Stanek weekend question: Is it acceptable to out the mother or father of one’s aborted child?
(Be sure to voice your vote on this question on the poll at the bottom of this post.)
Former tennis champion Jimmy Connors is taking heat for outing the abortion of his 70s girlfriend and tennis champion Chris Evert in his new autobiography, The Outsider.
From a May 20 Slate article by abortion proponent Amanda Marcotte entitled, “Jimmy Connors is woefully out of line on Chris Evert’s abortion”:
Connors is trying to shame Evert by making a spectacle of her private reproductive choices. And while Evert shouldn’t need a defense either way, the memoir seems fantastically unwilling to acknowledge that a tennis star at the top of her game has good reasons for not wanting to be pregnant….
In a statement released on May 9, Chris Evert seemed understandably upset:
“In his book, Jimmy Connors has written about a time in our relationship that was very personal and emotionally painful. I am extremely disappointed that he used the book to misrepresent a private matter that took place 40 years ago and made it public, without my knowledge. I hope everyone can understand that I have no further comment.”
Here’s how I would have phrased it:
Look, Jimmy, it’s totally unfair that some of us can get pregnant and some of us can only impregnate. But in the grand scheme of things, this system brought to us by mindless evolution is much more unfair to women than men. Not only do women have to undergo the indignities of menstruation and routine gynecological care, but if we do get pregnant, we’re the ones who either endure the abortion or have our bodies painfully bent out of shape to bear the child. In exchange, we get decision-making power over those pregnancies. Full stop. The alternative—giving a man the right to force childbirth or force abortion simply because he once had sex with you—is too terrible a violation of human rights to be tolerated in a civilized society.
So stop whining already. You sound like McEnroe.
Marcotte went further than my question does, claiming not only should fathers have no say about killing their offspring, they should say nothing in the event it happens.
What do you think? Should outing the other parent of a child killed by abortion be taboo? Is it acceptable to out the mother or father of one’s aborted child?
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.
As the father of the murdered child he has every right to speak publicly about it.
He has the right to speak of the abortion. He put 50% of the DNA into the aborted child and if she had the child, he would have been half of the responsibility of the child. However, I feel, that he should have informed her what he was going to say about the abortion but what he did was not morally wrong, perhaps inconsiderate. Although, I’m sure she did not consider him when choosing to abort their child.
Jill,
you missed the point that Everett didn’t even tell Connors she was having the abortion.
Chris Everett is evil.
Really, I’m completely prolife and want to see abortion gone from our land, but I wonder how many of us would be just fine with it if someone decided to announce and expose our past sins to all the world?
If writing about the story was part of healing for the father, I can understand that, but maybe he could have kept the story more general without revealing names?
I don’t know the back story or anything about either person. . . perhaps Everett has some mixed up core values and has made some poor choices in life. Instead of evil, though, I would just consider her another hurting person.
That was kind of a jerky thing to say Jasper – I mean, a lot of people on this board have had abortions or been involved in abortions. Are they all evil?
And Connors certainly was involved in her pregnancy, out of marriage, in the first place. No mention of him?
He wasn’t wrong. The child was his, too. He was part of this. He had every right to talk about it.
That being said, I do feel a bit conflicted about something this public. I can’t help but think that if the person outed was already in pain and grieving over his/her involvement in an abortion, it could possibly make that pain worse.
“As the father of the murdered child he has every right to speak publicly about it.”
—As an actual father, I’ll state that it takes more than sticking your penis in somebody to be a father.
If it’s wrong for him to talk about the abortion of his child because it exposed what the mother of his child did, why is it ok for women to expose the father of their children for forcing them to abort? I haven’t read his book but maybe he needs healing, too??
I played tennis in my younger days and liked both Jimmy Connors and Chris Everett. The fact that she had an abortion surprises me which says that she was keeping it a secret. Jimmy does have the right to speak about it and that he mentioned her name is a non-issue since everyone in the tennis world knows that in the 70’s Jimmy Connors and Chris Everett were a hot item. Even if he didn’t mention her by name, every tennis fan would know that the mother was Chris Everett.
It was quite disrespectful of Mr. Connors to put this in his book without Ms. Everett’s knowledge or consent. One has to really wonder what his motivation was for doing this, and I personally can’t come to any conclusion other than that it was for personal gain. However, Ms. Marcotte’s neo-feminist response is absurd and highly offensive. One can make a point that his outing Ms. Everett was not right, without saying that it is a grave injustice to be able to bear children. All I could think when I read that was, Really??!!
I think it’s extremely unfair for Marcotte to act like he shouldn’t be able to talk about something or have feelings about it, though I would expect nothing less from her.
I don’t think it’s right to publicly humiliate someone like he did though. He shouldn’t have named the woman in question publicly if he wanted to talk about his feelings about this.
“If it’s wrong for him to talk about the abortion of his child because it exposed what the mother of his child did, why is it ok for women to expose the father of their children for forcing them to abort”
Well forcing someone to abort is a crime, and unfortunately abortion is not. I think there is quite a difference there.
“As an actual father, I’ll state that it takes more than sticking your penis in somebody to be a father”
Well that’s kinda the point, he never got the chance to actually parent his kid. Can’t really judge him for not being a father if he didn’t get the chance to be one. Of course we don’t know the actual situation, just his side.
It seems to me that if abortion is an inconsequential thing(i.e. if it doesn’t kill a baby) then why do pro-abortion people get upset about someone sharing publicly their participation in it. You see pro-abortion people want to claim it is their right to abort and that it should be legal and without restrictions, but they think it is wrong for others to talk about them exercising that right and they think they should restrict your right to talk about it. To call it “private” and “personal” matter is a copout and rationalization for hiding something they understand was very wrong and shameful. If there is nothing wrong and shameful about it, then why are you concerned about people exposing it? The bottom line is that Chris Evertt made a choice to kill her child in order to preserve her tennis career. She is not unlike the countless women who make that decision every day in this country. Like all sin, with abortion there is forgiveness and redemption through Christ.
Everet displays only class. Marcotte displays how she completely lacks any.
As for Jimmy Connors, I never liked that narcissistic twerp and this only reinforces my opinion.
I put Jimmy Connors in the same category as Barbara Walters who felt it necessary to inform the world of her affair with a deceased married senator. Of course no consideration to the surviving family members of the senator. Of course, no consideration to Everet’s family.
Low class.
I don’t think there is a general rule. Each relationship and circumstance has its own ethical considerations.
Is the mother or father sorry and regretful? Is the purpose of the outing merely to hurt the other partner? – Then no, it is likely not charitable to out the other parent.
On the other hand, is this a story about living through pain and injustice, with the hope of helping others to avoid making the same tragic mistake? Evil thrives in silence. — Then yes, it is perhaps charitable to share one’s story. Even if it hurts.
The only thing I know for sure is that Amanda Marcotte has no moral right to publicly comment on the abortion of Connors and Everett’s child. I hope they both sue her.
I do not think he should have spoken so publicly about something so painful and private without the mother’s permission. I’m not surprised Everett was upset. But now that her secret is out, perhaps she will take the opportunity to tell her side of the story. I hope it will help her heal.
That said, Marcotte’s reaction is stupid beyond belief. Pregnancy is so great a pain and inconvenience and injustice to women they should get the right to kill their children in exchange? Suppose my mother-in-law or my boss are causing me untold suffering, or my blackmailer is making my life a misery. Do I thereby get the right to kill them? Try that excuse with any judge or jury in the land. “But Your Honor, he was causing me suffering, what else could I do but shoot him?” Preposterous.
i am an ardent Jesus loving anti-abortion 45 year old man. Abortion is deplorable to me. The points that Amanda Marcotte tries to make in the Slate article are deplorable as well. The man should have equal rights to any decision having to do with his child.
But I cannot agree that what Jimmy Connors revealed in his book about Everett was a good thing. I am reminded of Joseph in the Scriptures when he found out that Mary was pregnant and had , in his mind, apparently had engaged in relations with another man. The word of God says, “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. ”
So I think it would have been much more gracious for Connors to have either gotten her permission or to have kept it to himself instead of exposing her unrighteousness. With that said,however, there is a time for everything under the sun.
What Ms.Everett did was horrific, sure enough, but I don’t think the manner in which Mr. Connors outed her was very righteous.
Thank you Mrs. Stanek for all that you do to fight the evil that is abortion.
I have a different take, from a different point of view. I’m a post-abortive woman who is now pro-life and speak publicly about how abortion hurts women, families, as well as kills the baby. In my case, the father didn’t know because he had left me, I was an 18 year-old college freshman who was scared and desperate, and I was pushed into it by family. Fast-forward to now (25 years later). I did re-connect with the father via social media and told him the truth, privately. I would never had outed him publicly because it’s not just him. He has a wife and kids who are innocent in the whole thing, and it would be unfair to them to drag them into it.
Abortion is so painful that there is no right or wrong answer to this. When there is pain from the death of a child people react very differently. We can all give our opinions on this, but we really do not understand his or her pain.
I’ll officially answer the question now.
Is it acceptable? Depends on why.
Maybe Connors is hurting – maybe he feels really wronged, and wants to reach out to people to become an advocate against abortion.
Or maybe Connors just wrote a book, wants to sell a lot of copies, and needs something to generate buzz, and the entire thing is about greed.
I know my guess as to his motivations – but I think the motivations are key here in answering the question.
Don, I agree with you. If someone “outed” me for having a tooth pulled I’d shrug my shoulders and say “So what?” The fact that people get upset when their abortions become public shows that despite the “I had an abortion t-shirts” abortion is anything but normal and healthy and empowering.
The Bible does say “Be sure your sin will find you out” so we shouldn’t be surprised when it does.
” Maybe Connors is hurting – maybe he feels really wronged, and wants to reach out to people to become an advocate against abortion. ”
I think that even if he has those motivations it isn’t necessary or appropriate to name her. He could still tell his story and how he’s felt about it without naming her in it. Granted, it would be difficult to do with their relationship being so public way back when, but he could be vague with dates and such.
At crime scenes in the Chicago ghetto, residents show up with #NOTALKING t-shirts to intimidate witnesses. Same policy here
Jack
I agree with you – your general thought through this thread.
And there’s really no reason to say anything other than trying to shame her. And the only reason it seems like people would care, is in hopes of having her shamed, or they like the gossip.
So it’s ok for a mother to pay someone to abort her child, and the father has no say.
But it’s not ok for the father to be hurt and mention it in memoirs that not a lot of people will read and remember? Ask someone under 35 if they even know the names. At least Connors waited until Evert was long out of the limelight.
Marcotte seems to loathe womanhood in all her bs statements about fairness. Life isn’t fair, Amanda. Yet you expect men to take responsibility and women to causally have their children killed. That’s an unfairness we can avoid.
Yeah, and if abortion is a minor procedure and all that- why do they care if the whole world knows? Shouldn’t proaborts be celebrating?
Is it acceptable to out the mother or father of one’s aborted child?
I say no.
Where is Connor’s heart? To bring healing? To offer kindness, mercy and love to Everett or to get back at her? To ask her for her forgiveness that he didn’t stand up for her and his child? To make money selling books? To be ugly, nasty, hurtful and vindictive? To try and make amends? To tell her of Rachel’s Vineyard and that they both might find healing?
He could have asked her and abided by her wishes. Or not named names.
Stacey,
Can I ask why you told him?
The father of my child never knew. Still doesn’t know. That I got pregnant and aborted his child. To track him down and tell him would serve what purpose? What is the intent?
I know fathers right now in counseling because old girlfriends called out of the blue to tell them that their children were aborted. They are heartbroken. They had no say and now 20-30 years later they are to do what exactly with that information?
Sorry to derail the thread.
But this is personal.
These are steps number eight and nine of AA
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
MaryAnn,
It is not ok for a mother to abort her child and it is not ok for a father to have no say.
Nothing about abortion and its aftermath is ok. :(
“I know fathers right now in counseling because old girlfriends called out of the blue to tell them that their children were aborted. They are heartbroken. They had no say and now 20-30 years later they are to do what exactly with that information?”
I think I’d personally want the chance to grieve my child, even if I had no idea that they had existed in the first place. I’m not every guy though, and you’re probably right it’s more compassionate to not tell people after the fact, there’s nothing they can do but grieve.
