Rubio: Libs preach climate change but ignore science of conception
Just because [you] believe that life… all human life is worthy of protection at every stage in its development does not make you a chauvinist.
In fact, the people who are actually closed-minded in American politics are the people that love to preach about the certainty of science in regards to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception.
~ Florida Senator Marco Rubio, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, quoted in part by the Family Research Council, March 15
View Rubio’s comments here.
[HT: Jill; video HT: Life Dynamics; image via Washington Post]

Was he supposed to be making a point?
Claiming to want to protect ‘all human life’ doesn’t make someone a chauvinist. Preventing women from being able to control their own bodies does.
Then a strawman! What a rube.
Reality,
I have had five babies. Remind me, at what point was my offspring part of my body? I seem to forget that. And are you implying that I was too stupid to realize that if I had sex, I might get pregnant, even if I was not wishing to be?
Sorry, the pro”choice” view that us women need to rescue ourselves from our own choice to have sex, by killing our offspring and labeling it as “freedom”, is REALLY degrading. I have been beat up while pregnant, i have had people shake their heads in disappointment at me, I have been at the end of my rope – but none of that, was my child’s fault. Real freedom, means protecting your offspring, not killing them. That, is real bodily autonomy, my friend.
Wow, world championship winning extrapolation there luckymama.
“And are you implying that I was too stupid to realize that if I had sex, I might get pregnant, even if I was not wishing to be?” – how on earth did you get there?!? Projecting much?
There are probably some people who are anti-abortion who are chauvinists. The majority aren’t pro-life out of some control or superiority thing though, just want to protect unborn life.
The unborn will receive full protection when their ability to exist no longer depends on the most intimate yet public use of another person’s body.
How close are we to the artificial womb?
Claiming to want to protect ‘all human life’ doesn’t make someone a chauvinist. Preventing women from being able to control their own bodies does.
Great. But nobody’s talking about preventing women from being able to control our own bodies here. We Pro-Life women just don’t think we deserve a “right” to control our child’s body to the point of making them die.
xalisae says:
March 19, 2013 at 7:18 am
Claiming to want to protect ‘all human life’ doesn’t make someone a chauvinist. Preventing women from being able to control their own bodies does. Great. But nobody’s talking about preventing women from being able to control our own bodies here. We Pro-Life women just don’t think we deserve a “right” to control our child’s body to the point of making them die.
(Denise) What will happen to this issue after artificial wombs are developed?
I think some people will still pursue it because the primary goal of abortion is the outcome of a dead baby rather than to simply not be pregnant any longer.
I think some people will still pursue it because the primary goal of abortion is the outcome of a dead baby rather than to simply not be pregnant any longer.
And, as in the case with the couple who wanted their surrogate to abort, they don’t want to have the “trauma” of knowing that their child is out there in the world and that they “abandoned” him. What a mean thing to do to people – traumatize them like that! A surrogate womb is as close as we have to an artificial womb but you still get people who say that if they cannot order an abortion, they are being forced to abandon their unwanted child, and to go through life knowing their child is out there somewhere, and that is just so so so cruel. Like, uhhhh, how about you don’t abandon your kid then, if it will be traumatic for you? Adoption is not abandonment and that is an absurd argument to make, but if you personally feel that it is, well, then, that doesn’t mean you get to kill your kid instead. The argument is literally that it is less traumatic for parents to have their preborn child die than to have to just KNOW that that child exists. In the case of the surrogate, the existence of an actual woman surrounding the surrogate womb prevented the biological parents from ordering an abortion, but with an artificial womb it would just be a “personal choice.”
“Forced to give birth” will just turn into “forced to abandon my child.” “The government has no right to force a woman to give birth! The government has no right to force a woman to abandon her child!”
Reality proves Rubio’s point quite well: a baby is not part of a woman’s body. Everyone knows that, except abortion advocates who suspend their thinking long enough to pretend that a human in utero is his mother’s body. If you think of the child as property, Reality might be making a point. And then he’d be proving our comparison between slavery and abortion. Thanks, Reality! Nicely done and right on cue.
I expect that Senator Rubio would give permission to all Republican leaders to use his wonderful, common-sense quote.
Thank you Senator!
I know! First comment was Reality just cementing what Rubio said. Reality, the baby is not part of the woman’s body. Life begins at conception. This is scientific fact.
Been pregnant with little boys three times Reality.
