Video: The most shocking 4-minute abortion debate you will ever see
On January 7 I posted a video produced The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, which lasted only a couple hours on YouTube.
CBR’s shocking, graphic video juxtaposed a soothing video produced by the Northland Family Planning Centers, a late-term abortion chain of 3 mills in Michigan, with the reality of abortion.
CBR’s video got such a huge initial response, CEO Gregg Cunningham decided to take some time to remaster it to grotesque perfection. CBR is calling this video “the most shocking 4-minute abortion debate you will ever see.” CBR may be right…
This video is posted at Pro-Life Tube, where it will never be removed.
Donate to CBR to help it continue its important work.
Jan.29, 2011 2:53 pm |
Uncategorized |
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.
Lord have mercy. Truly – because that’s the only way that we’ll ever make it to the light of day.
I can’t watch it. I just can’t do it. The last time I watched a graphic abortion video, I was so mortified that I cried all night long – that was about 14 years ago. :(
I could not watch it. I think I am going to be sick. The pro aborts will say it was a fake. I don’t know if this will help or harm our noble cause of pro life. And I know the pro abort side will say that it is abusive to show this – but they are the ones actually doing the abuse – the killing.
Pray for America!
i think I’m going to be sick :(
OH MY DEAR LORD….have mercy on us Jesus. Holy Blessed Mother Mary, plead for us to your son to end this horrific murder of our innocent children.
Father in heaven, hear our CRY. Wake up this country and this world so they may see the light of truth. How long oh Lord? How long?
ALL of heaven….pray, pray, pray!
Where did they get the video of the abortion?!!? WHO RECORDS THAT!?! I agree that it must be seen in order to change minds. I just don’t understand it. I am sickened and saddened and completely repulsed. I need to go pray now. I can’t take it.
And the sad thing is that there will be pro abort men and women that will look you straight in the eye and will tell you to “man up” because this even though it is harsh, life is harsh, this is reality, this is necessary in the world, it’s good for women, it’s just a medical procedure, and it’s legal and yes, it is terrible but needed more so than ever.
The spokes girl in the vid reminds me a little of Abby Johnson – I hope people are praying for her and she will soon see this video and come to our side.
THIS is what proaborts MEAN by CHOICE!
“It takes a lot of courage to make the decision to have an abortion.” NO! It takes a lot of fear and denial and often coercion to have an abortion. What takes courage is helping women to see the truth and offering them the real help they need to do the right thing! The words coming out of this woman’s mouth upset and infuriated me as much as if not more than the graphic images (which I mostly closed my eyes for). “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do!” Father, please help us to help them come to understand exactly what they do!!! Please break their hearts as ours have been broken so that they will stop saying what they say and doing what they do! Amen!
According to the latest polls Obama’s spport is above 50% again so this kind if procedure will be coming to every women in America soon as part of president Obama’s green legislation and compulsory HHS family planning guidelines.
Praying that clinic workers will walk away (no, run away) from their jobs in the abortion industry. They deserve a better life than this. Our Lord will have mercy on them.
Any clear thinking person want to defend this barbaric “choice?”. Actually, don’t even bother. After seeing this, I’m not in the mood to deal with all the illogical and anti-science arguments from the side of “choice”.
Wake up people to the reality behind the rhetoric. When innocent human life is at stake in the magnitude it is with abortion, how dare anyone hide behind meaningless slogans and arguments that lack any logical substance. Choices have consequences. According to “pro-choice” thinking, this is an acceptable consequence of choice? That’s just sick.
I couldn’t watch it. How horrific.
I just posted this to my blog. I am sick.
How dare she utter the word LOVE in the context of abortion.
Dear God help us.
The devil speaks with sickening sweet words in this video, just like he did to Eve in the garden of Eden. God have mercy on our country and our world who has chosen death for these innocents. As Father Pavone says. “America will not reject abortion until it sees abortion.”
I would think that pro-choicers would, in their words, dismiss this as having been a “necessary” abortion for fetal indications or the mother’s health, which composes a minority of abortions, not representing the majority which are in the first trimester “whem it’s not developed yet” and “is just a ball of tissue”. In addition, I would of liked to see post-abortion women at a Silent No More Awareness event holding their “I regret my abortion” and “Silent No More” signs and segments of their testimonies of how abortion hurt them juxtapositioned next to scenes of the abortion clinic’s “abortion is a positive decision” spiel.
I recall reading how the men and women who ran the Nazi extermination camps also viewed themselves as good men and women doing important work for the betterment of society.
The Taliban brutalizes and murders women to better society. They don’t see themselves as abusers and murderers.
Stoning a woman in Iran is a moral necessity to deter adultery.
Then there’s the suicide bombers who will take several innocent lives with them. Murder? Certainly not. Its all for a higher moral purpose.
Why should this woman from the Northland abortion clinic surprise us? She certainly has plenty of company.
I agree Rachel. Silent No More testimonials would be powerful as a contrapuntal background.
In Auschwitz they said “The flames of the burning children blot out faith.” Ethics were never discussed in the concentration camps; they were considered a luxury. Many lost their faith. Some grew stronger in faith. Every child who is conceived has a right to LEARN to have faith in God; abortion is an attack on faith, seeking to “DE-moralize” ALL.
Only when the Allies liberated the camps did the world come to understand the very badness of badness. Nazi doctors, as they were being led to the gallows, proclaimed they were advancing medicine by doing experiments on humans. The world said NEVER AGAIN.
God is a God of miracles, and with Him nothing is impossible. His plans never collapse. God help us all to defend the innocent to the very gates of hell. May God have mercy on us,and may the Innocents be allowed to speak to hearts through this video.
Brutal. High contrast.
How do we get this in front of others?
People will turn it off and shy away – like rats running from a sinking ship – or hiding from the light of Truth. It’s amazing how humans pay for horror movies for entertainment, but show them true horror and they recoil into cries of “spare us from this nastiness you’re heaping on us!”
If the Lord were to reveal our collective sin at once, we would lose our minds completely.
I pray for Gregg Cunningham and those who are editing this material. May God keep them healthy and safe, clear-thinking and focused on His truth, mercy, compassion and goodness. It’s got to be numbing/brutal on them. Necessary, but quite traumatic.
This is truly sickening to watch, but it effectively contrasts the huge gulf between the abortionists’ candy-coated propaganda and the horribly demonic act of which they practice. After watching that precious baby (or any baby) being ripped apart how can anyone support this work of satan?
Mankind is so wicked!
To think that we do this thousands of times each day in the US.
115,000/day worldwide!
How evil! How demonic!
I just heard that Lou Engle and The Call are coming to Detroit this year.
I believe we’ll be closing down some child killing centers.
Where’s Joan? I’d love to hear her take on this video!
Wow. I have seen enough abortion videos, I truly could not bring myself to watch another. But I DID watch the Northland Family Pl video.
It’s funny – I’m no expert, I could be wrong; but in my opinion you could really see the difference in the body language between the manager and a certain nurse, and some of the others. The former two are most certainly post-abortive; they have a kind of belief and determination in their eyes, etc. May Christ redeem their souls.
I have never wrote this kind of post before, but for some reason it seem (morbidly) interesting. While God will work on whom he chooses, it seems that a few of the nurses were actively TRYING to believe what they were saying. My prayer (literally) is that they are moved to love life and repent before they are truly hardened like the manager, who has the effective sales pitch down to hellish perfection.
Maybe it’s because I have been in vulnerable circumstances during pregnancy; if I were back in that phase of my life again, and did not have principles from a higher authority, it would be easy to believe them. May God replace these soothsayers with those who will show a desperate or even wicked mother the truth!
14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 [NIV]
Jill,
MamaT asks a good question: who recorded the abortion footage and how did CBR obtain it? I’m surprised any clinic would allow an abortion to be videotaped. Seems to me they wouldn’t risk such damning evidence being seen, but then again, they are doing “sacred work for women” and such.
The “bring only Love” remark is almost too ludicrous to hear with a straight face. They are working real hard to convince themselves that what they’re doing is noble and good. Over and over again, they talk about “goodness” as though they are desperate to write a new definition of the word.
Woe to those who call evil good…
And Jesus, please hasten the day when this scourge will be wiped away from our land.
I couldn’t watch this video (just listened to the audio).
I had 14 years of watching 1st and 2nd trimester abortions at my local PCC with female clientele and/or their boyfriends. I emotionally can no longer handle these gruesomely graphic videos.
No one can imagine the unbelievable A-G-O-N-Y that these children go through – except Jesus who suffered His own torturous death at the hands of wicked men.
LL
“NO! It takes a lot of fear and denial and often coercion to have an abortion.”
It’s easy to project sensibilities, motives and emotions on a woman when an ultrasound or a PPleak video is obscuring her face. I’d like to think the creators of this expose obtained informed consent from Patient A, but would that be too generous an assumption? Are all abortion videos “fair game” in the pro-life blogosphere, no matter how they were obtained? Anyway, above the genitals there’s a rational, sentient human being who assessed her situation and made a decision, whether you think it’s a good one or not. Start there, and then consider her circumstances, ok?
Yep, abortion isn’t pretty, and it isn’t particularly pleasant. Gotcha. But in terms of propaganda, I think the other videos posted on ProLifeTube communicate the pro-life position more efffecively than this “shocker.” It’s nice to see a protester approach cars in a clinic parking lot and speak TO the men ABOUT the women who are sitting right next to them. And the bribes! “Do you speak Spanish? We’ll give you money, don’t kill your baby.” Gee, really? For how long? Until the kid needs asthma medication and school books? Or the same protester who approaches a van and tries to dissuade a woman from picking up her friend. “If she had an abortion, she killed a baby and you don’t want to be involved with that. Tell her to walk home.” That’s love, truly.
I checked out the Northland Family Planning website and clicked on Abortion 4-24 Weeks. The bottom of the page actually says this:
“We promise… to never judge you, support you and provide high quality care”
to never judge you
to never support you
to never provide high quality care
Wow. They actually managed to tell the truth about something.
Megan said:
“Anyway, above the genitals there’s a rational, sentient human being who assessed her situation and made a decision, whether you think it’s a good one or not. ”
Megan,
Below the genitals is a dead baby. Above the genitals there’s an irrational, numb-minded schizophrenic human being in denial of the sentient human being that she has hired the abortionist to kill.
Ah truthseeker, I figured this video would appeal to your appetite for the grotesque-salacious. How do you know this woman’s in denial, hmm? Have you spoken with her, personally? Is there a follow-up vid in which she explains her feelings about abortion, whether this pregnancy was wanted, whether there were complications, if she knew somebody was filming, etc? I guess I missed it.
Megan? Are you really there? Did you even look while they were wrapping that tiny human in a paper like a piece of meat? Did you see the baby’s thick soft hair, its kind, wise little face, miniature hands and round tummy. I wonder if it was a girl or a boy? Did your heart not wrench, did your eyes not sting with tears when you saw the tiny, limp, lifeless legs in the cold gloved hands? Those were hands that rather should have gently wrapped that trusting little person in a swaddling blanket, while smiling encouragingly into its eyes and speaking soft “welcome little one” words! You know, someone did that for you on your very first day in the sunshine. But this time, those cruel cold hands flopped this little one lifeless, around on the table to inspect it before throwing it away? Ah, but can you picture it a little while before, sucking its thumb and paddling in happy circles in the womb, with hopeful eyes that are now closed forever? Why do you keep redirecting your words to draw attention away to the mother instead? And what does it even mean to discuss whether another, (any other) person is “wanted”? What on earth are you talking about. Peace, Megan! Thou speakest of nothing.
So you’re not in denial, Megan? Are you “in denial of the sentient human being that the abortionist was hired to kill” (Truthseeker’s statement)? You don’t need to tell us your “feelings about abortion, whether this pregnancy was wanted, whether there were complications, if she knew somebody was filming,” etc.
And if you’re not in denial–if abortion is the killing of a sentient human being–then why do you appeal to love? You attempted to do so in your Jan. 29 comment, though perhaps you don’t really believe in love. Survival of the fittest!
Still, I give you your own advice: “[inside] the genitals there’s a rational, sentient human being who [hasn’t had a chance to assess] her situation and [make] a decision, whether you think it’s a good one or not. Start there, and then consider her circumstances, ok?”
Megan,
Above the genitals is a woman who deserved better. Below the genitals is the baby she never believed in and was convinced to kill.
May God look upon her with understanding, love and mercy. If only she turns to Him, we know that she has been forgiven.
I have been far too complacent for far too long.
Sacred, she called it. Sacred work. Lord, Have Mercy!
Lord, have mercy on this your servant who forgets. Look upon me with kindness and send your Spirit upon me to guide my actions. It is so easy to become discouraged, Lord, but I know that You are calling me to action. Guide my steps, Lord. Forgive me for my blindness. My eyes are open, and I am listening and watching for You, O God. Show me Your Way.
Christ, have mercy on those who serve the Father of Lies, both knowingly and unknowingly. Open their hearts to You. Make Yourself known to them and guide their ways.
Jesus, protect and save the unborn. Savior of the World, save America.
I make this prayer in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
It isn’t at all about whether others are willing to pay for someone else’s baby’s support, Megan. It is about whether it is okay for anybody to kill a person that they don’t “want”. To say it another way! If a couple doesn’t “want” their toddler anymore because it messes up their budget, do they have any right to execute that toddler based upon whether or not someone like you or me is willing to pay those toddler’s bills for them forever? Back to the real question we must answer. “What is the unborn?” If it is a person, that limits your options.
C’mon people, this is “sacred work.” Let’s … like … be respectful and find common ground, and all that stuff.
I just woke up from a bad dream. In this dream I was telling my good friend Will that I had killed two people and hid their bodies. I had decided that the world would be better off that these two people would die, and apparently the authorities did ,too. But I couldn’t stop wondering if this was the right choice, and I grieved for those people. Who was I to say they needed killing? Why was my pain more important than theirs?
Whether you abort a child at 4 weeks or 24 weeks or give the child up for adoption or keep him or her, you will always be the parents of him or her. All choices have consequences, whether the choices were well-informed or not, whether the choices were made selfishly or not. This is an iron law of the universe, and no one is free from that law.
I have been divorced for 20 years. After our divorce, I vowed to never remarry until I found out what went wrong. I didn’t want to ruin more lives. I found out what went wrong, and converted to Catholicism seven years into my quest for Truth. I have prayed,picketed , protested and counselled against abortion for 13 years. I talk to the men involved, if they’re available. Some want to talk, some are angry, and some just don’t care. That’s their choice, and they will have to live with the consequences of their choice.
Time is just what happens so everything doesn’t happen all at once. Time actually happens to us in “parts”; time is a CREATED thing, and God is the “Captain of Time”. When we die, we will see all the consequences of all our choices, and we will be judged according to our “works”.
May God grant the Mercy to all men and women that they may see the consequences of their choice to abort BEFORE it’s eternal consequences are judged. Only God can read the heart. Judge not lest in judging ye be judged. All children have a right to learn that God loves them. Their parents must teach them that. Whether they aborted them or not.
Megan said:
Consent? What about Patient B? Did Patient B give consent? Come now – if you’re going to be rational about procedures, make sure you follow all of them. Oh – the consent for the child must be given by the mother which is having the child killed. You can’t even bring yourself to mention that – can you?
Stop ignoring the child Megan.
All you’re doing is defending your own actions – and still carrying your dead child (and ignoring her too.)
Would you trade places with your own child Megan?
What about the father – still carrying him too?
Killing innocent human beings is morally wrong Megan, no matter how you spin it.
I’m sure you would be quite repulsed by people running around killing and mauling innocent women, and especially so when others were telling the killers they were being brave and courageous for having made that tough, but loving, decision. You’d call them insane, and in that case you’d be right, but the only differences between that and abortions are the development (age) and environment of the victims
I’m praying you drop your denial and reach for Christ, and freedom.
