I was interviewed yesterday by nursing student Nykia, who at the end of our conversation asked me a question that really made me think: “What is the most important thing you’ve learned since becoming involved in the pro-life movement?”
What would your answer be?
Abortion proponents are also invited to respond. Just change “pro-life” to “pro-choice.”
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It was a blessing to find this site. Its lead me to other sites. Self education on abortion was my best lesson as i had no idea how gruesome.
Also sticking to blogs like this while being surrounded by pro aborts in society .
And should Denise Noe show up…Denise I happen to like you but please know that I have 2 adopted friends . One is a married nurse . The other has an excellent job and he is the head of his company . Neither one seems to have issues. Joes mom was 88 in a nursing home in California . She recently passed away. He told me through tears she WAS my mom. Joe was also in the military married and divorced . He has a beautiful daughter in Denver. None of this would have been possible had joes biological mother had him ripped to shreds and sucked through a tube. The world would be without a good nurse had Amy’s mom done the same.
What did i say that my comment is awaiting moderation ?
The two most important things I’ve learned since I became active in the pro-life movement
1. Holding a picket sign and even getting arrested with Operation Rescue were easy, but being pro-life is a 24/7 activity that you never shut off.
2. You need thick skin, you will be called every name in the book and some even the Oxford English Dictionary has never heard of.
Keith you said it..i have my own line of snappy comebacks at them though .
I have always been pro life because I was educated as nurse by Roman Catholic Nuns and received excellent moral theology and ethics education from Roman Catholic priests. I was raised in a Scandanavian Lutheran tradition where these things were never discussed. The ELCA is a pro choice denomination. If you study the pagan practices of the Vikings when it came to infanticide, one cannot help but conclude that this pagan practice still exist in the culture. However, I am shocked and disappointed how the secular state of mind has siezed the minds of so many Catholics in America.
I should mention I told Nykia two things: 1) That being in the pro-life movement had strengthened my faith and reliance on God; and 2) I’ve had my eyes opened as to how blind and evil people can be – and I know I don’t know the half of it (nor do I know if I could handle knowing the depths of human depravity).
I’ve learned that the words we use to describe the pro-choice / pro-life battle are crucial. As soon as someone calls the unborn a fetus or embryo, it is clear they want to put the unborn child in its mother’s womb totally under the mother’s control, as if it were her body part, or a non-living thing. But if you think of the short pathway between the womb and world, it is simply illogical to look at that separate being that way.
The most important thing that I have learned is that silence kills. Initially I held back when people would ask “So what do you Do?”. I didn’t want to bring up the subject. I tell them now without hesitation, and I’m prepared for their varied responses. Silence leads to more violence, violence against women, and violence against unborn children who need our voices to speak the words which they cannot. Indifference has become the seasoning of society and I find this seasoning unpalatable. So I speak in defense of the unborn when I’m told it’s a choice etc. I challenge views, being as gentle as I need to be or as assertive as I need to be.
Life is not a popularity contest, our actions and words are necessary in all circumstances. Whether directly or indirectly, we are pleading for someone’s life. I refuse to let all of this suffering go unnoticed while I have air to breathe.
That we are 100% unapologetically, unabashedly, unquestionably RIGHT.
I’ve learned that if someone is unable or unwilling to see the humanity in our preborn brothers and sisters, they are also unlikely to see the humanity in me.
I am not sure if I should say what the most important thing I learned, not because it will reveal my innocence, but because it may confuse some people and may appear to demonize people. However, with faith in God’s providence I will say it as politely as I can. Also, it is not much different from what others appeared to have learned.
The most important thing I learned is that people can do more evil things that I ever imagined possible. I learned about the goodness of my Catholic faith, and the charity of so many people I simply ignored. I learned that life is more than gathering material possessions, and that many families and individuals have struggles and difficulties not only like myself but even worse and more difficult struggles. I learned (and I am still learning) how God’s Grace can be seen in people, and how many people hate God for showing them Grace and forbearance. I learned how education and media influence and manipulate people into accepting something they would most likely never even considered or thought of if simply left alone. I learned that fear of God is Holy thing and that Jesus did fight back (it just wasn’t the way I wanted him to fight back).