Not my penis, not my body.
Carry on.
The primary goal of abortion for the abortionist is a dead baby.
And the cash to kill it.
The primary goal of abortion for a woman is a way out. A solution. An answer to a crisis and for that crisis to be over. Just get on with your life……….
Alexandra, awesome points regarding surrogate wombs.
I don’t get it, Reality. You’ve already won the most ironically named commenter award several times over. Why are you still trying so hard?
Speaking of artificial gestation, wasn’t our friend BV/Megan trying to make some convoluted argument that abortion would still be permissible if it was possible just a few weeks ago? yeah, some people are just nuts.
No, JDC. Some people just have to try SO HARD to legitimize things they’ve done they’re willing to submit lines of thought that spit in the face of facts/logic/reason/compassion/empathy/etc.
Carla says:
March 19, 2013 at 10:54 am
The primary goal of abortion for the abortionist is a dead baby.
The primary goal of abortion for a woman is a way out. A solution. An answer to a crisis and for that crisis to be over. Just get on with your life……….
(Denise) Do you believe there will ever be a time when pregnancy is not a “crisis” requiring any kind of a “solution” but a joy?
When women who get pregnant will not even consider expelling the embryo or fetus but automatically and enthusiastically carry to term?
Will the time ever come that the women who are pregnant will always take the best possible care of themselves and both seek and receive the best in pre-natal care?
For the politically correct, science is not about facts, it’s about whatever suits their politically correct agenda. That life begins at conception is Biology 101, basic. “Climate change” is not based on science. Political correctness is not science, it is religion, and it is bad religion.
What it comes down to is power, control, people-pleasing, votes, and of course money.
“Climate change” is big business. Just ask Al Gore and his friends, riding in limos and Lear jets, which by the way by their own standards are horrible for the “climate”. The truth that the climate has always changed and will always change, sometimes drastically, does not sell. “Climate change” is based on fear and it is part of a culture of death that says if we don’t control the climate we will kill ourselves.
Life, apparently, is not big business, at least not for those who bow to the idol Political Correctness. The big money, the power, is in killing the most helpless and innocent of all human beings–babies in their mothers’ wombs. Abortion costs big bucks to abortionists, and politicians, while giving mothers, and families a false sense of control that will not last and will in fact lead to being more out of control than ever. Abortion is based on fear and it is part of a culture of death that says if we don’t get rid of all these troublesome babies our lives and our society will somehow be ruined.
Political correctness is what happens when there are (supposedly) no set standards of truth in morality. And if anything is killing us, it is not “climate change” and it is not trying to take away the right to kill the unborn–it is political correctness itself.
“Women not being able to control their own bodies” Wow, that’s news to me, given that I’ve never had complete control of my body. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t be allergic to turkey, onions, or corn. I wouldn’t be lactose intolerant. I wouldn’t have all the stomach issues I do have. Shoot, if I had control of my body migraines would never happen! Oh wait…I DON’T because some of it is nature, some of it is because our bodies are NOT invincible to disease and some of it is because sometimes I choose to ignore my food allergies, so I pay the price.
Sexual intercourse = babies is NOT new biological function of a woman’s reproductive system. If a woman doesn’t want to have kids, it’s okay NOT to have sexual intercourse. It’s okay for a woman to learn Natural Family Planning and gain a better understanding of the different phases of her fertility and how it all works.
What’s NOT okay is ending a pre-born human being’s life. That life is NOT the woman’s body, it’s a separate being, with his/her own heart, mind, body, fingerprint, DNA. Just because that human being is INSIDE the woman’s body doesn’t mean it IS her body.
I’ve been pregnant and I’ve given birth. The difference is clear.
Victor Galipi says:
March 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm
For the politically correct, science is not about facts, it’s about whatever suits their politically correct agenda. That life begins at conception is Biology 101, basic.
(Denise) If a zygote is a person, what happens to that person in twinning? Did that person die or disappear and two new people take his or her place?
Or does the person still exist but in two different bodies?
Denise as far as I am aware twinning occurs before most people know they are pregnant so it really doesn’t matter when talking about abortion. And anyway, with twinning you know there is at least one organism there before the twinning, which should be sufficient to protect it from harm.
That’s a difficult question Denise. But if life doesn’t begin at conception when does it? Definitely not at something so trivial as moving from one place to another (birth)? When he/she grow arms (I guess it’s OK to kill armless people)?
