[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/How_to_Stump_Anti_Abortionists_With_One_Simple_Question]
Did you know you can stump anti-abortionists with one simple question?
Just ask them this:
If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?
Now watch their faces as the cognitive dissonance sets in. They believe abortion to be murder. Murder deserves severe punishment. Thus, women who have illegal abortions should receive severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty. That’s the logical conclusion.
But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.
Here’s a must-watch video of anti-abortion protesters being asked this question:
It’s amazing they’ve never thought about the question before — they’ve been involved in the anti-abortion movement for years. What’s the point of spending all that time trying to make abortion illegal if you’re not even sure there should be any punishment for breaking the law?
Here’s the best exchange:
Q: Abortion should be illegal, did you say?
A: Yes, it should be illegal because it’s killing a human person.
Q: And what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?
A: … Just pray for them. I don’t think they should have to spend time in jail or anything.
Q: So if it’s illegal, you think there should be no punishment under the law?
A: No, I don’t think they should be punished, because the life has been taken. The crime has been done.
Q: [But isn't] that’s true with murder, too? Isn’t there a punishment for murder?
A: Yes, there’s a punishment for murder because that’s taking a life.
Q: So why shouldn’t there be a punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion?
A: Oh… as the other [person] said, it’s kind of between her and God. She will get her punishment in the end.
Q: So why should it be illegal?
A: Because it’s the taking of a life.
(via)
Update 1/23/09:
First, a clarification. I’m not pro-abortion. I support the legalization of abortion. I do not like abortion nor do I usually counsel it. However, I do think it should be available for women who want it, especially if they were raped or have zero interest in caring for a child.
I would like abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. We can all work together on the rare part.
Similarly, I’m not pro-drugs. But I do support the legalization of drugs. I don’t recommend people use mind-altering drugs and would never use them myself. But I think it should be available for those who desire to use it. They will use them either way, so it might as well be regulated.
Second, I’m closing comments. I think over 950 comments is enough. Thanks to everyone who shared opinions without hatred or personal attacks. No thanks to those who did.
Update 1/24/09:
Alright, alright, comments are open again.
Just be nice or your comment will be deleted.
You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.
well, nobody can accuse you of proofreading.
Or capitalization.
Or of using good grammar. Or punctuation. Or syntax. Or words that are not real words.
Or ENGLISH!!!
On top of that, follow his link. Man he is popular, people are just flocking to his blog.
everyone that has replied to this is and arogant and dumb. you comment on is writing skills which dont even matter. you can read it and were no in an english class also you are all probably religious fanatics and are all offended and thats the best u could come back with being religion is soo far from true its like believin in santa and the last lady in the video proved that. she had nothing to say but she there cuz god wants her there to. thats the funny is shit i heard and these people beloive n there cause n been doin it for years and they never thought what the penalty would be or y would there a point to make it illegal then. cuz if its not it sanctions it thats is bullshit. these people n u have no logic and are brainwashed retards so go fuck youselfs cuz be cuz not using perfect grammar is genuis compared to ur thoughts on life. this is a made up langauge theres really not right way to spell shit anyone just made up by people as a form of commuication and if ur getting the message across ur doing it right
I have no idea what you were trying to say.
Thanks for using yourself as an example of what I think you were talking about in the first sentence, “everyone that has replied to this is and arogant and dumb.”.
Wow. is that the best you can do to argue with him is by commenting on him grammar . Sure you have a better grasp on the language than him but it still doesn’t devalue his point that fanatics can easily dig themselves into a hole when asked the correct questions. It is kind of embarrassing for you that you don’t even TRY to deny what he said.
It is just sad.
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
Wall of I’m supposed to give a shit about the point of some Wall of text
Wall of ridiculous Idiot who drive by posts an incomprehensible ll of text
Wall of wall of text bemoaning the supposed arrogance of people? ll of text
Wall of Doug was a FAIL in the first sentence. His and your ll of text
Wall of arrogance fail lay in thinking that somone would bother ll of text
wall of deciphering and reading that colossal screed for some ll of text
wall of malformed turd of “truth” wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of Argue with him? If you think I was arguming him, you are as text
wall of big an idiot as he was. But thanks for the concern drive by. text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text wall of text
I crack me up.
My lack of proper English language skills is probably due to me being Dutch. So, what are your excuses for being dicks?
hahahaha, Adamus just pwned you all
Seriously guys, we’re better than this.
Seriously JMW – look at the time stamps and tell me that’s not hilarious?
9 months after Adamus commented, someone named larry tells him he can’t spell, but doesn’t use capitalization, pointed out by Elemenope and Custador.
2.5 months after that – someone named “you are so smart” posts that, on top of everything else, Adamus’ blog isn’t very popular.
Almost a month after that – someone named doug posted a rambling, incoherent rant in text/lol-speak something about the best we can do is criticize someone’s grammar. Keep in mind, we’re talking about larry, larry who found this blog post 9 months after it was made, read the first post, and made a grammar remark.
Sunny Day comments, followed 2 months later by someone named robert, to complain about Sunny Day picking on someone’s grammar. Now we have
-larry
-doug
-robert
All making fun of someone making of someone’s grammar or the fact that anyone – meaning mostly larry – cares. I never heard of any of these guys before or since.
A full year and 9 months later, Adamus comes back and tells us all we’re dicks. Remember larry?
A month and a half after that – someone named Christian again found this thread, and said “Adamus just pwned you all.”
JUST pwned you all, almost 2 years since it began, most of the players being drive-by morons, who are NOT better than this.
My bad, I totally missed the time stamps. Yeah, I can see why it ended up like this. I thought people were just being uncharacteristically snarky over a few typos.
It’s so funny Adamus came back after almost 2 years to call all of us dicks. What’s weird is that 2 other people on this page responded to his post and both remarked on his misspelling (one as sort of a Freudian typo), whom I’ve never heard of before, and it’s weird that the thread has over 1000 posts and every couple months, several people (with the same weird habit of writing their names without a capital letter) don’t get past the first post, and tell “us” spelling doesn’t matter.
Yeah, Adamus “pwned” us all. We only tried to help make fun of larry for him, and consequently, doug. People who point out grammar/spelling mistakes as their only comment with grammar/spelling mistakes in them should be shot. Since we can’t do that, making fun of them is the next best thing.
And I hope Adamus comes back in a year and a half to tell us he’s sorry he called us all dicks, and he’s a dick if he doesn’t. Ha!
what about china? what if we end up in the situation that we are allowed only one to two births? infanticide, as commonly used in this country, is common in china. so, is it ok to kill a fetus if enviornmental resources are diminishing? what then?
i would love to hear any thought and opinion in the matter. interesting to see what xtians have to say on the matter….
one child per family is a good thing. think about the overpopulation. to support the current number of people we need 3 or 4 earths. i rather sacrifice the freedom to chose how many children you want then see millions of people starv to death.
In a way, the human population controls itself. We have many people who can’t have their own children; fetus’ already miscarry on their own if they can’t survive. I don’t think over population is much of a reason to support abortion.
You know what’s really sad is the pomposity of this experiment and the lame response from the anti-abortion camp as well.
There’s only one thing clear: before an abortion it’s alive, afterward it’s dead.
How you want to proceed from that point on shows whether you’re an honest compassionate reasonable human being toward the correct point of view.
An embryo is not human anymore than a fertilized egg is a chicken. So life begins at conception. A human begins at implantation. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers need to get their act together. Pro-abortion (overpop hystericals, eco-apologists) and anti-abortion (bombers, vigilantes) groups are nuts. They add nothing to the discussion.
It’s an infant, it’s a fetus, who are to say it’s not a part of my body, who are you to say that lump is an individual. I have heard some ridiculous arguments defending abortion. Pro-choicers should stick to the anti-dark-alley-gynecology argument and rape/threat to life of mother.
As for pro-lifers, would you kill the mother with the drugs necesarry to keep alive a baby which would otherwise be miscarried? That’s a much more reasonable question for this article.
The question asked here was nothing but a pompous debate strategy not an honest discussion topic.
Actually, in response to the article. I was told by a bible thumper, that she thought the world would be better off without the women who would willingly kill their babies.
Of course abortion should be illegal – and those who do have abortions should be executed by firing squad.
Why?
Well, I have heard some anti-abortionists say women should be prosecuted, even to the point of facing the death penalty. But then I have female evangelical friends who will admit that, when push comes to shove, they really do want to keep the legal option of having an abortion. They just are very careful to whom they admit that wish.
“But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.”
This a great post and a more than fair question, but I think the preceding conclusion is a jump. I think two things may be said. First a large proportion if not a majority pro-life people haven’t thought through their logic and then when put on the spot are unable to produce a coherent argument. But I’m don’t think its because they don’t think abortion is murder, but rather that they know they are already perceived as uncompassionate and any pronouncement of judgement would further that image. For better or worse they’re not ready to accept that extra weight on their position.
Ask yourselves this question though: what would you have thought if someone had quickly and unequovically answered the question with a judgement of the death penalty? Would you have applauded their logic or been abhorred at their honesty?
I would be abhorred at my stupidity
In many states, someone who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two murders, so this really isn’t a long stretch. Yes, you’ve shown the ignorance of some pro-life people, but you haven’t won any arguments.
I think one of the biggest problems with the whole debate about God is how both sides will point to a few select examples of people who are not as able to defend their beliefs, and set them up as a “straw man” representation of the whole movement. They treat their victory over one anecdotal person as the crushing defeat of the whole ideology.
It’s unfair to expect everyone on both sides to be expert debaters who are aware of every detail and argument of their ideology. We both have to resort to quoting our favorite thinkers and authors, so let’s have honest discussions about the classic questions and arguments, instead of throwing Dawkins at some unsuspecting theist.
My favorite book for this purpose is “The Question of God” by Armand Nicholi. Everyone should read it.
Amazing video. It’s incredible to think that they hadn’t even thought about that issue before they were asked.
“Cognitive dissonance” what a great phrase that is.
Here, let me help you out a bit. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1064996
You can also refer them to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html – so many anti-choice people have “religious objections” to abortion, but if they actually read their Old Testament, they might learn that God really doesn’t have a problem with killing infants.
Well, at least one of them grudgingly accepted that life in prison should be an option, and was against the death penalty in general. Points for being consistent? Not surprisingly, it was the youngest of the protesters who was the most coherent.
We spend far too much time finding ways to fight than finding a real solution. I think a better question to ask is abortion good for the mother? It certainly isn’t for the child, but studies have found it is awful for the mother’s body & mental health.
So instead of trying to find ways to “stump” protesters a better discussion would be how do we solve this problem?
The protesters on both sides of the issue seem so bent of beating each other up that they have forgotten about the women who are looking for help.
When we become so entrenched in an ideology that we lose intellectual honesty we have lost far more than an argument.
To begin with, the consequences of pregnancy are asymmetrical. Women in the USA no longer routinely die, but consideration has to be given to the transformative nature of the process. A productive approach might be to consider how much right any woman has to the integrity of her own body and her own life. I was almost through university when Roe v. Wade was handed down, and have been around a few women who were in the process of thinking through that unplanned transformation.
If a woman does not want a pregnancy to continue, she will, if sufficiently strong-minded and resourceful, find a way to end it, even if it means killing herself.
We could, as a society, choose to ameliorate the effects of unintended pregnancy. We could, as a society, develop strategies to reduce the occurrence of unintended pregnancy. When one side has rejected the whole notion of choice, of the human intellectual and emotional process of decision making, it’s pretty difficult to continue a dialogue.
Would you, Lance, consider that your statement “studies have found it (abortion) is awful for the mother’s body & mental health” might be highly refutable? I can talk personally about women I know who had an abortion and didn’t have “awful” things happen afterward to either their minds or their bodies. I realize that’s an anecdote, but my recollection of the pre-Roe era is a bloody mess of fatal hemorrhage and lethal infection. In fact, some of the primary movers of legalization were emergency room physicians who saw women who were dying from illegal abortions. Once legalized, the procedure was safer, statistically, for the woman than carrying to term. Giving birth is pretty awful for the mother’s body and mental health, too.
In general, I agree with your statement “we have lost far more than the argument.”
Hey! I’m a fairly regular reader of the blog and enjoy your thoughts. I love it when people think and observe and speak intelligently, whether I agree or not. For the record, I’m a Christian. For the record also, I’m not the “anti-everything” Christian. However, I do think abortion is murder. I do have particular beliefs by what the Bible says. Just wanted to introduce myself as this comment isn’t specifically about this blog entry.
On another note, I’ve been having a question roll around in my head for a while about you and your blog and tweets (I follow you on Twitter too).
Again, you make plenty of fantastic LOGICAL arguments throughout most of your statements (not all). I do literally enjoy it when you stump the Christian. SERIOUSLY! I’m not a fan of most Christians myself, and I’m even launching a church as a pastor soon. But to blindly believe without the ability to intelligently articulate your thinking or even speak a complete sentence to describe it, that’s embarrassing for me as a Christian. Of course, I regularly see the same on other fronts: Dems vs. Repubs, atheists, gays vs straights, war vs anti-war, global warming folks vs intelligent people, etc….
So, I DO appreciate you and would appreciate some dialogue from you, if possible. I’d love to actually talk over email from time to time if possible. That all being said, MY QUESTION:
In your transition from a Christian to atheist, what has changed in regard to how you live – physically, spiritually, emotionally? Are your days longer, shorter, harder, easier, friendlier, meaner, etc…? I don’t want to go more specific now, I’m curious how you might interpret my question.
Disclaimer: It’s not my intention to “convert” you or anyone else reading this. I can’t. I truly enjoy dialogue with people, regardless of what they believe. That’s what makes our perspective broader – exposure. Too many annoying Christians have a Sunday School view of life and that’s it. That’s why guys like you are entertaining to me, you THINK before you speak. ha ha. And that’s funny, although sad for my “team”.
Let me know what’s up. Thanks for your time reading this massive comment. Feel free to bog down my blog with a monster comment as well. ha. THANKS AGAIN!
Wow, truly amazing! I will have to remember this one!
Actually, this is kind of lame.
I oppose murder, and that means that I oppose abortion. Yes, the women who have the abortion should be tried — and so should the doctors. And that is how it was before 1973. Look it up. Doctors who performed this illegal act of killing a human being were tried for murder.
BTW, I have a stumper for you:
If abortion isn’t the killing of a human being, then if your mother or wife is pregnant with a child, and someone kills them (her?), is that person only tried for the murder of your mom or wife, and not the child she is carrying?
And another one:
Next time you see a pregnant friend, ask, “How’s the non-human tissue doing?”
Like when the non-human tissue leaves the womb, that is when the tissue becomes a living human?
You’ve got to agree, that’s unscientific, susperstitious and weird!
So if you think women who have an abortion should be tried what about men who leave women pregnant and fail to face their responsiablity to the women and unborn child. I thinkwe should keep it fair.
The argument that a child is only a number of cells are during the early stages of life. When those “cells” start to become a person is the issue of debate. Does that occur from conception – as pro lifers believe, or does that occur at a later stage. Obviously pro choice people are not implying that babies are just a bunch of cells for the entire time they are in the womb. You are taking this argument too far.
Another interesting question just arose in my head. Is wanking killing lots of potential babies too? What about women intentionally blocking their fertility?
What’s so difficult to answer? If you believe abortion is illegal because it’s murder, then whoever commits illegal abortion should be tried for murder. People are too p.c. these days.
@Barry – “Would you have applauded their logic or been abhorred at their honesty?”
Both. Applaud their honesty even as I work to undermine and exclude their principles. I always prefer it when my opponents are willing to brand themselves as fanatics; it saves me the effort. But frankly, I doubt that even the hard-liners would support the death penalty.
I would agree with Barry in part, but I also think we’re seeing the usual disconnect between the abstract and the individual. It’s like the case of drug abuse: people can be very pro-enforcement against drug abusers in the abstract, but when the abuser turns out to be someone they can identify with the tone softens.
Ant-abortionists are much more vocal against clinics and doctors, but when it’s a young woman going through a rough time, they can’t always bring themselves to attack. I think that’s part of why the Operation Rescue types always work in groups: it’s easier to ignore the pangs of empathy when you have a group of supporters reaffirming your hostile attitude.
There have been a couple of articles about how anti-abortionists are almost as likely to get an abortions as the background population. It’s unacceptable when it’s someone else doing it, but when it’s one of our own … well, who are we to judge, and sometimes we have to make horrible decisions, etc.
I know this is an old blog entry, and maybe nobody is following it anymore, but I thought VorJack’s comment here rung true, especially regarding the mob mentality. People just do horrible things when they get into a mob mentality. I’ve seen it many times. It’s like we lose ourselves in the collective madness. People are far too quick to assume a position about an issue and forget we’re all people and we all suffer. It’s a lot harder to villify someone when you’re face-to-face with the suffering of another human being.
Barry,
I think the point is that when someone actually thinks through everything, the idea of killing a mother who has had an abortion becomes silly. When someone asks you a question that gives you pause, you SHOULD stop, think, and possibly reconsider you position. If you haven’t thought your position through to it’s logical conclusion, you run a serious risk making asinine statements. That’s not to say those who do think their positions through are always right either.
Secondly, why should any “pro-lifer” care about looking uncompassionate? We’re are talking about babies burning in hell after all. Who cares if some godless liberal thinks your uncompassionate?
Finally, if someone did say mothers should receive the death penalty, I wouldn’t think they were logical. I WOULD be aborred, and I would register my disgust.
people who have abortions are murderers they should be in prison for life not all women are like that some women are antiabortionist so hows it regareding womens rights abortion is the worst form of abuse and ppl who have abortions should never be trusted around children.
…says the ignoratti who doesn’t understand the basic rules of writing legibly.
lra who me dont understand rules of writing liabilty or something if so at least i dont agree woth baby killing like you do antiabornists are the kind most kind hearted ppl in the world pplwho have abortions are the most evilest.
*sigh*
Spare me your ignorant moralizing. You lack nuance and even a rudimentary understanding of the issues presented here. As such you are a troll– stupid, lazy, and condemning of things you don’t understand.
Too nuanced a reply. I believe the appropriate response is “Hurr…durr…”
linda is a murderer of the English language.
thanks for sticking up for me your right she is hurr durr
He wasn’t sticking up for you you moron, he was insulting you.
Go read a webpage about the basic rules of grammar, we can barely understand what you’re trying to say through your horrible writing style. It’s an insult to everyone who tries to read your inane ramblings to ignore things like punctuation and proper sentence structure. If you’re not smart enough to write correctly, your entire argument is void. Why aren’t you even TRYING to type legibly?
even if i am all them thinks and unperfect at least i wouldnt want a baby to die im not creul and sick to want a baby to die dispite my faults killing a baby is something im not into
Here, edumacate yourself:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/
kthanxbai
give youself up and get put in child before another child gets scared of you i need to protect babies from you.
Wow. I think we need a cleanup in aisle 7. Cleanup in aisle 7, please.
No, no! It’s like having a cat toy to play with.
get put in child before another child gets scared of you!!!!!!! R U SRS?????????
Someone’s had too many snow days.
@linda: You really are illiterate. More so than a first-grader. It’s repulsive.
Linda == poster child for retroactive abortion…
Great post and video, Daniel. I’ve been experiencing a similar thing in a discussion with some Xians about homosexuality. Several people have told me that it’s wrong and they’ve quoted Bible verses to prove it. But I’ve repeatedly asked what they would advise a gay Christian to do. So far they’ve all refused to answer that question. The conclusion I’ve drawn from that is that they want to avoid the consequences of their belief, which is also the case with the people in this video.
To answer your question: Old testaments passages do say that it is an evil act and that those who prevail in it will be subject to a fiery furnace. Now that being said, the ACT of consummating a homosexual act is intrinsically evil and should not be committed. Society has lost hold of the truth of the matter with; to each his own, if it feels good do it, i’m ok your ok, etc. I know some who live that lifestyle and the only suggestion I’ve ever give them if they ask is that they might want to talk to a spiritual director or priest to get a better understanding of God’s natural law. Consummating the homosexual sex act is considered disordered and i would agree. That doesn’t mean shun them nor vilify them. Jesus teaches to love one another as I have loved you.Love the sinner and hate the sin in other words. We all have our failings and we all need the Mercy of God and his grace to survive in this world today. Some who are over zealous in their actions to such a topic need to educate themselves more fully to better debate an issue as opposed to acting in an ungodly manner. I firmly hold that abortion is killing of an INNOCENT child and is just that the moment the sperm germinates the egg. I think the best approach is to educate the women considering such an act to the horrors and dangers of it, let alone the killing of their baby that will haunt them the rest of their lives. The doctors who perform this atrocity should be held responsible for their crimes; as for the women who decide to go ahead with it, should be held responsible as well.But they may have not been enlightened to the truth of what they were doing. Educate them before hand and pray that God intervenes in their hearts. At some point this debate will come to a head and tough decisions will have to made concerning responsibility for the women. Please keep in mind if a woman makes a moral and deliberate act of killing her unborn child in her womb, it is still killing.
Wrong. If you want to see what the Bible actually says about abortion, read it and weep.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
Consider this.
You’re partner was pregnant and involved in an accident caused by a drunk driver. The result was your unborn child being killed.
What punishment would you see fit for the drunk driver?
I know there is a difference between homicide (the abortion in this case) and manslaughter (the car accident), but I’m certain their answer would not be to let the drunk driver off and be in their prayers. They would suggest a much stronger penalty, and in fact, this is the way courts handle the taking of an unborn child’s life (with the exception of abortions) today. This same logic should be applied and discussed here to make your post a bit more thoughtful and compelling.
@Samuel G – “Next time you see a pregnant friend, ask, “How’s the non-human tissue doing?””
I generally prefer obnoxious nicknames based on the likely size of the fetus: “So how’s the grub? What’s the little tadpole doing? What’s up with the salamander?” etc.
My favorite is around the point where the fetus’ urinary system starts to function – I think it’s around the 5 month mark – “So, how does it feel to have a little critter peeing inside of you?”
Oh yeah, I’m REAL popular around the office.
LOL classic!
A friend of mine would refer to her fetus as an “alien fetus” because when we looked at the ultrasound images, our first reaction was “it looks like an alien parasite fetus thing.”
The abortion procedure is punishment enough for the woman, so it should be legal, but they are punished for it anyway.
Yeah, I agree with “Nabeel” up a few comments. I know this would work on some wishy-washy protester types, but the hard core ones, like here in Missouri or back where I lived in South Dakota (the “coat-hanger” state), anti-abortionists DO think of it as murder and would want to punish it as such.
@Stephen Webb:
Glad you’re enjoying the blog! You asked:
I’d say my life got harder at first — having to rebuild your intellectual foundation is difficult. It’s also difficult because you lose some friends, because they view you the same as an unbeliever. But things are getting easier, and I’d say things are very similar now, but with a better gusto for life. Intellectually I feel very free, now that I don’t have to adhere to any dogmas.
Hi all, without say whether I am pro- or anti-abortion, I think those interviewed above could have put forward a better argument as follows: If abortion is illegal, then the main punishment should be for those who commit abortions – those who assist with and promote them. Women who undergo abortions should be accountable, but the punishment should consider, for example, their emotional well-being at the time. Those who help or convinced them to undergo an abortion should also be accountable, for example, partners, parents, etc.
Death penalty is a murder too, but the executioner does not get punished either.
But according to God’s law the executioner will be punished possibly even with eternal damnation.
It is funny how brainwashed people just spit out what they are told without thinking things through.
To go to all that effort of getting signs made, coming up with chants and telling yourself you are doing God’s work without thinking “what should happen to girls who get abortions once it’s illegal?” is amazing.
If the baby you save from abortion turns out to be gay will you still fight for their rights???
wow! good one! you gave a good sucker punch. people are far too judgemental. why should anyone care what happens to the woman that has had abortions? they should worry about their own condomnation should there really be an afterlife. i know that most of the people that protest in rallies against abortion are commiting sin at that moment. it is only up to god to judge not us petty little meat puppets.
well its strange you should ask that because ussually its thoose who have abortoins who pick on guy people for being different ppl who have abortions are different they think its ok to kill people
ppl who have abortions should get picked on not guy people
Bullshit.
Most of the people who bully and harass LGBT people are Christ-tards like you, linda. Now would you please tell your husband to keep a tighter leash on you — you KNOW good Christ-tard women aren’t allowed to have an opinion, much less VOICE it.
Sam G. is close.
I would argue, however, that the woman having an abortion is victimized along with the baby.
It is the doctor who should be prosecuted. Certainly Doctors should re-examine their oaths (“don’t perform abortions” was taken out when abortions became moneymakers) and wonder what they are doing.
But no, you are only going to stop stupid anti-abortionists with that question. Sam G’s questions equally would stop stupid pro-abortionists.
In an abortion, a doctor kills the child. The mother is probably an accessory or conspirator to the crime at worst. In many situations, it is quite possible that a mother is forced into an abortion in which case she may deserve no punishment at all. In any case, the murderer – the abortionist – should be fully punished under the law. The relative involvement of the mother is to be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. Abortion is murder and should be dealt with accordingly. This doesn’t presuppose the impossibility for compassion.
However, in the US, aiding and abetting a federal crime is equally punishable. Perhaps the law-of-the-land involving abortion is not the only unjust law in the US.
Let’s look at it legally. The woman is the murderer, since she is the one who wants to kill the fetus. She hires the doctor to perform the killing. The woman is guilty of premeditated murder and conspiracy to murder. The doctor is guilty of murder for hire and conspiracy for murder.
That’s the real result of making abortion illegal and making it legally murder. Then there’s the logistical problems of giving fetuses SSN’s, having funerals for miscarriages, investigating miscarriages to make sure they weren’t murderous abortions, restricting the right of women who are pregnant to travel so they won’t go out of the country to get an abortion like Irish women travel to the UK and as enacted in North Carolina, arresting women who appear to be doing things to harm the fetus such as smoking, drinking or doing drugs. Oh yeah and just to get to point across, make birth control illegal.
The anti-abortion fundamentalist attitude is that women are really JUNIOR adults who can’t be trusted to make important decisions, and should just be happy to be Breeders for Jesus and Happy Homemakers.
Thanks but I too have lost my appetite for that kind of demeaning and offensive attitude from christians.
Exactly.
Lets not forget, carrying a fetus to full term isn’t risk free for the mother.
us antiabortoinist dont believe women get forced to have abortions they just blame it on the doctors doctors save lives not kill babies so doctors are against abortions
I’m a “pro life” (hate that term) atheist left leaning father of one child. I’ve always leaned left politically, but only in the past 10 years or so have I come to believe that the left is on the wrong side of the abortion issue. It puzzles me how anyone could view the unborn as anything other than human beings. I believe unborn women should enjoy the same standing before the law and the born. When “pro choice” (hate that term even more) folk utter phrases like “horrible choice” much is revealed. If it’s not murder, just what exactly is horrible?
In my view, we need to start by fixing our society, and prove that we truly value children; health care, education, poverty, cultural decay as manifested through rampant greed, selfishness, and myopia, etc. etc.. When we do, bringing kids into the world may not seem quite as scary.
As for the stumper question; start with abortionists. This is a matter of principle. Just because there are no easy answers, doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the murder of millions of the most innocent, those most in need of protection.
That’s just my two cents, and I look forward to thoughtful replies.
Thank you, Lance. My sentiments exactly. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that abortion isn’t a good thing. Nobody says, “Man, I’d really like to have an abortion. I think I’ll get pregnant so I can have one.” It is an invasive medical procedure, and like any invasive medical procedure, there is always a risk of complications and things going wrong for the woman. I’m against abortion, but I would love to see all the energy and emotion that that is put into protesting clinics and trying to make it illegal put into helping young women, preferably before they get pregnant, so that we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If there was no demand for them, there would be no need for it to be illegal.
To All the people who brought up the Pregnant woman murder scenario:
please realise that i am pro life for scientific reasons. but allow me to play devils advocate. the pro choice people are pro CHOICE. meaning, if the woman chooses to have her pregnancy terminated, its not murder.
but if a woman has chosen to keep her baby, meaning she’s chosen to think about it as a human being, accept it as a human, and love it. if she does not choose to terminate her pregnancy, and she is murdered, than it is a double murder. because she chose Life.
~ Morrigan
(for the record, i’m a pro-Life Agnostic, but i dont think abortion should be illegal, just harder to get. and not a cure for stupidity.)
thats sexist bull right because im a women and a antiabortionist so it’s not all women and my ex agreed with abortions thats why i left the swine and felt he wasnt safe so sometimes it’s men who are murderers cause they agree with abortions
By the way, I don’t actually think abortion is a good idea. I don’t encourage it. But I think it should be legal, because I think the decision should be up to the mother.
what if yr mother wanted a abortion then so mow what do you think of us child killer stoppers
Troll.
same to you baby killer
*sigh* You’re a “young soul” aren’t you?
im a troll cause im trying to get you to realize abortions is wrong children need to be safe from you . what if your mum had a abortion.
You’re trying to get me to realize something? *You* who can’t string a simple sentence together are trying to get *me* who has more degrees in things you can’t even fathom *to realize* something.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
License and registration, mow.
Did you just say, “mow”?
at least im safe do all you child killers take the mickey of people who cant spell well spell out your name and write a letter to the cops about your crime best you give yourself up.
Are you drunk?
even if i was im not a baby killer im nicely adviseing yopu to give your self up
Give myself up???? Perhaps you didn’t get the memo… Roe V. Wade happened in 1974… or do you not realize you’re speaking to a bunch of Americans?
Duh.
if you had a degree you wouldnt be daft enough to think it’s ok to kill ppl and have abortions babykiller
Riiiiight.
your disgusting
Not half as disgusting as you, you arrogant, ignorant, illiterate twit. Don’t ever presume you have anything to teach me. You’ve bought into your own repression and I have absolutely *zero* respect for you and your unoriginal, stupid, black and white thinking.
HURR DURR DURR!!!!!
your disgusting what?
I’m sure LRA has something disgusting… well maybe she doesn’t, but I have some hair clogs in the tub if you want to see them.
no i said babykiller
Where’s the banhammer when you need it???
You also called LRA daft! You wouldn’t know ‘daft’ if it looked back at you from the mirror.
Linda, I love it when people like you start throwing around the murder rhetoric. Nothing else better demonstrates that you are not to be taken seriously. If you don’t believe the words coming from your mouth, why should anyone else?
It just terrifies you your mom might have considered aborting you and you wouldn’t have even known the difference.
same to you anybodys mum could of so we’re all equal my mums a antiabortnist to so there
If your mom was twice as educated as you are on the subject, you probably still would HAVE been born, so go back to the living room and see if Sesame Street is still on or Wordgirl. You could probably use a little Wordgirl before you come back to the computer.
Give it up, Kodie. This one isn’t capable of seeing the point you just made.
im the one trying to get threw to baby killer kodie and he’s not capable
You can’t get threw to me because you can’t throw to me.
You are accusing people that you don’t even know of having performed abortions on women or had abortions performed on themselves without any actual evidence that this is the case. That’s a pretty illogical leap.
Have we properly eviscerated the cat toy, now?
Yeah… the farce is strong with that one.
You know, it’s a school day, so I’m wondering why Mum hasn’t ordered linda off to school to finish her education.
Maybe she did so this is really her sister.
That’s really interesting. How do you know you are who you are and not the second abortion your mom was going to have but she didn’t have enough money?
*fistbump*
Well played, Kodie!
Yeah, the rhetoric is just that. The other one that stumps them is when you ask why they’re not doing more to stop what according to them is institutionalized state sanctioned baby-killing.
For instance, ask them if they were living in Germany during the Holocaust and a law passed that allowed the legal killing of Jewish babies, would they just spend 40 years trying to use the political process and elect officials that would put a stop to it or would they feel morally obligated to stop that by any means necessary?
An unexamined part of the issue is whether execution is a just punishment for murder of any kind.
People who can point to some other person and say: “That person is better informed to answer your questions/im just a sheep, but that guy over there knows where we’re heading” – should they be out and about attacking other people’s choices – surely if ou cannot propperly justify your own position you should refrain from attacking someone else’s position. That always gets me.
synapticon,
I am not unsympathetic to your view. The one argument I hang to though (proffered by a theist) is that there is a symbiotic relationship between mother and fetus – a unique biologically closed society between only those two where one is host to the other. As such, those outside that relationship do not have moral say as to what happens within that closed biological society.
Curious – what is your opinion on birth control that could be abortificient? Would you outlaw the pill?
The problem is that when it comes to abortion, pro-lifers don’t see the woman as the “murderer”.
That’s what the doctor is for.
Admitting that the woman has actually come to this decision with a sound mind would implicate her with some of the guilt. So in order to justify that a murder was committed but the woman shouldn’t be punished, this logic appears.
The Doctor must have coerced her into it. She must have been pressured into having the abortion by her husband or her boyfriend or her father. No loving woman who is potentially already a mother could possibly “murder” their own fetus; she is just a consequence of male-dominated circumstance, the same as she would be if abortion were illegal.
That’s why you used to see people attacking clinics and killing doctors (and going after politicians), but not the actual women who seek out abortions. The women are innocent dupes. it’s the doctor (who somehow, ironically, is always male) who is to blame!
I’m pro-choice myself, but I’ve seen this argument enough times to know this is a pretty common answer of theirs.
Amazing.
“Life in prison for a woman who has an abortion illegally?”
How does a Christian say “fuck off”? God bless you.
Operating under the rules of logic (surprisingly enough) is not a common sense skill. I do not think that these people are stupid because they couldn’t adequately answer these questions.
What I think this video is doing, is demonstrating the importance of having a point of view, and a providing a practical means to achieving goals. If their goal was to end legalized abortions, then they burden is on them to provide a practical means to make that happen, in this video they failed in doing that.
But again, they’re not stupid people. Abortion is an extremely complex subject that’s very easy to disagree with.
Such prideful christians, I bet they were so excited that they were doing such a great thing by showing disgusting pictures of dead infants. I would bet money on it that at least half of them have had abortions. I wonder what their mighty god thinks of them.
It has been my experience in dealing with pro-lifers that the reason they can’t answer this question is that some of them truly believe that if abortion were illegal, women would just stop having them. End of story. I have had discussions with my best friend about this, and she had the same problem in determining punishment for the women b/c she is naive enough to think that making it illegal automatically stops women from having them. Not only is her belief naive, I believe it’s dangerous. Women will never stop having abortions; there will simply be more women dying from botched abortions.
Abortion is an unfortunate necessity in our culture where the right wing christians feel the need to limit the access to birth control and family planning for women, especially poor women. There is no other way until our culture embraces comprehensive teaching about our bodies and ways of preventing pregnancy, and starts teaching it in schools, since so many parents think if they close their eyes real tight, they won’t have to mention s.e.x. to their children.
No, nobody wants an abortion, but seriously sometimes it is the only option. I have had a friend who had to have an abortion because of being raped by their brother. No woman should be forced to bear a child they desperately don’t want.
I like your perspective. And how awful for your friend to have suffered that, at the hands of someone she’s supposed to be able to trust.
Morrigan,
Except what happens when a mother doesn’t want the baby, but before she can have the abortion, she is involved in an accident and loses the baby? Can she then claim she wanted the baby and get a huge settlement out of it (if it was a simple accident) and/or choose to prosecute (if it was drunk driving)? Or what if the woman and the baby are both killed in the accident? Who decides if the baby was wanted or not?
there is ALREADY A PUNISHMENT FOR ILLEGAL ABORTIONS. while women are given the choice to have abortions in almost every state abortions can only be performed by doctors. illegal abortions are, for example, when a women would punch her own stomach will the baby died, AND THERE IS A PUNISHMENT FOR IT. Abortion is wrong and if it was illegal they should either extend the current punishment for illegal abortions or consider it as premeditated murder.
What’s the punishment…?
Hah… that last one was the worst. The other ones at least admitted they didn’t think too much about it, but were more or less open to the question. But the last one showed her true colors; incapable of thinking for herself, believing only in dogma, and then doing the cross on her chest, as if to purify herself from conflicting thoughts. The kind of sheeple who cannot be reasoned with, no matter how wrong they are. She’s the kind of person who would want to make it illegal not to be a christian, if she could!
And if she pays someone to kill her husband, should she get a lesser sentence than the hit man, as she’s “only an accessory”?
An excellent question. More questions I’ve yet to hear a good answer to is this:
If life begins at conception, how do you legally deal with the fact that 30% or more of all conceptions end in miscarriage, often before the woman is even aware she’s pregnant?
Should every miscarriage be investigated for the possibility of manslaughter? Is the mother responsible for conceiving when too old and thus increasing the risk to the pregnancy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Prevalence
What about all of the embryos that don’t implant or are discarded as a result of in vitro fertilization- should the process be banned entirely?
For me, the idea that life begins at conception, or very nearly after, is a non-starter. It’s as absurd as believing that the fetus deserves no protection whatsoever until it is born. Fuzzy lines in morality are hard! But this is a fuzzy issue and it’s why we allow abortion up to a point and leave it to the mother’s judgment and conscience before that.
And for the folks whose only rationale for banning it is what they believe the Bible says about it, I second the SAB link above, and want to specifically mention Numbers 5:11-31 where God is clearly ordering women with jealous and suspicious husbands to drink “bitter water” which will make her “womb drop” if she’s guilty- clearly a description of an herbally induced abortion.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/5.html
logic answer to that question would be in my opinion to offer no penalty for the women who get the abortion but to the person who gives the abortion. If the woman does it herself then punish her.
anyway that would remove the clinics that offer abortion services and maybe reduce the amount of abortions.
i my self am pro choice and think that the earth is already too crowded as it is.
ps. God doesnt exist.
I’m an “anti-abortionist” who is hardly stumped by your question.
In my view, abortion ends a life, and I would have no qualms about changing the law (including overturning Roe, etc.) such that the punishment for abortion would be on par with murder.
I think what you’ve discovered with your “stumping question” is not some flaw in the logic of the pro-life side, but rather the fact that most pro-lifers are compassionate.
I, and I think most pro-lifers, given the current set of laws have no desire to see those that have had abortion procedures jailed for life or executed. The reason is not that said punishment would be inappropriate in scale, but rather that these women who have had abortions were duped into believing they were just “removing a bunch of cells” rather than ending a human life. Their act was based on misinformation rather than malice.
That question wouldn’t stump me for a second. It should be treated as murder with premeditation.
“If life begins at conception, how do you legally deal with the fact that 30% or more of all conceptions end in miscarriage”
The same way I deal with the fact that 100% of people die eventually– nature takes its course.
BTW I’m an atheist.
Why is everybody so gung-ho on putting abortion into an existing category instead of its own? The reason the logical flaw identified here exists, and many of the “logic” problems in the comments, is false dichotomy that you have to decide whether abortion is murder or is ok. That’s like asking if speeding is like tax evasion or is ok. Abortion is an independent activity that should be judged on its own merits, not by analogy to other activities.
In fact, most of the anti-abortion arguments rely on overly simplistic semantic issues and not on reason. For example, whether a zygote or fetus is called a “human being” or “non-human tissue” is completely irrelevant. All that does is try to bring in non-relevant connotations and emotions.
The question of abortion rests entirely on its own merits, not on what category or name you give things. You need to answer questions such as:
1. What is it about killing an adult, child, or baby human wrong that makes it wrong.
2. Under what conditions, if any, is the above ok?
3. What is it about killing bugs, small animals (e.g., rodents), large animals that makes it ok or not? What about pets? Does the method matter, or is it the killing alone?
4. What does a “right to life” mean, and what properties does anything need to get it. For example, a cancer tumour has human cells and genes and may have more cells than a zygote or fetus. Neither can survive on their own without a host body. What property does the fetus have that gives it a right to life that the cancer tumor does not. (Hint: You can’t claim one is human and one is not. They are both made of human cells. The fetus is simply a more ordered structure.)
5. Does sentience or self-awareness have anything to do with it? How?
6. Does potential have anything to with it? How? And where are the limits to “potential”. It can’t be enough on its own, otherwise anything that gets in the way of a hypothetical new human would be bad. (For instance, a woman turning down a man’s offer of sex would be committing “murder” since it has the potential to create a new human life.) What needs to go along with potential?
There are many more questions along these lines. The problem is that too many people try to oversimplify it and say these things are irrelevant. They are not. Simply believing something is wrong isn’t enough, because there are also people who believe it is ok. There has to be a legitimately arguable reason.
You people are all so emotional about this debate. We discussed this issue in philosophy class, and the red herring slogans that abortionists and anti-abortionists use just cloud the issue. The real issue is that of fetal personhood – is a fetus a person who is presumptively wrong to kill? Since there is not really any convincing philosophical answer to this question, one must decide whether or not it is safer to err on the side of the fetus (e.g. it is probably a human) or is it safer to err on the side of the mother (e.g. the fetus isn’t a human). Anyways, enough with this “if abortion is illegal/legal” silliness. Grow up people and try and look at this objectively.
Viewpoints aside, this is irrational reasoning. Not just on the anti abortionists side, but also on this website. Its sad to see 2 such ignorant and irrational sides argue… Please read a book on logic or at least the wikipedia page before you try and sound smart.
If it was illegal, the consequence should be the same as the degrees and definitions of murder taking into consideration mitigating circumstances.
I also think the church should be partnering with parents and totally be talking about sex and sex education. Seriously, do you think exposure to years in a sexually pervasive culture can be dealt with by a 45 minute “talk” with your teen or pre-teen? There needs to be open communication about sexuality — not just sex acts but about the preciousness of the body, modesty, boundaries (especially to help deter predators), self-respect, consequences. Celibacy is the only sure form of pregnancy & disease control but being successfully celibate in this world requires a hell of a lot more conversation than “abstinence only” at the age of 12. Waiting to talk about this with a girl who is already pregnant is um, TOO LATE!!!!!! At that point the young mom needs an amazing amount of support–emotionally & financially.
I’m sorry, what was your question? ;)
This is a great discussion. @VorJack, I love your humor! I’ll have to remember the peeing one.
Your premise is absurd. You suggest, paradoxically, that anti-abortion activists who have compassion for desperate mothers must therefore not truly believe that abortion is murder. Not only is the logical leap vast, but you seem to suggest that recognizing the complexity of the question and the pressures under which these mothers-to-be often find themselves is the result of a LACK of thought, though it is in fact your oversimplification that fails to apply reason or consider all (or even multiple) relevant premises.
I think Scott Kurtz makes the point pretty well. It’s not the mother they’ll punish, it’s the Doctors who perform the abortion.
Exactly like not punishing people for drinking alcohol, just for its manufacture and supply.
“Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of medical equipment within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for abortive purposes is hereby prohibited.”
This hardly wins any arguments – just because you stump someone for a moment doesn’t make the fact that a life has been taken any less true or relevant.
Apply this same sort of argument to other crimes.
I’m sure you are smart enough to realize that this is merely an argument spun up to try to embarrass pro-lifers, as opposed to actually having a valid point.
I agree with Rob that some areas of moral logic are fuzzy. If human life and subsequently human rights start at conception then anyone who knowingly uses a form of birth control that inhibits a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is committing murder and should be punished just like any other willful murderer even though nature (God) does the same thing routinely. Locally logical but also cruel and therefore unconvincing. The deeper truth to me is that nature (God) is not all that circumspect with embryos. Perhaps the Supreme Court got it about right???
A question for the Christians. Are the untold zillions of naturally aborted embryos in possession of a soul and eternal life? If so, how do you know?
On a related tangent. Since gay marriage is now illegal in Cali, shouldn’t anyone who enters into a same sex union be condemned to death as the Bible commands (at least does so for men)?
Anti-abortionists are a logical consequence of the extreme position that an abortion is just a medical procedure, and not the destruction of a life or at least (and quite logically) the destruction of a potential life. It is easier to get an abortion than it is to buy a handgun and just owning a handgun does not imply anything. It is rather sad that abortion is considered a method of birth control when so many other methods are available. Beyond that, the decision to accept the risk of having a child in most instances (absent rape) is before the act in which it is conceived. Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous that people in the U.S. that wish to adopt a baby are almost always pushed toward U.S. babies with issues (birth defects, crack babies, etc) or International adoption. If the legal system could stop giving so much rights to the birth mother (even after a contract is signed) people in the U.S. could adopt unwanted yet healthy children and mothers could be compensated and have medical costs covered.
This similar to the I.D. or creationist response to people on the side of the Theory of Evolution/Darwinism. If one takes the extreme position that the ToE proves there is no God (rather than no necessity for a God) then people taking the opposite position will rise up/come forward (e.g. there is a God, and therefore the ToE is wrong).
I just find it ridiculous that so many people think they definitively know what is best or what is right.
Griff
Doesn’t the pro-life logic say that Joseph Stalin is a better man than Ronald Reagan?
After all, Reagan did nothing concrete to fight abortion while in office. Indeed, as America’s abortion laws currently depend on the Supreme Court, Reagan could be said to be objectively pro-choice as he appointed two pro-choice Justices, Kennedy and O’Connor, and only one pro-life, Scalia. Actions speak louder than words, after all. Thus, Reagan logically shares the blame for all the abortions that happened in the United States during his reign. This number is roughly 12 million.
Stalin, on the other hand, famously banned abortion from Soviet Union. Thus, we can’t blame him for any abortions that happened during his reign, as he actually did something about it. Of course, Stalin killed a number of non-fetal people, though it’s hard to put an estimate on how many – the reliable numbers range from 10 to 20 million. Let’s say 15 million. Stalin, though, ruled for a longer period than Reagan – 31 years to Reagan’s eight. Thus, the slaughter of innocent babies for each of Reagan’s years was far higher than the murder of kulaks, dissenting Party members and Ukrainians for each of Stalin’s years. Furthermore, we must consider that many of Stalin’s victims were, in fact, dirty Communists.
Women will always get abortions if it is legal or illegal.
If you punish the doctors for giving abortions, young women will end up getting messy abortions in back alleys (like pre 1973). No matter what, someone is going to die. We should not argue for or against abortion but how we can PREVENT women from having unplanned pregnancies. Birth control should be free in this country and available to all women from puberty and up. Take religion out of sex education and focus on rational sex education. Ironically most of the people that are against abortions are also for abstinence sex education. Its like giving someone a loaded gun and hope that they will not shoot themselves, and when they do you punish them.
I do not understand why we cannot be more pro-active.
Anything for nothing becomes a vacuum, taken for granted, not as if it’s ok, but as if it’s harmless.
So no on free condoms. Certainly not for 1st graders. Google it.
What is it with activists today. Anything we need MUST BE FREE? Maybe get rid of paper money and then we can talk FREE. Or maybe start a barter network. Then FREE might work.
You can’t legislate reality. Heck you can’t even tell it what to do.
Try this: If you care so much, start a chip in widget and distribute condoms yourself using donations.
Sigh. What disgusts me the most about that question is the way they champion protecting the fetus over the woman. Suddenly, this child is worth more than an adult woman. And they will do anything for the fetus, but what do they care about the woman? They haven’t even considered the question, what happens to the woman. And a lot of them would let the woman die, rather than chance killing the fetus. And they would rather coat hanger and ammonia injects take place than again, risking the fetus. It’s okay for the woman to die, it’s okay for the woman to be trapped into a life with an infant at 10 (btw.. the youngest woman to get pregnant, ever, was 3 – by her father, no less.) It’s okay to force a woman to end their life, not through death, but by giving up work, school, everything, to raise a child they did not want, could not afford to raise, or were unable to raise. Children who are MR or downs need 24 hour care for their entire lives. By saying women MUST have the child, you condemn them to a life practically of a slave to that child, to that teen, to that adult. Forever. There is no escape. And you make women who are raped, keep those children they did not plan for and will always see the person who raped them in their child. Make them lay on operating tables dying of blood loss, until the doctors are certain the child is dead before performing an abortion that should have been done hours before. That’s what sickens me about the anit-abortion movement. The sheer disregard they have for women and for their lives. Both their physical life and the way they live. I’d be tempted to ask them, if there was a train and it was going to hit either a woman or an infinite, and you could only save one, which would you pick? Because by forcing women to have children, you pretty much have run them over with a train.
“champion protecting the fetus over the woman”
fetus is that like a wrench or a piece of string or is it a person not yet out of the womb.
I gotta stop responding to you freaks.
Life began exactly once, about 2-3 billion years ago. Trying to define where life ‘starts’ is meaningless.
What you guys are really talking about is where personhood starts.
As a personal aside:
I think abortion should be the very last option. But if my wife is raped and gets pregnant, I wouldn’t think twice about driving her to the clinic to end it (assuming that was her choice). No one will be able to convince me that a clump of cells the size of a period is more important than her well being. Not when that same clump of cells is ditched by the woman’s body about 30% of the time for no apparent reason at all.
And the religious argument that a ‘soul’ is created the moment of fertilization just makes me laugh. The population of heaven will overwhelmingly be spontaneously aborted fetuses.
Angel 1
“Yeah, I got fertilized but never implanted. So, here I am.”
Angel 2
“Wow, that sucks, man. I got implanted, but only got to about a thousand cells or so before I got sloughed off during menstruation.”
“Trying to define where life ’starts’ is meaningless.”
oh right you are really just an old supernova come to say hi.
“What you guys are really talking about is where personhood starts.”
DING DING. That happens at feedback loop. Then we get some level of consciousness, and all the rights that go with it.
Personally I say we should all just start living our lives and not worry about how other people live there own unless it is affecting us in a negative manor wouldn’t all you? Just saying… being that not doing that is what’s caused every single problem we’ve had in the history of humanity
Most people with opinions get an opinion without thinking the whole issue out. When it is a religous based opinion, it is more so.
When abortion is illegal, the wealthy will still take their daughters to private doctors and clinics, and the rest of the woman fall victim to coat hangers, well intentioned midwives, and quacks. The only way to end abortion is to end the need for abortion, which I doubt will ever happen completely.
What I want to know is how many of those protesters are holding signs that say, “Let me adopt your unwanted baby.” and “Let me help you through this difficult time.” I have never seen it, (but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.) If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It is easy to condemn others. Lets see these “good” people actually do something positive instead of talking about it.
A follow up comment.
First, if you are looking for a question to make pro-life logic squirm, ask what should be done in cases of incest and rape – particularly rape. If a fetus is a life, then clearly the injustice of a woman having to carry to child to term is outweighed by the injustice of killing the fetus, many pro-lifers want exceptions to allow abortion in these cases.
On the other hand, I think the question to make pro-abortion folks squirm is the following: “You often speak of abortion being safe, legal, and rare. If abortion doesn’t end a life, why rare?”
Also, @Rob:
A. The Numbers 5 argument is specious. See http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html
B. “Should every miscarriage be investigated for the possibility of manslaughter? Is the mother responsible for conceiving when too old and thus increasing the risk to the pregnancy?” To both: Of course not.
In the case of the former, it’s the same reason that the state doesn’t investigate for murder every time there is a naturally caused death.
In the case of the later, it’s the same reason that we don’t outlaw the slew of other things just because they carry some risk.
The most pertinent feeling, or argument, repeated time and again from the people who want to make abortion illegal by default is probably this:
“It puzzles me how anyone could view the unborn as anything other than human beings.”
The problem with this feeling is the fact that abortion is typically not performed in the ninth month of pregnancy, or anywhere near that time. Immediately after conception, the “unborn” is a single cell with the potential of becoming a human being. I don’t think (although I might be wrong) that many people would argue that removing this single cell from the female body is murder.
Immediately before birth, the “unborn” is essentially a fully-formed human child. I don’t think that anyone, even the most staunch pro-choice person, would claim that an abortion at this point is *not* logically the same as murder.
The question, then, is this: At what point does the fetus go from a group of cells to a human being? Rational people will not discuss whether abortion is murder or choice; they will discuss at which specific point in time abortion should become illegal.
Additionally, each side should acknowledge that this is not a simple question. There are no easy answers. An abortion is never something anyone wants to happen, but at the same time, history has shown that making abortions illegal does not stop them from being performed; making abortions illegal doesn’t stop women from having abortions, it simple endangers the women who do decide to have abortions.
Pro-choice people don’t *want* abortions to happen. Pro-life people don’t *want* to endanger women. There should be room for some kind of common ground.
Your question does nothing to promote healing and unity. Women DESERVE better than abortion.
Really the issue always boils down to “When does that blob of cells become a kid?”
I’d be quite happy if we arrived at a simple rule: No abortions past some designated mark, say four months. But there should also be a complimentary measure: no extreme measures to save kids born prior to that mark. That’d be a start. Exceptions would have to be allowed for medical reasons, and rape or incest cases.
I mean, if you need 120 days to decide whether you want to be a mum, you’re probably overthinking the situation.
Like most “pro-choicers” I dislike abortion. But I see it as an unpleasant necessity. Particularly as long as religious folk are in charge of the machinery of sex ed, and willing to allow pharmacists and physicians to deny timely and appropriate treatment for birth control or unwanted pregnancies based on their cultural prejudices.
Hmm. Interesting… I am not against abortion, by the way.
The thing is, a lot of medical procedures do not happen. (I’m thinking of things like the removal of limbs for body dysmorphia)
The penalties would apply to the abortionist not the woman if abortion was illegal.
if there’s one thing that this clip shows, it’s that the protesters are mostly acting on gut feeling. that’s why they don’t have any real arguments, but only pictures that aim for maximum emotional effect. constantly saying that abortion is killing serves the same purpose. and when confronted with the logical consequence of their points, their gut feeling takes over again.
those who suggest that women aren’t culpable because they’re misinformed: you seem to know they’re misinformed, so let’s see the evidence. show us proof that life starts at conception. that tissue that has been growing for 10 days has personality. because that’s the real debate. not whether a picture of an aborted fetus makes you sad and angry or not.
these women are not compassionate. they think what’s good for them is good for everybody. compassion, as the word says, has to do with being supportive, whatever somebody else chooses to do. if you don’t support what they do, don’t call yourself compassionate.
I’m on the fence about this video.
On one hand, the person asking the questions is of course trying to put them in the corner, and asking them questions that they don’t necessarily have to have a position on in order to feel that abortion is wrong.
On the other hand, the fact that they are out in public with SHOCK TACTICS such as blown up pictures of bloody aborted fetuses shows that they are very much of the oppinion that they should shoot first and ask questions later in order to get their poorly thought out point across, in which case it would do them some good to be asked and to ask themselves some more questions about what they are doing.
I think the exchange with the old woman was the best, but you left out the best part in the quote above.
The man made a good point by asking if her idea for a punishment is to be judged by God, then why should it be illegal?
Q: Isn’t that a question between a woman and her god?
A: It doesn’t seem like it’s being done that way…
Q: Is that your judgement or God’s judgement?
A: Both
I think this exchange reveals that the anti-abortionist argument is more based on their personal morals than anything else. Considering the instances when God of the Bible treats life with little respect, I don’t think they can say that they get there morals that pertain to human life from the Bible.
I’m an agnostic person that believes abortion should be at least very difficult to get. It’s ridiculous that we ask “how’s the baby doing?” when the woman wants to keep it and suddenly “it’s a fetus” when convenient to kill it. There should be nothing easy about starting a life and then deciding to kill it.
I also very much agree with the person above that said: “I think what you’ve discovered with your “stumping question” is not some flaw in the logic of the pro-life side, but rather the fact that most pro-lifers are compassionate.
I, and I think most pro-lifers, given the current set of laws have no desire to see those that have had abortion procedures jailed for life or executed. The reason is not that said punishment would be inappropriate in scale, but rather that these women who have had abortions were duped into believing they were just “removing a bunch of cells” rather than ending a human life. Their act was based on misinformation rather than malice.”
Knowing something needs to be stopped and instantly having the solution to how to punish violators are quite different issues. Yes…some of the interviews are laughable…but that’s the result of putting anyone on the spot about a complex issue.
Clearly women who have illegal abortions should be raped until they become pregnant again in order to have the kid.
John Swine, you accused others of beeging the question when you yourself beg the question. Sheer hypocrisy! “X has the rights to life” or such similar statements are the worse cases of petitio principii. How do you know? You assume that without proving.
i agree with you bob
Is it possible that you’re actually joking throughout this entire page? You think abortion is wrong, but rape is just fine and dandy. Perhaps you’re the one that children need protection from?
I will preface this by explaining my own views on Abortion.
I am a Libertarian, politically speaking. I put a high value on individual liberty and abhor the involvement of government in the lives of its citizenry.
I am also a Catholic. I believe that live begins at conception (which is not a uniquely Christian or Theistic perspective) and as a consequence, I consider the intended termination of pregnancy tantamount to murder.
However I am against the outlawing of abortion for two reasons.
Firstly such laws merely cause the act to be driven underground, in back alleys or spare rooms with primitive tools, unskilled physicians and very often considerable danger for the mother-to-be. They do not prevent abortion, they merely endanger more lives.
Secondly, I cannot in good conscience accept the level of invasion of personal privacy necessary to police such laws. A state which outlaws abortion takes an egregious, intrusive step into the lives of its citizenry in order to see that its laws have effect. This is, in my mind, unconscionable.
That said, the argument proffered here is fallacious. It begs the question:
If Abortions are Murder
And Murders are to be punished severely in civilized society
Then should not a person who has an Abortion be punished severely
Therefore if a person who has an Abortion cannot be punished then Abortion is not Murder.
Begging the Question fits the following format:
Apples are good for you
Therefore if you eat a truckload of apples, you will be healthy
Now, to explain why it begs the question, I’ll expound upon the principles of an illiberal anti-abortionist (I use the actual meaning of the word liberal here, not the mind-boggling double-speak which passes for its use in American political discourse – a lot of American ‘liberals’ are some of the most illiberal people imaginable).
Abortion, the termination of another life, is a crime. Ergo it deserves punishment in the same manner as other unlawful acts of taking a life in our society.
Punishment, as per the western justice system has two primary purposes:
1) To offer Restitution to the victim of a crime or their estate
and
2) To safeguard the public against further such acts of criminality.
So firstly, Restitution. Well, the victim is dead, the victim’s estate are those who killed him and as a consequence there is simply no one with justifiable claim for Restitution.
Secondly, safeguarding the public. Well, the nature of the crime is such that the only person against whom it can again be perpetrated is a hypothetical foetus who does not currently exist. The only means by which one could prevent the repeated perpetration of this crime involve sterilization (surely a greater violence against the hypothetical future-foetus given that it entirely negates the possibility of his coming into being) or ensuring that the next child conceived by the perpetrator is carried to term. Both these actions represent so heinous an invasion and contravention of individual liberty as to fall foul of the Human Right to avoid strange and unusual punishment. (Including the right of the same ilk vested in American Citizens by the Bill of Rights).
In short, the crime cannot be punished with any degree of regard to principles of natural justice or fairness. The justice system is not a hammer of retribution.
As such, those who oppose legal abortion tend to focus upon medical practitioners who can very easily be punished with the intent of safeguarding the public from future criminality.
The fact that such I consider such punishment to be not only unlawful and egregiously ineffective but also, wholly counterproductive is neither here nor there. It demonstrates the following:
Simply because one party to the an illegal act cannot be punished within the bounds of what we consider to be natural justice, it does not follow that the act is not illegal. There exist other parties, for whom punishment is practical in this instance (yet its ethical nature is not contingent upon this fact as will be shown).
There exists one further scenario: The mother-to-be commits the act of abortion entirely on her own. Here is where the ultimate limitation of abortion legislation occurs. There is no party to this crime who is capable of being punished within the framework of natural justice.
Although I don’t agree with it, anti-abortion legislation can criminalize the abortion as carried out by a party other than the mother-to-be.
It cannot punish the mother-to-be within the boundaries of our justice system but it does not follow that considering Abortion to be an evil as heinous as murder is illogical – it merely demonstrates that we have no way of punishing that party and still maintaining the frameworks of our justice system.
One can assert that it is precisely as unethical as murder but one cannot make its commission wholly illegal within the constraints of our society, merely ancillary acts.
And it is those ancillary acts, which proposed legislation usually targets.
*sigh* please excuse the spelling/grammatical errors. Just caught one and there’s no edit button.
They’re discussing this at Myers site and someone posted this about Nicaragua.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/08/health.lifeandhealth
One of the side effects of prosecuting abortions is avoidance of any medical care that could possibly be construed as incriminating a doctor in an abortion but would otherwise extend or help the life of the mother. IOW, witch hunts.
