Fertility is the ability to conceive and have children. An abortion removes the ability to deliver a child in a particular instance. The same as using contraception. One prevents conception, one reverses it. Fertility continues.
~Commenter Reality on Stanek’s “Priceless: Pro-aborts to protest Joe Scheidler tribute” thread, April 3
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
Reverse-conception. The abortion industry deserves a Nobel prize for science. They seem to discover a new science every week.
Those are not the same thing…reversing conception? It destroys what has been conceived, if it reversed it then time would be moving back and forth a whole lot.
wow. reverse contraception! Who knew?
Here we prolifers have been blind all these years. :-/
Abortion is “reverse contraception”. And this person uses the moniker “Reality”?
Not only are proaborts gross ignoramuses, they are completely delusional.
“Fertility continues.” Tell that to all the women (like me) who were or are unable to become or remain pregnant after aborting a child!
Reality is an ignoramus. Let’s take up a collection and send this deluded individual to school. As UNCF states: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Ignorance isn’t what is driving this. Hate is. Hatred of men and babies alike. Hatred of religion and family values alike.
Thank you, Reality!
All of these years grieving the baby that was killed in my abortion and the two that died in my miscarriages……..whew. What a relief to know that it was just a simple reversal!!
A load off my mind. Really.
“Reverse conception”
Wow… so abortion is really just time travel? Or sci-fi? Those pro-aborts get more desperate every day. This one takes the cake.
I think every murderer in America should just claim that they “reversed conception.”
“You stabbed the victim 18 times, and she died in agony.”
“I merely reversed conception!”
Jacqueline, point taken. : )
I do see a good bit of “reversing” going on, though. If conception means that a life is present, abortion means that it is absent. If the situation is an unwanted pregnancy, abortion brings about the wanted situation – not being pregnant. If contraception prevents conception, then abortion reverses the effect of it, taking us from pregnant to not pregnant.
charming canuck: if it reversed it then time would be moving back and forth a whole lot.
; ) Point taken here too, but “time travel” really isn’t a requisite. A car, moving in one direction, can be reversed by different forces, no going back in time involved. One drug may reverse the effects of another, same deal. If one case is the presence of a pregnancy, what more of a reversal can there then be, but going to the second case of no pregnancy being pregnant?
So… if abortion is just “reversed conception,” then what is miscarriage? Accidental reversed conception?
Wow, if women have the magical power to reverse conception, we should have the ability to speed it up, too! Let’s tell all women to speed up gestation times to, oh, two weeks, and then abortion wouldn’t be necessary because the burden becomes a lot less. All women have to do is carry a baby for two weeks and presto! A full-term baby ready for adoption by a loving couple. Right?
(Reality, might I suggest Biology 101? Generally, ending the existence of a living organism is referred to as “killing” or “causing death,” not “reversal of life.”)
So… if abortion is just “reversed conception,” then what is miscarriage? Accidental reversed conception?
JoAnna, the effect of conception is that the life is there. Miscarriage reverses that effect, i.e. the life is no longer there.
This thread is “fun and games,” but there’s no “magic” or “time travel” that has to be there, eh? Given that we cannot go back in time and “erase” conception, once a pregnancy is fact, what more of a reversal can there be than ending its effects?
Doug said: If contraception prevents conception, then abortion reverses the effect of it, taking us from pregnant to not pregnant.
The issue Doug, is not the temporary condition of pregnancy which has a definitive start and finish – the issue is much more enduring. Abortion doesn’t merely terminate a pregnancy – because birth accomplishes that as well. In fact, abortion doesn’t even change the lineage/relationship of the child to the parent. That’s established at the moment of conception. You can’t put the bullet back into the gun once it’s been fired.
Playing semantic games is probably the least
As far as Out of Touch with Reality – abortion actually also produces a delivery – of a child, either in multiple pieces or as a whole.
Conception produces a life – a growing life, and that life is inherently related to the two partners who pro-created. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against your non-sensical reversal semantic game, it’s because you’re ignoring what even a toddler could say – that to be pregnant means “being with child”.
“You can’t put the bullet back into the gun once it’s been fired.” Well said.
Wouldn’t murder of a born child or even an adult also be “reverse conception” in that that’s how all of our lives began–at conception?
