Buddy the Cat important, abortion not so much
Last night while researching my “Pro-life princess bride” post, I had an odd email exchange with blogger Marlene at Royal Musings.
Marlene had some pictures posted of Katie Walker’s wedding I thought I might like to use.
According to Fair Use trademark law I know I can post most photos, even copyrighted, as long as I give proper attribution and follow certain guidelines. I even have an ADF attorney on stand-by who specializes in trademark law, and who intervenes when I get emails ordering me to cease and desist, such as I did for the photos on this post, and this one.
But Marlene was so over-reactionary in the protection of her photos, I thought I would drop her a courtesy request, particularly since she seemed to indicate she would grant permission if only asked. Marlene’s response to my request:
I hope you will understand that I cannot agree to allow my photos to be used on your blog. Please also do not even put a link as my views differ from yours …
This hit me the wrong way. The only reason Marlene was denying my request to post Katie’s wedding photos was because I, like Katie, oppose murdering preborn children?
I responded by explaining to Marlene that I didn’t really need her permission, but whatever, since she went there, let’s discuss the topic of our differences. “How’s this for a photo?” I snipped, attaching this:
Marlene responded:
[A]s a practicing and devout Lutheran, I do not appreciate your anti-Christian comments. I have no interest in Katie Walker’s political views. I write about royalty, and have for years.
Your blog is not about royalty. My photos are about royalty. I would ask you to respect my wishes.
Nowhere in my original email did I use the word abortion or anything else.
The first two photos are the last photos of my beloved Buddy who died at the age of 16 on August 8. The third photo is of a very cute Buddy.
Have a great day .. I shall pray for you to find Peace
Now I hadn’t mentioned anyone’s Christianity in my response to Marlene, and the subject of cats hadn’t entered into the conversation either. And what could “my views differ from yours” mean if not that her views differed from mine on abortion, so much so that she didn’t want me to even link to her blog?
Animals are fine, but Marlene seemed to be saying 1) she was a good person because she loved animals; 2) her cat was more important than an aborted baby.
I responded:
I have no idea what you are speaking about in regard to “anti-Christian” comments. Furthermore, being Lutheran does not make you a Christ follower. I worked as an RN for a hospital that was affiliated with the ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church of America], which I’m guessing is your denomination, and that denomination supported aborting babies alive and letting them die in a hospital soiled utility room with no medical attention whatsoever. Find in your Bible where this is something Jesus would condone.
Marlene wrote back:
I offered you a great option. I gave you the website of the official wedding photographer, whose photos are a lot better than mine….
How come you do not fight to stop hunger in this country or make sure every child has decent housing. ASll
If your blog was about chocolate chip cookies, I would not allow the request. I have sold the photo to three sources. I am a widow, and I am 2 years older than you. The only bias is that your blog is not about royalty. I could care less about your views. Really.
To paraphrase Mrs. Patrick Campbell, I don’t care what people do as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses … and Moliere wrote in the Misanthrope (Tony Harrison translation): Best leave the sins of others well alone, until you made some headway of your own.”
Or my favorite: Sin boldly, but love God more Boldly still.
You did not even acknowledge my photos. I have enclosed more … Buddy was such a cute kitten. Don’t you think….
http://www.gofundme.com/Buddys-vet-bill
This has nothing whatsoever to do with your views. No interest in that. You do not write about royalty.
Why are you so angry?…
Enjoy my photos, and think about how wonderful it is to be loved by pets and to care for pets …. animals are among the greatest of all of God’s gifts.
There is so much wrong with Marlene’s rationalizing brain I don’t know where to begin.
And no, I hadn’t said, “What a cute cat,” but Marlene didn’t acknowledge the photo of the aborted baby either.
And so I got more pictures of Buddy, along with one of baseball mascots…
In the end, Marlene was right. There were wedding photos out there better than hers.
Jill,
Something I’ve noticed. This may or may not be relevant to this particular case, but here goes:
In my observations, many times, people who have abortions in their past will attempt to replace their lost children with animals. These people have a very odd idea of pets and animals. Highly irrational individuals. The animals get placed upon a pedestal far higher than that of any human being, and FAR greater than their own abortion child(ren).
Food for thought.
19 likes
Or my favorite: Sin boldly, but love God more Boldly still.
Um…hmm. How about this one, which is pretty much the polar opposite of her favorite quote: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” ~ Romans 6:1-2
And pardon me for saying so, but… this woman seems crazy. When confronted, she backtracked and pretended that your abortion views had nothing to do with her refusal, when clearly, they did. And then to throw out the nonsense of “How come you do not fight to stop hunger in this country or make sure every child has decent housing.”
How does she know you don’t?
And the cherry on top of the crazy sundae is the repeated sending of cat photos to you. I mean… what on EARTH?!?
17 likes
I have read this several times trying to figure out the relevance of the cat pictures. I really don’t get it.
15 likes
I long for a day when I can devote myself to fighting hunger and building houses for the poor. That is such joyful and rewarding work. Much more fun than keeping vigil on the sidewalks of Planned Parenthood and bearing so much anger and sadness and despair.
But the children cry out from the dumpsters and med-waste bags, 4000 killed in the country each and every day. And the women are consoled by our peaceful presence (although perhaps not at first). Many eventually join us on the sidewalks, hoping to spare other women from this horrible pain.
I once had an Episcopalian church-lady tell me that once-a-minute, a child dies from hunger somewhere worldwide. This is tragedy. But in America, on the average, two children die from abortion every minute, around the clock, 24/7/365.
America kills children on purpose twice as fast as the world starves children by accident. That is why we are focused on ending abortion.
31 likes
You can see such an expression of agony on that little one’s face…so heartbreaking.
8 likes
For the record, not all Lutheran denominations condone abortion. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) acknowledges abortion as the killing of an unborn human being — a child of God. LCMS also stands with other Christians, including the Roman Catholic Church, in opposing the HHS mandate to provide birth control and abortifacient insurance coverage in health care plans.
16 likes
Gives a whole new meaning to “crazy cat lady.” This whole post just left me wondering what on earth is wrong with her? I didn’t get the pictures at all.
Del, I wish I could ‘like’ your comment 1,000 times. Yes, there are many tragedies in the world, many of them happen because of the way the world is. But we in America (and elsewhere) are intentionally murdering our own, and to make matters worse, it’s dressed up in vapid frappery in euphemistic words like “choice” “convenience” and such. It sickens me.
I can’t believe her response to that picture, Jill. My response is to weep for that poor, broken baby. And she sends you cat pictures.
15 likes
Actually Marlene, the Bible says that children are gifts…not animals.
13 likes
For some reason, cats seem to be a big deal on the internet these days. It’s kind of strange.
6 likes
She may very well be post-abortive, but isn’t that one of the many (childish) tactics of the pro-abort crowd…DENY, DENY, DENY ..? They do everything they can to try to distract the general public from their real “agenda”…ABORTION ON DEMAND, AND WITHOUT APOLOGY. They don’t want you to SEE what they really are all about (that is- killing babies), and THEY don’t want to be confronted with it either, because you CAN’T deny what is right in front of you.
They want to DO it, they just don’t want to LOOK at it.
7 likes
Del: “America kills children on purpose twice as fast as the world starves children by accident. That is why we are focused on ending abortion.”
Very true, Del. Years ago, I was looking into finding better solutions for people sick and starving in other countries, wondering why more wasn’t being done when we are very clearly capable of helping them.
It was then that I became aware of the presence of abortion in our countries and it quickly dawned that in our societies, we had disastrously dehumanized those who inconvenienced us, whether in their mothers’ wombs or living in far away lands that we couldn’t see from our own front door.
Like you, I would much prefer to fight against poverty and hunger, to bring food and shelter to those who have none, as it is indeed exceptionally rewarding and fulfilling work, but that task is too large to be undertaken by those who care enough at this time.
In my opinion, we must open the eyes, minds, and hearts of our neighbours to the humanity of all people here, born and unborn, before we can hope to solve the problems of peoples with whom we would never interact otherwise.
When (not if) we accomplish that, Del, you give me a shout and I will happily work alongside you in putting up those houses and distributing that food! :-D
11 likes
In tandem with your points, Del and Maestro, many, many pro-lifers do in fact help feed the hungry, clothe those who need them, give shelter to the homeless, and/or donate generously to ministries that do. And yet a popular retort of pro-aborts is “Well why don’t you solve real problems and feed the hungry.”
Many of us do. I know so many pro-lifers who give generously to all humans because all humans have inherent dignity and help. The pro-aborts just don’t get us, I suppose. We’re not pro-life because we are miserly old people who hate sex and don’t want women to have “autonomy” or whatever. We’re caring people who, to paraphrase the great William Wilberforce, are feelingly alive to the sufferings of our fellow humans, born and unborn, freed and slaves, old and young, rich and poor, each and every one.
13 likes
As a fellow recently-deceased orange tabby, I have to tell you that this Buddy is an excellent specimen of our species. I met him recently on the Rainbow Bridge (where, as you know, all beloved pets go after they die), and he told me the best cat stories! Oh, what a nice fellow. I know that if *my* owner had been presented with an unsolicited image of an aborted fetus in response to a reasonable request not to use her photos, she probably would have sent an equally nasty picture back. But this Marlene is obviously a better person than my owner, because she responded with something positive, instead – well wishes and a picture of this fine cat. In my feline opinion, she should be applauded for not lowering herself to your level.
14 likes
When people start that stuff about why don’t you do this or that to help people already living, I tell them I am going to social work school and getting into some major debt (yes at my age) because I want to HELP PEOPLE, which I do (or try to do) EVERY DAYUM DAY!!
And I do I love cats, but I love people more!
@Liberty Belle — it’s been proven by polls over and over again that religious people and conservatives give more money to charity than liberals and the non-religious.
13 likes
I have donated to food banks, I have donated clothing, baby items to those in need, I have volunteered at Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I have provided child care -free of charge to a young single mother looking for work…
So, Pro-“choicers”…what are YOU doing to help?
11 likes
Marlene should pray that she finds Peace. But not the deluded peace she has with her cat photos.
“I leave you with Peace. Not as the world gives…” John 14:27
7 likes
I love animals and have volunteered extensively with animal rescue groups. It is strange and appalling at the same time the number of animal rescuers are pro-abortion of humans. I’ve never understood the mentality of caring for our furry friends but turning a blind eye (or even worse, advocating for) to the killing of pre-born children. Children are far more important, but many of them beg to differ.
Marlene reminds me of a woman I know who operates a rescue, Barbara. She “proudly” supports PP and other abortion right organizations while claiming to want to help the most helpless among us (so long as they are furry and have 4 legs).
18 likes
To be fair, the cat is adorable.
I too notice a lot of post-abortive women who treat their pets like children. Even I did that to some extent. In your mind, the child you didn’t have gets invisibly older but the pet stays the same size. I was painfully aware as the years went by, now my child would be 5, now my child would be 10. My pets, well, they’re always dependent, child-like, and unchanging. I have an in joke with a friend, “Want to know how many abortions a woman has had? Count her little dogs and multiply by 2″ or “count her cats and divide by 2″ or, in some cases, “count her cats and divide by 4.”
This makes me wonder, could we use this to our advantage? Could therapy animals be an integral part of post-abortive healing? I think so!!