TIME
When was I given the marvel of “time”, the simplest marvel of all: the movement of earth through the heavens, through winter, spring, summer and fall?
Who set earth’s course in the heavens, and kept her course safe through it all? What movement was this, so faithful, through winter, spring, summer and fall?
Oh, Blessed are You O Great Captain, whatever Your Name may be called. You’ve guided us safe through the heavens, through winter, spring, summer and fall.
T’was You who gave me the marvel of “time”, and let me stand on Your sweet earth. T’was You who gave me the marvel of ALL, when You gave me the TIME of my birth.
We cannot forget those not given THEIR TIME, to stand with US on OUR sweet earth. T’was “CHOICE”, WE said, gave US the right, to DENY them the TIME of their birth.
~~~~~~Who chose to put stars in the heavens?
~~~~~~Who chose to put man on the earth?
T’was ONLY the Sovereign Captain of Time: He CHOSE to GIVE ALL LIFE it’s BIRTH!
Hi Megan!! I hope you are well.
I can’t bring myself to watch this video YET. :(
During slavery days good women were taught to treat the slaves as they would treat a bad child. They were taught to beat, browbeat, or even kill an “unruly” slave. Good women were taught to go against their natural instincts to nurture life, and they learned to act evilly .The Dred Scott Decision said slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Any woman who had doubts about what they were doing to the slaves, could turn to the authority of the Supreme Court and assume that because slavery was legal, then the entire construct of the “peculiar institution” was also legal, including the killing of slaves.
At about the time the American Civil War was ending, and with it the beginning of the end of slavery, Charles Darwin published “Origin of the Species”, and Darwin’s cousin Galton influenced Englishmen to believe that Englishmen were the “most favored race of men” and Colonialists applied Darwin’s and Galton’s theories.Englishmen learned to treat “wogs” as servants, and even had servants killed or maimed. English courts had no problem with Englishmen doing what they needed to do. It was a matter of dominance, arrogance and finances. The British Empire was destined for greatness, and a few deaths were of no consequence.
In the 1920’s the American Eugenics League, spearheaded by Mrgaret Sangerrr, “enlightened” America to the benefits of Eugenics. Women learned that their greatness lay in “controlling their own fertility” (and thus controlling the destiny of mankind). Contraception, the Pill and abortion became legal in the US, despite the fact that a madman who followed Darwin/Galton/Sangerrr had proven how utterly devastating the ORIGINal Idea of Darwin could go so horribly wrong, and the “destiny” of Germany was NOT to be “the most favored race of men”.
More than 50 million abortions have been committed in the USA. We have been CONNED ! It is time for America to WAKE UP, MAN UP or SHUT UP! The Playwhore Philosophy is NOT about women’s “freedom”, and it’s consequences are sexual slavery, degradation and destruction. STDs, divorce, adultery,AIDS, internet porn, are not “greatness”! This Sweet Land of Liberty will go into the dustbin of history along with American slavery, the Third Reich, and English Colonialism. The ORIGINal Idea was NOT Darwin’s.
ALL men are created EQUAL, and endowed by their Creator with the INALIENABLE right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. NOW THAT was an Original Idea !
Mark, I hate to contradict you, but the Dred Scott decision did not declare that slaves were 3/5ths of a person.
The Dred Scott decision declared that all blacks — slaves as well as free — were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country’s territories.
The 3/5ths of a person comes from the original U.S. Constitution. The slave states wanted blacks to be treated as property for ALL things… but they wanted them counted as people when it came to representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This would have given the slave states extra representation and so ensured the continuation of slavery for many more years.
Those in the north told them that if they couldn’t have it both ways… either they were people or property. OR… if they were going to count property as people for representation, they were going to start counting ALL of their property, including farm animals and so on…
In an effort to have the new nation not fall apart before it even began, the 3/5ths compromise was enacted. It was designed to ensure that the argument about slavery would not die so that, hopefully, the entire institution could be abolished peacefully. Unfortunately, decisions such as Dred Scott helped to ensure the bloody Civil War instead.
Hi Carla!! Megan is still not well.
But each time she comes here to visit us, she will get closer to wellness, freedom and joy!
Keep coming back Megan. We love you. We are praying for you to become rational.
This is a terrific article and very appropriate to this post.
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Why-We-Have-Children-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-26-2011.html
I am also praying for Megan. She is very special to me and I long to be here for her when she faces the truth.
Because we will never know about the state of mind of the woman or her circumstances in the video I would say that is moot. We could argue until the cows come home about her “choice.”
Schizophrenic truthseeker? Seriously? Proaborts would like nothing more than to paint those who regret their abortions as mentally ill at the time.
I am truly and utterly shocked… One thing is to think about abortion and see some photos, quite the other – to watch a video like that. Like many of you, I couldn’t watch it all, just some…
However hard the pro-abortionists fight and “defend” womens’ rights, it’s clear as day that one essential right has been denied to a child – a right to LIFE! Sure women have rights that need defending from time to time, but NONE of these rights include a voluntary and torturous killing of another human being! And they are also not denied their own right to LIFE… Yet, they’re determined to deny it to their own children….
“ALL men are created EQUAL, and endowed by their Creator with the INALIENABLE right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. NOW THAT was an Original Idea !”
AMEN!!!!
Hi Elisabeth,
Excellent post concerning Dred Scott.
There is nothing new under the sun and that includes the mentality that one can’t be certain whether humans are human, property, subhuman, sort of human, or even worthy of life or rights. Over the course of human history this mentality has taken then form of tribalism, mass murder, genocide, and racism,
Abortion seems to be another step on this path.
Thanks for the correction, Elizabeth. I will “remember” our history more accurately in the future, and I hope anyone who read my inaccurate interpretation will recognize it as simple human error. I am passionate about freedom , TRUE freedom, and sometimes my passion gets ahead of me. Sorry everybody.
Now, there are a few things more I’d like to post and I hope you’ll bear with me, realizing of course, that I am not perfect and am liable to make some mistakes( which, thank God there ARE smarter people than me who will graciously correct me, such as Elizabeth did). I will read the Constitution more closely and look for that 3/5 person section. I have a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “God who gave us life gave us liberty and God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever”. Perhaps he was thinking of slavery at the time he wrote that.
Abortion is the most important civil rights movement of our time. During the time of the civil rights marches in the United States in the 1960’s, men carried signs that had a simple message. The signs read “I AM A MAN”. I don’t have to read that from a history book, I saw that with my own eyes as it happened. About that time, I heard Black men say to one another “Hey, man”. They simply wanted to make the point, with their language, that they were (are) MEN.
A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. Until people saw the pictures of lynchings, the Civil Rights Movement got little “traction” with those who had never been part of a lynch mob, or witnessed a lynching. My earlier post dealt with HOW people can be CONNED into thinking “this one” is NOT a person. The video Jill Stanek has on her web site is necessary. For minds to fully realize what’s at stake, one really can only grasp the reality if they SEE the reality. History is history. Sometimes, history is disremembered, or poorly remembered, or even denied. But each person today LIVES history out by their choices, and how they LIVE IN the history of THIS day CREATES history. The video PUTS US IN HISTORY, today. THIS is US today.
Congressman Mike Pence, in my mind, PUT the HISTORICAL context to this video at the RECENT March for Life. He said,”As in the days of a house divided, America’s darkest moments came when economic arguments trumped moral principles.” And later in his speech, he said, “A nation that will not stand for life will not stand for long.” At the acceptance of the surrender of Japan, that marked the end of WWII, Gen MacArthur warned mankind, saying, “Mankind has had his last chance. Either there will be a recrudescence of the spirit of man, or the flesh of mankind will not be saved.” Dr. Viktor Frankl, Auschwitz survivor, developer of the psychotherapeutic model called Logotherapy, and author of “Man’s Search for Meaning”, wrote, “Since Auschwitz, we know what man is capable of. Since Hiroshima, we know what’s at stake.” Corrie Ten Boom, Holocaust survivor, peace activist and author of “The Hiding Place”, wrote, “There is no place so low that God is not lower still’.
The RECENT events with the exposure of the very gates of hell being in the City of Brotherly Love, and the posting of this video by this courageous woman, and the words of a politician DEFINE THIS MOMENT in history, for us, today, now. Another politician called for change. It is TIME. Let’s not let history show we failed to recognize OUR “Moment in Time’, when were “racing for OUR destiny”. “Time” is just what happens to keep everything from happening all at once. Each individual destiny is defined by “choice”. We must choose wisely, THIS TIME.
Hi Mark K,
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was also thinking of the fact he was a slaveowner.
Like you I personally recall the Civil Rights movement as well as the brutality that was part of it. Horrific.
Any time someone gives you the argument of how the Supreme Court sanctioned abortion, remind them of Dred Scott, as well as the SC sanctioning of segregation and of Franklin Roosevelt’s order putting thousands of Japanese American citizens in concentration camps.
Does the Supreme Court really have a track record we can be proud of or not be fearful of? Is Roe just another example of the SC managing the “undesirables” of a particular era in our nation’s history?
So truthseeker/chris arsenault, you would be fine with publicizing videos of intimate medical procedures that don’t jive with you morally? How would your wife feel if some schmuck sat in the labor room videotaping with an iphone and then posted the video to, say, an antinatalist blog? And then tried to dress up this “footage” in the language of concern and compassion?
In your book, bereal, this woman’s a murderer. She paid somebody to kill her unborn baby. What’s different between Patient A and a Casey Anthony is that nobody tries to soften Anthony’s complicity in the death of her toddler. Nobody points to some distant entity as the force responsible for engendering a climate in which Anthony found it acceptable to murder Caylee. The blame falls squarely on Anthony’s shoulders. It shouldn’t be any different with abortion, right?
Women aren’t pawns and they aren’t dupes. Either you recognize them as rational human beings with myriad reaons for making the decisions they do, or you continue to peddle caricatures of scared, easily-influenced weaklings who can’t be held accountable for their actions. You can’t have it both ways.
Women aren’t pawns and they aren’t dupes.
Megan, you seem to make the same mistakes that cranium and joan made over and over in their writings.
They forget the word ‘some’ in their sentences just as you do.
Here, I’ll rewrite it for you,
Some women aren’t pawns and some aren’t dupes.
Here is the bottom line. Those who embrace evil will defend it and justify it until the bitter end. There is no arguing or rationalizing with them as long as satan has predominant influence over them. All we can do is pray for them that they will be receptive to God’s merciful graces and that they will open their eyes to the TRUTH and repent. Otherwise, arguing with them is futile!!!
Megan,
“…or you continue to peddle caricatures of scared, easily influenced weaklings who can’t be held accountable for their actions.”
LOL. Oh come on Megan, tell it to the folks at NOW and NARAL who are incessently whining about women being so ”victimized” by Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
Oh, and that absolute farce called the Clarence Thomas sexual harassment hearings. My goodness, women were just soooo helpless when it came to dirty talk and the office fanny patter. Its your side that will turn women into helpless waifs when it suits their political agenda.
“Women aren’t pawns and they aren’t dupes. Either you recognize them as rational human beings with myriad rea[s]ons for making the decisions they do, or you continue to peddle caricatures of scared, easily-influenced weaklings who can’t be held accountable for their actions.”
Dear Megan, I’m sure you are familiar with the fact that many, many women stay in a relationship with a husband or boyfriend who is abusing them. I’m sure you are also familiar with the reasons that women stay in these relationships. I also imagine (or at least hope) that you feel some sort of compassion for these women. Or would you also call them pawns and dupes? scared, easily influenced weaklings? I imagine (or hope) that you are someone who speaks out against such abuse, and that if you knew someone who was in such a situation, you would try to help her. (Who knows, I don’t know you, maybe you have already had the opportunity to help someone in such or situation, or maybe you’ve been in that situation yourself.)
I don’t see any difference whatsoever between a woman who stays with an abusive partner and a woman who consents to an abortion. A truly rational, healthy, free and responsible woman would understand that abortion ends the life of another human being, and puts her own life, health, and soul at risk. I can say this with absolute integrity, because I was once (24 years ago) an irrational, unhealthy, trapped and irresponsible woman–a pawn, a dupe, a scared, easily influenced weakling–who had an abortion. I’m not preaching a party line. I’m speaking from the depths of my own experience and self-understanding.
Women can be and often are all of these awful things. The abortion industry exploits and encourages our weakness rather than helping us to heal and grow and become truly rational, healthy, free, responsible, courageous, strong women. Words can be simply meaningless veneer that covers up what and who we actually are on the inside. I’m heartbroken that I got the help I needed far too late to save the life of my own child and avoid the inability to conceive that resulted from my abortion. But it’s not too late for me to speak the truth.
All I know to say is: “Dear God in Heaven…!!!! What have we done?!!!!”
Megan says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:22 am
Women aren’t pawns and they aren’t dupes.
Right, they aren’t, untill the moment when they mindlessly walk into a Crisis Pregnancy Centre thinking it’s an abortion clinic, can’t find their way out, are forcefully brainwashed and have a baby… What dupes! That’s what most pro-abortionists think about women anyway and why they try to bring the crisis pregnany centres down….
But we’re off topic, and the main topic is – a live, unique, human child (baby, fetus) is killed during abortion. Can we at least agree on that?
It’s amazing how humans pay for horror movies for entertainment, but show them true horror and they recoil into cries of “spare us from this nastiness you’re heaping on us!”
Of course they do. Because no matter how horrible and graphic and bloody and gory a horror movie gets, it isn’t real. You don’t have to be truly horrified because no one is really hurt or dead.
There is no such refuge from reality.
As to the matter of how the video was made, surely I can’t be the only person who thinks it was likely created as a teaching video. That does occur within the regular parameters of the universe we all inhabit, you know.
“Does the Supreme Court really have a track record we can be proud of or not be fearful of? Is Roe just another example of the SC managing the “undesirables” of a particular era in our nation’s history?”
You really have it out for the Supreme Court, don’t you? I don’t even know where you’re going or what you’re trying to accomplish with this line of reasoning. The Court has made some unpopular or even bad decisions. And so what? As an institution it has some long-term sinister agenda to suppress minorities? Is that really what you’re trying to argue here? This is just conservative judicial paranoia taken to an extreme. Either you support an independent judiciary that acts as a check on the other branches of government, even if it sometimes “gets it wrong”, or you don’t. There isn’t any middle ground here.
“When my children came into this world, I realized I needed to get an education.”
~~Mom on TV ad for an on-line university~~
What’s different between Patient A and a Casey Anthony is that nobody tries to soften Anthony’s complicity in the death of her toddler.
Megan,
The difference, the pivotal difference, in regards to culpability is comprehension. In the case of Casey Anthony, there was no question whatsoever of whose life she was taking. Her daughter’s. Her very cognizant, very alive, very real human daughter. This is exactly the reason why the pro-life voice and CPCs are so incredibly important in our social atmosphere. In the case of Patient A, there was substantial argumentation that who she was carrying was not. She was most likely informed by a ‘counselor’ that her ‘pregnancy’ was only a ‘bunch of cells’ and not a person at all. She had been told over & over in many ways that abortion is not a big deal. That it is an acceptable and permissible, safe operation. In short, she had been lied to.
In the case of Anthony, she knew that her daughter was a person. She knew that it was unacceptably, morally and legally, to end the life of this little girl. If in fact Casey Anthony killed her daughter, which I believe is likely but is not yet determined by a court, then she confronted the humanity of her child and took her life, by placing piece after piece of duct tape on her face, around her head, after basically drugging her. Furthermore, if the prosecution’s story is true, Anthony treated her daughter cruelly on more than one occasion. She made derogatory statements. She stuck her daughter in the trunk of her car. She was aggressively and unashamedly calloused.
We are not monsters, Megan. Most of us, every pro-lifer I have personally met, regard the woman in an abortion as a person, making flawed decisions based on the false information she has been fed. This is hardly comparable to Casey Anthony and quite frankly it’s offensive that you would draw that connection.
