Rape and Abortion: Dilemma or Demagoguery
Let’s do a mind experiment. Pretend you are yourself. Now pretend your mother comes to you and tells you that, even though she and your father raised you as if you were the product of their union, in fact she was horribly, brutally raped and it was in that rape that you were conceived. Painful as it was for her — and only she and God know how painful it was — she decided to go through with the pregnancy and give you life.
Have you now lost your right to live? Can you be legally exterminated because of the way you were conceived?
My point here is not — not — that there should be laws against abortion in cases of rape. My point is only that the question of abortion is essentially the question of whether a fetus is human. If an unborn child is a human being, the fact that it resides within its mother is no more relevant than the fact of where you reside. If (and a person of good will can honorably make this argument) there is some point at which a fetus is not yet a human being, then it seems to me you can morally abort it because it’s sick or annoying or female or has failed to have blond hair and blue eyes.
Now anyone with a mind and heart can see that there are vexed moral questions here, filled with grey areas. No feminist blather and no ruling from the pope in Rome can turn those areas to black and white. For a rape victim to bring a baby to term would be, to my mind, an act of moral heroism equivalent to running into a burning building to save a child. I’m not convinced that laws should be passed requiring that sort of elevated action from people. And yet I do believe the child conceived in that horror story is a child indeed and that a minister, say, could, in good conscience, counsel the mother to strive toward the heroic, if the minister felt she might be able.
As everyone knows (since the media has covered it more often than Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate put together), Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock recently answered a debate question about abortion and rape: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Mourdock later clarified the comment and apologized for his poor phrasing — as was proper — but come on, we all know what he was trying to say. He doesn’t think rape is intended by God. He thinks a baby conceived by rape remains a baby with a right to life.
"I'm Brian Williams - and this is NBC news!"
It doesn’t bother me that many people disagree with this. As I said, I myself think the question is so difficult it is beyond the scope of law and only the individual conscience should be trusted to decide it. But what does bother me is that leftists — by which I mean Democrats and their mainstream journalist Renfields — have tried to demagogue this into some kind of gotcha moment, akin to Todd Akin’s ignorant remark about women’s magic bodies containing a sparkly stopgap that prevents the whole problem. Read the articles: filled with wishful msm thinking about how Mourdock’s remarks put the entire GOP on the defensive.
But wishful thinking is all it is. Mourdock’s remarks in no way soil the Republican Party nor do they make him an extremist or a fool. The man is simply using his conscience to probe a dilemma. Hey, I think we should encourage that in our politicians! Who knows? It might even make them less stupid over time.
If we had a media that was fair and balanced — willing to, you know, do the reporting and let us do the deciding — Democrats would not be allowed to transform women’s bodies into mere bludgeons with which to beat the opposition, nor to pulverize true moral dilemmas into demagogic kibble for their idiot base.
Well, I can dream, can’t I?
***
All fine and dandy.
Except it was obvious from day one that someone espousing those views is not going to be elected to the Senate, even in the reddest of states. As Ann Coulter, a consistent right to lifer has said, give them their thousand abortions for incest and rape and go for stopping the hundreds of thousands of abortions for convenience. This is politics 101.
If we end up with Obamacare and a Romney administration hamstrung by Harry Reid as majority leader, the blame will go directly on the anti-abortion zealots and a net loss for the right to life movement.
Heaven help me I’m agreeing with Ann Coulter.
I’m firmly pro-Choice. But only in the cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother…as far as using it as contraception? Nope. And I think she’s right even though she’s coming from a different side than me as non-Choicer.
Everyone knows what Murdock means…but it was still the dumbest thing he could state at this late in the game. And since I’m neither a Democrat/Republican…I have a hard time feeling sorry for him. More to the point he makes me angry saying something like that knowing full well what is at stake if Democrats hold the Senate…more to that, putting Romney in the position of having to turn himself into a pretzel to get this guy elected.
GOP candidates, pundits, supporters…stop making Romney’s job of getting elected more difficult for him. Please shut up. Keep your personal views to yourselves, and loved ones…at least til AFTER he’s elected/you’re elected. If someone comes at you with a question of rape and abortion and they have a video camera, recording device, cell phone, notepad with pencil…that is not the time to have a discussion about your faith and forgiveness…they are not there for catharsis and meaningful debate…they are there only to trap you. And use anything to derail the discussion of Obama’s amateur hour act as President.
And after saying all that, to have Obama sit there and try to use this as some gotcha moment saying crap like, “Do you want men in Washington dictating to you what to do with your body?” While you have Bloomberg dictating what people put in their bodies, his wife with that laughable eating healthy initiative that is turning into an abject failure….while you have Obama himself dictating what we should do with our bodies in regards to having insurance mandated by HIM, I’m sorry the Federal Government…Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? What a blowhard.
Miss Malevolent, Everybody has always had the right to choose. Some choose to raise their young, and others choose to kill them. Go figger! If you know what this guy Murdock meant by his comment, then why are you so mad at him? You seem to agree with his position, yet you disagree with what he says in defense if that position. That seems kinda wrong-headed to me. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. If so please excuse my lack of insight.
@MM “But only in the cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother”
Only one of those is able to be backed up logically and that’s the last one and even then only to a certain point.
Emotion is just not enough to warrant killing anything really.
Emotion is just not enough to warrant killing anything really.
Not even a rattlesnake?
Of course not even a rattle snake. If you kill a rattlesnake it is because it might harm you or your loved ones. Not because of emotional hysteria.
I think a lot of the abortion problem is how we phrase it. You say pro-choice, but only in case of rape, incest, or danger to mother. Most pro-lifers say pro-life, except in case of rape, incest, or danger to mother. See what’s going on? You have the exact same opinion on abortion that I have, but you call yourself pro-choice and I call myself pro-life.
Granted, I still think abortions in the cases of rape and incest are morally suspect, as it’s not the child’s fault, but it’s such a grey area (mother’s mental health and whatnot) that it should remain legal in those cases.
And this is exactly how I feel, and it also would appear to be how the majority of Americans feel by most polls.
Of course the problem then is that we now have this mysterious drastic rise in rape accusations.
Of course the problem then becomes that we now have this mysterious drastic rise in rape accusations.
Not likely if abortions were limited by law to rape/incest/life of mother. Formal charges would have to be filed and the aborted baby’s DNA becomes evidence.
One positive side effect of such a restriction would be that men might finally grow up and stop acting like overgrown fratboys.
Of course, it’s not likely such a restriction would ever be passed in the first place.
Except that the Republican voters of Indiana voted for Richard Mourdock because he’s an honest man, a man of integrity, a better man than Dick. That he would answer this gotcha question honestly is exactly why it was asked of him. He’s a much better man than the slimy Joe Donnelly.
Contrast that with Missouri, where Democrats voted for Todd Akin in the primary because they thought he was the only Republican Claire McCaskill had a slight chance of defeating.
The other problem with rape and incest exceptions is that even more women who have “morning after regrets” will falsely claim rape OR INCEST; this is already a problem which would only be exacerbated with rape and incest exceptions. I think the best solution would be a mix; banning all abortions after the baby is clearly fully formed (19 weeks or so), with no exceptions except the life of the mother.
Maybe women who claim rape would be allowed to be induced a little early (35 weeks or more) if their sanity was threatened, as long as there was an adoptive couple willing to care for the child, and if they aren’t married, the male would automatically be considered to have forfeited his parental rights so that the woman could give the baby up for adoption? Off the top of my head…
Except the courts have already established that even rapists have parental rights — can even sue for visitation and support.
The problems with legislating rape/incest/life of mother are huge.
Legal abortion, however, is here to stay.
The fight to end abortion on demand is a fight for hearts and minds (a trite phrase, I know, but the correct one nevertheless).
The problem there is that so very many “prolifers”, Jeanette, are such appallingly awful people and are so nasty and vicious to anyone and everyone who doesn’t capitulate to them across the board and immediately, that they turn people off, and worse, frighten off those most in need.