Several people have used variations on the phrase “life begins at conception / birth”. This, obviously, is completely false. Life began about four billion years ago, and has continued in an unbroken chain ever since. Eggs and sperm are alive before conception.
The question is, when does humanness begin? When does someone begin to enjoy the rights that come with being human? That is a different question, and as others have mentioned, a fuzzy one. I think the current compromise built by Roe vs Wade is about right, but I understand that rational people can disagree.
One question worth asking is this: If abortion is classified as murder, should we go down the Brazilian route of arresting women who have miscarriages and subjecting them to invasive exams, so we can tell if they should be charged with murder or manslaughter?
If abortion is outlawed, and people should not be encouraged to adopt “less desirable” babies, what should happen to them? State asylums? Should they just be left with parents unwilling or unable to care for them?
An aside, but:
…then one is a moron. No-one who has actually thought about the issue takes that position.
I can’t imagine that women who have abortions are thrilled with themselves. I don’t know how true it is but I have heard that most women are pressured into having an abortion.
Pressured by boyfriends who just wanted to have sex and pressured by parents who don’t want to raise another child or the parents don’t want their child to “ruin” their life with a child, which kind of sends the wrong message to their child.
If it was illegal then of course there should be a punishment. As a Christian I believe it to be more important to be there for the woman once she begins to go through the grieving process.
It is legal to kill one’s baby so long as it doesn’t have air in their lungs. It is not my job to judge the woman who decides to do this. Biblically I am not called to judge but rather to love.
When a life is taken a women will inevitably feel sorrow. There are no such thing as unbaby showers. When life is taken it is not a time of celebration. I would imagine that most women will have feelings of guilt and I think it is the job of Christians to offer love and forgiveness to this person, not judgment.
Brent – whilst remembering “the peeing one” hope that the pregant recipient of your wit isn’t well-read. Amniotic fluid IS fetal urine, and everyones’ urine (fetal or otherwise) is sterile. A smart pregnant woman might reply, “I feel darn good about it – all that fluid helps keep her umbilical cord free and uncompressed.”
Anyway – I very much enjoyed this video – for the abortion debate as much as for the fact that it sums up neatly the only reason that christianity still exists: that people believed what their parents told them and never seriously questioned it.
Another question I’m fond of (as a pro-choice nurse) is why the believers never get down on god for aborting babies. Someone has a miscarriage and it’s “god’s will.” But a doctor suggests an early induction to save the mother’s life and it’s a crime.
Eric, why in the world would it be God’s will that a baby is miscarried??? That is just bad theology.
Oh and by the way Eric, it is not a crime for the doctor to suggests aborting the baby. You probably meant that in a different way, right?
“I can’t imagine that women who have abortions are thrilled with themselves.”
Let me help you with that:
http://www.imnotsorry.net/
If abortion is murder, then coffee is manslaughter
http://tinyurl.com/8zr6ja
So what about “The Pill”? It sometimes causes blastocysts to fail to implant… Murder, or not?
I wonder what these people think of birth control.
I mean, really think of it. I know some of them out there think birth control is a form of abortion (and they want to talk about people being not informed).
So what is their solution anyway? Just make it illegal and hope it’ll disappear? I suppose they will never go down an alley in the poorest parts of a city and see what an illegal abortion is. So I suppose indeed, to them it will just disappear, because they will continue to shelter themselves from reality.
And some of them I’ve meet, think that if a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage (for whatever reason) they deserve whatever happens to them.
And even those in marriage, they deserve what happens to them too. Their job is to produce babies, and so what if they die doing it? At least the child lived.
The simple truth is, women die in childbirth and women die having too many kids. And yet, no one gets charged with murder if the woman dies, but they want to charge the woman with murder if she lives at the sacrifice of the child?
It’s okay for women to have 14 kids, get pregnant again (because it’s expected of them) and die. It’s not okay for them to be having the 14th child, the doctors tell her, you will die if you have another child, let us tie your tubs, or use birth control, or do something. And they say, their husband will get mad, or god will get mad, or whatever. And then show up, 9 months later with the 15th and die.
I cannot think any women would want to die like this, I can’t think they willingly make the choice to have another child, not when armed with that information. I cannot believe that anyone would want women to die like this, and that they don’t tell their family, if I have another child, I will die. And yet it happens in this country. In this country where we have ways to prevent these deaths. In a country where women are supposed to have equal rights.
But no, we want to take those rights away. We want to force them to have children. We want to keep birth control pills off insurance, but put vigra on it. We want to make birth control illegal. Women will have equal rights, sure, but not for having children. That will be up to their husbands, to the state, to votes, to everyone expect themselves.
They are expected to die for the cause. They are expected to give up their lives, their education, for the cause. And people wonder, why haven’t we cured cancer. The pro-life like to say because we aborted those people. Frankly, I like to wonder if it’s because we didn’t force them into having children, prevent them from getting educations and jobs. How many smart women have we lost to the world and their contrubitions, because their role in life was to bear children and nothing more?
What becomes of the woman, is the great question I think that needs to be asked. Becomes of all our women, with everything we do that concerns them.
I am not pro-life, I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro medicine. I am pro woman’s health. I am pro edcuation.
They want to talk about how abortions are dangerous and how they cause emotional strain, I assure you, they aren’t as dangerous nor as straining as having a child is. Least of all a child that women did not want, for whatever reason, to start with.
You’ve ignored the possibility of only prosecuting the doctor and not the woman.
Vox
wintermute
Good point. That would have been another question for the protestors. Sam Harris brings this up when discussing abortion.
All cells are alive, and we commit a holocaust each time we scratch our noses. The problem with the argument of the anti-abortionists, as well as the anti-stem cell research people, is that they believe that there is a soul based on no evidence. At what point does this “soul” enter the bundle of cells that potentially will become a human?
This is amazing. Thanks for posting it! I’ll have to come back and read the rest of the blog later
Daniel said: “By the way, I don’t actually think abortion is a good idea. I don’t encourage it. But I think it should be legal, because I think the decision should be up to the mother.”
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
This is actually quite simple. You don’t make it illegal to GET an abortion you make it illegal to PERFORM an abortion. Duh!
John Swaine:
Can you see that the arguments you use against punishing abortion as murder even tho you believe it is murder could be applied equally to murder for hire?
“Firstly such laws merely cause the act (of murder for hire) to be driven underground….”
“Secondly, I cannot in good conscience accept the level of invasion of personal privacy necessary to police such laws (as murder for hire).
It’s interesting to me that you are both a civil libertarian and voluntarily a member of a monolithic authoritarian org.
Emotionally, the right to life movement has invested in the conception=human rights argument. As the internal logic of this conviction follows, it will indeed cause great suffering.
Each woman makes her choice with regards to her health. Period. If you believe you can dictate what goes on in another person’s body, you’re anti-personal freedom, even anti-American.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Whatever feeling you may have, or views you may hold on what constitutes a person, there’s a pretty damn clear dividing line. When you’re outside, you’re a person.
It all boils down to this: if you don’t want an abortion, don’t effing get one. In the meantime, keep your fundamentalism, or fascism, or whatever mania you use to justify oppressing others off women’s bodies.
and an aside:
if conception = life, to a pro-lifer, what about the sperm and egg? they’re certainly not dead, are they?
David and Amanda – I am simply repeating the beliefs and arguments of pro-lifers. I agree absolutely that the “god’s will” argument is bad theology – but I’ve heard that a lot from the same group of people featured in the video.
I am very impressed with this discussion so far – very good points on both sides – and no one seems to have flown off the handle yet – you know, we atheists are known for that :)
Bah.
We all know actions, even similar actions, don’t happen on a level playing field.
There are stories that emerge every so often that make us cringe in horror and revulsion that one we share our human-ness with has the capability of doing such things.
There are people who desire innocent life simply to plunge it into the worst this world has to offer, rape, torture, and death. “How could this happen?” we ask, and feel tainted by the knowledge, because these have polluted our very existence by theirs.
But then there are others, perhaps a battered wife or child who sought revenge, or a rookie cop who forgot his training when he hit the streets, but regardless of specifics, we’ve all read of a situation somewhere where you couldn’t help but be sympathetic to the perpetrator of what we must admit is still a crime.
You shouldn’t pretend to be ignorant of these complexities by your crude, paint-all logic. None of us can play innocent in this society, because these are the extremes our Western world is fascinated by and saturated with! Look at our media of all sorts: movies, dramas, stories, and the honest-to-gosh news; we point everything we have at anything perceived to push our moral borders in one direction or another, and it’s all ultimately thanks to different circumstances for the same class of actions.
I would argue that with many women who have sought abortion as a horrible end to what was a nasty situation to begin with, we have both sympathy for the person while still condemning the action and pushing for alternatives.
Daniel said: “By the way, I don’t actually think abortion is a good idea. I don’t encourage it. But I think it should be legal, because I think the decision should be up to the mother.”
Mother? How about woman. Human. That verbiage is basically the anti-personal-freedom side’s canon.
and what about fathers? Do they get punished? What if they’re absent? What about the woman’s parents? The landlord where a clinic is? What about the patients of punished doctors? are they given free medical care til they can find a new doctor? what if a patient dies? is the arresting officer charged?
reductio ad absurdum, sure. it’s a ridiculous idea, so it should be mocked.
“They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.”
I disagree that is a right conclusion. In my opinion, it merely demonstrates that they have compassion for the mother, not that they do not believe abortion is murder of a human being.
Instead, ask this: “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with those who perform illegal abortions?”
Some anti-choice citizens believe that abortion is an act of violence perpetrated on the woman and the child.
At this opportunity for a new beginning, let us strive to curtail the rhetoric and divisiveness so we can move forward.
Let us stop seeing those who disagree with us as enemies, but rather as good people we have yet to convince.
I’m sure a pro-lifer would say that someone who PERFORMS an illegal abortion ought to be jailed, though. No doubt. This doesn’t really clear anything up.
You know, sometimes women perform their own abortions with chemical abortifactants. Should these women be punished in the same way as the evil doctors?
Has anyone asked this question of Bill O’Reilly yet?
The answer is simple:
First take into account that we, the antiabortionists, do not believe in abortion because we love and respect human life. Therefore to expect us to demand jail time or capital punishment against anybody is just ridiculous.
Instead of that, what about to sterilize the perpetrators?
This is not that great a question. It’s only hard for most anti-abortionists to answer because it has never been illegal in their lifetimes.
If you has asked me this question, I would, without hesitation, say that they should be tried and sentenced as every other premeditated murderer.
Wow, all those comments in response to a straw man!
Please remember: all generalizations are false, including this one (and the one that started this post).
Anybody who has gone through high school biology will be able to tell you when an egg and sperm turn into a separate homo sapiens: when they combine. Then you have a lump of stuff inside the mother’s body with a completely unique DNA sequence which (if it is are allowed to be born) it will have until it dies of old age.
The sticky wicket is rather, when does it become a person entitled to a full set of human rights and legal protections?
Someone who is not a homicidal maniac should try to err on the side of not murdering people and say “probably sometime before the baby is born” and that is the current state of abortion regulation in most of the country.
If you say we should be able to kill children without fear of prosecution simply because they have not been born yet, why stop at birth? They only get more inexpensive and inconvenient the longer they are allowed to live, so why prosecute people for killing, say, a toddler?
A child 5 months before birth depends no less on her mother than a child 5 months after birth. Keeping one alive outside a womb is certainly more expensive and difficult than the other, but expense does not stop us keeping very aged people alive.
I guess what I am driving at is this: any time you set a cutoff date for when you can kill an child, it is arbitrary. You are allowing people to die based on an arbitrary timeline, because we *can not* know when they become “People” of their own. Bringing up the fact that the child is currently inside a womb is a fine example of “poisoning the well” in the debate.
2 more points:
Killing someone (aside from yourself, that’s another debate altogether) is bad because the life you take is not your own. It was given by God to that person and, last I checked, nobody had a license from him to take life away.
There are good reasons to kill someone, and the strongest reasons are based on the circumstance where person A is about to kill person B. Be it prevention of murder in the course of a burglary, or prevention of a mother’s death if a pregnancy were carried to term, the argument is the same: preservation of life against being ended by another person.
********
I agree with the assertion that a great many people have never thought about their position on prosecuting women who have illegal abortions; I bet they are spread about equally on both sides of the abortion debate. There are also a large number of drivers who never think twice about using cell phones. I am not equivocating, I am saying people are generally thoughtless, going about their lives in Condition White, never thinking beyond the ends of their noses. You can fill a documentary video full of interviews with such people and never prove the point that anti-abortionists/pro-lifers are a bunch of unthinking boobs.
What about people that do drugs illegally, or drink and drive illegally, or murder a born person illegally? I’m open to good arguments, but I don’t think this is one of them.
Your argument is weak. If the procedure of having an abortion was outlawed, that doesn’t mean that the law would equate it to murder–it would just be illegal.
It’s more likely that people performing the abortion would face legal issues, not the women having them. And it’s highly unlikely those charges would be anywhere close to murder charges.
I get where you are coming from, but you’re off a bit in my opinion.
I totally misread your post….forget my previous comment.
Yep….you got em
Downright hilarious. Kudos to you sir. if you can’t make your argument, you shouldn’t be arguing at all.
Abortion is WRONG. You are denying a person of the right to life. What if your mother had aborted you? You never would have had the chance to be a human being. Abortion is sick and twisted and it’s worse than murder!
If my mother had aborted me i cant say i’d be around to complain about it. Here’s a question, if heaven is so great why don’t we abort all children and just skip the whole messy life thing?
That’s an awful lot of opinionated assertions with nothing concrete to back them up…
Not having unprotected sex every time your refractory period is up is WRONG! You are denying those sperm the right to life. What if your father had jerked off instead? You never would have had the chance to be a human being.
i argree ty but why do poeple think us antiabortnist are stupid seen what kodies wrote about me
Why people think you’re stupid is because you’re too stupid to realize that Ty is being sarcastic.
Duh.
I’m getting the feeling from the bad grammar and constant references to her mother, that Linda is just a kid, maybe 10 years old or so. As such, I feel a little bad arguing with her. Perhaps Daniel needs to implement a 13 and up policy? There are some brilliant kids out there under 18, but due to the adult nature of the site, there should probably be something in the T.O.S. disallowing pre-teens.
You mean: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-am-under-18-button-clicked-for-first-time-in-his,6396/
LOL! Perhaps we should ask?
Linda, how old are you?
If you are under the age of 14, this website is too mature for you. If you are under the age of 18, this website may possibly be too mature for you.
People talk frankly about complicated matters on this website, so consider yourself warned.
lol, good point
But it would at least be a reason for a delete and ban. And stop any retaliating parents with a simple “your child was violating the terms of service, it’s your job to monitor them”. I think that actually happened a few years ago when some kid’s mother did begin chastising everyone on here for fighting with her kid.
OMFSM! That happened? Ha! I would’ve like to have seen that. Funny!
She’s got six posts in the spam filter, and they’re not coming out. They hit my “three strikes” policy – they were partially unintelligible, what was intelligible was insulting and they were in all caps.
Haha! Well, there ya go! Problem solved!
:D
Yeah, I have to say I’m with Vorjack on this one – there’s some well practised fundie shoutin’ fo’ Jeeeebus going on in the spam pile right now!
But did she ever say how old she is? I’d be curious to know.
Question 6
Aren’t pro-lifers inconsistent when they say that abortion is tantamount to murder, but then shrink from advocating the prosecution and punishment of the millions of women who have gotten abortions?
Reply to Question 6
This is not necessarily inconsistent. There are various ways in which the two views alluded to might be held consistently:
1. Someone might think that no woman every freely and without coercion chooses to have an abortion, just as some people maintain that suicide is never a freely chosen act. If this is the case, the woman’s responsibility for procuring the abortion is considerably mitigated;
2. Someone might hold that a woman who gets an abortion does something seriously wrong, and is responsible for it, but that the act itself carries with it its own penalty, since she loses her child in the abortion. It might be thought that any further penalty is unnecessary;
3. Someone might hold that, although many abortions merit punishment, still, the state’s decision of whether to punish or not should be made with an eye to the common good, and the common good would not be served by punishing women who procure abortions.
Why? Because if any were punished then all would have to be; but it would be too harsh to punish all–the cure would be as bad as the ailment. So none should be punished; rather, the abortionist should be punished as being a sort of initiator of the abortion.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html
Can we at least agree that you’re not a “person” if you don’t have any measurable brain activity? After all, it’s not illegal to turn of a brain-dead person’s life-support. In fact, brain-death is the legal definition of “dead”. No brain activity, and you’re not a person any longer. Why should it be different at the other end?
Some people are sure they do have exactly that licence. How do you know that they’re wrong? Cuteness aside, how do you check to see if such a licence has been issued?
You don’t adhere to dogmas you say? To me, it’s like the color black saying “I have no color, therefore I am not one of you” but most consider black a color indeed.
The absence of a God is your religion, if we must label them as much. There is as much evidence of the absence of God, as there is evidence of a God. I do not “get” atheists that make a mission out of playing “gotcha” with other religions. Why not just go out and be “free” as you say you are.
You are not truly free until you let go of these things you hold onto. Let them go, go live your life, and let others live theirs…then you can be free.
The bottom line is, you do not know, nor does any Christian, what built this place, universe, no one. We pretend, and we all have beliefs, but they’re all based either on speculation, or history, right?
I suppose when we die, we may be enlightened, or…perhaps that will be the end of things… In the end, it doesn’t matter….what will be, will be.
Find peace in yourself, and let others find their peace.
I enjoyed this post a lot. It’s been a while since I’ve thought about this issue.
Like the old saw about the boy who murders both his parents, and then pleads for clemency, as he’s recently become an orphan, no?
OK, not had time to read through all the above comment so sorry if I have repeated a previous point.
Can I state for the record that I am pro-choice first off!
If I was anti-abortion then my response may be that abortions should be illegal because it is the taking of a life.
However the law could be targeted not at the mother but at the abortionist. Therefore they would be the one to be charged with a crime – whether this is murder or not is a moot point for pedantic students of theoretical law to discuss.
Therefore the mother is not guilty of murder but she may be guilty of something else, e.g. not assisting in the prevention of murder.
Contrast this with a different scenario; two men have an argument with a third. The 1st man shoots the 3rd man. The 2nd man does nothing to help the 3rd man live but has not directly killed the 3rd man. What his legal position is I don’t know but I can imagine that he would receive some sort of suspended sentence or at least a criminal record.
Does that make sense? If it a sound enough argument then please do not tell any pro-lifers!
A total non-sequitur. And you accuse the pro-lifers of not being able to think clearly?
Punishment under the law depends on culpability, not just the objective actions which has occured. As we are constantly reminded by pro-choicers, women who choose abortion usually find themselves under tremendous pressure and confusion. That should certainly be taken into account when considering punishments.
Considering that a majority of women who get abortions end up with depression and other psychological problems — because they know in their heart they have killed their child — I would advocate mandatory counseling, not jail. Jail time for the doctors and providers, not for the already suffering mothers.
This is just a rhetorical “stopped beating your wife yet?” trick, not an honest attempt to find the truth.
First, thanks to Vox for the shoutout for my site.
Secondly, it still amazes me that the majority of antis think a twenty-minute surgical procedure (two/three days for those going the medical route) is ever so much more horrible than nine months of the most problem-free pregnancy and childbirth. I don’t care how smoothly everything goes, pregnancy is MUCH harder on your body and parenthood is not exactly a trip to the park. The antis thrive on misinformation, which is why I ask the contributors to my site to provide details on their procedures. Your average anti has no idea what happens during an abortion. The biggest mistake that’s been made is making abortion about children, not women, and the antis have been very successful about planting the “killing a baby” idea to replace the “helping the woman” idea.
And FWIW, of course the fetus is human. Then again, the same could be said of a cancer cell.
I just watched the video….that’s fantastic!
The premise of your question alone is short sighted. I am non religous yes I am against abortion. The simple answer is more then likely a charge of manslaughter. Cases already show this to be the right answer. Example: in many states if a drunk runs into another car and the women in said car was with child then and said child dies as a result, no matter what term, that person is charged with manslaughter… How can that be? Why not answer that one. Problem with you liberals is you claim to be open minded yet condem all who do not share your flawed logic.
Your arrogance or ignorance is really tacky I may add. We just had a daughter a week ago and it was unplanned. Now I am glad to know there are people like you who would rather see her in a red bio-hazard bag.
To make it more relevant to the debate, change it so that Man 2 enters into a written contract, under which he will pay Man 1 to kill Man 3. Do you still think Man 2 is innocent of any wrongdoing?
Or what if Man 1 sells drugs to Man 2 that both parties know Man 2 will use to poison and kill Man 1? Is Man 2 innocent under that scenario, too?
Or do doctors just sneak up on women when they’re not looking and perform surprise abortions? Because that’s already totally illegal.
“If abortion isn’t the killing of a human being, then if your mother or wife is pregnant with a child, and someone kills them (her?), is that person only tried for the murder of your mom or wife, and not the child she is carrying?”
The difference from a woman choosing to have an abortion and a woman being killed and having her baby killed, is the woman had a choice to do the former. Yeah, it’s trialed as murder on both accounts, because that’s the way the law sees it. Abortion is legal because a woman should have the right to choose, and it counts as a double murder because no one else has the right to make that decision for her.
Man, you really are pretty naive. What happens if you ask me that question and I say, “Yes. I think there should be a penalty for a woman who has an illegal abortion”?
In the scenario you give, you are assuming that abortion is illegal. If it’s illegal, then the crime is having the abortion itself, period. It’s not necessarily whether or not you murdered an unborn child; it’s that you broke a law.
Is this really something that’s front-page worthy on WordPress? Nice try. Agreeing with so many here: no search for real truth. This is childish.
It reminds me of the “I know you are, but what am I?” comeback.
Sorry, that should be “to poison and kill Man 3″. Apologies for any confusion.
If we let society decide, we’ll probably end up stoning the women on the street where they stand…like some Afghani villages when adultery is committed, for example. But hey, God is good all the time right???
I am saddened by the loss of your faith in God, though I am not here to argue the existence of God.
I would like to make a statement for the “anti-abortionists” – In total disagreement with the very first comment:
“You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.”
The statement is true if you remove “religious” from the statement. It matters not if you are “religious” and therefore have no well-thought-out argument. Fanatics have no well-thought-out arguments. That is foundational to the meaning of “fanatical”, isn’t it?
I also disagree with the conclusion of the post. I am one who is pro-life and though I have not spent a great deal of time considering a punishment for those who have participated in “illegal abortions”, I would support life in prison, etc. along with any other form of murder. If, in the case of a young woman/child who is forced into an “illegal abortion”, it would be my opinion that the adult involved would also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I don’t know where I’d stand on the side of capital punishment. I’m not entirely sure where I stand on capital punishment under our current judicial system anyhow.
Let’s try a little substitution:
In the scenario you give, you are assuming that theft is illegal. If it’s illegal, then the crime is the theft itself, period. It’s not necessarily whether or not you took something that didn’t belong to you; it’s that you broke a law.
At best, you’re quibbling over semantics. At worst, this is utterly meaningless.
It’s not that hard of a question, nor does it “stump” all pro-lifers.
I actually posted on this in July here:
http://defendingcontending.com/2008/07/17/what-is-so-hard-about-this-question/
And my answer is simple:
If abortion is made illegal tomorrow, then those who choose to exterminate their own flesh and blood should suffer the same consequences as Andrea Yates, Susan Smith and every other woman or man who kills the most innocent and defenseless class among us.
Regardless of whether the murders are perpetrated to “win a new boyfriend,” to “ease our financial standing,” or even in obedience to the “voices in your head,” the law is the law is the law.
You see, it’s not that hard of a question after all.
- The Pilgrim
Absence of brain activity is one definition of death, but not one I give much credit after hearing reports of people in a Persistent Vegetative State suddenly waking up again. It is another arbitrary standard to get around our ignorance of what is actually going on when we want to Do Something.
Some people saying they have a license is a far cry from actually having one. Doing something and pretending it is authorized does not make it right. Legislating it to be legal also does not make it right.
It is murder. I think it should be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty just like any other murder.
Wow, you seem to be quite confident in yourself. I personally am pro-life, and I have an answer for you. The women who have illegal abortions should be prosecuted, along with the doctors that perform the abortions. No offense, but it seems to me that pro-abortionists, are the ones thinking illogically. There are many states in which a person can be convicted of two murders for murdering a pregnant woman. Here is my point. It seems the only difference between a human being, and a glob of tissue, is weather or not it is wanted. If a woman wants to carry a child to term, the murderer can be convicted. However, if the woman finds the situation inconvenient and does not want the child, she can murder the child herself and it is considered a ‘choice.’ If the basis human value, is whether or not one is ‘wanted,’ our nation is heading down a scary path…. reminding me of Hitler, Stalin and others who decided a certain race was ‘unwanted,’ and therefore, should be destroyed.
thanks for this post. very interesting. i can’t believe they haven’t even thought of the conclusion of making abortion illegal.
Tell the truth: How many anti-abortionists have you stumped with that question? First things first, is abortion legal? Now, is it legal because nobody knows what to do with women who have an abortion? Or is it legal because even if it were really murder, yet the right to choose is greater than the crime? Or is it legal because it’s got nothing to do with any crime, nor has it with the freedom to choose–it’s just there, like walking, eating, sleeping.
People in a PVS have brain activity, so this is hardly relevant.
You made the claim that (“the last time you checked”) God had not issued any licences to kill. I just asked how you know this, who you checked with, and what evidence you have that all the people who claim to have been explicitly instructed by God to kill people are wrong.
You’re correct that claiming that God told you something doesn’t automatically make it true, but I’d be surprised if you’re claiming that it automatically makes it false. How do you decide?
Very interesting!
I have always asked anti-abortionists how many of the unwanted children, forced to be delivered, would they be adopting. The answer is usually none. They want the child to be born, but they wash their hands of any further social responsibility.
What a fantastic video.
Thanks,
Jeremy
I think the question asked on the video is unfairly framed.
If it were asked by replacing “abortion” with ” abortion of a baby that was crowning”, then I think there would be many that would say “yeah send them and the doctor to jail”.
If you take out the lunatic religious groups, abortion comes down to “when should it be ok?” more than “is it ok?”
It is the TIMING of the abortion that causes people problems.
The abortion debate always reminds me of the debate on the age of consent.
Most people agree there needs to be some kind of line drawn, but any line you draw, is going to have to be arbitrary by someone’s standards.
But still there needs to be a line drawn, to protect those who can not protect themselves.
I feel I’ve been stereo-typed. I’m anti-abortion, but I know I wouldn’t respond as you claim. My answer would be to provide counseling for the woman who had the illegal abortion. They will have gone through a traumatic experience, perhaps made more so by it being illegal. They don’t need punishment. I know a few women who have had abortions, and they tend to punish themselves enough. What they need is help in coping with the decision that they have made.
@viratas:
Congrats on the baby!
BTW, I don’t think any of us here like abortion. I don’t like it and there are only rare situations where I would advise it. But because of that, I think it should be legal and safe. Yes, and rare.
I never checked, it was facetious. And almost as silly as someone claiming to have a license to kill issued by God.
Two years imprisonment.
It’s not hard to make a liberal look retarded, which they do on a daily basis. gg.
I thought the video was very telling and I thoroughly enjoyed watching them squirm. But I also think abortion should be cheap, readily available, and performed in hospitals instead of isolated clinics that are nothing more than targets for lunatic protesters.
One of the questions about illegal abortion that has always bothered me is, what do we do with a woman who professes a desire to get an abortion? Do we call the police and lock her in jail until she comes to term? Are we guilty of conspiracy to commit murder if we don’t? Does the state take the child away? I mean, she considered murdering her child, right? Can the state compel you to have children, only to take them away? That’s and incredibly frightening thing to contemplate.
Other things to consider: in order to indict doctors, it would be necessary to examine the medical records of patients and make them publicly available. In cases where medical records were not proof enough, would women suspected of having abortions be forced to undergo medical examinations? What sort of search and seizure requirements would there be for such a thing? Could the government monitor medical records they way they can monitor financial records?
What about cases of rape? What if you can’t prove you’ve been raped? Could the state compel women to carry to term because they can’t prove that a rape occurred? How would that impinge on a woman’s right to privacy, health, liberty or autonomy?
These are disquieting questions. Which is probably why abortion is generally ignored in places where it is illegal. Most people are not comfortable forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and the invasive, draconian measures that would be required to prosecute are usually not particularly popular.
It is easier to simply turn a blind eye to it and pat yourself on the back for defending innocent babies and the morality of females. Here’s an interesting discussion of abortion in Brazil, where abortion is illegal. (It is also the third most prevalent cause for maternal death, which tells us a great deal about the difference between what people profess to believe and their actions.)
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/28/in-brazil-decriminalization-abortion-gains-new-urgency
“If someone tells you “God told me to do X”, how do you decide if God really told them? Do you just assume that God never tells anyone anything? Or do you just compare it to your own moral compass, and assume that God would never tell anyone to do anything that you personally disagree with?”
Wintermute, what if God say to me: “I do not command anything, just a bunch of ignorant, superstititous, blood-thirsty, power-hungry pricks invoking my name whenever they do anything they please.”
No, seriously. How do you know what God tells people? Why is it silly to think that he might tell people to kill? I mean, the OT is chock full of precedent. And, even in the NT, there’s Luke 19:27.
If someone tells you “God told me to do X”, how do you decide if God really told them? Do you just assume that God never tells anyone anything? Or do you just compare it to your own moral compass, and assume that God would never tell anyone to do anything that you personally disagree with?
The mother didn’t take the life as much as she allowed the life to be taken, therefore, it would seem to me the punishment would be handed out to the Dr. or other practitioner performing the illegal abortion, thus eliminating abortions by eliminating (locking up) those who perform them.
I’m not advocating for that, mind you, as much as noting the flaw in your original question. The woman is NOT taking the life, a Dr. is.
So perhaps the better question is: What punishment would you give to the mother who willfully allowed her child to be killed?
By loading the question with inaccuracy, you set the respondent up for failure. If we are ever to have peace on hot-button issues such as this, it will first require open communication, on both sides, with valid points, respect, listening, and understanding, but if the purpose of the exercise is simply to make another look like a fool, has anyone really won anything? Perhaps in the smug nature of it all we have done nothing more than enrage our opponent?
Abortion is a volatile topic. Wisdom, understanding, and love is required for a healthy discussion or debate.
Brilliant. These people use God as an excuse not to use their brains. Now THAT is retarded.
I’m prochoice. A woman’s body is her body. I do NOT believe in using abortion as a means of birth control, but if the mother was raped or is addicted to horrible drugs and knows she can’t take care of the child to the best of her ability, it would be murder to carry on would it not?
Here is a the wikipedia entry for abortion in Chile, where it is illegal even in cases of rape or to save the mother’s life. I don’t know about you all, but this doesn’t even remotely resemble anything like what most of us would consider a sound public policy. Not suprisingly, abortion is the leading cause of maternal death there.
Take particular note of the part about how hospital staff interrogate women who seek help after botched abortions, and that this is primarily how women who have had abortions are caught. If you seek treatment for a botched abortion, it is likely you will spend the rest of your life in prison. Could you even imagine what it would be like to make that choice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Chile
I think it’s funny how anyone at all would try to throw religious arguments into the deal when it is far and few between that any of you even understand the religion you follow in the first place. “I’m willing to admit to you that there is a god as long as you’re wiling to admit to me that you know not what god is.” How many of you even know the word that “god” was translated from? It was a word meaning that, there was this (everything we do understand) and there was that (everything that we don’t understand.) The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of things that you and I and the next person just don’t understand. In order to get a better understanding you need to look at everything in life from all perspectives. I’m not saying that I understand so don’t even try to argue with me on that point. That is just it I don’t and either do any of you, we can only understand what we can measure with our senses and even then it is all about your perspective. There isn’t anyone in here that has a right to tell another human being what they should or should not do only “god” has that right and if you think you’re going to get answers from him in a book then you my friend are a fool. Whether or not you believe that they spoke to god or not the fact is, all the books on this planet were still written by men, mortal men with as much room for error as you and I. You know even the bible tells you that the only real answers are found within, that means sitting in silence, relaxed and meditating on what it is you want to learn. And for those of you who say “it’s easy to sit and talk about being good but try getting up and doing something about it”… like what? What is anyone on this post able to do to just quickly fix a problem like abortion? I mean come on let’s get realistic here, everyone on this planet lives a different life, has had different things happen to them and ultimately could have an infinite number of reasons to have an abortion in the first place. One of the main reasons women end up having abortions is that the world is so screwed up right now a lot of us really can’t afford to have any more children. The ONLY way ANY of the problems we have are going to change is if we change ourselves. That means being the best person you can be, giving life everything that you have, doing everything in your power to affect those around you in a positive way and making the best of every situation. My question is when did we all forget this??? I bet all our 4 and 5 year old kids still get it…
The above circular argument is truly ridiculous. One can be against abortion without calling abortion “murder.” An act need not be considered murder (“unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought”) to be considered unethical.
We have all kinds of legal codes punishing men, women, and children who take human lives in an unethical way, but who we judge have not committed murder. For example: Manslaughter, Involuntary manslaughter, Vehicular homicide, and Criminally negligent manslaughter.
So I can freely admit that abortion is almost never murder and still maintain it should be illegal.
Furthermore, we have laws for which there is no real punishment. For example, it is illegal to commit suicide. No one would think of suggesting that a suicide (or even an attempted suicide) should be punished.
If I express a desire to commit suicide, I can be placed in a mental hospital against my will until such time as I am no longer suicidal. However, if I attempt suicide and survive, I will not be punished in any way at all. The point is to have measures in place to keep people from doing things, not just to punish them once they’ve done it.
A few things to know about me:
-I absolutely believe abortion is murder.
-I would support jail time for women who chose abortions, doctors who performed them, and/or husbands or boyfriends who pressured women into getting an abortion. I would probably say a life sentence is, however excessive, and the death penalty…well, doesn’t that kind of contradict the whole idea of pro-life?
-I feel that in exceptional cases, like endangerment of the life of the mother, abortion could be a viable option and should not be criminalized. In cases of rape or incest, the jury still seems to be out on whether a woman experiences more psychological harm carrying such a child to term, or aborting it, so I can’t really give an opinion on this yet.
-I was raised Catholic, but am now agnostic, and religion is not a big part of my life.
-I have zero problem with contraception, and am more liberal on many other subjects, including homosexuality and even zoophilia in some cases (I’d be happy to argue that, but that’s a whole other ball game). I consider myself moral without being religious. I voted for Obama, but don’t consider myself easily fitting into any one political philosophy.
Debate on! :)
I really hope you all wake up soon…
Right, it should clearly be considered vehicular manslaughter.
If abortion is illegal, then what part of your definition of “murder” does it fail to meet? Is the victim not a “person”? Does the mother not act with “malice aforethought” (that is, does she not deliberately intend to have an abortion)? Is abortion not actually a “killing”? Which category would you put it into?
Suicide is not illegal in any state in America. In those places where it is (or was) illegal (England until 1961, India, Italy, for example), it’s not uncommon for failed suicides to be punished under the law. So it’s clearly not as unthinkable as you think.
Unbelievable. I’ve never seen such stark cognitive dissonance before. Simply fascinating.
Clever question.
I’m a staunch pro-lifer who’d like to know why it has to be an exclusively “either/or” question. Consider the “both/and” option.
Abortion is the killing of a human being (girls, ever been pregnant with a frog?). However, the answer is *not* to throw women in jail.
The answer is true compassion: help them, support them (financially at every opportunity), and adopt their children if they find that they have no interest in parenthood. How is it that murder is the answer? Just because you don’t see the body being cut into pieces doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
The emotional toll of abortion on our nation’s women (and her men) is a shameful embarrassment for every thinking person in this country. To chop up the unborn and throw them into the trash? THIS is the best we can do for someone in a crisis situation?
Try again. With real love and compassion this time.
(And, yes, I have given personally, financially, etc–my money is where my mouth is)
In nefworldwide’s world, it’s simply inconceivable that a woman could rationally decide to end her pregnancy and take action to effect that goal.
Sweet zombie jeebus.
There are a few rational mistakes in this point worth point out.
First, assuming that abortion were made illegal and because it was determined to be morally wrong, merely because some religious people don’t know the appropriate punishment for an illegal abortion doesn’t confirm that there are no appropriate punishments for illegal abortion. We aren’t obligated to punish all instances of murder in the exact same fashion, in the same way that we aren’t obligated to punish all instances of stealing in the exact same fashion. As it turns out, we are allowed to make relevant distinctions for the sake of punishment, and the death of an actually existing, as opposed to potentially existing, life is such a relevant distinction.
Further, I see no reason why it is “absurd or unfair” to imprison a woman (and a complicit mate) for an illegal abortion. We needn’t imprison her for life – perhaps one or two years is sufficient for the purpose of deterring future such actions. (I suppose one could conjecture that it is “unfair” to the woman, when the man is just as deserving. But this is not the case. Her biological situation in determining moral culpability is no more relevant than my psychological situation. Those are simply the facts. It would be unfair if we treated relevant KINDS differently.)
Great question. But it’s really a straw man. Here’s why:
Yes, the choice to have the abortion is (mostly) the woman’s. (I’m not going to go into the whole idea that women have abortion often because they feel pressured into it by the *men* in their lives–that’s too much rant to fit into a comment.) Whether she acknowledges it or not, a woman in this situation is a victim and she will bear emotional scars from this event for the rest of her life.
So, who is the one who victimizes the woman? The doctor who performs the execution of the child. It is the doctor who has the advanced degrees, the certifications and the power to save life or kill. It is also the doctor who violates the Hippocratic oath: “Do no harm.” When abortion again becomes illegal, these doctors are the ones who must pay the penalty, if they perform illegal abortions. (Keep in mind, “ex post facto” and “habius corpus” will come into play for doctors who currently practice this barbarism, but who stop once it ceases to be lucrative and politically correct.)
A Christian response: love the injured woman. And protect more women and children from being brutalized and killed.
I believe that abortion is murder and I believe that if it were to be made illegal than the punishment should fit the crime of murder. Whatever the punishment is for premeditated murder, then that is what it should be for having an abortion. I also think you did a great job on your video for two reasons. 1) From a production stand point I thought it was simple, to the point and well done. 2) It is a wake up call for so many in the church to get educated on the issues. If we are going to talk about something then we had better know what we are talking about.
“If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.” -House, M.D.
It is incredible that they could not produce the standard anti-abortion punishment stance: punish the doctors and technicians that illegally provide abortions, not the women. Unbelievable, really.
that doesn’t stump me at all of course people are going to do bad things. Hey its legal do what you want, in my opinion if you are willing to kill a baby then that’s something you should be able to do, just remember you’ll forever be a murderer
@ tnameat
mark: Hey its legal do what you want, in my opinion if you are willing to kill a baby then that’s something you should be able to do, just remember you’ll forever be a murderer
mark: Would this also apply to god, when he drowned all of those babies during the the flood?
Let’s start with declaration of interest:
* I don’t believe in God, though I used to.
* I’m not in favour of abortion but do not believe it should be illegal.
The point is, this video is not about either of these points.
This video is about the delusion that if you make something illegal it will stop.
We’ve had examples of this in the UK:
1) Some nutter with a handgun shot some schoolkids (can you imagine such barbarity?) so the government banned handguns. We don’t have an olympic handgun team any more but ont he bright side it’s now impossible for criminals and nutters to get handguns because they’re illegal, right?
2) A minority with a class-war axe to grind campaigned for many years to outlaw the traditional rural pest-control procedure of fox hunting and a few years ago were successful. Now it’s illegal, it doesn’t happen any more, right?
This is the problem here: people are taking up resources and time- and not only their own – in the totally deluded belief that changing the law back will change human behaviour.
Should fewer abortions take place? I think so. But trying to contain demand by restricting supply never works. The change will come by better education and hygiene, by removing social stigma from single mothers, by more effective deterrence for rapists, by a change in popular culture that moves away from the Live Fast Die Young ethos that seems to permeate it and by a thousand other social changes.
They may feel that by making a change in the law they would be actually doing something, but in fact the short cut (the wide and easy road) always makes things worse. It makes you feel powerful for a moment, but that’s all. And making lobby groups feel powerful is not the proper purpose of any legislature.
The route I’m suggesting, longer and narrower and harder and twistier and with no obvious connection between what you do and the improvements that spring from it; that is the route that will actually bring about real, lasting, positive change.
@ tnameat
Sorry I made a mistake in my last message
” Hey its legal do what you want, in my opinion if you are willing to kill a baby then that’s something you should be able to do, just remember you’ll forever be a murderer”
mark:mark: Would this also apply to god, when he drowned all of those babies during the the flood?
If you had asked an abolitionist in the 1700′s (excepting the radical militant kind) what should be done with slave owners, you might have gotten a similar response. They simply wanted slaves to be free. We can look back and suggest that the slave owners probably deserved punishment.
In the same way, IF abortion were banned (if the unborn were emancipated from death?) then in 100 years people may look back and say that abortionist did deserve punishment. In the moment it is difficult to so quickly condemn our friends and neighbors to punishment for something that has been condoned by our society for many years.
Here’s a different case study. What if the Supreme Court made a decision that babies were not cognizant, living beings until they were able to answer yes or no questions? (“Do you want me to feed you?”)
And by this decision they made infanticide a choice for parents to make until some subjective point of development. I think that is comparable to how some cases are handled at the end of life. Would this be acceptable to Americans? And why? Lord, I hope not.
How many unwanted, uncared for, beaten, & whatever else exist in this world already? Why are we so worried about…
Ok, let me clarify, I believe if a woman is to have an abortion it should be done within the first few weeks, & that’s it. These late-term abortions are sickening to me & should only be allowed if the woman has some serious health issues & decides she doesn’t want to risk her life. I wish all of these protesters would worry more about the millions of unwanted kids already on this planet before they worry about bringing another unwanted, & probably uncared for, to be beaten or murdered. (I’m sure you all have heard about the Casey Anthony story & her daughter Caylee. She didn’t want the baby, actually wanted to give her up for adoption & was forced to keep her. Now we all know what happened.)
Please worry about the actual children already here & not the cell(s) that would be removed from someone who is not fit to be a mother. What would the child’s life be like? Thank you…
Why do people get abortions in this country?
Could it possibly be because we have no decent sex education in America? Could it possibly be because many people are too impoverished?
I am by no means “for” abortion. I can’t think of anyone who is.
I want to reduce abortion as much as possible, but I see no point in outlawing it when we still have other paralyzing social problems in America which will still cause people to get abortions.
Most “pro-lifers” object to competant, comprehensive sex education for children. Most “pro-lifers” are their own worst nightmare, enabling a whole new generation of women seeking abortions every time they fail to properly educate their children about sex.
Abstinence-only sex education is one of the biggest debacles I have ever encountered. We will always have abortion in this country, whether it is illegal or not, until we have better sex education, access to birth control, and more serious methods of eliminating poverty.
Also, I agree that there are many complicated moral boundaries in this issue. When does a fetus reach personhood is probably the main issue of importance once all the other social considerations are resolved. I think the best we could do may just be an arbitrary marker. However, I think we should err on the side of the fetus’ viability in drawing this line.
Alas, the first things we need to do are increase access to REAL sex education and make it more bearable to raise children in America before we can even start in earnest on this abortion issue.
Whether or not one person couldn’t answer this question is moot. Human life is Sacred, regardless of how one person answers a question. I don’t know what should be done with women who have illegal abortions. It’s not my job to know. I’ll stick to the simple fact that Life is Sacred, and should be prized above all things.
Jordan.
This is a touchy and emotional subject. Your title is divisive and lacks any and all common sense. However you ask a very important question, if abortion is illegal should the mother be punished? Is a fair question and it is shameful to say the least that the people opposing the murder of a child in the womb (abortion) could not answer correctly. But your title is divisive and disrespectful. You will call it abortion We call it Murder. Now here is my answer before the right of the people was stolen by the government via the Supreme Court in 1973-74 and instead of the people deciding the matter in their respecting states, not only was murder in the womb (abortion) illegal, woman who committed this horrendous act were punished. I oppose Murder in the womb and I strongly believe that the woman needs to be punished. Does she deserve death no punish her do not take her life because then, those of us who oppose the murder of the baby in the womb are no different than those that are ok with the act in essence making me a hypocrite.
I deal with this question extensively in my book Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Here’s an excerpt (endnotes omitted):
According to abortion-choice supporters, if abortion is made illegal, then many women will be prosecuted, convicted, and/or sentenced for murder (a capital offense in some states), because the changed law will entail that abortion in almost every circumstance entails the unjustified and premeditated killing of an innocent human person (the unborn). Abortion-choice activists argue that such a situation will unnecessarily cause emotional and familial harm to women who are already in a difficult situation. Such laws, if they are instituted, will lack compassion. But, according to the abortion-choice supporter, if the prolifer is to remain consistent with her position that the unborn are human persons, then she must institute such compassion-lacking laws. On the other hand, if the prolifer does not insitute such laws, then it is highly doubtful that she really believes that the unborn are human persons. In any event, the prolife position appears to be inconsistent.
There are several problems with this argument. First, if this argument is correct about the prolifer’s inconsistency, it does not prove that the unborn are not human persons or that abortion is not a great moral evil. It simply reveals that prolifers are unwilling to “bite the bullet” and consistently apply their position. The fact that prolifers may possess this character flaw does not mean that their arguments for the unborn’s full humanity are flawed.
Second, this argument ignores the pre-legalization laws and penalties for illegal abortion and possible reasons why they were instituted. Although it is clear that these laws considered the unborn human persons, in most states women were granted immunity from prosecution and in other states the penalties were very light. As I noted in chapter 2, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade employed these latter two facts, and did not properly assess the former, to conclude that state anti-abortion statutes were not intended to protect the unborn’s life but only to protect maternal health, and that this was not consistent with the view offered by the state of Texas that the unborn is a human person under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The problem with the Court’s conclusion is that it did not take into consideration the possible reasons why the statutes granted women immunity and light sentences, especially in light of the fact that in other places the law considered the unborn persons. Legal scholar James Witherspoon suggests three reasons: (1) legislators might have thought of the aborting woman as a desperate victim; (2) the paternalism of the era, which limited women’s civil rights but might have considered the aborting woman more of a victim rather than a perpetrator; and (3) the legislators might have granted her immunity (or a light penalty) for the reason of prosecuting and insuring a conviction for the crime, since all the witnesses (the abortionist, any assistants, and the woman) would likely also be perpetrators of the crime, the woman possibly being the only victim among them. Witherspoon explains these reasons in greater detail:
Thus, it seems likely that by prudently balancing the unborn’s personhood, the evil of abortion, the desperation of the woman, and the need for evidence in order to insure a conviction, jurists and legislators in the past believed that the best way to prevent abortions from occurring and at the same time uphold the sanctity of human life was to criminalize abortion, prosecute the abortionist, grant immunity or a light penalty to the woman, and show her compassion by recognizing that she is the second victim of abortion.
Consequently, if abortion is made illegal because the law comes to recognize the unborn as intrinsically valuable human persons, legislatures, while crafting laws and penalties, and courts, while making judgments as to sentencing, will have to take into consideration the following facts. (1) Unborn human beings are full-fledged members of the human community and to kill them with no justification is unjustified homicide. (2) Because of a general lack of understanding of the true nature of the unborn child–likely due to decades of cultural saturation by abortion-choice rhetoric and little serious philosophical reflection on the prolife position by the general public–most citizens who procure abortions do so out of well-meaning ignorance. (3) The woman who will seek and obtain an illegal abortion is really a second victim. Women who seek illegal abortions will probably do so out of desperation. Not realizing at the time of the abortion that the procedure kills a real human being, some of these women suffer from depression and guilt feelings after finding out the true nature of the unborn. And because both those who may encourage these women to seek an illegal abortion (family and friends), as well as the abortionist who will be paid for performing this deed, have no intention of discouraging her, it is likely that the pregnant woman will not be fully informed of the unborn’s nature (e.g., “You’re not carrying a baby, it’s a `product of conception,’ `blob of tissue,’ `a bunch of cells,’ etc.”). (4) Even if his intention may be to help the woman, the illegal abortionist will not be ignorant of the demands and purpose of the law and the nature of the being that the abortion kills. However, because juries may be reluctant to sentence such a physician to decades in prison let alone the death penalty, a lighter penalty may be easier to secure. (5) The government has an interest in preventing unjustified and premeditated killing of human beings, whether born or unborn, who live within its jurisdiction. Legislators and jurists that intend to pass and enforce laws and penalties prohibiting almost all abortions, if they are to be just, fair, and compassionate, must take into consideration these five points, as the legislators and jurists of the past did prior to the legalization of abortion. There is no doubt, therefore, that the law will reflect these sentiments if abortion is made illegal again.
Third, given my second response to this argument, those who defend it seem to embrace a simplistic view of the purpose of criminal law and the penalties for violating it. For sometimes the purpose of a penalty is to provide an incentive to a polity for the realization of the best possible circumstances for eliminatation of the prohibited act and protection for its victim, precisely because the act in question and the violation of its victim so morally trangresses what is good. For example, in some states it is a capital offense to kill a police officer in the line of duty but not an ordinary citizen on the job, but this does not mean that the ordinary citizen has less value as a person than the police officer. Consequently, precisely because prohibiting the act of abortion advances the public good–because abortion entails in most cases the unjustified killing of an unborn human being–a prudent legislature will take into consideration all the variables and types of individuals ordinarily involved in the act in order to protect as many unborn human beings as possible.
The question is not what should be done with women who have abortions, but what should be done to make sure women don’t feel abandoned and alone when expecting a baby. That’s the main reason abortions happen.
This is to markbey
mark: Would this also apply to god, when he drowned all of those babies during the the flood?
You need to do more research on this subject before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself. There were many reason why The Master and Creator had to flood the earth and yes all those people Die. There was a reason why that happen.
The reason why the flood happen read Genesis ch. 6 on the NKJV read it all and then google Nephilim, Gregoria, Sumerian, Anunaki.
Also read Romans 1:21-23
Just helping Mark
This is my reply to Markbey
Just wanted to add, I am pro life, but I agree that changing laws won’t help anything. We need more support for women in difficult positions in this society. And a greater respect for life. Both of those things, if taken seriously, can lessen abortions and save lives.
How silly and naive is this?
That would be like asking people what they think about driving drunk, and then asking if they have any relatives that are alcoholics.
By asking a loaded question, ANYONE is bound to react the same way; with a good amount of confusion for being put on the spot like this.
IF the anti-abortionists HAD spoken truthfully, saying yes, the woman deserves jail time, because … she BROKE THE LAW, then what would have been the reaction of the person asking the question? Would he or she have fired off another, loaded bomb, to further back the person into a corner?
Why am I never around when sh*t like this occurs?
I think they should be severely punished, and I’m not even what you would call fundamentalist. Yes you can’t fix the baby with punishment. Neither can a murderer’s crime.
Let’s stump the abortion idiots with one question : a human nervous system becomes operational and takes control of the muscles on the 18th day of pregnancy (any embryologist will tell you it is perfectly possible to give the exact minute the brain starts up in an embryo). Whatever any atheist could consider a soul, or the ability to feel pain, panic, they’re all present before even the third week of pregnancy.
In other words, an 18 days old feutus is every bit as human, has the same learning functions as any other human being. It may not look like one, but the (according to atheists) differing characteristic, a learning, functioning and even dreaming brain is there – at least 1.5 weeks before a VERY observant woman would know she’s pregnant. 6 weeks before even a gynacologist would advise to do a pregnancy test to check for a pregnancy (ie more than 1 period missed).
So in reality there isn’t a single abortion that isn’t killing a being that feels (a lot) of pain. It just can’t be done. So if you can kill a living, breathing (even if not using lungs yet), thinking and dreaming human baby, while it screams in pain, why can’t I kill you ? Painfully of course : by slowly cutting you to pieces.
After all, abortion, in the general sense (without medical need) is killing for convenience. And I just really think your face is stinking up the room. So let’s do some aesthetic killing. For my convenience.
What is wrong with that ? Should I be punished for that ? It won’t bring back your ugly face, which can only be called a fortunate fact of the world.
I would dare everyone here : look to a movie made of an actual abortion at even 6-7 weeks. You will notice something : the baby FIGHTS the scissors and the knives. Every aborted baby fights for his life for at least several minutes. They grab the scissors, which only results in their hands getting cut off. They panic, and they start shaking all over. They move as wild and as hard as they can. They panic, you almost think they’re crying. But the metal keeps coming at them.
That is what an abortion is. And some people here are no doubt members of peta and don’t see the irony.
Don’t kill babies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvshMADC7s0& (watch it, I dare you, you will not be pro-abortion after this movie unless you’re not human)
And docters : the oath of hippocrates, the basic condition to learning the profession of medicine clearly and literally states that nothing you learn may be used to help a woman abort a baby. In addition to breaking the law, you are breaking the trust of the people who taught you medicine, you are breaking a contract, and going back on an oath. Any docter that performs an abortion deserves to die. And that’s merciful : they really deserve the fate of the babies they slowly cut to pieces. To panic, wildly screaming while scissors move in and cut deeper into them. That’s what they deserve.
Abortion = convenience killing. Nothing else.
Including my own Blog on the subject:
http://rightsandcompassion.wordpress.com/
If fetuses are “humans” then why is the anti-abortion crowd not calling for a funeral service to be held every time a woman has a miscarriage? After all, a person died, according to their definition. Have you ever heard of any such thing? Not me.
It is not reasonable to convict the mother of an aborted child of murder since she didn’t actually commit the murder, Perhaps conspiracy to commit or some lesser form of manslaughter. The point is it isn’t up to anyone to decide to end a life. It wasn’t given by you nor is it up to you to end. That is just ethical even beyond anything religious. When there are so many people that want kids why would you kill one for your own selfish gain. In most cases it is preventable so take the necessary steps not to get pregnant.
Peter is right, there should be more attention and reference given when a fetus dies. That is a mistake of the anti-abortionist crowd. There are plenty of people in the world who don’t get the care they deserve, sadly. However, that does not make fetuses inhuman.
I am ANTI-ABORTION and I am not stumped in the slightest by this question.
Abortion is murder and those who commit murder should be charged with murder.
Where’s the confusion?
If you think there is no difference between an INNOCENT baby being killed and a GUILTY mother being punished (in whatever manner the court decides is appropriate) because she killed her INNOCENT baby then you are crazy and are at least as dumb as the people you are trying to make fun of.
You do realize that there is no statute of limitations for murder? That if abortion was declared murder and illegal in the US that *every woman* who obtained an abortion could be jailed or executed? What if that was your grandmother or sister? Still believe in it if it is someone you know and love?
How about this sort of interview to trap prochoicers in their own rhetoric:
Questioner: If you knew that a group of people were doing things that could result in women’s deaths, do you think those people should themselves be prosecuted by law enforcement?
Answer: Yes, of course.
Questioner: So, you’re saying that prolife citizens should be thrown in jail, since according to your rhetoric, what they are doing–trying to make abortion illegal–will result in women’s deaths?
Answer: aaaaaaaaaaaa
Here’s another question: “What’s your first memory?” or “Can you tell me about your time in the womb?”
Andruz, I don’t remember my first day of Preschool. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Or that I’m inhuman. I was simply too young to remember it.
This should not be about winning an argument but about saving a life. There are many good people who would love to raise a child and they can’t, why not give it up for adoption?
I think it takes a lot of strength to give a baby up for adoption, it’s not an easy thing to carry a baby to term you know you’re giving away. That’s what makes it such a special, wonderful thing to do.
Abortion is an easy way out.
To the person who wrote this Blog, you say you were once a very passionate Christian and now seem to have gone to the other extreme. It’s your own business of course and I don’t want to butt in, but there is also the option of balance. I am a Christian but also a very frequent skeptic. ;)
Aside from the civil law err in offering only offering one action as punishment, the death penalty, again I see the core problem with people trying to discuss what is perceived and understood through faith or scientific reason. Science is not against religion. Nor is religion an antagonist of science. They are two different disciplines used to experience two different aspects of human place in the universe. If both were made into people, neither would recognize the existence of the other when passing on the street. Each using two completely different methods of gathering and discerning information. Religious people are incorrect when trying to use faith to explain scientific matters just as science minded people are wrong in using what they think is science to discuss faith. Too often, I see “educated people” abusing the core of science – the scientific method – in making claims against religion. For a true scientist, something must be tested; something objective or observable. When people make claims that science disproves something of religion. Science has stopped being Science and has become that person’s Religion.
I’m certain the author of this message realizes that ‘unreasonable faith’ is in fact, “superfluously redundant”. The core of Faith is to draw a conclusion through subjective experience and resides outside and independent of objective trial. Just as Science resides outside and independent of subjective bias. Do you, the reader, use the disciplines correctly or do you use them incorrectly like using Grammar to explain Mathematics; “at” is a preposition because 5-3=2?
I’d have no problem with an answer – throw them in gaol, just like any other murderer.
I dont think Abortion should be Illigal but cant but admire some of those anti abortion folk taking time out from there lives to repesent a cause that they believe in.
Cant you see they just want less featuses to be aborted who they see as already living children. They dont want woman to be put in jail for it.
This line of questioning does not discredit there stance in the slightest.
You have to admit that last one knew what she was talking about, and had a valid reply.
actually, i HAVE thought about this issue.
and i haven’t completely thought it through, but if the law finally acknowledges this act as murder, the woman who chose to have her unborn child terminated should receive the consequences of her decision.
and ultimately, the cost will be or has been paid.
thank you for the thought-provoking post! =)
“They know it’s absurd and unfair”
Don’t lump us all together by making general accusations about how we think. Life in prison or even the death penalty is not absurd or unfair for a woman who has an illegal abortion. It’s a life, whether you think so or not and severe consequences should be the price that has to be paid for taking it. Maybe if jail or the death penalty were the consequences for this heinous act, people would think twice before acting. Maybe more women would seek other ways of dealing with their stupidity – like giving the baby up for adoption to the millions of families in America who unfortunately cannot have children of their own.
What is absurd and unfair is that millions of people in this great country are willing to believe that man developed from some mucus off a beach somewhere billions of years ago, but won’t accept that a child in the womb for fewer than twelve weeks isn’t a person even though fingers, toes, and facial expressions are present.
SMILE, YOUR MOM CHOSE LIFE!
Btw, I’m pro life and anti death penalty. Such people do exist. ;)
We were all fetuses once. For us to stand back and thank goodness we’re no longer elligable for death is very sad. This issue affects us all.
@Francis Beckwith:
Hey thanks for your comment! Though we disagree, I respect your work.
@Peter:
Excellent point!
Justahostess made a good point, we believe in evolution, the idea that humans orginated from non humans (which I do). Yet we then turn around and say fetuses aren’t human (when they are simply humans in the early stages of life).
Hi.
Woman who has had an abortion here, and very thankful not to be in jail. I was very pro-abortion until I had one and had no idea the pain and grief that would come afterwards.
But not a day goes by when I don’t think about the decision I made. I wish I’d made a more courageous one.I thought abortion was the easy way out. It was for the short term. Not for the long term. I ended up studying women’s health at uni, and I worked in hospitals. I realised abortion is terminating not just ‘life’ but human life.
But I’m not going to get out my placard, and start protesting to make abortion illegal. Because to be honest I don’t want to go back to the days of women dying from backstreet abortions they’ve sought in desperation.
I believe God gave us free will. Choices to make. I’d rather educate and give information – here’s the facts – here’s ALL your options and it’s up to you to make the choice you want to make. And I’ll be there for you – no matter what happens. I might not agree with all the choices you make, but I’ll still listen, I’ll still be your friend. I can’t judge, because I’m not perfect, I’ve made make mistakes and so have you and every other person in this world.
I wish ‘the church’ (and I speak to myself as much as I do to anyone else) would stop messing up the gospel and.
No wonder Gandhi said ‘I like your Christ, but I don’t like your Christians’.
