Several weekends ago, one of my sons was visiting and said he needed to talk to me. The topic of discussion was near and dear to my heart. He and his wife had recently attended a fund raising event for a local crisis pregnancy center. One of the speakers was a former nurse at an abortion clinic. She did not show any grisly slides, none of the familiar, yet shocking, pictures of unborn aborted children. She simply described performing the procedures that eventually led her to denounce abortion. The descriptions disturbed my son so badly that he could not sleep that night.
I was delighted.
However, his next question left me stumped: What can we do? I shrugged and answered, “I’m not quite sure.” I mean, what can the average person do to end abortion, to stand for the right of the unborn? This has been a question that has bothered me for the last 35 years. This is how I got here.
Two of my four children were born at home. It was the late 1980s. Lisa and I knew several midwives and, after two bad experiences at the hospital due to medical neglect, we decided on a home birth. I delivered my youngest son and daughter, Jonathan and Alayna, in our living room. As a father of four with a wife who was a great mother, kids became a huge part of our lives.
The transition to becoming pro-life was quite natural for us. Seeing sonograms of our unborn children, watching them grow inside the womb, wondering at the miracle of birth, and witnessing them develop into unique individuals, only reinforced the intuitive sense of the preciousness of human life. And after several close friends had abortions and we witnessed its emotional consequences on them, we were convinced that we had to take a stand and do something.
The pro-choice movement was in high gear at that time. Public protests, marches, and angry debates were commonplace. Veterans of the feminist movement found a home in groups like NOW and NARAL as the movement became galvanized in response to a growing pro-life counter-movement. Several women in our church were part of such a movement. They visited a local abortion clinic every Thursday to distribute pamphlets and provide counseling. After reading some of their literature and learning more about abortion procedures, I became convinced that remaining silent was akin to complicity. I had to speak up. But as I quickly learned, there is great disagreement in how one should tactically approach the abortion issue.
Eventually, we became involved in the more confrontational, political spectrum. Operation Rescue was in its heyday and started holding rallies in the Los Angeles area. We attended several events, heard its founder Randall Terry speak, and joined in as hundreds, even thousands, of pro-lifers staged peaceful sit-ins blocking several L.A. area abortion clinics. It was quite an experience. As OR members, we were often surrounded by angry abortion rights activists who were chanting, holding placards, cursing, and instigating emotional responses from their pro-life counterparts. Gloria Allred often showed up, leading counter-protesters in chants about women’s rights. The police were everywhere: on horseback and foot, donning nightsticks and riot gear. The local media were fixtures. Several of our close friends were arrested. It was one of my first forays into social activism and was stoked by the subsequent reportage in the local news outlets. Having attended the events in question, I was appalled at their portrayal of the events in local papers like the L.A. Times. The Operation Rescue supporters were often characterized as coarse and even violent. It was SO different from what I’d actually witnessed.
That was when I first became convinced of media complicity and the liberal slant in mainstream reportage. I wrote more than a dozen letters to the Times and to the major local news outlets about the inaccurate reportage, without ever receiving a response.
As a result of my involvement in Operation Rescue, I soon joined the two women from our church every Thursday at a Planned Parenthood clinic in San Bernardino to pass out pamphlets and encourage adoption. For a while, I was the guy out front carrying the placard of an aborted fetus hewed into bloody parts. Being flipped off and cussed out was par for the course. I’d seen enough of those responses at the Operation Rescue rallies to know this debate wouldn’t be won by angry supporters squaring of on the street corner. So I maintained a peaceful, non-combative approach. But make no mistake, I wanted to shock people. Eventually, though, I began to rethink this approach and gave up the graphic signs for less inflammatory pamphlets.
Perhaps the most “successful” approach was when I began searching local court records for lawsuits being brought against this particular clinic. There were many. For instance, one woman was suing for having her uterus punctured during an abortion procedure and undergoing severe medical issues as a result. A half-dozen similar lawsuits were pending. I went to the Hall of Records and made numerous copies of these lawsuits, which I then distributed to patients entering the clinic. “Did you know that this clinic is currently being sued for malpractice and unsafe conditions and practices?” was the line I would lead with. Perhaps the most rewarding experience (if “rewarding” is the right word to use) I ever had during my years at the Planned Parenthood clinic was when two women entering the clinic took my literature and emerged 15 minutes later. They returned the literature to me and simply said “You won,” before getting in their car and leaving. I have no idea what happened in that situation, or if a person is alive today because of it. Nevertheless, that was the kind of thing you had to cling to in pro-life ministry — simply the hope that you are making a difference.
After several years at the abortion clinic, I started to drift into despair and wonder whether such involvement really mattered in the scheme of things. The abortion ministry was unforgiving. There was little “payoff” in the form of converts, adoptions, or attaboys. Eventually, we all burned out and decided that the best way to be pro-life was to support shelters for unwed mothers and pregnancy counseling centers, which our church did. The abortion ministry was shelved but our church continued to donate to local homes for unwed mothers.
But I never stopped feeling that more could be done.
Now, some thirty years removed from that, I still have heart for pro-life ministry. And I remain greatly conflicted. The “battle” is so large and, frankly, as the culture grows increasingly secular, the dehumanizing of life and the trashing of innocents to continue. The person with a heart for pro-life causes faces a media that largely ignores events like the massive March for Life last month attended by an estimated 300,000 people. Furthermore, the narrative that a “woman’s right” supersedes that of an unborn child’s has so permeated culture as to have become obligatory in any debate. Pro-lifers continue to be branded as extremists. Other well-meaning individuals, though professing to be pro-life, simply remain silent because of the volatility of the issue.
Like my son, I have spent many a restless night wondering at the holocaust our generation has allowed, at least, tolerated.
Frankly, I wish many more of us would lose much more sleep over the evil of abortion.
Supporting homes for unwed mothers and other pro-life causes is the least a conscientious supporter should do. While I will probably never again carry a placard with the picture of an aborted baby on it in public, I completely understand why a person would. And support it. Nevertheless, I remain deeply conflicted about abortion and whether I have, or can ever, do enough to make a difference.
Perhaps I already have. I don’t know. Either way, I will take my son’s sleepless night and his troubled question as evidence that one person can make a difference.
I am happy to be the first to respond to your new essay.
“Unborn aborted children?” “The unborn?” Those are inaccurate, misleading, and propagandistic terms. Why not call them what they are – zygotes, embryos, fetuses? We know why.
There are also some bad home birth experiences. What are the probabilities of bad experiences at home vs. hospital?
“The intuitive preciousness of human life” is not a satisfactory foundation for moral rules regarding abortion. I have witnessed persons who initially wanted abortions, were shamed into not getting then, and then suffered emotionally. But still, these considerations are only a small part of determining the morality of abortion.
There is great disagreement not just on tactics, but on the issue of abortion rights itself.
Speaking out for your opinion is fine, but blocking abortion clinics is neither peaceful nor moral. It is coarse, violent, and immoral.
Showing placards of aborted fetuses is typical of persons who think that moral principles can and should be constructed primarily on the basis of gut reactions, emotions, or intuition.
All hospitals, clinics, and homes make medical mistakes in abortions, “natural” deliveries, and C-sections from time to time, and most have been sued. “One swallow doesn’t make a summer.” Maybe the two women who said “you won” went to another “safer” abortion clinic. “Don’t count your swallows before they’re hatched.”
Actually, if you want to reduce abortions, you should do more to encourage the use of contraception.
A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty. It does not have the capabilities to make decisions and engage in behaviors which can be judged by the community to be right or wrong. Thus, to refer to abortion as “the trashing of innocents” is inaccurate, misleading, and propagandistic. Please make some substantive points about morality rather than taking cheap shots. If you think that a right to life should be assigned to a zygote, embryo, or fetus when this right would contravene a woman’s already existing right to control her body (what goes into and what comes out of it), please present your case. “Other people agree with me” is not a good reason to do anything.
To refer to abortions in the US as “the holocaust our generation has allowed…tolerated” is flippant, inaccurate, misleading, and insulting to the victims of the Holocaust of the 1930s and 1940s. Mike, get a grip!
Mike, you so easily talk about the “evil of abortion,” but you fail to present your case for that idea here, and you fail to provide a link to your readers where you have done so, if you have done so.
Now is the time, Mike, to consider that you might be wrong about abortion. Consider that abortion may be morally permissible or even obligatory under SOME circumstances, and yet still wrong in others. You should do some more serious thinking about it and then write a new essay. Get to the bottom of the issue instead of skirting the issue with talk about the tactics of protest.
Ask your son to write to me and I’ll help him feel better and sleep better in accepting a new morality of abortion.
Gary, this post isn’t meant to articulate the immorality of abortion but to chronicle my own personal quest. A moral argument can be made quite easily however. It is the same argument used to make the crushing of condor eggs a crime or the shooting of a pregnant woman a double homicide. Science and medicine are now firmly on the side of the pro-life position. Once you can PRO beyond all doubt that a human being is not being terminated, you win the argument. But as long as a chance remains that the life being aborted is indeed human, the pro-life position is the most tenable and moral.
That’s PROVE.
Mike, my responses aren’t meant to chronicle my own personal quest, but to challenge the assumptions you make about abortion which underlie your chronicle. At the least, you should have referred your readers to a link where you present and defend your position on abortion. If you haven’t written a defense, then you should.
Mike, here you have easily made poor arguments against abortion, if they can even be called “arguments.” Condor eggs should have been assigned a right to life because adult condors were rare and in danger of extinction; this is not the case with adult human persons. The fact that the shooting and killing of a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide in some states is not an argument against abortion; it merely represents some poor thinking about the status of the fetus. Science, medicine, and ethics are now firmly on the side of the pro-choice position. Once you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt that a human being is being terminated during an abortion during the first 24 weeks, you have some chance of winning the argument. Of course a human zygote is of the human kind! The abortion issue has absolutely nothing to do with it being human. The pro-choice position is not only tenable; it is moral. On the other hand, the pro-life position is untenable and immoral.
Mike, lets have a debate on the issue by email and then publish the record to your blog. That would be very interesting to your readers.
Gary, I can’t answer for Mike, but the ridiculous statement you made above needs to be answered. A woman’s already existing right to control her body, in most instances is the very thing that led to her pregnancy. Now she wants the right to kill the result of her controlling her body.
In fact, she’s apparently made a bad decision (or an uneducated one, because there are people who lie to young women and tell them what they’re doing—having sex, whether outside of marriage or in a marriage in which a baby isn’t wanted—can be consequence free) which she’d like to undue. That it costs someone else his or her life, is simply immaterial because she’s in the position of power, able to do away with the unwanted baby she helped bring into existence. It’s really too ludicrous. In any other circumstances, our society would call her a bully, at least.
