New poll/Old poll
The new poll question is up:
Pre-Roe v. Wade, all U.S. laws considered mothers who aborted victims and their abortionists criminals. Post-Roe, all unchanged abortion laws will resume. Pro-aborts have lately been calling this unfair, saying pro-lifers should want aborting mothers prosecuted. Do you think mothers who abort should legally be considered victims or murderers?
[HT: reader Jess]
Following are the results of last week’s poll….
Some wondered what the answer “before conception” meant. That referred to Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” indicating God preplanned the conception of each and every one of us. I’m curious what the 5.7% “other” readers were thinking.
This week moderator MK showed me something I didn’t know, that the poll map could be zoomed out. Doing so on this week’s poll showed readers from 5 continents responded, which is cool. Click to enlarge:
U.S. poll responders can find their own brightly colored flag. Click to enlarge:
Be sure to respond to this and last weeks’ poll questions here, not on the Vizu site.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ok I said “at fertilization” the first time but then changed my answer to “at delivery” when I considered the difference between being a human and being a person.
Happy Easter everyone!
| |
{–}
-{ }-
bunny
AHHHH the bunny got warped!!!!
If a woman goes out and finds an illegal abortionist and — knowing full well that it’s illegal — pays her/him to perform an abortion, how can you consider her a victim?
If she performs an abortion on herself, is she still a victim?
If she were to go out and kill any other person or fetus in the world, she would be considered a perpetrator, not a victim.
If you make it illegal to perform an abortion on someone else, but not to perform one on yourself, the result will be 1 million perfectly legal self-abortions per year, and more deaths due to complications. What’s pro-life about that?
I have a question. What do bunnies have to do with easter? I mean, I get the eggs (rebirth, birth, beginnings, whatever) and the chocolate (chocolate makes you happy… we’re happy about Jesus… so the correlation is obvious), but why bunnies? The only connection I could make is that I ate rabbit on Holy Tuesday, but that’s just me… not everyone.
And what about jellybeans? Easter grass?
Oh… on the new poll. I don’t think there are enough options. I think in addition there should be an “other” category because posing it like this it’s too black and white.
I agree Leah. While I can accept the fact that anything that society fully accepts and deems to be a crime can be assigned a just and righteous punishment, I don’t believe that under the justice system we have that abortion would be deemed to be “murder” in the legal sense. Our legal system accepts and considers that there may be both mitigating and aggravating circumstances surrounding any crime, whether it is theft (ex. theft of a $5 loaf of bread by a poor person would be punished less severely than the theft of a $5 lipstick by a young woman) or homicide (ex. the death of a toddler who drowns in an improperly secured swimming pool is punished less severely than would be the beating death of a toddler). This is why we have the legal definition of the crime of manslaughter, and trials by juries of our peers in order to weigh the mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances that surround each individual case. It is under these laws that I believe that abortion would be considered a crime of manslaughter and punished accordingly. Just think, we don’t execute mothers who leave their newborns to die in toilets or abandon them in dumpsters. These are crimes of passion or desperation, not malice aforethought, in most instances. These mothers are not thinking rationally and most often are acting out of confusion, denial, and fear (all of the same reasons that women also have abortions.) They are not murderers, but they are also not innocent. Their criminal penalties are thoughtfully crafted to fit the crime, in most cases.
But all of the appropriate punishments could only be meted out if the public were to be properly educated about fetal development and laws passed that were well-publicized. As I’ve said before, a crime is only a crime in the legal, man-made sense (sin and Divine punishment aside) if we all decide that it is a crime based upon facts and science and the Constitution.
@Leah: Rabbits represent fertility in Pagan religions. Spring is seen as the “return of fertility” and since Easter is celebrated right around the Spring Equinox…
I can’t wait for things to warm up. I’m so blasted tired of snow:/
First of all, when Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will still be legal, it just won’t be protected. The Supreme Court, in overturning a ruling which can be seen as ‘ruling from the bench,’ would not in turn try to once again legislate on the illegality of abortion.
Second of all, the poll says “all unchanged abortion laws will resume.” If the laws are resumed but not changed, then why would women who sought abortions be prosecuted any differently?
My stance is that we need to make abortion unthinkable before we need to make it illegal… unless of course you do in fact believe that it is more important to prosecute criminals than to save lives.
Greg, you have some very interesting posts!
Greg, your statement makes perfect sense, and is really just another way to say what I said. We have to use education to establish abortion as “unthinkable” before we can justify making it illegal.
What you are asking for Greg is a change of heart. So you are correct in that regard, because unless people have a conversion of heart, their will always be abortion.
The only other way abortion will stop, IMO, is if there is some kind of catastrophe that seriously impacts Western society to the point that the population plummets and society unravels totally.
Other than that, I don’t see an end to abortion in many generations.
Making abortion illegal is part of the process of making it “unthinkable”. It is us standing up as a society and saying that it is unacceptable to kill an unborn child. How long much longer should we work on educating the public before we also work to make it illegal? Remember, prolifers have been educating the public for the past 35 years. 10 more years? 20 more years? 25years 6 month and 3 days? The info is out there if someone really wants it. What percentage of the public needs to view abortion as immoral before we make it illegal? 50%? 68%? 73.5%? 93.7%?
Point taken, Carrie. It does make sense that making it illegal would do WONDERS for wider acceptance of the unthinkability of abortion. I hadn’t thought of it that way.
above post should be adressed to Greg and PajamaMama.
PJMama, you are wrong if you think that making abortion illegal would make it unthinkable.
In South America, where abortion is mostly illegal, more abortions are done (per hundred thousand reproductive-age women) than in North America, where abortion is mostly legal.
Offering someone else money to commit a crime is itself a crime. It’s called “solicitiation to commit a crime”, and additionally, the one who offers money is an accessory to the crime committed.
If abortion were illegal, it would also be illegal even to ASK for an abortion.
There’s no way around it.
Somg: I know you didn’t address your comment to me, but I specifically said that making it illegal was PART of the process of making it unthinkable.(caps used for emphasis,not for yelling)
Rabbits represent fertility in Pagan religions.
Interesting…
Rabbits representing fertility… how appropriate. Teehee!
Sorry. I’m not 13.
My friend was rabbit sitting for a friend. We let the rabbit out to run around her room, and it left “bunny juice” on her slippers. Those are some h*rny little animals…
Charming. And disgusting. That’s why I eat the little buggers.
The real advancement of the pro-life movement has been in considering the woman who goes to get an abortion more of a victim rather than a criminal. Alot of times these women are fed lies that “it is not really a person and just a blob of cells”. Pro-aborts tell women that this is the best decision they can make, alot of times they have resorted to not even calling the unborn child a “fetus” anymore and simply “a product of conception”. Most of the women who choose abortion feel that there is no other real choice and feel that it is justified because, according to what they’d been told, it isn’t even a person. They are also told that there is no such thing as “post abortion syndrome” and that most women feel relief after abortion. They lie to women additionally and tell them that this will not affect their ability to bear future children, regardless of how many abortions they have.
Women I believe should not be criminalized, they are deceived and led into thinking that this is ok by those abortionists looking to make money. They really don’t know what they are doing and end up regretting it (many times) years later.
Abortionists, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what they are doing. They see how fully formed the fetus is, they see how quickly the fetus develops within the womb, how much like a person the fetus actually is. They know the development of the fetus learning that at merely 21 days after conception, its little heart starts beating. These are truly sick people because they see exactly what they are doing. If you read about former abortionist testimonies that turned from their ways, their job haunts them because they know exactly what they are doing. I liken them to the slavetraders of previous centuries.
Abortionists should be criminalized, women who seek abortions should not.
SoMG
often laws do and should legislate morality.
If suddenly we were to remove restrictions on committing fraud or holding up gas stations, do you not think that these “activities” would increase dramatically?
Removal of laws against divorce, contraception, adultery, homosexuality and prostitution have all led to increases in these kinds of behaviours.
Prove your point about SA because I don’t believe it. We all know that there is a battle royal going on right now for abortion rights to forced on many SA countries who are mainly Catholic. And as they did in the US and Canada, abortion rights activists routinely inflate illegal abortion numbers.