6 likes
Ray the Cat,
Posting as a dead cat isn’t doing your side any favors. Quite the opposite.
13 likes
What’s the first thing a pet owner says about their pet? That they have such unconditional love for them. how can they not give it in return?
So why wouldn’t their child do the same, and deserve the same?
8 likes
Hmm, good to know about that fundraising website, wish I’d known about it sooner when my friends cat had a terminal illness. But anyways, going a bit off-topic here, yes having a companion animal can be very therapeutic. Just a basic search engine search brought up a lot of professional studies on the benefits of companion animals (I don’t have time to go through or list them individually)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=psychological+benefits+companion+animal&oq=psychological+benefits+companion+animal&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12…637.17846.0.19148.33.25.0.6.6.0.1060.7303.2-2j13j3j7-1.19.0.les%3Behyp%2Ca%3D1%2Cb%3D1000%2Cn%3D5%2Ct%3D2..0.0…1ac.1.FuRUsPXW1hE.
On a personal note, my cats have been a blessing, having recurrent depressive episodes and after my divorce.
11 likes
I also, as a pro-life individual give a lot back to the community, but even if I did not, how does that change the fundamental basis of our opposition to abortion, that abortion ends a human life.
13 likes
“Wherever there is animal worship there is human sacrifice.”
– Chesterton
17 likes
Many liberals love to talk about how other people should do charity. As phillymiss pointed out, it has been proven they’re not so big on doing charity themselves.
Anytime some pro-abort asks why I don’t help poor kids or something similar, I just state “I do help poor children. But because children are being killed a few blocks away from me, that is my priority. When your movement stop killing kids, I will be happy to devote more of my time to improving the quality of life for other people.”
12 likes
Jill, it is possible this woman simply doesn’t want to get involved in the issue about the legality or illegality of abortion. She may have no position one way or another.
I have a close friend who doesn’t have a position on abortion’s legality. She is asexual and sterile and believes the controversy is not relevant to her life. In addition, in the past when she has made statements about things that were either sex or child related, people have made nasty remarks about her personal situation. She doesn’t want to risk that.
More to the point, Jill, it is quite possible that this woman doesn’t have a position on this issue.
4 likes
I want to point out that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is pro life.
7 likes
@Pamela – I’m a cat. I don’t have a “side.”
Just as an outside observer, though, I do notice how little civility humans show to one another. We cats will at least sniff and posture before attacking. We would certainly never send pictures of aborted kittens to one another unprovoked. Granted, we wouldn’t abort our kittens – it’s not in our nature. Quite the contrary! While I have never fathered a litter myself, I know most tomcats are quite prolific. I have met thousands of their offspring here.
Humans also seem to make a lot of assumptions about other humans before meeting them. That seems unwise. What if your assumptions about someone turned out to be wrong? Would you even apologize or try to make nice by kneading the person’s lap?
Then again, I shouldn’t expect better. Humans are inferior to us cats – why else would you wait on us paw and tail, feeding and petting us, and cleaning up our poo?
13 likes
This is so bizarre. If she’d just said, “No, I’d rather you didn’t.” that’d be one thing. Or if she’d said, “No, I’m not pro-life and I’d rather my pictures weren’t on a pro-life blog.” that’d be another. But to open the door to some sort of something with “My views aren’t the same as yours.” and then act all confused about the views in question and start sending pictures of a cat?
Whiskey. Tango. Hotel.
15 likes
Ray The Cat,
If I happen to bump into a cat taking classes in vet school, or find out about a cat passing exams to become a medical doctor then caring for humans, I might be inclined to believe you.
10 likes
That poor baby. It just breaks my heart every single time.
He was tortured.
I am so sorry sweet baby. So very sorry.
12 likes
“That poor baby. It just breaks my heart every single time.”
Same here. I will never understand how anyone could respond to that with “hey, look at my cat!”
10 likes
So, Pro-”choicers”…what are YOU doing to help?
I donate money to Planned Parenthood and ask them to send the thank-you note to Live Action.
5 likes
Does anyone know where the pic of that poor murdered child came from or the story behind it?(not like it changes his horrible death; I am just wondering).
PS. Live Action must be doing great things and being effective to rile the pro-aborts up so much. How someone can have so much hate for a group that works to save babies and educate woman is beyond me. Love LA!
10 likes
I’d also like to clarify that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is actively pro-life.
7 likes
Oh, and how weird that she knows your age, Jill.
4 likes
PS. Live Action must be doing great things and being effective to rile the pro-aborts up so much. How someone can have so much hate for a group that works to save babies and educate woman is beyond me. Love LA!
It’s because the president has shinier hair than LisaC/LY112/Protruth2, so she spends much of her time trolling and nitpicking them.
Really.
4 likes
From the Lutheran Small Catechism, under article 52, “What does God forbid in the 5th Commandment?”:
“The living but unborn are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception.”
4 likes
It’s because the president has shinier hair than LisaC/LY112/Protruth2, so she spends much of her time trolling and nitpicking them.
Really.
No, no, I nitpick LiveAction because I cannot abide lies and hypocrisy, and LiveAction is utterly shameless in their promotion of both. I hardly think that Ms. Rose is personally responsible for the entire content of the webpage. But I do indeed covet the shininess of her hair, and have offered to forgo a PP donation in her honor if she reveals the name of her product.
In answer to your question about what I’m doing, Pamela: I (anonymously) donate 10% of my income to charity, including charities that actually try to improve the lives of women both in the US and internationally, namely Planned Parenthood, a local free clinic, the Global Fund for Women, and the International Rescue Committee. Most people in the pro-life community have never heard of the latter two organizations, but they really care about things that pro-lifers pretend to, such as gender equality and ending human trafficking.
2 likes
LifeJoy: My age is on Wiki. Funny story on that… A couple years back some jokester had me at 66yo on Wiki. I didn’t care, but my 10yo grandson apparently did. He told me he went into Wiki and took 10 years off my life by correcting the date.
6 likes
Kelly D, I had a poster of this picture from human life international. If I recall the boy was found in a trash bag outside an abortion mill in Texas (I want to say Houston but not sure). His collagen was removed while he was still alive and his umbilical cord was ripped from his body which detached his penis…again while he was alive. Who can argue that he suffered horribly. UGH. I just want to sob thinking of it. I need to go hug my baby now. God have mercy on us.
6 likes
Raechel C., I didn’t realize you’d been divorced. I’m sorry. That can’t be an easy thing to go through. I’m glad you had your cats – my cat, Spud, passed away last spring after being with me since I was 13 YEARS OLD, and he definitely helped me through some tough times.
JDC, cats are a big deal on the internet because the internet is made of cats! http://www.rathergood.com/cats ;)
6 likes
No, no, I nitpick LiveAction because I cannot abide lies and hypocrisy, and LiveAction is utterly shameless in their promotion of both.
Okay. So, you can’t stand lying and hypocrisy (even though I have no clue where those would enter into a comment about Live Action), but the killing of children inside their mother’s is peachy keen.
Can you tell me how a female being killed inside her mother and disposed of as medical waste would “improve” any particular female’s life?
7 likes
Kelly D, I do also believe his gestational age was 28-29 weeks. Many babies born at that age survive. Also doctors say that preemies feel pain for intensely than full term newborns so can you imagine the horrible agony this child suffered? God will avenge this innocent blood. WOE TO US for turning a blind eye and allowing this satanic child sacrifice to continue. We sacrifice children on the altar of SELF…we want more time for us, more money, bigger houses, vacations, sexual pleasure…and if baby boys (and girls) like this have to die? So be it.
I am just trembling when I think how a righteous God will not allow this to continue for long. Our nation needs to repent or we will be punished!
4 likes
Can you imagine how this baby must have screamed? And the “doctor” (aka butcher) didn’t care? I wish everybody in the US who is for “choice” would look at this photo and ANSWER IT. OWN IT. THIS is what you support.
8 likes
I donate money to Planned Parenthood and ask them to send the thank-you note to Live Action.
You are trying to earn charitable brownie points on a pro-life site by saying you donate to Planned Parenthood? Really?
Fail.
7 likes
i was born around 28-29 weeks. Ew. Mom said I could wear her wedding ring like a bracelet.
3 likes
LisaC – if you were anonymously donating 10% of your income, you would not be bragging about it here – and your claims that Live Action lies are laughable – that’s what the abortioneers want you to think, and I am sure they are glad you have bought into their story
8 likes
another thing, LisaC – I notice that in addition to PPFA/IPPF, who we clearly know promote abortion, GFW and IRC are both actively promoting abortion around the world – so I guess since you donate to all these groups who are actively promoting abortion, you really are PRO-ABORTION rather than pro-choice – the sad thing is that I am sure you think you are doing something noble – in reality, you are helping to objectify and devalue women – are you proud of yourself when you read about women forcibly aborted in China? are you proud of yourself when you read about baby girls being killed in the womb for being girls? or do you ignore these things and claim they are lies? I just hope you come to see the truth before it is too late for you
9 likes
“JDC, cats are a big deal on the internet because the internet is made of cats! http://www.rathergood.com/cats ;)”
Thanks! That really cleared up a lot for me. I’m glad I am no longer as ignorant as I was before.
2 likes
My sincere thanks, Alexandra. It’s been almost 10 months since I left him (6 months since the divorce was finalized) and it still hurts sometimes, but I’m finding it hurts less with time. And I’m sorry to hear about the passing of Spud, it sounds like he was a loyal companion. Are you familiar with the Rainbow Bridge poem? It’s helped me & maybe it’ll help you too.
2 likes
http://www.rainbowbridge.com/
(Couldn’t get my phone to copy & paste the link a minute ago)
2 likes
Can you tell me how a female being killed inside her mother and disposed of as medical waste would “improve” any particular female’s life?
Xalisae, I believe that a woman is capable of deciding whether or not an abortion will improve her life. It’s not something that she has to justify to me, or I to you.
You are trying to earn charitable brownie points on a pro-life site by saying you donate to Planned Parenthood? Really?
Brownie points? No. A question was asked, and I answered it truthfully.
so I guess since you donate to all these groups who are actively promoting abortion, you really are PRO-ABORTION rather than pro-choice
Bryan, my support of those organizations proves that I am pro-abortion to precisely the same degree that your opposition to them proves that you are pro-rape. And no, I don’t disbelieve the accounts of the abuse of women and sex-selective abortion that have come out of China. Those things were well-known long before pro-lifers decided that they might benefit from pretending to care about gender discrimination.
3 likes
Bryan, my support of those organizations proves that I am pro-abortion to precisely the same degree that your opposition to them proves that you are pro-rape
LisaC, wouldn’t it be YOU who are pro-rape (as well as pro-abortion) as PP returned underage girls to their rapists?
6 likes
LisaC – you seriously need to take some logic classes – what kind of twisted thinking is that?? I do not support organizations that support rape – you, on the other hand, do in fact support organizations that promote abortion, including the forced ones in China and the ones that are used to kill girls because they are girls – and that does, in fact, make you pro-abortion.
7 likes
“pro-lifers decided that they might benefit from pretending to care about gender discrimination.”
Actually we’ve always cared about gender discrimination and have never pretended. But nice baseless accusation. I suppose I would make up nonsense about my opponents to if truth was not on my side.