Thank you, Nora! Do go on. Please tell everyone at length what you think of me for giving my opinion on the abortion question. I’d like all the lurkers to get a really good idea of what you’re like.
They can read what I’ve already written. They can see your responses. You have lied over and over again about my position and I have quite plainly informed you every time that you are wrong and then explained it again. You are a vicious, vile, mentally ill woman who personifies everything wrong with the prolife movement. But enough anout that – please do tell is all about how you died, went through purgatory, made it to heaven and then came back again – that really IS entertaining, lol!
The problem there is that so very many “prochoisers”, Nora, are such appallingly awful people and are so nasty and vicious to anyone and everyone who doesn’t capitulate to them across the board and immediately, that they turn people off, and worse, frighten off those most in need.
And around and around it goes…
People suck. Nothing new there. And we all have our experiences. Mine have informed my position, yours have informed yours.
~shrug~
See, here’s my problem with your position. You say, “Don’t for your morals on me and make my choice.” That’s fine as far as it goes, but in order for us to do that, you are very much forcing your morals on us. In order for someone to choose abortion in the case of rape, you have to do so with one of two mindsets: 1.) yes, it’s a baby, but who cares? I’m taking revenge on the rapist by killing his hateful spawn. 2.) It’s just a lump of cells. It’s not alive or if it is, it’s not human.
So, in order for those of us who very much believe that abortion takes an innocent human life to allow you your “choice,” we have to either allow to kill another life in clear revenge for what was done to you. I don’t know about you but I’m not in the habit of letting someone just murder an innocent child just to allow someone else to carry out their choice and avoid “jamming my morals” down their throats. Children are innocent and too weak to stick up for themselves. They need protection.
Or, I have to still stand by and let you carry out what I consider to be murder. It doesn’t matter if you think differently. What matters is what I believe, and I shouldn’t be forced to compromise my beliefs so that you can be comfortable within your beliefs, and that’s where the whole forcing of morals comes from, doesn’t it? See, no matter how this one pans out, one of us must be made to commpromise out morals. It stinks, but there it is.
And at the end of the day, no matter which option we’re looking at for the reasoning behind this choice that results in the victimization of an innocent life whose only fault is in his or her conception, the greater problem is that the real perpetrator who forced us to this loggerhead isn’t being held to account for anything more than the assault. We hold murderers accountable for two murders when they murder a pregnant woman. Why aren’t rapists similarly held to account for manslaughter if their victims wind up getting abortions? I say manslaughter because no rapist intends to get his victim pregnant, but he did so and if she aborts the child, it was the dead victim of his crime nonetheless.
“give them their thousand abortions for incest and rape and go for stopping the hundreds of thousands of abortions for convenience. This is politics 101.”
Politics is fine…if you can fall back on principle. Politics is not a solid leg to stand on.
Give me an honest asshat over a glib liar who tells me pretty things any day.
I appreciate Mr. Klavan’s article, but the analogy with the burning building does not work. When I go into a burning building, I DO something that puts me at immediate and grave danger. No law can require me to do that. But a law that prohibits abortion does not require any such thing. It prohibits an action; it allows for nature to take its course. What the so-called “zealots” are trying to establish is a PRINCIPLE. I do know that politics is the art of the possible. I know how messy and ugly it is. But just change the scenery for a moment. Suppose someone said that a person’s property was his own, EXCEPT when the municipality needs it not for something essential to the general welfare (to build a bridge, for instance; this exception is something like the moral law that permits an abortion as the unintended effect of saving a woman’s life) but to increase its tax base. Hey, we wouldn’t care for that, would we? We’d be property-rights-zealots, understanding the lethal principle at work, that one’s property could be commandeered at the will of our “leaders”. The principle governs. It is precisely that — the principle — that makes for people of integrity, and not moral weaklings who cave in whenever things are rough. It’s the principle that strengthens you to do what your duty demands regardless of your passions or of the heartache of the moment.
Jay-Z’s Glory rap song… “Everything I prayed for. God’s gift, I wish I would’ve prayed more. God makes no mistakes. Life is a gift”
Jay-Z must be a right wing extremist!
I think it’s the wrong argument to say when a mass of cells becomes a human being. If you extract DNA from a fertilized egg, it’s going to be human DNA, and not, say, elephant DNA.
The question is more, when does one acquire the right to life. Your right to life can be revoked in a few situations, such as a societally agreed upon death penalty (there are good pro and anti death penalty arguments,) soldiers in a time of war are legitimate targets, and an attacker in a life or death struggle.
Now posit that human beings have gotten the “who is a human with full right to life” question wrong in the past — slavery, death camps, etc. Does viability sound like a good point? But then viability will mean one thing in a modern hospital with up to date preemie equipment, and another in the hinterlands of Afghanistan. Erring on the side of “this is a human being with full right to life” right from the beginning is not the worst option.
The long-standing secular standard is a heartbeat (week 6 for sure for an unborn baby, arguably earlier) and active brain (week 3).
I believe only in induction at any time during the pregancy, only if the mother’s health is in danger (this could include extreme mental anguish due to rape or incest), with the intention to at least try to save the baby if developmentally possible (during early pregnancy until a certain point death would be assumed). There is no need for abortion. Abortion is the intention to kill the unborn child.
Why does Obama get a free pass from answering tough questions? Letting a born child die on a cold table while withholding medical intervention is radically more extreme than believing life is a gift.
Actually, I meant induction or other medically approved form of delivery.
You’d have the same meaningless “human” result from either adult stem cells or a chopped off fingertip. Causing the death of either isn’t murder.
The question of when a supermajority of Americans believe the point in a pregnancy has been reached when it is human being and should not be murdered.
Only a drastically small minority believe that point is when two gametes meet, or implantation either one. The Bible–you may have heard of it–doesn’t address the question until the baby’s movement can be felt.
Which would allow RU-486 and first trimester abortions.
In other words, neither extreme has anything but mindless emotion to support it. Since the pro-life side at least the advantage of not wanting babies murdered, they get a bye from me despite their ridiculousness.
The “pro-choice” side is equally ridiculous and for murdering babies.
That’s because a somatic cell is merely a part and a copy of the whole, but a zygote IS the whole.
Zygotes, have no, and have had no dreams. Neither are they people.
Neither so is fetus too few weeks gestated.
They are independent living organisms with unique human DNA. They are NOT part of the mother’s body, as they must be protected from the mothers’ immune systems by the placenta.
Take whatever meaning from those facts you will. I’ve decided on mine.
@JLanceCombs
And if you have decided any abortion any time for any reason should be legal, you are distinct minority.
If you believe any abortion any time for any reason should be illegal, you are in a distinct minority.
Eventually, the center 60-70% of the population will have it’s say, and you evil nitwits at the ends of the bell curve who posses no morals or ethics which you actually attempt to live by, you Pharisees for whom hypocritical seeming is all important–you can go pound sand.
I don’t remember when it was decided that being in the minority meant one was wrong.
Being in a minority doesn’t, but being a minority staking a claim on moral position involved murder–when you have no intention of following through on that position–that is evil and hypocritical. In fact, that’s evil and hypocritical if you are a majority.
You make assumptions. Pharisees? I’m an atheist, not a sanctimonious preacher. How do you reconcile that with my support for gay marriage? Logic leads me to the decision that abortion is wrong. Furthermore, I never said in any and all cases. There are extenuating circumstances. But believe abortion is generally wrong means I believe that not aborting would be the “rule” and that aborting would be the “exception”.
But your argument that a fetus is a non-person removes limits on abortion and, whether you agree with those you called “evil nitwits” who’d do it in every case, you still give them the argument with which to make their case.
I suppose the primary difference is you believe time can be a factor, where I believe only extenuating circumstances can be.
Take for instance, my view on killing adult human beings. Killing a human being is wrong, it is murder. However, if someone breaks into my home to do harm to me and my family, they will not make it back to theirs. That is an extenuating circumstance. But, I will not decide that it is right to kill someone in a coma (not sure if the comatose dream), simply because they inconvenience me.