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Doug,
You can’t un-ring a bell. You don’t un-concieve a child that’s been conceived by killing her. That child existed and was murdered.
When conception doesn’t happen, there is no child. Preventing conception (by abstaining or using barrier methods) doesn’t kill a child. It also doesn’t “reverse” the act of sex. You still had sex whether a child came from it or not. This idea that things that can “undone” is a lie. Once something is done, it’s done. Trying to undo the consequences doesn’t change that.
Now when a child does come from sex, killing that child doesn’t un-do his/her conception. It merely kills the child. Yes, the mother goes from pregnant to not pregnant by killing their child, but people could go from married to single by killing their spouses. It doesn’t REVERSE their marriage. It murders their family, like abortion murders a son or daughter.
”Fertility continues.”
=============================================================
Unless the physical trauman assoicated with the ’safe and legal’ elective surgery leaves the unfortunate female unable to conceive and/or carry subsequent pre-natal child to a live birth.
But not to worry. The social engineers and free market forces have combined to meet the demand.
See ‘Rentauterus’ [not a dinosaur theme park]. Coming to a third world country near you.
=============================================================
How do you reverse a homicide?
Someone tell Oxford English Dictionary, the word abortion should be defined as reverse conception. I would also add that the word poison should be defined as reverse medicine, stealing should be defined as reverse charity.
but seriously, abortion does kill a child in the womb and then it is sucked from the woman’s body. Nothing has been reversed, the unborn was still conceived and removed from the mother’s body, except he/she is now dead. Killing doesn’t reverse a life from existing, it has still existed.
When a sperm and an ovum come together, a new life is conceived. Technically, to reverse conception would mean to somehow genetically separate the properties of the sperm and ovum in the embryo, that’s not what abortion does.
It seems like pro-aborts will use any argument in the book to justify their views. If the pro-choice crowd keeps using these kind of arguments, smart and genuine people are just going to start seeing through them and realize how absurd abortion is.
Note: For the record I said that thing about genetically separating an embyo just for argument’s sake, I’m not suggesting that could or should ever happen. In fact I’d say once a sperm and ovum come together a completely new life is created,(not just a combination of the two that already exist). This cannot be undone.
Abortion removes the ability to deliver a child? uh, no, it removes the child.
They call the site Reality but they can’t face it.
Chris A: The issue Doug, is not the temporary condition of pregnancy which has a definitive start and finish – the issue is much more enduring. Abortion doesn’t merely terminate a pregnancy – because birth accomplishes that as well. In fact, abortion doesn’t even change the lineage/relationship of the child to the parent. That’s established at the moment of conception. You can’t put the bullet back into the gun once it’s been fired.
Chris, “much more enduring” may be the case, without abortion, but it may not be also. Either way, abortion still ends what was put into motion, if you will. I’m not saying we can go back in time or put the bullet back in the gun. But there is a reversing of things, from pregnant to not pregnant, from living embryo, etc. to the absence of that, etc.
____
Conception produces a life – a growing life, and that life is inherently related to the two partners who pro-created. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against your non-sensical reversal semantic game, it’s because you’re ignoring what even a toddler could say – that to be pregnant means “being with child”.
If we go with that expression, then abortion means “not being with child,” and what can be more “reversed” that that? Yeah, semantics are involved, but just about as much reversing is going on as is possible. Agreed that birth, too, would end the pregnancy, but the reversing that abortion does is more than that.
____
Julie: Abortion removes the ability to deliver a child? uh, no, it removes the child.
Well, what was said was “ability to deliver a child in a particular instance,” and that, of course, is true.
Doug, you can’t reverse or undo conception. JS is right – reverse conception would be to separate the sperm and egg. You can reverse the effect of conception (pregnancy), but removing the conceived entity from the woman’s uterus does not reverse the conception. It terminates its continuation. It is accurate to say that contraception prevents conception, but it’s delusional to say that abortion reverses it.
Wow, you established a post about what I said! I could hazard a guess at your intentions whether they be stated, obvious, subliminal or hoped for but meh.
I note the usual cacophony of reactive distortions of what was said and the predictable misinterpretations, both intentional and unintentional.
It’s not a new science Cranky, it’s the same old science. Abortion takes a woman from a state of containing conception to a state of not containing conception. (Not to refer to the woman as a “container” of course, that’s for those who enforce gestation)
“Here we prolifers have been blind all these years” – well you said it angel.