Jack,
This is just one more aspect of my abortion that still brings me so much pain. That I did not call him to tell him I was pregnant or that I never gave him a say.
I grieve for him and the child that was his too.
I do think Connors should have contacted Everett to tell her his plans.
I do not want to speculate that he intended to shame or harm her. Did he say that? Wanting to grieve is enough to write something in one’s memoirs.
I respect that some women wouldn’t want to tell after the fact. But I also think men deserve to know. They are hurting and THEY deserve better, too.
As far as a man who struggles because they can’t save the life of their baby, perhaps they can find some healing and personal purpose in trying to bring an end to abortion. In general, I do not think we consider fathers enough. Many of them mourn incredibly.
Seeing abortion for the crime it should be, I don’t really give a flip and think that not only is it okay that he announced her publicly, but that after abortion is criminalized, I hope to see such offenders depicted in mugshots on the nightly news and being led around in handcuffs.
C’mon, Pro-Lifers. Is abortion murder? Then start acting like it.
If I ever see my fiance’s ex, fully expect me to call her out for the killer she is. Our family is one person short today because she killed him/her. That’s far more wrong than naming names.
Carla,
Why did I tell him, after so many years? Good question, and it’s a complicated answer. The short answer is that he and I had already re-connected via social media months earlier. When I decided to start speaking publicly about my abortion with Silent No More and appeared on a local Christian station and started to blog about it, I felt I should tell him first, before he saw something that I might post or that one of my fellow pro-lifers might post. Although he has NEVER been named in anything that I’ve said or written, I’ve mentioned my age and the date a few times, and I didn’t want him to accidentally see that and flip.
For what it’s worth, his response was … odd. He seemed more apologetic over hurting me and apologetic over a lost relationship between us than he did over losing a child. :( My pain has always been about the baby.
“Seeing abortion for the crime it should be, I don’t really give a flip and think that not only is it okay that he announced her publicly, but that after abortion is criminalized, I hope to see such offenders depicted in mugshots on the nightly news and being led around in handcuffs.”
I don’t really think it appropriate to publicly accuse someone of violent crimes unless they are convicted or going to trial for it. I don’t agree with how the media handles these things, or how society handles them.
*Public is one thing, private is another. I wouldn’t tell a victim/family member that they had to remain silent about a crime that was committed against them, especially when getting help for whatever damage was done. But if you’re talking about someone’s reputation, especially someone in the public eye, I wish people would use some discretion.
And regardless of that, abortion is unfortunately legal right now, and I don’t think it’s right or fair to castigate people publicly for having them. I don’t think that’s the right way to go about it at all.
Once in a while, I think about my baby’s father and how he is doing. When I began my healing process and learning forgiveness, I forgave my baby’s father about the killing of our child, too. We both experience seeing our baby dead. Before my healing, I hated him for decades.
All that I can do is to pray for him that he is doing well; ask God to forgive him, too, and to be there for him if he is in need of any healing.
Mary Ann,
Ask someone under 35 if they even know the names. At least Connors waited until Evert was long out of the limelight.
I’ll say. You’re about the only one who remembers how her name is spelled. I also think it was a good point that everyone would have speculated she was the mother in question, given their famous relationship.
I would have to read the excerpt to decide if Conners was working through his feelings or just ‘outing” her through meanness. It’s not like he didn’t have enough stories to fill a book.
If Everett had miscarried the baby instead of aborting him/her, would Connors be criticized for talking about his pain and grief?
What’s the difference?
If abortion is a right and a perfectly acceptable solution as many pro-choicers claim it is, then why remain silent about it? If there is nothing wrong with killing your unborn child, they why not loudly proclaim you had an abortion?
A –
Quite frankly though, this is a weird line of reasoning. I could name about 20 things off the top of my head that are perfectly acceptable things that you probably wouldn’t want others about your life with those topics in books.
In fact, the entire health care privacy act that all medical facilities follow is pretty much based on that.
Love covers a multitude of sins, 1Co 13.
Praying that Jimmy and Chrissy will submit themselves wholeheartedly to love and serve the One Who is the Healer of broken hearts. He loves us with all of His Heart.
I voted “Yes” but I’m ambivalent. On the one hand, he has every right to write about the relationship and the abortion as far as they had an impact on his life. On the other hand, I’ve always considered “outing” somebody to be uncalled-for.
I guess it depends upon the motive. If you’re “outing” the person to be spiteful and hurt them, it’s wrong. If you’re “outing” them because you are telling your story and that person was an important part of it, you owe it to the person to discuss it with them first.
I tend to feel that while it was absolutely his right to discuss a painful experience in his life, it was unnecessary for him to ‘out’ the mother in particular. And regardless, he should have reached out to her and let her know of his intentions.
Should one be ‘outed’ for past sins? Not if doing so serves no purpose but to tear the sinner down. In this case, I see no reason why he should have specifically brought attention to Evert in order for him to speak openly and honestly about his grief and struggles. Connors could have merely discussed a time in his life when this painful experience occurred and how it affected him, rather than to specify the who.
At best, this is a thoughtlessly hurtful move. More likely, as we are talking about a written, edited, and published memoir, it is a jab. I would guess that it is a barb intended to skewer someone who deeply wounded him. It seems Connors could benefit from the redemption and healing of Christ’s love particularly in regards to this subject.
Too bad she aborted, their child may have been one hellava tennis player.
Without having read the passage in the book about the abortion, I can’t really pass judgment. As a rule when it comes to sharing personal information, it is best if it comes from the person who “owns” that information. In other words, my story (e.g. experiences, feelings) should come from me. If it is not mine to tell (i.e. all about someone else), I should not share it. That is gossip. Having said that, Jimmy Connors has a right to talk about his role, reaction, etc. regarding the abortion. Forewarning Chris Everett about the publication would be kinder.
Your poll is unfortunately designed. Above the poll you say
“Should outing the other parent of a child killed by abortion be taboo?”
But in the poll itself you say
“Is it acceptable to out the mother or father of one’s aborted child?”
The answer to the two questions are in opposition to each other. It is not a good idea to ask the same question in two different ways right next to each other, especially given that your wording substantively changes both the question and the answer.
Thank you for sharing that Stacey. I am right with you sister!! And you too Carol!
I am thankful that you have found the healing after abortion that I have found!!
C’mon, Pro-Lifers. Is abortion murder? Then start acting like it.
Abortion is murder.
If acting like it means calling post abortive women baby killers and murderers and sharing your hatred and hoping against hope that we all get what is coming to us………no thank you.
Interesting. I see that one of your commenting guidelines is
“Do not violate another’s privacy.”
Connors did that. It doesn’t matter what your views on abortion are, Connors violated her privacy by talking about a medical procedure that she underwent.
@ JoAnna: ”What’s the difference?”
The difference is the people like those here, who stir up an environment of anger and shame against women who choose abortion.
You’re no different than those people who stir up hate against gay people, then try to pretend that it’s teenagers’ homosexuality that makes them more likely to commit suicide. It’s you, JoAnna. It’s your fault for making the environment toxic.
I’m confused, Kevin. What about my comment indicates “anger and shame” toward post-abortive women?
Do you think the environment created and perpetrated by Kermit Gosnell et al was beneficial to women and babies?
Commenting rule ‘Do Nots #4’ - Do not violate another’s privacy.
How about applying that in real life too, or are you all quite happy being self-absorbed hypocrites?
You don’t like abortion? You think it’s wrong? Then don’t do it. No-one forcing you into it. Likewise, keep your beliefs to yourselves and don’t force them on other people. Their abortions, like their gay marriages, do not affect you in any way. Back off from telling others how to live.
Elle, let’s take a closer look at your logic:
Don’t like adultery? Don’t cheat on your spouse.
Don’t like child abuse? Don’t abuse children.
Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.
Etc.
Do you agree with all of the above, as well?
Elle wrote: “Their abortions, like their gay marriages, do not affect you in any way. Back off from telling others how to live.”
Elle, someone killing your mother doesn’t affect me in any way either but I support the laws that put your mother’s murderer in jail.
Am I imposing my beliefs onto your mother’s killer?
It is unacceptable at any time to give out someone else’s medical information without their consent.
The hypocrisy is strong on this blog. Look at the fourth ‘Don’t’ under commenting rules. Don’t violate people’s privacy. Follow this rule in life.
“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. ”
Yo, Ken O’Kelley, back then, women got stoned to death for such indiscretions, so that’s the second reason for Joseph not to have made a big issue out of Mary KEEPING her baby.
All this hand wringing over whether a guy should out a woman for aborting his kid is more of the new morality which says that “judging” is worse than rape, murder, stealing, abortion, etc. Why is there so much devolution going on? Because judging actions has been deemed the greatest sin of all.
I don’t pay too much attention to celebrities, because fame messes up people’s heads and most often turns them into bad role models. The reason I’m not going to JUDGE Connors’ action is because I have no connection to him nor knowledge of his motivations.
People should remember that whatever they do in life will eventually get out. There are no secrets. The government and IRS will be handling your medical records, so there is additional reason to regulate behavior to avoid stigmatized health problems. With the loss of privacy, the only secret abortions will be the ones done at home or the back alley.
Chris Evert seems to have been aware of the fact that nothing stays secret forever. Maybe the loss of privacy will allow her to properly deal with that bad decision.
He should be criticized either way. It isn’t okay for him to discuss a medical issue involving someone else without that person’s consent, whether that medical issue was a miscarriage, an abortion, or the sniffles. End of story.
Talk about hypocrisy-
Ellie and others are basically saying,
Live and let live.
Yeah- you get to live and so you should let little boy and girl fetuses live, too.
That’s the basic prolife position- live and let everyone live.
“That was kind of a jerky thing to say Jasper – I mean, a lot of people on this board have had abortions or been involved in abortions. Are they all evil? “
No, of course not. I shouldn’t have said that..
ErikC says:
June 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
It is unacceptable at any time to give out someone else’s medical information without their consent.
Abortion is not healthcare, just as getting a tattoo is not healthcare.
We are talking about Evert’s choice (legal as it was) to kill her child, and Connors’s choice to open Evert’s secret.
Yes a man has the right to speak out against killing their innocent child but in this case Jimmy Connors was completely out of line – inconsiderate of Chris Evert – no one knows what she went through, has gone through or how she feels about it today. It’s a private matter and he should have kept it that way. I never like Jimmy Connors, he always seemed like a spoiled baby on the tennis court.
Murder is a legal term. Legal abortion is not murder, any more than state-sanctioned capital punishment is murder. So stop calling legal abortion murder.
I am 100% pro life but a man outing a woman in that way is cowardly – be a man and deal with it one on one with the woman, do everything you can to convince her to not kill your baby but don’t be a coward and out her after the fact. Here’s the problem with men today – most are happy to use women, have the abortion and not have to take responsibility. Wake up all you women libbers, you’re hurting yourselves – men love to use you for their pleasure.
Jill: What would be an appropriate punishment for a woman that had an abortion? Prison time? Execution?
Really Adrian? murdering Jews in the holocaust was perfectly legal. Slavery was perfectly legal. Your moral guide has to come from somewhere else besides governments of men. Just because the law says it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, you’re saying it’s not killing a baby in the womb? Explain that. A life is violently ended in this act – that’s not murder? Think about it and come up with some explanation please.
Eohippus – stick to the point – a woman should not kill their baby in the first place. Or choose to have sex when they’re not ready to get pregnant. If a man or woman wants to have sex and not want to have a child, they should get sterilized – then they can have all the sex they want with no worries. If you need an answer to your question about punishment, how about after your first abortion, both the man and woman must get sterilized? What do you think about that punishment?
15 love Conners. Nothing wrong with him speaking the truth about such an important life issue. Moving forward; Chris Everett can either speak the truth or double fault.
Doh. Borked that. Well, hopefully most of you are smart enough to figure out what I meant to highlight.
I called my former husband and said, “I am starting to speak out about the abortion. You can either tell your family about it or they will find out themselves through the media.” He said, “you were the one who got up on the table.”
He choose to not say anything to his family…my family knew, his family saw a show I was on and read about me in the paper. I never said his name but they could put two and two together.