Becky
Becky, my statement you quote is perfectly reasonable. In most instances when the woman exercises her right to control her body and has sexual intercourse, she is not choosing to have a baby, but she is merely choosing to use her body for pair bonding and/or pleasure. If she does not use contraception, a zygote is likely to result about 50% of the time. She does not relinquish her right to control her body (remove what is inside of it) just because a zygote may result!
I will agree with you that women sometimes make a bad decision and fail to use contraception to lower the chance of a resulting zygote to less than 5%. But why should the woman not continue to have the right to control her body and remove a zygote anyway? Why should she not be able to efficiently correct a mistake she made? If you are going to make a convincing defense of your position, then you need to answer these questions.
Given what you have said, I assume that you would approve of a woman getting an abortion when she had no intention of having a baby, she used contraception, and it failed.
Having sex, leading to a fetus, and then having an abortion is certainly not “consequence free,” as you imply. Ask some women who were pleased that they had abortions.
A fetus is not an “unwanted baby.” Please use scientifically accurate terms.
You talk as if a zygote, embryo, and fetus is a human person which can be “bullied.” How do you know this? Why do you believe it?
No, Gary, you’re simply wrong. A woman who wants to have sex and wants to not have a child puts herself in a contradictory position. If she chooses to have sex, she has decided what she wants to do with her body. Abortion is an attempt to undue the consequences of her choice.
I don’t know why you think I “approve of a woman getting an abortion when she had no intention of having a baby.” I said just the opposite. Or perhaps you missed my sarcasm in parroting the view of women who support abortion—the view I called ludicrous.
Gary, because you want to deny the life growing inside a pregnant woman by ignoring the obvious doesn’t mean you can bully me into doing the same thing. As many others on this thread have pointed out, no woman or husband announces to the world that they are having a fetus. They’re having a baby and many name this child before they give birth. They decorate rooms and imagine what having this child in their family will mean. They don’t do this for a fetus. They do it for a living human! I’m not quibbling over language. It’s the idea that you have that this life is meaningless, disposable. These are the same attitudes slave owners took toward their African-born slaves. It’s despicable. And it’s worse that you consider the position you take to be moral.
It’s a joke to admit the being created by the union of sperm and egg, which science now admits is life, is not human. What life would it be if not human? These are the most unconscionable arguments I’ve ever heard.
Then to suggest that Mike who spent decades opposing abortion and Sally who experience two abortions and the consequences, followed by decades of involvement with prolife, have not thought deeply about these issues is insulting and ludicrous.
Gary, your position is reprehensible. That you advocate for killing babies—yes, babies—is heinous. Who next will you and your ilk decide to call not human?
No, Becky, you are simply mistaken. A woman controls her body in one way when she decides to have sex and she controls her body in another way when she decides to have an abortion. There is no contradiction here.
You have responded to only half of one of my sentences. Please don’t quote me out of context like that. Here is the whole sentence: “Given what you have said, I assume that you would approve of a woman getting an abortion when she had no intention of having a baby, she used contraception, and it failed.” The critical consideration here is that the contraception FAILED!
I don’t “deny the life growing inside a pregnant woman,” as you have claimed. Where did you get that? I acknowledge that there is a living human organism inside the pregnant woman. Once again, when you are debating a controversial subject you should use scientific terminology, not layman’s terminology to refer to the development of the human organism and its progenitors. When the husband and the wife decorate the room they are doing it for an early stage living human organism (ESLHO) now in the fetus stage which they hope will be born, despite the way they talk about it informally. I am quibbling over YOUR language! Why don’t you use accurate scientific terms? We know why.
The life of the ESLHO which the woman wishes to end is meaningless and disposable to HER! But not to YOU! Why do you wish to force your idea on her and to treat her as the slave owners treated their slaves — controlling her body against her wishes? Your position is despicable, heinous, reprehensible, and immoral. (Those are the words you used to describe my position, right?)
I did say that others in this discussion haven’t thought deeply about these issues, and I believe it, but I won’t talk about that anymore since it is a distraction.
Becky, there are no babies inside the woman, regardless of your claims to the contrary. All babies are outside the woman! The abortion debate will not be won by semantic trickery, but by reason.
“Human” describes the KIND of thing we are talking about, but the abortion debate does not concern KIND, it concerns STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT of a thing of the human kind. At what point in human development should a right to life be assigned and why? Please answer directly.
Asked and answered, Gary. You’re adding nothing new. Human life begins at conception. You don’t need to TALK IN CAPITALS as if I can’t get your point any other way. I previously asked you, why is killing early rather than late considered moral? You gave no answer other than to proclaim that abortion is moral. I am sorry for you, Gary, because you clearly have a warped idea of morality.
But it’s unproductive for me to say, you’re wrong, only to have you come back and say, no, you’re mistaken. Wow! Such a good discussion. (You’re wrong. No you’re wrong. No you are.) Do you think this because you feel you have an audience for your oft repeated views? I’m following Ashley’s example and unsubscribing to these comments.
You clearly have no respect for Mike, whose site you are visiting–not quite the same thing as a public forum. And you continue to try and bully the rest of us, as if YOU (see, I can use capitals too) get to dictate what terms we can and can’t use. Just because you say the new life growing in the womb isn’t a baby, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to go along with that bizarre idea.
Disposable? I don’t think any human life is disposable. Don’t you see how callous, how selfish, how arbitrary this attitude is? This person would not wish to be considered disposable or meaningless, and definitely God does not consider any life disposable or meaningless.
You’re views are precursors to picking and choosing among humanity who “human community” thinks is deserving of the designation of person. Are there mentally ill or mentally challenged people you also think don’t deserve to be called people?
You twisted the analogy to slavery until it’s absolutely backwards, Gary. It is you who are saying, as slave owners did of their African slaves, that life in the womb is not human, and therefore disposable.
And finally, you said
This is another example of your ludicrous statements. The point I made has nothing to do with failed or working contraception. You are more interested in making your claims than in actually communicating with other people. You reversed what I was saying. My point has nothing to do with contraception, so your entire quote changes nothing in regard to what I am saying. I can quote your whole comment and it wouldn’t change anything. You simply misread my sarcasm.
It’s been an education, Gary. I didn’t know people like you actually existed. It’s not a happy discovery, I have to say.
Off to unsubscribe now.
Becky
No, Becky, life does not begin at conception! An early-stage living human organism begins at conception. Sperm and eggs are human and they are alive, but I don’t think you mean to be talking about them. Please be more precise with your language.
Killing early rather than late is moral because it allows the woman hosting the ESLHO to exercise her right to control her own body and act in the best interests of herself and humanity, all before the ESLHO becomes a person. Why do you believe otherwise?
Well, Becky, you believe I’m wrong and I believe you are wrong. So what? That’s the way debates go – people disagree on who is wrong and who is right.
I do have respect for Mike. I have enough respect to read his essays, give my opinions, and debate with him and others. His blog is a public forum. I am not bullying anybody, and I won’t. To say what others disagree with is not bullying. I rarely use CAPITALS, and then only for emphasis. The life in the womb is not a baby, no matter what you think, just like a human person is not a frog, no matter what you think.
You don’t think any human lives are disposable? Of course they are! Persons dispose of human lives all the time; it’s usually called “killing.” This debate is about when killing is morally permissible with respect to ESLHOs. Please clearly present your view and give your defense of it. You think that my attitude is callous, selfish, and arbitrary, but I think your attitude is. But that goes nowhere. Rather than talking about my attitude, please present and defend your position.
It appears that you assume the ESLHO is a person? What is a person, and how do you know the ESLHO is one? If he exists, God definitely considers ESLHOs disposable. He causes or allows miscarriages all the time! In fact, there are more miscarriages than there are abortions and births combined!
Your view also picks and chooses among human things what is to be designated a “person.” So what? Whose view is correct? Not yours.
Becky, it is you who wants to treat pregnant women like the slave owners treated their slaves. You want to control their bodies against their will. If your view were to be incorporated into law, then women who got abortions would be punished with fines, prison, or death. What is moral about that?
But, Becky, you responded to one of my statements out of context – only to half of it, and you know it. My statement was about the failure of contraception WHEN the woman has no intention of having a baby and she used contraception. You were more interested in making your claims than actually communicating with me by responding to my actual sentence. The use of sarcasm in a debate, especially a written one, is usually not helpful and sometimes harmful. Instead, direcly say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Yes, Becky, people who disagree with your passionate beliefs and are willing to challenge them actually do exist! Instead of doing a hit-and-run, try to talk to them.
“act in the best interests of herself and humanity”
This is how you shame girls into having abortions. You tell them they are hurting humanity if they have their babies.
You who love women and would free them from oppression, say nothing about the lecherous teachers I had who abused their power to lead children astray. You blame me for getting drunk and doing coke and being promiscuous.
And you are right to do so, Gary. I WAS sinning and I HAVE taken responsibility for my sin. But you are a flaming hypocrite, saying you want to free women from oppression when you blame a 15 year old girl for doing coke and drinking with her teachers and you have nothing to say about the teachers who supplied the drugs.
Really compassionate, Gary.
Of course we know you have no compassion. You are in favor of brutally dismembering the smallest most vulnerable most innocent of humans.
BLECH. OK I’m unsubscribing now so I won’t see any more of your answers. You are such a hypocrite.
Yes, the girls who have abortions would be hurting humanity if they went on to produce babies. They aren’t ready to be mothers. Humanity would be better off if they were ready. If they never become ready, then they shouldn’t produce babies. If they become ready later, then they should have no more than two.
We didn’t start out talking about lecherous teachers. But since you brought them up, I will say they are wrong. You were partly to blame for getting drunk, doing coke, and being promiscuous, but you weren’t to blame for getting abortions.
Now Sally, by calling me a “hypocrite” you are not only mistaken, you are engaged in an ad hominem attack. Please stick to the topic of abortion. Whether you like me or not is irrelevant. Your teacher/s were partly to blame and you were partly to blame for your doing coke, getting drunk, and being promiscuous; you were both wrong. But you were right to get abortions. Given how little respect you had for yourself, imagine the poor care the children would have received if you had produced them. You just weren’t ready at that time of your life to be a mother. I hope you later became ready and had children for whom you have properly cared.
Fetuses are neither innocent nor guilty, so why do you call them “innocent”? I know why.
I am in favor of pregnant women killing their fetuses when the women no longer wish to be hosts to their fetuses and when they aren’t ready to be mothers. Does anyone have compassion for these women?
Instead of engaging in hit and run or in ad hominem attacks, you should remain in the debate and talk civilly. Tell exactly why you think women should be punished for controlling their bodies.