A friend just sent this. It’s hilarious… if you can take a light mood with religious stuff. Anyhow, it definitely answers my bunny question.
http://www.jibjab.com/sendables/view/CURNDVZJXRkMYXfbFXuwo6Lh
women that have abortions are not victims and they ain’t murderers thats silly. and forget about the bunnies.
lol I got ur bunny right here.
Leah that’s right – hilarious
here’s another
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29540
hey Rog I forgot to tell you, we went down jacobs ave all the way today and got the rails and everything. sweet
Patricia, start here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
Also read:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/102207WA.shtml
If you like, look up the Lancet article to which the second of the above two references refers.
Money quote: “In South America, where abortion is largely illegal, the rate is 33 [abortions per year per thousand reproductive-age women]; in northern America, where it is legal, the rate is 21. ”
Or go to the source:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext
“The countries with the lowest abortion rates, like the Netherlands, have few abortion restrictions and lots of birth control. Consider Eastern Europe. Under communism, abortion was virtually the only family planning method. As contraception has become more available, the abortion rate has plummeted – from 90 in 1995 to 44 in 2003. Indeed, Eastern Europe accounts for almost the entire worldwide decline in abortion in the period covered by the study.”
All convicted murderers and direct accessories to murder and those who are convicted of attempted murder are to be surely, swiftly, painfully and publicly executed.
This includes moms who murder their children.
If you want to claim ignorance on the part of these moms then no mom will end up being executed for murdering their baby because the weak, spineless pro-lifers out there that you often see posting in this blog would just believe and murderer who claims she didn’t know she was murdering her child.
Everyone knows and everyone will know for certain with the facts of the personhood of the preborn being taught from 12 years-old on once we come into power and before then through our influence online.
Hey, for all of you anti-justice pro-lifers out there that want to give moms that murder their children a pass, how about kidnappers who claim they were unaware that they were kidnapping their victim(s)? Or how about giving a pass to rapists who wre unaware that they were really raping a girl (perhaps arguing that taking advantage of a drunk girl isn’t technically rape)?
Why not give those capital criminals a pass as well because they may not know all the facts about what’s involved when they commit their crimes, right?
Everyone knows and everyone will know for certain with the facts of the personhood of the preborn being taught from 12 years-old on once we come into power and before then through our influence online.
__
dude thats some serious wacko fantasy you got going
Its not “whacko” at all. Through our influence and reach online and through our influence and reach through churches and other groups we can be sure to let every child know the truth about getal development by the time they are @ 12 years old.
Its a very attainable goal.
zeke pass that pipe over here, yo
dude thats some serious wacko fantasy you got going
Posted by: Down with PD Sk8tr at March 24, 2008 3:03 AM———– And what wacko fantasy have you got going?
Miltarywifey: funny, you think women are too maleable to stand-up to those abortions who are kidnapping them on the streets, yet you think they are competent to raise a child. Either women are fully functioning adults with the capabilities to take responsibility for their actions and for the care of their children or they are so weak that they let other people make up their mind for them when deciding whether or not to murder their children? Can’t be both…
How do we as prolifers expect to convince the mushy middle of the importance of the unborn when we are so willing to give a pass to the person that pays for the murder of said child? If we say that the unborn are the same as the born, then we should damn well act like it.
Re comment @ 6:02: should read *should read abortionst kidnapping them off the streets*
Carrie, right. What are women according to the abortion industry? Evidently, we are just silly, helpless, and foolish victims. We have to have a surgical procedure to be equal to men. Absolutely insane!
AND, I am still waiting for a woman to tell me how/why an abortion is an empowering experience. How does laying splayed open on an abortionist’s table empower us? How does sobbing your behind off after the abortion empower us? Someone please tell me.
I don’t think that many are arguing that aborting mothers shouldn’t suffer any criminal punishment whatsoever. I certainly am not arguing that. But a person can only be held responsible for doing something criminal if they are aware that it is a crime.
You (Carrie, Zeke) say that we’ve been educating people about abortion for 35 years, but I submit to you that because of the abortion-loving machine (big business, government, abortion-friendly law enforcement, DAs, and attorneys) you have been to date wholly unsuccessful. I speak from experience because you have FAILED to successfully regulate the abortion industry by FORCING them to tell abortion-minded mothers EVERYTHING. And outside of that, there has been painfully little done to make fetal development a focal point in the public square. People have to basically go looking for information (I know this from experience) in order to get educated. IMHO, abortion opposition needs to get much more in people’s faces in order to claim that everyone should know what it is. Many truly do not.
I agree that criminalizing abortion pre-emptively would obviously go a long way toward accelerating the public’s interest in the subject. However, it’s a bit of a Catch-22 because you won’t get the support needed to outlaw abortion unless you have widespread and overwhelming political support, which can only be won by educating the masses as to the horrors of abortion. It’s a terrible dilemma, I agree.
But even if (when?) abortion is successfully deemed a crime, under western law, abortion charged to an aborting mother would (rightly) be prosecuted and sentenced as manslaughter, outside of any additional mitigating or aggravating circumstances. So, I suggest that you tone it down with the “murder” and “painful and public executions” rhetoric. It’s not helping. It’s not realistic. It would NOT serve justice. Abortion is not murder in the legal sense of the word, and it definitely would not qualify as a crime worthy of capital punishment.
Carrie,
Women that keep a pregnancy are not required to raise the child. Many will give the child up for adoption, that is usually the best option in many unwanted pregnancies.
These women are not incompetant and stupid, but they simply do not KNOW that they are about to murder a PERSON if they choose to abort. Have you ever talked to woman who’s had an abortion? They will tell you that they usually feel bad once they are pregnant again and realize they had a full-blown person growing inside of them.
Why is it that about 90% of women who are intending to abort change their mind once they see an ultrasound? An ultrasound is a powerful thing, they see a person. Now I cannot vouch for the 10% that STILL choose to have abortion, but I would have to say that those women are in the same vein as those who have late-term abortions for no medical reason.
I never had an abortion but didn’t really realize what an abortion was until I saw my daughter’s heartbeat through an ultrasound at 6.5weeks gestation. It was then I realized, this is a person just a small person, and I saw the true horror of abortion. Many women don’t know realize they are carrying a person until they actually “see” that person through the ultrasound.
Christina, There are also plenty of women who know EXACTLY what they are doing.
Christina, yes this was my experience. Through the normal pregnancies and births of my two living sons I saw the reality on the sonogram screen and subsequently in their angelic little faces. God revealed the horror of abortion to me through the loving and beautiful faces of my living children.
He is a loving God. He is a forgiving God. I am so unworthy…and yet He still blessed me with a family.
PajamaMama: Watch what you say and do not put words in my mouth. I am against the death penalty and have been for many years. I advocate completely for non-violence.
FYI, I didn’t include an “other” category on this week’s poll question because I didn’t want to give people an out. It is a black/white question, imo. Do you want women prosecuted or not?
I think we need to take a look at the girl/woman’s entire situation. Are some women pressured? Without a doubt. Are some confused. Oh yes! However, are some callous? You had better believe it. One woman I knew was having unprotected sex with a man she’d just met. I warned her “You’re gonna get pregnant.” she became pregnant within that same month. Her response to me? “If I get pregnant, I’ll just have an abortion.” That’s exactly what she did!
Christina: I agree with some of what you say. What I don’t agree with is the thinking that women are victims of the abortion industry.
Jill: If that question was directed to me, then yes I do want women prosecuted. Not for abortions before it was made illegal, but certainly for abortions after it is made illegal.
If you ask me, that’s premeditated murder. Also, how about the women who have several abortions. I believe they must know how babies are made at some point.
After abortion is made illegal….yes!
Heather: That’s true. That’s why in general I am against mandatory sentencing guidlines for most crimes. I think circumstances should be taken into account here as it is with most crimes.
The woman in my above post saw murder as a reproductive right. Nothing more. Nothing less.
heather,
I’m sure there are women who do know what they are doing, but I don’t believe them to be the majority. I’ve met women who have had abortions and I haven’t met a one that didn’t feel bad about it in my experience.
