SamanthaT started blogging here in March. This is a sample of her position then: "[A]s a pro-choice advocate, I support a woman's right to privately choose the course of her pregnancy." 250 posts later, with no warning, Sammie suddenly posted this on April 10:
"I'm converted."
Valerie, like the rest of us, was shocked:
"Samantha - huh? Sarcasm? Truth? Trying to see how easy it is to make me confused? Stop being a tease! We need a bit more info. ;-)"
To which SamanthaT responded:
"Valerie Im serious! =) I can't rationalize the legal killing of babies."
And that was it. SamanthaT amazingly and quickly became a staunch and persuasive defender of life here. We are all proud of SamanthaT.
Here is SamanthaT's touching story....
I was pretty hard-core pro-life through most of my teenage years. This was due to my personal reasoning and a lack of understanding of what was involved in the process of deciding to have an abortion more than anything else, because abortion has never been discussed in my home and I actually don't know how my parents, or most of my friends, even feel about it.When I got to college, my world expanded exponentially. I became involved in activities I thought I would never participate in, and I made friends with tons of people that were completely different from my friends from home. I converted quickly to pro-choice as I began to see the difference a baby made in the lives of some of my new friends, and I knew having a child would devastate the plan I had set for myself.
After a series of personal traumas that were life-altering on a small scale, I found myself pregnant and alone. I hardly even considered my options before I settled on abortion. I did not discuss my plan with anyone but began researching the abortion clinics that were accessible to me. As I did so, I came into a knowledge of the medical process of abortion that was so profound that I could not commit this new life grwoing inside me to be ended in such a way. However, realizing how my life would change, I became an even stronger pro-choice voice.
Soon after discovering I was pregnant, I miscarried. By this time I had become actively involved in some online discussions about the morality of abortion, and I was having an increasingly difficult time refuting the logic of the pro-lifers I encountered there. Finally, I realized that what I was supporting actively was the sanctioned killing of babies, and I could continue to do so no longer.
I now consider myself a liberal pro-lifer. I disagree with extreme pro-life methods on a fundamental basis, and I have no solution for women who are in difficult but not life-threatening pregnancies. However, I believe that my "conversion" was not a step in the right direction, but rather a turn back to the right direction.
Comments:
Samantha -
I don't think I told you, but that post: "I'm converted" was the best birthday present I have ever received!
There is still a long way to go to help women and babies and I'm glad that you are on the pro-life side.
at May 7, 2007 1:01 PMSamanthaT:
My birthday was May 2 and this was a great belated present. Thank you sooooooooooo much.
My older son is home on leave from the Air Force. He reminded me to speak the truth in love on this blog. It can be difficult for me sometimes because abortion so angers me and sometimes the effort seems so overwhelming. Your change of heart makes it all worthwhile.
God Bless you. You have made the right choice. God loves you, forgives you and wants nothing but the best for you as He does for all of us. I too have been forgiven of much.
Posted by: His Man at May 7, 2007 1:09 PMSamanthaT, I'm not sure why, but your converstion story did not bother me. It seemed honest and thoughtful.
I have one question: as a liberal pro-lifer, do you support a government ban on abortion?
And, as a liberal pro-lifer, do the anti-gay, anti-liberal comments on this site bother you?
Posted by: hal at May 7, 2007 1:26 PMYet another prochoicer, humoring the fetus-centric arguments, has been so distracted by this illegitimate argument (justifying killing) that she's forgotten the genuine argument: when and why should pregnancy be compulsory.
Posted by: Cameron at May 7, 2007 1:47 PMSamantha T. It really does make it all worth while when I see a story like yours!! Welcome to the right side! I am very sorry to hear about your miscarriage. 2 thumbs up to you!!!
Posted by: Heather4life at May 7, 2007 1:52 PMFor she's a jolly good fella,
For she's a jolly good fella,
For she's a jolly good felllllllllla,
Which nobody can deny.
Samantha,
You already know how proud I am of you. And if you ever doubt the power of the Eucharist, you just remember that I prayed in front of Him for a month for this conversion (and I'm not done yet)...
I do believe that there was a large party upstairs that day. I'm pretty sure my own guardian angel was hung over the next day as he seemed inordinately cranky...
Which nobody can deny.
Which nobody can deny.
For she's a jolly good fella,
For she's a jolly good fella,
For she's a jolly good feeeelllllllllaaaaaaaa,
(Sorry, Pip got Simon and Garfunkel, but I don't know your favorite singers...)
Which nobody can deny!!!!!!!!!!
at May 7, 2007 2:00 PMSamanthaT,
Good for you.