8 likes
And no, I don’t disbelieve the accounts of the abuse of women and sex-selective abortion that have come out of China. Those things were well-known long before pro-lifers decided that they might benefit from pretending to care about gender discrimination.
Even if pro-lifers were only pretending to care about these issues (which we aren’t, but for the sake of argument), our “pretense” got a Congressional vote on the subject, brought names like Chen Guangcheng to the public consciousness, and raised the general awareness on the subject far more than your “actual” concern ever did. If the pro-abortion lobby is an example of what people do when they really care, I’m thinking the fakers who are actually getting things done are ten times the better advocates.
8 likes
Anyways, why is it that abortion advocates are so obsessed with rape? Every conversation with them leads to that topic eventually.
8 likes
To all those wondering, the photo of fetus included in the text post was not aborted while it was still alive. If you look at the skin, signs of necrosis can be seen. This means the fetus had died in-utero and was simply removed, probably because there was a threat of sepsis for the mother.
Furthermore, partial-birth abortions (not the scientific term) only account for approximately 0.2% of abortions each year, so using that photo as a representation of what an abortion looks like is incredibly misleading.
9 likes
“… so using that photo as a representation of what an abortion looks like is incredibly misleading.”
In many abortions, the babies are so mutilated that they may be less recognizable. That’s much better.
8 likes
LifeJoy, please use medically accurate terminology. There are no babies involved in abortions. What you’re referring to is infanticide.
Most aborted fetuses and embryos aren’t “recognizable” because they have yet to develop distinguishable human features. I doubt you would be able to identify an image of a human embryo when given images of a variety of creatures at the same gestational age. The fact is, roughly 62% of abortions take place before 9 weeks.
And, no, using misleading, medically inaccurate images to emotionally manipulate your audience is not “much better.”
6 likes
I’m in agreement with Rachel. Posting such pictures without an accurate description of what they portray is tantamount to bullying people into sharing your point-of-view. Not exactly a loving stance…
5 likes
So is 9 weeks significant for you for some reason, Rachel? If 38% of abortions happen after 9 weeks, that’s more than 1000 per day,
4 likes
Before 9 weeks, a fetus is roughly a centimetre long. It looks nothing like a human, lacks a heartbeat or any kind of brain activity. At that point in time it is about as alive as a tumour and to people who don’t want to be pregnant or can’t survive a pregnancy, just as deadly.
But arguing with many anti-choicers is always an issue, since science isn’t accurate enough for the ones who refuse to use sense.
2 likes
Please, pro-choicers… educate yourselves.
http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i
3 likes
Actually, Deacon, the heart starts beating 3 weeks and 1 day after conception. You may or may not care about the heartbeat, but that’s irrefutable science.
5 likes
Congratulations, Kel. You just posted a link to a site that accurately describes the stages of pregnancy. Did you think that would be new information to me? That I don’t understand, biologically, what happens during human gestation?
LifeJoy, nine weeks is significant regarding gestational age, yes. It is the point at which an embryo becomes a fetus. This is the reason there is a statistic at this benchmark. If you’re interested in the full breakdown of abortions by gestational age, you can visit this website: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Now it’s my turn to ask you a question: What do you think the reasons are that a woman would consider abortion as an option?
3 likes
>Talks about science
>Calls a fetus/embryo a baby
>yourejoking.jpg
But seriously, I’m going to get the popcorn and watch Rachel here kick your backsides with science. It’s going to be so cash.
3 likes
LifeJoy, the heartbeat which you speak of is not actually the same type of heartbeat we associate with already-born humans. At three weeks the embryo has yet to develop a circulatory system, lungs, a limbic system, or even a heart for that matter — all vital components to producing the heartbeat as we think about it. At three weeks the “heartbeat” being observed is little more that electrical impulses being sent between developing cells.
4 likes
Rachel: “And, no, using misleading, medically inaccurate images to emotionally manipulate your audience is not ‘much better’.”
For my part, I think people who are wowed by morphology in spite of ontology are naive.
6 likes
Rachel – Regarding the 9 weeks Q&A, my point may not have been clear, but maybe because I missed your point. You say 62% of abortions happen before 9 weeks. So does that mean the other 38% is indeed concerning to you?
I think women consider abortion as an option because it is an option. For whatever circumstances make a woman think she cannot raise a child, I truly sympathize. I support programs that address the root causes of those circumstances. Sadly, many women do not feel they really had a choice at all. But ultimately, if women do not see the seriousness of their “choice,” (that all life has immense value), for whatever reason, why not take what may seem like the easier route when faced with a potentially difficult situation? They consider it an option because they trust authority and figure it would be illegal if it were really murder. Because they do not think of a baby as a blessing from God, but as an accident from a good time. And strangely, because many people are far too perfectionistic, on some level – this “surprise” is just not how they pictured it all going down and they want to wait til they have all their sh-tuff together so they can give their baby more of something. It is understandable to be afraid, but it is not acceptable for that fear to drive someone to violence and shortsighted and selfish solutions.
5 likes
Then why do doctors check for the heartbeat to determine whether the embryonic human is alive (just as they do to determine whether a born human is alive)?
3 likes
It’s a technical thing, Navi. Folks like Deacon would refer us to their betters, to help us understand the science. ;-)
4 likes
Betters? Of course! People who say that abortion doctors are baby killers and use misinformation and fear-mongering to spread their ill-informed ideas are surely my betters! I bow to your superiority!
Seriously, I’m bowing here. With laughter.
2 likes
Um . . . I was referring to this: “But seriously, I’m going to get the popcorn and watch Rachel here kick your backsides with science. It’s going to be so cash.”
Apparently you defer to Rachel to do the heavy lifting.
Do keep tabs on your own just-made remarks…
4 likes
“Oh, I’ve become pregnant from a rape! Surely tis a blessing from the lord! I’m not going to be reminded of my horriffic experiences at all when I look at this thing when it’s born!”
“Oh, it’s an etopic pregnancy that will most likely kill me along the way! Surely tis a blessing from the lord! I should be so happy for this gift!”
Because it’s really selfish to want to be able look at your child and tell them “You were born because I wanted you. You are here because I wanted to bring you into this world.”
Instead of saying “You were born because I was forced to carry you for nine of the worst months of my life – I was constantly reminded of my mistakes and experiences. You were not a wanted child. You were a punishment.”
To be honest, if I had been born because abortion was illegal and my mother had never wanted me and had been FORCED to carry me, I’d want to kill myself. True story. Even indirectly, I would loathe myself for causing someone so much duress.
1 likes
I’m not equipped enough to deal with anti-choice arguments. I get too easily frustrated around people. I may be educated, but I sure as hell am not good at using it in an argument. Either way, she seems to be better at thisw than I am.
3 likes
“Even indirectly, I would loathe myself for causing someone so much duress.”
And yet you’re a veritable chuckle-head who laughs at the conscience of those who esteem the defenseless unborn.
I hardly think you suffer from as much risk of self-loathing as you suppose.
5 likes
LifeJoy, all instances of abortion concern me. I wish there wasn’t a need for abortion in this world, I truly do. But the fact is that there will always be a need for it because there will always be unplanned pregnancies and pregnancies that have to be terminated due to medical complications. That’s the reality of it.
Your choice of words is interesting: “For whatever circumstances make a woman think she cannot raise a child….” You seem to view it as a matter of opinion, which in some instances it’s not. That is why abortion should always be an option — for those who truly cannot or do not want to be pregnant for nine months. (There are a couple arguments to be brought up here: the fact that consent to sex — at least I assume that’s what you meant by “good time” — is not consent to pregnancy; and the fact that another human does not have the right to someone else’s body without that person’s constant consent.) Women can lose their job because of pregnancy, medical bills just for pre-natal care and delivery can total over $10,000, the woman could be pregnant as a result of violent circumstances, etc. There are numerous reasons why a woman could turn to abortion — not because it’s the “easy” route to take. How many women have you seen skip happily into an abortion clinic? It’s not something done lightly. They realize the gravity of the decision being made, and the fact that women choose to go through with it should tell you just how necessary having access to safe, legal abortion is.
Remember what pro-choice advocates are promoting: CHOICE. The choice to carry the pregnancy to term, the choice to give the baby up for adoption after it is born, and the choice to terminate the pregnancy if the woman so chooses. The main thing is that it’s a choice. People should WANT to have children, not be forced into it. I, for one, want to be able to look at my (future) children and tell them that I had them because I WANTED them, not because all other options were taken away from me.
Navi, I wasn’t trying to suggest that an embryo or a fetus is not alive. It very much is, just like all cells are alive. No one is suggesting that an embryo or a fetus is not human either. It’s obviously not a velociraptor growing inside someone’s uterus. (Consciousness, however, is another matter.) What I was pointing out is that when people say an embryo has a heartbeat at 3 weeks that it’s medically inaccurate. You can’t have a HEARTbeat without a developed heart.
6 likes
It’s not a baby until it has some semblance of being able to survive outside the womb, or even a developed brain would help. Until then it is a cclump of cells. Human cells, yes.
But we have live human cells on every part of us, like our skin. Nobody’s been arrested for cutting their nails or exfoliating yet.
Chuckle-head. That’s a new one. I’m keeping it if you don’t mind.
3 likes
Also, see the bomb Rachel just dropped to see why I bow to her and people like her in these arguments. She’s simply more clever than I am here.
3 likes
Having deferred to bodily autonomy, lack of consciousness, and such, why then does abortion concern you?
4 likes
“Bomb?” Please. Do your own thinking.
Rachel speaks of the “gravity” of a woman’s decision, connoting the way this choice is a Brave Act Of The Will what with the Seriousness Of It All.
B.S. If it’s fine to kill the human life that’s developing, there’s nothing grave about it in the least. The only gravity that could be said to obtain would be (a) on account of the woman’s latent primitive “conscience,” which she’d be better off without. Superstitious anthropomorphizing of the parasitic little bastard in the womb is a bug, not a feature. A stronger woman would be utterly indifferent to it. But pro-choice advocates are there for the primitives who haven’t sloughed off their naive concerns about what they’re doing in choosing abortion. Someone has to Be Strong in this Grave Scenario. Someday little sister will understand that it’s all copacetic. (b) The mere gravity of a medical procedure. Big whoop. Join the club. For every abortion that destroys a life there are more that save a life. There are people facing no medical procedures at all whose lives involve things dramatically more grave.
But let’s dispense with the notion, if pro-choice ethics is in any sense “right” — that our sentiments regarding the unborn life we’re destroying are in any right sense a center of gravity.
6 likes
The problem with the logic of Anti-choicers is that they fail to think this through. You want to make abortion illegal. We’ve tried that. It didn’t work. Women still sought out abortions, illegal ones which cause the fetus/embryo AND the woman death. In addition, it opened up the door for criminals to take advantage of a situation and exploit women in a desperate situation. Now, I’ll go as far as to concede that it is now 2012 and you may make the argument that times have changed since the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s,and 70’s. But even in 2012 in countries where abortion is illegal, mostly Muslim countries, women still get abortions. By making abortion illegal it does not stop people from getting them.
