Students for Life rocks my world.

Max, I'm 30. I remember realizing as a child that the pro-aborts shrilling at me would not have batted an eye had my mother chosen to have me sucked out her womb. That always chilled my blood.

I was 14 and volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center. That was the year you were born Max. I was out there defending your right to be born. I was out there arguing with adults about the humanity of unborn children like you Max.

There is NO EXCUSE for kids today to be pro-abortion. You kids have more information at your fingertips that I didn't have when I was growing up. you have the internet. My parents didn't buy a computer and hook up to the internet until I was almost out of the house. But you have that. There is fetoscopy and fetology. you can SEE the baby is clearly a living human being. You probably have ultrasounds of YOURSELF as a fetus. I didn't have that because ultrasounds were not routine in 1980 when I was a fetus.

Come one Max. you're obviously not stupid. Don't be brainwashed by those who want you to labor to ensure their pockets are lined with blood money. Be a MAN and speak out for life. Real men are pro-life. Real men don't champion the destruction of their future children.

Max, You're too young to be a community organizer and out to save the world (as you mentioned in your bio). Play your sports, study hard and learn about the real world, not your obviously narrow one.

What's appealing about abortion? Are you looking to just fit in somewhere? If so, keep looking, Im sure you'll find a more upbeat crowd than PP and NARAL.

When I was in high school and college I went on several "leadership" youth events ranging from state youth legislatures to model UNs. In all cases they were totally biased toward an extreme liberal, anti-Christian world view. Combine that with the liberal bias of the education system and you would have to be in a coma to not understand that our youth are being stolen from us. It is very intentional. They're being made to feel as though they are sophisticated and smart, when all they are is indoctrinated and programmed.

why are you guys picking on Max? There are thousands, (maybe millions) of pro choice teenagers you can throw insults at. You seem surprised that a "smart teenager" would be pro choice, as if that's some kind of contradiction.

Ed, I disagree. As Jill said, most American youth are pro-life. We can think for ourselves. (I'm 22.)

"United Stated' largest abortion provider?"

watch those typos....

Some kind of contradiction? It's absolutely a contradiction! Max just doesn't realize that between 1/4 and 1/3 of his classmates were killed before they were born. Hopefully he and the other youths that attended with him will wake up.

It's interesting how you ask Max not labor for the "Pro-Aborts" in order to "line their pockets with blood money," yet here you are Ms. Stanek and the rests of the "activists," a "professional" speaker, blogger and columnist on Pro-Life. Which I am sure, in some form or another, puts the food on your table and keeps the lights on in your house. The one thing you shouldn't be is a hypocrite.
America was built on the premise that people have the right to do what they want with their individual selves, within the bounds of the law, and as it stands right now abortion is a legal right for women. Frankly it should always stand as the law; the government shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who has what medical procedures. This is between the doctor and the patient only. By the way; why is it that every argument the Pro-Lifers have is based on Christian (biblical) arguments, which has no ground in the legal system, hence the separation of church and state.
You people should figure out something else to focus all your energies and attention on, like go feed the hungry or house the homeless. These people really need your help, probably the product of forced births, but none-the-less could certainly use the help. And out of curiosity, how many "saved" babies have any of you people adopted? None is my guess, just keep pushing your propaganda, but don't actually get in the trenches. This is the usual MO of "activists" such as yourselves.

I don't know why pro-lifers think young people sit around obsessing over how their mothers could have aborted them. I don't, much like I don't sit around obsessing over the fact that if my parents hadn't been in the same bar one night, they never would have met, and I wouldn't exist.

My mom aborted a very troubled pregnancy when I was 6. Well, I don't know if you could call it an "abortion," but the doctors were pretty sure it wasn't viable, it caused her serious complications, and she got a D&C. She conceived my sister Halle a couple months later. (Yes, I know pro-lifers claim you'll be sterile and suicidal after an abortion, but she was neither, and still says she never lost a night of sleep over it. Especially since she loves the child she DOES have.)

Halle's 17 now. Do I sit around getting all bent out of shape about the sibling I don't have, instead of loving the one I do? (Who, by the way, wouldn't be here if the first baby had been born.) Uh, no. I never say, "Well, you're okay, Halle...but I really miss that 10-week fetus mom killed!" It's laughable.

And if young pro-lifers obsess over all the aborted fetuses who totally would have been their friends if not for abortion, they probably need to go out and actually make some friends.

There are lots of good reasons for young people to be pro-life, but "I might have been aborted!" ain't one, at least to me.

Hal,
You are so funny. Why should you be offended by this story? Max put himself out there. And he's not just pro-choice, he's a pro-abort (see Jill's title).

By the way; why is it that every argument the Pro-Lifers have is based on Christian (biblical) arguments, which has no ground in the legal system, hence the separation of church and state.

If you'd like to learn about the non-religious arguments against abortion and the involvement of non-Christians in the movement, please click on my name.

Or you can not click and continue your ad hominem attacks in ignorant bliss. Just don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.

All I can say is PP and all involved will be accountable to God, because those who choose to support death, choose death. I wanna live and experience life. Not exist. God says, "do not murder", and "save those being carried away to death." God is much bigger then PP and once america sees abortion, I believe they will be set free and abortion will be rejected. It is a dangerous territory to take a life which God has created. My generation is lost, but I stand up for life because once I saw abortion, it was then I too rejected it! Our generation must see it, because PP hides behind their words and descriptions "tissue" etc. Look again America, is that tissue?

This reminds me of business school where I argued some other topic. The girl thought she was being so "empowered" and overthrowing my arguments (not regarding abortion, but rather, another topic) by saying to me that she was going to do --- and that was that. People cheered her, but what she didn't realize (that I did, even before that time) that there were serious health/emotional/psychological consequences to the choices she was making and this wasn't even abortion (but some other serious decision with future consequences).

People think they're so smart saying "I'm going to stand up for women's rights--if a woman wants to have an abortion that's her business!" They ignore the evidence and many stories of women who have had abortions and suffered greatly for them. I have even met women who say they don't regret their abortions--that makes me even sadder because they've competely bought into the lies the abortion industry feeds people.

To see young people buying into those lies is painful. Hindsight is 20/20 and sometimes it just plain sucks the life outta you. I so hope he doesn't make anymore decisions (that he's already made) to cause him the tremendous grief he could experience later. I know so many people that at the ages of 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 made decisions, only to 1-10 or more years later deeply regret it.

We're so good at burying our heads in the sand over the consequences of the choices we make today. I can only say, I try harder to make better choices, I don't always succeed, but it's easier to live with the hardship of making the RIGHT choice rather than the regret of making the WRONG choice later.

Hello Kelsey,

I stand corrected, and promptly apologize to you and your group specifically. My statement was certainly aimed at the majority of the arguments made against Pro-Choice legislation. Although I still fundamentally disagree with your group's rhetoric, at least there's a group taking on the argument with logic and reason. I'm sure debates with you would prove far more entertaining than that of the traditional Pro-Lifer.

Regards

The word "pro-choice" is deceptive to people on all sides of this issue, since studies show most abortions are unwanted or coerced, and many forced, sometimes violently ... and an unwanted, coerced or forced ultimatum is not what most of us think of as "choice."

(See the free Forced Abortion in America report and fact sheet w/ citations, http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm)

Unwanted abortions are common - a profound human rights abuse to mothers that cannot be presumed to be their "choice." Public rhetoric should reflect "abortion rights advocates" not "pro-choice," since ultimatums, negligence and threats or even homicide - the #1 killer of pregnant women - do not reflect "choice" in the fair understanding of the term.

For facts to share, see: http://www.theunchoice.com/whateveryamerican.htm

The word "pro-choice" is deceptive to people on all sides of this issue, since studies show most abortions are unwanted or coerced, and many forced, sometimes violently ... and an unwanted, coerced or forced ultimatum is not what most of us think of as "choice."

(See the free Forced Abortion in America report and fact sheet w/ citations, http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm)

Unwanted abortions are common - a profound human rights abuse to mothers that cannot be presumed to be their "choice." Public rhetoric should reflect "abortion rights advocates" not "pro-choice," since ultimatums, negligence and threats or even homicide - the #1 killer of pregnant women - do not reflect "choice" in the fair understanding of the term.

For facts to share, see: http://www.theunchoice.com/whateveryamerican.htm

Ashley,

Actually, growing up, and even after growing up, it has occurred to me that if my parents weren't the selfLESS and loving people they are, they could've aborted me on purpose (after all, if you only went by blood related siblings, I'm kid number 5--I have 2 adopted siblings, as well as 4 sisters and a younger brother who are blood related). It also has occurred to me that if my parents hadn't gone to the same high school or even met, I might not have even existed. Those are pretty big and powerful things and has made me see how incredible life can be.

Not every argument for the pro-life side is religious/Christian as Kelsey pointed out. I've even heard of pro-life atheists.

Pro-life-ism isn't regulated to the religious or even to the Christian denominations, it's for anyone who believes that our most basic right is the right to life. The right to live.

Mark B...Jill Stanek was a nurse. I know nurses can make a very comfortable salary because my mom is also a registered nurse. Jill gave up her career to speak out for the unborn. I am sure that whatever money Jill makes isn't comparable to what she could have made in the medical field.

It is not us pro-lifers who make billions of dollars of abortion. That would be the abortion industry. My local Birthright center doesn't receive tax money though Planned Parenthood does. Everyone who works there is unpaid and all the items are donated by pro-lifers. We don't make a penny off of it. It is the abortion industry that gets rich from selling abortion. Abby Johnson was Planned Parenthood's employee of the year. She had a change of heart and left the abortion industry and openly talks about how selling abortions is PP's bread and butter. Its how they make their money.

Ashley...my cousin had a miscarriage and a month later concieved her daughter. Even though she loves her little girl and is so glad to have her she still grieves that other child who existed but was lost.

My mom has always been pro-life so I was never in danger of being aborted. But it does bother me that the pro-choice side worked hard so that I could be aborted. It offends me that I existed and was a living, growing human being and yet they advocated the procedure that would destroy me. It bothers me that 1/3 of my generation is missing.

My statement was certainly aimed at the majority of the arguments made against Pro-Choice legislation. Although I still fundamentally disagree with your group's rhetoric, at least there's a group taking on the argument with logic and reason.

MarkB, you're still wrong. Even as an atheist pro-lifer who has been involved with the movement for years, I'm not going to throw the religious members of the movement under the bus and castigate them as Bible thumpers who can't make a coherent, SECULAR argument against abortion. The majority of pro-life arguments have nothing to do with religion.

Take a few minutes and write down as many pro-life arguments as you can think of. If you look at that list and all you see is religious arguments, then you really don't understand pro-life reasoning.

The fact of the matter is that there are few differences between the way that an atheist will argue against abortion and the way that a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Krishna would. The only difference is that I'm perceived to be some harbinger of secular reasoning, while they're viewed as biased individuals incapable of thinking beyond what their religion teaches.

Also, what does a 16-year-old know? I know a lot of people whose views changed radically between high school and early adulthood.

I also see no grounds for calling him "dumb." Pick a different word....or stop picking on a kid.

Ya know, I think often about how easy it would have been for my mother to abort me.
When I was conceived, my father was in the middle of a divorce with his first wife...
EVERYONE thought my mother should have had an abortion.
"He might go back to his wife..."
"You don't need to have a child with a man in his position..."
But she chose not to... and here I am.
It's amazing, if she had decided "Well, I don't want a kid... it was just an accident anyway" and aborted me, I wouldn't be here. Instead, she took responsibility for that accident.

And, I agree with everyone else who says not all pro-lifers are religious.
I don't believe in God. But, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
I just wont believe in anything blindly.
In my mind, ghosts, God, Bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster, and aliens (the ones from outer space!) aren't real until I have what I feel is real, solid proof.
That's why I'm Agnostic... and I'm also extremely pro-life.

I say..let Max and his pro-abort colleagues be.

If they want to enter into PP's child sacrifice culture and be one of those that propagate this horrible practice, so be it..that's their choice.

They will either grow old coming into realization of what they are fighting for and leave (like Abby Johnson)..or grow old childless, volunteering as a deathscort,or even heading up a PP temple of Doom himself wondering why the pro-life community has grown so large with a lot more young people.

As the Chinese saying goes..."be careful what you wish for"....

MarkB

I adopted an "unwanted" baby. He's 19 now and is often a pain in the behind, but I love him anyway.

Thank God for Kids for Life ... at least there are some youth with wisdom.

I don't see any reason for calling Max one of the "dumbest people on the planet." He is 16. He is a CHILD. Name calling like that is unnecessary and cruel. I certainly don't hold the same beliefs that I did when I was 16. I made decisions at that age that I wouldn't even consider as an adult. Maybe one day Max will grow up to regret speaking out for abortion. Maybe he won't, but I still don't think he deserves to be called insulting names by a grown up woman. It's as immature as mocking peoples' appearances. Misinformed? Brainwashed? Confused? Maybe. Dumb? He doesn't sound dumb to me.

I could have easily been aborted. My mother is pro-choice, and I was unplanned. I have never wasted a single minute feeling bad about it, and it's not why I'm against abortion. Really, there are about a billion different factors that could have happened differently in the course of history that would have led to me not existing.

Abortion is wrong and should be illegal because it ends human lives, not because it has prevented me, and anyone else under 36, from having more friends and peers.

Why does Max's age matter? The pro-aborts have been arguing for abortion since way before 16 years ago.\

Also, I'm a pro-life antitheist.

I agree that there's no reason to call this young man "dumb." He is seems intelligent and might be a nice person -- just misguided.

Mark B., I can name 5 adoptees without even straining my brain, two of whom were older children when they were adopted.

If a woman is pregnant, guess what Mark, the doctor has at least 2 patients, more if they are twins. It is not a woman's choice, because about half the children murdered before they are born are female and getting killed sure takes away your choice. Have I mentioned God, Mark? I didn't? Wow, I can post a pro-life comment without religion, can you believe it. By the way, "separation of church and state" appears in NO United States Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence. However, it did appear in the SOVIET constitution, but nice of you to keep showing how some of you lack education. (maybe if there was more book learnin' in school instead of sexual position learnin'...) We do have a phrase called "freedom of religion" and notice how the word "of" is not spelled f.r.o.m. Amazing.

MarkB, prolifers aren't ALL hypocrites. I know many who bust their rumps trying to make sure that women and children born and unborn have other and better options than abortion.

Of course if you care about saving an unborn life, you are utterly responsible to the life of the woman who carries that child, and to both of them ever after the birth as well as before!

I myself have worked professionally and personally to create other & better choices, for decades. Including work on poverty and hunger and child abuse prevention and treatment.

Most recently I have been involved with a nonsectarian group called All our Lives (www.allourlives.org) that advocates women's *other* reproductive rights, both for their own sake and for their value in reducing abortion.

Mark,
Abortion is between a doctor and their patient only?

I didn't have a doctor. I didn't have insurance or a job either. I didn't have a spouse or a pastor.

Are you talking about the abortionist? He didn't talk to me or even acknowledge me. After he killed my daughter, he left the room.

I guess if we were talking about abortion being only about one body that argument might fly. But sorry, Mark. There is another body involved. The body of a growing, full alive preborn human being that is killed for profit.

Please point out any and all religious references in my statements. Thanks.

Sydney,

You should check your facts before discussing the finances of Pro-Life groups, such as Birthright or Carenet. There are numbers states that provide direct funding to these groups, and there are other states who offer funds from the sales of license plates or other items. On top of this, the federal government has supplied funds to such groups since 2001, somewhere in the tens of millions. Granted, it's certainly not the same amount as Planned Parenthood, but most of the groups are religiously based, and therefore do not qualify for such federal funds.
To further, the bulk of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are in the form of pregnancy prevention, STD detection/treatment/prevention, cancer testing/screening, and even infertility treatments. Only about three percent of the services they provide came in the form of abortions. Services that are much needed in our society, especially for the uninsured citizens. The services offered by Birthright are nowhere near the same.
And I am sure Ms. Stanek makes a comfortable living as well, comparable to being a nurse, but I certainly applaud her giving up her career to speak on behalf of Pro-Lifers. It is definitely admirable.

Just curious.
How many children have you adopted Mark? How many soup kitchens, Help the Homeless projects, Big Brother organizations do you give your time and money and talent to? How many starving children have you fed?

If you do not do any of the above or I never lift another finger to help anyone, how does it follow that abortion does not kill a a growing full alive preborn human child?

Nobody's picking on any kids. Max wants to put his face on the scene, then he has to take the criticism. Just because those with pro-genocide philosophies are young doesn't mean they should be allowed to proceed without due scrutiny.

In other words, his youthful misguidedness might be cute if it weren't deadly.

Ninek,
Thanks for the history lesson, but the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, because it was written over three-hundred years ago. In order for it to be living and breathing, it must change, as does the society who lives by it, and who cares about the Soviets.
I am glad that you know of people who have adopted unwanted children, but sadly this is the exception and not the rule.

Marysia,
I didn't call ALL of the Pro-Lifers hypocrites, just ones that don't live by the values in which they preach. The ones that will call a sixteen year old kid a "dummy" for speaking his about beliefs, saying he is misguided, but go on doing the very same thing. It just so happens to be for the other team. Read my post again.

Pro-life Atheist,
Thanks for telling my I am wrong...for my opinion?? No you're wrong for your opinion. Ha, there, got you.
To even consider that the majority of the arguments for Pro-Life are not based on religious reasons is myopic at best.

carla,
I am sorry you had a terrible experience with a physician, but you certainly can't use your experience as the litmus test or rules which by all doctor / patient care occurs. Had it not been for an abortion, I would have lost my wife of several years. How do I compare the two totally different scenarios? You can't, so please stop trying to.

Criticize and scrutinize him all you want, Alex. Point out the errors in his beliefs and prove him wrong using scientific facts (we can do that! It's the best part of being pro-life!). Show Max just how wrong he is. Go for it.

Just leave the immature name-calling to his adolescent classmates.

If young Max is is so impressed by 500 youth and adults converging on the nation's capital, he would pass out at the site of close to 400,000 this past year at the March for Life--fully half of whom were under 25.

Then Max would need to assess why so many in the dead of winter FOR life, and why so few in the warmer weather AGAINST life.

Mark B, please post a link to the Amendment with the phrase "separation of church and state." I will pay you $100 for proof the phrase exists. I just re-read the Constitution recently, but if I were wrong, I'd be man enough to admit it.

I don't care about the Soviets, but plenty of un-americans do hope to make this a communist paradise.

Planned Parenthood makes most of its money killing kids and you can find that on their own website.

I didn't have a physician Mark. I had an abortionist who killed my child for profit. I am not comparing stories. I am stating the facts of my abortion story which is irrefutable. You are making a comparison to your wifes abortion.

You are hardly sorry.

My questions
How does a 16 year old boy benefit from Planned Parenthood? How does Max benefit from abortion?
WHY is he involved?

Oh, I can't believe I missed it: "Thanks for the history lesson, but the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, because it was written over three-hundred years ago"

Bwahahahahaha! Sorry, I know it's not polite to laugh, but I just can't help myself :>)!

Oh, wait, maybe Mark is posting from the future! Hello McFly!!

MarkB,
I am a pro-lifer who has adopted a baby who was almost aborted at 20 wks by her 13 yr old birth mother who was pregnant as a result of rape. We offered to adopt specifically to give this young lady an option other than abortion, which she was under tremendous pressure from the clini staff, abortionist, family, & other authority figures to have.

I am also a certified foster parent who has completed a homestudy & the required classes to adopt.

I started a pro-life group that seeks to cover the spectrum of the abortion issue from education & post abortion help to assisting those in a crisis pregnancy w/ special attention on teens & also men. We work w/ the crisis pregnancy centers, but also with Children's Services. We, as a group, have collected & donated book bags, lunch bags, & school supplies for EVERY foster chld in our county of school age. We donate clothes & toys for the foster children also. Further, we actively educate about foster care & adoption & have successfully watched several pro-life couples become certified foster-to-adopt parents who currently have children living w/them. I know many who are interested in adopting & who need only to get educated on the process & figure out a way to afford it. They have the heart for these children & could afford to raise the child, but not everyone has the money to cover the upfront costs of an adoption. The problem is not that people don't want these children. The problem is that the process to adopt is, for many, overwhelmingly expensive.

So, I know many pro-lifers who have adopted or who are actively trying to adopt. Others who want to & will once they can figure out how to fund it. Many pro-lifers also make a time & financial commitment to the women who choose life. We are making LIFETIME commitments to these children & to their biological families. We are raising them, caring for their physical, emotional, spiritual,financial, relational etc... needs. We are not making a dime off of helping these children & in fact, doing so & helping their mothers often involves great sacrifice (of money, time, emotion, etc...) but we do it out of love & a respect for human life & dignity. We cry w/ them & are willing to be inconvenienced for DECADES in order to help total strangers.

Someone who is pro-choice basically says to their friend or loved one...or total stranger, "I support whatever you wanna do." Wow. That is easy. Maybe that person will have a conversation & be a shoulder to cry on while the decision is being made. They discuss the pros of the abortion decision & support abortion as a choice. Maybe they are even willing to give some money to cover the cost or offer a ride to the clinic. Some might even hang around after the procedure while the woman tries to rest. But basically, they can then all just go on as if the whole thing never happened. Go back to the way it was "before". Maybe they are out a few bucks, & a few hours. I have never had a pro-choice person offer o adopt & raise the child of a loved on or friend or even a stranger to give that woman a real, tangible CHOICE. Never heard of a pro-choice person make the choice other than abortion seem realistic...MAKE it realisic by laying it all on the line for a woman. The abortion INDUSTY profits off every abortion sold to a woman. Upwards of $250 for a early 1st trimester, but generally much higher. While loved ones may not financially profit (unless you are the father & get out of child support), but they still avoid a lot of inconvenience or personal upheaval. Many women "hear" the "Hey, I support whatever you want to do" as abandonment of sorts...they do not feel supported to have the child when abortion is presented as an "option"...they see it as the "choice" others hope she makes...especially if that line comes from the father and her parents.

How many kids have you adopted? How many have you fostered? How much would you be willing to give to offer women a REAL choice?

carla,
If you must know about my philanthropic endeavors, by all means, I will tell you. I donate to the United Way, Amnesty International and Meals on Wheels. I also donate my time and energy to the Kiwanis Club. But you're right; none of this is relevant to the argument. What is relevant is the right to choose, which should never go away.

Ninek,

My apologies for using the layman’s interpretation of the first amendment to the Constitution of the US, but for your sake, I will post the actual verbiage below, which clearly describes a separation of church and state.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

My apologies for the math error, and thanks for being a jerk about it. However, if you are in anyway insinuating that I am un-American because I do not believe in the same ideology as you. For your information, I didn't curse any of the citizens of our nation while defending the Constitution of the US in Afghanistan. I am only exercising what our First Amendment expresses. Thank you and you're welcomed.

Also, you should re-examine what Planned Parenthood actually does, because you are way off on your numeric (propaganda) data, so if your going to make fun of my math, you better check yours as well.

Poor MarkB, you need to get over to PP's website and read their own annual report. They haven't posted a new one in quite a while, gee, don't know why.. But seriously, check out their own financial numbers that they publish about themselves. They do indeed make most of their $$ off murdering children. Don't be a wuss, Mark. A developing human being may be defined by words like teenager, newborn, fetus, embryo, but a developing human is not a lump of tissue or a blob. Choice is a word you use to describe murder because it makes you feel better. 99% of the abortions performed in America are elective abortions on healthy women that kill healthy developing children. No one wants to endanger a woman's life for example who bears an ectopic pregancy, but Mark, this may suprise you, Planned Parenthood does not treat ectopic pregnancies.

Thanks for the post and glad I get to keep my $$!! And, please, don't offer to help Max with is homework.

". Only about three percent of the services they provide came in the form of abortions"

This is only because they cook the books and report an abortion as 8 different services so every abortion patient counts as an abortion, exam, ultrasound, birth control, counseling ect. The reality is that all of these services are tied to the abortion. The woman comes in for an abortion, and would not be getting any of the peripheral services if not for the abortion.

It's dishonest to pretend that abortion is only a small part of PP's services.

By the way; why is it that every argument the Pro-Lifers have is based on Christian (biblical) arguments, which has no ground in the legal system, hence the separation of church and state.

Posted by: MarkB at July 21, 2010 5:09 PM
----

I have a completely secular argument based upon human biological science and valid philosophical logic:

http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/

"but a developing human is not a lump of tissue or a blob."

I have never once heard a pro-choicer or an abortion doctor call a fetus a "blob of tissue." I don't know where this accusation comes from. I think it's just something pro-lifers make up.

"I have never once heard a pro-choicer or an abortion doctor call a fetus a "blob of tissue."

I've heard it too many times to count. "A bunch of cells" is also popular.

Poster child for what happens to youth when you don't teach them right from wrong.

We likely will find out later that one of his parents is either an abortionist or PP exec.

Just wait for it.

MarkB,

You act as if pregnancy is a disease. It is natural
and does not need to be prevented like
malaria would need to be prevented.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 21, 2010 5:51 PM
------

Ashley - I've heard it often - and read it many times, including here on this blog. I wouldn't say those who use the term provided sophisticated arguments.

You will also hear about "products of conception" - as in "we must remove all products of conception". "What's the products?" "Tissue..."

Avoidance of plain and simple language is hiding something - in this case, the obvious. It used to be called "beating around the bush" and was a visible sign of guilt.

I love how this article starts out by telling you what a smart, upstanding young man Max is and then calls him stupid because he disagrees with them...

There is NO separating the anti-choice movement into a religious half and non-religious half because the entire argument is based on a religious belief "life is sacred". That is a fundamental religious belief and it is not shared by atheists.

All of your "non-Christian" arguments could also be made about a brain tumor but in this context it means more to you because of that religious belief. The idea that life is sacred is a made up concept in the interest of self preservation. As the late GREAT George Carlin once said... "Only living people care about the sanctity of life". Go ask MLK, or JFK if life is sacred... you can’t because they're dead, and the dead could give a sh*t about the sanctity of life.

The simple truth is that the anti-choice movement "and religious people in general" want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives from atop their perceived moral high ground. If it’s not abortion rights its drugs, prostitution, gambling, drinking, sexual orientation, or just what days of the week you can buy whiskey. They want to control us all because they know better than we do.

It’s very tell tale when you write a post saying that not all anti-choice people are religious and it is immediately followed by another post telling us we are all going to answer to god...

This is a religious argument from the very start.

It’s not ok to kill an unborn child but bombing a afghan school full of live children or stomping the heads of American Indian children with boot heels to save bullets has been ok... You people CHOOSE to let live or let die every day and that’s just with humans! Your attitude toward all other life on this planet is one of choice but this one is different because now we are talking about beings with a soul... yet another religious belief.

So to anyone reading this website thinking you are going to change anyone else's mind, forget it. They have all been taught false beliefs since they were children and naive enough to actually believe them and you not going to change their minds now.

The anti-choice movement lies. They lie non-stop in the most sensational way they can to attract the most attention. They make wildly inaccurate claims to our face and then stand there waiting for us to point out their BS just so they can start a conversation of guilt. That what religion is built on... guilt and fear. That’s why they are called GOD FEARING PEOPLE! They are afraid of repercussions from a non-existent authority figure. They are afraid we are keeping souls out of heaven and that will upset god...

I have no such fear.

You act as if pregnancy is a disease. It is natural
and does not need to be prevented like
malaria would need to be prevented.
Posted by: Lizfromnebraska at July 21, 2010 6:05 PM

a great many people, at some time in their lives, want to prevent a pregnancy.

MarkB--I agree, Jill Stanek could be doing something way kinder and more constructive than singling out a 16 year old and going on and on about what a "dummy" he is. It is indeed hypocritical. And mean, even if i don't agree with this young man on abortion.

I'm glad you are aware though that some of us who identify as prolife walk the walk in regard to all lives.

a great many people, at some time in their lives, want to prevent a pregnancy.

And that proves?

Biggz said:

There is NO separating the anti-choice movement into a religious half and non-religious half because the entire argument is based on a religious belief "life is sacred". That is a fundamental religious belief and it is not shared by atheists.
--------------------------------------------------

Hi! Long time reader, first time poster. I'm an Athiest and I'm pro-life. I may not believe life is "sacred" in the biblical sense, but I believe that all human life has inherent value and I am against killing innocent humans who are incapable of protecting themselves.

"The anti-choice movement lies. They lie non-stop in the most sensational way they can to attract the most attention. They make wildly inaccurate claims"

...such as?

Biggz: "All of your "non-Christian" arguments could also be made about a brain tumor but in this context it means more to you because of that religious belief."

Tumors don't turn into children after 9 months of growth.

Fetuses are not a disease.

"The simple truth is that the anti-choice movement "and religious people in general" want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives from atop their perceived moral high ground. "

This is called the Psychologist's Fallacy.

"It’s very tell tale when you write a post saying that not all anti-choice people are religious ..."

Well I'm glad I could step in and validate that tale.

"It’s not ok to kill an unborn child but bombing a afghan school full of live children or stomping the heads of American Indian children with boot heels to save bullets has been ok"

I don't know by whose standards of "ok" you are measuring by, but obviously that person is not familiar with either the Pro-Life movement or Law of Armed Conflict.

"They have all been taught false beliefs since they were children and naive enough to actually believe them and you not going to change their minds now."

Doesn't this work both ways? I was "pro-choice" until I turned about 17 years old because until then I had no opinion on the matter, and the Pro-Choice movement convinced me that if I wasn't against them, I was with them. This all changed when one of my best friends told me that he had been adopted at birth because his mother couldn't raise him herself.