The pro-lifers seem to fall into three different catagories in their response to the videographer:
1. Abortion is a taking of human life and is therefore murder. This group scares me but they do get points for a high degree of internal consistency of argument — just like the taliban. They fail to acknowledge they have picked an arbitrary developmental point — an egg has a sperm pop into it and that is when it gets full human rights based on what?
2. Abortion is the premeditated taking of human life but should not be punished or very lightly punished. What part of murder don’t you understand?
3. Abortion may or may not be the taking of a human life but is unethical and should therefore be illegal. If one cannot or does not account a blastocyst as a full human being then how can you equate it’s rights to that of the carrier?
We are asking for logical consistency based on an adequate knowledge of biology. That is all.
I’d be all for sending them to prison. Breaking the law is breaking the law. I have no sympathy for them.
I’m a Christian. I don’t think abortion should be illegal. This is my opinion.
I don’t think rape victims should be sent to prison.
The Taliban wants to destroy life. Pro-lifers want to save it.
And the pro abortion stance does not hold up under biology at all. People turn summersalts just to justify it. Sorry but you can’t have everything you want in life.
To both pro lifers and pro choicers, we should be volunteering at women’s shelters to make sure abortions don’t happen in the first place. Not arguing about whether or not the baby should be killed. Let’s stop it before it even needs to happen.
How to stump pro-abortions who ask the question: what happens to the mother? Point out to them that prior to — hmm — 1973? — abortion WAS illegal.
What happened to the mother? Usually she had the baby. Many of you writing are here for that very reason — because great Grandmama had the baby.
But what makes you think that women all want to kill their children? (Prior to modern times, that is?)
As to women who had illegal abortions, I suspect that many of them regretted their actions when they realized fully what they had done and what they had lost.
That’s a complex question, but does not negate abortion’s ethical consequences. Should mothers who kill their unborn children go to jail? Well, if they kill their already-born kids we send them to prison.
Sorry, you didn’t get this pro-lifer.
El Salvador actively imprisons women who get abortions. Doctors are expected to rat out their patients. Just in case anyone is curious what such a system would be like. (In summary: nasty.)
That’s true Ann’s New Friend, most people end up having their babies I imagine. I don’t understand this obsession with death in our culture (fighting for abortion and euthanasia rights).
Peter wrote:
“If fetuses are “humans” then why is the anti-abortion crowd not calling for a funeral service to be held every time a woman has a miscarriage? After all, a person died, according to their definition. Have you ever heard of any such thing? Not me.”
Um, yes. My sister lost her baby at 8 months. I saw Ethan in the hospital and I went to his funeral. One of the few times I’ve cried as an adult. It was a long time before my sister was the same again, if she even is now.
In India and China, women have abortions because the baby is a girl. What does that have to do with women’s rights?
Question-I-thority,
So if I have a consistent, central ideology I’m as bad as the Taliban???
Abortion is murder. Period. Therefore, if it was illegal, which it should be, it should carry the same sentance as any pre-meditated murder.
Just because you found a group of yahoos who don’t think things trhough, does not mean that all pro-lifers are that way.
The only thing that has been proven is that not everyone thinks for themselves.
I am sure I can find pro-abortionist who are the same way.
What strange reasoning Daniel Florien’s is.
Even if some people have difficulty countenancing severe sentences to women who illegally abort, that does NOT mean that “they know abortion is not really murder.” There is no logical relationship between the two.
Just think: There are many people (including me) who are against capital punishment even for murderers, but we still nevertheless “know” that they did commit murder.
Great Post. I believe women should have the right but there are certain stipulations to that. This is obviously a complicated issue, so many super pro-lifers will look past the joke and the lightheartedness that I saw in th post. A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. For all those religious, bible toting people it should be known that God always gives people free will and yes, a choice. He never forced anyone to do anything. If there are consequences, that should be between the woman and Him. Abortion is a tough decision to make, there should be other explored alternatives before choosing to abort.
Eowyn wrote:
Just think: There are many people (including me) who are against capital punishment even for murderers, but we still nevertheless “know” that they did commit murder.
Thank you! That’s exactly right. :)
Here’s an idea, for every illegal abortion commited the mother who aboted the baby must dedicate 30 hours a week unpaid in an abortion clinic (until they’re all closed down) and 30 hours a week in a orphanage for one month. it may not be the ultimate answer but it will lend support to otherwise ailing welfare depraved entities and may just free up funds that governement pays out for these establishments.
Free will doesn’t mean nothing you choose to do is wrong. There are consequences.
And it’s not just between the person and God. That is why we have laws in our society.
As I said, people turn summersalts just to justify the prochoice position.
Hi,I am one of those anti-abortion people.I was not given a chance to answer your question,so thanks for the chance now.If abortion was illegal,then it stands to reason there would be some punishment,such as time in jail.I personally am sorry to say of all the women,and girls,that I’ve come across in need of help following an abortion, they were already serving a sentence.That sentence is the knowledge that the”choice”once made can never be reversed.Many are damaged for the rest of their lives.All the while being told,they have only,made a “choice”concerning their body.
I have a dare for you, if you really think that there is not life in the womb,that feels,and has a right to life.Then please go find a tape called “The Silent Scream”,watch it.If you can stand to sit through it,still thinking the same way,I fear you are beyond help.I really hope your not.
Cheryl
Haha the video is classic
Also recommending:
http://sophiesdilemma.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/sophies-dilemmadont-make-them-choose/
Perhaps the person performing the abortion – the one actually taking the life, and for profit, no less – ought to be the one to face charges. I would include those women who abort themselves.
The criminal behavior has always been that of the abortionist who was performing the illegal abortion. Your argument is wrong in it’s premise. The procedure was banned from the list of acceptable medical procedures.
yes they should go to jail. you murder a baby, go to jail. quite simple.
@herald7: Glad to hear you’re also a skeptic sometimes. I have indeed gone to the other extreme. Maybe I’ll balance out, who knows. But I long and strive for truth, and being a skeptic is the only way I know how to find it. Thus I promote it. If I can find something better, I’ll repent promote that!
Many women regret their abortions later. That is what they feel in their conscience. And then some (not all) pro choicers come along and say say it’s just pro life propaganda. Their feelings are just trivialized because it doesn’t go along with the pro choice agenda.
As an opponent of abortion, the answer is quite simple. I’m disappointed these people couldn’t answer the tough, yet simple question.
If abortion is murder than yes, it should be illegal. Women committing abortion should be punished as murders. Simple logic, I follow it and wholeheartedly believe it is the correct answer. I am disappointed in those demonstrators.
I think that most anti-abortionists like this are volunteers who have their hearts into what they’re doing but don’t take the time to put their heads into their actions.
I’m anti-abortion and I believe that this should be treated as seriously as murder. Both the person performing the abortion and the woman having the abortion should be indicted in each case. This is why we have a governing body.
First up, to avoid confusion, I’m an atheist and Ornithologist. I also have a profound respect for life – who wouldn’t when you know that each organism is getting its one and only shot? This respect for life is one of the cornerstones of my life and morality.
As soon as fertilization takes place, life begins. Is a single-celled amoeba alive? Yes, it’s very simple, but it’s alive.
I only believe that abortion should take place under extreme circumstances such as protecting the life of the mother, probably if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and only on demand when it can be demonstrated that the woman used appropriate birth control and it failed (as it does sometimes) or if it can be demonstrated that the child would have severe disability or a disability which the parent was unable to deal with either emotionally or in terms of providing adequate care.
I believe that birth control should be universally available and abortion should not be available outside of the above circumstances and that women who go ahead and have abortions should probably do serious time according to the circumstances sorted out in a court of law.
@Daniel Florien:
@herald7: Glad to hear you’re also a skeptic sometimes. I have indeed gone to the other extreme. Maybe I’ll balance out, who knows. But I long and strive for truth, and being a skeptic is the only way I know how to find it. Thus I promote it. If I can find something better, I’ll repent promote that!
Thanks for the reply! Again I don’t mean to pass judgements. Life is journey and we go from one thing to another a lot. As long as we don’t stop learning or searching, that’s what matters. :)
I’d like to think I hold both pro choicers and pro lifers accountable when they are wrong. It’s not good to belong too much to one group. If you decide you’re just “pro choice” or “pro life” it means you’ve stop thinking.
What matters ultimately to me is the welfare of both the mother and baby. :)
Well, I am a Christian and am going to take a crack at this one…
As a citizen, God has not placed me in the position of a governing authority or judge, therefore I cannot pronounce punishment on those who break any law in our country. I do not have a legal or spiritual right to do so. Now, if you asked me “what should be the punishment for someone who takes money illegally from others in a ponzi scheme”? my answer would be: they are subject to the laws of the land and should be punished according to legal statutes as determined in a court of law and by judge and jury. Therefore, the answer to your question is, “If abortion was illegal in this country, then the persons who break this law should be punished according to the statutes determined by our governing authorities – same as any other case”.
It is not up to Christians to determine the punishment of lawbreakers (unless they happen to be a judge, lawmaker, or on a jury). Christians are clearly told that we are not to judge. Why? because, unlike God, we are not holy. We do not know all things. Only God knows the circumstances under which a woman would choose to have an abortion. Only God knows that woman’s heart. Neither I, nor any other Christian can know those things fully, so we cannot be in a position to pronounce judgement. Any Christian who does is subject to God’s judement himself. I think you’re asking whether if, as a Christian, I think severe punishment is due those who perform or have abortions. Biblically speaking, I do not have the right to decide punishment for any lawbreaker (unless I’m on a jury). If it were illegal, I think that our legal system would make provision for cases of rape and incest, and I think there would also be gradations of punishment, as there are in murder/manslaughter cases. I don’t think there would be one blanket ruling that would be handed down (i.e. if you have an abortion, you automatically get the death penalty, and I don’t think our courts would ever make the death penalty a consequence for abortion.) If I were on the jury in an illegal abortion case, how I could judge would be pre-determined for me; I could not come up with a random punishment that was not on the books. So, it is really a moot point to discuss what I think the punishment for having/performing an illegal abortion should be. According to Scripture, only God (and those He has placed in positions of authority) have the right to decide these things.
As an evangelical Christian, capable of giving logical, well thought out responses, let me answer this way:
If abortion were illegal, then 1) the number of women receiving them would go down drastically. The vast majority of doctors simply would not take the risk of performing an illegal medical practice. If you could find such a doctor, the cost would be high, and obviously NOT covered by any medical or insurance plan.
2) It is the abortion doctor that should be punished severely for performing illegal abortions, not the women that receive them. An illegal abortion would be performed without the regulation of authorized medical procedures, and put the mother at great risk. These risks to life and health would discourage women seeking abortion more than legal action. A doctor that would endanger a mother’s life (as well as murder an infant) while breaking the law to do so deserves a stiff prison sentence, fine, etc.
Abortion is killing, whether it’s legal to do or not. My wife is 11 weeks pregnant. I’ve seen the ultrasound; our baby is a person.
clark doctors dont do abortions thicko they save lives
I can’t agree that we as Christians have no responsibility to promote and enforce justice in society. That’s why God put us here. We’re not always right and we should be careful before passing judgements. But doing nothing is just as bad.
They deserve jail time.
Do something illegal, and that’s what you get. And seeing as how you’ve taken a human life, which, yes, is illegal, jail time is only logical. But no death penalty. I don’t believe in that, no matter what the crime.
I recognize that people won’t think this as well, but you shouldn’t be having sex unless you’re married. The child should be put into a family that wants it, which there are more and more every day, especially same sex couples. Unfortunately, people are making it difficult for same sex couples, which makes not a bit of sense because love is love, no matter what’s between your legs. Which also brings me to gay marriage. By definition, marriage is not about a man and a woman, it is in fact the union of two people. There should be none of this voting for gay marriage, it should simply be legal. It’s a basic human right, and besides, why should our government be able to decide against the dictionary of all things, and allow religion into this?
Really, America’s screwed.
Umm, pro life means respect for ALL life. That means no discrimination or prejudice based on race here.
To those of you responding to my comment on the taliban. I stand by it. The abortion-is-murder-throw-em-in-jail crowd will also be internally consistent when they condemn people to long prison terms for using such things as morning after pills since using such is aborting fertilized embryos. By the way, why aren’t you pushing jail time for that???
To the broad picture, there is no precise answer to when a proto-human becomes a full human being. Attempts to force complex issues into black and white moralities is talibanish.
Billy Graham’s Prayer For Our Nation
THIS MAN SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY!
‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!’
Maybe someone will hear the cry of wisdom’s voice in all of this before its too late…maybe not.
Question-I-thority:
Why aren’t you pushing for the right of an innocent life to exist (whether you think it’s human or not)?
There is a precise answer to the beginnings of life. Just as the Earth revolves around the Sun. The Church once protested that. Now pro choicers are protesting science when they fight for abortion.
Great question!
If you do not want to pay the time do not commit the crime.
If it was illegal it would be the same as murder. Murder is the crime of killing another person with premeditation. They would be punished justly.
There are consequences to every action and just because it is an unpunished crime in the eyes of man it is still a criminal in the eyes of God.
Forgivness is offered to those who repent of sin, but the consequences of their actions may remain. Innocent blood has been shed and it cries out to God for vengeance. If humans do not exercise justice, God eventually will.
Ex-christians make the fundamental mistake of putting Deity and that Deity’s laws on trial which betrays their unmitigated enhancement of their own conscience which will never escape the teaching they have received. They can of corse cauterize that intuition. They will always be fighting against the God they have rejected despite their assertion of atheism or agnosticism.
Desiring to be your own god is always the issue and changing the rules is childish at any age.
It makes sense. If abortion is illegal, like I think it should be, of course people should be put in jail. What do you think should be done to murderers? It’s not extreme at all. You break a law, there are consequences. But more importantly, how can you even begin to argue that it’s a baby once it is delivered and has rights, but is not a baby in the womb. It’s so absurd to consider the baby in the womb as not deserving of life. Why are so many women filled with guilt over having an abortion? It’s obvious that it is murder. Otherwise why are you so defensive of people saying it’s murder? Call it like it is, abortion is murder. I feel so bad over the lies that have been fed to women that abortion is acceptable. No one ever tells them of the terrible guilt that women have for the rest of their lives over it. Anyone that says that they do not feel guilty over an abortion is obviously not speaking the truth. There’s no way someone could kill someone and not feel some type of remorse unless they were some dehumanized psycho serial killer.
It is an scientific fact that the embryo is a distinct member of the human species. If you read an embryology text book you will see that.
I am tired of the anti-science, anti-intellectual left pushing it’s thoughtless, irrational ideology of mushing definitions and Orwellian rewriting of science and language. The synonym for “human” is “person”. You are allowed to have your own opinions –NOT your own facts.
At the end of the day there is no difference between a Pro-Choicer and an SS Guard.
@thesouldoctor,
Very true indeed. Great words.
Well played. Biologically, there should be no reason to outlaw abortion, in my view, since the potential life inside could in no way survive apart from its mother during the time frame in which abortion is legal. You’re not killing a baby, you’re removing cells that could potentially form a baby if left to grow.
(I’m also a former Christian; it’s nice to be liberated, eh?)
“Well, I am a Christian and am going to take a crack at this one…
As a citizen, God has not placed me in the position of a governing authority or judge, therefore I cannot pronounce punishment on those who break any law in our country.”
Cop out. Too chickenshit to give an opinion.
“If abortion was illegal in this country, then the persons who break this law should be punished according to the statutes determined by our governing authorities – same as any other case”
You Fail at American Govt.
Where do you think the laws in the country come from?
The answer to your question is really simple. Althought abortion IS murder it should be penalized as the murder of an adult or infant because:
1. There is still a slight probability that the fetus wouldn´t have been born even if the abortion didn´t took place.
2. Society has invested much less in a fetus than in an independently living human being.
Your logic is horrible!
Murder is an unjustified killing. Abortion is murder. The death penalty is not.
The punishment for murder should be the death penalty, which is not like murder (the unjustified killing of a baby). Murder is the unjust taking of life. The death penalty is the just taking of life.
One receives the death penalty because they earned it (usually). That is not the same as murder.
It is unjustifiable to kill a baby for no reason (murder).
It is justifiable to punish someone for murder (death penalty)
I have to ask this to a few people now. Good post!
i meant to say it SHOULDN´T be penalized as the murder of an adult or infant because:
1. There is still a slight probability that the fetus wouldn´t have been born even if the abortion didn´t took place.
2. Society has invested much less in a fetus than in an independently living human being.
Also, if you used to be a Christian then you never were.
I agree with Brian for the most part, but the term “justified killing” seems to me a somewhat questionable too.
The women pay the price by having to live with their decision. The abortionists should be prosecuted.
I think that a woman who have abortions should be arrested. Period.
Your conclusion is just “brilliant”. Keep walking.
Rafael Motta
At the very least the post was interesting. I love logic!
Perhaps we should all sit back and now and thank our lucky stars none of us were aborted and are free to post our comments on a Blog online. We were lucky. No need to think of others that weren’t apparently…
This is pretty compelling. (Name calling isn’t.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
Why do you think we would not demand both woman and doctor be tried for murder? It is as much a conspiracy to commit murder as if she paid someone to kill her husband/boyfriend. We prosecute those murderers all the time.
And just so you know. If the woman attempts it alone without medical assistance, she will be tried alone for murder or attempted murder depending on her success.
This isn’t that difficult…and when it is again criminalized it won’t be a problem.
A better question would be to ask pro choicers why is it against the law to buy and sell someone’s life but legal to buy their death. If you favor abortion you should favor both prostitution and the willful selling of oneself into legal bondage. It is, after all, their bodies to sell is it not? And if they can sell themselves why not their fully developed babies. Pro choice is pro slavery. Always has been. So who is behind the times?
Who says I am against willful prostitution? I’m not. I want it regulated, not outlawed. It’s those who call “immorality!” that want to outlaw it. I’ve no qualms against women who enter prostitution out of their own free will – I even know a few who did.
What I do have qualms against is a system where women are forced to procreate and then prostitute themselves to pay for the lives they were forced to carry.
Then again, you don’t care about lives once they exit the wombt. You’d rather protect a precious lump of non-sentient flesh rather than a living, breathing, thinking human being.
Yeah, what should be done with women who have abortions? It’s called a murder trial. How is that hard?
Here’s a question to the Pro-Abortion crowd:
1. Should a convicted murderer of a pregnant woman be charged with only one count of murder or multiple counts (based on how many children the woman was carrying at the time)?
And why not throw one to the Pro-Environmentalist crowd too:
2. If a pregnant woman is the only person occupying a vehicle, should she be allowed to drive in the “high occupancy” lane (the lane that requires at least 2 passengers in order to encourage carpooling)?
I don’t have any trouble answering the question. I believe murder is wrong and should be punished. I believe abortion is taking an innocent life (i.e. murder) and should be punished.
I entirely agree with Sidney here. The penalty for murder is life or the death penalty. Why should it be any different when its a baby?
Contrary to what many of us would like to believe, the world has never been a safe place for children (born or unborn). A people should be judged on how we treat our most innocent and helpless (born and unborn). I hate to think what the means in our case…
It depends, would having an abortion be illegal or would performing abortions be illegal?
I’m sorry, but this was poor logic. And by the way, it always amazes me that people who are against the death penalty are often pro-choice.
Have you ever seen an abortion? Say, a late-term abortion? The baby’s fully-formed body, all but the head, are pulled out. The little girl or boy’s legs are kicking, their tiny hands grasping, and then someone jabs a hole into the back fo their skull and sucks out the brains with a vacuum.
I don’t think many women are fully educated as to what they are doing when they have an abortion. The women don’t know the biology involved, and possibly don’t know that the even at the youngest age an abortion can be performed at, the baby has all of the major organs, a beating heart, and brain activity. No, the mothers often don’t know this, but the doctors sure as crap do. I’m all for locking up doctors who perform abortions.
Late term abortion are done with 2 different methods. You described the one that is less dangerous to the woman. The other one is where the fetus is hacked up inside the woman’s uterus, with possible damage to the woman occurring and the loss of future pregnancies. The one you described is the one most anti-abortionists use in their arguments and want outlawed. However most late term terminations have more to do with fetal abnormalities than “convenience”.
Kid, women don’t just decide “oh, I don’t want it anymore” when they’ve come thus far. They do it for a reason – probably because the fetus is so grossly malformed it won’t survive at all.
What you’re proposing with your melodramatic description (which doesn’t impress me at all) is that both woman and child deserve to die or live horrific lives forever because you want them to. No other reason.
Have you ever given your keyboard and mouth and protests a rest, gotten off your ass, done something compassionate and useful, and helped provide the sex education, the contraceptives, birth control and vasectomies (and did I say the education?) that would prevent the need for abortions?
Didn’t think so.
Ulterior motives, huh?
You seem to be unquestionably for punishing people, and you are unquestionably punitive. You don’t really care about “saving babies” or you would be doing the above things to prevent the need for the abortions you claim you don’t want. You don’t really want to help prevent abortions; you wouldn’t have anyone to punish for being sexual without squeezing out a baby. This is your ulterior motive.
It always amazes me that you can be so punitive toward people, and refuse to help them exercise their choices as adults by helping prevention; it takes hatred of women to be that way. And that you can then fool others and maybe yourself, and pretend to be pro-life.
Your post certainly is.
The video displays an extremely selective and non-representative sample. I’m sure you have seen the video of Obama supporters not being able to answer basic questions about the U.S. Does that mean everyone who voted for Obama is as dense as the sample represented on that video? Of course not. Same with this video of pro-lifers.
I also don’t think you have thought this through.
As others have pointed out, it is the doctor who is committing the murder in the eyes of most pro-life advocates/activists, not the woman.
And, as you probably know, it is these doctors who have been targeted and murdered by pro-life extremists, not the women getting the abortions.
Lastly, the tone of your blog reminds me of many coverts. Converts are often more zealous than those of us who have grown up in the faith. In this case, the faith being secularism, rationalism and skepticism.
All the best in your quest.
First of all, let me start by saying that i agree that most of these people are ridiculous and have not thought this through.
Also, I am very pro-choice.
That said, illegal medical procedures, in my understanding usually result in prosecution of the doctor. Hence it is illegal to perform and illegal procedure not to receive one.
So, I completely disagree with all of these people. But even more so, i find it hilarious that there is an answer to your question, they just aren’t informed enough to know what it is.
I am a Catholic. The fetus is a life. Thus abortion is murder.
The laws that govern murder in this country are dictated by civil authorities. Thus any illegal act and it’s punishment is determined by those authorities.
They will also be judged by God at the end of their life.
Totalmente de acuerdo con el post. Absolutely in agreement with the post. “They see only OVNIs and don´t realize they are humans.”
Saludos desde España.
Alison, I don’t believe in the death penalty, even for murderers. That is hardly hilarious…
Para todos aquellos catolicos que piensan que las mujeres que abortan serán juzgadas al morir, simplemente decirles que entonces el infierno debe estar lleno, incluso de católicos.
You’re a little too full of yourself- it’s not a difficult question. Yes- abortion is murder. If abortions are illegal, then anyone involved in the murder, including the mother, should be held accountable.
Good luck on your journey- I pray that you find your way home to the Lord.
Daniel,
As a pastor, I can tell you quite clearly that the law has already spoken on this. Forgive me if I didn’t read through the comments but early on, someone mentioned when a pregnant woman is killed, it is prosecuted as a double homicide. That’s secular law at work..not anything to do with Christianity.
I would turn the question you ask back at you had you approached me and asked if you wished to contradict the secular law of our country. If the law already says killing an unborn child is worthy of prosecution as a murder, would you be willing to extend grace to the person who committed the crime or should they be punished to the full extent of the law? If grace, then where does the type of grace that forgives the taking of a life come from? I think you know the answer.
Before I was a pastor, I was a news reporter for 15 years and won several awards. I know a ‘framed’ question when I read one. You’ve proven nothing.
This is a complex issue – a human child, even unborn, should have basic human rights; it is an unavoidable reality that those rights may impact the mother. A pregnant woman is human and has human rights; it is unavoidable that those human rights may impact the child she carries. There isn’t a simple solution here.
Let me give another example – my grandmother (human – therefore with human rights like basic care) had Alzheimer’s and could not care for herself. She would get confused, go outside and try to find her childhood home. The care of my grandmother had a big impact on my mother (also human – also having human rights). My mother’s health suffered as a result of her 24 hour a day responsibilities and my mother experienced a nearly complete loss of personal freedom for a period of time. In a nutshell, the basic care required by my grandmother significantly impacted my mother’s quality of life and health. However, my mother did not have a legal or moral right to terminate my grandmother’s life.
A uninsured homosexual dying of Aids is human is entitled basic human rights like care – they’re human, they have inherent value. This care may have an impact on community or hospital resources. Before we understood how the disease was passed, the care of these people may have presented a risk (impact) to the healthcare workers or other caregivers. Killing the person with Aids isn’t a legal or moral response to the very real impact. Once again, one persons human rights can have an effect on another human being without there being a simple solution.
Understanding the strain that the 24 hour chare of a profoundly retarded child creates does not, therefore, make abusing a retarded child acceptable or legal. Understanding the stress and financial strain a man experiences while trying to provide for a family does not make abusing a wife or child acceptable or legal.
What to do with a person who performs an abortion or what to do with a person who has an abortion, should abortion become illegal is a completely separate issue. It seems pretty obvious that things have gotten to a bad place when the death of another is the only solution to the struggle in front of you. The idea that one individual can choose the death of another without experiencing any type of accountability for the decision is ludicrous. Nations are accountable for their decisions to go to war, a police officer cannot take the life of person in the line of duty without facing a review, transplant committees weigh very heavily the decision to give one person – rather than another – a lifesaving organ transplant. Does the author of this blog really feel that it is logical to allow a woman (or pregnant man – I don’t mean to discriminate) to terminate the life of an unborn child without any accountability of any kind?
Accountability does not negate the responsibility of an orderly and compassionate society to put support networks in place to help those who are experiencing personal hardship as a result of respecting the right of another to exist. Compassion and accountability are not incompatible.
I have to go now. Daniel Florien, I will say again: BALANCE is the key. Being a total skeptic is no different from being a unquestioning religious zealot. In either case you have stopped thinking. But good luck, honestly. :)
People say “abortion is murder” to get you riled up and understand how serious they think it is. What they really mean is: “abortion is an abominable act, as detestable as murder, but of course with a completely different set of circumstances, and the punishment ought to be determined accordingly.” But try to fit that on a bumper sticker.
And naturally, the sign-waving idiots haven’t thought it through. Though that last lady got close to another good point before she cheesed out: Doling out punishment is not the sole purpose of a law. Laws affect funding, credentialing, academic research, and set precedents for other laws, regardless of who is actually punished for that law, and how.
So while this video does demonstrate that the anti-abortion movement is confused and illogical, it does nothing to stop them from fighting, however illogically, for what they believe. Religion = logic kryptonite.
Fun to watch anyway ;)
One more thing for now, lol. The pastor makes a good point. When a pregnant women is killed, it’s considered a double murder. Why is the law contradicting itself if it’s so sure it’s right? As I said, it takes a lot of effort to justify abortion.
Something to consider – Most women who get abortions do so because they are misled into believing that it is the best choice for thier lives.
Abortionists perform abortions to make money.
You can’t judge the two in the same manner.
To herald7 – speaking as one who was almost aborted – I thank my God every day for the wonderful life I live.
herald7
I didn’t say anything about the death penalty, or that it’s hilarious. My laughter is at people who fight for something without knowing the whole story.
I found this quite interesting. I don’t anyone really considers the options or the consequences of such a serious choice. Alot of people fall on god and their faith to base their moral decisions on. They can’t for one second blame their human reactions or logical thinking.
I’m not against abortions but I’m not fully with it either. I like to take consideration as to the reasons why someone would want to abort their baby.
Take rape for instance, would it be fair to force a woman to give birth to a child conceived after something so sick? What would the childs life be like after that? Wouldn’t the parent be of right mind to look after the child? Would it feel wanted or rejected?
What if carrying the child the full term meant the death of the mother and the child? If the mother chose to carry on and choosie death, isn’t this murder as well as suicide. Both sins in the eyes of god and his believers. Making the mother go full term even if it meant she’d die is almost as bad as not allowing a child to have a blood transfusion which could save their life.
If the reason was due to pre-marital sex and shunning from the family as per their disapproval; I do not believe this to be a good enough reason to abort a child. Nor be under-aged sex. Nor lacking in finances. All these are temporary and unimportant compared to the life growing in a woman’s womb.
I don’t think abortion should be made illegal, but I do think that there should be some rules as to how you qualify to have an abortion and something to be taught alongside sex education so that if there are any precautions aren’t made that the person made aware of all the options and what they entail.
There are other points I would consider abortion, or euthanasia, as a better option to life… such as short, painful or all sense of life can no longer be experienced. But, at the end of the day… it is the mother’s decision and not ours to dictate. If we do not fully understand or have knowledge of what leads a woman to chose such a thing then we should keep our noses out of their business.
(Oh, well except for all those people who commented that abortion DOES deserve the same penalty as murder. They really DO mean “abortion is murder”, and are of course immune to this whole debate before it begins.)
lucidmystery
Many people who are pro-choice are not pro late pregnancy abortion, this is a different issue.
It’s hard to answer the question, “what should the punishment be?” But it’s not too hard to see that a fetus is actually a person. You’ve created a false dichotomy. Murder is always wrong. How you conclude it’s not murder logically only allows the following:
- Babies in the womb aren’t humans because killing a human is wrong
- Killing humans is not wrong
With current legislation in the US regarding abortion (e.g. Roe, et. al), a baby is only valuable if the parents want him/her. He/she has no value as a human being if the parents don’t want him/her. Think that through a little bit. It’s insane.
Outside of religious belief, what is the logical argument for claiming that a fetus is its own being, deserving of its own rights? Isn’t is still biologically part of the mother, like a very complicated foot? Is there any rationale behind this OTHER than the so-called Word of God?
Of course not everybody who objects to abortion does so on religious grounds. This rather obvious fact doesn’t seem to register. Shame that!
Then how come the only argument I ever hear (or have read here) is just “it’s obvious” or “think about it”. What is the argument??
Right to Life and anti-abortion are different. Abortion in the first, second and third trimester are different. Partial-birth abortion is different than an abortion pill. Fanatics and conservatives are different.
This issue is unbelievably complicated and involves so many aspects of culture, law and religion. As evidenced by the number of comments here, this question doesn’t stump very many people at all.
Got some news for all the religious folks – there’s a new sheriff in town and abortion ain’t going away any time soon. Reason triumphed over ignorance and superstition on November 4 (thank “god”).
Living, breathing women and girls with emotions, hopes, ambitions, fears, and memories are incomparably more important than parasitic globs of cells living in their bodies that have NONE of these things.
And so what if abortion is a “gross” medical procedure? All medical procedures are gross, if you ask me. Watching a heart operation makes me not want to have a heart operation. Watching a tooth extraction makes me not want to have a tooth extracted. Watching an abortion makes me not want to have an abortion, but it doesn’t make me want to make it illegal.
God loves abortion – if he didn’t, he’d zap all the abortion clinics with lightning bolts (or something like that). If he could part the Red Sea, he could do that, couldn’t he, Christians? You guys don’t really think things through, do you?
Congratulations. 47,000. Nice traffic. I’ll contribute more to you in the coming days and months. Thanks for your response. And the response of some of your viewers on my blog as well. Can only image tomorrow’s topic/question. See you then.
As an aside, the medieval Catholic Church, which makes even the most strict fundamentalist Christian of this era look like the bastion of liberalness (is that a word? Whatever) didn’t have a problem with first-trimester abortions. It was only after the “quickening” (being able to feel the fetus move, usually around the fourth month) that they raised hell.
88% of abortions are performed within the first trimester.
Of those, 90% are performed in the first eight weeks.
To the antis–look into the eyes of a woman you love. Wife, mother, daughter. Tell them that their lives are worth less than an embyro. Tell them they should die so that their fetus can see life. Can’t do it, can you?
As an aside, the medieval Catholic Church, which makes even the most strict fundamentalist Christian of this era look like the bastion of liberalness (is that a word? Whatever) didn’t have a problem with first-trimester abortions. It was only after the “quickening” (being able to feel the fetus move, usually around the fourth month) that they raised hell.
88% of abortions are performed within the first trimester.
Of those, 90% are performed in the first eight weeks.
To the antis–look into the eyes of a woman you love. Wife, mother, daughter. Tell them that their lives are worth less than an embyro. Tell them they should die so that their fetus can see life. Can’t do it, can you?
Taking life without intending to is also punishable.
Maybe these anti-abortionists would like to charge women who have miscarriages with negligent homicide, too?
One inportant thing that most people forget in this argument was we faught to separate church and state so in no way should the laws be effected by anyones religion.
Austin Dacey’s “The Secular Conscience” (http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Conscience-Belief-Belongs-Public/dp/1591026040) has a very interesting question to put to those who claim the death of an embryo is equivalent to the death of a person after birth. It goes along these lines:
You are walking past an IVF clinic, and notice that it is on fire. You run inside, and see a fridge containing 40 embryos, and also a trapped 4-year old girl. You only have time to get either the girl or the fridge out of the building. Who do you save?
Let me clue you guys, you can’t solve this problem. Not through argument. You can’t explain this problem with a thousand intelligent questions. And not with a zinger from a Jr. High debate team.
Just logically, how is a fetus not a life? It can die in the womb meaning it a has a life to lose.
I’m not against abortion. I just think you sound so stupid saying that it’s not taking a life. Yes, it is taking a life. Should a women be able to kill her unborn baby? That has to be on her conscience.
You have to say that it is ending a life but that in the case of a life before leaving the womb, it’s o.k. A logical person can respect you for that.
That is the legal reality right now. It is a life and it is o.k. to take life at this very early stage.
OMG, this is so true. I am totally for abortion to be legal. That’s between the woman and her god. I need to start asking some people who say that abortion should be illegal. That’s making individual rights seem like they don’t exist. I mean it is their baby.
Your question is silly. A serious issue like this and you look for childish little catch-22 like gamesmanship to defend abortion? Please!
I am against abortion and think it should be illegal. However, my focus is on LIFE that is about to be snuffed out – not the woman – who’s life will go on. We all know there would be exceptions…rape, severe handicaps etc. And I know that drawing that line in the sand is tough. But my point is…PUT THE BABY UP FOR ADOPTION FOR LOVING PARENTS LIKE ME WHO CAN GIVE THEM A GOOD HOME.
As for the woman, her punishment is in knowing her child is somewhere in the world being raised and happy- or worse – just not knowing. Her punishment is in delivery of a baby that will not be hers and in the pain and punishment on her body – the former often being more permanently scarring than the later. That’s punishment enough I think. It’s awful punishment actually, I acknowledge that. Maybe too, the two who conceived the child need to pay a sum equal to what they would have paid for an abortion.
Look, the point the “right to free choice” folks seem to miss is that they had a choice…they made it. They chose intercourse and got pregnant. Now there is a real living fetus that would like to have a choice too. It does not get one because the “mother” feels it is HER choice – again! Sounds very selfish and not very Christian. Of course, if they are not Christian, they are really are not on the same page with me anyway. And that really is the RUB on this issue when you get down to it. You either choose yourself as the first voice you listen to or you choose God’s voice. God has spoken loud and clear on this issue.
They should go to jail. Here’s a stumper for abortionists: When does human life begin? Not sure? Then shouldn’t you give life the benefit of the doubt?
This post almost smacks of the same self-righteousness that some pro-lifers have. Most churches help women who have had abortions in the past, especially when guilt makes them feel depressed or suicidal.
I know of many pastors who have compassionately helped people deal with later-life loss and grief, enabling them come to terms with what the women have previously experienced.
No stump here. What should you do to someone who drives drunk and kills someone? Punish them. You don’t have to extract an eye for an eye. But a price should be paid.
Why are you naive enough to think we would think there shouldn’t be punishment for killing a baby? Or that somehow we’d be baffled by the issue?
Ask yourself this – why IS there abortion? With all the modern contraceptives available isn’t it just as irresponsible to cause an unwanted pregnancy as it is to drive drunk? Or is it an out of sight out of mind thing? You don’t have to look that child (that’s what it is, a human being – day one, from the getgo… no magic day when something goes poof and personage comes) before you snuff out its life.
What glory is there is destroying something as precious as a baby?
Your post is premissed on perhaps the stupidest, most ignorant and assinine pretext I’ve seen in a good long while. Stump indeed. Your are a fool.
Rob, you don’t know your biology. If you want to make a fetus akin to something it’s more akin to a parisite than a complicated foot. The egg is freed, fertilized, then attaches itself and feeds off of its host- the mother. From the moment its DNA mixes and its cells start to divide it is a separate, unique being. It’s not a bodypart. Separate even to the point that if the mother dies it will survive until its enviroment become untenable to support its own life. Likewise, if it dies before birth it will be absorbed by the host or expelled.
What’s that famous saying….”Keep your rosaries off of my ovaries?”
That seems to sum it up pretty well.
Interesting stump. What is logic anyway?
When a man kills a pregnant woman the courts do not charge him with a single murder. He is charged with a double homicide for the murder of the woman and her unborn child. So, if abortion were to be made illegal(which it should be) then I believe the woman should be held to the fullest extent of the law.
A silly question: Is it animal cruelty when you eat an egg for breakfast?
If abortions should be illegal then outlawing abortions would be ideal right? If it is murder then i’m sure that plenty of people would be happy to have abortions completely unavailable. But then how would they feel about reading a story in the paper about a woman who was raped not having the CHOICE to terminate the fetus? What if that was you? Having to look at yourself in the mirror everyday knowing that one day you will be the mother of something that was never meant to be…forced upon you.
But then again, they are advertising the Plan B pill more now so hey i guess that’s not murder.
see you should have went further. the question then becomes
If abortion is murder, do three people get the death penalty or life in prison for every abortion? (the woman, the man who got her pregnant, and the doctor who performed the procedure).
Why should a man be able to walk away when a woman gets the abortion. Then you’re going to have ALLLLLLLLLLLL sorts of cases between men and women basically accusing each other of being the main reason why the murder (abortion) was committed.
and last thing too. What happens when it becomes illegal and people don’t stop having sex. What would happen to adoption centers, the homeless rate in this country, the crime rate in this country. Populations grow exponentially, since it is usually lower class people that have abortions you can assume that if the kids were delivered that they would be in poor circumstances.
That than leads us to the conclusion that we would be MUTHA FRIGGING INDIA in about 25 years.
Oh wait, I think I can quote George Carlin too: “Pro-life is anti woman. That is just it. They don’t like them. If you’re preborn, you’re ok. If you’re pre-K then you’re fucked.”
Yeah, when all these pro-life people start handing out condoms and birth control and taking care of all the unwanted babies in the world
then let’s see them talk about abortion being murder.
If abortion were illegal, the doctor doing it should be prosecuted.
To that last comment by sheena, it is not a fetus, something that isnt real or alive or some inanimate object, it is alive, a living person. Its breathing when its inside the mother and when its aborted it isnt breathing. A murderers victim is breathing until the murderer kills him/her then it isnt. There is no difference.
@topfloorplz. I was with you until you started the “choose God’s voice” stuff.
If you want to follow god’s word on this: Thou shalt not kill. Then you’d better be ready to deliver god’s word on the punishment: death by stoning. (I’m a non-believer)
Otherwise your points are good, your logic sound and your statements mild and reasonable. I agree, especially on the matter of when the choice was made and the matter of adoption as an alternative.
yes the doctor should be prosecuted as well. To who ever said the man should be responsible is dumb. he didnt have the abortion it wasnt his choice, its the mothers choice
Well, that’s not quite right. That was part of the civil law for that time,it isn’t binding on Christians today, just as the ceremonial/sacrificial law from the old Testament isn’t binding on Christians because Jesus’ final sacrifice fulfilled it.
But does the child who would be born if left alone to develop deserve the death penalty because his or her father was a criminal?
…well, we’ve had 7.5 million of them here in our country since the beginning of the Iraq war. we don’t need to punish the women at all—they have already been “punished with a baby” some would argue (not me). I say we punish the doctors collecting piles of money and doing the deed, prison might be good with all of the other murderers. To murder a child is the worst kind after all. I know several folks who take care of these babies the guy before me writes about—how about him? If all you can do is point fingers at us “pro-lifers”, you are doing no better than the nut jobs on this side who do the same.
Zack are you kidding me? A guy can have sex with a girl, and then leave her to raise the kid all by herself without any help at all, and it’s not the guys fault? How many guys actually tell the girls that they WANT HER TO GET AN ABORTION. How often does that happen?
Cmon be realistic. No one likes abortion. No one likes the act in itself but there is something called being reasonable. If you believe in terrorism I’m sure you do not believe in bombing and war and killing. At best the religious right movement can justify the war by saying that war is the way to avoid bigger problems.
Well if you make abortion illegal, and you carry with it the same weight as murder, or even 10 years in prison you’re going to have serious social issues of who is responsible, either of the three parties involved.
You also have to take into account the very obvious problem of overpopulation as it has been documented that lower income people have more children than upper income people. This is true not just in America, but socio-economically speaking, throughout the entire world.
I hate the idea of abortion and I hate that it gives men and women the horrible idea that they can start having sex at the age of 13 or 14 with absolutely no worries. But realistically speaking, I don’t want us to turn into China or India within the next 50 years. The world is already overpopulated as it is.
There is NO WAY in the world that abortion can be made illegal, the woman can receive some sort of punishment, and the man will not be forced to receive the same punishment. If the law allows that when it’s forumlated, it won’t for very long.
The situation will become one where the male will have to prove that he never wanted the abortion in the first place and in many instances, will be forced to take the child under his own custody and hope for some sort of child support payments by the woman, JUST THE REVERSE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW.
Simple. If abortion is deemed illegal, that requires the action of a legislative body comprised of the peoples’ representatives. Remember: democratic republic? Legislative bodies pass laws with attendant consequences for breaking the law. Offenders are arrested or cited and given a fair trial and sentenced according to the rules promulgated by the legislature as adjuciated by the courts. Last time I checked it’s called due process and the rule of law.
Now let me ask you a question: what will you say to God on judgment day when he asks you why you stood by and did nothing while 50 million babies were murdered?
either way. making abortion a crime will cause some people to stop having sex or have less sex. It will cause other people to have sex and just give up the babies for adoption, commit illegal abortions, or raise the children in low income settings which will only increase crime throughout our society.
This is a fact, it’s a grim fact, but it’s a fact. The only way to solve these problems is to deal with your children and be a good parent. Period. I’m 24 and I am celibate. By choice. I have had 2 gorgeous girlfriends in the last year alone and I’m still celibate. That is because my parents raised me with a certain moral fiber. If you want your children not to have an abortion or you want abortions to stop, unprotected sex has to drastically diminish, for unprotected sex to drastically diminish, most likely sex at all will have to diminish. That’s a result of parenting, not of making up laws to punish woman who have an abortion while we as a nation sit and watch bombs land in middle east provinces as if it’s some sort of action movie.
“Unreasonable” would be most of the arguments posited here. I’m going to speak from a strictly anti-abortion standpoint without referencing religion at all.
Let’s address the question of whether a fetus is a human life or not. Well, we’ve already established that the murder of a pregnant woman is often charged as a double homicide, so legally that question seems to have already been answered.
But let’s step back a minute. Let me ask some questions to pro-abortionists. Who here is claiming to KNOW, for certain, that a human fetus absolutely IS NOT a human life? Does anybody know, for sure, when it becomes a life? Logic dictates that the fetus obviously becomes a human at some point or another prior to actually being born. However, it seems like there is no consensus as to when that happens.
So, let me ask you (pro-abortion) people a question that will “stump” you. The FDA has said that peanut butter products have been contaminated with salmonella. Obviously, not every last product has been, but some have, and you don’t know how many. Do you (a) eat peanut butter products, or (b) exhibit caution, because you don’t want salmonella? Obviously, (b). When there is a serious risk to your health that can be avoided through caution, it makes sense to be cautious.
Why is the same logic not applied to HUMAN LIFE, which is inarguably valuable? Let’s look at the two possible cases.
Case 1. Fetuses currently being aborted are not human lives. Aborting them is morally or ethically neutral.
Case 2. Fetuses currently being aborted are human lives. Aborting them is morally equivalent to murder, which by definition is the taking of a human life, and morally wrong by any standard.
These are the only two possible cases. Fetuses cannot be human lives and NOT human lives simultaneously. They either are, or are not.
We DO NOT KNOW which case is correct. If case 1 is correct, then we are ethically ‘clear’. But if case 2 is correct, then we have taken the lives of countless humans.
Therefore, if we are interested in preserving human lives, it is logical to not take a leap of faith that Case 1 is correct, and rather to be cautious, lest Case 2 is correct.
Allen I want to ask you what you would say to God when he asks you why stood by and did nothing while 500 thousand people died in this country due to not having health insurance. Why almost 300,000 Iraqi’s died and you stood by and did nothing? Why was it Allen that you stood by an did nothing while there was a genocide in Darfur? Allen what would you say when God asks you why you stood by and did nothing while Palestine and Israel were bombing each other.
Self-Righteous douchebag
The flip side to this argument is that pro abortionists believe that since it’s the woman’s body, aka “property”, then no one has the right to tell her what to do with it. By that logic you then agree with honor killings. For those of you not familiar with honor killings, it’s the belief held by radical Muslim’s that a woman is the property of her father or husband. If the woman does something to dishonor her family, then they reserve the right to kill her. I would like to assume that many of us would find this practice to be ridiculous, however, how does this differ from the belief that an unborn baby is the property of the woman. I have used this argument many times with pro abortionists and they have never been able to respond. Both sides can argue many different things to prove their point.
We do not live in a society that lives by The Code of Hammurabi, eye for an eye. Rather, we live in a country where everyone has the right to a fair trial and sentenced by a jury. It’s the jury who will decide the punishment of the person. There are many people in this country who are found guilty of murder, some of them are put to death, and some receive life in prison while others only serve X number of years. The sentences handed down by a jury have never been black and white; therefore, it’s unreasonable to expect that a penalty for abortion has to be a certain outcome, should abortion ever become illegal.
Andrew congratulations, you have showed us all that a fetus maybe is a life, you don’t know yet, but you think we should be cautious, so that we protect our moral character.
So, now that we know that much Andrew, what should happen to a woman / a doctor/ and a man who work together to conceive a baby, and then have it aborted.
Andrew should we put a limit on how many babies someone can have to make sure that we don’t become drastically overpopulated? 50 million babies have been aborted in the US alone since Roe V Wade. If those 50 million babies all had an average of 2 babies (either by themselves or their children having babies) our population would be near 500 million right now, instead of the 350 million. Andrew, how exactly would we solve that problem as we have such high unemployment, and high levels of poverty???
Jo Colonna have you ever actually been on jury duty? The jury doesn’t make up the law. The Jury simply decides guilty or not guilty and the Judge assigns the punishment in accordance with the law. There is no PARTIAL PUNISHMENT in our justice system. There are variations of laws and punishments but there is no such thing as a partial punishment decided by the jury.
Secondly, let’s be clear. If you wish to try an abortion as illegal, it must be murder. You can’t wish wash your way through calling it something else now that you’ve come to the punishment stage.
So I’m glad to see that you would gladly imprison a woman, a doctor, and the child’s father for every single abortion (if you think the child’s father has nothing to do with it, you’re beyond uninformed when it comes to understanding how the law in this country works).
I don’t know how you can, with a straight face, make the claim that anti-abortionists (Defined most literally as people who don’t think abortion should be illegal) believe or don’t believe about what should happen to people who have illegal abortions.
I don’t think abortion should be legal because you’re killing a person. I disagree with how my position on the issue has been painted as ignorant, or uninformed about the actual specifics or trick definitions of what life and murder are. I am aware that I have never been in the position of a pregnant woman (Or, more realistically, the position of the man who got her pregnant) but that is because I care enough about the potential human life that might result from any sex I might be having.
I think abortion needs to be legally declared murder, and I think murderers should be punished. Capital punishment is an issue for another day, but killing someone is killing someone, be they a hundred and twenty years of age, or six weeks.
Here’s a person who says women should get 10 years in jail.
The questions you have asked are not relevant to finding the proper moral choice for whether we should or should not pursue abortion.
Your argument is that abortion is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Allow me to rephrase.
Premise: Abortion prevents overpopulation.
Premise: Overpopulation is undesirable.
Conclusion: Abortion should be legal.
Simple enough. But what if case 2 is true? Then your argument has just become:
Premise: Murder prevents overpopulation.
Premise: Overpopulation is undesirable.
Conclusion: Murder should be legal.
Or, rephrased again, “the ends justify the means.”
I could easily make a similar argument.
Premise: Most crime occurs in poor areas.
Premise: Crime is undesirable.
Conclusion: We should systematically kill everyone in a poor area to prevent most crime.
This is equally morally abhorrent. There are many, many things that society could do that would benefit it as a whole, at the expense of the rights of individuals. We could talk about that all day. But as soon as we do, we’re arguing that the ends justify the means – that doing awful things is OK, as long as there’s a net benefit at the end.
And whether you’re religious or not, there’s no arguing your way out of that.
miraqlis, Fair enough, you corrected me on the manner in which punishment is handed down, but you still failed to address my first point.
I didn’t intend to get involved in this but jayy honestly: “I mean it is their baby.” A child 2 months out of the womb is their baby, too.
Again, I’m not mad at abortionists. I know this sounds horrible but societies from the beginning of time have killed babies they didn’t want. It’s a sad fact.
This thread caught my interest because it was trying to use logic as some kind of “twist”. You can twist the facts but you can’t twist the process of logic. That’s why it’s the path to the truth.
A couple of cells start to grow and they continue to grow into a seven year old child unless their life is cut short by natural or unnatural means. Pro abortionists say a life doesn’t start until after birth. Well, the burden of proof in any logical debate would then be on them to prove that up. What is the proof that an early fetus is not a human life?
Ok, there is the term “a life”. We do know a fetus is alive. It is a alive because it can die.
The only logical abortion argument on legal grounds can be that a human fetus is not a legal, human life until a certain point. So you know when that is? A minute before it’s born? Five month before it’s born? You know that? Or do you have a motive to want to believe that?
A two month old is a bundle of cells on it’s way to being a taxpayer. Doesn’t resemble an adult at all. But will become one if it’s doesn’t die, right? That what gives a two month old it’s legal rights. A fetus of 100 cells is the same thing.
The only logical abortion argument on moral grounds could be that a fetus is alive but is not “a life”.
Just answer this one question. Isn’t the burden of proof on the abortionists here?
In analyzing why someone deviates from logic there is usually a motive. The motive for ending the life of the fetus is the convenience of the parents.
If you have a position that lacks a logical justification and a motive to ride that position out at all costs…. you are going to lose the argument and a trick question isn’t going to fix that.
It’s not “prove it’s a life to stop me”, it has to be “don’t kill unless you can prove it’s not a life”. Do you understand why? I sure hope so.
It’s amazing to read the comments of the pro-abort folks. It’s painfully obvious that hardly a soul here has spent much time ministering to post-abortive women and men. If you had, you’d know what abortion does to people, beyond the dumpster. And you’d loathe abortion for how it destroys them.
What surprises me most about this conversation is not how many people think women who have abortions should be punished. I’m sure that if I thought abortion was murder I would too.
What astonishes me more profoundly is the number of people who view women who have aborted as victims, not responsible for their actions: everyone who’s said that women are punished by the crushing burden of having had an abortion, or that their complicity is lessened by the fact that that “many” or “most” women who abort are pressured to do so.
I won’t deny that many women will feel badly after having aborted. However, it’s absurd to claim that all women will. There are no credible studies to indicate that women suffer more from post-abortion trauma than they do from post-partum depression. I have spoken with a number of women who say they do not regret having aborted at all, and that it was definitely the right decision for them. Please do not attempt to claim to know what other people feel about a given circumstance, or just assume that “of course” it’s natural for a woman to feel bad about the end of a pregnancy.
As to whether or not personal remorse is suitable punishment: I believe most people who drove drunk and killed people as a result feel terribly guilty and will have to live forever with the knowledge that they destroyed a life. This does not make them any less culpable or that they don’t therefore deserve legal punishment.
As to whether women are pressured: on this point, I have to admit a certain amount of sympathy. It’s certainly not beyond the pale for a woman who otherwise would not have terminated a pregnancy to do so because she felt compelled by, say, a male partner. However, I reject the idea that a woman would never do so for any other reason. There are also women who are in complete agreement with their partners about the necessity of an abortion; who abort against the wishes of their partners; who have no further contact with the men who they became pregnant by; and so on. Women may also feel compelled to abort because of other forms of pressure, like financial inability to have a healthy pregnancy and raise a child. Nevertheless, I believe it takes a great deal away from women to claim that they are never really responsible for deciding to abort.
Question: Did anyone ever consider the rights of the child?
Right now somewhere the Roe V. Wade child (who was not aborted and is still living) is probably very happy about our slow judicial system.
Even Norma McCorvey (THE “Jane Roe” of the Roe V. Wade case) is now mortally opposed to the idea. The whole deal was that it was inconvenient for her lifestyle (she was a lesbian, key word WAS) so she claimed she was raped. She now admits that was false.
Nevermind the mother’s convenience. Just because mom decided that it’s inconvenient to raise a child, she should get to murder it?
It IS a human being. And don’t give me the “it’s not fully developed” bit. Neither are awkward tweens entering puberty. Should we kill them too (some parents of pre-teens and teens might appreciate that right)?
“Yeah but a teen can take care of themselves.” Really? Well then how about infants who do happen to make it? They can’t care for themselves. In fact, about all they can do is eat, poop, pee, cry, and sleep. If no one provides for them, they die. Sounds like the same predicament the fetus is in to me. So they are neither developed, nor can they care for themselves… let’s put their heads on the chopping block too.
The fact is, I have never met a pro-choicer that can tell me when life begins. So what makes you think you have the right to play God and decide for the fetus when it is or isn’t developed enough to do away with?
You don’t want the baby? Fine, do with the baby what “Jane Roe” did. Give the child up for adoption.
That’s what amuses me about the whole term “Pro-choice.” Even if Roe V. Wade does get overturned and you don’t have the choice of abortion, you can still choose not to raise a child. You have the option of adoption. There are people out there that CAN’T have children. I’m sure they would appreciate your child. Ever heard the saying “one person’s trash is another person’s treasure?” Just because you have no moral decency (unless it comes to saving the whales and the planet, then you’re all over it) doesn’t mean others don’t either and that you should just discard a precious item simply because you don’t need or want it.
Punishment for abortion? Absolutely. Because that’s what you do to a murderer.
Just curious Daniel:
How do you determine which human lives are not worth living and should therefore be terminated?
For that is what abortion decides, as does ethnic cleansing, or government policies which allow humans to die of curable diseases, or which allow killing of enemies or prisoners of conscience.
You may feel you are now pro-choice and that who kills fetuses is not your business. But how did you determine that some of these lives which are terminated were not worth living? If you say abortion on demand is a fundamental human right, you are saying that any person, maybe more correctly any woman, can decide on some basis or none that the life in her womb is not worth existing. How exactly will 6 billion humans survive on the planet when each determines they have no responsibility for or no concern for any other human, for humanity or for the human race? On what basis do we decide to let any baby live?
And if it is OK for any of us to terminate any human embryo, fetus or baby, what is the criterion for deciding this is OK for humanity? And are there any circumstances in which it is not OK? Is it OK for the government (as is done in China) to determine which pregnancies will end? That is done for the good of the state. What would be the criteria for questioning that policy?
Are you saying that abortion on demand – no matter who demands it – is always right? Can the father demand that his offspring be terminated before birth? Why not? Can a women’s parents? or her other children? Can the state demand of its citizens that they can only have some babies but not others? Can the state in time of economic crisis decide that no one below a certain income level can have a baby? Why not?
I am just asking how well you have thought out your position.
I don’t care one way or the other as long as you just eat what you kill.
Here’s a good one. Not quite the same situation but similar. Suppose a building on fire with a baby inside and a refrigerator with 10,000 eggs or stemcells. Who or what do you try to save first?
Another question for the pro-abort folks:
Do you care that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, driven by Eugenics, whose purpose was to lure African-Americans into contraception and abortion in order to eradicate “problem negroes”? (It makes me *sick* just to quote her.)
And now, in our nation’s awesome achievement of having elected our very first (and God willing, not the last) African-American president, we see that even President Obama is obviously ignorant of the roots of Planned Parenthood’s foundational mission.
Don’t believe me? http://www.youtube.com. Search on “Margaret Sanger Eugenics” or “Margaret Sanger interview” and see the footage for yourself.
If you think that Choice is based on women’s rights, you’ve been duped.
With all of the energy these antiabortionist spend, why don’t they better spend it by coming up with better and more effective ways for women to access free birth control. I realize it is the responsibility of the persons involved in the sex act to protect themselves, but guess what? they aren’t doing it as well as they should and if these people REALLY want to fight abortion, do so by coming up with better programs to prevent these unwanted pregnancies to start off with. Long wait times at health units are a big problem for women who don’t put much importance on birth control to start off with. We’ve got to lead these horses to water, otherwise they will not drink buddy.
great stuff. i’ve read a couple of other posts by you and am looking forward to reading more.
Not stumped at all. Various acts of murder recieve varying degrees of punishment. I actually think the doctors who perform the proceedure should recieve the higher degree of punishment. Saying abortion is not ending a human life is foolish. But so is saying there are no extenuating circumstances to take into consideration is equally foolish.
Good point Jennifer. It seems that little tidbit of history is often ignored.
Why does the pro-abortion crowd not consider the consequences of having abortion be legal? For instance, medical procedures are most safe when performed by a doctor who has lots of experience. You don’t want to have heart surgery with a doctor who has done them “now and then.”
So for abortion to be really safe you need a doctor who performs lots of them. Also, of course the doctor doesn’t just figure out how to do them, he has to be trained. That means a medical establishment dedicated to the performance of abortions. Also, it means a physician (someone who formerly took an oath to “do no harm”) who now routinely takes life — day in day out, the abortion doctor kills children.
This doctor sees the child he kills each time. And the aborted baby looks just like — well, a baby. What does it do to the doctor psychologically? What does it do to his soul? (Or do we not have souls these days?)
Most abortionists are men, too, according to available statistics. Ever consider why that might be so?
In other words, the whole industry of abortion — it is an industry like any other — changes the entire medical landscape and the landscape of our souls, one might add. And a whole movement has arisen dedicated to making sure that this industry devoted to killing children keeps running.
There are many alternatives to abortion, not the least among them being individual responsibility. People can accept themselves as moral agents. They can look upon sexuality as have a moral dimension and not just an “urge.”
People can recollect the possibilities of love. A man can look at a woman and respect her rather than seeing her as something to be merely acted upon. A woman can take herself and her own life as having unique worth. People can fall in love and be faithful to each other.
A popular song of the late 19th century was “I dream of Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair.” Some of our contemporary popular songs cannot be quoted in polite company. Are men and women losers or winners by these changes in the social order?
With abortion comes many unforeseen consequences. Mother Theresa said, if a mother can murder her own child, what is to stop us from all murdering each other?
Do you have an answer to HER question?
This is to easy.
First, why is it that you do not want to be called pro-abortion? Most want the title of pro-choice. Right? You actually got it right though when you called pro-life people anti-abortionist since those who are against life are pro-abortion.
If a true pro-life person had trouble answering your question, it would surprise me, because I have no problem what-so-ever answering. An abortionist commits the act, he or she should be charged. Very simple, the act of committing an abortion should be punished if to commit the abortion is illegal. Sometimes a woman might perform an abortion on herself, then she should be charged, but otherwise the so called “doctor” should be the one charged.
Now I have questions for you. I fully understand why pro-life people are against abortion, but why are pro-abortion people against women who are pro-life? What do you lose if I or any other woman chooses to allow our children to live and why do you not want counselling that tells women both sides before an abortion? You may want to say you are not against it, but I can show you plenty of evidence that proves otherwise.
Not only are you against a woman receiving counselling, you are against those who choose life. The hatred I hear in many of your comments is enough to convince me, even if I had not seen and heard how Sarah Palin and her daughter were treated.