Furthermore, let’s consider what would happen if we were to regress and make abortion, yet again, illegal. Women won’t stop getting abortions, but now it’s illegal so what?? You want to throw women in jail for having abortions?? In addition to legitimate OBGYN’s in jail for performing them?? Aren’t our jails over populated enough?? And isn’t the prison system already a drain on tax payer dollars??
I’d like to emphasize Rachel’s point about Pro-CHOICE, we believe it is the CHOICE of the woman carrying the fetus/embryo to A) CARRY TO TERM AND HAVE A BABY B) have an abortion or C) carry to term and give up the baby for adoption. You see CHOICES.
3 likes
“I’d like to emphasize Rachel’s point about Pro-CHOICE, we believe it is the CHOICE of the woman carrying the fetus/embryo to A) CARRY TO TERM AND HAVE A BABY B) have an abortion or C) carry to term and give up the baby for adoption. You see CHOICES. ”
The whole program of using the euphemism “choice” for abortion is simply question-begging. That is, it assumes what needs to be proven from the onset. The pro-life claim is that abortion is the unjust taking of the life of an innocent human person. To claim that one should be allowed a choice whether or not to commit an abortion is to simply presuppose without argument that the MAIN claim that the pro-life side makes is wrong by assuming that one can legitimately choose to have an abortion. But we claim the unborn is a human person with inherent dignity and moral worth, just like you or me. Thus, if the “choice” facade proves anything, it proves too much. For the same “choice” framework could be used to justify the killing of a 2-year old. ” we believe it is the CHOICE of the woman living with a toddler to A) TAKE CARE OF THE TODDLER B) kill the toddler or C) give the toddler for adoption. You see CHOICES.” But this argument fails completely because it assumes that killing a toddler is a legitimate choice. We don’t kill toddlers because they are human persons and we don’t kill people. But this is the exact same claim we are making about the fetus. Thus, the choice facade simply does not address the main claim pro-lifers are making, and fails as a rational justification for abortion.
In fact, the entire argument presented in the post I quoted from is question begging. Abortion is morally permissible because the prison system is a drain on taxpayer dollars? I can kill someone if this would prevent a drain on taxpayer dollars? OBGYN’s would go to jail, and ergo abortion is morally permissible? Women still perform action X in countries where action X is illegal and thus we should make action X legal? These arguments don’t address at all even begin to address the claim that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life. Would anyone really find these arguments compelling if they were used to justify the killing of a 2 year old? If there is nothing wrong with killing a 2 year old, sure, these seem like pretty good prudential things to keep in mind when deciding policy issues. But again, we claim the unborn is morally equivalent to a 2 year old, so that these kinds of arguments remain wholly unconvincing and should be a priori ruled out.
8 likes
“It’s not a baby until it has some semblance of being able to survive outside the womb, or even a developed brain would help.”
Why should the ability to survive outside the womb be something we value? There are many places that you and I can’t survive, such as the bottom of teh ocean or in outer space. Is our dignity and moral worth a function of our location? Where we can survive also changes as our technology changes. Why should it be okay to kill a 30 week old fetus in 1800 but not okay to kill a 30 week old fetus in 2012? In addition, you mention a “developed brain.” Why should having a developed brain be what it is that someone has that makes it so that we shouldn’t kill them? Even with a developed brain, the newborn baby can do very little. Why value a developed brain if they can’t even use it for higher cognitive function until years later? These two quick reasons about surviving outside teh womb and having a developed brain seem like a very ad hoc theory of what constitutes a person worth value and dignity.
“Until then it is a cclump of cells. Human cells, yes.”
Rachel admitted above that it is a human being. The “clump of cells” argument is reductionist in the sense that you and I can be described as simply a “clump of cells.” No, a grown person as well as a fetus are not simply a clump of cells but an integrated whole. It is a whole substance that, given the proper environment and nourishment, will develop into a neonate, toddler, teenager, adult, etc. It is alive and ordered towards this development in virtue of WHAT it is, not some outside force that builds it. It is of a wholly different kind than say a bag of bottles. A bag of bottles is simply an amalgamation of things- it is not an integrated whole, and all the parts are not working together for the whole good of the organism. Contrast this with an embryo with only, say, 16 cells. All the parts of this embryo work together as a unified whole in order for the embryo to grow and develop. The cells are not simply some clump that are only related to each other in a fast and loose sense, but they all work together for teh good of the organism. Both metaphysically and biologically, it is thus incorrect to label an embryo as simply a clump of cells.
“But we have live human cells on every part of us, like our skin. Nobody’s been arrested for cutting their nails or exfoliating yet.”
See above. A skin cell or a human nail is not ordered towards developing into the adult stage of life. There is no potentiality in a skin cell alone (in virtue of what it is) to develop into a human fetus. Again, by contrast, the embryo is the kind of thing that given teh right environment and nutrients is ordered towards or directed to growth into teh adult stage. You must really learn what the pro-life claim is before attempting to refute it. We do not value cells because they are human. We value the kind of things that by virtue of WHAT it is, has the a priori potential to develop into an adult human. Through things like SCNT you can indeed clone someone by “fusing” a skin cell with an enucleated oocyte, but this results in a being wholly different from teh original skin cell, again, both ontologically and biologically. The kind of thing that an embryo is is totally different than the kind of thing a skin cell is because the former has the potency for growth into adulthood and the latter does not.
8 likes
Wow. If Rachel is your strong science person, you guys are in serious trouble. Not knowing that yes, your heartbeat that began around 18-22 days of development is exactly the same heartbeat that your heart is doing right now? That’s not pro-science. That’s delusion. That the heart begins beating at that point in pre-natal development is unarguable fact. Calling that “electrical impulses” to make yourselves feel better is either hilarious or disgusting, depending on how angry I am at the moment. Either way, you’re using your imaginations to prop up the systematic extermination of human beings.
Why do you think so many abortion pictures have US coins in them? Here, I’ll give you an example. This child was at roughly seven weeks development when she was killed.
http://www.imagesofabortion.com/exposed/multimedia/imagesNew/WomansChoice640/010.jpg
That picture of the tiny, torn-off arm clutching a dime isn’t hanging onto that dime because the dead child was pro-capitalism, you know. It’s for scale. Everyone knows what size a dime is, so they know how big the child was.
So, to recap, abortion pictures actually aren’t misleading and you don’t know anything about pre-natal development. Like I said, if you’re an example of the science experts on the pro-abortion side, you guys are in serious trouble. Which is probably why the pro-abortion position is loosing so much ground in the public consciousness. What with 4D ultrasounds and In The Womb and “pregnancy without shame” sorts of programs being brought into the public eye more and more, people know when they’re being lied to. However unintentional or out-of-ignorance those lies may be.
9 likes
Darn. I was going to say something to this when I saw it last night, but it appears you all have it wrapped up this morning. :(
4 likes
EveryChildWanted says: “The problem with the logic of Anti-choicers is that they fail to think this through. You want to make abortion illegal. We’ve tried that. It didn’t work. Women still sought out abortions”
Ha! Pro-lifers “fail to think” their arguments through? Let’s take a look at your argument: Abortion should be legal because there will still be abortions even if they are illegal.
So I guess you think some other actions should be legal too, since they continue to happen even though they’re illegal? Things like rape, murder, child abuse, drunk driving, battery, assault, robbery, bribery, extortion, kidnapping, and on and on. Yep, that’s some good logic ya got there.
“which cause the fetus/embryo AND the woman death”
Perhaps you are unaware, but women are dying from legal abortion today.
7 likes
Heh. Seriously, ya gotta love remarks like that from EveryChildWanted.
If the unborn deserve protection and criminalizing abortion services ends up protecting many unborn, then it certainly “works.” We have federal regulations on the books now at such a granular level to protect consumers from perils that occur in fewer than hundreds of instances each year. Laws that address millions of abortion instances would make more — not less — sense, than such regulations.
6 likes
” In addition, it opened up the door for criminals to take advantage of a situation and exploit women in a desperate situation.”
They were called criminals because it was illegal. Now they are just called Planned Parenthood.
8 likes
Clearly this discussion is pointless. I provide facts — things that science can prove — and I’m met with dismissal because of the notion that from the moment of conception, the un-implanted zygote is a human being. Is it alive? Yes, in the same way that all dividing cells are alive. Is it human? Yes. It has human DNA. However, you CANNOT prove that it is sentient. Thus, I remain unconvinced that terminating a pregnancy is akin to taking the life of an already alive human being.
And about the toddler argument: The difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing an already born person is, I’d like to think, fairly obvious. If you genuinely cannot see the difference between the two, then you are delusional. A fetus/embryo is not an autonomous being, nor is it sentient. Heck, it can’t even feel pain (one of the most basic sensations) let alone think until at least 23 weeks old. (And that’s pushing it. It’s closer to 26 weeks.)
Alice, you can deny the biological facts of what I said about embryonic heartbeat, but that doesn’t change the fact that at that stage of development an embryo has yet to grow a complete heart, circulatory system, lungs, or a limbic system — all vital components to producing heartbeat as we think of it in already-born people.
Furthermore, that image of an “abortion” you provided proves nothing. That could easily be a doctored photo, and I believe it is. At 7 weeks an embryo is approximately 18 mm long. A dime is 17.22 mm in diameter. In the image, if the arm were extended, it would nearly reach across the diameter of the dime. This would not be possible if the “aborted embryo” in that picture was actually 7 weeks. (Embryonic development and the Carnegie Stages: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/CStages.htm) And even if it’s not a doctored photo, you have no idea why that pregnancy was terminated. Perhaps the embryo/fetus had already died. Perhaps it had Tay Sachs. Perhaps the mother knew that going through with the pregnancy would ruin her life.
And you’re accusing the pro-choice camp of lying and presenting misinformation? Really? Really? http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html
LifeJoy, do you understand how Planned Parenthood operates? (Serious question.)
2 likes
Hi Rachel.
“you CANNOT prove that it is sentient.”
Certainly we cannot. However, we must note that we do not base our anti-abortion stance on the fact that one is sentient and one is not. We base it on the KIND of thing the unborn is, which as you admit, is a human being.
“Thus, I remain unconvinced that terminating a pregnancy is akin to taking the life of an already alive human being.”
I’m not really sure I understand this. You claim above that it is human, but here you say it is not the same as killing an alive human being. Is the fetus not alive? Or is it not a being? By being, do you mean an agent with functioning, expressible sentience?
“The difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing an already born person is, I’d like to think, fairly obvious. If you genuinely cannot see the difference between the two, then you are delusional.”
This isn’t really an argument. In fact, the problem is that in context, I was INDEED responding to a question-begging argument. This is evident by your reply:
“A fetus/embryo is not an autonomous being, nor is it sentient. Heck, it can’t even feel pain (one of the most basic sensations) let alone think until at least 23 weeks old. (And that’s pushing it. It’s closer to 26 weeks.)”
The argument I was addressing was an argument from pity or emotion, something that your argument is not. So I agree that teh toddler analogy does not address this argument that you are now giving, but it does address quite definitively the argument given by “EveryChildWanted.” That much is clear.
