Stanek weekend question II: What do abortion proponents need to make it acceptable?
This question is philosophical. In his book, The God Who is There, Finding Your Place in God’s Story, D. A. Carson writes:
Genesis 3 shows what we most need. If you are a Marxist, what you need are revolutionaries and decent economists. If you are a psychologist, what you need is an army of counselors. If you think that the root of all breakdown and disorder is medical, what you really need is large numbers of Mayo Clinics. But if our first and most serious need is to be reconciled to God… then what we need the most, though we may have all of these other derivative needs, is to be reconciled to him. We need someone to save us.
This got me thinking. What exactly are abortion proponents searching for that will legitimize abortion? That is their ultimate goal, isn’t it? The fight isn’t just to keep abortion legal, it’s also to destigmatize it.
So what is it they need to achieve that ambition?
Or conversely, what exactly is it that keeps acceptance of abortion elusive, even 38 years after it was legalized?
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.
In a word:
Narcissism.
Nothing will ever make it legitimate because prenatal homicide is a fundamental violation of human rights.
Jill – they need a statist government that condones/pushes abortion – like China.
They need to convince everyone that the unborn child is not human and therefore not an issue. They’ve been trying to do just that for decades, with some success. However, scientific advances that reveal the humanity of the child in the womb keep making it more and more difficult for them to convince people.
What do abortion proponents need to make it acceptable?”
Mass delusions, because most people in their “right” mind cannot accept the slaughter of innocent human beings. That’s why most people are horrified by pictures and talk of the atrocities of the Holocaust, and the same for things like the atrocities of the slaughter in Rwanda, and even the Jonestown Massacre. Once you SEE abortion, how can it STILL be “acceptable” to you???
It’s already legitimate because it is embedded into our legal and cultural institutions. As for making it more palatable or acceptable to people who don’t like it, I don’t see that as a priority. There are plenty of things that are far less acceptable on a personal level to most Americans, but they are legitimate because they are constitutionally and institutionally protected. America is a nation of laws and not men. That’s why the entire approach of your movement is so wrong-headed; it’s a populist movement trying to sway public opinion on a matter that is not accessible or subject to modification by public opinion.
Even PA people admit they supposedly want abortion to be rare. Why?? They insist on being called PC. Why? All in an effort to make abortion more palatable to the public. Sorry, but you just can’t get away from what it is.
Its like trying to “justify” a rape by saying the victim “asked for it”. Gee, then the assault wasn’t quite so bad. Or wife abuse by suggesting that “good” wives aren’t beaten. Genocide or forced relocation is “ethnic cleansing” or “race purification”.
Try as we might there are just some things that cannot be sanitized.
It’s already legitimate because it is embedded into our legal and cultural institutions to kill innocent human beings.
There – fixed that for you joan.
BTW – did you notice that you prove my point I made earlier about abortion-supporters need a statist solution? Your quote – my emphasis:
The only reason a people cannot change government, is when it is no longer their own.
This got me thinking. What exactly are abortion proponents searching for that will legitimize abortion? That is their ultimate goal, isn’t it? The fight isn’t just to keep abortion legal, it’s also to destigmatize it.
Jill, this is at the core of our fallen nature, our rationalizing sin. In the case of abortion for many it is the outgrowth of rationalizing concupiscence. That is why young men are the biggest proponents of legal abortion. Gerard has it right when he says “narcissim”.
People will be trying forever to make abortion right and will never succeed. Some will come to see how wrong they are and embrace the sacredness of the child in the womb. Others will keep on trying to justify abortion their whole lives through. The battle is primarily spiritual.
Joan, that’s the same case the slaveholders used to make for slavery
“BTW – did you notice that you prove my point I made earlier about abortion-supporters need a statist solution?”
If constitutional protections are statist, where does that leave free speech rights? An absolute direct democracy wouldn’t really need a constitution at all, would it?
“The battle is primarily spiritual.”
For a battle that is “primarily spiritual”, I sure see a lot of hand-wringing over pro-life legislative and judicial failures.