I am late to this conversation – just responding because I am an actual scientific researcher and I research abortion – and I hear that some guy named Gary is relentlessly quoting “science” in support of abortion. So: the scientific fact is that abortion ends a developing human life. It is a tautology to say that abortion does not end a human life because the specific intent of abortion is to – well, end a developing human life. Another fact is that abortion ends more human lives every year than *all other causes of death* combined. In fact, it is, as this non-scientific write-up of my research states “the most consequential issue determining the socioeconomic and demographic composition of the United States” (see here http://cdn.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/10/Study-Abortion-By-and-Far-Most-Consequential-Issue-Determining-Socioeconomic-Demographic-Composition-of-United-States)
Finally – Mike – in response to the feeling that one person may or may not be able to make a difference: perhaps not, but the Church can make a difference – and not in the way you may have previously considered. In 2008, over 38% of the abortions were obtained by women who self-identify as Protestants (yes – that includes evangelicals/charismatics/born again etc) and 28% by Catholics; this means that proportionately, more women who self identified as religiously affiliated (and again, a majority of them *did* indicate they also attended church more than once a month) had abortions than those who did not self identify as religiously affiliated (27%){other religions make up the remaining proportion}.
Stay tuned for more research…but the bottom line is – abortion is a complex issue; the best place for you to be effectively pro life is in your own church. That teenager sitting behind you on Sunday, that single mom in her 40s who sings in the choir – yes, sadly, *these* are the women having abortions – and these are the women the church and the pro life movement is overwhelmingly failing.
Thank you so much, SJ. That’s a great point. One of our first experiences with abortion was when someone very close to my wife and I had one. She was a believer. The damage it did to her faith was incredible. Frankly, it’s sad to see how many churches have grown silent on the issue. probably just one of many issues we’re afraid to address for fear of being charged with shaming, sexism, chauvinism, politicization, or some such nonsense. Thanks so much for your research on this matter.
Mike, what you should be afraid of is an incorrect moral teaching. You are still dodging the main issue. Please write a separate essay laying out your full view of abortion rights or agree to have an email debate with me about it and then publish the debate on your blog. Either of those could be very helpful.
Gary, there’s a couple reasons why I won’t publicly debate you:
1.) It would, most likely, be fruitless. If the tone of this conversation is any indication, a debate between us would only serve to entertain or score points, not enlighten or persuade.
2.) The pro-life position has been outlined better than I could many other places. Like this essay A Reasoned, Scientific Pro-Life Argument.
3.) I don’t have the time. Call this a cop-out if you like, but I am an extremely busy person and engaging in online debates — especially ones that cover oft-discussed controversial subjects — is not the best use of my time.
Also, the only reason I haven’t blocked you from this conversation, even when I asked you to cease and desist, is because a.) I value dissent and b.) The other commenters have done a great job of engaging your questions. So let me encourage you to move on. Fight the battles that you feel are necessary. And we’ll fight ours.
Thanks.
Mike, a debate between us would certainly enlighten, whether or not it would entertain, persuade, or score points, and so it would be worth it. I’m pretty sure that the two of us would both remain civil, so for you to focus on tone is really irrelevant. Instead focus on the substance!
I’ll be happy to look at the essay to which you refer, but that doesn’t let you off the hook. Because you have publicly come out in support of a so-called “pro-life” position, you now have a moral obligation to defend it to the best of your ability when you are challenged by anyone, including myself. Please explain why you would block women from going to abortion clinics but you wouldn’t use your “gift of language” to articulate a defense of your position on this very important issue.
Ok, I will comply with your wish this time – your “I don’t have the time” explanation is a cop-out. Please explain why anything else you are doing right now is more important than presenting a defense of your pro-life position. Your position, as I understand it, is that abortion is the unjustified killing of another human person. If that were actually true, then your failure to defend your position would be abetting this supposed immoral action through your negligence.
If you value dissent, as you say, then why on earth would you request that I move on? I am fulfilling your desire for dissent! Also, the other commenters have not done a great job, as you claim. Most of them have done a very poor job. The only two who have done an adequate job are Jill and Lisa, and they are still working on the periphery of the issue. I’m fighting the battles I feel are necessary. Why do you not think the abortion rights battle is unnecessary?
Thanks.
SJ, I happen to be that guy named “Gary.” The scientific fact is that abortion ends the life of a developing human ORGANISM. Sperm and eggs are human and they are alive, and we aren’t talking about them. So, SJ, please be more precise in your language.
I would have suspected that heart disease, cancer, or just plain “old age” would have been responsible for more deaths per year than abortion, but you could be correct in your claim about the numbers. I’d have to see some solid evidence. But, if your claim is true, what bearing does it have on the morality of abortion?
It is a good thing that Protestant and Catholic women are not listening to the leadership of their churches and are getting abortions in the proper circumstances. Now, it’s time for the church leadership to change their ways and reach the correct moral position on abortion.
Yes, abortion is a complex issue, and the best place for you, Mike, to be effectively pro-choice is in your own church and through your writing, both fiction and nonfiction. The teenager sitting behind you on Sunday and the single mom in her 40s who sings in the choir, yes fortunately, they are getting abortions when they are not ready to be mothers. This is good for them, their families, and humanity as a whole. Imagine the kind of world we’d have if all the fetuses which were aborted had been allowed to become babies! It would have been a disaster. The so-called pro-life movement is overwhelmingly failing, and this is a good thing. It shows that humanity is becoming more enlightened morally.
Gary –
Human organism – yes a fertilized egg is a human “organism” – a human life.
In the link I provided to the article about my research there is another link to the actual scientific research. Or you can simply go here to access the paper: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=41850#.VNiy3_nF-So
After you read it you can let me know your opinion about the evidence that abortion has a greater impact on the demographic composition of the United States than all other causes of disease (combined).
As far as making any moral claim – well, that is not what my research does – but it does bring up an interesting question. Why are we (as a society) more concerned about deaths from cancer – or heart disease?
I work with many (most) academics who are pro choice. I have a lot of respect for them – they are good researchers. I don’t argue with them about the question I just raised because I have found that it is rare to convince someone by intellectual argument that a mere two celled human “organism” is of infinite value – that this human life is precious – above that of animals and plants and whales and seals…on the other hand, I have a few formerly radical pro choice atheist friends who have recently questioned their own abortions in conversation with me – my response is always grace; it is a narrow and treacherous way, this awakening of the heart (or some philosophers may call it the “conscience” in response to a “change in schema”).
I value your life, Gary. I value your opinions – and my prayer is that you meet someone who can show you, by knowing you in a real relationship (not this cyber blog argument nonsense) – that every human life is worth love and sacrifice – yes, even – as radical as it may sound – unto death.
Much grace to you,
SJMacKinnon
Just FYI: the pro life movement is increasingly becoming more “secular”. You may want to check out my friends at http://www.secularprolife.org/ or the blog of the “godless pro lifers” here http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
if this spiritual/God/grace stuff is a turn-off for your scientific mind.
SJ, you are still being imprecise with your language. Sperm and eggs are human and they are alive, but we aren’t talking about them, so your term “a human life” is not appropriate in a discussion of abortion.
So far, you haven’t really said anything actually relevant to the morality of abortion which we have been debating here. If the thesis of your paper were true (and right now I’m not taking a position on it), what would it have to do with the morality of abortion?
We are more concerned about deaths from cancer or heart disease than deaths from abortion because they are deaths of human persons, usually persons who are highly valued by family and friends. This is not the case with deaths of ESLHOs from abortion or other similar actions.
Two-celled? There are so-called pro-life advocates who wish to assign a right to life to the one-celled human organism – the zygote! A woman seeking an abortion does not value the life of the ESLHO inside her above that of her cute adult pet cat. Why do you wish to force her to do so? Why do you wish to impede her right to control her own body?
People change their schema in both directions. People actually do improve their conscience when they go from pro-life to pro-choice. They advance to a higher moral stage. (Are you familiar with Kohlberg’s moral stages?)
I don’t mind talking about abortion in a religious framework. If God exists, he approves of abortion in almost all the situations where it is currently performed. He even performs a lot of abortions on his own – they are called “miscarriages.”
SJ, I also meant to say: I value your life and your opinions. My hope is that you will listen to some pro-choice person long enough and intently enough to learn that abortion is morally permissible or even obligatory in almost all the situations in which it is performed. I’d be happy to be that person to you. If you’d like to have a private email discussion on the moral question (not your paper), then let me know. Best regards to you.
As a young nurse in a large metro hospital, I was recruited for an important post in a brand new clinic. “PIC” they called it. “Pregnancy Interruption Clinic.” It was 1973. Very kind doctors interviewed me and presented the opportunity as a great way to help many. AND, in complete truth, our FIRST patient group included a young 10 year old girl who didn’t even know HOW she got pregnant. So, yes, it fed our notion we were doing great things for the poor and downtrodden.
The procedure itself was not shocking. Well, except for the suction jar filling with a bloody white sock containing the “tissue.” We nurses could see it pulsing and filling, blood dripping. But they covered the jar so the patients couldn’t see it. So we came to accept it too.
THEN when it was OVER, we had to empty those white gauze socks into little tin foil pans to take up to Pathology, to make sure everything was out of the uterus.
Yeah. That cured us.
Little flayed bodies. Not “tissue.” Perfect little heads and arms and legs and ribcages torn completely apart, scattered in the slick of blood like war carnage. Worse. No clean shots here. Utter and complete carnage like we’d never seen. And nurses have SEEN some stuff!
We did not NEED a moral argument or theology or politics of “rights” to know we were seeing a Holocaust worse than the stacked bodies out of Hitler’s ovens. What remained was only to decide what we should DO about it. We ALL still struggle with it to this day. Take heart! The Lord of all Grace forgives the liars, lied-to, victims, AND participants. Then, if we ask (yes, ONLY if we ask), He tells us what He wants us to do about it. He knows everyone else has Free Will too. And always and everywhere people will KNOW, when they SEE it, it is evil. And others, choosing not to peek over the covered suction jar of bloody carnage, will NOT know.
Yet.
You said “We did not NEED a moral argument or theology or politics of “rights” to know we were seeing a Holocaust worse than the stacked bodies out of Hitler’s ovens.” Well, actually you do. Your disgust or sqeemishness about what you saw is still not a moral argument against abortion, not even close.
Here are the critical questions to address:
“At what point in the development of the human organism should a right to life be assigned, and why?”
“Should the state fine, imprison, or kill women or their doctors who perform abortions? If so, to what extent?”
Please address them, and give good evidence, reasons, or arguments for your position. Try to do more than just cheerleading which doesn’t advance the discussion one iota.
Thanks Kathy.
