Great conversation starter: "Should we treat them differently?"

Excellent "make 'em think" YouTube video just out by Justice for All with a great close that believe it or not will make you laugh...

[HT: Josh Brahm]


Comments:

I will make a bold and fearless prediction that this question will be met with a cold, stony silence from the proabort camp.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 11, 2009 4:25 PM


That's why the right to abortion is the right to kill an innocent baby, if he or she is "unwanted".

This extends to Obama'a attempted health care take over, where some of the same ethically challenged people like Obama's Health Care Advisor Ezekiel Emanuel will deny coverage to elderly and disabled people "for the Greater Good". It will come down to whether or not the senior citizen in question is "wanted" or "not wanted".

The same question will be asked, should we treat them differently? The same politicians, Obama, Hillary et al will give the same arguments: we have to cut costs and we have to decide from the government which people have the greater value to society.

This is why we see all the elderly people showing up at town meetings demanding answers from their elected representatives.

Posted by: GodsImage at August 11, 2009 5:23 PM


I concur, Mr. Chadwick. :)

Posted by: Pamela at August 11, 2009 5:40 PM


Okay...was not expecting to see Will Ferrell in that one, and I did laugh at that point, even though the video itself is not something to laugh about.

Posted by: Kel at August 11, 2009 6:48 PM


What concerns me about this argument is the idea that, in an effort to remain consistent, we will see fewer and fewer protections for the wanted fetus.

Funny how even the pro-death crowd calls the baby an "unborn child" when he/she is wanted... But I thought we were talking about a mass of cells? What, you think the family might take offense with the term "fetus"? But I thought that was the correct terminology. Why would it offend? ~_^

Genuinely, though, I do have some concerns. The other day, I spoke with a pro-choicer who had been so excited about her u/s she was ready to burst... but that was at the time. When I spoke with her most recently, her experience had magically transformed. Now, she claimed never having a connection until 30 weeks, and said that the ultrasounds had always just looked like black and white radar of nothing to her. It was like someone had said, "but wasn't that your baby?" and flipped a switch in her brain, and instead of making the logical conclusion, she decided to rewrite he memories to fit her persona agenda...

If it's so easy to do with something so personal and meaningful, how much more easily might it come with legislation? Already, there are-what? 14 states?-that have legislated to support abortion in this matter....

Rather than resounding silence, I am concerned to hear "Ah, yes, you're right. It's NOT a baby."

Posted by: MaryRose at August 11, 2009 7:21 PM


"Should the law treat wanted and unwanted fetuses differently?"

Absolutely. Nothing crazy about letting women decide what happens to their own bodies.

Posted by: reality at August 11, 2009 7:41 PM


"Absolutely. Nothing crazy about letting women decide what happens to their own bodies."

You know, this might have come off as elegant if there had not been blantant mentionings of the difference between wanted and unwanted fetuses. Let's answer THAT question, shall we? Before you show your stupid again?

Posted by: Abel at August 11, 2009 7:58 PM


I am not laughing, but...abortion is murder-it is the end of a child's life!

Posted by: Robyn at August 11, 2009 7:59 PM


do we have to explain this to you, again, reality? The baby inside the woman is NOT the woman's body! He/She has a separate body all his/her own! I've never heard of a woman giving birth to HERSELF, have you?

Connor Peterson: He was Very much wanted by his mother Laci. :(

Its a double standard!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at August 11, 2009 8:38 PM


Nice Liz, I was just about to say that. Didn't you watch any of the video, reality? Di you miss the whole point of it, which was that sometimes killing an unborn human being is murder and sometimes it isn't? Not dependent on whether or not the unborn committed a crime or was in a war or for some other reason that we can sometimes kill another person, but base purely on the WANTS of another human being. If you want them dead, it's not murder. If you do not want them dead, it is not murder. How in the world does that work?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 11, 2009 8:53 PM


Excellent video! Very well done.

Nothing crazy about letting women decide what happens to their own bodies.

Reality, you must disagree then, that the killers in the video should have been charged with two counts of murder, correct? For going by your reasoning, the men who killed the pregnant women only killed one person--the mother. If they are charged with two murders, that is like charging them with killing the same person twice, right? Is this what you believe?

Do you really think that the fetus in the womb--which has its own unique DNA different from its mother, and its own separate blood, its own beating heart--is the same body as the mother? Does this mean you believe that when a baby is born, the baby's body only becomes a new body the moment it is out of the mother's body? Two seconds before birth there is only one body; two seconds after birth there are two bodies--correct? So, by this reasoning, it only takes about one second for the new body of a baby to come into being (since before birth there is no baby's body, but only the mother's)? Right?