This is a tough question. I don’t know what pro-choicers will need. I won’t say that they want anything terrible to sweep through- I cannot say that pro-choicers want a statist government. Maybe pro-choicers disagree with this very question amongst themselves.
Perhaps it would be easier for us here to discuss what is necessary for abortion to end. There’s a lot that we can do about that. :)
constitutional protections? You seem to forget Roe v Wade was cut entirely from judicial cloth (based on faulty evidence) and was never legislated by the people.
Ultimately joan, you’ll have to deal with the LORD, then you’ll know what justice, choice, mercy and grace is really all about.
How you come to know is fully up to you.
Making it ubiquitous. They want to put it in every hospital and OB-GYN office as if it were any other “reproductive health” service so women will be desensitized to it. Keeping abortion in separate facilities helps women realize there’s something wrong and different about it. If they can get one from their regular doctor, it feels more like any other medical thing, like going to the doctor for a sinus infection or a wart removal.
I think desensitization is the same reason OB-GYNs push so many young women to go on birth control pills for their acne or “regulating” their periods. Even ones who aren’t sexually active will feel like it’s safe since they’re already on the pill. So even if they figure out the pill causes abortions, then… what’s wrong with that? You’ve already had who knows how many of these “potential babies” die inside you, and didn’t “feel” anything, so there must be nothing wrong with it.
So true about narcissism. They also need to deaden the hearts and consciences of enough people for enough generations so that the baby is utterly despised and all thoughts of the baby’s humanity are extinguished. They have not succeeded thus far because science (and truth) is not on their side. We can see the baby and hear the baby and we cannot ignore or deny what we see and hear. Pro-aborts must appeal to the supposed superiority of the woman and continue to dehumanize the baby, while science continues to make the life in the womb even more visible, tangible, and awe-inspiring.
I am not sure this offers an answer to the question of what U.S. abortion proponents need to do in order to make child killing acceptable but…
There have been places where abortion was both widely available and carried zero social stigma. I have read that one of those places was soviet era Russia. The abortion rate in the USSR peaked in 1964, when 5.6 million abortions were performed in a single year. Even today Russia has the highest number of abortions per woman of any country (including China).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
I ought to leave it to others to explain why there was no social stigma…but I think it had to do with the (brutally enforced) stigma against any kind of political descent, generalized de-humanization (like genocide), and the lack of prosperity. Oh, and atheism was the official religion.
The USSR…a land just dripping with “freedom of choice”…NOT!
I agree with Gerard about narcissism. We are well on our way with that. I also think a deadening of the God-given human conscience is another need pro-aborts need in order to legitimize it.
I think what they had to do is make the American woman feel like they were indeed her helper while they assisted her in the killing of her children. I think thats why it is so important that the victims of this line realize the importance that money plays in this sick sick game. I think when they have a further understanding that these are tax monies that could be used to help them and their children they will fully understand the treachery of someone using their taxes to set fancy tables while their own children perished. Fear was another ploy they used very effectively to play both sides. They convinced the potential aborter that she was a victim and they convinced the american taxpayer that they were in effect helping them to rid society of its ills(?). It’s psychology used to harm and not help that enabled them to reach the point that they are at now. The great (?) thinkers.
What they need is a continuation of hypocrisy. That people won’t see the disconnect between holding baby showers and “eating for two”, and countenancing abortion.
More and more will no longer tolerate it. Just as racism whithered the more we saw our similarities outnumbered our differences.
If we keep persevering, things will slowly change. Eventually, abortion can go the way of the spittoon.
Vannah
I think what we would need to do for abortion to end or to seriously decrease is to give those who are tempted to abort the same type of support the proponents of death get. And to make sure that those who are victimized by abortion have access to good legal representation.
For a battle that is “primarily spiritual”, I sure see a lot of hand-wringing over pro-life legislative and judicial failures. Joan.
Joan: Check out the word “primarily”. That does not exclude political action.