Sorry I guess it seems like I learned more than one thing – but they are all related.
I’ve learned that propaganda is probably the best weapon ever invented, and it’s extremely hard to convince people to turn away from what they’ve been fed.
1) What you do flows out of who you are. Being pro-life is not just what you do, first it’s what you are. But if you are, you will do. Even when things get rough, and they do.
2) Being pro-life is not just being anti-abortion. Being pro-life encompasses all of life. Being pro-life means being for life. This affects how we treat others, and everything we do.
The most important thing I’ve learned since becoming involved in the Pro Life movement happened when I first saw Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s Silent Scream. This has been almost 30 years ago now so it’s a little hazy but I remember I was looking at this precious little baby with cute little fingers and cute little toes, seemingly safe and secure in its mommy’s tummy. I was horrified when the abortionist dismembered this precious innocent baby alive before my eyes.
I guess the two most important things I’ve learned is the utter defenselessness of the babies killed and how heinous and how pervasively evil abortion is. I’m feeling compelled to mention a third…the callous hearts of so many who aren’t impacted or moved at all but are totally apathetic and indifferent to the plight of the most vulnerable, persecuted and slaughtered people group among us.
The genocide continues…
Ed another good video is. The Choice Blues.
Far more graphic than the S scream
The most important thing I’ve learned is that even seemingly hopeless cases can change their hearts. Sometimes the people who seem most lost in the lie are right on the brink of the seeing the truth.
CT agreed we must also realize that some women are inheritly evil. If this were not so we wouldn’t need a woman’s prison . I knew a woman who did 3 years for multiple DUIs. While locked up in Marysville she met a woman who let her boyfriend sexually abuse her baby. She scalded the infants body to cover it up. To her this was totally acceptable . My friends mom said “Get away from me I do not like you!!”
Some men are evil. Some women are evil.
Holy God knits each life with purpose and gives unconditional love and appropriate self-worth.
And Satan does everything to destroy life. If he cannot snuff life out in the womb, he will do his best to destroy us while we are here.
Finally, for those are casualties of abortion, full forgiveness can be found through Jesus Christ. Don’t buy the lie that it is the unpardonable sin!
LL <3
Well said LL
The most important thing that I have learned is that God forgives. Even for my abortion and if it were not for Him I would not be here. He has set my feet on the mission field of abortion recovery and I will never stop reaching out to hurting women.
NOBODY is beyond the saving grace of God. Nobody. No matter what they have done.
Thanks Heather! LL <3
Correct. We must include Susan Smith Child molesters Charles Manson Casey Anthony Jodi Arias serial killers rapists …they too can repent and walk with the Lord again. My girlfriends dad is getting out of prison in 2 years if he makes it. He’s been down for murdering a man for 17 years . He’s in his 70s almost died and wrote his daughter about how he’d found the Lord. He added if i die in here I know where I am going.
He has prostate cancer but a bleeding ulcer almost killed him.
I was sorry to read in the Scott Peterson book that Laci was going to about had the child had DS
Oops abort
And my friend is pregnant so she’s hoping her dad will get out to see the baby.
I learned that birth control is the natural and chronological precursor to abortion. Those that use birth control and crusade against abortion are ignorantly hypocritical. There is no better way to rid the world of a life than to prevent it in the first place. I resigned from counseling at a center when I saw the culture of birth control there very sad…..
Tom good for you for leaving
I would like to preface this with that I believe that there is no such thing as a “position” on something, only beliefs and viewpoints that you put into action. That being said, I am in favor of abortion being legal.
So. I have learned that logic is useless unless you know how to present it. And also, that everyone can get more accomplished if they work together.
Also, I have learned that nothing is as black or white as most of us pretend. It’s always easier to say “oh that’s because they’re one of THOSE people, those people are EVIL”
Then explain to me how a mother paying a doctor to have her child killed and/or supporting the legality of such an act is not “evil”, A7x. I’m more than willing to listen.