What do you mean “having no intention to follow through”? Do you think I’m going to preach against abortion and go around hypocritcally performing them to suit myself?
What makes you a Pharisee is not that you think you are a Herodian era Jewish priest of course, it’s that you claim to believe human life worthy of legal protection from murder begins at conception.
Of course if you weren’t a Phariseean hypocritical fool worthy of universal condemnation, then you’d take the position that the half of all conceptuses which naturally never implant are equally worthy of saving.
@ Tom Perkins. You make a lot of assumptions. Many at either end of the bell curve do live their worldview unhypocritically. Franly, you come across as a judgemental ass.
FWIW, morality isn’t up to the will of the majority, else the 60-70% could decide “morally” that anyone with the name “Tom Perkins” should be eliminated.
Or that Jews, blacks, etc. have no rights that the majority are bound to recognize.
True “correct” morality (“good,” if you will) is always at one end of the bell curve; true “incorrect” morality (“evil,” if you will) is always at the other. Whatever the mushy majority thinks is irrelevant as they are swayed one way or the other from either end of the curve.
All that matters is the individual. The “majority” opinion is meaningless so far as moral questions are concerned.
You didn’t read my entire comment did you. You continue to claim I take a fringe view, when I take a commonly held view, that abortion is wrong in most cases but acceptable in extenuating circumstances. Second, you claim I am a hypocrite, though I hold no view (in relation to this argument, at least) that I cannot back up in action. As a matter of fact, I have no motive whatsoever to do anything other than practice what I preach with regards to abortion. I wouldn’t gain any personal benefit from dong otherwise.
Finally, and I separate this from the other paragraph for emphasis, you have TWICE claimed that anyone who takes anything other than your view on this is either evil or stupid and are worth universal condemnation. You did not use the phrases scorn, condescension, or ridicule (which I would have accepted), but condemnation. Do you seriously believe you have the right to make that sort of judgement? Even if I am mistaken, you are wrong to call for universal condemnation. I don’t even do that with pro-abortion people. They’re mistaken, not evil. But you live so high up on your ivory tower that you get to decide the worth of those you make argument with. You ACT like the mythical Pharisee, while calling me one (btw, that is a mistaken view of what the Pharisees actually were in real life, but whatever), which is ACTUALLY hypocritical.
Lastly, you’re being awfully vicious to someone who generally agrees with you on the legality of the issue, even if we disagree on the foundation of that opinion.
What ridiculous nonsense are you babbling about?
“You’d have the same meaningless “human” result from either adult stem cells or a chopped off fingertip. Causing the death of either isn’t murder.”
Ridiculous nonsense.
Same argument I’ve been making in my social circles. If you can’t agree on when life starts, err on the side of caution and choose life at conception. It’s better to mistakenly NOT abort a non-entity than it is to mistakenly abort a human being.
The analogy goes like this: If you were in charge of demolishing a building, and someone came to you and said. “Someone told me there’s a homeless guy on the fifth floor, but all the stairs have collapsed so it will take a while before we can check it out and confirm”, you should probably wait to demolish the building so you don’t destroy the potential human being.
Exactly, for my way of thinking, since science seems unable to give a definitive or satisfactory answer as to when exactly life begins and babies are able to have a chance at survival outside the womb at younger and younger birth dates all the time, I prefer to think of erring on the side of caution. After all, how horrific would it be if we ever did finally draw that line and discovered that we’d essentially been legally allowing something far more horrific than any known genocide for decades simply for the sake of maternal convenience?
“If (and a person of good will can honorably make this argument) there is some point at which a fetus is not yet a human being, then it seems to me you can morally abort it because it’s sick or annoying or female or has failed to have blond hair and blue eyes.”
Problem: Current medical science does NOT support this proposition. A child is a child from the moment of conception. The fetus issue is so 1900s.
Two quick points:
1. We should defend the right of people to TALK about abortion and rape. The “Gotcha” politics are becoming nauseating. These are hard and important issues, and the wild-eyed attacks on anybody who says the word “rape” is getting old.
2. With that said…. Politicians, READ THE MEMO. A Republican candidate who starts talking about rape or abortion without carefully choosing their words is an idiot. Unfair, but true. The trap is there. Think before you speak.
A raped woman who carries a child so conceived to term is a humbling example. I cannot imagine the strength of mind and spirit needed, and I could only bow my head to it.
What I will not do is even begin to extrapolate from any such decision, whether to bear a child or not. Nor will I argue with a politician who tries to articulate that very difficult understanding.
This is a fine academic exercise but kind of moot. How will you enforce any law that prohibits abortion? Strap the woman to a bed? Lock her up? Pull her passport and drivers license so she cannot leave the state? That’s the next logical discussion, is it not? These discussions by social conservative candidates are simply scaring young women and accomplishing nothing. Leave the law as it stands (RvW) and concentrate on educating people.
Hear, hear.
Delusional socons think that outlawing abortion will stop it. The choice we have is that women and girls obtain abortions legally, or illegally. That’s it.
Delusional? You’re a child.
No one thinks abortion will ever be stopped. There were abortions when it was illegal – but how many, Eisnstein? A million a year like we currently have? Don’t make me laugh.
When it was legalized, the number of them jumped through the roof.
Safe, legal and rare? Riiiiight.
Delusional? You’re a child.
And you’re a luddite ignorant of the modern world. AIRCRAFT, genius. They leave the country. Do you really think that the numbers would change? Planned parenthood would switch gears and collect money for air faire. This isn’t rocket science.
Planned Parenthood can do whatever they want as long as they get out of my wallet.
Yet it is so advanced to support abortion for any reason at any stage of development. Sorry, but that is neanderthal cruel. Most Americans fall in the middle on this issue. The Democrat position is extreme and cruel and they never get asked the tough questions because the media sets up questions as gotchas for conservatives while they handle the democrats with kid gloves.
And what do you pretend the fact airplanes can fly has to do with whether a murder should be treated as such?
Aircraft also take people for child sex tourism in places like Brazil and Thailand. Doesn’t mean we should just recognize the inevitable and make it legal here as well.
By this I am not suggesting that abortion should be categorically outlawed, rather I think it is wrongheaded to base legality and morality on the premise of “well they’re just going to go do it somewhere else anyway”.
Aircraft also take people for child sex tourism in places like Brazil and Thailand.
These are actual crimes with actual victims. You aren’t very bright, are you?
Hey genius, people do a lot of illegal things, that doesn’t mean we throw our hands in the air and say forget it.
Besides the issue everyone forgets is who is paying for it? As a pro-lifer I should not have to pay for the abortion of a pro-choicer. Although come to think of it, if more pro-choicers were aborted the problem would soon go away.
And by your comment we see that you are in fact no rocket scientist.
GRAYMAN As a pro-lifer I should not have to pay for the abortion of a pro-choicer.
As an insurance buyer I shouldn’t have to pay higher rates because you got into an accident because you’re stupid and were texting. As a medical insurance buyer I shouldn’t have to pay the rates I do because you have no self control and you got diabetes because you can’t put the soft drinks down. As a taxpayer I shouldn’t have to pay your disability because that accident you had in your car caused by a diabetic coma left you unable to work.
Face it, the “I shouldn’t have to pay” argument is weak and pathetic and solely an attempt to justify your smug feelings of superiority. You’re better than the gal whose pill formulation was hosed by the pharmacy, aren’t you? She’s just an irresponsible slut anyway, isn’t she?
When abortion is illegal how exactly do you keep tabs on it? How do you know that it was rarer in the pre Roe v. Wade days? The only statistics kept concerned women who died or suffered complications which required them to see real doctors, or abortionists who were arrested. The vast majority of illegal abortions performed, no-one ever knew about, which was the whole point.
If all abortions were performed in the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, while there would still be bonafide ethical issues surrounding abortion there would be no pro-life movement, because at that stage it is literally a microscopic blob of cells. Women who miscarry in the first few weeks of pregnancy usually are not even aware of it. There is a reason why pro-lifers don’t put pictures of 3 or 4 week embryos on their posters; no-one is going to respond emotionally to them. This despite the insistence that “life begins at conception”. abortion is illegal in many countries – many of which still have a very high abortion rate, such as Brazil, for example – but there is no law in the world that gives full personhood to a fertilized egg.