I suppose the answer to you question( which actually only refers to identical twins which are very rare) is that it is probably asexual reproducion that occurs, creating another new distinct person at that point.
But regardless, the fact that a new unique life is created at conception is a well-documented scientific fact.
Anyway, as Jack says, that is really not revelvant to the morality of abortions which occur long after.
Julia says:
March 19, 2013 at 3:31 pm
That’s a difficult question Denise. But if life doesn’t begin at conception when does it? Definitely not at something so trivial as moving from one place to another (birth)? When he/she grow arms (I guess it’s OK to kill armless people)?
I suppose the answer to you question( which actually only refers to identical twins which are very rare) is that it is probably asexual reproducion that occurs, creating another new distinct person at that point. But regardless, the fact that a new unique life is created at conception is a well-documented scientific fact.
Anyway, as Jack says, that is really not revelvant to the morality of abortions which occur long after.
(Denise) This is the point that I have made several times. However, most people who contribute to this blog appear to believe the case for outlawing abortion collapses unless one insists that a human being is in existence at conception. The truth is that a great deal of development takes place in the first month of pregnancy. Even if it is not possible to pinpoint an EXACT time at which a human life comes into existence, it IS possible to believe one is in existence at about the time the menstrual period is missed. At 6 weeks, an embryo has a torso, head, limbs, a beating heart and primitive brain activity.
I am fairly confident a human life is in existence by 6 weeks.
I am fairly confident a human life is in existence by 6 weeks.
If twinning is to occur, it will happen within the first two weeks after conception.
If it isn’t a human life before 6 weeks, then what do you think it is?
Kel says:
March 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm
I am fairly confident a human life is in existence by 6 weeks.
If twinning is to occur, it will happen within the first two weeks after conception.
If it isn’t a human life before 6 weeks, then what do you think it is?
(Denise) I believe that conception forms a biological blueprint for a human life. Natural development is rapid so a human life is formed by the biological blueprint at an early stage.
I don’t have a sense of absolute certainty but I feel it is very likely a human life exists very soon.
I believe that conception forms a biological blueprint for a human life.
So, genetically, is that “biological blueprint” human? Might that “biological blueprint” be called DNA?
Ha, you guys are funny. I’m regularly impressed by some peoples ability to misconstrue and misrepresent what has been said. Sometimes you do it intentionally, sometimes unintentionally.
“But nobody’s talking about preventing women from being able to control our own bodies here.” – well yeah, you are. Attempting to prevent women from terminating unwanted or unviable pregnancies. And those who fight against the availability of contraception.
“a baby (sic) is not part of a woman’s body.” – a fetus has its own dna, yes. But if a fetus is not ‘part of a womans body’ then I guess we won’t be needing that placenta thingy will we. Or we could ask the fetus to move along and find somewhere else to gestate.
“Life begins at conception” – actually life began a few billion years ago. Skin is life, my liver is life, sperm is life. But yes, conception generates a new life, usually not for long though, ah nature.
“The primary goal of abortion for a woman is a way out. A solution. An answer to a crisis and for that crisis to be over. Just get on with your life……….” – now you’re getting it. See, it isn’t that hard.
“science is not about facts, it’s about whatever suits their politically correct agenda. That life begins at conception is Biology 101, basic. “Climate change” is not based on science” – so much irony in so few words!
“I’ve never had complete control of my body. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t be allergic to turkey, onions, or corn….” – I totally agree. But how does that justify someone else telling you what to do with your fertility and reproductive system?
What difference does it make when twinning happens? There is one human being prior to twinning and two afterwards. Human is human is still human. Abortion is still murder. Twinning makes no difference.
Proof for those of us who weren’t aborted. I came from my mother’s body but I am not my mother. I am a part of my mom and dad but I am my own person!!!
Libs would rather dwell on issues like this and gloss right over abortion with the old and tired “you can’t tell a woman what to do with her body.” I’m personally anti seat belt but by law I have to strap my body into my car! So by law I have to strap my body into my car.
Kel says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm
I believe that conception forms a biological blueprint for a human life.
So, genetically, is that “biological blueprint” human? Might that “biological blueprint” be called DNA?
(Denise) I do not have absolute certainty. I believe the zygote is a biological blueprint for a human being that quickly works to form something that is a human being.
Alice says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:59 pm
What difference does it make when twinning happens? There is one human being prior to twinning and two afterwards.