Me too A7x
Especially since we know that many women choose the abortion clinic as birth control
You can still have what you want in life without having an abortion .
Hi x since ur here what’s ur email address again
Hope all is ok after the family death…as well as can be expected
I’ve learned that it is exceptionally difficult to rank things you learn in terms of importance. :)
Pro life isn’t just “anti abortion”, if you are pro life, you would want more life. You won’t get worked up over supposed “over population”, you would want your children to start a family asap, not telling them to wait. Just think of the lives lost just by having every woman delay childbirth by five or ten years. You would deplore birth control, vasectomy, tubals. The status,…. Shall I say WEAKNESS of the pro life movement is directly related to the self centered parenting that leads couples to limit family size in the strive for getting back to how it was before kids. Grandparents are absent and un involved. Women chase the holy dollar instead of childbirth. Men love to look at pictures of flat bellied women who have had no children. College education is more important than babies. We aren’t pro life, we, as a movement are anti mechanical abortion. And our message is weak and 40 years later abortion is still legal because WE aren’t pro life. Period.
Ed H I have a relative who years ago was considering aborting her first child. Her father and I tried to talk her out of it but what changed her mind most was when at the urging of her pastor’s wife she watched the Silent Scream. Now that son has given her a grandchild; she also has several more children and is pro-life!
Something else I’m learning about abortion that is very important: a lot of people have been personally touched by abortion in some way. I’d be surprised if there are many who haven’t been, however they may have dealt with it and whatever they believe about abortion. After all over 56 million babies have been aborted in the USA since 1973.
People make bad decisions when they’re scared.
X and Heather, here is a short essay I wrote for Intro to Philosophy. I’d recommend checking out Judith Thomson’s “In Defense of Abortion” but I summarized one of her arguments in the paper.
In her paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in many cases. Thomson concedes the point that fetuses are people from the moment of conception. She also grants that they have just as much of a right to life as any other person. However, she explains that they do not always have the right to use their mother’s body. Thomson goes on to give the example of two people in subzero temperatures with one winter jacket between them. If the jacket belongs to one of the people, it is hardly immoral for the owner to take the jacket, thus ensuring the death of the now jacket-less person. They both have equal right to life, however, the owner has the right to wear it.
Many people who argue against abortion claim that it is murder since it is killing an innocent person. It cannot be denied that abortion is depriving an innocent being of life. However, murder is defined as the unjustified killing of an innocent. Killing is defined as causing the death of another being. Killing is a moral gray area that is not always intrinsically wrong. Abortion is not always unjustified, thus making it not always fall within the category of murder. For example, sometimes it is in the best interest of the woman to abort the child. Additionally, she is almost never morally obligated to grant him the use of her body. Therefore, abortion can elude the category of murder and therefore be morally permissible.
Another point worth discussing is that abortion is not directly killing a child. Just as taking away your own personal winter coat from someone else in subzero temperatures is not the direct murder of that person, removing the fetus from the body of a woman is not directly killing the baby. Instead, the situation is essentially letting them die. The cold killed the person in the jacket example just as being outside of the mother’s body killed the baby in the case of abortion. Therefore, it is impossible for abortion to be murder. That being said, if the baby is able to survive outside of its mother, even with human help, no one is justified in killing it, even if it is unwanted.
In conclusion, abortion is morally permissible in some cases, but not in others. To make abortion a black and white issue would be foolish and illogical.
“I don’t think anything can ever be purely evil or purely altruistic. but we are all entitled to our own opinions.”
I don’t see how the fact taht we’re all entitled to our opinions follows from your first sentence. I certainly agree that we are entitled to our opinions, but I find your first sentence problematic. It is not purely evil to rape someone? Or to torture a small child for fun? Is it not purely altruistic to give one’s life for a stranger?
Additionally, I don’t think anything can ever be purely evil or purely altruistic. but we are all entitled to our own opinions.