Kathy, thank you for your clear, informed answer. You know far more than most of us the horrors of abortion, and I thank you for making it clear. We need to know what we’re allowing to happen in our country.
Becky
We know what we are allowing and we are mostly satisfied with it.
I don’t want to sleep well if it means I get to such a calloused place where the life of humans not yet born is nothing, disposable, unmourned.
I used to be the sign-holder, and I donated to intervention services (helping women give birth, not abort; sonograms for life, etc).
But I simply have come to the place where I pray, and I leave it to God. It’s law. As long as evil law prevails,evil acts are sheltered under their umbrella. Only God can overcome darkened minds and hearts. Only God.
And one day, before the throne of reckoning, the unborn will be vindicated and their murderers called what they truly are. There will be justice or mercy, and that depends on where the abortionist or abortion seeker stand, with whom they stand. Justice or mercy are the only paths. And justice for murder is severe. God is not mocked and the murdered unborn will have their champion. One day.
“The unborn?” More misleading terminology. Why not call them what they are — zygotes, embryos, or fetuses?
Please present good evidence, reasons, or arguments to show that abortion is always wrong. If it is not always wrong, then when is it right, and why?
If God does exist, he surely supports abortion under some circumstances, right?
In the Bible the word for John the Baptist who was in his mother’s womb, was Brephos. It means child. It is used to speak of the child in the womb and the child out of the womb.
And we are told that the Holy Spirit filled John while he was in the womb and he leapt in his mother’s womb when he heard the voice of Mary.
There is no need for us to call babies in the womb anything other than babies. No expectant mother says, I’m painting the embryo’s room or putting up the zygote’s crib. Mother’s know that they carrying live human babies. There is no question of that. It is immoral for a mother to kill her own child. If you don’t get that, I’m sorry for you.
When discussing the controversial topic of abortion, it is important to use the scientifically accurate terms. “Child” is not appropriate to refer to human organisms living inside a woman. The author of John was not engaged in the kind of discussion in which we are engaged.
After a certain point in development fetuses are able to hear things on the outside. So what? What does this have to do with opposing abortion and abortion rights?
Yes, there is a need to call fetuses what they are, i.e. “fetuses,” and not what they aren’t, i.e. “babies.” Why would you wish to use inaccurate misleading terms? We know why.
A pregnant woman could say “Being hopeful, I am putting up a crib for my fetus which may eventually become a baby” and not be wrong. Expectant women talk in colloquial and informal language, not in precise scientific language which is appropriate to a debate on abortion. You can’t carry your argument with semantics.
It is morally permissible in some circumstances for a pregnant woman to kill her zygote, embryo, or fetus. If you don’t get that, I’m sorry for you and for all the poor women who are oppressed by you.
Gary, they are also “unborn.” That’s not an untruthful term. They are also unborn babies (“comparatively small or immature of its kind”).
And here’s the thing. If a mother puts her newborn baby in the trash and explains she did so because she simply could not provide for her infant, she would not get a pass. She is still guilty in the eyes of the law. She can’t be abusive or negligent of her child.
How much more should that be true when the child is totally dependent on her for a safe environment and nourishment? Can’t you see what a horrific betrayal it is for the one person capable of caring for the unborn to turn against him and kill him? How can that be considered moral under any circumstances?
Becky
No, Becky, there are no unborn babies. They are all born!
Babies have been already assigned a right to life. Third-trimester fetuses have even been assigned a limited right to life. If you are going to suggest that now first and second trimester fetuses should also be assigned a right to life, then you are going to have to present good evidence, reasons, or arguments for doing that. Just claiming that your position is correct is not good enough. I think it is incorrect.
A fetus is totally dependent on the pregnant woman for a safe environment and nourishment, but how is this dependency an argument against the right of the woman to control her body and remove from it whatever she wants? There is no betrayal since the fetus could not and did not enter into any contract with the woman. How can it be considered moral to force a woman by various means to use her body in a way she doesn’t want it to be used? You’ve got to make an argument for that; you just can’t assume you are correct.
There are actually three bodies involved: the woman’s, the man’s, and the fetus’s. A woman simply should not have control over all three sets of genetic information. You are following the typical misandrist line of removing the basic right of procreation to men. Essentially, you are quite happy to oppress and control men. I wonder what happens to men emotionally when they lose the right to choose, when the woman’s emotions have been prioritized over his. And that’s not to mention, of course, the basic right of the fetus to be born into this world–which is a different argument, albeit still an important one. A human being comes into existence at conception; it is a human being w/ its own distinct DNA. It is illogical to believe anything else. Now if you want to argue over whether all human beings should be given the legal designation of personages, be my guest.
Jill, the woman has a right to control her body which includes deciding what comes into it (e.g. sperm, food, etc.) and what comes out of it (e.g. an egg, zygote, fetus, or a cancer). If she decides to remove an early stage living human organism from her body (ESLHO), as she has a right to do, then it will die. This ESLHO does not and should not be assigned a right to life until later.
Your talk about the man’s rights is confusing to me. Are you suggesting that the man should have a say in what happens to the ESLHO? What if the man and the woman disagree?
You assume a “basic right of the fetus to be born into this world,” but there is no such right! Why do you think the fetus should be assigned that right? How is this right different from being assigned a right to life?
The term “human being” is equivocal and should not be used in a discussion of abortion. Instead, use the term “human organism.” A human organism is present at conception. Now if you want to argue that human organisms at all stages of development should be assigned a right to life, then please make your case.
No, Gary, I will not use the terms you tell me to use. Yes, I do think a man has a right to procreation. If the man and woman disagree, then an abortion should not occur. We are not talking about one body; we are talking about three different bodies of genetic material: the man’s, the woman’s, and the baby’s. The woman does not have the right over all three of these bodies. If she believes she does, she is selfish, manipulative, and controlling–using her skills (the ability to be pregnant and give birth) to control others. This is the same kind of oppression that men have been doling out to women over the centuries, as they have used their skills (superior strength and size) to control others. It isn’t right when a man does it, and it isn’t right when a woman does it. And yet you would single women out as somehow being special and needing to oppress others who are not just less capable than she is, but incapable of being pregnant. But thankfully, a woman can’t become pregnant on her own w/o sperm, which lessens her ability to be a tyrant. Also, she doesn’t have to become pregnant in these days when birth control is so readily available. She also doesn’t have to have sex, and our justice system agrees, as rape is a criminal offense. You see, man’s superior strength has been criminalized in regards to oppressing women sexually. When will the reverse become true? When will women’s oppression be criminalized as well?
Great comment, Jill. I especially appreciate you mentioning the father who certainly ought to have something to say about what becomes of his baby.
And then your closing point—that in fact we have criminalized men forcing women (or other men) to do things because of their superior strength, certainly we ought to criminalize women for the same thing. Clearly, no one is more helpless and in need of advocacy than the unborn child.
Becky
To be more precise, we criminalize acts, not persons. Jill is suggesting that we criminalize the act of abortion just when the man does not agree to it.
I suspect however that you wish to criminalize the act of abortion even when the man agrees to it. Is that right? If so, do you want to punish both the man and the woman? Also, how severe do you want the punishment to be?
You think the abortion should not go forward if the man who supplied the sperm does not agree to the abortion. It is very rare for the man not to agree to the abortion, but it happens. I agree with your position ONLY IF this man agrees to pay for the woman’s medical expenses and an “incubation fee” during the entire pregnancy and he agrees to immediately adopt the resulting baby when the fetus is born, then taking full responsibility for it. However, if both the man and woman agree to an abortion, it should go forward, right?
I’m a firm believer in equal rights. Under the current system, abortion is legal, but we only recognize the rights of the woman, not of the man. It should not be that way. That is the point I’m making. So, yes, in our current system, which does not regard fetuses as persons, those *considered* persons should be in agreement before the abortion takes place. Obviously, even if a fetus were considered a person, he/she couldn’t agree to anything. He/she would have to be protected by anti-abortion laws instead. But that is a different argument entirely.
As far as your contingencies for when and if a man wants his offspring, I suppose they are necessary in a system that doesn’t believe women have moral agency and responsibility. By that, I mean, under normal circumstances of consensual sex, there is always a risk of pregnancy occurring. That ought to mean both parties share the burden of the pregnancy, presuming they both understood the risks beforehand. But I’m not such an idealist as to believe that would ever happen. If the woman does not wish to be a mother at all, I suppose she should be let off the hook for both the cost of the pregnancy and the rearing of the child(ren)….but only if that same consideration is given to fathers. There are many fathers who have their wages garnered by the state to pay for children they didn’t wish to have in the first place. That should clearly not be the case under the parameters you have outlined. The woman who wanted her offspring should not demand anything of the man who would have preferred she had an abortion.
Along these lines, perhaps sex these days should come with consent forms to prevent erroneous rape accusations, or subsequent claims of ignorance as to how babies are made. That would go a long way toward alleviating misunderstandings.
I’m in agreement with you about giving the man a say in the decision on a specific abortion, but only under the conditions I specified.
The community could decide not to assign a right to life to a fetus even if it were to be considered a person, but I wouldn’t agree with that. I think the community should take the next step and assign it a right to life when the fetus becomes a person, and I think this can be determined by proper definition and observation.
So, we can imagine these four possibilities: 1) If the man and woman both want an abortion, then an abortion should occur. 2) If the woman wants an abortion but the man doesn’t, then an abortion should not occur, but the man should take full responsibility for the resulting child (along with a couple of other things). 3) If the man wants an abortion but the woman doesn’t, then an abortion should not occur and the woman should take full responsibility for the resulting child. And 4) If the man and woman both don’t want an abortion, then the abortion should not occur and they should both be equally responsible for the resulting child. All these contingencies could be made explicit in the law, and right now I don’t see why they shouldn’t be.
This is a little off topic, but your idea about consent forms with respect to sex is very interesting. I’ve been thinking much lately about what rape is. Here are two possible definitions: 1) A rape occurs when either party says “no” during preparation for or engagement in a sex act. 2) A rape occurs when both parties have not said “yes” prior to engagement in a sex act. I would imagine that different states look at it differently. Anyway, I kind of favor the second definition. This would fit with your idea of consent forms. With consent forms the disposition of fetuses which might result could be agreed to at the same time, in addition to the use of contraception or not.
You are being coy about stating your opinion on abortion rights, and I don’t know why. Jill, at what point in human development should a right to life be assigned and why?