There are also those who justify abortion based upon one-dimensional certitude. They are so certain of their position, say for example a doctrinaire “woman’s right” to abortion, that no more thought about it is necessary. And that others cannot see it their way, well, they are idiots. Every age has people who for one reason or another cannot think in a multi-dimensional way–it is a though they have a mental block and cannot conceive of the possiblility that there is any other way of looking at things. But the really hard core pro-aborts are those who have deadened their consciences, those who have the capability to understand that abortion is the taking the life of an unborn child but nevertheless are so invested in abortion that they would see it as self-defeating to admit the error of their thinking. Pride.
…but they are legitimate because they are constitutionally and institutionally protected.
Except abortion is not constitutionally protected. “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” Look! The right to life is in the constitution. Unless it’s been recently removed, abortion is a violation of the supreme law of the land.
America is a nation of laws and not men.
I think Abraham Lincoln disagrees with you there. “of the people, by the people, for the people,” and such.
As for what pro-aborts need, maybe they could use a magical geanie to wish for the unborn not to be human, the public to swallow all of their garbage, and abortion to actually be good for women.
joan, some things from the UN’s universal declaration of human rights.
Regarding the ”wrong-headedness” of our movement:
-Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
-The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
Regarding abortion in general:
-Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
-Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
-Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
-All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
So, using the UN, abortion is a human rights violation. Maybe that’s what
keeps acceptance of abortion elusive, even 38 years after it was legalized.
They need to dehumanize. To separate people into their individual parts, and to quantify those parts on a scale of usefulness. If they can really get us to accept the idea that we are quantitative as the mere sum of our parts, they can get us to accept abortion as an option. The approach can’t focus primarily on abortion, but on all health care, broken into aspects of usefulness and rationed based on our potential. For all that they want to blame us for the concept of “potential life”, it is a pro-choice lie that we are only so good as our potential function within society.
If we continue to spread the understanding that people are more than their acquisitions, that our bodies are more than simply functioning machines to keep us stable, that there is an inherent sanctity to human life, then abortion advocates will never be able to de-stigmatize abortion.
The abortion proponents will not be satisfied until the confessionals in every Catholic Church are converted into “operation” rooms for abortions.
Moral relativism.
As long as a critical mass of Americans still believed in the notions of ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’, abortion was always going to remain controversial. ‘Pro choice’ is based on the strange idea that every woman who gets pregnant is a sort of unquestionable moral god, able to unilaterally confer personhood, or not, on the child that they are carrying. Particularly during the last few months of the pregnancy, that’s a hard sell. Most Americans will look at pictures of babies in the 7th or 8th month – babies that would be legally protected were they born prematurely – and feel very uncomfortable about allowing their mothers to unilaterally deny them the the status of personhood.
What exactly are abortion proponents searching for that will legitimize abortion? That is their ultimate goal, isn’t it? The fight isn’t just to keep abortion legal, it’s also to destigmatize it.
Abortioneers want children to be indoctrinated, especially young tween and teen girls – they want to make them think that abortion is there for them to make them better women in an unfair male dominated world.
They also have destigmatize generations of young men and their parents – the parents who drive the girl friend or daughter – sometimes even by force to the abortion clinic that will exterminate the “product of conception” their son deposited inside the poor girl.
The pro abortion side has already been successful in converting 3/4 of the African American population including the so called conservative black American clergy – just as Margret Sanger and her society ladies planned it out.
what exactly is it that keeps acceptance of abortion elusive, even 38 years after it was legalized?
Christ’s Blessing
It’s actually very similar to the fight for homosexual marriage. Currently, homosexuals are free to live as they wish. They may do whatever they want, including living together and having a wedding ceremony. The only thing they do not have is state recognition and public sanctification. And that’s exactly what they want. The abortion proponents want the same thing. They don’t just want abortion to be 100% legal – they want every institution in society to tell them that abortion is a good thing. The homosexual activists want Christian churches to perform gay marriages with the support of the state, and the abortion proponents want Christian churches to support the killing of unborn human beings.
