What’s the Key to Winning the Abortion Battle?
Should pro-lifers change how they talk about abortion? PJM’s Nicholas Guariglia thinks so, writing, “For example, rather than remain fixated on the immorality of abortion, why not emphasize the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade itself?”
Certainly, Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided. Far too much time is spent hand-wringing over whether pro-lifers should seek to make pro-life laws at the state level or whether there should be a federal constitutional amendment.
Under Article V of the Constitution, a federal constitutional amendment would require obtaining the votes of 290 members of the House, 67 senators, and 38 state legislatures. We’re not at that level of consensus, and we won’t get there any time soon.
That said, there’s a problem with Guariglia’s case for legal positivism on abortion that’s typical of the tactics suggested by those unconcerned with the issue. Namely, it believes abortion to be primarily a political issue when abortion is primarily a cultural issue.
Let’s consider those who work tirelessly outside of abortion clinics to persuade women to choose life. Would the appropriate argument in that case be: “Ma’am, don’t you know that this abortion is being facilitated by a wrongheaded court decision?”
At least one piece of anecdotal evidence suggests the moral argument made in the halls of power has an impact on the decisions of the people. During the partial-birth abortion debate, one woman heard former Senator Rick Santorum’s eloquent arguments and changed her mind about getting an abortion.
It has been argued, with some justification, that the key to winning the abortion battle is to change hearts and minds. Santorum did that with his moral arguments on the Senate floor. Did Fred Thompson’s federalism position on abortion achieve that end?
The argument that abortion ought to be left up to the states is a lawyer’s argument. Consider then that famed defense attorney Gerry Spence wrote a book entitled How to Argue and Win Every Time, which states that the goal of the argument is to get what you want. If our aim is to persuade those who are moderately pro-choice to support us, the pure federalist argument is an awful argument.
If a politician stood up and took Mr. Guariglia’s position, abortion advocates would likely respond: “My opponent wants states to be able to take away a woman’s right to choose because of his interpretation of the Constitution. Because of a quirk in the law, he’s willing to see women bleed and die from illegal back alley abortions, which will become commonplace. Wasn’t it the conservatives who were saying a few years ago that the Constitution wasn’t a suicide pact. Apparently, that doesn’t apply to women.”
Which politician would come out better? If you’d think it’d be the one who allowed himself to be painted as a pharisaical legalist who would allow women to die for the sake of a legal argument, I’d suggest restudying Politics 101.
“why not emphasize the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade itself?”
Wow, that’s clever. Nobody’s thought of that /sarc.
I actually (kind of) agree – I’m no constitutional scholar, but roe v wade does rely on a right to privacy which doesn’t seem to be all that evident in the constitution itself – and (it seems to me) if such a right exists, how can drug use possibly be illegal? But if you want to start sniping at rabbits pulled out of hats, the judgment that stopped the 2000 florida recount (somehow, magically, without invalidating most of the country’s electoral arrangements) makes roe v wade look downright conservative.
I hope there’s never a consensus in the US that would allow an anti-abortion amendment to be written. It wouldn’t affect me one bit (I’m not a woman, and not american), but it would a tragedy for common sense.
I’m absolutely sure it couldn’t happen where I live, though. There are really very few things that “liberals” (you call them that, I call them sensible people) would vote for as a bloc. Parties can usually divide them up using immigration policies, education handouts, tax manipulation and wot-not, but I like to think that if anyone was stupid enough to actually try to make abortion illegal they be chucked out at the very next election, along with everyone who backed them.
You will never successfully prevent women from having abortions. Making it illegal will not succeed. It’s just too easy to do. It can be done in secret, and most of the time there’s no way for anyone to even know that it’s happened. You CAN make it more expensive and/or risky though, by making sure the (good) doctors can’t be safely involved. Maybe just making dangerous is sufficient. Maybe the thought of women dying in agony is OK by you guys, but it isn’t for most people (I hope).
Here’s an idea. Rather than blowing all this cash on campaigning just to make abortions more dangerous, how about finding ways to get the US abortion rate down to something similar to, ooh, western europe? (or most developed countries with legal abortions, for that matter). Even the nicer sorts of liberals could applaud that (me, for example). Nobody is “pro abortion”. Only the most deranged political activists see high abortion rates as an inherently worthwhile goal (and yes, I suspect such people exist). Why not paint abortions as an unnecessary tragedy (which they are) and agree on ways to get the number of unwanted pregnancies down? How about asking culturally similar countries what they do that might be different?
And here’s an idea that I (seriously) wish more people would think about: Make it very, very easy to get an abortion in the first couple of months of pregnancy and you’ll reduce the number of abortions that occur LATE in pregnancies. It is SO obvious – it’s the best possible way to reduce (maybe even eliminate) late-term abortions, which really are horrific. If women are going to do it, encourage them to do it early – it’s cheap, it’s safe, it’s not killing a (real) human being, and it’s during a phase when an astonishing number of pregnancies are terminated naturally anyway. Ending a pregnancy in the first trimester is apparently ok by God – He does it all the time.
But that would mean putting real people ahead of ideological purity. I know – it’s a non-starter.
The key to winning the battle is to
a) find serious, non-religious figures to argue for the pro-life position from a rational rather than religious perspetive; (and that’s not a slam at religious people… the topic is how to WIN the battle and my opinion is that this will help)
b) convince people that babies who are about to be born are no different from babies who have just been born;
c) paint abortion as a primitive, barbaric act that should have been left behind in the nineteenth century.
I don’t know, I think that Lincoln may still have it with Abortion. How can there be inside of one nation a state that calls abortion premeditated murder, while another calls it merely a choice to dispose of a clump of cells? Clearly, these two states are at war with each other ultimately.
I’m at a point where I am stuck on two things: I’m not sure Liberals hearts can be changed, and I don’t care if they believe whether or not their opposition has heart. In a world where we have the ability to lie and justify ourselves, to subvert reason and integrity, to hide sin and languish in it there is no end to the “reproductive rights” conversations that we can have with Liberals. They pivot on moral relativism, and the ultimate fickleness of sinful people before their own Law – even if you were to win a moral argument against a pro-choice person they could, and necessarily do, pivot to the “facts” of their sovereign choice coupled with the lack of knowledge about what life is. To win an argument it is necessary to pin your opponent down at some point. Take note for this analogy, as well, that Pro-choicer’s aren’t simply good at wrestling (making arguments), but simply change the rules or subvert them after they have already lost. Extenuation, extenuation, do over, do over, technicality, technicality.
It may truly be better to change hearts, but I know one thing about Liberaldom, I don’t want to be in, or near it when God’s wrath comes.
As this is a moral issue, the state does not have the authority to authorize immoral behavior.
That is, the state does not have the authority to declare moral what is inherently immoral.
Adam – Abortion is a difficult issue. I am at once a “conservative libertarian” and an observant Jew. The observant Jew part of me makes me both Pharisaical, and under most circumstances, opposed to abortion. (The exception would be, when the mother’s life is physically threatened by the fetus.) The libertarian part of me makes me say, if the people want abortion to be legal, who am I to oppose it? The conservative (and Pharisaical) part of the libertarian in me makes me say, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. (I might add, that it is, indeed, unconstitutional can hardly be called “a quirk in the law.” That’s an argument modern day (il)liberals like to make when they don’t agree with something in the Constitution. My response has always been: If you don’t like it, change it, but don’t violate it.)
