Panic-stricken press releases from Lefties for Baby Butchery lamenting that the last abortuary in Mississippi is on emergency life support and due for (truly) mercy killing on July 11.
Hello, stumbled across your website and I have a question if you have time to answer please
No one is a giant fan of abortion, I, however, am pro-choice. I fear calling myself “pro-choice” is somewhat of a misnomer since it really seems, to me at least, to be pro-life.
Once abortion became legal entire wings of hospitals closed since the number of women dying on kitchen tables dried up. Now here’s where I don’t understand those who want to make abortion illegal, or in this case, celebrating an “abortuary” closing. How is the death of a a woman and her, arguably, child dying somehow more “pro-life” than the termination of a child. How does 2 deaths become more “pro-life” than simply 1 death?
Also I never seem to get a satisfactory answer from Christians about exactly what they should do with the poor women seeking “back-alley abortions”. Typically, the ones I have met anyway, seem to mutter something about “dying in their sin” which strikes me as decidedly non-empathetic or remotely caring for the individual, and therefore, anti-christian.
Am I wrong-headed about your/their position? Where am I wrong?
I think that you may be wrong headed in that you sem to be rather misinformed…youi seem to be basing what you are saying on several unfounded talking points popular with the pro-choice set. From where are you getting your information about entire wings of hospitals closing when abortion became legal? about the number of back alley abortions? about the number of deaths resulting from back alley abortions? How many women die or suffer traumatic injury in the hands of legal abortion? From the many Christians that I have spoken with about women seeking back alley abortions what I hear is that they would have them seek counseling and support from a crisis pregnancy center. There are countless services that Christians provide for those who are in these situations, not that you would know it from the lack of coverage and support that they recieve from the media.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re arguing for here. Our opposition to abortion stems from the fact that the human fetus is still, well, human, and consequently deserving of the same rights as any other person. While I’ve heard the argument that criminalization of abortion will lead to a massive uptick in deaths from illegal back-alley abortions, I’ve never seen numbers to back that claim up. Certainly any true pro-lifer should support life in all its forms (and yes, many of those among us are willing to turn a blind eye when it comes to other life issues, such as war and the death penalty). And there does need to be a bigger focus on what exactly we plan to do as a society to help women who feel like an abortion is their only option.
But it seems like you are suggesting that we should support abortions so that we can fulfill some utilitarian goal of “saving the most lives” as though lives are something we can reduce to crass arithmetic. Also, what are your metrics for determining whether or not a woman will actually procure an illegal abortion? Should we provide infanticide services for anyone making a suicide threat? And why do you put culpability for abortion deaths on pro-lifers?
Abortion kills plenty of women- they’re the ones who aren’t born yet.
I can’t see any pro-choicer as anything other than a bigot who hates women, blacks, and disabled people. I’m sorry to put it that way, but that’s the result of supporting abortion.
And- 2nd answer: what I want to do with women seeking “Back Alley” abortions: Give them food, clothing, shelter, good pre-natal care, and a place to stay for the 9 months of their pregnancy without cost to the mother.
It is the least we can do for the immense sacrifice and gift she will give the rest of us- another human being.
You should read the linked article to gain some perspective… the pro-lifers have not made the abortions illegal, but simply added a requirement that abortion providers have made arrangements to be able to admit patients to a real hospital if a complication arises (in order to save the woman). The pro-choice argument boils down to: it’s too difficult/costly to make those arrangements, and since complications only occur in a fraction of cases… let’s just not worry about it. So what part of that argument is pro-life, even pro-the mother’s life?
How hard is it to program a donated cell phone to call 911 and have it in the clinic?
“the number of women dying on kitchen tables dried up.” citation, please?
So killing innocent persons is actually saving the life ( actually the lifestyle and freedom from responsiblity for ther own actions) of other persons. Does not sound very fair or just!