And if this was not bad enough, you know that that person was then disposed of as “medical waste”. Meaning that they ended up in a hazardous waste landfill.
Merciful God, what do we need to do in order to end this evil?
Of course there are forces that influence our individual decisions, but it isn’t really productive to drum up conspiracy theories that diminish our capacity for individual agency. For some reason, though, it’s easier to fabricate a bogeyman than deal with the logical consistency of the pro-life argument. If you think abortion is murder, and a woman gets an abortion, then she is, at the very least, an accomplice to murder.
It’s kind of counterintuitive for “abortion mills” to be dispensing long-acting contraception, no? If Planned Parenthood really wanted to make big bucks, they’d deliver babies. Pregnancy is at the center of a cash-soaked regime, and everyone from the doula to the Nestle marketing exec has their hand in the game. How many of our nation’s CPCs are tied directly to adoption agencies? I’d be more forgiving of these organizations if there were some national standards under which they were operating. I trust most of you when you say you’d never do anything dishonest at your local CPC, but are horror stories (http://cpcwatch.org/Women%27s-Stories.php) of women receiving unsolicited Bible thumping, fake pregnancy tests/ultrasounds, and false promises of significant financial support mere fabrications of a Planned Parenthood board meeting? Pro-choicers are forced to question how Gosnell’s clinic became a casualty of regulatory oversight, and it might be an opportune time for anti-choicers to do some house cleaning, too. If you care about women, shouldn’t your clinics be offering them the best?
joan 1:13PM
LOL. Right joan, I have it out for the Supreme Court. Something about the history about this illustrious body that’s leaving a bad taste in your mouth joan? History is what it is and I’m only telling it.
I’m glad we agree the Court has made some bad decisions. Some long term agenda to suppress minorities? Ever hear of Plessy vs. Ferguson joan? Check it out along with Dred Scott. Never in a million years would I ever suspect that racial prejudice had anything to do with the SC sanctioning the imprisonment of thousands of Japanese Americans citizens in concentration camps.
What I am pointing out joan is that the SC can be as influenced by personal bias as any of the rest of us mere mortals. What ever needs to be found in the Constitution can be when necessary to serve a purpose. Where does the Constitution sanction segregation and abortion? Where does it say American citizens can be imprisoned in concentration camps on a presidential whim(FDR issued an executive order)? The SC found it. Legal scholars have argued that Roe was an abuse of raw judicial power. One could certainly say the same for rounding up American citizens and putting them in concentration camps.
Of course I support an indepenent judicriary. I do not support one that makes laws and “finds” in the Constitution what isn’t there.
“My country, right or wrong.
When right, to be kept right,
when wrong, to be made right.”
“Roe” was badly decided. Legal scholars often say that. “There isn’t any middle ground here.” ( I quote joan).”The middle ground” is a military term, where warring parties agree on the logistics of parley. I see no movement on the part of the pro-choice side to stop the war against the unborn. The language used to describe Pro Lifers by “Pro Choice” is brutal, cunning and deceptive. The media constantly “frame” stories to put Pro Life in a bad light. “Please, no pictures” when debates are organized. Abortion-breast cancer link is scoffed at, and surveys are financed by billionaires who pay respected institutions to confirm lies. Pregnancy Care Centers are threatened with imposition of “laws” and “restrictions” that don’t apply equally to abortion centers. Sex ed in school inflames prurient interests of co-ed classes from middle school on down, and teaches kids “It’s OK”. Hollywood whitewashes the Kinsey legacy making a pedo sado-masochist out to be a saint. Relativists man our teaching positions at the highest levels of education, and they teach students to be activists for left-wing wedge issues against decency and common sense. Foreign aid is tied to “reproductive rights” which is a euphemism for “abortion or no aid.” And on and on and on it goes, where’ll she’ll stop, I guess, nobody cares.
Problem is, people have a responsibility TO care for the helpless, and The Supreme Court of the United States misjudged not only a case, but the people of the US of A. A “guerrilla war” HAS been going on for 38 years (sue me if you can’t stand a military term). America cares about this, and it will not cease caring, until the Slaughter of the Innocents ends. No middle ground.
Megan,
Please enlighten me. If the women in the CPC experienced such “horror stories” of “bible thumping” etc. why on earth didn’t they just get up an leave? Were they restrained? Were there lethal weapons? If they did not get the help they needed from the CPC what stopped them from seeking help elsewhere like a social service agency?
I’ve had bad experiences in stores, offices, etc. I make a complaint to the management. I leave. I tell friends to avoid the place. Big deal. I don’t whine and cry about my victimhood. I don’t demand that ordinances be passed.
There can be any number of reasons for bad CPC experiences other than perceived mistreatment or misrepresentation. Personality conflicts, expectations not being met, etc. Ultimately the woman has the choice to leave and never make any further contact.
Carla said:
“I can’t bring myself to watch this video YET. :(”
And you never need to Carla. You already know what it is and IMO the images would only haunt you. It is the people who deny the personhood of the unborn who need to watch this video.
Images do keep my feet to the fire, so to speak. But yeah. I will prayerfully consider it.
So Megan,
WHY doesn’t Planned Parenthood get a piece of the “cash soaked regime” of pregnancy?
Why do you think they don’t help women give birth to their babies instead of killing them?
And yes abortion is the intentional killing of a child. I paid to have someone kill my own child. I have faced the hard truth of that.
Carla said:
“Schizophrenic truthseeker? Seriously? Proaborts would like nothing more than to paint those who regret their abortions as mentally ill at the time.”
Carla, the schizophrenics are the ones like the Northgate people in this video who speak of loving as they refer to killing their unborn children. And the ones who talk about abortion as being a sacred event are beyond schizophrenic and have enterned the realm of satanic worship. It is pecisely the ones who speak of regret for the loss of their unborn who are the loving/sane ones.
Looks like a bunch of meat. What are you hoping to do with this video?
Megan, Please stop changing the subject from who and what the baby is and what is happening to it. Please stop trying to turn the focus back to the woman and her comfort, preferences and whether she is currently having fun.
Can you hear me when I say it another way? What if it was not a baby who was in the woman’s way? What if that woman hated another adult who was in the way of what she wanted to do or have? You wouldn’t dare claim that it would be okay for her to have that adult executed, would you? And please don’t refer me to another set of fictional characters. I do not know those stories. I was using the simplest of logic and you can too. This is just not that hard to grasp if a person is intellectually honest.
Most of the time (but sometimes it goes awry) it is not the adult woman whose life is at stake in an abortion. The “adult” woman enters into such a decision with the clear assumption that she will live on, and her baby will, well……….NOT. The tiny person with no vote is brought to the abortionist for the sole purpose of being destroyed, eliminated, killed. I will ask you once again. What is the unborn? Who is the unborn one? I know you know. Stop trying to change the subject. You know, it isn’t too late for any person to turn around and try to find truth and mercy even if we have done wrong. We have all done terrible wrong one way or another. There is Someone big enough and loving enough to rescue each and every one of us who turns around and asks Him. We will all leave this world someday, just as those tiny babies, though I hope it will be many years from now for all of us talking here. But each of us must seek God for His forgiveness and mercy as individuals. What will we do? “This day, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart.’
“If you seek Me, you will find Me, If you seek with your whole heart” (Jesus)
I’m sorry, Megan, but with the amount of deception which abortion supporters spew, I just can’t place as much blame on the mother as I would were abortion illegal. Were our society to recognize the humanity of the unborn, I would feel that the woman would be more culpable than with the status quo. The woman seeking the abortion is as a general rule a scared woman who has been fooled into believing that the procedure she is undergoing will undo her pregnancy entirely. The abortionist, on the other hand, is an educated medical ‘professional’ who sees exactly who he is dismembering through the process of abortion. There is an unbalance in blame while we are allowing this deception to permeate our lives.
I am with you on the mutual housecleaning concept, though. My desire is to see facts and love win out over deception and fear. I do not condone using deceit or misplaced pressure to attempt to ‘win over’ pregnant mothers. I also do not condone the signage that is designed to turn away women a la NY’s attack on CPCs. I’ll support a form of accountability for CPCs if you’ll do the same for abortion clinics.
You guys are really on to something here. Pro-aborts insist that nearly every woman who chooses abortion is an intelligent, wise, informed woman who knows exactly what she’s doing and who has made the hard decision that was the best thing for her to do.
At the same time, many pro-aborts insist that pro-life Christian women are evil, stupid imbeciles who just do whatever their “imaginary sky daddy” tells them to do as they seek to gain power within the “patriarchy” by throwing their fellow women under the bus.
And as has already been said, pro-aborts say that a woman in an abortion mill who chooses abortion knows exactly what she’s doing, but a woman in a CPC who chooses life is a dupe who knows nothing. The short version is that, according to the pro-aborts, women who choose abortion are brilliant while women who choose life are idiots. This is absolutely preposterous!
This argument is absurd on its face, but the best quick counter to it is Abby Johnson, who had no idea what was going on inside Planned Parenthood despite the fact that she actually worked there. If Abby was clueless, how are clients of PP going to know better?
Hey Sam,
Fifty-six years ago today this bunch of meat was born. You want a piece of me too?
Joan doesn’t grasp the history and the reason for the concern about the malfunctioning of our Supreme court or its misundertanding of who/ what it is. It is not only not limiting itself to its function of interpreting law, but the court has been (for some time now) usurping the people’s strongest arm in government. It has actually been taking upon itself a position of legislating.
This is a clear violation of our essential checks and balances, and is tantamount to it assuming a position of “oligarchy”.
Megan,
No, I don’t have a belief or a desire to categorize the bulk of women who have had abortions as deliberately being murderers. I really do think that they are usually deceived to one degree and often pressured to the point of desperation. But Megan, the medical people who take a baby’s life are fully aware that they do so. Yet they lie. Does that strike you as fair and loving toward those women?
What I keep trying to get you to do, is return to the real question. (the only one worth answering on our way to some real solution for all of us) — Who/ what, is the unborn? If it is a baby person rather than a watermelon, we have NO RIGHT to end its life.
Megan – what about the child? What about the shredded child’s privacy? Still not going there…
As for HIPAA – the identity of the woman who is having the abortion was not disclosed. More than likely she signed a consent form acknowledging that students and training materials would be generated from her procedures and that doing so was a condition of the abortionist performing the surgery. That it ended up training an entirely different group of people than the abortionist’s intent is another matter.
I’m confident that Gregg Cunningham would love to have the abortionist throw a cease and desist, or even a lawsuit at CBR so he could get that video entered as evidence and placed in front of a jury or appeals court, perhaps SCOTUS. Also, I think you’ll find that use of the material falls under both fair use and 1st amendment statutes for parodies.
Megan said: How would your wife feel if some schmuck sat in the labor room videotaping with an iphone and then posted the video to, say, an antinatalist blog?
I think we would both call that a miracle in more ways than one!!!
Sam says:
January 30, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Looks like a bunch of meat. What are you hoping to do with this video?
Sam – if that’s where you’re going to get meat – you have some very, very serious mental issues to resolve.
Sam 4:06PM
What a coincidence. I have heard of rapists describing their victims in the exact same manner.
Sam said; “What are you hoping to do with this video”?
Sam, there are some ignorant people who deny that the baby in the womb is anything more then a blob of cells or a piece of meat and this video proves that they are ignorant. In your case; since you watched this video and don’t see a dead human then you have a serious case of denial. Are you post-abortive?
I am very distressed. Not only at the video, which is beyond comprehension, but at the people who are on my facebook page. I have uploaded this video 3x and I keep getting warnings from FB that I have been reported for sharing. THIS IS TRUTH!! Does anyone know what I can do to complain to FB for removing this video and sending me the warning… and who ever is reporting me, please delete me from your “friends” list. YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
To be fair to Facebook, though, however truthful this video is, it’s also OMGHELLOVAGINAINYOURFACE!!! and that’s just to start off with. I definitely think there is a time and a place for such graphic and disgusting reality, but I’m not sure Facebook is really it.
interesting how Pro-aborts describe women as intelligent and strong, but when THAT same woman is in a CPC, all of a sudden she isn’t intelligent enough to know the difference and is not strong enough to walk out… WHATEVER! In the majority of cases, no one is forcing us to have sex nor are we being coerced into choosing to kill our children, nor are we stupid enough to think that in the United States, there are no resources, organizations or people who are available to help us responsibly carry this human being to term with dignity. We ARE intelligent and strong. Our decisions have consequences. Period!
If we have welcomed Norma McCorvey and Abby Johnson and Bernard Nathanson, then we must also welcome all the Megans, Joans, Jaynes, and Bergers of the world. We must welcome you, even while we criticize you. Kind of like family :>) Many of us who are now pro-life used to be pro-choice. I don’t want to go to jail. But if it brought my child back I’d do it. Because the pro-life movement is at present populated by a lot of post-abortive women, I don’t think there is any real danger that we’d round ourselves up for belated jail sentences. I’d be satisfied with the practice of abortion being a thing of the past. I don’t need to get revenge on the mothers. One day, most of today’s pro-choicers will be pro-life. That’s a goal worth working toward.
Jesus said that every hair on our heads are numbered.
… and “let the little children come to me…”
So … WHAT ARE HIS THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS CHILD?
SHAME on those who distort and conceal the Truth about murder
… just as they did about the Holocaust.
My FB page is private. You cannot see what I post unless you CHOOSE to accept a friendship request or you requested to be part of my community. If you don’t like what I post, delete me. It’s that simple. No one can HAPPEN on my page and see what I have without requesting it – it’s not like TV. I believe that if some idiot can post naked women on my page, I can delete them and I have no more worries. PLEASE DELETE ME!! THIS TRUTH must be spread to the world!! It’s an autrocity in a “civil” society. EVERY DAY AND EVERY MOMENT is the RIGHT time to talk about and show the truth of these horrors and whoever is not willing to talk about it and scream it from the rooftops but instead stays complacent for fear of offending someone with the truth, THAT PERSON IS AN ACCOMPLICE.
By “meat” I meant a blob of cells with a fairly human appearance to it.
I used to be one of these things. Much longer before that I was a collection of molecules generated in stellar cores, dispersed over the planet earth.
There’s very little substantial difference between watching this and watching the slaughter of a cow.
Just to clarify: the Alice-authored posts on this thread are from 2 different Alices (though both of us do appear to be pro-life)…. :)
Am I post-abortive? No. I wasn’t aborted, and I am male, so I can’t procure an abortion. I haven’t performed abortions, either.
Sam,
So how long ago did you lose a child to abortion?
There’s very little substantial difference between watching this and watching the slaughter of a cow.
Aside from the humanity of the child whose life was lost.
Sam, I suggest you get your eyes checked. In that video I saw a baby with arms, legs, a body, and a head. I didn’t see a blob. I think you may need eyeglasses, or else a stronger prescription.
If the video is no different from the slaughter of a cow, then there is no difference between killing an animal and killing a human being. Of course, judging from the nihilistic tone of your words, I suspect you may see no difference between animal and human, or between life and death for that matter.
A normal decision? HA!
We humans are extremely complex and beautiful animals. We are objectively no more or less valuable than any other animal. We place special subjective value to members of human society. These blobs of human flesh, like a tumor or appendix, are not members of human society, and so garner no special subjective value.
Objectively, they are just as valuable as the fetus of any other animal.
This fetus has the same objective value as a chicken egg.
@Alice PA: I figured that since it was unlikely we’d ever have the same avatar that people would work it out. ;)
On a more serious note, Sam seems to be a fan of Dr. Singer. *le sigh*
These blobs of human flesh, like a tumor or appendix, are not members of human society, and so garner no special subjective value.
These dead humans, unlike a tumor or appendix, are separate and unique members of the human race. From conception they are alive and have an individual DNA signature. They have special subjective value because their human composition is so complex and so unique that it will never be repeated.