But onto your reasons now. I would ask why autonomy should be valued. Actually, even before that, I would ask what is meant by autonomy. Certainly a 1 month old is not autonomous. Similarly to Deacon, you seem to be performing this “buck shot” where you have this whole list of criteria that a human should satisfy in order to not be killed: sentience, autonomy, ability to feel pain (which I thought was usually called sentience), the ability to “think.” What is it about having these things that make a human being valuable and thus not be able to be killed? Let’s take the ability to feel pain, for example. Suppose I am under complete anesthesia. Is it morally permissible to kill me? Or suppose my nervous system never develops properly and I can never feel pain- the neurons that are supposed to fire in my brain when I touch a hot stove never do. What does that mean in terms of my right to life? We can scrutinize this and other so-called “personhood” theories and find many problematic scenarios with them. The only one that does not fail is to claim that a human being = human person, and that we cannot be killed not because we can feel pain or think or any other property, but in virtue of teh kind of thing we are which is a human person.
“Perhaps the mother knew that going through with the pregnancy would ruin her life.”
Unfortunately while you gave a rational justification for abortion above with the claim that the embryo can be killed because it isn’t sentient or whatever, this is the kind of question-begging argument that falls victim to PRECISELY the toddler analogy. Suppose I lose my job and cannot afford my children anymore, and the only job I can get now will be one in which I cannot take care of my kids anymore. In other words, continuing to raise my children would ruin my life. May I kill them? No, of course not. So again, this line of argumentation does nothing to address the main claim that pro-lifers make, which is that abortion kills a human being with the same moral worth as a toddler. Ah, but maybe I don’t value the embryo like I do the toddler because the embryo isn’t sentient. Okay, so THAT is the real issue then. Are they morally equivalent or not? No amount of appeals to pity or emotional arguments will address that issue.
6 likes
The point is prohibition doesn’t work. Even though rape is illegal,it still happens. Even though drugs are illegal, people still do them. Making laws to limit someone autonomy over one’s body doesn’t work. You can sit here and argue that less people will get abortions, that’s not true. History has shown us that, even when abortion was illegal the rate of abortion didn’t decrease it remained the same. You say you make your arguments based on facts?? The facts are that prohibition of anything, drugs, alcohol, abortion, where it limits ones autonomy over ones body NEVER works. If people want to do drink, they’ll drink. If people want to do drugs they’ll do it. If a woman wants an abortion she’ll have one. Legal or not. What you fail consider is the social ramifications making abortion illegal AGAIN will have on our society.
You’re all missing the point. If you’re goal is to prevent abortion. And making abortion illegal doesn’t prevent abortion so what’s the point in making abortion illegal if it does meet the purpose in which you are advocating for??
2 likes
an embryo/fetus =/= toddler
period. If you can’t get that you’re delusional.
3 likes
It’s a lie that pro-choicers promote ‘choice’. If that were true, why do they try to block informed consent laws at every turn? Why do they deface pro-life signs and harrass sidewalk counselors? Don’t they want a woman to receive all the info possible before making an informed decision? Certainly not.
Why does PP only refer a few hundred women each year to adoption agencies, given the hundreds of thousand of pregnant woman that visit their centers? Why do they now want the public to see photos of aborted children?
If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why isn’t the result of it shown on the front page of every newspaper?
Pro-‘choicers’ have already made the decision for each woman contemplating what to do with an unplanned pregnancy, and the ‘choice’ is not life.
7 likes
“The point is prohibition doesn’t work. Even though rape is illegal,it still happens”
Wouldn’t this imply that it should also be morally permissible to make rape legal? No one is claiming that making something illegal will cause it to stop happening. Rather, it will most likely discourage people from engaging in that action if for no other reason than fear of punishment. But furthermore, good law should reflect good ethics, and good ethics compels us to conclude that teh embryo has a right to life and thus should not be killed.
“If people want to do drink, they’ll drink. If people want to do drugs they’ll do it. If a woman wants an abortion she’ll have one.”
Right, and when they are caught doing that activity that is illegal, they should be punished. Is this really an argument about abortion or is it about a certain form of government that we should be adopting here in the US?
“And making abortion illegal doesn’t prevent abortion so what’s the point in making abortion illegal if it does meet the purpose in which you are advocating for??”
I find this claim highly, highly dubious. It is very difficult to believe that if action X is made illegal, then just as many if not more people will engage in action X as they did when it was legal. But even if this was the case, abortion should be illegal because it is the unjust killing of an innocent human being, and killing people should never be condoned by any form of government. That seems like a difficult statement to argue with, and if you disagree and believe that the government has no say in whether or not its members kill each other, than I think your disagreements are not only with pro-lifers but many pro-choicers as well.
“an embryo/fetus =/= toddler
period. If you can’t get that you’re delusional. ”
Right, so I never claimed this. I claimed they have the same moral worth. You need to give a reason for why we should value one and not the other, not simply decree that it is the case and then name call. Really, the point is that your original argument simply does not work. We can now move onto trying to determine why it should be the case that we value a toddler and not an embryo.
6 likes
A few more thoughts:
-It’s comical that pro-aborts always claim that photos are doctored. What do they think a picture of an aborted baby looks like, particularly a late term baby? Do they expect the baby to be smiling and laughing as it is crushed or poisoned or dismembered? Really, Rachel and Deacon, WHAT DOES THIS BABY LOOK LIKE? HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM WHAT IS IN THE ABOVE PHOTO? SINCE THE IMAGE IS SUPPOSEDLY DOCTORED, CAN YOU POST A ‘REAL’ PHOTO TO ENLIGHTEN US ALL?
-Since they are on the loosing side of the argument, the tactic is to DENY, DENY, DENY.
-Since partial birth abortions (or excuse me, intact D&E) ‘only’ accounts for 0.2% of abortions, that equates to 2,400 babies every year (0.2% x 1,200,000 abortions). What number is acceptable to pro-aborts? Why does the number matter? Even ONE baby being killed this way is heinous and despicable.
7 likes
Kelly, Why do PP only refer a few hundred women each to adoption agencies:
because it’s not PP’s CHOICE to make what a woman does with her pregnancy. PP offers education and OPTIONS. The CHOICE is up to the woman who is pregnant. So if a woman CHOOSES to carry a pregnancy to term and give up a BABY for adoption PP offers her assistance and references to do so. If a woman CHOOSES to abort a fetus they allow here that OPTION as well.
Fruther more in any medical procedure there are risks. I went in for a kidney biopsy earlier this week and there were complications, you want to make that illegal to?? My kidney’s are live human cells and essentially, by pro-lifers argument, they are living despite the fact that they aren’t sentient.
2 likes
EveryChildWanted: I don’t believe your rational about the low adoption number referral numbers for one second. The real reason is: They encourage women to take the ‘easy and quick way out’. If a woman is looking for adoption support, they send her packing as quickly as possible. THERE IS NO MONEY IN ADOPTION REFERRALS, BUT AT LEAST $500 IN IT FOR PP FOR EACH ‘PROCEDURE’.
BLOOD MONEY.
The rest of your response about your kidneys is just plain silly and not worthy of a response. NEWSFLASH: YOUR KIDNEY IS NOT A UNIQUE, LIVING INDIVIDUAL.
As I said above, when you pro-aborts are on the loosing end of an argument, your tactics switch to DENY, DISTRACT, DIFFER.
7 likes
Clearly, Rachel, you don’t understand enough about embryonic and fetal development, since your statements about fetal development such as heartbeat an brainwaves were incorrect.
So I hope you educated yourself a little with the link I posted. I hope others will do the same.
5 likes
Bobby Bambino brush up on your history. Abortion was illegal, did it decrease the number of abortions performed?? Look to countries where abortion is illegal, is their rate of abortion lower than those of countries where abortion is legal?? No and No. The only difference is that rate of death as a result of an abortion in countries where abortion is illegal is higher than that of countries where abortion is legal.
2 likes
Kelly: you’d certainly know how to “DENY, DISTRACT, DIFFER”
by utilizing emotionally inflammatory images, whether doctored or not to push an agenda. Again you are basing your argument on the notion that every woman who seeks an abortion is doing so to take the “quick and easy way out” but there’s nothing quick or easy about an abortion. There are instance where a pregnancy can cause a woman death due to a chronic illness.
My kidney argument, you are all making the argument that a living human cells whether they have developed brains or not. Whether they have a developed heart or not is a live human being. My heart is made up human cells, my kidney is as well. I am following your logic here, if you disagree with this, then you need to re-evaluate your arguments and your logic, not mine.
Please Kelly, show me the facts when and where in America has there been a partial birth abortion in the last decade??? I know partial birth abortions happen elsewhere in the world, where ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. But where in AMERICA does this happen today, facts and sources required for your argument to be valid.
2 likes
“Abortion was illegal, did it decrease the number of abortions performed??”
Wait, from what, the 1800s? Are you talking about the US? Are you claiming we have hard statistics about the number of abortions performed in teh US when it was legal before it became illegal? It was legal back in what, the 1800s? I find your whole program of argumentation extremely disorganized and wandering, ECW.
But now, we have about 1.1 million abortions in the US per year now. Is there anyone, Guttmahcer, any sort of even pro-choice organization that will claim that there were 1.1 million abortions in the US prior to 1973? In other words, did making abortion legal keep the number teh same?
“is their rate of abortion lower than those of countries where abortion is legal??”
I know very little about teh state of affairs of other countries, but I would guess that it is disingenuous to compare rates of abortions in different countries.
“Look to countries where abortion is illegal, is their rate of abortion lower than those of countries where abortion is legal??”
What is the methodology being used to count the number of illegal abortions? Here we have an action that is illegal, yet we are supposed to believe we have well documented and well researched statistics on this? I highly doubt it.
Again, though, this is really all moot. My main claim is that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life and thus should be illegal.
But let me ask you this. You now seem to be claiming to some support of abortion based on the fact that the rate will not go down if it is made illegal. Suppose we had statistics that showed that the abortion rate when down when it was made illegal. Would you then support illegal abortion? Or would we be back to defending abortion based on “choice”?
I will note in passing that no other point of mine was addressed other than to reiterate the dubious claim that rates of abortion remain consistent whether illegal or not.
6 likes
“My heart is made up human cells, my kidney is as well. I am following your logic here, if you disagree with this, then you need to re-evaluate your arguments and your logic, not mine.”
This argument ignores the distinction I have already made above. I will repeat it here.
The “clump of cells” argument is reductionist in the sense that you and I can be described as simply a “clump of cells.” No, a grown person as well as a fetus are not simply a clump of cells but an integrated whole. It is a whole substance that, given the proper environment and nourishment, will develop into a neonate, toddler, teenager, adult, etc. It is alive and ordered towards this development in virtue of WHAT it is, not some outside force that builds it. It is of a wholly different kind than say a bag of bottles. A bag of bottles is simply an amalgamation of things- it is not an integrated whole, and all the parts are not working together for the whole good of the organism. Contrast this with an embryo with only, say, 16 cells. All the parts of this embryo work together as a unified whole in order for the embryo to grow and develop. The cells are not simply some clump that are only related to each other in a fast and loose sense, but they all work together for teh good of the organism. Both metaphysically and biologically, it is thus incorrect to label an embryo as simply a clump of cells.