"I have no such fear."

Good to her that we have something in common.

A whole generation of people were told the blob of tissue lie! Do you need to go around and take a head count? Well, I urge you to hop over to SilentNoMore and start watching those video testimonials.

Anyway kids, I gotta sign off for a while. I wish my fellow pro-lifers an awesome evening, keep up the good work! And as for the rest of you, do what you want, it is the whole of your law.

Ashley, I'm like your sister Halle in that I'm only alive because my unborn sibling died. (In my case, my mom had a miscarriage.) I always try to remember that I am alive because someone else is dead. For whatever reason, I'm here and my sibling's not, and I'm not going to squander the life that someone else could have had. I think it's probably something like what people who have had heart transplants experience. When you know that your life is only possible because of someone else's death, it can give you a whole different perspective.

I grew up with several adopted kids. One of my friends from high school was conceived when her mother was severely anorexic, and another one of my friends is blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and only recently got a functioning jaw because her mother had meningitis when she was pregnant. My friend from high school is well on her way to becoming an opera singer and my other friend is probably an honest-to-God genius, but even people who accomplish nothing more than changing the TV channel have someone who loves them. It's eerie to me to think that a lot of women in their mothers' situations would have aborted my friends.

I agree with the comments saying that there's not much use or compassion in calling Max "stupid". If I were Max and I read this post, I'd probably think to myself, "Well, fine, they're just a bunch of anti-choicers anyway, so if they think I'm stupid I must be doing something right."

And that proves?
Posted by: Bethany at July 21, 2010 6:34 PM

Liz said pregnancy does not have to be prevented. A great many people disagree with her. What makes her right and everyone who wants to prevent pregnancy wrong? I can see legitimate reasons to support a ban on abortion, but once you start arguing that it's wrong to prevent pregnancies, you should make clear that's simply a personal preference or belief.

"I can see legitimate reasons to support a ban on abortion..." Hal

Such as?

"There is NO separating the anti-choice movement into a religious half and non-religious half because the entire argument is based on a religious belief "life is sacred". That is a fundamental religious belief and it is not shared by atheists."

Posted by: Biggz at July 21, 2010 6:24 PM

Uh, something creepy there folks. Obviously, atheists don't have religious beliefs. Duh, of course, however, the don't value life thing is damned creepy.

FYI, plenty of atheists think abortion is positively disgusting and just can't decide whether abortion or its advocates are more disgusting.

Liz said pregnancy does not have to be prevented. A great many people disagree with her. What makes her right and everyone who wants to prevent pregnancy wrong?

Posted by: Hal at July 21, 2010 7:40 PM

For thousands of years, people have known how to prevent pregnancy. So this is a pretty silly discussion.

Max seems proud of his accomplishments so far but can't seem to make the connection that abortion steals the future away from another human being.

Try thinking Max, i.e., using your brain.

No one’s claiming that fetuses are a disease that needs to be cured. A tumor is not a disease that needs to be cured. In fact a tumor is just an internal growth of cells.

As for the lies... There are too many to list.

How about "The Pill Kills" I have never heard anything quite so funny. The pill kills fish? This entire study was done in the UK and is inconclusive, not to mention pointless…

"PP is out to make money" what’s an abortion cost $250 $300? When my father had a lung tumor removed it cost over 30,000 dollars?!?! 300 bucks barely covers the cost of the doctors and nurses time let alone medication and disposal of medical waste. Most PP have an internal fundraising program where they do bake sales and other promotions to employees only. These funds go into accounts that are to pay for paps, birth control, disease treatments, and yes abortions that people without insurance can get FOR FREE! Let me say that again. The employees of PP care so much about helping people with reproductive health that they pay for it out of their OWN pockets if someone cannot pay for it themselves. As for grant money LOL the government don’t give them enough to pay the electricity bill, and most of what they get in grants goes to disease prevention and treatment, not abortion.

“Abortion is violence” Well an abortion is less violent than an appendicitis operation, as there is no incision, stitches, or physical recovery to speak of. Just YOUR perception of violence against an undeveloped fetus.
I can go on and on….

As for adoption… There are WAY more kids waiting to be adopted than homes for them. Children are starving in the streets all over this planet. If you can look a starving child in the eye and tell them “sorry but the home we had open for you was taken by a newborn “which are wanted more” and feel good about yourself then I would have to ask why his life is worth less? On a more personal note, one of my best friends growing up was adopted by a man and his mail order Russian bride. A year afterward the husband left and my friend was raised by a huge Russian woman who was VERY mean. She didn’t speak English very well and so she couldn’t make much money by herself. She took every inch of this out on my friend growing up. He was beaten on a regular basis with whatever she could reach and he was made to sleep in the basement without a bed. He told me on a few occasions that he wished he had never been born to which I replied “You’re not thinking of suicide are you?” He would say “No I don’t want to be remembered as a coward.” After high school our lives went down different paths… He is now a 3 time felon serving a life sentence for accessory to murder which was his 3rd strike.
Adoption is not a glorious or even a happy path. Just ask all the kids at the Dave Thomas Foundation. To be shoved from state foster home to foster home while hoping someone might give you a family when so many never do get adopted and that’s just in the USA. Outside this country it’s much, much worse for children waiting for adoption. Most turn to crime and prostitution just to eat.

Good one Phil, that will show him.

"How about "The Pill Kills" I have never heard anything quite so funny"

Not funny if it's your wife or daughter who develops DVT and dies due to the hormones in the Pill. This is a very real risk, and can happen to even very young women. It also acts to inhibit implantation, thus killing the newly conceived embryo.

So...No lie there. Next?

""PP is out to make money"

Well they made 114 million dollar profit during the last fiscal year and have assets over 1 Billion. Yeah, looks like they're making pretty good money there too.

So...No lie there. Next?

"“Abortion is violence”

First of all physically dialating a woman's cervix is a violent procedure, but disregarding that for a moment, I have to address your comment that the only violence is "our perception" of the violence received by the child. It's not our perception, it's reality. His arms and legs really are sucked apart by a vacuum or severed by a curret.

So..yes, abortion is violent. No lie there. Next?

"There are WAY more kids waiting to be adopted than homes for them."

And many of htese children can not be adopted because their parents still retain parental rights. Further, you assume that if more babies were available for adoption, people would adopt less foster children. There is nothing to support this theory. Even if adoption is not an ideal solution, it is better than the above mentioned fate of having one's limbs sucked off or chopped.

Try again.

Hal,
I can't speak for Liz @ 6:05 PM, but I take her comment to mean that a person shouldn't treat a baby like a disease that can be "cured" by abortion. Liz, please correct me if I'm wrong.

You act as if pregnancy is a disease. It is natural
and does not need to be prevented like
malaria would need to be prevented.
Posted by: Lizfromnebraska at July 21, 2010 6:05 PM

a great many people, at some time in their lives, want to prevent a pregnancy.
Posted by: Hal at July 21, 2010 6:25 PM
-----------------------------------------

Hal, don't try to be disingenuous, I expect better from you. A pregnancy does not HAVE to be prevented because it isn't a disease. Preventing a pregnancy because it isn't the right time to have children is nowhere near the same as, say, needing to prevent polio.

The normal course of polio is to cause disfigurement, pain, paralysis, and death.

The normal course of a pregnancy is to cause another human being to exist and eventually be born, grow up, etc.

But you are smart enough to know there is a difference between HAS to be and WANTS to be, so this was really a very petty post on your part. Again, I expect better from you.

Mark B... Birthright does not receive federal funds. Planned Parenthood does. The pro-lifers I have worked with do not live in a ritzy penthouse apartments. Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood does.

But now that you've admitted you are a post-abortive father all your justification and clamoring to defend abortion makes sense. Its not any fun to listen to that still, small voice in your soul that whispers the irrefutable truth that your child has died a horrible, unnatural death.

"I was "pro-choice" until I turned about 17 years old because until then I had no opinion on the matter, and the Pro-Choice movement convinced me that if I wasn't against them, I was with them. This all changed when one of my best friends told me that he had been adopted at birth because his mother couldn't raise him herself."

Posted by: Marc at July 21, 2010 6:51 PM

Great comment. You could change the minds of a lot of pro-choicers with that message. :)

A tumor is not a disease that needs to be cured. In fact a tumor is just an internal growth of cells.
Posted by: Biggz
---------------------------------------------
Um, newsflash, have you heard of this little thing called.... CANCER?

Hi Ashley.

" "but a developing human is not a lump of tissue or a blob." I have never once heard a pro-choicer or an abortion doctor call a fetus a "blob of tissue." I don't know where this accusation comes from. I think it's just something pro-lifers make up. "

I don't have time to search Jill's blog now, so I guess I can only ask you to take my word for it, but I have seen that quite a few times from pro-choicers here. I'll point it out the next time I see it.

Biggz...

Hear about all the lawsuits against Yaz? Women have died on it and been severely harmed. I was on Yaz. No one ever warned me about its dangers. My doc never discussed its risks with me. I guess I should have read that little packet with the microscopic legal jargon on it to fully realize I was ingesting synthetic hormones that could cause thrombosis, cancer, abortion. Silly me for trusting my doctor to be honest with me.

first trimester abortions cost 300-400 bucks a pop. you are right that a lung tumor removal cost way more. But there are not 1.2 MILLION lung tumor removals. And abortions take five minutes then its on to the next patient. nor do you have to pay for an OR with nurses. Most clinics don't even have R.N.'s assisting. (thats in the news, not a lie. There are tons of non-medical people getting busted lately for assisting in abortions with no medical training!) Ever notice how most clinics are shabby buildings in low-rent buildings? Cheaper than a hospital for sure! So talk about a money maker!

Carol Everett ran a chain of abortion clinics in Texas. Read her book "Blood Money" which details how they cut corners and raked in the dough.

HI MarkB. Consider the following syllogism,

1. It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being.
2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

While I have not defended either premise, I would be happy to give a full justification for either premise which involves nothing inherently "religious." How would you say the above then is a religious argument?

Adoption is not a glorious or even a happy path Posted by: Biggz at July 21, 2010 8:48 PM

I am adopted, Biggz. And believe it or not, I am quite happy in life ;) Please don't stereotype and stigmatize adoptees as screwed up people leading miserable lives. I know that kind of rhetoric suits your purpose, but it isn't accurate.

Yes, there are adoption hardship stories. But it is also true that there are difficulties within families with biological children too. The fact is that being a child is sometimes difficult whether you're adopted or raised by b-parents. And some kids, both biological and adopted, wind up in foster care.

Biggz wrote: ". . .my friend was raised by a huge Russian woman who was VERY mean. . . .She took every inch of this out on my friend growing up. He was beaten on a regular basis with whatever she could reach and he was made to sleep in the basement without a bed."

Biggz, why didn't you report this situation to Child Protective Services? There was help available for your friend.

I'd like for you to put exactly how many youth and young adults attend ONE pro-life conference, just to put the contrast in stark perspective. As one pro-abortion writer, Sally Jenkins wrote about NOW: 'Organization of fewer and fewer older women.' She may be pro-abortion, but she knew her facts, and acknowledged them. I wish the same could be said for all pro-abort people.

Hal,

Pregnancy is not a sexually transmitted disease.

It is a pefectly natural and normal condition for fertile women.

pp has a euphemistic motto: 'Every child a wanted child.'

Which means in effect, 'We will be more than happy to help you kill all but the wanted pre-natal children. Hell we will even kill the 'wanted'children.' [for a nominal fee].

[I have never read of an abortionist providing her/his services pro bono.]

And pp will help you get comfortable with the idea that you do not want your own child by dehumanizing him/her and convincing you that you though it is merely a matter of 'choice', the only acceptable 'choice' is one for a dead baby.

Youth is wasted on the young.

Also, I'm a pro-life antitheist.
Posted by: Nulono at July 21, 2010 3:11 PM
Nulono,
There is no such thing as an pro-life antitheist if the theist you are referring to is the one true God and the creator and essence of life itself.

Liz said that pregnancy does not need to be prevented in the way malaria needs to be prevented.

So you believe that pregnancy sometimes ought to be prevented. Fine.

We (I think this includes Hal) want malaria to be prevented all the time. There are not times in our lives where we want to get malaria, or even times when if we did get malaria we'd try to keep it. I am pretty sure almost no one wants malaria. There aren't hundreds of thousands of people who are desperate to get malaria, and seeking medical treatment for their inability to contract malaria. Getting malaria is not an essential part of the human lifespan; none of us started out with our mother getting malaria. If malaria were wiped out, the human race would prosper more, not die out (assuming it weren't done in such a way that some other part of the ecosystem were destroyed).

This is because malaria is a disease. For most people, the same thing could be said about any other disease. While there are some people who try to get some diseases at certain times, they would not mind, and I suspect would rejoice, if the disease were truly eradicated.

Pregnancy, however, is essential to the continuation of the human race. Many people want to get pregnant; I think most women would be upset if they were never able to be pregnant. Pregnancy is a normal, non-pathological biological process. All of us are here because of pregnancy--in fact, because of a long line of pregnancies. There are very few people who want to completely eradicate pregnancy, because that would mean the total extinction of the human race.

Biggz at July 21, 2010 8:48 PM said:

“Abortion is violence” Well an abortion is less violent than an appendicitis operation, as there is no incision, stitches, or physical recovery to speak of. Just YOUR perception of violence against an undeveloped fetus. I can go on and on….

(emphasis mine.)

Fetus describes a development stage. What kind of fetus is it?

Science informs us through the law of biogenesis that species reproduce after their own kind - so if a human woman is pregnant, then it is a human fetus.

Medical science also informs us that a fetus is the stage which follows the embryonic - meaning all the organs are in place and are maturing.

Do you make decisions and live your life in the absence of sound evidence? Do you think people who advocate life do? If abortion were only about perceived violence against a human being then none of us would be worried. Could you explain how the evidence in the photo below shows only perceived violence and not real violence? If you were thrown into a wood chipper or if an industrial robot torn you apart - would that be only "perceived violence"?

I think you do real violence to the truth.

"That what religion is built on... guilt and fear. That’s why they are called GOD FEARING PEOPLE! They are afraid of repercussions from a non-existent authority figure. They are afraid we are keeping souls out of heaven and that will upset god..." Posted by: Biggz at July 21, 2010 6:24 PM

Biggz, you are clueless to what it means to be God fearing. But then again, you can't possibly teach others about what you yourself haven't taken the time to learn.

Stick to subjects you have passion about, i.e. supporting what caused the death of the above human. Your passion for death is directly caused by your refusal to be taught by those who are indeed God fearing.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28326

MarkB wrote: "[W]hy is it that every argument the Pro-Lifers have is based on Christian (biblical) arguments, which has no ground in the legal system, hence the separation of church and state?"

MarkB, you're spouting script. Please read my post again. It is a post that questions Max's logic.

What Max is doing is the equivalent of a concentration camp survivor inexplicably joining the Nazi prison camp guard, as an unpaid volunteer no less, to kill his brothers and sisters.

Let's debate that, MarkB.

Also, I've heard everyone who complained about my rhetoric and think you're right. I'm softening a few words. Thanks.

There is NO separating the anti-choice movement into a religious half and non-religious half because the entire argument is based on a religious belief "life is sacred". That is a fundamental religious belief and it is not shared by atheists.
In a secular context, "life is sacred" simply means "life is valuable." Are you saying that atheists don't value life? In a civilized society, people who don't value human life are sociopaths. Your comment is an insult to atheists.

The question then becomes one of defining human life. The pro-life side has answered that question time and time again-- not with faith, but with science. Abortion advocates who deny prenatal life, or equate it with a "tumor," are intellectually dishonest.

Jill,

I think "Dumb" is spot on. This is a bright young man who needs more than a minor course correction. That requires more than mild language. It requires a stern rebuke. 16 is old enough for such a rebuke. My Brooklyn elders would have used "Dumb @$$".

So your approach blends the best of Socrates, Brooklyn, and Miss Manners.

Go get 'em Jill.

Nice article, Praxades. So it seems like Fr. Cantalamessa is saying that when we talk about the fear of the Lord, it is more like what today we would call "awe." Would you say that is a quick and short way to answer the objection? That by "fear", we do not mean "afraid" or "scared", but more like "awe" or "wonderment"? Obviously that is dumbed down quite a bit, but I think that is the basic idea.

"They're being made to feel as though they are sophisticated and smart, when all they are is indoctrinated and programmed."

Posted by: Ed at July 21, 2010 1:42 PM

How true Ed. Many of these proabort kids are bright (IQ bright but not common sense bright). I believe many outspoken proabort teens didn't get much direction/attention at home so they were easy prey for grooming by Snakes like Cecile Bichards. Teens as a whole are easy prey because they so want to fit in somewhere.

Prolife teens need to be assertive and let their proabort classmates know how badly they have been brainwashed. Show teens like Max the above photo and ask them to explain exactly what they are spouting off about and supporting.

Hey Gerard... :) I hear you, too. I just started thinking about Max himself, and particularly that he is 16. I really do want Max to reconsider his position. Not only is the pro-life position on the right side of history, and to Max's personal benefit to internalize, Max would also be a wonderful asset to our side. So I think softening my tone stands a better chance of keeping Max's mind open to what we're saying.

As for the whole "Kids are upset because their mothers could have aborted them!" argument...

I suspect a lot of people are glad their moms most likely wanted to have them, rather than being forced into it.

Jean Twenge is a psychologist who wrote the book "Generation Me," which is basically about my generation and kids a little younger than me. She described both the pros and cons of people having mostly "wanted" children, thanks to birth control and abortion. On one hand, they have fewer siblings to share with, so kids are more entitled, spoiled, and self-centered than ever. On the other hand, parents spend a lot more time with their kids today, and both kids and parents report having closer relationships than they did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Kids today know they were wanted and feel closer to their parents. So I don't think they're all sitting around being upset about how they might have been aborted.

It's for better or worse, of course. I personally think 2 kids isn't enough. I'd never, ever have an only child unless I had no other choice.

Ashley, you might be interested in this article--http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/it-always-comes-back-abortion

"Yes, I have dwelled considerably on the possibility of not being born. . . . Of course it has shaped my thoughts on abortion and life in general. But in quite the opposite way that you describe. Rather than being sure that the world cannot survive without me, I’ve been grateful for every day that I’ve been given in this world. As I go about my daily life, I try to contribute to society positively, to raise my kids to do the same, to be loving and helpful to people around me. I consider myself a somewhat driven person, but I’m not guided by religion or an overinflated sense of self-worth. I’m guided by gratitude.

And yes, I can’t help but think that others should be given the same chance at life."

Bobby, Awe and wonderment are great words to explain this 'fear'. I have similiar feelings when I think about the life of the unborn child. How truly amazing.

My mom grew up in an Irish Catholic community where it was the norm to have 5-10 kids (her family had 6). Thanks to the ban on birth control, she said women were always getting pregnant and didn't want to be. They were pretty open about saying they wished they weren't having another one. Moms would keep having kids and barely be able to manage all of them, let alone have close relationships with any. It sounds like there was A LOT of child abuse behind closed doors. Not in her house, although she always says her mom "had no time for us," and I don't think she ever felt close to either of her parents. She and the other kids in her neighborhood were also really under-supervised and did pretty much whatever they wanted.

How is that a good environment for kids? I know pro-lifers think parents should skip birth control and just keep pushing out more babies, but it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. And you're never going to take a way the birth control and create a culture where women are just beaming with joy about their 7th unplanned pregnancy, when they can barely afford to feed and clothe the first 6. It didn't exist in the 50s, and it never will.

Planned families are good for kids. Read the book "Red Families vs. Blue Families."

I know pro-lifers think parents should skip birth control and just keep pushing out more babies, but it doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

We're talking about abortion here. Use all the condoms you want: that's none of my business. But once a child has been conceived, killing is not an acceptable solution.

When asked what school administration said about students wearing Tshirts to school promoting "real" sex education that supports abortion Max writes:

"They are unable to ask us to remove a piece of clothing because of the message it sends, unless it promotes drug or tobacco use or disrupts the classroom (such as having a shirt with flashing lights). There had been some discussion about it the week before, so the administration knew it was going to happen and had done their research about the legal issues. Just in case, I had discussed the whole situation with someone from the NYCLU (a chapter of the ACLU) and was assured that the school could not legally do anything about it. Students who responded to the Facebook event, which is how I primarily got the word out, also received a message the night before detailing their rights to wear the shirts, as laid out in Tinker V. Des Moines"

I wonder if this school will in turn allow prolife students to wear a Tshirt depicting the poor little guy shown in the photo above. It doesn't promote drug or tobacco use and after all, it is the end result of what some of Max's real sex education promotes. Maybe it would fall under promoting violence in school. No, that couldn't be because it is legal to do this to humans!

Can we find out who some prolife teens are in Max's school?

Maybe Chris Arsenault would let his sentence be used as a Tshirt slogan over the photo of the aborted child:

Max, I think you do real violence to the truth

Ashley, Have a conversation with those of us who grew up in big families and most will say it was the best thing. I love the fact I have 5 others in my life who know the good, the bad and ugly of our upbringing. I would not want it any other way. Did out parents give us EVERYTHING we wanted. Did they give us ALL the attention we needed. NO and thank God they didn't or else we would be pretty self centered.

When it comes to large families the benefits out number the anything negitive.

Posted by: Kelsey at July 22, 2010 9:15 AM

I totally agree with this statement! I don't care if people PREVENT a pregnancy, my problem comes when people decide to kill a child who has already been conceived. Big difference.

By the way, re: Planned Parenthood - they are the ONLY "non-profit" I've ever heard of that indeed makes a profit.

And Ashley H. - I went to a prenatal appointment at a local OB/GYN's office and the ultrasound tech wasn't going to give me a picture of the baby because "it's just a blob of baby anyway" (her words, direct quote). My baby was fully formed and had arms and legs that he was moving around and he was doing all kinds of things in there. Hardly a "blob", although an unborn child never *is* a "blob" to begin with. I suspect she must have been pro-abortion because NO pro-lifer would say something like that. "Blob" is a well-known pro-abortion term. Back when I was young, stupid, and pro-abortion, I believed all the NOW/NARAL/pro-abortion crap about "it's only a blob early on, anyway...". What a load of mule muffins that was. With my first baby, the first early ultrasound dispelled that myth, along with all my subsequent research about fetal development.

BTW, I made the ultrasound tech give me a picture anyway. My husband couldn't be there, even though he really wanted to be, and I knew he'd want to see our BABY.

"When it comes to large families the benefits out number the anything negitive."

Posted by: ann marie at July 22, 2010 10:33 AM

I agree with you completely.

Has anyone ever done a study on the size of the birth families of post-abortive women?

Ashley,

We're not pushing for women to just keep pushing out babies--that is, we're not saying "Hey women out there, even if you're not prgnant, hurry up and push out a baby!" We're saying if you ARE pregnant DON'T kill that baby, let the child live...if you can't care for the little one, there's adoption and people out there willing to help you. THAT is what we're saying.

I'm a pro-life woman and mother. I'm not sure whether or not I'm supposed to have or want to have any more kids (I don't know, that's not something I can say I know the answer to at this moment). I don't use artificial birth control, I use Natural Family Planning. I've used NFP for several years now. I used NFP both to conceive my son and to avoid pregnancy. If I do become pregnant, I will have that child, love that child and NOT kill that child.

No, motherhood isn't easy. It's the hardest BEST job I've ever had. Why is it the best job? Because I know I have a chance to be more than myself. To get out of my natural human selfishness and "lay down my life" for another. Whether you're Christian or not, selfLESS love has a chance to make a real difference in the world.

Abuse can happen even if a person only has the children they want. If people don't seek help if they need it, or if people don't TRY to cvercome their short comings and ask for help, then how can anyone hope to be better?

Prolifers expect pregnant women not to kill their children. People in general are expected not to abuse others. Those things do happen, and that is why we must cultivate a culture of LIFE and LOVE rather than hate, fear and death. Abortion doesn't cultivate life or love, abortion cultivates selfishness, death, murder. That doesn't help the world at all.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers, good adoption agencies, foundations like states that have a Right to Life Fundation and other such organizations cultivate love, encouragement and life. THOSE things will help make the world a better place, even if it's only one little part at a time.

We must continue to pray and work for a better world...one free of abortion and abuse. People aren't perfect, which is why we must continue to try and be better and less selfish and more loving. The more we work at that, the more chance the world has of being a better place.

If you can look a starving child in the eye and tell them “sorry but the home we had open for you was taken by a newborn “which are wanted more” and feel good about yourself then I would have to ask why his life is worth less?

Biggaz, we can't save every child, but there are many organizations working in the world to help these children. Many of them are run by (horrors!) Catholic relief organizations.

I work with children in foster families. We always hear about the horror stories, but there are many, many good foster homes and caring foster families. Often the foster families end up adopting the children, which is something we don't hear about. There is even a foundation set up to help these kids when they age out of the system. There are many people that come out of the foster system and do well. Here's a link to an organization that does alot for kids in foster care: http://www.fosterclub.com/

'm sorry about your friend, but just because his adoption turned out badly, does that mean adoption is always a negative experience? Many adopted children do very well in life -- for example, did you realize Steve Jobs, for example, was adopted? And mean look at "Snooki" -- she was adopted as a baby from Chile and now she's a reality show star! But seriously,your friend really needed some counseling and love, and it's sad that he didn't get it.

On the other hand, I'm an adoptive mom, and I would be lying if I said that everything turned out perfectly with my son. He was an SEI (substance exposed infant) and has behaviorial problems, to say the least. It hasn't been easy. But he's only 19 and still has a chance to turn it around. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But would you look my son in the eye and say "you should have never been born?"

Even though I don't go to church I am a Christian, but I have no desire to tell people not to drink, smoke, have premarital sex, or otherwise control people's behavior. All I say is don't hurt anybody, and abortion hurts -- not only a developing member of the human family, but many, many women who have them.

I know pro-lifers think parents should skip birth control and just keep pushing out more babies, but it doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

We're talking about abortion here. Use all the condoms you want: that's none of my business. But once a child has been conceived, killing is not an acceptable solution.
Posted by: Kelsey at July 22, 2010 9:15 AM
****************************

What Kelsey said.

phyillymiss,

You have a point. Some adoptions don't always turn out great, but it doesn't mean ALL adoptions turn out bad. My eldest sister and older brother are both adopted. Neither of them seems sorry they became part of the family and our family has loved having them be part of the family.

My eldest nephew is adopted. He is a fine young man...a Marine and we're so proud of him!

Best wishes to you and your son. Sorry to hear about the problems with the SEI...I hope things get better and it's wonderful you love him in spite of it.

By the way, re: Planned Parenthood - they are the ONLY "non-profit" I've ever heard of that indeed makes a profit.
Posted by: army_wife at July 22, 2010 10:53 AM

Not uncommon at all. I'm on the board of a non-profit and I assure you we try very hard every year to have a surplus (which we can use to grant scholarships or raise salaries of underpaid employees).

Well, let's see. I was one of two planned children in a middle-class household and I never felt close to my parents. I definitely am not close to my sister.

Today, all the children are wanted children, right? So all the children who are abused, adopted, in foster care, etc. were wanted before they were born. So you can't argue that these things only happen when abortion isn't an option. In fact, because pro-choicers are the ones that claimed child abuse and unwanted children would be a thing of the past with legal abortion, THEY are the ones who should have to answer for not adopting each of these children--after all, today every child is a wanted child. If their system didn't solve the problem, aren't they responsible for every child that was abandoned or abused by pro-choice parents?

Thanks, Mother In Texas. I'm not Catholic, but I'm inspired by the story of a woman named Monica, who lived many years ago. She had a wayward son who fathered an out-of-wedlock child, misbehaved, and in short, caused her a great deal of heartache. But she kept on loving him, and praying for him, and he finally turned things around. I'm sure that you've heard a few things about him-- he's known as St. Augustine.

Ashley wrote:

I have never once heard a pro-choicer or an abortion doctor call a fetus a "blob of tissue." I don't know where this accusation comes from. I think it's just something pro-lifers make up.

Well... care to explain this little creative ditty?

If you don't believe me beyond that, go and Google the phrase and its variants (e.g. "product of conception", etc.). But surely you see the point? Abortion-tolerant people who wish to defend/justify their positions have a strong desire to AVOID person-sounding language when describing an unborn child (since it grates on the conscience of one who wants to allow that child to be killed at the say-so of another). The mere fact that they might not use the exact ASCII characters "blog of tissue" really isn't to the point.

I'm also perplexed at something: many post-abortive people, on this blog alone, have described how abortionists, family, "friends", and associates have described unborn children as "blobs of tissue"--usually in the context of coaxing the person over their resistance to abortion. Are you seriously seeking to call all of them liars (i.e. they're just "making it up" for the sake of a blog comment)?

By the way, re: Planned Parenthood - they are the ONLY "non-profit" I've ever heard of that indeed makes a profit.
Posted by: army_wife at July 22, 2010 10:53 AM

Not uncommon at all. I'm on the board of a non-profit and I assure you we try very hard every year to have a surplus (which we can use to grant scholarships or raise salaries of underpaid employees).
Posted by: Hal at July 22, 2010 11:51 AM

Talk about surpluses, Planned Parenthood is swimming in money partly because they receive federal funding - and they still plead for more money from unknowing donors every chance they get as if they are on the brink of
financial ruin. Look at their real estate assets alone.

Does your non-profit receive federal funds?