More often then not, women rationalize the decision because they believe the fetus to not be a person and therefore, not deserving of full human rights.
Yup and some people rationalize the abuse of their born children by saying that they are not fully people yet. Thinking that because they are under their care that they can do whatever they want with them. Ever hear the phrase, “I brought you into this world and I can take you out.” ?
Carrie,
Many times they are, but, like you said, some women earnestly do know what they are doing. These are the women who have late-term abortions and also the women who go through with abortion after having seen an ultrasound of their unborn. I’m sure there are callous individuals like this, but I don’t believe them to be the majority.
I don’t know If I’d call them victims so much of the abortion industry as much as the pro-abortion mentality that the unborn are worth nothing and have no right to their bodies.
Criminally Prosecute mothers who abort or seek to abort?: Yes
Prosecuted them for Murder?: Most likely not, but it would all depend on the circumstances specific to that particular case and her past criminal history with abortion. Maybe if it’s her third time, it would make sense.
But I think it was a mistake in the poll to limit the choices to either “not a crime” or “murder” with no options in-between. That’s what pro-aborts are screaming about…the lack of realistic specifics from pro-lifers about how illegal abortion would be handled in the real world.
It’s playing the what-if game, but playing it all the way to the very end! If we would all actually answer our “what-if” questions, we could come up with real answers.
I, for the record, am also against the death penalty in ALL circumstances. Life without parole is the most appropriate ultimate punishment. Death should be left up to God…period.
Christina, I also know plenty of women who feel bad about their abortions, but I also know of 1 woman who had 7 of them and another who had 9. I can’t help but wonder what is going on at this point? They are out of control. On the flip side, my heart goes out to the remorseful women.
Also, I’m not one to throw someone under the bus. If they want to discuss their abortion[s], I’m all ears. I’ll hear them out,and we can take things from there. Right now, I am helping a post abortive pal who wants help.
SoMG
Your references are biased. I stick by my claim which has been verified by proaborts who have changed their minds and stood in favour of the right to life for unborn children – numbers of illegal abortions are grossly inflated as are the numbers of deaths due to abortions.
We saw how just how far the pro abort camp is willing to go with the recent fiasco of Rosita, the nine year old girl supposedly impregnated by a rapist and who was presented as a “hard case” for abortion in South America.
Only, it was discovered that Rosita was raped all right, by her stepfather, who proaborts helped to avoid prosecution by helping the family flee Costa Rican authorities who were investigating the rape.
This poor child already has a child by her stepfather from earlier abuse.
Under questioning by the media, the feminista organization, Network of Women Against Violence which is an abortion rights lobby group stated they knew all along of the Rosita’s situation and that her age was incorrect, yet they blatantly USED this girl for their own agenda.
It’s always the same with you pro aborts – you lie to twist the laws for your own gain which ultimately is MONEY!
Heather,
I gotta wonder why someone would have multiple abortions. Their conscience is probably completely out of wack. I think those women are probably using abortion as a means of birth control and somehow, are rationalizing what they are doing (I don’t know how). It’s really sad to think that a woman would abort a child 7 or 9 times just for her selfish will.
Christina, I think that something is really wrong at that point too. Did you know that Madonna had 11 abortions? I’m not kidding. 11. It wasn’t due to poverty either.
heather,
I knew Madonna had at least 1, but I didn’t know 11. Where’d you hear this? just curious
Let me get the link.
Madonna abortion chronicle
New York Post (Page Six) ^ | October 10, 2001 | RICHARD JOHNSON with PAULA FROELICH and CHRIS WILSON
Posted on 10/10/2001 5:24:38 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:01:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
MADONNA would be the mother of 13 children if she hadn’t had 11 abortions over the years, according to “Goddess,” an unauthorized biography by Barbara Victor out next month from HarperCollins.
One abortion came right before Madonna met her hubby, Guy Ritchie. “She had a pregnancy in between Lourdes and Rocco,” Victor told PAGE SIX. “It was with a British man,” she added, refusing to name him until the book comes out. After the 11th abortion, Madonna met Ritchie and pursued him relentlessly – calling him every 20 minutes one night during a dinner party held by Sting’s wife, Trudie Styler.
Actually, I do a lot of reading. I had once read that Madonna was on her 9th abortion. That was a few years back. 1 of the aborted children belonged to her ex hubby, Sean Penn.
Wow, this saddens me.
I generally like some of Madonna’s songs and I have a certain respect for her as a performing artist.
She does seem like a rude person though.
Christina, I LOVE Madonna as an entertainer, and I think she’s beautiful. Unfortunately, she’s morally bankrupt. Also, this is the same woman who begged Dennis Rodman to get her pregnant. It never happened.
I thought she was pro life after singing “Papa Don’t Preach.” Boy did this news rain on my parade.
I saw an interview on tv with Guy Ritchie at the premiere of his new movie (I forget the title). Anyway, the interviewer was trying to talk to Guy Ritchie and Madonna was standing over his shoulder and butting in on every question. Guy just stood there practically rolling his eyes looking quite annoyed.
She came off as the ultimate narcissist. She was practically screaming “pay attention to Me Me Me” like a small child. Even at her age, she still has the constitution of a tween.
It wouldn’t shock me at all to find that she had 11 abortions.
Yea, “Papa don’t preach” is a great anti-abortion song!
I LOVE singing Madonna karaoke, all her 80s stuff is awesome. I think she’s a great artist and performer.
But then again lots of artists I am a huge fan of (Natalie Merchant, Sarah McLachlan, Lisa Loeb) are pro-choice.
I agree PJmama she seems like she is constantly pining for attention.
Yeah, PJMama
I’m with you re: Madonna. It comes as no surprise really. Look at her music and her concerts. Art mimics life in this case.
She’s an apostate Catholic too which makes me very sad.
…and it also doesn’t shock me to hear that they may be having marital problems. I’ve often wondered how long he would be able to stand being married to a child.
More celebrities who have aborted. Courtney Love, Whoopi Goldberg, Cher, Sharon Osbourne, Kathy Najimy, Cybil Sheppard, Hunter Tylo.
Actually, Sharon Osbourne never forgave her mother for forcing her to have an abortion at the age of 17. She even suffered health problems because of her abortion. Hunter Tylo was also remorseful. Tragically, her oldest son just died in a drowning accident.
Abortion Complications
by Carrie Gordon Earll
What physical and psychological risks do women take when they have an abortion? The range of possible complications may surprise you.
Roughly one million American women each year submit to abortion, making it one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. But abortion is not without risk – to our bodies, our minds and our emotions.
“I had an abortion at 17 and it was the worst thing I ever did…
I was two months gone when I realized. I went to my mum and she said, without pausing for breath: ‘You have to get rid of it.’
She told me where the clinic was and then virtually pushed me off. She was so angry. She said I’d gotten myself in this mess, now she had to get me out.
But she didn’t come. I went alone. I was terrified. It was full of other young girls, and we were all terrified and looking at each other and nobody was saying a blood word. I howled my way through it, and it was horrible.
I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you.
When I tried to have children, I lost three
BTW, my point about celebrities and abortion: It’s not always because women are pressured or poor.
Also, this is the same woman who begged Dennis Rodman to get her pregnant.
Well now, Heather, that’s an image…. Yikes.
And yeah – for most women it’s not because they are “pressured.”
…yes, abortion can also be about not wanting to lose your career or your reputation. Many sociological changes need to come about in order to successfully counter this very real fear that women have. Societal pressures are very strong, and when you couple them with the fact that abortion is legal, it’s very difficult for pregnant mothers in tough situations not to consider abortion as the best option. Many would view her decision to have the child as “irresponsible”.
It seems that the “right to have an abortion” has morphed into the “duty to have an abortion” in the collective consciousness of our society.
PJ mama, I use to believe just that. I used to feel that it really should just be a personal choice.
Doug, hello state mate!
Posted by: heather at March 24, 2008 9:46 AM
PJ mama, I use to believe just that. I used to feel that it really should just be a personal choice.