BTW I actually agree that it should make no legal difference how a woman gets pregnant, whether through rape or consensual sex. Either way, the state has no business in her body in the early stages of pregnancy.
Kathleen,
It’s my understanding that there are statistics around from the late 1960s and early 70s. You can compare maternal deaths etc between legal and illegal abortions (fetal deaths being pretty darn close 100% for both of course) by comparing states. I’m sure you’re aware that medical advances, not legality, had had the strongest effect on maternal complications; maternal deaths dropped dramatically after use of antibiotics became widespread although butchers like Hodari and Gosnell have had a negative effect. Safe, legal, and rare, indeed!
And even if so-cons managed to make this a federal level case — flights are cheap. Women can go elsewhere on the planet. Easily. So-cons are trumped by jet travel. Frankly I think most of them could be outwitted by broccoli. They waste a lot of bandwidth on issues thay can’t possibly win.
You think only social conservatives can be anti-abortion? And you think we’re all stupid?
You’re argument about flights being used to skirt the law is ignorant, since every law gets flouted here and there. Does that make said laws stupid? Some are going to fall through the cracks and enforcement will miss it. That’s true with every law. That doesn’t change the fact that laws against abortion will make it more costly and risky and make people much less likely to make that choice. THAT is the pragmatic aspect of it.
Btw, I’m an atheist who approves of gay marriage and have an IQ of 137. I guess I’m just a theocratic social conservative being outwitted by broccoli.
Not to laugh at a very serious subject, but that’s some mighty intelligent broccoli!
So you are saying that since murder laws and theft laws and rape laws don’t stop murder, theft and rape we should throw them out?
We are not a “pro choice” country but a “pro abortion” one. Our policies are aimed at promoting abortions and protecting abortionists.
If you want to argue that a federal law requiring the FBI to investigate and bring charges against every girl and woman who has an abortion is a very unwise idea, I’d be in 100 percent agreement.
OTOH, if you want to say let’s keep shoveling tax money at abortion providers — and this with a $16 trillion debt — or that poorly reasoned Supreme Court decisions should remain in effect regardless of whatever turmoil they cause, or that a state or community may ban the acceptance of money for performing abortions, you are really not interested in looking for common ground and may as well vote for Obama.
And if a state actually does make it criminal for a woman to have an abortion, they don’t have to take a plane anywhere. They can just drive to NY or LA or Chicago where abortion is treated like a religion.
So you are saying that since murder laws and theft laws and rape laws don’t stop murder, theft and rape we should throw them out?
Part of what effective_and_just law is about *is* the pragmatgic aspect, what is actually enforceable. An 8 weeks pregnant woman boards a plane and nobody but her and her doctor knows it. So what’s your solution, totalitarian? Mandantory pregnancy tests at terminals?
OTOH, if you want to say let’s keep shoveling tax money at abortion providers … you are really not interested in looking for common ground and may as well vote for Obama.
So apparently now YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn’t republican. I see.
You need to check your meds. The GOP ain’t your personal club, pal, and you don’t get to make the rules. If **anybody** here is arguing for more government and ought to vote Obama, it would be YOU. You don’t actually have a problem with statism. Oh no. The difference bewteen you and the democrats is merely the mechanism (excuse) used to impose control of the state. Obama et al advocate socialism. You advocate theocracy. You’re a totalitarian masquerading as a constitutionalist and using “dead babies” as your club to beat the amoral people in line with.
Hey “pal” you’re the one bitching about the “rules” which, btw, are made by the party committees. I’d just as soon see you vote for Romney but if the pro-life platform offends you so much you can’t hit that R button, well, such is life.
Part of what effective_and_just law is about *is* the pragmatgic aspect, what is actually enforceable. An 8 weeks pregnant woman boards a plane and nobody but her and her doctor knows it. So what’s your solution, totalitarian? Mandantory pregnancy tests at terminals?
How about this: you catch someone accepting money for performing an abortion you throw him in jail? Pragamatic, just and enforceable. What seems to bother you is declaring abortion to be a bad thing and attempting to discourage it. Why is that?
BTW, do you really consider yourself to be “amoral”?
Similarly, only morons think that outlawing guns will stop gun crimes, outlawing murder will stop murders, outlawing rapes will stop rape, outlawing theft will stop theives …
Maybe we should just repeal all laws. Clearly they don’t work because none of them actually stop the behaviors or problems they were intended to regulate.
I’m getting sick to death of “how are you going to enforce it?” Whether it’s drugs or abortion or whatever.
How the hell do we enforce ANY law? If I were proposing a law against rape or murder or theft for the first time you would be there with that childish rejoinder of yours: “That’s an unenforceable law!”
Laws are a society putting its foot down and drawing a line. They are what shape the culture. They are not meant to eliminate crime. That’s an impossibility.
If abortion was illegal, yes, there would still be abortion – the same way we currently have rapists, murderers and thieves – but no one would be making ME a party to the murder by pulling money out of my wallet.
Great point about enforcement. Somebody said, are we going to strap the mothers to their beds? Well, are we going to cut off all the mens’ peckers so they don’t rape; cut off everyone’s hands so they can’t steal?
No enforcement of law can be or ever has been successfully preventive. Enforcement is retaliatory. It makes examples of those who break the law.
Actually, law enforcement only makes examples of those who get caught breaking the law. Big difference.
If abortion is declared to be unlawful and murder, then enforcement would mean imprisonment. Shouldn’t the pregnant woman be imprisoned for her violation of the law? Who will be the first to demand enforcement against a mother of three children?
Arrest and prosecute mother’s and doctors who perform them. It will become too costly to do as regularly and the number of abortions will fall.
Enforcement is a red herring. Agree with the principle that all life deserves equal protection? Then treat women who have abortions the same way you treat women who hire hitmen to kill their husbands. Treat abortionists the same way you would treat hitmen. If you have a problem with this you aren’t really anti-abortion, and you think politics ought to trump principles.
Except that pregnancy is an EXTREMELY vulnerable time. Women and girls who are pregnant have bucketloads of chemicals, hormones racing through their bodies. That’s why one of the most common reasons given on “abortion recovery” websites is “I didn’t think I had a choice”. I’m sure you already knew that though, since pro-choicers have been livid about women not having that particular “choice”, right? lol. You also have all the pedophiles who bring underage girls to clinics in order to hide the evidence of their crimes. It’s pretty clear that there is coercion in many cases so I think the law would need to tread very carefully in prosecuting women.
Klavan, you’re so ideologically wedded to the far right that you simply aren’t understanding the problem. I’ll explain it. We voters have multi trillion $ deficits to deal with. Jobs that pay well are disappearing. Our kids are graduating college with crushing debt. Gasoline is at a ridiculous price. If the Turkish military makes any more poor decisions Turkey will go full bore islamic and we will lose the one ally in the region other than Israel that can keep the mideast stabilised. That means our foreign policy vector is important.
Not ONCE in the above paragraph was abortion mentioned. And why? Because this is an absurdly low priority, a question already decided, already settled, and has been so for 39.5 years. GOP candidates who bother to rattle on about abortion are obviously not interested in being in Washington to work on the problems faced by voters. Nope. They’re LIARS who are running for office to wage holy cutural war.
That’s why this topic is a problem.
See this link:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/election-4/?page=2
I don’t agree with the writer’s politics but the observation is unassailable –
“In the elections of 2010, we were told that the Tea Party candidates arriving on the scene would eliminate the deficit and shrink the government, somehow. Other issues were set aside. Abortion, gay rights, religion in politics—those were all part of the old religious right, now supplanted by the deficit purists. But in a great bait and switch, the first thing the new people in Congress, the state houses, and state legislatures did was introduce a flood of bills to limit, stigmatize, or eliminate abortions, and the flood has not abated—944 provisions on abortion or contraception were still being introduced into state legislatures during the first three months of 2012.”