God Bless
Posted by: jasper at May 7, 2007 2:19 PMSamantha, the day you posted "I'm converted", you gave hope to so many people here. That was a day of rejoicing for me!!
Cameron wrote:
Yet another prochoicer, humoring the fetus-centric arguments, has been so distracted by this illegitimate argument (justifying killing) that she's forgotten the genuine argument: when and why should pregnancy be compulsory.
Wrong, Cameron. Another pro-choicer, taking careful time and consideration to both points of view, decided to refuse to succumb to the self-centric arguments any longer, and ceased to be distracted by the illegitimate arguments regarding the right to "personal bodily autonomy" as being more important than the very right to life itself. She was brought back to the genuine argument of how important the right to life is for every person, big or little, born or unborn.
And I applaud her with my whole heart!
at May 7, 2007 2:54 PMCameron, who are you trying to defend with your argument of Choice? Are you fighting for men or women on the issue? I am just trying to understand.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 7, 2007 2:59 PMCameron,do you have a personal story about abortion and how it may have influenced your decision to be pro choice? I am trying to be nice at the moment. Perhaps it would help us to better understand you.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 7, 2007 3:04 PMSamanthaT, congratulations! I saw the perfect bumper-sticker slogan for pro-life liberals: "Abortion Stops A Bleeding Heart!"
You wrote:
However, I believe that my "conversion" was not a step in the right direction, but rather a turn back to the right direction.
Amen.
Posted by: Naaman at May 7, 2007 3:47 PMGood question, Heather. Cameron?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 7, 2007 3:47 PM"Cameron, who are you trying to defend with your argument of Choice? Are you fighting for men or women on the issue? I am just trying to understand."
Society in general.
I know this is difficult for many of you, and you all have avoided such discussions like the plague, but I'm thinking down-stream. Specifically, how do we enforce a ban on abortion, and punish transgressions?
Enforcing an abortion ban requires additional tramplings of civil liberties and human rights that are completely unacceptable to most people of the civilized world, particularly so when juxtaposed against the fact that most societies don't consider the early fetus, at least, anything particularly worthy of rights such that other's rights are forfeit.
Posted by: Cameron at May 7, 2007 4:06 PMI'm curious about your story too, Cameron.
at May 7, 2007 4:11 PM"Specifically, how do we enforce a ban on abortion, and punish transgressions?"
Yeah, that's such a mystery. Before 1973 there weren't any bans, so.... wait, no...
Posted by: rasqual at May 7, 2007 4:54 PMlol
at May 7, 2007 5:05 PMCameron,what other human rights and civil liberties are you talking about?
Posted by: Heather4life at May 7, 2007 5:16 PM"Yeah, that's such a mystery. Before 1973 there weren't any bans, so.... wait, no..."
Abortion numbers before and after roe v wade are pretty much the same. In fact, if you go by the over inflated anti-abortion alarmism preceeding Roe v. Wade, in which illegal abortions are a menace to society, the impression is that abortions are far more common then than now.
If one really wants to prevent mothers from killing their unborn fetus in this day and age, we are talking about invading the privacy of every woman of childbearing age. If health exceptions make it OK, we have every doctor, acting in the best interests of their patients, declaring it a health thing... unless every doctor visit is subject to review or monitoring never minding doctor patient confidentiality.
If we grant the fetus to anothers body, because it is a human and there for must be sustained, at least so long as physiological burden is not life threatenining.... then we can take kidneys from anyone deemed an appropriate donor, we can have mandatory blood donations, etc... And this isn't even begining to scratch the unprecedented reality that we may have to strap substance abusing women to tables for 9 months.
Most likely though, like other prolifers I've talked to, you all don't care about any further consideration just so long as it's not legal, never minding efficacy and additional ethics.
Cameron,
You'll have to prove the spume you just spouted...
More abortions before roe? Who?
We were forced to donate kidneys when?
Kidneys resemble babies/human life, how?
You left your brain where?
We strapped women to tables why?
I'm so glad you're back. I believe in my drama class we would have called you "comic relief"...
Posted by: MK at May 7, 2007 6:22 PMCameron, yet another weak argument to justify killing the unborn.
Posted by: jasper at May 7, 2007 6:26 PM"You'll have to prove the spume you just spouted..."
I suspec you'd be too dim witted to remember my having posted the numbers on previous threads... but it only took me about 5 seconds to pull up the same stuff... since you're too lazy or incapable of doing it yourself.
Go ahead and pick one MK.
As for the rest of your questions, I'll be happy to answer one when you and if you find it in your immoral nature to stop misrepresenting what I've said... or maybe that sort of nuance is just beyond your capacity because you are actually really dumb... who knows! Dumb? Immoral? I think maybe a little of both.