+++++++++++
Me too, heather. But for those who continue to shriek about abortion being a “personal choice”, they almost never will acknowledge that the “personal choice” of abortion is never made in a vacuum. Even if a pregnant mother doesn’t have people around her screaming at her to “abort, or else”, PCers don’t want to admit that people around the pregnant mother saying “I don’t want to get involved…it really is your decision” has just as much effect on what she ultimately does as someone screaming at her to get the abortion. It is viewed by the pregnant mother as, at best, indifference (thereby a tacit endorsement of abortion) or at worst, abandonment – causing her to think, “well, I guess now that things have gotten tough, no one really wants anything to do with helping me. I REALLY can’t have this baby, now.”
In other words, just because the pregnant mother isn’t dragged kicking and screaming by gunpoint to the abortion mill, it doesn’t mean that she hasn’t been forced into a corner by either apathy or abandonment from those around her.
At that point, she is ripe for the abortionists’ picking. She is then defenseless against their lies, half-truths, and omissions.
PJ mama, right. I sincerely do blame the abortion industry for it’s never ending lies. I bought into them at one point myself. After all, wouldn’t it be better for a woman to terminate her pregnancy rather than to give birth to an unwanted child? It sure made some sense to me. That was until I began to do self study on the abortion industry and what it was all about. I have since turned against it. As far as those who haven’t,they just don’t know the truth.
Sorry that it takes me so long to respond! It seems every time i come on here, there’s 40 or so more posts since I last responded.
Carrie said (near the first 20% of comments)
“Making abortion illegal is part of the process of making it “unthinkable”. It is us standing up as a society and saying that it is unacceptable to kill an unborn child. How long much longer should we work on educating the public before we also work to make it illegal? Remember, prolifers have been educating the public for the past 35 years. 10 more years? 20 more years? 25years 6 month and 3 days? The info is out there if someone really wants it. What percentage of the public needs to view abortion as immoral before we make it illegal? 50%? 68%? 73.5%? 93.7%?”
My response is that prolifers have not been educating the public well enough, and this is why:
First of all, we are just as guilty as pro-choice America for playing the rhetoric game. We so often seem to enjoy antagonizing the pro-choice voice by using terms such as “pro-abortion”, “baby-killers”, “anti-life”, “pro-death”. If we truly have the facts and the truth on our side, then what would it really hurt to use the term “pro-choice” when referring to our friends on the other side? Maybe folks will actually start looking at our arguments and logic more now that we present them in an open, positive light.
Secondly, too many pro-lifers aren’t willing to fess up to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I’ve been shadowing several side-walk counselors in the past few months, and can you believe one of them was actually advising me to tell women entering the clinic that they can get everything they need from the crisis pregnancy center (even their contraception!) He said “even if they’re going in for contraception, just tell them they can get it here. I know many pro-lifers are not deliberately deceptive like this, but in other areas too, pro-lifers seem to warp facts and statistics in favor of their own side. I like to blog for Students for Life of Illinois, and lately I’ve been getting a lot of my own info from pro-choice sources rather than places like LifeNews and whatnot, since it is easy to comment on a pro-life article, but not always easy to comment on remarks made by our opponents.
Third, we need to swallow our pride just a little bit more and realize that we cannot do this on our own. Carrie, you mention “standing up as a society.” How can we stand up as a society if too many of our opponents are sitting down? We can win the fight against abortion, but only if we work together with many of the pro-choicers who want a solution just as badly as we do. Pro-lifers often like to forget that the majority of pro-choicers do in fact regret the fact that abortion exists. If this was a battle over who actually wants to have abortion in our society, then the pro-lifers would win it in a heartbeat. For the most part, we are fighting the same battle as our opponents, but we use different means to acheive the same solution. Whether we admit it or not, we are fighting unwanted pregnancies. Our solutions always involve a respect for the life of the child in the womb as well as a respect for the woman, while the pro-choice solution is having the option available to end the pregnancy through taking the life of a human person. Recognizing the fact that both sides regret the fact that women are hurt by abortion, we can work with our pro-choice friends to provide the resources necessary so that most women do not feel pressured to get an abortion.
If every option were on the table and readily available, how many women would actually choose to abort their child? I would sure like to find out. Not every option is weighed evenly by our society today, mainly due to the federal funding of groups like Planned Parenthood, who make a profit from the culture of death, and who would suffer fiscally if the Culture of Life won over the hearts and minds of the people.
A woman that wants an abortion is like “an animal in a trap that wants to gnaw off her own leg to escape”.
http://www.afterabortion.info/despair.html
Patricia, the Lancet is not a biased source. It’s one of the top three medical journals in the world. (The others are JAMA and NEJM.)
The Lancet is biased. Remember I posted a link about it?
Thoughtful response Greg and I do appreciate your points,but I’d like you to answer a question. At what point do we as a society tell women that they can’t kill their children? Do we wait until we can provide them with universal healthcare? Do we wait until we can provide them with free daycare? If you are expecting some kind of utopia where the conditions in which we raise are perfect, it isn’t going to happen. Just my opinion and I mean no offense…
Currently, society tells parents that it is unacceptable to kill or harm their born children. We do this eventhough there are many adverse circumstances that many parents face(povery,drug abuse,abusive relationships). We don’t need to provide parents with ideal circumstances before we even entertain the thought of asking them not to harm their child.
Percentage of pregnancies that are carried to term instead of being aborted is up. We don’t have enough resources according to some, yet more women are choosing not to abort their child. It isn’t always about resources;it is sometimes about convincing people that unborn children have value.
Sometimes it is hard not to get discouraged by the fact that abortion continues. I do however know that God is on His throne. He is in the details and knows exactly how and when it shall come to an end. I have to trust Him. I get easily overwhelmed with all of the ways one can help in the prolife movement. So many organizations, so little time. :) I start with prayer, teach my children about the value of every life that God has created and continue to reach out to other women(and men)who regret their abortion experience.
All of the lies simply cannot stand up in the face of Truth.
Are there any cases on the books where a woman was prosecuted and did jail time for having an abortion?
Percentage of pregnancies that are carried to term instead of being aborted is up. We don’t have enough resources according to some, yet more women are choosing not to abort their child. It isn’t always about resources;it is sometimes about convincing people that unborn children have value.
Posted by: Carrie at March 24, 2008 11:35 AM
*****************************
Are birth rates up? Because if they arent then a reduction in abortions indicates more women are preventing pregnancies.
Carrie, yes it is STARTING to work, and I have not doubt that it is in large part due to the power of the internet. What we are doing here is helping. No telling who is reading it. I have also noticed more and more abortion-related stories hitting the mainstream news sources. Again, getting MSM to cooperate may be the only way to reach those who are not already deeply involved in the pro-life scene. Most people are simply disinterested folks who are lucky if they even watch the network nightly news broadcast. For the vast majority, that is their only news source, so they swallow what they are (and are NOT) shown.
Politically, it is still quite difficult to get any attention for these issues unless there is some specific interesting angle that has larger ramifications (ex. the recent Planned Parenthood undercover sting exposing their racist agenda – were racism not part of this story, it sadly would not get the time of day from the MSM – so it really isn’t a story that is damning of abortion, just a story that brings the racial bias of PP into question)
above I meant to use the phrase “other ramifications” rather than “larger ramifications”.
TR: I was referring to women who are already pregnant who decide to keep their pregnancy going instead of aborting. I wasn’t referring to the actual # of abortions. I will provide a link for you if you want.
“Thoughtful response Greg and I do appreciate your points,but I’d like you to answer a question. At what point do we as a society tell women that they can’t kill their children? Do we wait until we can provide them with universal healthcare? Do we wait until we can provide them with free daycare? If you are expecting some kind of utopia where the conditions in which we raise are perfect, it isn’t going to happen. Just my opinion and I mean no offense…”
“Currently, society tells parents that it is unacceptable to kill or harm their born children. We do this eventhough there are many adverse circumstances that many parents face(povery,drug abuse,abusive relationships). We don’t need to provide parents with ideal circumstances before we even entertain the thought of asking them not to harm their child.”