A skin cell or a human nail or a heart cell is not ordered towards developing into the adult stage of life. There is no potentiality in a skin cell alone (in virtue of what it is) to develop into a human fetus. Again, by contrast, the embryo is the kind of thing that given teh right environment and nutrients is ordered towards or directed to growth into teh adult stage. You must really learn what the pro-life claim is before attempting to refute it. We do not value cells because they are human. We value the kind of things that by virtue of WHAT it is, has the a priori potential to develop into an adult human. Through things like SCNT you can indeed clone someone by “fusing” a skin cell with an enucleated oocyte, but this results in a being wholly different from teh original skin cell, again, both ontologically and biologically. The kind of thing that an embryo is is totally different than the kind of thing a skin cell is because the former has the potency for growth into adulthood and the latter does not.
7 likes
I support the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body and the cells and organs inside her body. My argument is based on the social ramifications we have already seen in history as a result of illegal abortions.
You all want to vilify women in desperate situations despite her situation or reasoning. I try my best not to use personal please. But I feel in this case it’s necessary. Do I want children?? yes. Is it possible for me to have them?? I don’t know. I suffer from a chronic illness where a pregnancy can cause me death. Now you want to take away my CHOICE to either have a child or to die. In my book that’s not pro-life at all. You may want to argue that I’m one story, but over 1 million people suffer from the same ailment i do, and my particular illness effects mostly women. All making abortion illegal will do for me is force me to have a child that I won’t be able to raise because I won’t be here to raise that child.
2 likes
EveryChildWanted: I am not going to spend my time posting to meet your requests. Why? Because no amount of facts in the world will change your agenda, which is the following: ABORTION ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT APOLOGY.
For all the pro-lifers on here, another pro-abort strategy: TRY TO ENGAGE YOU IN FUTILE ARGUMENTS, DEMAND MORE ‘FACTS’, USE CIRCULAR LOGIC, ETC, TO BIND UP YOUR TIME AND KEEP YOU FROM BEING PRODUCTIVE IN THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.
DON’T FALL FOR IT. I’VE CALLED YOU OUT AS A PROFESSIONAL TROLL, EVERYCHILD.
5 likes
You can call me whatever you’d like Kelly. I am a woman who is neither a pro-choice advocate nor a pro-life one. I don’t go to rallies and I don’t utilize Planned parenthood services.
What I am is a woman. A woman who have seen a lot of other sick women die. Die because they felt they didn’t have a choice to choose between a pregnancy and their own life. In the end there was no baby and no Mother. Because both ended up dying. Do I advocate for abortion as birth control?? NO!
And I’m sorry if requiring facts to support your argument is offensive to you, I just consider that intelligence. But please continue living blissfully in ignorance as it is your right to CHOOSE to do so with your own self. As for me I CHOOSE to know all the facts before executing judgement on someone I don’t know.
2 likes
“I support the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body and the cells and organs inside her body.”
Okay fair enough. Let us take the “right of a woman to do what she wants with her body and cells inside her body” to its logical conclusion. Let us consider the following thought experiment. In some parts of Africa, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is quite rampant. Sometimes those parents who practice it on their children come over to the US and would like to have it done on their newborn daughters. Of course, this is a horrific and brutal act of mutilation, as I am sure many pro-choice feminists would agree. There should be no tolerance for FGM in our civilized society.
However, there is a compromise. Since the fate of the unborn in the womb is subject to teh woman’s wishes, as long as the mother wished, she could (hypothetically) have her unborn daughter’s genitals mutilated while teh daughter was still INSIDE her mother. Though we probably don’t have the science behind doing this down yet, I’m sure we could figure it out. It would probably be easiest to do right before birth, the time at which the fetus gains rights. Thus, since the fetus has no rights, there should be no moral qualms about mutilating a female fetus’s genital while it is still in teh womb.
Does that make sense? Do you support in utero FGM?
“My argument is based on the social ramifications we have already seen in history as a result of illegal abortions.”
Okay, this is a completely different argument than the one you gave above. The one you gave above has the makings of a solid argument in favor of the pro-choice position. It should be apparent by now that this one does not because it begs the question. And yes, I say that all the time but taht is because pro-choicers commit that fallacy all. the. time.
“You all want to vilify women in desperate situations despite her situation or reasoning.”
No, not at all. On the contrary, I want to offer them love and support and not convict them in teh false notion that a permissible way out of a horrible situation is to kill someone. It is false compassion to tell someone in a desperate situation that they can do something wrong to get out of teh situation.
“I suffer from a chronic illness where a pregnancy can cause me death.”
I am very sorry to hear this, truly. (there is no sarcasm or patronization in what I say either)
“Now you want to take away my CHOICE to either have a child or to die.”
I want you to not kill anyone, and I also do not want you to die. If there is a life threatening situation, moral means can be done to save your life while foreseeing the unintended side effect of the fetus dying. So you are genuinely concerned about your health and the health of others (I would NEVER say “you’re just one example” because every. single. life. matters). So I guess my question is that suppose would you be in favor them of abortion being illegal unless the life of the mother is at risk? Because your problem is an important one, and though I would support direct abortion in the case where the life is at risk, there are ways to save the life of the mother even though they fetus will die. So would you join me in being against abortion in all other circumstances?
4 likes
I suffer from a chronic illness where a pregnancy can cause me death. Now you want to take away my CHOICE to either have a child or to die. In my book that’s not pro-life at all. You may want to argue that I’m one story, but over 1 million people suffer from the same ailment i do, and my particular illness effects mostly women. All making abortion illegal will do for me is force me to have a child that I won’t be able to raise because I won’t be here to raise that child.
If your condition would cause you to possibly die during pregnancy, then my suggestion would be that you don’t need abortion. What you need is pregnancy prevention. If pregnancy would kill you, then why not insure that it never happens by having a surgery to guarantee that it does not? That would be far more reliable (and much less harsh on the body) than say, taking birth control pills all the time, for example, and far less harmful to both your life and any conceived child’s life than abortion.
Adoption would perhaps be an option for you if you want children in the future.
If anyone’s life is put at risk during a pregnancy, we have high risk OBGYNs who specialize in these types of pregnancies. And true medical professionals attempt to save both lives. Legalized elective abortion is not going to help you in the SLIGHTEST in a true medical emergency during pregnancy. For those, you see specialists, not former back alley butchers and bottom of the barrel abortionists.
Your scenario isn’t reality.
4 likes
EveryChildWanted says: I support the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body
I do too. But once conception takes place, there is another body to consider. And although that body is located inside the body of the mother, it is not her body. So what you support is the “right” of a mother to have the body of her unborn baby destroyed.
6 likes
Kelly: so because I have a chronic illness I should not have the choice to bear e a child?? Is that your argument?? Honestly?? That’s your suggestion to me?? Wow, the compassion of pro-life in black and white. My scenario isn’t reality?
“Your scenario isn’t reality.”
Do you think that everyone with a chronic illness is insured?? Do you know how expensive a specialist can be if you aren’t insured?? My biopsy with insurance cost me $100. Sure, for a working professional like myself that isn’t much. But that isn’t the case for everyone. Unwanted pregnancies happen, that is a REALITY.
Bobby: I am definitely against late-term abortions. And I am absolutely in support of abortions in cases where a pregnancy can cause a woman death. However, I am hesitant to execute judgement on other women who seek out abortions for other reasons. Because cannot truly what another human being is suffering. What has brought them to that decision or that particular choice, “judge not lest ye be judged”
1 likes
EveryChildWanted says: Kelly: so because I have a chronic illness I should not have the choice to bear e a child??
How does legal abortion help you bear a child?
5 likes
Defer and distract. I knew you’d be good at that Kelly. My point which you have obviously missed. Is the CHOICE. the CHOICE to bear a child if I wanted to or to abort a fetus in the event I HAVE to. If God Blesses me with the ability to bear a child and carry to term and remain healthy than I will CHOOSE to do so. However, in the event that is not possible I would like the CHOICE to live. isn’t that pro-life enough for you??
1 likes
“However, I am hesitant to execute judgement on other women who seek out abortions for other reasons. Because cannot truly what another human being is suffering. What has brought them to that decision or that particular choice, “judge not lest ye be judged””
Sure, I can sympathize with this. And I agree, we should not judge others. But you would agree that we have to judge certain actions wrong, even if someone is suffering tremendously, right? We can both agree that someone who rapes someone else is has engaged in a wrong action. We won’t judge the person himself, but we can judge his action wrong. I claim that there is a similar thing that can be done with abortion. True, I will never know the pain and suffering that a woman facing a crisis pregnancy is going through. But I can say that no matter how great that is, it can never justify killing someone, if that’s really what abortion does. A bad action might solve the problem temporarily, but it really isn’t a permanent solution. Many women like our own Carla regret their abortion and live with the pain of it every day. True, some do not seem to. But really I would say, as above, that the best thing we can do for women who are in these horrible situations is to help them through their pregnancy and give them the love and support they deserve while not encouraging them in an action that does permanent harm to another.
4 likes
EveryChildWanted says: “judge not lest ye be judged”
Argh. One of the most misunderstood Bible verses ever. Jesus is not telling us not to judge the presence of sin. He’s saying we must be willing to be judged by the same standard. It’s a caution against hypocrisy and self-deception.
“For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”
Every pro-lifer I’ve spoken to, including those that have had abortions in the past, are willing to be judged accordingly. Thankfully, God is infinitely merciful.
4 likes
But it’s a logical fallacy to argue that the pro-choice movement is a pro-abortion one just as as the pro-life movement is an anti-choice one. You see the circular argument both sides engage in?? What ends up getting lost is the root of the problem. Unwanted pregnancy. In cases in which you are describing what has happened is a lack of education. Such as in States where they offer abstinence only education. Often I find with pro-lifers they emphasize this religious agenda. I am a Christian woman but I also recognize that not everyone in America are Believers, and I respect that. I cannot exert my beliefs on another in good conscience, and i wouldn’t want people of other faiths to exert their beliefs on me.
And you and I are still in contention on one key point. The start of life. You believe that life begins at conception. I do not. And I think that’s the point that we are going to just have to agree to disagree. Because I am not going convince you and vice versa. But I do believe that we can agree on one thing, preventing unwanted pregnancies, through education. When girls are getting pregnant younger and younger I think it’s safe to assume that abstinence only education is not effective.
1 likes
Fancy that, I’m actually not religious myself, but support abortion being illegal. Because, I don’t want to tell women what to do with our bodies, but I do want a law in place to insure we can’t legally kill the bodies of our children. Which brings me to the point I’d like to make:
Is the CHOICE. the CHOICE to bear a child if I wanted to or to abort a fetus in the event I HAVE to.
I see you have programmed a little bit of a rational disconnect here into your psyche. The child is not ONLY a child if you wish to birth him/her. They do not magically become some sort of non-human-being-entity called “a fetus” if you wish to have him/her killed in utero. The fetus of whom you speak is merely that same child in the fetal stage of life-your offspring-and therefore your child.
To back up my claim, I’d like to direct Ms. Pseudo-Science Rachel to the following links:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10044/
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.
…One of the major triumphs of descriptive embryology was the idea of a generalizable life cycle. Each animal, whether an earthworm, an eagle, or a beagle, passes through similar stages of development. The major stages of animal development are illustrated in Figure 2.1. The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes—the sperm and the egg. This fusion, called fertilization, stimulates the egg to begin development. The stages of development between fertilization and hatching are collectively called embryogenesis.”
Developmental Biology. 6th edition.
Gilbert SF.
Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2000.