Adoption is not a glorious or even a happy path. Just ask all the kids at the Dave Thomas Foundation. To be shoved from state foster home to foster home while hoping someone might give you a family when so many never do get adopted and that’s just in the USA.

Posted by: Biggz at July 21, 2010 8:48 PM

They who don't get adopted because the state will not terminate parental rights. People would adopt them today were it not for government bureaucracy that is so indecisive and incompetent.

You're right, hippie, in many cases there are problems with releasing a child for adoption -- for example, one of the parents can't be located in order to terminate parental rights. But it is difficult to find homes for older/disabled children and many do eventually age out of the system. They face an uphill battle, but there are resources available for these kids. However, it's just not enough.

Ashley wrote:

My mom grew up in an Irish Catholic community where it was the norm to have 5-10 kids (her family had 6).

...and you assume this is bad, by definition? With all due respect to your anecdote: I know of many families with 8+ children whose histories are stable and loving (though imperfect, like us all), and not the horror-stories that you assume they'd have to be.

Thanks to the ban on birth control, she said women were always getting pregnant and didn't want to be.

"Ban on birth control"? Ban on artificial contraceptives, you mean. G.K. Chesterton put that well: "Everybody has always known about birth-control, even if it took the wild and unthinkable form of self-control."

It sounds like there was A LOT of child abuse behind closed doors.

Child abuse is always horrid; I think we agree, there. But unless you're suggesting that large families were the direct cause of it (along with the inverse proposition: that small families will reduce or eliminate it), I don't see why this idea would help your case.

Not in her house, although she always says her mom "had no time for us," and I don't think she ever felt close to either of her parents.

Same, here: unless you're willing to suggest that the parents of a large family were neglectful, "by defintion", and that a 2-income, 1-child family would be a comparative utopia of proper parental attention/affection, you've swung and missed at your main point, again. (In my own experience, I've found all too many self-absorbed parents who minimized their number of children in order to "keep their vibrant, fun lives from being cramped"--i.e. to keep their fundamental selfishness from being challenged.)

She and the other kids in her neighborhood were also really under-supervised and did pretty much whatever they wanted.

Ah. And you suppose this was a function of large families, which smaller families (aided by artificial contraception, rather than the selfishness-fighting self-control of NFP) would cause to dissolve, like a bad dream? You don't know of any parents with 2 or less children who let the TV babysit, who let their children run amok, and the like?

How is that a good environment for kids?

I'd have to ask you to clarify what, exactly, you meant by "that". Do you mean "neglectful and abusive homes"? Then of course, that's not a good environment for kids (or anyone)... but your attempt to show that "large families = abusive, neglectful and miserable; contraceptive-induced small families = respectful, nurturing and fulfilling" needs some serious extra work; you've not even begun to make your case, in any solid sense.

I know pro-lifers think parents should skip birth control and just keep pushing out more babies,

Oh, come now! You can't possibly believe the nonsense you just uttered, here! You'd be the first to object (and rightly so) to anyone who tried to caricature and tar you with such a red-herring-laden, straw-man-laden collection of balderdash in the other direction (e.g. "all pro-choicers hate children, and nothing makes them happier than to see abortions increase without number!").

And you're never going to take a way the birth control and create a culture where women are just beaming with joy about their 7th unplanned pregnancy, when they can barely afford to feed and clothe the first 6. It didn't exist in the 50s, and it never will.

Ashley... with all due respect: on this particular point, you don't know what you're talking about. See above... but your attempt to take one painful example from the past (whose causes you cannot know with certainty) and project it on the rest of the world--"stop large families! They cause grief, agony, neglect, abuse, etc., etc.!"--is ridiculous and illogical. Saying, "I know a large family which is miserable" doesn't prove your case, any more than my statement of "and I know an even larger family which is happy and contented" would prove the opposite. Surely you see that?

Planned families are good for kids.

That's so utterly vague as to be meaningless. If you mean that planning and prudence are integral to healthy family life, then of course I'll agree. But if you mean, "I want the freedom to have sex while infallibly preventing the consequence that often naturally follows from it; and the idea of denying myself sex in order to avoid those same consequences is an intolerable idea to me", then I can only say that the idea is as selfish as it is foolish (and prone to fail, inevitably).

You know, it strikes me that today's generation is the most selfish of any before us. Could it be that we have so few siblings?

You're right, I'm never going to deny myself sex with my boyfriend/husband if I want it. That's what condoms are for. You can continue to push the sex-phobic (and wildly unpopular) notion that people have to skip sex if they don't want to have a baby, but I'm not going to.

I agree it's different once you actually conceive, but I see nothing wrong with avoiding pregnancy through "artificial" means.

And these mothers were having way more children than they wanted or could take care of. This was in the days before people practiced NFP. It was just like the orthodox Catholics want it, since even today they insist you need a "compelling reason" to practice NFP. (In other words, unless you're gravely ill or bankrupt, start pushing out babies ASAP.)

My mom is the 4th of 6th. Her parents used no birth control because the Church said they'd go to hell--you know, the hardcore Catholic position. Of course they could barely afford them on my grandpa's income as a construction worker. (My grandma eventually was forced to go get a job, too.) She grew up sharing a bed with two sisters and said that by the time kids 5 and 6 came along, my grandma had so much on her plate, she and the other kids were neglected. She has a lot of good memories of school and friends, but she has described her home life as "miserable" several times.

Of course, that's how the fundie Catholics want it: women having hordes of kids, even to the detriment of the ones she already has. The fact that the wife has no interests or life outside the home is just a bonus. (And of course, the man gets to be the "leader of the house," ie, treat his wife like a sex-and-housework dispensing machine.)

Anyway, back to my point: I don't mind at all that I was a "choice." I'm glad my parents wanted to have me, rather than knowing they didn't want me but were forced to after an accidental pregnancy. I don't believe in *aborting* accidental pregnancies, but the fact that I could have been doesn't bother me. (No "I could have been aborted and I'm upset about it!" sentiment here.)

Lauren, I think so. I think that has a lot to do with it.

To phillymiss: St. Augustine is my son's baptism patron!! His Mother, St. Monica is my Mom and one of my sister's patroness. yeah, I know about those two! St. Augustine is a giant in the Catholic Church--in Philosophy, too. Too cool! (I started recognizing the story when you were telling it LOL).

Ashley: Your perception of Catholicism is a misperception. I'm a Roman Catholic myself (been studying it nearly all my life and am a "Cradle Catholic"), I practice NFP, I was never told, nor is it taught that we have to have hordes of children. I know about the misconception of over 20 or more years ago. However, NFP IS out and IS taught now and has been for more than 20 years. I know about the mindsets and perceptions of 1960's and pre-1960's. I've heard enough about them to last me a lifetime. However, I also know some of those perceptions were MISperceptions of what the Catholic Church truly teaches and why, I also know those misperceptions are still being perputrated by people who don't understand what the Catholic Church truly teaches and why. Some of them have never even read "The Catechism of The Catholic Church" (some have and don't understand it). I wish people would learn what the Catholic Church TRULY teaches and why and then hopefull see they're operating under misconceptions.

Ashley Said: "Of course, that's how the fundie Catholics want it: women having hordes of kids, even to the detriment of the ones she already has. The fact that the wife has no interests or life outside the home is just a bonus. (And of course, the man gets to be the "leader of the house," ie, treat his wife like a sex-and-housework dispensing machine.)"

LIES! I'm a Roman Catholic Christian and I take HUGE offense at this.

No, we do NOT teach that a woman should have children to the determent of the ones existing (although definition of determent is different generally from person to person. For example, at the age of 6 when my mother had my younger brother, I wanted a sister and my younger brother was obviously not a girl. I was upset at first, but I got over it--in my 6 year old eyes having a brother instead of a sister was determential to me, but in reality it really wasn't a determent at all. And generally it's not a determent to the other kids for their mother to have another child).

The Catholic Church encourages women to be good mothers, but does NOT say the woman can't have a life outside the home. That's a lie. (I have a sister who is a mom of 2 and a wife and has a job and she is a Catholic in good standing). There's LOTS of Catholic wives/mothers who have lives outside of the home; and it hasn't meant they weren't good Catholics. Some of these women have been honored by the Catholic Church for one reason or another. (Kimberly Hahn is a Catholic who is a public speaker outside the home. Julie Alexander is another public speaker and her and her husband have a ministry together that's outside the home; I had Catholic female teachers in my lifetime--they had lives outside the home. I'm a member of RWA and a local chapter, that sometimes takes me outside the home).

The Catholic Church does NOT say men are supposed to treat their wives as baby making machines. What the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches is that men should lay down their lives for their wives. That they should be loving, giving, and kind. That they should be selfLESS as Christ was. The same for women.

And NO, the Catholic Church does NOT (did you get that, NOT) teach couples have to have hordes of children. It does NOT teach that. (I've studied and asked questions on what the Church teaches in reference to children). Here's what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches:

1. Married couples should be open to life. That is, not using artificial contraception, and not having abortions when they do conceive. That each child should be loved and cared for.

2. Sexual intercourse has 2 main purposes:
A. procreative (being open to the POSSIBILITY of children)
B. unitive (the marriage vows spoken with the body--a reaffirmation of the marriage vows).

3. There are good reasons for using NFP to avoid pregnancy, and that a couple should PRAYERFULLY consider those reasons and be open to God's grace and His plan.

Does your non-profit receive federal funds?
Posted by: Janet at July 22, 2010 1:07 PM

indirectly, through financial aid and the like.

To All,

I so appreciate all the Pro-Life opinions I have received, and I certainly admire the passion you exude while expressing yourselves. Even in the light that some of what you are saying is truly the product of hyped up misguided data and pure propaganda.

Sadly, the reality is, I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to take in the product of incest, rape or a cracked up hooker as an adoptee into their homes. I don't know a lot of people who'd be willing to take on a child with severe and profound disabilities or a child who is critically ill with a congenital disease as an adoptee. I am not sure a lot of people would be willing to give up a wife because they choose to chance an ectopic pregnancy. I am certainly not saying these are pleasant situations, but they are real and happen every day. Some parents are not built to cope with these situations, so these children would be left behind, and frankly there are not a lot of adoption options for these children. So where do they end up? In a social systems that is already overburdened and underfunded. Until we as a society solve some these issues first, then we must allow women to make a choice as to what is best for themselves and the unborn child.

I think it is brilliant to have the sanctity of life argument, and I agree that all life is sacred, but there is also the issue of quality of life, and what kind of quality would these children have. Let’s be real with ourselves, for the most part, these children would have a bleak outlook at best. Are there going to be success stories with some of these children, of course there are, that’s the stuff the movie-of-the-week is built on. However, ultimately, the majority of these children would not, and that is a distressing prospect to envision.

So to all the Pro-Lifer’s; keep on fighting the good fight, as I do appreciate that you at least stand up for a cause and exercise your right to speak what you feel. That’s awesome, and I wish you all well. I am going to keep championing my right to say the opposite, and let’s both exercise our right to elect officials whom will follow through with our wishes. Peace.

Ashley wrote:

You're right, I'm never going to deny myself sex with my boyfriend/husband if I want it.

Hm. If a man were to say that about a woman, I think you'd be a bit nervous, wouldn't you? "I want what I want, and I'm never going to deny myself my goodies?" Are you seriously telling me that you have no use for self-control at all? That it's "passe", and only for "Catholic fundamentalists" (whatever that might mean)?

That's what condoms are for.

Mm-hmm. Silly me... to treat my wife as a person to be loved, rather than an object to be used to satisfy an "itch", whenever I happen to have a craving. Self-restraint really isn't as life-ending and repressive as you imagine it to be, Ashley.

You can continue to push the sex-phobic

Ashley, you're talking blithering nonsense, here. You might as well say that people who obey red traffic lights are afraid of cars...

(and wildly unpopular)

Ah. Popularity = right, to you? No other factors are needed? Surely you don't mean that?

notion that people have to skip sex if they don't want to have a baby, but I'm not going to.

Ashley... try to listen, here. If you can't say "no" to sex, then your "yes" means nothing. Good grief... you really don't mind being completely irresponsible, and using your boyfriend just to satisfy your own "kicks"? What's to stop you--or him--from running off after the next "potential sex partner" who seems more attractive? What on earth are you planning to do when your looks, and his looks, start to go south (as age will inevitably cause)? If you train yourself for a life of utter selfishness in this regard, it'll be agonizingly hard to break that habit when you get older... and, if you have any dreams of eventual motherhood, the life of self-sacrifice needed for parenthood simply won't be accessible for you when you want it! Your old habits will have smothered it rather efficiently.

I agree it's different once you actually conceive, but I see nothing wrong with avoiding pregnancy through "artificial" means.

We both agree that, after a child comes into the world, then things are different; well and good. But I claim that "using someone as a sex toy to satisfy your selfish kicks"--while certainly different from "using someone as a sex toy to satisfy your selfish kicks, and then murdering a baby"--is still wrong.

And these mothers were having way more children than they wanted or could take care of. This was in the days before people practiced NFP.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything in your statement is true. So... now that NFP is available, why would anyone choose the "use condoms and use your sex partner" approach, anymore? If your whole point was that "unwanted large families = bad, miserable, abusive" (and you've misdiagnosed the cause, there), then with the advent of NFP, doesn't your main point collapse?

It was just like the orthodox Catholics want it, since even today they insist you need a "compelling reason" to practice NFP. (In other words, unless you're gravely ill or bankrupt, start pushing out babies ASAP.)

I don't know if you really believe this, or whether you're throwing out any and all statements that you think will inflame your opponent, Ashley... but you're being silly, here. You seem to think that NFP's only purpose is to "be a condom substitute"; may I respectfully ask you to *learn* what NFP *actually* is, before you comment further on it? The spacing of births is only the tip of the iceberg, re: NFP.

My mom is the 4th of 6th.

Hm. One of my good friends is the 7th (I think) of 14... and there's no trauma, there. (Lots of political liberalism, unfortunately, but no trauma.)

Her parents used no birth control because the Church said they'd go to hell--you know, the hardcore Catholic position.

"Hard-core", as opposed to what? It's either Catholic teaching, or it isn't, Ashley.

Of course, that's how the fundie Catholics want it: women having hordes of kids, even to the detriment of the ones she already has.

(*sigh*) Spoken as one whose only knowledge of Catholicism (and NFP) comes from caricatures.

The fact that the wife has no interests or life outside the home is just a bonus.

Don't forget "not allowing them to participate at 'swinger' parties"...

(And of course, the man gets to be the "leader of the house," ie, treat his wife like a sex-and-housework dispensing machine.)

Ashley, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online--google it. If you learn nothing else here, learn that "using a person" is condemned by the Church as a violation of their God-given dignity. That's why artificial contraception is so poisonous; it leads you to use your "partner" as a mere thing to dispense "sexual treats" whenever you please. How is that better than your (caricature) idea of "using women as baby- and laundry-machines"?

Anyway, back to my point: I don't mind at all that I was a "choice." I'm glad my parents wanted to have me, rather than knowing they didn't want me but were forced to after an accidental pregnancy.

Why?

I don't believe in *aborting* accidental pregnancies,

Why not?

but the fact that I could have been doesn't bother me. (No "I could have been aborted and I'm upset about it!" sentiment here.)

I'm afraid (though your reaction is unusual) that doesn't prove much; I know of people who've inflicted unjust suffering on others, and it really doesn't bother them at all. That really doesn't make "inflicting unjust suffering" okay, does it?

"Sadly, the reality is, I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to take in the product of incest, rape or a cracked up hooker as an adoptee into their homes. I don't know a lot of people who'd be willing to take on a child with severe and profound disabilities or a child who is critically ill with a congenital disease as an adoptee."

Actually there are people waiting to adopt just these children. Have you heard of Reece's Rainbow? It's an adoption agency for kids with Down Syndrome. Families are there.

" I am not sure a lot of people would be willing to give up a wife because they choose to chance an ectopic pregnancy. "

No one is suggesting such a thing. Pro-lifers believe that remmoval of an ectopic pregnancy is consistent with our belief that the most life possible should be perserved. It is senseless to allow both to die.

:) I'm really growing to love Texas moms, more and more; they have more sense in a little finger than most of us have in our whole carcasses! Well done!

Ashley, the Catholic Church has never ever demanded women produce "hordes of children". Nor are the men fine with them having no lives. You ain't real bright are ya? The Bible calls for men to be leaders in the home but they are NOT to demand slavery out of their wives. The Leadership calls for him to be model for his wife and kids in the Faith. I know of no Catholic household where the man is a slave driver as you imply. I'm Eastern Orthodox,my mother is Catholic and I was raised in both Churches. I take your comments as a sign of your lack of education and character. Before you make comments like that I suggest you think real hard on who you might irritate before you spew forth inane grunts of your obvious discontent for people of the Roman Catholic Faith. Not every Catholic family can afford the Genghis Khan horde of children but those that can enjoy them. As Mother in Texas stated, the Church does not ask that the woman become a baby making machine. So drop the burning cross and white sheets and focus on the topic of the blog. The Pro-Life Movement and stop acting like a moron speaking on a Faith you obviously know nothing about.

Ashley, NFP isn't difficult, and isn't all that restrictive. You typically only abstain for about 5 days/month. Also, it doesn't mean you can't be intimate with your spouse, just no intercourse. This isn't exactly some Herculean feat.

Posted by: lauren at July 22, 2010 3:15 PM
My thoughts exactly.

Lauren thank you for the info about Reece's Rainbow. And thank you, MarkB for your response.

Mother In Texas, I went to Catholic high school, where I was taught by the Daughters of the Heart of Mary. I didn't appreciate it then, but I received a very good education and some values to boot. I don't agree with some of the teachings of the Catholic church, (like I mentioned before, I am not too fond of organized religion in general) but they do quite a bit to help the poor and marginalized.

Same with the LDS. Did you know that they had a huge mission to Haiti after the earthquake?

Lauren,

Yes, I agree, there are some, but the key words in that statement are "not a lot." I so applaud the efforts of those who are willing to take on these cases, but sadly, there are too few of them to serve the masses. Thus leaving a great number of these people under-serviced.

And yes, people are suggesting that ectopic pregnancies must be chanced. There are several posting that clearly state every conception must be protected, that abortion can not exist in any form or fashion. We can't have it both ways; we can't keep abortion for only "those cases" which someone deems it acceptable. Who becomes the one doing the deeming, who gets to draw the line, or who gets to decide? What do we do with people who lie about the nature of their pregnancy or whether it is ectopic or not. We then assume that all doctors are ethical, not a chance of that being absolutely true.

Mark, there are currently more people waiting to adopt children with DS than children with DS needing to be adopted.

The waiting parents aren't the issue.

As for ectopic pregnancies, as someone mentioned before, abortionists (that is, those who perform abortion in free standing clinics) do not treat ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are generally treated via emergency surgery or medicine given in the emergency department. It would be very difficult to fake such a situation.

The line can be very clearly drawn. If a pregnancy will, to the best of a doctor's estimation, result in the deat of the mother prior to the time when the child is viable, removing the child should be allowed.

MarkB wrote:

Sadly, the reality is, I don't know of a lot of people who are willing to take in the product of incest, rape or a cracked up hooker as an adoptee into their homes.

Hold on, here. Can I stop you, for a moment?

You appeal to the rarity of taking in children like that; and I think you mean that such rarity is a *bad* thing, right? I agree (though I assert that you've woefully overestimated the lack of people willing to do that--see Lauren's excellent post, above).

Two points, here:

1) I think, if you reflect, that you'll see how the rarity of something really has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong. Does the high percentage of people willing to "torture someone to death, under orders" (see http://news.softpedia.com/news/Shock-as-Reality-Show-Invites-Contestants-to-Kill-137831.shtml) mean that it's somehow more permissible? Even if we had only one out of 1000 people refuse to torture and kill an innocent, that wouldn't be any good argument for "liberalizing laws to allow the freedom to choose torture", would it?

2) Suppose your guess is correct (and I assert that it isn't, by the way), and the number of people who'd take in such children is minimal. Does it logically follow that such children must be put to death? That's what you're saying, here; did you really mean to claim that?

More on that in a moment...

Until we as a society solve some these issues first, then we must allow women to make a choice as to what is best for themselves and the unborn child.

You're couching your position in very gentle, soothing tones, friend... but you mean, when translated: "it's better to kill these children than to let them live like that." Are you willing to extend your position to the already-born? To push this cynical example to its end: why not wait a bit, and *see* whether these children actually turn out to be miserable and suffering horribly, and *then* kill them--once you have all the facts you need (instead of guesswork)?

Do you see? You're (perhaps unconsciously) using the "luxury" of the fact that the unborn child is "out of sight, out of mind", to assuage your conscience about killing them--and in barbaric ways (while covering them in a fantasy-image of "quietly rectifying an unplanned pregnancy, in a smoothly- and professionally-run way"). It's easier to let "professionals" in (what some imagine to be) clean, white coats "handle the unpleasant details", while we unctuously nod approval for the "freedom to go ahead with this awkward and unfortunate necessity".

Please think about what you're saying, sir!

I think it is brilliant to have the sanctity of life argument, and I agree that all life is sacred, but there is also the issue of quality of life, and what kind of quality would these children have.

There is; that's true. What of it? And how would you determine it? Chances are good that your income exceeds mine; does that make your "quality of life" higher than mine? Chances are good that you don't suffer from 50+ food allergies (including wheat, dairy, and most vegetables); does that make my "quality of life" worse than yours? You and I are in no position to make such judgments, especially if such a judgment is poised to strike someone dead!

Let’s be real with ourselves, for the most part, these children would have a bleak outlook at best.

"So let's kill them." At least, can we be honest about what you propose, here?

So to all the Pro-Lifer’s; keep on fighting the good fight, as I do appreciate that you at least stand up for a cause and exercise your right to speak what you feel. That’s awesome, and I wish you all well.

(*sigh*)

That sounds very handsome... and I commend you on your civility... and the comment has but one glaring flaw: it isn't at all useful for anything. If we don't base our positions on TRUTH (i.e. what's actually true, rather than what anyone feels, opines, etc.), then they are useless. If our position is false, then you do us a disservice by smilingly letting us march on our merry way... just as you'd do a disservice to your son or daughter if he/she were to start drinking poison, and you smilingly looked on without interfering. Do you care about us, or don't you?

I am going to keep championing my right to say the opposite, and let’s both exercise our right to elect officials whom will follow through with our wishes.

I'm afraid that simply won't do. If you're right, then we're all wrong. If we're right, then your position is wrong, and you need to change it. Wishful thinking and blithe ignorance won't serve either of us well, here. We need to do the hard, bruising work of finding truth... and not simply pass off that hard job to others while we skip down our own primrose paths, yes?

Peace.

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion... because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between." -Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Great points, Paladin.

:) Likewise, Lauren!

Paladin,

"Rare" or not, that's your opinion, these societal issues still exist. Yet neither side has solutions to them. We hope the few people who are helping these children do a good job, and we turn our head away from those that we don't see or know about.
Another reality is if we were to outlaw abortion, for a woman who really wants one, she'll still get one. Either in back alley clinics, do it themselves or some other nasty form, but they will still occur. Again, this is reality, history has proven this, and no matter how "rare" you think these things are, they do occur.
Turn your head if you want, make it illegal, hopefully it won't happen anymore. Maybe all these children will find homes, help and even love. Right..Maybe...brilliant strategy.

And yes, people are suggesting that ectopic pregnancies must be chanced. There are several posting that clearly state every conception must be protected, that abortion can not exist in any form or fashion.
--------------------------------------

Except that ectopic pregnancy removals are NOT abortion. They are lifesaving treatment for a pregnancy that cannot, medically, continue in this place.

If you actually READ the comments on this blog, you would find that the medical personnel here and almost all of those posting hold this to be true and are VERY insistent that those who claim to be for "abortion" because of ectopics learn the difference.

I worked at a Catholic hospital in L&D. Never once was an ectopic treated or referred to as if it were an abortion and there was never any hesitancy on the part of the staff to treat them quickly and appropriately. In fact, during my time there, two different STAFF MEMBERS had ectopics treated in our own hospital.

This is a red herring issue which has NOTHING to do with your support of abortion.... which as Paladin and Lauren have clearly pointed out, is eugenist in nature.

Of course, that's how the fundie Catholics want it: women having hordes of kids, even to the detriment of the ones she already has. The fact that the wife has no interests or life outside the home is just a bonus.(And of course, the man gets to be the "leader of the house," ie, treat his wife like a sex-and-housework dispensing machine.)
=================================
Ashley, I have seven children and hope to have more. My health is excellent and I certainly DO have a life, as a registered nurse with numerous certifications and a career I love... and wonderful kids I adore and spend time with daily both in a group and individually.

Or is "hordes" somewhat above the number seven?

And honestly, the women with "hordes" of children out there are pretty few and far between. The Duggars aren't Catholic, and neither are many large families.

I have a patient who had 16 children. She has 50 grandchildren and 51 great-grandchildren with more on the way. She is in her 80s, in quite good health (she was just in patient for a few days) and her offspring form the backbone of the small community I live and work in. Good people, every last one of them. When she was ill, each of her children pitched in to care for her home and gardens and her grandchildren and great grandchildren took turns visiting. It is the perfect example of a life WELL worth living and one I hope to emulate!

And my husband is a SAHD... does that mean I get to treat him as a sex and housework dispensing machine? (Oh, wait, he loves it when I treat him as a sex dispensing machine.... the housework, eh, we'll get around to it at some point... back to that sex thing....)

"Another reality is if we were to outlaw abortion, for a woman who really wants one, she'll still get one. Either in back alley clinics, do it themselves or some other nasty form, but they will still occur."

Yes, just as murders still occur despite laws forbidding them. Obviously there are always people willing to break a law. That doesn't mean you don't make the law to begin with. Abortion skyrocketed upon legalization, and I'm willing to wager would drop dramatically if it becomes illegal.

Obviously we need to have programs in place for women in crisis pregnancies. Right now CPC's do a great job, but they should be expanded.

Believe it or not, prolifers already offer help to women facing crisis pregnancies. I was told by a local maternity home (yes, they still exist, and they're not just for women who will place their child for adoption!) that they would take any woman who I counseled at a clinic who wished to keep her baby. This home offered an accredited highschool, and housing and food for up to 2 years after the child was born. These types of programs should be expanded as well, but are often derided by those who stand to profit from abortion.

MarkB, your words show that you think the solution to social problems is murdering the most innocent members of society.

Our solutions may not be perfect, but at least we're willing to step up and try. Most of us would love to adopt if the costs and restrictions were not so onerous. My family just moved from one state to another and now has to begin the entire process of qualifying to do medical fost-adopts all over again. (I'm a pediatric certified RN, hubs is an EMT currently pulling SAHD duty). As has been shown, entire organizations exist just to help these children find forever homes.

What is just sitting and wishing about it? Where is the maybe? You portray us as if we are doing nothing about these issues. The truth is, you and those like you feel like you don't HAVE to do anything about these issues, I mean, really, you gave those poor children a chance to be murdered! What more should you have to do?

And you're never going to take a way the birth control and create a culture where women are just beaming with joy about their 7th unplanned pregnancy, when they can barely afford to feed and clothe the first 6. It didn't exist in the 50s, and it never will.
---------------------------------------

Really? Wow, you sure miss out on some great message boards. I know hundreds of women, great friends, who not only HAVE more than 5 or 6 kids (really... 5 or 6 equals hordes? Wow) but hope to have more. I have friends who have 15, 16, 17 kids and would be open to more.

And our kids don't run wild and our houses aren't neglected and our health doesn't suffer and our children don't feel unwanted. You see, those things are caused by a lack of parenting, which can happen with 1 child or with many.... and most families who have many have made parenting a priority.

Believe it or not, prolifers already offer help to women facing crisis pregnancies. I was told by a local maternity home (yes, they still exist, and they're not just for women who will place their child for adoption!) that they would take any woman who I counseled at a clinic who wished to keep her baby. This home offered an accredited highschool, and housing and food for up to 2 years after the child was born. These types of programs should be expanded as well, but are often derided by those who stand to profit from abortion.
-----------------------------------------------
Lauren, my cousin Kathy works in just such a home in AL helping young women have healthy pregnancies, getting them through their education (most come to her with the equivalent of a 4th grade education and she has to work very hard with them to bring them up to the point where they can get their GEDs).

Kathy is the oldest girl of my aunt and uncle.... second oldest of 11 children in all. (Oh, gasp, heavens, horrors) all 11 of whom are gainfully employed and have families of their own. They are all VERY close and are a real inspiration.

What Max, and other males interested in engaging in 'safe-sex', or quite frankly any sex, is that abortion offers them a 'get out of jail free card'. No birth = no obligations. The pro-aborts feed on this to further their evil ends.

Thanks for telling it like it is Jeff. You're exactly right and it's nice to hear a man state the truth about proabort boys.

Max is a wam, bam, thank ya mam sorta boy. Use'em and loose 'em. Spill it and kill it.

Young Ladies, stand up to the irresponsible boys like Max. They don't have your best interest at heart.

Erika loves Prochoice boys!!(from the other post)

This will be a longish post, so be forewarned. ...
Perhaps the first thing to comment on is Jill's use of the word 'stupid' It is an improper sentiment that reflects that this word was an offensive word to Jill. It no longer holds such a connotation. 'Jerk' or "Abortion is NOT COOL!", may perhaps be more in-tune with Max.