“Percentage of pregnancies that are carried to term instead of being aborted is up. We don’t have enough resources according to some, yet more women are choosing not to abort their child. It isn’t always about resources;it is sometimes about convincing people that unborn children have value.”
No offense taken :)
My opinion is that universal health care will help solve this issue. I agree with some that we do not have enough pregnancy resources to help everyone that would need them currently, and that even if we tried to improve, our current circumstance of private charities carrying the load will need to be assisted by government funded programs and services.
Also, it’s one thing to eventually begin promoting a respect for life through the law, but when we begin to entertain the thought of possibly criminalizing these women, then our opponents close their ears and continue using pictures coat-hangers to refute our discussions. We could avoid a lot of grief and not concern ourselves so much today with a ban on abortion as we could focus on how to make it so that these women choose life now. because he minute this topic starts coming up on our blogs and websites, we further the division and animosity between the pro-lifers and pro-choicers, and we also risk missing the point of why we fight this fight, which is to save lives, not to use the force of law to prevent legal abortions.
let me rephrase that last part.
we want to prevent abortions, and not just the ones that are legal…
Greg: True, it is a divisive issue, but it is one that needs to be addressed. If we haven’t figured out where we stand on this as prolifers, how can we expect prochoicers to take us seriously? (For example, the infamous youtube video of a prochoicer interviewing some protesting prolifers about what the consequences for aborting should be.) Imo,that video made us look silly.
TR: I was referring to women who are already pregnant who decide to keep their pregnancy going instead of aborting. I wasn’t referring to the actual # of abortions. I will provide a link for you if you want.
Posted by: Carrie at March 24, 2008 1:21 PM
**********************
Sure.
If the economy takes a downturn I think we will see a rise in abortions though.
Carrie, right. What are women according to the abortion industry? Evidently, we are just silly, helpless, and foolish victims. We have to have a surgical procedure to be equal to men. Absolutely insane!
Posted by: heather at March 24, 2008 6:29 AM
*************************
What is insane is pretending thats the truth or has even a remote connection to reality.
If you ask me, that’s premeditated murder. Also, how about the women who have several abortions. I believe they must know how babies are made at some point.
Posted by: heather at March 24, 2008 8:05 AM
**********************
You just keep getting back to your irrational hatred of women.
What you WANT is for everyone to agree with the antichoice position and see everything the way antichoicers see it. Its not going to happen. And melodramatics and hysteria and misinformation and flat out lies and extortion and bullying isnt going to do anything to help your cause.
Posted by: TexasRed at March 24, 2008 2:17 PM
What you WANT is for everyone to agree with the antichoice position and see everything the way antichoicers see it.
+++++++++++
Yup. You
You just keep getting back to your irrational hatred of women.
Posted by: TexasRed at March 24, 2008 2:10 PM———————————————————– Hmmmmm, I never saw it quite that way. What an eye opener.
TexasRed said
Who’s actually being described here? Why is the language of abortion couched in the terms of choice? Seems like you provide an apt description of those who advocate abortion.
Do you really want the truth about abortion? It’s about concealment and despair. It’s about immorality, adultery, complicity and profitability.
There is a larger moral question that looms – choice that precedes pregnancy. I agree with PJM – the word “choice” has been hijacked for so long to mean something it’s clearly not, because no woman actually wants to make such a choice, unless they have a fundamentally selfish purpose for doing so.
And why the word “choice” which is self-centered, self-focused, childish? The first choice is not about whether we should kill our children, the first choice is whether we love them, and whether the women love their fathers.
The truth is, legal abortion tells our children we’re selfish and we don’t love them as humans but think of them as property. How will Amy Richard’s explain to her son, her killing of his twin siblings? He gets to ask her about her “choice”, which Amy used for self-promotion.
The choice is also one where we as a nation say to our boys, we hate you, go ahead and be irresponsible with your sexuality, because you really don’t matter as a man. She gets to choose what happens to the body within her body. What lLorena Bobbitt did to John, the SCOTUS did to all US men. And still people wonder why the prisons are full of angry young men.
Go ahead, tell us how we’re anti-choice.
Abortion is going away, not because it’s been made illegal, but because the love of humanity is greater.
Heather, no I don’t remember your posting a link about Lancet. Please repost.
But the Lancet is one of the most authoritative medical journals. The fact that you RTLs call it biased is one of the reasons no one takes you seriously.
yes, but the day that comes that the Lancet publishes research that happens to support the pro-life position, suddenly they will be labeled “biased”, too.
Admit it, screaming “biased” is a straw man argument. It’s the ultimate fall-back when you don’t like the conclusions that are presented to you PCers. While a source presenting evidence supporting a pro-life position may or may not have ulterior motives for doing a specific research and may even use questionable scientific methods for reaching their conclusions, you PCers refuse to admit that “respected” sources that support the PC side most likely do the same. Instead of taking the research and conclusions at face value and evaluating them each based on their individual merits, you simply choose to shoot the messenger and stubbornly hang on tooth and nail to your self-soothing beliefs.
Shame on you all for shrouding yourself in the “choice” lie.
Doug, hello state mate!
Hi Heather – dang, you seem so cheerful! (And then sometimes you’re pretty grouchy ; )
Pajama Mama: You, TR, are also anti-choice. Unless you are a dyed-in-the-wool anarchist, you agree that laws are necessary to control the behavior of citizens in order to protect the community at large. By definition, laws take away varying levels of choice from a wide variety of people to do all sorts of things; drive drunk, rape a woman, yell fire in a crowded theater, or cheat on taxes. Anti-choice is the essence of any civilized society; as such, I am proud to be called anti-choice, so your use of that term doesn’t really have the effect that you intend. Might want to start using some other word.
“Choice” with respect to continuing a pregnancy or not is a given on an abortion board. TR is pro-choice.
Of course people are going to be for and against free choice with respect to other things.
Chris, beautifully put! Love the fact that you addressed the prisons. Great point!
OK, then can we stop nitpicking about the term “pro-life”? PCers like to imply that the term pro-life means that you should also oppose the death penalty, but if you don’t, then you’re automatically a hypocrite. Although I am personally against the death penalty, I think we all know that the term pro-life refers to one’s view about abortion only. A pro-lifer’s feelings about other life issues like the death penalty, euthanasia, and assisted suicide are wholly separate and can be reasonably argued for or against without making one a hypocrite.
Doug, You must have missed some of my friendlier posts to you:]
PJMama, you wrote: “Admit it, screaming “biased” is a straw man argument. It’s the ultimate fall-back when you don’t like the conclusions that are presented to you PCers. ”
Ummmm PJM, I cited a paper from the Lancet and the right-to-lifers here, Patricia and Heather, said it was biased.
You should get your sides straight.
And by the way, you are wrong. Some sites, and some journals, ARE biased. But The Lancet isn’t one of them.
that’s exactly my point…the Lancet is not immune to bias, and patricia and heather simply used the favorite mantra of the PC crowd.
Tell me SoMG, what do you think would happen if the Lancet published a study that was in some way detrimental to the continuance of the right to legal abortion? Do you think that they would pay a hefty price for daring to do so? The price would most likely be paid in their so-called “respectability”, and the protest and hate-filled rhetoric from PCers would get pretty loud. So, you see, there is a not-so-subtle message out there that says “toe the PC line, or pay the price”. And as a result, most MS media and “respected” scientific journals and organizations continue to not only promote PC-supporting ideas, but they actively work to squelch PL-supporting ideas.
PJMama, the centrality of The Lancet to the medical community does not depend on your opinion of them (or mine).
What, you think the medical community would suddenly boycott The Lancet if they published data that showed some hitherto undetected horrible side effect of induced abortion? That’s silly. We’d be grateful for the warning.
Here’s a Lancet paper written “from the pro-life point of view”.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606679312/fulltext
Doug, You must have missed some of my friendlier posts to you:]
:: laughing :: Oh Heather, no – I didn’t mean how you posted to me, I meant you in general. Heck, we all have our moods. I always see the “cute kid” in you, no matter what you post, and I mean that only in good ways.