We were dating when I got pregnant. When brought to the place of making that choice he said, “Whatever you want, but I am not ready to be a father.”
While married he would never allow me to talk about the abortion. He told me to move on and to get over it. He left because I became the insane crazy green eyed monster.
I didn’t tell our story to get revenge. I told our story because it was the truth and my story cannot be told without him in it. I married him to right a wrong but I learned the hard lesson you cannot replace one child with another. The man I didn’t want to abandon me when I was pregnant abandoned me after all.
I have no regrets about telling my story with him included…it really would have been very awkward trying to do that. I had peace about it and still do. I think it depends on the situation.
“Privacy über alles” is a big part of how we got into this mess of secretly killing little, powerless human beings to cover adults’ mistakes.
Abortion to cover up
Adultery
Incest
Scandal
Sex trafficking/ slavery
A crappy relationship
A mistake during college
Etc
Etc
Etc
But the problem is talking about it? Or continuing the coverup?
Um, Mary Ann, is it safe to assume that one of your “etc.”s is rape?
Y’all think evil socialist nazi muslim Obamacare is making people’s medical decisions for them, but you’re just frothing for Gov’t mandated transvaginal probes and women forced to carry to term inviable abominations and the progeny of rapists under penalty of law.
Again, hypocrite much?
Hey, proselytize all you want. Counsel pregnant women, care for their unborn, and provide them families. But if you give the government the power to mandate pregnancy to term, you give them the power to mandate abortion.
Women MUST have choice. And if your position is as clear and meritorious as you claim, they’ll choose it. Unless it’s not. Or at least not for her. Or her. Maybe her. She’s with you. She’s not.
Hey! Free marketplace of ideas, right? Invisible hand!
It is not ethically responsible to speak without consent and publically about medical procedures another person had, which of course includes publishing those events in a book. If Everett’s abortion was a legal measure, Connors has no basis for shaming her about it. He is being quite sleazy, abusing popular bigotry to score points and monetary gain from the narrowminded, probably less educated and thoughtful segment of the population. Judging by the comments here, he’s being somewhat successful.
“Really Adrian? murdering Jews in the holocaust was perfectly legal. Slavery was perfectly legal. Your moral guide has to come from somewhere else besides governments of men.”
The decision to declare the Nazi laws and procedures illegal and punishable after the war did come from the governments of men. There is no higher authority, no matter how much you wish and claim there was.
In a civilized society, we determine legal issues based on rational consent of people who think and discuss ethical matters, empathy, social benefit and so on. We do not pose unquestionable authority and immutable laws, which are based on very questionable sources in the case of mythological religious tradition.
Since “containing human genes” and “potentially growing into a person” do not equal “being a person capable of suffering, endowed with consensual human and civil rights”, abortion before that stage of development isn’t a crime any more than removing an appendix is. And it’s very irrational to deny that.
To all the people talking about ‘killing a child’:
A foetus is not a child in the same sort of way that a child is not an adult. If you can tell the difference between a child and an adult, then please stop pretending to be unable to tell the difference between a foetus and a child.
You are welcome to present arguments for why a foetus should have greater legal protections than a child (because we would not force women to have an actual child wired up to their bodies indefinitely), but the dishonest switcheroo between a child (which is a sentient being, with some understanding of the world and with considerable capacity to experience pain) and a foetus (which is a being which either has not yet or has only just begun to develop sentience, and whose capacity for experiencing pain, at least in the early stages when most abortions actually happen, is either nil or negligible) is not a valid arguing tactic.
To those who are comparing abortion to other medical procedures like having a tooth removed and asking why, if abortion is so minor a procedure, should someone be worried about medical confidentiality … are you even aware that people like you are the cause of the problem? An abortion is usually a relatively straightforward medical procedure, but because there are hordes of people howling about how evil it is, and how evil people are who have it done, they make it a big deal, which is why medical confidentiality is so important. If there were massive public brouhaha about dentistry, if there were large numbers of people trying to shame those who need a tooth removed into not having a tooth removed, then the confidentiality of the dentist would be as important as the confidentiality of the ob/gyn.
Seems she did the responsible thing.
Bottom line, people, look at the bottom line. The dude did it for CASH. He knew this would prop up sales of his lame book so he threw in some red meat about a hot button issue. Revealing someone else’s personal medical history in order to make money is disgusting and loathsome. Connors is a dirt bag.
Please do not feed the trolls.
PS
The commenting rules are for commenters that comment HERE on this BLOG.
Thought that was pretty self explanatory. COMMENTING RULES
Felix wrote: “We do not pose unquestionable authority and immutable laws, which are based on very questionable sources in the case of mythological religious tradition.”
—
What mythological religious tradition are you speaking of Felix? And please provide your sources which prove it to be mythology.
There was no “child killed” in this situation. This is standard anti-choice nonsense rhetoric. A fetus is not a child. This is a fact of biology and it’s a simple fact. Therefore, any statement that abortion consists of “killing a child” is made either out of ignorance (which is forgivable; we’ are all ignorant about a lot of things) or is a blatant lie used to evoke an emotional response because let’s be realistic, who is going to say “Oh yeah, I’m in favor of killing children.”? No is in favor of killing children, but myself and many others are pro-allowing a woman to choose what she does with her own body, including not getting an abortion if she chooses or getting an abortion if she so chooses. Neither of these choices “kill a child.”
BTW, though I have no plans to blaspheme, I wonder why that is a commenting rule. Blasphemy, after all, is a victimless crime. That said, I’ll stay within the rules.
satan augustine wrote: “A fetus is not a child.”
—
Is it a human? And if it is a human then what basis do you draw from to justify killing humans just because they are in the womb?
Sin loves darkness. Darkness lets sin survive and thrive forever. The one thing sin hates most of all is light – being exposed.
Sin’s standard gambit, when exposed, is to turn around and try to shame the light. ‘How DARE you! How heartless and unloving to bring evil to the light’
Few would fault Connors for revealing his child’s death if his mother had waited nine months longer to do the killing. If anything, we would be amazed that he remained quiet for four decades. Should Connors act different only because the American law, in its sophisticated Orwellian barbarism, has unpersoned his child?
Ken, please read a decent definition of the word ‘mythology’, and you’ll easily understand how it applies.
Ken – you said: “What mythological religious tradition are you speaking of Felix? And please provide your sources which prove it to be mythology. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Felix was probably referring to Christianity, though he could be be talking about any religion as they are all based on myths and some things that we know for certain did not happen. In the case of Christianity for instance, we know, via genetics, that the human population was never lower than 1,200. So we know there was no Adam and Eve. There are also two different, conflicting creation stories, one where A&E are created at the same time and one where Eve was later created out the rib of a man, Adam, who was made from dirt. As I said, we know this never happened because it never could have. If humanity started with two humans then this would be discernible by examining the genome of multiple humans. It did’t turn out that way. The Bible, “the word of god,” is littered with contradictions and information that we now know to be factually inaccurate. For instance, there is no “firmament” above the sky, the earth is not flat, there was no great flood (another Biblical story with 2 different versions), the sun did not stand still in the sky, the Israelites were never held in captivity in Egypt, there was no exodus, we do not live in a geocentric planetary system, we not only are not at the center of our solar system, we are not at the center of our galaxy, and our galaxy is not at the center of our universe (nor is anything else at the center of our universe). To continue with factual inaccuracies in the Bible: women do not get pregnant unless they are impregnated by sperm produced by a man. There are no miracle births. People don’t die then show up alive 2 days later. The laws of physics that cannot be broken and there is no evidence that they ever have been.
Ken – another very important thing to keep in mind when asking someone to prove that religion is mythology, or not true, or whatever, the burden of truth does not lie with the person being asked to, for instance, “disprove” Christianity, the burden of proof lies with the Christian asserting that Christianity is true. It’s up to the person or group making a positive claim, for instance that God exists in spite of zero evidence for that proposition.
To give an absurd example to make my point: I believe that an invisible, purple, floating, heatless, massless, but benevolent dragon lives in my garage and will occasionally, when she feels like it, grant wishes. What is the fallback position here? What is the assumption with which everyone will approach my claim? They will take the position that it’s not true and most people wouldn’t even bother entertaining the belief. The more curious would want to see evidence. But I could not make such an absurd assertion to them and the ask them to disprove it. I’m making the positive claim so burden of evidence is squarely on me. The same is true for the religious believer. It’s not up to non-believers to disprove your God since we are not the ones asserting the existence of a being without evidence.
If you understand that, then you understand that any time a religionist says: “Well then, prove God doesn’t exist and my religion isn’t correct.” it is an invalid response that no one should take that any more seriously than me saying: “You don’t believe in my invisible, purple, floating, heatless, massless, benevolent dragon in my garage? Well then prove she doesn’t exist.” It’s an inane response in both cases.
prolifist, the concept of ‘sin’ that you base your argument on holds weight for those who believe in it. I think that a more objective standard is the event of human suffering. A fetus before the growth stage of about 20 weeks does not have the nerve tissue and cerebral connections to experience pain. It does not have the capacity to be a person at this time. These facts may be a bit too sophisticated for some, it’s true.
“All this hand wringing over whether a guy should out a woman for aborting his kid is more of the new morality which says that “judging” is worse than rape, murder, stealing, abortion, etc. Why is there so much devolution going on? Because judging actions has been deemed the greatest sin of all.”
B.I.N.G.O.
A fetus is not a child, they say. Nice to know that pricks your broken down conscience. Maybe you still have a conscience. I will keep referring to abortion as MURDERING A CHILD. That’s the fact of what abortion is. If you can’t handle the fact that it murders a child, maybe even your own child, then maybe you all aren’t as pro-“choice” as you think.
I also see a recurring theme among the abortion advocates that sex between two people doesn’t make the man a father if she gets pregnant with their child. You think that because you’ve made sex so casual, so mundane, that it is of little consequence. Well, even casual sex creates babies, and you aren’t any less the parents of those babies because YOU didn’t care about the person you were sleeping with.
You tell us, don’t like abortion then don’t have one.
Don’t like to make children? Then stop making them and killing them. Hypocrisy? Thy name is “pro-choice.”
Felix – Do you realize it is legal on the day of a baby’s birth, the mother can go to a hospital and deliver a healthy baby or go to an abortion clinic and have the same baby killed? Is this rational?
Anyone who is saying that the father should have an equal say in the abortion decision needs to consider that if he decides differently than she does, he is effectively controlling her body for nine months, and forcing on her radical bodily changes and potentially severe health risks. Giving the father any legal weight in the abortion decision doesn’t give him an equal say, it gives him a VASTLY superior say. Is it completely fair? No, but it’s far better than the alternative.
People can deny it’s a child all they want with big, prideful words but cannot deny these facts –
1. There’s a living organism in the womb.
2. It has it’s own individual DNA
3. It is human.
4. It will develop into a baby.
5. It will have a heart beat in about 12 weeks.
6. It will feel pain ine womb.
If you believe in killing this baby in the womb, you must believe it’s okay to kill a 1 or 2 year old baby.
Our barbaric society cannot last if we continue this lack of respect for dignity of every person. Wake up folks – for your own good and future of our human family. We must protect and love one another.
Dominic, do you realize that never happens, so bringing it up is insane and stupid? Nobody carries a healthy fetus to term and decides nine months in to ditch it. It does not happen.
Brian – that’s what you think and can you prove it? Have you heard about Gosnell? And that’s besides my point which is it is perfectly legal to do so. Which would lead to my next question for you – at what point of development is it okay to you to abort? Your answer is irrelevant because the only answer that makes any sense to everybody is “moment of conception”.
Ken, you asked: Is it a human? And if it is a human then what basis do you draw from to justify killing humans just because they are in the womb?
No, it is not human. It is, at best, a potential human. Even if the woman has made the choice to give birth, there are many things that can go wrong prior to then that end that potential human.
I refuse to use the pro-life language of choice (“killing humans,” “killing babies”) because it’s inherently and intentionally manipulative and 100% inaccurate.
