully distinct as arms and hands with fingers and legs and feet with toes. (though you can see the fingers and toes before that they aren’t quite as distanct yet) So needless to say your argument for embryos not having more than one cell is false, likewise your argument saying they don’t have legs, arms, heart, brain ect like a newborn is also false. Please research fetal development before saying such things.
The baby, though still is growing in utero for a number of more months, has most of the vital organs that any person that is born does. When a person has an abortion they aren’t just ridding themselves of a single cell. They are stopping a beating heart and ripping a baby a part from limb to limb.
We as humans never stop growing or developing. If we did stop then we wouldn’t have young and old people. Just cuz one person is in a stage of development that is exactly where they are supposed to be, doesn’t give anyone a right to kill it and snuff out his or her life. They are a living human PERSON who should have the right to live just like anyone else.
4 likes
Oh, and Bob, what about those babies that come out with no arms or legs? Do they have less value?
1 likes
I meant those babes that are born without any arms and/or legs.
2 likes
Thank you, Heather. I actually update on Tuesdays, so I have my first real, shiny new post up today. It’s quite TL;DR, and most of you here will already be familiar with the content, but the post is kind of a prologue relating to how I found out that my mom actually used to work for an OB/GYN who did abortions after I joined the Pro-Life cause.
0 likes
To get back to something more relevant to this thread, does the stigma against lesbianism inadvertently lead to abortion? That stigma might lead a young lady who COULD enjoy partnered sex with another lady to choose a gentleman instead and thereby lead to the sort of sex that leads to pregnancy and then an abortion. Thus, it might behoove those concerned about the killing of the unborn to ensure that girls grow up with no qualms about having same-sex experience.
In fact, regarding early sexual experience, perhaps we should encourage those girls and women who want partnered sexual activity to consider lesbianism — at least for those for whom such activity has any attraction at all. This could lead to fewer abortions.
For those girls and women who simply feel no attraction to females and aren’t content with a “do-it-yourself” approach to sexual pleasure, we could encourage them to LEARN from both lesbians and male homosexuals in the TYPES of partnered sex they have with boys and men. Hets are capable of performing most of the acts gay men and lesbians can.
Again, fewer problem pregnancies, fewer of these horrible abortions.
Nip it in the bud. No demand and supply becomes irrelevant.
1 likes
No thanks Denise. I won’t be encouraging others to take part in immoral acts.
1 likes
Lrning, I should hope that even those who have some sort of problem with homosexual activity don’t put it anywhere on a par with aborting a child.
1 likes