I’m not being coy. I was only addressing the oft-repeated pro-choice argument “my body, my choice”. That’s what every argument I’ve observed between pro-choice and pro-life people comes down to. In the end, “my body, my choice” trumps all. Except it doesn’t–not logically, anyway, due to three bodies being involved. It simply demonstrates a woman’s need to control and manipulate the other bodies involved in her pregnancy. Many women make the argument that it must be their choice because they are the ones putting their lives on the line. While that is a more understandable and even more logical argument, I find it a sad one because it disrespects the male-female union that has long operated to create and maintain a civilized society. Men, too, have put their lives on the line throughout history for the maintenance of society, due to fighting in wars and working the most dangerous jobs–and they continue to do so. To this day (in our country), only men are required to sign up for the military. Many modern women, by a matter of choice, have decided that they will not put themselves at risk for any reason. By and large, men are still willing to do so. This is not a way to build a society; it is not even remotely balanced. It is a way to destruct it. (Cue erroneous arguments about overpopulation.)
The other argument–the one you would like me to engage in–is one that loses all sense of logic from the get-go. A “person” is an autonomous human being. What is an autonomous human being? It is a human being with its own distinct genetic material. Should all human beings with their own distinct genetic material have a right to life? You would say “no”. Because conception is the most clear dividing line between a human being existing and no human existing being (sometimes a zygote even splits into two human beings), it becomes a matter of rhetoric to claim the dividing line should exist somewhere else along the path.
Jill, I think you and I are in agreement about what should happen when the man and the woman who have produced an ESLHO are in disagreement about its disposition.
The argument that loses all sense of logic at the get-go is the pro-life argument. A human ORGANISM (not a person or a human being, which is something more) is a living human thing with its own distinct genetic material and autonomy. The question is “When should we assign a right to life to the human organism during its development, and why?” This decision is not merely a matter of rhetoric. It is a very serious moral matter with huge repercussions.
By what manner of dialectical reasoning do pro-abortion people decide to grant a body of human genetic material the right to personage? It becomes a matter of rhetoric rather than logic. They make claims of moral rightness rather than of scientific accuracy. Many pro-lifers do, as well. However, it is far more logical to accept that humans are persons throughout all their life stages than it is to draw arbitrary legal lines determining which life stages are valid and which aren’t.
The nesting set-up for comments on this blog is a little cumbersome, but here I am responding to your most recent post to me on this thread.
Jill, the term “human” refers to the type of a living thing, but we are talking about stages of life of that type of living thing, so you need to be specific here. If you don’t mean to be talking about sperm and eggs, then you need to refer to “human organisms” not “humans.”
Jill, please try to defend your statement “…it is far more logical to accept that humans are persons throughout all their life stages than it is to draw arbitrary legal lines determining which life stages are valid and which aren’t.” I don’t agree with this hypothesis at all. First, your reference to “arbitrary legal lines” is a red herring since we are focusing first on morality, not legality. Secondly, life stages are neither valid nor invalid; they are what they are – snapshots of real things! However, the assignment of a right to life at a particular life stage may be valid or invalid. But thank you for getting to the nitty-gritty.
Oh, one other thing: Although three bodies and three sets of DNA are involved in every abortion (we agree on that point), only two and not three deciders are involved. At the times when abortions are performed ESLHOs are not able to decide ANYTHING and never have.
Back in the beginning we naively thought that if people just knew that the babies were humans and alive, they wouldn’t abort. They were unaware, we thought. No sane person would knowingly kill an innocent, living human being.
I, like you, gave up the fight after a while. I had voted for the pro-life politicians. It did no good.
We had shown that it was not a lump of tissue. The other side didn’t care. They insisted that a woman’s rights were bigger than a baby’s rights, because the baby needed her to live and she didn’t have to allow her body to be used this way.
Now . . . they are without excuse and God will judge them.
What we can do now and we need to do now is rescue those we can. Jesus lived in a day when babies were exposed to the elements and allowed to die. His followers, I’ve heard, went and picked up the babies. This is akin to us working in Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I think.
When people are so blind that they will sacrifice their own flesh for the sake of their right to have sex with whomever, whenever there is not a lot that can be done. We can pray that they will find the love of Christ–that’s the love their looking for with all their screaming about their rights and with all their sexual activity. They are looking for someone who will love them. They are blind and lost.
God is able to save the babies. Yes, their blood calls out, and yes, he is punishing our nation for their murder. But he is able to save the babies. Everyone dies and in the end God can be trusted to do with them as he sees fit. We do need to try to save here and now the oppressed who are being led to the slaughter. But the mothers and the fathers are oppressed too–blinded by Satan.
We need a revival. Feminism, the sexual revolution, homosexuality, abortion, murder, drug use, violence, greed . . . all of these sinful things where we demand our rights at the expense of someone else’s come from not knowing that God created people and God owns people and God loves people.
There are no babies in the womb. There are embryos and fetuses in there. And there are zygotes in the woman’s body at an earlier stage. So, please stop referring to fetuses as babies. This does not help.
Also, fetuses are neither innocent nor guilty. How could they possibly be either?
To say that fetuses are “a lump of tissue” is just a straw man argument. They are early stage living human organisms (ESLHOs). But when should they be assigned a right to life, and why?
I think that if God exists, he will judge almost all the women who have gotten abortions favorably. Why would he want every zygote to become a baby?
“God is able to save the babies?” Surely, you mean the zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. If he is able to save them, then why doesn’t he? Why doesn’t he prevent all abortions? More than that, why does he commit so many abortions himself? They are called “miscarriages.” Think about these things on more than a superficial basis.
“God owns people?” If God owns people, does that mean that we can own people too? Does he set the example for us?
“God loves people?” Is that why he causes or allows natural disasters? Come on, think!
It’s OK Gary. I’ve heard you. You’ve heard me. Maybe someone else will continue the discussion with you. But I think I understand your point of view and I think you understand mine. So I shall go back to work now.
Best wishes to you. And I mean that with all sincerity.
Sally, please think more deeply about these issues. I mean that with all sincerity.
Is it really unclear that I have thought deeply about this issue? Really? I’m the one who is repeating one thing over and over in several comments?
Having killed two of my own babies when I was a poor, uneducated girl, and having found forgiveness because God the Son bore my sins and died that I, the murderer, might live, and having been very involved in the pro-life movement for decades, and have still a strong love for mothers who find themselves carrying babies they have not planned for, I can assure you I’ve thought very deeply about the issue.
In my opinion, it is clear that you have not thought deeply about this issue. You are just skimming the surface. You are expressing your opinion, but you are not presenting any good evidence, reasons, or arguments to show that it is correct.
I don’t believe you killed any babies! Once again, you are using “baby” in an inaccurate and misleading way. Maybe you had two abortions and killed two of your fetuses, but Sally, you didn’t do anything wrong for which you need to be forgiven! You did the morally right thing under the circumstances. Let’s face it – you weren’t ready to be a mother. If God exists, you did exactly what he would want you to do. Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Oh, Gary. You say I was not ready to be a mother. I’m not sure why you have such a poor understanding of the issue, but the clear scientific fact is that I WAS a mother.
I was just a bad, selfish mother who chose to kill her children because that felt less shameful to me than carrying my babies to term. It felt less shameful, in part, because I was influenced by school teachers who sounded a lot like you. They believed that girls own their own bodies and should be allowed to have sex. But they should be wise enough to kill the babies that result from the sex, because sex is great, but “shame on you” if you are stupid enough to give birth. We don’t need any more welfare mothers and we don’t need any more poor children on this already overpopulated planet.
God has forgiven me for my part in this great sin. You also need to seek forgiveness for your part.
Ah, Sally, now you are sounding like Dickens. “How do you know you aren’t one of the useless rabble?” the ghost asks Scrooge, as Scrooge has no regard for those who can’t seem to survive on their own w/o help. That isn’t an exact quote; I don’t remember it off the top of my head. What a prescient book, though!
You seem to imply that a human zygote should be assigned a right to life just like adult human persons are. If that is what you really believe, then please make your case for it rather than making references to Dickens.
Is your name Sally? No, I didn’t think so.
My name is Gary, and I can respond to Sally and you. This is a public forum.
Gary, it’s not that you can’t respond in a public forum. It’s that it had nothing to do with you or the argument really, but was specifically addressing Sally’s rhetoric style, which is up there with the classics.
Oh, Sally. The clear scientific fact is that you were a pregnant woman and you weren’t ready to be a mother. You didn’t have the required mental state or physical resources to be a mother. That’s why you got abortions.
You didn’t kill your children or your babies; you killed your fetuses. Now you have been influenced by other people to feel shameful even though you did nothing wrong. Yes, we should make it easy for women to have early stage abortions PARTLY to reduce welfare and poverty on this overpopulated planet.
God has not forgiven you because you didn’t need forgiveness! When you had those two abortions, you did exactly what God wanted you to do, that is, if he exists. Also, in promoting abortion rights for women, I’m doing what God wants me to do.
Actually, I take full responsibility for my own sin, but if you want to bring up shame, Gary, this is much closer to the truth:
I got the abortions because sinful men and women who love to have sex outside of marriage but who don’t want any consequences when they sin, taught me at a young age that sex was good for me and I shouldn’t be ashamed of having sex, but I should be ashamed if I was stupid enough to have a baby. My geometry teacher used to give me coke and try to get me into bed. He said I was an adult and I should run my own life and not live by my parents’ rule. My wood shop teacher got drunk with me. Almost all of my high school teachers taught me that my parents’ religion was old and outdated and oppressive and I needed to be free. I needed to be free to have sex without shame.
But then they had no problem shaming me into having abortions once I got pregnant.
It was men like who shamed me into killing my children, Gary. It is men like you who oppress women.
Babies are not oppressive. Sin is oppressive. And when you encourage women to sin you are encouraging them to be slaves.
No one forced me to kill my babies and I have repented for that and God has forgiven me. But you are sinning when you try to shame women into only having two babies. When you shame poor girls into killing their babies after rich men have gotten them pregnant.
Here’s the good news. God died for sinners just like you. He forgave me for killing my babies. He gave me great joy in Christ. In him there is no condemnation. I would love for you to find that joy and freedom that is found in Christ. You are a sinner, like me. But you are also a victim like I was. You have been blinding by Satan.
Jesus says, “Come unto me all ye who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest.” I hope you will take him up on that offer. He is able to wash you and fill you with such joy. I pray you’ll come to him and admit that you need to be cleansed.
I agree that you made at least four mistakes – getting drunk, using coke, having sex before you were an adult, and failing to use contraception, but getting an abortion wasn’t a mistake. You happened to do the right thing in getting the abortion, regardless of how others manipulated you. You were not ready to be a mother. A mother is more than an egg donor, right?
No, Sally, I do not oppress women; I help them stick up for their rights. You oppress women by trying to shame them against getting abortions. And if you get your way, laws will be passed and women who do get abortions will be fined, imprisoned, or killed.
Sally, I am not encouraging women to sin. You have yet to prove that abortion is a sin; you are just assuming it is.