A7x, a more complete analogy would be that the person who owns the jacket happens to own a jacket that is specifically constructed to accommodate two people; and these people only need to share the jacket to survive a finite amount of time – say, to get through a particularly bad storm. And they begin the storm sharing the jacket but the owner says at some point, “You know what, I don’t want to share anymore, you need to get out” – ie a situation such that not sharing the jacket is a deliberate action.
In general, in US law, I don’t believe that there is a ‘duty to rescue,’ except with certain extenuating circumstances: if you have already begun to render aid, you can’t leave someone in a worse situation than you found them (ie you can’t try to drag somebody to a hospital and then leave them in the middle of nowhere because you decide you don’t want to do it anymore); if there exists a special relationship (lifeguard/swimmer, parent/child) that gives one person additional responsibility for the safety of another; or if one person is responsible for the situation that the other is in. I think certainly the last two circumstances apply to the vast majority of abortion cases.
To draw a proper metaphor, the second person in your story would only be out in sub-zero temperatures because they had been able to use the two-person-jacket the entire time up until the moment that the owner said, “I don’t want to do this, it’s my jacket, and even though sharing it will not harm me, and not sharing it will kill you, I just don’t want to share anymore.” Surely that would at least qualify as depraved indifference: “so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.” The existence of a parent-child relationship further increases the burden of responsibility, in most legal situations.
Yeah, and I’ve heard that argument before, many, many, many times and in many, many, many different incarnations. What makes it wrong is that you (and she, and MOST abortion advocates) fail to take into consideration one crucial thing:
The gestating child is not some random stranger off of the street, but THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN, making her the child’s guardian and sole caretaker, by default. That indicates an inherent parental obligation to the child, putting the onus upon her to provide nourishment, shelter, care, and safety to that child, just as any guardian must do for any minor child post-birth. In the case of her child pre-birth, that entails continued gestation at least until a point in the child’s growth and development that he OR SHE would be able to survive on their own without her. The fact that killing (or simply not taking care of properly) one’s own children might be in a parent’s best interest is by no means a justification for killing any children. Even though parents are “forced” to use their bodies and resources to provide care for any and all minor children of whom they have guardianship, killing the child(ren) they must use their bodies to care for is never “justified”, as you have stated, and that stands before birth or afterwards. It plainly falls under not only the category of murder, but also of child abuse/neglect. I also maintain that a child with a parent stuck in subzero temperatures with one winter coat between them would be expected to find some way to allow that child to use the coat in addition to the parent (which, if you’ve ever cuddled a kid who forgot their coat while wearing your own, you would realize is quite easy to do). Furthermore, the procedure of abortion IS quite blatantly a direct and intentional killing of a child, it is AN ACTIVE DEED, whereas just not letting someone have your coat who is not entitled to anything from you in any way is A PASSIVE OCCURRENCE. If a pregnant mother did nothing to her child who is entitled to her care via pregnancy by default simply by virtue of being her minor child, the child would live and the pregnancy would end on its own and she wouldn’t be expected to care for the child anymore past that point since other caregivers could be found. However, what kills the baby in an abortion is not merely being outside the mother’s body, as you should know from having been here for awhile. The child killed by abortion is typically killed well before being taken out of his OR HER mother by being poisoned/dismembered/starved to death. So even your premise about the method of demise of a child by abortion being tantamount to not giving a freezing person your jacket is flawed.
The analogy is foolish, illogical, and highly flawed. To pretend that abortion is so nuanced as to create a situation in which it is morally permissible to allow a parent to have her child killed is unethical, to put it mildly.
Once again, my suspicions about modern philosophy are confirmed. It is beyond worthless navel-gazing, and has mutated into nothing more than a bunch of blind children being guided by a corrupt instructor ruminating upon reasons why certain brands of atrocities should be seen as acceptable. Academia is rotten to the core, I fear.
Additionally, I don’t think anything can ever be purely evil or purely altruistic. but we are all entitled to our own opinions.
So you’re a moral relativist. This will not end well. BB!!!! WHERE ARE YOU?!