If a woman does not want a child she has, and should continue to have, the legal right to an abortion. Women who get an abortion don’t only do it because they don’t want the child – though that’s certainly the main reason – but also because they don’t want to have to serve as a living incubator. Pregnancy can cause a laundry list of medical problems – both physical and psychological – some of which can be life-threatening and some of which can become permanent. Plenty of women develop postpartum depression in spite of never having experienced that intensity of depression before. In some women the depression becomes a life long problem.
The bottom line is that a woman should have the right bodily integrity. No one else should have any power to control what a woman does with her own body.
Gosnell preyed on weak and desperate people. There were all manner of special circumstances involved. More to the point, his horrible crimes were just that – crimes. What he did was illegal. So your continued insistence that it is “perfectly legal” is wrong right there. You will not find any pro-choice person who defends Gosnell. We want abortion to be safe, legal, and available to those who need it. Gosnell’s butchery was unsafe, illegal, and targeted minority and immigrant women who were under intense social pressure not to abort. Nothing about what he did was right.
“At what point in development is it okay to abort?” Honestly, I’d say up to the point of birth. Because while it does not happen to healthy fetuses, it’s a point that must be protected. If abortion is illegal in the third trimester, than a doctor may be afraid to perform an abortion on, for example, an anencephalic fetus. There is a woman in El Salvador right now who is carrying an anencephalic fetus, which is killing her due to complications from lupus. The supreme court just turned down her request for an abortion, essentially condemning her to death, just so she can deliver a corpse. That’s what absolutist anti-abortion laws lead to, and that’s why we need restrictions removed.
Well Brian, at least you speak your opinion honestly. But you’re going all around the point which is it’s wrong to kill the baby at moment of conception or at 9 months. Same living human.
Since contraception fails and people love to have sex, why not get sterilized if one is going to have an abortion?
I’m going to church now to pray for everyone in this chain and especially women that have been abused, become pregnant and are faced with the difficult decision of possibly ending the life of their child.
Eristae, 9:13p: Point taken, thanks.
“Same living human.”
How about this Dominic. You say a fetus is a human. So what would you do if a human came into your house, and stayed for nine months? Eating your food, using your water and electricity, sleeping in your bed? Heck, maybe you even invited them in in the first place. But would you allow them to do that? If a fetus is a potential human, abortion is a personal choice. If a fetus is equal to a human, abortion becomes even more important.
I see abortion proponents have decided to respond to my poll. Welcome, let’s talk!
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/01/wierd-twisted-anti-choice-poll/comment-page-1/
Dominic…actually the heart starts beating at around 21 days. That is THREE weeks,not 12. By 6 weeks everything is present…body, face, arms, legs, fingers, toes, heartbeat, brainwaves…it is all there. All the baby has to do is grow.
David Hart, your analogy is interesting because yes a neonate is not a teenager but they are both HUMAN BEINGS. So no, a fetus is not a toddler but a fetus is also not a different species but a HUMAN BEING at a stage of development. That fetus is just as human as that toddler or that teenager.
And you know what? I’m 32 and I’m still someone’s child. My boys were my children from the moment of conception. When they’re 40 years old they’ll STILL be my children. The term “child” refers to a relationship. Every fetus or embryo that is aborted IS someone’s child.
And I don’t remember who made the comment but I am really tired of pro-aborts acting like pregnancy is some horribly dangerous thing. It isn’t. It is natural and actually scientists have found that pregnancy has multiple health benefits for women. Abortion on the other hand is not natural and has been deadly for many women. Ask the families of Tanya Reaves and Jennifer Morbelli.
Brian Lynch – you need to get your facts correct. The NYT reported that Beatriz (the El Salvadorean woman) is not dying. Her condition is stable. Her child is past viability (26 weeks) so there is no reason at all to perform a direct abortion – if her medical condition worsens, the baby can be delivered whole and alive, no dismemberment necessary.
When you try to prove a point by deliberately misrepresenting facts, your credibility is shot.
No wonder the trolls are so ill-mannered if they are P.Z. Myers groupies. I’ve yet to see any if his followers engage in anything resembling civil, reasonable dialogue.
“Her child is past viability (26 weeks) ”
Her fetus was “past viability” as soon as its brain failed to develop. When it is delivered “whole and alive”, it will die within hours. Okay, I’m presenting the worst case scenario, and you might call that “misrepresenting”, but you’re misrepresenting by blatantly lying, and that’s far worse.
Pregnancy puts a LOT of strain on even a healthy body. There is no reason a woman suffering from kidney failure should be forced to continue carrying a fetus that has literally a zero percent chance of survival. Even if she is CURRENTLY in “stable condition”. Oh, and remember, ‘stable’ is not the same thing as ‘good’.
Comment after the article on the freethoughtblog:
Also, if you clear your cookies each time you can just keep on voting:-)
A dishonest proabort. Imagine that.
Where are you getting your information, Brian? Beatriz has lupus. Her kidneys are not currently failing and her condition is stable. See: mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/americas/salvadoran-court-denies-abortion-to-ailing-woman.html
The baby is viable, even if he only lives for a few hours (some babies with anacephaly live for weeks or months). There is no need to violently dismember him in the womb. If the mother’s condition warrants, he can be delivered whole and be given a death with dignity.
Why are you so anxious to have this child dismembered? What did he ever do to you that has made you desire such a grisly, gruesome death for him?
Sydney said – “And I don’t remember who made the comment but I am really tired of pro-aborts acting like pregnancy is some horribly dangerous thing. It isn’t. It is natural and actually scientists have found that pregnancy has multiple health benefits for women.”
“It is natural” is not an argument. It’s logical fallacy, aptly named the Naturalistic Fallacy. Just because something is natural, it’s not necessarily good. Deadly nightshade is natural, but I’m guessing you’re not going to run out and eat as much of that as you can. Saying abortion is unnatural again falls victim to the Naturalistic Fallacy. In the hundreds of years before abortion became viable some women would commit infanticide in order to keep their child from living a horrible life in horrible conditions. Abortions can be performed for the same reasons. Why bring a child into a horrible environment so they can live a miserable existence?
Pregnancy can potential be a horrible, dangerous thing for women. As I mentioned in my previous comment, women can end up with temporary or permanent ailments during and after pregnancy, some of these include diabetes, depression, toxemia, weight gain, high blood pressure, hemorrhage during birth, ectopic pregnancy, uterine rupture, renal failure, cardiac failure, hyperemesis gravidarum (severe morning sickness) resulting in dehydration and malnutrition, and death. To a pregnant woman who does not want a child, as long as the zygote, embryo, fetus is a parasite, taking nutrients away from the woman’s body, making her hormones go haywire, and deforming her body. If a woman doesn’t want this to happen to HER body, then she has, and should continue to have that choice.
So what are the positive health benefits of pregnancy?
I find it both sad and hilarious that the anti-choicers in this thread are the ones resulting to insults. It’s a sign that they have no good arguments.
I shouldn’t have said failure. That was inaccurate. But advanced lupus does put great strain on the kidneys, as does pregnancy. As for why I “want the child dismembered”, I’ve already said. Continuing the pregnancy presents an unacceptable health risk for the mother, and the fetus is not viable, no matter how much you want to pretend it is. Viable means capable of surviving outside of the womb. As soon as the child is removed, it will start dying. If it is unlucky, it will spend a few hours in pain first.
For what it’s worth, I just learned the abortion has been approved. Due to the barbaric laws, it will not be the safer and more humane dilation and curettage, but a caesarian section, after which it will be left to suffer and die.
As an actual father, I’ll state that it takes more than sticking your penis in somebody to be a father.
But if you choose to participate in sex and it results in pregnancy, you are a father. Whether you become a good father or a bad father will be your choice. If she aborts the child you made together, you were given no choice.
Jimmy Connors has every right to talk about his child that was taken from him.
Don’t want people to talk or write about your abortion? — Don’t have one.
Brian Lynch, read and learn:
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/
For what it’s worth, I just learned the abortion has been approved. Due to the barbaric laws, it will not be the safer and more humane dilation and curettage, but a caesarian section, after which it will be left to suffer and die.
As opposed the the safer and more humane option of ripping the baby limb-from-limb, we support the “barbaric” stance that the baby should be ushered into the next world in the comfort of loving arms and with his or her dignity as a human being intact.
But Brian, you fail to address my point. Why is an abortion (dismemberment) necessary? Why can’t the child be delivered whole if the Mother’s condition worsens? Why is dismemberment the only option?
Edit – Brian, again you are misinformed. It is impossible to do a D&C at 26 weeks gestation. That procedure is only allowable in the first trimester. I’m glad to hear Beatriz is not getting a direct abortion and her baby will be allowed a death with dignity. That is good news indeed.
Satan Augustine – I’m pregnant for the 7th time and have lived to tell the tale. I’m a healthy woman, according to my OB. By your logic, I should be dead or dying. Yet, I’m not.
You can read more about the health benefits of pregnancy here: health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/issues/six-surprising-benefits-of-pregnancy.htm
Felix wrote: “Ken, please read a decent definition of the word ‘mythology’, and you’ll easily understand how it applies.”
—
Actually, I’m quite familiar with the word. You accused Christianity of being a myth so again I ask you to cite your source for the idea that Christianity is a myth.
That Jesus was a myth. Are you claiming that He wasn’t even a real person?
Are you going to stick with your source for such a claim as merely being the definition of mythology?
I will ask you again to cite your source for your claim that Christianity is a myth. Because you are speaking of something I have invested my life into so I certainly want to know if what I have believed is a myth.
I will be grateful for you to post your sources so that I can look over them please.
“As opposed the the safer and more humane option of ripping the baby limb-from-limb, we …”
Yes, as opposed to surgically severing the spinal, resulting in instant death and no pain for the subject, then separation into pieces and removal of the body, they are going for extremely invasive major surgery and delivering it alive, where it will live a few hours in brutal pain. The first option is the civilized one.
Joanna – “Why is an abortion necessary? ”
Because the other option is riskier and more painful and results in the same end for the fetus and a potentially far worse end for the mother.
Look at it this way:
Option A results – Fetus will be dead, death will be swift and painless. Mother will be alive, no change in condition.
Option B results – Fetus will be dead, death was painful. Mother may suffer major health complications or death.
If you choose option B, you are a monster. There is NOT ANY OPTION where the baby lives in this case.
Why bring a child into a horrible environment so they can live a miserable existence?
What right have you to determine what a life is worth? Even a life lived in squalor needn’t be a life lived in vain, and your assertion that it is undermines your own rights and dignity as a human being. I do not know what sorts of trials my children will undergo. I cannot speak as to how they will handle them, or what sorts of lives they will eke out. I have hopes, dreams, and aspirations for them, but I would not force those upon their lives any more than I would take away their lives.
I could argue that we are all living miserable existences, separate from our Creator and Redeemer. I could argue that we are all a mere shadow of our glorified selves, and I could argue that the most expedient and sensible thing to do for us all would be to kill us before we could experience this miserable lifestyle. That would not make a mass murder right. It would make a mass murder insane.
Similarly, you can argue that those born under great strain or horrific conditions are bound to live a miserable life. This does not make it right for you to kill them. It does not make it right for their mothers to kill them. It remains a diseased thought. From great strife can come greatness. I would not wish to deny that greatness upon the world, or upon that person.
No wonder the trolls are so ill-mannered if they are P.Z. Myers groupies. I’ve yet to see any if his followers engage in anything resembling civil, reasonable dialogue.
The same PZ Myers that compared earning multiple PhDs to keeping the training wheels on one’s bike for too long? I think the term you’re looking for is “screechy monkeys”. 2340 votes on the poll did sound a bit excessive, considering the one at the side hasn’t nearly that many.
Brian, you have missed the purpose of life. Our humanity, our dignity, should not be denied to even our tiniest. Death at human hands is not a humane and loving death, it is a denial of the worth of the life itself.
essentially condemning her to death, just so she can deliver a corpse
As the daughter of a woman who actually did deliver a stillborn child, I resent this. First of all, the child in question has anencephaly. She could live for days, weeks, even months after birth. The likelihood of the mother giving birth to a dead child is very minimal. Secondly, it’s insensitive to those of us who have experienced the pain of the loss of a life we desperately wanted for you to trivialize the value of that little person. My mother labored for hours, under a great deal of personal stress, “just so she could deliver a corpse” and she has beautifully expressed how important that delivery was for her to recall and speak to the dignity of her daughter as a human being, uniquely and lovingly made.