So, your math is like this:
For a pregnant woman,
two beating hearts, two pairs of lungs, two pairs of kidneys, two brains, four eyes, four hands, four feet

=

one body?

Posted by: Scott Johnston at August 11, 2009 9:42 PM


Scott: And that's only in the case of one baby, We can't forget about twins! (A childhood friend of mine had twins earlier this year).

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at August 11, 2009 11:16 PM


I posted earlier (last week) about my VERY MUCH WANTED baby, that we had just found out we were going to have (after 16 months of trying). Well, a few days later we lost our VERY MUCH WANTED baby, I'm sad to say. :(

Posted by: Pamela at August 12, 2009 12:02 AM


Pamela, I am so sorry. I will pray for you.

Here is a resource to check out for couples having difficulty conceiving. It is a new approach to fertility issues, not involving IVF:

http://www.fertilitycare.org/

Posted by: Scott Johnston at August 12, 2009 12:54 AM


Pamela, I am so sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 12, 2009 5:17 AM


Pamela, I will remember you in my prayers. So sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Fed Up at August 12, 2009 7:16 AM


I am so sorry, Pamela. I will be thinking of you and praying for you. I have had two miscarriages myself.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 12, 2009 7:30 AM


Wanted or Unwanted is not a trait of a child but an attitude of adults.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 12, 2009 7:31 AM


So the best the proaborts could come up with is to ignore the body of the unborn child, and pretend as if it did not even exist?

If that's the case, then why is abortion ever done?

A cold, stony silence would've been more convincing.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 12, 2009 7:34 AM


couldn't you translate that into wanted and unwanted spouses? If you don't like your husband anymore, pay a hit man to kill him. Its martial CHOICE! But if someone else kills your husband and you still loved him, then its MURDER!!!!

My friend had an abortion and it was "it" and a "fetus"...years later she conceived a wanted child and at ONE MONTH PREGNANT she gushed about her "baby" and her "child"....the insanity of it all. As if the "wantedness" of a child somehow alters biology and makes the kid more human.

Posted by: Sydney M at August 12, 2009 8:57 AM


Also Sydney,
What if your "wanted" child becomes "unwanted?" At one week, one month, or one year old? The Terrible Twos? Can you kill them then?
I have heard that the teenage years are hard...maybe then it's the right time to kill.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 12, 2009 9:11 AM


I'm so sorry, Pamela. I don't even know how to react to that. I have nothing here but kind wishes and hopes for you. :(

Reality: you're a bigot. There's no way in hell that I'm letting someone's opinion of me decide my value as a human, not even my mom's, just because some ignorant [insert profanity that's not tolerated on this website here] says so.

Posted by: Vannah at August 12, 2009 11:29 AM


Pamela,

You have a little treasure in heaven waiting for you, smiling down upon you and the rest of your family. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 12, 2009 11:44 AM


Hi Bobby,
How are las bambinas?

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2009 11:46 AM


Oh man, Janet, they are great. Aniela will be 3 months old tomorrow (and incidentally officially safe from the likes of Peter Singer) and Gianna says all sorts of words now, so many that we've lost track. She says most of the names of the Sesame Street characters, and LOVES dancing the music on a show called "Super Why." Every day all I hear from her is "why, why, dance, dance" as she swings her arms up and down while shaking her baby hips. What a goofy kid! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 12, 2009 12:07 PM


Thank you all for your kindness. God Bless You :)

Posted by: Pamela at August 12, 2009 12:17 PM


Bobby,
Super story answer with Super Why!! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 12, 2009 12:17 PM


Pamela - I'm very sorry. I know how hard a miscarriage is because I've had two, myself, also. I know there's nothing really that I can say to "make it better" but do know that it will get better in time.

Carla - Amen to your comments. I heartily agree.

Interesting tidbit of information re: fetal development and the whole "it's part of the mother's body" argument - When a woman first conceives, the baby is considered by her body to be a FOREIGN BODY (the same way that her body would regard any foreign tissue or substance that entered the body elsewhere). The baby at implantation must send a sort of "biochemical SOS signal" to the mother's body to let her immune system know that it was her child, not an intruder or pathogen that would harm her. The mother's body responds by recognizing that although the child is a FOREIGN organism, it will deactivate the immune system enough that the child can implant and grow without being harmed. Ordinarily, any foreign organism, tissue, or pathogen that enters our bodies is attacked and destroyed by our immune system in order to keep us healthy and safe from disease, etc. (I believe this is what is happening when a transplant patient's body is said to "reject" the new organ - the patient's immune system recognizes that the organ is foreign tissue and attacks it as such). The mother's own body not only recognizes that the baby is a SEPARATE ENTITY, but also ACCEPTS the child and allows it to grow. So scientifically, the "fetus is part of the mother's body" theory does not hold water.