I think what makes it elusive is that except for the American Indian we are a nation of immigrants. At one time in our nations history we were in need of mercy and a nation was born not aborted. If there were a genetic marker for mercy and if nations could possess it I would say we are predisposed genetically to mercy and abortion does not fit in with our national identity. That’s why we not only fight to overcome the proponents of death but in the end we triumph.
The thing that maintains a cultural stigma about abortion is the high minded reverence that most people have for both individuality and human life. Abortion will never be accepted as just another medical procedure as long as we as a culture reverence and value individual human lives in the many various ways we do. (We still have lots of room for improvement in this regard.)
If pro-aborts are going to succeed at de-stigmatizing abortion they will have to destroy this sense of sanctity for life which most people hold in their hearts. Even pro-choicers have this feeling…which is why they feel abortion ought to be rare while at the same time also freely available. (Yes, it is wacky double think.)
Unfortunately, it is entirely possible for the destruction of this sense of sanctity for life to be accomplished across an entire culture…and it has in various parts of the world at different times.
I’ve scanned all the comments thus far, and I think we are missing the mark.
The holy grail of making abortion acceptible is some sort of convincing proof that abortion has ended poverty, enhanced feminine dignity, empowered women to be more noble and more feminine, etc. They want some proof that our lives are much better, now that we have enjoyed a generation of widespread, legalized abortion.
The evidence isn’t there. We have a generation of walking wounded — We have women scarred physically and emotionally by abortion. We have broken marriages and single parents, unable to commit to each other. And we have a generation of young people who are righteously angry that no one protected them when they were most vulnerable and a quarter of their generation was murdered. This is why acceptance of abortion is so elusive, and abortion will eventually go the way of chattel slavery — another embarrassing phase of our history.
Andrew, great comment, well said! Del too. I’m very encouraged by the comments here.
Joan, the law is made to serve man, not man to serve the law. We are not cogs in a machine. We are members of a community. Abortion will never be completely de-stigmatized, no matter how many children are killed. Especially post abortive parents realize: A member of the family dies during the abortion. Someone is missing, not some thing. When my child was killed, 4 grandparents were robbed of the love of their grandchild. A father was robbed of the love of his daughter. Aunts and uncles, cousins, all were robbed.
After a close family member died, I counted for a while my un-made phone calls. As in, “Oh, I would have made about 12 calls by now” after some time had passed. 12 opportunities to talk and share, gone forever. When we lose a child through abortion, how can you count the loss? How many hugs the grandparents did not receive? How many laughs the father did not hear? How many kisses not kissed? The loss is uncountable. I am not pro-life because of religion, but because of biological fact. However, being Christian, I know that only God knows the depth and breadth of this loss. The power of God to restore must be awesome beyond human comprehension. How sweet it will be.
They need to somehow refute the stories of thousands and thousands of those hurt by abortion. Those that have personally experienced the horror of it and will regret the death of their children for the rest of their lives. Oh, and they will need to somehow shut up all of those who are Silent No More.
Not gonna happen.
joan says: March 12, 2011 at 11:51 am
1. “America is a nation of laws and not men.
2. “That’s why the entire approach of your movement is so wrong-headed; it’s a populist movement trying to sway public opinion on a matter that is not accessible or subject to modification by public opinion.”
==============================================================
1. As log as the ‘men/women’ are obeying/enforcing the ‘law’ with which you agree and not obeying/enforcing the ‘law’ with which you dis-agree.
The ‘more than equals’ have no problem setting aside logic, reason, truth and the ‘law’ is but a molehill which they leap over in a single bound.
2. If the killing pre-natal children is of no consequence to the teeming masses and therefore their sensabilities are not subject to or even accessible to being swayed then why are you commenting here?
Do you delude yourself into believing that your fatuous scatologies may disuade or even discourage us.
Keep tilting at that windmill missy and one day you may be fortunate enough to hear the ‘pop’ which will be an indication that your cranium has been liberated from the terminus of your alimentary canal. [Be sure and keep you eyes closed until you can cover them with your hands. After being in the dark for so long the sudden exposure to the ‘light and the truth’ may cause excruciating pain.]