And you don’t think that this abandonment of the principle of “Life, Liberty, Pursuit”, with LIFE being the first in priority, isn’t contributory to the failure of the rest? You can’t undermine a building’s foundation without undermining the building. This is why liberals and conservatives alike can’t understand what’s happening. You can’t be socially liberal (Abortion, Gay Marriage, Etc) and have a strong economy, because there’s problems that go along with those social policies that undermine the basic ability to have a strong economy. Fiscal Liberalism and the collapse of an economy are the natural result of moral failure socially.
Liberals, Libertarians, all the same. Social Liberalism leads to a failure of everything else. There is no compromise.
I couldn’t have put it better Josh.
That was a remarkable piece of obfuscation. Really, I can do nothing but applaud. Did you note that Klavan was addressing the obsessive focus of the mainstream media on asking Republicans – and only Republicans – about their views on abortion? Particularly the hard cases.
How fascinating that you treat addressing obsessive focus as a distraction!
Did you note that Klavan was addressing the obsessive focus of the mainstream media on asking Republicans – and only Republicans – about their views on abortion?
And did YOU note that democrats aren’t known for being obsessed with overturning what is now a 39.5 year old SCOTUS decision? Why would reporters ask democrats? The proper answer — the one that apparently only dem candidates are smart enough to respond with — is that while they may find an act personally repugnant etc this is the law and moreover a private matter between a woman and her doctor. This is THE ONLY SANE ANSWER.
(And I’ll proudly note that this is the one Romney gave. Romney is a great deal smarter than you or Klavan.)
If I were part of the bad old scary media I’d ask conservative pinheads all sorts of stupid questions about abortion and evolution and yes expose them for the retarded throwbacks that they really are. I’d relish the opportunity to show the voters that these asshats aren’t running for office to do the business of the people, they’re on a personal religious jihad attempting to impose their poorly considered values on the voters.
What a sad, small little world you must live in.
Maybe someone should have aborted you, or are you just so special?
That’s what it comes down to.
Taking a human life must have a truly great reason. We can’t kill the most brutal murderers, but we can exterminate the unborn?
Tigers in the jungle wouldn’t do such a thing.
Are you in favor of pedophilia, too?
After all, if we can kill them, why can’t we schtupp them? Or enslave them?
What’s it like living with no moral compass at all?
As to it being settled, so was slavery, for thousands of years. It’s still practiced in a great deal of the lovely third world (which even seems to include parts of Queens, NY). I’d kinda like me some slaves. We’re already paying the welfare queens. I think I’d like me one a them, too.
Y’know, since you’re all in favor of murder, why don’t I enslave YOU?
What’s it like living with no moral compass at all?
That’s precisely the question one would have of you. You’re advocating slavery. If a woman finds herself pregnant and doesn’t wish to be, you would force her to be a walking incubator in the name of the unborn.
Apparently your entire operating philosophy can be reduced to a bumper sticker — “SUCKS TO BE YOU!” — where it concerns women who became pregnant and didn’t want to be. That’s the limit of your IQ.
You’re both immoral and vapid.
How about we raise our children to have respect for their bodies and not engage in all the whoring around that has caused this mess? The diseases that have been created in the last 40 years is frightening. This is also why our forebares were such “prudes.” They had already been there and done that and it’s time for us to do the same.
And there it is. Seriously people, all this rape talk is distracting us from our original mission–punishing sluts. Focus, people, focus!
How about we raise our children to have respect for their bodies and not engage in all the whoring around that has caused this mess?
The reasons abortions are sought vary from rape to contraceptive failure. They’re always personal. It’s popular in this craphole to simply assume those who get procedures are amoral libertines who cat around with anyone at any time and use abortion in lieu of contraception. It strikes me that this is absurdity on stilts at best. Frankly you holier than thou types make me puke.
You wouldn’t be in position to need an abortion for contraceptive failure if you didn’t rely on your contraceptives to be a 100% guarantee of safe sex. There is no such animal. If you aren’t prepared to deal with all the consequences of sex, including possible pregnancy no matter how you slice and dice it, then you shouldn’t be having sex. It’s that simple.
No, randomengineer, you aren’t getting it. The economic situation has no bearing on whether or not we should criminalize or prosecute murder.
So what you’re saying is that your desire to kill babies is so important that you will vote to let the economy collapse and our foreign policy go to hell. You do know most Americans do believe that some restrictions on abortion are appropriate. Most Americans do not accept letting a born child die on a cold table without medical intervention as Obama does. Who are the extremists?
On the contrary, legalized abortion is the root cause of this entire mess, or do you imagine that trillions of dollars in debt has nothing at all to do with exterminating a quarter of the younger generation? 20 million workers, entrepreneurs and consumers and 30+ million more children would have a tremendous impact on our economy.
Also, the issue is no more decided than the question of slavery was in 1850.
This is the part I think is hilarious: “Duh, we agreed that liberals would kill their kids and that only pro-lifers would reproduce, like 40 years ago now. Why are there still pro-lifers talking about it?” lol
Also, it wasn’t “settled”, it’s just that liberals screeched the way liberals always do and got the Supreme Court to make a decision based on penumbras that most agree is pretty shaky. And btw, I think it would be best to just overturn Roe and go back to the way it was before, with each state being allowed by the 10th Amendment to make its own laws. So yes, some women would cross state lines or national borders just like people now cross national borders to marry cousins or perform underage marriages or mutilate their daughters’ outer reproductive parts.
“Renfields?” You mean they eat insects?
Gee, now the mainstream media makes much more sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up!
Two comments:
1) What would I do should I discover that I was or am the product of an abortion that survived? Is retroactive post parten abortion acceptable? Some medical ethicists argue today that there should, indeed, be post partem abortion as there may be abortion at any phase of gestation. If the born child is discovered not to be wanted, what blocks morally an after birth elimination. Horrifying thoughts, but logical given the principle of abortion (to be noted below). If abortion at all phases of in-womb residence is acceptable, I cannot see any moral objection to post partem abortion. If this type is allowed, at what age does the post partem condition end? A few days, weeks, months or even years after birth? Why not abort that unwanted child now become an adult? I suggest the movie “October Baby”. A young lady discovers that here parents had adopted her, that she was an aborted baby that survived. The young lady is driven to find out “Why?” So she sets out in a path of self-disovery, searching for the woman who had aborted her.
2) Now to the principle of abortion. I mean the justification for it, independent of the reason why a woman might chose one or be forced to have one in some cultures. In stating the “principle of abortion” matters will not become so foggy as suggested by Klavan, rather take on the features of the pronouncements of a GERMAN Pope. So, on to the priniple:
The elimination of unwanted “humans” took a particularly all encompasing extension in the case of Nazi Germany re particularly Jews. The Nazis were not just “mad men”, but also morally principled. Yes, there was a moral principle justifying, let us say, massive post partem elimination. The principle was “unwertes Leben”, translated as “humans not worthy of life”. If a group of humans can be qualified as “unwertes Leben”, then it becomes not only morally acceptable to kill members of the group, but also morally an imperative to do so. The Nazis then used a phoney racist theory to localize groups of “humans not worthy of life”. The Nazis were in their perverse ways extrme moral purists. Listen to the ’43 speech of Himmler and it will become clear that the man was wrestling with moral justification for his post partem elimination of Jews. Himmler argued that there were groups of people damaging human (= Herrenrasse) life. Let me apply the principle of “unwertes Leben” to the morality of eliminating humans before birth.
We Americans “eliminate” some 1,250,000 unborn “humans” per year and Obamacare opens the door to a possible 2,000,000 more eliminations. Since the Supreme Court decision we Americans have “eliminated” ca. 55,000,000 un born “humans”, more dead than all of WW II. (Source is Guttmacher Institute.) So, Mr. Klavan, the principle of abortion is not just limited to the rare (thank God) cases of rape and pregnancy, but to pregnancies per se ending in elimination. What is the justification for the MASSIVE American elimination of unborn humans? In one way or another, we argue that the unborn, in certain cases, are “unwertes Leben”. But “unwertes Leben” is the “principle of abortion” per se and “an sich”. And what does this mean?