MarkB, brought-up that most pro-life argumentation was only religious in nature. True and false. The 'science' tells us that a pre-born fetus is a pre-born living/growing human being and as such has inalienable rights .... according to the US constitution - the RIGHT TO LIFE. [Upon death all rights cease, even the so-called 'right to choose'. Selecting death for another is a form of theft ... stealing a future of possibilities; silencing another's choices. THIS IS SCIENCE (more later) What science CANNOT GIVE is the value that this developing material has. While it is true that humans do express an innate sense of awe (even agnostics/atheists). It would be really difficult to imagine that such awe convicted anyone much beyond ecology. A person of faith is smitten by the awe-filled God and His universe (kids yet-to-be-born too).

So here are a few argument's you've likely never heard before:
#1 - A few decades ago, a New Zealand Ob/Gyn, Patrick Dunn decided to plot the mood swings of women during pregnancy. What he found was that there was enough symmetry-of-experience to form a graph. The 1st DEPRESSION was a rather sharp fall lasting from wk8 - @wk12. [The low-point was wk10, where he noted that 80% of abortions occur.] The 2nd DEPRESSION begins at the start o the third trimester and slowly worsens until birth. Then there is a sharp-rising glitch to euphoria. {IMO this happens as the result of natural endorphin release (which is more powerful than morphine). So what does this say .... abortion is the result, not the cause of depression. A medical 'rule' is to take-no-action if depression is a symptom. Get rid if the depression FIRST ... THEN DO SURGERY ETC. Right now we stupidly believe that a surgery 'cures' a depression. (see below)
A 3rd DEPRESSION swiftly follows birth and starts right where the third trimester one left off. [It is IMO the famous postpartum depression.] It rapidly deepens (often to suicide).

After more biochemistry studies, I found what MAY BE the cause of this DEPRESSION-PHENOMENON. {Zinc and Copper in Medicine' eds Karcioglu & Sarper @1983} The symmetry with the extra-ordinarily high use of zinc in the developing human fetus is uncanny. For instance, between wks 5 & 6 the optic nerve (highly zinc dependent is formed. In preparation for birth all organs and their systems are getting final adjustments - like insulin production (zinc dependent pancreas) only begins the day before birth. Colostrum (first milk) is noted for its very high zinc portion. This reflects the start of the immune system and the start of the pulmonary and digestive tracks.

Of note, in this discussion is a 4th PERIOD in human development of high zinc usage - puberty. Both males and females are affected .... growth, zits, spermatozoa, etc are all highly zinc dependent. Girls have PMS and boys are often seeking criminal activity ... become alcohol addicted.

The mossy fiber layers of our brain (coordinates muscle movement with our emotions) is highly zinc dependent and probably why we have depression as a major clinical sign of zinc deficit.

#2 - has to do with the limitations of scientific 'reasoning' as opposed to 'human reasoning'. This was best illustrated by www.drjilltaylor.com . Dr. Jill had a stroke that paralyzed one side of her brain. It contains her 'reasoning center'. It was revealing to her, as neuro-anatomist at Harvard just how left-brain dominant, she had become. Too bad, but fixable!

The reason that this is an argument is that too often (usually males) have an uppity flare to their 'scientific reasoning'. I'd much prefer 'human reasoning' - thank you.

BTW we have all sorts of psychological residues (like fear and anger) from the trauma most of us experienced at our birth. Babies/newborns CAN smile. [I've seen it! Mike Douglas' audience spontaneously cheered.] A recording of a birth by Dr. Leboyer (France), author of 'Birth Without Violence'. Enough for now & something to ponder!

Hey everyone!

First off I’d just like to thank Jill who let me know she published this via-twitter, I’m always glad to hear others opinions on my work. It’s obvious that quite a few of you do not agree with my beliefs, and I’m ok with that. If you do your research on me then you will find I’ve had open discussions with both pro-choice and anti-choice organizations. I even went on the American Life League’s “Rock for Life” webcast to talk about an event I’d organized. I’m not going to try and change your views, and I can tell you right now you won’t change my views either.

Though I do agree with you (specifically Gerard Nadal) that 500 youth and advisers aren’t a ton of people compared to the March for Life, there is one major difference. These 500 people did not just protest, they actually went to sessions and learned new tactics and information to continue with our movement. We are the next generation of youth and we’re not afraid to stand up for what we believe in.

To answer Carla’s question (why am I involved): Reproductive rights are human rights and many of the youth around me seem not to care, they’re not taking a side on the issue. I’ve tried to bring this into the eyes of America’s youth, and so far I’d say I’ve been pretty successful.

Ninek: I just checked and you’re right, the last Planned Parenthood annual report was published a few years ago. I’m not sure why another one has not been updated, but I promise you as soon as I am done writing this I will send an email and voice your concerns.

Hippie: Neither of my parents work or are affiliated with Planned Parenthood in any way (besides donations)

Marysia: Though I do agree that Jill could probably find a way to use her time and web space better then calling me dumb, it’s ok. I accept that others have different views then I and have gotten just as much, if not more, positive feedback on this article than negative.

Sydney M: Yaz does have a lawsuit against it, but the dangers of this one specific type of birth control were most likely not known when you were prescribed it. Also, please don’t compare all pro-choice people to one specific person.

Jill Stanek: I’m not a fan of being compared to a Nazi; my father’s family is Jewish and many died throughout Hitler’s reign. Switching up the title was probably a good idea, I think it reflects better on you this way (though I noticed I’m still called one of the “Dumbest ppl on the planet” on Twitter). Either way, as I said above, I can guarantee that I will not change my mind.

Praxedes: I hope you enjoyed my other article; it really was a great event. I believe such shirts would be deemed disruptive to the education of other students due to the graphic picture, thus those students would be asked to remove them.

Though I wish I had the time to answer every comment, I don’t. Hopefully this will suffice for now.

Thanks for bringing your thoughts to my attention Jill and everyone else!
-Max Kamin-Cross

it should be your choice, whether or not you want to f*** your life up, i think there should be an age cap though, women upto ages 22 can have abortions, since theyre out of college and have somewhere to go in life, they have the credentials for going out in the world when their child gets old enough.

[Edited by mod - profanity]

"I believe such shirts would be deemed disruptive to the education of other students due to the graphic picture, thus those students would be asked to remove them."

Welcome to our discussions, Max. Nice to have you join us.

Graphic - giving a clear and effective picture; vivid

Do you believe that if I wanted to wear a Tshirt to school showing a graphic picture of lets say earthquake devastation or a flooded street or a polluted lake or a starving animal/child, I would be asked to remove it? Really? Would these graphic pictures be considered disruptive?

Please explain why a picture of an aborted human would be considered more disruptive than other graphic Tshirts?

Stop by again soon. Peace.

HI Matt. Why should abortion not be allowed after age 22? Is it wrong then? If so, what makes it wrong?

Personally, i dont think america should worry about abortion, what it really should worry about is its president.

But its not wrong.

I can say securely in my pro-choice position that trimesters should not be used as the intervals of biological development associated with a woman's right to abort. Biologically accurate phases of pregnancy in which an abortion is to be permitted would quell the remarks of pro-lifers on a child having fingernails at x days or its heart beating at x weeks. While pro-lifers disagree with a woman's choice to procure an abortion, if the abortion were conducted at a time when the child had yet to form the yolk sac, the cries of "killing a child" would be little more than hysterics.

Reproductive rights are not human rights as reproductive rights are proabort speak for ABORTION! *gasp*

Abortion ends the life of an innocent human preborn child.

And Max wants to convince the youth of America to get on board and kill the child they conceive? The youth of America aren't buying it, Max.

Max,
This is my abortion story.

http://outcrywisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-story-at-faith-community-church.html

I can say securely in my pro-choice position that trimesters should not be used as the intervals of biological development associated with a woman's right to abort. Biologically accurate phases of pregnancy in which an abortion is to be permitted would quell the remarks of pro-lifers on a child having fingernails at x days or its heart beating at x weeks. While pro-lifers disagree with a woman's choice to procure an abortion, if the abortion were conducted at a time when the child had yet to form the yolk sac, the cries of "killing a child" would be little more than hysterics.

By the time a woman even knows she is pregnant the child has a heartbeat, John. All organ systems are in place by week 8.
So from week to week there is a better time to kill in your humble opinion? Just to shut us up?

Nothing will quell my remarks about abortion. Thanks.

Trimesters are used to mark the growth periods in a child's life as she grows in her mother's womb. It's called pregnancy.

What a great kid! What the rest of you fail to realize is that "pro choice" doesn't mean "pro-abortion." Gosh - you folks really don't seem to have a clue. Keep up the good work Max! We need more teenagers like you. I am sorry that misinformed folks like Jill have to pick on young folks like you. On sites like this you probably won't get much support, but please realize Max there are thousands of us out there to support you.

Well, I might be biased from everything I learned from my mother.

Like I said, my mom is the 4th of 6, and her parents were hardcore Catholics (also alcoholics, but that's a story for another day). They used no birth control and kept kicking out kids, despite being broke. My grandpa was a construction worker. He died an early death, and my grandma was forced to go get a job.

My mom usually describes her childhood as "chaotic" and "dysfunctional," and describes her house as having "way too many people." (6 kids, 2 parents, and a sick grandma.) She honestly seems to believe she was neglected because there were too many kids. Today, she is pretty much pro-abortion in any situation that's less than ideal. She's stated openly that if my 17-year-old sister was pregnant, she would take her to get an abortion. She gets visibly annoyed with families in church who have too many kids and makes all kinds of comments about them, like "I'm so sick of these morons pushing out kids."

I feel like she pushes her own childhood issues on me. She's obviously resentful about how she grew up, but I have no response. Any advice?

John... did you just read about the yolk sac somewhere and decide to throw that in so that we'd think you had a CLUE what you were talking about?

The yolk sac is actually used in early pregnancy for blood cell production because there are no bones yet and no bone marrow. What that has to do with the humanity of the unborn is beyond me.

The heart starts beating around the 21st day of life. That is before most women have even confirmed that they are pregnant. Abortion clinics do not perform surgical abortions before week 6 because the child is too small and there is a chance parts of the baby can be left behind and cause an infection. By week 6 the child is completely formed...face, eyes, nose, mouth, hands with fingers, feet with toes, beating heart etc...the whole package.

But even if you kill a child with a medical abortion in the first weeks of life before the child is completely formed you have still destroyed a fellow human being. Our humanity comes from the fact that we are members of the human race not from having feet, or hands or fingernails. If all my fingernails were ripped out tomorrow I would still be a human person. Our parts are not what make us people.

Bob,

Sorry. Pro-choice means you have no problem with a woman choosing abortion OR NOT choosing abortion. There's no such thing as being abortion neutral. If you're not with us you're against us.

Jill Stanek is one of the top prolife bloggers on the web!! You are misinformed, Bob.

It is not "picking on" when someone is out there stating their beliefs and are challenged on those beliefs by others.

I have yet to hear from Max why abortion is the best choice for women. How abortion helps women. How abortion heals women.

Prochoice is only about one choice. Abortion.

Hey Ashley. Sorry to hear about all that. That has to be tough for you to try and sort out your beliefs while your mom has such strong and vocal beliefs. It especially seems difficult to try and convince yourself that you're really looking at the evidence objectivley because someone you care so much about and love so much is so strongly persuaded in one direction.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do in your situation would be. For me, I always try and discuss things with people on an intellectual level, as opposed to an emotional level. Unfortunately, that is not always what people need, and it seems like in your case, you may need to respond in an emotional manner. Of course, I am not saying that your mother is not intellectual, but just taht from what you told us, it seems like she has formed her opinions based on the emotions and feelings.

So just to wind up these few time-wasting-of-yours paragraphs, I'm not sure what you can do. If you need any help on the argumentation front, I am very glad to help, but otherwise I will offer you my prayers. God love you.

Hi Ashley,

I believe most of the chaos and dysfunction in your family is due to the alcoholism and had nothing to do with being Catholic or to the number of children in the family. The effects of alcoholism is felt for generations.

I think Janet brought up the issue here at one point about whether we are doing enough to teach our children about how alcohol is related to unplanned pregnancies.

Read everything you can about alcoholic families and co-dependency issues. I think it might help you understand your mom and other family members better. You will also probably find out a lot about yourself.

Perhaps John would like to explain how he and anyone else morphed from being a non-human (pre-yolk sak) to magically transform into a human (post yolk sak).

Here is the reality: Human life begets human life. It is a continuity. By the way, "hysterics" is a very condescending term, but at least it is less crude than many other things we pro-lifers are called.

Ashley, I would suggest that your mother's chaotic childhood has less to do with her parents' Catholicism or large family (which I dispute 6 is that large but okay)... and more to do with her father's death, her mother having to get a job after already planning on being a SAHM in a world that wasn't really prepared to support working moms, much less widowed working moms, her grief at losing her father and her frustration at legitimate issues. She has just scapegoated the Catholic church and family size as the reasons for them. There are plenty of kids from the same or earlier time periods that had chaotic upbringings with only one or two children in the family due to the types of influences you mention, which are outside the control of either the participants or the church.

I would say that you need to love your mom but not necessarily accept at face value her obviously hurt psyche and its assessment of the root blame.

For example, my mother is the younger of two girls. My grandparents were Catholic. I have no idea why they never had more children, although fertility in my family overall is very low. Even I struggle with frequent miscarriage. My grandfather was a drunk. My grandmother was forced to work not only due to his inability to keep a paycheck after stopping by the local bar but also due to WWII. My mother is VERY resentful of that. But in her case, the local parish priest was her confidante and helped her through everything. Although she is no longer Catholic, she recognizes that there is great good there.

Hmmm....so Matt why are you pro-abortion, er, pro-"choice"? To help women???? So when a woman who HAS had an abortion (you have never had one and can't have one so you will never experience the truth of what you are arguing the way Carla has) you mock her, curse her etc..? This shows your compassion for women....how?

More like you are pro-abortion because you are a jerk who views women not as human beings but as sexual meat to be used for your lusts and then if women conceive you can dump them at the clinic and be absolved of all responisiblitliy. If abortion wasn't legal you really couldn't do that anymore, huh?

A question... how many kids does your mom think is "too many" and on what does she base that?

Max, please do not speak in euphemisms. "Reproductive rights"? Don't you mean, "you should be allowed to kill your baby if you don't want it?" and aren't "reproductive rights" really "non-reproductive rights"? In fact, the only places that need "reproductive rights" are the places where women are forced into abortions (such as China), as they are being denied the right to reproduce?

Bob, in what way is Jill, an RN like myself, misinformed? In what way are the scientists on this site, like Dr. Nadal, misinformed? What precisely is it that we are misinformed about? Please point out specifics. I doubt that you can.

Bob,

Jill Stanek misinformed as to what pro-choice means???

REALLY????

What was the basis for your statement? Doesn't being pro-choice mean that one has no problem with women choosing to kill their babies? Hasn't 'pro-choice' resulted in the personal choices that have led to over 52 million abortions in the US since Roe v Wade?

Yes Bob, the only conclusion I can reach after your statement is that you are either utterly delusional or just another in a long string of malevolent liars who tell our youth that truth-tellers such as Jill are misinformed, and applaud the further slaughter of innocents. I tend toward the latter consideration of you.

Just curious, but did some woman's choice get you off the paternity hook? Is that why you are cheering on this young man?

Great stuff Bob. Encourage this young man to consider women as mere playthings by reinforcing the lethal option that allows him a protracted state of adolescence, just like yours.

Ashley: My mom is the fourth of six kids from a Catholic family, too. Her parents weren't perfect - my grandma wasn't exactly the warm, maternal kind - but she had a generally good childhood. So no, being the fourth of sixth kids in a Catholic family doesn't mean automatic misery. :)

If your mom thinks that any child conceived in less than ideal circumstances should be aborted, she probably thinks SHE should have been aborted. That's a sad and tragic thing to think. I'm not sure how you should respond, but I'm glad you feel able to talk about it here.

"On sites like this you probably won't get much support, but please realize Max there are thousands of us out there to support you."

Posted by: Bob at July 22, 2010 8:55 PM

Please realize Bob that that there are thousands of people who would support Max if he decided to trade child porn as well. Ugh. (I would like to buy five of Ashley's deleated words for this spot please).

I'm curious to whether you've pressured and/or paid for an abortion(s) or whether you make money off abortions. Because you sure the heck don't care about the well-being of women.

(I would like to buy five of Ashley's deleated words for this spot please).

*************

LOL!!

A lot of this is true. My mom DOES seem to blame the Church for things it didn't do...like her dad dying suddenly at 51. (I never met him.) She'll go to church, but you can see the visible anger and disgust when someone parades in 4 kids. She'll do things like whisper to me, "these people disgust me" or "I'm so sick of these pro-life-pro-life-pro-life people kicking out kids." She always uses denigrating terms, like "shoving out kids." It must just because she was so unhappy with how she grew up. But I take that as proof that huge families and no birth control is BAD for kids.

Hey Ashley,

My heart really goes out to you and your Mom. Your Mom is really hurting. Those words of anger and disgust toward children show she has deep emotional wounds and scars from her own childhood. Emotional wounds are much like physical wounds. Unless she gets help, she won't get better but will in all likelihood become increasingly bitter and more angry over time.

She needs a good counselor. She probably doesn't believe she needs one and might be reluctant to go. That would be a tragic shame because no one should go through life suffering miserably like that.

She should enjoy her life.

If money's tight, depending on where you live, I might be able to refer you to a counselor that would offer to see your mother the first couple of sessions at no charge. If your mother is as angry as you make her sound, just a couple of sessions could make a big difference.

Email me at edhull323@gmail.com if I can be of help.

'Every child a wanted child.'

In pp's lexicon 'wanted' is a code word for white, affluent, and not more that one per family.

That is why pp locates it's killing centers in close proximity to poor, unedcuated and underemployed ethnic minorities.

You know the children NOT 'wanted'.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

New York Times online magazine, published Sunday, July 7, 2009

Ashley,

I'm sorry your mom's like that and I'm sorry she's influenced you in your own though process and mindset in that way.

I'm one of 8 children. I grew up without birth control in the house and my parents spoke out against it from the moment I could know anything about it.

I've never used artificial birth control. But my son is much loved and we care about him deeply. He's happy, healthy, with a goofy sense of humor and incredible imagination (that leaves me just smiling whenever I hear him coming up with a game or make believe). He's affectionate and compassionte. He's not perfect, but he's sweet.

I know plenty of people who don't use artificial birth control and have small and large families and the people are happy, healthy and content--a lot of the times the kids are very well rounded and incredibly smart to boot.

Anytime my mom sees little ones, she smiles. Babies adore my father and he adores them (they're fabulous grandparents).

This is the other side of the coin, the side your mother obviously needed and didn't have and I'm sorry. God bless her and you.

Ashely, I find it sad that your mother would like at my happy, healthy brood of 7 with anger and derision. I would think by now that you know me and my family enough that it would make you a little sad, too....

I've just tucked my youngest into his crib after some one on one cuddle time. The little girls went up to bed at 8 after story time. Jon went to bed at 9. It's still summer, so my two biggest are doing some research on projects they are doing and I'm sitting nearby offering encouragement and advice. Hugs and kisses abound. They get lots of attention from me and from dad...

Please continue to be open to the fact that what is truth to your mother is not necessarily actual truth, it is a hurting soul looking to blame anyone, anything, for the pain she is suffering. I will pray for your mother and her obvious hurt.

I'm interested in counseling for my mom because I believe her family issues were with substance abuse and lack of responsibility. She admits they were allowed to do whatever they wanted.

Of course, maybe too many kids caused both,e. But I see other big families without those problems.

MarkB I bet a 1000 to one The Founding Fathers Meant Something Entirely When They Put Separation Of Church & State On The Paper. Liberals Have Twisted That To Suit Their Agendas

Chris, the Founding Fathers did not put "separation of church and state" on any official paper. Those words are only from one Founding Father, Jefferson, in a letter to a church in which he was assuring the church that this separation would give them freedom TO worship without the government telling them what they could and could not teach. The liberals have enshrined that above the actual founding documents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and turned it on its head. Now we have churches and Christian organizations being told they have to hire and employ people who blatantly go against their religious beliefs and that they aren't allowed to speak out in the public sphere... it's pathetic.

Ashley,
I'm Catholic, as is my family. My dad is the youngest of 14. There were supposed to be more, but there were miscarriages. My grandmother always said that happened because God needed another angel in Heaven.

Both of my grandparents worked. My grandfather was a mail-carrier and my grandmother was a nurse. My aunts and uncles did some baby-sitting, but my dad was always running around town with his friends. This was back in the days when Los Angeles was still a safe, rural place (I know, hard to imagine now, but it's true). There was no real need for supervision.

My dad had a difficult childhood, but it wasn't horrible. God ALWAYS provides when you put your trust in Him. NO ONE in that house wanted for love. There was ALWAYS someone there to love, someone to help out or listen when it was needed, someone to give hugs, etc.

My grandmother and her family moved to California when they lost their farm in Nebraska during the dust bowl. She didn't want her children to experience that kind of hardship, so she worked long hours in hospital, so they didn't have to.

My grandfather came from a family that immigrated to Los Angeles from Quebec in the early 1900s. My great-grandfather ran a speak-easy in LA in the 1920s since he made his own beer because he had glaucoma and couldn't deal with the pain. He suffered a lot because of his disease. My grandfather wanted his children to be able to have the medical care they needed, so he worked long hours, too. It was a good thing, because my dad had juvenile arthritis, and he and several of my aunts and uncles developed type-1 diabetes.

The point is that not everyone who comes from a large, Catholic family has a bad childhood. It doesn't mean that parents are irresponsible when not supervising the children, just that they're busy trying to make a better life for their children than they had. Maybe people forget that when they are hurting, but that's when they need to reach out to someone to ask for help. It is NOT a family's size that causes the hurt, but the situation surrounding the family.

Large families, including mine, shouldn't be condemned because your mother had a bad childhood. You seem to think that everyone in her situation also had a bad childhood, but that's just not true. Large families do not cause problems. It's just the situations around a family that does cause problems. It has NOTHING to do with size.

Ashley,
I am sorry for the relationship you have with your mother and the ways she influences you. You can email me anytime. I haven't seen my mother in 8 years as her anger and bitterness and hatred was something I would not have my children around.

Praying for you.

More on Catholic families, birth control, and kids: Nearly my whole family is Catholic, but one of my aunts is more devout than the rest of us. (The decorating scheme in the house can be described as "Jesus and deer heads".) She and my uncle have four kids, and shortly after they had the last one, people would ask her if they planned to have another and she said, "No, I think this is it." Maybe there are health reasons I don't know about, but in any event, they apparently decided they were done after four, and my aunt is just about the last person to disagree with the Catholic Church on anything. I figure they probably went with NFP. (All four kids, by the way, are really nice kids. Sometimes they get irritable, but I've never seen them be flat-out mean to each other.)

One of my grandfathers was the eighth (I think) of twelve kids, so though I personally wouldn't want a family that big, I'm glad someone had one. :)

Ashley and Carla, I'm so sorry about your situations with your moms. I'm really close to mine, and I can't imagine what it would be like if I weren't.

Marauder,
Thank you! I have some amazing mother/grandmother figures that "stand in the gap" for me and my children. :)

Max has obviously done his research. All he's done is speak out about his opinions. You people are all criticizing Max, when the truth is, there are millions of other teens out there who believe the same things that he does. We as parents need to be supportive of our children. We can't stand over their shoulders our whole lives. Regardless of age and upbringing, people are going to make their own opinions. That's a given. Max has made his opinion and is supporting it and standing behind it. Everybody out there needs to look past the article and its topic and see that this is a kid fighting for what he believes in, even though it is a controversial topic. Wouldn't we all like our kids to find something they think is worth fighting for, and then to go for it? Max, if you're reading this, I have a deep respect for you and please keep fighting!

Max has obviously done his research. All he's done is speak out about his opinions. You people are all criticizing Max, when the truth is, there are millions of other teens out there who believe the same things that he does. We as parents need to be supportive of our children. We can't stand over their shoulders our whole lives. Regardless of age and upbringing, people are going to make their own opinions. That's a given. Max has made his opinion and is supporting it and standing behind it. Everybody out there needs to look past the article and its topic and see that this is a kid fighting for what he believes in, even though it is a controversial topic. Wouldn't we all like our kids to find something they think is worth fighting for, and then to go for it? Max, if you're reading this, I have a deep respect for you and please keep fighting!

"Wouldn't we all like our kids to find something they think is worth fighting for, and then to go for it? Max, if you're reading this, I have a deep respect for you and please keep fighting!"

Some kids believe drugs are worth fighting for and join a gang. Some kids think race is worth fighting for and become a skin head. Some kids think money is worth fighting for and commit robberies. Some kids believe death is worth fighting for and become a proabort.

Not all things are worth fighting for Debra. I am fighting for the rights of the humans like the one in the photo up a ways. I am fighting for the lives of people like him! HE WAS ALIVE AND WORTH FIGHTING FOR and where where you and Max then?

I think it's time to come to grips with your own abortion and quit using and enabling young people to ease your own conscience.

Sorry... slogging through about a hundred back-logged messages, here, so I'm a bit late to the party!

MarkB wrote:

Paladin, "Rare" or not, that's your opinion, these societal issues still exist.

(??) I'm trying to figure out your point, here; didn't I just get done saying that, even if your alleged "scarcity" of willing adoptive parents for at-risk children exists, the fact is IRRELEVANT? If something's right, it's right (even if 99%, or even 100%, of the people on Earth reject it); if something's wrong, it's wrong (even if 99%, or 100%, of the people on Earth approve of it). Are you disagreeing with that?

Yet neither side has solutions to them.

I really must ask you to rein in the vague language, here. I could do that, too, with equally illogical results: "Wow... both sides of the aisle hate rape, but neither side has any solutions to the problem, since it's still widespread! I think we should introduce "pro-choice legislation" to make rape a personal choice under the law--and try instead to change hearts, not criminalize an already weighty choice!"

See what nonsense follows, when you use a flawed set of starting assumptions?

We hope the few people who are helping these children do a good job, and we turn our head away from those that we don't see or know about.

(??) What are you talking about? Are you claiming that pro-life people, by definition, turn a blind eye to bad/abusive adoptive parents? If so, do you have any evidence for that wild assertion?

Perhaps you could stick to my main questions: why do YOU think it's better to KILL those children? And why do you think it's better to kill those children in the womb, BEFORE YOU KNOW whether they'd be "too miserable to let live" (whatever that means), rather than wait and see (until, say, age 3, 5, 15, 30, etc.) whether their lives are redeemed, and THEN kill them if things go "badly enough"?

Another reality is if we were to outlaw abortion, for a woman who really wants one, she'll still get one. Either in back alley clinics, do it themselves or some other nasty form, but they will still occur. Again, this is reality, history has proven this, and no matter how "rare" you think these things are, they do occur.

And you still forget my main point: of COURSE such violations of human rights (most notably that of the child who's torn apart) occur... but the fact that they are evil requires that we maintain and enforce laws against them. Their frequency, popularity, etc., are MEANINGLESS.

Turn your head if you want,

I'd appreciate it if you'd include an explanation of that comment, one of these times...

make it illegal, hopefully it won't happen anymore. Maybe all these children will find homes, help and even love. Right.. Maybe... brilliant strategy.

Mark, look: can you not see that murder is wrong? If murder became so popular in the USA that 99% of Americans indulged in it, it'd still be wrong, and we'd still need to maintain laws against it. Same here; your idea of "if a law won't end it completely, then the law is useless and should be removed" is insane.

Bob wrote:

What a great kid! What the rest of you fail to realize is that "pro choice" doesn't mean "pro-abortion." Gosh - you folks really don't seem to have a clue. Keep up the good work Max! We need more teenagers like you. I am sorry that misinformed folks like Jill have to pick on young folks like you. On sites like this you probably won't get much support, but please realize Max there are thousands of us out there to support you.

Yeesh. If I'd *tried* to get a more textbook example of a paragraph written by a troll, I could hardly find a better example than this.

1) ridiculously exaggerated compliment toward the antagonist of the story

2) gratuitous insults toward blog owner and supporters

3) "you-rah-rah" types of cheerleading for whomever is against the blog's theme and message

Do these people have a macro and computer script which just generate this mindless drivel at the touch of the "F11" key, or something?

Max wrote:

If you do your research on me then you will find I’ve had open discussions with both pro-choice and anti-choice organizations.

Hm. "Anti-choice"? I suppose this means that you think we'd forbid people from making a "free choice" about career, hairstyle, favourite flavour of ice-cream, and such?

Full marks for dedication; but, as your rightful antipathy towards Hitler might tell you, dedication and research and conviction really won't do any good if you choose an evil cause. Right?

Argh.

Debra wrote:

Max has obviously done his research.

Debra... for the love of all that's good and right, can I please beg you to *think* about what you're saying?? "Research" is only as good as the material researched, and the ability of the researcher to process it; garbage in, garbage out.

All he's done is speak out about his opinions.

Yes... and you'll not that we commented on the utter insanity of those opinions. To have the "opinion" that killing unborn children is acceptable is as insane as the "opinion" that all brown-haired people can be killed and used as sausage.

You people are all criticizing Max, when the truth is, there are millions of other teens out there who believe the same things that he does.

That's sadly true. What's your point? Popularity = right? Didn't your mother ever teach you the "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you, too?", idea...? If rape became just as popular with teens, would you indignantly defend their right to agitate for THAT? There's the small matter of finding out whether the "popular thing" is a terrible evil, or not, you know...

We as parents need to be supportive of our children.

Right. We need to teach them right from wrong, and not simply abdicate our responsibility to let "survival of the fittest" tear them (and others) to shreds.

We can't stand over their shoulders our whole lives.