Posted by: Cameron at May 7, 2007 6:36 PMActually... this is a little more cleaned up meta search
Posted by: cameron at May 7, 2007 6:38 PMAnd which one of these proves anything...
COLLEGE STUDENTS ATTITUDE TOWARDS ABORTION?
What is that? You think because you can send me a page of "official" looking stuff that I'm gonna say "Oh wow, Cameron really did his homework. I'm intimidated now!"
The court jester strikes again!
Oh I get it now...this is the one proving where you left your brain!
Estimates of Induced Abortion in Urban North Carolina - group of 2 »
JR Abernathy, BG Greenberg, DG Horvitz - Demography, 1970 - JSTOR
... l- .295X = Eve births/.705 = 1.418 live births Total conceptions are determined
sim- ply by adding illegal abortions to X. The illegal abortion rate per 100 ...
Cited by 13 - Related Articles - Web Search
The Demographic Significance of Legal Abortion in Eastern Europe
C Tietze - Demography, 1964 - JSTOR
... correspond- ing rate for the remainder of Hungary.~s What has been the effect of
the legali- zation of abortion on the birth rate, on illegal abortions, total ...
Cited by 4 - Related Articles - Web Search
THE OUTCOME OF PREGNANCY AFTER FAILUREOF AN INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE - group of 2 »
JD STEVEN - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1914 - Blackwell Synergy
... abortion rate and ectopic pregnancy rate occurring in ... case was there any evidence
of illegal interference ... later admitted with a septic abortion although illegal ...
Cited by 6 - Related Articles - Web Search
Abortion and the Social System
EM Schur - Social Problems, 1955 - JSTOR
... has reduced the primary abor- tion death rate appreciably (even for illegal abortions),
the ... Hence, abortion still leads to consider- able mortality and ...
Cited by 2 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search
Abortion, Contraception, and Population Policy in the Soviet Union - group of 2 »
DM Heer - Demography, 1965 - JSTOR
... Another indication of the very high rate of abortion among the respondents in this ...
women and 16 percent of the rural women who obtain a legal abortion have had ...
Cited by 2 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search
The Current Status of Fertility Control
C Tietze - Law and Contemporary Problems, 1960 - JSTOR
... mortality and morbidity associated with induced abortion per- formed ... complications
were fever TABLE IV LEGAL ABORTIONS IN SCANDINAVIA, I953-57 Rate per 100 ...
Cited by 2 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search
Outcome of pregnancy when legal abortion is readily available.
L Huldt - Lancet, 1968 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
... abortions. Only the development of a safe, simple, and cheap contraceptive
will help to reduce the illegal abortion rate further. MeSH ...
Cited by 1 - Related Articles - Web Search
The Character of Modern Fertility - group of 2 »
NB Ryder - The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social …, 1967 - ann.sagepub.com
... From different initial levels, beginning at different times, the birth rates
have ... trol, contraception, and abortion. In every case the small ...
Cited by 2 - Related Articles - Web Search
Therapeutic Abortion: Patients, Doctors, and Society - group of 2 »
A PECK - American Journal of Psychiatry, 1968 - Am Psychiatric Assoc
... dication for abortion. No new rise in the legal abortion rate ensued. No
new indica- tions have been added since then. There are ...
Cited by 1 - Related Articles - Web Search
College Students' Attitudes toward Abortion - group of 3 »
JW Maxwell - The Family Coordinator, 1970 - JSTOR
... rights is basically an exten- sion of the question of legal rights for ... who adopt
the ideal of abstinence would experience the lowest abortion rate and those ...
Cited by 1 - Related Articles - Web Search
at May 7, 2007 7:02 PMCameron,
I really feel sorry for you.
Heather, excellent response to Cameron.
There's hope for Cameron. I believe he has a heart, if only he could admit it to himself.
Posted by: His Man
at May 7, 2007 7:06 PMHis Man,
I am so relieved to hear that your son gently reminded you to speak the truth in love. As an avid observer of this site, I would agree with 100% of everything you have posted ...except that at times the tone would come across as fire-and-brimstone judgemental. Yes, Our dear Lord did run the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip He assembled Himself, but by-and-large His life and mission was one charity and mercy.
Another reason why I'm mentioning this is because of 2 conversion stories I've read these past few days. One was of Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade. She describes how it was friendship with a pro-life minister and an innocent child that ultimately enabled her to jump ship and leave the pro choice fallacy behind. She was about as hard core as they came when it came to voicing her opinion! Imagine if this minister had hurled the precious Word of God in her face and condemned her for being involved, (which I'm sure had happened to her more than once). It would have been a missed opportunity.