So, where does that leave me? As a practical matter, the conservative libertarian and Pharisaical parts have the better argument. They lead to using the Constitutional approach. Roe v. Wade makes a mockery of the Constitution and should be rolled back. That satisfies the conservative and Pharisaical part. Should it be rolled back, at least some states, reflecting the will of their citizens, will move to restrict abortion beyond current Federal restrictions. That satisfies the libertarian part. The citizens of each state make the decisions for themselves. When some states tighten up (voluntarily) restrict abortions that satisfies my observant Jewish part. As far as you are unconcerned, you will have achieved some of your goal, although not all of it, and isn’t some of a loaf better than none?
BTW I find it so interesting the modern (il)liberals always say they are for the little guy and for the helpless, but when it comes to something really little and really helpless (an embryo/fetus) they turn a blind eye. Big talkers.
#5 Kerry,
I guess we’ll have to get rid of all those laws against murder, theft, rape, etc.?
Matthew #1,
Congratulations on posting the most gratuitous example of projectionism I’ve seen in years. Talk about ideological purity. Liberals (I call them dingbats) fight against laws allowing medical attention to the survivors of abortion. In Vermont, they will not call the death of an unborn child through violence a murder (they don’t call it anything) because it might interfere with the “right to choose”. “Liberals” are nothing but ghoulish champions of immediate gratification. There would be no back-alley abortions if people would practice sane sex, if they held the reproductive act to be sacred, and if they realized that the baby’s life is more important than the inconvenience associated therewith. Please don’t blather about rape, incest, life of the mother because Planned Parenthood’s own data show that around 98% of the abortions they perform are purely elective and not forced by circumstances. It is people like you who keep life from being held sacred because your own ideological purity will not allow you to state it as such. You’ll spit any BS necessary to obfuscate the issue. And for all those blind idiots who believe that atheists don’t have a dog in the fight, are you honestly saying that in order to be an atheist you must be a unfeeling amoralist? Nonsense.
As one who was in college, when abortion was illegal, I have seen abortions performed by a doctor in his office. He placed a kotex in her mouth to bite on while he performed a D & C. His waiting room was full of young women waiting their turn. I’ve been at an abortion performed in a motel room, by an obviously uneducated man wearing a mechanics uniform. My point is that like prohibition, or illegal drugs, if there is a demand for a product or service someone will supply. That’s the objective reality.
Women abort because they don’t want the child.
The key here is to make women want children, because otherwise you end up with (single) mothers that hate their kids because they view them as a burden and spoiler of their life. Some of those kids will turn into decent folks, but the majority will hate the rest of the world and punish it with(and for) their dysfunctionality.
Another solution would be to remove people’s fertility by default and only allow procreation when the situation for the child is sensible, and that is one of those ideas that sound great, but very quickly descend into awfulness.
It’s better to help individuals (it can be done, sometimes) and accept that bad problems often have unpalatable solutions that have to be accepted, than to waste time complaining about a conundrum that cannot be solved without causing more damage than one is trying to avoid in the first place.
Why doesn’t a nyone emphasize the racism inherent in supporting abortion. Greater numbers of black babies are aborted; to support abortion is an anti-negro position.
I guarantee if the party/positions were reversed and the Good Guys favored abortion while the scum suckers opposed it, the captive media would claim (frequently!) that it was because we were racists.
The scum suckers have ALWAYS been racists, from dealing in black slaves to opposing civil rights for blacks to Sheets Byrd, down to this day. Their segregation of the black members of Congress is even more proof.
If they measure outcomes in terms of race, the pro-abortion positions harms blacks far more than it harms whites and, on that basis alone, is RACIST!!
I love it when men call pregnancy an “inconvenience”. Constant nauseau and frequent vomiting for 9 months is right up there with battling a serious illness! I have never had an abortion. I wanted and planned for my 2 pregnancies and I can tell you that both pregnancies were horrible, horrible experiences! Horrible!!!!! It ain’t no 72 hour/2 week stomach flu “inconvenience”, fellows! And I was married, financially secure, didn’t have to work outside my home, and had a wonderful secure marriage.
If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. Fight against FEDERALLY FUNDED abortions, if they are abhorrent to you. That’s fair. But don’t you dare interfere in women’s decisions to control their own bodies. Control your own dependent daughters, if you wish, but stay away from other women’s lives! It’s none of YOUR business!
RightwingHippyChick, you hint of solutions that I get very tempted to blog about. I agree with you 100%.
#12 Conservative…
Ah, the tired, hackneyed, “you men don’t get pregnant”. I have four children and am fully aware of the discomfort pregnant women endure. That’s your rationale for ripping a child out of a womb? Is it the child’s fault that you’re not feeling well? Is it therefore deserving of the death penalty? Women like you make it sound as if you were walking down the street one day and found out you were pregnant. “Oops, how did that happen?” Nine months is nothing compared to eternity. If you were truly conservative, you would realize that there is more at stake than your “nauseau”. You could have prevented that pregnancy (except in the case of rape, where abortion is perfectly understandable); now that it’s here, it’s a living child who needs your care.
Conservative except re abortion:
But don’t you dare interfere in women’s decisions to control their own bodies. Control your own dependent daughters, if you wish, but stay away from other women’s lives! It’s none of YOUR business
And you don’t interfere in someone’s right to inject heroin into their own bodies, ok? Stay away from the lives of others. It’s none of YOUR business.
I am in the U.K and recently i have read and heard some Americans
attacking the N.H.S.
Claiming that the government comes between a doctor and a patient’s relationship.
You can’t get any bigger government control then wanting to interfere with a womens right to choose what she does with her body.
You want the government to tell the doctor’s what to do with their patients,ignoring their judgement.
If there is no reason to destroy a life to save a life,then what is collateral damage?
A nuanced legal approach to convincing people to protect the most innocent and most defenseless? If that isn’t a contradiction in terms, what is? How about this: what does “pro choice” mean? Choice to do WHAT? Everybody knows, left, right, center, above and below, when someone starts using weasel words about ANYTHING, they’re ashamed of their position. What choice? To allow life to naturally proceed, or WHAT? What “choice”? Hammer them on their weasel words. Appeal to their conscience, for crying out loud. If there isn’t a conscientious solution, then the alternative is pretty ugly, right?
This way of discussing things shows that we are still millions of miles away from ending this horror.
All those babies can be ADOPTED. Period.
Whoever supports abortion denies this simple truth in the name of the will to murder. Period.
Women have certainly the right not to keep an unwanted baby with themselves. It is much better for the baby to be adopted then to live with a reluctant mother.
But there is no reason to kill human babies. No reason at all.
If conservatives, far right and the GOP make abortion a big part of the agenda…they loose! Independents dont care/dont agree with GOP on this one for the most part. Or at the very least its far down their list, they get mad when its a major part of either parties agenda. We would rather hear about other things higher on our list of stuff thats important, like spending, gov getting too big(telling us NO to abortion is more gov NOT less!), immigration, economy, helping small bus, ect…
I know as a libertarian/tea bag proponent i dont even want to hear about it. This is a personal decision the gov should stay our of it!!