A7 – here is some help with your essay – you never identified the “best interests” that would justify the Mother killing the innocent child. If you want to improve the integrity of your argument you would try to identify and then deal with some of the “best interest” scenarios you hand in mind. Once you do identify these “best interest”scenarios, you will find that it is much harder to justify abortion and that most of these “best interest” scenarios fail to justify abortion. Reality, more than philosophical arguments, has a way of pointing us in the right moral direction.
During an abortion a fetus is rarely delivered into the world unscathed – you have not researched the actual methods of an abortion. Again, once you actually learn about the reality of an abortion you will come to a different conclusion about the morality of an abortion. For example, look up what a D&C abortion is. Moreover, even if we grant your mythical pristine abortion, the intention of putting the innocent baby outside the mother’s womb solely to extinguish the life of said baby is for most reasonable people the direct killing of that baby. To deny the placing a premature baby outside the womb is not the direct and intentional killing of that baby seems a bit obtuse to me, but that is just me.
A7 – from a legal perspective I beleive the death of the baby is supposed to occur inside the mother’s womb – so I also don’t think researched very thoroughly the legal environment in which abortion lives. Knowing the specifics of the legal and medical ethical rules governing abortion (in each state) would also have alerted you to the deficiencies in your argument.
A7 – did you feel pressure to write a pro-choice response to this question. If so, you might want to consider switching from that university.
“Academia is rotten to the core, I fear.”
I used to agree 100% with this statement – however, I am now aware of good Catholic and Christian universities which are acting as a counter to the rampant leftism that is being promoted at most secular universities and at many Catholic and Christian – in name only – universities. There are some secular universities that don’t subscribe to leftism and the pro-choice position but they are in the minority unfortunately.
Sorry, I added a “not” where it wasn’t needed. I should have written the following:
“To deny the placing a premature baby outside the womb is not the direct and intentional killing of that baby seems a bit obtuse to me, but that is just me.”
Hi A7x.
“Another point worth discussing is that abortion is not directly killing a child. Just as taking away your own personal winter coat from someone else in subzero temperatures is not the direct murder of that person, removing the fetus from the body of a woman is not directly killing the baby. Instead, the situation is essentially letting them die. The cold killed the person in the jacket example just as being outside of the mother’s body killed the baby in the case of abortion. Therefore, it is impossible for abortion to be murder.”
First of all, notice that if your argument goes through, all this will justify is either intact removal of teh fetus from the womb or induced labor. It would not justify almost all of teh legal abortion methods in teh US, including suction curettage, D&E, and RU-486. But that aside, teh analogy does not hold. Here is where the analogy is problematic. First of all, for a good 90% or so of abortions, the purpose of the abortion is to kill the unborn. If I wanted the person to in the cold to die, and I took my coat from him hoping that the loss of teh coat would result in his death, I am guilty of murder even though I had the right to my coat. The fact that I desire his death changes the morality of the action, even if you can apply a principle of double-effect, which it seems you are doing in the coat analogy. So even if you don’t directly kill teh unborn, the fact that most people desire the unborn to be dead makes the act of abortion immoral.
But now let us consider the (rare) example of a woman who simply does not want to be pregnant. She does not want the child to do, she wants to do all she can to keep the child alive, but simply does not want to remain pregnant. Already in the setup, we see why the two situations are not analogous. In the coat analogy, it is a life for a life. The person takes their coat back because otherwise, it will cost them their own life. However, unless we are in a “life of the mother” situation, teh two cases are not morally analogous. If one is really of teh opinion that they don’t want to kill their unborn child, then they simply would not engage in an action that will 100% of the time result in a dead child. Thus the principle here is that one simply cannot engage in an action that they know will ALWAYS result in the death of a human being unless failure to do so would result in death for self or extremely grave harm for self.
the strikethrough feature is not working.
It actually scares and offends me that Judith Thomson’s arguments were ever taken seriously. I really detest calling these second-rate arguments philosophical. They are way too pop-culturesque! They are in my opinion – and xalisae will like this – revisionist philosophy: they know want they to argue and they won’t let facts get in the way.