I think that a more objective standard is the event of human suffering. A fetus before the growth stage of about 20 weeks does not have the nerve tissue and cerebral connections to experience pain. It does not have the capacity to be a person at this time. These facts may be a bit too sophisticated for some, it’s true.
Felix,
If a man is wandering the globe, sedating and numbing his victims and then chopping them apart brutally, would you consider this man to be behaving in a humane manner? After all, he is ensuring that no pain is felt. Is pain the determiner for life’s worth? If my uncle is in great pain and I shoot him in the head, resulting in an immediate and fairly painless death, is this more humane than allowing him to suffer? Why or why not?
I keep seeing references to pregnancy being potentially dangerous and threatening to the mother’s health. Abortion is also potentially dangerous and threatening to a woman’s health. I am not referring to “back-alley,” pre-Roe. v. Wade abortions, either. Every year, women die as a result of legal abortion. Every year, women become infertile as a result of legal abortion. Every year, women suffer psychological damage as a result of legal abortion because abortionists and clinic counselors fail to properly inform them what is happening in terms of fetal development, potential side effects, potential psychological issues.
When I was pushed into abortion at 18, I was told it was early enough that there was no real development yet. That was a lie. I have met MANY women who aborted the only child they would ever conceive, and they suffer enormously. For those of us who have been lucky enough to have children, the previous abortion VERY often affects our relationships with our children. Some have problems bonding with their children. Others become “mama bears.” I became the latter. There is scientific information about all of this out there. Philip Ney has studied it in depth.
I don’t “preach” this from a religious viewpoint. I was agnostic at the time of my abortion, and yet, I suffered horribly. Today, yes, I’m Catholic, but everything I do, it’s from a secular point of view. I have joined with many people who are atheist, secular, non-Christian pro-lifers, and all of our arguments against abortion are strictly from a scientific point of view. Life begins at conception. Abortion takes that life. It very often harms the woman, physically and/or psychologically. It affects her relationships with other people. Abortion radiates out and touches all levels of society. I know that my children now, who are teens and now know my story because I speak publicly, would LOVE to have that older sibling, even if she were from another father. I know my husband would love to have another child, even if she were a step-child.
satan augustine wrote:
“The Bible, “the word of god,” is littered with contradictions and information that we now know to be factually inaccurate. For instance, there is no “firmament” above the sky, the earth is not flat, there was no great flood (another Biblical story with 2 different versions), the sun did not stand still in the sky, the Israelites were never held in captivity in Egypt, there was no exodus, we do not live in a geocentric planetary system, we not only are not at the center of our solar system, we are not at the center of our galaxy, and our galaxy is not at the center of our universe (nor is anything else at the center of our universe).”
—–
I’d like to address each and every one of these claims of yours ( which all fall flat under scrutiny ) but time and space is limited so let’s just pick out one. The flat earth. You’re insinuating that the bible teaches that the earth is flat. You would have made a good Catholic during Galileo’s day. The bible teaches no such thing. Quote the passage. And when you do – you will be citing metaphor. Allow me, however, to share some passages with you that destroy such an argument:
Job 26:7He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
Isaiah 40:
21 Have you not known?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The Catholic church during Galileo’s day “misunderstood” the scriptures and wrongly excommunicated Galileo.
So these things show you that you have an incorrect understanding of the scriptures.
satan augustine also wrote: “Ken – another very important thing to keep in mind when asking someone to prove that religion is mythology, or not true, or whatever, the burden of truth does not lie with the person being asked to, for instance, “disprove” Christianity, the burden of proof lies with the Christian asserting that Christianity is true. It’s up to the person or group making a positive claim, for instance that God exists in spite of zero evidence for that proposition.”
—-
Yes, and Felix made the claim that Christianity is a myth therefore Felix very much has a burden of proof and so do you if you make such a claim. If you make such declarative statements then you must take on the responsibility of the burden of proof just as I have done here in rebuttal to your assertion that the bible teaches a flat earth. So you atheists continue to say that you have no burden of proof but you are wholly incorrect. I’m glad to engage the rest later but I must go for now.
I cannot believe that someone had that gall to maintain that the living offspring of two parental organisms is not the child of those organisms. And they say that Pro-Lifers are “anti-science”. HA!
Love,
Your resident atheist Pro-Lifer.
Brian, you present a false dilemma. What is your evidence that a third-trimester abortion is less risky/taxing than a third trimester birth?
Ken, FYI, most Catholics in Galileo’s time did not believe the earth to be flat. :)
To a pregnant woman who does not want a child, as long as the zygote, embryo, fetus is a parasite, taking nutrients away from the woman’s body, making her hormones go haywire, and deforming her body. If a woman doesn’t want this to happen to HER body, then she has, and should continue to have that choice.
Satan,
This is the definition of a parasite
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host,
from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
>If you are asserting that a human zygote, embryo or fetus is of a different species than her human mother the burden of proof is on you.
I am really confused here. I see so many people against him speaking out…now I don’t know his motivations for doing so, but would you have the same reaction to this story if the roles were reversed?
Would you be ok with her writing a book and telling her story because after all it’s her body, her story, her medical procedure?
because we would not force women to have an actual child wired up to their bodies indefinitely
My baby, currently in utero, is most certainly my actual child and an actual human and although he or she is not a legal person, I will fight for his or her right to be an actual person. My two older children, 3 and 4, are just as much people as they were a week, a month, a year, and 3 years ago. They were people when they were growing inside me and they are people now. Not legally, but by every other right. Capacity for mature thought, ability to feel pain, ability to walk, separation from life-sustaining equipment: none of these dictates humanity. You are and were YOU, like no one else can ever be, since the moment of your conception, and it would be a poverty to deprive the world of you .
Additionally, 9 months is hardly indefinite or unbearable. Speaking as a mother to 3 and a working woman. In fact, there are 4 women at the restaurant I manage who are currently working through their pregnancies. 3 of us are already mothers. Acting like pregnancy is a great burden or an unbearable experience does these women shame. It is that sort of attitude which makes girls and women seek out abortion for fear of the experience of pregnancy, not understanding how fully the experience is already upon them.
In response to your question, ann marie, it would be her right to speak about it but I can assure you that we would have a response. As we do with Connors (many of the responses I have seen have asserted that his behavior in specifying the mother and not warning her in advance was unacceptable), we would question her motives and post our responses and in many cases reach out to her for help. I can very clearly envision Carla and others posting a comment expressing their hope that Chris Evert would turn to their ministry for healing.
While we do not believe that it should be Evert’s right to choose abortion, we do believe that she has the right to speak her mind and of her experience.
Ah. So not only are PZ’s people deliberately trying to skew the poll by clearing their cookies, I notice Myers himself misrepresented Jill’s entire post on the subject. Interesting.
I’m thinking of Mother Teresa, a beautiful soul. I can picture her wise face in my mind’s eye. I imagine she and Pope John Paul II are having a wonderful experience. I ask them to pray for us to the Lord our God.
I’d take the pro-Connors people more seriously if they could spell Chris Evert’s name right. Jimmy Connors has every right to talk about a child being aborted. He should be civil enough not to name who it was, though, especially when he has not talked beforehand with the woman involved. Me, I’m of a practical mindset. Keeping abortion legal also keeps it safe. I remember the days of the back-alley butchering and don’t want to return to them.
Gee if it’s just a blob of tissue then why would she even care? What’s there to be ashamed of? He never got a chance to be a parent so don’t judge him ex!!!! He had no say so in the murder of his child. Id say to people upset about this to get over it. It was half his kid and if he was a jerk it wouldn’t bother him!
I remember when Dennis Rodman wrote in one of his books that Madonna “wasn’t that great” in bed. He said “A little better than a dead fish.” Tacky….indeed BUT Madonna was more upset about that than speaking candidly about her 11 abortions in her own book.
Gee SA yeah I’m a nurse and I am aware of all of the above conditions you have mentioned. I have 3 pregnant girlfriends right now who are thrilled to be. No complications…..just happiness. Anyway I know plenty of women messed up from abortions. Some are sterile some are dead from breast cancer. Some are depressed and weren’t ever able to get their lives together following their abortions…..stuck in PAS.
And SA the medical conditions you have mentioned are treatable today.
ralisae, I stand and applaud you for siding with life. It’s great to see an atheist who realizes that science is not on the side of the abortionists. Kudos to you.
—
JoAnna, my point was not that most Catholics during Galileo’s day thought the earth to be flat – but that the papacy misunderstood the scriptures relative to the science that Galileo was presenting to them. So they misunderstood the proper application of the scriptures just as satan augustine and felix have done.
—
slaughter wrote, “I remember the days of the back-alley butchering and don’t want to return to them.”
—
slaughter, can you share the number of deaths attributed to this “back-alley buthchering” that you mention? Because I can share with you that the CDC reported that in 1972, the year before Roe V. Wade, that only 39 women died from “back alley” abortions. Yet Planned Parenthood declares in their 2012 annual report that they killed 333,964 human beings in one year alone. That’s ONE YEAR.
We do not revel in any death but your argument that back alley abortions are somehow worse than legal abortion is misguided. I do hope you will reconsider your position.
And remember – when “back alley” abortions happened they were “illegal” so the women who decided to break the law have to bear the responsibility for their own death.
Unlike the children that the abortionists would allow to be killed without a voice.
Source for the CDC report on back alley abortions: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm
Slaughter we are no better off today then we were in the back alley days. Please stay here and educate yourself.
I agree with several here such as Stacey regarding the abortion issue. It does not have to be a religious issue. Nor a protestant or Roman Catholic issue. Science is not on the side of the abortionists.
This is why you see groups springing up such as the people at the http://www.secularprolife.org/ website.
Re: Galileo – Not quite accurate, Ken. The Church didn’t have a problem with Galileo’s theories per se, but rather his presentation of them. More info here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0111.htm
Heather:
” ..we are no better off today then we were in the back alley days.”
Not true.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.64.7.717
and here:
http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/abstract/1990/01000/a_10_year_review_of_maternal_mortality_in_a.7.aspx
“… death due to illegal abortion is a major contributor to maternal mortality. The rise in abortion-related mortality over the past 10 years is attributed to a lack of family planning services…”
and here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1807058/?page=1
and here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10075222
and here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17126724
I could go on, if you wish?
Meanwhile a quote from that last link:
” Access to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live. The underlying causes of morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion today are not blood loss and infection but, rather, apathy and disdain toward women.”
slaughter,
I also remember the days of “back alley butchering” and for the most part illegal abortions were done in doctors’ offices. “Back alley” referred to women entering doctors’ offices after hours to have abortions done. These doctors didn’t perform abortions on an assembly line basis and had to be extremely careful. Injured and dead women could mean a jail sentence. It wasn’t unusual for women to obtain hospital abortions under false pretenses, a “wink and a nod” type of situation. Also, the death rate from illegal abortion had been steadily decreasing for years and was at an all time low the year before Roe. This was largely due to better antibiotic therapy, surgical and sterile technique, and IV fluid and blood transfusion therapy. Read “Aborting America” by Bernard Nathanson to learn how abortion advocates conned the American public with false statistics and downright fabrications.
Slaughter,
Legalizing abortion hasn’t kept it safe, its only given the criminal element undreamed of opportunities. You are of the mindset of too many naive people who think legalizing an activity of any kind will force the criminal element into the unemployment line. Educate yourself on abortion clinic conditions and the degenerates that run them. Jill’s blog is an excellent source of information on this subject.
Steve Vowles,
So you’re saying that apathy and disdain is what killed Tonya Reaves, Christin Gilbert, and the women who died in Gosnell’s house of horrors? Was apathy and disdain listed as cause of death on their autopsy reports and death certificates?
Mary,
Steve doesn’t realize it but he’s onto something BIG. Apathy and disdain are exactly what killed the women on those butcher blocks. The apathy and disdain felt by the abortionists themselves who need not fear legal repercussions for the murder. At least, as long as they avoid illegally prescribing drugs, right?
If a woman is going to tell a man he has no choice in an abortion decision, she should not think that means he has no choice in talking about it. Whether or not he has the right to or should is a tough call. But it was his child too, every bit as much as it was hers. The differences in female and male biology do not change that fact.