Abortion is one of those issues whereby, depending on which day it is, I happen to agree with anyone/s opinion.
I never had to deal with the issue from a personal standpoint. I really do not know what I would have decided to do, or not to do.
But I do know that once I would have made a decision, it would have been my own decision and that I would have to live with it. So I am really still not so sure if that makes me conservative or liberal or libertarian on the this subject. And, I am sure that I am not alone wrestling with it, everytime it comes to discussion……do you?
The best way to win the argument on the right to life is to make it personal or show the insanity of sacrificing an unborn human who may be one day be a person you would never have considered throwing away. Just ask any abortion proponent this simply hypothetical…. Had the Roe decision been handed down before 1960 and unfettered access to abortion was available in all 50 states would you, in December 1960, have advocated an abortion to the unwed pregnant 17 year old UofH college freshman Ann Dunham, who had just weeks earlier met the father of her unborn child, a foreign college student who had no ties to this country? This puts many pro abortionists in a box. Do they advocate for the killing of the future first black president of the U.S. or do they fold and say it wasn’t right for Ann. It makes them think how many other important lives have been taken.
#20 “But I do know that once I would have made a decision, it would have been my own decision”
haha… nice, soft pro-abortion message there. Except that you forgot to mention you’re making the decision for two people, not just yourself.
I think #1 Matthew has said it very well. Those who find fault with his logic must believe that any termination following the moment of conception is murder. But it is not seen this way by most people – almost all of whom would prefer if possible that all pregnancies could come happily and successfully to term. No, this extreme view could only be seen as religion based. And since we have a system that separates church and state, so-called pro-life absolutists have no business making this a political or judicial issue. Go try to convince anyone you can – but please do not press our political machinery into your service.
Personally I find the writings of Carl Sagan to be the most humane and balanced discussion of this divisive issue. See pp 176-180 of his book, “Billions and Billions”.
So am I to understand that I cannot be both pro-life and a federalist? Or just that I can’t make more than one argument in favor of the same position without being a hypocrite? Oh and yes, both the drug war and social security are unconstitutional. …. I’m a hypocrite now, right? No… wait …. I’m not really pro-life.
nofreelunch 9:
Yes and there is a demand for murder-for-hire – I mean the kind we’re all still agreed is wrong and illegal. This means what exactly? Wait lemme guess: if I were a REAL capitalist and not a completely two-faced hypocrite I’d have to agree that this should be legal, too.
I once witnessed a man beating his wife mercilessly (chin-stroke, chin-stroke). If this had been legal he could have been merciful (he wouldn’t have had to instill nearly as much terror). Have you no mercy? Care you not about such women?
liberty@19: First, it was the left who took the issue to the government. They knew individual states would vote it down. But like the fascists they are, went to the only place they knew they could petition and get enough members of Congress to enact laws making it legal and then the SCOTUS found some invisible penumbra to make precedent.
So it was not the right who forced the government into the bedroom. Had it been kept a state’s right, we would have nothing to say about it.
And anyway, if we as a society cannot protect the defenseless then who are we? Why do we rush to the aid of Haitians, yet we seem indifferent at best and inhumane at worst when talking about a developing baby. And that is what it is-a baby. And if you think that killing a baby is no big deal, then go ask to stand in while a D&C is performed or better yet a partial-birth and see how tough you really are.
You libertarians should be asking the left why they want the government in YOUR bedroom? And in your doctor’s office? And in your place of work-affirmative action? And in your children’s schools-fisting for elementary kids, gay rights in the classroom, diversity and multiculturalism and denigrating America? I think you guys if in fact you are libertarian need to rethink your platforms.
bill:
“Congratulations on posting the most gratuitous example of projectionism”
I’ve never been a projectionist in my life. Honest.
“Talk about ideological purity”
Oh, I see.
“Liberals (I call them dingbats) fight against laws allowing medical attention to the survivors of abortion. In Vermont, they will not call the death of an unborn child through violence a murder (they don’t call it anything) because it might interfere with the “right to choose”.”
Yep. Those sound do bad, the way you put them. But I don’t a lot about the cases you’re talking about. If you’re talking about obama’s famous “voted present” incident, there’s a bit more to that than you’re letting on.
““Liberals” are nothing but ghoulish champions of immediate gratification”
Um, no. Really. Some might be, but I’m not.
“There would be no back-alley abortions if people would practice sane sex, if they held the reproductive act to be sacred”
You were almost right with the first sentence, then you lost the plot with the second sentence.
“and if they realized that the baby’s life is more important than the inconvenience associated therewith”
The baby’s POTENTIAL life.
“Please don’t blather about rape, incest, life of the mother”
Ok. I won’t blather.
“because Planned Parenthood’s own data show that around 98% of the abortions they perform are purely elective and not forced by circumstances”
I don’t have PP’s data – but I’m sure they didn’t use the words “force by circumstances”. Do you think women have abortions because they’re FUN?
“It is people like you who keep life from being held sacred because your own ideological purity will not allow you to state it as such”
Are you sure YOU think it’s sacred? What’s your position on the death penalty? What do you think of bush’s iraq war? Are you in favor of doing whatever it takes to end preventable deaths on the roads? Are you really SURE you think it’s sacred, or is it only sacred when it’s somebody else’s pregnancy?
“You’ll spit any BS necessary to obfuscate the issue”
I don’t think I’ve obfuscated anything. If you mean looking at the problem from something other than your preferred angle, then tough luck.
“And for all those blind idiots who believe that atheists don’t have a dog in the fight”
What – in the abortion fight? How can we not have a dog in that fight?
“are you honestly saying that in order to be an atheist you must be a unfeeling amoralist? Nonsense”
I’m quite obviously not saying that.
Now – do you have any constructive responses to the specifics of what I proposed?
Steve4liberty:
“If conservatives, far right and the GOP make abortion a big part of the agenda…they loose!”
Sort of. I suspect that abortion and gay rights keep conservative support levels where they are. If those issues were taken away, they’d have to win the votes of the more extreme social conservatives some other way.
Independents dont care/dont agree with GOP on this one for the most part. Or at the very least its far down their list, they get mad when its a major part of either parties agenda. We would rather hear about other things higher on our list of stuff thats important, like spending, gov getting too big(telling us NO to abortion is more gov NOT less!), immigration, economy, helping small bus, ect…
I know as a libertarian/tea bag proponent i dont even want to hear about it. This is a personal decision the gov should stay our of it!!
Mathew, as a pro-life atheist, I agree with you. There’s no point charging Berlin when you haven’t landed in Normandy. First, win a winnable war: Get everyone to agree that abortion is undesirable and something we can reduce through various policies and incentives etc.
plus I also agree with this:
“Make it very, very easy to get an abortion in the first couple of months of pregnancy and you’ll reduce the number of abortions that occur LATE in pregnancies. It is SO obvious – it’s the best possible way to reduce (maybe even eliminate) late-term abortions, which really are horrific.”