Another question, why is it murder to kill a baby one minute after birth but not murder one minute before?
Wow, look at the comment storm of pro-life/choice talking points! The best part is that these folks have nothing to do with government now. Imagine John McDoodle and the Jesus Lady from Alaska being sworn in yesterday. Now there’s a four year anxiety attack. Good riddance to rotten nuts. This country is so far past you and you don’t even know it!
@Jennifer: Thanks for your comment. I think you misunderstand our position. We don’t like abortion. We want it to be done as little as possible. But we also see situations where it should be the choice of the mother. So while we don’t recommend it usually, we want it to be safe for those that make the decision.
Q: Abortion should be illegal, did you say?
A: Slavery was legal, and so is abortion. Slavery is now illegal, and so should abortion. “Abortion; Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.” We also know that birth ends a pregnancy, so this definition is illogical. Abortion ends the life of a human being. A fetus; little child in the latin.
Q: And what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?
A: According to the true definition of voluntary abortion, as stated above, what would happen to any other person that ended the life of a human being? Just because the human being is of a younger age, doesn’t negate the fact that she/he IS a human being.
Q: So if it’s illegal, you think there should be no punishment under the law?
A: There is already punishment under our democratic society. However, in a Republic, the minority is just as important as the majority. You cannot give the group what the individual possess. (this statement must be thought over thoroughly. You’ll get it.)
Q: But isn’t that true with murder, too? Isn’t there a punishment for murder?
A: Is there a punishment for murder? Yes.
And…?
Q: So why shouldn’t there be a punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion?
A: there are punishments for people who take the life of another human being. But there are many variations of punishment to be decided by a jury of his/her peers.
Q: So why should it be illegal?
A: Because in a country of laws, we must protect the weakest and most innocent of our society. Those who cannot protect themselves.
Claim: Fetus do not feel pain before 12 weeks.
Fact: Some paraplegics don’t feel pain. Should we kill them? no. well… Some people think that they should be killed. Eugenics is the safe term they use. Hitler thought paraplegics and gays and old people, and jews should be killed too.
Claim: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman’s womb; it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
Fact: A human being of 12 weeks of age can be compared exactly to an older human being of 1 year, 12 years, 17 years, and any other age on a biological, chemical, and of course, on a DNA level. A one year old is unable to sustain her own life outside of her previous place of residence. Non-conscious thought is no reason to end the life of anyone, say, in a coma, or on breathing apparatus. And finally, two sexually active teenagers making out have a great chance of producing potential life. 23 human chromosomes from a male, and 23 human chromosomes from a female equivocates a human being, at any age.
Claim: Constitutionally, a fetus has no rights of personhood. Most legal precedent in English law attributes personhood to the live born.
Fact: Blacks didn’t have any rights of as human beings until the Dred Scott case. They were not considered to be human beings either. They had a nice made up name for them. What was that name that degraded blacks? hmm… Just because there is a law, does not make it morally or ethically just. All are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator. Created is not “being born” or “personhood” (is that a word?) The fact is that the human being is created from 23 human chromosomes from a male, and 23 human chromosomes from a female, makes it the most amazing creation on our planet.
These are irrefutable scientific facts.
Nice try.
I enjoyed destroying your illogical fallacies
As a Christian it bothers me when every person of faith is typecast as a religious fanatic. People of faith do in fact have the capacity to formulate ideas and arguments. I am pro-life and against needless abortions. When I say ‘needless’ I mean that safe sex has been driven down our throat from grade school on.Men and women that do have the knowledge and choose not to use these methods needlessly get pregnant.
To answer the original question, I do not think abortion will ever be illegal, but if it were, the blame and punishment should fall on the physician that performed the procedure. I think some form of counseling should be mandatory after the procedure to help the mother (and father) process the experience and get on with their lives.
Probation with an extensive educational and counselling component. Jesus came to save lives, not to destroy them. Salvation can involve discipline, but only a rehabilitative one, not a punitive one.
Of course our society will have to be revamped to once again have as its aim the rehabilitation of criminals.
Are women who abort criminals? No, just driven crazy by the pressures placed on them, usually.
Our society, according to St. Antony the Great, is really insane in its thinking and values and world view.
We need some major reconsideration of our values, generally speaking. And this will take time.
Give consideration to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which keeps the Scriptural legal metaphors in their proper perspective. I became one when I understood the way they interpret the Scriptures.
Your question is not easy, but it is answerable.
It’s not fair to generalize all people who think abortion is murder. I can give you a thousand answers, and I already have a few prepared, but there’s more than a good chance that you and maybe others will not take into consideration my point and turn my words against you.
I will keep you in my prayers. All lives are equal in the eyes of the Lord, no matter of race, age, gender, before birth or after.
“You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.”
Well, i accuse them of quite a few things, but “thinks” is not one of them. lol
sry if someone else already pointed this out, i didnt read through all of the comments. too many :’P
Oh and that quote was by Adamus btw
you could possibly accuse the doctor who performed the abortion as the one who is the murderer. He/She is the one making the whole illegal process possible. So would you consider the Doctor the murderer and the pregnant woman the person witnessing the murder and not doing anything about it. I think that could possibly be a proper legal ramification for those actions if abortion were to be illegal.
I tried this trick when abortion protesters came to my campus. The people answered, without hesitation, that mothers who get abortions should be murdered.
Absolutely brilliant post!
A side note about Margaret Sanger: yes, she supported eugenics, as did many progressive people at one time. Does this mean planned parenthood is bad?
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and most of the American Founding Fathers would be considered bigoted racists by modern standards. Does this mean that America has some kind of dark secret agenda to enslave black people?
Thank you, for posting this video…
Jennifer,
Sounds like you’re trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if those were in fact, the original objectives of Planned Parenthood’s founder, which would be reprehensible indeed, it does not mean we should dismiss the usefulness of Planned Parenthood’s services today. They have saved many women from things such as cervical cancer, and through their outreach birth control education programs have, in fact, prevented more abortions than they have performed. And by the way, no one is pro-abortion. I think we would all like to see fewer cases where women find themselves in these predicaments, but histrionic sanctimonious fits are not the answer, no matter how much they feed one’s need to feel morally superior. We must be pragmatic, we must resist the urge to scapegoat and demonize. And why never any mention of the absentee fathers?
Didn’t this post start with a proposition of logic? “And what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?”
“why don’t they better spend it by coming up with better and more effective ways for women to access free birth control.” Whether or not the pro-life people do or don’t promote birth control has nothing to do with the subject.
Without a doubt, people who don’t want kids should make sure they don’t get pregnant. BUT is is the responsibility of other people to make sure those people who don’t want kids don’t get pregnant? ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDIN’ ME? I am shocked that you would say that. That removal of personal responsibly and substitution of some kind of supervision and transfer of responsibility is not sustainable in any society. Why do we have moral guidelines in a society? Educating and supervising everybody IS SEPARATE from the question of whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a fetus and whether that deserves a punishment.
Jo Colonna – your comparison of abortion to honour killings is a rather weak one. The embryo is not seen as the woman’s property – if that was the case, it would be legal for her to sell it, for example – but a part of her body, like a foot or a cancer. There comes a point in the gestation period where an embryo deserves more rights – and this is a tricky and ongoing question for ethicists and medical professionals. Those who simply thunder THOU SHALT NOT KILL aren’t really adding a great deal to the argument.
The problem with a lot of anti-abortion arguments is that they seem to be about simply maximising life rather than minimising suffering. Why is life always automatically assumed to be superior to the alternative? I fell madly in love with my daughter when I first saw her as an embryo on a 12-week scan. Luckily for her and me, she was born healthy. However, if I had been told at 12 weeks that she was to be born so badly deformed that she would live a very short life comprised entirely of suffering (and this does happen), then ethically speaking, the only decision to be made would have been to abort. This would have broken the hearts of her mother and me for the rest of our lives. A law that would imprison us for doing that would be a crime against humanity.
Daniel, I hope it doesn’t shock you too much when I, an ardent anti-abortionist have no qualms about saying women who commit abortion should face the same penalty murderers face, death. They end a human life period, end of story. That is no different than the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan setting in a road side bomb and then watch with a smile on their face as they end a life. No different than a serial killer who stalks his victim for days and then wraps the cords around the victims neck and watches the victim’s body go limp. For these the penalty should be death…the ancient code, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. So please don’t let it get you down that I an evangelical christian have no problems with answering your tricky little question. By the way your work is almost entirely sophistry and while I may not be smart enough to prove you wrong I can easily recognize the 5 year old’s play ground tactic….”you’re wrong….oh yeah…if you think so then prove it.”
Samuel G -
You forgot to mention that when a woman has a miscarriage there shouldn’t be any sorrow- if it wasn’t a baby she really didn’t loose anything.
Sir,
With all due respect, I think that you are missing an important point. Your argument is made to attack the opposition with little regard to the seriousness of abortion, even objectively as a medical procedure. The fact that you diminish the issue of abortion to a clever logical snare is missing the point entirely. Sure, I think it would be nice if the only way to do things was the “logical way”. Ironically, it is not remotely reasonable to assume that. Mostly I hope your tirades in the future are a bit more sensitive to the issue at hand as you debate the opposition.
That is an absurd argument. Just because you may be able to stump a few anti-abortionists with this question does not mean that we don’t really believe that it is taking a life. That’s ridiculous. There are many anti-abortionists who could answer that question easily. Also, it is not our place to judge the women who have had abortions. It is our place to pray for them and for their souls. They will have to face God at the judgment day, and he will be the one to punish the sins, not us. However, I do believe that the doctors (murderers) who are performing the abortions (murders) should be arrested and tried for murder. Absolutely.
Have you ever seen an ultrasound? How on earth could anyone deny that it is a baby? A living, tiny creature that God himself has woven together inside the womb. A human being, just as much as you or I. Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you?
wow amansman, I’m not sure what the baby Jesus would think of that little diatribe.
How about the American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are also killing people? Are they for the electric chair when they get home too? How about the executioner who’s going to kill all the women that so disgust you – are they not also bound by ‘a life for a life’ ?
@Amansman,
I’m not shocked at all, actually. Glad you’re at least consistent, even though I find your view crazy.
And I’m not trying to practice “sophistry.” You cite my practice of putting the burden of proof on the asserter as a “5 yr old’s playground tactic.” But you must agree that this must be done. That is, if I claim you’re actually an alien with a yellow nose and your name is Barlseyman, you’re going to ask me to prove it. And the burden of proof would be on me, because I’m the one making the assertion.
Christians assert Jesus did miracles and rose from the grave. Neat. But you can’t expect anyone rational to believe this without A LOT of evidence. These things don’t happen. If they did, then we need evidence. If there’s evidence, we’ll believe. Because it would be awesome if it were true! (As long as you’re a believer.)
You do this with every religion except your own. Muslims claim you are going to hell, that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and Muhammad is the last real prophet from God and he ascended to heaven on a horse. Do you believe? Why not? Because you require evidence, that’s why!
I am shocked that they cannot answer it either. For me, my immediate response would be to try them for murder and sentence accordingly. I see no problem with that.
Great argument – and it might work among those who are only nominally in that camp… However, the dedicated religious fanatic is going to have an answer for everything, and it’s all going to be Scripture based, and doesn’t rely on reason, fact, or anything that even remotely resembles logic. Instead it relies solely on God’s word.
My views remain unchanged, I’m still anti-abortion, if that means that there should be a punishment for those who choose to perform that action then it’s a fine with me. It’s simply really.
The answer to your question is simple and doesn’t stump me for a moment.
Women who have illegal abortions should face some criminal action. Those that preform them should face sever criminal action. To say that most conservatives feel ok with the death penalty means that this always means that this is the best punishment for a crime is faulty on it’s face.
The premise of the question is based on a broad and most likely, knowingly, part of a conservative platform that is pro death penalty.
You can refuse to think life is not a life until it breaths it’s first breath but I think most would find it hard to sit through a funeral of a full term, wanted and well loved prior to birth, still born and still feel that that life wasn’t a life.
A baby is a fetus if it isn’t wanted, not a person or human life. A baby is a baby if it is wanted. This is pretty much the argument of the pro choice group.
You raise an excellent question. To their credit the people protesting had a compassionate side and clearly had not thought past the heartfelt protection of zygotes / embryos / babies. In much the same way, many people in the environmental movement might like to see the Kyoto Protocol signed by the US, but might not have considered how the US government should be punished if the Protocol’s rules were broken. Having said that, I would expect anyone who takes part in a public protest to at the very least have considered their issue from several angles, and strategically followed several what-if scenarios. That’s standard business practice in almost any movement; that’s how you plan your future. It’s unfortunate then that the the organizers of this event apparently didn’t keep their friendly and well-meaning volunteers very well informed.
I meant simple.
@Kevin, way up there near the top. you said
“but I would love to see all the energy and emotion that that is put into protesting clinics and trying to make it illegal put into helping young women, preferably before they get pregnant, so that we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.”
There are so many resources out there for those sorts of things. Not all anti-abortionists are stand on street corners damning doctors to hell for aborting babies. http://www.care-net.org/ is just one of the many resources for women to utilize. But it’s things like the Freedom of Choice Act that are bringing us down.
I am not for Abortion because of what it does to the child. The child has no choice in the matter, but this question would not stump me. Maybe this is a bad answer but I think that women who have an abortion will go through plenty without there being a strict judgement. There are the after effects of depression. There is aspects of it that harm the body. I had a conversation with a person recently who believe in pro-choice and I came out of the conversation with a better understanding of what they really believe, but the truth is we are in a society that doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of our actions. At least that is what we believe, but that is not what happens. Coming from someone who has not be able to have children, it is hard to hear that someone chose to take the life of the child because it wasn’t convienent for them. We are so worried about the women, we forget that there are two lives involved. (I know not every believes that life begins at the same time) At the moment a child can be aborted as it is being born, is that not a person to have some choice. Legally there probably isn’t anything you can do about it – but making it too easy is not the answer either. Now my tax dollars are going to go and support something that I am against – what about that aspect.
amansman – that is troubling. Would you personally kill with your own hands a 17 girl who has an abortion? In her imperfection.
Having an abortion is killing. No doubt. Who can argue that?
But the man who kills another man deserves forgiveness. An eye for an eye is not a true translation and not the path.
I think all that can be done is to uphold morals with our own words and example. This is a journey, we have not arrived at any perfection.
Have any of you scientifically-illiterate sanctimonious misogynists ever heard of spontaneous abortions? A very high proportion of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted without any deliberate intervention. God is the biggest abortionist on the planet. I recommend we hang him at high noon. Oh wait, that’s already been done.
Maybe you should have given them enough time to think about the question as you did. I’m sure you prepared these questions well in advance – maybe even a few days in advance. You make them look bad by catching them immediately, then forcefully getting to the next rehearsed question. I guarantee you would fold under the same conditions.
Ali,
“Have you ever seen an ultrasound?”
Yes, I have all my children’s ultrasounds on video.
“How on earth could anyone deny that it is a baby?”
Well, in the early ones they look – and are – nothing like a baby; more like tadpoles, incapable of emotion, joy, pain or anything else that makes us human.
“A living, tiny creature that God himself has woven together inside the womb.”
Actually, it got there through me having sex with my girlfriend. (Unless God has been sneaking into my house while I’ve been at work).
“A human being, just as much as you or I. ”
No – see above. (Also see posts above about the choice between rescuing embyos or a living child from a burning IVF clinic)
“Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you?”
Extremely. However, there are a whole host of extremely unpleasant disabilites and illnesses (which your God also presumably would have lovingly woven into my embryo) which – if had been born with them – might have made me reverse that decision.
There should be a punishment. Life in prison, or death. You might stump an anti-abortionist on the issue of what should happen with women who have illegal abortions, but that isn’t the main issue. Its taking a human life. Period. The issue is to stop people from aborting innocent babies.
And frankly, I question how much of a heart you have. Do you not see the pictures in that video? Its terrible that babies would have to feel that pain. Focus on the important issue; of stopping murder.
But you think it’s ok to abort a perfectly healthy baby because it’s not convinient?
A death by natural causes is not one human life taking the life of another.
“In the early ones they look nothing like a baby”
Well, Lance, we all have to start somewhere. You were a tadpole too.
I suppose this seems like a brilliant post to those who support legalized abortion. And, to be sure, there are people who are against legalized abortion who have either not thought the question through enough to formulate a sound argument, or who respond in a somewhat callous way. And those people will become the poster child for all opponents of legalized abortion.
The fact that you may stump some people with this, or get illogical answers, does not in itself make this a silver bullet any more than someone not being able to explain an otherwise explainable theological point refutes that point. All you have done is locate ignorance.
In order to udnerstand why there is a compatibility in the position that abortion is murder and – as it now stands (or would likely stand soon after it would become illegal, should that day arrive) – that a mother should not be sent to prison for life, is firmly rooted in our legal system.
Today, our legal system has very wide gradations of severity of punishment for acts that are all considered murder. There will be different penalties depending on whether a person takes multiple lives, whether or not it was aggravated (accompanied with battery or rape), whether or not it was premeditated, whether or not there is a motivation that falls under “hate crime” legislation, whether it was committed during another felonious act, and so on. Even within these categories, there are gradations of both severity of prosecution and there is a range of potential sentences.
The reason for all these differences have to do with society’s view of the act. It is agreed by society that all the acts are murder. And yet, they are not treated in the same manner. Why? Numerous reasons. The reasons evolve over time as society sees fit. hate crimes are relatively new. A person’s mental state is considered, both from the perspective of guilt or innocence along with the sentence. Intent, knowledge, the reasonable person test, etc. are all components of the assessment. Of course, actual proof is necessary, as well. Character witnesses on both sides are used to try to paint the entire picture of what led to the crime. The way a person was raised may be used as evidence. And so on.
So, it is no surprise at all that the act of abortion can both be considered murder, while at the same time not require a call to have the mother incarcerated for life. As we currently stand, even if it were to become illegal, there has been a generation of women told and convinced that it is OK. There is a societal viewpoint that has affected the manner in which this act is viewed. There are bound to be personal considerations that speak to motive and intent, knowledge, consent, intelligence, state of mind, and all that.
So, thank you for your post, but this question simply is not the stumper. Listen, not every one is an intellectual thinker. Many people have their strengths in the emotional aspect of things. The exact same holds true for many pro-choice individuals with whom I have bantered with, who give the most irrational and perplexing of answers to otherwise logical questions.
I’m new to this blog. I saw the title on the home page of wordpress and burst into laughter. Are you serious? Is that supposed to be an argument? Do you know how many fallacies you’ve committed? Wow!
The answer is simple! The women should be given the same sentence that a man would be given for kicking her in the stomach, pushing her down the stairs, or drowning her (Scott Peterson) with the result of killing the baby!
That’s an easy one. Try again.
Good luck explaining that one to God on Judgment Day. It’ll suck to be you.
I have to agree with Steve…follow the logic of the law. If abortion is illegal (except in clear cases of rape), and a woman goes through with an illegal abortion, charge the woman with infanticide. Prison time should include counseling with a minister.
And I would like to add that it’s not like putting the unwanted child up for adoption is that difficult.
good stuff.
i agree that there was likely sincerity behind the intentions of these anti-abortion advocates, but their inability to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question points to a serious flaw in their contention that abortion is murder.
I’m on a righteous campaign to Save Our Sperm. Sperm are human and they are alive! WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF YOUR FATHER WACKED OFF INSTEAD OF “BEING WITH YOUR MOTHER”!!!? It just stands to reason that if an impregnated Egg is blessed then the Sperm is also HOLY. I say we must, we must save them all. People who masterbate could be commiting murder.
S.O.S is not associated with Unattached Embryos Deserve a Home. Those people are insane.
/sarcasm off
“Good luck explaining that one to God on Judgment Day. It’ll suck to be you.”
Ah, yes….the last resort—-intimidation. What a good reason to adopt a belief. How thoughtful, thanks for sharing.
douglaskev, how is the burden of proof on the people not have the abortions?
Not really a tough one-I’ve thought about the answer to that question many times. And as long as the abortion wasn’t because of rape or incest-that is, if the abortion was just cosmetic or elective, then the punishment should be the same as if you’d just gunned down a child in a nursery. Trial by jury and then either death penalty or life imprisonment.
But here’s a question for you: If abortion should be legal, shouldn’t gunning down children in a nursery also be legal?
What should happen to the deadbeat fathers who contributed to the need for these abortions in the first place? Should they be charged as accessories to murder?
I wonder if the entire reason for the invention of faith is to satisfy a human need to quickly and lazily presume to have filled gaps in understanding- like a child rearranging food on the plate to try to make it look eaten.
If that is the case, then it would seem natural that there would be a positive correlation between religious devotees, and people who fail to give issues sufficient thought.
This guy pretty much acts like the opposite of an extremist Christian. Just a bunch of butting heads accomplishing very little.
Abortion was outlawed in the 19th century because the procedure was unsafe — nothing to do with protecting a fetus. Prior to 1973, in those states where abortion was illegal, physicians were accused of performing an unsafe or unapproved operation. It was not regarded as an assault in most states, and certainly not even tantamount to murder.
There is great irony here: Abortion was outlawed because there was no safe medical procedure, and so to protect the mothers, the operation was illegal. Then, once safe procedures were developed, anti-abortionists sprang up and invented reasons it shouldn’t be legal, including inventing history that simply is not so.
Why not use the penalty imposed in the Old Testament? The person who caused the unwanted abortion must pay a fee to the father, who would have owned the child and had the right to put it to death on his own.
Fact is, we are a lot more moral these days about a lot of this stuff.
In most states, murder of a pregnant woman is, legally, one murder. A few states have added statutes making the death of a fetus a crime, but not a majority, and the laws are clumsy and largely untried.
It’s human tissue, but it’s not a viable human being. Why would you call it something it’s not?
Traditionally, it was regarded as nothing until “quickening,” when the mother could feel it move. Traditionally, because deaths in birth or before birth were so common, the fetus wasn’t regarded as a human until birth. Some cultures regarded a baby as not fully human until it had survived at least a year.
If you’re trying to make a case on modern medicine, acknowledge that you’re way out of the realm of traditional religion, please.
Emphasis on weird. Not logical, either, nor enlightening or persuasive.
Anti-choice people tend to do all sorts of unscientific, superstitious and weird things to rationalize their political and anti-woman views, in my experience.
WITHOUT man’s instinct we do not know how the infant breath inside the mother’s womb and how it slowly grows inside..
Therefore we do not know the appropriate explanation of How God processes the so called- life..
We must take care of it…
To the illegal abortionist women here on Earth..
they are worth of death penalty because of the
life they intentionally killed..
I AM WRITING…
the possibility that God will Do..
Ali,
(Assuming this question was for me:)
“But you think it’s ok to abort a perfectly healthy baby because it’s not convinient?”
Morally, absolutely not. That is a terrible reason to abort an embryo. It is also not OK to force someone to carry an embryo to term that they will just have to watch suffer and die when they are born, or might be a constant reminder of a rape or incest. In my opinion, a blanket criminalisation of abortion increases real human suffering, which is why I am against it. It is a very tricky legal, ethical and medical debate – and one which needs to continue – to which religious insistence on ‘sacred life at all costs’ and that a freshly fertilized egg is just as human as you or I add very little of use.
(And indeed I was a tadpole, and fell in love with my little tadpoles as soon as I first saw them. That just makes me human, not the tadpole.)
Why can’t we make legal distinctions between an unviable fetus and a living human being? We’ve done it in law for 5,000 years, why stop now?
Children in a nursery are not living in the body of someone else, taking nourishment literally from the body of someone else.
Good heavens! Don’t you know the difference between an embryo and an infant?
DOnt legalized abortion…
be a Pro-life and life-lover..
Think and act for the goodness..
of your child…
I am strongly and actively a pro-choice believer, however I feel that this video strongly lacks the understanding of law. Making abortions illegal would punish the doctor not the patient, this would seriously end the availability and societal acceptance of the practice. It is an easy answer to the question and should be taken into account. I do not believe this should be done, but I also do not believe that the question being posed would stump an educated pro-lifer. The real question to ask would be in response to the claim the rape victims should be allowed abortions and thats it, has anyone ever considered how long a rape case takes to decide, the baby would be born or the abortion would happen late into the pregnancy.
interesting. and what would your response be to the fact that a fetus’ organs and fact start forming at 4 weeks. is this not life? if it is, then what is it called when you terminate it?
http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-fetal-development
This post is pretty good. I will use this argument in future.
Anti-abortionists are soooo full of shit, generally. I usually ask how much their organisation does to support the babies after they are born. You know, because they care about the child’s welfare so much, obviously they’ll be helping that mother out with a whole pile of financial support to compensate her for the fact that she can’t afford to raise it? Yeah, like hell they will. Most of those orgaisations don’t do shit in that regard. But this argument is better.
Gotta say though, a lot of the rest of the stuff on here is kind of weak, man. You should concentrate more on the issues than can actually be solved in a social context, like abortion and homosexuality, and less on the whole ‘God is evil’ stuff. So, some people in a church died, and the founders are wanted criminals? You and your followers sound almost happy about that, and are turning it into a joke. But it’s a tragedy. If belief in God can give solace after such an event it’s a lot more than you have done here.
I dunno, honestly some of this reads like someone who has been wrong for a long time and is now kind of embarrassed and wants to ‘get in’ by saying all the right kind of things, loudly. But I think you can be better than that. Maybe you had better humility as a Christian?
Very good point you make here, about the cognitive dissonance. The only thing wrong here, is most people don’t believe in killing anyone at all, whether they are tiny, medium, black, white, disabled, etc., so when someone asks: What should happen to the girls getting abortion illegally, I would say “Nothing should happen to them at all. It will be up to God, not us.” Even I, as a Christian can admit that certain circumstances may warrant an abortion(rape, incest…), other than that, why would a woman want an abortion?
Instead of rallying in front of Abortion Clinics, or asking questions that are designed to stump people why don’t we get at the heart of whats really happening?
Irresponsibility.
We are a society that says: “If your lips are too big, get lipo! If your hips are too wide, lipo! If you don’t like your hair, dye it! If you don’t like your skin, bleach it/tan it,” And ultimately, if you want to continue having sex out of wedlock, and don’t want to mess that pretty little figure of yours-abort!”
People like quick fixes. If it isn’t working out, take it out.
Irresponsibility.
Great post, by the way.
An equally good question the other side must answer is this:
If life does not begin at conception, then when exactly does it begin?
If this cannot be legitimately answered (or is “below [our] pay-grade”), what we are basically saying is that we are not sure when life begins. In that case, what we are doing is the equivalent to walking into a room blindfolded and firing a gun, uncertain if we’ll kill anyone or not. Regardless of what may happen, it’s never in our best judgment to do so.
Regarding the question of what to do with women who have illegal abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned:
We must first recognize that the numbers of abortions drastically change if it is made illegal. At this point, the US averages nearly 1.4 million abortions per year! Make abortion illegal, and our numbers drop dramatically. Currently, the government funds abortions and President Obama has vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act to largely increase funding and the ease with which women can have abortions.
If we remove the protection under law and government aid, most women will not choose a back alley abortion. But while this issue definitely deserves attention, it is hypocritical to not also direct our attention to those doing drugs in back alleys and other ‘back alley’ crimes. Then we will see that, in truth, the back alley argument is more of an emotional red herring.
The same is true of abortions in instances of rape or incest. Currently, these only make up 1% of the number of abortions each year. Should we outlaw pools because children can drown in them? Or outlaw cars because people can die in car accidents? To keep legalized abortion for the 1% and be consistent, we must outlaw every mode of travel available, swimming pools, stairs, cigarettes, alcohol, foods with high fat content, etc…
We need compassionate people willing to respond to women who need counsel in times of crisis. We need people willing to adopt. We need a system friendly to adoption. We need to value children, and stop seeing them as drains on our wallet and a tax on our time. We need better sex education that starts at home with mom and dad. We need mom and dad (especially dad!) in the home. We need to take a hard look at the eugenics issue that lies behind abortion (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was an outspoken racist and eugenics proponent, which is part of the reason why most abortion clinics are found near inner-city black populations, and have claimed the lives of approximately half of all black children conceived since 1973).
This is a complex issue, but there are solutions that don’t involve ending lives of the unborn.
this is stupid. if i were an antiabortionist, i would just say that they should be imprisoned.
luckily, since im a lesbian, i dont have to worry about any of these items
The question of legality is what makes the definitions of life “baby” vs. tissue “embryo/fetus” so important. If, as I believe, the fetus is a child, then that child deserves the same legal protection as any other child in society.
You can see why it’s so important for the Pro-Choice community to win the arguement for defining individual life as something that begins post-birth. As long as the child remains a “tissue” belonging to the mother, then she has the right to remove it. But, if that tissue is actually a child, then the mother becomes essentially a killer by choosing another person’s death.
I’ve looked at sonograms of two kicking tissues growing in my wife…and I’ve seen babies both times!
Well, that is an interesting question, but I think it’s a red herring. What does this have to do with whether abortion is wrong or not? …Regardless, if it’s wrong, and it’s a crime, then yes, it should be punished… Why do you get joy out of ‘stumping’ these people when this issue doesn’t even invalidate their claim?
ps: @ ‘Christian’ (we get it),
To answer in an absurdly long run-on sentence your head-shatteringly clever, rhetorical counter-question, which I’m sure you typed with an ear-to-ear grin, brimming with sinful pride in the genius of your Swiftian proposition, imagining the boundless frustration of the confounded heathens; no, because no sensible person would hold to the same level of culpability an individual who chooses to remove from her body a parasitic cellular blob feeding off of her, and an individual who kills to no personal benefit, multiple organisms which are appreciably, rather than genetically human, are capable of independently sustaining their own life, sensing pain, experiencing love and loss, possessing thought, and whose lives are presumably valued immeasurably by other humans. But thanks for providing a genuinely good case study for my previous comment, asshole.
Yes. Simple. There should be penalties for women who get abortions illegally as well as for the doctors who performed them. Ideally, severe punishment would be given, as with any murder. In our society, however, that just would not fly since society has been desensitized to the killing of the unborn.
Furthermore, simply being unable to answer that question does not make anyone’s point. It just makes the person being asked the question look bad because they can’t answer it at the moment. Some people can’t think on their feet anyway and probably even less so with a camera in their faces.
Abortion is *homicide*. Homicide is not treated uniformly by the law. Premeditation, intention, mental state, mitigating circumstances, etc., factor in to charge and sentence severity.
I’m no legal expert, so I don’t know what would be the ideal charge and/or sentence for a mother who procured an illegal abortion. I suspect in most cases there’d be sufficient mitigating circumstances to absolve mothers of most culpability and therefore give them minimal or suspended sentences. It seems reasonable to me, though, that most doctors in most circumstances would have full culpability, be charged with more serious crimes, and be subject to stronger sentences.
The answer to you question is very simple as I explain in my post @ http://revolutionaryouth.wordpress.com/ (or you can click on the banner below). I must say I do not understand why the people in the video could not answer you r question unless it is is simply the way you asked the question which I must say was clever, whether you intentionally asked it the way you did or not I do not know but either way there is a simple answer.
What arrogance, and gross stupidity to boot. You didn’t stump me, or anyone else who has arrived at their conclusions on the basis of faith AND reason (we Catholics like to apply both, much to the consternation of you atheists). Rather than put down the specs for you, just see Andrew’s response, above. I’ll be at the March tomorrow, with hundreds of thousands of folks just like me. If that gives you fits, then I’ve accomplished that much, at least.
Just read through the opinions here.
Alright most of you consider yourselves Pro-life. So what is the definition of Life to you? Does Life only mean Human Life? or All Life. If its only human life, I think its very selective and therefore to a degree hypocritical. If its all life, then we are all murders each time we eat food to sustain ourselves.
Imho, when we say “I believe” it usually means that we dont know that for a fact, its just our opinion, that others could say or do differently.
My two cents.
If abortion were illegal there would and should be consequences for those actions. There are many who think marajuana should be legal and that the punishment for being caught with marajuana should not be as severe as being caught with other illegal drugs. No matter what your stance on whether or not it should be legal it is illegal therefore consequences follow if you are caught! Women who have abortions oftentimes struggle with that decision for the duration of their lives, that is a punishment. But under the law, if it were illegal, some sort of sentencing would be appropriate. I am a pro life person….however, I try not to impose my beliefs on others. Basically, I am just answering a question that you posed.
Daniel,
In all honesty, I really don’t see how this is a “stumper” of an argument. I don’t mean to burst your proverbial bubble, but this question is really not that tough.
The vast majority of people involved in the pro-life movement like myself do not advocate criminal sanctions against mothers, mostly because their decision is often not an informed one (thus negating the mens rea requirement under the law). That said, criminal punishment should follow criminal behavior by doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath and who knowingly (thus fulfilling the mens rea requirement) take the life of another.
In MANY cases the mother wants to abort her child, voila, mens rea. Her doctor, therefore, is at best an accomplice in the “murder” of the “unborn victims.” What would you do, crucify her upon a golden cross?
Oh my ‘god’ I’ve still got more for “Christian”. Ok, did you really say “Trial by jury and then either death penalty or life imprisonment. ” I can’t believe I missed this the first time.
If I ever commit a crime, I hope its not in an area ruled by your ideas for law, where ‘trial by jury’ invariably results in conviction and one of two extremely severe punishments. Good grief, what a thing to say.
wow… way to make a broad statement about an entire group of people. I thought liberals were the business of working for everyone to be accepted. Except for anti-abortionists and conservatives.
Let’s start with the simple: That question doesn’t stump anti-abortionists. It just causes them to think more about their position. Which the pro-choice movement needs to do as well.
You’re starting from the presupposition that abortion isn’t wrong. Therefore any argument against abortion is inherently incorrect because you’ve already started from the position that abortion isn’t wrong. But don’t feel bad; most pro-lifers do the exact same thing. And furthermore, you’re establishing an argument against a position based on a hypothetical situation. That’s like starting an argument with the phrase “Suppose the sky was green…”
Is abortion the taking of a human life? Yes. Should we compound the situation by demanding that another life be taken? No. That’s asinine and ludacris. Two wrongs never make a right, but you’re not even addressing the issue behind the issue: Why would someone get an abortion? What issues pushed a woman to make a decision?
But here’s two questions to stump pro-choicers (sticking with your poorly chosen hypothetical situation argument):
“What would have happened if your mother had an abortion?”
“Why doesn’t the father have a say in the issue?”
But a more important question is why is Roe V. Wade still upheld when the lead plantiff never had an abortion and admitted that she lied while testifying about the cause of her pregnancy?
But that’s the kind of thing that will be shot down as conservative bull. So much for free speech and free thought.
This thread is absolutely fascinating, if only because so many of the participants show no sign of actually having thought about this issue to any great extent.
So, here are some questions for anyone who is willing to answer (and I hope that they will highlight just how difficult a topic this is):
1) What is life, and why do you place a higher value on one life, as opposed to another (both human and non-human)?
2) What is personhood, when does it begin, and why?
3) Why do so many pro-lifers care not a jot about the immeasurable human suffering and tens of thousands of preventable deaths, all around the world (note: morality transcends borders), and why don’t give up all of their disposable income to help to prevent this if they are so concerned for innocent life (I don’t buy that for a second, by the way – at least, not for 99% of people)? How do you justify this, morally?
4) Why do so many pro-lifers oppose measures that are scientifically and statistically known to dramatically cut down on the number of abortions – such as comprehensive sex education, freely available contraceptives, and serious help for women who have no-one to turn to, etc, etc?
I think that I will stop there. I ask these questions because there are no easy answers to this issue, and anyone who thinks that there are has simply not thought about it enough.
Very few people who support a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body are “comfortable” with abortion. However, most of us simply don’t see this magical cut-off point that some seem to believe exists. In fact, we know that, scientifically speaking, there isn’t one, and that the development of life is a continuous trajectory. There are, of course, certain points where we can say that another layer of personhood has been added, such as the development of the nervous system, or the neural connections that lead to brain function, etc.
That is why it is important to talk about sentience and personhood, and when you get in to that, you may come to realize that an adult chimpanzee is actually as worthy of protection (in many respects) as a human baby. And yes, I realize that that will horrify many people, but I’m not really interested in an emotional reaction.
Also, if death is classified as brain death – meaning that the heart can often still work perfectly – why does “life” not begin when the brain begins to function properly – without which, the baby would not be “alive”, in any meaningful sense of the word?
How about this question for the Abortionist.
How many generations does a woman destroy with one decisive act to terminate a life of an unborn child?
Watch as the same logical reasoning this post uses to dissay the anti-abortionists take on the same aspect for the pro-abortionists.
Honestly, I don’t think it is a crime if a woman uses abortion as a birth control. Quite honestly, that is what modern day abortion is.
Granted, if a woman’s life is in jeopardy or the child’s life is in jeopardy, then there are certain provisions allowable.
However, how many of the abortions that have occured in the USA were accomplished because the woman’s life was in danger?
You may argue that a woman has the right to decide what she ought to do with her body. But, if this is a valid logical argument, then why do psychologists and councilors, medical professions discourage the use of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, bulimec, annerexia, prostitution are all wrong and social ills? IF a woman truly has a right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, then why make suicide a crime (which it is because it is considered attempted murder) and women who survive suicide are placed in psych wards and undergo evaluation?
Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Yes, I believe that outside of an endangerment of life or the cause of incestial or rape, a woman does not have the right to deny the life of another human being.
Disagree with me all you want, but the truth is the truth and I will stand on what is just and right – an unborn child has just as much right to life as you and I have the right to life.
Learn to spell “anorexia nervosa” correctly before feigning wisdom. I’m not an alcoholic, and I do know what dismal consequences alcoholism cause, but I’m not in the mood for the Prohibition. I disliked prostitution as objectification of women, but never pettition for a legal ban.
“a woman does not have the right to deny the life of another human being.” Sperms and Eggs are also no less alive than a fetus. Men wasted millions when they ejaculate and women every time they have their period. When a man impregnate a woman, few of 6 millions reach the egg to fertilize it. Sperms, Eggs, and Fetuses have the Potential of BECOMING a human person, which only exist AFTER BIRTH. Prenatal care only are not for the benefits of the unborn, but rather for their parents (biological or not doesn’t matter here).
I think the men here gleefully suggesting draconian punishments for women who have abortions are attempting to hide a love affair with their own sperm behind a feigned concern for babies. And the women, too, exhibit reprehensible misogyny, having a vested interest in encouraging other women to stay pregnant, thereby limiting the competition. I guess unacknowledged genetic survival instincts do a number on a person’s character.
Gee, another abortion opponent who doesn’t have a clue what the decision in Roe v. Wade was about, or what it said.
Surprised?
Interesting post.
I think women have the right to choose. Obviously abortion is not to be taken lightly and a dozen factors play in, but it’s their body. I disagree with using abortion as a form of birth control, but I also disagree with women having to give birth. There are more than enough unwanted babies and children in the world, whether they have parents or not. Making abortion unreachable or illegal just means women will find other unsanitary and unsafe methods, like wire hangers.
Though far from Christian, I’m reading the Bible. It’s filled with stories of killing in G-d’s name, women and infants included.
Wow, this is smoking along. That’s what happens when you get on the front page of wordpress I guess.
@Andrew and others,
Funny how so many of the pro-life comments on here are just reverting back to the “When does the foetus become human?” issue, even though that’s not actually the topic raised.
No-one is really arguing the other side of that point, folks! The subject here is crime and punishment. If it’s illegal, what should happen to those who perpetrate it? It’s almost as though you’ve spent so much time thinking the other topic through, you’ve got nothing to say on anything else.
Saying “an equally important qestion the other side must answer” just sounds like hijacking the conversation over to the only thing youv’e really thought about. Politicians do it.
Or not…how about the man who was arrested for double homicide because he killed his pregnant wife?
What you *should* ask them is how they feel about the death penalty and war.
@timothy:
“But, if this is a valid logical argument, then why do psychologists and councilors, medical professions discourage the use of tobacco, drugs, alcohol, bulimec, annerexia, prostitution are all wrong and social ills? [ what the hell? ] … Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
1.) Discourage and outlaw are not the same thing. Not relevant.
2.) Some of those things are outlawed for children because they are said to be incapable of making a good decision for themselves. Not applicable here.
3.) Yes, suicide is illegal, and lets take a moment to reflect on the absurdity of that.
Oh, I should have read further. Andrew continued:
Actually, abortions drop, per capita, in nations where abortions are legal. For whatever reason, abortions are more frequently done when the operation is made illegal.
Don’t let the facts bother you though. One thing a fetus is not, to an abortion opponent, is a real fact. They’re all hypothetical, off in Cloud Cuckooland.
Just a cuple of my thoughts on some things people have said in regards to this issue -
What the current laws are regarding the murder of a pregnant woman (whether it counts as 2 murders or not) is irrelevant – anti-abortionists may say “Well if it’s not a life then why is this law in place??” Laws are not FACTS. Laws are laws and they may be wrong and stupid, so first of all, don’t use “Well this is the law so it must be a life!!!” as an argument. It’s not valid.
With this issue, I believe that the punishment for murdering a pregnant woman should be MORE harsh than the punishment for murdering just a person – but LESS harsh than the punishment for 2 murders. This is because I believe that a foetus is not a human being yet, but it is the possibility of a future human being, and obviously in most cases the mother will consider it her baby, she will be emotionally attached to it, it would be especially devastating for the father/partner/loved ones of the woman to lose not only the woman, but her baby as well.
An unborn baby is not yet a fully-functioning human. It is alive, but I do not count it as a “human life” – just the POTENTIAL of one.
What makes us who we are? What makes us human beings? Certainly not just the physical parts of us that have human DNA. No sir. We are who we are – more of a person every day – because of what we learn, our thoughts, our emotions, our MEMORIES. When it comes down to the life of a mother or the life of her unborn baby/cluster of foetal cells… I would save the mother every time. She has friends, relatives, she has a place in the world. She has memories, a story to tell. She is a human being. A foetus is human physiologically, sure, but there is no person in there.
And we can see why it’s so important for the anti-woman community to win the argument for defining life as any human cell, no matter how impossible the chances it will turn into a viable, full-term baby. There’s no justification for opposing abortion if we get rational about it. So, damn the facts, damn the Bible, damn tradition, damn history, damn science — a fetus must be given the right to vote and run for Congress, even if it can’t be drafted or drink a beer.
Of course, since 40% to 60% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, once we redefine abortion as murder, God will be seen as the bloodthirsty, mass murderer he really is, to abortion foes.
Sadly, I think many of them wouldn’t be bothered by that.
Even better proof that most people that are “pro-life” dont really believe abortion is murder is that they want it legal in cases of rape and incest. That proves that its really about sex. Very few people, like maybe 15%, want it illegal in all cases.
Also, murder is illegal because if it wasnt society would degenerate into anarchy. A civilized society couldnt exist without murder being illegal. Same for theft. You cant say that about abortion. In fact, you can argue the exact opposite (see Freakonomics).
When abortions were illegal in the past, women who procured abortions were generally considered second victims of the crime and generally not charged. Only a few reported cases from various jurisdictions involve women charged with crimes for procuring abortions.
I doubt that would change if abortion became illegal again.
Hear, hear, Ed!
And, I should add, I wouldn’t want that to change. If abortion became illegal, prosecuting those who procure abortions doesn’t solve much of anything.
Man, explaining my compassionate pro-life stance is really making me hungry. I think I’ll go grab a burger or chicken sandwich made from animals that I know damn well were tortured every miserable day of their mutated lives in ways that would make Hell cringe, just so I can save a little coin and continue to pretend that meat is necessary for good health.
Ahh, you hardliners. As if quantifying humanity were a mere reductive exercise.
Look, I hate abortion. I do think it’s murder. That said, I don’t blame the mothers–they are left to deal with a situation when the man can just move on. That’s not fair. But then again, despite our best intentions, you can’t legislate biological fairness.
I’m a guy who wouldn’t have a wife or two daughters if abortion were a defacto choice. My mother-in-law had a high risk pregnancy in the early 60′s and was told, emphatically, that my brilliant, gorgeous wife would be born severely retarded. My two daughters both came from the strongest birth mothers who–defying social stigma–entrusted my wife and I to care for their daughters. A lonely choice. My oldest daughter’s birth mom was even told “How can you give up your own flesh and blood? I could never. You should have had an abortion.”
I won’t begin to try to find sense in that statement because it defies logic. And yet it’s deeply human: issues like these confuse and confound us. If you’d drop the armor of ideology even for a second, you’d see that both sides have points, that there’s a human cost no matter what side you choose, and that an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy allows for no casual choices–every decision has ramifications. Perhaps less for society than for the individuals.
So fine, if you want to keep the abortion debate on the level of namecalling and fingerpointing, that’s your prerogative. But I’m not buying it. It’s woefully incomplete.
Yes, I think it is unfair to beat around rhetorics to confuse people. Not everyone has the best argumentation to back up their claims, but doesn’t make it wrong either.
@MyOpinion
very true, but isn’t breaking invalid arguments, and trying to build one that cannot be broken a crucial part of discovering truth?
@MyOpinion
Not everyone has the best argumentation to back up their claims, but doesn’t make it wrong either.
Yeah, it does make it wrong, if you try to make it law.
Our whole political and legal system is based on people putting forward arguments and the most sound, testable and persuasive arguments win out, and that becomes law and policy.
The problem with anti-abortion / anti-gay campaigning is that it tries to operate in the political and policy arena, and to have a major effect on people’s lives, but then when you ask many of the proponents to actually back up their arguments and frame them properly, they just go “I dunno, I just feel that way.”
You can make law out of “I just fell that way.”? How is anyone supposed to distinguish between what you feel and what I feel?
Emotive opinions are one thing. Trying to turn them into workable law or social policy is quite another.
“I’ll go grab a burger or chicken sandwich made from animals that I know damn well were tortured every miserable day of their mutated lives in ways that would make Hell cringe,”
How the hell did cruelty to animals and vegetarian crappo get brought into this?
@ Damian
You asked – 1) What is life, and why do you place a higher value on one life, as opposed to another (both human and non-human)?
—-I asked the same question above. I am both Pro-Life(for the Mother) and Pro-choice(for the woman). I think ALL life is LIFE. From observing life around me I understand that there will always be a Life giving out to give someone/thing else life, that’s the Natural order of things(of course, its only my way of looking at what I consider reality)
You asked – 2) What is personhood, when does it begin, and why?
—-Cant answer this in a manner that will make sense.. I would say Person hood is an illusion we create to make ourselves seem way superior or more significant than any other life form.
You asked – 3) Why do so many pro-lifers care not a jot about the immeasurable human suffering and tens of thousands of preventable deaths, all around the world (note: morality transcends borders), and why don’t give up all of their disposable income to help to prevent this if they are so concerned for innocent life (I don’t buy that for a second, by the way – at least, not for 99% of people)? How do you justify this, morally?
—– I cant justify it so I say if we can let others die of curable diseases, hunger, poverty, go to wars and commit genocide, kill people of a particular ethnicity for political clout- in the name of crusades, preserving our way of life or Jihad then abortion is a mere speck in comparison to lives lost. Why bother fighting for this speck when we let major things go.
You asked- 4) Why do so many pro-lifers oppose measures that are scientifically and statistically known to dramatically cut down on the number of abortions – such as comprehensive sex education, freely available contraceptives, and serious help for women who have no-one to turn to, etc, etc?
—–I haven’t understood it either.. also I cannot understand the abdication of responsibility when you decide to have the baby, either by giving away a Baby for adoption or ending up neglecting the baby, putting it in another’s care(like their parents or others in the community). Shouldn’t it be “you give birth, you be responsible” for its upbringing? Why should another be punished for your Mistakes?
I agree with the last paragraph. It makes sense to me.
You said – Also, if death is classified as brain death – meaning that the heart can often still work perfectly – why does “life” not begin when the brain begins to function properly – without which, the baby would not be “alive”, in any meaningful sense of the word?
——Recent experiments on resuscitation techniques have shown that we really don’t know the boundary of death or for that matter, of life.
I think no matter how we argue, most of us will stick to our opinions, no one will end up being the “Convert” so it would be best to agree to disagree.
Interesting post, I especially enjoyed hearing the different responses.
As a Catholic, I am pro-life and against the death penalty.
It is unfair to accuse those who cannot quickly answer your question concerning punishment for an illegal abortion as ignorant or foolish. It is a difficult question. Though we sentence murderers to life in prison or perhaps even the death penalty, abortion is not a normal murder scenario, and needs to be treated differently.
When it comes to abortion, nothing is clear cut and easy to explain. The compassionate answer is not the easiest to come to. I know that I myself would feel that women who had an abortion would need to be punished to some degree, but I would say most of all they would need to be educated in order to understand the horrific reality of what happens in an abortion, and that it truly is taking a life.
In a murder trial one would evaluate the level of a criminal’s appropriate punishment based on their mental state, and similarily one must take into account that many women having abortions may not understand the seriousness of their crime.
I think if women truly understood what happens in an abortion, if they saw the images of tiny limbs being torn apart, abortion numbers would drop dramatically.
But in the end, it’s not about pointing fingers, it’s about creating a society in which abortion is not needed, in which women never feel the need to consider such an option, through responsible use of sex, better care and support for pregnant teens, and better developed adoptions services.
Here’s a question for you. If it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, why is it not okay to kill your two year old?
re: Christian:
“Here’s a question for you. If it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, why is it not okay to kill your two year old?”
Many reasons. First, see my above comment re: what makes us People. A two year old life is much more of a real person than a foetus.
Secondly, a baby in the womb is in the body of a woman. She has to carry it around inside her, feed it, etcetera. It is part of her, and therefore she should be allowed to do with it what she likes.
It should be a woman’s choice whether she wants to have a baby or not. No exceptions.
@ christian,
Because in the womb the baby is literally a physical parasite living inside another person’s body.
Absolutely appalling – anti-abortionist who thinks death penalty is probably suitable.
I am anti abortion and I can answer that question
Through their asses in jail
or charge them with First Degree Murder.
Kill them for doing that.
kudos to you
fanatics really peeve me
i’m not for or against abortion
because that’s between a woman and her body
(and God) that whole grandma exchange was classic
i actually want to ask this question to anti-abortionists now
later
Charge them with murder, not really all that hard of a question to answer
I’m pro-life and believer that abortion is murder. The person that commits the abortion should be charged with the crime of murder, and the woman having the abortion is an accomplice so would incur lesser charges.
And what about the man who gets a woman pregnant and then abandons her, Daniel? I don’t hear anyone bringing up the issue of deadbeat dads here.
Send them to jail…
Has anyone ever gone to a funeral for a miscarried baby?
Why aren’t such things done? If the parents and the religious groups involved truly felt that the child was a baby, why wouldn’t they have a funeral?
@aboutaboyinindia
was that a haiku?
@ aor
The sad thing is, this is done. Idiot religious fanatics hold services & vigils for the poor murdered babies (i.e. clusters of cells that nobody wanted anyway.) It’s pathetic and a waste of time. There are so many more important issues (and grown people dying!) which these people could be putting their time, effort & money towards!
I think George Carlin sums it up best:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=george+carlin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#q=george%20carlin%20prolife%20is%20anti%20woman&hl=en&emb=0
Good post.
All of you should read the book called Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levit.
This book describes the relation between legalizing the abortions and reduction in fall of crime.
Link to their blog:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/
Though, not directly related to the post, just felt its good read and hence posted it.
“When is a fetus a just a collection of cells, and when is it a baby?”
The answer to that is;
*When the mother decides it is is a baby.* Untill the *mother*– not you, Mr bystander, not your minister, not the cop down the street– The moment the mother knows she’s carrying her child, that’s when the fetus becomes a *baby.* That could happen the moment she sees that blue spot happen on the pee strip. It could happen the first time she loses her breakfast. It might take as long as the first sensation of movement, and here’s the thing, it might, just remotely possibly, never happen that this woman connects with the passenger within her body.
I am radically pro choice. I believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion for *any reason* she has the right to do so. If it’s because she just doesn’t feel like it, that’s a good enough reason for me.
That sounds outrageous, doesn’t it. But the truth is, that very very few woman make this decision in a social vacuum. There are almost always people around her, who will do their best to influence her, dissuade or support her. And a woman who is so truly alone in her mind that she does make the decision without any input– probably really does need to abort.
I had an abortion in my younger days, and I’ve never regretted it– thirty four years later. I knew I wanted kids, and I knew the time was not right.Since then I have raised two beautiful and responsible young adults. One reason I feel they grew up so well is that I was ready to be a mother by then.
Abortion is not a fun and pleasant thing.These men who claim that women are harmed “in body and mind” by abortions, though, are ignoring the numbers of women who are harmed in body and mind by birthing and mothering. To them I say; take your kindly concerns out of women’s business.
They could advertise prevention techniques instead.
The most interesting thing about this post isn’t the question posed, but that the person who posted it thinks it’s a profound question. Just because you found a few pro-lifers that haven’t thought out their worldviews doesn’t mean the pro-life view is incorrect. That’s called a straw-man argument. I suppose I could make a video of a bunch of unintelligent pro-abortionists (all I need to do to find them is drive to a local public university), but that would not satisfy me that my position is correct.
Riddle me this: what should be done with a person who intentionally kills a pregnant woman? Double-homicide? That’s how many states treat it, regardless of abortion laws.
@thenaturallawyer: Please see my comment above. What is and isn’t law has nothing to do with it.
@Stella: Oh, my goodness. Thankyou SO much, I agree with you 100%. I’ve never had an answer for the question “When does a foetus become a baby?” and now I do. thankyou. so true.
Interesting…..
So using a few select “anti-abortionists” to get the median thoughts of a whole country. I think before boasting about anything there should be a lot more polling going on.
There has to be some place in the middle with the Pro Life vs. Pro Choice conflict.
I believe that there is a very huge double standard going on with abortion. If someone murders a pregnant mother; that person can be charged with double homicide, but if a mother with an unwanted pregnancy gets an abortion its fine. What if someone murdered a pregnant woman who was going into an abortion clinic….would they get charged for two homicides and a hate crime? I wish the double standards would change.
Being pro choice does not necessarily mean being pro abortion. I believe abortion by any means should be a last second birth control. I believe that abortion should be there for the very obscure situations that are almost taboo. For example an 11 year old girl or an incest rape. In today’s society abortion is being far too abused.
Very entertaining article at the least. It is interesting to see someone not firm in what they believe in.
I still think all anti-abortion activists should be sentenced to be required to adopt one (1) unwanted baby.
A non-white baby. Not the highly sought after kind. The kinds we have more of than we can figure out how to take care of.
Adopting an older “problem child” that nobody will take would be considered acceptable too. Birth defects, drug habit, gang member…
I think the penalty for a woman that has an illegal abortion should be that they serve a mandatory 2 years of free infant/toddler child care in a state run care facility for first offence. 20 hours a week. This would be considered community service. After that, if they have another illegal abortion, they should serve jail/prison time and be judged and sentenced applicable to conspiracy to first degree murder in the state the abortion was preformed, The “doctor” that performs the procedure should be brought up on first degree murder charges in the state the abortion was performed.
There ya go.
Hah, very honest and truthful..
I think abortion is wrong in most cases…if it is a rape, or the unborn has a genetic disease which will cause severe handicap and suffering throughout life, then it is somewhat justified. But I can’t stand women who think, I don’t want this baby, this isn’t the proper time for a baby…I think I’ll just have an abortion and take the easy way out. There is always adoption. What is so hard about that? And I feel the way I do, because I lost a child. According to medical textbook cases, it was not a miscarriage because I was too far along. I have an incompetent cervix and it is difficult to carry the weight of a baby. I lost my son at 23 1/2 weeks into the pregnancy. And I was only 19 years old then. I think people who are willing to go have an abortion just because they don’t want a baby in their life right now, are selfish. It’s that simple. I wish I could have my son back more than anything in the world. And right now there is someone out there having an abortion because they don’t stop and think…some people don’t know how lucky they are to be able to choose. I didn’t get that choice. And so I feel it isn’t right to just end the life of an unborn. For most of you, it’s partially you’re fault you got pregnant anyway, so step up and take responsibility for you’re actions. I think even though I was 18 when I got pregnant and my boyfriend was 17, we handled the situation more appropriately than a lot of people twice our age. Abortion was never even a possibility for us because even though we were young and were just getting out on our own, we had morals..
@motspur: I agree with you that the human construct of law, whatever it is of the day, has no bearing on the question of the morality of abortion. However, you say “I believe that the punishment for murdering a pregnant woman should be MORE harsh than the punishment for murdering just a person”. Why is it that a pregnant woman is more than “just a person”. Is she “just two people”?
In the same post that you state that the lawmakers cannot decide whether abortion is moral, you affirm another post stating that a mother can. That makes no sense. No person can define for herself what is and is not an objective fact. The whole idea of “objective” means it does not depend on anyone (if it did, it would be “subjective”). By affirming Stella’s argument that a woman gets to decide when a fetus becomes a baby, you affirm an incoherent moral theory.
and I think if abortion were illegal, getting a life sentence in prison is not a cruel punishment. I think it would be the most fitting because then the accused would have to spend the rest of their life thinking about what they had done. Being put to death themselves wouldn’t give the opportunity for them to realize what they had done
shes obviously a smart cookie and has a well planned argument.. not
@ irishflame13
“Abortion was never even a possibility for us because even though we were young and were just getting out on our own, we had morals..”
Yeah, I have morals too, and they’re just as valid as yours. My moral is, I won’t bring a child into this world if I can’t be a good parent & support it.
“or most of you, it’s partially you’re fault you got pregnant anyway, so step up and take responsibility for you’re actions”
I will take responsibility for my actions. If I get pregnant, I will have an abortion, which I believe will be the most responsible choice, as I cannot emotionally or financially support a baby and would not be a good parent if I had one now.
@motspur… You said:
“What makes us who we are? What makes us human beings? Certainly not just the physical parts of us that have human DNA. No sir. We are who we are – more of a person every day – because of what we learn, our thoughts, our emotions, our MEMORIES. . . . A foetus is human physiologically, sure, but there is no person in there.”
I take it then that infanticide is cool with you? Paging Dr. Singer (Princeton)… And to say we are “more of a person every day” is interesting. What is a quintissential person? If this is a continuum, what are the end points? I sense we are going to have some arbitrary lines coming.
@thenaturallawyer
I believe that the body of a pregnant woman & the foetus inside her is more than just one life, it is a life and the possibility of a life. But not two lives.
“In the same post that you state that the lawmakers cannot decide whether abortion is moral, you affirm another post stating that a mother can. That makes no sense. No person can define for herself what is and is not an objective fact.”
No, but the point is that we can never know what IS the “objective fact” in this situation. No one can define when a foetus becomes a person. Some people believe in souls, some do not. Either way, we can’t tell when a soul enters a foetus, and if there isn’t a soul, we can’t define when a foetus becomes a person. You just can’t draw a definitive line. There is no decisive moment where one second ago it was a foetus and a second later it is a baby. It starts as some cells, it gains more cells, it exits the womb, it exits the vagina. It gains more cells as it continues to grow older. Point being, we can never draw the line. I think what is really important here is the mother’s choice. Regardless of whether it is a clump of cells or a cute widdle baby, I think it is the mother’s choice whether she should have a baby or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for her.
Motspur: “Yeah, I have morals too, and they’re just as valid as yours. My moral is…”
All morals are equally valid? Awesome! My moral is to steal whatever I want from people who write blog comments…
Not all morals are equally valid, and everybody knows that. If all morals were equally valid, you’d have nothing to say about the people who murdered Martin Luther King. After all, they were just following their consciences, right?
Some moral assertions are right, and some are wrong. That’s not to say that we cannot debate; but to think the arguments at hand are “equally valid” is just silly.
@thenaturallawyer:
No, infanticide is not cool with me. In fact, abortion is not cool with me. It’s a terrible thing, and not a decision to be taken lightly. But I still believe it is a woman’s choice whether she should have a baby or not.
What is a quintessential person? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone can really answer that question. Can you? I don’t think it’s all that relevant. My point is simply that, in situations where childbirth would kill the mother, or degrade her quality of life extremely, I consider a mother, with her memories & personality, to be more important than a blank canvas foetus with nothing yet to identify it besides its physical body.