I think the standards for getting into university are too low (for example, I got into university). My thinking, given sufficient time, is up to the task, but my writing abilities are horrible. University should be reserved not only for the brightest but also for the most well read, most articulate and morally formed individuals. It is pointless to go to university, especially if one is pursuing an arts degree, and expect to become well read there or to have to form your morality there. Univeristy, in part, should not be about challenging your morality, but it should be about elevating it. This is just my opinion though.
A7X what did you learn by doing your paper on Judith Thomson?
I dunno… I have to say, Tyler, that I do think that the argument put forth by JJT and tightened up by others over the decades since she has published it is the BEST defense of abortion there is today. There are two versions of a “bodily autonomy” argument- one that is weak and the other that is strong. The weak one is pretty much “a woman can do whatever she wants with her body” which is susceptible to counter arguments like “can you mutilate your unborn females daughter’s genitles in teh womb?” or “can you rip a limb off a child in the womb for fun?” or “can you sodomize the unborn while the head is still in the womb but the body is out?” etc. The better version put forward by JJT tries to concede that the unborn is human and a person but that we can justifiable kill them, just like we can justifiably kill an intruder or kill during times of war. I didn’t actually remember that JJT had used the analogy of a coat during the cold because I found that particularly weak. The better analogy that she uses is of the violinist who is hooked up to you and using your kidney to survive. If one is presented that scenario in a coherent manner by someone knowledgeable about it, it can seem very convincing at first. The problems that it brings up allow us to more deeply delve into our own positions and defend them better. But that’s my opinion- for my money, the argument that has evolved from JJT is the best philosophical defense of abortion there is. Of course, I do think it is deeply flawed, but “less so” than all other abortion arguments.
I can’t believe calling him worked like that. 0_0
I’m like Beetlejuice, X.
Good post, Xalise. A comment on this:
“The gestating child is not some random stranger off of the street, but THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN, making her the child’s guardian and sole caretaker, by default.”
That might be why Melissa Perry Harris (or whatever the talking head on MSNBC calls herself) has just made a comment out of the Hillary Clinton “it takes a village” playbook, to the effect that children belong to the community. Perhaps she was trying to say it’s not just up to the mother. I don’t know. But I thought abortion was supposed to be all about women’s rights. NOT.
“That might be why Melissa Perry Harris (or whatever the talking head on MSNBC calls herself) has just made a comment out of the Hillary Clinton “it takes a village” playbook, to the effect that children belong to the community. Perhaps she was trying to say it’s not just up to the mother. I don’t know. But I thought abortion was supposed to be all about women’s rights. NOT.”
I’m completely convinced that the “children belong to the community” stuff is one of the justifications for the “better aborted than abused and a drain on the system” nonsense that the pro-choicers come up with sometimes. If kids belong to everyone, then it’s important to make sure that the “wrong people” aren’t having kids, because otherwise we might have to pay more for social services and charity and we can’t have that!
Sorry so bitter, I just really, really hate those types of justifications for abortion.
Oy. that generated a lot more responses than I ever thought it would. I realize now that it was a poor choice to include a short mini essay for which I provided no context. I don’t really know where to begin responding.
First of all, I was not pressured to write this paper from a pro choice perspective. The assignment was to pick an argument from our text and either agree or disagree with it. Grades don’t depend on opinions, rather they are based upon the ability to lay out a logical argument. There were plenty of pro-life people in that class that I am sure did just as well as I did. Modern philosophy is just fine. It does, however,tend to be based on logic. One can make decent arguments for either side in any issue. No need to be disturbed just because someone made an argument that you don’t agree with. To judge an entire subject, indeed, an entire university based on one student’s freshman assignment would be ludicrous.
Secondly, I *think* that the argument that Ms. Thomson was trying to make is that it is sometimes justifiable to get out of a situation that necessitates innocent collateral damage. Is it okay to kill innocents? If you look through history, the answer to this question has been a resounding yes. Is it disgusting? yes. Does it sometimes happen? clearly. Is it ever truly necessary? that depends on your perspective.