The well known famous propagandists for Roe vs Wade have since admitted in writing that their figures for “backyard” abortions were “plucked out” of the air and they had/have no basis in fact at all. There are no figures anywhere or in any country for any numbers involved. Secondly the vast majority of the so called “backyard” abortions were in fact carried out by rogue doctors and nurses for profit, in fully equipped hospitals under the guise of routinr gynaecological “D and C” operations and/ or in their own clinics or consulting rooms, using surgical and chemical methods, but which had no facilities for dealing with complications and other problems, especially haemorrhage, septicimia, post partum shock etc. In the latter cases, where such complications arose, they did not refer the mother (any child born which happenned to be born alive was of course killed) to hospital for fear of de-registration or loss of license, or far too late after having waited too long in the hope of the problem resolving itself, or sent the patient home drugged to cover the problems with advice that if things do not improve they should go to the hospitals themselves. It is because of these fact that anyone mounting a pro abortion argument on the basis of “backyard abortions” should be required to provide citations or proof for any figures/numbers they wish to rely upon or for any details whatsoever concerning the procedures of the so called “backyard” abortion, which they use to exercise moral blackmail and the emotion on the community at large. The number of “extreme” action taken to procure an abortion , (e.g the deliberate perforation of the fetal sac by a sharp object like knitting needles or metal coat hangers) were very rare, and usually self administered and in circumtances of “no other choice” decisions. To-day there are “choices” including support of the pregnant and of the new born, incduing if desired, adoption.
There is decent research out there that says that “back-alley abortions” have not changed in number or lethalness since before Roe V Wade. A year or two ago, there were about 150 deaths from back-alley abortions, which is the same number as 1972.
Women who choose back alleys are choosing them out of ignorance, hiding from the law, deep addiction clouding judgment, low IQ, etc. Those factors unfortunately haven’t changed, and are probably inherent in some tiny proportion of the population at any given moment.
Not that we needed this as a pro-life argument, but the subject of Roe herself is pro-life and against the horrible decision. She was used as a pawn for the so-called “pro-choice” (really, pro-death) advocates and now speaks out against abortion.
With so many couples who cannot have children in this country, adoption is the best solution if abortion is one of the choices.
And I do share Mark’s joy with regards to this abortuary (i.e., killing centre) going out of business.
I’ll join the chorus of commenters asking Brian where he got his information about entire wings of hospitals dedicated to treating back-alley abortion victims. Brian, I respectfully suggest that you read some of the writings of the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was one of the driving forces behind the push for legal abortion, but who later became a staunch pro-life Catholic. Dr. Nathanson spoke and wrote on the subject of “back-alley butchers” and he freely admitted that he and his colleagues in the pro-legal-abortion movement made up their statistics, because they knew that only the idea of saving the lives of innocent women could make the idea of legal abortion palatable to most Americans. Right now (as in the case Mark writes about here), the pro-abortion movement is relentless in its opposition to ANY legal regulation of abortion clinics. They claim that safety inspections and requirements that abortion providers adhere to the same standards imposed on ambulatory surgery providers will “limit access”. The result is Dr. Kermit Gosnell. How do we know that there aren’t thousands of other butchers like Dr. Gosnell? We don’t, because most jurisdictions (including in Maryland, where I live) have NO authority to inspect or regulate abortion facilities. This fact makes it hard for pro-choicers to argue that their stance is based on concern for women’s health and safety.
As for what to do about desperate women in crisis pregnancies, Ted Seeber has it right, and despite the popular trope that claims that pro-lifers “don’t care about babies after they’re out of the womb”, every pro-lifer I know practices what they preach. We donate to crisis pregnancy centers, we fill the donation bins at our churches with diapers, clothing, and other necessities, and quite a few even adopt babies. And even if you DO know a pro-lifer who truly does not care what happens to the babies after they’re born…so what? How does advocating for abortion make any sense even in that context? How would you react if someone suggested that the state should round up and kill all of the homeless people? If you reacted with the appropriate level of horror and outrage, and the response was “well, are YOU going to take them in? Are YOU going to house and feed them?”, would it then be reasonable to answer that “well, no, I’m not in a position to take a homeless person into my home, so I guess you’re right…I guess we have to kill them”. It doesn’t make any sense, does it?
Other than in the case of spontaneous miscarriage, can you point to a single example of a time when a fetus turned into anything other than a human baby? Conversely, can you think of a single human being you have ever met who came into being through any means other than as a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus? Pre-born is just a stage of human development. It’s a person, a human person, who has an absolute right to life. When you think about it in those terms, you might find it harder to remain pro-choice.
July 11 is the Solemnity of St. Benedict. How very appropriatte!
What to do with women seeking back-alley abortions? Well, I admit that the young woman in question might not have sought an abortion of any sort, but she is faced with an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and at the time of conception, both she and her bf were unemployed and bouncing from house to house living with friends. We bought her maternity clothes, I take her to all her pre-natal appointments, and as soon as they both get their licenses, we are giving them a car. I took her to the emergency room this morning when she couldn’t stop vomiting and had passed out at least once. I think you are asking the wrong people what they would do.