And this is one of my favorite articles, by by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D:
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
“To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”
5 likes
Mods, I have a link-heavy posting in moderation. Your expedient retrieval would be much appreciated! <3
2 likes
Done. Boo ya, X!
4 likes
Much obliged, BB. Thanks! ^_^
2 likes
Kelly: so because I have a chronic illness I should not have the choice to bear e a child?? Is that your argument?? Honestly?? That’s your suggestion to me?? Wow, the compassion of pro-life in black and white. My scenario isn’t reality?
First of all, I’m Kel. There is a Kelly who has commented here, but I’m not her.
Secondly, my argument is that sterilizing yourself by choice is preferable to KILLING your own preborn child. Your suggestion is death. Mine is life, for everyone. If you truly believe your life would be at grave risk from pregnancy, then get sterilized. And YES, I am completely serious.
Do you think that everyone with a chronic illness is insured?? Do you know how expensive a specialist can be if you aren’t insured?? My biopsy with insurance cost me $100. Sure, for a working professional like myself that isn’t much. But that isn’t the case for everyone.
No, of course not. But I don’t really care, because your argument is, “Hey, this could get expensive, so I want the option to kill my child.” Which is pretty sick, when you think about it.
Unwanted pregnancies happen, that is a REALITY.
Of course they do, but that isn’t what you were discussing. You said:
I suffer from a chronic illness where a pregnancy can cause me death.
My solution? Don’t get pregnant if you believe you might choose to kill your child.
Now you want to take away my CHOICE to either have a child or to die.
Nobody is forcing you to have a child here. Nobody’s telling you that you MUST get pregnant in the first place. What I’m saying is that if this is the case, then perhaps you are better off being sterilized.
In my book that’s not pro-life at all.
Since this isn’t even our position, then no, of course it’s not “pro-life.” No one is telling you “Get pregnant immediately! Then we shall force you to give birth, even at the cost of your life!!” You are the one who said at the very beginning that you think pregnancy is too risky for you, and that you would want the option to choose your life over that of your child’s.
You may want to argue that I’m one story, but over 1 million people suffer from the same ailment i do, and my particular illness effects mostly women. All making abortion illegal will do for me is force me to have a child that I won’t be able to raise because I won’t be here to raise that child.
And there it is again. Look, NO ONE is “forcing you to have a child that you won’t be able to raise.” NO ONE is forcing you to become pregnant at all. Ever. If it’s too risky for you, then DON’T GET PREGNANT. DON’T CONCEIVE a new life. That way, everybody wins – your life isn’t at risk, and neither is your child’s, either by your risky pregnancy or by abortion.
God Blesses me with the ability to bear a child and carry to term and remain healthy than I will CHOOSE to do so. However, in the event that is not possible I would like the CHOICE to live. isn’t that pro-life enough for you??
Here’s what I was trying to point out to you earlier: In the event that your life becomes at risk due to a pregnancy, you would do well to consult an actual physician with actual hospital admitting privileges who can do everything possible to save BOTH lives. Abortionists have one job at abortion clinics: end the life of the child. That’s it. Nothing else. They aren’t there to offer any treatment for that child or for you. Abortionists, to be blunt, do not practice medicine when they take human life.
6 likes
Okay, I’m done. This isn’t an adult discussion. I am posting up-to-date, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientifically legitimate information and I’m being “rebutted” by half-century old articles, admittedly pro-life “research” — and I use that term loosely — and logically fallacious arguments.
“Ms. Pseudo-Science Rachel”? Everything I have said can be verified. Everything. You can deny it all you wish, but that doesn’t change it’s truth value. (P.S. If you had bothered to read what I posed you’d see that I already linked to a website that discussed embryological development in terms of the Carnegie stages. Please, do tell me how that’s “pseudo science.”)
This is what it comes down to: Whether you admit it or not, a consequence of outlawing abortion is turning women into little more than incubators. You are attempting to force them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term despite their own wishes. You may not want to think of it that way, but it is effectively what you’re doing. You can talk about sympathy and empathy all you want, but when you’re silencing the wishes of the already born women whom this directly affects, you’re not being sympathetic to their situations and their lives.
3 likes
kel: You are exactly the issue with the pro-life movement. You literally do not care about woman you only care about the fetus. Which is absolutely insane to me. That you would put more weight on a lump of cells, than an already sentient, living, breathing, with family and friends human being.
The fact that you would suggest I sterilize myself in order to prevent pregnancy is about as insane and insensitive as utilizing abortion as birth control.
If this is the basis of the pro-life movement than color me pro-choice!
Rachel I’m with you. DONE.
Clearly these individuals are not able to understand SCIENCE or FACTS. And clearly some of them were born devoid of any human emotion or empathy.
1 likes
Okay, I’m done. This isn’t an adult discussion. I am posting up-to-date, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientifically legitimate information and I’m being “rebutted” by half-century old articles, admittedly pro-life “research” — and I use that term loosely — and logically fallacious arguments.
Excuse me, but wtf are you talking about? I posted a segment from AN EMBRYOLOGY TEXTBOOK, THAT WAS ONLY PUBLISHED 4 YEARS PRIOR TO YOUR SOURCE.
Also, how the flying PHLUK are we supposed to rebut you if you don’t allow us to cite authoritative sources that are Pro-Life? I’m sorry, but did you stop to think that perhaps the Ph.D./MA in Biology was Pro-Life BECAUSE she is a Ph.D./MA in Biology? As I stated before, my Pro-Life position comes from a firm background in Biology, seeing as how I’m not religious in the least. People don’t lose their authority in a given field simply because they apply that knowledge to other topics in their lives! That would be the HEIGHT of ignorance, to leave one’s learning at the door and espouse absolutely inaccurate worldviews out of some greater agenda, emotionalism, or personal/professional/financial investment in a topic.
Incidentally, every single instance of personal application of my Pro-Life ideals has only REINFORCED my Biological studies and the knowledge I’ve gained in the subject over the years. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I knew from college Biology that her life began long before I even knew she existed. I knew the process of how her chromosomes were assembled from my and her father’s genetic material. And so, all the pressure to have her killed in an abortion, despite the absolutely terrible and pathetic circumstances I was in at the time, meant nothing, because I wasn’t about to kill my daughter, regardless of how beneficial it might’ve been to me to have done so back when she was gestating. I had no fanciful ideas of how she wasn’t actually a human being, or that she was some meaningless “clump of cells”, or that the act of her being born somehow magically conveyed some sort of greater worth upon her life. There were no frankly silly ideas of some sort of transformation between a “not human” or “not living” kind-of maybe entity through the power of a magical vagina.
7 likes
Rachel: “Whether you admit it or not, a consequence of outlawing abortion is turning women into little more than incubators.”
That’s pretty unscientific. “Little more than” is a locution of art, not reason. Women ARE incubators. They’re much more than that. You hold pro-lifers in contempt, so you imagine that an emphasis on the fact that women are, in fact, the only practical incubators available to unborn human life, is tantamount to a reduction of women to that alone. Which is ridiculous.
I haven’t taken issue with your scientific pronouncements, to my knowledge. But I’ll call on you hear and now to defend your ridiculously gratuitous leap of faith in claiming the above.
7 likes
Rachel, you seem to have no conscience and callously promote killing the unborn and feel no pain in doing so. Does that mean you are not sentient and therefore no more a human being then a 7 week old baby?
6 likes
Rachel – You have not yet answered my question: why is abortion concerning to you if you feel it is defensible on so many levels?
5 likes
LifeJoy, here’s the thing: How I personally feel about abortion should not dictate whether or not another woman is allowed to legally have the procedure done.
But, since you asked, abortion concerns me because of the circumstances surrounding the lives of the women who get them. Like I said, you don’t see women skipping into clinics to terminate pregnancies.
If you’re trying to get me to say that I think there’s something morally reprehensible about terminating a pregnancy, I don’t believe that. I will never, ever place more value on a non-sentient, non-autonomous developing human in-utero than I will on the already born woman who should have the freedom to make whatever decision she wants regarding her future.
2 likes
We don’t place ‘more’ value on a woman’s biological child gestating in utero than that child’s mother. We place equal value on their lives, because there is no hierarchy of values of human beings, and whenever such concepts are implemented, grave injustice has ALWAYS followed. Every genocide or racial oppression in history has been the result of a devaluation of some humans as “not as valuable” as others, and I for one refuse to be a party to such horrors.
None of us are against women making decisions we want regarding our futures. We oppose women making choices that end the lives and rob the futures of their children. We oppose people exercising freedom at the expense of the freedom of others.
6 likes
Rachel: You’re framing childbearing as a Sophie’s Choice, or a nihilistic view that all human relations reduce to a will to power. That’s just really sad.
Seriously — framing a mother and child in the womb as adversaries is the most contemptuous — and contemptible — imaginable view of human procreation.
That really, really sucks. Your ostensible concern for science reduces to the moral inversion of casting the unborn as parasites.
**** ***.
6 likes
Rachel – Pro-lifers do not place MORE value on the preborn than the born. We place the same value on each. It is not about WHOSE rights are more important, but WHICH rights are more important. The right of a human to be born/continue living outweighs the right of a human not to be pregnant.
When does a human life become a person for you? My main issue with discussing abortion with pro-choice people is that most are unwilling to concede that they can at least fathom the pro-life position. Based on science and logic, we consider the “fetus” to be a person. Given that fact, abortion is unjustifiable. If the “fetus” is not a person, as you seem to think, then there is no need to justify abortion at all, but you seem to want to use other lines of reasoning to defend it.
6 likes
I like how apparently I don’t exist to Rachel anymore at all, and she initially only tried to half-heartedly rebut one of my sources in the first place, which was just a pathetic “BIASED!” without actually addressing what was said.
6 likes
Yeah, that must be why I spent all those years working to help women and their children at a pregnancy resource center- most of whom were well past pregnancy and just needed help with clothes, food, finances, or even just a friend.
Also, asking you to consider NOT getting pregnant instead of killing your child doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, based on your comments. If you want to have children, that’s great! All I was suggesting is that if you believe it’s that dangerous for you to become pregnant, to the point where even before you consider getting pregnant, you are fighting for the right to kill that child, perhaps it would be better to prevent life rather than snuff it out.
Which is absolutely insane to me. That you would put more weight on a lump of cells
Don’t you mean “blessing from God”?is it a blessing or a clump of cells? yiu can’t seem to make up your mind.
than an already sentient, living, breathing, with family and friends human being.
It is great to have those things, but they do not determine one’s humanity.
The fact that you would suggest I sterilize myself in order to prevent pregnancy is about as insane and insensitive as utilizing abortion as birth control.
Wait, what? You really have to make up your mind here. So… what’s wring with abortion, then? If aborting a “clump of non-sentient cells” is no big deal, then who cares if someone uses it as birth control? Here you are insisting that you should have the right to kill any clump of cells that puts you at risk, and yet you think that’s more acceptable than abortion as birth control? If killing a child is wrong, it’s wrong. If it isn’t, it isn’t. Period.
If this is the basis of the pro-life movement than color me pro-choice!
You already believe it is acceptable to kill children in utero, so I’ve got news for you: you’re already pro-choice.
Rachel I’m with you. DONE.