“Abortion is “reverse contraception” – not quite. I said ‘removes the ability to deliver a child in a particular instance’, ‘like contraception…one prevents conception, one reverses it’. I didn’t say that abortion is contraception.
Yeah yeah Alice PA, and the same thing happens through a number of medical events. Abortion isn’t designed to remove future fertility but it can be a side-effect, like most procedures have potential side-effects.
Punisher, I have no hatred for any of those things.
“All of these years grieving the baby that was killed in my abortion and the two that died in my miscarriages……..whew. What a relief to know that it was just a simple reversal!!” – not relevant to the issue Carla. You’re sad about your abortion and miscarriages, terminology isn’t going to change anything.
With an imagination like yours Jennifer you should write childrens’ books. Abortion reverses the conception which has occurred, nothing sci-fi about it.
Come on Jacqueline, you’re comparing apples with star dust.
Call it what you want JoAnna, it’s still reversing conception. From a state of conception to a state of… oh look…non-conception, be it abortion or miscarriage. You don’t need magical powers, it’s called abortion and it’s legal and safer than childbirth.
Reality, its NOT non-conception! Conception HAS OCCURRED. And i’ve never heard someone “containing” conception. I thought conception was an event, not a thing that could be “contained” I’ve never heard anyone say “oh! my conception is kicking!” or “We saw the conceptions feet and hands on the ultrasound”. You make NO SENSE Reality. None.
Reality – I’m sure you mean from a state of pregnany to a state of non pregnancy via the removal of the conceived entity (whatever you’re calling it). You are not reversing or undoing the conception but terminating it’s continuation and undoing it’s effect.
“Reality,” you are SO transparent. The only reason I take you the least bit seriously is that you are dangerous to pregnant girls and women, and their unborn children. If not for that, I wouldn’t waste one second responding to your arrogant, disrespectful willful ignorance.
Reverse conception! Wow! So can we do the same thing with other immoral acts and crimes?
Robbery = Reverse almsgiving
Burglary = Reverse straightening up someone’s house
Shoplifting = Reverse stocking the shelf in a store
Grand Theft Auto = Driving in Reverse-Reverse
You don’t need to take me seriously Alice PA, I’m sure many here don’t. But in this instance its because I am not dangerous to pregnant girls and women and their unborn children.
Contrary to the constant histrionics displayed by many here I would never, ever coerce a woman into having an abortion. I simply support womens’ right to choose the best option for themselves. And will argue against those who don’t.
The danger is from those who would dictate how others live and what choices they make based on their own preconceptions and biases.
How droll John, except for the fact that abortion is neither an immoral act or a crime. So your comparison falls flat.
“abortion is neither an immoral act”
Except according to every legitimate moral authority, Christian or otherwise.
Which ‘legitimate’ moral authorities are those John? The ones that suit you?
Forget the abortion argument for a moment. The violence being done to the plain meaning of words is bordering on ludicrous here. A chemical change occurs upon conception that you cannot undo. Prior to that, you can undertake various “CONTRA” ception activities that do, in fact, prevent that change from occurring. But after conception you have this embryo/zygote/fetus that creates the condition of pregnany in a woman. You can remove the fetus, thereby creating the state of no-longer being pregnant but you did not “reverse conception”. You just eliminated it’s effects by removing the “product of conception.” (to borrow your term). Your inability to be honest on this point is so perplexing b/c it’s such basic science. Whatever you think the moral status of the conceived entity (or non-entity as some would believe), there is no doubt that you cannot reverse the change that resulted in the conception.
Histrionics: “Exaggerated, overemotional behaviour, especially when calculated to elicit a response; melodramatics.” Per this definition, “Reality,” if anyone has “displayed” histrionics, it’s you. It seems to me that you comment here for no other reason than “to elicit a response,” because you KNOW we will disagree with you, and you KNOW you won’t change anyone’s mind, because our minds have ALREADY been changed, by the truth (and as Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size”). Indeed, this entire thread is a response to a provocative (i.e., calculated to provoke) comment made BY YOU.