God has not forgiven you for having abortions because God does not forgive people for doing the right thing; you did not need forgiveness. You did the right thing – you did what God wanted you to do, if he exists.
There are no babies inside the womb. Babies exist outside the womb. You didn’t kill any babies. You killed two fetuses, but under the circumstances, your killings were justified.
Here is the good news: If God exists, he does not die (as you claim); instead he is eternal. Also, God doesn’t forgive; instead he provides just punishment for sins. If you had sinned by having abortions, then God would justly punish you for it, but fortunately you didn’t sin that time. I would love for you to find the joy in understanding the truth of these things. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” I hope you shall be freed of the illusion that abortion is a sin.
Gary in Hosea chapter 9 we see that lack of conception, lack of the ability to carry to term, and lack of children who thrive after birth are all punishments from the Lord. Abortion is a sin, but it is also a punishment on our nation. And we, like the blind, lost fools that we are, cry out, demanding our right to punish ourselves further. Children are a blessing from the Lord, and barren wombs are a punishment from the Lord. The Bible is clear on that throughout. It never deviates from that.
Hosea 9:
11 Ephraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird—
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception!
12 Even if they bring up children,
I will bereave them till none is left.
Woe to them
when I depart from them!
13 Ephraim, as I have seen, was like a young palm planted in a meadow;
but Ephraim must lead his children out to slaughter.
14 Give them, O Lord—
what will you give?
Give them a miscarrying womb
and dry breasts.
15 Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal;
there I began to hate them.
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of my house.
I will love them no more;
all their princes are rebels.
16 Ephraim is stricken;
their root is dried up;
they shall bear no fruit.
Even though they give birth,
I will put their beloved children to death.
17 My God will reject them
because they have not listened to him;
they shall be wanderers among the nations.
In Germany and China right now they are facing a huge crisis because they don’t have enough children to support the ones who are getting older. They are running out a workforce in Germany. Those people getting older were all selfish when they were younger. They couldn’t be bothered to take care of children. Now they have no one to care for them. And if the Lord should tarry? We will see the third world countries rising to power. People are a country’s greatest resource. People can invent and produce things.
Sally, Hosea 9 which you quoted has nothing to do with abortion. You say “Abortion is a sin, but it is also a punishment on our nation.” Why should I believe that? You provide no good evidence, reasons, or arguments for your position on abortion. Women who get abortion aren’t punishing themselves; they are doing what is right under the circumstances. Obviously, they aren’t ready to be competent mothers. Why would you want to shame them into it? Or punish them if they got an abortion?
There are so many ways to support older people besides encouraging a birthrate of greater than two children per couple. Of course, people are a country’s greatest resource, but there are too many of them in the world right now. Do you think there is no limit? Do you think we have not yet passed the limit? The moral way to reduce the population is by lowering the birth rate. But how should we do that? By encouraging the education and advancement of women, contraception, abortion rights, and sterilization/vacsectomies.
Gary, why is it moral to kill people sooner than later?
Becky
Becky, first define “person.”
If a male adult person is trying to rape you, why is it moral to kill him sooner than later?
When the sperm leaves its father it cleaves unto the egg and the two become one. Two complete and independent cells become one cell. Therefore what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Most sperm and eggs never join. What about them? Should we assign a right to life to them also?
Every zygote is precious in the eyes of God. How do you know this?
With the world overpopulated, why would God want us to add to the problem by outlawing abortion?
To take an extreme but real case, why would God want a young, poor, uneducated, unemployed, drug abusing, pregnant woman to not get an abortion?
Is abortion ever the moral thing to do? If so, when?
What God hath joined together, let no man/woman put asunder, unless God wants him/her to do so.
Gary, you are not the sole arbiter of what terms can and can’t be used in the debate or what is or is not scientifically accurate. You seem to focus on this more in an attempt to control and prevent debate. But the question you have to answer is when does the right to life begin? Is it birth? The third trimester? Do you believe a fetus miraculously becomes something different once it passes through the birth canal? Once the umbilical is cut? Or when it is breathing on its own? When? And what is your scientific proof?
My contention is that our right to life begins when human life begins. Genetics proves that the DNA of a zygote at its earliest stage is human. Thus I maintain that human life begins at conception regardless of what you choose to call it. It is a human life.
Further, you claim a fetus, zygote etc cannot be innocent or guilty but you are wrong in this. There is a presumption of innocence, you don’t have to “do” anything to “become” innocent. It is defined by what you do not do. if someone has not committed a crime, they are innocent. The fact that an embryo is incapable of committing an immoral or criminal act is enough to establish its innocence.
I agree contraception is important but is not the ultimate answer. Unless you want to force people to use it.
My argument against abortion is that it ends a human life and human life begins at conception. You need to explain why and in what circumstances is it acceptable to take a human life, and why. Today in our legal system, life begins at convenience. When a child is wanted, it is alive and human, when it is unwanted, it is a useless, lifeless, lump of tissue.
Tom, I am one arbiter of what terms can and can’t be used and what is scientifically accurate. I am not preventing debate on abortion; I’m encouraging it! I’m just insisting that we start with the use of clear, unambiguous, and scientifically accurate terms. Why would you or anybody else not wish to use them? Never mind, I know why.
The right to life begins wherever the human community decides to assign it! The human organism changes throughout the entire life span, and it is not miraculous. This is the case regardless of its location. At what point in human development do you think a right to life should be assigned and why?
No, our right to life doesn’t begin when human life begins. In one sense, human life began roughly 200,000 years ago. In another sense, human life begins when an egg and sperm are made; genetics proves this. Are you proposing that a right to life be assigned at the zygote stage, when the human organism consists of a single cell? If so, please make your case for that.
No, Tom, I am absolutely correct that a zygote etc. can be neither innocent nor guilty. The presumption of innocence is assigned to persons in court, and these are persons who are capable of doing crimes or not doing crimes. Fetuses do not have that capability. The term “innocent” is inapplicable to fetuses, just like the term “illiterate” is.
I don’t know if there is an “ultimate answer,” but contraception is a good way of reducing the need for abortion.
Your argument against abortion does not work because 1) human life does not begin at conception, and 2) it fails to explain why a woman should be forced to retain something in her body which she does not want to be there. A human organism is never a “useless, lifeless, lump of tissue,” and I don’t know anybody who has said so.
Why do you knock convenience? Would it be convenient right now for you to agree to adopt a fetus in order to prevent an abortion? How about several?
Gary, you say that you want “clear, unambiguous, and scientifically accurate terms” but you offer no proof or logic for your own statements.
You say the right to live begins whenever the “human community” decides to assign it. That is the most chillingly idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. By that reasoning, the Nazi community had the right to determined that Jews did not have the right to live. Do you say this with the authority of the “human community?” Do you alone speak for the “human community?” And what exactly is the “human community?” Is it simply a majority of voters? What if the “human community” decides the right to live does in fact begin at conception? Would you then be opposed to abortion?
You then go on to ignore your own statement a few sentences later and say, as if by divine fiat, that human life does NOT begin at conception. You are inconsistent with your own logic. I wish you would think more deeply about these things.
From a genetic standpoint, your life began at conception. Even as a single cell you had everything you needed to become a fully sentient being except time and nourishment–which is what you still needed after birth as well. It could be argued that you were more of a burden to your mother after birth than during pregnancy.
And yes, the term “illiterate” can apply to a zygote. It cannot read, therefore it is technically illiterate. A zygote or fetus is incapable of committing a crime so it is by definition technically innocent.
A woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term and give birth because the fetus/zygote/embryo’s right to live supersedes her right to not be temporarily inconvenienced by pregnancy.
Does a woman have the right to remove any part of her body simply because she does not want it? Do people have the right to force a doctor remove an otherwise healthy lung, hand or leg for no other reason than the patient doesn’t want it? No legitimate doctor would ever agree to such a demand.
The application of Reason begins with the use of “clear, unambiguous, and scientifically accurate terms.” Why on earth would you be opposed to doing that?
Calling an idea “idiotic” doesn’t make it incorrect. Gravity exists, even if you call it “idiotic.” Using such inflammatory terms does not constitute an argument for your position. The Nazi community is not the “human community” to which I was referring. The point I was making was an answer to your question about where rights come from. They don’t come from nature and they don’t come from gods. Instead, they come as a result of assignment by a human community. Rights are inventions by human persons.
Human life does NOT begin at conception. Human sperm and eggs are human, they are alive, and they precede zygotes. Therefore, human life does NOT begin at conception. This is a scientific fact, independent of the moral issue.
The life of a human organism begins at conception. None of ourselves – individual human organisms – were “fully sentient” at the time we were zygotes, right? I don’t see how “degree of burden” is relevant. If you think it is, then make your case.
No, Tom, the term “illiterate” cannot apply to a zygote. “Illiterate” means lacking the skill to read even though having the capacity to learn to read. No, Tom the term “innocent” means judged “not guilty” of committing a wrong, sin, or crime after being accused of committing one and being capable of such acts. These terms are not applicable to zygotes. People use these terms anyway for propaganda. They don’t constitute an argument for a position.
Tom, you just assume that an ESLHO has a right to life which supercedes the woman’s right to control her own body (for whatever reason), but you haven’t made a case for that. You are begging the question.
Yes, a woman does have the right to remove any part of her body simply because she does not want it. If a doctor refuses her request, this does not remove her right. And she has a right to remove a zygote, embryo, or fetus under most conditions, even if a doctor refuses her request. If she is persistent, she’ll find another doctor or another person to do the removal, or she’ll do it herself. By the way, the “morning after pill” is a really good option.
Gary, why proclaim so loudly if you really believe what you’re saying? Who exactly are you trying to persuade?
Ashley, I’m not proclaiming loudly; I’m proclaiming softly and civilly. And I absolutely do believe what I am saying. Why would you doubt that?
I’m not really trying to persuade anybody on this website. My expectations are low for that. But, I’m trying to get you and others to think deeply about the issue, to question your own assumptions, and seek more information. If somebody is persuaded or not, I’m ok with that.
The English word “fetus” is derived from a Latin and Middle English word meaning “pregnancy”, “childbirth”, or “offspring”, Gary. It’s not some magical abracadabra word that changes an unborn human infant into a blob of meaningless tissue. Whatever you call a human child between conception and delivery is irrelevant to the issue of its personhood or its value.