Also, for those of you helpfully providing essay tips for me-I had no room to elaborate. I had maximum five hundred words. The point was to eliminate verbiage, and to lay out an argument as simply as possible. And honestly, say what you will…this KILLED me at first. But it definitely improved my writing and focus in the end.
” Secondly, I *think* that the argument that Ms. Thomson was trying to make is that it is sometimes justifiable to get out of a situation that necessitates innocent collateral damage. Is it okay to kill innocents? If you look through history, the answer to this question has been a resounding yes. Is it disgusting? yes. Does it sometimes happen? clearly. Is it ever truly necessary? that depends on your perspective. ”
Well, sometimes it’s necessary to kill innocents, in some people’s view. You can see that with wars and things like that. People accept collateral damage depending on the situation to a varying degree (personally I am very anti-war unless it’s absolutely necessary, but that’s besides the fact). The problem is that we’re trying to set up a just society in our pretty cushy existence in the Western world, and I can’t think of a single circumstance that’s dire enough to make it legal to kill an innocent in this context except in the case of a fetus threatening the life of his or her mother. I don’t even think that the death penalty is remotely justifiable today, seeing as we have the capability to house even the worse felons and protect society that way (and those people are nowhere near innocent).
Think of it this way. Most societies throughout time had some sort of infanticide going on, especially when it came to disabled infants. I am pretty sure you would agree that it’s barbaric and 100% unnecessary in this day and age to expose a disabled infant to cause his or her death, or to smother a twin at birth because you can’t afford to feed two new children. You can’t argue that is a situation that comes up in the developed world at all because we have things in place to prevent that necessity. But you’ll argue that the same justifications are okay as long as that same infant, same human being with the same DNA, isn’t born yet. I don’t see how that’s justifiable or rational at all.
And don’t even try the “it’s kinder to kill them before they grow up poor/abused/mentally ill/whatever” on me, it won’t be pretty.
If you look through history, the answer to this question has been a resounding yes. Is it disgusting? yes. Does it sometimes happen? clearly. Is it ever truly necessary? that depends on your perspective.
Please provide some examples from history where the killing of the innocent was deemed morally justifiable? It is one thing to say innocents were killed throughout history, it is quite another to claim that it was justified. You have still failed to provide the perspective from which killing the innocent is justified. Did you read Bobby’s response to your essay?
Your pontificating, while using generalities, is becoming annoying. If you want to make a metaphysical argument that is one thing, but you are discussing a subject that not only has a metaphysical dimension to it but also has a concrete reality – so generalities, and unconnected/poorly grounded logical arguments are not needed or sufficient. In other words, I am not disturbed by your argument as much as I am shocked by the lack of evidence used to support your argument.
I have to admit I thought it was an excerpt from a longer essay – 500 words is nothing. Logic has to be grounded with facts, if your logic doesn’t integrate the facts of a given subject any argument is going to be deficient. You may have learned how to write better, but this didn’t help your critical thinking skills. Your high school teacher failed you – horribly.
Bobby I have to disagree – both versions of the bodily autonomy argument fail too easily when contrasted with the obersevation made by the primary school aged child upon viewing a pregnant woman: “Mommy is there another person (body) in your belly?”
As shocking as this following statement is, we can always make it, and there is no good response to it: “The bodily autonomy of the baby exists – why should we not give it preference over the mother’s bodily autonomy?”
In the end the bodily autonomy amounts merely to being an euphemism for abortion – no more, no less. Bodily autonomy for what purpose?
Moreover, I don’t think there is another argument for abortion aside from this stupid, self-centered, and self-serving argument. All other arguments come back to this argument.
No need to be disturbed just because someone made an argument that you don’t agree with.
I’m not disturbed about the disagreement. I’m disturbed about the argumentation in favor of 3,500+ innocent children daily in my country alone being killed. And then you go on yourself to say:
“Is it okay to kill innocents? If you look through history, the answer to this question has been a resounding yes. Is it disgusting? yes. Does it sometimes happen? clearly. Is it ever truly necessary? that depends on your perspective.”
…that heck, this has happened all throughout history, so it’s like, totally cool, man. You SAY it is “disgusting”, yet give a shrug, blow a raspberry, and say, “Do we really really gotta? Maybe yeah, maybe no. Oh well!”