To Sam: I have met many people like you when I protested abortion using graphic images like seen in the video. You know the one, about the size of a door. I have been attacked and had the image ripped apart by a woman who was “triggered” by the image. I was busy at the time being attacked by her boyfriend. When the police arrived, and everybody got separated, the policeman asked if I wanted to press charges. I told the officer I wouldn’t if the couple would agree to put the image back together using tape I carried in my backpack. The officer said she couldn’t be a “small claims court” on the street. I often think back to that incident and wonder what would have happened if that young woman had been given the choice to repair that image as I asked. I didn’t press charges, but asked for financial compensation ($40) and everyone went their separate ways . I repaired the sign and was back on the street the next day.
The Pro Life movement cannot be held responsible for any and every mental “trigger” that might be tripped by graphic images. We would have to outlaw vacuum cleaner noises, women strolling babies, or Heaven knows what else that might cause a post-abortive woman to remember that day she wants to , but can’t quite seem to, forget.
I tend not to use graphic images at abortion mills, but keep them available should anyone get an attitude about someone exercising their Constitutionally protected free speech privileges. There are plenty of “drive by hecklers” who “earned” the right to see the Truth about abortion by way of the graphic sign. I have had people tell me the hi-def images of LIVING in utero babies are “ugly”, so a lot of the “knee-jerk” reactions are just a result of being “conditioned” to hate anything to do with Pro Life. I have been told by sickos that the image was sexually arousing. I once had an abortion mill worker throw vomit from inside the mill on the sign and on me. An off-duty police officer working as a security guard has threatened my life, back during the time Eric Rudolph was running loose.
I like to think that the child who died and had his picture taken, and is used all over the country for abortion protests is speaking the only way he will ever be able to speak , the only way he could possibly speak, because he was silenced before he could even cry for his mama. And Pro Lifers gave him the RIGHT to ACT against the ones who still condone his murder the murder of 50 million plus of his companions in the Death Chambers. And, Sam , I know you know that wasn’t a cow being slaughtered. Because I know you.
Mark, you misunderstand me.
I am very glad you and people like you use these graphic images. The revulsion and anger they inspire in many people encourages pro-choice activism and support. I know people who will give 20 dollars to planned parenthood for each graphic image of a fetus they see.
I am not so enraged, or disgusted. When I see these images, I am pleased. They may yet convince one more person to be pro-choice.
Keep up the good work.
Sam , the lord you serve is very familiar to me, and I know you, because I once was deceived by this dark entity. Your language is the language the evil one uses. You haven’t even begun to experience the badness this master you serve can be capable of allowing you to fall into. Once you have served his dark intentions , he will forget you and leave you to be tormented by his lesser companions in mayhem and madness. And THEN you will know what it feels like to actually BE a BLOB of TISSUE.
Only Jesus will be able to save you then. Don’t forget that name. JESUS.
Sam, you have my prayers. There is Hope!
Sam, I see that I was correct about your nihilism. I would strongly suggest that you rid yourself of it as soon as possible, as it only leads to self-destruction.
“They have special subjective value because their human composition is so complex and so unique that it will never be repeated.”
Okay, so merely having unique DNA guarantees entrance into the community of legally-protected personhood? If that’s true, then your entire definition of personhood has to change. As it legally stands now, location is everything; if the embryo/fetus weren’t located inside a woman’s body, she wouldn’t have ultimate say. In the Western liberal-humanist tradition, the rights of personhood generally entail the right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. Denying a woman the ability to terminate a pregnancy negates this crucial dimension of autonomy. Sorry, but that’s the case, even if you oppose abortion. Anyway, it isn’t just to create special classes of people treated differentially under the law, so this new definition of personhood would have to apply to everybody. We would thus be justified in using anyone’s physical person for our own means, as long as we did not commit murder. Your whole slavery/Dred Scott analogy seems more applicable here than any spurious association between the oppression of black folks and PP’s supposedly nefarious, eugenic plot to eliminate the country’s black underclass.
DNA uniqueness is not sufficient for personhood.
Tumors in a body have unique DNA, because of mutations. We do not consider tumors to be new people.
Sam said: These blobs of human flesh, like a tumor or appendix, are not members of human society, and so garner no special subjective value.
Would you like to debate that publicly?
What makes you – human?
And if that criteria is merely subjective – why include you in society? – or anyone else for that matter?
Who gets to choose the criteria for what it means to be human? You?
You beg the question. Badly.
There is no substantial difference other than size, level of development, environment and level of dependency between that “blob” and you.
Do live at the mercy of others? Or assume others might have compassion for you?
Since value in society is subjective, those in power get to choose the criteria for social value of others.
I hope people with greater power than me have compassion for me, and assign me significant value in society. So far, they do.
The reason I am given such high value deals with my skill set, my self-awareness, my ability to make decisions, and other arbitrary standards determined by those in power. The standards must be arbitrary because the determination of value is subjective.
Sam , I know you know the difference between objective and subjective forms or ideas, because immediately when objective truth appears in question or discussion, you refer to it as “subjective”. You haven’t grown out of the childish habit of covering one lie with another lie. Get real or get help.
Megan, your education has not trained you to think for yourself. You have been trained to be a “Social activist”, and your grant money, or however your education has or is being paid for, is pretty much a waste unless you apply it towards destroying everything that was once good in western culture. Sue your university for breach of contract. You have been duped.
Sam – are you:
– post-abortive?
– in a sexual relationship where you don’t want to deal with the consequences of having a child;
– looking forward to having sexual pleasure without consequences;
– have an on-going financial stake in the sex/porn/abortion industry;
– all of the above?
Sam said: I hope people with greater power than me have compassion for me, and assign me significant value in society. So far, they do.
For a few moments Jared Loughner had greater power than Gabby Giffords, but he had no compassion for her.
Did he do something wrong? – if so what was wrong? – if not, why not?
Ugh, are you serious? Jared Loughner? I hope you people are as anti-war as you are anti-abortion. At least there would be some consistency.
I find it humorous that Jared Laughner keeps getting brought up in these discussions.
Morality does not have a direct objective basis. It is only objective insofar as it is rooted in our common human nature. Most people in the United States consider Jared Laughner’s actions to be immoral. Abortion does not have such a consensus. At one time, it may have such a consensus. Whatever the consensus becomes will likely determine the morality of abortion.
I have no financial stake in abortions.
I have no personal connection to abortion.
No to “all of the above.”
My position is entirely rational. It is a direct consequence of my philosophy.
No one is “Pro-abortion” as so frequently mentioned in the comments here. Pro-choice people want every baby to be born, but will not deny the mother the choice in the matter. Be educated and do not generalize.
Sam said:
“Morality does not have a direct objective basis. It is only objective insofar as it is rooted in our common human nature.”
Sam,
It is part of human nature for parents to want to help their children. So even by your own standards it is immoral for a mother to participate in the killing of her child.
Another question for you. Since you believe a persons value is based on his or her ability to produce for society; does that mean you are also ok with destroying the lame or the disabled?
If you are correct, and abortion is contrary to our common nature, then time will show you to be right. Human consensus cannot avoid human nature for too long.
You do not understand how I think value is determined. Your premise (that I believe that a person’s value is based on his or her ability), as well as your basic understanding of my philosophical position, is wrong.
So, to answer your question, no, I am not “ok with” that (whatever “ok with” means).
Iola said, “No one is “Pro-abortion” as so frequently mentioned in the comments here. Pro-choice people want every baby to be born, but will not deny the mother the choice in the matter. Be educated and do not generalize.”
According to Iola’s logic, every mother who voluntarily aborts is “pro-abortion.” Every such mother does not want her baby to be born.
But wait! Unless she was raped, the mother actually did want her baby to be born. She had chosen to have sex. She simply changed her mind. As Megan will agree, mothers aren’t coerced into forcibly aborting. They choose to do it. They had also chosen to have sex.
A further thought–perhaps pro-lifers are more pro-“choice” than some pro-choicers. Pro-lifers believe in individual responsibility, generally speaking. There may be criminal consequences to an abortion, but pro-lifers don’t go the route of Margaret Sanger and advocate sterilizing. Sterilizing women who might otherwise get abortions is the ultimate denial of choice. In other words, in the pro-life world, there might still be some mothers who kill their children–obviously choosing to–but fewer will because of laws, less access, and penalties for involvement in a criminal enterprise.
Anyway, what about the baby’s choice in the matter? Pro-lifers are there again more pro-“choice” than the pro-choicers.
Also, what of God’s choice? He says, “Do not murder.” Doesn’t His Word have any relevance to our lives? However, if you can’t believe in a baby whom you have seen, then you can’t believe in God whom you have not seen.
lola said:
“No one is “Pro-abortion” as so frequently mentioned in the comments here.”
lola, I wish that were true but many on the pro-choice side have been open in saying that abortion as eugenics is a positive thing for society. Even unto the point where the killing of healthy babies is rationalized to be a good thing. These people are pro-abort. Are you aware that Planned Parenthood as an organization has its roots in eugenics? So it is disingenuous to deny the existence of pro-aborts.
Sam said:
“Your premise (that I believe that a person’s value is based on his or her ability), as well as your basic understanding of my philosophical position, is wrong.”
Sam, I came to that conclusion based upon your own words in a previous post. It was you who said: “The reason I am given such high value deals with my skill set, my self-awareness, my ability to make decisions,”
Sure sounds like value based upon ability to me.
Sam said:
“If you are correct, and abortion is contrary to our common nature, then time will show you to be right. Human consensus cannot avoid human nature for too long.”
Sam, there always has been a negative stigma attached to the choice to kill. That is also why women hide their abortions. Kinda like lola said in her post that even most pro-choicers think abortion is wrong. And that is also why most pro-aborts keep their feelings “in the closet” because even among pro-choicers the pro-aborts are shunned.
So Margaret Sanger subscribed to a principle of soft eugenics. Times change, principles change, and institutions hopefully become more just. Do you want to just scrap the US because it was founded on the backs of slaves? Or kills innocent civilians in the name of spreading democracy? Oh, and I’m still waiting to hear what y’all have to say about the morality of war, btw. Take your time.
god killed lots of women and children over 2 million according to the bible. why would he want babies to be born?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm
Megan, You are trying to justify your choice to kill by comparing it to socity’s choice to slavery and war. That should tell you something about the morality of your choice.
Dear truthseeker,
You’ve badgered me long enough about my beliefs. What are your thoughts on the morality of war?
Respectfully,
Megan
lola said:
“god killed lots of women and children over 2 million according to the bible. why would he want babies to be born?”
lola,
God gives all of us the freedom of choice and when our actions and choices go against God’s will we bring judgement upon ourselves. God saw our weakness and so he gave us Jesus Christ to free us from our slavery to sin. We cannot understand the depths of God’s works but the closest we can come to understanding God’s will for us here on earth is to look at the birth, life (and teachings), death and resurrection of Jesus Christ then you will see the answer to your questions about God. In fact, killing is the antithesis of God. God is the Creator of all life. Death is of the devil.
Megan, war is evil. If Osama bin Laden were standing in front of me but he had an innocent person standing between him and me then I could not shoot through an innocent person in order to get to Osama. If he did not have an innocent person between him and me then I could shoot him but even then I would see my actions as a weakness in my faith as a Christian.
Megan, Sam,
I’m going to assume that either of you consider yourselves healthy, vigorous, happy human beings. I must warn you, either of you come across..resigned. Almost fatalistic really. As though you know very well that something has gone terribly wrong in society, but you don’t think you can affect it.
How sad. Pessimism breeds itself.
Judging by recent events, I think the biological solution may ultimately solve the abortion problem. Many of those who insistently advocate for abortion rights have grown older. While many won’t admit it, the cracks in the pro-choice front are growing deeper and beginning to spread.
In your apparent current frame of mind, I can imagine that this fact must be rather horrifying. Your political grip has begun to slip.
I’m curious: Have either of you heard about redemptive suffering before?
I’m not asking anyone to convert to my faith, though obviously I think that would help, but in a more general sense, I often get the idea that the pro-choice side genuinely believes that we’re solving a problem with abortion, or that we’re making problems more troublesome without abortion.
I’ve begun to think this must be some form of surrender.
Each society, each person has such incredible potential. Even ignoring religious convictions, I think history shows that most people must overcome great odds to become truly heroic people.
If you snuff them out by “choice”, that potential dies before it might live.
Oh, and I’m still waiting to hear what y’all have to say about the morality of war, btw. Take your time.
Wow, that’s some major deflection going on there. I guess in order to feel ok with our decisions to kill our OWN CHILDREN, we feel the need to bring up slavery and war. It’s ok, Megan. We understand what you’re trying to do. But do you? If we were ok with war (which, honestly, who actually thinks war is a wonderful thing? I don’t know anyone sane who believes that), would that somehow change the fact that abortion (being a wholly different ballgame altogether, going against the very nature of mother and child and of mammalian reproduction) kills one’s own unborn human offspring? Wouldn’t you think it was a horrible aberration of nature if a group of animals decided to forcibly abort half of their young during their lifetimes?
I know deflecting the abortion issue by bringing up war and slavery are your attempts to steer the conversation away from something you don’t want to confront or deal with personally, Megan. But I, like Carla, believe one day, you will get there.
God is definitely not the antithesis of death!
God Promises More Killing
I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
Hi there Kel,
Deflections? Nah, I think I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability. No attempt to deflect. I don’t think the pro-life moral position is the correct one, and I’d like to point out the inconsistencies in the applications of its logic. One would think that anyone so adamantly opposed to murder would oppose it on all fronts, a la Vannah. That’s a little less irritating, to be honest, because at least it’s a consistent position applied to every person, and not just a special class (women). But anyway, why believe war to be a necessary evil (as I suspect many of you do), and then focus insistently on the mother-fetus dyad? But thanks, you’re one step ahead of me: “Going against the very nature of mother and child.” Yes, but it sure is natural for my cousins to march off to Afghanistan to shoot at people they’ve been taught to hate?? Hmm. Well, some animals eat their offspring, so there goes your invocation of some vague “natural law.” Try again!
Good Evening,
Megan, I’m rather intrigued by your questions related to the morality of war, so I’ll provide an answer, hopefully briefly.
Many will argue regarding the virtue of this war or that. We’ll hear that this war was unjust, while that was just. I don’t deny the chance that some wars..enable more virtue..than do others. I think though, that from a practical viewpoint, wars occur because a minimum of two groups of people (often more) cannot find a solution to a conflict by “diplomatic means”, and so resort to physical force of arms to settle things.
After some period of time, during which the two sides inflict physical damage to some degree on each other, usually including a certain amount of combatant death on both sides, the conflict ends. Both sides decide, to some degree, that either the problem has been resolved, or else they don’t wish to continue fighting and reach a mutually..workable..answer. How mutually workable the resolution might be will often have a distinct impact on the length of time that a lack of fighting exists.
So can war be moral? Yes. Can war be immoral? Yes. A question comes to mind: WHO gets to decide on the moral value? Either of the combatants? A third party? Can any side morally require the another to agree? Don’t bet on that.
BTW, I just saw your latest comment. Who (or what) on earth is Vannah? Did I miss something here?
I would bet that you might believe this overall position quite hypocritical. After all, if I don’t believe in the right to murder, how can I believe any war acceptable? Well, you’re making a serious error though, though a common one. Very simply, I don’t believe that any war absolutely, inherently requires murder to be involved. For what it’s worth, murder–the unlawful taking of the life of another–almost always happens in a war. Thus war crimes tribunals make an effort after each bloodbath to determine if any atrocities occurred and who ought to be punished for them if they did. It would be nice if these tribunals could be always trusted to hold both sides fully accountable for their malice, but we live in a fallen world and such things typically don’t happen.
In other words, while I don’t embrace the idea of a war every minute–in fact I’d love to see our nation and world focus on more, uh, “lifegiving” efforts, but then we’d need to agree upon what “life giving” truly means.
..Which, in the worst of conditions, can actually mean more bloodshed as at least two sides fail to agree adequately….