Focus on the embryo and not the fetus.
If I was the pro-choice movement my PR strategy would be to convince the public that I could reduce the gestational age when abortion occurs. I would show pictures of embryos in actual size. I would point out that an embryo can’t feel pain or fear and that it can be miscarried anyway, so that you won’t really know whether it would have resulted in a live birth or not.
The abortion pictures are gruesome, that’s why people get so emotional about them. A fetus looks human, while an embryo does not. Yes, it’s an intellectually dishonest position but a lot of people are intellectually dishonest and think with their gut, not their heart. Also, a lot of people believe that life develops gradually so such an approach would work for them.
“The abortion pictures are gruesome, that’s why people get so emotional about them. A fetus looks human, while an embryo does not.”
Can’t agree with you there. Looking at pictures closely of an embryo was what really got me involved in the movement. I couldn’t believe that we were still claiming “not a person” with someone that looked so much like a baby at such a young age! I was amazed at how young we have discernible hands, faces, feet, etc. If they just try the “push it back” approach we will eventually abolish abortion.
But then, Carla is right, in order for abortion to be acceptable,
“they will need to somehow shut up all of those who are Silent No More.
Not gonna happen.”
To God, we are all human and looks don’t matter. As far as fetal pain, haven’t you ever watched even the insignificant insect try to squirm and run away right before you stepped on it? How much more is one of God’s precious and innocent children worth to Him? How much must they struggle to try and escape death before we will admit that all of them deserve to be treated as gifts from God and protected?
It’s not a question of “legitimizing” abortion or making it”acceptible” Pro-choicers are simply realistic,unlike anti-choicers. And they have infinitely more compassion for the unborn than those who arrogantly demand that every woman be forced to bear a child no matter what the disastrous consequences of this.
Pro-choicers relize that making abortion illegal does not only fail to stop it, but increases it and causes disaster for so many people. We realize that the only way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to provide much more help for the poor,unlike anti-choicers who foolishly think that they can stop abortion merely by making it illegal.
Anti-choicers use their emotions rather than common sense. They are so appalled by abortion,but fail to realize how catastrophic trying to stop it by making it illegal is. They just don’t think further. And don’t realize how catastrophic bringing children itno the world who are doomed to abject poverty,malnutrition,lack of education and opportunity is.
No pro-choicer is happy to see abortions happening,and none wants to increase their numbers. But no poor woman wants to see her child grow up in abject poverty.That’s why abortion is so common. The more poverty there is in the world,the more abortions.The less poverty there is,the fewer abortions.It’s as that.
Gee, you’d think after all these decades of abortion in so many countries that poverty would have been eradicated by now. I guess they just aren’t killing enough, eh Robert?
Robert, if in NYC, 6 out of every 10 black children are killed before they’re born, why isn’t Harlem paradise on earth? And with all the forced abortion in China, how come they aren’t experiencing an influx of immigrants just clamoring to live in their utopia? In fact, when does your flight leave for Beijing??
Wow, Robert, what a fascinating piece of fiction you wrote. Not one true statement in the whole thing. That must have taken some doing.
Robert Berger,
Pro-choicers relize that making abortion illegal does not only fail to stop it, but increases it …
If anything, making abortion illegal will decrease its frequency. What is your reasoning for the opposite?
Pro-choicers are simply realistic,unlike anti-choicers.
Anti-choicers use their emotions rather than common sense.
Wow, I’d say it’s the opposite. Do you have concrete evidence that abortion can lessen the amount of poverty, malnutrition, lack of education and opportunity for poor children brought into the world?
By the way, Robert, pro-lifers do not “demand that every woman be forced to bear a child.” Pregnancy doesn’t “just happen.” They know what causes it now, or haven’t you heard. Check the medical sites and I’m sure you can find an explanation.