I’m not so sure that when a man talks about a child he lost, that means he is “outing” the mother. Besides, if abortion isn’t wrong, why would that matter to a woman anyway?
Pro choice is pro life.
No one is an abortion proponent, but it is a personal decision that sometimes must be considered, without the harassment of zealots and busybodies.
All of you zealots and fanatics should mind your own business.
Hi Mary Rose,
Excellent point
Jimbo2k7
Why is no one an abortion proponent?
You are, by definition, a legal abortion proponent. You want it to be a legal choice for a mother to make. We do not. Sorry that bothers you.
As long as the “choice” in “Pro-Choice” means the choice to have a child killed in utero, it will NEVER be Pro-Life. It is by its very nature anti-life.
We are no more “zealots and busybodies” than Child Protective Services.
Hey jimbo then let the abortion industry know that we who are against baby killing don’t want to pay for your mistakes with our tax dollars. Until then it is my business!!
I think the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion are accurate. So if you are pushing for abortion to be a legal choice, you are indeed pro-abortion! Big bucket of duh here. Call me anti-abortion if you want. I’ll wear the label proudly.
Rogue fetal cells cross the placenta during pregnancy and stay with the mom for life. They cruise her body attacking things (like cancer cells) that would hurt her. I am too lazy to look it up but google it and you can find the scientists discussing their findings. A lot of pro-life websites linked to the research as well but you can find it on non pro-life sites.
I love all the pro-aborts who say such stupid things like the human fetus is a parasite. Understand biology much? Of course not. They still think vaginas mold blobs into persons.
Chris Evert might have HELPED her career if she had carried to term. I remember tennis commentators discussing how two female tennis players both had a particular swing improve after having babies.
Stacey, you said: “Abortion is also potentially dangerous and threatening to a woman’s health. I am not referring to “back-alley,” pre-Roe. v. Wade abortions, either. Every year, women die as a result of legal abortion.”
You are correct than women die every year from legal abortions, but far far more women die as a result of childbirth. Here are some stats:
- More than 400 women have died from legal abortion since 1973, i.e., within 39 year period (data is from 2012).
(source: lifenews.com a pro-life website. They got their numbers from the CDC).
– 300 to 600 women die every year due to childbirth (not every year is the same of course). Using the most conservative number (300 per year), that means 11,700 women have have died within the same time span. But since the number of maternal deaths has been higher some years, that number is actually larger.
Obviously abortion is far safer for the mother. Of course abortion can cause problems for the mother, but these problems occur very very rarely and in most cases are transient. And contrary to the assertions of some anti-choicers (not you Stacey, you didn’t make these assertion) such as Jennifer above, and by most so-called “Pregnancy Crisis Centers,” abortion does not cause breast cancer or the completely fabricated ailment “post-abortion syndrome.” This so-called “syndrome” is the invention of anti-choice groups. It simply does not exist. Says who? The American Psychological Association, former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, and the National Academy of Sciences.
All that aside, I’m sorry you were pushed into an abortion. No one has the right to take that choice away from you.
Mary: “So you’re saying that apathy and disdain is what killed Tonya Reaves, Christin Gilbert, and the women who died in Gosnell’s house of horrors? Was apathy and disdain listed as cause of death on their autopsy reports and death certificates? ”
What was listed as the causes of death for
Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Robert Slepian or Dr George Tiller?
Was “apathy and disdain toward women” mentioned on those death certificates at all?
Sydney M:
“….. I am too lazy to look it up….”
So why should we take any regard for what you say?
DeniseNoe:
“Chris Evert might have HELPED her career if she had carried to term. I remember tennis commentators discussing how two female tennis players both had a particular swing improve after having babies.”
Tennis commentators, eh?
Well that’s me told.
How do I join up for this “Pro Life” thingy?
Wait, wait…..um….what’s the phrase again? Oh yeah.
(Clears throat)
“Citation needed”
- More than 400 women have died from legal abortion since 1973, i.e., within 39 year period (data is from 2012).(source: lifenews.com a pro-life website. They got their numbers from the CDC).
Except that CDC numbers are incomplete:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-16/news/ct-met-abortion-reporting-20110615_1_abortion-providers-fewer-abortions-national-abortion-federation
This stands true for a few states, particularly one very large state, California. So, you can tout citations all you like, but they’re meaningless if they’re not trustworthy.
Steve,
This post, like your previous one, makes no sense. YOU sourced a claim these women died because of apathy and disdain for women, not infection and bleeding. OK, so was this on the women’s autopsy reports and death certificates?
I have made no claims of any kind concerning the people you mentioned.
Mary:
I assumed that your (perfectly valid) point was that “apathy and disdain” was not mentioned in autopsy reports and death certificates. Neither was murder or negligence because such words have no place in those documents
My (equally valid) point was that hatred and a fanatical disregard for the rights of others was not mentioned in the autopsy reports and death certificates relating to the deaths of Dr. Tiller and the others. And neither should they because such words have no place in those documents.
Steve,
So pray tell, what did these women die of if you agree that neither apathy or disdain, which your source claims caused the deaths of these women, isn’t on the death certificiates?
BTW Steve, Mary Rose made an excellent point. You are definitely on to something BIG concerning apathy and disdain for women resulting in abortion deaths. I would agree the apathy and disdain of the PC governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, who suspended clinic inspections, definitely allowed for the house of horrors known as Gosnell’s “clinic”. You might also wonder who’s apathy and disdain for women allows Carhart’s rathole in Nebraska. lovely place, located between a chop shop and drug house. Check out this blog for a picture. Oh and let’s not forget the Birmingham clinic where EMS had to carry injured women down back entrance steps, that were supported on cement blocks, like sacks of potatoes since the “clinic” didn’t have appropriate size hallways and ramps for the use of a stretcher.
Steve, I always give credit where its due. You are on to something BIG.
SA, you say that “post-abortion syndrome” is completely fabricated. While it’s true that it is not listed on the DSM-IV, I would argue that post-abortion syndrome or as I prefer to refer to it, post-abortion trauma, does exist for many women. Many of us do exhibit PTSD-like symptoms at some point afterward. Some examples:
Depression (especially around the time of year of the abortion and/or the time of year of the expected due date of the baby had we given birth)
Anxiety
Suicidal thoughts, attempts, and in rare cases, actual suicide
Alcohol and/or substance abuse
Nightmares, sleep disorders
Flashbacks (especially centering around medical procedures)
Problems bonding with future children or a tendency to be too protective, hovering
Not an exhaustive list, but you get the picture. I myself have had…and still have…many of these problems, and I personally know many other women who do. Furthermore, the therapist I see, who is completely neutral on the abortion issue (honestly, I don’t know if the woman is pro-choice or pro-life now, but she did once counsel in an abortion clinic) acknowledges that many women have these issues post-abortion. Sometimes they manifest themselves immediately, and sometimes they remain dormant for years before emerging.
Steve Vowles,
What makes pro-aborts feel they have a right to murder unborn children and keep it private? Do they also think they have the right to euthanize elderly parents and keep it private?
Mary,
Are you familiar with the term “Proximate Cause”?
AFAIK the death certificates will give the proximate cause (where known)
So, for example, something like “lung cancer” or “gunshot wounds”.
It will not say ” due to excessive smoking” or “during a bank robbery”.
IANAL so am open to correction here.
I said that your your comment was “perfectly valid”. Out of politeness I didn’t add that it was also completely missing the point.
Steve,
As I said I always give credit where its due and you are definitely on to something BIG.
Apathy and disdain for women? I would say that definitely played a role in the deaths of Christin Gilbert, Tonya Reaves, and the victims Kermit Gosnell, even though hemorrhage and infection is what killed them.
Mary,
Other than perhaps replacing “apathy” with “greed”, I wouldn’t argue.
How do you feel about my use of ” hatred and a fanatical disregard for the rights of others”?
In its proper context, of course.
I think the portion of your comment specifically pertaining to “fanatical disregard for the rights of others” is comically ironic, considering you’re here in support of legal abortion, which robs a child of their basic human right to live, which is the cornerstone of all rights.
Steve,
My opinion of “hatred and a fanatical disregard of the rights of others”? I think it accurately describes how women are viewed by abortionists and the lawmakers who put protecting these hacks and their clinics ahead of women’s safety.
Tell me Steve, would you send a woman you love and respect to Carhart’s Nebraska rathole?
In the Catholic Church, to publicize the sins of another (apart from crimes), is the sin of detraction, and is considered mortal sin. So, no, I don’t support outing anyone’s sin of abortion.
Mary,
I could never “send” the woman I love anywhere. I have far too much respect for her autonomy to even consider such a thing.
That you could even ask such a question reveals far more about you than you suspect.
I’d say that abortion itself is a symptom of apathy and disdain for women.
Abortion is “born” of disrespect for the natural biological characteristics of women.
ALSO, it is a primary tool of sex selection birth control in cultures which have a distinct social preference for males over females.
Steve,
I don’t mean you literally dispatch her somewhere. Let me put it this way. Is Carhart’s Nebraska rathole the kind of place you would want a woman you love and respect to choose to be aborted at or would refer her to?
Steve,
It is intellectually dishonest and weakens your argument when you purposely misinterpret a question/post. I have ‘sent’ many friends and loved ones to trusted businesses/healthcare providers. Of course, you understand this concept, but you chose instead to misinterpret it publicly so as to slander the woman with whom you discourse. Come back when you are willing to discuss this matter honestly.
Here Steve…care about what I say now. BOO.
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/2201/43/
It’s called fetal microchimerism…mkay?
Mary, so isn’t it better that abortions be done in the open under safe, monitored conditions. I regard it as a medical procedure between the woman, her doctor and her conscience. It’s no business of yours, mine or anyone else’s.
Sydney M
“BOO”?
And here I am thinking I’m interacting with adults, but I see that you’re 12, 14 tops.
Interesting as that link is, it’s irrelevant.
I thought we were discussing the rights of women with respect to bodily autonomy.
Now I admit that I’ve posted links relating to some aspects of abortion, but that was in response to this comment https://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/stanek-weekend-question-is-it-acceptable-to-out-the-mother-or-father-of-ones-aborted-child/#comment-454958 which was, at best, wrong and at worst, a blatant lie.
Slaughter,
Gosnell ran his house of horrors legally and openly for years.
You are under the mistaken impression that abortion is done under safe, monitored conditions. Maybe in some hospitals they are. In the clinics where the majority are performed it is all too often another story. There is no regulation. There is unqualified and unlicensed staff. Do some research on this blog. Check out Carhart’s rathole in Nebraska.
Slaughter, also read Bernard Nathanson’s book ”Aborting America”. You will learn how the abortion movement resorted to fabrications, including making up “statistics”. The ends justified whatever means necessary.
When abortion was legalized it became an unregulated assemblyline procedure by hacks and criminals who had nothing to fear. The law protected them. Ironically, illegal abortion may have been considerably safer as most were performed by doctors or medical people who knew they had to be very careful or face a prison term. Also abortions were performed in hospitals under false pretenses, a “wink and a nod” type of situation. There’s a reason the death rate had been steadily decling for years, and it wasn’t because abortionists were being careless. Our local abortionist just went from doing procedures illegally in his office to doing them legally.
All legalization did Slaughter was give criminals and hacks opportunities they never dreamed of.
Mary – that’s the core difference, pro lifers see the baby in the womb as not someone you own to murder, but a person with all the rights as all of us. Therefore a civilized society absolutely should not sit by and let innocents that are defenseless, voiceless be killed so violently. It is all of our business, we can’t continue to be selfish barbarians and still survive.
Hi Mary Rose,
Very well stated, thank you.
MaryRose
The question itself was dishonest.
Asking if I would “send a woman you love and respect to Carhart’s Nebraska rathole?” and the later rephrasing – “Is Carhart’s Nebraska rathole the kind of place you would want a woman you love and respect to choose to be aborted at or would refer her to?”, presupposes that I accept the term “rathole”.
It’s exactly equivalent to that old chestnut “Have you stopped beating your wife”.
And I’m being “intellectually dishonest”?