So…
I guess I don’t quite agree with Kel that war is a necessary evil. I WOULD say though, that warring peoples are a fairly natural consequence of concupiscense, man’s natural tendency toward sin.
We must daily fight this tendency against war every bit as much as we fight our tendencies toward abuses of sexuality and other sins.
..I think we shall be in this struggle until the end of time.
Iola, death is the consequence of sin. Death means separation. It is separation of the body from the soul, separation of the departed one from his loved ones, and separation of the individual (in eternal death and spiritual death) from God. In abortion, death is the premature and total separation of a child from its mother.
You say God kills. In a sense He does: God gives and takes life. He is the Creator, not the creature. He makes the rules. According to His own Word, He is only good. All evils are a result of ourselves and other created beings. I believe this also because the person of Jesus Christ entered history, and if you have known Him then you have also known God.
God cursed Adam and Eve for their sin, their departure from Him. They died. He promised the same curse to the Edomites in the passage you quoted from the prophet Ezekiel. The Israelites as a nation wiped out the Canaanites because of their wickedness. In fact, God was angry with the nation of Israel for not carrying out a complete massacre. The meaning of “God” (Elohim) in the Bible is “the Strong One.” We should be afraid of Him. As one proverb from the Bible says, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 1:7).
To add to what you said, John, the job of the civil government is to protect its citizens from violence originating from both outside and inside its borders. Therefore, every ruler may and must fight wars to defend his country. Every ruler also must restrain crime within his country to prevent bodily harm and loss of property, i.e. there must be laws against premeditated abortion.
Of course, no good ruler wants to kill people. However, the foreign aggressor doesn’t give him a chance. Ironically, keeping a well-equipped army is one of a peace-loving democracy’s best deterrents to war. Also, the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless numbers of both American and Japanese lives.
I also believe in capital punishment for the crime of premeditated murder, by the way. It’s because of my belief in the sanctity of human life (my pro-life position) that I hold such a belief.
Hi Jon,
Don’t forget though, even when a war is just, one or all sides may commit acts that’re quite unjust. Or for that matter, even in an unjust war, one side or the other may commit acts of great virtue.
Thus, I grow quite nervous any time someone starts arguing about the merits of this war or that.
Then too, we’re always having to be careful regarding what we consider “defense” to be. I don’t have any problem with President Bush’s assessment of fighting an effectively pre-emptive war, but many Catholics and Christians do.
On the whole, I think it best to comment that every ruler of every nation takes a certain risk whenever they choose to commit troops to a possible armed conflict. They also choose a similar risk by choosing to keep troops at home….
I often think a ruler, especially of a democracy, can’t “win” no matter what. SOMEONE will always be ticked that he does something (or not).
Good points, John. I agree.
Horrible, but brilliant all the same.
lola,
I don’t think you paid any attention at all to my post. The scripture you quote is a lesson in what happens to those who rail against God. Have you ever tried looking at God through the lens of Jesus Christ?
Megan,
Denying a woman the ability to terminate a pregnancy negates this crucial dimension of autonomy.
We have a traditional hierarchy of rights in the States. The right to life > the right to bodily autonomy. The right to bodily autonomy may not be observed if it infringes upon the right to life of an innocent, such as in the case of the human offspring in utero.
Encouraging women to kill their offspring is not empowering, Megan. If anything, it is objectifying and oppressive, and results in the compartmentalization of the human being. Do not believe the lie that sexual ‘freedom’ is what will make you equal to men. Do not believe the lie that the very thing that makes you a woman also suppresses you. Do not believe the lie that to rectify your unbalance, you must sacrifice your fertility and even your children.
I see my point about human persons was lost on you & Sam, no surprises there. A growing human life; if you will, rapidly dividing cells consisting of all the same genetic makeup, all human, and all unique of the mother from conception (as in the beginning, which is conveniently also conception), following the natural order of creation by communicating and coalescing from the start into what we understand to be a human baby. Never detoured into another species, always always following the same basic developmental path, and always, upon survival, resulting in what you would consider a member of human society. A human offspring.
So Margaret Sanger subscribed to a principle of soft eugenics.
Margaret Sanger’s principle of soft eugenics was so ‘soft’ that Adolph Hitler used her model to build Nazi Germany.
“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” -Margaret Sanger, Women’s Body, Women’s Right
From “A Plan for Peace” by Margaret Sanger,
“c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
“d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
“e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
“f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
“g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.”
…
“With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace”
And some words from Adolph Hitler,
“Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state.”
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough”
In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, “There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”
lola,
It is good to quote scripture and meditate upon scripture but if you want to better to ‘understand’ scripture you should try looking at it through the lens of the Jesus Christ; the Word made flesh.
Sam says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:26 pm
If you are correct, and abortion is contrary to our common nature, then time will show you to be right. Human consensus cannot avoid human nature for too long.
AMEN to that!!!!! I’m not sure if you know HOW right you are, the opposition to abortion is only getting stronger with time and time will come when abortion will become illegal again (some countries are already discussing that, eg. Lithuania).
Sam – your philosophy, like your answers, are jello.
I asked you a direct question – about your standing on the morality of Jared Loughner’s actions against Gabby Giffords. I wasn’t looking for a general abstract consensus lecture about morality in the United States.
You made claims such as this:
Since value in society is subjective, those in power get to choose the criteria for social value of others.
I was testing your claim – do you see yourself subject to the power whims of others? Do individuals hold power and criteria to judge and execute others? – to understand your moral foundation. There is only two: “might makes right” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
What I discovered is – you’re a moral fence-sitter – most likely an opportunistic atheist, whose morality changes to meet the needs of the moment.
Your reasons for supporting abortion run far deeper and are far uglier than those in denial.
And from a logical standpoint, your arguments are going circular.
‘“The reason I am given such high value deals with my skill set, my self-awareness, my ability to make decisions,”
Sure sounds like value based upon ability to me.’
This is because you ignore context.
Value is dependent on ability, but not as an objective criterion. If it were an objective criterion, then you could demand consistency. But this is not the case.
Value is dependent on those in power. Currently, those in power assign value based to a degree on skill set, self awareness, and ability to make decisions. Size and not being in another person’s body are also considerations. I find some of the value-judgements acceptable,and others I do not.
I do not find it acceptable that the US treats the mental diseases so poorly, because we undervalue the mentally ill.
I do find it acceptable that it is illegal to kill the mentally or physically handicapped, but that it is legal to destroy a fetus.
John and others,
Currently there is no indication of which I’m aware that the pro-choice position is weakening politically.
However, I am somewhat ambivalent about small-scale trends. It will be likely that I will be dead before abortion it outlawed, if such is the case.
In any event, because the powerful determine what is right, if political opinion and action change course, and the consensus becomes to make abortion illegal, then abortion will be wrong.
But fetuses are still sacks of meat, with the objective value equivalent to chicken eggs. No law can change that. Chicken eggs could be given great value, if those in power willed it.
Redemptive suffering is a crock. It’s a way to convince others to be happy with the status quo.
Chris,
Both you and I are subject to the power whims of society. Fortunately, social powers are currently benevolent, and value both of us as members of society and practitioners of some social authority. This may change someday.
Our rights are just words on paper and ideas in people’s heads. Rights can disappear quickly.
In the cosmic scheme of things, it appears that eventually our sun will die out, and the universe will experience a heat-death, so our rights will disappear eventually anyway.
That doesn’t mean that nothing matters. It just means nothing ultimately matters. All that counts is the subjective. What I think, and what I want, and what those in power think and what those in power want. Survival, protection under another power, and becoming powerful. That’s what’s important to me.
@Sam: Look there are a lot of things that make everything you said wrong, but I just don’t feel like getting into a long and complex philosophical debate with someone who clearly has such a poor understanding of morality to start with.
So, the short version: by your own argument, the position that is the strongest wins. Abortion apologists hold legal power right now, so they are right. So, all pro-lifers have to do is get enough people into power and then we will be right and abortion defenders will be wrong. Since, regardless of your “LALALAICANTHEARYOU!!!” claims that the pro-life movement is not gaining any political power, the pro-life movement is doing just that as any number of surveys, polls, and just plain looking-out-the-windows will tell any thinking person, and since there is no indication that this trend will soon be reversed, then pro-lifers are already doing all we need to do to make our position the right one. And, despite your claims again, this is happening fast enough that you will most likely be very much alive when it does–unless you expect to die within the next twenty-to-twenty-five years or so.
About all of which you have no reason to care. Because rights don’t objectively exist. So no one really has a right to an abortion anyway.
Mary,
Yes, and when rights are balanced against each other in one case, then they must be in all similar cases, or you’ve creaetd a special class of persons under the law. Either we have the right to control our physical selves, or this right can be suspended when someone else’s “life” is at stake. Even you were the only person in the US with my blood type, nobody could force you to donate blood to me, no matter the circumstances. But if the “right to life” principle were in universal force, you would.
Why must people continue to throw Pearls at Swine? During the time of Jesus, there were people who just didn’t care to hear truth and so He warned us against wasting our time… Listen! Do Not Throw Pearls at Swine – it’s a waste of time!
“Redemptive suffering is a crock.”
Not to the person who was saved by someone else’s suffering on their behalf.
Sam: Look at the Roman Empire. Can’t see it? Not there any more. Look for the Church that Jesus founded. Still there. Any guesses as to why?
Megan 8:28am
Would you please tell me what post of mine you are responding to?
Yes, and the very fact that some animals eat their offspring is one we recognize as an aberration from the norm, so you’ve proved my point. Thanks, Megan! :)
Megan, your body was created to house and nurture a child. That’s why you have a uterus. I would think you could recognize the difference between a country going to war to defend itself against an enemy who is harming innocents in incidents such as 9/11 and a woman choosing to kill her innocent offspring because she doesn’t want to be inconvenienced.
Did you kill your child out of hate? Do you believe abortion is a “necessary evil?” Because if not, your comparisons are complete stupidity. You do nothing BUT deflect on this blog. But we all know why you really come here, anyway. You might be in denial, but to the rest of us, it’s as plain as day. Speaking of the day, have a good one! See ya around! :)
This video came up on my newsfeed on facebook. The person who posted it always posts pro-life videos with comments implying how disgusting you are if you back abortion and it really winds me up. Yes I watched this video and yes I definitely would still have an abortion if I fell pregnant any time soon. I’m a 22 year old girl who just graduated from uni last year who more than anything in the world wants a successful career. I’ve been lucky enough to get a good job in want I want to do already and I want to continue. I use condoms and I’m on the pill but obviously there is still a chance of pregnancy and I would abort it straight away. I’m not ready to have a child, emotionally or financially and I want to focus on me for the next ten years of my life and there are a lot of girls out there like me. Society is still ridiculously sexist when they say girls are selfish for wanting abortions when they want to focus on themselves. When I have children I want to really want them and be able to support them in every way I can which I am not able to do now or will be able to do any time soon. Of course this video isn’t particularly nice to look at. I thought it would be pretty obvious having an abortion woulldn’t consists of butterflies and rainbows flying out of a woman’s vagina. But, I believe, abortion is often the most sensible option. It’s better than having children when you’re not ready. I don’t agree with abortion as contraception but sometimes people are going to fall pregnant no matter what contraception they use and luckily we live i a time when we can find out quickly that we are pregnant and abort the fetus. If I didn’t have the option of abortion now and I fell pregnant that would bascially mean my career, and therefore my life ambition, would be over and I would have little to offer my children. This isn’t being selifish, this is living in 2011 where women can achieve just as high as men except men will never have to go through the dilema of getting pregnant.
Jess,
Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t dispose of you? Are you so certain you were planned, wanted, and convenient? Would your life be any less valuable or you any less of an accomplished woman if someone didn’t want you?
It’s absolutely about being selfish, and if you re-read your comment, you will see the words “I” and “me” about 20 times. You’ve just admitted that you would kill your offspring if you became unexpectedly pregnant while having the sex you so badly want to have while not being ready to accept the consequences of that sex should your contraception fail. (I notice you never even mentioned adoption, though that would solve your problem of a child “getting in the way” of your carefully laid-out plans. That would be a sensible option. Killing one’s own child after one has engaged in the procreative act is not “sensible.”) If society is sexist for not wanting women to abort, then what does that make the women who abort? In what way is it right for the oppressed to then become the oppressors of those weaker than themselves?
I don’t agree with abortion as contraception but sometimes people are going to fall pregnant no matter what contraception they use and luckily we live i a time when we can find out quickly that we are pregnant and abort the fetus.
So you admit that contraception can fail, and yet your choice is to have your sex anyway, children be damned should they dare to actually be conceived.
Nah, I don’t see how ANYONE could POSSIBLY believe that abortion is a selfish choice. Your entire post was about what you want, when you want it, and nobody (not even your own child) had better get in your way. You might want to actually read what you wrote.
What’s with “life” in quotation marks, Megan? Are unborn children not really alive?
Being an OB/GYN requires skill and lots of time with patients. Being an abortionist requires a bare minimum of medical competency and generally can get you hundreds of dollars in fifteen minutes. When OB/GYNs screw up, they get sanctioned and sued. When abortionists screw up, organizations like the Pennsylvania Department of Health cover for them. If you wanted to make some quick money and not be held to a high standard, which would you pick?
I wonder what Sam would think about his “human consensus trumps all” approach if human consensus decided that he should be dismembered and his body should be thrown in a dumpster.
Hi, Lola. If you think no one is pro-abortion, you must be new.
Jess said:
“I don’t agree with abortion as contraception but sometimes people are going to fall pregnant no matter what contraception they use”
Jess,
nobody ‘falls’ pregnant. You have other options. Is your career more important to you then sex? Then you could refrain from sex. The trade off you are making is that sex is worth it even when it means killing your children when you become pregnant. You will find that careers do not bring fulfillment. It is lifes simple pleasures and health that are the most important. Like snuggling my three year old to sleep last night. If you respected life you could keep your career and refrain from sex till you were ready for children.
Likely you will find that when you get older and ‘ready’ to have children the lifes of your children will still take a back seat to sex or whatever else your personal ambitions are at the time.
Maybe you don’t see how closely your individual growth is tied to the support of others. If you did, then maybe you would show that same support to your children or at least refrain from intercourse till you were willing to support children. Let’s say abortion remains legal and the fetus is given no value by society. What is to stop the courts from forcing women to make a decision to either abort or take full responsibility for the raising the child by themselves. Why would the law force a father like Sam to pay child support if he decides he wants to seperate himself from the “worthless” life inside you? Would you be ok with the courts determining that a man can opt out of pregnancy just like a woman can?
Mary,
My mum was 19 when she had me and no I wasn’t wanted. My mum was a single parent and didn’t know what she was doing so I spent a lot of my childhood with my grandparents.
‘Aren’t you glad you’re mother didn’t dispose of you?’ If my mum had aborted me I wouldnt’t be alive to be glad or not glad so I wouldn’t say I’m glad. Sorry if that seems like an arsey reply I just think it’s an irrelevant arguement. When people ask it it’s almost like they’re trying to ask would you rather be alive or dead, and of course the answer is alive however if you’re not born in the first place there would be nothing to miss is my opinion.
I know people from school who have gone to uni and then have had children and they’re just sat at home everyday (in not a very nice home might I add), struggling for money and on benefits (I live in the uk). I’d rather work and enjoy myself and then have children right now and then be able to afford them and probably be wiser in my parenting than I would be now. I know I seem to making a lot of this about finances but money is important.
Girls are told they have to do well in their education, aim for a good job and that’s exactly what I’ve done. But then there’s the other side of being a woman: children. So much is expected of women nowadays that you can’t expect us to do everything. Children just don’t come into my plans unfortunately over the next few years.
I know everyone on this site is probably going to be disgusted by this comment but I like having sex. A lot of people do. I’ve never actually been pregnant and I may never. I’m not going to stop having sex.