(Denise) WHAT HAPPENED to the one who exited before twinning? Is one of the two that person? Are they BOTH that person? Or did that person somehow disappear and two new people formed?
I am with the rest of you in viewing the embryo as human very early. I can’t look at a 6-week-old embryo and NOT see a human being. There are just problems with the zygote as a person.
Reality,
Killing ones own child does not deliver on the promise of a problem solved or a crisis averted. It is what those that are proabortion think. It is what is spewed at the mills.
Sadly abortion NEVER delivers freedom or empowerment. Just death.
“by law I have to strap my body into my car” – because it has been proven that seat belts reduce the incidences of death and injury. But I guess at least we can thank the naysayers for bringing about the introduction of airbags.
“…does not deliver on the promise of a problem solved or a crisis averted” – apparently in the overwhelming majority of cases it does.
Aaagh sorry for repeating myself ..too many distractions !!
WHAT HAPPENED to the one who exited before twinning? Is one of the two that person? Are they BOTH that person? Or did that person somehow disappear and two new people formed?
It. Doesn’t. Matter. Or, more accurately, it matters in discussions other than the abortion debate. It doesn’t matter for the same reason that miscarriages do not feature in the abortion debate; even if something happens to someone via natural processes, that doesn’t make it okay to murder them.
I choose to believe that both twins are the original person. That would explain a lot about the uncanny connection many identical twins seem to have. This is, I will admit, is not a scientifically testable theorem, but I’m not trying to make a scientific case for it, so that’s all right. The salient point is that, in terms of the abortion debate, twinning is not a salient point.
Don’t be ridiculous, Reality,
Killing ones child does NOT solve any problems created by circumstance, or by oneself.
If you kill your child because you “can’t afford it”, you don’t suddenly gain wealth because your child is dead…you’ll still be poor.
You don’t become “un-raped” because you have an abortion. You’ve STILL been raped.
Child- killing is not the “magic trick” you and those like you wish it to be.
Only the child is gone…not the problems (or “perceived” problems)
Abortion solves or resolves problems created by circumstances due to unwanted or unviable pregnancies Pamela.
No you don’t gain wealth by having an abortion. Abortion helps to prevent people from becoming even poorer. And provides greater opportunity to become less poor.
No you don’t become “un-raped” but you don’t bear the burden of one of the potential consequences forever. Stopping a rape victim from having an abortion is like taping a photo of the perpetrator to every mirror in the victim’s home, forever.
Pro-choicers aren’t in the “magic trick” business. We’ll leave that up to others :-)
Reality thinks seat belt laws are OK “because it has been proven that seat belts reduce the incidences of death and injury.”
Funny thing, laws against abortion reduce the incidences of death too. I guess fetal deaths don’t count in Reality’s mind for some reason (much like how black deaths didn’t count in the minds of those opposed to anti-lynching laws).
That’s why the billboard with a bunch of women standing together ( all different races and ages ) says ABORTION DIDN’T SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS…IT CREATED NEW ONES!
But lets just dismiss those women as crazy misguided and probably paid by pro lifers to say such a silly thing…amirite???
“But lets just dismiss those women as crazy misguided and probably paid by pro lifers to say such a silly thing…amirite???” – not at all Heather. But as I said, in the overwhelming majority of cases there are no such complaints.
Going back to read more comments but Denise…think about siamese twins. They are joined in one body. Would you argue there are not two people present? Why is it so hard to believe God could place 2 souls in one zygote before twinning happens?
Reality…because the baby/fetus is IN the woman does not make the fetus part OF the woman. When I’m in my house I am not part OF the house. The placenta is a barrier between the woman and child because the child isn’t part of the woman and so her body may attack the child as an intruder. The placenta allows oxygen and nutrients to be passed from mother to baby without their blood systems totally merging. I am O positive (blood type) and my son is B positive. How can one body have 2 different blood types? My son was not part of my body! The answer is SO OBVIOUS.
Well reality i don’t tell others not to wear a seatbelt but i was in a bad car accident in 2004. Had I been wearing mine I’m sure I would have been killed or maimed. I throw mine on if I see a cop. and reality I’ve talked to numerous women who do regret their abortions..you’re right that some don’t but the majority of the women I’ve spoken to are stuck in despair over something they can’t change. Many have cried to me. Some are medicated for depression some drink or use drugs some are sterile. some are promiscuous .