Who's asking you to do that?

Regardless of age and upbringing, people are going to make their own opinions. That's a given.

Of course. Some will, if guided by sane reason and sane parents, form sane and good opinions. Others will form destructive and insane opinions. I'm one of those funny people who don't think that's a trivial matter.

Max has made his opinion and is supporting it and standing behind it.

Right. And his opinion is both evil and wrong, and we have a responsibility to warn him away from it.

Everybody out there needs to look past the article and its topic and see that this is a kid fighting for what he believes in, even though it is a controversial topic.

(*sigh*) Debra, please THINK for a moment. The mere fact that someone has a conviction isn't automatically "good, right, and defense-worthy"; if you [hypothetically] had, and fought for, the conviction that I should be murdered in my sleep, wouldn't that be wrong... no matter how courageously you fought for your sincere conviction? I think so, anyway...

Wouldn't we all like our kids to find something they think is worth fighting for, and then to go for it?

Even if the "something" is to steal, break, rape and kill? I've known plenty of gang kids who'd die for those "ideals", provided that they're directed against rivals (and anyone else who crosses them). Do you approve?

Max, if you're reading this, I have a deep respect for you and please keep fighting!

Debra, you're being a fool. Think about what you're doing! Even Max's wrong-headed and disastrous and foolhardy support for abortion is more comprehensible than your "get a cause, no matter how good or evil, and defend it! Rah! Rah! Rah!"

When I was Max's age, the proabort females loudly claimed that the subject of abortion was strictly off-limits to males. Males were to have no opinion about the topic. A teen boy would have never been allowed into their bash-all-males and prolife-females group.

Using a teen boy as a spokesperson speaks volumes obout the trie desperation of the proaboart mission.

Busy fingers are happy fingers. . . . .

Oops.

about the true desperation of the proabort mission.

Slow down fingers!

Palandin,

You're a mean spirited human. Calling people trolls, comparing them to Hitler and being snide with your posts. Really?? No matter what anyone expresses, according to you they are dead wrong, and you tell them so in a condescending manner. Man...I gotta know, what's it like to be so high and mighty and is the air up there really as good as they say it is?

I learned, even as a teen, that the minute you voice an opinion, you best be prepared to A. back it up and B. be criticized...and sometimes, if you're lucky have C. people agree with you.

If Max can't do that, then perhaps he shouldn't voice his opinion--oh he has a RIGHT to his opinion, nobody's doubting that, but it doesn't mean his opinion is right.

The thing is, even as a teen, if you voice an opinion some people are going to agree, some disagree and some think you're out of your mind for having it. (Doesn't mean you are, it just means that's one of the reactions).

I don't know why, with Max's caliber of education, he'd come to the conclusion that the pro-choice/abortion stance was such a good one to support--especially supporting PP, but based on what he said about his parents supporting PP, you see the influence.

Whether we admit it or not or like it or not, we are, somehow influenced by our parents and how we're brought up. Some people end up rejecting the way they were brought up and the stances and beliefs (whether right or wrong) but one way or another, a person is influenced.

Anybody who does serious research into PP will realize the founder was extremely racist and it wasn't about "choice" at all. It was about which race was "superior". PP has tried to change that image over the years, but there's still glimspes and still some mindsets on what they do that were influenced by Sanger.

PP workers are taught rhetoric--what to say--what not to say. (We've seen enough of those videos to know this is true). When exposed, they often cover their tracks by either getting rid of said worker or issue some sort of public message denying it. Then they go back to doing the same thing. They don't do anything to get rid of the problems (based on what I see, they don't even try to).

A lot of other places that have had exposed problems do try to implement programs and things to help--it may not be perfect or totally get rid of the problem, but at least those places try...I don't see PP trying to do anything but pad their bottom line.

Abortion IS a business. It's harsh and cold to say that, but abortion is harsh and cold. People taut it as a "personal" decision (suggesting that anybody having an opinion contrary to letting someone go ahead and have an abortion is wrong) they also claim it doesn't do any harm (which goes against research and the huge amounts of women who have come forward with their stories).

To deny all this and to bury your heads in the sand and say "That isn't my position" is to kid yourself. I think Max, in spite of any research he might've done, is severely and horribly kidding himself into believing this position is okay and that PP is okay.

Those doctors usually don't care...I mean look at he Tele-medication! That's not even a doctor being physically present! How is that any more reassuring? I'd feel like a number or just a face on a screen rather than a person. The medical field can sometimes been very impersonal, this just makes things worse.

So yeah, I think if Max can't take being told he's wrong, he should just stop right now because that's gonna happen his entire life--at least one person is gonna say "You're wrong" it happens to all of us.

MarkB,

First of all, I'm one who believes that words actually *mean* things; they're not just a description of how I feel at any given moment. Case in point: there really is such a thing as an internet troll; you can read more, here. I didn't use the term for insult value; I used it to describe a present reality, in which a random commenter threw inflammatory rhetoric instead of reasoned discourse. Believe me or not, as you like.

Re: "comparing people to Hitler": could you please quote where I did that? The only mention of Hitler's name was to Max, where I talked about his (completely understandable) antipathy--i.e. negative attitude toward--Hitler. If you're going to throw accusations, perhaps you might read a bit more carefully?

Re: being "snide"; unless you can tell me exactly what you mean by that (i.e. what comments of mine you consider "snide", and why"), it's really not of much use. I could easily (and with good reason) call this last comment by you "snide", couldn't I? It's never my intent to cause pain or offense... but it's rather presumptuous of you to say that my style somehow violates standards of right and wrong, simply because you don't like it.

No matter what anyone expresses, according to you they are dead wrong,

(??) No matter what *anyone* expresses? I think most commenters on this blog would disagree with you, friend. If you disagree, give the reasons; don't whine about them.

and you tell them so in a condescending manner.

I'm sorry you think so; and you're welcome to that opinion... but again, the fact that you label something of mine "condescending" really doesn't prove much.

Maybe you could stick to the discussion's main points, rather than trying to derail the discussion with your gripes about my style? You're welcome to hate my style; but it'd help if you addressed the substance of the discussion.

Man...I gotta know, what's it like to be so high and mighty and is the air up there really as good as they say it is?

(*sigh*) Do you appreciate the irony, here? In your attempts to complain about my manners, you manage to call me "mean-spirited", "condescending", "high and mighty", and other synonyms for "arrogant"; above and beyond the fact that you're way off base, do you think you might consider following your own standards of civility before you try lecturing anyone else about them?

Now... any chance you could scroll back and answer the salient points of the discussion (e.g. why do you think that it's better to kill children rather than let them be born into potentially dysfunctional families)?

Mark B, I think everything Paladin said was respectful and TRUTHFUL. You've been on here quibbling with everyone but no one has accused you of being high and mighty for having your own opinions, as foolish as they are.

The fact that we pro-lifers are not afraid to speak out because we have truth on our side just rubs you pro-aborts the wrong way doesn't it?

I was raised pro-life and made to protest abortion in the streets. I was brainwashed to believe abortion was murder and that adoption was the best option. Well, I'm adopted and as I grew older I became pro-choice. Being unwanted, and knowing my biological mother suffered greatly from the "choice" to give me away, have caused great psychological damage.

Some people regret abortion, some regret giving their child away, and some regret choosing parenthood. Just the same, some people are very happy to have made those same choices. I wish very much I had been a wanted child. I wish my biological mom had had the chance to make her own decision in what to do, however, her family's religious beliefs did not permit abortion, and she had no money and no one offered to help her raise her child. Adoption was her only "choice".

My story is not meant to speak for everyone. We all have our own stories. But I am pro-choice because I believe women are empowered by having the choice to have children or not. To me, being pro-choice means supporting someone's decision to have a child, to adopt out, or have an abortion. It means that I don't think all unplanned pregnancies have to be unwanted. I don't believe in forcing any choice on any woman, despite what I may believe. I didn't think my sister should have a baby, but I didn't voice that, instead supporting her decision to keep her child. Unfortunately she decided later she didn't want it...

In my own life, it means offering to help my parents raise my niece because my sister got pregnant, refused abortion because she and the rest of my family are pro-life, and promptly realized how hard it was and decided to leave and make my parents raise her child. It means volunteering at orphanages when I have the time to help kids who need love. It means standing up for my beliefs and the rights of women all over, including the right to safe, affordable childcare. It means waiting for the right time for my husband and I can have children so that we can devote our lives when we're ready to those children, equally.

Some of my friends who fight for a woman's right to choose abortion would not choose abortion for themselves. They believe choice should still be available though, and we also support making raising children easier on single, poor women faced with unplanned pregnancies, making birth control more easily available, and making the adoption process easier.

As a woman, I see this Max as one of those guys who'll sleep with a girl to his rocks off then if she becomes pregnant, he'll suggest she kill it. This kid is equal to the likes of Stalin,Hitler,bin Laden and maybe even Charles Manson. It's people like Max that have no clue that abortion is killing the human race. Face it kid, you're not worthy to speak even a single word. Once you turn 18, you might be worth something I've known abusers like you Max. The baby is still a human life and you are guilty of murder for suggesting pro-choice is a good thing.

I apologize. In my rage over the fact this kid is an imbecile I left out the word "get" in a sentence

I apologize. In my rage over the fact this kid is an imbecile I left out the word "get" in a sentence.

Hey Ashley,

Great to hear you're interested in getting counseling for your mother. Before a counselor even offers any advice to your Mom, I'm sure she would feel a tremendous sense of relief just getting all that junk "off her chest". Sorry for the gross analogy, but it's like lancing a boil and getting all the infectious puss out of there so true healing can begin.

Then, once she's gotten all that junk "out in the open", she'll be able to see how to deal with it.

It isn't complicated, but she does need help working through it or she'll continue to struggle.
She's caught in a vicious cycle and needs help to break out.

Email me with the city you live in if you'd like me to try to find someone for you:

edhull323@gmail.com

abortion is killing the human race? Seriously?

Lots of humans around where I live.

abortion is killing the human race? Seriously? Lots of humans around where I live.

Well... it's called "hyperbole", Hal... and many people do partake of it, from time to time; though it's getting dangerously close to literal truth. Have you checked the population growth rates of the western nations, compared to their replacement rates, lately?

But think about it: if a mother can be desensitized/brainwashed into killing her own child, and at a point where he/she's completely defenseless and completely dependent on the mother, then what else couldn't we do, as a race? Killing anyone or anything else gets quite a bit easier. Look at the involuntary euthanasia going on in the western nations (including the United States), for example.

But ultimately, Hal, you currently think that killing unborn children is okay... and I suspect that you approve of euthanasia, as well. Right? It might be helpful to establish that, first...

"I wish very much I had been a wanted child. I wish my biological mom had had the chance to make her own decision in what to do, however, her family's religious beliefs did not permit abortion, and she had no money and no one offered to help her raise her child. Adoption was her only "choice"."
Posted by: CK at July 23, 2010 1:42 PM

CK, But you don't state you wish you were aborted. If you do have feelings that you wish you had never been born, you need to immediatly call a suicide hotline. There are loving and caring people ready and willing to help you. Please take that first step towards them.

You also state you have a niece who "decided to leave and makes my parents raise her child." No one is "making" your parents do this. They choose to raise this child.

Actually, it wouldn't bother me if I had been aborted. I wouldn't know, so I wouldn't care. There is a difference in never having existed and committing suicide as an adult. A big difference. I can't go back in time anyways, however, if I could, and if I knew I could spare my biological mother a lifetime of pain, sure I'd tell her to have an abortion. I'd never know anyways. But, as we know, going back in time is quite impossible. Suicide is something completely different, and I am already in counseling anyways for my problems that stem from being adopted, unwanted. My husband also helps.

And yes, in a way my parents don't have a choice. They already had fallen in love with my niece. She's over a year old and has lived with them. They aren't about to give the baby away to someone else at this point. So they are "forced" because they can't bear to try to put their granddaughter up for adoption to a stranger at this point, and they fear for her life and well-being if they tried to force my sister to care for her.

All situations are different. One person's experience is not another. This is simply my experience. I know people who are much older than me who had abortions and have never regretted them, knowing that the children and loving families they have NOW would not exist if it weren't for that abortion, and knowing that they made the right choice for them. I know people who made the choice to parent, and some of them did fine and feel the made the right decision, others, like my sister, changed their mind and abandoned their babies. I know of those who regret giving their baby away, mostly my biological mother.

We are all different. We all have different choices to make, and we all make those choices and learn from them. I believe women have the right to make choices regarding having children. Those choices should be made easier though, by having available and affordable birth control, childcare, education, etc. No one should ever be forced into an abortion, having children, or giving their child up for adoption. I support each one of these choices, as long as it is the woman's choice.

CK wrote:

I was raised pro-life and made to protest abortion in the streets. I was brainwashed to believe abortion was murder and that adoption was the best option. Well, I'm adopted and as I grew older I became pro-choice. Being unwanted, and knowing my biological mother suffered greatly from the "choice" to give me away, have caused great psychological damage.

CK, believe me: I don't want to minimize the pain you went through. But you've just shown the key reason why morality can't be decided by "feelings", no matter how deep or sincere. Anti-abortion folk (such as I) can match you, emotion for emotion (can you imagine our motivation when we see abortion for what it is: the tearing of a baby, limb from limb?), I assure you. No... we need to stick to our brains, and our sane reason, to figure out what's right and what's wrong. Torture is wrong, no matter how many deranged people find it delightful; rape is wrong, no matter how many twisted people revel in it.

Think about this: how can one person be the product of brutal rape and be anti-abortion, and another person be the product of a "miserable family" and be abortion-tolerant? Does the "miserable origins" prove your case, or hers? It can't prove both, because they're opposites; either abortion is always an evil and murderous act, or it is not.

Again: we can't rely on "my upbringing [or the upbringing of my family] was [x], so I think abortion should be allowable"; that might explain why you FEEL that way, but it doesn't even come close to proving that it's RIGHT. And if we're going to be killing innocent children, we'd bloody well BETTER be right, and not just indulging in wishful thinking.

CK... if you had been aborted it wouldn't have met you "never existed". What do you think is sucked out of a woman during an abortion? NOTHING? NO...its a perfectly formed human being with a heartbeat and brain waves. That is not propaganda. That is biological fact.

Are you saying that the death of a child, whether en utero or at birth, or at 3 months or 3 years is not as tragic as the death of an adult?

CK... if you had been aborted it wouldn't have meant you "never existed". What do you think is sucked out of a woman during an abortion? NOTHING? NO...its a perfectly formed human being with a heartbeat and brain waves. That is not propaganda. That is biological fact.

Are you saying that the death of a child, whether en utero or at birth, or at 3 months or 3 years is not as tragic as the death of an adult?

Are you saying that the death of a child, whether en utero or at birth, or at 3 months or 3 years is not as tragic as the death of an adult?
Posted by: Sydney M. at July 23, 2010 4:44 PM

I think what some people are saying is that the "death" of a "child" 6 to 9 months before birth is not tragic.

I think what some people are saying is that the "death" of a "child" 6 to 9 months before birth is not tragic.

Hal... why the "scare quotes" around "death" and "child"? Do you seriously believe that abortion doesn't cause the death of the offspring of the mother?

Hal, I think that some people would say that your death would not be tragic. I know I'd have some say my death wouldn't be tragic. History shows that this message is repeated over and over about different groups of humans.

What some people would feel about our (or any other group of people's deaths) wouldn't make it less tragic to those who care about us.

The fact alone that millions of prolifers care about unborn persons makes the intentional killing of unborn persons absolutely tragic.

I really wasn't focusing on my particular situation. I don't expect my particular experience to speak for everyone. My main point was about choices. I will repeat the most important thing I was trying to say:

All situations are different. One person's experience is not another. This is simply my experience. I know people who are much older than me who had abortions and have never regretted them, knowing that the children and loving families they have NOW would not exist if it weren't for that abortion, and knowing that they made the right choice for them. I know people who made the choice to parent, and some of them did fine and feel the made the right decision, others, like my sister, changed their mind and abandoned their babies. I know of those who regret giving their baby away, mostly my biological mother.

We are all different. We all have different choices to make, and we all make those choices and learn from them. I believe women have the right to make choices regarding having children. Those choices should be made easier though, by having available and affordable birth control, childcare, education, etc. No one should ever be forced into an abortion, having children, or giving their child up for adoption. I support each one of these choices, as long as it is the woman's choice.

Your argument that there are people who abort their offspring and don't regret this choice later is ridiculous.

There are people who lie, cheat, steal, rape and murder who don't regret it later either. After all, we are all different, right CK.
%$%# %^# @*&$!!

CK, you seem to think being "unwanted" means having a lifetime of pain and misery. What about people who grow up in seemingly "normal" households and are miserable and unhappy, or go out and do terrible things? I'm thinking of those two in Columbine, specifically (Klebold and Harris). It seemed like that they had a good upbringing -- two professional parents who cared about them, a home in a nice neighborhood, etc. It seems that they were both loved and "wanted." But look at the suffering they caused.

None of us has a crystal ball -- just because someone is born into a bad situation doesn't mean that their life is going to be terrible, and vice-versa.

CK,

Praxedes hit the main point (and with far more power and brevity than I could, I think! :) ), but please try to think about what you're saying:

I really wasn't focusing on my particular situation. I don't expect my particular experience to speak for everyone. My main point was about choices.

Here, you're promoting the idea of moral relativism--the idea that there is no absolute, universal "right and wrong", but only different opinions for different people. "Your truth for you, and my truth for me!" It even sounds rather tolerant, generous, and reasonable on its face... but there are three key problems with it:

1) it isn't tolerant. Moral relativists are completely intolerant of those who insist on moral absolutes (such as the absolute evil of rape, for example), as a rule.

2) It isn't generous. It robs people of any reason to stand for something bigger than themselves. After all: if all views are mere opinions conjured up by people, then how can they be bigger than the people who conjured them? If you have nothing for which you're willing to doe, then you really don't have much to live for.

3) it isn't reasonable; in fact, it's self-contradictory. I believe that your moral relativism is wrong, and that some truths aren't dependent on human opinion; you believe the opposite. Two opposites cannot possibly be true; at least one of us must be wrong... so there's no use in saying, "well, we can each have our own opinion!" Yes... but we can't each have our own facts. Someone's opinion, in this case, must be wrong.

So... can you see why I (and others) would have a problem with a view that's intolerant, ungenerous, and illogical, completely in defiance of what it promises to be?

Argh. In the above, I meant:

If you have nothing for which you're willing to DIE

...of course!

Short version: opinions and feelings simply aren't designed to sort out good from evil, crimes from heroism. We need to use our heads, not our passions, to decide what's what; THEN we use our emotions to "propel" us in the needed direction, with extra energy.

CK, if you had been aborted, you would have still existed. You would have still had a beating heart, your own unique DNA, clearly discernable limbs, and been a separate person from your birth mother.

I'm sure your husband is glad you weren't aborted. Seeing as you're married and he helps you, I assume he loves you and wants to spend the rest of his life with you. Think of all the other people who could have been someone's cherished spouse, but were killed in the womb and never even got the chance to try to make a happy life for themselves. Those weren't hypothetical people. They were real, living unique people, and now they're dead.

abortion is killing the human race? Seriously? Lots of humans around where I live.
-------------------------------

What did you THINK they were killing, Hal? Kittens?

"I think what some people are saying is that the "death" of a "child" 6 to 9 months before birth is not tragic. "

Then why in the world did you and your wife mourn your miscarriage loss? If it wasn't tragic, why mourn?

Do you have any idea how insulting your comment above here was to those of us who have lost children and do consider it tragic? If you want to pretend that the death of a child in the womb isn't a loss, that's your right - but I think you have the ability to be a lot more sensitive to others besides yourself.

All situations are different. One person's experience is not another. This is simply my experience. I know people who are much older than me who had abortions and have never regretted them, knowing that the children and loving families they have NOW would not exist if it weren't for that abortion, and knowing that they made the right choice for them.

How do you know they never regretted them? And how does regret change whether an action is bad or not? A person could rape a woman and not feel regret for it...they might even feel that if they hadn't raped a woman, they could never be where they are today- but would that make it right?

We are all different. We all have different choices to make, and we all make those choices and learn from them.

The children who are aborted are unique people too, but they do not get the choice to grow up, make mistakes, and learn from them. That choice is taken away from them.

I believe women have the right to make choices regarding having children. Those choices should be made easier though, by having available and affordable birth control, childcare, education, etc. No one should ever be forced into an abortion, having children, or giving their child up for adoption.

Just a little note: The majority of women who have abortions are coerced into it.

Imagine this scenario: A woman, who is not educated and knows nothing about birth control, and doesn't have any money or support from anyone, goes into labor at home and has a baby. She realizes that she cannot afford to take care of this baby, so she considers her options. She decides that she cannot possibly put her baby up for adoption because it would be too heartbreaking. She can't keep the baby because she doesn't have the things she needs to support him/her. So she stabs the infant in the heart.
Would this be an acceptable choice, to you?
If not, why not? If not, what do you think she should have done instead?

I support each one of these choices, as long as it is the woman's choice.

Would this statement still apply in the scenario I described above?

Praxedes: If anyone wore a graphic picture of a dead thing that resembled a human, I think that they should be asked to remove it.

Ashley Herzog: I know a family like that. They are living paycheck to paycheck and just had another child. They are also Catholics and opposed to abortion. Luckily these parents are extremely nice and supportive of their kids. Maybe you should seek more help than anyone on a comment board can provide.

Elisabeth: As defined by the World Health Organization, reproductive rights are: “Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”

yor bro ken: Though I am not and have not ever been involved in deciding the locations of Planned Parenthood, I believe that are located closer to poor populations is because the poor are less likely to have access to family planning options from their normal doctors. Many may not even visit a doctor on a regular basis so they are the most in need of low cost birth control options.

Debra: Thanks Debra! I try to read every publication about myself and of course the comments. I always am open to others opinions about what I’m doing. It’s great to get support on a website devoted to going against the rights I am fighting for.

Paladin: Anti-choice is a term used to describe a person who is against giving women all the choices that modern medicine has provided us with.

Mother In Texas: As I’ve said before, I have no problem being told I am wrong. When I started working with such a controversial topic, I was (and am still) completely prepared for negative reactions, and I positive ones. These are my beliefs though, and I am sticking with them.

CK: You are awesome! I completely agree and commend you on your volunteering. If you ever need any help or support feel free to send me an email (which can be found on the bottom of my last RH Reality Check post) I would be glad to help.

Jamie Lee V: Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I do not agree with you. Age is truly only a number so I really don’t see what another year and a half will do for me. I’m still not a big fan of being compared to tyrants, though I don’t see where Manson fits in there. If a girl I was dating got pregnant then I would leave the choice up to her, and support her in which ever option she decided on.

If there is a post that you would like me to respond to that I missed in over 200 comments, feel free to respond and I will try and answer your question in a timely manner.
-Max Kamin-Cross

Ashley, I am so sorry to hear about your mother and the problems she's been dealing with and has forced you to deal with as well. I agree with you that she probably needs to seek some counseling.

Has she ever had an abortion before?

See Max? you seem like such a smart, respectful young man (gosh, saying that makes me sound soooo old! See what 30 does to you?)

But really...you sound like you have a good head on your shoulders. I just don't see how you can have the internet at your fingertips and be pro-choice. You've seen video of abortions taking place I assume? How can you think thats okay? (Center for Bioethical Reform website has one as well as Grantham Collection website)

How in your intelligent brain do you feel that dismembering a child is good for a woman? As a woman and a mom I am going to tell you you are WRONG Max. It is not what women want. When we have an unplanned pregnancy we are scared but what we want is SUPPORT. We want the fathers of our children to step up and tell us they will be there emotionally and financially if need be. To me pro-"choice" males mean men who will "support" us into letting them off the hook by aborting.

I hope through the years as you investigate this topic you will come to the conclusion that human life should never be killed at the whims of others.

Max,

Are you really 16 years-old or is Mom or Dad writing your comments? Something just doesn't seem right....

Janet: I usually like to wait and answer a bunch of comments in a group but I don't like being called a fake. I really am 16 (a quick Google-ing will likely come up with my name on my highschools honor role) and I am also really writing this, not anyone else.

Janet: I usually like to wait and answer a bunch of comments in a group but I don't like being called a fake. I really am 16 (a quick Google-ing will likely come up with my name on my highschools honor role) and I am also really writing this, not anyone else.

"If anyone wore a graphic picture of a dead thing that resembled a human, I think that they should be asked to remove it."

Posted by: Max Kamin-Cross at July 24, 2010 10:33 AM

Max, that dead thing resembles a human because it IS a human. You are old enough and smart enough to know that.

Now please tell me why you think it's OK to have that human killed.

I can wait as long as it takes for you to come up with some kind of credible answer. But I don't think one will be forthcoming.

Max, exactly why are you pro-choice? I would love to debate the issue with you, but I need to know which pro-choice camp you come from first.

Max, I understand that you prefer to answer questions in a group, but I think for a cohesive debate, it works better to address one stream of thought completely. You seem like an intelligent person who isn't emotionally invested in abortion. *Many intelligent people who are post-abortive and pro-choice can't debate the issue objectively because the realities of their own situation are too painful)I would love to go through the ethics of the situation with you, but it would require pretty consistent back and forth. You up for it?

Hi Max,

So nice to have you stop back. Although I can become snide (I think your generation calls this snarky) at times when it comes to the topic of abortion, I am sincerley grateful that you came back and replied to our comments.

I am going to defer to others who I believe can better (and more calmly) respond to your latest comment stating you think students should be asked to remove Tshirts that show "a dead thing that resembled a human."

I would like to however comment on your sentence that states, "These are my beliefs though, and I am sticking with them."

Your words remind me of the lyrics to the song, That's My Story by Collin Raye. The lyrics show on some level the husband knows he is wrong and lying to himself and others but his abundant pride keeps him from joining his wife on the other side where the truth is waiting to set him free. Just some food for thought.

I remember there was a time that I used to believe the stork brought my sister and a fairy took my teeth. . . .

Have a fun and safe weekend Max. Peace.

"When I was a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." 1 Corinthians 13:11

Go Lauren!!
::pops popcorn::

Oh, and Max, I was pro-choice when I was 16. I should dig up some of my old livejournal posts from that time. I remember writing some really scathing stuff about the "Face the Truth Tour" back in those days...

In fact, I very nearly went with my mother to the "March for Women's Lives" tour. I think I had a test for school or something so I "had" to miss it. Thank you God!

My point is that minds can be changed on the issue. Mine was changed slowly after having a preterm child and then really taking a hard look at all the evidence and arguments. When I was 16 I was a pro-choice liberal, and now I'm a pro-life conservative. Just be open to hearing arguments, even uncomfortable ones.

Lori Pieper: Lori I believe you and I have different definitions of what a human is, I would call that a fetus. Though I don’t believe that abortion truly kills a human I would like to keep the number of abortions as low as possible for many different reasons. To do that school need comprehensive sex-ed and we need to make every kind of birth control widely available at a low cost.

Lauren: I’m pro-choice because I value to life of the mother more than the “life” of the fetus. Being pro-choice is also more economically and socially sound in the long run. People who have abortions have them for their own reason, but common ones are that they cannot care for a baby at this time. Foster care in America is already underfunded and adoption is a long shot many times. If they raise the baby they may end up on welfare which is nowhere near the amount of money truly needed to raise a family. We also already have, what many environmental scientists consider, a population crisis. We are living above the Earth’s means and adding another un-wanted human into the mix will not help.

To All: I will do my best to check back more often if everyone would prefer that

HI Max.

"Lori I believe you and I have different definitions of what a human is, I would call that a fetus. Though I don’t believe that abortion truly kills a human..."

This is to confuse the accidents and substance of a being. A fetus is a stage of development, much like baby, adolescent, and adult. All of those stages, however, are stages of human development. It is a biological fact that the embryo and fetus is a human. A couple of quotes from biological texts should suffice:

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

There really is no question whether or not the fetus is a human being. The question is whether all human beings have a inherent dignity and moral worthy simply in light of the fact that they are human. Or do we value human beings based on what they can do or some property they possess? Why do you morally (not legally) have a right to life? What is it about you that gives you this right? This is the question that must be answered when determining the morality of abortion.

"We also already have, what many environmental scientists consider, a population crisis. We are living above the Earth’s means and adding another un-wanted human into the mix will not help."

If there is this problem, why not kill orphans and the poor? Because it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. But this is exactly what we claim about the unborn. Hence, any justification for abortion which appeals to population curbing is question begging since it assumes that the unborn are not human. This is the very claim of pro-lifers which needs to be addressed. If abortion does not end the life of a human being, then no justification is necessary for abortion. But if abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, no justification is adequate.

Hi Max,
The world's population is declining. Many countries are below replacement level.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P92820.asp

Bobby Bambino: Just because the development of a human starts at fertilization, does that mean it's a human then? The development of a birthday cake starts when you mix the eggs, flour, and sugar together; does that mean it's a cake then?

Carla: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=earth+population#met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true

Just because the development of a human starts at fertilization, does that mean it's a human then?
***********************

Kinda answered your own question, there, Max...

Eggs are eggs, flour is flour, oil is oil.

Sperm is sperm and ovum are ovum - until they join at amphimixis, when a new human life with distinct DNA is formed.

Eggs are eggs, flour is flour, oil is oil.

Posted by: Kel at July 24, 2010 1:06 PM

********************************************
And they can make a cake when they are mixed together, heat is added, and you wait. At what point do these ingredients actually turn into a cake?