.
because if we can get common ground that late term abortion is bad, that would be a major step forward.
Let me ‘splain why talking about trying to overturn Roe vs Wade is such a guaranteed election loser for us conservatives:
1. If you’re “anti-abortion” and Roe has been overturned and you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy…you simply have the baby. Simple!
2. If you’re “pro-abortion” (the words really don’t matter #17 Frank Natoli) and Roe has been overturned and you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy…you will be FORCED to endure a pregnancy.
Pro-lifers: No change either way
Pro-choicers: Forced slavery
That’s why #19 Steve4liberty is correct: If overturning the right to abortion is made a big part of our agenda, we lose!!!!!
Hey Wack jobs… chew on this awhile;
You don’t have control over a womans body…
she does. Bring her up to right to your standards ( meaning your white ass straight american standards) and maybe, just maybe, she will have the baby full term. until then Abortion will be there legal or not. REALITY CHECK A-HOLES
One more thing, why are the only ones really complaining, MEN???
Abortion is not a political issue or a cultural issue. It is a medical issue. No wonder you are so confused!
Peace.
DS
Common ground can be found and is desired on both sides of this issue: Reduce. Unwanted. Pregnancies. Period.
What this does mean to some is the acceptance of sex education being taught, making birth control easily available, making Plan B over the counter, etc. *THAT* is a true, common goal, sought by both sides.
Be honest about sex and its repercussions. It can lead to diseases that are easily treatable (chlamydia, gonorrhea), diseases for life (viral such as herpes, HPV, HIV, etc.) that need to be managed and pregnancy. If one is not abstaining from sex, then one should (out of self respect for their own body) practice safe sex. It is not permission to just go out a fr*k anyone, but it is arming one (boy/girl) with knowledge. And, let’s be honest, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. So for those, make Plan B available.
@18- I do not recall any statistics indicating it is easy to adopt a baby. Public adoptions are extremely difficult. Private adoptions are costly.
But I want to put that issue aside. What about the GROWN UP BABIES?! What about our broken Foster Care system? The number of children in that system is tragic and sort of negates your “just adopt” meme.
It’s a horrible issue. But the reality many of you don’t grasp in the totality of the argument is that it is just a *potential* life. Especially at the early stages (1st trimester) where we KNOW that many miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) naturally occur. So no, @22, you’re still making the decision for ONE person, not two.
Quickly, for a baby to be born, here’s the quick process: (1) fertilization; (2) implantation; (3) 1st tri(mester) devel.; (4) 2nd tri dev.; (5) 3rd tri dev.; and (6) live birth.
A *lot* can happen between steps (1) and (6) that don’t involve abortion or any harm coming to the pregnant woman that still may not result in a live birth. As we know, sometimes things just happen without cause. So, it is a HUGE leap to say that mass of cells at week 4 has more priority than the women carrying said mass of cells. And, sorry men, you don’t have a uterus. This will NEVER truly be your problem. Why wouldn’t you grant deference to women?
And, if you want me to think of those great, wonderful people that we never could have known because they may have been aborted, that argument can be flipped. We can think of some horrible people (pedophiles, for example) that many in society would have benefitted from NEVER being born. So now what say you?
To restate the obvious: common goal should be to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Sorry to jump off the deep end here, but sometimes people attempt to pose a proposition that suggests Abortion is only a personal issue, and individuals must face the consequences of their actions alone (so, we should all probably butt out). First of all, this assumes that the unborn is not human, but aside from that (and this is the deep end) what if people were aborting their fetuses and eating the remains? Would you still think it is merely a personal practice?, none of your business sort of thing? I DOUBT it. We do not want baby killers among us. If people want to kill their children then they must isolate themselves, so when God puts a plague on their butts it isn’t mingled with the just.
Many of us, myself included, believe in the death penalty precisely BECAUSE we believe life is sacred. Human life is so valuable that the ONLY just punishment for intentionally and maliciously killing another human being is for the murderer to die.
1. Good doctors, by definition, cannot perform abortions, because an abortionist is a bad doctor (that is, he violates the Hippocratic Oath willfully).
3. Lincoln didn’t coin “A house divided can’t stand,” Jesus did. But you’re right, there can be no acceptable outcome except nationwide abolition, either by Constitutional Amendment or by banning the practice in all fifty states. We are not foolish enough to believe we can achieve that overnight, and we’ll take incremental wins where we can get them, but that is the end game.
33. Get behind me, Satan! Plan B is not “reducing unwanted pregnancies,” it’s just an earlier abortion. You offer a lot of good advice, but we want nothing contaminated with that poison you push along with it.
Here’s a quote from the founder of the modern conservative movement in the US, the late Senator Barry Goldwater: “A lot of so-called conservatives today don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders on the religious right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
For all you guys who oppose abortion, how do you feel about the stance of the Catholic Church on birth control? To refresh memory, the Church, which claims about 1/4 of the US population as adherents, opposes all forms of artificial birth control, including use of condoms.
#1 Matthew: “Roe v. Wade does rely on a right to privacy which doesn’t seem to be all that evident in the constitution itself…..” Read Amendments III & IV to the US Constitution concerning the sanctity of one’s home. Sounds like a right to privacy to me. (Matthew: I’m not carping at you. I generally agree with your thoughts)
Oh, My!
Abortion is murder. Period. End of report.
Abortion is the slaughter of an innocent, unborn child.
All who call themselves “prochoice” should, properly, call themselves “murderers of babies”. For shame!!!
36. There is great wisdom in Humanae Vitae, whether you want to admit it or not. I find it shocking we lecture teenage boys not to take steroids while passing steroids out like candy to teenage girls. Estrogen is a carcinogen every bit as much as testosterone injections will cause your muscles to break down in your thirties. Birth control regiments can cause permanent damage to fertility. Estrogen also gets into the water supply via urine and wreaks havoc on the environment because sewage plants don’t consider it a pollutant.
Condoms aren’t as bad, because they don’t have chemical influences on the human body. Nevertheless, the attitude birth control of any form instills in people is toxic to marriages. Birth control turns sex into a lie, because your body says, “I give all of myself to you,” while your mind adds, “Except my fertility.” There is no such thing as an adult relationship without adult responsibilities, and trying to enjoy sex while attempting to subvert the life-giving aspect of sex is childish, it is selfish, and it has no place in a healthy marriage.
Opposed to abortion? Then don’t get one. Simple.
Both sides make valid points. But it depends on where you are in your life and what your situation is when you get pregnant. Whatever decision a girl/woman makes will impact the rest of her life and she will have to live with that decision.
If the decision is an abortion, it should be safe and legal.
If the decision is to give up the baby for adoption- are YOU going to adopt that baby?
If she decides to keep the baby but can’t afford to raise it, are you willing to pay more taxes for her welfare payments?
Abortion is a medical issue between a woman and her doctor. It should not be a political campaign issue as it gets in the way of really important issues. Political candidates use the abortion non-issue to stir up emotions and hide the real issues. We need to all be using effective birth-control cuz we’re getting raped. Think about that, all you men.