Hey, I’m not arguing with you on that one Sydney M. The fetus isn’t part of the woman as her internal organs etc. are. It is inside her body though, nourished by her body, supported by the placenta which her body develops specifically for the task. Without her body and the changes pregnancy brings to it, the fetus wouldn’t survive let alone develop. So don’t give me that ‘independant autonomy of the fetus’ tripe.
Abortion keeps poor people from getting poorer? Dennis Rodman was an unwanted poor boy from the projects. He grew up and became something. I guarantee he is a far cry from poor. Due to the fact that his mother had made it clear to him that he was unwanted i don’t believe he ever gave her one red cent when he hit the big time.
A little while back one or two people here were absolutely emphatic that a new ‘person’ exists from the moment a sperm successfully encounters an egg. If a fertilised egg splits into twins then either that initial ‘person’ no longer exits or the twins are each half of that initial ‘person’. Which is it? Even cloning has demonstrated that the copy does not exhibit being the same ‘person’ as the original.
What about when two fertilised eggs combine to form one, is that where schizophrenia comes from? ;-)
Reality you said “But if a fetus is not ‘part of a womans body’ then I guess we won’t be needing that placenta thingy will we. Or we could ask the fetus to move along and find somewhere else to gestate.”
I’m sorry but you WERE arguing that the fetus is part of the woman’s body and I was just explaining what the placenta is since you obviously don’t understand and I was also explaining that the fetus while IN the woman’s body isn’t part OF the woman’s body since you were arguing that as well. No one is trying to stop women from controlling their bodies. Do what you will with your body. Just don’t use your body to hurt another. The fetus has it’s own autonomy. That is why I was giving you the “independent autonomy of the fetus” tripe.
Like Carla said up the way somewhere …if my son and I were the same person while he was in my womb then how could a woman carry a boy with a penis? I’ve had 2 boys. I’ve carried their individual bodies in my womb. They each had a penis because they were a different gender with their own bodies and their own genitals.
What about a coronary stent then? Or a titanium plate and screws to repair a broken bone?
What about an organ transplant?
A pacemaker?
“No one is trying to stop women from controlling their bodies.” – yes you are.
“The fetus has it’s own autonomy” – then I guess we won’t be needing that placenta thingy will we. Or we could ask the fetus to move along and find somewhere else to gestate.
DeniseNoe, have you read the article “Embryo Ethics” by Robert George? He addresses the issue of twinning starting at the bottom of p. 32. Basic premise: other animals (such as flatworms) can divide into two different animals, yet we still consider the original animal to be an individual. If this is the case for other species, I fail to see why it would not apply to humans as well.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/files/embryo_ethics.pdf
“I’ve never had complete control of my body. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t be allergic to turkey, onions, or corn….” – Reality quoting me, then Reality said: I totally agree. But how does that justify someone else telling you what to do with your fertility and reproductive system?
The question was women having control over their bodies. My point was complete control over the body is an illusion. Since sex often equals conception of a new human being (pregnancy), and even birth control can fail at preventing pregnancies, then a woman doesn’t have full control over that. It’s an illusion.
And someone already DOES tell me what to do with my reproductive system. God. No, not every sexual intercourse act is going to end up with a pregnancy and that isn’t the message. The message is to be OPEN to the POSSIBILITY that a pregnancy could happen.
I have learned there’s very, very little in life I have control over. Sure, sometimes it annoys me, but that’s life. Life isn’t always “fair” or pain-LESS. Life has all kinds of aspects. Control isn’t necessarily one of them.
Reality,
Are you post abortive? Did you bring your wife, your girlfriend, your daughter to the abortion mill? Did you pay for one? Did you force/coerce someone into aborting your child?
There is healing for you.
The reason I am asking is because you REFUSE to be intellectually honest about what abortion is and what it does to the baby and to the woman.
If you are not post abortive then why not drop the intellectual dishonesty and OWN IT ALREADY!! Good grief. Life begins at conception. You are perfectly fine with ending the life of an innocent human being in utero. OWN IT.
Where is your abortion pride? Quit dancing around the truth. Quit pretending.
You should take a lesson from Gloria Steinem.
“From pacifist to terrorist, each person condemns violence…and then adds one cherished case in which it may be justified.”
Aw, don’t you wish it were so Carla.
You continue to bandy about this term ‘post abortive’ as if it were an automatic indicator of people being disfunctional/damaged/guilty/unhappy in some way.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of ‘post abortive’ people don’t experience any of those things.