"Just because the development of a human starts at fertilization, does that mean it's a human then? The development of a birthday cake starts when you mix the eggs, flour, and sugar together; does that mean it's a cake then?"

Yes it does. Biologically this is an established fact as the quotes I gave pointed out. The zygote has the a priori potential to become an adult ON ITS OWN given the proper environment. It is a self-organizing being. This is not the case with cake ingredients. They are simply an amalgamation. But the zygote is a whole integrated being who, given the proper environment and nourishment, will grow through the embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, and adult stage. Biologically there is nothing to distinguish them.

Max, are you saying that an unborn child is not a human being until the moment of birth?

Max, there is a very clear line in human reporduction when a new, unique human being has been formed. As mentioned before, this is amphimixis. This is the point where the male and female pronuculi allign and a new, diploid cell is formed.

It is very straightforward, and very clear cut.

In your cake analogy, it would be the moment that all of the ingrediants have been mixed together.

Max, I would like you to address Bobby's point above regarding why we do not kill orphans/the poor/the disabled.

All of your arguments for abortion would be equally applicable to already born individuals. We can solve the population problem just as easily by killing born people as we can by killing unborn people. Why is it ok to take this utilitarian position for the unborn, but not the born?

Max, you absolutely failed to answer my question. If the "dead thing" looks so much like a human, then why is it not a human? Don't you trust your eyes?

I'll let you in on something. I'm a lot older than you. (No! you say). I myself was just your age, only 16, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973. That was one of the saddest days of my life. Because back then I could SEE without a doubt that what was in a womb looked like, WAS a human being. And the thing was, there weren't any pro-life or pro-choice arguments back then. That's because no one ever expected that abortion would ever be considered legal throughout the land. All I had to do was LOOK at a picture of a developing fetus and understand for myself.

Your type of thinking is only too common though. Whites in the South looked at blacks, and they sure looked like human beings, but because prejudice and socio-economic reasons were so strong, they weren't considered human beings. Same thing for Nazis and Jews.

In the same way, it's all too easy to look at a baby in the womb, see a tiny human being, and then think about socio-ecnomic conditions, who is going to raise the child, etc. and back off from the truth. That is what you are doing.

And, using your own analogy, if you look in the oven door while the cake is baking, and you see something that -yes- looks like a cake, will you still say it's not a cake? That it's only a cake when you take it out of the oven? Or make it's not a cake until it's cooled off, or until you eat it, or until . . .

But I think you will agree that human lives are much more important than cakes. We have a duty to be sure what we are talking about when it comes to lives in the womb. This isn't cake, it's literally life and death, You are so far just parroting rhetoric you've memorized. You are not considering the thing in itself.

Fortunately you still have a lot of thinking and growing up to do. I hope you do it quickly for your sake and the sake of many human lives out there.

"In your cake analogy, it would be the moment that all of the ingrediants have been mixed together."

Posted by: Lauren at July 24, 2010 1:20 PM

Great responses all, but I can't resist to add that the mixed ingredients can't become a cake on its own until it's in the oven.
You know the old saying some use to describe a pregnant women?
She has a bun in the oven? :)

Max, It would be great to hear from you more often.

And by the way, Max, if abortion to you is not the taking of a human life, why do you say it should be as rare as possible? If abortion really isn't taking human life, if there is truly nothing wrong with it, then why try to limit it? Why shouldn't it be everyone's ordinary back-up means of birth control? You are really giving yourself away here.

BTW, to be fair to Max, we should not expect him to give full responses to every single thing someone says. It can be extremely overwhelming to try and answer everything on a blog which holds the opposite beliefs you do since there are so many of them and so few of you (talking from personal experience here). I just don't want Max to feel either overwhelmed or not welcomed because I appreciate his interest in the topic, which is more than I can say for most kids his age.

Max, I appreciate your dialogue with us. Thank you for being respectful.

I would like to point out that if you value women's lives you would not support an unnecessary surgery that can likely kill her in the process and if that fails lead to cancer that will kill her later. On top of that abortion has been linked to suicide in young women (Stacy Zallie foundation) Please see Cemetery of Choice website which shows all the women who have died from SAFE LEGAL ABORTION. It is not in women's best interests to have sharp instruments shoved blindly into their vulvas. The uterus during pregnancy has the consistency of a wet paper bag with massive amounts of blood flowing in and around it to support the baby. The risk of perforation is greater in a pregnant uterus than a non-pregnant uterus and the risk of hemorrhage is great because of all the blood present during pregnancy. Very very very dangerous. And for what? Social pressures? Economic pressures? Aren't there better solutions to these problems that placing the women's life at risk in a surgery that WILL kill her child?

BTW, as the baby boomers age there are not enough members of my generation and yours to become workers and support social programs like Social Security. Thats because 1/3 of our generation is missing Max. Abortion killed our peers.

Did you ever watch the videos of those abortions? Just curious.

Lori Pieper: Yet again, not a huge fan of being compared to the Nazis. It is obvious you believe life starts at conception, I do not agree and as I’ve said above I’m not going to try and change your mind. I’m pretty sure my ideas aren’t going to change, even when I’ve “grown up.” To answer your question on why I would like to have abortions as rare as possible: Though I completely support a women’s choice to abort her fetus, I know (and can see right here) many others don’t. If abortions weren’t so prevalent in today’s society we would not be getting into these arguments as often, and they would be less likely to become violent as happened on May 31, 2009 when Dr. George Tiller was murdered. It all starts in the education system. If we had comprehensive sex-ed that’s presents unbiased facts and shows students ways to get low cost birth control, abortions would become rare and Jill would most likely have to find another career path.
Bobby Bambino: I have no problem trying to answer as many questions as I can in a timely manner; I try to make it a habit to receive and respond everyone’s input.

Or like when a pro-choicer shot and killed pro-lifer Jim Pouillon on September 11 2009?

Abortion is violent. It begets violence. The problem is whether legal or not abortion will always be bloody, violent and provoke passionate emotion in people. Thats why I'm saying that you should be working to provide women with better options Max instead of working to spread abortion.

All my friends who went to Planned Parenthood for their abortions were never offered any help with other options such as prenatal care, adoption, parenting. They were only offered abortion (if they had the money ready of course!) Why don't you work to offer women REAL choices Max? Do you know who Abby Johnson is? She is a former Planned Parenthood employee of the year who finally opened her eyes after witnessing an abortion and left the industry. She can testify that Planned Parenthood is all about keeping abortions prevelant. PP does NOT want abortion to be rare because that is how they make their money. So PP will stand up and talk about abortion being "safe, legal and rare" but their actions work to ensure there are more and more abortions. Its all about money Max. Don't be so naive.

Max, once again, you utterly failed to even address my question.

If it looks like a human being (which you admit), then why isn't it a human being?

Did you really skim over my entire answer and see nothing but the word "Nazi"?

As I said, I'm sure I will have to wait a goooooooood long time to get a credible answer here. Because you don't have one.

Posted by: Max Kamin-Cross at July 24, 2010 2:52 PM
-------

Max - when does the embryo or fetus become a human being to you and why?

and Jill would most likely have to find another career path.

Oh, yes, that was respectful. Why don't you read Jill's bio, Max.

It is obvious you believe life starts at conception, I do not agree and as I’ve said above I’m not going to try and change your mind.

Whether or not you agree, Max, scientifically, a new human life is formed at amphimixis. This life has its own unique DNA.

You haven't answered anyone's questions. If you are very certain of your position (and that you can foretell the future and how you'll never change your mind about the issue), then why not debate this with facts rather than rhetoric? You've jumped from "It's not a life" to "my opinion is this, your opinion is that" to being offended that your beliefs were likened to those of Nazism, to George Tiller to sex ed.

And still, you've addressed no one's questions. You didn't address Bobby's comments about the biology of the zygote, you didn't answer when you believe life actually begins and you didn't back up your claim that a fetus is not human.

To answer your question on why I would like to have abortions as rare as possible

Again, why?

To answer your question on why I would like to have abortions as rare as possible

Again, why?
Posted by: Kel at July 24, 2010 3:50 PM
*********************

Oh, wait, I think I get you now: You want abortions to be rare so no more abortionists are in danger. Right?

Max, I am not saying the man should get to choose life or death of fetus, but wouldn't you agree that he should get to opt out of the whole parenthood thing early on if they were not trying to conceive and she was using birth control and gets pregnant anyway?

Sydney M: Jim Pouillon’s death was a senseless killing though the New York Times reported that the “shooting did not seem to her to be tied to the abortion debate.”
I’m sorry your friends have had bad experiences with Planned Parenthood, but I’ve always seen that if a woman decides she wants to keep the child they will provide checkups and can at times even assist with finding an adoption provider.

Lori Pieper: Well Lori, I really don’t think I (or any other pro-choice activist) will be able to give you a satisfactory answer. We do not believe a fetus is alive, and we value to life of the mother above the fetus. I doubt any pro-choicer will be able to change your views on this issue.
Chris Arsenault: Hey Chris, you know I’m really not sure. I’ve done my research but personally, I still can’t pick a specific point in development when I believe life actually starts. Even if I could, I still think it is up to the mother to make that choice. I am against anyone telling the mother whether she can or cannot get an abortion.

Kel: I’m sorry if I haven’t been as clear as you would like. I’ll try and lay out my thoughts and let me know if you need anything clarified. I believe that abortion needs to stay legal, and that it is up to the mother to decide if she wants to have an abortion or not. Now I also think that if American schools actually had comprehensive sex-ed class that taught about birth control instead of abstinence only educations the number of abortions would significantly drop. I believe abortion should always be legal, but if we had better sex-ed classes and more available birth control, the need to have abortions would diminish and at some point may even disappear. If that happened (which is likely won’t, but could someday) we would not have to have these arguments and violence like Dr. Tiller’s murder would not happen.

Truthseeker: Sorry I missed your comment, looks like I didn’t refresh my page.
Even if the woman is using a method of birth control, the man should always us a condom as a back up and to prevent STD’s/STI’s. If the condom breaks there is something called Plan B. This is available at most pharmacies without a prescription, all you have to do is ask for it. It will prevent a pregnancy within 5 days from the sex.

Max,

How old were you when you learned how humans become pregnant? How old where you when you learned what condoms were? What about the pill? When did you learn about Planned Parenthood and abortion?

With all due respect, because of the internet, your generation knows more about sex than any other generation before you. Your generation is SATURATED with sex and I can't imagine a student getting out of 7th grade who hasn't heard all about condoms and the pill/patch/shot, etc. (I work in a public middle school so do know a bit about what most of that age group already knows and doesn't know.)

Why has the number of abortions GREATLY increased since the first years since it was legalized? And like someone else has pointed out, why not just use abortion as birth control if nothing is inherantly wrong with abortion?

Your generation does not need yet MORE sex education. The 'importance' and 'benefits' of birth control has been pounded in your heads by many sources but little has been taught to you about the importance and benefits of self control.

Thanks for sticking around. I have found that more often than not it is the students who are willing to listen with an open mind to the arguments that go against their own belief systems who are truly the brightest among their peers.

As a woman and parent to a 16 year old daughter, putting the decision onto the female regarding what two consenting adults (wishful thinking I know) are equally responsible for participating in, is very degrading to my gender.

I’ve done my research but personally, I still can’t pick a specific point in development when I believe life actually starts. Even if I could, I still think it is up to the mother to make that choice.

Posted by: Max Kamin-Cross at July 24, 2010 4:51 PM
-------

Let's start at 9 months gestation.

Is it wrong for a mother to kill her child then - and if so why?

Praxedes - Yea I guess I could be catholic but I thought you holy men only liked blind boys??? Don’t start telling about right and wrong until you got your own house in order…

As for why I never called child services... THAT’S HOW HE GOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! His previous foster homes weren’t much better anyway.

As for my views on life and death... I don’t like death. Who does? I just don’t think your life or my life is that important. I think all our lives or at least the progress we make down the evolutionary road collectively is important, but our personal, individual lives mean as much in the great scheme of things as a mosquito's life. I look at life in general as a whole.

As for abortion violence you said it yourself. The procedure is done in a very short time and they move onto the next patient, because it’s a simple procedure. There is very minimal healing and no scaring to speak of. I have a bigger scar from having a pebble removed from my knee when I was 6.

As for PP "Profits" haven’t you noticed all the new PP buildings going up all over the country? It took years of fund raising to get all the $$$ together to build all those buildings. Now that those buildings are done well let’s just say that "profit" is long gone. Oh and just for fun try to compare PP “profits” to any other medical care group and you will see just how much money PP is out to make lol

As for the PILL KILLING lol the birth control pill has been in WIDE circulation for what 40 years? So where are the piles of women the pill has killed? What you’re talking about there is the same type of complications you get when the FDA releases any new drug into the market place. Just turn on your TV at about 2am to any station still playing and you will see 4 different commercials from lawyers trying to get you into to their new tort case against 40 different pills. Run the numbers on the amount of deaths there are attributed to heart medication, anti-cholesterol, or anti-depression drugs and see how well the PILL stands up over the last 40 years.

Max, you seem to be really good at answering questions without really answering them.

"Truthseeker: Sorry I missed your comment, looks like I didn’t refresh my page.
Even if the woman is using a method of birth control, the man should always us a condom as a back up and to prevent STD’s/STI’s. If the condom breaks there is something called Plan B. This is available at most pharmacies without a prescription, all you have to do is ask for it. It will prevent a pregnancy within 5 days from the sex. "

What if the woman wants to keep the baby, and you don't? I am pretty sure you can see that is what Truthseeker was trying to get at.

"Well Lori, I really don’t think I (or any other pro-choice activist) will be able to give you a satisfactory answer."

BINGO! You admit you have no answer. You have no credible reason whatsoever to think that something that looks like a human being is not a human being. And you're happy with that? Are you comfortable with the fact that you are advocating the killing of what just might be human beings? Or do you think it's reasonable to advocate their deaths without being sure?

I know you'll probably say next: "What I meant was you won't accept any reason I could give, so I won't give one." Nonsense, Max. If you had a reason that satisfied YOU, you would give it to me.

You need to think long and hard about this question. Because it's a life and death question. Don't pretend it's not.

And don't look to the cool pro-abort kids at school for the answers, the ones who have been feeding you all this rhetoric straight and unaltered from the playbook, the answers that don't require any thought whatsoever. I suppose they were the ones who taught you to say: "If you have no reasoned argument, be sure and bring up George Tiller," or "if you run across the word 'Nazi' complain about being compared to a Nazi and ignore everything else that was said." (Most grown-up pro-aborts never get beyond this childish level either).

This is not reason or thought and you seriously need to engage in both before you have a right to an opinion. You are smart and you can do better than you have been doing here.

Chris Arsenault - Well No the way I see it until a baby is born and begins to live on its own, "by that I mean it is no longer attached to and housed by the mother". It’s after birth that we find out if the baby can live. In the womb however, I see it as a side car on a motorcycle. Without being attached to that bike it serves no purpose, but if you put two more wheels on it you can coast it down a hill and it lives on to be a go-cart in its own right. Now calm down... it’s an analogy, I don’t need a speech about how humans are worth more than bikes.... What I am saying is that a fetus NEEDS its mother to continue to grow and function. Once you remove that fetus from the mother we find out if the new born baby can live on its own. You guys make this out to be some mystical magical wonder of existence but seriously even cockroaches can have kids….
To quote the Late Great George Carlin again… Why is it that when it’s a human they call it an abortion, but when it’s a chicken it’s called an omelet?

Max, you never answered the question regarding killing born people. Also, the only point in human development that isn't arbitrary is amphimixis. That is when a new human being comes into existence, there is no debate.

Max, you never answered the question regarding killing born people. Also, the only point in human development that isn't arbitrary is amphimixis. That is when a new human being comes into existence, there is no debate.

Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 5:55 PM
--------

Prior to independence are you talking about 2 unique human beings or only one?

Praxedes - Yea I guess I could be catholic but I thought you holy men only liked blind boys??? Don’t start telling about right and wrong until you got your own house in order…

Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 5:36 PM

Biggz, I've never claimed to be holy and I've given birth three times so I don't understand you calling me a man.

My house is a bit cluttered. Don't worry about me bringing my junk to your house though. You need to have a garage sale way more than me. . . .

Max... the fetus IS alive. How else could it grow? It has a heartbeat and brainwaves. You don't believe the fetus is a PERSON. You cannot deny it is human and you cannot deny it is alive. That would be preposterous. What you are probably denying is its personhood.

You didn't tell me if you've ever watched an abortion procedure. Not for the faint of heart but at least you would view what you're defending. Check out the websites for Center for Bioethical Reform and The Grantham Collection if you're brave enough to view the actual procedure. you will see a woman spread eagled and actually view her womb being scraped. i don't see how its so liberating for women.

Biggz...abortion can and often does cause scarring. I have THREE friends who had fertility problems from scarring from their abortions. Two had placental abruption and the third has been unable to conceive for over 5 years.

"Just responded to over 200 comments on http://tiny.cc/3wbe2 What does everyone think?"
about 10 hours ago via web Max Kamin-Cross

Someone who is firm in their convictions doesn't need confirmation of this kind from others, Max. This is about fitting in somewhere to you not about your having anything close to strong convictions about the subject at hand.

What you are doing is called parroting.

The preditors saw you from miles away.

Praxedes: I completely agree with the first part of what you said. My generation knows a lot about sex, almost too much at time. We’ve even invented a new kind of sex, sexting. This newfound knowledge of sex is being spread peer to peer with adults in the schools that are limited on what they are able to teach us about sex. I talked to a student from Utah whose school district would not allow sex-ed teachers to even say “condom.” In Wisconsin a recent survey showed that students believed sitting in bleach would help treat a gonorrhea infection. Rumors like that start, and because teachers aren’t even allowed to talk about them in health class, they continue. Students need a solid foundation of comprehensive sex-ed, not abstinence only as I think your implying when you refer to “self control.” I always try to have an open mind and many times I learn something new or at least have an interesting conversation.

Chris Arsenault: I have no problem answering everyone’s questions but as I said I really don’t know. This is one idea that I am still working on figuring out, though I really like how Biggz said it.

Bethany: I apologize I didn’t realize that was what turthseeker was getting at. Well in the case where the birth control (that everyone should be using) fails, both parties need to have a conversation about their options. If at that point the man wanted to abort the baby, and the woman wanted to keep that baby, then they would have to reach an agreement. Hopefully you should have discussed your partner’s beliefs before engaging in sexual activity. Either way I would weigh the woman’s choice greater than the man’s. This whole situation bring the line “a world of wanted children would make a world of difference” to mind.

Lori Pieper: Let me amend what I said, it should say: "Well Lori, I really don’t think I (or any other pro-choice activist) will be able to give an answer that you will find satisfactory." I am satisfied with my values and views. As I’ve said many times, I know I will likely not change anyone’s mind on this site and you will not change my mind either. As for the “cool pro-abort kids at school,” if you had done your research you would have found that I am from Pittsford, NY. The demographic is mostly rich, white, Republican, Christian, families. Until several months ago I was one of the few kids, at my nationally ranked public school, who was openly pro-choice. In April I organized the first “Pro-Choice Day” at my high school. Some students loved it and were extremely supportive wore shirts, stickers, and buttons showing their pro-choice opinion. Other wore shirts that said “Abortion is Homicide.” That was the first time such an event happened at our school, and was essentially a “coming-out” day for pro-choice youth in a school district run by Republicans (not that Republicans can’t be pro-choice, see http://www.republicansforchoice.com) without comprehensive sex-ed. As a result I truly did lose several friends who were unaware of my beliefs before that. When you say “cool pro-abort kids at school,” you are essentially talking about me as I am the most vocally pro-choice student there.

Lauren: I would not promote killing of the poor, that’s insane. I volunteer at our local homeless shelter. The great people there try and get the homeless and poor back on their feet and get them better lives.

Sydney M: Sorry for not answering your question completely, I have never watched a full abortion but promise you I will when I have time. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures we have in existence. It’s estimated that 1 in 3 women will have one in their lifetime. Most time there is little to no recovery time needed, it’s quick and safe.

Praxedes: I am “firm in (my) convictions” and I was looking for responses on the article, not on my comments.

Bethany: I apologize I didn’t realize that was what turthseeker was getting at. Well in the case where the birth control (that everyone should be using) fails, both parties need to have a conversation about their options. If at that point the man wanted to abort the baby, and the woman wanted to keep that baby, then they would have to reach an agreement. Hopefully you should have discussed your partner’s beliefs before engaging in sexual activity. Either way I would weigh the woman’s choice greater than the man’s. This whole situation bring the line “a world of wanted children would make a world of difference” to mind.

You still don't seem to understand the question. The question is not whether the man should be able to force the woman to abort (Truthseeker clarified this earlier), but whether the woman should be able to force the man to pay child support if she chooses to keep the baby against his will?

How does this scenario bring that quote, "a world of wanted children would make a world of difference" to mind? In this scenario, this baby IS wanted, only not by both parties.

A side question: Have you ever been involved in an abortion? Whether by paying for a girlfriend's abortion, or in any other way?

A side question: Have you ever been involved in an abortion? Whether by paying for a girlfriend's abortion, or in any other way?

Posted by: Bethany at July 24, 2010 8:54 PM

Another sidenote: Are your parents outspoken regarding abortion and do you know if your mom ever aborted or if an offspring of your dad's was ever aborted?

": I would not promote killing of the poor, that’s insane. I volunteer at our local homeless shelter. The great people there try and get the homeless and poor back on their feet and get them better lives."

But, Max, the same arguements you make for killing unborn children (i.e. they will have miserable lives, live in poverty, be unloved ect.) can be made against these born people.

Is it not possible that the children born of crisis pregnancies might also be "great people" who just might land on their feet?

You admit that being poor is not reason to kill someone, so why have a different standard for the unborn?

Hi Max,
Please dig out your baby book and hold up the ultrasound photos and then go ask your parents if you were a human being in those photos. Then ask them if you were alive. Ask them if they heard your heart beat. At 12 weeks they could have found out they were having a son.(or scheduled an abortion)

Abortion is not easy nor is it safe. Not for the mother nor for the child. You really do need to do some research on how abortion affects men and women!! Here is just one of thousands of abortion stories
http://outcrywisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-story-at-faith-community-church.html

For you to say that it is really up to the woman may sound HEROIC to you and your friends but all it really says is that any girl who gets pregnant is on her own at one of the most vulnerable places in her life. What she really needs is help and support. But you keep walking away and telling her it's her choice. Go you.

Also, to prove that the population of the world is exploding you linked me to a bar graph. Um. Yeah. Ok. Thanks.

Biggz,
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Truthseeker: Sorry I missed your comment, looks like I didn’t refresh my page.
Even if the woman is using a method of birth control, the man should always us a condom as a back up and to prevent STD’s/STI’s. If the condom breaks there is something called Plan B. This is available at most pharmacies without a prescription, all you have to do is ask for it. It will prevent a pregnancy within 5 days from the sex.
Posted by: Max at July 24, 2010 4:58 PM

Max, I don't think ou understood my question. It was not about ways to prevent or abort pregnancy it was about about a man's rigths if a woman unintentionally gets pregnant. What if the girl decides she wants to keep the baby even though they had discussed they did not want children and the birth control failed? I am not saying the man should get to choose life or death of fetus, but wouldn't you agree that he should get to opt out of the whole parenthood thing early on even though the girl decides she wants to carry the baby to term?

Also, to prove that the population of the world is exploding you linked me to a bar graph. Um. Yeah. Ok. Thanks.

lol

Bethany/Truthseeker: That’s a hard one, I’m not really sure. I would have to say it should be dealt with on a case by case manner taking into account the economic resources of both parties that would be needed to raise a baby. I understand I didn’t totally answer your question there, but I’m not sure what the correct answer is.
To answer Bethany’s other question: I have never paid for an abortion.

Praxedes: So much interest about my parents here. I have no idea if about the latter questions, though I can tell you my parents are not involved in the pro-choice movement in anyway except for occasional donations to Planned Parenthood and I believe they have donated to NARAL also in the past.

Lauren: It all comes down to when you believe life begins. I don’t believe abortion “kills” anyone, you do.

Carla: Abortion is safe, and is one of the most commonly preformed medical procedures. I encourage you to check this article out http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2009/02/the-serious-health-decision-women-arent-talking-about-until-now
If a girl gets pregnant I think it is her choice ultimately but she should be giving every option. She is not alone and there are many people willing to help, that should include the man.
That was actually a line graph, and showed that the world’s population is growing.

"Lori Pieper: Let me amend what I said, it should say: "Well Lori, I really don’t think I (or any other pro-choice activist) will be able to give an answer that you will find satisfactory." I am satisfied with my values and views."

Max, I already predicted you were going to say this up above. Let me say it once again: tell me what answer YOU find satisfactory to the question: if it looks like a human being, why isn't it a human being?

It doesn't matter when you got your rhetoric, it's still completely devoid of thought.

Lori Pieper,

Max is reading from the Planned Parenthood/NARAL Playbook for Organizing and Policy-making. He's an important activist, you know. I don't think the words "human beings" are a part of their lexicon.

Max,
Would you agree that any man who cannot answer this question should not be having intercourse because the way the law is today they may end up being forced into unwanted parenthood.

Max, I'm not interested in propaganda double-speak from a world organization. I'm interested in real words from YOU. How does it become a "reproductive right" to murder an unborn human being? That would be a the right to NOT reproduce, not the right TO reproduce. And what of women who truly need reproductive rights, the ones coerced into abortions by totalitarian governments or abusive men?

"Max is reading from the Planned Parenthood/NARAL Playbook for Organizing and Policy-making."

Yes, Janet, I pretty much figured that was the ultimate source. I'm actually glad there aren't any more like him at his school.

Max, one last word: there is a reason those graphic images disturb you and why you don't want to look at them or want others to see them. Do me a favor and take a long look at those pictures -- pictures of what you think it's OK to do. See if you can figure out why they disturb people. Then come back and answer my question, if you can.

Max, And then please tell me why I can wear a graphic picture of flood/earthquake devastation on my Tshirt at a public school but you think I should be required to remove a Tshirt that shows a graphic picture of what your 'convictions' represent and our country and president support.

"Carla: Abortion is safe, and is one of the most commonly preformed medical procedures. I encourage you to check this article out"

Max, I encourage you to read ALL of the letters following the Glamour article. Glamour is a shallow magazine that makes money on the objectification of females. It caters to it's shallow audience.

Posted by: Max Kamin-Cross at July 24, 2010 10:58 PM
-------

Max - relying on Biggz answer shows me you're not serious or thinking things through. If you were debating my 16 year old daughter in a public forum, you'd get your clock cleaned on the cross-exam.

Here's why:

Biggz motorcycle-sidecar analogy is invalid. Humans are organic - not component parts that are assembled. Biggz avoids the fundamental biological facts involved. You and him have the same problem - to correct the metaphor, a baby is not a sidecar, but a complete motorcycle. You can't explain when it becomes complete. (And a sidecar needs parts, like an engine and major modification to become a fully functioning motorcycle.)

So Biggz has a problem with basic human medical science and you have a problem with time.

Okay - let's set that aside, and address the issue of dependency, which is really what he's trying to convey.

This is actually a very old argument (1973) - called the violinist argument, put forth by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Eileen McDonough and David Boonin:

As the young human child is completely dependent upon the mother for all her needs, the mother is denied her liberty. To regain that liberty, she may remove her child.

Seems valid? Well, no. If the child is a completely self-integrated biological human being, but relies upon the mother for a secure and nourishing environment (which is the only way every one of us alive came to be), then the mother's obligation being rejected is about security and nourishment. That is, if the child could be removed and artificially sustained, then all would be good? Well no.

There's that pesky pro-creative part. The mother is still a mother and the father is still a father, and the huge volume of parental laws, as well as cultural expectations indicate that parents are obligated to continue providing security and nourishment for their children.

Biggz reply would be: but the child is not directly attached to her mother's body. True - but that obligation is still there.

However, abortion is not about removal of one human being to provide liberty for another. The mother's child is destroyed, often shredded, and with it the obligation. That's what's really unwanted.

So Max do you make all your own food and provide for all your own security? Do you rely upon the mercy of others to act rationally and not kill you without reason? Who defends you? Your parents? The community through governmental laws and law enforcement? How about every other human you come in contact with?

Human beings have a mutual obligation to defend each other, in particular the weak and innocent need to be defended against the strong and powerful. Our reasoning for the use of force must be valid and rational, otherwise the most powerful (person group etc) can make their own rules and subjugate other humans.

Here your time problem comes back to you: This obligation to each other as human beings is not nullified based upon the development or growth of our bodies. If a newborn must be defended from harm, why does a change in environment nullify that obligation?

One more analogy: You're a mom. You go hiking deep into the woods with your child. The child falls into a ravine, breaking a leg. You're unable to reach your child who is still alive and dependent upon you. Are you, as the only one available, still obligated to provide security & nourishment for your child or can you throw a boulder to crush your child's skull to eliminate your obligations to your child? Can you hire someone else (abortionist) to crush your child's skull?

Seems silly - right?

So Max please tell me why that's wrong, but abortion is not. Notice, I used the term mother and child. You can argue all you want about development, but from conception on - there is both mother and child. She can't be pregnant if that's not true.

Tell us Max, why is abortion not wrong?

BTW - I appreciate your honest, forthright replies, however repeating that a woman has a right to kill her child via abortion doesn't explain why. Abortion as a moral, valid right is a conclusion - what's the premise of your argument? (And you can't have the conclusion as a premise - that's begging the question - an invalid argument.)