And yes I use to word ‘I’ and ‘me’ a lot because I want to live my life to the fullest and women’s lives can be so much more than raising children now. This is what people of my generation are raised to think now whether you like it or not. If I got pregnant now and had to go on benefits because I couldn’t have a job and therefore couldn’t pay my rent or feed my child I would be scorned again. Women just can’t win.
I’m not against people who are pro-life, I think everyone is allowed to have their opinions and live by them I just don’t think it’s right when people force these opinions on others.
It’s also worth pointing out that the “if I used contraception that means I didn’t consent to pregnancy” is absolutely bunk, specifically because someone used contraception. If you are having sex, then you ought to be aware that pregnancy is a potential consequence. If you are using contraception, then you have, by your actions, indicated that you are aware of this consequence and recognize that it could happen to you, but have chosen to engage in this activity anyway. This is a textbook example of what is called “informed consent.”
Look at it this way. Certain activities have what are known as “acceptable risks.” If you practice martial arts, injury is an acceptable risk. You knew you could be injured, and may have even taken steps to avoid it, but continued with the activity anyway. Any injury that does occur in fact, regardless of whatever steps you took to try and avoid it, is still a consequence you knew going in could happen. Which means you can’t sue that person you were sparring with when they threw you and you landed on your arm and broke it. You can’t sue them even if that broken arm makes you miss a job interview and screws up your entire career plan for the rest of your life. Because injury is an acceptable risk that you knew about going in.
Pregnancy is an acceptable risk of consensual sexual activity. You know its possible, but you’re doing it anyway. To follow this up with, “Well, I didn’t plan this, so I’ll just kill the kid!” is irresponsible and wrong. You knew a child was a potential result of your activities and chose to engage in them anyway. That child is there because of your actions. You are responsible for their well-being because you caused their presence. Killing them to satisfy your desires, however inconvenient that child may be, is wrong. You put them there. You owe it to them to keep them safe. They wouldn’t even exist but for you.
This is living responsibly, and that holds true living in 2011. You will always be responsible for the lives of others who are drawn into your circumstances due to actions you took with the knowledge that exactly this consequence could result. This is how informed consent works.
Jess:
Thanks for sharing.
Here’s what will probably happen. You’ll be attracted to some guy. You’ll move in together. “Disneyland for grownups”, “friends with benefits”. For a while (seven yrs max), everything will “Be just fine”. You or your roomie (after a while you’ll realize the reality-roomie) or you will be attracted to someone else. Dishes get broken, your heart will break. You’ll be seven years older. You’ll make “better choices” next time. You’ll be hard to please. Your BC is making you cranky. You’ll still have your career. Porn will look like a better option than anything. Your depression will deepen. The years will go by. You’ll throw yourself into your career. You’ll be a success. You’ll have lots of “one night stands”, and you’ll never have kids. None that got in your way, at least.
Thanks for sharing.
Alice,
I care about rights. I care about many subjective things.
I am somewhat ambivalent about the legality of elective abortion. I am a man, and I’m pretty wealthy. My wife is unlikely to desire an elective abortion, we desire a moderately-sized family (four or five children), and so elective abortion is unlikely to impact us directly. Of course, if one of my children came to desire elective abortion, my level of interest may increase.
If abortion were necessary in order to save my wife’s life, or to protect her from any serious risk to her health, I would help her procure one. I am interested in keeping abortion legal for this purpose. I seriously doubt abortion for the sake of the health of the woman will be made illegal in my lifetime. However, if it is, and if my wife needed the procedure, we would simply break the law.
Mark,
Ancient history is not my strong suit. I don’t know why Rome fell, and I don’t know why people bother being Christians. Maybe someday I will look into these interesting questions.
Well, I’m glad your mom didn’t abort you, Jess. :) Mark, you’re not being helpful.
“Girls are told they have to do well in their education, aim for a good job and that’s exactly what I’ve done. But then there’s the other side of being a woman: children. So much is expected of women nowadays that you can’t expect us to do everything. Children just don’t come into my plans unfortunately over the next few years.”
If you try to live your life by what random people expect of you, you’ll only be happy if that’s what you want as well. No one is going to give you a prize somewhere down the line for following societal expectations. Do you want to have children in the next few years? What’s the situation here?
Sam: I hope “If abortion were necessary in order to save my wife’s life, or to protect her from any serious risk to her health, I would procure one” means, “If abortion were necessary in order to save my wife’s life, or to protect her from any serious risk to her health, I would procure one if she wanted me to.”
Marauder,
My mistake has been noted, and I have corrected it. Thank you.
Sam,
If a man does not want a child but he has intercourse with a woman and she gets pregnant the should men be able to opt out of pregnancy just like a woman can?
Jess,
Same question for you. If a man does not want a child but he has intercourse with a woman and she gets pregnant should the man be able to opt out of pregnancy just like a woman can? By opt out I mean refuse to support the mother and child and basically have a legal path to walk away during pregnancy?
Ha, you all make me laugh. Just because I want to do well. Like I said, women can never win. Why don’t we all go back to our kitchens and start making our men their dinners. Wake up.
I’m glad you’ve so decidedly predicted my life … someone’s bitter. I can guarantee I will not do that.
I think it’s sad women treat other women this way. We should be proud of each other rather than taking from the progression women have acheived over the years.
‘Kids’ are not fetuses. Kids are young children This is not a being with a personality, in the early stages it is a collection of cells.
None of you have changed my mind. If anything you’re narrow mindedness has made me more determined.
“If a man does not want a child but he has intercourse with a woman and she gets pregnant the should men be able to opt out of pregnancy just like a woman can?”
A man can issue an ultimatum (which I desire would be upheld by law): Get an abortion or raise the baby without any of my support.
The choice to get an abortion always should be the woman’s alone.
Since I will probably never be in this situation, I am not very passionate about this issue, and not very committed to my answer to your question.
And truthseeker:
If a woman gets pregnant and the man wants to opt out:
Well I think when you’re having sex with someone you should be both clear on what you’re opinions are about abortion. I think a man should express his opinions that he doesn’t want it but if the woman does unfortunately with biology there’s not a lot a man can do. But I do think both parties should be aware of where they stand on abortion before sex.
Jess 10:21am
Obviously not being planned and wanted didn’t make you any less of a valuable and accomplished human being. You did not have the most idyllic childhood but when has childhood been idyllic? Raised in a home with a mentally ill alcoholic father my childhood was also not so perfect.
You say you wouldn’t have known the difference if you were aborted. True. If you had been murdered or died in an accident yesterday you wouldn’t know the difference today, right? Still, are you not thankful for your life? If given the choice would you have chosen not to be born or to have your life taken now?
Yes I know many young women trapped in lives of poverty and welfare dependency. I think our sex saturated society does much to promote this as does the glamorizing of illegitimacy. My opinion. I actually encountered and encounter girls who want to be pregnant, have had multiple pregnancies, etc. I think the reasons are deeply complex and not simplistically resolved with contraception and abortion.
Jess,
His feeling about love for you at the time of sex and possible children at that time could change. During pregnancy should a man have a legal right to walk away and opt out of legal responsibility of support for the mother and child?
A man can issue an ultimatum (which I desire would be upheld by law): Get an abortion or raise the baby without any of my support.
That is called coercion and violates a woman’s rights. She has the right to NOT get an abortion if she doesn’t want one. Sorry dude. The law is on her side. Oh, and the law is also on her side to seek child support.
The Center Against Forced Abortion
http://www.txjf.org/pages.asp?pageid=99931
All of the fun and none of the responsibility, right?
Just passing through here Sam? Good luck to you.
Sam said:
“A man can issue an ultimatum (which I desire would be upheld by law): Get an abortion or raise the baby without any of my support.”
Sam,
What about the government itself saying that a person is not qualified to support a child because they are unemployed and on welfare at the time they get pregnant? Should the government then be able to give a citizen an ultimatum that they must either terminate the pregnancy or this child and mother will not be eligible for government support once said child is born?
God is Love.
Godly love limits choice.
Godly choice increases happiness.
God wants us to be happy.
Love God and do what you will.
MPK 1/3/2011
Hi Jess.
None of the points you bring up in your 9:39 am paragraph address the claim that pro-lifers make, which is that the fetus/embryo is a human being with intrinsic value, and hence should not be killed. For example, you mention needing abortion because you want a successful career. But would wanting a successful career be proper justification for you to kill a two year old if such an action would result in your having a successful career? Of course not. But the pro-life position claims that killing a fetus in order to ensure a successful career is morally equivalent to killing a two year old to ensure a successful career. Thus that is the issue that needs to be addressed? What is the embryo? If the embryo is not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If the embryo is human, no justification for abortion is adequate. God love you.
Jess, I understand what you’re trying to say. I am one of the few non-religious pro-lifers here (socially liberal in every other way)….But an unborn child IS an unborn child. It is not just a “collection of cells.” Well, to be sure, aren’t we ALL just a collection of cells anyway?
I was pro “choice” once too. I did a hell of a lot of research and studying and thinking. The only conclusion I could come to, with scientific and philosophical integrity, was the the unborn children are human beings, with their own right to live. Nobody has the right to take that away from them. We cannot use stages of life to dehumanize human beings; a toddler isn’t less of a person than a 20 year old, and a 10 week old unborn human is not of less value than a toddler. We do not become people; we ARE people.
Now this means there is a lot of rethinking all of us have to do…..It is NOT convenient for me to admit that the unborn children are people; but that is the ONLY conclusion we can come to. Many abortion advocates admit that our unborn children are human beings, but that we have the right to kill them if their existence interferes with our plans. How is that feminist? The very thing that makes us women–indeed, makes us extremely special, the face that our bodies were made to nurture our unborn children–is what feminists try to portray as a flaw. Pregnancy is NOT a disease. It is not an illness. One does not “fall pregnant.” Our unborn children are not tumors. They are not organs, like livers or kidneys. They have their own unique DNA, their own blood type, and their own genders. And they have their OWN right to bodily autonomy and they have a right to exist. Pregnancy is not only NOT a disease, it isn’t a permanent condition. All pregnancies terminate. But do we have a right to kill those who are weaker than us because WE don’t feel ready/WE are scared/WE didn’t plan to have a baby? How is that right? How is that just?
Yes, it’s idealistic. We NEED to be idealistic. I believe in birth control. I am not very religious. But I believe in the dignity of human life, in all forms, and there is nothing feminist about killing our own children. We do not have the right to “terminate” other people who inconvenience us. The fact that our unborn children live in our bodies is an HONOR, not a right. It is a privilege, and it is beautiful. We should LOVE our unborn children (and yes, our born children too, don’t even think about going there), and we should fight for them, and nurture them, and respect them. Abortion is not a right. It is not life-affirming. It is violent, bloody, destructive, unnecessary, and it is the grossest violation of human rights we will ever see.
Jess,
Maybe if you’re so focused on having a career, then stop having sex. Then, you would not have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy and possibly killing your pre-born child. It’s amazing how many times I counted the use of the word “I” in your comment. That’s the whole mantra of the pro-abort, pro-choice side. Me, myself, and I.
And regarding the facebook issue, don’t open it if you don’t want to see it. I get spam mail ALL the time from these low-life companies advertising Viagra, Cialis, etc. I don’t open it. You have free will.
@Sam: But your reasons to care about any rights are all, by your logic, ultimately arbitrary. In every possible way. You have no concrete, grounded, objective reason to care about them.
You claim rights are ultimately subjective. Or, in plainer terms, that human beings just made them up. And that only power determines right and rights. Thus, there’s no such thing as a government violating human rights, because a government has the power and therefore makes the rules. Whatever they say goes. Might makes right. The Civil War was a pointless waste of potential working bodies because slavery never violated anyone’s rights. We have no need to commemorate the Trail of Tears because none of the people who died on it mattered, since those in power said they didn’t.
So, ultimately, you have no reason to support abortion. At all. The right to abortion is entirely subjective because all rights are entirely subjective. And if those in power say it doesn’t exist and is wrong, then it doesn’t and it is. You only care about it because you feel like you ought to since it might maybe affect you, but even that, ultimately has no meaning. You’re just meat, so there’s no real, objective reason for anyone–even yourself–to really care what happens to you.
Basically, even if you say you care about it, your very act of caring is–according to you–totally empty. Nothing means anything. Even those things you support.
The radical feminists are not the only completely self-centered part of the pro-abort crowd. What about all those pro-choice people who say they wouldn’t personally have an abortion, would they object to a law that gives men the right to opt out of responsibility during pregnancy cause the fetus has no intrinsic value to them?
Carla: I described what I would like to be the case (this is what was asked of me). I did not describe what is the case.
Sam, would you be in favor of a government opt-out like the one I asked you about above?
Alice: I care about rights because I want to. Why is this an inadequate response?
Governments can be declared to violate human rights. Such declarations are meaningful of another organization has some measure of power over said government.
The Civil War is an excellent example (if simplified to only refer to the slavery issue). One group desired to keep the power to own slaves. Another group did not wish to allow that group the power to own slaves. A war was necessary to establish who had superior power. The Union had superior power, and therefore slavery is now illegal. It is also immoral. If, however, there were a consensus that slavery is moral, then slavery would be moral. Moral valuation is directly subjective. The only objective basis for morality is our common human nature. Owning slaves does not appear to disagree with our common human nature. The consensus against slavery is subjective.
The actions of the Union in the Civil War are moral only because the Union won.
Finally, you labor under a misconception of my philosophy. First: simply because something is subjective, that does not mean it is meaningless. Second: not everything is subjective. Some things are objective.
Many abortion advocates admit that our unborn children are human beings, but that we have the right to kill them if their existence interferes with our plans. How is that feminist? The very thing that makes us women–indeed, makes us extremely special, the face that our bodies were made to nurture our unborn children–is what feminists try to portray as a flaw.
MaryLee – I wish I had a “like” button for this comment. :D “LIKE.” It isn’t a flaw. Personally, giving birth to my 3 children is the most empowering thing I’ve ever done. I don’t know how other moms feel about childbirth, but to me, bringing the next generation into the world is a pretty incredible thing.
truthseeker: I do not understand your question. What responsibilities are you referring to?
Men who have sex with a girl who would abort her own flesh and blood are not worth having sex with, and vice-versa. Grow up people!
~ ~ ~
Maybe a sex “pre-nup” is the way to go? Like a legal contract before sex just in case it results in pregnancy.
Sam, the responsibilities I refer to are the welfare benefits that the government provides to mothers and their children. Here, I’ll repeat the question that I asked at 11:02.
What about the government itself saying that a person is not qualified to support a child because they are unemployed and on welfare at the time they get pregnant? Should the government then be able to give a citizen an ultimatum that they must either terminate the pregnancy or this child and mother will not be eligible for government support once said child is born?
“The fact that our unborn children live in our bodies is an HONOR, not a right.”
Sure it’s an honor, and it’s also our right to make decisions about what goes on inside our bodies. It isn’t just to create special classes of people. Why should women be the only group denied the right to control their physical personhood, even if another life is at stake? Again, if I were the only donor match available for my sister with a rare blood infection, nobody could mandate that I donate my own blood to her (though I probably would).
See, you can infuse your vision of state-mandated birth with all the pathos you want. Yes I know, babies are a gift and all pregnant women should be thrilled and if they’re not they’ve been duped by the abortion industrial complex. But can we get back to reality? Forced births, forced abortions, forced ANYTHING will not result in healthy women or babies. Data collected from studies like PRAMS or NSFG indicate that women ambivalent about their pregnancies are less likely to seek prenatal care, give up smoking, and eat healthy foods, resulting in more preterm births and babies with health complications. Is that really what you want? You can change the laws, but you’re not going to magically create a society where women, now “protected” against the “evils” of abortion, are suddenly thrilled to relinquish control of their reproductive decision-making.
Megan said: “Again, if I were the only donor match available for my sister with a rare blood infection, nobody could mandate that I donate my own blood to her (though I probably would).”