I don’t need any ‘healing’, neither do the greater proportion of anyone who is ‘post abortive’.
I would have thought that it was clear by now that I am perfectly fine with the termination of a developing human fetus when a woman finds that that is her best option.
I am proud to support the freedom of, and freedom of choice of, women.
It was a yes or no question.
I think you mean ‘it was a set of yes or no questions’.
I’m not sure whether I wish to answer them or not. Perhaps I’ll start with a couple of them.
“Are you post abortive?” – hardly, I’m male remember.
“Did you pay for one?” – we all contribute to the payment for abortions. Just like we all contribute to religious activities.
“Did you force/coerce someone into aborting your child?” – no, never.
You are so adamant in promoting child killing as some amazing empowering experience for women.
That is always a dead giveaway to post abortive trauma. So I asked.
Men that wanted abortions for their girlfriends, wives or daughters and brought them, paid for them or forced/coerced them are post abortive.
I wouldn’t wish what we have been though on anyone.
Just to recap
No
No
No
Got it. Good night.
“You are so adamant in promoting child killing as some amazing empowering experience for women.” – statements like this are why I don’t see any sense in answering your outstanding question. I don’t promote ‘child killing’. I don’t even ‘promote’ aborting fetuses. Nor do I claim that ‘child killing’ empowers women. What empowers women is keeping those who would dictate to them from doing so.
“That is always a dead giveaway to post abortive trauma. So I asked.” – then you obviously need to go back to the drawing board. A number of your assumptions fail.
I wouldn’t wish what you want women to go through on anyone.
You would rather I had said yes to your questions? That’s interesting.
Pay attention.
I wouldn’t wish what WE have gone through on anyone.
There is help if you are post abortive.
Yeah, I got that.
And I’m saying that I wouldn’t wish what you want women to go through on anyone.
The overwhelming majority of ‘post abortive’ people don’t need any help.
Realty,
Carla’s point is men whose girlfriends or wives who abort their children are post-abortive. Given that I’ve known men in those situation I think the term “post-abortive man” is not out of line.
“overwhelming majority” means nothing to those of us who live with the pain.
What you are really saying is that women and men who choose to end the lives of their own flesh and blood, paying someone to dismember their own children in utero do so without any remorse whatsoever. Think about it.
I must say that the amount of emails and phone calls I get from women and men for abortion recovery point to the fact that abortion does indeed have lifelong consequences.
And I am a fool for even arguing this with you. :)
Have a great day!! See you on another thread.
Carla I do believe you are onto something here re. Reality. However, you haven’t covered-all-the-bases and that is why Reality continues to squirm – try asking if he personally conspired in an abortion. {Typically his support for abortion is always general ie, ‘women’, and never about HIS personal involvement.} Reality did you once give your approval of killing your child/human-fetus … same thing?
Your so-called reasoning stops here. THE PLACENTA ONLY GROWS (as part of the woman AND HER baby) BECAUSE the baby is there … as a guest NOT an intrusion. {{By the way the placenta does have its own sexual traits – a placenta can be ‘male’.}}
Dearest Reality per John McDonell,
Did you conspire in an abortion?
Did you once give your approval?
Yes or No.
I DO think that some people who have abortions don’t feel remorse for it. I KNOW people who have had abortions and aren’t traumatized. They don’t have drinking or drug problems. Some of them have kids, whom they love very much and without conflict. I know several women – and some men – for whom an abortion a few years ago is just a thing they went through. Certainly many men and women are traumatized by abortion, but it does nothing to act like people who AREN’T don’t exist. Whether somebody regrets their abortion, or is hurt by it, or doesn’t care about it at all, has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong.
I also know a lot of people who firmly advocate for legal abortion who have never had abortions themselves.
What you are really saying is that for some of us killing our own children never seemed to bother us. That we were fine with them suctioning our living children out of our wombs. That we didn’t blink an eye. And have yet to display outwardly any negative consequence whatsoever in the death of our child.
I call BS on that. You cannot pay someone to kill your own child in utero and not be changed physically, emotionally and spiritually.
Before women realize what they have done they are unrepentant too. They are perceived as being fine. We got on with our lives! I mean we have been there as well.
Are we arguing whether abortion is right or wrong or whether those that HAVE been hurt by it have a voice and an obligation to tell the world that killing our own children NEVER helped or healed or empowered us??!!