I don’t have any beer tonight, but go ahead and have a sip on me. : )
This is interesting….
Students turn a profit from candy sales
RACHEL BYRD Staff Writer
March 20, 2008 – 3:27PM
VICTORVILLE
PajamaMama: OK, then can we stop nitpicking about the term “pro-life”? PCers like to imply that the term pro-life means that you should also oppose the death penalty, but if you don’t, then you’re automatically a hypocrite. Although I am personally against the death penalty, I think we all know that the term pro-life refers to one’s view about abortion only. A pro-lifer’s feelings about other life issues like the death penalty, euthanasia, and assisted suicide are wholly separate and can be reasonably argued for or against without making one a hypocrite.
^5! (High-Five). You’re so right, PajamaMama. One’s position on the abortion debate in no way necessarily means anything with respect to the death penalty. Now there are some people on this blog, pro-lifers included, that think it would have to, but I say they are wrong. Being against abortion on the basis of not wanting the unborn lives to end doesn’t mean one would have to be against the execution of criminals, for example.
I’m Pro-Choice, but am for the death penalty, on principle, yet I could just as well be against it. (I will say that the number of wrongfully executed people is a tough one for me – DNA evidence, etc., has brought a fair bit of it to light, and now I wonder….)
“Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” are plenty well-known and understood. When the argument shifts to the terminology itself, I think it’s more attempts at button-pushing.
Doug
I love this question because the answers pro-lifers give is so hilarious and so narrow-focused.
It’s like you don’t have a clue what would happen if abortion was made illegal; you just believe that all the little babies will live and be happy and free and…
However, considering that the majority of women who have abortions ALREADY HAVE HAD at least one child, criminalizing abortion (thus resulting in the jailing of mothers) would lead to more parentless children. What about single-parent households in which the mother is devoting all her time working just to feed and clothe her children? When she goes to jail for not being able to support another child, not being willing to support another child, not being emotionally, physically, or financially secure enough to support a child … what happens to her children?
Oh, undoubtably a majority will end up in foster care, an already corrupt system which harms more children than it helps.
You say adoption is an alternative, so will work places be required to pay for maternity leave so a mother can birth her child and give it away? Remember, not everyone can afford to go for a week, if not longer, without pay. Will pregnant women be compensated for time they must take off for doctor visits? Will they be given money for prenatal care? Or is that an out-of-pocket expense?
Furthermore, race is an issue. Black children DO NOT get adopted at the rates white children do. Yes, many people want to adopt, but you will find that many want to adopt children that look like them rather than a child of an obviously different race. I know black women who have said they would rather abort their baby then let it go into the twisted foster care or abortion ring because they knew at least the child would not be harmed.
Also, with the advancement of science as it is, we have IVF treatments and other fertility treatments that lessen the chances of a couple adopting a child. Why adopt when you can make your own?
Now let’s look at birth defects. What are you going to do with the number of children that will now be born with birth defects, since their parents cannot abort? Who will pay for their lifelong care? I can be willing to bet not every parent will be able nor desire to care for a disabled child, though I believe there are wonderful people who do just that every day without complaint (props to them!).
Lastly, if abortion is criminalized, you make every woman’s body a crime scene. Should you check her every time she has a period to be sure she isn’t pregnant? Should you investigate every miscarriage and stillbirth to be sure it wasn’t an intentional murder? How involved must the law become with each pregnancy?
Most of all, abortion is an economic issue. As of now, as federal tax dollars cannot go toward abortion, you taxpayers are relieved of all expenses. With abortion criminalized, now you have to examine the soaring costs of birth, disabled children, prenatal vitamins and care, a lack of foster homes, adoption fees, and a wealth of other expenses that will HAVE to come from the federal government in order to make up for the growing number of children that will inevitably populate the planet.
So, you know, nice idea and all, but not one that is very thought out.
Note: If you want, I can provide more reasons criminalizing abortions will hurt men, women, children, and our financial situation, but these were the ones that came off the top of my head.
Posted by: Doug at March 24, 2008 8:09 PM
“Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” are plenty well-known and understood. When the argument shifts to the terminology itself, I think it’s more attempts at button-pushing.
Doug
++++++++++
Oh, kind of like when PCers start screaming about PLers calling a fetus a “baby”?
Edyt @ 10:48 – do you really believe what you wrote?
Your diatribe is racist, misandrystic, misogynistic, pathologically utilitarian, pathetically selfish and completely cold. You’ve spewed every eugenic line that Margaret Sanger ever advocated.
Why stop at birth? Why don’t we kill off born children? You don’t provide one logical reason for suggesting why any human is valuable and deserves defending. If you had to defend your own life with that logic, you wouldn’t be able to.
Don’t bother. And don’t include me or my family in your “financial situation”, because your value of life is so low, so meaningless and utilitarian it’s pathetic.
And about not being thought out: you’re assuming that the unborn are not intrinsically valuable human beings – worth immeasurable value. You assume what you want to prove, begging the question about life.
How do I know this?
Because you’re not telling these parents to kill their child, because it poses an economic burden upon us all.
Go think about it, because right now, your ideas aren’t worth arguing.
Edyt: How do you know that the disabled children that would possibly be saved would be more of a drain to society than a contributing member? News Flash: disabled people are contributing members of society. And not all contributions can be measured monetarily….
Great post Chris!
TR: I got my info from-Washington Monthly 1/17/08.
Posted by: Doug at March 24, 2008 8:09 PM
“Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” are plenty well-known and understood. When the argument shifts to the terminology itself, I think it’s more attempts at button-pushing.
Doug
+++++++++
Contrary to your assertion that arguing over terminology means that a debate has descended into the nonsensical gutter, I contend that is not *always* true, as can be illustrated in the fuss about whether to use the term “baby” or “fetus” when referring to an unborn human being.
Funny how it’s a baby when it’s “wanted” but it’s suddenly a “fetus” when we’re talking about chopping it up into little pieces and sucking it from its mother’s womb through a plastic tube.
Imagine walking up to a pregnant mother and asking “how’s the fetus doing today?”…
RE my 7:04 post: my first sentence should read-How do you know that the disabled children that would possibly be saved would be drains to society instead of being contributing members?
Anonymous; while your intentions may be good, I think it’s a mistake to argue against abortion of disabled babies based on whether or not they may have been “contributing” members of society, (whatever that means). The problem is that even discussing that question discounts the INTRINSIC value of each and every human being, without respect to their perceived “usefulness”.
That’s why I cringe when I hear PLers argue against abortion on the basis that abortion might kill “the next Albert Einstein or Martin Luther King”.
PJM – I believe anonymous is actually Carrie – she’s the only one that posted at 7:04. and it was a clarification in response to Edyt’s post of March 24, 2008 10:48 PM.
Chris: You are correct. I posted that in response to Edyt’s bigoted remarks concerning the disabled.
PajamaMama: You are not reading my post correctly. I posted that question in response to Edyt’s point that the influx of children with disabilities would sap up alot of society’s resources. Nowhere did I assert that an aborted fetus would be the next MLK. Maybe you should read more carefully before you start cringing.
PajamaMama: That question was actually addressed to Edyt. Didn’t know that you posted under two names. Nice to know that I have my own personal moderator though.
PJMama, you wrote: “The basic and central premise of the disagreement hinges solely on whether an unborn BABY is a human being. ”
WRONG! The central question is whether or not an unborn baby is entitled to live inside its mother’s body without her continuing consent, and whether the unborn baby is entitled to subject its mother to labor and delivery (major medical/surgical trauma) without her permission.
The answer to the central question is NO!
Abortion is going away, not because it’s been made illegal, but because the love of humanity is greater.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 24, 2008 4:43 PM
****************
Why dont you just hold your breath until that happens.
A woman that wants an abortion is like “an animal in a trap that wants to gnaw off her own leg to escape”.
****************
Sheer idiocy.