Megan, if you had done something to put your sister in the position where she required your blood to survive, then shouldn’t you bear additional responsibility to help her through the situation you placed her in? The baby didn’t just appear on his/her own and your actions carry responsibility for YOU.
Megan said:
“Is that really what you want? You can change the laws, but you’re not going to magically create a society where women, now “protected” against the “evils” of abortion, are suddenly thrilled to relinquish control of their reproductive decision-making.”
Megan, nobody wants you to relinquish control of your reproductive decisions. We just want you to gain control over them to the point where you stop placing yourself in a position where you kill your children.
Megan, our right to bodily autonomy does not include the right to infringe on the bodies of our children. They are separate people with the right to live, period. “Reproductive rights”…..pfft, give me a break. Nobody is FORCING you to have sex. Nobody is FORCING you not to use birth control. But we cannot kill our children because we’re trying to exercise some so-called “right” to “reproductive freedom” that doesn’t even EXIST. Once you’re pregnant, you’ve already reproduced. You’re already a mother. Abortion isn’t reproductive freedom; it’s oppression. It doesn’t free us….it’s not liberty. It’s keeping us chained and damaging us beyond recognition. Might makes right to pro-aborts…..That’s very, very sad. The oppressed have become the oppressors.
There is also another major problem in your analogy, Megan. The state of pregnancy is natural i.e. it conforms to the nature or purpose of teh female reproductive organs. Hence if a woman has an embryo living inside of her, then that embryo is exactly where an embryo should be and the woman’s reproductive system is functioning properly relative to its design (whether that design be by God or evolution or whatever). The point is that there is an order to things and that we must respect that order.
Contrast that to the kidney analogy. The purpose of your kidney is not to help someone else or to be hooked up in any way to someone else. It is for your body and hence, no one has a right to it. However, in order to fulfill a greater good (that of returning proper function to someone who needs a kidney) you may freely donate it to them or hook yourself up to them in order to preserve the higher proper function of life for another human being. But this is by no means a requirement as it is an extraordinary use of the kidney. The womb, though, has the specific design and purpose of being a place to nourish and protect an unborn human being. That is why the violinist analogy and all other analogies similar to that fail. They do not take into account proper function and teh order of nature which all other rights are based on. God love you.
Sam said @ January 31, 2011 at 7:21 am
That doesn’t mean that nothing matters. It just means nothing ultimately matters. All that counts is the subjective. What I think, and what I want, and what those in power think and what those in power want. Survival, protection under another power, and becoming powerful. That’s what’s important to me.
That’s pretty sad. As I thought – essentially an opportunistic, vacillating atheist, who believes in “might makes right” unless of course you find yourself on the losing end of that ideology.
I’ll pray for you Sam – that you might find true Hope.
Megan, How can you watch the video above and still say you would do this again? That is what puzzles me. It is one thing to not know what you are doing; it is another to see this video and be willing to subject you and your baby to it. Maybe you feel like the only way you can continue to justify what you have done is to say you would be willing to do it again. What I see done in this video is the killing of one human being. And the spiritual death of another.
truthseeker,
I do not want the government being involved with who can and can’t have children, or abort children.
I also do not desire that anyone receive government welfare.
Why should I be expected to pay for the mistakes of other people?
“That’s pretty sad. As I thought – essentially an opportunistic, vacillating atheist, who believes in “might makes right” unless of course you find yourself on the losing end of that ideology.”
Oh, I still think might makes right then, too (what else would?). I just hope that my blubbering about mercy and charity and all that will affect the passions of those in power, and so things won’t be so bad for me.
Good Afternoon,
Jess, by the substance of your comments, I suspect you intend to proclaim to all how you believe that the pro-choice movement has won and will continue to win.
Surprise! Your comments reflect to me a prime example of how the pro-choice side has LOST. Definitively.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think your views regarding sex, contraception, women’s rights, and so on are lamentable. …They’re also PRECISELY what I expect to hear!
You see, for all that I’m insistently pro-life, I have, myself, been intensely frustrated by the views the overall pro-life movement tends to profess. To often, we seem to convey the idea that if we just grant life, everything else will be OK. I’ve always felt this a serious error; I can’t understand how anyone would think that life will be idyllic for anyone, especially when Mom’s pregnancy may have been “accidental”. I’ve never been one for “sentimental fluff”. And yet, I’ve seen the severe failure of the pro-choice argument. Despite the trials that a pregnancy will present, I cannot ignore the value of even one life that has been lived.
Now, I don’t wish to insist that you agree with me on this matter, but I might suggest that your own comments reflect the very value of this idea; you offer great witness to the value of redemptive suffering, even if you reject the existence of such an idea.
You declare yourself that you were NOT a wanted child, that you spent much of your childhood with your grandparents, and (you didn’t state this directly) you’re thoroughly irritated by society’s apparent expectations for you.
You also wish to believe that you don’t think about whether you’d like to be here or not.
May I suggest that these comments actually undermine the point you attempt?
On the whole, your comments reflect a state of mind that’s hostile to the pro-life movement, that scorns the idea that you would even consider bearing a child, should you accidentally conceive. Well, why would I expect otherwise? If your mother didn’t wish to be a mother at your birth, certainly she would not have encouraged you to think from a pro-life view; your college experience would surely have emphasized this idea. As a result, you display what many of us consider an intensely selfish attitude.
And yet… …in spite of what law allowed and your mothers possible previous intentions…
You live.
What’s more, by your own comments regarding your desire for a career, while you wish to dodge the question regarding existence, you obviously don’t wish to NOT exist. Nor do you display any interest in ending your own life. By default then, you wish to be alive and successful.
If you think about it, these concepts pretty much directly contradict the ideas you’ve stated.
For what it’s worth, I understand much of your frame of mind. When I graduated college, I had much the same thought: Pro-lifers were falling by the wayside, secular ideals were taking over, and religious expression would soon become obsolete. Certainly, UN-L wished to convey this idea quite vigorously.
I’ve learned since that, whatever their educational pedigree, academia doesn’t comprehend life nearly as well as they think. Pro-life ideals have not disappeared, my Church, while not as vigorous as I’d like, has still not vanished; the People of this nation have not wholly embraced the ideals proposed by cultural elites.
Like it or no, I think the Holy Spirit has definitely played several cards in our society these many years.
Life, love–true love, not the wimpy gunk you hear from schools, and happiness carry on. Faith does also.
You may not be thrilled to hear this, but I’d say this state presents incredible opportunity for you. You have the opportunity to follow the feminist ideal yes; you also have the chance to pursue a more virtuous and fulfilling frame of mind and lifestyle.
You have youth and vigor. Don’t waste too much of it on a thought process that’s slowly dying off.
I am pro-life. Have been for many years.
That being said; am I the only one who finds this video pornographic? The exposing of female genitalia to make the point that the unborn child is a human being is just part and parcel of today’s culture of debasing the female body and thus debasing women. Everywhere we turn, on billboards, in magazine ads and covers, television shows, television ads, etc, female body parts are used to sell the message, whatever that message may be. ENOUGH ALREADY!! Stop using female body parts to sell the message. There are plenty of images and videos that focus on the aborted baby, which is the true horror.
This is where the murder of abortion takes place. A woman’s body.
@ Megan - One more point about your blood transfusion analogy: There’s a significant distinction between ALLOWING your sister to die of a blood disease because you passively won’t give her a transfusion, and SEEKING to actively kill an unborn child. In the former case, you could be right or wrong depending on your motives and other circumstances. But it’s always wrong to act with the deliberate intention to take a human life.
Mary 3:07 PM is a different Mary.
There’s a “kicker” in all this. “Kicker” being defined as “an unexpected turn of events”. So far, we’ve all been dancing around it, but for what it’s worth I’ll “let fly”. Here it comes:
The sexual urge.
The elephant in the living room, and it needs to be addressed because, you know, things come up (pun intended). Now, we should all believe that the sexual urge is not just good (which most who have experienced it believe without question), not just great ( a lucky minority, perhaps?), but HOLY (how many of you just -blushed? gagged? got mad?-what?). I said we all SHOULD believe that sex is holy, but how many of us really, really do?
The “kicker” with the sexual urge is that it’s been hijacked, coarsened, packaged as a consumer item, bought and sold like cotton candy at the carnival, and the only possible way to make this whole “sex thing” continue to be a consumer item is for contraception and abortion to continue to be the backbone of “reproductive rights” (choice, whatever). Guess what?. Sexual attraction happens, and suddenly, we have to make choices. And the sexual urge can be very, very “pro choice”. It can be SO pro choice that one can’t think, at the moment, of there being any OTHER choice.
When people are wedded in Holy Matrimony (sounds archaic, doesn’t it?), and allow that pro choice sexual urge to be properly celebrated, you have what was once called “marital bliss” (another “old school” term: they don’t teach this in sex ed). With the advances in understanding of the natural cycles of the woman’s body through Natural Family Planning, the possibilities for MORE marriages to be HAPPIER than ever before in the history of mankind are now available.
Abortion is a consumer item. Abortion is “for” those many, many couples that don’t think sex is holy, and it’s for those who have been told that holiness is an impossible ideal. It is even “for” those couples who have had the great good fortune to having never needed to procure an abortion, but are easily swayed by the “power structures” of the world, and don’t want to think there is any reason to “rock the boat” as long as their life is in the “power groove”, so to speak, (sort of a “hooray for whatever’s currently powerful, and consumable!”)
Abortion is not for those couples that cherish life, whether they believe in holiness or not ( cherishing life is very close to the definition of holiness, anyway,because they are “set apart” to consummate a holy act, exclusively, without any barriers, that kind of “holy”, by their fruits, you shall know them). For those couples who are living this high ideal, congratulations! I suspect some of those types are posting here, and maybe they could share a little (we seem to have a few here who want to push the OTHER model to the limit). I have posited with my little “reflection” earlier that “Godly choices increase happiness”. A little help here, please. A little Light would be helpful right about now. Here’s hoping. Thanks in advance.
Mark K – Bravo! I don’t think we’re all ‘dancing around’ this set of facts (I wasn’t, anyway) but it certainly is a vital piece of the picture that no one else had brought in yet. Excellently presented!
Mary, you’re right, it does debase and objectify the woman – with HER permission. Our bodies are sacred and must be treated as such. We are seeing the horrors from all angles with this video. Abortion murders a life and a soul and it is all done through the objectification of the body. There is no way to dress that up or to change it, until we change the way people treat each other and the sacred act of love making with the ultimate gift of a child.
Mark K,
The elephant in the room is the video itself. Why the person had sex really doesn’t matter when the dead baby is delivered.
Great point, Mark. I agree with you. Sexual intercourse within the context of the marital embrace and free of any barriers, birth control, etc. is holy. I don’t think Megan, Jess, or Sam will ever get this until they have a conversion of heart. Only the Holy Spirit will be the One to change a person’s heart.
My view of Love is very different from theirs
Wow, just went on The Center for Bioethical Reform and happened to check out all the tools, or rather, instruments of death, used in killing the pre-born. Can’t even believe how many there are. I suppose one of them was used to murder the baby in the above video. This is so evil. Fr. John Corapi, S.O.L.T. was right when he said Satan dawned on that dark day of the Supreme Court in 1973.
As Father Greoschell has said, “We must heal the original wound.” Separating the unitive from the procreative aspects of intercourse has had disastrous consequences. Adding deception into the already difficult and mysterious man/woman relationship,with words or with the body, considering the fallen nature of man and the brokenness of the world, is a course that will end in shipwreck of bodies,minds, cultures and souls.
As Dr. Scott Hahn has said, sex is not just good, not just great. Sex is holy! As RosalindaL posted “…the sacred act of lovemaking[is celebrated and rewarded] with the ultimate gift of a child. I often wonder how many parents would have been changed from faithless to faithful if they had only seen the face of the innocent they had created together “With the help of the Lord.” Our bodies say to us “pro choice!”, when we see the person of our affections. Our minds say “pro choice!” when we say “I choose you, alone, among all others.” And then , in the marriage bed, even our little “swimmies” say “pro choice!”, and the two become ONE flesh! And nine months later, that lovemaking was so VITAL and so REAL, that you have to give that sacred act a name! Love-making. Making Love. God is Love! PRO LIFE !
As Father Benedict Groeschell has said, “We must heal the original wound”. When the unitive and the procreative aspects of sexual intercourse are separated, when you consider the fallen nature of mankind, one can only expect minds, bodies, cultures and souls will end in shipwreck.
Dr Scott Hahn said “Sex is not just good, not just great. Sex is holy.” When we see the person of our affections, or bodies say “pro choice!”. When we vow to love this person “forsaking all others”, our mouths say ‘pro choice!”. When the two become one flesh, the body says “pro choice!”, and nine months later, that choice is so VITAL, so REAL, you have to give that sacred act, that sacred choice, a name! Love-making. Making love. God is Love! PRO LIFE !
Mary, the video is indeed pornographic, but not because of the nudity. It’s pornographic in that it shows the obscene process of abortion in real time; the slaughtered, lifeless body of the unborn child being ripped from his mother by the emotionless abortionist.
And I have just realized another interesting contradiction. Many of our pro-abortion friends are bitter ex-Catholics turned atheist. They like to argue that the unborn child is just a clump of tissue, no different from a tumor – a part of its mother. Now, because they are former Catholics, they typically express their hatred for Christianity and God. One of their favorite ways to show their hatred for God is to dig up a quote from the Old Testament in which God is killing people and use that to show that God is evil and not worthy of our worship. However, what does Catholic theology teach about our relationship to God? It teaches that Christians are a part of the “body of Christ”, so therefore as members of Christ’s body, we are also a “part” of God Himself.
So… isn’t it interesting that the pro-aborts would argue that women have a right to destroy a “part” of their bodies, but God does not possess that same right? After all, the abortion they adore is little different than their own interpretation of God’s actions in the Old Testament.
Bill Maher and other hateful atheists often refer to the Judeo-Christian God as a sort of Saddam Hussein like character. Too bad that in their arguments in favor of abortion they make themselves into the same caricature of God that they despise.
“Sexual intercourse within the context of the marital embrace and free of any barriers, birth control, etc. is holy.”
Are you a woman? If so, this seems like a curious attempt to reclaim an old-school, conservative view of sex and marriage that has traditionally placed women on a tier of inferiority to men. Sounds like a radical (even feminist!) rhetorical move to me. In a day and age when a woman is free to make her own decisions concerning sex, it must truly be empowering to choose the “path less taken.” In my grandmother’s day, you needed a prescription from a doctor, and verification of being married, to even get a prescription for birth control. And even then, it was culturally acceptable for the husband to make the bulk of household decisions (including sexual). In her late 30’s my grandmother delivered a stillborn baby and suffered serious post-partum depression. Then it happened again: another stillborn, and more emotional devastation.
It’s nice for the high-and-mighty to preach about “marital embrace” and prescribe “proper” sexual behavior and maternal attitudes, but the fact of the matter is that women deserve the option of preventing unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Public health has no place for value judgments.
Megan,
I’ve read some real humdingers of arguments before, but this one has me somewhat stunned.
“If so, this seems like a curious attempt to reclaim an old-school, conservative view of sex and marriage that has traditionally placed women on a tier of inferiority to men.”
Really? Um, I could make all manner of assumptions about what you might mean by that, especially the “tier of inferiority” part. Based on your various arguments thus far, I gather you have a cool dislike for almost any societal view of anything prior to 1970. Please explain more fully what you mean though, because I could easily make numerous (bad) assumptions.
Public health has no place for value judgments.”
I think you must mean, “Public health has no place for value judgements based on moral/religious convictions.” I must warn you, that perspective itself bears serious errors. Almost EVERY concern related to the public good has a moral aspect to it, though some will certainly be less serious than others.