Klavan’s wonderful (no irony, rather appreciation) reflections on the rare case of abortion or not in terms of rape rest, logically so, upon a greater moral principle, one that extends beyond the specific problem discussed because the specific problem receives a “principled” argument only in the terms of a general principle, i.e., a “principle of abortion” per se. So I ask Mr. Klavan or any reader if there is any justification for “unwertes Leben”, even of unborn humans? Reflection upon my just stated question will eliminate Klavan’s reference to prouncement of a (German) Pope as irrelevant. “Unwertes Leben” does not allow for partiality.
My point is only that the question of abortion is essentially the question of whether a fetus is human.”
Certainly at some point far before 9 months but not after a few days or a few weeks. At that point it would be a stretch to even say ‘fetus’ as there is not yet even a brain of any kind, human or other animal.
And for anyone who want’s to say ‘potential human life’ every possible combination of human sperm and human egg is ‘potential human life’ so why not demand that every women have as many children as she can?
In any case this subject is one that only seems to work for the benefit of electing democrats over Republicans who insist on pressing it and accomplishes nothing else.
It’s not “potential” until it’s fertilized, dumbass. Which takes a willing act on SOMEBODY’S part. Penises don’t just pop up unannounced inside vaginas, like he flowers in spring.
It is so hard to have a discussion about anything anymore because people have become so damn stupid!
This debate has become polluted by so many red herrings as to be past debate. People have become innured to murder on a grand scale, as long as it ain’t them.
It’s disgusting.
Well, I agree that the “potential” human life argument is illogical. Just use this, since it is based in fact. It IS human life.
About half of all conceptions self-terminate in miscarriages. In many cases, this is a ‘natural abortion’ where the fetus has a biological problem which guarantees a lack of viability. So, one can estimate that there are roughly 4.5 million miscarriages of all types in the US every year. (I’ve seen higher estimates, but let’s keep it simple.) Are we planning to make these reportable and investigate these as potential criminal matters? According to FBI statistics, there are about 1.2 million violent crimes in the US per year. So what then, we’re going to quadruple the number of police, with the baby police outnumbering the other ones by a factor of three. Then what’s next, they’re going to violate the civil rights of every woman in America, and her right to privacy, to chase mostly imaginary crimes? You think you have a police state now, well just wait. Then, of course, you’re going to alienate the biggest voting block in the country. Now that’s pretty smart as well. So, good luck with this.
Bottom Line: Randomengineer is right, this is never going to happen. You think the war on drugs isn’t working out perfectly, this is your worst nightmare.
An act of nature is much different than a human intervention. You’re basically arguing that we should investigate all natural deaths as though they were murders.
My Mom, who had seven children, thought that, since we were going to allow abortion, we shouldn’t stop it at birth. She thought, say, 18 would be a good age. By then, you could be pretty sure that the kid was worthwhile or simply useless.
Of course, she maintained the human rcae would last precisely one generation, once we did that.
Everyone would be aborted between 14 and 16.
Everyone!
She also predicted Motor Voter would bring this country to its knees, by enabling fraud on a grand scale.
Smart lady, my Mom.
Maybe there should be a time slot for aborting our children. First of all, we need a better excuse to commit murder than convenience. Maybe we should start killing the little kiddies when they start showing signs of anti-social behavior. (age 3-4?) Or when they present an overwhelming financial burden to us as parents. (School age, say 7-8?) Or how about when they show real signs of rebellion against our authority as parents (12-13?) Or perhaps we should wait until they vote the first time and we can show that they are truly brain damaged adults that need to be prevented from adding their DNA into the geene pool. (18-21?) Or how about we wait until they become a burden to us in their old age and we just cannot afford to keep paying for their medical care.
Now I am not advocating any of this. I am simply regurgitating krap that has been said to me in my life. Every single bit of this bovine excrement came from a Liberal. In each case, that Liberal just happened to be registered to vote as a Democrat. Go figger. Sad. Scary. Insane. RAWNG!
Respectfully, I think most of the respondants here have failed to grasp mister Klavan’s point.
You disagree with abortion, or believe it should be allowable in certain cases, or should be a means of after the fact contreception. Those are all positions that have their own merits and can be legitimately debated between rationale, THOUGHTFUL people.
Our so called media however is neither rationale or thoughtful. They take, what by his own admission, is a difficult morale thought and twist it into a weapon to use against their opponent. Does no one else see the probem here? The press isn’t running a campaign. They shouldn’t have an opponent to need a weapon against. They are supposed to be educating the public on where BOTH candidates stand. So without looking it up, name Mr. Mourdock’s opponents response to the same question. If Mr. Mourdock’s response is (suppposedly) so cringe worthy shouldn’t his opponents be justly celebrated?
And if we want our politicians to actually stop lying to us with every breath they take, shouldn’t we demand not that they keep quiet about deeply held morale beliefs, but rather that the press stop being such shills for only one position and actually do their job?
If exceptions are made for rape, then women know what they have to say in order to get an abortion.
Hence, “legitimate rape.”
Akins had a poor choice of words, but what he meant was to not give a “rape” option, so that any woman who wanted an abortion would cry “rape” and then potentially send a man to jail.
Plus, he has some really bad science on his side.
True, but in Akin’s defense, if a rape is reported immediately after it occurs, the victim can be given a shot to prevent the egg from attaching. He understood that rape-based pregnancies are rare, but got the facts messed up.
From the moment of fertilization, the child is a distinct human being. Any drug that prevents this embryo from attaching to the womb is an abortifacient.
“From the moment of fertilization, the child is a distinct human being.”
No, it’s not.
If you think such, why are not as concerned for the half of all conceptuses which never implant?
Why should not great effort be undertaken to save them?
Where is you foolish sentimentality then, which is Biblically and logically unjustified?
Above in Comment #9 I developed the “principle of abortion” as founded and grounded in the doctrine of “unwertes Leben”, i.e., “humans not worthy of living”. I ask you “to prove” for me that unborn humans are not worthy of living. After that, designate just when a fertilized egg become as “human”. Is the “thing there” then, as the needs of the pregnant woman dictate, “unworthy of living”? I am curious as to your argument. I am now running into arguments that really elderly people cost too much and, well, medical aid should be refused. At what age? Under what conditions? Beyond that what would be wrong with simply aborting post partem elderly people of no value for society? I am curious, being the elderly person that I am. I want to know if your principles would allow for my elimination. Mine do not allow for yours, however much you may be or not be a drag on society.
Yes, many embryos die a natural death and there really isn’t any reason to investigate the specifics, just as you don’t perform an autopsy on bodies recovered from a downed airplane. Are you really that “hysterical” about a possible limit on abortions? lol
As far as we know, those are impossible to save. Many fail to implant due to genetic defects and the rest is unknown. It’s also believed that between 30% – 70% fail without the mother ever having been aware of the pregnancy. The cause is, so far, unknown in the cases that are not due to genetic defects. As a fact, it may be due to simple low implantation rate.
Regardless, it’s an early form of miscarriage, not abortion and, as such is a false equivalency. If the mother was aware of the pregnancy, there’s a good chance she would grieve at the failure to implant. Even if she doesn’t, there’s still the idea that “that’s a shame” though she doesn’t get particularly sad. She didn’t have time to build an emotional attachment.
Do you grieve every time you hear about a murder on the news? I don’t. Unless I knew the person I just think, “well, that’s a shame”, without a lot of emotion to go with it.
In short, that’s a false equivalency.
[I mistakenly posted this as an independent post, so have reposted it here]
As far as we know, those are impossible to save. Many fail to implant due to genetic defects and the rest is unknown. It’s also believed that between 30% – 70% fail without the mother ever having been aware of the pregnancy. The cause is, so far, unknown in the cases that are not due to genetic defects. As a fact, it may be due to simple low implantation rate.