“It’s none of your business” and “don’t like abortion, don’t get one” are not very effective arguments for stopping people from getting involved in ending a human rights violation. And that’s what abortion is, a violation of human rights. So, yeah, we’re not going to be persuaded to just accept abortion because some think it’s none of our business. Pfft.
That is so typical of pro-aborts like you Steve. I said “boo” in an eye rolling kind of way because you made an argument (or one of you pro-aborts did) about how terrible and dangerous pregnancy is…I responded that actually pregnancy is good for mom…you huffed and puffed that you wouldn’t believe me because I didn’t link to anything…so I linked to it. And you STILL don’t respond in any way to what I linked to. Typical.
No. Instead you focus on the fact that I wrote “boo”. I wrote boo because what I really wanted to write you would get me censored. Is that clear enough?
Did you read the information I linked to?
How on earth does bodily autonomy trump right to life? Bodily autonomy isn’t a defense of rape so how on earth can you defend abortion with such nonsense? We don’t even have bodily autonomy when it comes to prostitution or drugs but it is okay to dismember a living human being in the name of “bodily autonomy”?
Bodily autonomy is all well and good but what about the bodily autonomy of the fetus? A woman can decide what she wants to do with her body. As a WOMAN, Steve, I support that. But the body within the body of a pregnant woman is not her body. Got it?
You’re new here Steve so let me enlighten you. Pro-aborts like you come here and type the SAME arguments over and over and act like they’ve just expostulated something brilliant and new. You haven’t. And I am so WEARY of these simple, overused arguments.
The truth here is many of us are pro-choice about a great many things. But you are ignoring the living human being that is dismembered during an abortion. All of your arguments could be used to defend other positions such as legalization of drugs or prostitution…but not abortion. Because you are ignoring the elephant in the room. The unborn are living human beings. And abortion kills them. Nothing trumps that…not bodily autonomy or any other tired defense you can conjure up.
And really Steve…it is always the SAME arguments with you guys. It is wearying at times. And boring. Can any pro-abort come up with something new?
Sydney M
Thanks for that.
I see that you’ve clarified things for both of us:
” The unborn are living human beings.”
This is the core of our different views.
The “unborn” (I presume you are referring to a fetus*) are potential human beings.
* or do you include an embryo or a zygote? Perhaps an egg or a sperm?
Maybe even a “twinkle in dad’s eye”?
“The “unborn” (I presume you are referring to a fetus*) are potential human beings.”
Once the sperm and oocyte combine there is no longer any such thing as a potential human being. All you have is a potential to be a toddler or potential to be an adolescent or potential to be an adult but you will never have a potential human being. It is wholly human upon conception.
Steve,
The question was phrased that way because Carhart’s clinic IS a rathole. It’s an appropriately descriptive term. And young women are encouraged to visit it because it seems easier on the surface than actually having a child. “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish”-The late, great Blessed Mother Theresa
Re: “potential life” *yawn* yes, a sperm or an egg would be potential life. If you wish to sit in your anti-science cloud and decry the reality of human life, have fun with that but don’t expect us to sit idly by. From the moment of conception, we are dealing with what is scientifically accepted to be human life. It meets all of the qualifications for life, and has a unique and individual human dna code. Whether you’re having a girl or a boy, whether that child will have brown or blonde hair, these things are determined at the moment of conception. So you have fun calling a human life “potential” and those of us who actually base our belief on science will continue to protect actual human life.
It would be nice, though, if you would use correct terminology. You do not believe that all humans are persons. You believe that while a human life is created at conception, a person is not in place until later. That is a dangerous precedent, but one which we can discuss honestly. Are all human beings people? Does human life automatically bestow certain rights and privileges or are those inherited over time? Is a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus 3/5 of a human, perhaps? There is legal precedent for this sort of thing, after all. Let’s discuss.
OK Steve,
Take a look at Carhart’s abortion mill in Nebraska and tell us how you would describe it.
Just use this blog’s search, located top right, and type in “Carhart Nebraska abortion clinic”. You can draw your own conclusions.
GOOD GRIEF!!!! GOOD GRIEF!!!! I am flailing my hands wildly (in between typing of course) and simultaneously banging my head on a wall.
They say WE are anti-science???
Steve you really didn’t just say the human fetus is “potential human life”. ROFLMAO!!!!! Are you KIDDING?
Hey buddy, did you know the earth isn’t flat? Did you get that memo? Ha ha ha ha ha.
But no seriously. Did someone not teach you biology 101? Species reproduce after their own kind. So when humans reproduce they don’t reproduce parasites or cats or dogs. They reproduce other humans. So that fetus the woman and man have reproduced which is growing in the woman’s womb is not a different species. He/she is a member of the human species. This is just scientific fact not pro-life propaganda.
We also know the human fetus is living. It meets all the criteria for life. It is at an early stage of development. That stage (fetal stage) doesn’t mean the fetus is a different lifeform. He/she is human but at a different stage of the human life cycle much as my 1 year old is at a different stage of the life cycle than me. We’re both human though. Development doesn’t make him MORE human. He already is.
So we know the fetus is a living human being. Again, this is all scientific FACT not pro-life propaganda. If you can’t accept scientific facts then there is nowhere to go with you. You’re hopelessly delusional.
Silly Anti-Choice people. Fetuses aren’t people until their spirits enter their body when their mothers can feel them at quickening.
Also, if you have a really bad cut, you should just rub some dung into it to balance the humors.
As soon as conception occurs, the new one cell is immediately active. He or she is already alive, and already a unique human being. Respiration is occurring on a cellular level, which all scientists agree is proof of life. Mitosis begins without any hesitation or pause, which is growth, which all scientists agree is proof of life.
It is not potential life. It is in fact a living organism. The living organism is fully human, though not fully mature (none of us are fully mature until approximately 25 years after conception). This science makes abortion advocates very uncomfortable. They tell themselves myths and lies, and invent ways to dehumanize the new human person so they don’t stay awake at night contemplating the murder of innocents.
Abortion is murder, and we know it, and if we don’t even speak up, we wouldn’t deserve to call ourselves members of the human species.
X, I’d love to laugh out loud at your comment, but, sigh, I’m suffering from the vapors.
The results of the poll are quite shocking and quite revealing. The results suggest to me that the vast majority of supposed pro-lifers do not truly see abortion as a serious crime despite what they say. I am fairly certain that most people would not value the privacy of the person who killed their born child. Yet the vast majority here do value the privacy of the person who killed an unborn child. It seems that the pro-lifers here agree with abortionist that pre-born life is of drastically less value than born life. The pro-life movement is officially doomed.
JoeG,
The poll results were drastically skewed by trolling abortion advocates from a blog that linked to this poll.
“I am fairly certain that most people would not value the privacy of the person who killed their born child. Yet the vast majority here do value the privacy of the person who killed an unborn child. It seems that the pro-lifers here agree with abortionist that pre-born life is of drastically less value than born life. The pro-life movement is officially doomed.”
Some of us think that publicly outing someone without their consent for something they did decades ago isn’t a compassionate or helpful thing to do. Abortion is legal, there are a million social messages touting it as a valid choice, you can’t really compare it to someone killing an infant (morally it is the same, but the way that people are taught to view it is much different). Not really fair or compassionate to condemn and out Evert for this.
Sydney M (and others)
Your position seems to be that there is (or should be) no difference between a fetus and a child or an adult. This implies that there is no moral difference between a fetus and its mother.
My position is that the mother has no absolute moral duty to provide her uterus for a fetus and that her descisions about her body are exactly that – hers. Not mine, not yours, not the government’s, not the Pope’s and not the provider of the sperm.
(Once the child is born then the position is, of course, quite different)
Sydney M,
” Bodily autonomy isn’t a defense of rape ”
I don’t think “bodily autonomy” means what you think it means.
(totally Off Topic, but I do like this “Edit” and “Request Delition”.
Despite speaking English for over 60 years now, I still can’t type for toffee.)
Abortion is legal, there are a million social messages touting it as a valid choice, you can’t really compare it to someone killing an infant (morally it is the same, but the way that people are taught to view it is much different).
At what point are we supposed to expect people to be able to maintain independent thought? Shouldn’t we hold people accountable for not bothering to take the time to give a shred of rational thought to a life-and-death situation that involves information first presented to them in high school biology, at the latest?
Your position seems to be that there is (or should be) no difference between a fetus and a child or an adult. This implies that there is no moral difference between a fetus and its mother.
There is a slight moral difference. Being that the fetal human offspring is a minor child, and therefore entitled to provisions from parents that his or her mother (if she was an adult or emancipated minor) would not be.
My position is that the mother has no absolute moral duty to provide her uterus for a fetus and that her descisions about her body are exactly that – hers. Not mine, not yours, not the government’s, not the Pope’s and not the provider of the sperm.
As stated before, your position is simply wrong, in every sense. Just as a parent/guardian has an absolute moral duty to provide shelter and nourishment for a child post-birth, so too does a pregnant mother with non-transferable default guardianship of her fetal child have an absolute moral duty to provide shelter and nourishment to her gestating child in the form of maintained pregnancy. Considering that the child has his or her own body as well, your argument about it being a decision about the mother’s body is rather moot, since it actually isn’t a decision purely about her body, but also about her child’s body, and no parent (should) have the right to harm their child’s body due to any perceived threat to their autonomy (which the reality of is certainly debatable, as I’ve been pregnant twice and never noticed my right to vote or own property or any other autonomous action being threatened simply because I had a gestating child inside my uterus).
Flinging around fun little jabs at popes in an attempt to rile the others making comments on this thread, as fun as that might seem to you, is completely irrelevant to the debate, as you’ll find quite a few of us here to be absolutely non-religious, and our primary concern is for the life of the child in utero, who should absolutely be able to have their right to live upheld, even at the cost of his or her blessed mother’s sacrosanct “bodily autonomy”.
(Once the child is born then the position is, of course, quite different)
Why?
Steve – you are correct, no moral difference between mother and “fetus”. The “fetus” is a separate living human with it’s own rights.
The choice is whether you have sex or not or if you’re ready to have a baby or not. Wake up “pro-choice” people, you either believe murder is okay or not.
Again, if one does not want to get pregnant, get sterilized – that’s the only guarantee of childless sex.
xalisae,
“There is a slight moral difference. Being that the fetal human offspring is a minor child,”
Again, you restate the disagreement between us. I do not accept that the fetus is a child and I do not accept that the rights of the fetus override the rights of the woman. Indeed, I contend that the fetus has no rights that are in any way separate from the rights of the mother.
It was not my intent (yes, I know, intent is not magic) to fling jabs in an attempt to rile others. I included the pope in that list as shorthand for the fairly common (although not universal) tendency for religions to be opposed to abortion. I’m sure that you will be aware of many cases where the pretence that religion is the moral arbiter has resulted in tragedy, for instance, that of Savita Halappanavar.
The position after the child is born is different because a child is not a fetus (see above).
Dominic,
I have never said that there is no moral difference between mother and fetus. Please see my response to xalisae if I was unclear.
Steve Vowles says:
I do not accept that the fetus is a child and I do not accept that the rights of the fetus override the rights of the woman.
Which “rights of the fetus override” which the rights of the mother? Be specific. The fetus and mother should have an EQUAL right to life. Which means the fetus’ right to life would override the mother’s right to not be pregnant.
Again, you restate the disagreement between us. I do not accept that the fetus is a child…
Then you do not accept reality.
A human being in the fetal stage of development is the offspring of his/her parents. Offspring is another word for child. Sorry you’re having trouble with that concept.
…and I do not accept that the rights of the fetus override the rights of the woman.
You need to specify rights. The right to live of a fetal human being would not “override” the rights of his/her mother to the point that it would put the mother’s life in danger. That is why all pro-life legislation has allowances for things like early termination in order to save a mother’s life. Now, the right of a mother to control her own body does not override her fetal child’s right to live, but rarely do bodily rights override someone else’s right to live, particularly a minor child. (Once again, if you disagree with this description of the gestating child, please provide some evidence to the contrary. I have yet to see anything in my Biology texts that favors your assumption that a human being in the embryonic/fetal stage is in fact not a child.)
Indeed, I contend that the fetus has no rights that are in any way separate from the rights of the mother.