You declare, “the fact of the matter is that women deserve the option of preventing unintended and unwanted pregnancies. ”
I find this assertion quite strange on the whole. I would think that “Pro-Choice” would mean just that: Women have the right to make appropriate choices. Since 1973 though, this “right to choose” has only been promoted vigorously in terms of a woman’s “right” to choose abortion. I never hear the other side of that choice discussed much. It certainly doesn’t come from the “Pro-Choice” crowd.
Women since the dawn of history have exercised their complete rights. When they didn’t wish to become mothers, married or unmarried, they chose to avoid sexual intercourse. When they chose differently, sometimes they faced the natural consequences by conceiving children.
On the whole, I must tell you, your argument reeks of a strong sense of feminine chauvenism. WOMEN MUST HAVE POWER you declare, all the while ignoring the powers that women have exercised since the dawn of time.
I’m still curious though, about your view of “traditional”, “old-school”, or “conservative” marriage?
Megan, I don’t see Mark advocating anywhere that unmarried women should be denied access to birth control.
Marauder. Interesting choice of pseudonym. From the comics, I assume, yes? A marauder is one who roams about, stealing that which he can find, just for the sake of creating havoc, and striking terror into hearts,and gaining notoriety for himself ( a type of power), attracting followers to himself out of fear.
Marauder, I am going to assume you are a young man who admires power images, has been educated to be a social activist by the public educational system, and is therefore an atheist, with a strong Anti-Catholic bias. If you are not any of those things, and have reached a mature age, I can only say that some men get older and wiser, and some men just get older. With maturity should come humility; regret for past prideful actions requires contrition to face honestly, and to act accordingly.
I am a strong advocate for happiness. Happiness attained by following the One Who cannot lie or be lied to. The One Who does not lie is revealed to be unique in human history. His power was exercised in humility, with mercy and justice for all. With humility, He carried a Cross up a hill, was crucified on that Cross, after enduring a humiliating scourging from powerful men, and died on that cross, happily having run the race of life, racing toward His destiny to be the Ruler of all mankind, in righteousness and strength.
This One is the only Way out of our existential traps, the ones we set for ourselves, which are the most difficult ones to escape from, the ones that pin us like a man on a Cross. This One freed humankind from our traps, by living within His Father’s iron law , which required Him to love his enemies, and to defeat the enemy on his own battlefield. Happily, this One confirmed to humankind that His mission was accomplished, by rising from what looked like a completely humiliating defeat. He confirmed that He is THE LIFE by rising from DEATH. He IS LIFE, the Author of life, not DEATH.
Marauder, you “wondered out loud” to Megan if Mark advocates that unmarried women should be denied access to birth control. Artificial birth control is one of those traps we set for ourselves, with which we inextricably trap ourselves, and our own flesh and blood. We put the “other Christ”, the innocent other, ON that Cross, with Him. From His Cross, the One Innocent Man turned to the Good Thief and said “Today, you will be with me in Paradise”. I hope to someday go where I think my little “innocent thieves” were taken by the Humiliated One.
Marauder, about the other thief, the one who railed against all the Innocent One stood for: I hope someday you will recognize who you are in that scenario, today, as you rail against those who do not wish the innocent to hear the words of release from sin from the Cross. “Time” is just what happens so everything doesn’t happen all at once. Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Yes, Megan, and I’m very honored to be a woman and I love the vocation of wife and mother and believe it to be sacred. Seems to me by all the comments I’ve read written by you, that you cannot relate to this concept. As far as birth control, I’ve been there done that. Was the worst sex I ever had. Sorry to be so graphic, but I’m just being honest. And “Public health has no place for value judgments.” puuulease. Tell that to Planned Parenthood advocating condoms and other forms of b/c to our youth.
@Meghan – ” “Sexual intercourse within the context of the marital embrace and free of any barriers, birth control, etc. is holy.” Are you a woman? If so, this seems like a curious attempt to reclaim an old-school, conservative view of sex and marriage that has traditionally placed women on a tier of inferiority to men.”
How does this place women inferior to men? I see nothing in the statement that applies to women differently than to men. In fact, considering sex as a holy act tends more to elevate the woman than otherwise, because it inherently requires the partners to respect one another.
“it was culturally acceptable for the husband to make the bulk of household decisions (including sexual).”
This is far from true! Most women over the centuries have basically ruled the household – including their husbands – in most matters. Their status under the law may have been unjust, but in their homes they were more often in control than not.
@ Meghan – “Public health has no place for value judgments.”
Really? The logical conclusion of that statement is that we should kill anyone who comes down with a contagious disease. After all, they might infect someone!
BTW, I am a woman.
Megan acts like babies just show up unexpectedly in women’s bodies like “surprise, you’re having a baby!” When are we going to grow up and take responsibility for our actions? And I don’t mean by “Killing” our mistakes…ya know, people adopt babies, too.
Here is information on all those who think that the pictures/videos aren’t real or was ‘staged’…
http://www.abortionno.org/About_Us/lawsuits/authenticity.html
Hi Amanda,
Accepting responsibility’s called making a decisive choice: abortion or birth, then parenting or adoption.
Hi John,
Get your head out of the sand. What makes you think that a society that devalued women would somehow engender fair practices in the bedroom? Griswold vs. Connecticut was decided in 1965. 1965! It took that long for the state to stop acting as a moral authority on women’s reproductive rights. And marital rape–when did the state recognize it as a serious criminal offense? Mmm, but yes, every good Christian couple was living in absolute marital bliss, I’m sure. “When they didn’t wish to become mothers, married or unmarried, they chose to avoid sexual intercourse.” Ha, okay. Didn’t work for my grandmother. Grampy wanted sex, she had limited access to birth control, and it wasn’t really heard of for good housewives to deny their husbands.
I’m shaking my head at the complete ignorance of that statement. “When they didn’t wish to become mothers, married or unmarried, they chose to avoid sexual intercourse.” Yes, in a just, ideal world, that’s what would happen. But that’s not how things are. Coercion happens on a continuum, from the aggressive act of stranger rape to the boyfriend saying, “Come on, if you loove me, you’ll do it without a condom.” Why? Lack of respect for women.
And my point before, which was lost on you, is that women today who make the decision to live in “barrier-free, marital bliss” and implicitly condemn other lifestyles are privileged indeed. Guess what? Some women HAVE to work to support their kids, and can’t get risk getting pregnant. Some women CAN’T monitor their internal temperatures because their bodies aren’t healthy. And some women don’t even choose to be pregnant. But ah yes, women are completely capable of consenting to sex, yet when they wash up on the abortion provider doors, they’re completely helpless fools. Which is it?
Well, I’d intended for this to be my last comment, but Megan has finally responded to my comments again. I think I’ll wait until tomorrow though, before responding. I need time to contemplate what she’s said and form a civil, thoughtful response.
In the meantime, my original reaction to this video reminds me a great deal of my reaction to two incidents within the past 10 years. Perhaps it’s not super important, but somehow, I think I ought to say this.
In the first, I had been on active duty in the Air Force for close to two years. I’d been to several R-rated movies, had grown accustomed to the idea that people die in war, and had prepared myself to some degree for what I might ultimately need to do. In short, I thought I was ready to take on a war. …Then I saw the execution scene in “The Green Mile”. In spite of all my “preparation” for gruesome sights, I felt shaken to the core of my being after those three minutes or so. Honestly, I wondered over the next few days if I’d be capable of ordering someone to a certain death if I had the military need.
In the second, I’d been deployed to Iraq for 4 months, had addressed life in tent city, and though our air base had only been “attacked” perhaps 3 or 4 times, I felt relieved to return to my overseas duty station. Well, one Army unit wasn’t so lucky, so when they returned home to Germany, AFN (Armed Forces Network) Radio REALLY celebrated. I had quit listening to AFN by then, I’d grown weary of the same old depressing news; I routinely listened to CDs I bought from St Joseph Communications. Well, I chanced to tune to AFN, just to hear what might be going on one day; AFN had worked with several spouses of returning servicemembers to provide voice-overs to Lonestar’s(?) “I’m Already There”. While I’m still not married and wasn’t technically involved, I WAS suddenly reminded of my niece (first God-daughter) whom I hadn’t seen in 18 months and whom I wouldn’t see yet for another 6. Now, perhaps I’m prone to crying more easily than some, but I gotta tell you, THAT thought hit me like a freight train. I do not recall now if I had to pull over to recollect myself, but I DO remember that I half bawled the rest of the way home. Suffice to say, that one hit home. HARD.
I honestly didn’t precisely WANT to watch this whole video. After the first 30 seconds or so, my insides had already begun crawling. I had to school my reactions to some degree, force myself to watch it and acknowledge the horror I felt. And the rage.
I guess my point is this: I’ve heard many complaints over the past 10 years about how we shouldn’t be exposing these kinds of images to public view. I understand full well that people don’t like to see this.
Even so, I must agree that we must do this. If we don’t, we can’t readily end abortion. I really think we’ll have to have many “mowed-down-mentally-by-a-freight-train” moments before people will realize that this practice IS a horror. Far worse truth than the worst horror movie that Hollywood might concoct.
Good Morning,
So, Megan, you believe I’ve had my head buried in the sand? I must surely believe that everyone enjoyed intense marital bliss prior to women’s lib? OK……
I don’t pretend to understand where you got that notion. Well, correction, I DO have an idea of the source; I had hoped I wouldn’t need to confront you on those grounds.
The other night, I asked you about your understanding of marriage. I did so for a reason: Your views seem to reject most possibility of any concept of marriage that’s related to spiritual concerns. Your comments don’t say it directly, but strongly imply a view of marriage purely as a legal and social construct. Essentially, “marriage” consists of a State provision for men and women to mate, bear children if they choose, enjoy tax breaks and related benefits, and grow old and die, all with relatively little harassment from either State or society. I also see a very strong interest in what I’d describe as a rabidly feminist view: You seem to insist that a State ought to be rigorous in enforcing marital rape laws and similar concerns, but to butt out entirely regarding anything else. In this view, the State ought to be involved in marriage primarily as a means of transforming society into a vision that you seek. In a sense, I understand that, but there’s a real problem here…
While I understand your angst with society’s expectations, I’m forced to challenge your idea that the State ought to be prodding society to change. I truly wonder whether some advocates truthfully understand what all they’re proposing.
We can definitely agree that society (and State) has frequently handled human sexuality and marriage only very poorly. Even within the past 150 years, Victorian values did not handle these properly. Unfortunately, the 1960’s rebellion didn’t help anything. Remember that when the State intervenes in anything, whomever creates the law must place a priority on something. Something must be encouraged or discouraged, some value must be placed on something; something must be enforced in some manner.
In various discussions I’ve had with pro-choice advocates, much trouble seems to revolve around differing views of the relationships between men and women. Many times I’ve been (subtlely or openly) accused of “discrimination” and “sexism”. This, even while the other advocates for the virtues of the Constitution, Church/State Separation, and how all we “evil” Christians (and other faiths) need to let go of our “old-fashioned” and “medieval” notions. VERY ironic!
(Seeing that the very same Constitution provides for a republican democracy, but these ideas have never been subjected to an actual vote of We, the People, at large, these accusations are rather hypocritical too, but that doesn’t seem to matter.)
How do we enforce laws against marital rape, etc, without inherently bringing the State into the bedroom as a witness? How do we provoke husbands and wives to respect each other and treat each other as human beings? How do we force people to behave as human beings with reason, not as pieces of meat (animals, in other words) that can be exploited for one’s own self gratification? Each of these difficulties involved a conflict of values. How do we require people to behave according to reasonable values without having the State declare what “values” can be to some degree?
I don’t think we can.
So, ultimately, either we must all worship a secular State–not going to happen–or else we must pick and choose those values that’re most essential to our society.
We choose to address abortion, “safe sex”, and gay “marriage” primarily because, for one thing, they’re current battle lines, but also because they’re the VERY LEAST interference possible by the State without simply abandoning any semblance of morals entirely or imposing one religion’s rules.
Civil rights can’t happen in any fashion if one isn’t alive in the first place.
(By the way, I’ve heard suggestions that ultimately, the Supreme Court may be unable to uphold Roe primarily because the rationale for the decision may be summarily undermined by scientific fact. Fact that comes about, in part, from research done on fetal tissue from abortions, or something similar…. Oops.)
Pardon me.
I don’t remember for sure why it was that Roe might be rendered void, thus overturned by default. A comment on the matter stuck out because the cause didn’t come from the pro-life side. Seems like it came from some practice or fact related to something the abortion industry enabled, like medical research. I don’t remember how it worked though.
My apologies.
this is the most disgusing thing i have ever seen in my life .God have mercy on the people that are doing this to there babies and the people performing this act …How could anyone do this to a baby ???? God have mercy on them couse the fires of hell well welcome them with open arms .God bless the little children and forgive the ones that did this for they no not what they do .God touch and lead them to the right path to stop this and save theses babies and not do this to them anymore ..There are maney familys that would love to have babies that cant ,,there is another opation to them not wanting to have there babies they can give them to someone that wants them .
Thank you ,
Trish Toler
If we overestimate our possibilities and abilities in life, we usually end up with “good”.If we underestimate them, we almost always end up with bad.
“Good” is not good enough. “Good” is a RESULT of striving for excellence. “Bad” is the usually the result of just trying to be good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Those who strive to be “just good enough” underestimate those who strive for excellence, and fail, and end up with good. Too bad; Only God can judge the heart.
The groups can be permeable; striving for excellence always is always difficult, and not always done. None can afford to lose sight of “excellence”, which is always difficult, but never impossible.
–did you see how nicely the cloth was folded over the torn and bloody baby? As if technique trumps the supposed bone and muscle of a hominid. But we are more than this; we are humans that have the ability to believe in something better–and “Yes!”–there is a better way to handle this situation. We are not the First Cause or the unmoved Mover, and we are not just a teleological experiment! But we are life that knows life and consciousness simultaneously–and this is a gift from the numinous benefactor.
this video is really disgusting. im all for showing pictures of aborted babies but this is really awful. i wouldnt show it to anyone, is nothing sacred anymore? there is a reason why your genitals are called your privates because they should be kept private.
Abortion is a physical horror and spiritual suicide for everyone involved in the killing of the child. But in spite of the physical horror, as a sidewalk counselor, I still feel more grief and misery for the mother and father choosing this path, and everyone who decieves them and encourages them into this “choice”.
The child is innocent, and has not offended God. Everyone else in that clinic who walks out alive is in grave danger of spending eternity in Hell.
THOSE WHO SEEM TO DESERVE LOVE THE LEAST OFTEN NEED IT THE MOST!!! LOVE AND LOTS OF PRAYER!
I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
that is the hottest abortion video i have ever seen
In a nutshell, Pro-Choice for life… keep the amens in church and the real needed hate for the real monsters-rapers, murderers and molesters.
and i mean murderers “real murderers” as in cowards… Not the Doctors that Help women, mr. prolifers.
Pro-Life for life. “Pro-Choice” is just the position that you support the legality of a parent opting to have their child killed. It’s not technically murder now, since it’s currently legal, but it is none-the-less deplorable and SHOULD be illegal. I don’t keep my “amens” anywhere since I’m not religious. But I do HATE abortion. Doctors that “help” women kill their children are wrong, just like the women wanting their children dead are wrong to feel that way and seek that out.
And that is MRS. Pro-Lifer, to you.
I guess if she says good enough times it makes it alright!!
just as they use the latin term fetus rather than say unborn baby to make the child seem less human, notice how the abortionist uses an awkward clamp to pull the child from the womb. I suppose if the abortionist felt life, movement, struggle, or fight it would be hard to deny its a baby dying at their hands.
Anybody heard of the book, Our Bodies Ourselves”? My ex-husband’s girlfriend gave it to my 15 year old daughter as a gift. I decided to check it out just because of the way they live their lives, it was disgusting. One girl talked about having two abortions so nonchalantly, and the sex talk was unbelievable, I ripped that book up like no tomorrow and burned the remains!
Carmel350:
Hopefully you first had a friendly, but firm, sit-down chat with your daughter RE the serious errors in the book?