Regardless, it’s an early form of miscarriage, not abortion and, as such is a false equivalency. If the mother was aware of the pregnancy, there’s a good chance she would grieve at the failure to implant. Even if she doesn’t, there’s still the idea that “that’s a shame” though she doesn’t get particularly sad. She didn’t have time to build an emotional attachment.
Do you grieve every time you hear about a murder on the news? I don’t. Unless I knew the person I just think, “well, that’s a shame”, without a lot of emotion to go with it.
In short, that’s a false equivalency.
the above to posts were supposed to be a reply to tom
*sigh* two…i meant the above TWO posts.
Proof of your claim, please?
Can you pinpoint the exact moment an embryo becomes a human being? Three months, maybe?
So what happens between two months, thirty days and the following day that magically bestows life?
See where your argument falls apart?
It either begins at conception or we don’t know. Stop deluding yourself, or start formulating your arguments as to why some should be deemed unfit to live because of the perceived inconvenience of the parents.
Should rapist genes be allowed to reproduce?
we ALL have “rapist genes.”
Once conception occurs, reproduction has already taken place, so what your question amounts to is, “Should rape carry the penalty of death or castration?”
I’d want someone infinitely wiser and infinitely more loving than you (and I) to be the one to answer that question. If a government gets involved, things don’t really work out all that well. (See the third paragraph of Section 17, Humanae Vitae, where Paul VI predicted modern China and the HHS mandate, in 1968)
Am I the only one who is actually encouraged that these are the kinds of conversations we are having now? I’m 35, and I can’t imagine even getting close to this in high school/college. “Abortion on demand” was the rallying cry of the 1990s – you were considered extreme for even thinking that a fetus was human.
Kudos to you Mr. Klavan for having the guts to say what you just did.
I’ve argued before that a Republican-platform that supports rape-based abortion while opposing abortion in general is without a moral foundation. In my opinion, we have too many spineless cowards in the GOP who are afraid of how the media will twist their words and positions. Taking the middle-of-the-road position on a serious issue generally indicates a lack of conviction, particularly on abortion, considering that it is an issue of life and death – but a lot of people here don’t want to admit that.
The PJMedia crowd is not a friendly one for opposing abortion, Mr. Klavan. You’ve got conviction, and for that I applaud you.
May I pose a proposition? If there is to be a death(or other punishment) as a result of the crime of rape, let the victim choose the child or the rapist.
I am having trouble with the “reply” option at the moment, apparently.
Either life begins at conception, or we don’t know when it begins. Sorry folks, no other way around it.
That’s it. If you disagree with this concept you’re lying to yourself, because then you have to justify to yourself why you’re advocating the possible murder of a human being for no other reason than the convenience of the parents.
That being said, if my fellow Christians diverted their energy away from attempting (and failing) to elect the “right people” to overturn abortion law, and instead focused on charitable acts designed to evangelize mothers seeking abortion (or at least, offering to pay for the delivery and adoption of the child), abortion would be a non-issue. Politics at its source is nothing but compromise, therefore abortion issues will never be settled politically.
We need to look to the parallels of early Christians in the Roman Empire, who rescued abandoned babies of Roman citizens (who saw nothing wrong with infanticide and infant abandonment) and therefore simply outbred them.
Well said. And many are.
http://www.fontebella.org/
If you have a few minutes, I think you’ll be inspired by the story of one of those people that the post-birth abortionists would do away with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg
“For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
Jun 16, 2011 Produced By: Magdalene John An abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden shares her remarkable story of survival with reporter Magdalene John.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdm-i62hRdc&feature=related
On August 28, 2012 the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) announced the launch of a $150,000 television ad campaign across Missouri highlighting President Obama’s extreme record on abortion and featuring abortion survivor Melissa Ohden. Missouri has recently been at the center of the conversation on abortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFIEprF_9Y&feature=player_embedded
Human life begins at conception. It may be true that many zygotes do not implant but this does not justify killing an innocent human life. We all die. This doesn’t justify murder either.
This fact is a hard truth. People don’t want to accept it. It may be impossible to legislate against abortion in cases of rape.
It remains the truth nonetheless and sometimes doing the right thing is exceedingly difficult.
“Human life begins at conception…….this fact is a hard truth……” “Hard truth” maybe within your personal religious beliefs, but not necessarily in everyone else’s.
It’s is science. Those who justify abortion rely on some quasi-religious philosophy about personhood. It is convenient to deny the truth about abortion.
The animals we kill for food are at least as sentient as a human fetus, yet most people who oppose early term abortions have no compunction about eating meat. Why is that? I’m not “against life,” but I reject the proposition that a fertalized human egg has the same rights as you and I, or that the claims of a fetus outweigh those of its full-grown parent.
How sentient are you when you are asleep in the middle of the night? Animals are not human. Human beings are not sentient at certain stages of their lives. Animals should be treated with kindness whenever possible but they have no rights.
Our rights come from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Now you may disagree with that but please explain to me why I should refrain from putting a bullet through your head if it suits me and I can get away with it, especially if I do it when you are not sentient. I can explain why I shouldn’t do it, can you?
Murder is murder. It doesn’t matter how Smart the murder victim is or isn’t.
One way to read your post is as advocating the murder of intellectually challenged humans. Hopefully you were just being sloppy with your writing.
While at certain times and on certain levels humans ARE animals, animals are NEVER human. Dogs come closest, which is why they are considered ‘man’s best friend’. Anyone that compares animals to humans doesn’t own any animals.
You need some chickens, maybe a cow or three and a horse. Then you will discover the difference on a daily basis. Avoid pigs.
Sentience is not what separates humans from animals. Animals are governed by instinct. Humans are, or should be, governed by reason. We are given the capacity to override our base insticts to behave in ways that are counter to our very survival. You don’t see animals overrise their instincts. If they’re hungry, they eat. If they need to mate, they go look for a partner to breed with.
Humans can go on hunger strikes and starve themselves to death. They can curb their base breding impulses and live celibate.
That’s what separates us from animals.
The phrases “pro life” and “pro choice” have little meaning unless expanded upon. Most people probably favor life (as opposed to death) and favor choice (as opposed to no choice). Most also probably favor some choices and oppose others in the context of abortion.
Be that as it may, the chances of getting Roe v. Wade “repealed” are slim to none, as I tried to point out here: http://danmillerinpanama.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/pro-life-pro-choice-and-vagina-voting/
Particularly in view of the lack of a majority in favor of prohibiting or permitting all abortions, there are many other and more critical issues around which the presidential contest should revolve: the domestic economy, our foreign policies, our politically correct but deadly military rules of engagement and a bunch more. Unfortunately, abortion seems to have become a principally important issue to many.
The proper terms are Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion, or better yet, Pro-Life and Anti-Life.
And a culture that has slaughtered before they were even born as many human beings as Joseph Stalin did (I forget if the number allows for adding on Adolf Hitler’s body count) will find it difficult to prosper.
That culture has lost sight of why we want to prosper, of why we should be prudent. That culture has lost its Soul.
Well, it _is_ about Life, Itself. It’s not like we’re arguing about whether Bristol Palin dances more poorly than Some Other Vapid Famous Person.
When does life begin? vs How much “Free” Stuff am I owed from taxpayers? Because, like, I just got a new tat so I can’t afford my pills this month. But I got a free phone from President Obama so at least I don’t have to pay for that. But now I have to pay for my student loans because my degree in Womyn’s Studies isn’t getting me the job I deserve, even though I got it from NYU. It’s not fair because those geeks I used to make fun of majored in engineering and now they’re making lots of money.
Are you kidding me?!
Klavan, normally you’re right on the money, but here you’re only acting like any typically conflicted, immorally relativist liberal chucklehead, by equivocating a lot and then pretending you said something constructive!
Both predestination (“will of god, inshallah!”) and “holy” rape itself are might-makes-right, moslem memes! See the Qur’an, Sura 18:65-82 (just for starters) as a good example of this vile, idolatrous excuse for negligence doctrine!
How can this Mourdock tard want the right to be a legislator, when he abdicates his responsibility to protect his citizens by refusing to make laws that would allow them to limit the damage done to them by criminals?!