Max, keep up the good work. And I think it's great that you are so passionate about a cause so young. I wasn't passionate about anything at your age, I just did as I was told. Granted, I'm not a whole lot older, but college is a different world and you get to learn and grow in yourself.

I don't get all these comments saying you'll change when you get older. Geez we all do! I was raised anti-choice and anti-gay and here I am, pro-choice and pro-gay rights. And my parents started brainwashing me about both these things when I was too young to even understand what it was.

There are great websites I turn to when doing protests or counter protests at school. rcrc.org is the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. It is helpful for those of us who are spiritual or religious. You already know rhrealitycheck.org, the Guttmacher Institute is good for statistics, etc.

Personally, I do have a "line", and it's autonomy. When the fetus/baby can survive on it's own outside the uterus, then I believe it is a separate entity, a new human life.

Good luck in your endeavors. Don't expect to change to many minds though, although it's possible. I grew up and changed my mind, although it was really not through any people, I didn't meet pro-choice people until after I joined a group at school. I did personal research and made the decision to be pro-choice on my own.

I haven't seen an abortion either, although my friend had a medical abortion and she described it to me. Seemed pretty simple, she said it was like a heavy period. You might be able to though, it would be interesting. I got to see a presentation on methods and they showed us how a manual aspirator works.

To whoever asked if my husband is glad I wasn't aborted...he understands that if I was, he wouldn't know to miss me! We've talked about it. I mean, geez, if my bio mother didn't just happen to get raped that night I wouldn't be here. Do you think I wouldn't rather that didn't happen? Or if her parents had used a condom I wouldn't be here. So many little things could have prevented me being here, including abortion. I wouldn't know to care, and neither would anyone who knows me today.

"I don't get all these comments saying you'll change when you get older. Geez we all do!"
Posted by: CK at July 25, 2010 7:19 AM

Including unborn persons. . . .

"When the fetus/baby can survive on it's own outside the uterus, then I believe it is a separate entity, a new human life."

See Chris Arsenault's post three posts up for a direct refutation of this position.

Hi Max,
Abortion wasn't safe for my daughter who was sucked out of my womb in pieces. But thank you for the link to an article about abortion. Gee, been there. Done that. I am 20 years out from my abortion. Afterwards,I drank, partied, became depressed, had eating disorders, nightmares, suicidal thoughts and made one attempt.

I am so thankful that you came on this thread to set me straight about how safe abortion is though.
Whew. What a relief!

Max said "Lauren: It all comes down to when you believe life begins. I don’t believe abortion “kills” anyone, you do."

Max, this isn't simply a matter where people can disagree. There is absolutely no arugement. Abortion kills a human being. Period. End of discussion.

You may think that this human being lacks the social construct of personhood, but you can not claim that he is not a human.

So again, why is it ok to kill one human and not another?

To whoever asked if my husband is glad I wasn't aborted...he understands that if I was, he wouldn't know to miss me! We've talked about it. I mean, geez, if my bio mother didn't just happen to get raped that night I wouldn't be here. Do you think I wouldn't rather that didn't happen? Or if her parents had used a condom I wouldn't be here. So many little things could have prevented me being here, including abortion. I wouldn't know to care, and neither would anyone who knows me today.

You wouldn't know to care if someone killed you today either. I'm pretty sure you don't want someone putting a gun to your head though.

Sorry you value your life so little, but just because you do doesn't mean everyone else should.

I haven't seen an abortion either, although my friend had a medical abortion and she described it to me. Seemed pretty simple, she said it was like a heavy period.

I'm sure that would be a relief to this woman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HK5PARFX4

Does this look like a period to you? It's my baby who died in a miscarriage at 6 weeks.

Max said "Lauren: It all comes down to when you believe life begins. I don’t believe abortion “kills” anyone, you do."

Max, this isn't simply a matter where people can disagree. There is absolutely no arugement. Abortion kills a human being. Period. End of discussion.

You may think that this human being lacks the social construct of personhood, but you can not claim that he is not a human.

So again, why is it ok to kill one human and not another?

Bethany, I think you'd be happy to know that my 2 year old was sitting on my lap while I was reading the comments and saw Blessing and said "Baby! Baby! Baby!"

There's no agenda there, folks. If a two year old can see it and realize it's a baby...well, I'll be generous and say that anyone who denies it isn't being intellectually honest with themselves.

Lori Pieper: It’s not alive, straight and simple.

Janet: No Janet I really don’t have any kind of playbook sitting in front of me or anyone telling me what to write. This is just me.

Truthseeker: In a perfect world both partners would have talked about, and agreed upon, a plan of what would happen if a pregnancy occurred. Sadly this is not a perfect world and that doesn’t always happen.

Elisabeth: Well I don’t believe it is murder. It is a women’s right to choose how, when, and if she reproduces. Birth control along with abortion and other contraceptive methods are part of her rights to choose about her reproduction.

Lori Pieper: There are many more “like me” as you put in. I am just more vocal than most youth. I have no problem with others seeing them from a non-biased source, so not an anti-choice website.

Praxedes: At no point did I say you should be allowed to wear a picture of floods or earthquake destruction. It’s not my choice though so I encourage you to seek out someone more knowledgeable about the legality of freedom of expression.

Chris Arsenault: I did not say I completely agreed with Biggz’s analogy, I just stated that I liked how he used and explained it. Abortion is a complex concept that no analogy could completely fulfill. We keep getting on this basic question, why am I pro-choice and do not believe abortion is wrong. I do not believe abortion kills anyone, you do. It seems as if we are unable to get past this one idea.

CK: Thanks for the support! I know I’m not going to be changing anyone’s mind here, and I’m not trying to. I truly do like to hear everyone’s opinion, and that includes those against me.

Carla: It is unfair to force others to judge this topic on your personal experience. The majority of people do not have bad experiences with abortion. Some may have a type of depression or mixed emotions, and they are encouraged to seek help.

Lauren: Well we do not agree, and it seems as our discussion is no longer productive.

Max: "It’s not alive, straight and simple."

They tell me that you may have a learning disability, so I will be as nice as possible.

There is no current "debate" whether a blastocyst is a member of the species human. There is no "debate" whether a blastocyst is alive either. These are scientific facts, based on the definition of these terms. The debate is whether a living human blastocyst is afforded any rights by simply belonging to human society, and then further whether those rights contain the right to not be neglected by its primary care giver (the mother) at the partial loss of its primary care giver's right to ownership of her body.

If you disagree that a fetus/zygote/blastocyst/etc is a living human, you are disagreeing with established fact with which NO reasoned and informed pro-choicer agrees.

Does abortion kill a human? Of course. The only question pro-choicers have is whether that human has the right to not be killed.

Basically, by claiming a fetus/zygote/etc is not a human, or is not alive, you are making a claim that is tantamount to saying a convicted serial killer on death row is "not alive" or "not a human" because you believe he should be executed.

There is no debate whether a serial killer is a human or alive. The debate is whether he/she deserves to be executed.

Similarly, there is no debate over a fetus/zygote/etc classification.

Of course, I could use the old cliched response. "If a zygote is not a human, then what species is it?"

Max, we have much to talk about. Why do you believe that the unborn are not alive?

Max, we have much to talk about. Why do you believe that the unborn are not alive?

Max, its hard to have any respect when you make such foolish, ridiculous statements as "Its not alive."

I am a mom MAx. I have been pregnant. I had ultrasounds. My first was at 5 weeks past conception. At a little more than a month old my son had a heartbeat. For you to claim he wasn't alive is STUPID!!!!! Hello! Earth to Max! I was there buddy, you were not. My son had a heartbeat...he was alive. Please, I know you're still in highschool but take a biology class...PLEASE. You lend no credence to your side with such absurd statements as that.

I felt my son flutter the first time when I was only 14 weeks pregnant. So many people were SHOCKED that I could feel him. But from that day on I felt him every day and every day his flutters and kicks got stronger and stronger. He was growing. Another proof he was a live. Ya know, dead things don't grow!

My ultrasounds in the second trimester showed my son sucking his thumb. He is a thumb sucker to this day. When he is tired his thumb immediately goes in his mouth. Funny that that part of personality was developed when he was only half-way through his time in my womb. We also saw him crossing his feet. To this day when my son settles down to watch Spongebob or sits on my lap for a story or gets in bed at night to go to sleep he crosses his feet exactly the same way he did in my womb. Because I wasn't carrying a blob of tissue or some robot, I was carrying my son though he was much tinier at the time...but it was still him, Max.

For you to suggest that most women arent' upset over their abortion is also ridiculous. I have many friends who have aborted. While most still claim to be pro-choice I have also witness them screaming and crying over their babies. They developed alcohol problems, eating disorders, rage issues, depression and fertility issues after their abortions. All issues they didn't have before they aborted. So linking to a Glamour article is a real hoot since my real life experience tells me that propaganda aside, abortion hurts women. Reading a biased article isn't going to negate what watching my friends suffering has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Abortion is not innoculous. It will affect you tremendously.

Did you watch those videos of abortions being performed? One is a first trimester D&C and the other is a second trimester D&E. Watch them Max. How are those babies any less human than you and me? They aren't.

To whoever asked if my husband is glad I wasn't aborted...he understands that if I was, he wouldn't know to miss me! We've talked about it.

..."except that the good brought out of that evil act was YOU! A living human being made in the image of God with a purpose in this life.I mean, geez, if my bio mother didn't just happen to get raped that night I wouldn't be here.

And yes your husband might very well have missed you. He might never have married and his life would much less than it is now. You simply can't say that your not being here would make no difference. Do you honestly believe you have no special purpose in this life, CK?

Max,

Huh? If you are talking about the dead babies on T-shirts, naturally they're not alive - once they've been killed by abortion.

If you think the unborn child in the womb is not alive - you have a lot to learn from medical science.

There was an article posted here by Jill a couple of weeks back - an opinion piece by a woman named Antonia Senior, I think, in the London Times. She argued that abortion does indeed kill a human being but "you have to be willing to kill in support of the feminist cause." One pro-abort who at least was honest about what she was doing. She was honest because the scientific evidence that an unborn child is human is irrefutable. Most "pro-choicers" actually are when they're not arguing with pro-lifers.

You just keep on saying, "I don't believe it's alive, I don't believe it's alive," which is not an argument of any kind, since it's never backed up by any facts, by any logic, by any reason. You would never survive in any debate with anyone.

"At no point did I say you should be allowed to wear a picture of floods or earthquake destruction. It’s not my choice though so I encourage you to seek out someone more knowledgeable about the legality of freedom of expression." Posted by: Max Kamin-Cross at July 25, 2010 10:36 AM

What YOU CERTAINLY DID say though, Max, was that I SHOULD NOT be allowed to wear a Tshirt at a public school depicting a photo of an aborted human. Other than saying this is a graphic photo, you can not tell me why you think I should not be allowed to wear it. This is a simple question and how can you answer the hard questions when you skirt around even the simple ones?

You also state, "My generation knows a lot about sex, almost too much at time" but then go on to state, "Students need a solid foundation of comprehensive sex-ed." I'm all for comprehensive sex ed that shows middle school/high school students the photos of aborted babies. That would be pretty comprehensive, right? Then your classmates could see what it is you really support.

But some parents would argue they should be the ones talking to their kids about sex not the schools. Are those parents who donate to PP and NARAL talking with their kids about why they are proaborts? Are these parent/child relationships so open that the teen knows whether or not mom and/or dad were involved with aborting the teen's
sibling(s)?

To advocate comprehensive sex ed but then be opposed to students wearing Tshirts with aborted human pics is doublespeak on your part.

Will your comprehensive sex ed classes only talk about what you want to have taught (every female has a right to abort her offspring, how to put a condom on a banana, not to use bleach for STDs, and do whatever feels good with whoever is around) or will I get to decide what is taught in class (self-control and aborted humans power points)?

Here Max, lets talk about this video. This shows snippets of one abortion that I was talking to you about (first trimester D&C)

Watch the video and debate me on it. Bet you can't. You a) will chicken out like the typical pro-choicer who likes the ideology of "choice" but can't emotionally tackle what that choice is, or b) you will watch it, vomit all over yourself and realize that your side has no defense for what you've just witnessed.

But if you prove me wrong and do watch it I would love to know what you thought of it.

http://herestheblood.com/

Bethany, I think you'd be happy to know that my 2 year old was sitting on my lap while I was reading the comments and saw Blessing and said "Baby! Baby! Baby!"

Aww that is so sweet! (I can't believe she's already 2 years old, by the way. How time flies!)

Lori Pieper: It’s not alive, straight and simple.

I'm pretty sure Jill was right the first time, when she named this post, "Dumbest people on the planet". Nothing is dumber than denying what basic biology can clearly show you!

Max, please define "alive".

I know Bethany! I am caught between feeling genuinely hopeful that Max will think about it and will see the truth of what abortion really is, and being annoyed at him for arguing with me over an unborn baby not being alive. I feel like who is this 16 year old BOY arguing with ME a 30 year old WOMAN who has ACTUAlly given birth? Who knows more about what pregnancy is and if the baby is alive or not? I had ultrasounds...Max has not. Ugh. Its maddening. But then again Max had the nerve to argue with Carla about how abortion is NOT hurtful. Hello Max! you have never had an abortion! Carla has! Typical teenager. In fact most pro-choicers act like teenagers. Amazing...the whole childish "is not! is not! is not!" arguments.

Sydney,

Do you think Max's school would let me come in show this video during an assembly?

Oh, and I would make sure to tell the students that sitting in bleach definitely WILL NOT help treat gonorrhea. I thin I would need to add this about the bleech in order that the video be considered comprehensive enough.

TaDa! Very little math time lost!

Sydney, if this was facebook, I would have "liked" your 1:50 comment .I couldn't agree more. Typical teenage arrogance and ignorance.

Bethany, I know.! I can't believe how big she's gotten.

I cannot see this discussion going anywhere besides aggravating everyone, which is bad for both parties. As a result this will be my last post. If anyone has any other questions feel free to email me.

Oliver Pope: I’d love to know who “they” are because I can assure you that I do not have a learning disability. My belief is that if a fetus is unable to survive on its own then it is most definitely not alive.

Sydney M: Though some people do develop emotional problems after an abortion the American Psychological Association (APA) has concluded that the most stressful and emotional time is just prior to having an abortion. Your reaction to the Glamour article is just like my reaction to the majority of what Jill has written, it is biased. I also did watch your video.

Lori Pieper: Thanks for your opinion on my debating skills, though as I’ve said multiple times: I did not come here for a debate, I came because I try to hear everyone’s opinions on my work. That being said I feel that I have heard everyone’s opinions, hence the fact that this will be my last post here. Don’t worry though; I’m sure you’ll be seeing more of me :)

Praxedes: I know of no state that forces a child to attend sex-ed classes, they give the parents an option to pull their children out of that portion of the class. Sex-ed needs to be taught and developed by non-biased teachers that give students all the facts on every form of contraception.
Though I personally oppose the wearing of such shirts, as I said before, I encourage you to seek out legal advice on whether a student would be allowed to wear such shirts.

I know you said its your last post...but Max you said you watched the video...AND???? What are your thoughts?

Sydney M: It was somewhat gross, not for those with soft stomachs. It was no more gross than most other surgical procedures, such as a gastric bypass.

I have watched other surgeries on TV Max. Yes, lots of blood like the abortion. But what did you think when you saw the little arms and legs? That is like gastric bypass???? REALLY???? Do you have any conscience at all? Unbelievable.

My belief is that if a fetus is unable to survive on its own then it is most definitely not alive.

The presence of a heartbeat isn't indicative of life? Or isn't indicative of a life worth saving? If it's not indicative of life, Max needs some remedial biology. If it isn't indicative of a life worth saving, Max better hope that his arbitrary criteria isn't one day applied to himself or his loved ones if they become dependent or unable to survive "on their own" despite the presence of their own heartbeats.

Well, his leaving was to be expected. When you run out of ways to skillfully evade simple questions posed to you, what else can you do?

"My belief is that if a fetus is unable to survive on its own then it is most definitely not alive."

Even a 2 week-old baby cannot survive on its own outside of the womb and he's BORN!!! Is he not alive?

Check out Dr. Gerard Nadal's website, "Coming Home", for more information on embryology. See side panel - "Top Blogs.
Unless you don't want the truth...

"Sex-ed needs to be taught and developed by non-biased teachers that give students all the facts on every form of contraception."

Your right Max. I start teaching freshmen sex ed. this fall and I'm one of the most non-biased teachers I know. The students know more about contraception than I do so no need to cover all that. I will however make sure they know all about the importance of self-control and how abortion kills human beings. Photos included.

Sorry you're not in my area or I'd sign you up. Don’t worry though; I’m sure you’ll be seeing more of my students :)

Peace.

I’d love to know who “they” are because I can assure you that I do not have a learning disability. My belief is that if a fetus is unable to survive on its own then it is most definitely not alive.

My guess is that as a young teen you simply do not have a basic understanding of biology.
An unborn baby is most definitely alive and virtually EVER medical textbook talks about conception as the "beginning of human life".
If it were not so, then what you are saying, as a 16 year old, is that YOU know better than the medical profession and hundreds of medical schools who educate doctors.
To me, that is a matter of gross pride and ignorance. :(

Max is going? Couldn't stand the heat, huh?

Max, in case you're still reading, once last thing.

"a graphic picture of a dead thing that resembled a human."

"Dead" Max, is the word we use for something that once was alive and was killed.

You know and understand the truth in spite of yourself, and your own words prove it. Words that slipped out of you somehow, independent of the doublethink and doubletalk you've been taught. Throughout the whole debate, you couldn't even be brought to acknowledge you used those words, but you undeniably did.

"My belief is that if a fetus is unable to survive on its own then it is most definitely not alive."

No one with any education, brains or honesty, or with the slightest knowledge of medical science would define "alive" in that way.

You need to seriously consider what you are talking about before you wade any further in this life and death area. You're already in way over your head. I pray you will come to your senses soon.

"I’d love to know who “they” are because I can assure you that I do not have a learning disability."

Alcoholics seldom admit they are alcoholics either. . . . .

"Has she ever had an abortion before?"

Not that I know of...

I wouldn't be surprised, though.

Max, please explain how two separate doctors have said "your baby has died " after my miscarriages, if those children were not alive.

Max, please explain how two separate doctors have said "your baby has died " after my miscarriages, if those children were not alive.

I wouldn't be surprised either Ashley.

Probably the best place for Max to start asking comprehensive sex ed. questions.

Max: "My belief is that if a fetus is unable to survive on its own then it is most definitely not alive."

I take it AP Biology was NOT one of your "several AP classes."

Life has nothing to do with physical dependence. Otherwise any human on life support would be considered "not alive."

Hell, if you want to make the arbitrary distinction between mechanical life support and non-mechanical life support, which is a whole other mistake, you can just point to conjoined twins. Are conjoined twins "not alive" because they are physically dependent on each other?

Better call Van Hellsing!

Time IMO for a TRUTH STRATEGY. Far too many like Max adopt the 'Pro-Choice' mantra, including most media. We all know how ludicrous this is. But since we too say PC, then we have also adopted their nomenclature ... THEY WIN!

To shift away from this: in lieu of PC perhaps we should say PD(PRO-DEATH) or PM(PRO-MURDER). We too often are called anti-choice. We might begin to call them folks AI(anti-life). Then allow them to defend that, instead of us constantly defending our position.

You're right, Bethany, it's to be expected he would leave, since he really had *zilch* to back up his beliefs. That's some truly blind faith for ya.

"Not alive." I think my jaw dropped at the stupidity of that comment. It's a mystery to me, then, how on earth my 3 children had heartbeats detectable VERY early in pregnancy. It's a mystery exactly how I saw their faces, spines, feet, and other body parts moving around (gee, kinda like humans do) on the ultrasound screen. It's amazing to me that EVERY OTHER MOM I know had the same experiences!

We must all just be delusional. After all, our fetuses weren't "alive" until they passed that magical several inches of birth canal.

(Oh, btw, I'd love to know how my kid had a bowel movement in utero, yet he "wasn't alive.")

Bye Max. I wish you well in your continued puppetry and indoctrination classes from Planned Parenthood. I'm sure you're pulling a straight A so far.

one other thing: glamour magazine is not a peer reviewed journal.
If that's where you are getting your info from well it's no wonder you don't know what you are talking about.

Hi and bye Max.

You said all abortions are safe. I refuted that with my abortion story which was not safe for me nor for my daughter who was killed. You then gave me the link to a Glamour magazine article. If that weren't so pathetic it would be hilarious!

Congratulations! By not citing any sources to back up your assertions about abortion you have achieved intellectual dishonesty. Cecile must be so proud.

We keep getting on this basic question, why am I pro-choice and do not believe abortion is wrong. I do not believe abortion kills anyone, you do. It seems as if we are unable to get past this one idea.

Posted by: Max Kamin-Cross at July 25, 2010 10:36 AM
----------

Max - you completely failed to explain why you believe abortion is not wrong - in other words why it's okay. You also failed to explain why you believe a child is not a living human being, but simply made bald assertions about what you believe.

You couldn't even answer when human life does begin - apparently humanity is something that is bestowed by whom - you? A pregnant woman? Scott Roeder showed more intellectual fortitude.

I originally rejected the comments Jill made about you, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong - however I think I know why you're pro-choice: you're sexually active.

Almost every pro-choice guy is - wanting to reserve that possibility of destroying the impending obligation to a child and her mother.

Hope you never encounter the day when your wanted child is killed and you're unable to stop it.

I do not believe chocolate contains calories.
**************************************************

Ahhhhhh. That was fun. I stated what I do not believe and therefore it must be true. There must be a Glamour magazine article around somewhere....

"I was wrong - however I think I know why you're pro-choice: you're sexually active.

very astute. A thoroughly modern boy. :(

"I was wrong - however I think I know why you're pro-choice: you're sexually active."

Kinda like we know what the kids who are the most vocal about legalizing pot are doing after school too.

Carla, all reputable sites agree with you about how (at least sometimes) chocolate has no calories. If other people have had experiences that chocolate does have calories, their metabolisms are messed up and they were just lied to by the diet food industry. But all experiences are valid.

http://www.homeschooloasis.com/storehs_food_related_humor.htm

http://www.soon.org.uk/humor/diet.htm

Thank you, ycw.
I just started The Stress Diet! :)

"I was wrong - however I think I know why you're pro-choice: you're sexually active."

I think I hear the faint sound of clapping in the distance. Must be his PP and NARAL friends. Woohoo, Max!

* * *

Carla and ycw,
LOL :)

Personally, I do have a "line", and it's autonomy. When the fetus/baby can survive on it's own outside the uterus, then I believe it is a separate entity, a new human life.
----------------------------------------------
No baby, even at 40 weeks gestation in perfect health, can survive ON ITS OWN outside the uterus. If the baby is birthed, set aside, not picked up, not fed... it will die. It cannot survive.

Can we therefore kill it?

My 10 month old cannot survive ON HIS OWN either. Can we therefore kill him?

Elisabeth...I always love when pro-choicers use that lame argument.

My 3 year old cannot survive on his own. Without his father and I here to stock the refrigerator he would soon die.

I doubt Max could survive on his own. He thinks since he is big enough to make himself a pb and j sandwich and can wipe his own bum after going potty (something my 3 year old has trouble with) that he is all grown up and could survive. But we all know how dumb teenage boys can be. left without parental supervision I'm sure he'd soon wrap his car around a tree or come to some other bodily harm.

And for that matter I couldn't survive on my own without all the people who work to bring me food. When I go to the supermarket someone has already raised and slaughtered and packaged the chicken for me, someone has raised the corn and harvested it, someone has raised, picked and shipped the bananas, someone has raised and milked the cow for me...

I don't produce my own food, my own electricity or spun my own cloth to make my own clothes. When I'm sick its the doctor who sustains my life with medicine. Left to my own I'm sure I'd die too...am I no longer human?

If you dropped Max on a desert island, would he survive? If he didn't its no loss, clearly his inability to survive on his own proves that he was just a blob of tissue and not a human life.

Well I don’t believe it is murder. It is a women’s right to choose how, when, and if she reproduces. Birth control along with abortion and other contraceptive methods are part of her rights to choose about her reproduction.
-----------------------------------

Max, many times in history murder has been justified by deeming the victims of that murder less than human.

Let's examine some definitions:
Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought

(I think we can dispense with whether or not an abortion is something that is thought about ahead of time... money has to be obtained, an appointment made, etc. So we'll just focus on the first part).

Killing: the act of one who kills

To kill: to deprive of life or cause the death of

So, now we have to determine whether an unborn baby is alive... which you have stated it isn't, but have given no grounds for which you have stated it.

Biologists use the following to determine if something, an unborn baby for instance, is alive as opposed to something, such as a rock for instance, is not alive.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Therefore, an unborn baby IS alive. An abortion DOES kill it, as in, it ends the life. The only thing left to determine is whether or not it is a unlawful to end that life, or more to the point, whether or not it SHOULD be unlawful to end that life.

On what grounds do you feel that it should NOT be unlawful to end that life?

Max,

Simple:

Abortion -- to abort (end) a pregnancy. How do you end a pregnancy? You take out/kill that which is the definition of a pregnancy.

If said pre-born being isn't a baby and if said pre-born baby isn't alive then what is the woman aborting? A rock? A mass of cells?

If said being is just a mass of cells and not a preborn baby, then what's the problem? We're all walking masses of cells. Shoot, our hair are dead cells (but I don't everyone running out and shaving their heads to get rid of said dead cells) we have mites all over our eye lashes (learned that sophomore year of high school biology class) yet, I don't see everyone chopping off their eye lashes to get rid of mites)

Obviously, there's something way more going on than a "mass of cells and tissues" if a woman thinks she needs an abortion.

Hmm can we say BABY? Come on, Max, don't shy away from the truth. The truth will set you free from PP's lies.

Besides medical science and biology has proven (more than once) that pre-born beings are babies and they are alive. PP and others like them just ignore those facts. It's too inconvenient for them to acknowledge them as true.

Kinda like we know what the kids who are the most vocal about legalizing pot are doing after school too.

Not really. I'm moderately vocal about supporting the legalization of pot and I've never smoked it before in my life. My most ardently pro-choice years were well before I ever had sex (an event that came later in my life than it did for most people I know). Allegedly conservative concepts are not the only ones that are supported for ideological (as opposed to selfish) reasons.

Alexandra,
Sorry about my wording. I should have said something more on the order of, "From my experience working with teens, I have found that those most vocal about legalizing pot smoking are those who have admitted to me that they smoke pot. I do realize that there are exceptions to this of course."

I thought the word 'kinda' might show that I and others realize there are exceptions. I don't know for a fact that Max is sexually active but if he is not, knowing teen boys the way I do, it's probably not due to his lack of attempts to be.

I hate semantic bull as much as the next person, but it would be more likely if you'd said "Like we kinda know what the kids.." etc. Rather than "kinda like we know what the kids..."

FTR I dislike that kind of assertation - "Oh I bet Alexandra is sexually active and that's why she's pro-choice!" - because I think it deliberately side-steps the logical argument in favor of a moral one that is both tangential and more difficult to argue. To me it's somewhat akin to the people who come here and are all, "OMG you Catholics need to understand that there is a separation of church and state!" The fact that you're Catholic is not the justification for your stance on abortion, outside of the philosophy that one's Catholicism is justification for EVERYTHING good/right in one's life. The presumption that, because you're Catholic, your stance on abortion is a RELIGIOUS one, and is caused by a blurring of the roles of church and government, serves only to drag the debate away from the central argument, which is whether abortion should be legal or not.

It is entirely possible for a person's political/moral views to not be determined by their own personal behavior. So I find speculation regarding personal behavior beside the point, is all.

I will state this again...

What’s inside of an egg may be the beginnings of a chicken but it’s not a rooster. What’s in a woman’s womb may be the beginnings of a human being but it’s not a person.

How can it be an individual if it’s completely 100% dependent on the mother to sustain its life? That’s a bit of a contradiction there.

It is a woman’s choice to have sex. It is a woman’s choice to be a mother. It is a woman’s choice to receive the medical care she chooses. You guys want to take that choice away from women and give it to a potential human who still might not even be born?

If a fetus is a person why is there no funeral after a miscarriage?

You guys are trying to draw lines in the sand in a very large desert.

Biggz, people DO have funerals after miscarriages. I know dozens of women who had funerals after their miscarriage - some were not able to bury their babies because of a D & C procedure in which the hospital keeps the remains, but still had a memorial service, whether publicly or privately. The CPC in the city next to us offers tiny caskets for mothers who have lost their babies to miscarriage. I had a burial and memorial service at home for the baby I lost at six weeks.

And here is the sad reason that many women do not get the privilege of having a funeral for their baby lost to miscarriage:

http://www.pregnancyloss.info/politics_of_fetal_death.htm

Biggz, my 2 month old is 100% reliant on me. Is he a person?

I have had a memorial service for all three of my babies. 2 miscarriages and 1 abortion.

How can it be an individual if it’s completely 100% dependent on the mother to sustain its life? That’s a bit of a contradiction there.

One does not have to be independent in order to be an individual.

I am tired of debating dunderheads like Biggz who don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of biology. I am not as learned as our very own Dr. Nadal but I was a bio major in college and learned a few little things.

Biggz.. when my son was in my womb he had a penis. I do not. He had B+ blood. I do not. His heart rate was constantly higher than mine. when I was sleeping I could feel him stirring and kicking. When I was awake he seemed to be asleep. HE WAS NOT ME AND I WAS NOT HIM. He was a genetically unique and seperate individual even if he was dependent on me for survival. Which btw at 3 he still is. If my husband and I lay dead on the floor and no one knew, my son would soon die since he can't reach most of the food in the fridge and can't really open containers and packages by himself anyhow. I mean, he can't even wipe his own tush after a BM. He is DEPENDENT on me. Guess I can kill him if I "choose" to, according to Biggz logic.