Its impossible for you to face the fact that women are capable of making an honest intelligent decision that you dont approve of. The fact of the matter is women who have serious emotional issues after an abortion had those same issues before they ever got pregnant. The abortion just gives them an *excuse* and a *focus* and keeps them from getting the mental health assistance they really need.
Okay, once more, let’s review the basics:
1. The Law of Biogenesis states each kind reproduces after it’s parents. Therefore human parents produce human offspring. Embryology texts declare that human beings exist after conception. (duh!)
2. Non-criminal penetration is prima facie consent to pregnancy or at least the risk of pregnancy. That’s what birth control is for…to control birth. (duh!)
3. Life is of greater moral worth than inconvenience, so between two intrinsically valuable human beings, one who is a mother by her intrinsic nature, and the other who is her offspring (who is naturally where she belongs) by her nature, by reason that the mother assumed the risk of her presence at the moment of penetration, the child deserves life. (location doesn’t change anyone’s humanity and I can also provide a solid argument for parental responsibility)
4. You’re assuming the child is NOT an intrinsically valuable sovereign human being, of immeasurable worth, because you treat her as property. You beg the question.
I can also infer SoMG, that since you believe humans are property of other humans that slavery is acceptable to you, as is murder.
Would you like to explain to us why you selfishly hold onto the view that the unborn are deserving to die simply because of their size, location, environment and degree of development? That’s rather morally arbitrary.
Are the unborn “sovereign, intrinsically valuable human beings” is the central question of the abortion debate. No other question in the debate would matter if that were not the central question.
So who’s wrong? Come now, you can be intellectually honest.
You just keep getting back to your irrational hatred of women.
Posted by: TexasRed at March 24, 2008 2:10 PM———————————————————– Hmmmmm, I never saw it quite that way. What an eye opener.
Posted by: heather at March 24, 2008 3:34 PM
*************************
You dont see it that way. I do. Your hatred of women who are not like you and who have chosen to end a pregnancy is obvious to anyone who reads your posts without an antichoice bias.
Yup. You
TR: I got my info from-Washington Monthly 1/17/08.
Posted by: Carrie at March 25, 2008 7:10 AM
***********
Thanks.
IMO, this particular disagreement over terminology (fetus vs. baby) is actually the CRUX of the abortion debate. The basic and central premise of the disagreement hinges solely on whether an unborn BABY is a human being. If he or she IS, then there is no question that his or her right to life trumps the dubiously defined “right to choose” of the mother.
Posted by: PajamaMama at March 25, 2008 9:57 AM
**************************************
The term ‘baby’ is an attempt to hide behind melodramatics, sentamentality and sensationalism. Whimpering ‘youre killing a baby’ is an attempt to manipulate emotions. Pointing out the fact that what is typically removed in an abortion is a mindless collection of insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure just doesnt do anything to further the antichoice agenda so you resort to sentamentality and melodramatics. The truth, facts, reality, doesnt suit the antichoice agenda. THAT is the crux of the matter.
TexasRed said –
Cute – but very telling about how you really feel, because as I mentioned, if abortion is diminishing because the love of humanity is greater than the selfishness of individuals, then it seems you want to defend the selfish.
Love, has and will triumph, and some day abortion will be viewed with horror, the slaughter of the innocents.
Ever seen an embryoscopy TR? It’s amazing, especially at 9 weeks!
Are the unborn “sovereign, intrinsically valuable human beings” is the central question of the abortion debate. No other question in the debate would matter if that were not the central question.
So who’s wrong? Come now, you can be intellectually honest.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 25, 2008 5:07 PM
*******************
Youre talking about a thinking feeling reasoning woman and a mindless collection of tissue and cell structure. Whimpering that the oblivious tissue is ‘a baby’ or ‘a human being’ to try to support your position hinges on ignoring the woman who is pregnant, ignoring her rights, ignoring her value, and ignoring her ability to decide what is best for her under her circumstances. Your obsession with the embryo/fetus makes you rationalize treating the woman without a shred of respect or courtesy and try to pretend that your position is the moral high ground. It isnt. Its control freak misogyny.
TexasRed said –
Why dont you just hold your breath until that happens.
Cute – but very telling about how you really feel, because as I mentioned, if abortion is diminishing because the love of humanity is greater than the selfishness of individuals, then it seems you want to defend the selfish.
Love, has and will triumph, and some day abortion will be viewed with horror, the slaughter of the innocents.
Ever seen an embryoscopy TR? It’s amazing, especially at 9 weeks!
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 25, 2008 5:19 PM
******************************
Back to the antichoice reliance on delusions. Whimpering any woman who would end a pregnancy is ‘just selfish’ shows the egocentricy of the antichoice position. What is selfish is fantasizing some stranger has an obligation to have a child she doesnt want just to make you feel good. As I said, why dont you hold your breath until “love” prevents abortion and makes everyone ‘realize’ how ‘wonderful’ pregnancy really is. Your argument is simple minded and laughable.
Chris A., you wrote: “You’re assuming the child is NOT an intrinsically valuable sovereign human being, of immeasurable worth,…
No, I’m not.
“… because you treat her as property.”
No, I don’t.
“I can also infer SoMG, that since you believe humans are property of other humans ”
No.
“…that slavery is acceptable to you, as is murder.”
Neither nor.
“Would you like to explain to us why you selfishly hold onto the view that the unborn are deserving to die simply because of their size, location, environment and degree of development? ”
Sure. First of all, I don’t think the unborn are “deserving to die”. The aborted unborn are not guilty, merely unlucky. The same way a guy who dies while waiting for a life-saving transplantable organ to become available is unlucky. In order to live, he needs something that he’s not entitled to, except through someone else’s charity. He’s just unlucky!
Size and degree of development do not make any difference to me.
But location is critical. Location makes all the difference.
Suppose for instance I hold a pencil three inches from your eye. That’s no crime. But if I change the LOCATION of the pencil by three inches, and poke you in the eye with it, that is a serious crime.
The location of the pencil (and of your eye) makes the difference between a non-crime and a serious crime. Location means everything when someone’s body is involved.
If you are located inside another person’s body, than I think that other person is entitled to expel you at will, and to kill you first if that makes you easier to expel. Why? Because you are located inside HER body, and for no other reason than that.
Not because you’re guilty of anything. Not because you deserve to die. Not because you’re less than human. Not because you are anybody’s property. Not because you are inferior in any way. Not because of any of the stupid non-arguments (straw men) right-to-lifers like to make.
But just because you are located inside another person’s body and dependent upon her bodily functions, you continue to live there only subject to her willingness to bear you. It’s as simple as that. She’s entitled to kill you and expel you from her body simply because it’s HER body, not yours.
To me it seems self-evident.
Actually, I’m asserting that she is a full human being and you’re asserting that the child isn’t. That begs the question, because you must prove the child isn’t an intrinsically valuable human being. All you’re doing is showing your ignorance.
Scientifically, you are wrong regarding the tissue.
The only question left is a philosophical question regarding the moral agency of the human being, and I can make a fully valid argument that there is no moral distinction between the mother and the child within her. Not treating her child as property is morally sound and logical. And completely unselfish.
So what are you defending – did you have an abortion and now you’re defending what you did?
SoMG said:
So your entire argument is hinged upon the property value of location, a physical bounds. So you are, in fact, treating the child as a property located in the wrong location (within the woman’s property “bounds”).
So like I said, and your illustration has shown, you really do think this way, and by inference, you support slavery, because you ignore the intrinsic nature of the child.
You have no clue as to what “intrinsic” means, do you?
Your own words – how is location not a basis for deserving to die? BTW – a child is in her natural environment in a woman’s womb – it’s how we all got here.
TexasRed’s advice is that I hold my breath waiting, while you believe you’re a logical genius regarding property issues, but when I refute you squarely with your own illustrations, you drop back to calling my arguments strawman.
You all have to do better than that… I’ve had a better arguments with a teen who eventually impaled himself on his own self-body dualism problem.
I guess I was wrong about your intellectual honesty. Oh well.