Yes. You’ve stated this in various ways. I’m just curious as to why you contend this.
It was not my intent (yes, I know, intent is not magic) to fling jabs in an attempt to rile others. I included the pope in that list as shorthand for the fairly common (although not universal) tendency for religions to be opposed to abortion.
I’m familiar with such red herrings, trust me.
I’m sure that you will be aware of many cases where the pretence that religion is the moral arbiter has resulted in tragedy, for instance, that of Savita Halappanavar.
Be as sure as you like, but I’m aware of no such thing, and I’ve gathered plenty of knowledge about the Savita Halappanavar case. She wasn’t the victim of religiously-instigated tragedy. She was the victim of mismanagement at that particular hospital. Her tests were improperly administered, attending physicians weren’t made aware of test results when they took over her case from the previous shift, and test results weren’t written down in her chart as they should have been. Cases like this aside, I’m sure you’re well aware that Ireland has one of the lowest if not THE lowest maternal mortality rate in the entire world?
The position after the child is born is different because a child is not a fetus (see above).
Honestly, what makes you say this?
child
/CH?ld/
Noun
A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
A son or daughter of any age.
Definition of fetus
noun (plural fetuses)
an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception
“That is why all pro-life legislation has allowances for things like early termination in order to save a mother’s life.”
Not true.
” The new law outlawed abortion in all circumstances, making Nicaragua the sixth country in the world to do so, after The Philippines, Chile, El Salvador, Malta, and Vatican City.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Nicaragua
“She wasn’t the victim of religiously-instigated tragedy.”
And her husband’s a liar?
“I’ve gathered plenty of knowledge about the Savita Halappanavar case.”
Then you must have discovered that many Irish women wanting or in urgent need of an abortion travel to Britain every year. As at least some of these women are desperately ill this sometimes results in lowering Ireland’s maternal mortality rate and simultaneously raises that of Britain.
“Yes. You’ve stated this in various ways. I’m just curious as to why you contend this.”
Because, up until some (not easily defined, I concede) point in the 3rd trimester a fetus is no more separate from the woman than a tumour would be. And yes, I’m aware how offensive that will sound to some, but that does not make it any less true.
Steve Vowles,
The position after the child is born is different because a child is not a fetus (see above).
You’ve been typing for 60 years, and I have for 40. It is time for us old dogs to learn some new tricks. You don’t even see how you use language that disagrees with your noble defense of these poor put-upon mothers of these mysterious “fetus” creatures.
A child is born. Do you know what it means when a construction worker bears a load of bricks from one end of a site to another? Those bricks didn’t magically appear at his destination. They were born. That merely means “carried”.
As xalisae correctly termed it, we are talking about a “fetal child”, merely younger than a newborn child. Not a different creature, or a magically transformed creature, or a creature from another dimension.
A newborn child is merely a slightly older fetal child who has been carried from one place to another and now breathes through lungs instead of receiving oxygen through an umbilical cord.
Here’s a rock solid bit of knowledge to take into your later years: All lifeforms begin at conception. Not at their second home.
Whoops. You did it again. Unborn human. Doesn’t this register with you? Unborn does not mean “not alive”. It means not yet carried to a different place.
I wrote a whole essay on how people are confused by the use of the word “unborn”. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the American Thinker. Perhaps I’ll have to incorporate it into one of my long-winded comments here. :)
Steve, is there more to your argument than definitions? Check out definition #4 at dictionary.com:
child
4. a human fetus
Steve Vowles says:
Indeed, I contend that the fetus has no rights that are in any way separate from the rights of the mother.Because, up until some (not easily defined, I concede) point in the 3rd trimester a fetus is no more separate from the woman than a tumour would be.
So why don’t they both have the equal right to life?
Definition of fetusnoun (plural fetuses)an unborn or unhatched OFFSPRING of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception
Your emphasis is on the wrong word. I’ve corrected that for you with ALL CAPS, since sometimes that is what it takes for some people to “get it”.
offspring ?[awf-spring, of-]
Part of Speech:
noun
Definition:
child, children
Nowhere up ^there^ is it stated that the child must be of a specific developmental age for “offspring” to be synonymous with “child” or “children”. Nowhere does it specifically exclude the period of embryonic or fetal development. So, I really don’t know what you think you’ve proven by giving me the definition of “fetus”, which I already knew.
Lrning,
I was not the one who started using dictionary definitions here, generally they’re not helpful when the people in the discussion (as here) are intelligent adults and there’s the niggly little fact that it encourages cherry picking and hair splitting.
Hans Johnson,
“All lifeforms begin at conception.”
So a zygote has the same rights as you or I?
Just as an aside and by way of clarification.
I think that the need for abortion is regrettable.
I would never attempt to persuade a woman to have an abortion.
I would never attempt to persuade a woman not to have an abortion.
xlisae’
Sorry – crossed comments.
See my response to Lrning, above.
So a zygote has the same rights as you or I?
Should that zygote not share an equal right to life as his mother? Shouldn’t human rights be shared by all humans?
I was not the one who started using dictionary definitions here, generally they’re not helpful when the people in the discussion (as here) are intelligent adult…
Fair enough. So how do you suggest intelligent adults proceed when one of the intelligent adults denies that a widely accepted definition of child includes unborn fetuses? “I do not accept that the fetus is a child”
lol, do you even read your own sources?
“However, Attorney General María del Carmen Solórzano stated that the abortion had not violated the law, as it had been performed in the interest of preserving the life of the girl.”
Derp.
I’m more willing to believe the findings of investigators and hospital staff than a man who may or may not have an agenda. So sue me.
The notion that all the cases (or even the majority!) that “require” abortions end up traveling to Britain where they then die is…well, it’s absurd on its face, frankly. I kinda can’t believe you even said that.
“Because, up until some (not easily defined, I concede) point in the 3rd trimester a fetus is no more separate from the woman than a tumour would be. And yes, I’m aware how offensive that will sound to some, but that does not make it any less true.”
What makes it less true is that it’s provably false. Different genotype from his/her mother, they have separate bodily systems and use them to maintain homeostasis (how do you think it’s possible for a child to have a different blood type than his or her mother?!)-separate organisms that grow at a different rate and are altogether NOT just a part of their mothers. Unlike a tumor, that is simply a collection of diseased cells belonging to the mother. An error of an existing genotype rather than a new recombinant one, no homeostasis, no organ systems, etc.
“All lifeforms begin at conception.”So a zygote has the same rights as you or I?
Does a toddler have the right to vote?
Not “the same rights”, but at minimum basic human rights, beginning with the right to live. Every human organism (=human being) should have that.
xalisae’
“I kinda can’t believe you even said that.”
Good. Because I didn’t.
I said: “As at least some of these women are desperately ill this sometimes results in lowering Ireland’s maternal mortality rate and simultaneously raises that of Britain.” (My emphasis)
So, do you deny that that a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus remove from it’s mother will react to that removal in the same way as a tumour removed it’s host?
Note that I did not say that a tumour was the same as a fetus, I said “a fetus is no more separate from the woman than a tumour would be” (My emphasis)
LOL.
Do you even read for comprehension?
Derp.
No. A zygote does not have human rights, no matter how basic, any more than any other single cell. It’s just a cell.
Lrning,
“So how do you suggest intelligent adults proceed ……”
I don’t.
The mutual incomprehension is such that we might as well be speaking different languages.
Thanks to everyone who has responded and engaged. This isn’t a flounce, I’m just tired. (I am a pensioner!)
“I’ll be back”. (probably)
LOL. Yes, it is a flounce. You danced around the most important question. Why shouldn’t the fetus and the mother, both human, have an EQUAL right to life, the most basic human right?
Lrning.
OK. (and I’ll put this as simply as I can) Because they’re NOT EQUAL.
“The mutual incomprehension is such that we might as well be speaking different languages.”
“As at least some of these women are desperately ill this sometimes results in lowering Ireland’s maternal mortality rate and simultaneously raises that of Britain.” (My emphasis)”
That a situation like that occurring in the first place would even happen is far-fetched. That it would happen often enough to actually affect the national rates in both countries at all is laughable.
So, do you deny that that a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus remove from it’s mother will react to that removal in the same way as a tumour removed it’s host?
It depends. What method of “removal” are you talking about? Suction cutterage would probably get a similar result, but it’s really hard to tell anything about anyone after they’ve been chopped to bits and passed through a suction tube. Although, if you watch the procedure, the child will actually try to get away from the suction tube, which is more than I can say for any tumor.
You seem to have no reading comprehension whatsoever. Did you miss the bit about the gestating child having their own blood supply from the start of pregnancy? Do many tumors have THEIR own blood supply of blood they made themselves that is sometimes even a different blood type than the affected person? That is a degree of being separate a tumor would be hard-pressed to exhibit.
Ultra-derp.
Steve Vowles,
Hans Johnson,
“All lifeforms begin at conception.”
So a zygote has the same rights as you or I?
The same right to life, yes. Because we are all human.
So, do you deny that that a 1st or 2nd trimester fetus remove from it’s mother will react to that removal in the same way as a tumour removed it’s host?
No, they’ll both expire quickly. As would any child left on their own up to at least the age of four or five.
OK. (and I’ll put this as simply as I can) Because they’re NOT EQUAL.
Why not? Because he says so, that’s why!
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
This pensioner should have learned something from Britain’s leading the way in anti-slavery. Or perhaps he’s Canadian and didn’t care about that history. Humans are equal in the right to life, whatever the age.
Oh, I comprehend what you’re saying Steve. You’re saying all humans are not equal. Some are superior and their human rights (and wants?) come before the human rights of others. Same old stance, different time & place. So, Steve, who is superior today: slave owners, Germans, whites, the born? And who is inferior today: slaves, Jews, blacks, the unborn?
According to the data, no abortions in Great Britain were done to protect the life (or even the health) of an Irish woman since at least 1992.
http://www.symposiummaternalhealth.com/no-abortions-carried-out-on-irish-women-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother-since-1992-uk-figures-reveal/
Abortion to save the mother’s life is not illegal or unavailable in Ireland:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-28901745.html
Though even if it was, that would say nothing about whether or not abortion should be legal for socioeconomic reasons (the vast majority of cases).
“I wrote a whole essay on how people are confused by the use of the word “unborn”. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the American Thinker. Perhaps I’ll have to incorporate it into one of my long-winded comments here. ”
Actually, I would very much like to read that sometime. So, as far as I’m concerned incorporate away.
Steve,
The idea that a mother should be able to determine what happens to her body is an awfully nice one. Heck, if I could just separate myself from my uterus for a night out, I’d love to spend a date night with my husband once in a while that didn’t include our preborn child. I know there are plenty of women out there who would agree.
However, in this nation and in all healthy societies, there is a hierarchy of rights. For example, you have the right to bodily autonomy. However, if you are a threat to the general public, we rescind your right and cuff you.
In the case of abortion, we are discussing a right to bodily autonomy for the mother. However, her right to bodily autonomy in this case is a direct threat to the life of her preborn child. As the right to life is a basic principle for all people of the United States, we pro-life advocates argue that abortion is a violation of that right to the pre-born.
I am not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding and ignoring this argument as represented by others, or if it has not been spelled out clearly enough for you. You have, however, failed to address it. Do you, as your arguments appear to, believe that not all human beings are persons? Or do you contend that a zygote is not a human? If it is the former, please be straightforward in your answer, for yourself and for us. If it is the latter, you have dismissed what science has taught us and have an uphill battle.
Steve has indeed flounced.
Had Evert decided to bear the child and Connors refused to support the child, would she have been justified in taking him to court and publicly establishing his paternity? Of course! (Would anyone have begrudged her of that right?)
So, clearly, Connors had the right to tell the story of his aborted child, including the role the child’s mother played in the killing. (However, I have not read his story and am not in any way justifying the way the way he presented it. I don’t doubt that he could and should have been much more tactful.)
Yep. It’s official. We’re two days out from last comment now. I’m pronouncing it.
Name: Steve Vowls
Time of Flounce: June 5, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Someone notify his next of comments.
Typical. He was flouncing about with lame PC arguments like a sea lion. He”s returned to the Sea of Delusion. Farewell!