Yeah. You’re like, sooooo disgusted, obviously. 9_9
“…blow a raspberry….”
I don’t like laughing at your expressions, but sometimes I can’t help myself. I have to admit, you quite often know how to spin words together.
“Grades don’t depend on opinions, rather they are based upon the ability to lay out a logical argument.”
Sadly, I am not sure if this is a true statement anymore at most universities. I think we need more investigations in universities to ensure that they are passing people based on aptitude and not ideological allegiance.
Tyler,
I just like to take advantage of the absurdity inherent in so many of the arguments of my opponents. If you’re not laughin’, you’re cryin’.
“Sadly, I am not sure if this is a true statement anymore at most universities. I think we need more investigations in universities to ensure that they are passing people based on aptitude and not ideological allegiance. ”
Couldn’t agree more, Tyler. We definitely need some oversight here. Maybe if young adults in higher learning settings were viewed as…adults…that they are…and not subservient children, we could do something about this.
xalisae, I think the schools should at least alert their students that this form of bullying may happen to them. Too many students choose their universities without considering the schools ideological bent, they go based on ratings of the schools based on their chosen field, without realising that those “ratings” are often published by magazines that rate the universities based on whether the school shares the same progressive ideology as the magazine – however, the magazines never disclose that this ideological screening is being done, the magazines also profess to be neutral.
A review of student rights should also be conducted to ensure that students have rights to protect them should they feel coerced into writing an opinion that they don’t personally agree with: conscience rights for students!!! Is academic freedom extended to the students and not just the Profs? Too often it does not appear to be.
” Please provide some examples from history where the killing of the innocent was deemed morally justifiable? It is one thing to say innocents were killed throughout history, it is quite another to claim that it was justified. You have still failed to provide the perspective from which killing the innocent is justified. Did you read Bobby’s response to your essay?”
Just look at collateral damage from war. Most people would argue that accidental killing of German civilians in Allied bombings in WWII was sad but justifiable in order to win the war. Some people also justify the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (that one is an ethical dilemma for me) for the same reasons. People have morally justified killing innocents, at least inadvertently, forever. The thing is, pro-choicers like to use this justification (which, however controversial, actually is debatable), to justify the killing of healthy babies of healthy women, when really the only rational application of this is to cases where the mother would die without an abortion.
Jack, what was the argument put forth beforehand. Many of these actions were simply done without any publication of the reasoning done to support the action. Any of these justifications are typically done after-the-fact.
Moreover, this situation is a life for a life situation and is not comparable to a mother aborting her child – as Bobby and yourself explained in your posts. Just war theory is complicated and typically has a 5 five point system that must be analyzed before the war can be commenced. Abortion would not make it through the five analysis. Look it up.
Jack, you have cited more examples than A7X has done. I wanted A7X to understand the seriousness of the dicussion and her attempt at comparing abortion to historical tragedies was too insincere and inconsiderate. The examples you cited resulted in the deaths of millions of people and people today still agonize over them - caring people don’t reduce these atrocities down to a silly example about sharing a coat.
“I’m completely convinced that the “children belong to the community” stuff is one of the justifications for the “better aborted than abused and a drain on the system” nonsense that the pro-choicers come up with sometimes. If kids belong to everyone, then it’s important to make sure that the “wrong people” aren’t having kids, because otherwise we might have to pay more for social services and charity and we can’t have that!”
Jack, I’m completely convinced that you are right.
The abortion industry and particularly Planned Parenthood targets areas with large numbers of “the wrong people”, meaning the poor and also meaning minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, as this map shows:
http://www.protectingblacklife.org/pp_targets/index.html
Planned Parenthood has done this through abortion and earlier through sterilization projects and targeted birth control going back to it’s days as the American Birth Control League, working with the American Eugenics Society. The movie Maafa 21 really exposes this:
http://www.maafa21.com/
It is beyond my comprehension how blacks like Melissa Harris-Perry can so strongly support the abortion industry.