If I recall correctly, I obtained this information from a book written by a medical doctor who SPECIALIZED in fertility treatments, particularly for women. This is a doctor who knows her stuff and KNOWS how conception works in medical/scientific terms very well. The book did not mention abortion, so you can't tell me it was the author's bias. This female doctor had much experience in her field. The book was called "Getting Pregnant: What You Need To Know Right Now", I believe. I'm sorry but I cannot remember the name of the author. I bought this book at a shopping mall bookstore when my husband and I were trying to conceive our first child about five years back. Those who are interested should be able to find it in a major bookstore or decent-sized library (or get it through interlibrary loan at a library which doesn't have it), or find it on Amazon.com.

Posted by: army_wife at August 12, 2009 12:26 PM


army_wife,

Thanks for sharing the info. I've heard this argument before, but never stated in quite such a clear point-by-point manner. I'm going to need to look up this book so that I can read the original context :)

Posted by: MaryRose at August 12, 2009 7:55 PM


Other books for pregnant women mention that a pregnant woman's immune system is somewhat compromised but they don't get into the actual reason for it. I wish they would state the reason.

And I wish that every woman of childbearing age would flip through "Your pregnancy week-by-week" or look up online a website with pictures that clearly demonstrate what a developing baby really looks like. It's important stuff we all need to know the truth about. It's never "just a blob". It is a human being in an early stage of development, in much the same way as a toddler is in an earlier stage of development than a teenager.

A developing infant ("fetus") is just as human as everyone here. Abortion is the ultimate in bullying because they are not killing something that's "less than human" or "just a thing". They're killing a human being that happens to be small and helpless enough so that it can't defend itself. Killing "just because they CAN."

Posted by: army_wife at August 12, 2009 8:27 PM


army_wife,

Thanks for mentioning that book. I read it many years ago and remember it was chock full of good information. I recently gave it to a charity, and hope it will benefit someone else who is trying to conceive.

* * *

Pamela,
I'm very sorry to hear of your miscarriage. I'll keep you in my prayers.

* * *

Bobby,
So glad to hear las bambinas are doing well. "Shaking her baby hips." That sounds adorable! "Super Why" looks like a cute show - sort of a cross between Dora and Blues Clues... I used to write little stories like that in a diary when mine was that young because they don't remember most of it when they are older. It's fun for them to look back on and read about all the fun things you did together.

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2009 8:46 PM


"Should the law treat wanted and unwanted fetuses differently?"

Absolutely. Nothing crazy about letting women decide what happens to their own bodies.
Posted by: reality at August 11, 2009 7:41 PM

yup, nothing crazy about letting women decide who's body gets to live and who's body gets to die.

Posted by: angel at August 12, 2009 9:12 PM


army wife,
Excellent!! What is the condition where a woman's body continues to see the baby as a foreign body?
RH Factor? There is a treatment meant to keep the baby safe and growing.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 13, 2009 6:43 AM


Carla,

Speaking from experience, even in the case of RH factor, there is only a recognition of danger to the mother by the body IF there is a transfer of blood from the child to the mother. The Rh shot is actually precautionary.

And the same reaction occurs when any non-compatible blood enters the body of any individual (except universal receivers, darn them!)... Just thought I'd throw that in :)

Posted by: MaryRose at August 13, 2009 8:24 PM


Thank you, MaryRose!! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 13, 2009 9:27 PM


NP, Carla. I'm O- and about 17 weeks along with our second, so I get to share my info. Yay!

The argument that a baby is a parasite, or in some way hostile towards the mother, is becoming easier and easier to shoot down, fortunately.

It always amazes me what people will say so that they don't have to re-consider the WHY of their WHAT. If that makes sense. I suppose a lot of the finger-in-ear "nanananana!" that I see has more to do with not wanting to admit that you supported the deaths of millions of human beings for years.

It's truly fascinating how often our biggest mistakes come down to pride and arrogance.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 13, 2009 9:39 PM


Carla, my first thought about your comment (regarding other conditions that cause the mother's immune system to malfunction and continue considering the baby a possible health threat) was RH disease.

If you read the book I mentioned before, I think there are other, more obscure conditions that are close to what you're talking about but not quite the same. These conditions would be looked for in a woman who persistantly cannot conceive or has many miscarriages. Some of them have to be actively looked for in order to know about them (in other words, the signs would not be obvious ones - you have to go looking to find the problem).

Posted by: army_wife at August 17, 2009 11:17 AM