You believe that you are “not dangerous to pregnant girls and women and their unborn children.” That you and your views on abortion are dangerous to unborn children is obvious, and you refuse to accept, despite clear evidence, that they are dangerous to girls and women as well. The entire abortion “choice” argument ignores the scientific fact that the choice is whether or not to kill another human being. When you or anyone in the abortion industry tells a pregnant girl or woman either that an abortion will not kill a person or that it is OK to kill that person, you are lying to and deceiving that woman. Lying and deceit are forms of coercion. So in effect you would indeed “coerce a woman into having an abortion.”
You wear huge blinders (“preconceptions and bias”), “Reality.” You can’t or you refuse to see the vast reality that lies beyond your tunnel vision. You see a little piece of it and claim it’s the whole world. Many of us used to live that way too, so we’re not just guessing. I hope and pray that some experience will rip those blinders off your face, “Reality,” so that someday you will finally be able to live up to your moniker.
Reality,
Legality is not the same as morality. Abortion is legal but it is not moral. Black people were persons even when the law said that they weren’t. Jewish people were persons even when the law said that they weren’t. Unborn children are people even though the law says that they aren’t.
I find it very sad indeed that you don’t see a difference between abortion and miscarriage. I suppose you also wouldn’t see a difference between killing your grandmother for your inheritance money or waiting until she dies of natural causes to inherit. That might get you into trouble one day, just so you know. Oddly enough, it’s illegal to “reverse conception” on someone who has already been born. Why is that, do you think?
Tell you what — why don’t you go find a pro-choice biologist, obstetrician, perintologist, fetal embryologist, or similar and as him/her if abortion can be defined as “reverse conception.” Let me know what s/he says.
CT: Doug, you can’t reverse or undo conception. JS is right – reverse conception would be to separate the sperm and egg. You can reverse the effect of conception (pregnancy), but removing the conceived entity from the woman’s uterus does not reverse the conception. It terminates its continuation. It is accurate to say that contraception prevents conception, but it’s delusional to say that abortion reverses it.
CT, we all know that we cannot “go back in time and undo the conception.” And Reality did not mean that we could. You are correct that we cannot truly reverse the process of conception. All we can do is act on the effects of it, and we can effect a reversal there.
“you comment here for no other reason than “to elicit a response,” – actually I am trying to present a differing viewpoint of the abortion debate so that people can consider their position with all the facts.
“When you or anyone in the abortion industry tells a pregnant girl or woman either that an abortion will not kill a person” – which it doesn’t.
“I find it very sad indeed that you don’t see a difference between abortion and miscarriage” – one is a choice, the other isn’t, no?
“I am trying to present a differing viewpoint of the abortion debate so that people can consider their position with all the facts.” Yet you ignore so many of them (facts, that is). As I said: blinders.
Alice, I’m not sure what you mean, but I’m thinking that perhaps you are confusing facts with opinion. If there really is a disagreement based on physical/biological/medical grounds, let’s hear it.
O Doug, seriously? Clearly you know how to use the Internet. I’m sure you’ve heard and read the facts over and over and over again and are just unable or unwilling to accept them for whatever reason. But just in case you’re not a lost cause, you can start here: http://www.sfuhl.org (Science for Unborn Human Life; the author is a hardcore scientist).
Alice, what facts do you feel I am not acknowledging, or all pro-choicers in general are not accepting as true?
Doug, I used to BE a “pro-choicer” and for most of my life most of my friends were too. I know how “they” think. I even had an abortion. I really don’t think I need to explain it to you. The information, the truth, is out there, staring you in the face. You just can’t or won’t accept it. I hope and pray that someday someone close to you, who you care about and who cares about you, will be able to break open your heart and mind so the light can get in and you can finally see.
I really don’t think I need to explain it to you.
Alice, I think you are pretending that I don’t agree the unborn are human beings, alive, etc. You are wrong, there, if so.
I also think you are pretending that your subjective opinion on some matters within the abortion debate is external fact, and there too you would be wrong, if so.
Doug,
You continue to go round and round in the abortion debate; because you are a moral relativist there is no ultimate conclusion for you to make. Why don’t you just come out and say as much?
Janet, there are certainly things of physical reality that can be agreed upon, and as far as “the information being out there,” as Alice said, it sure sounds like she is pretending there is more disagreement on it than what is true.
I have just as much of an ultimate conclusion as anybody – abortion is okay to a point in gestation. Regardless of any unprovable things we might ascribe our conclusions to, we all have our say.