@thenaturallawyer
Sorry, but I disagree with you. I believe all opinions, views & moral standpoints are equally valid. Some are stupid, perhaps, in my or your opinion – but that is just another opinion, again.
When it comes to deciding what is “right”, for the purpose of laws, etc, I am utilitarian, and believe the decision should be made which contributes to the greatest happiness/usefulness, and that everyone should be able to voice & act upon their own moral beliefs, as long as it does not harm others.
And no, I don’t count a foetus as an “other” which can be harmed.
Basically, there is no definitive “right” and “wrong”. Life is simply not that black & white.
The saddest part about this whole discussion? Pro-life people who want to women who have abortions punished typically imply that their motive for punishment is revenge; “I want them to spend the rest of their life thinking about what they have done.”
You’re against murder, but revenge is cool with you? You want these people to spend the rest of their lives in agony? That doesn’t seem like a very Christian point of view. WWJD?
The other sad part is that many pro-life people fully realize that their convictions are based on faith; they know they have no rational, verifiable, scientific arguments for ideas like “being human begins at conception.” Yet they *still* want to impose their views on other people. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want; I just don’t think that right to believe gives you the right to impose your views on others.
You don’t want others to push their non-verifiable, irrational faith-based ideas on you. You don’t want muslims to impose the Sharia laws on you. You wouldn’t want Tom Cruise to force his Xenu-based ideas on you; why do you want to push your ideas on me?
And finally, you already *do* believe that women who have abortions will be punished for their acts once they’re dead. Why do you want to punish them *again* while they’re still alive?
motspur:
“it is a life and the possibility of a life” So when a woman is fertile, does that count? Or does there have to be an actual life growing inside her? Oh wait, I called it life. If it’s only a potential life, what is it now? Using the label “fetus” is just evasive: if you are saying it’s a “potential” life, you are saying it isn’t a life. But that is contrary to the objective facts.
“we can never know what IS the ‘objective fact’” I disagree. We can know lots of objective facts, including whether an unborn person is alive. The objective facts regarding viability outside the womb for certain unborn persons (that the law allows to be aborted) are undisputable.
“No one can define when a foetus becomes a person” You did, just a few posts ago, remember? You said what makes a person (memories and all that). Now you are appealing to ignorance?
“There is no decisive moment where one second ago it was a foetus and a second later it is a baby.” I could not agree more. Fetus=baby. We’re on the same page.
“You just can’t draw a definitive line” Then why are you doing so? Your definitive line is, apparently, birth, unless you’re cool with infanticide, right?
“Regardless of whether it is a clump of cells or a cute widdle baby, I think it is the mother’s choice whether she should have a baby or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for her” Regardless of whether a black person is a real human or a workhorse, I think it’s the property owner’s choice whether to have a slave or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for him. Explain to me the logic that destroys the latter statement without destroying the former. Keep in mind that at the time, there was no consensus about whether slavery should be legal, whether black people were fully human, or whether that even mattered for purposes of law. Can we allow slave owners to define when their property counts as a person? Or should we not allow people to decide such questions for themselves?
Your question is actually very simple. If the act was illegal, then women who get an abortion (and the doctors who perform them) would likely have to be incarcerated like any other murderer. Not that difficult.
The purpose behind your question is to avoid the reality of the unborn child and the fact that he/she is genetically alive and separate from his/her mother. And it figures you’d seek to avoid discussing the unborn in your question while focusing totally on (1) the mother, (2) the potential penality. When forced to admit the facts behind BASIC embryology, which have been around for decades, the pro-abortion position collapses like the house of cards that it has always been and always will be.
Hence we get simplistic and evasive questions like “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?” all of which avoids the humanity of the unborn.
Fortunately, some of us are not fooled by your rhetorical gymnastics.
Typical pro-abortion b.s..
First of all, the issue of the morality of the issue is different from that of the appropriate punishment. People may want to crack down on any number of social ills, but aren’t necessarily sure of the best methods of enforcement.
Second of all, I’m a pro-lifer, and I don’t crumple up when faced with these types of questions. I write stuff like this, which does a number on every little theory near and dear to pro-abort hearts.
Third of all, think through these issues yourself. What is the best way to enforce laws? How do we balance punishment, deterrence, and reintegration? They aren’t easy questions, and it does a grave disservice to all Americans to pretend that some of our greatest social issues are facile and cutesy.
I just love it.
Thank you so much, I will use it.
I personally am against abortion FOR MYSELF. One thing that I love about laws enabling women to have an abortion is that it is about freedom and (to me) the real purpose of freedom, which is to learn and hopefully become wiser.
I am against abortion for myself but I am glad that we have the opportunity to because it is also to me a good way to question ourself.
What are all these good people against abortion ready to do to prevent an abortion beside protesting? Are they putting in the means to give a chance to a teen to raise her child? Are they providing all the psychological and financial help some women would need to raise this child? Because yes, unless we are dealing with a total idiot (if it is so then let us drive her to the nearest hospital so she can have this abortion), no woman have it without giving a thought about it, without feeling hurt about it, without any trauma.
Picturing these women so lightly is to me being prejudiced against them. It is so easy to have a set image that is not too profound so you can have such an easy point of view on it.
“”it is a life and the possibility of a life” So when a woman is fertile, does that count? Or does there have to be an actual life growing inside her? Oh wait, I called it life. If it’s only a potential life, what is it now? Using the label “fetus” is just evasive: if you are saying it’s a “potential” life, you are saying it isn’t a life. But that is contrary to the objective facts.”
Umm… sorry, you might have to reword this one for me, you are confusing me. No, it doesn’t count if a woman is fertile, I’m talking about when she is pregnant. No, using the word foetus is not evasive, that is what it is called. A foetus. What would you rather I called it?
“”we can never know what IS the ‘objective fact’” I disagree. We can know lots of objective facts, including whether an unborn person is alive. The objective facts regarding viability outside the womb for certain unborn persons (that the law allows to be aborted) are undisputable.”
Uh, yeah. I’m not gonna dispute something being “alive”. I will dispute whether it should be allowed the same rights as another thing which is also alive.
“”No one can define when a foetus becomes a person” You did, just a few posts ago, remember? You said what makes a person (memories and all that). Now you are appealing to ignorance?”
No, I merely said what was my opinion of when a foetus becomes a person. We can never really KNOW. Everyone will always have differing opinions on it.
“”You just can’t draw a definitive line” Then why are you doing so? Your definitive line is, apparently, birth, unless you’re cool with infanticide, right?”
That’s not my definitive line, no. I don’t HAVE a definitive line. My opinion, to be a little more detailed, is that a woman has a right to abortion anytime. However I do think that closer to birth or the time when a baby could survive outside the womb, at a time when it has already been obvious that the woman is pregnant, it is much more humane and sensible for the woman to carry the baby to term and then put it up for adoption. At such a late point there is no different effect to her than a small amount of time extra carrying the baby, and unless that’s going to KILL her, I’d strongly suggest just carrying the baby to term. I couldn’t make a LAW on that, however, because I couldn’t draw a line at X months or Z weeks as the definitive time after which the baby must be carried to term. My point is, we should not legislate these things because we can’t create a cut off point. We can only educate people and hope that they do the right thing.
” “Regardless of whether it is a clump of cells or a cute widdle baby, I think it is the mother’s choice whether she should have a baby or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for her” Regardless of whether a black person is a real human or a workhorse, I think it’s the property owner’s choice whether to have a slave or not, and no lawmaker should decide that for him. Explain to me the logic that destroys the latter statement without destroying the former.”
Simple. A slave is not living INSIDE THE SLAVE OWNER’S BODY.
@LKM: “The saddest part about this whole discussion? Pro-life people who want to women who have abortions punished typically imply that their motive for punishment is revenge;”
I could not agree more. Governmental punishment is not revenge and should not be invoked passionately. People who want to “get back at” women who’ve had abortions are just mean-spirited (and ordinarily irrational). Justice, on the other hand, is a different matter, and I don’t mean that it’s a simple one.
motspur: “What is a quintessential person? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone can really answer that question. Can you?”
A person is a person. I don’t think it’s a continuum. So yes, I can define a quintessential person. A living human being.
“Sorry, but I disagree with you. I believe all opinions, views & moral standpoints are equally valid.”
That’s funny. I disagree with you (i.e. you are wrong), but our views are equally valid. Clearly, you don’t believe what you are preaching. Otherwise you wouldn’t say that you disagree (there would be no such thing as the law of noncontradiction if all positions are equally valid). I think you are confusing knowledge with truth. No human being is infallible. One of us is wrong. We both take contrary positions. Just because we aren’t infallible doesn’t mean one (or both) of us isn’t wrong. Unless by “valid” you just mean “infallibly correct”, in which case you’d be torturing the English language…
“everyone should be able to voice & act upon their own moral beliefs, as long as it does not harm others.
And no, I don’t count a foetus as an “other” which can be harmed”
So how do you define harm? Whoever gets to define “harm” gets to force others not to act upon their “own moral beliefs”. There is simply no way around the government deciding which worldview will be privileged. Either an unborn person has a right to live or he/she does not. For the government to “not impose its morality” on the mother is to impose its morality on the child, by privileging the act of killing the child.
I propose a law: it is legal to kill law students. You don’t have to kill law students; it’s your choice. The government leaves it up to you. Answer this: is the law “anti-law student”? Or is it neutral because it doesn’t force anyone to do anything? I’m thinking the former…
You are asking the WRONG QUESTION. WHAT IS LEGAL IS MORAL TOO? OR THE OPPOSITE?
I am not putting here “moral” in the religion level. Morality is the minimum standarts that help us live together and communicate. For eg how you talk to your parents, friends, wife, boss etc.
So the question here is not about punishment. To give you the an example. Cheating your wife or having s-x with your best friends girlfriend is illigal? NO. Should you do the time in prison? Of course NOT. But is it MORAL? Cheating is not illagel but a judge will accept cheating as a reason for a divorce!
So legislature here is not legislating abortion illigal in order to punish but to prevent. Killing an embryo just because you are bored to rase a child or for economical reasons or because you were drunk last night is not an option. Even in practical way births are the only productive part of a community. So a society has the obligation to protect embryos as much as family and children.
I think that only doctors should be punished in way because of their Oath of Hippocrates. But that we can discuss it some other time.
“A slave is not living INSIDE THE SLAVE OWNER’S BODY.” You have reduced your argument to location. Where a person is determines whether a person has rights. I’m glad we got this down to the sticking point. I think we’re at an impasse, but you should walk away knowing that location is your last best final argument. It’s the only thing that truly distinguishes the slavery example.
Abortion is murder.
Imagine you have before you a chicken egg with a live fetus in it. In your conscience you know that if you stepped on it, you’d kill whatever was living inside.
Jesus defined murder as hatred in the heart. Our legal system does not punish murder as Jesus defines it, but God knows and takes account. So although our legal system does not punish women who have abortions, it does not mean they have not committed murder.
The US legal system is actually not designed to punish convicts for the purpose of enforcing a moral standard. It is designed to deter future criminal behavior and to rehabilitate people and return them to society (if you disagree, consult legal scholars).
The catch-22 you’ve created is flawed because just because the US criminal system does not punish a type of behavior does not mean it is right behavior – it is merely permissible. Different types of murder are treated differently under the system, anyhow. It just so happens that this kind murder is not punished; rather, Roe v. Wade allows it.
So to answer your question: What should happen to these women for the wrong they have committed? Nothing. They need compassion to heal from their guilt. I’m sure it feels worse than stepping on a live chicken egg.
“I disagree with you (i.e. you are wrong),”
Uh, NO. I am not wrong just because you disagree with me. You are not wrong just because I disagree with you. I BELIEVE you are wrong – but that is just my opinion, also, and I am perfectly willing to accept that.
“one of us is wrong”
No, I don’t think so. If we were debating some very solid fact (e.g. the sky is blue, no it isn’t it’s red) then one of us would be wrong. But we are debating a moral issue which has many shades of grey, as such I don’t think either of our opinions are definitely RIGHT or WRONG, the are just OPINIONS. By “valid” I mean “this opinion just as worthy as any other opinion.”
“So how do you define harm? Whoever gets to define “harm” gets to force others not to act upon their “own moral beliefs”.”
Gah. I define harm as harm is defined in the dictionary. You can harm a stick but I don’t really care about that. How I define harm is irrelevant. What is under debate here is what can be defined as a human with human rights. In the case of a foetus I don’t think we can make an informed decision either way, so we should not make it illegal to have abortions, therefore choosing for a woman what she wants to do with her own body. I don’t think that is right.
“I propose a law: it is legal to kill law students. You don’t have to kill law students; it’s your choice. The government leaves it up to you. Answer this: is the law “anti-law student”? Or is it neutral because it doesn’t force anyone to do anything?”
Irrelevant. Law students are obviously already fully-fledged human beings and they don’t live in someone else’s womb. It’s obvious that we shouldn’t kill them just for being law students.
@becky:
“Imagine you have before you a chicken egg with a live fetus in it. In your conscience you know that if you stepped on it, you’d kill whatever was living inside.” Not a valid metaphor for abortion – the chicken foetus is not inside its mother. Just stepping on an egg with a live baby chicken inside is just killing a baby chicken for no reason.
“Jesus defined murder as hatred in the heart. ”
So if I feel no hatred towards the person I’m killing… say I’m demented, psychotic, mentally unstable, I just enjoy killing people for no reason at all, no hatred, and believe it is the right thing to do… that’s not murder? Hrm.
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but; if abortion was illegal, the doctor performing the abortion should be prosocuted.
“Irrelevant. Law students are obviously already fully-fledged human beings and they don’t live in someone else’s womb. It’s obvious that we shouldn’t kill them just for being law students.”
Well, we are muddling legal and moral obligations, and I brought up the law side of it, so I’m not pointing fingers…
Whether you would approve of such a law is certainly relevant. Again you’ve reduced your argument to location. And I didn’t suggest that we kill law students just for being law students; I proposed a law that allowed us to kill law students for any reason (they are kind of annoying…).
“we are debating a moral issue which has many shades of grey, as such I don’t think either of our opinions are definitely RIGHT or WRONG, the are just OPINIONS. By “valid” I mean “this opinion just as worthy as any other opinion.””
Well, then I suppose you don’t think your opinions are right? That’s what it means to believe your opinion. Of course I’m not wrong just because you think I am (and vice versa); you are right or wrong because your beliefs do or do not align with the truth. Likewise for me. Neither of us has absolute knowledge which of us is right (unless one of us is God, and I know I’m not Him…), but that doesn’t mean every opinion is as worthy as every other opinion. Otherwise you could never punish anyone for anything, and you couldn’t criticize any action (holocaust, for example) because their opinions are equally valid. I am so convinced that the Nazis were wrong that I’d be willing to take arms against such evil, and I would hope you’d be there to join me.
Motspur: ““Jesus defined murder as hatred in the heart. ”
So if I feel no hatred towards the person I’m killing… say I’m demented, psychotic, mentally unstable, I just enjoy killing people for no reason at all, no hatred, and believe it is the right thing to do… that’s not murder? Hrm.”
That’s awesome. Couldn’t agree with you more. It obviously doesn’t matter whether a person thinks his actions murderous or not; murder is objectively murder whether the person truly recognizes it…regardless of his opinions, right?
I am so sorry to leave an excellent debate in the middle, but I have to go to bed. Motspur, it has been a pleasure speaking with you, and you have given me a chance to think more critically about my beliefs, and I hope I returned the favor. Have a pleasant evening/morning.
Some people confuse “I don’t like it” with “there oughta be a law”.
@thenaturallawyer:
To your first comment – Yes, of course – my whole view on the abortion issue is based on the simple fact of location. A foetus is essentially a parasite living inside a woman’s womb, and I think therefore she has the right to decide whether it may continue living there, or not. Not a nice way of putting it, and I certainly don’t actually think of a foetus as a parasite. I do believe a baby, a foetus, WHATEVER, pregnancy – is a wonderful and amazing thing. I would never WISH death upon any foetus. I am not PRO-abortion. I simply believe in maintaining a woman’s right to choose.
Yes, I do think we’re at rather an impasse. I really don’t think this is an issue that can ever be resolved, as such. Everyone will always have differing opinions on it, and that is why I don’t think we should put down laws banning abortion, because that is taking one side which may or may not be right. People who don’t approve of abortions should not have abortions, and leave those who have differing opinions to do what they wish with their own bodies.
To your second comment…
“Well, then I suppose you don’t think your opinions are right?”
Of course I think my opinions are right. That doesn’t mean I KNOW they are “the ultimate right way”. I know they are just opinions, like yours, and though I may disagree with your opinion, I appreciate it as an opinion just as valid & worthy as my own. Bringing up things like the holocaust, well I do still believe the Nazi’s opinions are just as valid and worthy as my opinions and your opinions! That doesn’t mean I think they were right, and yes, I would gladly stand against them by your side. I can criticize actions like theirs because I believe they are wrong, and they harmed many people. That doesn’t mean I count their opinion as any less worthy. I think it is wrong, and stupid, and horrible, but still an opinion just like mine.
To your third and fourth…
“It obviously doesn’t matter whether a person thinks his actions murderous or not; murder is objectively murder whether the person truly recognizes it…regardless of his opinions, right?”
Well, yes, but what is murder is still a matter of opinion, and differs from person to person, culture to culture. I was just replying to Jesus’ apparent definition of murder, according to Becky, which seems a little idiotic to me.
I too have enjoying debating with you, and you have indeed done me the great favour of showing me ways of questioning my beliefs, forcing me to justify them. I think that is one of the most important things in life, questioning everything, especially one’s own beliefs. Thankyou for debating with me intelligently and civilly! If only everyone on the internet was like you. Thankyou.
extraodrinary! Excellent post! One of the best stuff I’ve read so far, on wordpess. Congrats!
i am totally against abortion i think is a very great murder cause you kill an innocent child which can’t do anything to save him to protect himself to fight against the abortive procedure.maybe those women should be punished but much hard punishment is their sufference, they have to live all their life with this great fault very hard to live with.
Just because one or a few pro-life/anti-abortionists are unable to respond to your question in a satisfactory way does not mean that all or ever most anti-abortionists would be so tongue-tied.
The simple answer is this: A person who performs an illegal abortion should be prosecuted by law according to the appropriate standard on the books (likely that would be the taking of another’s life.)
It’s that simple. But this is not the debate at hand. Rather it’s a red herring on your part. The real issue is ought abortion law be decided by 9 justices or by the states themselves?
Let abortion be a state issue (as it was prior to Roe V. Wade).
I value skin cells more.
That’s your question to stump all anti abortionists? I’m against abortion and if it were illegal I’d say send the woman to prison. What’s so hard about that?
Abortion means taking a humans life. That’s it, and who did it should be punished. I’m anti abortion.
When my brain activity ceases, I am dead. Why isn’t the reverse true?
What’s so stumping about that? The first thing I thought of was: If abortion was “illegal” like you said, the doctor performing the operation & the woman would most likely go to jail or something just like any person would if they did something “illegal”. If you steal you get put in prison because stealing is illegal. It’s simpler than anything. The question is whether something like that would ever become illegal. Morally, I think it is like killing & wrong. It’s their responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place.
What should be done with women?
As a Christian I say:
Pray for them, and their recovery from something as terrible as killing your own child.
As a citizen I say:
An illegal abortion can be a de-penalized crime, as it already is in many countries. There is no penalty for the crime, but it is a crime.
Abortion is a crime promoted by people who are making loads of money out of it. It is a better business to promote abortion than to help women to carry out unwanted pregnancies.
Sure we’ve all been annoyed by some of the pro-life folks, especially when their passion for the cause eclipses a clear, sustainable dialogue. But that’s not a reason to dismiss the pro-life culture entirely.
The pro-lifers are fighting to protect everyone’s right to be alive; whether sick, unborn, dying, or disabled.
As for the question here, what is to be the punishment for breaking the laws against abortion…Here’s my reply. Anti-abortion legislation isn’t aimed at punitive measures so much as it is designed to restrict access to abortion services.
I’ve personally seen what abortion can do to a woman and there is no punishment to equal the guilt that CAN follow her for the rest of her life.
And for the other pro-life people: It’s not enough to just vote for legislation or protest at the clinic! We have to create a culture of life and that means helping people in need, demonstrating the joy you find in all life, and nurturing people in your community and beyond.
I think the position England had prior to 1967/68 is reasonable ie it was illegal to perform an abortion, but not illegal to have the abortion.
The abortionist would suffer legal consequences, not the woman herself who may not even be culpable if she is acting out of fear and isolation.
Nadia:
What if the woman had a coat hanger abortion? And how does one legally define “acting out of fear and isolation”?
Because if “acting out of fear and isolation” becomes a legitimate way of avoiding murder charges, I can assure you everyone and their mother will start claiming they were “acting out of fear and isolation” when they shoot, stabbed or choked another person.
You are right. The most logical conclusion is that these women (or the men who pressured them to abort their children) should go to jail. I agree with your observation.
The pro-lifers should be consistent, and I am sure that many are.
great thought i do appreciate it, nice video too
Brilliant video – more things like this are needed as an example to people who go around flounting their beliefs on people, yet have absolutely no true idea of what they’re arguing, nor what the other side of the argument even is.
Well your title was a little misleading.
From the comments it appears that many anti-abortionists were in-fact not stumped.
However there are a few it’s the womans choice comments out there so I’d just like to point out something:
Men have no rights whatsoever in regards to the baby, they do not have a legitamate say in whether the baby lives or dies.
Men have responsibilities though:
The lady keeps the baby, he doesn’t want it. He is required to pay a percentage of his wage for eighteen years to the mother of the child. (Correct me if I’m wrong please, seriously).
(To all those who say the man should have used protection, why doesn’t the woman? Why is it always the mans responibility?)
The lady doesn’t want the baby he does:
Lady and Man have disscusion -
Baby is kept.
Baby is aborted.
Either way, the two suffer damage, serious damage to their relationship.
So here is a suggestion, perhaps in the case of abortion both the man and woman must consent (Unless it is in the case of rape whereby it is not likely that the man will be known, but there are Morning After pills). With the woman having the final say of course.
However if the Father wishes to keep the child and the Mother does not then the Mother must pay a portion of her wages for eighteen years to the government (or man depending on whether I was wrong previously).
Whether or not you consider a foetus a human or not realise that Males have no legal say in this whatsoever.
Even though it is the womans body and the woman is the one who must go through the pains of childbirth, a man is required for this to happen.
And yes I do realise that there are such things as custody claims or whatever however usually the best outcome is won by the woman.
Note I am neither pro-life or pro-choice, all I am asking for is that the Male part of our species is given some legal rights in determining the fate of his child. The plan I put forward is pro-choice in nature because in a pro-life situation nethier gender would have a say.
Right thats it, back to the internet with you I say! Back!
If this wasn’t such a serious issue, some of these answers would be hilarious.
You see, for some people, it would seem, the removal of a tumor, in an attempt to save a life, constitutes murder!
Unless, of course, you have no interest in consistency, or sound logical argument, in which case, you don’t really have a case at all.
And if you wish to claim that “life” begins at conception (which is utterly indefensible), when what we are really talking about here is a few clumps of cells, it is hard to escape the conclusion that you commit a heinous act every time you swat a poor fly.
A sperm is “alive”, and so too is the egg. Both have the “potential” to become a fully formed human being, in combination. Are people seriously suggesting that it is the combination of the two that bestows them with “rights”? Seriously?
As others have already pointed out, either God is the worlds greatest abortionist, or they themselves are complete hypocrites, for not dedicating their lives (as well as their money) to making sure that miscarriage is prevented (or at least more preventable). There are roughly 900,000 miscarriages every year in the United States, alone. I can’t help wondering if many in this thread have even thought about that?
And it gets worse, because it is almost certain that most of the self-righteously indignant do not actually care about human life, afterall. If they did, they wouldn’t stand idly by while 26,500 children die of preventable death, this very day (and tomorrow, and the day after that……)!
Here’s what can happen when abortion is illegal (note: if you wish to challenge these statistics, I’d be happy with that, considering the difficulty in obtaining figures):
# Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million.
# Of the 46 million abortions occurring worldwide each year, 20 million take place in countries where abortion is prohibited by law.
# Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.
# According to the WHO, in countries where abortion remains unsafe it is a leading cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 78,000 of the 600,000 annual pregnancy-related deaths worldwide.
The point of these statistics is to highlight that, even when abortion is illegal, it rarely, if ever, reduces the number of abortions. And it almost certainly creates more problems than it destroys. In fact, abortion has been steadily decreasing, anyway. If there was a concerted effort to provide better education and support (as happens in Europe), those numbers would fall even faster.
I have wonder if those who would either punish women with prison sentences, or murder! them, with the backing of the state, have given this issue a moments thought, because it damn well doesn’t look like it.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
It’s really easy to look like the rational side when you cherry-pick the man-on-the-street goofballs from the other side. I wonder whether the typical Pro-Choice demonstrater could articulate a convincing theory of fetal consciousness if confronted impromptu. Likely not, and it would prove very little about the person confronted or the person using such a lame tactic.
For a truly rational (and scientific) explanation of the hesitance of these people to punish women for abortion, you might also look into the vast difference in the way women and men are punished for murder that is generally accepted as murder: killing someone already born. In other words, compare this test sample with a control.
You’ll find that, for the exact same violent crimes, women are treated far more leniently by the justice system than men. In fact, gender is more of an predicter of harsh sentencing than race, when comparing punishment for the same violent crimes.
So, when analysed rationally and scientifically, this phenomenon has little to do with Pro-Lifers being unclear about what they think about abortion, and everything to do with a general reluctance to hold women accountable for violent crimes (perceived or actual), because women are punished relatively lightly for all forms of murder.
(Of course, this does not prove that abortion is murder, just that Pro-Lifers can believe it is murder and still hesitate to punish women who have done it.)
Also, have you considered what this hesitance to punish women implies for the Pro-Choice talking point that the Pro-Life movement is a sexist attempt to control women? If that were the case, Pro-Lifers would not hesitate to send women to jail.
If however, as many Pro-Lifers themselves claim, their movement is actually about trying to protect the weak, the desire to forgive women who commit abortion makes perfect sense. So, in essence, you’ve scuttled key Pro-Choice propaganda and confirmed key Pro-Life propaganda. Congratulations!
Being rational is more than just rejecting the religion of your parents and patting yourself on the back for being skeptical. It means you have to think things through, beyond the “gotcha” of cheap, partisan tactics.
It is not that the woman is not unimportant, it is that the out come of the action is so severe and the worst action of all. I believe that people in America choose to view things our own way so we can justify our actions. This post to me is vulgar and, very sad. Sorry, mine probably wont be seen. lt is a considered a murder not becuase they are religious phanatics. Because the faith believes it is morally wrong. Why is it normal for someone to be thrown in jail for murder and, not someone who has done this? I don’t comprehend the reasoning. There is definetly lack of compassion. JMJ
“Brilliant video – more things like this are needed as an example to people who go around flounting their beliefs on people, yet have absolutely no true idea of what they’re arguing, nor what the other side of the argument even is.”
It was the last comment above mine and yet seems to sum up this entire blog far better than even the original author. This “evidence” for a “win” above pro-life advocates does nothing but show the ignorance of a few amongst the many. It does nothing to differentiate between moral or legal issues but rather throws both at someone when often the two are incompatible (it is morally wrong to torture people yet often it is legal to do so; it is morally wrong to kill someone yet some US states still have the death penalty) and ultimately neither morality nor legality is set in stone; both are in some way based on individual belief structures.
The real outcome of this “research” is as shown above, that the issue of ignorance (rather than opinion within abortion) is of great importance. To blindly accept anything is the ultimate misdeed upon humanity but to then advocate your belief in protest is bordering on sinful and immoral (or illegal? who knows).
Hopefully the researchers made a few people think a bit harder about what they deplore so loudly but I hardly think this can be construed as proof (or disproof) of any argument. Similar logic would have me disregard any other form of evidence for evolution when a girl I know (who believes in evolution) told me that the notion of humans arising from microbs was “silly”. She is ignorant of a belief she supposedly holds. Doesn’t mean she’s correct and that a scientific theory is fundamentally flawed.
All in all quite an interesting blog but only for the comments succeeding it and the debates that have sprung up.
You help them in whatever way you can, of course. Nope, not a stumper at all.
Many of them were/are victims of the lies spread by Planned Parenthood and similar organizations.
Think of it. If we prolifers (believers in God) are right and you are wrong, you by supporting this or actually participating in this activity, would have killed billions of babies/human beings by world’s end.
And then what would you say to God? What would you then say to all the women that have have been greatly deceived?
May you indeed be enlightened in your thinking. I wish you well.
Are you making the assumption that all pro-lifers are Christians? Can’t someone be appalled at the murder of an unborn child just by the fact that it’s an unborn child that was killed? People can believe it’s murder without having any religious affiliation…
Are Christians the only ones that abhor a toddler being beaten into a coma or become incensed by a pedophile molesting a child? I think Christians and non-Christians alike find these acts atrocious so why is it impossible for someone to think that it’s murder to kill a baby growing inside of a woman without being a bible thumping fanatic?
And just for the record, I do think it’s murder and YES, I do believe the doctors and woman should be tried for murder.
I do not think that “your question” should nor will stump any true believer. The saying “Give to Ceasar what is his” should settle this matter.
If abortion were to be illegal, the body in charge of creating and implementing laws in this country will or should come up with the “appropriate” sentencing / penalty. Oh by the way, it is said that “Be not deceived, you reap whatsoever you sow”. If you do not intend to be pregnant, either do not engage in activities that will result in it or just take precautions. If you do not then enjoy the “fruit” of your labor – Selfish …..LOL.
Go to: http://dmouhon.wordpress.com if you want to continue or learn a little more. Be blessed you and everyone that reads this.
Ah yes almost forgot.
I am an aethist.
Whatever way you look at it, abortion is murder. A child in the womb is still a child and still a human being, even if it isn’t fully formed.
I don’t oppose abortion because of religion -I oppose it morally because I know it’s wrong.
Everyone knows it’s wrong.
No woman ever has an abortion easily. There is no woman who just say “Yeah just headin’ for an abortion” as if it’s a dentist trip. It’s a huge decision for a woman to make, because she herself knows it’s a murder: if it wasn’t, there would be no conscience involved. As an earlier post points out, a person can be charged with two accounts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman in many places.
I don’t agree with radical Pro-Lifers and I don’t agree with pushing God in everyone’s faces when making the argument, but I also think your superiour attitude is pretty disgusting. Why do you think it’s funny to make fools out of people fighting for life?
That question is easy to answer:
Bring them to Jesus, because He is the one who can take the guilt away!
This verse corresponds with my own experience and with the experience of many other Christians. So I assume that it’s true.
I think the main question is not if abortion should be illegal or legal, it’s the question if abortion is okay. Just think about that: if people feel qualms about having an abortion, they admit that it is not okay.
I am convinced that God doesn’t want us to have abortions. And the point is that people should first of all be obedient to God and then obedient to human laws. And the human law is just a workaround until Jesus will set up his reign completely. The function of human law is to make the society work, not to accomplish justice. The only one who can accomplish justice, is God Himself.
When we have understood the meaning of human law, we come to those questions like: “Does the society work if robbers and murderers are at large?” Of course not! That’s why they must go to jail.
According question to abortion is: “Does the society work if we give abortionists plenty of rope?”
Our society is not ready to answer that question yet, but we will see that the society won’t work because if we kill the babies, there will be no one who cares about the old people. But this is a long term issue, while other crimes have an immediate impact to the society.
Considering this, I would recommend a low punishment for abortions. Maybe not for the women, but definitely for the doctors.
In Germany, by the way, abortion is illegal, but there is no punishment under the law for it. I think that isn’t an absurd solution. But it is true, when there is no penalty, people tend to think that they have a right to do so.
I wish you the best,
Philip
It should have went like this:
Q: Abortion should be illegal, did you say?
A: Yes, it should be illegal because it’s killing a human person.
Q: But don’t abortions send babies to Jesus faster?
/convo
Don’t confuse mercy from a Christian for a mistaken mother as admission that we don’t believe abortion is killing another human life.
Let’s just turn that question around.
Is that bit of tissue (with it’s OWN separate DNA, blood type and heartbeat) in the mother’s womb alive or dead?
If alive, what is it? Is it bovine, porcine, equine … or is it human?
If it’s human tissue, with it’s OWN DNA, it’s OWN blood type and it’s OWN heartbeat…. then when you kill it, it’s killing a human life of some sort that is separate from the mother.
Oh, you say it’s NOT viable without being attached to it’s mother? Thus it’s not human?
Well, a human being who is seriously injured in a hospital might also NOT be viable on his/her own without the aid of being attached to life support machines.
Does that make THAT person any less human for the time it’s dependent upon being hooked up to life support?
Here´s a nice brazilian video regarding abortion x punishment, I´ll do my best to (freely) translate:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDsuSk1vdA
Title: “Vai pensando aí” – Think about it
Narrator – Are you pro or against abortion?
People: – Against, against, against…
Narrator – Do you know somebody who had an abortion?
People: – I do, I do, I do…
Narrator – Should this person be arrested?
People: silence.
In Brazil, abortion is a crime in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, including rape or life risk to the pregnant woman, however, isn´t punished in these 2 cases.
Sorry bout my jungle English.
Sylvia
“I have never thought about that.”
Yeah, I figured those people did not think much.
Everyone has an opinion. But how many people who have these opinions have been pregnant in a situation that was dire enough where abortion was an option they were seriously considering?
Not guys who’ve gotten women pregnant. Not mothers who had children that they wanted. And certainly not some person who has never been pregnant and has only ever heard about this third-hand. The privileged do not know where the hungry sit. Until you’ve been in that spot, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
I’ve been pregnant twice. I had my first and fought hard to have him when his father wanted me to abort. He is the light of my life. I then developed lupus, for which I have no health insurance and have been driven into poverty because I have trouble working. I was then raped by a boyfriend who was too drunk to care, and I had to get an abortion. It was horrible, but it is possible that it saved my life and preserved my ability to mother my existing child. I regret the necessity of that decision, and it is the result of a society that doesn’t care about women or their situations. They love to talk about how much they care about babies, but don’t give a damn about the people who make them.
No one else can understand that situation better than I could, and no one — certainly not the Christians who were protesting outside of the clinic — offered to do anything to help me with my situation other than my doctor at Planned Parenthood, my best friend who drove me and took care of me afterward, and the stranger who held my hand during the procedure. The Christians who were sign-waving never even bothered to ASK me what happened. They have no curiosity about what really causes these things.
What one person sees as irresponsibility from their comfortable position outside of things is almost always a very complex situation, often involving poverty, oppression, public shaming, threats, violence and lack of options. But people who talk about how to deal with abortion NEVER talk about addressing the sexual objectification, abuse, rape, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and disrespect that women deal with, and I’ve never heard of an abortion that didn’t happen in a situation rife with those things.
This is about controlling women. If people are so concerned with stopping the spilling of the blood of innocents rather than controlling women, where is the great wealth of outreach toward MEN to stop raping, sexually objectifying women, beating women, overburdening women with domestic labor, and depriving them of professional and educational opportunities on the basis of the perceived primary social role women have as sex receptacles and baby factories? Why aren’t MEN being reprimanded by poster-carrying Christians showing images of dead babies to stop having casual sex, and/or use protection? Where are the pro-life/pro-moral protesters outside of strip bars and porn shops decrying THAT? Why isn’t there more pressure to discover medical means of safely temporarily sterilizing men in order to provide them with easy, inexpensive options to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Where is ANYBODY who says they care about the little children when legislation comes up for fair pay, or rape protection, or educational opportunities for women? And here I mean the kind of education that provides careers, not just the close-your-legs kind, because a lot of women have sex precisely because society teaches that financial support is a fair and acceptable trade for being a sex receptacle and baby maker.
Care about women — the place where babies come from — and abortion rates will decline. But then, donating to the National Domestic Violence Hotline or NOW or medica mondiale or just treating women you know like human beings isn’t nearly as catchy as shouting “stop murdering babies you whores!” from the street in your nifty red t-shirt.
Interesting post. But…
I think the questions you really want to ask are:
Why does no-one on the internet ever read more than about four responses in a thread before saying “you’re all wrong, none of you have thought about it as deeply as I have”?
How many Christians does it take to not answer a question?
Why do otherwise intelligent liberals allow themselves to get sidetracked off a discussion by exactly the sort of people they claim to be disdaining?
Why do unborn foetuses all look like Hugo Weaving?
Who will win the next World Cup?
etc.
When you answer those questions you will have dealt with the real issues.
thank you for pointing this out and in some reflection I think that the question you pose is so reasonable and affords us as a community to think through. I think that the language in the abortion debate has been unfortunate in its divisiveness. Words like murder and killing mutes the conversation to pervasive silences. I do think we have a long way for us to transform the conversation to look at the value of life include those who are unborn. what troubles me is that the women’s choice movement is not about choice but about one choice–abortion. I think that in reality it curtails choice because of the burden of having a child in our country is tremendous and instead of reframing the conversation on how can we as a society provide options for women and families to bring a child to term. I think that life in essence is filled with incredible value and we should wrestle together on this issue. But to just try to get people in these video situations to get a laugh or to point out a fallacy as an ends is narrow and mean spirited. I think that we have to take it further and think about this issue. One question in response is “how would feel if your mother had an abortion of you?” I think we often don’t think of the possibilities of an unborn is and when we ponder on this question it makes us pause that each of us have a life to be worth living and life is a miracle. Life is what God has provided for us to unveil the splendors of His creation, of our invitation to fellowship with Him and with one another. To move us from self centered worship to worship the one that prevails over the brokenness that is evident…but not without the promise of hope. Of redemption.
Lastly, I do think that as an evangelical community need to examine our true commitment to sanctity of all life. Including those who are being massacred around the world. For us to engage with issues of poverty, AIDS, and war. We often focus so much of our rhetoric around abortion but not committing ourselves to a larger pursuit of bringing value to life.
I do want to thank you for your words and your blog, it has encouraged me and made me (re)think my faith and what I believe.
If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?
send them to jail…. its not that hard, actually it might work as a deterrent :)
You used to be a Christian? And now you are a follower of Richard Dawkins? Ooh, la, la. Boy, does that explain a lot.
And this is supposed to be about intellect? As someone who once tried to read one of Dawkins’s books about evolution (I could not find any science in it, though I searched assiduously), my suggestion is that you try out your intellectual muscles on something substantive.
If you want intellectual argument from Christianity, why don’t you read Augustine or John Milton or Jaroslav Pelikan.
But lots of luck finding intellect in the writings of Dawkins. Never minding his touted credentials, the reading level of his books is junior high school.
If you left Christianity over “intellect,” all I can say is that you certainly got sold a bill of goods. Lots of luck with it.
cheers, ANF
As a matter of adoption as an option for the unwanted child, so many of you that think this is a feasible answer to the abortion have no knowledge of the reality in this. You see this as a quick and more moral answer to abortion. This is simply not the case.
There are many orphan organisations who mistreat the children; and in some countries there are some who are too poor to give such children the healthy lives they need. So, these children are kept in cots with thin mattresses and hardly anything to keep them warm. Most have no medical treatment.
In every country, there are some children who are sold to slave labour or the sex market. (Yes, even in America & other western countries) When people are so desperate to survive and put in that kind of situation they will do anything to make their lives more sustainable. Those put under slave labour do become brutally disfigured by their owner or their work. They become malnutritioned and very ill, often resulting in death.
In America & the UK, there are several parents that should not be parents. Constant beatings, and in some cases rape. These children are made to feel worthless, and the reasons behind their parents actions are often down to their feelings of self-worth created by the actions of others, including rape. Granted this is not a good reason to treat other human beings with appalling behaviour but this doesn’t make this less of a fact.
Out of the 12 richest countries, the UK is at the very bottom for child welfare, with the USA just above. Sweden, Norway and Denmark being one of the best for child welfare. United States and Mexico being worst for child maltreatment deaths.
You will also find that there are so few children that are put forward to be adopted that many people seeking to adopt are going abroad. Yet so many do not qualify.
Granted, bad parenting shouldn’t be the reason to abort children. But you can’t fall solely on one thing to solve a decision that is not yours to make, especially when none of the answers given are actually working.
None of you have thought about or even considered the possibility that both mother and child would die during pregnancies – would then the abortion be ok so that atleast one of them would survive.
Or; should the baby die during pregnancy anyway, would it not be more humane to abort it?
Or; should the baby survive pregnancy and then lead a life of pain, unable to interact with or acknowledge the outside world. To be complete dependant on their parents and technology in order to live their life. Is abortion still wrong?
So many of you take the black or white approach to everything that you fail to see that there are grey areas. It is not simply just a matter of right or wrong with abortion, as same with right or wrong with euthanasia. All aspects for reasoning should be taken into consideration.
As regarding other crimes to women and children (i.e rape, mistreatment and after birth deaths) we should not completely rule out anything before we solve the current worldly problems. We should always consider abortion as a more humane approach, and not illegal, if the health of either mother and child is threatened should the pregnancy continue.
We should also consider if abortions are pushed underground after been made illegal. It would become far more dangerous for those willing to break the law. People with far less qualifications in the medical field would perform these operations; which could end in severe infection or death.
Proper advice and operations carried out by qualified professionals is far more preferable than risking further problems.
But hey, in the eyes of your god… abortion is murder, murder is wrong. Bit hypocritical when it falls on him to pick and choose who dies. As said by someone, I can’t remember who, we are shocked when a person murders another… but we are unsure how to react when a person murders 1000′s. As a conforming society we like to pat them on the back and say well done, especially if isn’t our people that are massacred. Bit selfish, yes!
Your God is much like Hitler in that respect.
You would not stump me. Abortion is murder, and the woman and the doctor and staff should go to jail.
“what troubles me is that the women’s choice movement is not about choice but about one choice–abortion. ”
I am a women’s rights activist and I just made a long comment before yours about how it ISN’T just about that. Those sorts of explanations are everywhere on women’s rights activist sites, but it feels like that just goes right past anti-abortionists as totally trivial. You’re right that divisive politics do cause people to talk about this in an ideological echo chamber, rather than assuming the other side of the debate is composed of human beings, not idiot whores.
I’d love to have Christians help women to have more opportunities in their lives beyond having to trade their flesh for money because society (including Christians) pressures them to think that’s the best opportunity they have. I’d love to see more Christians involved in improving that part of their lives — the part that, when cynically or superciliously ignored, tends to lead to unwanted pregnancy. I’d love to see more Christians involved in rape prevention, raising the dignity of women, educating women, and spousal abuse prevention.
Why aren’t they there?
FYI: Many states have laws that define the killing of an unborn child as homicide:
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html
When posed with that question I am not stumped to the point of my mind exploding and changing my beliefs to Pro-Choice. It just takes some thought as any punishment. If you pay any attention to the news at all you will see that people who have been convicted of murder by the courts get all sorts of different sentences and punishments. Pre-meditated murder usually garners more time than manslaughter, the death penalty is not allowed in all states, etc. If abortion were ever made illegal there would have to be some serious thought on what the most fitting and just punishment would be. It would have to be taken case by case, just as any other crime is taken.
I think there’s a difference between murder and homicide that is important here. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my life and I kill him in self-defense, I have committed homicide but would not be guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.
If you take the assumption that the fetus is a human life, killing him is homicide but not necessarily murder. To use a bizarre scenario: if a woman who believed fetuses were humans intentionally got pregnant to abort them, she would be qualitatively no different than a serial killer and would deserve tough punishment.
But that’s not why women have abortions. They do it out of fear, insecurity, or inconvenience. Many abortions, even if viewed as homicide, would be forgiven by the state: killing a fetus that threatens the life of the mother is equivalent to killing in self-defense. Killing a fetus that threatens health or could endanger the mother due to social circumstances could be equated with manslaughter – like a battered wife who kills her husband in his sleep.
If the law viewed fetuses as protected humans with inherent rights, it would be obligated to hold women who intentionally aborted them accountable. But rarely, as with everyday murder, would we see women locked up for the rest of their lives.
It’s a really interesting point, though. But you’re preying on the one quality of (some) anti-abortionists that is usually denied them: empathy.
anonymous dissenter: I think they are there, but they are not seeking the mass media attention. So they are often left quiet and not having opportunities to seek a broader agenda. It is more grassroots (very much like the origin of our faith). New York Times did a great article on one of these clinics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/national/16abortion.html?scp=17&sq=abortion%20counseling%20church&st=cse
I would love to be part of the conversation and also to see if as a community can work together to serve those who are at the crossroads of making this difficult decision regarding their pregnancies. To move us from conversations to real solutions.
The first thing that came to my mind was that in many states, murdering a pregnant woman is double homicide. I am not a supporter of the death penalty, so a prison sentence would be my answer.
It’s a volatile issue that will never go away. Because it’s painful, tragic, and sad. No one takes their private, necessary, decisions likely. Rather than attack pro lifers or pro choicers, in honour of National Sanctity of Life Day (Today, January 22) I made a list of ways to celebrate. Instead of wasting time holding signs for an issue that won’t go away, legal or illegal, there are so many ways to help show how much you care about life.
http://thegirlcanwrite.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/national-sanctity-of-life-day/
For example, get involved with the unwanted children, or the children no one can care for, already on the planet. From babysitting for the poor people, heading over to Sudan to help feed the starving, or adopting one of the thousands of bundles of joy tied to a crib in Romanian orphanages. Check it out! Get involved now!
I would say they are guilty of murder. What is so hard about that question? Try again.
all “religious fanatics” do not speak for the entire Christian faith, nor do they many times know how to even speak for themselves. The argument you put forth is one being discussed with someone who is not all that intelligent about their own opinion.
If abortion should be illegal, there should be a punishment, and it should be the same the circumstances when the woman tosses her pre-me in the dumpster behind the restaurant.
Just found your blog from wordpress, will have to read a little deeper but nice post to get people thinking a little bit.
It does not stump this believer. I am no ones judge or jury, only one has that power, assuming that I will be respected for my beliefs. :)
God will make those decisions, murder is sin; and one sin is the same as the other…sin.
The good thing is this…because of the Atonement, that would be what caused our salvations, Sin no longer effects our relationship with God. However, it does effect us, those we love and society…therefore, by sinning of any kind, murder…lies…adultery…we alter the world within which we reside for a time; creating misery and negative change…
Again, I am not stumped by this question at all, I try my best not to judge, it isn’t my place. At time, like all, I fail miserably…but stopping a heart beat is murder and will be judged and there will be a consequence…what that is, is up to us as individuals and society.
At the end of time, if you don’t believe in God then hopefully you will go into the dark and that will be the end of it. But….
What if that is wrong?
The problem can also be attributed to the fact that people generally don’t understand our legal system, either. And I think that would include you because, no offense, your premise is unfairly loaded by classifying the punishment as needing to be “severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty.” No, that is not a logical conclusion.
In the Unites States, there are varying degrees of punishment and classifications for “taking the life of another.” There are distinctions between voluntary and involuntary, premediated and non-premeditated, etc. And, depending on the state, each classification has different punishments attached.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people in this country can’t argue their points very well, no matter their political or religious persuasion. It is often natural because most of us have our daily lives to worry about and can’t really sit around to think or research all day. But, you are going to be doubly disappointed when you are not only discussing such a contentious topic, but also expecting the responders to be legal scholars.
In short, your whole premise is merely a calculated “gotcha” moment than any kind of honest logical debate. It doesn’t prove one side factually or logically incorrect, but rather proves the premise that you will always get this result from “man on the street” interviews no matter the topic (putting aside questions on what was edited out or what interviews were not shown). It’s the same reason I hated these types of interviews in regards to the election.
Prosecute the doctor, not the woman. If it’s against the law, the doctor is the one who is responsible for doing it.
Wow! To verbally disarm a radical, now that’s a tough one dude. The problem of your little question is that it will only work with people of a certain mindset: The ones that oppose abortion to the extent of wanting to render it illegal and at the same time ask for capital punishment.
However, you could also ask a Pro-Choice advocate (given that he or she is equally cliché ridden as your depiction of a Pro-Life supporter).
“So it’s ok for you to kill babies, but not criminals?” or “By legalizing and liberalizing abortions, don’t we sanction careless behaviour towards sex and human life?” or “If a young pregnant woman is deemed ‘not ready for a child’ you are fine with killing it off, but what if a child has just been born and you deem the mother as too ‘irresponsible’ do you want to kill it off as well?” It doesn’t take much to bring down a die-hard supporter of any dogma whatsoever.
Here in Europe it’s quite the opposite, occasionally you find die hard opponents of abortion but the “give out free abortions to women, children, men, animals” (virtually speaking that is) faction is much more present. One of them once told me that the sake of the child, the state should ask people to have an abortion if the couple is not perceived as responsible (but that’s just Europe dude, where people have always had a certain affection for totalitarian ideas).
I personally think that making abortions illegal won’t serve any purpose – it will endanger mother and child alike. However I believe that the state should highly regulate the whole process and not allow any abortion after the second month.
Punishment for anybody who takes another life. Let the puishment match the crime and leave that up to lawmakers to decide.
Holy abortion Batman! A new record?
Firstly, hat’s off to you, sir. This is hilarious for probably all the wrong reasons.
As a non-american, it baffles me how this issue is so contentious in US politics and society. From the outside, it seems like religion has managed to supplant science and rational though in a great many areas. This has impoverished American education, medicine, and parts of the economy.
I find it grotesque when people who claim to be Christian clearly act contrary to those beliefs (Anti abortionists attacking clinics? Katrina was sent by God? Oh, please!)
Is there not an hypocrisy in Christian groups decrying the strict demands of Sharia law, then demanding that the laws of their god be the laws of the state?
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Isn’t that enshrined in your constitution?
Who knew a post about abortion would bring the godbots out in droves?
Religious Zealots?
All right here is my issue with you liberal jerks who seem to have a philosophy of “If It Feels Good Do It”.
We have a right to our beliefs as you do. We the people who are against abortion believe that Sex the act of love between a man and a woman is not a Recreational Activity. It is an act that comes with responsibility. Part of that responsibility is the person created from that act. To treat a person, a baby, a FETUS, as something less than that is demeaning.
We are treating a life as something that should be thrown away. Life is a resource. The life we take may be the life that could have changed man’s destiny.
To treat life, the creation of life as something to throw away because it is not convenient, is to us disgusting.
Why should we have the right to fight against abortion?
Because Abortion is the taking of what we believe is a life.
Let me ask you a question….
If WE, the “Religious Zealots” believe that life… HUMAN LIFE begins at conception, how can we not fight against Abortion?
If you can support people who believe that the killing of an animal for food is wrong then why can we not believe that killing an unborn child is wrong.
I am really tired of being labeled by Liberals who feel that Abortion should be a right.
The right is DO NOT HAVE SEX if you do not want a child.
Why is that so hard to do?
Because we promote sex as a recreational activity, instead of as an act of love between 2 people who love each other. Is it any wonder that sexually transmitted diseases have sky rocketed since the 60′s. Had we not had the Sexual revolution of the 60′s and 70′s would we have the Aids Epidemic of the 90′s?
Gee now I am sounding like a prude…
What should happen to a person who has an illegal abortion? They should go to jail. I do not know for how long, but to me the taking of a life is wrong. The idea that it is an encumbrance on the poor is a joke.
How many women regret an abortion?
Apparently Roe did as she is now an activist against abortion.
-killing a fetus that threatens the life of the mother is equivalent to killing in self-defense.-
Tim, killing in self-defense usually means that the attacker was doing so with intention, where as a fetus threatening the life of the mother (and itself) is completely unintentional, its something neither one of them could help. If we punish them for that and call it manslaughter, should we not punish mother nature for the same reasons?
It is not manslaughter through self-defence, it is necessary more than anything. Allowing herself and the fetus to continue pregnancy, then for both to die during is manslaughter in itself. And those preventing such abortions should be held accountable.
Congress, anti-abortion protestors, religious leaders and those who pass anti-abortion laws should be made accountable for those denied the option in such a situation. And punished accordingly.
-It’s a really interesting point, though. But you’re preying on the one quality of (some) anti-abortionists that is usually denied them: empathy.-
You’re right, most of these people have no empathy and lack in substantial reasons to back up their argument with. They fail to look at all sides of the argument to form an intellectual opinion. They simply go by what they’re told and thats good enough for them. My intention was to open their eyes to the reality of it all or at-least recommend to research on the topic instead of… going yeah, its murder you should be punished, end of story.
I’m just glad that I don’t live in a country where the mindless and thoughtless ignorant believers can dictate as to what is legislated.
It’s a shame such a big country that is majorly dictated by such persons is becoming more and more of a dominant leader of the world liken to imperial ancestors of Rome and Mongolia.
On a secondary note, this same sort of logical progression can be turned around on the pro-choice crowd if you take their arguments to their natural ends.
If abortion is the “reproductive right” of the woman, should a woman, based upon the same reproductive rights, be allowed to have as many children as she wants? I would bet a lot of money on the fact that most people who are ardently pro-choice also think the world is overpopulated or in danger of becoming so. The same people praising reproductive rights in regards to abortion probably think the Duggars are sick for having so many children even though the mother is flexing that same reproductive right on the other end of the spectrum.
So, if you are for reproductive rights, shouldn’t you argue against, say, China’s one child policy with the same zealous attitude?
I am an agnostic, and I do not protest, so I can’t be accused of any fanaticism. I am simply a rational, moral man.
I have a question for you.
Is it OK to kill a baby who has been born, but is still attached to the mother by its umbilical cord? No? Step back in time in one minute increments and tell me when it becomes OK. Just exactly when does a baby in the doctors hands revert to organic waste?
Before that moment, go ahead and abort. After that, it is murder. I just don’t know when that moment is.
“If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?”
That’s an oldie but goodie.
I can just imagine some of them saying that these women are victims, and that they have been duped by the abortionists, and that we need to punish the abortionists, not the women. “Cause the women can’t really make their own decisions. Augh.
“A: Yes, there’s a punishment for murder because that’s taking a life.
Q: So why shouldn’t there be a punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion?
A: Oh… as the other [person] said, it’s kind of between her and God. She will get her punishment in the end.
Q: So why should it be illegal?
A: Because it’s the taking of a life.”
Then the women should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.
And if murder is punishable by death, then the women should get that punishment.
Anything less than the full extent of the law is a violation of the murdered person’s justice.
Augh.
This question didn’t stump Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8
(around 2:48)
@jcdarrin:
That is a completely rational approach, and I am amazed at how often people are unwilling to focus on that as an obvious starting point.
What should happen to all the babies that came to term. Unwanted children that will be flooding the system? Who will raise them? Who will pay for their upbringing? I’d love to see the church attempt to do this.
I’m all for making the right choice regarding life and death of our offspring, and your question does not stump me, at all. I posted the following as a comment on Digg and I’d like to show you where you do err in your question:
That question assumes that abortion could somehow be made illegal in today’s self-indulgent society. That’s not likely to happen as abortion has become as entrenched in our thinking as illicit drug use and alcoholic binge drinking. You could make it illegal but abortion would still happen as there is money to made from performing illegal abortions, and crooked cops and politicians could be paid off to look the other way, just as happens today with drug and alcohol crimes….
In a society that actually had not only the goodness, but the stones, too, to be consistent in their laws and criminalize abortion…..first, one would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman sought an abortion of her own free will, and that she wasn’t under threat herself from a boyfriend, husband, parent, or someone else.
If it could be proven that she freely sought an illegal abortion, then yes, she should be tried for the crime of infanticide. She should be shamed, not rewarded, for her cold calculation to rid herself of an unwanted child. The doctor that performed that abortion should also be tried for the murder and lose his license to practice medicine when convicted.
As long as kids are being taught by those in charge of their education that abortion is not murder, the chances are slim that abortion will again be outlawed.
I’m pro-life but not political about it in that I work to change hearts on the subject, not laws. Hearts must first change, and then the laws will reflect the changed hearts. If abortion had been illegal when I was 19, I doubt I would even have jumped into the ‘free sex’ garbage and gotten pregnant, at all. I would have been spared 20 years of trauma I endured after having an abortion.
This is ridiculous…anyone who has thought this issue through would come to the conclusion that the woman choosing the abortion and the “dr” performing the abortion are both commiting murder punishable by imprisonment or death. If you take a life, you have to take the consequences.
Hi,
Anti-gayism and anti-abortionism and anti-everything are just signs of the nowadays two-faced intolerance. World of “freedom” does not tolerate anything else than itself. How free is that?
You’ve got major problems with the sanity over that side of the Atlantic. Well, not much better here in Europe.
I would go from this, mostly scientific God perspective.
Locally, Sun is the “Father” and Earth is the “Mother”. We are the children (=life).
And all this matter is born from supernovas, exploding stars, billions of years ago. Matter, that was in the beginning on singular energy concentration. Thus, we are all brothers, consisting of the same energy.
Now, here’s a stumper for all you, victims of consumption society and marketing brainwashing:
“If life is the child of Sun and the Earth, how the hell you justify living in such fashion? Polluting and destroying nature – putting profit before ekology and preservance of life?”
I don’t give a damn about single abortion, but I think it is a bit worrying that 5% of the worlds population, which is USA, produces over 1/3 of all carbon dioxide pollution.
Have you ever thought that some of us would like to spare something for the future too? Even if it would make us not having some fancy adult toys so much, like plasma tv’s for example?
You gotta do something and fast, and not argue about some abortion questions. The ship is sinking…
I find it funny that we never see the cameraman go and talk to the person the last lady references and suggests the cameraman speak to. (“Joe Schidler?” Or somesuch. ~6:27)
One thing that not many people have touched upon, is whether you can actually ‘kill’ a foetus. Sure it has the potential for life, but nothing else is perceived with the potential in mind.
I am potentially a murderer. I mean, I could go out and kill someone quite easily. If this is the case, should I be tried for murder before I have committed it on the basis that I have the potential to do so?
Likewise, a 14 year old would not be allowed to go and buy alcohol because of their age. However, they have the potential to be old enough to buy it, so should they be allowed to buy it because they could potentially become old enough?
Of course not. The above statements are illogical and would never be put into practice. If this is the case, then why does the potentiallity of a foetus becoming a baby have more weight than any of the above statements?
yup…
you’re now on my blogroll
@M. N. Calristein
So let’s kill them so they won’t be a burden to society?
Another way to stump the aggressive abortionists thinking and illogical condemnation against the moral and reality of what an abortion actually accomplishes:
“in rethinking the Abortion issue, when human life begins and the atrocity of murder, we find that a woman (even though she has the ultimate right and decision) who aborts her child, is not merely aborting a fetus, but aborting any possible posterity that individual being may potentially bring into life.
What this means is that Abortion is not just murdering an innocent and vulnerable human being, but extinquishing any and all possibility for that being to be birthed and potentially bring forth their own posterity and lineage.”
This is why Abortion is morally wrong because it prevents the advancement of our community and it puts the woman in the position, power and authority to decide whether or not a child ought to live or die. A right she does not have period.
http://authortimothyrberman.wordpress.com/?s=Abortion
@Squiddy: Because their is both a legal and scientific grey area as to whether you can differentiate between a baby and a foetus. Genetically the two are identical after a handful of days so theoretically allowing abortion beyond that limit (which is the case in every western country that is pro-choice) would be equivalent directly to killing one of a pair of identical twins. And there’s no debate as to the morality of that scenario…
@M. N. Calristein:
Maybe, if abortion were illegal, men and women would think with greater clarity when they CHOOSE to have sex. Which is, of course, the true choice in all of this debate, and the choice that pro-choice proponents seem to skip over.
And, as jcdarrin stated, I think there is a real problem when we see human beings in terms of their burden on the State. Apparently, one more mouth for the government to feed is all we are anymore.
First, not everyone who is Pro-No Abortion is a religious fanatic and secondly, not everyone who wears the name Christian is really a Christian. With that being said, I am Pro-No Abortion. I am a Christian and there should be a punishment for every crime. Even though abortion is legal it is wrong. Slavery was legal but it was wrong. Just because a man creates a law doesn’t mean it is a just law. If the man is corrupt so could the rules and laws. If abortion was once again illegal, I feel the doctors should be prosecuted first and then the woman or girl. Remove the doctors and abortions would be greatly reduced. Abortion would be a crime and there are always people who will break the law – murder, theft, pedophilia, speeding. It doesn’t matter, and abortion will be no different. There will be those who break the law.