Before any of us became Silent No More we did what your friends are doing. Raising kids and doing life.
Are we arguing whether abortion is right or wrong or whether those that HAVE been hurt by it have a voice and an obligation to tell the world that killing our own children NEVER helped or healed or empowered us??!!
I don’t think anyone is arguing against telling the world what abortion did to you. I think it is important for people to hear how disempowering it is to offer abortion as the only realistic option in a crisis situation, and what it can do to people. I just don’t think that it does that to EVERYBODY who has an abortion. And I don’t think that means anything as far as what abortion is or whether it is right or wrong. Somebody doesn’t regret their abortion? Fine. It was still wrong.
I think it is useless to tell someone what they “really” feel – “you ARE damaged in many ways! even if you don’t know it yet!!” – “you don’t REALLY regret your abortion, you are just internalizing the shaming messages that society sends!” – etc. People feel what they feel. Those feelings matter and are very important, and can be invaluable to share, but they do not change facts so I see no reason to argue with people about their feelings.
Before any of us became Silent No More we did what your friends are doing. Raising kids and doing life.
Carla, you tell stories of self-abuse and addiction, flashes of rage at billboards. That is not what my friends are doing. Your experiences are real, valid, and vital, and they have helped turn you into the wonderful and helpful person you are today, but they are not the only feelings that follow abortion.
I am a Rachel’s Vineyard facilitator. I am here for women WHEN and IF they need help and healing and recovery after abortion. I do not shame women into emailing, calling and texting me when they are suffering. I don’t argue their feelings. But I also don’t believe that women who pay someone to kill their children are unchanged by that experience. That is all I am saying. I am certainly not “traumatized” anymore.
The hurt any woman feels after abortion was not put there by me. It is just there.
And when I describe my life after abortion? I try to cover ALL the stages of grief I have gone through. The anger was when I flipped off billboards. The addictions were how I coped with the shame. The suicide attempt was my desperation and despair. And until I reached out for help? I was raising kids and doing life and doing the best I could while struggling with depression.
I have walked it Alexandra. I walk with so many who have too. I have friends that say it is the best thing they ever did. I have friends who are on their 2nd abortion and promise me they won’t have another one. I have friends that are angry that I just can’t drop this whole “abortion” thing. I have post abortive relatives that are pissed at me for sharing my story.
Those that are proabortion would like us to think that there are happily ever after abortions. I don’t buy it.
A little while back one or two people here were absolutely emphatic that a new ‘person’ exists from the moment a sperm successfully encounters an egg. If a fertilised egg splits into twins then either that initial ‘person’ no longer exits or the twins are each half of that initial ‘person’. Which is it? Even cloning has demonstrated that the copy does not exhibit being the same ‘person’ as the original. What about when two fertilised eggs combine to form one, is that where schizophrenia comes from?
If your brain is cut in half and transplanted into two separate bodies, would you then be considered dead? That seems impossible, because you continue to exist if only one half of your brain is removed and incinerated (which doctors sometimes do as a last resort to destroy a malignant tumour). Or would you become two people? Or would only one of the two halves be you? Which one, and why that one and not the other one? And what would happen if both hemispheres were later reassembled? Where does the soul come into play in all of this?
These are interesting metaphysical puzzles, but they’re no more problematic for the personhood of early embryos than they are for the personhood of grown adults.
Right to what Carla said …None of us have been angels…I was on Depo Provera for many years. Condoms were seldom used but the first order of discussion was “Are you on birth control “? Answer “yes” action lets go!! Also men who knew I wouldn’t be aborting if Depo failed were extra careful with me. They did not want a future because they didn’t want a baby! I was used for sex and I lacked self respect. I also didn’t have much respect for them. My sexual promiscuous behavior led me to pain and heartache. I’m not even friends with any of my former bed partners.
This girl is chemically aborting…great!
“overwhelming majority” means nothing to those of us who live with the pain.” – maybe not but the fact still remains.
“What you are really saying is that women and men who choose to end the lives of their own flesh and blood, paying someone to dismember their own children in utero do so without any remorse whatsoever.” – yes. “Think about it.” – I have, it is obviously the case.
“I must say that the amount of emails and phone calls I get from women and men for abortion recovery point to the fact that abortion does indeed have lifelong consequences” – compared to how many abortions each year?