Should robbing a bank be “safe and legal?” How about home invasion? Or rape? Or kidnapping? The absurdity of murder for hire being safe and legal should be laughable. Truth be told, there is no such thing as safe and legal abortion. Abortion, even in a sterile environment (and believe me, many abortuaries could be shut down today if cities would enforce the health code against them) is inherently dangerous. More women die from abortions today than in 1973, and I’m talking about American women.
#39 “Opposed to abortion? Then don’t get one. Simple”
.
of course.
Opposed to torturing kittens? Then don’t torture them. Simple.
Opposed to armed robbery? Then don’t hold anyone up at gunpoint. Simple.
Opposed to killing babies? Then don’t kill them. Simple.
myth buster:
“Should robbing a bank be “safe and legal?” How about home invasion? Or rape? Or kidnapping?”
There is absolutely no way that you can rationally compare any of those crimes with aborting a two month old fetus. You can claim you have a “moral position”, but I claim that your position is bonkers. Like I posted before, astonishing numbers of pregnancies are terminated naturally, for all sorts of reasons, most of them without the mother even realizing that she’s been pregnant. Until a fetus reaches consciousness, as far as I’m concerned there is no moral or ethical problem with having an abortion. It isn’t murder any more than other forms of birth control are murder. It’s a bunch of cells, and that’s all. It has no expectation or consciousness of life. Calling it a person is completely arbitrary. Once it’s attained consciousness – absolutely, I’m _almost_ on your side. My position (if anyone cared) would be to get the number of abortions after the first three months as close to zero as we possibly can. I but I would try to do that without using the stick – it has to be carrots (and education) or nothing. Unfortunately, people with bronze-age moralities are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening in any sensible way.
Like I mentioned – most of the world’s developed countries with legal access to abortions have lower abortion rates than the US’. The correct question is: why?
“Truth be told, there is no such thing as safe and legal abortion”
Then there’s no such thing as safe air travel.
“(and believe me, many abortuaries could be shut down today if cities would enforce the health code against them)”
Fine – then I’m all for that. Lets run with the evidence.
“More women die from abortions today than in 1973, and I’m talking about American women”
That might be true – the population has increased by 50% since 1973. Express your figures as some sort of useful fraction, please: as a fraction of abortions? As a fraction of 1000 women? I’m actually not sure I believe you anyway, so a reference would be nice.
Re: abortion in the case of rape. If the rape victim becomes pregnant it should be remembered that that baby is 50% of the mother, not 100% criminal and by the way what crime did that baby commit that he/she deserves death?
What’s the Key to Winning the Abortion Battle?
Simple: drop the issue from the GOP platform. Abortion and the “gay marriage” canard have provided a virtually bottomless, counterproductive distraction to every aspect of the electoral process for decades.
It’s insane to argue pointlessly over these issues. Every person has a unique opinion on them and the facts are easily misrepresented through skewed statistics, emotional arguments and other fallacies. No matter WHAT stance you take, you’re painting a big red target on your back and guaranteeing that you’ll be wasting a LOT of time and taking a lot of Left Wing Media abuse for your position if you’re running for national political office. Enough.
Pouring energy into the abortion “debate” – while the socialists are busy destroying the economy and the social fiber of this nation – is about as effective a use of one’s time as spending one’s day telling children not to run on the deck of the Titanic. As others have noted here, the goal should be to minimize abortions to the fullest extent possible – by making them socially unacceptable and statistically unnecessary, NOT by outlawing them. You want to see this issue in terms of a “battle”? Here’s a tip: choose the right ground.
National support of Scott Brown’s candidacy made the GOP finally sit up and take notice. That support ultimately gave him an historic victory, landing a deadly blow to the glass jaw of BHO’s marxist agenda. Yesterday’s election in MA proves that the growing number of Independents in this country – the People – want to scale back the federal government, not give it more tools to control our lives. We need to address the economy-destroying excesses of the Fed; put an end to the insanity of Taxpayer-subsidized mortgages; cut off wealth redistribution via federal “tax credit” welfare; privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; eliminate subsidies for collectivized insurance that drives health care costs to rise at rates multiple times that of inflation; re-privatize the automobile, insurance and banking sectors; and scale back the influence of the federal government in any area where it has no explicit authority to act under the Constitution. This, of course, especially includes health care (e.g., abortions). Fix all of THESE problems, restore some semblance of stability to our economy and some semblance of humanity to our society, and the abortion issue will soon take care of itself.
Fight to stop federal funding of abortions? No problem. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly authorizes Taxpayer-subsidized, federal funding of ANY medical procedure for an individual, including abortions. But IMHO you’re wasting precious time and resources if you’re trying to come up with schemes to push through prohibition of abortion. Just like the push for socialized medicine is a symptom of a broken and corrupted health care market, abortions are a symptom of a broken and corrupted society. Fix the society.
The key could be to show publicly the true brutal method used for abortions.Show these ignorant selfish baby killers how it works.If they are as caring and compasionate as pretending to be,they would change they’re minds.
This is why your side will never win.
You talk murder. You talk baby killers. WTF does that have to do with the true problem of unwanted pregnancies? What are you doing to address *that*?
But, if you are so set on calling them baby killers, what are your plans for the female obtaining the abortion? Should she be shot down like Dr. Tiller? Arraigned/tried for Murder One? Contract killing? If her partner goes in with her, is that aiding and abetting? What if the female is your 15-year old niece? An aunt? A cousin? Your daughter?
Sadly, there is little true discussion on this thread regarding how to tackle this problem. Which is why your side will never win. You offer nothing in the way of real-world solutions. Just forced pregnancy and more children available to not be adopted and thrown in foster care or raised by people who didn’t really want them in the first place.
I mean secretary@43 seems to have no problem putting the clump of cells at higher value than the raped woman carrying said clump of cells.
42. No, I won’t quote abortion casualties as a fraction of abortions, because that’s precisely my point: any gains made in safety of abortions by legalization have been more than offset by increasing the number of abortions. Many women today have abortions but would not if it were illegal. It’s a lot easier to pressure someone to do something that’s legal than something that’s illegal.
Furthermore, you belittle couples who endure miscarriages with your snide remarks. There’s a whole bunch of ways a three year old can die naturally or accidentally, too, it doesn’t make it any less traumatic to the parents. It’s no different with a miscarriage or stillbirth. It should also be obvious that natural deaths do not justify homicide. Only the actions of the target can justify homicide, and a baby has done no wrong.
35@myth buster:
Nice dodge. Your entire opposition to abortion rights is based upon mythology and superstition and dogma from a cult that molested and murdered children in a Roman pagan temple built over a necropolis. Your religion was so sick and perverted it disgusted even the Romans, who had the cult heads executed and took over management in 300AD.
But your handle alone is a red flag. It is a complete misnomer.
kochevnik, you are a liar, a thief and a murderer. You should know by now you have no credibility here. I thought we saw the last of you on Christmas when the underpants bomber blew your claim that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist out of the water.