First and foremost is education. We need to teach kids the value of life and respect for one another and respect for themselves. We need to educate kids that there is a baby inside of a woman — not a bunch of cell, not confuse them with a lot of science mumbo jumbo like a zygote or fetus. What is a baby may have different stages of growth, but it is still a baby. (I use it because I don’t know the sex of the child, not because it is an ‘it’).
Abortion is wrong, like stealing Hebrews and making them build pyramids and temples. Like stealing Africans and separating them from country and family and forcing them to do everything. Like trying to exterminate an entire nation of people by a Nazi madman because of his deranged beliefs. Like stealing an entire half a continent from Native Americans and claiming it for your own. All perfectly “legal” – all perfectly wrong.
Oh dear,, this video so excellent at showing the stupidity of people acting before they have really thought about whats going on in the world.
If your going to make a public statement, please think about the whole movement you are supporting . either support it knowing all the facts, or step the fuck away.
Thank you.
@Gnome
I was pointing this out as an issue to do with morality and the logical consequences there are with abortion. The argument about potentiallity does not wash as can be seen with the examples I gave above. I don’t see what makes the potential of a foetus becoming a baby any more weighty than any other statement derived from using the same logic. I don’t see how a foetus can already be branded as a baby before it has actually been born. You wouldn’t give a toddler the same benefits as a pensioner on the basis of it having the potential to become one. That’s just absurd.
You should take a course in logic at your local college. First of all, laws are not made based on the consequences of disobeying them. EVERYONE who disobeys ANY law and gets caught suffers some form of punishment. Our legal system makes those decisions–not the man on the street or bloggers. Crack addicts who get caught go through hell during withdrawal–should we therefore legalize crack so they won’t suffer?
Second of all, why are people who value human life–or even just the POTENTIAL of human life–automatically considered bigoted or stupid by you? Valuing human life has always been considered a sign of a civilized culture.
Or is it just religion that you feel is bigoted or stupid, since most pro-life people have strong religious convictions? If so, you go against your own philosophy that individuals should be allowed to make their own personal decisions for themselves. “Except when they disagree with me,” is what your saying. “My beliefs supercede their beliefs.” By what right do you make that claim?
Last of all, in this issue, there is no middle ground. One side feels abortion is a personal decision–a basic human right no one has the right to take away; the other side feels it’s the taking of human life–murder, in other words. There can be no compromise! Each side feels it has “Right” on their side. So actually, neither side ever feels “stumped” by any statement or question.
So the only people who agree with you, are the people who already agree with you!
To those who recommend prison or death penalty as punishment for the murder/abortion crime, you’d better think that through. You may be sentencing your mother, daughter, neighbour, teacher, minister’s wife, sister, best friend, or self- only the woman ultimately knows, and don’t be fooled into thinking you don’t know anyone. You do.
Again, why is pregnancy always the consequence of the woman, never the man? How about all those men who are, phew, thank God she didn’t have a kid and tie me down, phew, not ready yet, bla bla bla. There are ALWAYS two people involved in getting pregnant. This is always lost on the ‘don’t have sex’ faction. Implied here is ‘woman, don’t have sex’ though in some cultures, countries, and even here at home, that’s not an option. That’s not an option for a Christian wife, to withhold from her husband. If you are so adamant about us ladies keeping our legs closed, why don’t you all get fixed, and then there won’t be any danger of abortions as a consequence of you having sex. And don’t think ‘Christian men’ aren’t out there doing it. Get your heads out of the sand. People have sex. Let’s try to make it loving, sweet, and kind, not vile. Oh,that’s right, I forgot, the woman is the temptress of Eden, responsible not just for the murder of her womb’s contents, but for the fall of man in Eden.
If you decide whether or not to admit an abortion based on the conditions of the conception (that is, let’s admit it for cases of rape but not for any others, for example), you are deciding the life or death of “a human being”, as they say, according to a thing so independent from anyone as the circumstances in which they have been conceived. Why should a baby conceived from rape should have less opportunities to live than another born from an “accident”? It has no basis. It’s not whether you are in favor or contrary to abortion – I think we all agree that it’s a horrible thing. But, should it be penalized? I don’t think so, and it has proved to be no solution.
Am i the only one who thinks that religion is a life style choice and that being pro-life is more or actual life changing ideal.
Religion needs to finds its place in a new world , someones religion should not have a say over the personal freedom to have or to not have children.
Having Children is the most life changing thing in the world. we should have control over that ?
Also i want to point out that, having a child alters the legal arrangment between that child and you. You are legally responsible for that child untill the state deems so. With out the choice or control. An unforseen mistake can lead to many lives suffering in an unjust way. What if someone can not provide for that child? If the state says its your responsiblitly , the state should see that there IS a CHOICE to me made. Thus the state should NOT hinder or PUNISH people who use there freedom to choose.. This is not a matter for if there is a god or isnt. ..
The reason it’s illegal is to prevent (or discourage) it from happening, not to punish. Once it’s done, it’s done. Not much point in punishing the woman. It’s a sad thing when it happens, and in many cases the woman punishes herself for it anyway.
It’s a logical question. Although, you can’t compare different type of crimes.
Why is it that a man who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with double murder, yet the woman can terminate that fetus with no punishment?
If abortion were illegal, whomever performed the abortion would be charged with murder. In most cases, the woman would be charged with accessory to a murder.
You also have to take the woman’s age in consideration. Most abortions are performed on minors.
As if. Some of us have considered this question, and it’s honestly not that stumping. Charge them with premeditated murder. That simple.
I understand the fear of a woman losing her right to choose, but I have a hard time stomaching late-term abortions. How can we allow a third trimester abortion, some even view up till before delivery day as acceptable for having an abortion.
What about the rights of the baby? Do they have a right to live? Should abortion me made as a form of legal birth control? Unless the unborn child was conceived by rape or poses a risk of DEATH to the mother, I think it’s inexcusable to have an abortion after the first trimester.
Otherwise, I feel we should give those babies a chance and the right to live… even if it means making a law to do so and punishing those who break it. I don’t think a woman has a right to kill a viable third trimester baby.
That’s not a clever question…
Great post and I have debated the very argument on another blog if abortion was illegal then would doctors and mothers be put in prison. The poor saps in that debate were going around in circles. LOL
Another related issue that bugs me is when people use the term pro-abortion to describe someone which is bogus. No one is really pro-abortion. Being pro-choice does not mean you are pro-abortion but most of the pro-life crowd just can’t understand the concept.
http://ideasandrevolution.net/2008/01/29/rant-nobody-is-pro-abortion-and-does-not-exist/
Here is food for thought………The Pro-Choicers always give us this “right to choose garbage”……Now think about something
When you have a Right to choose,the right is 100% right?
Now apply this to their argument,If a person had that “right” they could choose to use it Any time they wanted to.
Lets say a young lady was OVERDUE,the Baby was due in late May and its now Early June…….the “right to choose” would Allow her to make a Choice to Abort and she is ALREADY more than 9 months.
THEREFORE……….its not realy about the right to choose,no Woman in her right mind would Abort at nine and a half months.
their ENTIRE argument is “WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN”?
For that all one must do is show them Psalm 139 in the Bible
God Knew us BEFORE we were born,which PROVES life begins at Conception
Pro-choicers also Contradict themselves because if they say Life Begins at Birth,Then what is growing inside of them is Obviously NOT theirs.
IT IS GODS.
And if you terminate something that belongs to someone else
Its Murder.
Hence,then they would have to admit life begins at conception,otherwise they set them selves up for proscecution
Actually, i’ll tell you flat out what i believe.
Abortion is murder. Therefore should have the same consequences as murder. The abortionist should be the one to get the death penalty, for charges of murder in the first.
The mother should be sent to jail for life for conspiracy to commit murder, and for aiding and abedding.
And getting this “information” to stump us from one video is ridiculous. Most pro lifers feel the exact way i do. You haven’t “stumped” anyone.
Personally, I’ve always wanted to go where they’re protesting with a sign up sheet for them to sign up to adopt the baby they don’t want aborted. I’m sure that would shut them up pretty quickly as well.
Although I don’t personally believe in abortion (I was adopted out), I don’t feel it’s my position to tell a woman what to do with her body. I’m positive whatever higher power there is doesn’t judge either. I’m sure most of these holier than thou people are firm believers in capital punishment though. You betcha!
You have brought up an interesting point, but I agree with several others that if a fetus is a person, abortion is murder. If it is murder, the woman and the doctor are guilty of murder. Other staff are participating in murder at varying levels of involvement.
Punishment? For me, the challenge here would be to decide the purpose of punishing. Is it to make society safe from the criminal? Is it to get revenge against the criminal? Is it to cure the criminal?
Our country, the United States of America, enjoys putting people in jail. We don’t address why we punish so much as simply enjoying the opportunity to punish.
Personally, I have mixed emotions on the abortion issue. I do believe the fetus is alive. I don’t know whether it is a human life or not. I base this on my religious upbringing which indicated that there is a “breath of life,” not a heartbeat of one.
Above all, I feel that as a man, I have no business telling a woman what to do with her body.
@Thegirlcanwrite:
“Again, why is pregnancy always the consequence of the woman, never the man?”
My question to you, What about all those women who had performed abortion without consulting with the father of the child as to how they feel?
Unjustly you condemn men for not keeping it in their pants. Granted, there is an issue with our society today regarding sexual misconduct.
Here is my thoughts on the whole issue:
1) Abstinance and morality ought to be taught in our schools. Not, if you are going to have sex, here is a condemn, or here are ways to protect yourself from STD’s and to prevent pregnancies.
Yes, granted, even within our own society and culture where sexual expression has become predominate = it is the reason why our young adults and teenagers have become more comfortable in having sexual relations earlier and earlier.
2) Abortion and the “Morning after pill” is nothing more than a legalized birth control. Face it. Women use it with self – justifying reasons – I went out and partied, got pregnant, and am on a career path and do not want to ruin it.
I do agree that the father of those children should be held accountable and they are held accountable financially. Why do you think there are aggressive child support laws that make working fathers second class citizens and slaves to the state governments to support these children (which is a whole different discussion of morally wrong and social ill of our welfare system).
The fact is, there are women who conceal their abortions – even from their husbands – because they believe they have a right to do what they want to their body.
This line of reasoning falls apart when one considers drug use. Why not make drugs legal. After all a human being has a right to do whatever they want to their body right?
Why not make murder legal?
When we start going into those lines of reasonings, the abortionists want the conversation to stop because they do not want to fully see where their own reasonings lead. Because, such reasonings lead to things that the Abortionists will say are wrong, socially ill and are punishable by law.
Thus, while both parties should be held responsibile – the ultimate reality is this: Just as much as it is the woman’s right to abort a child while in the womb, because it is her body, so then also because of that, it is the consequence of that right she must suffer whatever punishments and consequences that come about in exercising that right.
Arrest them and charge them with manslaughter or murder. This question has long been answered.
What would you have done with Nazi’s guilty of genocide?
Here’s your warning. “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. May God deal with you justly.
Sorry, dude, but if a woman went out ‘partied’ and got pregnant, the potential child still belongs to dude, also. If dude is NOT READY TO BE A FATHER, he must never, ever have sex, not even with his wife. Even tube tying fails, so a man must then never have sex, even with his wife, if they do not want children at this exact time. Most women, worldwide, don’t have access to birth control, and cannot refuse their husbands sex. Most women do not want ten kids, in countries where they know their children will starve to death. So before yapping about women here getting knocked up, start adopting out for those precious bundles of joy.
I don’t think abortion is nice, just necessary. The price of being unwanted or uncared for is poverty, violence, disease. Contraception is not failproof, nor is abstinence, as many women are raped. Pregnancy is seldom the result of ‘partying.’ Many, many nice married women, nice middle aged women, or conscientious women using birth control have been impregnated. And guess how that happened? With a dude.
I would never argue ‘for’ abortion. I’m raised Christian. But I can’t hide in the dark, either, and persecute women when there are millions of miracles strapped to cribs in orphanages, or starving to death. Stop yapping and start adopting.
these people are just against abortion on a moral standpoint…to them, earthly legal and lawful punishment is nothing compared to the punishment they will face in the afterlife. so, this argument sucks really. let people think what they want to think.
I don’t think abortion should be legal. but there are a lot of people doing illegal behavior that are not in jail. It would be hard to convict a woman for that probably anyway, so it’s not that people think women should be punished for it, just that the legalization of it could be really bad. Some of these corporations that don’t give a sh*t about people would love to get their hands on a completely legal, ridiculously profitable game like abortion. The marketing, the commercials, the coupons, the endorsements, the school assemblies. Wake up people, it would be heinous.
Good question. But I am surprised that no one in your video responded by saying that if abortion is illegal then the provider and not the woman should be punished. Or was this just edited out?
That doesn’t stump me one bit, they should be sentenced to view the fruits of other abortions (watch videos of abortions), given therapy, and be locked up for a long, long time.
Most women who have abortions perform don’t really realize what they are doing, or having done to them, so their basic need is education, therapy or mental reprogramming away from their selfish endeavor.
I always question the “pro-life” assertions. For until a baby is born, it is part of the mother’s self expression, a ‘growth’ in her body. It has potential for self expression, but until such time as a child’s first cry, it is not realized.
How can we be “pro-life”, if we do not even RESPECT the life of the Mother? It’s hypocrisy, through and through, being manipulated out of FEAR of DEATH.
Love of Life is a different code then is Fear of Death.
Expressions of Love & Acceptance only upon condition is bartering. As well as being indications of deficits in substance of character. Especially such qualities as Acceptance and Tolerance.
A limited unlimited?
An impotent omnipotence?
An Absolute lacking in qualities of Absolute-ness?
And this hodge-podge of contradictions is “God”?
No wonder so many of us are conflicted.
Selfish endeavour? What right does the foetus have over the woman’s body? Look up Thomson’s argument on this and you’ll see that the woman has the right to her body to decide what she does (or doesn’t) do for that foetus.
you should have asked the Question WHY ABORTION?, not WHAT AFTER ABORTION?=) then see what do they say=)
This is really thought-provoking, I gotta say. Whether anyone agrees or not, they can’t deny the strong argument this presents.
If these people want to present a strong cause for making abortion illegal, they need to think their arguments through, religious or not, because if they don’t, there’s no reason to take them seriously. in any debate, it’s impossible to respect a participant who hasn’t done their research and fully developed their point.
kudos to you, sir.
Women who have illegal abortions become accessories to their crimes. Yes, they should be sent to jail. The abortionist is the primary criminal.
That sounds simple and straightforward enough.
@Sue Ann Edwards:
You said:”For until a baby is born, it is part of the mother’s self expression, a ‘growth’ in her body.”
That is simply biologically and factually inaccurate. A fetus is not a part of the mother’s body because it is completely genetically distinct from the mother. In fact, it has a unique set of human genes that has never been seen before in the entire history of human existence.
A fetus is “attached” to the mother’s body, and dependent on it, but it is simply not biologically her body or a part of her body, like some other organ.
At best, if it isn’t a human being yet, biologically the only classification for it is a parasite, and I don’t think you want to travel down that road. And then you are still left with the question of when said “parasitic growth” becomes a human being.
Here’s the thing that bothers me, no religion included in my train of thought. If a woman can be punished for murdering (or neglect that causes death) her premature/full term newborn, why then, is a woman who aborts her viable pregnancy not held to the same standards? Because a doctor performed the procedure in an abortion, and nature brought about the birth of a child that is not wanted for the woman who terminated her child’s life? both children in either situations were not wanted, and both were terminated in some fashion. One is a criminal, the other just a woman allowed her “reproductive rights”.
Do I think that a woman should be punished for aborting? Depends on the situation. If her life is threatened by the pregnancy, I feel that the loss of the pregnancy is punishment enough for her. For those who opt to terminate other than for health reasons, they should be sterilized. Since they don’t want the hassle of a pregnancy and reproduction, then they shouldn’t mind not being able to produce any longer…giving them the freedom to go at it like rabbits if they so choose.
If abortion is Killing, than it should mean jail for those who practice it!
That’s very simple.
I don’t have a formed opinion about abortion, since it depends on how long the pregnancy is, but if someone makes an abortion at an 8 months long pregnancy, than I think prision should be the penalty; and such penalty doesn’t seem shocking at all.
So we have to be a bit more thoughtfull in this matter.
But that’s only my opinion…
Hi Daniel,
I think you make some solid arguments. But, I also think that this is not as simple as it has been presented. It is not a yes or no question, right or wrong. The reason the debate has gone on for so long, is because it is complicated.
I vacillate between the two sides. On the one hand, yeah, people shouldn’t be able to have an abortion at any time. Think of someone getting rid of a baby after a few months of being pregnant. Point being, how many regulations and time constrictions would go into this?
But, on the other hand, if the fetus is not yet to point of development… although it sucks, it is not technically killing I think. It doesn’t make it humane, but it also is not murder.
Lastly, my main concern is education, especially for those younger men and women who are (most understandably) scared and confused. There should be a plethora of information, counseling and support for the young. I say MEN and WOMEN, because I hope that we can reach a day when both stick around and try to do what’s best for the child. I am honestly just tired of hearing about how “you can’t tell me what to do with MY body.” It’s yours, yes, but you’re also making a decision for someone else, who happens to be living inside of it.
@Sue Ann Edwards
So right up until the time the doctor slaps its little butt and it starts to breath it is a “self-expression”, a “growth”? The doctor is holding it in his hands and since it hasn’t cried yet, it’s OK for him to kill it? I hope no one really believes that.
Absolutely brilliant post mate. Blatant contradictions and blind faith. What else can you expect from religious fundamentalists?
I hope you don’t mind – but I linked to this post from my own blog. This deserves to be seen.
Thanks for this post – my faith in humanity is restored just a little.
This is a classic case of poor reporting. The first thing that you have to consider is sample size and sampling. This is surely not a random sample nor an appropriate sample size. You then draw sweeping conclusions based on a small sample. You claim that all of us that believe abortion is wrong believe the same way as about a half dozen people that you happened to meet. I am sure that there are people you talked to that you did not include in the video. There are those who have answers to your questions. You simply choose to not interview those people. The answer: Yes they should spend time in jail. Just like someone who kills any other living person. That is what is inside of a woman. A living person. If you kill it you should go to jail. So should the doctor that performs the abortion. Please include that answer in your video.
Please Do NOT assume you know what the majority of us think! You posted: ‘…women who have illegal abortions should receive severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty. That’s the logical conclusion…’
It is NOT a logical solution. I resent the implication that we are without mercy.
I am anti abortion, and will not waver. I am anti- death penalty– and will not waver.
With the same reverence for ALL life, we, the people who believe that abortion is ‘wrong’, must use the same measure of care for the woman who does not want her child. Are we not a creative people? Are we not born with the ability to reason? There are solutions to this question.
I’m tired of hearing arguments that are filled with Hate.
If we used 1/10th of the energy on Solutions and finding Mercy for ALL, mammoth length blogs of this ilk, would fade off into the sunset, where most merciless l’causes’ drift.
I am a Christian and I believe that Abortion is Morally wrong and should be treated a a criminal act. I do not understand why this is such a “clever” question. It is really very simple.
Abortion is taking the life of a baby, a human being.
Taking the life of a human being is murder.
Murder is a crime and should be punished.
I really see no reason why a woman who gets an abortion should not be treated in the same way as a woman who drowns her baby in a bathtub. I think part of why people are having trouble with this is because we are becoming complacent toward the heinous nature of this act. Even those who are desperately against it often do not truly grasp the reality of what an Abortion is. To a degree it is a part of society that we have had to “get used to” (for lack of a better phrase). But our complacency makes it no less heinous and no less criminal.
I think that it is hypocritical to refuse to see that abortion is murder. There have been countless cases in which a person has been convicted of a double murder in cases where the victim was a pregnant woman. How is it that a fetus is a person in that case, but not in the case of a woman who wants to get ride of the fetus in her womb.
What Pro-Abortionists are doing is rationalizing away the reality that they are in essencePro-Murder in favor of an ideology of personal convenience. It is the height of SELFISHNESS.
Really interesting debate. Good to see rational dialogue between both sides.
Easy, you charge them with 1st Degree Murder. Wish you would have asked me that.
“hey know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.” This does not mean that they “know abortion is not really murder.” I think this is bad logic here, no offense.
fix: “They” not “hey” :)
I would just like to open it a little,
have there ever been any “just” cases for someones murder or death?.
Can it be legal Murder? is there a middle area?
To facilitate discussion, pro-life people should accept three facts:
1) This is not a simple question. A single cell is not a human being; ending the life of a single cell is not the same as killing a human being. Pro-life people need to stop acting as if the fetus remains the same during the nine months of pregnancy.
2) Pro-choice people are not for abortion. Instead, all they do is accept that this is not a simple issue. All pro-choice people want is to *not* make this hard choice in the woman’s name. Since we will never be able to agree on this, it seems obvious to me that we can not impose our opinion on other people. The mere fact that we disagree so vehemently proves that imposing one view on everyone is wrong.
3) Pro-choice people are not of the opinion that *all* abortions should be legal. Pro-life people need to stop making the “9th month pregnant” example, because (hopefully) no pro-choice person will make the argument that it should be okay for mothers to abort their children after earlier stages of pregnancy (except for medical reasons where there is no other choice). Pro-choice people typically do *not* think that a fetus becomes a human being at the exact time it leaves the female body, and do *not* think that abortions should be legal up to that point.
neshadiism wrote: “What Pro-Abortionists are doing is rationalizing away the reality that they are in essencePro-Murder in favor of an ideology of personal convenience. It is the height of SELFISHNESS.”
I’m not a woman. I don’t think I’ll ever be involved in any kind of abortion. I do not profit from abortion. In fact, I think an abortion is a terrible thing. However, I do not feel that I have the right to impose this view on other people. Imposing your subjective moral views on other people who do not agree with them, when their actions have nothing to do with you and affect you in no way, *that* is the height of selfishness.
Actually, the question is or should be – If it’s legal for a woman to spread her legs and murder a child, then why is it illegal for her to spread her legs and have sex for money?
The answer – if it’s not good for the gov’t it’s not going to happen.
By the way, it seems everyone you’ve asked this question hasn’t really thought that far through the situation. Understanding that if you’re okay with abortion you should be okay with capital punishment. On the other hand, it’s interesting to see many Republicans favor capital punishment and then say abortion is murder. And I’m a Republican.
If you want to get to the heart of it all – murder is murder – and people’s thinking is mostly fucked up and contradictory.
That’s does not in any way present a question. From a philosophical position it is definitely murder. Watch a sonogram and see if a fetus isn’t alive, and that if you leave it to its own devices it will become a real person. The question is in court how to you deal with it. Among our authorities it is a debate about what legal issue it is. Some say it is murder-then what level of punishment? People don’t want to say it should carry a prison term because it’s unsettling not because they don’t feel that way. Also at least according to our authorities (Catholics argue) a woman may and may be even expected to abort enforcement of a law like that becomes difficult because you can always get a shady doctor to sign off. The other major opinion is it falls under the prohibition to maim yourself, which means consulting with a competent authority if the positives outweigh the negatives (ex. getting earrings isn’t an issue because a little hole in the lobe enables a woman to wear jewelry). Since America allows you to have spikes implanted in your skull it’s hard to tell a woman with a Down’s baby not to have it.
Emotional arguments are not good arguments. The main issue here is enforcement not that there’s nothing wrong with it. And clearly because you made an appeal to the emotions means you have less intellectually to stand on for your position than the evil brainwashed Pro-lifers. But to give you some credit most people don’t think out their philosophical positions. Hey you didn’t.
I think they think that if it’s illegal people simply wont do it, so a “punishment” for it becomes irrelevant. Ha!
Here is my response: http://trebord.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/
@davepiper:
You said “I would just like to open it a little,
have there ever been any “just” cases for someones murder or death?.
Can it be legal Murder? is there a middle area?”
In short, the legal answer is yes. For any crime, there are two things that can reduce or get rid of guilt: justification and excuse. For justification, the act was not a crime to begin with because of the circumstances. For excuse, the act was a crime, but something else alleviates said crime.
A good example, in murder’s case, is self defense. If valid, self defense is a justification for taking the life of another. There are legal definitions and standards for all of these terms of art, though, and I’m not entirely certain if there are any “excuse” arguments for murder.
@LKM:
You said “This is not a simple question. A single cell is not a human being; ending the life of a single cell is not the same as killing a human being. Pro-life people need to stop acting as if the fetus remains the same during the nine months of pregnancy.”
I hope you do realize the contradiction in your statement when you simultaneously claim it’s not a simple question but then proceed to give a definitive simple answer.
I find it slightly amusing that they contradicted themselves at least 3 times in that exchange. Well done, Pro-Choice is the way to go. At least that way you know what you’re talking about.
Wow
Yeah, I’m really stumped..
How about charge the evil bitches with homicide, and, if necessary, get them to flip on the homicidal “doctors”?
This is just ridiculous. You’re saying that just because someone hasn’t given any thought to what punishment someone should receive for having an illegal abortion that proves it’s not the taking of a human life? Come on.
And, yes, I have given some thought to it. I believe abortion should be illegal, and there should very definitely be a punishment. Because our society has already created the mindset that it is ok to kill an unborn baby, the crime is not perceived in the same light as the premeditated murder of an already born human being. That doesn’t make it any less of a crime. The difference is the human life being snuffed out is attached physically to it’s murderer.
What does that mean as far as punishment? If and when abortion becomes illegal, a debate and a vote will have to take place as to what the actual punishment should be. The majority will decide.
How about this: jail time or being forced to witness 1 live birth for every day of their own child’s life before it was snuffed out. I assure you, that witnessing the miracle of birth will erase any doubt that a fetus is a human being. Better yet, let them watch the birth of babies born prematurely, and force them to observe their will to live and to experience their unique personalities-weeks and months before they were supposed to be born and deemed “human”.
well, there’s two side of the coins: prolife and prochoice. i’m more towards the prolife, as in i’ll only think abortion is justified when either the child or the mother is in danger or the mother is a rape victim or any other reasonable reasons…. but i think it’s just shallow that a women who finds out she is pregnant to just go and have an abortion.. but again, being pro-life, i don’t think the women who do such an abortion should get a Death(!) penalty! i don’t know what the penalty should be or even if there should be. just the abortion laws provided need to fit whoever really needs it. and an illegal abortion is just illegal. if it was legal it would just open it up to everyone (which would be a problem). it’s a mixed view a little, but, i hope it is understandable why abortion shouldn’t totallly legal (of course, exceptions exempted)
@ChickNamedHermia: If “whatever way you look at it, abortion is murder,” then why does half of America disagree with you? Obviously your way of looking at it isn’t the only way.
I wish the focus of this debate about abortion and choice would switch to “how do we stop unwanted pregnancies before they happen?”. I am pro-choice, but I wish that women would not be faced with the choice at all. The trouble with the pro-life side is that they are so wrapped up in religion, that they also fight against the things that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, mainly sex education and easy access to contraception. How do we shift the discussion?
I’m anti abortion and I’m not really stumped. If abortion was illegal and a woman had an abortion then there would have to be due punishment according to the law for that crime, as I’m sure there are in other countries. After all they would be breaking the law. Do I think such a person should receive the death penalty or life in prison? Definitely not. The baby would have had to be born and alive in order for me to consider it murder. Also such things would depend on the stage at which the abortion was done.
I don’t really oppose abortion in its entirety anyway. I believe it serves a purpose under particular circumstances, such as a threat to the mother’s life physically or socially, a threat even to the baby’s life. However I don’t believe in abortion just because someone doesn’t want the baby or doesn’t want anyone to know they’re pregnant. Even if someone realizes she cannot take care of the child or does not want the child for whatever reason. There is adoption. I’m more inclined to believe abortion for the latter reasons is selfishness rather than murder.
That still makes it wrong in my book.
Why should someone be denied entry into this world because they might cause you some social, financial, educational or career discomfort?
Especially when there are people who cannot have children and would like to…or people with the means to provide the right environment to raise that child.
If you don’t want your baby, don’t punish the baby for something you did. Give the baby to somebody who wants it.
That’s all I have to say.
I think this is a very good question to ask. I grew up in a christian conservative home, and never missed a pro-life (or anti-abortion) rally since I was 2 or 3… I’ve lived it all my life, and now… I have decided that a lot of people have no idea what they are talking about. All they know is that a baby is lost, but they have no idea what to say when they are asked about it becoming illegal or not…
For me, I think, politically, abortion should be left alone, and I wouldn’t mind Obama putting in the Freedom of Choice Act, to just simply shut up the christian conservatives, and MAKE them actually do something in these women’s lives and not just persecute them even more by their banners, rally bashing, and words… It is time for someone to start taking in a child for someone who was going to have an abortion, or take in a women who can’t afford to have a child, and care for them both until they can get back on their feet. If every christian who was against abortion would start actually befriending and caring for the people who have abortions, then abortion would end all together, no doubt!
those are my simple thoughts, its been a big controversy for me… my family and some friends are ALL OUT anti-abortion, and saying you are pro-life is also saying you are against war, capital punishment, and euthanasia, as well as poverty and disease (nationally or internationally)… It is so important to not just look at abortion and say you are pro-life, but to make it much wider, and say you are pro-life because you are for life and the preserving of life, in all arena’s.
stephen
Funny how both sides of this unwinable debate keep looking for the magic bullet as if stumping the other side means you win. So if you ask me the question and I look stupid and you put me on youtube does that mean you win?
if abortion were illegal the point would not be the women having the abortions but the doctors performing them. My opposition to abortion is not an attempt to come against women who have abortions, but a desire to preserve what I consider the precious life of the unborn child.
I have an antiabortion stance, but I don’t believe that legislation is the answer–working to limit unwanted pregnancies is what we need to aim for. Abortion is a traumatic experience that both pro and anti abortionists should agree needs to be as limited as possible.
The person who decides to have the abortion, and the person who decides to perform the abortion will have to answer to God in the end.
I personally used to be totally against abortion, because I believe that it is a living child, but I have come to believe that the government should not tell a mother what they can or can not do with their bodies.
What if you ask a person who attempts to commit suicide, and fails. Should they be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for attempted murder? Of course not. Obviously this person has some underline issues they need to deal with in order to go on with a fruitful life. Same with a person who decides to have an abortion.
I agree with what another person stated. They have already punished themselves by going through with it anyway.
@Ann’s New Friend:
Actually I never read Dawkins — or any of the “new atheists” — until I was already one. Not sure why you think I’m a “follower of Richard Dawkins.” While I’m sure we agree on many things, I’m not a Christian — I don’t follow prophets nor do I think they are infallible.
Also I’m classically educated, so I have read Augustine & Milton, along with Aquinas, Justin Martyr, Kierkegaard, Luther, Calvin, Dante, Erasmus, Pascal, Dostoevsky, and modern apologists like Lewis, Strobel, McDowell, and Craig.
I’m not saying that to show off — I’m saying it because you’re challenging me to “try out your intellectual muscles on something substantive” like I haven’t already done so.
And I will keep doing it. I’m a skeptic, and I know I’m wrong about many things. My goal is to keep finding the things I’m wrong about and revise them.
Anyway, I think I’m pretty familiar with most of the intelligent Christian arguments. But if those guys have missed any, be sure to let me know.
Life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Period. Prolife (I love that term) is not just about the unborn, but for everyone.
I can never understand the left…..they are suppose to be the people who care, but they sure drop the ball on this one.
I think part of the problem here is that people think that by making abortion “illegal” it will just stop. For the most part, I don’t think it enters into their minds that women would still seek out abortions whether they are safe and legal or not — which is especially surprising in older people (my grandmother is always yelling at the TV about how if abortion is illegal you’ll have women dying in the streets from botched back-alley abortions) — because someone who is desperate, with their back in the corner will do what they have to do. So they’ve never bothered to think about what should happen to the people who do go ahead and break the law (though it’s been my understanding that doctors — or whoever is performing the operation — have traditionally been the ones to be prosecuted). It’s naivete.
Still, it’s funny to watch them squirm. Maybe we should make them read The Cider House Rules.
For someone as “intellectual” as you, you sure give Americans a bad reputation.
I mean, really, how stupid do you think people are?
That’s almost like when I ask my little brother a riddle, he doesn’t know the answer, and I laugh at him. He’s 12. I’m 20.
Heaven forbid that’s how you get your kicks…
Shoot, I forgot, heaven isn’t real. My bad.
Lance you are forgetting that the mother’s body is only the temporary location of the body of another person. The question is not whose body is holding the baby, the question is, is the baby worth protecting.
Some people will make an argument similar to yours to say that they should be able to do whatever they want to do, as long as it is within their own home. You don’t get a free pass for killing people temporarily living in your house, and you shouldn’t get one for killing people temporarily living in your body.
Rape is ugly, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Adoption is always an option. Sure it’s hard emotionally, but that is not a good reason to kill someone.
Someone who attemps suicide (how did we get here from mocking pro-lifers anyhow?) should be given couselling . . . while they are in jail for attempted murder or manslaughter. Why is it difficult to contemplate applying laws to everyone, regardless of their mental state?
“Yes, the women who have the abortion should be tried — and so should the doctors. And that is how it was before 1973. Look it up. Doctors who performed this illegal act of killing a human being were tried for murder.”
Abortion was legal in certain circumstances all through the 60′s. It was called “theraputic abortion” and was touted as a service being done for women whose pregnancies threatened their lives. In actuality, most of the women who were subjected to the procedure were victims of rape and incest, poor women, women with mental illness or physical disabilities, drug users, prostitutes and other women who were considered unfit for motherhood. Fathers, husbands and doctors made the decisions. (Think of it this way: Killing a person is legal, as long as a judge commands it. It’s not eradicated. We just gave up the ability to make that judgment and passed the responsibility on to someone else.)
Roe v Wade appeared to legalize abortion. What it did was take that power away from doctors and put the decision into the hands of the woman. Abortion is always there, always has been, always will be. The question is, who gets to choose whether or not it is performed?
Answer: I do. Even if I’m 17 and my father is trying to cover up incest. Even if my husband doesn’t want any more kids. Even if I have Down’s. Even if I’m a crackhead. Even if carrying to term could kill me. “No” is such a great choice, but it only exists if we retain the right to choose.
Pretty simple. If someone commits murder, than whatever the lay of land requires for murderers.
And your question is irrelevant because the main thing we pro-lifers believe is that the human being growing in a mother’s womb is valid and is protected under the same laws that those who are alive and outside the womb.
Abortion is our modern day slavery issue.
Some are saying “a line has to be drawn”. I don’t believe this is strictly true. You could have a “seriousness scale” instead of a line, sort of like a “punishment grade”, which would make the law more complicated but would be more just, regardless, especially for people NEAR the “line”. This could be applied to both the issues of abortion and statutory rape cases.
Applied to abortion it might go something like:
1) Taking morning-after pill: Slap on the wrist
2) Aborting at start of 3rd trimester: Jail time
3) Abortion just before birth: Murder equivalence
Applied to statutory rape it might go something like:
1) Within 4 years of age of each other: Slap on the wrist (example: 16 year old girl and 19 year old man)
2) 8+ year age difference: Jail time
3) “Victim” actually feels harmed: More jail time for offender
4) Etc. (I have intellectual trouble with victimless crimes so this whole issue in its entirety bothers me, but this is an example)
Daniel, I understand with the number of comments it is impossible to reply to them all, but what is your response to the pro-lifers who have given their response? It seems most pro-lifers who have responded did not “know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.” This is a straw man argument, making all those against abortion seem as ignorant drones who have never considered the consequences of their actions. I think torture should be illegal, but I do not have a good punishment ready for all forms of torture. That does not mean I really think its absurd, but that I’m not the best person to decide the fate of criminals, likely because I have not studied law.
WOW my in box was FULL this morning from replies to this blog and question. It is amazing how many different people say the same types of things. What is apparent is that not ALL pro lifer’s were “stumped” by the question. In fact a vast majority seem to have an answer, whether it is a “popular” answer or not, there is an answer.
wow, that was a great video. Just more proof that christians love to force their values on people, even when they don’t really understand their own values themselves. I would have loved to see someone who could really hold their own with you. There are intelligent people on THAT side of the debate, but the majority have absolutely no clue what they are fighting for.
That’s NOT a stumper. There are those of us who oppose abortion who know the answer is not clean and easy. I think abortion is a heinous choice, and having experienced an unplanned pregnancy, I understand from the inside why women choose it. I chose adoption. I would advocate in every case where it’s possible – prevention, and then that the baby stay with his/her biological family. But I know reality is reality – some women will choose abortion.
There are, however, different reasons for choosing abortion. As many as 40 percent of women who abort have had at least one prior abortion. Punishing a woman for having an abortion is just a silly concept…hence your question in the first place, and the challenge with altering the laws. But if we were to make laws against anything, laws against repeat abortions *might* be a place to start.
At this late stage of the game, I don’t think we can ever realistically go back to making abortion illegal. The thing we need to do is make it much, much, much less necessary. I’ve considered myself pro-life for as long as I can remember – but I see the other side in a way very few pro-lifers do. I voted for Obama for lots of reasons – and did not hold his abortion position against him. He also was the first politician I have EVER heard make the same claim – that we need to reduce the need for abortion. That’s a position both sides could find as common ground, if they were willing.
Have to tell you, I find it so interesting always when men, who will never face an unplanned pregnancy, take up this cause.
Laura
I will admit that I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread, but it seems to me that about 1% of the people who have posted have actually put some thought in to this issue.
Over and over we are told that abortion is the taking of a human life, and yet, not one of the posts that I have read has even attempted to define what life is, what a human is, or attempted to weigh up the relative rights, which is absolutely the crux of this debate.
Until we can get past the idea that, “abortion is murder, plain and simple”, as if the individual actually believes that they have made an argument, rather than an assertion, I see little hope for any constructive dialogue.
I’d like to thank those who have actually thought about this most complex and emotional of issues (you probably know who you are), on either side of the debate. It’s just a shame that the ratio of signal-to-noise does not favor those who have wrestled with the issue, unfortunately.
As I said in a previous post, there is no “moment” when a fetus becomes a life (it is a continuum), and the same can probably be said about consciousness, also (although we do know roughly when certain neural connections are formed).
I fear that there is no talking to those who simply affirm a well worn dogma, but I implore all to actually buy a scholarly book on this subject, and actually attempt to understand why so many of us don’t quite see it as a black and white issue. One can only hope, I guess.
Saw this elsewhere, you certainly got a lot of traffic, including a number of idiots.
I’m an atheist. I don’t like abortion, but forcing women to bear children is the greater crime.
Instead of rallying for a cause they haven’t thought through perhaps the women in the video clip should be more concerned with sex education, and finding alternatives? Perhaps they should get a medical degree and research the problem rather than picket? Perhaps they should make sure the hundreds of thousands of children round the world that are neglected, orphaned, left in care, or starve to death are taken care of before they picket for more lives to be brought into this world!
Yeah, take a placard, anoint yourself and call everyone else evil, but don’t actually tackle the problem, just picket. That’ll solve the issue.
I hope God likes timewasters.
HOwever I was very glad to see the young women in the clip actually follow through the logic of her position. I don’t agree with her, but she’s thinking, and that is something I can get behind.
I disagree with the argument that because an “anti abortionist” cannot give you a “fair punishment” for a woman who aborts a fetus, then abortion CANNOT be murder. To call that “logic” is embarrassingly ignorant.
What is the true litmus test for determining when basic human rights begin? I realize that to so many, it is almost impossible to grasp that something so small could possibly be human, so does size determine when or if we have the right to life? If that is the case then wouldn’t it follow that a small human would have less right to life than a large human? Of course not.
Many assert that a fetus is merely a clump of cells… Undeveloped… Both male and female reproductive systems require a level of maturity to become functional that is not reached until puberty. Do prepubescent children have less right to life than older humans? Ridiculous.
What about the argument that a fetus hasn’t been “brought into the world” yet or they “don’t even breathe air”? True… sorta. If the mother is “in the world” then it follows that everything inside her body is also in the world. No, fetuses do not breathe air, but they do undergo the respiration process while in the womb. They are surrounded by amniotic fluid and “breathe” it in and out through their lungs. Can you do that? It is a logical impossibility to imply that an unborn child is any less human than a child who has made the eight inch journey through the birth canal.
Let’s not forget the argument that a fetus is not viable, cannot survive without artificial assistance, and is totally dependent upon another for life. Many people at all stages of life fit that description. Does that mean that disabled, mentally handicapped, diseased, or even elderly persons have less right to live than someone who fits your definition of what a person “should” be? That is the purest and most vile type of discrimination.
I am not “anti-abortion”… I am pro-life. I am however against the abortion industry making obscene profits from the murder (yes, I called it murder) of innocents.
You have to wonder about people who take the time to make massive signs adorned with the image of aborted human tissue, but yet don’t take the same care in thinking about all the dimensions of an issue which apparently means so much to them.
Another issue that I would like to hear some thoughts on is whether it is right to force a child to be born to a mother than does not want it. If abortion is illegal, and a woman got pregnant without intending to in a way that was out of her control (in the case of rape or failed contraception) is it acceptable to force her to give birth to a child she may well not want? Personally, I would not like to be forced to become a mother when I did not want to. I could not love the child if I did not want it, and that to me is a horrible situation to have. If I were forced into it I may well resent the child and having a pregnancy I never intended, which would likely cause extreme psychological distress to both the child and the myself: the child would likely be given to Social Services and brought up in a children’s home or adopted – in the case of adoption, the child may well find out that their parents are not their biological ones, and they will have to deal with the issue (at some point in their lives) of why their biological mother did not keep them. So, as others have mentioned before, although adoption is an option, are you comfortable with forcing a rape victim to carry to full term and the effect on her mental health that that would have? If abortions were made illegal, it is very possible that this could happen. Please share your opinions on this situation.
After abortion is made illegal I would like to see those who continue to provide abortion services to be prosecuted for manslaughter. And very steep fines and allowing fathers who didn’t consent to abortion to sue provider for damages.
Women who obtain the abortion should be prosecuted for conspiracy. It’s a shorter jail sentence but it’s still a punishment.
Romans 12:9 – Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil: hold fast to what is good
We must hold fast to what we know to be good…biblically God is good and the life he gives is good. If we take the stand that abortion is murder, an thus abortion is evil then we must treat it as such.
We must remember that our fight is not to make abortions illegal but that we are fighting by the power of the Holy Spirit to see our Lord rescue hearts and save unborn lives…to protect the sanctity of life. Yes, making abortion illegal will probably save lives but our goal must be to change the hearts and rescue the souls of all those who are hardened and do not see the value of the unborn life. So we must not get wrapped up in the idea that our ultimate objective is to create
laws, for the law cannot change the hearts of man, it can only reveal the vileness of them. Romans 5:20 & Romans 8:1-4.
Now to directly address the post: I can see how it could be cumbersome to address this question when you are thinking from the perspective of the mother or about the ‘rights’ of the mother, but it is important to realize that the fighte for the sanctity of life is concerned with the perspective of the unborn and their right to life.
If we agree that abortion is murder. Then we must treat it as such. So we must, in faith, be firm in what we believe regarding our views on the repurcussions of murder, even capital punishment. Until you are comformtable defending how a murderer is or should be treated/punished in our socieity, it will be impossible to address the question posed above. But there should be no dististinction between the murdering of a born life verses an unborn life. Both are evil, both will be judged, and both are in need of forgiveness. The real question to us, if we are posed with this question is: Do we truly view abortion as murder?
Interesting… a few things that I think need to be considered:
1. We need to look at the root of the problem. Most people are not taking responsibility for their actions nor are they considering the consequences of their actions.
2. Why are people blaming the politicians for their support of pro-choice? That makes so sense, when the doctors needs to be questions about their ethics.
3. And most people don’t realize that there are more married women getting abortions that single women.
4. And what’s even more interesting is that the people who are the anti-abortionists and critics are the same ones who sit at home on their butts not even thinking about what the women are going through and why they made decision.
I’m pro-life but I can’t tell ANY woman what to do with their body and it’s not the government’s decision neither. If the government makes it illegal, nothing is going to stop it from happening and then that’s not to say that other severe consequences will not result.
And I’d like to ask, how many of you have tried to talk to the ladies and offer to take the child after they give birth? And before you answer that, make sure you are ready to take care of a child with a disability or some malformation.
Look at the big picture and realize there’s always more to the story. And, take it from me, I used to be loud-mouth about abortions until I found out that someone I loved had one and it made me feel so bad. Not only that, it opened my eyes an shut my mouth. It also opened up my heart.
I give you credit for opening up a different perspective to this…
You don’t stump me…put them on trial. Murder is murder. Should be a really easy case too…all the evidence is easily obtained.
It would only take a few publicized trials to deter women. Maybe it would even make people think twice before sex…since less than 2% of abortions are for rape or birth defects. Most of them are birth control methods.
Check this out: http://www.inspiretomorrow.com/Postings/Family/060805001.html
I would encourage all the pro-lifer replies here (and let’s face it… we are ALL “pro-life”, really) who are giving knee-jerk responses here seemingly without even reading what anyone said to ACTUALLY READ THE REPLIES, PLEASE. Use that God-given noggin and think just a bit here. OK, one more thought.
Sam Harris had some EXTREMELY interesting points to make in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U
While you may disagree with Sam Harris in general, he makes some provocative points here about the “soul calculus” that all of us of faith tacitly believe to be true. Please watch and think.
The worst mind is not a religious one or an atheist one, a pro-life one or a pro-choice one. The worst mind is a closed one.
I enjoyed the video – brings to the front very clearly that people against abortion, don’t really care about the child or the mother or care very much about the *murder* as they call it.
They are against abortion, because they think its what is in the bible etc. Another form of religious fanatacism albeit a covert one.
Has anyone thought, why and only why is this an issue in the United States. Other countries/cultures/religions never make it the issue it is in the roman catholic faith.
Watching this, it occurred to me why none of these folks said – “Punish the doctors” afterall, they’re firebombing and killing clinics and doctors.
Has anyone heard of PETA? They talk about any issue they can to bring up the concept of treating animals better, but once you look into their beliefs you find that they don’t just want animals treated with respect, they wan’t no animals to be eaten or even kept as working animals. They want no animals to be skinned or captured or used for experiments. All animals. So while they may start out talking about not using monkeys for experiments, their final goal is to not have any animals used for anything at any time. Not even horses or cows. No milk, no eggs. The beliefs they present to the outside are often the thin edge of the wedge.
Amongst the anti-abortionists, there is a similar pattern. Some of them, the extreme wing, don’t just want to stop abortion. They want to stop all forms of birth control. They want to ban condoms, they want to ban the pill. They want to return to an era where women were unable to control their own bodies.
Not all of them, by any means, but many of the extremists.
So if you are anti-abortion please clarify just how far you want to go.
If you don’t just want to end abortions, but also want to end condoms and the pill and RU-486, please say so. I would like to find out just how many of those posting here aren’t just anti-abortion but are also anti-birth control et cetera.
DaveKan brought up a few good points, with which I agree. Even outside of the church, contraception can be difficult to obtain. Wondering about the price of birth control, I found an article from 2007 about the $10 or $15 cost doubled or tripled in college medical centers. Prescription pills for 3 months run from $40-$185. People should be using condoms anyway, but even that’s not guaranteed security from pregnancy or STDs.
Lizzie, why bring another life into the world when there are already millions of orphans world-wide? There are more than enough orphans to go around for parents who want them. A lot of orphanages barely have the funds to provide proper clothing and food. Plus, they’re so overrun that tender loving care also lacks. Visit an orphanage in Asia sometime and you’ll get an eyeful.
@irishflame13
“There is always adoption. What is so hard about that? And I feel the way I do, because I lost a child.”
While I’m sorry for your loss, I certainly hope you went out and adopted one the millions of children languishing in foster care, and orphanages around the world… especially since you seem to think adding to that population is the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancies.
Education, and access to preventative birth control is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Clinics would go out of business for the lack of customers if Abstinence-Only Sex Ed-advocates would face reality, and stop trying to prevent people from having access to condoms, birth control, Plan B, and many other preventative measures. (Oh and lets not forget access to proper healthcare so they can get the birth control in the first place.) Then the only people who would need abortions in the first place are the extreme cases people seem to be willing to make exceptions for anyway.
“Melinda
I disagree with the argument that because an “anti abortionist” cannot give you a “fair punishment” for a woman who aborts a fetus, then abortion CANNOT be murder. To call that “logic” is embarrassingly ignorant.”
Sometimes I wish that it was illegal to be this stupid.
If you are equivalenting it with MURDER, and you want it to be ILLEGAL, then it MUST have the punishments that MURDER has, under the LAW. There is no halfway. There is no hesitation, no “wait a minute…” consideration, no question. MURDER is MURDER. Death penalty (or life imprisonment) to all aborters! That is the only LOGICAL conclusion to the belief that “abortion is murder”.
The fact that EVERY person asked that question hesitated, means that it does NOT have “murder equivalence”, otherwise they would have all answered immediately with the obvious answer! At least the youngest woman there gave a reply consistent with her belief and implied that perhaps there should be life imprisonment! I respect that, even if I disagree with that conclusion, because she was at least USING HER HEAD.
To not see this is to be a lost cause.
A primary reason that Pro-lifers would have a problem with the death penalty for women who abort their children is the that their is a widespread deception that aborted fetuses are not, in fact, actually children. They are not called “slaughtered children” but “terminated pregnancies” or they are referred to as “tissue.” So there is a certain amount of compassion felt towards people who have been decieved into this line of thinking. I can see their view but I don’t agree. I think that the best way to eliminate this error in thinking as well as crack down on the abortion atrocity is to make it illegal and punishable as all other murders. That will take care of the problem and clear up the confusion. And even if people continue to be decieved in will provide deterrance.
I look at all of this as sure, be disapproving of the abortion of unborn children. But if all of you love babies so much, you should be out there spending your time and energy and hatred and love looking after the starving babies, the orphaned babies, the discarded babies, the kidnapped babies, the tortured babies, the war-born babies, all those poor babies. How can you not see the logic in this? Do you love babies or not? Then get the hell over to Hungary and start caring for the discarded children in orphanages. Take your church to Darfur and start feeding the pregnant women laying in the dirt, and giving food to the starving babies. All of this has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is murder. We’ve got babies to care for first, and once all of these babies are loved, fed, we can move on to worry about this issue.
@dfree
How will it take care of the problem when it will just force women to get illegal abortions instead of legal ones?
The fetus still dies, and the mother may as well. More death, due to people who call themselves pro-life.
ummm… well gosh if you kill a baby, you kill a person, if you kill a person, you get prosecuted… to bad its not legal to hire a hit man to kill your teens… oh and heres a good question for pro-I can’t handle the responsibility of what I’ve done…
If my dog is pregnant and I can’t afford the cost of the puppies is it fine for me to terminate the puppies??
Hey, the more babys people that support abortion kill, the less people that will support abortion there will be…
[comment deleted by request of user]
James quoted the Bible: Romans 12:9 – Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil: hold fast to what is good
To which I respond with: Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. -Samuel 15:2-3
So…killing infants and women, some of whom were probably pregnant, is good because G-d said so?
Morrigan said:
but if a woman has chosen to keep her baby, meaning she’s chosen to think about it as a human being, accept it as a human, and love it. if she does not choose to terminate her pregnancy, and she is murdered, than it is a double murder. because she chose Life.
So, what you’re saying is that if a woman has decided, err, “chosen”, to have an abortion but just hasn’t made it to the clinic yet, and is murdered, the perpetrator should only face punishment and charges for one murder, because, after all, the mother had “chosen” to abort her baby anyway?
As a Christian, I am so deeply saddened by other believers who are unable or unwilling to stand up and SAY what they believe. The Bible tells us to always be ready, and unfortunately, you have proven that too many Christians don’t take that scripture seriously. Too many Christians accept spoon-feeding from others rather than reading the Scriptures and learning for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and WHY they believe what they believe.
Just as nothing I can say can change your thinking, nothing you can say will shake my faith. I know what I believe, and I know why.
On the abortion issue, it is murder. Period. There is no way around that. And God is very clear – murder is a sin. Therefore, the mother (because she chose to have the abortion), the performing doctor and attending nurses, AND the clinic where the abortion is performed should all face charges. Yes, its harsh. But, God’s law doesn’t change due to the age or state of the victim.
That said, anyone involved with an abortion – mother, doctor, nurse, etc. – do all have the option to be forgiven for their sins. That comes from God, and not from man. However, God does not always deliver us from the consequences of our actions simply because He has forgiven us. Do you not forgive your child when he does wrong, but still expect him to accept punishment? The difference is that God limits that punishment to what we receive on earth, not eternal punishment. IF we choose to accept His gift of forgiveness.
On the homosexuality issue someone mentioned, yes, I would still defend the rights of that child even if he or she grew up to participate in a homosexual lifestyle. Why? Because the Christian doesn’t wish for every sinful person to be put to death, but rather to be changed by the Grace of Jesus to know Him and receive eternal salvation, forever delivered from the bondage of their sin.
Like someone said in a previous comment, I do hope you continue to post these “stumpers” for Christians. I know God will use it to glorify Himself, and many Christians will be forced to think….thanks for the opportunity to let God speak through me.
So, let me add also, if we’re going to have the death penalty for women who have abortions, we should have the same for men who impregnated women, or who ever had sex with a woman without using a condom since he couldnt’ be sure she was using something. Further, since it’s murder to kill a child, we’ll have to have capital punishment for every single person in North America who watches a commercial about a starving child in Africa and does nothing about it. Letting a child die is murder. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE STARVING ORPHANS and we LET THEM DIE. this is murder. Start feeding the hungry, you losers, before you start executing your mother, daughter, and ex girlfriend.
Interesting blog and comments.
Another question to ask pro-life (really anti-choice, pro-birth) is what was the deceased doing at the time of its murder? Was it breathing? If you stopped breathing right now and never took another breath, would you be alive? Prove to me the efficacy of that entity over the life of the breathing, surviving mother.
What if you imprison a woman who has other children? What about the existing living breathing children who depend on that woman for continuance of life? Will you support those families after you remove the caretaker?
I’m personally appalled by those who would prosecute women for having an abortion, and even more appalled by those who would also reduce or eliminate birth control. Sexuality is a basic human instinct, and I’ll wager that most who would restrict it through promoting abstinance as the preferred birth control, or by regulating birth are really just trying to control human behavior and cruelly at that. There is so much guilt riding on sex already it’s an easy target.
You pious judgement folks will lose though, because people will just keep having sex- it’s basic to our humanity and our wellbeing. Better to educate about sex fully and trufully, and provide universal and free access to pregnancy prevention and fmaily planning than to promote widescale sexual repression, which has proven to be completely unhealthy and ineffective.
Above all, let’s look for some common sense and compassion in this argument. That to me is what’s missing.
LA
It’s amazing to me that in all this discussion, no one ever considers that babies are made by the joining of egg and sperm, i.e. men are involved too. Why is all the questioning targeted at what should be done with the woman? What about the man? And wouldn’t it be sensible to avoid the entire abortion/anti-abortion question by preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place? And no, I’m not talking about abstention. Why not just make it a law that it is illegal for any male to have unprotected sex unless he’s had a vasectomy or he and his partner have discussed and agreed on the possibility of falling pregnant? This procedure is reversible, so if he ever felt ready to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood, he could. There’s far less blood involved than with an abortion, it’s ten minutes under local anaesthetic, and it would be dealing with the problem where it really starts. The only reason not to go this route is the same old one – Adam would rather blame Eve than take responsibility himself.
Just because a few anti-abortion protesters don’t have the capacity to answer questions doesn’t mean that therefore abortion isn’t the taking of a life.
Your argument is ridiculous on its face. Whether abortion is taking of a life is a scientific, philosophical, and religious argument, and as such, probably will never be answered definitively one way or the other.
The methodology that you have posited is juvenile and proves nothing. It does sound nice, though: “Just ask one of those stupid abortion protesters and if they can’t answer,” I’m right!”
I think its inportant that we don’t try to put ourselves in another person’s mind. Assuming that you can stump someone with a question doesnt mean that they will all of sudden being to agree that abortion is ok.
Of course it would be hard to figure out what to do with mothers of illegal abortions! But at the same time, if someone has a moral conviction that abortion is wrong…well then you havent talked them out of anything!
And by the way…both Christian and non-Christian scientists have proved that life begins at conception. So basically if you don’t honestly believe you are taking a life, then I think its important to do your research. The bottom line is…nobody want to feel guilty for doing the wrong thing. And no one especially likes being made to feel guilty by others.
“If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?”
Nothing.
The mothers are the victims, being lied to about what they are doing. It’s the ABORTIONISTS that should be punished for committing murder.
Here’s a harsh view from a strong anti-abortionist.
The key point is innocent vs. guilty.
The fetus is innocent. The woman having an abortion when it is illegal is not. Therefore she should face punishment as a child murderer would.
If the state kills a person guilty of a crime, I am good with that. If someone kills someone without there being self defense.
This is an interesting question with no easy answers. As a pastor, I am pro-life but not just with abortion. I want to see people begin to live abundant lives and to be in a society and culture that supports life for all. Specifically when it comes to abortion, I don’t believe that it should be used as birth control after the fact. It takes away any of the responsibility of the persons involved and the act itself. There are other options available and from what I understand, many women don’t hear the full story about abortion AND they are not fully cared for and supported by family, friends, and the church when they do decide to carry the baby. You definately got me thinking about an answer to this tough quesiton.
Typical of the politicizing of many issues today, I think the question is a bit of a set-up. It is posed in such a way to make those who do not share your opinion appear to have thought little about such a complex issue.
In reality, I think most in opposition to abortion have settled on moral, not legal, principles when deciding which side of this issue they support. Conversely, those who favor abortion tend to use legal (and until recently, scientific) principles to support their case. Unfortunately, what is moral and what is legal are often at odds.
Clearly, for the “murder-the-unborn-if-it-suits-us” crowd (Isn’t that really what “pro-choice” or “reproductive rights” is a euphemism for?), it would seem difficult to accept that an expectant mother could be accessory to murder if she allowed an abortion, while the abortionist is the murderer. But that would be my answer, if asked.
Let me not neglect mentioning the unfortunate victims of crimes. In most of these situations, the capacity to choose was taken from them. They should be afforded the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy without retribution if they choose.
I believe the primary reason this issue is often divided along the line of religious faith has to do with whether one believes in the authority of God. If there is still such a thing as the “sanctity of human life,” individuals choosing which of their offspring lives or dies is tantamount to “playing God.” Most of us who believe in God also believe that He gave each of us the notion of what is right and wrong. This is the locus of the issue. God-sized decisions are not the domain of humans. But wisdom is required to recognize them.
Those who are determined to use scripture in support or opposition of a certain viewpoint add little to the argument. I doubt excerpts from Leviticus or Romans will change one’s opinion. Rather, if you intend to use scripture to reinforce your argument, it might be a really good idea to study it carefully including the mores of the culture to which it was addressed. Understanding is not easy. It transcends merely reading the words. Then make a reasoned argument.
Debate continues as to whether the rights of the mother or the child trump. But I think it is a sad commentary on a society that does not protect those who are its most helpless and cannot (yet) speak for themselves. And it is certainly odd to me that “progressives,” who tend to be “pro-choice” and support the rights of the remainder of the least among us, somehow choose to overlook the most obvious.
Using Roe v. Wade as the basis for this continued practice in our society is an interesting observation. For those who are “pro-choice,” they point to legislation nearly everyone agrees is based upon outdated science. It seems a bit odd that “progressives” would be the very ones who would resist a review of the ruling. One must wonder if this is out of a fear of being forced to accept a new definition of life. Unfortunately, other progressives want a very wide definition of life to further their agenda (life on Mars, anyone?). So scientific equivocation on this point continues.
Humans are “wired” to procreate. And we tend to do it pretty well. As always, problems arise when we fail to use appropriate judgement. And it is a popular theme to blame others for our own poor choices. But there *are* consequences for one’s actions. It is the logical result of choice. Getting “caught up in the moment” is hardly a good legal excuse. Is it?