Ninek, excellent response. Here comes Robert Berger again… better to kill a kid than for him or her not to live in a huge house and own every toy on the planet. I’ve heard women who are not poor at all claim that they want an abortion because they can’t provide their child with “the kind of lifestyle” they want to. Its better to be dead than not have designer clothes and the newest toys on the market? WHAT?
Robert, Margaret Sanger would be so proud of you. She also thought it was good to kill born babies in poor families.
And they have infinitely more compassion for the unborn
Huh. I guess I’ve been doing this compassion thing wrong the whole time. I’ve been giving to charity and helping ppeople improve their lives, when I should be going into poor neighborhoods and ripping people limb from limb.
Could someone please explain to me how these two pro-abortion arguments manage to co-exist?
Pro-abort Argument 1: Poverty is the cause of abortion.
Pro-abort Argument 2: If you outlaw abortion in this country, the rich will just go to some other country where abortion is legal for their abortions.
Am I missing something?
Well there are two things I see abortion advocates do to try and legitimize it. They like to put all of the attention on the woman and make her look like she is the victim. It is the man and the woman that are responsible for creating the child, yet the child is treated like they are victimizing the woman by taking away her choice. It’s not the baby’s fault the mother is pregnant, whatever problems pregnancy has caused, it has been caused by her and her partner’s actions. So it’s not fair to fix it by taking it out on the baby. I’ve heard words used like ‘parasite’, calling pregnant women ‘human incubators’. These kind of words take the humanity from the unborn and stir up emotions toward the woman. Even the word fetus takes away from the warmth of personhood as if it’s not a human but some other kind of life. The word fetus makes the unborn sound less desirable, like something you wouldn’t want in your body.
I notice that whenever parents are looking forward to a child they call it a baby but when they don’t want it it’s usually called a fetus. Baby is often used in a positive way while fetus in the negative. Language goes a long way and the more these kind of words are tossed around the easier it is to deny any rights to the unborn.
Another thing I see a lot is empathy for the unborn. The pro-choice crowd will argue that the child is better off aborted then to grow up with hardships, such as living in an orphanage, living in poverty, or being born with a disability. Although none of them ever argue to kill born children who live under these conditions. It seems that the unborn are the only group which it’s okay to decide for them if their lives are worth living or if they would be better off dead.
I don’t think they all say this just to rationalize abortion, I think some people genuinely believe that mercy killing is the right choice. I think this is the power of human emotions and what can happen when arguments are built on misguided emotions. Suddenly that empathy the pro-aborts garner for the unborn makes abortion the right choice and it makes anyone who objects to this seem heartless towards the mother and the unborn.
Someone hasn’t done their homework before commenting. And also forgot common sense. Didn’t plan on commenting, but can’t let this pro-choice blabber go unnoticed…
“Pro-choicers are simply realistic and they have infinitely more compassion for the unborn.”
Your compassion can only be described as mercy-killing. Unborn, however young, ARE HUMAN BEINGS, and terminating their lives IS killing. No compassion here.
“those who arrogantly demand that every woman be forced to bear a child no matter what the disastrous consequences of this.”
Well, first of all, noone FORCED the woman to get pregnant, everyone knows that sex makes babies and she knew her risk before commiting to have sex.
Tell me ONE of your so called “disastrous” consequences of childbearing. Most mothers after giving birth, no matter their circumstances, are absolutely thrilled and overjoyed holding the baby in their arms. And those who really truly can’t afford to raise a child (even with help from CPC’s, benefits, etc) always have an option to give the baby for adoption, there are 2 million families waiting to adopt in the US alone!!!!
“Pro-choicers relize that making abortion illegal does not only fail to stop it, but increases it and causes disaster for so many people. “
Making abortion illegal would INCREASE it??? How did you figure that out??? Ask some women who had an abortion whether they would have done it if it was illegal and you’ll have your answer. If abortion was illegal, it would deter many women from getting one and they would look at other options (help for raising the baby, adoption, etc). Also look at statistics, after abortion was legalized, the abortion numbers shot through the roof in just a couple of years!