46. Unwanted pregnancies are not a problem; they are a symptom. What are they a symptom of? Moral decay. You cannot enjoy sex and expect its biological function to fail forever, and this goes for both genders. You want an adult relationship? Start acting like an adult. If a woman is good enough to have sex with, she’s good enough to marry. If a male refuses to get married, he’s too much of a boy to be having sex with. If it’s simply a matter of a married couple doesn’t think they can afford another baby but conceives one anyway, that’s a problem we can help with, but killing the child is never the solution. Be grateful we don’t live under Old Testament Law- under Mosaic Law, you would be excommunicated if you refused to stone your own son or daughter if he/she was engaging in child sacrifice.
@47 said, “…It’s a lot easier to pressure someone to do something that’s legal than something that’s illegal…”
Oh, really? Ever heard of pot? Weed? Coke? Heroin? Driving above the speed limit?
And what did @42 say that was sooooo offensive? You argue morality and murder and baby killing of, essentially, a first trimester fetus. All @42 stated was the obvious – that this loss of life of the same age first trimester fetus can happen naturally. And frequently, btw. And it can break the heart of a woman/couple trying to get pregnent – to have a miscarriage.
But they weren’t being punished or smited by god. Nature has a way of removing things from the human body that aren’t proper. Cells are marked for death all the time, naturally. Red blood cells naturally replenish every four months or so. And when a fetus is developing and something is not right (biochemically), the body removes it.
Do you even know the proportion of people initially pregnant with twins that never know that their womb once held two fetuses? Multiple pregnancies that never come to fruition are more common in nature than you would think. “Vanishing Twin Syndrome” – the tissues of the (vanished) fetus can be absorbed by the placenta, womb or the other fetus still developing.
Shall we charge the surviving fetus and/or the mother with negligence since there was once another life but no more?
Statistics aren’t even on your side:
I know I can’t tell you that an estimated 15-50% of fertilized eggs don’t even implant. Then, of those that do implant, about 2/3 survive the first trimester. Of those left, about 75% result in live birth. Here’s what that means out of 100 fertilized embryos:
85-50 fertilzed eggs implant. That’s called pregnancy.
2/3 survive the first trimester: 57-34 fertilized eggs left.
3/4 result in live birth: 43 to 26 fertlized eggs out of 100 make it to live birth.
Your entire side’s lack of scientific and biological knowledge about the process of pregnancy is why your kind is impossible to talk to.
But, once again, no fruitful conversation about how to reduce a common problem on both sides of this issue: reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Thank you Adam for a fine article. You’re quite right I think, the Republic can’t stand for very much longer acquiescing to the abomination of legal abortion. The abortion debate tracks pretty closely with the debate about slavery in the C19th.
Lincoln warned the criteria you used to dehumanize the black man will in time be used against YOU. The cotton gin made slavery pay off. Today abortion is the central prop for the bloody sexual revolution of the 1960′s and is defended bitterly for that reason. Huge industries have been built up selling sex disconnected from marriage and childbirth and it pays off handsomely. They don’t show the millions of baby corpses that result though, nor the devastated young women who are isolated by a law that presumes it is solely her decision – a convenience for fathers and extended family who point to the law as being reasonable and the mom’s desire to keep her baby an unreasonable burden on them!
Male-female relationships are distorted, families destroyed, the meaning of the human person callously part of utilitarian calculations of the Singerian kind, crime and child abuse the end result; for what duties do we owe one another in civil society if mothers can really kill their own offspring i.e what is a human really? The message is absorbed in no uncertain terms. Our income is stolen in attempts to ameliorate the social destruction this law is causing (the best preventative of poverty and related health, crime and education issues is stable monogamous marriage – abortion law is an aggressive attack on the family)
How can different approaches to family be resolved peacefully? The family research council has a proposal. Stop stealing taxes from monogamous families to support a culture of death that by its own logic must shrink without outside input of humans and indoctrination.
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09H36.pdf
50. Was there a point in there? Because I sure didn’t see one. All I saw was you rattle off a bunch of irrelevant facts. To wit, if you shoot someone in the head and kill him, it is no defense whatsoever to say that he was terminally ill and had only three months to live. That won’t even get you a reduced sentence. Thus, the probability that a fetus will die before birth neither justifies nor mitigates the severity of killing it.
Let’s admit it: Most of the “Stop Abortion” crowd is made up of Catholics and fundamentalist evangelicals such as the Southern Baptist Convention denomination, (not to be confused with mainstream Protestantism).
Their religious beliefs are a result of their religious studies and are fine FOR THEM!
Let their priests & pastors determime how their respective members MUST believe re abortion. That’s fine.
But they have NO RIGHT to push their religious agenda onto the rest of us.
Barry Goldwater, The Father of modern Conservatism was right: Gov’t has no right to control a woman’s body. Only she & her doctor can do that!!! (or her clergyman…if she wishes to be a member of an anti-abortion church.) Remember, MANY mainstream religions take no stand on abortion!
49@myth buster
Oh ok so where’s the body, mb? Probably in the same place your CIA-trained false-flag buddies are: Right in your backyard. The latter are training at P2OG to kill more innocents as a prelude to empire building. The “Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)”–will carry out secret missions designed to “stimulate reactions” among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to “counterattack” by U.S. forces. Too bad your broke, dumb empire is being carved up like a turkey. As I write my home country is divesting itself of your worthless bucks and diversifying into Canadian Dollars. My girl does abortions as a gynecologist and I smile every day that some piece of crud under her fingernail might have been some future fundie fascist freak as yourself, INTERRUPTED! One reason I love her, knowing she does her part to clean the gene pool.
Your own tongue confesses you to be a murderer. See, you don’t have to actually kill someone to be a murderer; you’re a murderer as soon as you assent to unjust violence, like what your girlfriend does for a living.
myth buster:
“No, I won’t quote abortion casualties as a fraction of abortions”
Ok, then. How about a reference so I can see who it is that’s claiming abortion casualties have risen compared with 1970?
“Many women today have abortions but would not if it were illegal”
Absolutely. But many more women who DO have abortions would suffer from complications if it were illegal.
“Furthermore, you belittle couples who endure miscarriages with your snide remarks”
I’m sorry about that – but it happens to be true. I’m well aware of how upsetting a miscarriage can be, but I’m not the cause of those.
“There’s a whole bunch of ways a three year old can die naturally or accidentally, too, it doesn’t make it any less traumatic to the parents”
True. But that happens a lot less frequently than natural miscarriages, and there’s more we can do to prevent it.
“It should also be obvious that natural deaths do not justify homicide”
Agreed. But I think that assigning full human rights to a blob of cells is an extreme position – it’s ridiculous to suggest that the death of a three year old is no more tragic than the use of a morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy.
Bill, don’t know if you’re still here, but you got my argument exactly backwards. If the stated decided to repeal laws against murder, do you believe murder would no longer be wrong? The state has no authority to declare the immoral to be moral simply by declaring it legal. DO you own slaves? When it was legal, was it not still immoral?
How can one be oblivious to the fact that human life is sacrosanct?
How can the life of an unborn baby be subordinated to the whim of a thoughtless female who chose not to abstain; not to contracept; not to employ means other than coitus?
First degree homicide is punishable by death and abortion is first degree homicide.
57@Kerry
You seem ok with murder when it involves oil fields or spreading your christer cult while killing heretics.