Crap. I am on the macbook and just realized the spell check isn't on. So forgive typos....I type fast and can't always see this little screen.

"I will state this again..."

"What’s inside of an egg may be the beginnings of a chicken but it’s not a rooster. What’s in a woman’s womb may be the beginnings of a human being but it’s not a person."

Biggz,

It could be a hen.
(Seriously, if left to grow in a warm environment, a chicken will emerge.)

What does a human being evolve into if not a human person?
I bet if the government could figure out a way to tax a baby in the womb, it could be officially declared a person tomorrow. No problem.

And what Sidney said. :)

Please, all you ProLifers make me laugh. My mother is ProChoice and I'm PROUD of her for it. I do not have such a sense of entitlement, that I believe my fetal stage should have been the ONLY stage of development that should be allowed to co-opt another person's organs against their will so that I could save my own life, a sense of entitlement that almost all ProLifers have. Do you not realize how selfish that makes you sound, ProLifers, and that, all the while telling ProChoicers how selfish WE are?

Tell me, have ALL of you ProLifers adopted ALL the children that are waiting to be adopted, not just here, but all over the world? YOU are the ones who want all these fetuses to be born, so, either you adopt them and put your money where your 'mouth' is or you force children to grow up unwanted in their birth parent(s) homes, punishing BOTH the child and the woman for having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation, and, thereby, revealing the TRUE purpose of the ProLife movement. Although, I would have thought it would already have been obvious.

Individual. Reduced down to one's basic components within the context of one's species, to the point where they can be reduced no further. Does indeed sound like one cannot be dependent in the way a fetus is dependent in order to be an individual.

Btw, I've heard about horror stories from CPC's and their lack of counselling, more often than I have from PP and their lack of counselling, from BOTH sides of the issue. Why is it that ProChoicers never ignore the complaints about lack of counselling provided to someone when they want to terminate a pregnancy but ProLifers want to ignore the same thing said about CPC's...? Hmmm....

Please, all you ProLifers make me laugh. My mother is ProChoice and I'm PROUD of her for it. I do not have such a sense of entitlement, that I believe my fetal stage should have been the ONLY stage of development that should be allowed to co-opt another person's organs against their will so that I could save my own life, a sense of entitlement that almost all ProLifers have. Do you not realize how selfish that makes you sound, ProLifers, and that, all the while telling ProChoicers how selfish WE are?

Tell me, have ALL of you ProLifers adopted ALL the children that are waiting to be adopted, not just here, but all over the world? YOU are the ones who want all these fetuses to be born, so, either you adopt them and put your money where your 'mouth' is or you force children to grow up unwanted in their birth parent(s) homes, punishing BOTH the child and the woman for having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation, and, thereby, revealing the TRUE purpose of the ProLife movement. Although, I would have thought it would already have been obvious.

Individual. Reduced down to one's basic components within the context of one's species, to the point where they can be reduced no further. Does indeed sound like one cannot be dependent in the way a fetus is dependent in order to be an individual.

Btw, I've heard about horror stories from CPC's and their lack of counselling, more often than I have from PP and their lack of counselling, from BOTH sides of the issue. Why is it that ProChoicers never ignore the complaints about lack of counselling provided to someone when they want to terminate a pregnancy but ProLifers want to ignore the same thing said about CPC's...? Hmmm....

Tell me, have ALL of you ProLifers adopted ALL the children that are waiting to be adopted, not just here, but all over the world?

ROFL... you are on the wrong thread for this question. Try this one: http://www.jillstanek.com/weekend-question-are-pro-lifer.html

I believe my fetal stage should have been the ONLY stage of development that should be allowed to co-opt another person's organs against their will so that I could save my own life

One of those organs being the uterus... Could you please tell me the purpose of the uterus? And the ovaries?

a sense of entitlement that almost all ProLifers have. Do you not realize how selfish that makes you sound, ProLifers, and that, all the while telling ProChoicers how selfish WE are?

Entitlement? It's called reproduction. Childbirth. How is existing "entitlement?" Does the fetus "invade" his/her mother's body? Does he/she crawl up in there and say "I'm not leaving, you can't make me?" Is he a greedy little fetus? You people seriously need your heads examined. You act as if reproduction is some sort of foreign process. Seriously, has your birth control affected your thought processes??

Of course, Sydney and Janet completely misconstrue what this person said, then take him to task for their own misunderstanding.

Tell me, what is it about a woman that makes her the only one responsible for the way her biology functions? Is it 'her' fault that denial of consent to organ sharing means she has to opt-out? Of course, you ProLifers either say, yes, thereby punishing her for an act of biology, or use the typical 'slut-shaming' method of punishing women for having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation, without realizing that you just called ANY woman who had recreational sex a 'slut', NOT just those who choose abortion, and that women are the ONLY ones you require to receive no medical treatment for a risk that arises from a previously consented to action. Hmmm....

And, human being and person are synonymous. Human and human being/person are not. DO look them up, if you don't believe me. And the person's point WAS that they aren't human beings/persons. They never said they WON'T develop into them, after all. Present and future are two different things, y'know. Besides, once you make a fetus a person, you WILL have made fetus in fetu and parasitic twins persons, because there is NO difference between those three classes of humans. Sorry.

Kel...I love your responses!

Yes Arekushieru, what is the uterus FOR????

How is not wanting your arms and legs ripped off being selfish? Do you want to be hacked to death? If you said no right now, then STOP IT...you are being SELFISH and acting like you are ENTITLED.

Do you understand biology? Do you understand sexual reproduction? Do you understand world history? You do know all people alive on this planet came into being the SAME WAY...through conception! You do understand we all grew in our mother's wombs at one point...I'm just not sure what IQ level I'm dealing with here. Pro-choicers seem to have a hard time grasping even the most basic biological concepts.

I feel like I should have a bumper sticker that says "My 3 year old is smarter than a pro-choicer".

And I'm so glad that you're glad that you're mom considered it her right to kill you when you were growing in her. Nice to know your mom cherished all those months feeling you kick as she thought "If you piss me off today fetus, you're OUT!"

My mom is pro-life. She never thought of aborting me even though I was nearly a change of life baby. I'm glad my mom valued my life and respected it from the moment she knew I existed. And now that I'm 30 and she's entering old age I will extend the same respect to her. I will never push for her to be euthanized. See? She taught me to respect life and I will do the same for my children.

Yup, here we go with restricting women's rights and sexual freedoms JUST because she has a uterus. Everyone else has a right to give ongoing, explicit and informed consent to an action, all, that is, but women, apparently. What is the purpose of the kidney, child? Oh, that's right, to provide waste removal in one person's body. Why do we allow organ donations, then? Don't people know what and who that kidney was supposed to be for? Do you see how that works, now? Probably not but I hope so...?

Besides, MOST women who have aborted were using some form of contraception or birth control OR had children already OR

Btw, many ProLife women have aborted. I haven't. I have never been pregnant unlike MANY ProLife women, as well. WAY to make assumptions, so typical of ProLifers, though.

Gee, if my arms and legs were ripped off, I think you might have a point, but as usual ProLifer you don't. You have NO idea what an abortion procedure entails. So typical of almost all Prolifers. Tell me, does someone who infringes on my rights, by raping me, have the right to continue to do so just because he/she might be hurt by it, reGARdless of their intent? Yeah, that's what I thought. HyPOCrisy.

Is it 'her' fault that denial of consent to organ sharing means she has to opt-out? Of course, you ProLifers either say, yes, thereby punishing her for an act of biology

Are you sure you're not President Obama? I'm pretty sure he talked about "being punished with a baby."

or use the typical 'slut-shaming' method of punishing women for having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation, without realizing that you just called ANY woman who had recreational sex a 'slut'

I have consensual, non procreative sex with my husband, and I'm not a slut. :D However, we are smart enough to realize that sex can lead to reproduction (y'know, that little "act of biology" you referenced above), and we're prepared to welcome those children should that "act of biology" occur, and it wouldn't be any sort of punishment for us.

Recreational sex just for sex's sake, when you're trying to fool Mother Nature with artificial hormones so you can keep on having indiscriminate recreational sex (hoping to avoid an "act of biology") is what leads to abortion and the dehumanization of human offspring (you know, those life forms with distinct DNA which result from sex).

women are the ONLY ones you require to receive no medical treatment for a risk that arises from a previously consented to action.

Abortion isn't medical treatment for an illness. Pregnancy isn't an illness.

And, if a woman's life is in immediate danger, she should be treated for whatever disease is taking her life. (Also, removal of a life-threatening tubal pregnancy is also not an abortion.)

Yup, here we go with restricting women's rights and sexual freedoms JUST because she has a uterus.

No one's restricting any women's sexual freedom. Again, what is the uterus for? What is its purpose? I'm really sorry you're at war with the fact that you're a woman and you have a uterus, but there it is. If women don't want kids, let them have their tubes tied, for all I care. But we happen to believe it's not ok to off another human just so you can continue to have all the non-reproductive sex you want without being inconvenienced.

You have NO idea what an abortion procedure entails. So typical of almost all Prolifers.

PARDON ME??? This is a completely asinine statement.

Tell me, does someone who infringes on my rights, by raping me, have the right to continue to do so just because he/she might be hurt by it, reGARdless of their intent? Yeah, that's what I thought. HyPOCrisy.
Posted by: Arekushieru at July 26, 2010 10:25 PM

I can't even follow your train of thought in most of your posts. I have no clue what you are talking about. If you're going to debate, you might want to try doing it in a logical way.

You have NO idea what an abortion procedure entails. So typical of almost all Prolifers.
----------------------------------
I'm a Registered Nurse. I know exactly what an abortion procedure entails. Do you? Have you watched one?

As a Registered Nurse, I also know that there are huge differences between pregnancy and organ donation. Do you?

If a baby were to crawl up inside your uterus on its own and then demand to live there indefinitely you might have a point. However, as it is a result of someone else's actions.... almost always consensually (as statistics posted elsewhere on this site show the very, very low incidences of abortions performed because of rape)... why is it okay to end the life of the preborn human simply because of its stage of development?

Arek,

I am a typical pro-lifer.
I believe in preserving human life.
And outlawing abortion.
Amen.

It's late. 'Nite all.

I can't even follow your train of thought in most of your posts. I have no clue what you are talking about. If you're going to debate, you might want to try doing it in a logical way.

Finally someone else says it. I have been arguing with her for a while over at Rhreality, and while I am perfectly okay with people disagreeing with me, it is very hard to follow some of her posts as she tends to skip from one issue to another.

And now I will go back to lurking.

Arekushieru--

Person and human being not the same thing? Since when?

Here's Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary for Person: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Human: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human

Not much difference in their definitions. (BTW, under human being it directs you to "HUMAN").

BTW The Oxford Online Dictionary's FIRST definition of "person" is "human being regarded as an individual" (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1277141#m_en_us1277141 ).

Here's Oxford's definition of "human being" : http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1256193#m_en_us1256193

So if a person is "a human being regarded as an individual" it doesn't change the fact that that human being is a person.

If a pre-born baby (fetus) is not a human being--a person (an individual) then what the heck is it?

I've read up on how abortions are provided. It's pretty dang gruesome. I've also seen diagrams. (Have you, since you accuse pro-lifers of not having done this?)

Babies are a natural result of an egg and a sperm coming together. That is basic biology. That's also very basic sex-ed.

As Elisabeth stated and I'll reiterate: It's not like the babies crawl up into the uterus of their own accord, it happens as a natural result of conception--(this is the egg and sperm coming together) and the natural progression of cells dividing and tissues, organs and such forming from such things. No where do I see the baby making a conscious decision to invade the uterus and set up camp. I see biology and basic natural results of sexual activity.

Oh yeah, and echoing what Kel said regarding being married and having sexual relations with my husband. Not every time is procreative, but I haven't heard any pro-lifer call me a slut. Kinda funny since he's the only man I ever had sexual intercourse with and I waited until I was married to him to do that.

You apparently type up a bunch of words without really knowing much about the pro-life movement and its people.

Feel free to educate yourself:

http://www.prolifeaction.org/

http://www.lifeadvocates.org/

http://onemoresoul.com/

http://liveaction.org/

http://gerardnadal.com/

http://projectgabriel.net/

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=2059

http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/

There's many other sites, of course, but those were ones that I thought of off the top of my head.

Arek,
Oy.
Please try to stick to one thought and then maybe ask a prolifer about that one thought? Hopefully this morning finds you eager to type something that makes sense.

"If a fetus is a person why is there no funeral after a miscarriage?"

If a fetus isn't a person, why did Tiller offer funeral services for babies he had killed?

I want a bumper sticker that says:

My goldfish is smarter than your pro-choice student.

Guys, don't bother with her, she's as "misguided" as Max.

Here's what she said over at RH in defense of Max's statement that the unborn aren't alive.

"That's what I thought, Vera. It sounds to me like you, and others, might have, indeed, misinterpreted him. Sounds like he was saying that a zef is not alive in the same way that you and I are alive. Which is absolutely true. A zef is life but it is not 'a life'. That, too, is absolutely true. A zef is cellular and biological life but is not clinically or legally alive.

I will read the rest of the posts to see what he said about a fetus being human, though.

Submitted by Arekushieru on July 26, 2010 - 10:33pm."

Mark B., Carla isn't the only one who has suffered because of her abortion...my abortion was the result of an adultrous affair. I thought it was the only way out. "My" abortionist showed me no regard, and barely spoke to me before, during, or after the procedure. Doctor-patient relationship?...ha!
You're right about one thing: "no one should be able to pick and choose who has what medical procedure." So, who should have the right to choose a medical procedure to be performed on a person who cannot speak for him/herself (the baby)? Would any person choose a medical procedure which would cause him an excruciatingly painful death?
Who is going to speak for the baby humans? I will...after hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital and 20+ treatments of electroconvulsive therapy and 10 years of unbearable remorse...and there are hundreds of thousands more would-have-been mothers living in physical and emotional pain. "Google it"
I am sorry about the loss of your child due to your wife's medical condition, but cases of danger to the mother, rape, and incest comprise only one percent of abortions performed in the USA.
You obviously take very strong issue with this subject. It is very likely that you have suppressed emotional pain yourself. It took 10 years for me to begin to "feel" my pain, but I am glad I did because I have started to heal, and I know without question that speaking for the baby humans is the right thing to do...both for the babies, and their distraught mothers. Fathers are often suffering as well...I would never say this to incriminate you, only to earnestly convey my concern and very best wishes for you.

God bless you, Lee!! Thank you for your voice for life and I am so grateful that you have found the healing that I have found too! :)

Peace and healing to you, Lee

Quick message to Lee: God bless you, Lee. That's one of the reasons I'm against abortion...the pain women feel when the gravity of the choice they made hits them--it's immense and it's torturous. I hate seeing women in that much agony.

Now for my "in general" post...

I know a man who dated a woman whom he got pregnant. He offerred to help her in any way he could. He wanted to be a father to the baby he helped create. The girl went ahead and had an abortion anyway. I remember him calling me and crying on the phone. I had never heard a man in so much agony (except for in the movies). He placed NO blame on the woman and blamed himself for the entire affair (even though he tried to convince her NOT to have the abortion). Eventually they broke up for other reasons, but I know that abortion hurt him deeply.

There was a woman who had 7 abortions behind her husband's back; ...you can read about it in the book "Mama! Why Did You Kill Us?" it's not very long and not expensive--$2.50 on Amazon--http://www.amazon.com/Mama-Why-Did-You-Kill/dp/0895556162/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280257918&sr=8-1 The pain she went through when it hit her what she had done was excruiating. Her story is annoymous, so I don't know who the woman was.

Abortion hurts, people! You may not think so, or "feel" it, but it hurts! I've heard and read and talked to too many people to think it doesn't.

Mother in Texas,
Some of the most excruciating abortion stories I have ever heard are from men who wanted to save the lives of their children from abortion but were not successful.

Here's one

http://www.amazon.com/Dearest-Angel-Fathers-Post-Abortion-Journal/dp/1450231403

You guys are trying to draw lines in the sand in a very large desert.
Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 6:52 PM
-------

Umm - no. The medical & scientific communities indicate you're mistaken.

Go here:

http://www.ehd.org/

That will provide a biological basis for a discussion. Learn. When you're ready to have a real discussion, come back.

As for the philosophical basis of a person - what you're suggesting is a test that you yourself wouldn't be able to pass - nor even wish to take.

If you're sincere, you'll ask excellent questions, research the facts and come to at least a solid biological understanding - then if you want to discuss attributes and philosophy regarding moral rights, you'll be prepared.

If you're insincere - don't bother doing a thing - but it's clear you currently lack basic biological knowledge on this matter.

Chris,
Thanks for posting the ehd link because I can never remember it when I want to. Do you think Jill might be willing to list it as one of her "top sites" for the benefit of the memory-impaired (like me)?

Janet - I've added it to Top Sites, but it might disappear when the site is switched over to the new system (currently in process by a contractor).

Chris, hmmm...medical and scientific communities....basic biological knowledge... ok, it is obvious that you find very few people qualified to discuss this subject. Please be patient with me as I humbly bring my meager credentials to your(?) site.
As a biology major in college, I studied human physiology and biochemical genetics. I learned that a "fetus" is one of the stages of the development of a person (as is a zygote, an embryo, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, and an adult.) I learned that during the process of fertilization, a person is endowed with all of the genetic material that defines him as such. From this point on the person is a separate entity from his mother, within whom he will reside until parturition.
As a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, I perform hundreds of gynecological surgeries every year: ovariohysterectomies, C-sections, and sometimes abortions. I have observed, manipulated, and terminated the lives of non-human organisms during all stages of gestation. It is without a doubt that mammals in utero are individual and viable.
As a woman who experienced an abortion, I was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, was
treated more than 20 times with electroconvulsive therapy, and have endured ten years of grief and unbearable remorse.
As a sidewalk minister at the abortion clinic which performed my procedure, I witness the last moments that hundreds of young women spend with their children inside of them. Many are crying as they pass by...some of them stop to talk to me. Most of them exit the clinic in a stupor, and a lot of them are sobbing as they are driven away. Some husbands, parents, siblings, and boyfriends are also very distraught...I know how these women feel before and after they leave that place.
Perhaps you will find some modicum of value in this information that I have gleaned from my narrow spectrum of experiences and limited knowledge base. At least know this: all of us are capable of forming our own philosophical views of human existence. We all live here on the same planet and are subject to common experiences...you should not discount what the rest of us have to say.

Lee,

The comment about educating oneself that Chris put up was directed at Biggz, not you. Probably because Biggz was doing some verbal gymnastics and ignoring some fo the facts of basic biology like a lot of the pro-aborts/pro-choicers we've come across on here. I'm not saying they're ALL like that, but a lot of them are.

Also, Biggz dismisses all experiences unless you have scientific credentials to back it up (and then dismisses you even if you do), so Chris was just turning it back around on him.

Posted by: Lee at July 27, 2010 10:52 PM
------

Hi Lee!

As Mother in Texas said - my comments were directed at Biggz, not you. They were also directed at Max, and other lurking abortion-choicers.

I've been moderating and helping Jill out for the last couple of years, and have spent considerable time responding to various questions and comments by both sides. While my background is computer science and art, not medical, I've studied and explored the various arguments and feel prepared to cogently reply when confronted with direct falsehoods.

Commenting on a blog post has a certain lag-time. While people are composing a response, others write and post their commentary. Sometimes people get drawn away to other tasks, so when the comment is finally posted, a lot of other comments have accumulated.

The current commenting system lacks threaded replies. The line up top indicates the comment I'm replying to.

Over the years of online debate, I, and many of the moderators here, have seen all sorts of weird logic. We try to keep a very evidence based discussion, using solid references from individuals or institutions that have some self-interest in maintaining accurate data. At times, that may include information from Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood etc.

We've collected a large number of excellent philosophical arguments from top pro-life thinkers, such as Stephen Schwarz, Scott Klusendorf, Greg Koukl, Peter Kreeft, Francis Beckwith and others.

You might be unaware of the circular, question-begging logic at the heart of Blackmun's Roe vs Wade opinion: We don't know when life begins, but when the child is viable, then the state has an interest, and it doesn't become a person until birth. (It's a life and a person when we -SCOTUS says so.)

People like Max and Biggz usually have a direct self-interest in sustaining this flawed reasoning, and they'll often ignore almost all evidence and testimony (such as yours and Carla's, among many others) unless they are firmly refuted.

Lee - I and the other mods are grateful you're here. Thank you for sharing your personal experiences with us - it pains me to read the suffering you experienced with your abortion. You add a great deal of humanity to counter the dehumanizing efforts of the pro-aborts.

Lee,

I'm so sorry for the devastating psychological trauma you suffered by an industry that is so adept at deceiving women and men into harming their own children.

It sounds like you've encountered the One who heals the brokenhearted and restores those who have been led astray into a path of destruction by the enemy of our souls.

May God bless you and strengthen you in your work on His behalf.

For anyone else out there struggling with post-abortive guilt, there is hope.

His Name is Jesus.

Thank you all for the kind words, and also for the deep mind-probing you are doing. Sorry about that, Chris! Wish I knew how to direct that monologue to the misinformed people who are writing this stuff.

I recommend individuals from both sides read an article I wrote on CPCs, addressing a lot of the claims and concerns made by pro-choicers:
Questions and Answers About Pregnancy Resource Centers

The crisis pregnancy center where I live provided post-abortion counselling ten years after my procedure. I was in unbearable anguish at the sudden realization of what I had done. The ladies there conducted meetings at night around my schedule for 13 weeks to skillfully guide me through painful grieving and helped me start the healing process. They were not financially compensated, and still check on me periodically.
Out of curiosity, I approached the director of the abortion clinic where I received the service (again, 10 years later). He offered no counselling services, no sympathy, and no referrals, but only a few brief suggestions.
I wonder if the opponents of CPC's are aware of all the services they offer, or if they even care. Anyway, what can it hurt to provide young women with other options during a time of desperation? Crisis centers are not in the business of imposing guilt on pregnant women in distress for the sole purpose of saving babies...they are saving mothers from life-long mental anguish. I wish I had gone there BEFORE I ruined my life.

Lee,
I have a fried who had an abortion and was bleeding heavily for days afterward. She called the abortion clinic and they said, "You are not our problem anymore." Nice.

So grateful for the healing you have found and for those that lead you out of the darkness and into the light of Truth.

sorry. FRIEND not fried.

"You are not our problem anymore." Nice.

Posted by: carla at July 29, 2010 9:40 AM
---

Nice to know they see their patients as "problems".

http://www.france24.com/en/20100728-police-arrest-couple-after-8-dead-babies-found-house-france-justice

Max - why is this woman being arrested?

Wasn't she simply aborting her children?

Why is it wrong?

I know it was after their births, but seriously, how does passing through the birth canal change the moral basis for inclusion in the human community?

And if that's arbitrary (decided by man), then why can't another point in the development time be selected?

I think that's what it's all about: if they can't see it, it's not there. Then they won't be bothered by their consciences. It is insane that "doctors" performing late-term abortions spend one(+) hours using those wide-diameter speculums and long, contorted instruments to blindly grasp, crush, and cut babies so that they can be extracted...only so no one will see them wiggle or hear them cry. Why can't they induce an abortion medically and euthanize them humanely outside of their mothers, so that the procedure will be very fast and relatively painless? That's the way we terminate puppies and kittens. Additionally, the mother would not be injured with a puntured or infected uterus, torn cervix, etc.
It is all about denying the fact that it is painful, gruesome, and downright evil.

Are you really so petty as to be attacking a 16 year old boy?

And are you really saying that planned parent hood was trying to convince his mother to kill him!?

"Do you realize PP was working its damnedest 16 years ago to enable your mother to kill you?"

Because you are so warped you think PP is out to end the human race, is that really what you think the organizations goal is? To convince every pregnant woman to kill her unborn child?

You are a warped extremist, stop picking on children.

You are a warped extremist, stop picking on children.

Posted by: sam at July 29, 2010 5:54 PM
------

You're joking - right? This is some sort of play on words - because abortionists who work at Planned Parenthood 'pick' on children all the time.

Would you like to see the results of that kind of abuse sam?

Ah yes, Sam, defender of Planned Parenthood, defender of children. Theres an oxyMORON for you.

How many parenthoods has Planned Parenthood planned?

Carla,

Good question. I wonder that, too. The name Planned Parenthood seems like the only "good" pregnancies are the "planned" ones. But I know people who have had "surprise" pregnancies and love those kids just as much as the "planned" ones.

My son was "planned" but you still could've knocked me over with a feather when I read that pregnancy test and my NFP chart.

LOL, but I love him just the same :-)

Planned Parenthood picking on children? Surely not!
Thats 'funny,' Chris...
I once met a woman who went to PP many years ago for a pregnancy test, which I suppose was expensive back in the day. When the test showed positive, she was estatic (bless her heart), so the PP employees were shocked silent by her reaction. They had no idea how to react. She was naive to the fact that PP is NOT in the business of celebrating parenthood. I think that story very accurately conveys what PP is all about.
...and the 16 year-old boy. A child that age has not experienced life, nor has he accumulated enough knowledge to have formed an informed opinion on a subject of this nature. He hasn't earned enough credibility for anyone to waste time discussing his philosophical and ethical views. The only point to be made here is that young Americans are terribly un/misinformed...ignorant, NOT stupid.

My last son was "unplanned" as in we were not expecting to have a child when I was 40 years old. :)
What a joy to trust in God's plan and spend my days with those dimpled cheeks!!

Posted by: Lee at July 30, 2010 1:04 PM
-----

Lee - I was responding to 'sam'.

I just recently talked to an older teen who went into planned parenthood with a relative. When the test proved positive, the 'counselor' pushed abortion like crazy - and his relative wanted to keep her baby, with no intent to abort. He said he couldn't believe the PPA staff - they never let up on the abortion thing - even as they got up and were walking out.

He didn't know about medical PRCs and now that he knows, he'll spread the word.

My follow-ups with Max have to do with his own statements. If someone, even a 16 year old, is claiming they are standing up for something, then they don't, they deserved to be called on it.

Many claim to respect "choice", however they exclude life as a possibility.

Lee I appreciate your testimony for lilfe.However I don't think Max is too young to have an informed opinion. I was staunchly, vocally pro-life as a 16 year old. I wasn't too young to comprehend what abortion is or how evil it was.

Sorry. I'm not following you very well, Chris. Max Kamin Cross, the pro-abort is the one I was writing about. In his defense: he's not stupid, just misinformed.
You are right about PP. They do NOT offer life as a choice. It would not be profitable to them.

I went to Planned Parenthood last year and saw a nurse practicioner for my annual exam and explained that I have been diagnosed with PCOS and irregular periods. I explained my concerns regarding the negative health implications associated with this condition and requested a medication to treat the symptoms and all she could offer was the regular birth control pill. I tried to explain that I didn't want the Pill, I'd experienced too many side effects and my husband and I were open to pregnancy, however she continued to encourage to me to re-consider taking the Pill and I felt like I had to choose between treating the symptoms of my condition or my fertility. By the end of my appointment I had a prescription for the Pill which I had no intention of filling and felt pressured into taking. I later did some research and learned there are several other medications which can be prescribed to treat the symptoms of and address the underlying cause of PCOS without preventing fertility. Apparently this PP wasn't equipped to provide infertility services or treat abnormal female reproductive conditions, nor did their staff seem interested in providing services to help me become pregnant.

*Correction*

Apparenthis Planned Parenthood and their staff weren't equipped...

*Correction*
Apparently this Planned Parenthood and their staff weren't equipped...

Rachael C, reminds me of my friends 10 years ago. They were 20 like me and the girlfriend found herself pregnant but they were very excited and welcoming of this new life. However they went to planned parenthood who offered them no help but an abortion (that they had to pay for of course). Weeks later when the girlfriend started bleeding they went BACK to PP (I don't know why) and the "nurse" at PP was ecstatic that they were miscarrying. The girlfriend was upset and crying while this nurse cruelly rejoiced. And medical help? no help. The nurse referred the girl to a hospital or her "regular doctor". What help does PP give exactly?

I no longer keep in touch with this couple but I will always remember what they told me.

That is so terribly sad about the miscarriage.
I have thought a lot about Max and his pro-abortion stance...I can understand why a young person would be radically pro-life. There are some little children which often come to the sidewalk of the abortion clinic where I help minister. They are passionate about what they are doing there, and sing "Jesus loves the little children" as loud as they can, so that the people in the building can hear them. Sometimes one of them cries because her heart is broken when she sees the young women walking back out into the parking lot, struggling to climb into their cars.
Also, I once heard the story of a pastor and his three year-old son, who accidentally saw a picture of an aborted baby and asked, "Daddy, who broke the baby?" As little ones, we are generally of the opinion that babies are supposed to live inside their mothers, and then be born and live outside of them. There is something unnatural and "bad" about killing a baby.
However, on the pro-abortion side...how many sixteen year-olds or their girlfriends have dealt with unwanted pregnancies, or have attended college classes taught by liberal professors of philosophy? How many have lived long enough to have pondered over the trajedies of human existance or to have been contaminated by the bitter poison and hatred of the pro-abortion movement? I honestly believe that these young people are misinformed and are behaving in a dogmatic fashion reflecting the influence of people older than they are.