I have every sympathy with the woman who has become pregnant as a result of rape, who runs the risk of death or severe health complications if she continues her pregnancy, or who has been informed that her child cannot survive outside the womb. I also sympathize with women who find themselves pregnant due to ignorance, misuse or failure of contraceptive methods and are terrified at the prospect of raising a child they may not have the financial or emotional means to support. These are terribly difficult burdens for any woman to bear, and the pressure to terminate (or in some cases, not terminate) an unwanted pregnancy can feel overwhelming. In a world filled with sin, sickness and hardship, we should never be quick to judge those who feel they must choose abortion; nor should we worship the sanctity of the unborn child to the point that we callously forget the worth and value of its mother. Women who are considering abortions need our support, our compassion and our prayers, not shock tactics and harsh condemnation.
But at the same time, neither should we treat abortion as merely a basic medical procedure without moral, spiritual or psychological consequences to those who choose it. Nor should we give in to the lying rhetoric that pretends the unborn child is nothing more than a meaningless bundle of cells — unless of course the mother wants it, in which case it magically turns into a baby. When was the last time you heard a proud parent say, “I’m expecting my first zygote!” or “Great news, we’re having a fetus!”?
RJ, No, I disagree with you. What you call something is relevant to the issue of its personhood or its value. You make unjustified hidden (not to me, but to others) assumptions when you call a fetus “unborn human infant,” or “blob of meaningless tissue” or “human child.” Why do you object to using clear, unambiguous, and accurate scientific terms? Never mind, I know why.
I certainly agree with your opposition to shock tactics and harsh condemnation towards pregnant women considering abortion.
Who says that a human organism inside a woman is a “meaningless bundle of cells?” I don’t know anyone who has said that.
It would not be accurate for a woman to say “I’m expecting my first zygote!” or “Great news, we’re having a fetus!” Women do use the term “baby” to refer to their fetuses. But this is just colloquial or informal use, which is not appropriate in a debate about the morality of abortion.
Are you seriously that insecure in your beliefs that you feel compelled to individually respond to every stranger on the internet that questions your assumptions and assertions? I had to unsubscribe from this thread due to garyspam.
No, I am secure in my beliefs, and I can respond to as many strangers as I want. This is an open forum, isn’t it?
Hit and run — unsubscribe when you read things with which you don’t agree.
Gary, I’m going to request that you stop commenting on this thread. We get that you disagree. Some of your questions have been answered, I think sufficiently. But to keep talking would be to run in circles. There’s just no point to it. So, once again, I’m asking you to agree to disagree and move on. Thanks!
Oops. sorry. I could have refrained from answering him.
Sorry, I responded to him before I made it to this comment in the thread.
Mike, we are having such a good discussion here. Why would you wish to end it?
I’m going to request that you present your full case against abortion rights on this thread. We get that you disagree with me, but I’d like to know why. You are just skimming over the issue. Why should we run in circles? Let’s break out of the circles! There’s a point to doing that. I do agree with you that there come times in debates where people need to agree to disagree and move on, but for me, I haven’t reached that point yet on this thread. I think there is much more to be explored, investigated, questioned, and discussed on abortion rights.
If you wanted to just present your ideas to the public to think about, then you wouldn’t run a blog with the opportunity to comment. But since you offer the opportunity to comment, you must want something more. Do you want to hear only from people who agree with you? And with each other? Are you going to ban people who persistently disagree with the majority opinion here? Are you leaning towards forming a private club for comment? If so, then please announce that at the header of your blog.
I made a suggestion to you – let’s the two of us have a debate on the abortion issue by email and then when we are finished publish it to your blog. If you agree, then I will quit commenting to other responders on this thread and they can just read our debate instead. I think with sufficient time we will cover all the main issues.
Here’s the problem, Gary…
Mike does want real discussion and doesn’t seem to be afraid of people that disagree with him. We can have people in our lives that we disagree with and be fine with it.
However, you have stepped beyond this and seem to see this as some sort of game…a game that you must win at all costs. People who see this all as a game that they must win or lose bring nothing but chaos into such heartfelt discussions, bringing disorder to the community.
Life is not some game where you alone set the rules, nor is it one that is meant to be won or lost…rather to be experienced and understood. You don’t want real discussion or debate, Gary….you just want to “win” the game…
No, Daniel, I must not win at all costs, but I’d like to see truth and moral correctness win at all costs. How do we determine those things? By thinking rationally and debating.
If life is not a game where I alone set the rules, then is it a game where somebody other then myself sets the rules? If so, who? Or does the community set the rules? Am I part of the community?
We are having a real discussion or debate. It is as real as it can be! Since I have been civil all along, your focus on me is totally irrelevant. If you have something to say about abortion rights, say it. Be a part of our real debate.
Daniel, I think your interpretation of what is going on here is mistaken.
If you are a part of the Community, that means contributing to building it up and not tearing it down.
Debate helps grow a community…unless it is for the sake of debate only and for nothing more. If Debate is used as a way to expand a persons pride, rather then as an opportunity for exposing humility then it has become nothing more then pointless noise.
Do you really care about any of these people that are standing up for Mike as well as their own belief? Because that’s what truly grows a community is when people care about each other, despite their differences.
Honestly, I care about you to, despite our differences.
Yes, Daniel, I am part of many communities and I am building them up and not tearing them down.
I don’t debate for the sake of debate. I debate for higher purposes. I debate neither to expand pride nor to expose humility. The debates in which I participate are never “pointless noise.”
I care about everyone, Daniel, not just persons trying to defend Mike.
Now, do you have anything to say about abortion and abortion rights? When should a right to life be assigned to a human organism during its development, and why?
Then why are you the only one who thinks that you are contributing to community when you have a record of highjacking, starting arguments, posing red herrings and other fallacies that you accuse others of?
You want to be a part of community? Start by being personal rather then listing off lifeless facts that can be skewed and twisted by yourself and others…
Let me ask YOU the questions now: what has been your experience with abortion and why have you come to the conclusion you have about God and abortion?
I am not interested in becoming debate fodder nor am I interested in using you as debate fodder…we are all human beings after all…lets start acting like one.
Daniel: I do have a good record of starting arguments by expressing disagreement with the majority opinion on some of Mike’s threads, but I do not highjack, pose red herrings, and commit other fallacies, as you claim. For you to criticize my style is a red herring. Please stick to the topic and present and defend your position on abortion and abortion rights.
I am a part of many communities. I am being just the right degree of “personal.” Facts are always lifeless, but many are extremely important. I don’t skew and twist the facts. However, many on this thread have twisted the facts when they call a fetus “an unborn baby,” etc. That’s propaganda. The misuse of language – that’s what Orwell talked about.
You have a double standard – I ask you questions and you feel no obligation to answer them, but you ask me questions and expect an answer, but I’ll answer your questions anyway. First Q: I have spoken with hundreds of women who have decided and not decided to get abortions, I have helped someone in my family get an abortion, I have read many articles and books about the subject, and I have spent many hours discussing and debating the issue. Your turn on that question.
Second Q: I have at least three answers. 1) If God exists, then he is a special person who is perfectly rational in his thinking. If any persons are rational in their thinking, then they will come to the conclusion that abortion is morally permissible or obligatory in some situations. Therefore, because God is perfectly rational, he has come to the same conclusion. 2) If God exists, he commits abortions all the time; they are called “miscarriages.” This indicates that God doesn’t value “human life” as much as most pro-lifers think. 3) According to the book of Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as adults and not as fetuses. If he had considered fetuses to be persons, then he would have created fetuses and incubated them. And so, God values persons, not nonpersons. Ok, your turn. If you don’t agree with any of these points, explain why. If you think God opposes abortion in all cases, then defend that position.
When human beings debate, they don’t stop being human beings. We don’t need to start acting like human beings; we are human beings! You just don’t agree with or like my opinions, and so you engage in ad hominem attacks. Please stick to the topic of abortion and abortion rights. I really don’t care about your opinions of me. On the other hand, I might care about your opinions on abortion and abortion rights, but I don’t know yet because you keep evading any in-depth discussion.
Sorry, Mike. I just can’t seem to let his comments stand unopposed when he so arrogantly tells me I haven’t sinned, as if he can read my heart, and when he pretends to speak for God. Ugh.
Sally, I don’t need to read your heart to know that you did not sin when you aborted two fetuses. “Sin” is about right and wrong in the eyes of God, if he exists; it’s not about your feelings. You are feeling ashamed because you have the false belief that your abortions were sins. Correct your belief and you shame will go away and you won’t feel that you need to get forgiveness from someone. Sally, you did the right thing. You weren’t ready to be a mother. It’s clear that at that time you were mentally unfit to be a mother — coke user, drunk, promiscuous, thoughtless about the future. That is not a woman ready to be a mother. It is a very good thing that those two fetuses were never born.
Are you not pretending to speak for God? We just have different views of what God would say, if he said anything about abortion. I think your view is mistaken.
I very much doubt that I of all people have a lot of credibility with you Mike, but I must chime in, for it’s worth, and gently urge you not to cut this man off. It is of course your blog and you are free to do what you wish.
Personally I prefer open arena combat to email debates. I am quite honestly finding this discussion interesting. Godless champions of sin and death like Gary Whittenberger have their purposes. I see him as fulfilling a valuable one here. Not that I’m against it wholesale, but who needs fiction to teach us self exalting depravity when guys like this will knock on your door and do it for you in real life?
Greg, I agree with your main point. However, email debates between two persons are more focused and less wasteful of time, and they can be made public after the fact. But, so far, Mike has not agreed to an email debate, so I’ll stick with the “open arena combat.”
Ya know what else.? And there will be those who sorta confusedly LOL when they read this. I love watching women beat up on men in debates. When they are on the right side. I REALLY do.
Well. What a dither. I have read the comments and appreciate so much all of you who took the time and energy to respond to Gary’s statements. I think one question he kept asking perhaps is the key to this whole thing : “Becky, first define ‘person.'”
As Gary demonstrates, assigning humanity to the unborn is no longer a valid argument in the eyes of the pro-aborts. A chilling statement, but true. Gary admits the unborn is human, well, at least a Early Stage Living Human Organism (seriously, do you think he’s read Orwell?). But as he says, the more pressing question and one perhaps that we could have engaged him on more fruitfully was , “But when should they be assigned a right to life, and why?”
In other words, for what reasons do we assign “personhood”, with all of its attendant rights, on a human being? This is where it can get interesting. What are the determining qualities of a human being that equate personhood? Age? State of development? Size? Mental capacity? Ability to determine our own future? Lack of dependance on another person? The lack of these will be used by pro-aborts to justify abortion, and yet the lack of all of these can also be true of other “born” humans, for example, newborns. Or people with mental or physical deficits. Once you start to drill down on these you start to stare the beast in the face and see it for what it is – the idea that the “human community” will make the rules as to who is “acceptable” enough to live, or die. Being human isn’t enough, anymore. You must be a human that fits all the qualifications that make you worthy enough for life. Qualifications that the “human community” will decide upon, not God. We are in the Garden again, believing the lie, eating the apple……
Lisa Smith
President, LifeCanada
(Canada’s national educational pro-life organization)
Lisa, it may not be “the key to this whole thing,” but the question “What is a person?” is an extremely important one in the abortion debate.