The other conversion story, sadly, did involve a missed opportunity. I'll have to go back and get names and such, but one Abortion clinic worker talked about how weary she was with the whole business and she desperately wanted out, so she walked outside to speak with the pro-life demonstrators outside her clinic. Just when she made her appearance, the opponents started screaming hateful slurs at her, to which she turned around, returned to the clinic, and "went back to work".
The moral of these stories? There's many lessons to be gleaned from these gals' experiences, but if we can select one, it would be to remember that more people are won over by charity than they are by fear. And yes, even those of the Cameron persuasion. Wasn't it St. Paul, after all,the supporter of Christian executions, knocked off his donkey? If it could happen to him, Cam and his comrades aren't too far behind!
But I have to say, the intellectual battles that take place here can be absolutely hysterical!
Anyways, His Man, I'm not picking on you. Keep defeding life as heroically as you are. I, too, have missed many opportunities in my pro-life lectures.
"Preach the gospel always. If necessary, use words." St. Francis of Assissi
Carder (Madame, that is)
Going back to Cameron's original response at 4:06p as to why he supports abortion: "Society in general. I know this is difficult for many of you, and you all have avoided such discussions like the plague, but I'm thinking down-stream. Specifically, how do we enforce a ban on abortion, and punish transgressions?"
Cameron, get real. You're thinking down-stream all right, but not philosophically. The reason you support abortion is to have a fallback position following the missionary position you assumed with some silly girl who falls for your tripe.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 7, 2007 10:03 PMJill, That's what I'm now beginning to think. Cameron, and other men like him would fall apart if abortion was illegal.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 8, 2007 7:56 AM"As for the rest of your questions, I'll be happy to answer one when you and if you find it in your immoral nature to stop misrepresenting what I've said... or maybe that sort of nuance is just beyond your capacity because you are actually really dumb... who knows! Dumb? Immoral? I think maybe a little of both."
That would be Cameron I.
What I'd like to know, Cameron I, is how it's possible for anyone to misrepresent YOU when half the time they're responding to Cameron II?
Who the deuce is ghost writing with you, kiddo?
Posted by: rasqual at May 8, 2007 7:58 AMHi Mme. carder,
I very much agree with you.
It's difficult to not get out of control in such an emotional issue. Ps 12:4 helps me.
Hal,
Would love to hear your story, can't find it here. You'll answer even if I'm a Christian, right? :) Kidding, noticed you've been trying to be fair in your comments.
SamanthaT,
So glad to read your story! Wish I had read it 14 years ago. Thanks!
at May 8, 2007 1:19 PMJanet, Of course I'll answer a Christian. In fact, I did a few days ago, not in much detail, but as much as I'd like to put on the web. You might have missed it. Maybe I'll take the plunge and write a "non-conversion" story for Jill about my life's journey.
Don't have time today, but I'll give it some thought.
Samantha: If you are the same Samantha T from SAWRTC, we miss you over there. I got used to your cute puppy dog. Come back and argue the pro-life side with us! :) (if not, sorry for the mistaken identity)
Posted by: Lynn at May 9, 2007 2:10 AMHal, I'd like to hear your story too.Please share when you get time.
Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 5:26 AMWow, thanks yall! I just moved into a new house and my broadband wont be connected until Friday, so Im having to sporadically stop in when I can get away from the busy life of a waitress/college girl.
Hal, thank you so much for your respectful response to my newfound position. Let me answer your first question this way; as a liberal pro-lifer, I believe that the government must prioritize the rights that its laws defends. While the right to bodily autonomy ought certainly to be one of those rights, the right to life should be number one on that list. If the question of abortion were to come down to whether the mother or the child has a greater right to life, then of course I would say the mother does. But so long as the baby is not violating the mother's right to life, I cannot see how her right to bodily autonomy is infringed upon when she knowingly engaged in an activity that could lead to said life.
For your second question, yes, all the anti-homosexual and anti-liberal remarks are offensive to me. In a nation that is supposed to be secular, I do not understand how gays can be denied the right to civil unions based on a milleniums-old religious value. I understand that marriage is sanctioned by the church and do not feel that the church should be forced to allow them weddings, but I believe that government- recognized civil unions should be available to every couple.
Posted by: SamanthaT at May 9, 2007 1:40 PMCameron, your sludge-filled comments beckoning people to engage in an all-out war on humanity remind me of a jingle that could be applied quite readily to your attitude:
"Come play in the dirt again.
It's like seeing a long-lost friend."
It is a commercial jingle from a nursery company, but Im not sure you will have ever heard it on your side of the world, as I doubt there are any trees to clean up the polluted air you breathe....
Posted by: SamanthaT at May 9, 2007 1:42 PM