“Did you conspire in an abortion?” – ‘conspire’? Abortion isn’t a criminal activity. It’s none of your business but here’s a clue…
“Did you once give your approval?” – women do not need anyones ‘approval’.
“What you are really saying is that for some of us killing our own children never seemed to bother us. That we were fine…..” - no, I’m saying ‘that for most’.
“And have yet to display outwardly any negative consequence whatsoever in the death of our child.” – the ‘yet’ is your wishful thinking.
“I call BS on that. You cannot pay someone to kill your own child in utero and not be changed physically, emotionally and spiritually.” – well since most people don’t consider it ‘kill your own child’, you’re wrong.
“Are we arguing whether abortion is right or wrong or whether those that HAVE been hurt by it have a voice and an obligation to tell the world that killing our own children NEVER helped or healed or empowered us??!!” – Whether abortion is right or wrong. You are free to announce your own experience, not sure that I’d call it an ‘obligation’ though. Alcoholics don’t hang around bars saying “don’t do it, don’t do it, it ruined me” because they know the problem is within themselves and that most other people don’t have or develop that problem. I do not question your experience. What I question is your continued approach that abortion damages every woman even if they don’t know it, never feel it, don’t regret it and get on happily with their lives.
They know it. Deep down they know it.
“They know it. Deep down they know it. They must. They really must. If only they could be convinced of this. If only their lack of regret and guilt could be overturned” – That’s what you really mean isn’t it. I know you can’t see how it cannot be so. It just isn’t.
Nope that is not what I mean at all.
I patiently wait. I wait and I pray for them and when and if they come to me and tell me their story I am here.
Maybe “obligation” isn’t the right word. Passion. Calling. Mission. Ministry. Pick one.
God has been healing me from the devastating consequences of my “choice.” And my heart is to see other women heal as well. If they are struggling with regret and pain and drinking and trying to get through their depression and grief I want to be here for them. It is what I do. It is God’s calling on my life. To offer to women what I have been offered.
I know. Shame on me. Shame on me for reaching out in love to hurting women.
Tell me. What do proaborts offer to women who are hurting from their abortions? What does PP do for them?
PS
Are you an abortionist? An assistant in the room? Do you hold the woman’s hand during her empowerment ceremony? Are you an escort? Are you on the board of Planned Parenthood? Do you write for RH Reality Check?
What brought you to the belief system that women are helped or healed or empowered by killing their own children?
Please hop on over to the Kermit Gosnell thread about “abortions are typically done in utero.”
It is rather quiet over there. Need your input. Your thoughts on a man who delivered full term fully alive babies and snipped their spinal cords.
BACK TO BASICS TIME: for Reality, Alexandra, and Carla ….
it is hardwired that adult-humans ‘protect their young’. Often (but not always) this IS almost command-like and will do so as self-sacrifice. Many who are sensitive also equate being human with being moral. The so-called indifferent beings are not ‘human’ in this moral sense. Here’s the problem: Humans can also pretend to be other-than-who-they-are. Their morality may not first seem valued.
Reality seems to feel that his personal feelings one-way-or-another just do not count. Submission that way makes YOU LESS human. And don’t revert to the schpeel ‘that a woman decides what is best-for-her’. Does/did HER decision impact YOU? {never mind about Carla’s, ideas or women’s ideas …, what is YOUR- personal history re. abortion?
Reality is not like most others. He has a huge appetite to share what is true. So does Carla. Remembering that speaking/seeking truth makes YOU human.
“Nope that is not what I mean at all.” – if you say so. Your comments over time certainly indicate otherwise.
“I patiently wait. I wait and I pray for them” – that sounds like what I was saying.
“and when and if they come to me and tell me their story I am here.” – the ‘if’ is huge.
“Shame on me for reaching out in love to hurting women.” – not at all.
Not completely sure of what to think about your words John.
“Submission that way makes YOU LESS human.” – I disagree. I think it makes me less captive to some arbitrary dictate from artificially generated sources.
“He has a huge appetite to share what is true.” – that is my intent. Reality, not fantasy.
You’re all man, Reality. You get a girl pregnant, chip in to have your child killed, and then claim absolutely no responsibility, agency, or influence in the death of that child/
Classy, especially when you dress it up like you’re an enlightened feminist. No, what you are is a USER.
Is that the precis or chapter one in your little adventure into fictionland Courtnay?
Don’t make ridiculous attempts at character assassination when you know nothing.