“Anti-choicers use their emotions rather than common sense.”
Ha! Good one! Actually we use SCIENCE (way better than common sense), which proves that an unborn child is a LIVE, UNIQUE, HUMAN BEING! THAT is the main argument.
“And don’t realize how catastrophic bringing children itno the world who are doomed to abject poverty,malnutrition,lack of education and opportunity is.”
For your information (haven’t done your homework, I know), the majority of abortions are done NOT because of poverty, but because the mother is either coerced into this decision by pressure from parents/boyfriends/employers/etc, the other half thinks that having a child would interfere with their lifestyle/education/other plans, some young girls are getting abortions, because they are embarassed to tell their parents that they’re sexually active. Your doom and gloom prediction is very far removed from the reality. And even the children who ARE born into poverty can make a great lives for themselves in the future. As it was with Dani Johnson, who was raised on welfare, pregnant at 17, homeless at 21 and a millionaire by 23, and who gives SO much back to the community now. You would have just aborted her, I mean, she would have been born into poverty, and that is a sentence for life, right? I shudder to think how many smart, compassionate, successful people have been exterminated since abortion came into play…
“But no poor woman wants to see her child grow up in abject poverty.”
Let me paraphrase it – No poor woman wants to see her child die in an abortion! The ones that choose the abortion because of poverty haven’t been offered other options, like giving the child up to a loving family or getting material help with raising of the child. Ask any mother if she would rather see her child poor or dead, she would choose poverty anytime! And also, if we’re talking about developed world, the abject poverty is not that common anymore, most countries have some welfare/benefits programs to help those in need. So your “malnutrition and no education” comment doesn’t really apply.
“The more poverty there is in the world,the more abortions.The less poverty there is,the fewer abortions.”
Please provide the evidence – abortion statistics and so on, otherwise your words are just that – words. By the way, if I followed your logic, it would mean that USA, UK, Japan, Russia are some of the poorest countries in the world, right? Well they have so many abortions, they must be really poor!
Sydney, amen!
There is a website (I won’t name it here because it’s refreshingly free of trolls usually) where young women talk about abortion, regret, and some post on there when they are considering abortion. I have seen with my own eyes young women who want to kill their babies so they won’t get fat. One gal wanted to have one so she wouldn’t be ‘fat on her wedding day.’ Buy a bigger dress, for cryin’ out loud. Women are not all having abortions because they are poor and in trouble. It’s horrifying.
Joan, do you really believe that legality of a putative institution is what makes something legitimate?
Do I really need to bring out the nuclear option?
You are aware that every last activity that falls under the Endlosung was legal in Nazi Germany? The government passed laws that stripped the Jews of their Germanness, they passed laws taking away their guns, they passed laws forcing them to wear yellow stars, they passed laws denying them the right to private ownership and property, etc.
Chris’ point about your statist solution had nothing to do with Roe v Wade, and everything to do with your argument that abortion is utterly out of the locus of control of those of us who wish to see the judicial framework overturned. Nazi Germany was itself a democratic government, at least until the war started. The Holocaust was legal. Roe v Wade is not democratic, it is an autocratic fiat. If you truly appreciated democratic institutions, you too would be demanding that Roe be tossed out, allowing each state to put the matter to a vote. Your desire to prop it up says that you rather prefer oligarchy, one that requires infant sacrifice.
And if the pro-life movement is populist doesn’t mean that the masses are not so much as swayed by it, but convinced and support it freely, not succumbing to have truths hidden behind self-serving lies?
What they need to do is create an institution/device/plan/way of life that can stand against a Holy God – which is something pro abortion will never acheive. There will always be a stigma surrounding abortion because it is a sin. All mankind is aware of the presence of God whether or not they admit that knowledge openly. No matter how much a woman says she is happy about her abortion, she knows exactly what she has done, that is, killed her offspring. Until all women are afflicted with a seared conscience, there will be stigma, guilt, pain, and shame. While pro abortion may succeed in keeping abortion legal, they will never be able to remove stigma.