After all, he’s pretending the will of the rapist IS the will of god, and so there’s no way he’d want to infringe on that right – like, say by making a law that allows the woman VICTIM to choose whether – or NOT – to keep the rapist’s un-asked-for spawn!
Hands-off, delinquent negligence like he’s advocating for, (not to mention forcing a woman to be re-raped by giving birth to a potentially DNA-damaged alien invader) would only end up populating our Western world with the spawn of rapists – sort of like the moslems have inflicted on the middle east for the last 1,400 years!
The Bible says, “You shall not put the son to death for the crime of the father.” The Bible says to execute the rapist and let the child live.
After reading all the comments, I’m glad we all agree.
Here is the ultimate editorial on the subject;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8FBVyFhLsU
An extremely brilliant bit of social commentary disguised as the world’s #1 hit. I doubt if 1% of the people that listened to it ever figured it out. Part of the genius, I suppose.
A compromise between water and sewage is still sewage.
There is no shortage of children, the problem we have is to find willing, able and solvent parents.
The state’s institutions are full of unwanted kids whose lives are ruined by growing up unloved — when I see those kid’s homes/jails run out of children due to adoption then I’ll be ready to reconsider the morality of abortions.
People have to go overseas to find children to adopt! It’s true that older children are harder to place because they often have problems that the adoptive parents aren’t prepared to handle. If you know of a place with legally adoptable young children, do tell.
As in most things NOT specifically defined in the constitution, having the federal government involved in abortion has been a tragedy for all involved.
As Mr Klavan mentioned above, abortion is ultimately a moral choice and it is the individual who must make the decision NOT the state.
You CANNOT legislate morality or ethics, sharia courts have been trying for centuries and still cannot make it work.
Perhaps not. But you CAN LEGISLATE against immorality and we do it every day as a nation.
My wife and I are a happily married childless couple. We live our lives the way we choose.
That my wife and I would have to completely change our lives, and incur the financial burden, for the next 20 years (not to mention the physiological changes as well) to accommodate the result of an involuntary, violent act is simply outrageous. We would never dream of it for even a nano-second. Any politician who would even suggest this possibility should be railroaded out of office by any means possible.
I’m not convinced that laws should be passed requiring that sort of elevated action from people.
Any government that would legally impose such a burden of positive action on individuals is a government that should be overthrown with extreme prejudice.
My wife and I are a happily married childless couple. We live our lives the way we choose.
We rob banks for a living, and steal millions of dollars using credit card frauds.
That my wife and I would have to completely change our lives, and incur the financial burden, for the next 20 years (not to mention the physiological changes as well) to accommodate the result of getting caught is simply outrageous. We would never dream of it for even a nano-second. Any politician who would even suggest this possibility should be railroaded out of office by any means possible.
See, by merely changing a few words it shows how asinine your comment was.
Gray man, I’ve yet to see him make a comment that wasn’t asinine. His comment is basically the definition of selfishness.
Think Ayn Rand.
I don’t suppose the obvious called personal responsibility to sever the vas has occurred to you if you wish to remain childless, sparing a child the result of an involuntary, violent act of extreme prejudice?
The abortion question is one of the most difficult political questions in the world today, but not as difficult as some try to make it. I will focus on the pro-life side of the debate simply because they are the ones trying to change existing law. In my experience, there are two reasons why pro-lifers want abortion to be illegal, one is their religious beliefs and the other is because they honestly view abortion as murder.
For those who oppose abortion for religious reasons, in my opinion that is an invalid argument. One of the basic tenets of this country is freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion. Regardless of your own religious beliefs, you do not have the right to force those beliefs on anybody else. End of story.
So that leaves those who consider abortion to be the equivalent of murder. In my opinion, this is the only valid argument against abortion. However, if you honestly believe abortion = murder, then you must believe that is the case in all circumstances, you cannot pick and choose, unless you want to blame the fetus for the way in which it was conceived, and no sane person can think that. That means aborting a fetus, regardless of how it was conceived, is murder. If you want to grant exceptions in the case of rape or incest, then you are admitting that you do not, in fact, consider abortion to be the equivalent of murder and your argument falls apart.
The other exception most pro-lifers seem to be in favor of is when not aborting can adversely affect the health of the mother. This too, in my opinion, is invalid. How many parents would not eagerly choose to risk their own life to save that of one of their already born children? If a mother is willing to risk her life for her existing child, and she truly believes that abortion is the equivalent of murder, she would never be willing to murder her unborn child even though her life or health may be at risk.
That is why, in my opinion, the only valid reason for being pro-life is because you consider abortion to be the equivalent of murder and murder should be illegal in all circumstances. No exceptions. Personally I cannot think of much of anything more cruel than forcing a victim of rape or incest to carry her unwanted baby to term. That, coupled with the above and my desire to be honest in my political positions, is why I am forced to be pro-choice.
“Voice of Reason”, I thank you. You are one of the very few commentators who have addressed the main problem, namely: What is the justification for taking innocent human life, viz., the “principle of abortion” as I noted above in Comment #10 and repeated in a comment to #17 as a challenge for reflection. Klavan has been able to distinguish between the highly offended victim and the living human in the womb. The moral question re the unborn human is not to be overlooked in the genuine concern for the physical and psychological status of the raped woman. To Klavan’s praise, he separated the question of abortion relative to the “unborn human” from the rights and needs of the abused female. It is this unborn child that is aborted, not the woman who is aborting. Alas, Klavan sort of excused his approach making a negative reference to the Pope. But a Catholic Pope will argue using “natural law”, not just revelation. Or in your terms, Papal reflections are, right or wrong, the “voice of reason”. You have joined this voice and raised the passed over question, the only one of pertinence to aborting the unborn, be said unborn even a product of rape. Is abortion per se moral? Or, in my terms: What is the “principle of abortion” and is it justifiable?
You hold that abortion is murder. I define murder suchly: Murder = the conscious and chosen taking of the life of an innoncent human. If the unborn are humans, then the taking of their life, whatever the positivity of the motivation might be, is “murder”. Whereas it is not pragmatically smart to talk in such terms when discussing the agonizing situation of a raped woman, pregnancy and abortion as a possible solution. But, following my definition of murder, you seem to me to have a solid thesis. Once again I thank you for focusing upon the proper problem rather than dancing around in irrelevancies as so many have done in the comments.
Thank you for the kind comment.
“For those who oppose abortion for religious reasons, in my opinion that is an invalid argument. One of the basic tenets of this country is freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion. Regardless of your own religious beliefs, you do not have the right to force those beliefs on anybody else. End of story.”
Invalid argument: If my religion believes in human sacrifice, this country has every right to stop that religion. Much like a lot of the tenants of islam would be illegal in this country. because it is a religious belief doesn’t mean that it is free to do what it wants. The opposite also applies.
“Invalid argument: If my religion believes in human sacrifice, this country has every right to stop that religion. Much like a lot of the tenants of islam would be illegal in this country. because it is a religious belief doesn’t mean that it is free to do what it wants. The opposite also applies.”
While I agree with what you said (except for the ‘invalid argument’ part), I don’t see how it negates my statement. I said you cannot force your religious beliefs on others. Your argument validates that.
“The other exception most pro-lifers seem to be in favor of is when not aborting can adversely affect the health of the mother. This too, in my opinion, is invalid. How many parents would not eagerly choose to risk their own life to save that of one of their already born children? If a mother is willing to risk her life for her existing child, and she truly believes that abortion is the equivalent of murder, she would never be willing to murder her unborn child even though her life or health may be at risk.”
also invalid: if the mother is willing to risk her life or not is noy up to anyone but the mother.
The original point was that the mother would never willingly murder her own child. If you can honestly tell me you would let your innocent child die when risking your own life could save him/her, I will grant you this point. But I will also be convinced that you are not and never will be a real parent.
So Rick and Karen Santorum are not real parents? Good to know…
Nora, please elaborate because I have no idea what you are talking about.
I agree with you, I was just pointing out it is up to the mother.