@55:
you want to assign a blob of cells rights that supercede the human being of childbearing age which carries it. if that womb wasn’t housing your precious blob of cells, it could not survive.
so, no, my facts aren’t irrelevant at all. your fervent love for the mass of cells WHICH AREN’T IN YOUR OWN BODY, and which statistically have about a low 40% survival rate (i.e. live birth) makes no sense in face of the existing human carrying the fetus. sorry, but i give deference to the female whose body is at issue.
now, your posts are rarely coherent. but at least you aren’t the @58 killer-kind or sexist kind.
I don’t believe the fetus’s rights supersede the mother’s, but they are EQUAL to the mother’s. Most fundamental is the right NOT TO BE MURDERED. The only way to avoid death completely is to be a Christian who lives to see the Second Coming; no one else gets out of this world alive. Thus, low survival rate of fetuses is no more an argument to undermine their rights than a low survival rate of cancer patients. Why don’t you start thinking of fetuses as though they were cancer patients rather than cancers?
Matthew, absolutely I will argue that a miscarriage is no less a tragedy than the death of a three year old. Plan B is not a tragedy; it’s unadulterated evil, just like all abortions.
Fallacious attempts to dehumanize the unborn baby suggest intellectual dishonesty as per the fact that life begins at conception; a non-negotiable.
A baby remains a baby no matter what it is called.
Abortion is murder and scripture is clear that murderers will be punished eternally. “He who has an eye to see…”
@61 and @62 – not everyone knocked up is a Christian, you know…
And @61, how is Plan B murder?
My guess is your grasp of science and how pregnancy occurs is minimal. Pregnancy is what happens AFTER a fertilized embryo travels through the fallopian tube and implants into the uterine lining. It is a precise process that requires the cells to divide to a specific stage for implantation. Too early — tubule pregnancy. Too late — never implants. Sometimes, implantation occurs outside of the womb.
At the recommended window of time for taking Plan B, what stage of development is the fertilized egg? Has it implanted yet?
My friend, a mother of a three year old girl, recently miscarried at week 5. Was she sad? Yes. Fortunately, they are expecting once again and hopefully there will be a sibling for her three year old in the summer. But I guarantee that she would never equate the loss felt during her miscarriage with losing her baby girl. And, I’m pretty sure that most agree.
Question: A three year old child and a cryogenic tube are in a fertility clinic. You can only save ONE: the little girl or the cryogenic tube. According to you, it would be morally correct to save the tube b/c there are more lives inside instead of one child.
The rest of humanity would call you a heartless monster and would levy criminal charges against you for the loss of the three-year old.
@62 – if life begins at conception, as you state, then 60-75% are inherently devalued based upon the survival rate of a fertilized embryo. potential for life begins at conception, not “life” proper. It’s not a “baby” at conception. Its organs aren’t formed. It doesn’t yet have a sex. You don’t yet know if that embryo will implant, or split into a multiple pregancy or survive the first trimester, or second, etc. So, no, with all due respect, it’s not a “baby”. It may develop into one.
But, again, it is inside the woman. She could smoke, drink, do drugs, not take care of herself, get exposed to harmful viruses (CMV, HIV, HPV, etc) and the like. She doesn’t have to attend a doctor’s appointment or anything. Heck, she could give birth in a dirty motel room and throw it away like some people have done before.
It isn’t its own entity until later in its development.
I have yet to hear either of you say what should happen to the female seeking the abortion as well as anyone who goes with her to the appointment. Murder?
I am not dehumanizing or devaluing potential life. But I do live in reality where unwanted pregnancies exist and people like you think the Bible is a condom or something. Except, again, statistics are not on your side and most people have premarital sex. And the less educated about sex, the more likely to practice unprotected sex. And blaming the woman is BS. Bring a condom, menfolk! Because it takes two to fertilize an embryo. Or snip it in a simple outpatient procedure.
I have a high value on life. But I consider quality of life just as relevant of a factor. And forced pregnancy is morally wrong. So is giving dishonest information about birth control, like abstinence programs do.
None of your “solutions” actually address the problem: reduce unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing abortions.
63. We will continue to uphold God’s Holy Law. Unbelievers reject the Word at their own peril. Matter of fact, you’re rant about us thinking the Bible is a condom doesn’t even make sense. Reality is that adultery and fornication are sins, and nothing will change that. Do you love your partner enough to have sex? Get married then! What’s stopping you?
You assert that I don’t understand how pregnancy works, yet you miss the point entirely. The embryo is alive at the moment of fertilization, even before it implants. It is alive, and it is human, so killing it is wrong. As for my grasp of science, I’m a nuclear engineer!
“Quality of life” is code for “deciding whether other people’s lives are worth living.” The only person whose quality of life you ought to have any say in judging is your own. Want to know my solution for unwanted pregnancies? Stop thinking of children as problems. There is plenty of good that can come out of having the baby if you want good to come out of it. No good can ever come from killing it. Men- act like men! A real man doesn’t abandon his children or their mother. A real man supports his family and raises his children to be good citizens. A real man takes responsibility for his own actions, and he wouldn’t have sex with any woman he wasn’t willing to spend the rest of his life with.
My personal opinion is that abortion is to conservatives what gun control is to democrats.It is a losing argument politically to pursue.Morally it is reprehensible to use it as a form of birth control and for no reason should it be used as such.But in the event my wife’s ob/gyn informed us that she was pregnant and carrying a baby to term presented a serious threat to her health/life I’m afraid I’d consent to one to save the woman I love more than anything or anyone on earth.Right or wrong.
Kochevnik; Who do you think is having more abortions? Conservative/ religious white women or minority women? Are you seriously saying that the abortion of more minority fetuses is “cleaning the gene pool”.If so you are the definition of a nazi and deserve to share their fate.
I know the answer to that one: More WHITE women have abortions than African American women. Wake up men…it’s middle class educated white women!
61@myth buster
People with skyfairy believing disorders have no business acting secular and trying to diagnose medical disorders. Why don’t you move to Iran mb? Sounds like a theocracy suits you better than a republic.
myth buster:
nuclear engineer? okay. molecular biology for me.
i still have yet to see you offer a solution to the abortion debate.
you didn’t tell me why it’s wrong to take plan b. you didn’t answser as to when in development it becomes a factor.
btw – married women get abortions, too. some have to b/c their physician wouldn’t prescrible plan b. had she taken plan b, she never would have had an abortion.
nature kills your “alive human” as a regular process (miscarriage, lack of implantation, tubule/ectopic pregnancies), so how does it truly have more value over the adult female?
you didn’t tell me whether you’d save the cryo tube full of fertilized embryos over a three year old child.
and you are DEAD wrong about the loss felt by a parent who has a live birth child and a parent who miscarries. it is a loss, and a terrible one no matter which scenario. but an entire family/community would mourn the death of a child. a miscarriage? no.
and “quality of life” is not code as you imply. it is an adult, humanist term to recognize that we don’t necessarily have to suffer for the sake of suffering. that life is more than about breathing, it is about love, understanding, cognition, feeling, and emotion. a child born with NO higher brain function will never experience any of those things and will wither and die because its own body can’t control its functions. what quality of life did that child have for the few weeks it lived?
again, i haven’t heard you offer anything in the way of dealing with the abortion issue so that both sides can come together to a common goal. whether you like it or not, pregnancies exist that are unwanted. what do you have to offer to the woman unsure of whether to carry the child to term?