No one is a giant fan of abortion,
Why not? Either abortion is a morally acceptable choice or it’s not. If a fetus is just a “blob of cells,” possessing no humanity, then abortion should be celebrated, not something to be ashamed of or hidden.
If, on the other hand, a human being is present at conception, then no moral defense is possible to justify intentionally killing it. There can be no docility to legal abortion in this case.
No, your position (not being a fan of abortion, but wanting to keep it legal) is the only one that makes no sense at all; it is a position that has not even come close to thinking the issue through. It is like the person who wants Jesus to be a nice meaning teacher, but not the Son of God. Either Jesus is who he says he is, or he is truly evil. Either abortion is a benign procedure that liberates women from an inconvenient/dangerous medical condition, or it is monstrously evil. Think it through.
Right! “Safe, legal, and rare”….why rare? If it’s OK, then why should a woman not have an abortion any time it suits her? That slogan makes clear that even pro-choicers KNOW that it’s manifestly not OK.
False Dichotomies aside (the Jesus one and your abortion one) I must apologize for my lack of citation for the “hospitals wings closing” post abortion becoming legalized. I may have read that quote from Dr. Nathanson who later recanted his support for abortion.
As for the psychic connection Claire mentions about pro-choicers “KNOW” it’s “not OK. That’s a mischaracterization of my argument and most pro-choicers. I guess I appreciate a woman having control over her body at the loss of a, potential, human being. No I don’t agree with the point of conception argument, at least until the second trimester anyhow, further from their it becomes more complicated.
As for the adoption option, sure that’s an option if the baby is fully healthy and white. If the child is anything other than a beautiful healthy white child it, more often than not, will be bounced from foster home to foster home. So there are big downsides to the adoption route as well.
Anyway, I’ll stop here. I feel as though I’m coming from a radically different point of view with very different values. (i.e. allowing women to have control of their bodies, v.s. me telling them what to do with it)
I just want to ask why you don’t believe that life doesn’t begin at conception? I don’t see any reason that conception isn’t the obvious beginning point of human life, and I certainly haven’t heard anything from pro-choicers that sounds like a scientific argument against it.
Regardless, can you at least agree that the pro-choice argument stands or falls on the life status of a fetus? Because, mischaracterizations and current memes aside, pro-lifers are perfectly fine with “allowing women to have control over their bodies” as long as their bodies are the only term in that equation. Once another person is dependent on said woman’s “choices”, the choice argument goes out the window.
So, in your pov, when does the baby stop being a potential human life and become a human life? It is alive according to every biological factor from conception. When is the dividing line, according to you? Yes, we are coming at it from very different values, like allowing every child to live, instead of being killed.
So you’re also okay with women being sexual objects, too Brian?
A friend of mine, who is an empty nester, adopted three or four children, two or three of whom were black, one of them as autistic or some sort of special needs. His wife was tragically killed in a car accident but his determination in continuing to be a father to these children, fueled by his faith in God has always been admirable to me. Yes, he’s white. The non-black children were South American, thus also non-white. Broad brushes don’t cover all.
Even a potential human being is more valuable than any woman’s “control over her body”. Human life is that valuable to me. Anything less, is just bigotry against Margaret Sanger’s “unfit” disguised as empathy.
If you truly cared about women, why are you encouraging them to take poison and endanger their lives with abortions to begin with?
On the adoption issue- so if a baby isn’t perfect and white and will be bounced from foster home to foster home and have a horrible childhood, it’s better to kill the child? What kind of sick logic is that?
I get to the point where I just get too exhausted to argue with someone like Brian. The whole “false dichotomies” meme comes up, even though the arguments aren’t false.
Andy nailed it on the head. I have a friend who is a die hard leftist. And he’s pro abortion. I find it reprehensible and I pray for him to convert, but at least he’s honest. There’s no bullshit here, and no need for coming up with talks about “saving women” et. al. He’s ultimately, like I think most leftists are deep down, a misanthrope. Too many of them try to hide it though. At least right wingers are often more honest in their assholeness.
The standard lines from “pro-choicers” are the ultimate in weasel word dichotomies.
I know of one pro-sterilization/pro-contraception/pro-abortion group that is very honest about it- here in Portland we have the Environmentalists for the Extinction of Humanity.
And naturally, because of their Grand Destiny, they’ll be the last ones who have to go, right?
I’m OK, you’re not OK.
Actually, surprisingly not. Planned Parenthood does a good business sterilizing such people.