Chris A, you wrote: “So your entire argument is hinged upon the property value of location, ”
Well much of it is, I agree, based on location. But that’s not the whole argument. There is also the fact that the unborn lives by material taken from the mother’s bloodstream, which in my view requires her continuing permission. And finally, there’s the issue of the baby requiring the mother to suffer labor and delivery, a major medical/surgical trauma. That requires her continuing permission the whole way through, in my view.
“…a physical bounds. So you are, in fact, treating the child as a property located in the wrong location (within the woman’s property “bounds”).”
If by this you mean that I think a woman is entitled to determine who lives in her uterus and for how long, you’re right.
“So like I said, and your illustration has shown, you really do think this way, and by inference, you support slavery,
Slaves are not located inside the bodies of other people. It’s right-to-lifism which enslaves pregnant women to the interests of their fetuses.
“because you ignore the intrinsic nature of the child.”
Nope. I recognize limitations on what it’s entitled to.
“Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” are plenty well-known and understood. When the argument shifts to the terminology itself, I think it’s more attempts at button-pushing.”
PJ Mammy: Oh, kind of like when PCers start screaming about PLers calling a fetus a “baby”?
Yep, exactly. “Screaming” that “it’s a baby” is no more meaningful than is “it’s not a baby.”
PajamaMama: IMO, this particular disagreement over terminology (fetus vs. baby) is actually the CRUX of the abortion debate. The basic and central premise of the disagreement hinges solely on whether an unborn BABY is a human being. If he or she IS, then there is no question that his or her right to life trumps the dubiously defined “right to choose” of the mother.
As far as physical reality, “human being” fits – there is existence, and human DNA is there. That is saying nothing about rights, however. Doesn’t matter whether one would say “baby” or not.
A big part of the debate is do we attribute right to life to the unborn or not?
SoMG, my friend, you suffer from an acute case of functionalism. That’s to say you view humans as being utilitarian, and not substance.
Your argument is sprinkled with permissions, properties, bounds, rights and limitations of rights. Like I said, your responses aptly illustrate your poor understanding of what “intrinsic” means.
Let’s discuss basic human rights, such as yours.
Do others renege on your being? Can they violently strike you, rip your arms off and kill you?
Why not? What is it about you that requires others to non-violently tolerate your existence?
What grants you the “right” to be treated with any dignity or respect by others?
Similarly, on what basis does a woman have a “right” to control “her womb”?
Do her rights come from her substance – “what she is”, from her intrinsic nature as a woman, or do her “rights” extend from her functionality, “what she does with her womb” (make it present during sexual intercourse with a man)? After all, if there’s nothing to abort, then would that “right” be present at all?
If it’s because of “what she is” and her functionality as a woman cannot be detached, then when do those “womb reproductive rights” first belong to her? Can they be detached, or are they inalienable?
If they can’t be detached, then explain why they can’t.
You paint conception and pregnancy as a process at which the woman can renege on her functionality as a woman to control “her womb” but explain to us how it’s her womb, and what gives her that “right” in the first place.
If the offspring about to be aborted is a female, then explain why she doesn’t have any “reproductive womb rights” like her mother, because she carries a full womb and eggs at 10 weeks after conception.
If it’s okay to deny her those womb reproductive rights, and you agree those are denied through abortion, then you’re also agreeing that such rights are detachable and deniable.
Think SoMG – give us a worthy response. Don’t rehash rhetoric.
Chris, I like your blog! I tried to click on it before, but I wasn’t able to get through.
Thanks heather – perhaps I was entering the URL, but not putting in the http:// prefix?
I’m still doing more writing in comments than blog post – maybe I should do another Controlled Burn on bodily rights…?
What do you think?
yes:]
Chris, although you’ve addressed SoMG in your post, I was so deeply offended as a female human being by your misogynistic comments that I felt I needed to address some of your questions.
Similarly, on what basis does a woman have a “right” to control “her womb”?
Umm, it’s HER BODY. Not anyone elses. By your pro-life views, you are essentially saying she does not have the capability to decide for herself what is the right thing for her body. You do not have the right to tell her what to do with her body, nor does SHE have the right to tell you what to do with yours.
Let me tell you something… in all the (informal) research I’ve conducted on abortion, one thing rings true. Abortion is decided from the heart. Most women who go through with it say they would prefer not to make that decision, but they are making the decision based on their existing children. Many say they would like to have the child but because they cannot guarantee the child a good life they do not wish harm upon it. That’s a “pro-life” view, in my point. Someone who actually cares enough about a child to not want it to suffer in its life. Wow.
Do her rights come from her substance – “what she is”, from her intrinsic nature as a woman, or do her “rights” extend from her functionality, “what she does with her womb” (make it present during sexual intercourse with a man)? After all, if there’s nothing to abort, then would that “right” be present at all?
Her rights come from the same rights that MEN have. That is, to have sex, to not have children, to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes (at legal age, of course), and to use birth control or not. There should not be a debate as to who (the fetus or the woman) should have more rights. Why would you give an unborn child more rights than a grown adult? (Or at least someone of reproductive age) Should sperm be given the right to life too, and men should be restricted from masturbating or using condoms during sex?
NO ONE tries to exert the amount of control on men that they do on women, and if men could get pregnant this debate would not exist.
If it’s because of “what she is” and her functionality as a woman cannot be detached, then when do those “womb reproductive rights” first belong to her? Can they be detached, or are they inalienable?
If they can’t be detached, then explain why they can’t.
Functionality? She’s not a machine, she’s a person and it’s her body therefore her decision.
You paint conception and pregnancy as a process at which the woman can renege on her functionality as a woman to control “her womb” but explain to us how it’s her womb, and what gives her that “right” in the first place.
Uhh… it’s her body. No one is trying to take away men’s rights to their testes, are they?
If the offspring about to be aborted is a female, then explain why she doesn’t have any “reproductive womb rights” like her mother, because she carries a full womb and eggs at 10 weeks after conception.
Children, born children, do not have the same rights an adult has. A 10 year old cannot smoke or drink. Should we give them equal rights with the rest of humanity? No. Part of being unborn means your right to life is invalidated and is the choice of the carrier. Furthermore, a baby does not have a fully developed reproductive system, rendering your argument null.
Edyt – Or it could be “HIS” body:
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=52947&page=1
Maybe it’s not a him or a her, but who’s got the body within the body?
I’ll address your points shortly.
I went to respond, but the debate has ceased to exist! ;-)
Edyt – Your pathetic arguments are shallow and rhetorical trash:
1. You lack an understanding of basic physiology and ignore the body within the body. A pregnant woman’s offspring is not her body.
2. You lack basic comprehension abilities. The blastocyst/embryo/fetus is made up of the same substance (flesh and blood) as the mother, but is not the mother. The baby’s right to life accrues as a result of what she is, a human being, not where she is. You ignored my explanation to SoMG. I’m attributing your ignorance to your person not your gender.
3. You lack compassion/common sense:
To paraphrase: I loved the child, that’s why I violently killed her.
Oh, that’s brilliant. To alleviate child abuse, I’ll allow killing. Hmm… So torturing the child to death during abortion is humane?
Come on baby, let mommy love ya.
Sick.
I’ve been carried by airlines around the world, but not one of them has the “right” to kill me.
I want to understand you correctly – you know the unborn are human, but it’s okay to kill humans – right?
So you hold a property view of humanity, advocate slavery and believe killing a child is a form of loving affection.
And you feel offended by my words?
I didn’t advocate ripping your body apart with a cannula and suction aspirating your body parts out. I don’t advocate violence against the most defenseless of humans.
But you do, and you’re offended by me!
Like I said, your kind is going away, because those who know how to love and sacrifice for posterity are growing up to condemn you.
Because 50 million of their siblings were hacked to pieces.
You beg the question. Badly.
NO ONE tries to exert the amount of control on men that they do on women, and if men could get pregnant this debate would not exist.
Edyt, I agree, or at least think that it would be much different. The old saying goes, “If men could get pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament.”
There are irresponsible members of both sexes. If men could carry children many would likely see pregnancy as a gift and some would see the the baby like Obama and the rest of the pro-aborts do, as an undue burden and punishment for sex???????