What is Orwellian is to call a fetus “an unborn baby” or “an unborn child” or “the unborn.” “Early Stage Living Human Organism” (ESLHO for short) is a clear, accurate, and precise term. It refers to zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses, which exist inside the woman, in a class. I don’t know why you’d object to it.
Lisa, “being human” has never been enough to decide that killing is wrong! For example, it is morally permissible to kill an adult human person if that is the only way to stop him/her from killing you, and you know this. Killing is morally permissible, even obligatory, under some circumstances or conditions. So, the discussion should focus on “When in the development of the ESLHO should a right to life be assigned, and why?” Shifting the focus to God does not work for you since, if he exists, God approves of abortion under some circumstances, and not in others. If you think otherwise, then rationally and civilly defend your position.
Lisa, I have to give you some credit. You seem to be getting to the depths of the matter rather than scratching the surface. Finally, a breath of fresh air.
Gary Whittenberger wrote earlier:
” If you had sinned by having abortions, then God would justly punish you for it, but fortunately you didn’t sin that time. I would love for you to find the joy in understanding the truth of these things. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.””
Gary, I think it’s hilarious that you, as an atheist, are defending your position by quoting Christ! And doing so out of context shows how off-base you are in your thinking:
“31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” And,
“36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” John 8:31,32,36
The entire chapter of John 8 reveals Christ the Messiah having dialogue with the unbelieving Jews, explaining His divinity. He is saying true freedom comes in believing Him and being a true follower of His teachings because He is TRUTH incarnate. Yet, here you are using a quote by Jesus to try to press YOUR OWN truth. On Christians no less. Thanks for the laugh!
Karen, your hilarity or amusement is irrelevant. Sharing your emotional reactions to my comments is just a distraction or maybe a diversion. Try to stick on topic.
Karen, basically in the verses you cited Jesus was saying that those who agreed with him and dedicated themselves to him would know the truth and this knowing would set them free. But I think that a person might know the truth without agreeing with Jesus, and so I agree only partly with what he said in those three verses. I agree with the part where he says “…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” I think that is true even out of the context in which it was presented. By the way, Jesus didn’t say anything about women voluntarily getting abortions. If Jesus was a messenger of God or a god himself, then I think he would approve of them. If you think otherwise, then make your case for that.
Gray, this is Mike’s wall, and he can do what he wants. But this was MY wall, I would have bounced your ass a long time back. No matter what the topic, you always try to make Mike–and by association, the rest of us–look like half-wits. I don’t come here much because you, sir, piss me off. Mightily.
John, my name is not “Gray.” It is “Gary.” Sure, it’s Mike’s wall and he can do what he wants to with it. But what should he do? He has chosen to make it an open forum, and as long as a person comments CIVILLY, then he should not block them from speaking. I have always commented CIVILLY, and so I think he should not block me. He should not block a person merely because they disagree with him or with the majority opinion on the thread. On the other hand, Mike has two other options: 1) He could just post his own thoughts and not allow comments from anybody. Or 2) He could form a private club and allow only members of the club to comment. To join the club persons would first have to sign some AGREEMENT, assenting in general to Mike’s overall theology or philosophy. And then the members would be assigned passwords which they would need to enter before commenting on the blog.
I think that Mike would like to hear from people who disagree with him. I think he is interested in a wider search for truth, and I don’t think he wishes to create an echo chamber of sychophants. But I could be wrong about that. We’ll see. Actually, as controversy is good for movie sales, it is also usually good for book sales.
I don’t think we really can do much about abortion, because it’s a symptom of a culture that values sex outside of marriage. That culture needs abortion as a safety net because contraception will never be 100% effective. The more sex, the more chance to get pregnant even with responsible contraception use, in the same way the more hours on the road means the more chance of an accident.
So a culture that values extramarital sex will always need abortion, and all the philosophical arguments about life will pale to the very real restraint on sexual freedom abortion being heavily restricted will create. The only way it will end is if you can convince a majority that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and I’m not sure that it’s possible short of a major revival.
I’m not sure all the energy spent on combating it is well used because of this. Trying to make secular people accept restraints on sexual freedom may be impossible. Better that a Christian culture occurs where people will naturally restrain themselves instead.
DM, if a couple is married, then there is something wrong with their having sex outside of their marriage, but if a couple is not married, there is nothing wrong with their having sex. If you think otherwise, then make a case for that. Also, even some married couples decide on abortion. They aren’t ready to be parents. Couples should not produce babies when they are not ready to be parents! If they did, that would be a bad result for them, the babies, and humanity as a whole. If God exists, he wants couples to have babies ONLY WHEN they are prepared mentally and physically to be good care-takers. He wants people to be responsible moral agents.
A culture will always need abortion, regardless if it values extramarital sex. There will always be couples who produce an ESLHO by mistake. Abortion is an effective moral way to correct this kind of mistake.
Better that a culture occurs where sex partners engage in real family planning. If they don’t want to produce children or if they are ill prepared to do so, then they should use contraception. But if these persons fail to use contraception or if the contraception itself fails, then they should get an abortion BEFORE the fetus becomes a person. I think it really boils down to this.
If they are married, there’s much less of the need for abortion at all, because the amount of sex and the type is less likely to cause unwanted pregnancies, and the couple going in knows whether or not they want kids. The long-term nature of the relationship means you have to acknowledge the procreative aspects as well as the pleasurable ones.
It’s all the premarital sex where there is no long term relationship that really breeds the need for abortion as a significant last resort. There’s no stability, and the woman usually bears much more of the risk without the man having voluntarily entered into a binding legal contract to help support her.
I also think there are plenty of reasons that sex outside of marriage is bad. To use secular reasons, it’s not shown at all to promote stable unions. For all the talk about sexual freedom, committed monogamous unions have declined as well as happiness, especially for women. We’re seeing a whole generation of men and women not having ANY long-term relationships, and these have serious consequences for us.
There’s also how premarital sex is a huge vector for STDs, even with contraception (oral sex especially, no one uses dental dams,) how it’s created a class of single parents that pass on serious pathology to their kids and need increasing public support, and more. There’s also consent issues (see the recent campus rape hysteria for a great example of this) and an increasingly adversarial relationship between the sexes due to the fact that every encounter is now sexually tinged.
There’s plenty of reasons why it’s a bad deal, and I think we’re going to see a secular counterreaction to the idea of unlimited sexual freedom.
The Christian realizes the negative aspects, and also sees powerful positive aspects in a mode of sexuality that corresponds to what God desires. What’s funny is that in the end, it’s really not a heavy burden at all. You wait a few years, find the one you can live the rest of your life with, and sex becomes a lot less difficult and burdensome. The real burden is going from lover to lover, unsure if they’ll ever commit, and unsure you’ll be able to keep someone in your life at all.
Hi D.M.,
I agree with all of your excellent points. Delaying sexual gratification allows one’s brain to remain clear to better discern whether either person has the qualities and values to sustain a long-term relationship. It is on those deeper points of religious, political, and financial, etc. views that a couple finds common ground and builds goals into a lasting foundation. Intimacy is thus built on actually knowing a person (and oneself with this person), not on a false intimacy based on physical gratification.
There is no good reason why sexual interaction should not be a part of a pre-marriage trial relationship.
DM, there is still a need for married couples to get an abortion when they don’t want to or aren’t ready to produce a child AND they mistakenly have sex without using contraception or the contraception fails. When they have sex, ALL couples, married or not, should “acknowledge” the possibility that the sex act will result in a pregnancy, of course!
I am pleased that you acknowledge the need for abortion in some cases after an ESLHO has been produced through premarital sex. That’s a good start.
Sex outside of marriage (not adulterous sex) is just different; it isn’t bad. There just needs to be a clear understanding between the partners regarding their desires, intentions, and moral stances. As is the case with married couples, abortion is still needed for unmarried couples when they don’t want to or aren’t ready to produce a child AND they mistakenly have sex without using contraception or the contraception fails.
Nonsense, Tom – every encounter between an unmarried couple is not “sexually tinged.” As I said, if unmarried couples intend to have sex (or if they want to prevent every one of their encounters from being “sexually tinged”), then they need to have a clear understanding regarding their desires, intentions, and moral stances at an early stage of the relationship.
If God exists, then he desires for couples to have sex before they get married. It’s part of “trying out a possible marriage.” Living together is even better. But, Tom, you’ve sort of gotten off topic – you are focusing more on your low regard for premarital sex instead of the morality of abortion. Please get back on track.
Gary, several days ago Mike politely asked you to stop posting on this thread. You’ve ignored him, and continue to do so. That makes you a boor. As an evangelist for for atheism (and I should know, I was one for years), your being rude doesn’t advance your cause.
John, I have not complied with Mike’s request to stop posting, and you consider my posted opinions to be boorish to you. So what? I am not being rude. I’m just being civil, rational, and assertive, and you don’t like it. I am not posting to please you. If you have something to say about abortion and abortion rights, please speak up and stop these distractions.
No, Gary, posting on another person’s wall is akin to being invited into their living room: if the host asks a guest to refrain from doing something, a polite one will comply. The fact you’re ignoring him has taken you from boorish behavior into solid peckerhead-ism. For a man of your apparent age, that’s unbecoming.
I am not complying with Mike’s request to quit posting. If you think that is impolite, that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
This website is like the gathering of people in the public square. One person starts the discussion and then the others express their opinions. Nobody should be kicked out or asked to leave UNLESS they become uncivil. And I have not been uncivil. You just don’t like my opinions and so you’d rather that I not express them.
Didn’t you read Mike’s recent reply to me? He says he likes dissent.
Your focus on me is just a diversion from the topic we are discussing. Please present and defend your own position on abortion instead of beating around the bush.
You’re right, of course, Gary. This is Mike’s wall, not mine, and the fact he’s willing to put up with your rude and pompous bullshit says volumes about him. And you. Pax.
Sorry, John, but my behavior on this forum is neither rude nor pompous. It is civil, courteous, and assertive. You just don’t agree with and don’t like my opinions, and so you resort to name-calling. I’m surprised Mike doesn’t block you for talking like that.
Do you have anything of substance to say about abortion and abortion rights? When should a right to life be assigned to the human organism during the course of development, and why?
On this thread nobody has presented an adequate defense of the so-called “pro-life” position. Why? I suspect there isn’t one.
I hope that persons on both sides of the abortion issue will give serious thought to the question “At what point or stage in the development of the human organism living inside a woman should a right to life be assigned to the organism, and why?”