65@McBride:
Sorry I didn’t catch your pretzel logic at first.
>Who do you think is having more abortions? Conservative/
>religious white women or minority women?
White at her clinic. Obviously they don’t inquire about fairy tales.
>Are you seriously saying that the abortion of more minority
>fetuses is “cleaning the gene pool”.If so you are the definition
>of a nazi and deserve to share their fate.
Actually you said it. Been reading Mein Kemph again? Doctors are trained to treat disease, and yes people with invisible, imaginary superfriends who wish to promulgate their insanity on secular society are a disease, much like a form of sociopathy or diminished empathy from head damage. As for minorities, illegal Mexicans are employing fertility as a bioweapon to conquer the USA, and they’re winning. Blacks have suffered under christianity as the Vatican instigated perpetual, bloodline slavery. Every unwanted/unloved child is a crime and christianity is the assailant.
“But don’t you dare interfere in women’s decisions to control their own bodies.”
The problem with this premise is that when a women aborts it is neither her body or her brain which is exterminated.
Sweeties, if you want your brain sucked out by all means have at it GIRLS however you have no right to exterminate another human being against their will!
Do you realize LADIES, that our gender is the most notorious mass murders ever known to humanity; and we do it freely unlike the women China whose government forces them to kill humans-mostly females!
Abortion is exploitation of the innocent human condition.
Sweeties, you are ugly, barbaric ANIMALS-exterminate yourselves instead and the human condition will be the better upon your removal.
You guys are still thinking technically/medically on this problem. PLEASE understand this basic truth: Catholics have been taught ALL THEIR LIVES that artificial birth control and abortion are wrong. Worse than wrong…right up there with murder. Like the total unquestioning U.S. patriotism ingrained in an army general’s daughter (me), abortion will never be OK for Catholics. They are incapable of changing that basic Catholic teaching that abortion is MURDER.
Southern Baptists were taught the same prohibition but they were a small denomination and we didn’t hear much about them. Now…starting in the 70s…along came Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson who were masters of recruitment. Masters! Called “evangelicals”, they were right out of the Southern Baptist Convention…which has now (because of recruitment since the 70s) become one of the largest US Protestant denominations. They also teach their followers that abortion is MURDER. Case closed.
But neither Catholics or evangelicals seem to understand that most other Protestant & Jewish worshippers were NOT indoctrinated with the “Abortion is murder” teaching.
The argument is NOT between religious and non-religious people. It’s Catholics & evangelicals against most other Christian & Jewish beliefs (plus atheists & agnostics).
Most people who have been taught that abortion is murder cannot tolerate the idea of anyone except God determining the outcome of a woman’s pregnancy. Just about everyone else cannot imagine the govt being able to FORCE a woman to follow through on a pregancy. This second group sees NO logic in bringing these unwanted children into the world.
That, my fellow posters, is the problem.
@71 – isn’t that the truth?
While I understand (or try to) where the other side is coming from, I cannot wrap my head around equating a mass of cells with an already born human that has a name, a home and life experiences. or forcing someone to undergo pregnancy, which can cause health concerns.
And unless the same pro-lifers are militant about IVF (being against it) and the woman seeking the abortion to be punished as a “murderer”, then they have a problem with their stance.
some of these comments are just ridiculous – like plan b is the equivalent of an abortion.
but what @65 said highlights the gray area: if forced to choose between his wife pursuing a life-threatening pregnancy or an abortion to save her, he would choose his wife. so, it’s not B/W issue at all. there are shades of gray and reality has to be taken into account.
it saddens me to think that some of these commenters would force their wife or daughter to go through with either a life-threatening pregnancy or a pregnancy that came out of violence (rape) because it is part of God’s greater plan. What I see is someone who values/loves their daughter/wife less than those not bound by the “abortion is always MURDER” meme.
71@Conservative except re abortion
Actually the issue is not decided by the people, but by the shadow government and corpofascist elite who long ago recognized the workforce would be more efficient and profitable to themselves if women were not hobbled with unwanted pregnancies. The courts back the shadow government, because the judicial branch is the real power of government. The big joke is the people thinking they have a voice in the matter. The Vatican brays to the sheeple, but invests as coldly and shrewdly as their prodigal son Adolph Hitler in polluting and military industry alongside war profiteering.
@71 Conservative:
Yeah, I think that’s a pretty decent summary of the extremes (although I don’t think all catholics are in the hard-core category – at least based on the catholics I’ve met). One interesting question is – how many voters aren’t super-glued to one of the two extreme positions?
73 kochevnik:
Bonkers. If the corpofascist elite (do they have an address? I’d like to join) had their way, they’d surely want an endless supply of cheap labor. I suspect that their ideal outcome would be romania’s complete ban on any form of birth control at all. Just think: whole orphanages full of expendable work-units.
Kochevnik my copy of mein kampf is the one my maternal grandfather took off one of the nazi’s he shot in Belgium in ’44, along with a Browning Hi Power and a pair of Zeiss binoculars.As it’s written in German I can’t read it,not that I would to begin with.You can in no way turn around what you said and attribute it to me jackass,you clearly agree with the nazi/eugenicist’s viewpoint.
Re all the pro(giving women the)choice(to have their unborn children killed) commenting here and elsewhere, I’ll only say this: anyone who can examine common sense and the findings of embryology and fail to acknowledge that a new human life comes into being at conception, and that we have a duty to protect and nurture that human life, and that that duty is a greater duty than the duty to allow every human as much control over his or her life as possible, is in denial. The evidence is clear and uncontrevertible, yet they still continue to maintain that the butchery of abortion is somehow acceptable. Nothing more can be done. However:
To the pro-life folks here, take heart: the pro(giving women the)choice(to have their unborn children killed) position is (hilariously, considering that most libtards are evolutionists) anti-survival. Think about it: how many pro-aborts do you know who have more than 2 kids? Many have none. Add to this the fact that, in general, ~3/4 of kids grow up to hold similar political attitudes as their parents. What happens is well-illustrated in my own family. I’m the youngest of 4, the last generation in which a liberal couple (my mom and dad were so liberal, family legend has it they considered joining the communist party shortly after they were married, but decided not to because the communists didn’t have sense of humor) would have more than 2 kids. My older sibs are all pro-aborts. Amongst them they have only 2 kids. I’m the black sheep, the fundamentalist prolifer. I have 4 kids. My oldest 2 are all ready in college and are more conservative than, and just as pro-life as, I am. My oldest says he’s going to have 6 kids. Guess who’s going to win the grandchild wars? Guess who’s position on abortion will be best represented in the coming generations?
Just think of it as evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.
kochevnik, only eugenicists (murderers) like you believe that killing people is a medical treatment. What’s hilarious is that I called you a liar, a thief and a murderer and you were actually dumb enough to contradict me, and then go on to rant about how great killing innocent people is for the gene pool.