In your blog you have combined religion and state. Most prolife advocates are coming from a religious standpoint and not a political one. If you believe that killing is wrong, then you also believe that the death penalty is wrong. If you ask my opinion about what a good punishment is for women who have had an abortion I will tell you that they already received their punishment. You are asking people who are selfish and only thinking of themselves to have sympathy or remorse for doing something that only served themselves. I know that most women who have abortions have gone through pain, suffering, and feelings of guilt and remorse. I don’t believe in punishment, but in taking responisiblity for ones actions. If you encourage people to commit murder, shame on you. This doesn’t have to be all about the law as it is written, but it should be about right and wrong. We should respect other humans, we should have a level of respect for ALL people.
By the way, being an evangelical Christian preacher does not make you a theologian or a biblical scholar.
Well in response to that… I would say that there has never been anyone that is pro-abortion that has been aborted… so your argument doesn’t stand alone
Soo… you are assuming that the woman is committing the abortion. The issue is not that it should be illegal to have an abortion, but rather to commit the abortion. The crime and punishment would be against those who perform such acts. That is the real issue. I know you think you got some big wow of an argument, but it’s not really that great.
It’s not just about to winning a discussion, it’s abut life and death.
Let’s say that I, as a not fantast of taking unborned childrens life, just say that it should be much better that no one has to do an abortion.
What happens then to your clever question?
Well it makes you to somenone that doesn’t take this seriously and just have another black and white oppinion in this hard question.
I don’t think that you make anything better with simple answers.
A myth NARAL (National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws and later renamed National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 since legalization. Abortion is a very lucrative business in America today.
Another myth fed to and believed by the public was that there were tens of thousands of women being maimed and killed from illegal abortions prior to legalization of abortion law. Not so. It was only a tiny fraction of what the abortion marketers claimed.
From its inception in the 1960s, America’s legal and cultural embrace of abortion has been based on lies, deception (like the ones mentioned above), greed and monumental selfishness. One abortion movement leader and propagandist said: “We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1 million. Repeating the lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.”
When a nation legalizes infanticide and through a very well thought out and executed propaganda campaign gets more and more people to believe that killing an infant (at any stage of pregnancy) is considered “every woman’s right”, asking what we do with illegal abortions is not only the wrong question to ask but it’s also a very stupid one at that. We should be concerned first with the obvious victim of the abortion holocaust: the unborn baby. There are other victims. Vulnerable young women are deceived by manipulative counselors unscrupulous “health professionals”, into believing their unborn babies are not human, only to find out too late, in the recovery room or shortly thereafter, that they ended the lives of their own children. What crueler trick could one play on a mother?
First, we right the wrong (abortion is morally wrong, it’s infanticide, it’s the ugly and stinking stain of our society, as was slavery for past generations of Americans, it’s our holocaust), then we deal with the rest. Will we one day tour through the wreckage of our own culture of death and weep?
Watch them squirm. You see, this anti-abortion movement is a self-reflection mechanism. By these religious zealots’ words, they are able to make themselves feel holier than the people who don’t have to ask God for help in their everyday lives. They get the “divinity” feeling of kidding themselves into thinking they are the ones delivering God’s message. Because God has time to take away from ending hunger,strife and hatred in the world to talk to Miss Holier-Than-Thou.
Watch the end of the video. See the compulsive, ritualistic gestures and weirdness at the end? Didnt these same zealots burn women at the stake who believed in “witchcraft” and other silly religious ideals? To me, that last woman is today’s witch. Maybe we should burn her at the stake because MY religion deems her a threat.
It is obvious that Abortion is not right. It’s not natural, and most would agree it is killing in some shape or form. I don’t understand why, even Christians, see a difference between a baby a few days old and that same baby three months before. Taking a knife to the throat of a three-day old is murder. Why is it that abortion is not?
It’s one of those things that doesn’t have an answer. What if you were aborted? What if your mother decided that you were a mistake and therefore should no longer live because she did not want to or could not take care of you? Would you have wanted her to go through with it?
I do not think that it is right for “Christians” to sit on street corners with photos of aborted babies. That is not Christian. But they are right in once sense, it is between them and God. And I’d like to add that it is not right for me to judge.
The punishment shouldn’t matter. Morally we should set the example that ending the mistakes you have made is wrong. Sex should be saved for marriage. And if it’s not, that’s your decision, but use protection. Abortion should not be your fall-back plan.
I am a Christian.
I am male.
And I am 18.
These are useful facts to know when picking apart my reply.
That was fun :)
The question itself is flawed. You are asking what to do with someone who has broken the law. Well, if abortion were illegal there would already exist a punishment that is determined when it was made illegal. And that punishment would be applied.
You are making the ASSUMPTION that if they make abortion illegal that they will send those who break the law to jail for life or send them up for the death penalty. In fact, there would be a decision for a civil punish that the legislature would agree on that would involve neither.
Perhaps you slept through Civics. Don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred for Christians.
This line of questioning is so sloppy and amateurish because you aren’t required to defend your position, only to criticize the person you disagree with.
It’s funny, we just celebrated the election of a black President who is hugely supported by the people who think it was OK to wipe out 55 million African-American lives because Margaret Sanger thought it was socially justified since they were poor. You think it was SO important to show we aren’t racist by electing BHO, but have no problems with wiping out almost half of the would-be African-American population. Moral compass, anyone?
I can just imagine this happening 150 years ago:
Slave-owner:”Well there, Mr. Abolitionist, you say you think them negroes is people just like us, but what should happen if I don’t feed one of mine for a few days cause he don’t wanna work, and he dies cause of it. Should I go to jail or be hanged? Over not giving a negro some food?”
Abolitionist:”Well, I’m not sure…”
Slave-owner:”See, that proves you don’t really think them negroes is really people like us.”
I would like to see a video of the question being asked of a pro-abortionist:
“What is the difference between killing a baby as its being born and killing it after it has exited the birth canal?”
In case you are confused, the answer is nothing.
Wow, another child who thinks they have stumped the entire anti- abortion community with one question (which by the way is a community of Billions). Boy if I had 5 cents.
They should probably put this story on the front page of every newspaper because Daniel Forien has stumped them all in one question. Boy its about time somebody set billions of people straight, because I was starting to sweat a little. Smile, Jesus loves you, but whether you believe it or not there is no such thing as abortion in Gods eyes. Murder is murder.
Yes, that would make them guilty of murder. Whether or not that entails the death penalty is another can of worms entirely.
It is a ridiculously easy question to answer – nothing. The Pro-life argument sees women that have abortions as victims.
Hey Aaron Kingsbury!
So, according to you, we should punish the actual doctors PERFORMING the “killing” and not the woman. Hmmm.
Okay, so news flash:
All people in jail serving life sentences for hiring someone to kill someone can be let go! Just go after the actual hired gumnan! All contract killings are now ok for the person who has THE ORIGINAL INTENT TO KILL!!! yay!!!
Wow. Now that’s where the “wow” really comes into play.
Aaron, the author of this blog has the best “wow” of an argument on this issue I’ve ever heard. Deal with your cognitive chasm that religion has placed perfectly into the center of your brain. Sleep well tonight.
you have to keep in mind that the unborn child doesn’t have a choice to live or die. it’s the mother that chooses what to do with this ‘life to be’ and has to make that decision based on her own life circumstances/beliefs/morals. i would consider myself to be very anti-abortion, but not everyone shares the belief that all life is sacred, or even that life begins at conception… i think the question stated is very unfair because, yes, murder is an awful, awful thing, but just because a woman has an abortion doesn’t mean she no longer deserves to be shown love but instead deserves the very same fate as her unborn child.
being a christian, i believe that god calls his children to love those who are hard to love, those who many look down upon because of something horrible they’ve done. to me, it all comes down to this- we are all messed up. we all sin, we all fall short. not a single one of us deserves to be loved at all, but god was gracious and merciful and still freely hands out his love, and he calls us to do the same. we are not the judge- that’s up to god. so in the end, every single one of us are going to have to answer to some pretty horrid things we’ve done, but until then, we just have to continue to love as best we can…
Wow. I’m stumped. I’m changing my name to Daniel Florien because you’re super intelligent.
Abortion is a “peculiar institution” isn’t it.
@ Kevin re: abolitionists and southerners…
very good point
If the baby is a living breathing creature then ofcourse terminating it is murder. Im not a fanatic for believing that. I dont even think its a religious issue.
Life is life. Nobody should have the right to take anothers life. That baby has no say in the matter.
All life is precious. Whether it should be illegal or not, i leave myself out of that. Just saying though that it is still murder. Just cause the victim cant speak up doesnt make it any less cruel.
Maybe if you look at how the procedure is done and what happens to the baby you would see it as what it truelly is. Giving something a fancy name doesnt take away the reality of it.
Ishaaq
http://IshaaqMalik.Wordpress.com
Perhaps what this shows is that pro-life “advocates” need to realise that objections to abortion have no legal solution. It is controlled by law in order to protect women and prevent an underground abortion industry. That is why it should be legal, in my opinion. However, on a moral and ethical plane objection and debate is appropriate. Regarding abortion: the law is doing its job in protecting society, the church is failing in guiding people to make the “right” choices.
the answer is easy…
if it was mitigating circumstances, a court ordered sentence based off the evidence that it was mitigating (pressure from boyfriend, husband, etc… which would be not her making the decision but the man forcing her to kill the baby, etc. (whatever complex details follow, that make it mitigating, it would fall into this category.
if it was agitated, violent desperate act of murder. out of fear of responsibility, or shame, a sentence would follow concerning those dynamics. obviously you would need to have programs available to the female for reconcilation and healing from all the heart issues that follow the shame and other dynamics of the painful process of abortion, and understanding they are truly killing life.
now if it was a calculated decision that the baby is unworthy of life because of “choice” that it was was an unplanned birth, then each case would have to be carefully weighed in the level of sentence, but the conviction of murder would still be in the verdict. and it would go on a record to be evidence of poor planning, murder, easy-way-out of hardships.
although an understandable pressure to make one choose to abort a baby, it is still murder. end of story.
none of the cases would end in LIFE sentences, although that is what is deserved, the death penalty is not condusive for the crime of abortion, because it would show a double standard and God is the one who ultimately judges those who abort equally as the ones who don’t for the injustices of us to God, and us to our fellow man.
Abortion is murder and anyone who chooses to abort is responsible for a life. Murderers should be punished. If Christians were to say that there should be no punishment for such an act, it would shake the entire foundations of which Christianity was based off of. If you look at the branches of the church, every branch has their own belief. Now tell me, which one of them is the “real” interpretation of Christianity? The original belief? The changes that Christianity have gone through are even expanding today. It has been altered and is going to be continued to be altered. With so many changes, how can one claim to be a true Christian?
Peter:
“Sometimes I wish that it was illegal to be this stupid.
If you are equivalenting it with MURDER, and you want it to be ILLEGAL, then it MUST have the punishments that MURDER has, under the LAW. There is no halfway.
The fact that EVERY person asked that question hesitated, means that it does NOT have “murder equivalence”, otherwise they would have all answered immediately with the obvious answer!”
Maybe you should read my post again. Who cares how many people hesitate when they are asked that question? Does it make the answer any less valid? Your argument is flawed and is a great example why you should be happy that it is not illegal to be that stupid.
Here’s the problem with your train of thought. You assume all Christians think that way and that is your first mistake. Here is one Christian whom thinks consistently. Murder is sin, being an accomplice is sin, and even thinking it is sin. The Bible also says we are to be suject to the laws of the land until it interferes with our faith. So for me, I do think a woman who has an abortion should face 1st degree murder or manslaughter. Those are the consequences for breaking the law and abortion even if legal in the USA, is still illegal to God.
Actually, most feminists point out that these laws that prosecute people who “kill” a fetus have been put on the books as a way to promote the pro-life agenda. Some of these laws have been used to prosecute pregnant women.
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/
I also love how the question posed is not about how a woman would feel about losing a pregnancy, but how someone else would feel about losing his property (the fetus) through someone else’s actions.
And yes, I would feel differently about being in a car accident that caused me to have a miscarriage than being in a car accident that (God forbid!) caused the deaths of one of my children.
That is because unlike most pro-life male activists, I’m a woman who has been pregnant, and who knows the difference between a fetus and a child.
Everyone deserves to die, not just she who has killed her baby. There aren’t layers for sin when you understand what it is. The action of having an abortion vs. that of being born in sin–for sin is in me, it is why I am sinful. All of us deserve corporal punishment. It is the penalty for any sin. Both actions are deserving of death. Grace means that although we deserve to die, we are allowed to live.
I agree with Kazoolist.
The response of the people in those videos was merely compassionate. It doesn’t mean that they don’t think Abortion (if made illegal) shouldn’t be punished by the law. Anyone placed in that situation would not be able to answer (even lawyers) definitively. As we all know, even murder cases end with different rulings all the time.
I don’t think by stumping those people the AtCenterNetwork proved they don’t think that abortion is wrong. I just think the question asked was very challenging and provoking which demanded a response.
I’m just curious, how would you answer that question? And what would that prove of you?
Ya know….
…just have your cakes and eat them too, Christians.
Wow…that’s just about all I can say. Give me a moment…
Okay. I am a Christian. I am not one of those people who has taken what my parents gave me and just accepted it. I’ve done my own soul searching and I’ve done my own research. I chose to live my life as a Christian and I also chose to be pro-life. Please do not call me “anti-choice.” How would you feel if I called you “anti-life?” Not too snazzy…right.
Moving on…clearly this question was posed to the wrong person. I had an answer the minute I saw it. Maybe abortion is just high in my head…I debated it in a class last semester…I read a paper about it…yes, I am a rather dull person. But, here’s my answer: The same thing that happens to murderers.
Call me a zealot if you like…perhaps that is what I am. I’m not exactly up on all of the ancient terminology used to refer to Christians. But being a Christian doesn’t really have a lot to do with my being pro-life. Not all “pro-lifers” are Christians…and not all “pro-choicers” are non-Christians…oh snap. I forgot where I was going with this.
Oh! I truly believe that life begins at conception. The chances of sperm fertilizing an egg are rather small when you look at the big picture. So, with that in mind, conceiving a child isn’t exactly an every day occurence in every little town in this little bitty world. When that egg and that sperm first meet…BANG! Life just happened. God (or luck, if you prefer it that way) took hold and made something amazing. A child will come out of that one little meeting. It’s kind-of like networking. You meet a few people at a party and one day…one of those people hires you to be a big CEO and you become a billionaire. BANG! That, my friends, is my BIG BANG theory.
Now that I have sufficiently bored you…have a lovely day.
Dear Marcus
The initial question was, what should be done to women who have an abortion. That is open-ended. It doesn’t assume that they have to go to jail or face the death penalty.
And then, you slept through civics: one can’t impose a civil sanction on a crime, only criminal sanctions.
If abortion was illegal then justice would be whatever consequence the government comes up with.
Logical as a one on one issue. From a Military Science Standpoint, I think it would be more efficient to attack the sects that practice hate speech. For example much of the Leadership of the right wing Religious movement is Heritage Foundation and Bob Jones type Evangelical Protestants, they often get carried away and attack Catholics and Jews and Mormons as well as Liberal pro choice types. Keep a watch for this type of activity and jump on it, the end result being to knock Bob Jones out of what is acceptable speech. The rest will see this and move away from Jones and the really hard right, easier than 1 million individual arguments with people of faith? Tactics (Query Bob Jones on my site, you’ll see how to do it.
The best answer would be sterilization. And a potential fine and/or imprisonment of the doctor. It is after all the doctors performing the murder is it not? Now, the mother might be considered an accomplice. And one could pursue such punishments.
The effect of sterilization is that it would prevent her from conducting such a murder again. Therefore there is no need for imprisonment. Imprisonment is to remove said person from society so that they cannot kill again. It is not supposed to be a form of retribution and revenge. Therefore, if there was a way to take away the means of an individual from repeating such a crime without imprisonment. That would be a more logical and rational answer.
@Barry ” but rather that they know they are already perceived as uncompassionate and any pronouncement of judgement would further that image”
Barry has good insight. There is a strategy in war and politics. The gun control people are very aware of this. Some want to just make the street safe. Others want no guns. Other want to control the populace for which they need no guns.
The latter know that most do not side with them. But they know that if they join with the “make the streets safe” and “no guns” together on that first issue. They can probably accomplish it. Which is a step in the latter’s goal.
Likewise, there are some who just are tired of seeing abortion used for the purpose of irresponsibility and making other pay. There are those who feel it is immoral and wrong. And there are still more who feel is it heinous akin to any murder. Meanwhile there are some who feel that way, but do not believe legislation and imprisonment would resolve the issue. And would prefer controls and limitations combined with assistance with alternatives such as adoption.
Here’s an equal question to pro-abortionists. Why is the mere fact that the baby has been birthed limit abortion? Babies are viable much earlier, in fact, you could cut the baby out of a mother weeks before delivery and the baby can survive. Furthermore, a newborn while able to breathe is not really viable in any other way. So is the mere fact that oxygen has been delivered via the nasal passages and throat a valid demarker for allowing a parent to kill their child or not? Why shouldn’t a parent be able to kill their child in the first month? First year? Heck, I am sure there are some parents who with they could abort their 18 yr olds. Why not….
***
Let’s deal with the so called logic and rational thought. Are pro-abortionists any better than pro-lifers? Nope…in fact they’re worse.
They often refuse to allow videos or even models of a baby’s size and details at a given stage to be shown. Because they know the effect such realization will have on many women. Why the fear of facts?
But that’s not even the crux of it. One of the biggest mantras of the pro-abortionists is a complete falsity proven false by modern science. “It’s part of my body.” No it’s not, this is a scientific fact. If you want to criticize irrational thought – stop saying such things.
Modern science has proven that it is not part of your body. It is a separate organism. This is denoted clearly by the child’s DNA, which is both distinct and separate from the mothers (and the fathers). In fact, much of the mother’s body will treat the unborn child’s body as foreign. In fact, the child can have a different blood type than the mother which can cause significant problems in certain cases. (ie: Mother has negative blood, father has positive) which often results in the prescribing of drugs to accommodate.
***
Now where there is great failing, is in supporting those mothers in need. Facilitating adoptions for those who have chosen such. And for helping to restore those mothers who did have abortions and have found it a bitter pill. To reduce the need for abortions and increase personal responsibility.
On this, pro-abortion and pro-lifers should be able to work together.
This is a great question! I think that everyone should really sit back and think about what they believe and why. In fact, I’m still processing all of it and thinking it through as I type, so please, feel free to contructively break down my arguments so I can better understand what I believe.
This is a very hard question you are asking. Asking them if taking a life is wrong and then ask them whether or not they think that women who have abortions should be killed for their crime.
It’s all just so fuzzy, becuase the death penalty is still something that even pro-life supporters have a problem with. When you’re dealing with morality issues, I believe the final punishment IS up to God. More in the sense that we will be held accountable in the end for our choices. The issue is that Pro-life supporters would like abortion to be illegal, but then where is the blurry line when it comes to life or death (if a doctor needs to make a choice between the mother or the child. Or if becoming pregant would surely kill the mother. What should the decision be?).
I guess the answer to the question I just posed would be to give the decision to a doctor. If the woman speaks with a professional about the situation and the doctor believes it best that the woman (for medical reasons) not carry the child, then other alternatives can be made.
I just don’t understand HOW you could choose to end a life when there are so many other options out there. Adoption and such. I agree that sex needs to be talked about a lot more. Sex is a decision and not a feeling. There are consequences for having sex, and we need to discuss how to know you are ready for the responsibility.
If a woman recieves an illegal abortion, there should be a punishment for the crime. But what if there WAS a punishment? Do you think that less abortions would take place? Maybe some people don’t steal because they know if they get caught they will have to go to jail. So, if the same is put on those who comit abortions, less might happen? But then there would be an issue from the other side with overpopulation in jails. We don’t have the space. Everything seems to mush together into one mess. And there doesn’t seem to be ONE answer for every question. But that’s the glory of what makes us human. That we can reason and question.
I’m not saying that we should avoid the issue or that it shouldn’t be debated, but I think it’s obsurd to think that a pro-life person would be okay with giving someone the death penatly for commiting murder, what response would you expect?
I DO find it odd that a pro-life person wouldn’t expect jail time for a woman who had an illegal abortion. So, let’s chat….
I am a Christian and while I would not choose abortion myself, I will state that I think that it is wrong to take that choice away or to state that people who choose this path are bad.
One of the strongest components in my faith is the act of free will. I believe that this is partly how we are made in God’s image. To take away free will is something that God did not even choose to do.
Simple — punishment to be determined by the legal system. Just like all other crimes. Yes it is murder and if individual states choose the death penalty so be it.
What’s difficult about that?
selphiealmasy8: Why is free-will one of the strongest components in your faith? God takes it away from mankind all of the time. The better answer is “it is not our choice to choose who lives and who does not,” if we are a Christian.
Smart Blog!
Tactics again, go after Bob Jones unless you really like listening to Olbermann/Maddow Limbaugh/O’Reilly till the 2nd coming of whatever???
Still none of you babylovers have said anything about the suggestion that we are all murderers if we waste our time holding up signs at clinics while we could be caring for the millions of starving unloved babies in Romanian orphanages. Or the child prostitutes in the philippines…we are all pimps and murderers for knowing this goes on and letting it. We’re too busy with our macabre imaginations, making our signs with gross pictures. If any of you in favour of capital punishment for abortioners has adopted one of these beautiful children please tell me so I can sleep tonight.
Also, we’ll have to execute every single man who ever had an impure thought while we’re punishing the women. After all, that was a potential life, too! John Calvin said spilling a seed was the same unforgivable sin as killing a son.
That slavery thing didn’t go over too well. These militant anti abortionists are the same people who believe in slavery. And they aren’t helping those babies in AFrica because they don’t believe coloured babies are real humans.
This questions stumps nobody! I don’t get it.
Women who murder babies for no reason, should themselves be punished (death penalty) for doing so.
Killing a baby is unjust and wrong. An unborn baby did nothing to merit having its brains sucked out and ripped apart.
Punishing a murderer with the death penalty is justified because they earned it.
When a pregnant women is killed, the murderer is tried for double murder.
Easy!!
We send prostitutes to jail because prostitution is illegal. Surely they are in dire, desperate circumstances as well. I think we should focus on whether or not the activity itself is right or wrong, rather than using strawman arguments to avoid facing that truth.
Bread & Sham, following that logic, people who profess to be anti-murder/pro-life and support the idea that it is not down to humans to choose who lives and who dies should oppose the death penalty. If you agree with your statement that “it is not our choice to choose who lives and who doesn’t”, may I ask if you support the death penalty or not?
If abortion is not murder then let me ask one question:
Let’s say just theoretically speaking that I severely hurt or kill (intentionally or not) a pregnant woman, causing her to have a miscarriage. Why is it that the state prosecutes such a man for endangering two lives rather than one?
Punishment and retribution. That is conventional thinking. Punishment is so deeply ingrained in our culture and our minds. Does justice require punishment? Why? What does punishment accomplish?
Forgiveness. Forgiveness is radical. Why is it so difficult to accept the concept of forgiveness? Forgiveness is healing.
Mercy. Punishment is not necessary. Forgiveness and mercy are available. Forgiveness and mercy may be freely given.
Tucker Wright said: “It has been my experience in dealing with pro-lifers that the reason they can’t answer this question is that some of them truly believe that if abortion were illegal, women would just stop having them. End of story. I have had discussions with my best friend about this, and she had the same problem in determining punishment for the women b/c she is naive enough to think that making it illegal automatically stops women from having them. Not only is her belief naive, I believe it’s dangerous. Women will never stop having abortions; there will simply be more women dying from botched abortions.”
That’s definitely true. There are hundreds of illegal things in our society. Some should stay illegal (drunk driving, randomly firing a gun in public for no reason, beating the shit out of somebody for no reason), and some are simply ridiculous (extremely long jail sentences for marijuana charges). Regardless, these things STILL HAPPEN. Legal or illegal. Our justice system is a sieve. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
I also don’t see these pro-lifers lining up to adopt black crack babies, unwanted Latino infants, or the untold numbers of anonymous, forgotten Chinese girls.
Until you’re willing to step up to the task of parenting, don’t bother trying to tell people what to do with their bodies.
Furthermore, there are about a million other things that are more pressing than abortion. You want to stop people from having abortions? Give them REAL sexual education. Distribute condoms. Give them the tools to succeed in the job market. Make sure that they’re educated in the liberal arts, math, and science. If they’re financially successful, they won’t be wasting their lives, sitting around and fucking all day. And guess where that mostly happens? In the self-righteous red states.
But if you really educated people – really gave them the critical analysis that lets them succeed in this world – then they’d probably drop the ridiculous pretensions and contradictions of evangelical Christianity, and the power base would evaporate. People armed with education and a critical eye and mind are very unlikely to accept the sheer absurdity that the American Christian right pushes.
Very clever!
I don’t usually stop and think much about women’s reproductive rights. (Because I am not a woman.)
You were just Digged and bookmarked. (Props!)
I like the part where the lady back peddles and tells you how she is not smart enough to answer your question and then has to consult her beads. (I think you bothered her.)
I am going to link your Tube in a couple of places!
Nice film work!
They should be forgiven.
Justin Woo,
what you wrote was spot on. Problem is, most of the self-righteous will develop some kind of non-sequitor reasoning to argue your truths.
Watch them. I dare anyone to refute anything this guy just wrote. Go ahead.
…oh and try to omit the “I’ll pray for you” cop out. It just makes everyone laugh.
:)
Yes, abortion is murder. Anyone who argues that is just not thinking right. A feotus is just as human as it’s mother. But if a woman has an abortion that doesn’t mean she should be punished for it. (although in some cases, yes she should) It’s THE “DOCTOR” that performs the operation that would be punished. Just like current laws in some states allow a person who kills a pregnant woman to be punished for two murders, so a “doctor” who performs an illegal abortion should be tried for the crime of murder.
Nice try.
Okay genius, if abortion isn’t murder, then why is someone who murders a pregnant woman convicted of double homicide?
Also, isn’t it interesting that the “official” view of the American Medical Association as well as planned parenthood before abortion became legal was that “life” begins at conception. Planned Parenthood changed its stance once it realized how much money it could make off providing abortions. And the AMA changed it stance once it realized how much money it could get. Planned Parenthood “donates” millions of dollars a year to the AMA. Wow isn’t that a coincidence?
You continue believing whatever you want. I guess it makes your conscience feel better. That way you don’t have to take responsibility for your actions.
This is exactly why this debate exists:
women using their “feelings” to make 99.9% of their argument.
I mean, half of these ladies spend Years “fighting” this and don’t even take a moment to REEEEEEEAAAAALLLLLLYYYY think about the issue. Shows you how bad it is when a cultist doctrine retards your natural tendency towards common sense.
I love this blog and I will link to it everywhere.
Jimmywoo shared my same exact sentiments. I agree wholeheartedly.
Even though I’m a christian. It makes me ashamed at how evil “EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS” forget where they came from and act like their poop doesn’t stink. And we ALL sin everyday, even when we hatefully judge. How do you call yourself a christian and don’t even offer a loving solution?
Great post!!!
Here’s another question. Why, in the past 35 years, have all the “Christian” lawyers NOT been able to make the ADOPTION process easy or free? It is considered unethical for a mother to receive money for her child but it’s OK for the lawyer to make thousands of dollars for his services. Seems like “Christian” lawyers would provide their services for FREE or the church could compensate them for their time. Why shouldn’t the mother be able to profit for providing life? Why isn’t the mother’s life valuable?
All the “Pro Life” movement cares about is the unborn. They don’t support public assistance or about their quality of life. They don’t support sex education or birth control. They should put down the signs and adopt or foster a few unwanted children.
If they really cared about reducing the number of abortions they would make the adoption process free for anyone needing to put their child up for adoption. They would support programs that are designed to educate girls and boys about sex and how not to get pregnant or pass disease. Ignorance and abstinence does not work or we would not be having unwanted pregnancies.
The urge to have sex is natural and it feels good and that is why people have sex. You have to be taught to restrain yourself and proper social behavior. If you were not raised in a Christian home then you may not be taught to abstain from sex until marriage. And even if you were raised that way, it takes a ton of personal commitment and prayer to resist the natural urge. So why would the Pro Life movement be against Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthoods mission is to educate and protect people from the dangers of unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancies.
Oh and why don’t they support policy makers that support our “most favored nation” trade status with CHINA? China is a communist country that still FORCES ABORTIONS? China forces abortions and violates human rights every day. But I don’t see the Pro Life movement protesting them. You should smash everything you buy from China and boycott them until they improve their human rights violations.
What an utterly odd argument. Odd because some actually think it is intelligent. It forgets what the basis of Christianity is all about: love, acceptance, and forgiveness. You assume, and we all know what the definition of that is, that all Christians hold to the narrow-minded opinion you have of them. They do not. Your question is simply stupid and if you asked me, as a Christian and a conservative, the same ignorant question I would have first of all laughed at it and then answered it from the basis I mentioned above.
In your original question all you asked is this: “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?” You did not qualify it nor did you say how it was “illegal.” If you had asked, “If abortion was illegal and seen as murder, then what should be done with the women who have had abortion?” That is a better and more intelligent question. However, all intelligent people would have to answer it the same way: They would have to prosecuted as to the specifics of the law and how it was written. Why? Because if abortion was legally now seen as actual murder, the government would have to prosecute murders. This is logical and correct thinking.
What you are vainly trying to do is to have an “I gotcha” question which yours is not. Nice try but no cookie. And by the way, I have been asked this dumb kind of question before and was never befuddled by it at all.
Just my own thoughts…
Hehe I’ve been using this little ditty of a question for a few years now. They always get flustered and escape out the back…the last ditch is usually insults, as evidenced by the last poster calling you ‘disgusting’ and the one before condescendingly calling you ‘genius’. Consider it the highest form of flattery.
TO MAKE MYSELF CLEAR:
As previously stated, I am pro-LIFE. I’m defending the women who have them on the basis of love and mercy with which we were granted in our sins. Jesus hung on the gross and ask God to forgive those that have sinned against him and we’re taught that he died for us; some of us who have denied him at one point or another.
God has the ability to forgive those women, too. And we as Christians are the closest thing to God that they may ever see. We turn people away with our highty tighty staunch ways. We, too, have to offer a certain level of grace. We aren’t any better than they are.
Ease up and take a look at things from other people’s perspectives. We don’t really know why people do what they do.
As to Justin Woo’s comments above, I actually agree with him. I am a christian and I do believe that abortion is murder, but i don’t think it should be illegal. As contradictory as that may sound.
I also believe that the way to stop abortion in this country (and the world, FTM) is Education, Not Legislation. The prime factor in whether a woman gets an abortion or not is her level of education. The more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to have one.
And currently, women do not get the proper education about abortion. That is what needs to change.
Honestly, all the fighting is pointless. No one ever wins cuz we’re just not allowed to shoot each other. Then again, that doesn’t work either (Gaza/Israel ring a bell?)
So why don’t people just live and let live?
As far as abortion goes, i support a woman’s right not to ruin my life.
With that said…i’m off to fill the world with more logic….
Question 6
Aren’t pro-lifers inconsistent when they say that abortion is tantamount to murder, but then shrink from advocating the prosecution and punishment of the millions of women who have gotten abortions?
Reply to Question 6
This is not necessarily inconsistent. There are various ways in which the two views alluded to might be held consistently:
1. Someone might think that no woman every freely and without coercion chooses to have an abortion, just as some people maintain that suicide is never a freely chosen act. If this is the case, the woman’s responsibility for procuring the abortion is considerably mitigated;
2. Someone might hold that a woman who gets an abortion does something seriously wrong, and is responsible for it, but that the act itself carries with it its own penalty, since she loses her child in the abortion. It might be thought that any further penalty is unnecessary;
3. Someone might hold that, although many abortions merit punishment, still, the state’s decision of whether to punish or not should be made with an eye to the common good, and the common good would not be served by punishing women who procure abortions.
Why? Because if any were punished then all would have to be; but it would be too harsh to punish all–the cure would be as bad as the ailment. So none should be punished; rather, the abortionist should be punished as being a sort of initiator of the abortion.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html
How to stump an anti-abortionist? That was a lame question. What do you to anyone that has broken the law? You prosecute them.
You can’t ask that question. For many pro-lifers abortion is seen a murder so they would probably suggest jail time. That may seem extreme because abortion is common and we can’t imagine all of those who have currently had an abortion in jail (that would be ridiculous), but coming from a standpoint that abortion is murder many pro-lifers would argue that they have a murder’s sentence (perhaps equivalent to manslaughter).
If you are to pose the question, the answer must spawn from what pro-lifers, coming from their viewpoint believes. Not what a pro-choicer believes.
I don’t think you’ve won anything here. By simply ‘ambushing’ someone with a question they’ve not thought through, there isn’t any “proof” of anything at all. Just like Palin and Couric. That’s not philosophy – it’s trying to prove a point by surprise.
While I’m not hard against or for abortion (I am a man, non-practicing anything, and it’s never touched my life), I do ponder one thing: when history judges us, won’t we look much, much worse than Hitler or Stalin? I mean, more millions of babies were aborted in the last 35 yrs. than people died in all of WWII! Just an objective look at that question…
It seems that the Left doesn’t care what happens to you before you’re born…but once you’re here, you are THEIRS, forever after, to be controlled all the way to the grave by the nanny state. For a party so committed to saving soldiers’ (and terrorists’) lives, I just can’t get the smug satisfaction to be seen on rabidly pro-abortion faces when someone fails to be a walking Bible, lawyer and ethicist all in one…or simply holds a different opinion.
If you’re an atheist or a Mormon or a Hindu, please continue in your beliefs – but why try to shove your philosophy down others’ throats? It’s just another dogma like any other.
@morethanamolehill
“I am a christian and I do believe that abortion is murder, but i don’t think it should be illegal. As contradictory as that may sound.”
Only if you believe that murder should not be illegal too. Do you believe this?
“[Pro-lifers] have a marvelous model in the great anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce. When he began his work against the monstrous evil of chattel slavery, the odds appeared to be long against abolition. He was attacked by partisans of the slave power as a zealot, a religious fanatic, and, most perversely, an enemy of freedom. He was, they said, imposing his religious values on others. If he didn’t like slavery, well, no one was forcing him to own slaves. He should mind his own business and stay out of other people’s affairs. Less vitriolic critics said that he was unrealistic. He was a dreamer. He was making impossible demands. Does any of this sound familiar? ”
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.01.22.001.pdart
@Bread & Sham
So the punishment for murder is to murder another. Not just one, but anyone involved in the process. Naturally once that murderer is murdered, we will have to murder anyone who murdered the murderer, until eventually you will yourself consent to being murdered right? And this is ironically called the pro-life position.
That being said, there is a problem with the question that began all this.
People won’t say these harsh things when their faces are being shown on TV. They will on the internet with relative anonymity. So if those readers here who are willing to say that those committing abortions and those receiving them should all be tried as murderers wouldn’t mind filming themselves saying so and posting it on Youtube that would be grand.
Put your face and your name where your mouth is. Show the world who you are, where you live and what you stand for. Say it loudly and proudly and be known for it. Now perhaps you see why those people who were challenged publicly couldn’t properly answer the question: doing so makes them seem harsh and unfeeling, so they recoil from saying those things publicly.
Anyone can take those kinds of stands on the internet. I encourage you to take it publicly, like these people in the video, and see how willing you are to take a hard line stance.
My question for you would be, if a mother comes to full term, delivers the baby and it’s still attached with the umbilical cord, does that mother have the right to put a gun against the head of the baby and pull the trigger? A human life whether born or not is still a human life. Most abortions are because of inconvenience to the parents. Thanks for allowing me to comment.
U.S. Babies =everyone’s up in arms to defend them
Babies from Africa, China, or North Korea who are starving to death…
uhhhh….
(sound of a ticking clock in the background)
LMAO this is priceless. Amazing post. Kudos. Serious Kudos.
Just because you think yourself clever enough to ask a question that may stump some believers does not mean that your pro-abortion stance is correct. There are absolute truths in the world that God made, and they all originate with Him.
The primary and most valid question in this entire discussion is this one: “what IS it?”
If “it” is mere tissue, then we have no debate, except for those due to the remaining health risks inherent in abortion procedures.
If “it” is a fully human life, viability excepted, then to do anything with it other than let it live to term is evil and wrong.
Period.
Mediocre post. The author claims to be an intellectual person and very free thinking. The problem is whole premise is based on a faulty argument at best.
I understand this post gets a lot of comments because its a hot button topic that people feel very passionate about… but whether your Pro-Life or Pro-Choice this type of argument could be squashed by a freshman law student.
There should be degrees of punishment just like any other crime.
Monetary fines to adult women or parents of minors if they knew about the abortion in advance.
Possible imprisonment depending on the age of the woman.
If abortion was illegal then it should absolutely have punishment, just as any other illegal activity has.
What’s the problem with that?
The government would decide what the punishment would be, but as of right now it seems that if the law we’re to be changed then it wouldnt give life or death penalty but instead it would give maybe acouple years in jail or community service, since unborn living babies are not being protected right now i dont see them making huge changes even if abortion becomes illegal. I think that if you murder a small child now, you get life, so definitely if you have an abortion and it is against the laws in place in that country then it should be considered a murder, just like any other. but I think that many pro-life would be happy with at least making it harder to get an abortion and that is their main goal, to make sure less murders happen.
This is fantastic. I can’t believe no one has thought to ask anti-abortionists what they feel is an appropriate punishment, because it obviously stops them dead in their tracks. Murderers and serial killers face life in prison, but women who have abortions and “murder their unborn children”, who are also “taking lives”, will be “punished by God”. Following this vein of thought, murderers and serial killers no longer need to be imprisoned for their crimes, because they too will have to accept whatever punishment GOD doles out.
If you believe in God, that is.
Fantastic job catching them in their own web.
Adamus said: “You can accuse religious fanatics of many thinks, but using well-thought out argumentation isn’t one of them.”
One could say something similar about the relationship between “anti-religious fanatics” and proofreading.
Go after Bob Jones, the Heritage foundation suddenly becomes the subversive organization it always should have been and the regular run of the mill bible belters settle down for a while and maybe even get mellow. It’s BJU and the Heritage foundation that are driving the GOP to the right, look em up, they are easy meat with existing hate speech laws and they all turn into Rick Warrens. Get Newt and the Jack Boot crowd at BJU and the Heritage Foundation settle into the ash hrap of history. Talk to them and more of the same. Bob Jones Ian Paisley look em up?
Sir,
Two points:
1. Perhaps you should try this question on more eloquent Christians? All Christians don’t have a supernatural ability to state their conclusions well.
2. Firstly, try to put yourself in the mindset of a Christian. What would you answer if someone walked up to you and asked you this question? These people were put on the spot. They didn’t have time to prepare well educated responses, like you did.
Just some thoughts.
Abortion is a tough issue. I’m a christian and believe that life begins at conception. However, I also believe that there are people out there that go overboard with abortion. As if that were the only thing Jesus talked about.
I don’t want to be misunderstood here. I am a believer. I just think to many “christians” talk about this and only this…
If abortion was viewed under the law as murder, then yes, illegal abortions should have consequences. I don’t believe this will ever be the case though. It is not something I’m hoping to achieve. In a perfect world, abortion wouldn’t be an option. There would be no need. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and christians should remember that.
I don’t see anything wrong with a christian speaking against abortion. I just hate it when that is all they are talking about. What about poverty and injustice? There is a lot more to christianity than abortions. Just my 2 cents.
I also think the people in the video were pretty ignorant in answering that question. I’ve never been “stumped” by such a question. Maybe asking someone who knows what they believe would give you better results…
I found some responses that came out in 2007 after a Newsweek column was written based off that video. The link appears to be to a pro-life site. They run the gamut, which is healthy on an issue this complex.
http://www.theinterim.com/2007/nov/05considering.html
Daniel,
My reference to your 5 year old’s play ground tactic isn’t implying that for me to prove that the bible is true wouldn’t require an extraordinary amount of evidence. I simply mean that in as much as it requires an extraordinary evidence to prove that something did happen it also requires the same amount of evidence to prove that it didn’t. So simply shifting the burden of proof onto the asserter proves nothing, it simply leaves an ambiguous question. Therefore in most cases you perhaps should say that you are skeptical that something in the bible is true because you have not seen the proof, however you should not say and cannot logically say that something is not true because you have not seen the proof.
It is the height of intellectual arrogance and folly to honestly believe that one you are fit to judge if all things in the universe are true (I am sure there are some mathematicians and astronomers out there who could boggle your mind) and further that they must be proved to you for you to accept them as true. If you actually operated like that you would barely manage to make it out of bed on a daily basis because you would have to test the floor for solidity before you put your faith in the form of your weight on it. You would have to prove that the orange juice is fit for consumption before you drank it for breakfast and on and on throughout your day. Fortunately you do not put into practice what you espouse with regards to faith and God.
Oh my, gee…what a clever post. If abortion were illegal, where would the woman get the abortion? There was a time when it was illegal, remember? Now do a bit of research and find out what the punishment was and who it was directed at.
Here’s a question that no abortion fan can or even will try to answer: When does life begin?
Ok, ready…GO!
…ya, I didn’t think so.
Gosh, you’ve finally figured it out. I wish I could be as smart as you.
Thanks for the great information. This is yet another example of how individuals like yourself help promote the Christian cause.
It’s interesting how evil intentions will help the good rally together in order to put forth a just verdict. Who would have ever thought that our Country would need the benefits of Homeland Security if it had not been for the evil acts of cruel, distorted and religious fanatics. Yet, that evil helped the people come to the conclusion that we needed a system put in place and what was intended for our evil actually turned out for our good. This is exactly what your site does. How could we ever thank you? The cruel intentions to defame the righteous acts of a certain few has actually turned out to our benefit. Truth shall prevail after all. Thanks again!
As salam alekum wa rehmatillahi wa barkata hu!
( May peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah (swt) be upon all of you)
Abortion does take life away, and it will be considered as a murder of a Human being. If you ask someone a question ” what should happen to women who have illegal abortions?” and if people aren’t able to answer that question doesn’t mean that those women aren’t killing a person. It is a crime and if people in this world can’t punish them then Allah (swt) will.
Allah Hafiz
MuslimahBlog
Abortion is not a tough question, it’s very simple.
through centuries and throughout humanity , women have been practising abortion (successful or not) and it is something that on the first place concerns the women herself, then husband then society.
If for example: I just performed an abortion 10min ago , how come it concerns you ?? maybe I’ll be doing it each month of the year, but it has nothing to do with you, your beliefs, emotions , ideas.. it’s an intimate condition that concerns only me and whoever I want. Whether I will reproduce and will have 12children or none , your lives are absolutely in no way in danger .
It is the society , the medicine and science together , that have decided to take this into their hands (in fact governments) for one and only reason: too many deaths , complications due to illegal abortions done in garages that in the end , end up as a burden to the medical insurance etc.(cause it’s them who will have torepair or just loose a life)
Therefore, today a women can decide whether she is able to have a child, whether that child is desired, and millions of other reasons have an abortion, and then one day when her life is on track she’ll have as many kids she desires.
Science has progressed that much, that today we have the pill Mifipristone, that can be taken up to 2 and a half months of pregnancy, which leaves no traumatism whatsoever , therefore no guilt for doctors who someone accused them as being murderers…. So all in all , it’s quite simple and so far this is how it works in almost all developed western countries.
What a sick thing to post. Abortion is murder – that’s a fact, pure and simple. MURDER.
As an anti-abortionist, I wouldn’t do anything to the woman. She didn’t take the babies life. Now the doctor who did such, would be stripped of his license to practice medicine. Not really a “stumping” question.
Foxy said basically that individual ethics have no effect on others and society, and that the choice to abort is the woman’s choice, depending upon her preferences.
Wrong.
Abortion gives rise to infanticide (partial birth abortions, late term abortions may be included in this category).
Infanticide gives rise to euthanasia. Euthanasia extends to not only the desirable being allowed to live, but the elimination of the aged before their time.
Be careful: you may be “voting” for your own early demise.
Not only that, but if a culture cannot respect and protect life within the womb, its ability to protect life outside of the womb is diminished. Since Roe v. Wade, murder and suicide rates have increased greatly, as has overall violence in our cities. It’s all connected.
Morality isn’t just personal preference. There is objective truth to which all are accountable. That truth is the proper basis for all ethics and morality. We can’t just take a poll and decide what’s right or wrong. Doesn’t work that way.
If it did work that way, and if we allow it to work that way, then here-we-go-again. Nazism, the Holocaust, the gulags, and on and on we go.
the primary flaw of this question is in the condescending rhetoric, which causes strife, stirs up anger in one side, and it becomes a never ending battle. a few peacekeepers and peacemakers may step in, but aren’t heard because of the louder contentious argument about things off topic.
this is human depravity at its best, evidence that we need God. It’s our weak attempt to reason, and understand a serious moral issue.
Some of these so called women, getting abortions are just children, thirteen, fourteen or fifteen. They have no idea how this will affect them down the road. They are usually poor and uneducated. That is why they are preyed on by abortion fanatics. They don’t understand that this is a real baby and they are a party to killing a baby. I
t is the abortionist that should be sent to jail for life at the least. Not the poor women who are lied too about it. They should be shown the movie, “The Silent Scream” and then let’s see how many think of it as a fetus and not a real baby.
once again, the argument is made that criminalizing abortion is complicated—- better for humanity to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies as best and as quickly as we can.
Well,
In my opinion abortion should be ILLEGAL. If it were illegal and a woman had an abortion, then of course she should be punished! She has broken a law. Everyone who breaks a law gets penalized. PLUS, you CANN0T ask a few people out of millions and think you have your answer. Granted, these people were out here being activists and weren’t sure about their answers, but as a pro-lifer, I feel that if a woman commits abortion, she should be punished. Yes, she punishes herself, but that’s like saying if someone commits a murder they already punished themselves too. That doesn’t fly in court. I feel the penatly should be time spent in jail. Making something illegal does not mean people will stop commiting the crime, but they definitely should be penalized.
The more you post, the more you drive the popularity of this site. It’s exactly what he wants.
Spent much time on this? Doesn’t appear that way. It’s a complicated subject, not as black and white as we’d like it to be. But really, what to do about the mother is not really the issue is it? It’s what to do about the unborn CHILD. Are we really comparing murderers (that’s who usually receives the death penalty anyway) with a completely innocent unborn baby? Really? If you don’t have a conscious it’s easy isn’t it? Are you really okay with late term and partial birth abortions? Your little video doesn’t really prove a thing. Sorry to steal your thunder, but it proves you really don’t know much about the issue. If the issue makes you uncomfortable or you really just don’t know enough to talk about it intelligently then walk away, but don’t prove yourself a cold hearted fool…..
I the very sad chance to hold my 19 week premature granddaughter in my arms and guess what? She did not look like an alien or some ghastly blob. She was beautiful, she was a very tiny human being. The thought of someone thinking it would be ok to kill that baby is beyond comprehension. Educate yourself on the subject. All abortion should not be done away with, but there are forms that there are simply no use for.
Adam — amen. The kind of posturing and moralizing in this post is so typical of folks at both ends of the extreme. Scoring “points” by viciously attacking the intelligence and moral character of the other side (as though there were only two sides!). And because both sides claim it is an issue of transcendent importance, it threatens to poison political discourse entirely. The best thing about the 08 campaign was that both McCain and Obama did much less pandering to the anti- and pro- abortion camps.
I’m not stumped. I think they should be tried for murder. Just like murderers are.
I’m supposed to be stumped by that?
Yeah…that’s absurd. I am Pro-life, and I do believe they should be prosecuted. They have broken a law, they are even now under God’s law, and they will be held accountable have no doubt. But if they were to have an illegal abortion, they should very well go to jail.
Gosh, don’t you think that if we actually made people accountable for their actions, they would use better judgment? They MIGHT actually think BEFORE they had sex. Novel idea….
Well…you won’t stump me :D
If asked the same question, I’d answer “Jail time” instantaneously. with out a moment’s hesitation. Depending on the law of the country, it can be either death penalty or literally jail time. I prefer jail time since I really don’t like the idea of people killing someone else without them suffering from what they did. Death is the easiest way of getting out of a problem, I don’t want abortionists and their patients to just let the pain escape just like that. They gotta suffer :D
If abortion was illegal, I think the punishment for women having illegal abortions should be to do community service that benefits children in some way. I think they should also be fined since they broke the law and again that money should go to benefit children.
You want to know how to stump pro-abortionists:
“Why is it a baby when you actually WANT it and it’s NOT a baby just because you don’t want it?”
What’s the difference?
Abortion IS killing. There are thousands of people waiting to adopt a child. It is the epitomy of selfishness to kill a baby that would have a great life with adoptive parents just because you don’t want to inconvenience your life.
I do feel bad for a woman who becomes pregnant as the result of a rape but still think that it is not the baby’s fault. As to babies that have health issues, all I have to say is: Helen Keller. How many people would be worse off if She had not been born.
Thank you. Sarah
Your alive thank your mother! Maybe you should ask her if she could take your life now. It’s easy to find the stat’s to show the great amount of suffering that after women go through they suffer from. Or also the great danger to their own lives they risk. Women and Men have a choice it starts with saying no to sex. We can not live in a society with no consequences. If i say abortion is correct or moral I can easily make the case to say Hitlor was correct in trying to kill all jews.
Pro-Life=The Cult of Sperm Worship
If a woman doesn’t want to give birth, she should consider having an abortion. A society that makes this illegal is backward. Giving birth to unwanted babies simply brings a real burden upon the world. An embryo/fetus is not a person. The complexity of consciousness as a requisite to personhood can’t even begin to be present until the fetus starts experiencing life outside the womb. So, I don’t see any problem with killing it if the circumstances make sense to do so.
Sad to think that such poor and entirely narrow research, analysis and writing is deemed as a “hawt post.” However, I’m glad it is listed as such because it is an important topic much bigger than you.
Since you asked… my first thought (without any cognitive dissonance on my face at all), is that there is lot of justice that is not served here on earth. Certainly, you don’t believe that there is no justice as your stance claims that it is unjust to deny legal abortion. So you already have a framework of what is justice and injustice.
So, why no absence of cognitive dissonance on my face? It’s quite simple, I believe justice will eventually be served by the arbiter of Justice, and that being God. So, I’m less concerned about that which I cannot ultimately control, which is not to be confused with holdiing an acquiesent stance.
Next I think about a legal punishment for which I would hope to have enacted if abortion were illegal and a woman aborted her baby. I would be very comfortable having such a woman sentenced to life in prision. Unlike your belief, I believe that abortion is murder. Pretty cut and dry to me. Again, no cognitive dissonance on my face.
Does this all sound vaguely familiar? It should. Slightly different from some of your interviewees, but some similarities too. You flat out failed to complete your research and analysis, and made some grotesque generalizations. So, while you’re still thinking about what you missed, answer these questions…
Why would it matter at all to define abortion as being just or unjust? Is it even the way it ought to be if we’re talking about whether or not abortion is just? If not, how ought it to be? If it ought to be a certain way, then how do we know that? I’m confident our answers will be in conflict, but I’m ok with that so long as you articulate your viewpoints and believe them to be true. I’ll take it from there…
How to stump a pro-choice person with one question. Why do you think abortion is NOT murder? There is no logical answer.
They way I have grown in the faith is that there is consequences for doing something illegal. I think if it were to be illegal they should have a fair trial and the punishment should be a decade in prison and for the doctor (if there is one) there should be more.
Either way you have to face the ultimate Judge, God.
I think you’ve missed the point greatly I’m afraid. Its not a case of wanting abortion to be illegal so that women who break the law can be punished – its a case of making abortion illegal to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Rather than saying to women who find themselves in a situation where they’re pregnant and either don’t want the child or can’t raise or look after the child ‘its your mess, deal with it’, I think pro-lifers need to get our act together and come up with alternatives for these women. I think, and studies agree, that abortions are often performed because there is a lack of options. At least one solid alternative would be to fix the adoption system, both America and Australia have huge waiting lists for couples wishing to adopt and at the same time have large numbers of unborn babies being aborted. Surely these two situations can help each other out?
Abortion is wrong and murder of Innocent life what about a woman who kills her baby after she has it or dumps the baby in the garbage, same thing.
I think there should be an legal punishment, woman who are anti-abortionists that don’t agree are just hypocrites that only have one foot in.
many woman don’t think they should be punished for anything they do wrong! many woman are murderers and no one even suspects just because their woman and people generally turn a blind eye
very sexist to say something is a sin and should be illegal but then un-punishable just because femininity? maybe rape should be illegal but not prosecuted if a person was… so to speak… ahmm… asking for it? then maybe I could understand Abortion as an option but most of the time we all know that’s not the reason ;) the words lazy, irresponsible and/or selfish come to mind
@laotzu
Murder is the killing of another person who desires to live. An embryo/fetus does not fit that description.
Hahahaha! That was hystiercal.
So I love how people complain about religious people being close minded and seek out and attack them as “Religious Finatics” (not necisarily directed at the person who wrote or posted this) who cannot possibly be intelligent or have well thought out responses or anything like people who believe in a religion are lesser human beings. Since the people who say these things are obviously the most intellectual and well thought out people in the world, the right to throw stones at others is all theirs.
Here is a well thought out question for you, I will answer yours in a moment. How is abortion not murder? You may argue that since the baby has not “breathed” it cannot eb deemed alive. However, since it is growing of its own accord through mitosis, and has/uses all the proteins, specified by science, needed for basic life; it is alive. An amoeba does not breath (it doesn’t even go through mitosis) but it is counted alive. So by scientific reasoning AND fact it is alive. Now, as far as i know no creature alive can change species mid existance. So, after establishing that the cells are alive, you can also establish that it is in fact Homo Sapien. Last time i checked, killing another human was murder.
To answer your question, I too believe abortion should be illegal. As for the punishment, it is not my place to dish out punishments or decide what those punishments are. I will not look down on someone who has commited murder, even in the form of abortion. I too have sinned, I sin constantly actually because no one is perfect. Do I think they should go unpunished, No. Because every action has a consequence, and this is no different.
I would also like to point out that just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong.
I do not believe abortion should be totally illegal though. For instance if a girl/woman was raped, she should be allowed to have the abortion because it waws not by her choice that the baby was conceived. Do i think it is completely right for her to do so? I don’t know since the baby is still a baby and I have debated back and forth with myself to no avail. However, opinions differ and always will differ.
I respect your opinion, if any of this was offensive it was not intended, but sometimes I can come on a little strong. If anyone should wish to debate further and can use sound logic, not just fling up a string of names at people who have a different opinion. I will be happy to listen.
I think the most fitting punishment for women who get illegal abortions would be sterilization. If they don’t respect the privilege of carrying a child, they should lose it. If they later want children, they can adopt those carried to term by women with consciences.
Thank you for posting this.
“Peter Rock,”
You said : “Murder is the killing of another person who desires to live. An embryo/fetus does not fit that description.”
Murder is NOT what you say it is. Murder is taking life that is not your own, and destroying it. It is a TYPE of murder, a mode of destroying life.
Amazing. Simply amazing how the godbots think that they will convert others to the wonderful world of Jebus by flooding the board with their inane tripe and capitalizing “MURDER” as well as appeals to emotion, pity, fear and, of course, their imaginary sky-friend–who apparently is so utterly incompetent and vague, he needs his acolytes to tell the rest of us what he thinks. A shame he couldn’t have told the goatherders and bronze age priests exactly when life begins. Probably could have stood to clearly tell them a bit about basic biology, too. Ah, well.
@adam
Actually, murder is whatever the courts determine it to be. Most courts don’t consider abortion to be a “type” of murder.
If you still think abortion is OK, you must have some subconcious reason for FEELING that way. It’s just not logical. Adoption is a very simple solution to an unplanned pregnancy, and there are plenty of people waiting to adopt. It’s a win-win. There is just no reason for aborption. I see no reason to not make this illegal. The fear that if it were (notice the proper grammar here) illegal it would cause more risky abortions is justified, but that logic should not prevent us from social evolution. The situations where the mother’s health is at risk is rare. As for pregnancy as the result of rape, that is the tough question.
The question is not logical or is it stumping in any way.
Many have said and I agree, it may not be first degree murder but someone is dead.
Here’s a question to stump abortionists:
” When does IT become human?”
There is no possible way to know with certainty the answer to that question so therefore we must give the benefit of doubt to the unborn child.
I was stunned back in the 70′s when I discovered it was my leftist buddies who were pushing this. I had assumed that women would see it as exploitation by men seeking to evade responsibility.
To answer your question. No problem it is undoubtedly a crime and should be punished severely.
Your little test is crazy- I am sure you asked many people and only received ONE response you actually could post on this blog.
Here is a Christian girl’s answer-
Abortion is murder! Murder is wrong. People who have or perform abortions should go to jail and be punished for their crimes.
Long ago, a country was judged on how they treated their young and their old. In fact the “age of reason” permitted fathers to kill their son until the age of reason- typically 8 years old. For any reason- the dad could just kill him.
Now we have people here who murder their own child in their womb. We also have people like Obama who supports infanticide on babies who were “intended to be born- but oh whoops -they just didn’t die. So lets just let them die on this cold metal tray.”
So when does the age of reason cease I ask you? 1 week old- 8 months? 80 years?
I am seriously surprised people believe Abortion is their answer. Did your mother teach you that? And why didn’t she just kill you?
@Peter Rock
What? What biology class did you take? The point at which a premature infant can survive is getting earlier and earlier as technology and knowledge increase. That is the kind of uneducated opinion that keeps this issue going.
No stumper at all… Both woman and doctor should be charged with at least manslaughter (at best murder in the first degree) and face appropriate punishment. NEXT QUESTION!! Oh! Here’s one:
If morality cannot be legislated why do we have laws against immoral acts such as theft, rape, incest, terrorism, and slavery?
Heres another:
Why does the government take away my “right to choose” what speed I want to go in my car?
Wake me when you come up with a logical and cogent response.
Roger what makes you so sure that a God of any type is imaginary? It makes just as much sense that there is a god as it does that everything just exploded out of nothing (Which may I say is physically impossible). Also it goes against one of the laws of science to believe that anything came out of nothing. One of the scientific laws (I think it may be on of newton’s may be wrong) says that matter cannot create more matter or destroy matter that is already there. Surely if matter cannot even create more matter then nothing can’t either. Are you omnipotent? Can you know there is no God? I’m not saying there is one, I personally believe there is, but thats not the point here. The point is that you cannot know for sure. It has yet to be proven that is why it is called the evolutionary THEORY. A Theory is something that has yet to be proven true or false. Also I’m glad to see that you look down on people based simply on their beliefs. How very Niesche(sp.) of you. Its no different than disliking someone for the color of their skin or any other difference from yourself.
Seems like to me if the punishment is jail and permanent revocation of a doctor’s license, then the question is moot. If someone performs an abortion without a doctor’s license, then you go the murder route for the person performing the procedure. You’d have to have some sort of punishment for the woman because, otherwise, your laws become a joke. But, if you reserve the harshness for the performer so great that its not worth the risk, then you solve your problem.
Remember, if Roe V Wade were overturned, it would go to the individual states…it would be up to each state to set its own laws.
It’s really a silly argument because if you read my blog, you would find why the whole move is pragmatically difficult so it probably would never come to pass.
http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/roe-or-wade-through-this-brief-warm-up/
Fisr of all, before I answer, I’ll make it known that I am pro-life.
BUT NOT IN THE SAME WAY AS RELIGIOUS RIGHT WHICH HAS INFESTED THE NEO-CON MOVEMENT!
—
If abortion were to be made illegal the penalty should ONLY depend on the legislation.
But to say this:
“But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.”
is really not a fair assesment. It is murder (unless to save the life of the mother).
The problem is, even though it is wrong, it still is not punishable.
laotzu says:
“There is just no reason for abortion. I see no reason to not make this illegal.”
then follows with
“As for pregnancy as the result of rape, that is the tough question.”