Clearly these individuals are not able to understand SCIENCE or FACTS. And clearly some of them were born devoid of any human emotion or empathy.
Your view of pro-lifers (like me) being devoid of human empathy has zilch to do with whether or not preborn children are, in fact, human. Science: Human DNA equals human. Distinct DNA from his/her mother equals “not a part of the mother’s body on the level with a skin cell.” Logic and science. Not really all that difficult.
I wish you well, and I hope that should you be blessed one day with a child, that you will consider that child to be as worthy of life as you are.
5 likes
Apologies for typos. Phones and my fingers don’t mix well.
Also, above message was apparently cut off at the beginning. Hopefully you can figure out that I was responding to the comment that I am what’s wrong with the pro-life movement and that I supposedly don’t care about women. Even though I am one. Whatever.
4 likes
“It is not about WHOSE rights are more important, but WHICH rights are more important.”
LifeJoy, that is a super concise response to the argument that Pro-Life people are always placing the fetus’ rights above the mother’s. Nicely stated.
5 likes
I am writing to comment as a friend of Marlene. I am also Catholic and pro-life. Ms. Stanek’s treatment of Marlene and the comments here are simply cruel. You should know that Marlene was widowed young, and that Buddy the cat was one she and her late husband had rescued together. She cared lovingly for the cat for many years as a last living link to her beloved husband, who passed away very suddenly at their home. As for the photos of the wedding, she provided Ms. Stanek with a link to the website of the official wedding photographer. She was courteous in a private correspondence regarding the use of her photos, and she was repaid with mockery on this website. This is no way to change hearts and minds on the subject of abortion, believe me. I suggest that the Christian thing to do is to take down this entire post and accompanying comments.
5 likes
Too bad they never adopted a child.
5 likes
Catherine, Did you not notice where Marlene stated, “Please also do not even put a link as my views differ from yours …”
Does your friend even realize you are prolife? Do you have to sneak in the back door of her home because your views differ from hers? Proaborts tend to say we prolifers are the ones who cause divisions. This thread clearly points out that this is not always the case.
You should know that Marlene was widowed young, and that Buddy the cat was one she and her late husband had rescued together. She cared lovingly for the cat for many years as a last living link to her beloved husband, who passed away very suddenly at their home.
So she should be given a free pass forever absolving her snide behaviors?
Oh, I am Catholic and prolife as well. As such, I request that you pass on the resources to be found at Rachel’s Vineyard because your friend’s behaviors are concerning and as a Christian friend you should be concerned.
4 likes
Oops. Accidental click on Like for Catherine. Meant it for X.
5 likes
To use a meme: well, that escalated quickly.
And use another. the f*ck did I just read. Seriously. You all need to be ashamed of yourself, pro’lifers’. You’re not pro-life. You’re anti-choice.
Taking away a woman’s right to her body is NOT what Christianity is all about, and why I moved away from the Church.
I’m just glad I live in a civilised country where this will never be an issue.
0 likes
Lol, Deacon’s back!
Pretty sure you’d have had the same disparaging comments regardless of what we pro-lifers said on this thread.
Christianity, btw, is about God who became a man and came to earth to sacrifice Himself to save us from our sins. In other words, He set the example of sacrificing oneself so that others might have life.
Amazingly enough, however, you don’t need to be religious to understand that human DNA equals human.
7 likes
Eric – Thanks for the feedback. I can only take credit for having read it somewhere (maybe even here?!) and appreciating it as well. Interesting that this principle is used rather intuitively in most contexts, but is suddenly abandoned in this one.
2 likes
Deacon,
Your meme is bad and you should feel bad.
it’s “dafuq did I just read?”
Also, nothing I said had anything to do with religion. As a matter of fact, I do believe the person claiming to be the scientific expert to whom you deferred, Rachel, was the one talking about how she was supposedly Christian, and I informed you that I myself am not religious in the least. I also tore apart Rachel’s supposedly scientifically-based argument in favor of legal abortion with my own scientific citations which she was unable to refute.
Nobody here is talking about “taking away a woman’s right to her body”. That’s what all that science I cited was about. We’re talking about ending a parent’s currently legal ability to kill their child as long as that child is young enough.
Spend less time looking at memes, more time studying science.
7 likes
Deacon says: You’re not pro-life. You’re anti-choice.
Puh-leeze. Drop the euphemism and say what you mean. I’m not anti-choice, I’m anti-abortion. I fully support thousands of choices: what to eat, what to drink, what to read, what to watch, what to wear, where to work, what to drive, what church to attend, who to vote for…
I draw the line at some choices: who to rape, what to steal, who to kill…
6 likes
“Your meme is bad and you should feel bad.”
HAHA! It’s funny because it’s true.
3 likes
Rachel, I find it strange that you repeatedly accuse pro-lifers of using medically inaccurate terminology when they refer to embryos and fetuses as babies. Are you aware that trusted medical sources do the same thing when discussing pregnancy?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00008/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/adult/pregnancy_and_childbirth/prenatal_medical_care_85,P01232/
http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/prenatal-care.cfm
On the other hand, scientific perinatology articles sometimes refer to pregnant women as gravidas. Are you also guilty of using medically inaccurate technology when you call them women instead?
Alice, you can deny the biological facts of what I said about embryonic heartbeat, but that doesn’t change the fact that at that stage of development an embryo has yet to grow a complete heart, circulatory system, lungs, or a limbic system — all vital components to producing heartbeat as we think of it in already-born people.
How does it follow that, because the heart and circulatory system aren’t developed for life outside the womb and the blood follows a different path, that an embryo doesn’t have a heartbeat? The circulatory system has the necessary components (blood, blood vessels, a heart to pump blood, and a method of gas exchange), and the heart has four chambers by the end of the seventh week.
http://video.about.com/pregnancy/Prenatal-Circulation.htm
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to argue that a heartbeat is a necessary or sufficient condition for the right to life. A mosquito has a beating heart but not a right to life. Conversely, adults that have undergone cardiac arrest as well as (I would argue) two-day-old embryos have a right to life but not a beating heart. Bobby Bambino did a good job of summarizing why all humans have equal rights further above.
Furthermore, that image of an “abortion” you provided proves nothing. That could easily be a doctored photo, and I believe it is. At 7 weeks an embryo is approximately 18 mm long. A dime is 17.22 mm in diameter. In the image, if the arm were extended, it would nearly reach across the diameter of the dime. This would not be possible if the “aborted embryo” in that picture was actually 7 weeks.
This is a rather ironic comparison. Embryos (and fetuses before 20 weeks) are measured rump to crown (similar to sitting height), not “fully extended”. If the extra flesh at the end of the arm is taken off, the actual arm (fully extended) only makes it about halfway across the dime. It’s also not unreasonable for the soft tissue to be stretched and distorted by the suction machine. Finally, the embryo was retrieved from a dumpster so the age is probably a rough estimate. If it was less than eight weeks old, the crown-rump length could have been anywhere up to 22mm. So the image Alice provided is not “impossible”. But if you don’t like it, hopefully this gallery will be accurate enough for you:
http://abortionno.org/index.php/abortion_pictures/
Signed statement from a doctor that used to do abortions (prepared for a court trial) that the images are accurately captioned:
http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/LevatinoLetterMay08.pdf
Signed statement from the photographer, attesting that the images have not been altered in any way and were taken from clinics that do elective abortions:
http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/photographervideographercertificationhardcopypixelated.pdf
And even if it’s not a doctored photo, you have no idea why that pregnancy was terminated. Perhaps the embryo/fetus had already died. Perhaps it had Tay Sachs. Perhaps the mother knew that going through with the pregnancy would ruin her life.
Besides being taken from a clinic that did elective abortions, now closed for illegal waste disposal, there is no way to know for sure. Pictures alone are not a complete argument against abortion. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t relevant. A potentially graphic photograph of a murder scene could be used as evidence in a court trial. The prosecutor would likely need more than that to win his case. After all, the defense lawyer could argue that the alleged victim died of natural causes, or that it was justifiable homicide (the defendant was acting in self-defense, or the victim was suffering from a fatal condition, or that leaving the victim alive would have ruined the defendant’s life). Of course, any defense lawyer who wanted to keep their client out of jail probably wouldn’t use the last two reasons. But with that being said, the abortion debate (which is in the court of public opinion) isn’t about a specific case. It’s a policy debate about the state sanctioned killing of thousands of human beings per day. Such images are an accurate depiction of a significant percentage of these killings.
And you’re accusing the pro-choice camp of lying and presenting misinformation? Really? Really? http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html
So you post a link to a pro-choice website critiquing images and arguments that pro-lifers didn’t even use on this thread, but further down you chastise pro-lifers for citing pro-life websites to back up their case. I think it’s far more relevant to look at the inaccurate statements that have actually been made in this discussion. To name a few:
- Before 9 weeks, a fetus is roughly a centimetre long.
- Before 9 weeks, a fetus looks nothing like a human.
- A fetus lacks a heartbeat before nine weeks.
- The embryo’s heartbeat being observed is little more that electrical impulses being sent between developing cells.
– A fetus is human and alive in the same sense as a cell, organ, or tumour (rather than a distinct, whole organism).
LifeJoy, do you understand how Planned Parenthood operates? (Serious question.)
How much do you know?
http://www.aul.org/aul-special-report-the-case-for-investigating-planned-parenthood/
4 likes
Excellent post, Navi.
2 likes
I came across this because I was wondering why I felt the love I do for my cats, wondering if I was trying to replace the child I would have had with them. I’m kind of upset at the pure hatred you guys show towards people who have had abortions or feel its a woman’s right what to do with her body and child.
I was 16 when I got pregnant, and planned on having the child until I realized that I couldn’t give it the life it deserved. And no, I refused at the time to go the adoption route considering my mother was adopted into a sexually abusive mind-fing family.
So I decided to have an abortion. I didn’t know how I felt. I felt nothing towards the situation. I was confused.
I went to the clinic and honestly it was horrific. I would never reccomend an abortion to anyone after what I went through. The emotions that come, the pain, the judgment. But I would never judge someone for making that decision. That isn’t god like. None of you are. You’re so filled with judgment an hate. The reason why nobody that gets an abortion wants it public or talked about is because nobody is freaking proud of it. I’m sure as hell not, nobody says “OMG IM GOING TO GET PREGNANT JUST TO HAVE IT ABORTED!”
I don’t know, it’s late and this really fuxked with me. I don’t really care about your one sided replies. I’ve seen enough.
0 likes
Yes, you’re probably trying to replace the child you had killed with your cats. Get help. They’ll never be able to fill the place that should’ve had coloring pages on the fridge, or kisses on the cheek with an “I love you, Mommy.” whispered in your ear.
Don’t hate us for calling a spade a spade and fighting to change the law so that more children like yours don’t have to die with the blessing of our legal system. I’m not trying to be “god like”-I’m not religious, and I know it’s definitely not a person’s place to try and be “god like”…you know…like…making decisions about which people should have to die for you and which should get to live. I don’t WANT to be “god like” if that’s what it entails.
I don’t really care how women feel about having their children killed in their abortions. I’ve talked to women who regret it, and thank goodness they exist, since people SHOULD regret killing their children. However, I’ve also talked to women who are openly and boisterously joyous about the whole thing, the word “glib” would be an understatement. Takes all kinds.
4 likes