Care to clarify? What question is so tough if you claim that there is “no reason for abortion”?
laotzu says:
“The point at which a premature infant can survive [...]”
I’m talking about abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with an infant. I have no idea what you are talking about.
At Peter Rock how does abortion have nothing to do with an infant?
Abortion is infanticide and should be treated as such. However, the real “punishment” will be having to live with the knowledge that they took the life of their own unborn child for the rest of her life (and after).
We’re all appealing to standards here. I think some people are missing that. You cannot define whether an act is just or unjust until you define what it is that sets the standard for just or unjust activity. I’ve hear a few standards… my opinion (who influenced that and who influenced them?), the government (who formed the government and how were they developed), my religion (who constructed that and how was it derived?). There are answers in origins that reveal our standards. Our standards are the checkpoint for making sense of our thought, opinions and beliefs. At the end, I’ll bet we could all agree that we’re all right (which would be that relativism is right), or that a defined group is right and the remainder are wrong (which would be that there is absolute Truth).
@hollowscribe
Because an infant is a born baby. Abortion is the killing of an embryo or fetus. Killing an infant is infanticide, not abortion. I don’t support legalizing infanticide.
Even if you don’t believe in a god, not even a specific one you cannot seriously deny that “it”(the baby/fetus) is dead until it suddenly is counted as alive after a couple of weeks. Sperm is a living cell, as is the egg and when two living things merge into one does that make a dead thing? Judging by the fact that it undergoes mitosis, uses oxygen for cellular respiration, uses nutrients to grow, and contains DNA, it is obvious it is not dead. As for whether it is human, as I stated before, creatures don’t change species at any point in life, therefore it is and will be till its dieing day a Homo Sapien.
I mean you cannot seriously think not deny in my previous post sorry for the typo.
They would be fined
As a pro-choice women I’m going to state a few obvious points that some enlightened folks have already expressed:
are those who are so-called pro-life willing to house and feed every single child that comes into the world that the mother doesn’t want?
Are they willing to make a commitment to ending poverty today –thereby ending the number of children already in America who go to bed hungry (to say nothing of the hungry children around the globe)? Nope. And why are so many “pro-lifers” also pro-death penalty. This is sheer hypocrisy! Wouldn’t it make more sense to put the time and energy they spend trying to snatch women’s reproductive rights from them, into feeding and housing the folks who’re already here?
One last point before I sign off: I don’t want my government near my uterus. That’s too close for comfort.
This is a good question. I myself am not in favor of abortion. Women are left emotionally and physically scarred from this decision, and you took away the right and life of a child. At the same time I believe that protesting is a waste of time. Instead of being “against” something why not be in favor. Favor of educating young girls, favor of counseling and showing women more options, favor of being a more compassionate and loving person.
No one changes the world into a better place through hate and anger.
Why can’t people debate without calling attacking eachother; why not just address the views logically with a cool head?
@noel
You say, “you took away the right and life of a child.”
No you did not. You have not killed a child. Killing a child is murder. Abortion involves killing an embryo or fetus, not children.
To be honest, I can see some of the people I know saying “throw her in jail.” People are fucking stupid.
Peter Rock I addressed the whole abortion is killing an embryo or fetus thing earlier are you not even going to take it into consideration? I would like to here your thoughts on it.
“Considering that a majority of women who get abortions end up with depression and other psychological problems — because they know in their heart they have killed their child — I would advocate mandatory counseling, not jail. Jail time for the doctors and providers, not for the already suffering mothers.”
Socrates, I’m afraid there is very little evidence to support this assumption. The largest and most reliable compilations of studies say that abortion has little or no affect on the woman’s mental well-being. Contrastingly, pro-natal depression is a more than common phenomenon.
It just bothers me that some of them in the video refer to god, sin, and prayer. It’s fine to be against abortion, but choosing to stand on a platform that’s clearly based in religious context only and attempting to create law by it because the reasoning is “It’s sinful. It’s against God, etc” seems like a huge slap in the face to “separation of church and state”. Not that that has meant much in the past 8 years since Bush readily refers to his god in his decisions and not what the American people necessarily want.
Well, anyways, it’s pretty funny to watch them. The unfortunate thing about cognitive dissonance is they will probably start to believe women should be penalized via jail or some sort of legal action to justify their opinions on banning abortion in the first place. Humans are just that cool.
@hollowscribe
Address it how? I agree that killing an embryo is killing a human being. And I don’t think that killing human beings in that state is wrong. To me, what is important is the state, not the fact that an embryo is a human being. An embryo/fetus hasn’t even begun to be a person so I don’t see anything wrong with killing it if that is what the pregnant woman desires.
I am an anti-abortionist ( as you like to put it ) Or you could also say more accurately that I am pro-life ( as I like to put it ). But either way, you have failed to stump me with your question, so I guess your essay is flawed and based on a false premise isn’t it?
As I see it, If you kill a child, that’s morally wrong. You have a conscience, so you knew that it’s wrong when you did it. And regardless of the law prohibiting or allowing a morally wrong act, that should be the first thing that stops you from committing murder- a conscience. But since some of us unfortunately do have to be TOLD what right and wrong is – because some lack the ability to discern that for themselves ( or do know and just dont care ), we have laws to add the force of legality to whatever societal ills morality – or lack thereof- can’t cure.
So under your proposed hypothetical scenario in which abortion is not only wrong, but is also illegal, you then would have a situation in which somebody knew that something is both morally and legally wrong and chose to kill a child anyways with premeditation. That meets the legal definition of murder right? , so why would the appropriate punishment for murder be such a hard thing to swallow, when murder has been committed? I dont seem to feel the confusion or uncertainty that you predict that I would feel in this matter. It seems pretty simple to me. Let the crime fit the punishment. You took a human life? Well, let the punishment be set on the blind lady’s scales until it balances.
I have a similiar opinion of drunk drivers. They like to play russian roulette with everybody else’s lives by driving impaired? Fine, when they get pulled over, give them a breathilizer, and if they flunk, the cop should pull out a revolver, tell the driver to put his hands on the steering wheel, while he puts one bullet in the chamber, spins it, and pulls the trigger. It would cut down on habitual drunk driving, and if your number comes up- well, the punishment exactly fits the crime.
But back to abortion as a moral question, never mind the legalities. I am a pretty good argument against it, as I have never met my real parents. You see I was given up for adoption as a baby. I am sure it would have been more convenient for somebody to have just flushed me down the toilet, or have my brains sucked out. It sounds like you would certainly be perfectly OK with that. But instead somebody had a conscience thank God, and as a result, I have had a life that I am very thankful for. Yes I may have inconvenienced somebody for 9 months, but my life has value. It’s more important than that. Who are you to say that I was just trash to be thrown away on a whim?
I havent always had an easy life, but even to be alive and to have felt the sun on my skin, to have had an opportunity to look up at the stars on a clear night, and to have been blessed to smell the air on a crisp autumn day has made life worth living. If you think you have a right to take that life away from unborn babies, you can just go to hell. ( I feel I am uniquely qualified by my origins to speak to you on the behalf of the innocent millions that you and your kind have done to death in the name of convenience.)
You are wrong to think that you have the right to take a life away from a child. You are wrong to think that you have the right to kill somebody because it’s inconvenient, or because it interferes with your ability to have sex whenever you want without the responsibilities that come naturally with that act. What’s wrong with you anyways that makes you think you have any such right to do any such thing?
I suspect that it comes down to your atheist outlook. Life is much cheaper, isnt it, when we are just a collection of particles that natural processes managed to fling together with no particular purpose. A pile of rocks or a man? With no underlying purpose, what is the moral distinction between the two? None. In fact, f I had that outlook on the signifigance of human life, I would probably agree with you on the relevance of abortion. The difference is that I would be intellectually honest enough to extrapolate the insignifigance of human life to it’s logical conclusions as regards ALL notions of morality. Dahmer did. He said that adhering to societal or moral norms is pointless if we all just evolved from slime- as he believed we did. And he was right. If you can kill a baby and it means nothing, why not take that same attitude towards adult humans? Since we are asking questions to stump each other, how about explaining to me the moral signifigance of murdering an adult, as compared to murdering an unborn child in a life with no nuderlying purpose beyond survival of the fittest- pure darwinian selection?
Because of that’s what you believe in, you need to face up to the fact that all morality is just pretension. The strong SHOULD victimize the weak under your worldscheme- which I suppose helps to explain your position on killing unborn children…
If we are without design or intent, then what signifigance does life have anyways? Just dust in the wind, and the life of a child means less than nothing. It’s not hard to see why atheism and support for abortion frequently go hand in hand.
I am sorry that you see so little value or meaning in what we are that you cant see your actions within the context of a design and intent greater than yourself. If you had that perspective, I expect you would feel less nonchalant about terminating the lives of human babies who would have gotten the chance to experience Life and God’s wonderful blessings if it hadnt been for the coming to power of a generation that doesnt see a distinction between right and wrong anymore, because they dont see the signifigance of life itself.
I hope your journey leads you to a better place someday.
@Ty Harris
You start by saying, “As I see it, If you kill a child, that’s morally wrong.”
This post is about abortion. Killing a child is murder. But, I agree with you that killing children should be illegal.
At Peter Rock.
Ah, I see I misunderstood your earlier statements thanks for clearing it up for me:). Personally I disagree, but like i said before opinions differ and always will until whatever end the earth meets, whether as I believe my Jesus comes back, or as others believe war or global warming etc. Well I am done with this debate for now. Thank you all for hearing my opinions, and please (this is to both sides) quit attacking eachother and focus upon the issue. There would be a lot less war and violence if people knew how to debate instead of insult and belittle.
Also, Noel. “Women are left emotionally and physically scarred from this decision” is /not/ a good assumption to base your pro-life stance on. Women are left emotionally and physically scarred from having children, operations and accidents. They’ll end up emotionally scarred if they live life outside a padded room. They’ll also end up emotionally scarred if you shut them in a padded room for the rest of their lives.
What gives you the right to say whether that choice is worth it or not?
I get a little irritated with all these people who seem to not be able to get their heads around the fact that a woman might make the choice to abort with no coercion on anybody else’s part. I know plenty of mothers who have been coerced into /having/ children, and yet that seems to be A-OK?
ANSWER: you put the doctor who performed the abortion in jail. If doctors don’t perform abortions, it will be a lot harder for a woman to get an abortion. (If gas stations sold cocaine, it sure would be a whole lot easier to buy cocaine, wouldn’t it?)
Although by definition abortion could be equated with murder, this should not be the rationale behind “anti-arbortionism”.
What an abortion does is take away an inalienable right that is defined in the Declaration of Independence. ALL human beings, born or unborn, are free to exercise his/her right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By taking one of these rights away (the Life), it is clearly a violation of the fundamental laws that are defined in the governing documents of the United States of America.
Its not about murder. Its not about religion. It is about the philosophical definition of a FEDERAL REPUBLIC and the laws required to live in one.
Hi,
I will respect what you believe, and I understand why non believers get so defensive about things like these because some believers can really shove it in your face and teach the wrong things, but I am a christian, and I’m not one of those hardcore “you must obey!” but when I read your “stump” question it literally took me one second to reply.
If you asked “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?”
I would say, “Well, it’s not really my choice what should happen to the women, I would leave that to God. I have no authority over crimes and what should be done to people who commit them, so why should I chose?”
And that is all.
~ Isa
Prior to RvW this was a state issue, each state which outlawed abortion had its punishment for the crime. And keep in mind the sheer ignorance of this question when it comes to national homicide/murder laws, not every offense of murder is punished with death. Most murders are sentenced to prison time, not the death penalty.
And Tern: They’ll end up emotionally scarred if they live life outside a padded room
I’d venture a guess that people who live life in a padded room are emotionally scarred too.
I believe Tern addressed the fact that they would be if they lived in a padded room.
I am a Christian who believes that any given situation in this life, including that of an unplanned pregnancy, could just as easily be my cross to bear as it is a non-believer. In other words, to each of us, the adage, “there but for the grace of God, go I” applies.
True Christians understand that God is the only true judge of anything that we do. We are after all, Christian humans, not little Christian gods.
When the holier-than-thou Christians get it through their thick skulls that they have no heaven or hell to put anyone in based on their own interpretation of the bible, we can actually get on to doing what we are actually charged with doing as Christians, loving our neighbors..
And don’t talk to me about fetus versus child as pertains to what rights or value it has. I am in no mood for semantical word games.It is what it is and I dont care what you call it. There is no magical point at which we can say that “prior to now this thing had no relevance or value, and yet beyond this point it DOES have these things. From the moment of conception until the moment of birth, all we can accurately say is this- that this THING/PERSON/WHATEVERYOUWANTTOCALLIT has contained within itself everything that will- if nature is left to run it’s course- become a distinct human life no different than your own. That either means something or it doesnt, and what trimester it’s in has no bearing on that question. What it REALLY comes down to is the signifigance and value of the life that has been created. You place a certain value on that life based on your worldview, and I place a certain value on that life based on mine. That’s all this whole abortion debate comes down to- the value and signifigance of life. The rest of it- the legal wrangling, the terminoligy semantics, and the adhomenim on both sides is just a case of people trying to rationalize the value and signifigance they ascribe to human life within an idealogical, legalistic, or political framework to make themselves feel better.
If murder is merely the taking of life, which seems to be the crux of a startling number of these arguments, then of course we are all mass murderers, every day over.
Is it not a fallacy to suggest a deliberately vague definition for “MURDER”, just so that it will be easier to equate abortion with that word?
The fieriness of this debate is proof that it is necessary to be as precise as possible in choosing and defining your words. We all know what abortion is, so let’s argue about the right definition for ‘murder’- then it will be easier to decide if abortion meets that definition.
I’m just throwing this out there:
“Murder is the taking of human life that is not your own, when it is against the will of the organism, and when your own life is not in imminent danger, and when the life in question is a human life, and when you don’t judge that the organism really deserves to live.”
If that seems over-reaching consider of course war, self defense, vegetarianism, capital punishment and euthanasia.
People will, and should pick that definition apart to improve upon it, but its a start.
The real irony here is that most people can see right through your transparency. Yes, yes, and yes, The Bible also warns against the kind of rubbish you’re trying to do. (I will be more than happy to provide you with book, chapter, and verse through email if you desire, however, I don’t think it’s appropriate here.)
One need not be a brain surgeon or academic scholar to see that your bias is all too obvious in the quasi-interviews. Seriously, you should be ashamed–not of the intent; but of your actual procedural data; I think we both can stipulate that it was anything but scientific.
Now, as for your 800 plus comments here, empirically it is rather obvious that most who took the time to comment do not agree with your premise…whatever it is.
Now the quick down and dirty: Show me…don’t tell me! Show me where it states pursuant to U.S. law where it is written that abortion is murder.
Providing you can do that–furthermore, not assuming anything–if it is mandated and legislated as murder well just a God doesn’t see the differentiation between sin, then of course, those who subject themselves to illegal matters should suffer the consequences.
How many voluntary manslaughters are there each year? What is there penalty? How many involuntary manslaughters are there in a year? What kind of penalty did those convicted receive?
You see what is left out of your infantile statistical data is the notion of a) Due Process b)Charges c)Courts d)Jury e)Sentencing and the list goes on and on….
Actually the Book of Proverbs mentions the pitfalls of a FOOL more than any other topic. Cheers!
@adam
You say, “If doctors don’t perform abortions, it will be a lot harder for a woman to get an abortion.”
Yes, which means more women will perform abortions on themselves. This would be horrible. Women who want an abortion should be free to seek medical help.
i myself am pro-choice, but it does cause one to question what the heck some of these people are thinking. they are so quick to jump onto their soap-box and scream that abortion is murder, but are only willing to punish the medical personel that perform abortions.
i am reminded of the scene in if these walls could talk where anne heche’s character goes for an abortion and some anti-abortionists sneak into the clinic and kill the dr while she was performing the procedure (played by cher). the activist stopped and asked if anne heche’s character was ok.
i think that many people are disturbed by the idea floating in their heads that a fetus is a fully developed child, and therefore terminating it is a heinous crime right up there with the holocaust…
murder is murder is murder…so the bible teaches us. it also teaches us to love thy neighbor and to hate the sin but not the sinner. most religious, pro-life people i know support the death penalty for murderers, but could never imagine sentancing a 13 year old teenager to death for aborting a fetus.
Great post. I didn’t have time to read all the comments… 854, clearly still a highly controversial topic!
I’m a woman, and I’m pro-choice, although I have never been pregnant myself. The reason I’m pro choice is that I have no trouble whatsoever imagining circumstances in which I would want to be able to terminate a pregnancy. I would not do it for inconvenience etc and don’t really agree with those who do, but I think it should be their choice. But what if I were raped and became pregnant as a result? I’m not sure that I would choose to keep it in those circumstances. Or what if I was very ill and keeping the pregnancy was a serious risk to my life?
And if we do consider abortion to be murder, what happens if it was accidental? My sister in law is recently pregnant and during her first scan the technician made an error, causing them to think that the pregnancy was 7 weeks when it was only 4. She was told to prepare for a miscarriage, or to go and have the D&C procedure – if she had followed the doctor’s advice and had this procedure (as she very nearly did) the pregnancy, which turned out to be completely fine, would have been terminated. Who is responsible in this case? Who should be punished?
I really don’t think its as simple as pro-lifers believe, and I don’t consider that they should have the right to impose their views on everyone else, just as I shouldn’t be allowed to impose mine on them. That’s why it’s called a choice.
What’s the difference between killing a baby in someones stomach and killing one thats in a crib?
Don’t think im someone who’s completly against abortion because i’m not entirly… i have a friend whose had three abortions so far
But I think abortion she be illegal in cases where the sex was wanted. you have sex, you get pregnant. your fault. deal with it. But don’t kill someone else for your mistake.
In answer to your question, justice should be served accordingly.
depends on each persons situation. Though, if someone has an abortion because they’re too young or it will ‘ruin their lives’ then it is murder.
can I kill my dad for screwing up my life?
no
so you can’t kill your baby.
I seem to be in the minority regarding this issue. I thought this post made a very good point! I have trouble tolerating the types of people in this video. How everything goes back to God. Is that the only thing you can say when you are faced with a tough question? That “God” will do what is “right” with the women who get abortions? I’m a strong believer in pro-choice and I thought this post was brilliant. I will definitely be testing this question out in the future. Well done!
@hollowscribe: prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt and show irrefutable physical evidence for the existence of your deity.*
*No, the Bible doesn’t count as proof, anymore than an episode of “Star Trek” is proof of the existence of an actual starship called Enterprise. Also, asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the person(s) making an affirmative claim.
@Ty Harris
You say, “And don’t talk to me about fetus versus child [...]”
The two are very different and therefore it should be noted when the terms are used erroneously. Abortion involves an embryo/fetus, not a child. Asking that the discussion not use language that confuses the issue is not only reasonable but necessary.
Has anyone asked a woman who has had to experience abortion? I mean, regardless of where our moral compass points, the one thing we lack as opinionated commentators is the actual experience (unless I’ve completely made an ass of myself and there are some women who have commented on here who’ve made that personal choice). It seems like there’s a lot of men with ideas about this issue. I’m not trying to “pull the gender card” on this, just an observation.
Great post, by the way. Way to stir up debate/discussion. I love seeing people filter their emotion and actually come up with an intelligent rebuttal. =)
This question is supposed to topple the pro-life movement? That’s it?!? That’s all you’ve got? No arguing from science about how a fetus is not human? No philosophical analysis of the mind-body problem? Just a vainglorious question about what to do with the (non)mother? Are you really that foolish to think that this question is going to cause all pro-lifers to throw their hands up in defeat and call it quits? Wow… I was expecting something profound and I get this.
Who cares what anyone “thinks” a punishment for your hypothetical scenario should be. Truth of the matter is that if abortion was to be made illegal, there would be a punishment prescribed. The woman would be tried and if found guilty, punished according to the law.
If a woman knew that the punishment for having an abortion was the death penalty, and then got one anyway, she accepted the risk.
Nice try.
@Roger
word.
There are no words for how awesome this post is. lol
“But I think abortion she be illegal in cases where the sex was wanted. you have sex, you get pregnant. your fault. deal with it. But don’t kill someone else for your mistake.”
It’s really, really not that simple. Who can judge whether the sex was fully consenual? Was one party pressured, manipulated into it? What about when birth control fails? What if the birth could cause severe complications for the mother? I think this holds up fine as a personal ethos, but would never be able to be executed on a wider scale.
For me, it sounds a tad too close to “if you don’t want to get pregnant, keep your legs shut” which is a statement that always makes me cringe.
Your argument is nonsensical, and the question wasn’t very difficult to answer or mind-boggling.
Oh, and regarding the moron who said that s/he personally thinks taking another life is wrong but is pro-choice because s/he thinks it should be up to the mother… really? So you admit that killing babies is wrong (your personal belief) but you think it would be wrong to force someone else to no kill babies?!! Either you don’t believe that abortion is the same thing as killing a baby or you do. If you do, then why would you think it justified for another to do it? If you don’t, then why are you “personally against it”?
To those who say that a fetus becomes a human once it exits the womb…
What is it about passing through the womb that imparts personhood or humanity upon a person? Is it location? So our being human is contingent upon our location? What if I am no longer here on earth but on the moon? Am I no longer human? A different kind of human? Of course not! It is foolish to say that location determines your personhood or humanity? Is it self-sufficiency (the old “the fetus is a parasite” argument)? So if I depend upon a respirator or drugs to keep me alive I am no longer human? Or am I just less of a human?
Give me something to go by here. What makes a baby a human being? According to the pro-abortion crowd, something mysterious happens once a baby passes through the womb that suddenly makes it human. What happens in those six inches of passage to make fetus a human being?
—-IS A FETUS A LIVING THING? –YES
—-IS IT HUMAN? –YES
In fact, the womb is the only place and time in a human being’s life when they are completely human. Only about 10% of an adult’s cells are human. The rest of you is comprised of bacteria and microrganisms called “flora”(look it up) that inhabit the body.
The microrganisms can be beneficial or harmful. That’s why doctors recommend breastmilk over formula. The first bacteria the baby is exposed to is vitally important because the bacteria cells will soon outnumber the human cells 10 to 1.
RAPE is horrible. But pregnant women CANNOT DENY that the fetus inside them is alive and is more human than they are. They have rights.
YES. I do believe it is a killing of innocent life. NO. It is not murder because THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.
As a staunch ‘pro-lifer,’ I’ll answer the question then address a couple other ‘pro-abortion’ arguments.
If abortion were made illegal, then anyone who procured (or provided) an abortion would, understandably, need to be be prosecuted. Death penalty? No. (I think the death penalty should be abolished, anyway)
Should people who have had an abortion in the past be punished? No. It was legal when they did it. Just like when it became illegal to drive without seatbelts, cops didn’t retroactively write tickets to people for driving without a seatbelt.
Personhood.
Anyone who’s had a semester of Biology knows that that ‘thing’ – that fetus or zygote – is a living human that, unfortunately, depends totally upon it’s mother… even though at points it looks oogy and gooey and like a fish.
Those with severe handicaps depend upon others completely, too. Should we off them, as well? My brother has severe spina bifida and a slew of other problems as a result, should I feed him an arsenic brownie? Or is there a miraculous ‘personhood’ that is bestowed upon someone when they leave the womb? Or does that personhood start at 6 months? When do we become people who deserve rights, too?
Rape.
As far as rape. First of all, the number of (reported) rapes in the U.S. in 2007 was 90,427. Let’s bump that up to 300,000 because there are a lot of unreported rapes. There were 303,824,640 people in the United State in 2007. So that works out to 0.09% of the population. Let’s say *half* of those rapes ended up in pregnancy – that’s about 0.05% of the population. Abortion needs to be legal in *all cases*to protect 0.05% of the population?
If I seem uncaring for rape victims, I can assure you I’m not. I’ve spent much time talking to and praying with victims of rape.
Mistakes.
I wish those who are pro-abortion would just come out and say what they really think: Children are perpetual punishments for mistakes – and who wants to be punished forever? Yeah, kids are hard to raise. I support my wife and daughter on a teacher’s salary. My parents raised me and 4 siblings on 19 grand a year for a while.
We sacrifice because we know that there are many more important things in this world than a new car, or getting out of debt… or even paying the water bill. Life is what this life is all about. Why end it?
I see where you’re going with this, but I don’t really agree.
The punishment for having an illiegal abortion should be the same punishment for any other crime that is determined to be in the same category (I’m talking about real categories, like felonies, misdemeanors, etc). Although Christians may find abortion in the same category as murder, it is not up to us to determinine this but rather up to the lawmakers and courts.
I’m a Christian, too, and I think it’s dumb that an anti-abortion protestor suggested that there be no punishment for breaking the law. That’s just stupid.
I am going to say, before anything else, that I am arguing on the side of pro-life, or anti-abortion, as some call it. I thought about your question, and I will admit that it is a good one. Here’s what I will say:
A pregnant woman who has an abortion does not commit murder; she simply allows murder and even endorses it. I don’t know how you prosecute a person in that position, so I don’t know what sentence that person would deserve, according to the laws of our country. But I follow God’s law, and He would condemn a woman who has an abortion to death. I know this sounds harsh, but think about it. If you take a life or endorse the taking of a life and you get sentenced to death for it, you are only giving up what you have taken from someone else. But back to the issue of the woman not committing murder, is it the woman who preforms the abortion? No, there is a doctor. He is the true murderer. He would be prosecuted, and justly, no doubt. Now, I may come off as sounding harsh or cruel, but I am only speaking what I believe. If you want to label me for it, that’s your choice, but I’ll stand by my beliefs.
“Give me something to go by here. What makes a baby a human being? According to the pro-abortion crowd, something mysterious happens once a baby passes through the womb that suddenly makes it human. What happens in those six inches of passage to make fetus a human being?”
I think there are very few pro-choicers out there who believe that a baby is only human once it has passed through the vagina. (Maybe you should google a diagram of the female reproductive system?) Please don’t demonise those who have a different opinion from you, or I shall start throwing blanket statements around like “those fundies think they own women’s bodies” and “pro-lifers want to change the law because of god but America isn’t a theocracy”.
@Roger, I never made an affirmitive claim, I never said you were wrong. I merely asked you if you could prove the evolutionary theory or whatever you believe in correct beyond the shadow of a doubt, therefore refuting the presence of a God.
Awesome. The look on those people’s faces is priceless.
I hate talking about Abortion because I am both pro-life and choice. Right now I am choice because there are a ton of people out there who are having kids, being horrible parents and ending up on welfare. My brother works at a juvi home and the stories he tells me about those kids are horrible. He says over 90% of them come from the same background. Single parent now living on government programs.
It would be nice if in health class they didn’t talk about how to make babies and more about how much it will cost to raise a kid. Tell a 16 year old that they will spend $400k raising a kid until their child is 22 and see how many people won’t have unprotected sex.
After we educate people and eliminate welfare programs then I will be pro-life.
I am anti-abortion, but that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. This whole post hinges on the idea of legality and punishment. A lot of people who are against abortion aren’t concerned with the punishment–they’re concerned with prevention.
As a Christian, I don’t think life is about punishment and reward. Life is about grace. I am against abortions because I think they cause a lot of emotional damage, and they contribute to reducing the significance and depth of meaning of sex, because it is so easy to do away with the consequences of sexual activity.
So I don’t focus on the issue of legality; I don’t focus on punishment. That’s not the issue. I’m concerned with helping people to see the social, personal, and ethical consequences of abortion and how it affects so many lives.
People invariably tie discussions of right and wrong into the concept of reward and punishment. I’m not saying punishment is not useful, and that it is not helpful. Instead, what I’m trying to say is that it is not and should not be a primary concern. Often, doing something wrong is enough punishment in and of itself, and what we should think about in those situations is how we can help the person who has hurt themself.
(As a sidenote, when it comes to delivering punishment, I believe in the classic phrase “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.”)
Thought provoking. Very Clever in showing people who are passionate about their religion, yet not clear on hypothetical legal issues.
I agree with some who have commented that killing a pregnant woman often nets a double charge of murder (a la now famous Scott Peterson in California).
Does this “stumping” win over either side? No. Not really. The good news is that we have these debates and we decide (albeit through a long and somewhat twisting process) the results of “what do we do” through our legal, electoral and judicial process.
Good post, great comments.
– Will
@Tern
“I think there are very few pro-choicers out there who believe that a baby is only human once it has passed through the vagina. (Maybe you should google a diagram of the female reproductive system?) Please don’t demonise those who have a different opinion from you, or I shall start throwing blanket statements around like “those fundies think they own women’s bodies” and “pro-lifers want to change the law because of god but America isn’t a theocracy”.”
That’s an intelligent reply. I’m thinking your thought process went something like this:
‘That serena makes no sense! Maybe I’ll use the word ‘vagina’ to first make her look like a prude for saying ‘womb’ and then I won’t answer the question she posed, but accuse her of demonizing others! Brilliant!’
If you agree that children in the womb are humans, then you’re saying that a woman’s ‘choice’ trumps the life of a human. Really? An ideal trumps the life of a human? What are some other ideals from the past that have trumped the lives of humans: Nazi-ism? Fascism? Communism? Yeah, it’s a bit of a slippery slope, but the connection is there.
@hollowscribe
What is the justification for your assumption that demonstrating evolutionary theory somehow ‘refutes’ the presence of a magickal deity? If evolution was irrefutably demonstrable, (which is pretty much is), couldn’t you just keep saying there are undetectable, unknowable magickal deities anyway?
I find it humorous to see the views of a few turned into examples for an entire “segment” of people with the same views. I share in the belief that abortion is murder. I believe that once conception happens that is a person, not a blob of cells but a being filled with a soul.
Is abortion murder? Yes.
Since abortion is murder should that person face punishment? Yes.
Murder is murder. In this culture there are varying degrees of murder, but in the end it’s still one person taking another person’s life. Should the woman be tried for 1st degree murder? That should be in the hands of the courts. I cannot decide to what degree of murder the woman should be charged with but she should be charged and tried in a court. The doctor should also be charged since they are the ones that committed the illegal act.
Should the woman and/or doctor face the death penalty? That should also be left up to the courts to decide and up to the prosecutors to decide if they want to take it that far. Do I think they should get the death penalty? I honestly don’t know, but they should get at least charged with murder.
Call me a “religious fanatic” if you want for my views. I accept that label. The real issue here is that abortion is murder and a sin. God views killing an unborn child as murder. Even though this is committing a great sin God will still forgive the mother and doctor (and anyone else who willingly participated) if they just stop and ask him for forgiveness.
Matthew 26:27,28
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Ultimately forgiveness comes from God but the woman and doctor should be charged with murder.
@ mikec24
If there is a God, who will determine our guilt and rightful punishment, then why must we so concern ourselves with doling out judgement and prescribing punishment on Earth? What about turning the other cheek?
We may as well talk about atheism/ darwinism- based worldviews versus Intelligent Design / Creator-based worldviews then, because that IS the underlying question to the abortion debate. Clearly the signifigance and value of human life – born or unborn- is underpinned by the question of whether or not we are the result of intent or of random natural processes. Survival of the fittest darwinism and metaphysical concepts of morality are not compatible, and those two concepts define our differing evaluation of the signifigance that unborn child’s life… So by all means, let’s talk about life and it’s meaning- that’s all this is about anyways.
And I like the idea of people making affirmative claims having the burden of proof too. So I guess that means that if darwinists and atheists are going to claim a purely naturalistic process as being responsible for human life’s origins, they had probably better specify, demonstrate or duplicate that alleged event, now hadn’t they? Otherwise, how do they know life wasnt designed? Without proof or evidence one way or the other as to how this all came about, how is atheism any less a question of fath than theism? Demonstrating an adaptation process doesnt explain how that process came to be.
Adaptation could be a designed process, and probably is, objectively and probablistically speaking.
People who argue for a godless worldview have the burden of proof to back up that affirmattive claim by showing how a self-replicating information processor predated the information that supposedly makes self-designing complex devices possible.
If I am walking in the desert and come upon the encyclopedia britannica, or the source code for microsoft windows, the reasonable assumption of any reasonable person would be to assume design. If you want to say that it self-assembled, you need to specify the exact process and steps by which that happened. And when you get done telling me how windows ( or the evolutionary process ) wrote itself, I am going to ask you where the computer came from that predates the adaptive program.
Of course darwinists, atheists, and the like have no explanation at all for how life got started. None. Never observed. Never demonstrated. Never duplicated. No idea whatsoever.
So, since there are only two possibilities to explain life- design or no design- and atheists cannot produce any proof whatsoever to back up their affirmative claim, then theism is AT LEAST as good an explanation for life as random particle collisions. In fact, without observable proof one way or the other as to how life got started, we may as well start looking at statistical liklihoods of each theory being true. Dembski and Penrose are among the few who have taken a stab at calculating the actual odds of the specified, complex information present in the human genome assembling itself.
( It IS actually possible to quantify that to some extent).
Dembski has written some very interesting stuff on the nature of specified complex information and statistical analysis of same.
But whether you agree with Dembski’s number, or Penrose’s number, what is unquestionable is that the mathematical odds are borderline impossible in a finite universe that life self-assembled. At the very least, naturalistic explanations for complex life are – literally- the most unlikely theories ever put forth in ANY feild of science.
And the fact that all naturalistic theories START with a pre-existing self-replicating information processor with an adaptive, self-improving operating program stored in self-created memory, means that there’s no particular reason to doubt the existence of a creator at this juncture. In fact, to do so in the face of ridiculous odds and no proof to the contrary could be fairly said to be unreasonable.
The name of this blog is “unreasonable faith”. It’s appropriate, because atheism is just as much a faith as theism is. The only difference is that theism is much more likely. Especially now that we can see that INFORMATION of almost unbelievable complexity underlies all of biology.
At any rate…
It seems to me that the first step for people like you to learn to assign more value to human life- regardless of what side of the birth canal that human life currently resides on ( which is irrelevant to that life’s value and signifigance ), is to go back to the roots of your basic, original error- your choice to believe that there is probably no design, intent, or purpose to what we are. That purpose and intent is a neccesary foundation for ANY concept of metaphysical morality. Without that foundation, you cannot assign proper value or signifigance to human life. THAT is the bias that colors your judgment in this matter, and the error from which all other errors spring.
I suggest an honest re-evaluation of your naturalistic, atheistic worldview in the light of- as you put it- proof, and affirmative claims.
A good place to start is at http://www.uncommondescent.com
“The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities ” by William Dembski is a pretty intelligent look at the mathematical liklihoods underlying the two possible worldviews being able to explain life’s existence. Not so much theism versus atheism, but naturalism versus design. Not the same thing, but a good starting point is to acknowledge the possibility of a God. From there you will find your way to the Truth if you are willing to keep an open mind and see what you see as opposed to what you want to see- which is hard for all of us.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676
Obviously I have bitter differences with you on a metaphysical/moral basis, but it’s kind of pointless to have that conversation I guess, because without a common frame of reference – ie. the existence of a metaphysical morality beyond “survival of the fittest” as a guide for what right and wrong are, it’s hard to see how we could do anything but talk past each other.
Acknowledging the liklihood of a creator seems to be the place for you to start of you ever want to come to a proper reverence for human life, and through that, to a correct position on the abortion thing- or at the very least, to a better understanding of the alternate viewpoint.
I’m not sure if anybody has made this point yet (I cannot read all of the posts, there are simply too many), so here it goes:
Although I am pro-choice, I think that the logical chain this thread is based on is faulty; namely that abortion is murder, and murder deserves punishment, so thus women who have abortion performed on them deserves punishment.
Surely any punishment against the women, while it can be written into the law, would be largely symbolic. After all, apart from catching an illegal abortion in the act during a raid on a basement clinic, how would one show that a women received an abortion? In this same legal situation, however, one can easily imagine abortion doctors being caught in a sting operation.
While one can be arrested for possesion of narcotics, or dealing in narcotics (the more serious offense, if I am not mistaken- the position analogous to the abortion committing doctor), I imagine it is relatively rare to catch somebody in the act of purchasing the good itself.
@Ty
“Of course darwinists, atheists, and the like have no explanation at all for how life got started. None. Never observed. Never demonstrated. Never duplicated. No idea whatsoever.”
You are thinking of theists here. “Magic” is not an explanation of any kind.
This subject of this post is a really weak argument for abortive rights. It in no way nullifies the fact that a fetus is alive from conception, unmistakably human, and genetically NOT a part of the mother. To end a fetal, human life is to end a human life. It should not be allowed. (I am arguing btw, from a secular, anti-abortion viewpoint with deference to the inherent sanctity of human life)
And your question is not entirely fair… The answer to it is YES – if abortion is made illegal then those having abortions should be prosecuted in accordance with the laws of that place. However, unlike “homicide,” which is accepted by the vast majority of US citizens as flat-out murder, most people today do not see abortion as the termination of human life. Therefore, it would be totally unjust to prosecute aborters as you would someone who, for example, just straight up shoots somebody. After all, we already have a system of variable judgements for the termination of human life: Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, First degree Murder, Second-degree Murder, etc. You are asking a very complicated question and chastising people for not having a simple one word response to it. And again, the point you are trying to make has no bearing on whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Your argument is weak.
Answer is simple. Abortion is murder. So the same penalty as pre-meditated murder should be due to the person who performed the murder. The woman is an accessory to the crime but should be given the same punishment. the punishment should be according the penalty in that state for First Degree Murder.
Is it really a stumper more than the comeback: And where do you usually throw the baby?
Doctors or any one killing a defenseless person is a murderer. Plain and simple.
As fucking stupid as most of these redneck conservatives are expected to be, I can brainstorm quite a few responses to that clever question although I’m not a pro-lifer myself. It’s not even that clever of a question if given some time to prepare and present. The cameraman just caught these IQ-deficient idiots at a sudden times.
People can present a lot of “fair penalties” to the judge if this issue was to be brought to court. Counselling, resocialization programs, involuntary community service… etc. Nobody said a girl’s gotta earn a life sentence off hacking some nasty fetus to death inside of their stomachs.
But yes, agreed that they’re stupid.
So you found a bad example. Personally, I don’t like “pro-life” protesters because I don’t often agree with their ideology or methods. However, I do personally feel that abortion is murder and I do completely think that women who have abortions, as well as the doctors who perform them, should be punish the same way any other criminal should.
I do not, however, think they should get the death penalty. This is not because I have any sympathy for them, but because I don’t agree with the death penalty. If it’s wrong to murder, who are we to then murder the murderer? Also, I feel it’s the easy way out. Yes, they’re dead. But where is the punishment? Unless you believe in an afterlife that punishes bad people, this person just ceases to be and they have escaped having to spend their life confined to prison.
Gah! So many comments!
@thenaturallawyer, if you’re still here (and have a Find function in your browser in order to find my comment amongst this pile) if you want to contact me, to discuss this further or just say hi or discuss other things…
My email is project.motspur [at] gmail [dot] com
And my blog, if you’re interested, is here:
http://projectmotspur.wordpress.com/
Peace :)
You can twist and turn your immoral ideas any way you want and ask whatever questions you want. Bottom line is abortion is wrong. My wife and I have tried to have kids for four years with no success, and to hear of some inconsiderate immoral excuse for a human being having an abortion makes me sick.
Oh and by the way to answer your question: The death penalty!
Also, Ty, you say that there is a far greater likelihood of a god existing because of the (we agree here) astonishing complexity and genius of life.
But, if life is too complex to be reasonably likely to have occurred by natural causes, what then is the likelihood of the spontaneous creation of a magical deity possessing a conscious will, love, desire, and capability to create your ‘unlikely’ universe? I would wager that that probability is significantly less.
Kudos to Brent for pointing out this silly radio-gag approach. Back in October I listened to a clip from the Howard Stern show where his man on the street in Harlem interview unsuspecting citizens on the spot, and asked them if they liked and planned to vote for Obama mostly because they approved strongly of his Pro-Life stance on abortion or because they really liked Sarah Palin as his VP pick—not one of the interviewees caught the obvious misrepresentation of fact (that Obama is the most Pro-Abortion President ever or that Sarah Palin was McCain’s VP pick). However, this is NOT a reasoned response to your video, but to illustrate the point that Brent was getting at: we can (and should!) have reasoned discussion in an environment of mutual respect; not try to set up our opponents and jump on them when they fall for the bait.
That said, the answer to your “Stumper” isn’t that difficult at all, and I am very Pro-Life, so maybe next time you could quote me. If a woman receives an illegal abortion, the person who murdered that child should face prosecution on those charges: the abortionist. The woman who sought out the abortion should be given what every post-abortive woman should be given now: grief counseling, support groups, pastoral care, and probably the intervention of a social worker to determine what (if any) economic conditions drove her to abort her baby and see what humanitarian aid can be offered to alleviate those conditions. If you seriously doubt that post-abortive women are in need of special medical, psychological, and spiritual care, then I suggest you look into the facts regarding the massively increased rates of depression, suicide, infertility, broken relationships, and ruined lives that are observed in post-abortive women compared with women who never have an abortion, regardless of their circumstances (for example, studies on post-abortive women account for previous mental health concerns). If you disbelieve that socioeconomic conditions play a determining factor in a woman’s decision to abort her baby, then you ought to look into the available data on which women in America have gotten abortions: they are predominantly poor, they are disproportionately Black and Latina, and they fall in a majority on the lower end of educational achievement.
This is not a knee-jerk response. While I admit that many (perhaps most) in the Pro-Life movement do not explore all the necessary logical corollaries to that movement, the same is undoubtedly true of many (perhaps most!) in the Pro-Abortion movement regarding their own beliefs. This is evident in every pro-abortion argument which denies that abortion is the destruction of a human life; or, even better, the response that inevitably comes when I ask one of my “stumpers for pro-abortionists,” such as “Lay out for me any argument in defense of abortion that does not also justify legal infanticide,” or “If it were proven without a doubt that aborting a fetus is in fact willfully taking a human life, i.e., murder, would you still support it?” But those are other questions for another time and place.
Clearly the answer isn’t as simple as you wish to portray it—you would like to catch pro-lifers between a rock and hard place, showing that they don’t believe what they claim (abortion is murder) by denying that the mother is legally culpable for that act of murder in an illegal abortion situation. What you fail to understand is that Pro-Lifers are just as concerned for the women who have abortions as they are for the babies that are aborted. Every abortion has many victims, foremost among them the unborn child and the interrupted mother. Perhaps you ought to engage in true dialogue, and find out what is really behind the Pro-Life arguments, and not simply pick on the picket line crowd.
This is a serious issue and the question is not a serious question. I think many people who were posed the question, couldn’t figure out fast enough that the person asking the question is a retard. It just boggles the mind of a decent person, that anyone can make light of such an issue. So the fact it’s a bad joke, is not part of the person’s initial consideration.
@pixelsofdreams
“Doctors or any one killing a defenseless person is a murderer. Plain and simple.”
Wow, thanks for clearing this all up. That was simple. I guess we can all go home now.
I have always known what I would say…if abortions are illegal and a woman has an abortion, she’s breaking the law and should be punished for it. And the punishment should fit the crime…make her spend time with women who were never blessed with the ability to have children.
Abortion cannot truly be called murder (I am a Christian, btw) because no one has won the argument of when life really begins…at conception or at birth or when the heart starts to beat. Now if you’ve ever actually *seen* an aborted fetus, you may come to a conclusion swiftly. he true problem lies with those certain females who are too lazy to take responsibility for her actions and has an abortion ten times a month. Birth control is free and easily accessible. There’s no need for an abortion if there weren’t careless, lazy people out there and the mass destruction of what is to become a human life is unacceptible to those who have faith. But its like that everywhere now…human life just doesn’t seem to be as valuable as it once was, whether it be some tramp who goes out and screws around without care or some crackpot threatening to assassinate President Obama to the gang members on the streets to war – its all around us. Just ask yourself this…if you hate war, you should hate abortion. Its the same thing, basically.
Call me a Pro-Lifer or even an anti-abortionist. If, abortion was illegal, then the woman would deserve a typical sentence of a murderer – a premeditated murderer at that. However, I am fully against the death penalty.
There are other options. Use them.
Not all pro-lifers are idiots and not all pro-choicer’s are intelligent!
HomePapa
Obviously, if women choose to murder their children, then they should be tried as murderers. Born or un-born, it doesn’t make a difference.
“The true problem lies with those certain females who are too lazy to take responsibility for her actions and has an abortion ten times a month.”
Is that even physically, biologically, vaguely possible?
What about the men that these so called tramps are sleeping with? Why aren’t they taking responsibility for contraception and birth control?
Crackpots, amazing.
I’m pro-life, anti-abortion and I think the women should be punished.
You punish the doctors who perform them. 10 years in jail and big fines, say equal to 2 years pay. if a woman has had an abortion she will suffer enough and probably commit suicide without forgivess from God, assuming she does not die during or after the abortion. punishment for the woman should be public service, working at orphanage. you’re not terribly bright are you. im sorry you lost your faith. it is typically because of sin. the christian church is very corrupt. if you built your relationship with men and not Jesus, no wonder you fell away. your choice God cannot make you love him. no you serve the devil but not welL i will Pray for You.
Peace
@Steven Maus
I’m reposting this because I don’t think anyone read it (no blame there, so many comments!)
If murder is merely the taking of life, which seems to be the crux of a startling number of these arguments, then of course we are all mass murderers, every day over.
Is it not a fallacy to suggest a deliberately vague definition for “MURDER”, just so that it will be easier to equate abortion with that word?
The fieriness of this debate is proof that it is necessary to be as precise as possible in choosing and defining your words. We all know what abortion is, so let’s argue about the right definition for ‘murder’- then it will be easier to decide if abortion meets that definition.
I’m just throwing this out there:
“Murder is the taking of human life that is not your own, when it is against the will of the organism, and when your own life is not in imminent danger, and when the life in question is a human life, and when you don’t judge that the organism really deserves to live.”
If that seems over-reaching consider of course war, self defense, vegetarianism, capital punishment and euthanasia.
People will, and should pick that definition apart to improve upon it, but its a start.
You aren’t stumping me–this is a strawman argument. Just because someone hasn’t thought through the process and CARES about the woman and believes she is misguided, doesn’t mean that they are stupid. You aren’t stumping people who understand the moral and legal implications of this issue.
First, this form of murder is LEGAL. I live in Kansas, where even partial-birth abortions are legal. People travel here from all over the United States to receive abortions from Dr. Tiller, who notoriously skirts the law by not requiring that minors notify their parent, and victims of abuse by parents bring their young children to receive abortions against their will to avoid child-abuse charges.
Since the murder is LEGAL, nothing can be charged against those women (or men) committing the offense. This is true whether it is ABORTION or if it were legal to murder people, but only using an aluminum bat. IF you murdered someone with an aluminum bat, that would be ok.
Also remember this, the woman consents to the murder, but does not actually commit the murder–the doctor does that…if there was a law against it, the Dr. would be tried for murder, the mother would be tried for hiring the Dr. to commit the murder.
Aside from the moral implications, that is why this is such a political issue. Legislation or Judicial interpretation would be the only way to enact such a law, authorizing the child as a human being, which WOULD make this murder.
Your argument is stupid, and would not stand up if you talked to a reasonably intelligent pro-lifer.
Davux
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philospophy.
Not everything that fails to fit into your understanding of things is therefore unreal.
To an ant, our thoughts, understanding, knowledge, and abilities are beyond it’s comprehension , and all that seperates us is a few million lines of code ( that you think wrote itself ).
If life’s designer is as advanced beyond us as we are beyond an ant,- which he would have to be- then we should be open to the idea that we just dont understand. It doesnt make God any less real, and it doesnt make it magic.
I never claimed to have physical proof of God. I just point out that by any reasonable and objective measure, Design is more compatible with the complex specified information that we see before us as the basis for biology- not self-assemblage.
I cannot demonstrate that God- or any designer- created life. I wasnt there. I didnt observe it. I cant duplicate it or demonstrate it.
All I am asking is for you to be intellectually honest and open-minded enough to admit that Darwinists and atheists have no natural explanation for life either- none whatsoever. Zero, Zip, Nada, Zilch.
All I want you to do is to admit as a starting point that both schools of thought are equally unproven by direct observation, and to open your mind to the fact that in both cases we are inferring. The propaganda that it’s a bunch of faith-based religious nuts versus fact-based reasonable people is just not right. We are guessing- all of us. And my guess is a LOT more likely to be right than yours.
We can move from there into questions about that designer’s intent or purpose, but you cant very well get to the truth of suchthings if you are dismissing the most obvious and likely possibility- theism- out-of-hand because you won’t place the same burden of proof on affirmative claims made by darwinists and atheists that you place on Intelligent Design advocates and Theists.
There is a recently released movie made by Ben Stein called EXPELLED. You should really check it out if you want to take a real clear look at what your own side is claiming- in their own words. In it, Stein asks some of the leading darwinist thinkers of our time how- exactly- life came to be. Watching their answers is VERY enlightening.
Trailer here: Click to Play
http://tyharris.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/evolution-versus-intelligent-design-astronomy-may-soon-settle-the-matter-once-and-for-all/
… And you notice everyone in the video is wearing sunglasses. What would you see in their eyes?
how about instead of wasting usefull life, we take all those would be aborted babies and put them into military training academies so America will have its own “steamroller” of troops and will be able to crush any opponent with endless armies
How about a question to stump those who support abortion:
If it’s not a baby, then how can you be pregnant?
Interesting. The problem I have with this though is that he only asked one person if they believed in the death penalty. In the one instance the woman said she did not. She obviously presented a very weak and clearly not fully developed argument. However, if she views abortion as equal to murder then it’s not out of the question that it should be penalized as such by serving jail time. Rather than pursuing this line of questioning, the interviewer just assumes that all of these people are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty Evangelical lunatics. Or perhaps he just wants to present them as such. I’m not saying they aren’t lunatics (and believe me, I have no respect for the people who participate in such gratuitous shock tactics), but this form of reporting is about as fair and balanced as FOX News.
And just for the record I am 120% for a woman’s right to choose.
I wouldn’t have to stutter. I would say that it is murder and they should be punished. I would also say that if it wasn’t there first time that they should be sterlized because obviously they are using murder as birth control.
@ thecutmag, no, I did not go out and adopt a child, because I know for me to learn how to be a good mother, I have to go through all stages of being a mother. I have a 1 1/2 year old son now. I know if he was a foster child just brought into my house, I couldn’t be a good mother to him because at that point I wouldn’t know anything about being a mom. I knew I would have to experience being pregnant, know how it feels to go through labor and see what it’s like to transition from being me to also being a mom. Now that I have that appreciation, and I admit, I didn’t know if I was going to be a good mom. That’s why it was important for me to first attempt to raise my own child before running out and adopting one. If I had done that, I wouldn’t have gained anything, I wouldn’t have felt like a mom, more like a babysitter, and I may have been a horrible parent. Now that I actually have some form of maternal instinct, I would someday like to adopt. I know I don’t know everything there is to being a parent, and I never will, but I know enough about myself, and my strengths. Someday I probably will adopt, but as of right now, we are renting our house. I want to have a place of our own and be financially secure in at least that before I bring another child into our family. I want to be absolutely sure that we can support another child before jumping into it. It wouldn’t be fair to the child to give him/her a new life, a second chance, and then not be able to provide for him or her.
@LKM: I didn’t say I was a christian. In fact, I am not religious at all. I am a big girl and I can speak for myself. I don’t need a “god” telling me what’s right and wrong, when I can clearly decide for myself. I am basing my opinion on this matter by what I feel and by what I have went through in the past. Maybe I would’ve had a different response 3 years ago if I had been asked my thoughts on abortion. I honestly can’t tell you that. Because I don’t know, I just know now that people don’t realize how privileged they are to have a choice in the matter, and they shouldn’t take it forgranted. People really shouldn’t get into such a huge debate on how “god” feels about this or how “god” will judge you because you did this…there may or may not be a higher power that judges people for having abortions, but I don’t really care either way. Where was god when my son passed away? Yeah, see WHY I don’t care?
How should there even be a doubt about the punishment, it’s murder so the law should be applied. Lifetime prison or death penalty! Maybe some circumstances might make it second degree and the judge could take this into account, just as with any other murder.
Why can’t these people say what they want? I think they have too much spare time and nothing to do with it so they listen to some ‘leader’ , don’t reflect anything he/she says and go out on the street to repeat senseless babble …
I also think all these women have already had an abortion themselves and they don’t like to see themselves in jail or killed by law, that’s why they don’t agree with the logical conclusion.
Of course there still is the option that all these women are mentally retards, but that sounds a little bit offensive for me …
I believe that there are many people in different organizations that are not necessarily the most apologetic to their point of view. They possibly are following blindly, and do not understand the logistics to the situation. I am not one for argument or telling one is wrong. Yet, I do concede that abortion is wrong.
I do and would suggest a penalty for abortion if it were illegal, even though I wish there were no murders in the world that is irresponsible to even say. I do believe any murderer should be brought into proceedings for their crime. I am not saying that a women should be put in the electric chair or the gas chamber for killing her baby, I have never been one for the death penalty.
Besides the possible moral downfall and possibly not being able to establish causality to the next generation, abortion is murder in my belief. I am not certain what the penalty of abortion should be, yet I could see that something corresponding to man slaughter would be sufficient.
BCSBM
I believe that I am a Pro-Choice kind of person. The only thing that I can say that hasn’t been mentioned (or at least as far as I’ve read, and I haven’t read all of them) is that abortion CAN’T be made illegal. Why? Because usually the reasons the prolifers give is because the law is you can’t take a life and since no one can agree when life is given a conception or at birth, you would have to give another reason as to why it should be illegal.
Most of the time that other reason is because it’s against the word of God. For that reason it can’t be made illegal because I’m sure somewhere in that Consitution it says that you are not allowed to impose your religion on others. Now what if I don’t believe in your God? Then you shouldn’t be able to make rules for me based on them. Just the same way I think gay marriage should be legal. You can’t make laws based on YOUR religion in America. I’m sure of it.
But then again I could be wrong.
Very interesting discussion! I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and in case of threat to the life of the mother. I suppose one could argue that having to live with the fact that one terminated an innocent life is punishment enough. I do not think it would be just to kill a woman for having an abortion, but I think one could justify putting a woman in prison for life for aborting a fetus.
Our society would be much better off if we put the energy we devote to debating abortion into programs designed to educate young women about contraception and prudent choices.
36 years of celebrating freedom of choice and counting! there is still much advocacy to be done. provocative and enlightening post. i will be linking to it!
If my son walks up behind me and says “Daddy, can I kill this?” My first response would be to turn around and say “Kill what?”
If it’s a grasshopper – “Blow it up son.”
If it’s the neighbor’s cat – “Blow it up son. No, you better not.”
If it’s his little brother – “Dude? We need to talk.”
If what a woman has inside her womb is nothing more than a clump of tissue then no justification is necessary.
If what a woman has inside her womb is a growing human being then no justification is adequate.
You should start reading the prethora of studies out there about how the unborn child responds to and develops his or her brain to a higher level as a result of prenatal exposure to music, talking, and movement of the mother as early as 4 months and on? I was feeling my child’s movements as early as 3 1/2 months. When I practice music my child kicks around. I feel that knee or that hand.
Have we become so calloused as a society to not recognize the sacredness of human life and give it the highest regard possible by protecting the child’s rights with a law against abortion?
Sorry, the mother’s opinion of the value of her unborn child does not determine the unborn baby’s worth. Society can and will extend help to the pregnant mother who doesn’t want her child through the next nine months if they value human life enough to care for others beyond themselves. Society can show her that she has value and worth just like her unborn child has value and worth. Adoption is a beautiful thing. Abortion is murder and is an abomination to our country.
If you don’t believe that, watch a video of an abortion and imagine that could have been you, or watch what suffering and torture a baby goes through who is born alive after a failed attempt at abortion. The tragedy is real. Open your eyes to the reality of the horror our country embraces as legit. The beautiful lives destroyed far outweighs that of the Holocaust.
Furthermore, a mother who is fully educated and not lied to about what happens in an abortion will most likely change her mind if she knows people are going to support her and help her every step of her pregnancy and value her as an individual.
How about some other dimensions of the discussion. For example do you realize what partial birth abortion is? In reality it is mostly-born-stab-the-baby-in-the-neck-and-suck-out-his-brains-while-he-writhes-in-pain.
http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/barack-obama-and-the-culture-of-death/
http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/obama%e2%80%99s-america-gleeful-goose-stepping/
Abortion is murder.
Right.
So is hitting a deer while out on the road. It doesn’t know any better, but somehow the moral only applies to a human.
How many of them had pulled a plug on a relative in a coma who was still living? What about a child who grows into an outraged adult and kills someone? I could go on with these ridiculous questions as I’m disputing unreasonable people widely known to me as idiots.
They are high-minded and ignorant. Strangely, the moralistic views they promote only seem to mean anything when they become convenient, during public attention. These same people, who are so adamant about abortion, don’t even bother with all the other world injustices like child molestation, child abuse, rape, women’s abuse, etc. Didn’t they also know that it’s illegal to drive talking on a cellphone without a bluetooth?
Somebody having an abortion is totally dependent on that individual. Nobody has any room to judge because you don’t know that woman’s situation: Could’ve been rape, yet they stand out there like religious loonies condemning anyone who presents a different set of views. It’s biased to pay no attention to other issues, yet be so quick to judge others on another. Standing out there trying to coerce their values onto others just looks stupid.
Protesting used to be about promoting open mindedness among your peers in a detrimental society. I’ll still cheer those who still do.
I have a question but it’s really only for particular Christians…
http://is.gd/gVhI
“They believe abortion to be murder.”
This premise reveals you to be invoking a straw man which entirely undermines your argument. Many anti-abortionists believe abortion is literally murder, yes, but that is hardly the only position. Catholic theologians for example make the case that we do not know when in the development cycle the fetus is imbued with a soul, and some are even willing to concede that it may not be in the earliest period of gestation. Their argument is that since we don’t know when exactly a fetus becomes a human, we should err on the side of caution, and protect it. On that logic, they’re not arguing abortion is murder, they’re arguing that it’s reckless endangerment of a potential human life. And therefore, the abortionist and the woman are guilty of a lesser crime than murder.
So really, you’re not asking a hard question of anti-abortion supporters, you’re posing a simplistic question to anti-abortionists with simplistic views. And congratulating yourself for that bit of reductive, sophomoric flimflam.
Hehe, I’ve seen this video before.
it’s amazing how they haven’t thought about what the penalty should be for those women! Most of them have been protesting for 2+ years!!
@wagner james au
I don’t believe in a “soul” so I think the Catholic argument is just as silly but it does raise an important difference between many Christian anti-abortionists. That is, the Catholics are saying it is possible to have an abortion and not do anything wrong. That’s going to irk many in this thread.
While abortion is clearly ending a human life, and is arguably killing a human being, the mother is not having the abortion because she wants to kill someone, she’s having it because she’s either scared to have a child or doesn’t want to bother with a child. If someone kills someone else because they think they will be hurt or they are scared (especially if they didn’t think they were killing someone) they don’t get the death penalty or life in prison. Yes, there should be a penalty, but it should fit the crime. We set penalties based on the intent of the person who committed the crime in addition to the crime they committed.
I think this is legal nitpicking, which rarely answers the question and only shows the naivety of failing to appreciate the ‘spirit behind the law’. In many countries, drug pushing is illegal but in many cases, the drug pushers are active users as well. So do we jail the pusher or the user? In my country, a certain amount of drugs must be breached in order to merit as drug pushing. Below that, the person is whisked off to a rehab center.
There is an ocean of difference between killing an adult (for various reasons) and terminating a baby inside the womb. In my country, abortion is illegal, and the ones punished are the medical personnel who carry it out, and not the mother, even if SHE is the one wants and initiates it.
If you think about it, this is really defending the mother to the full.
I remember President Clinton while running for office appeared at a town-hall, on-campus, open-question type of event. A young man stood and asked about Clinton’s position on abortion in a way that clearly demonstrated the young man was antichoice.
President Clinton said something to the effect, “Let me ask YOU a question. If abortion is murder should the woman who has an abortion be tried for murder?”
Without hesitation the young man answered, “Yes. I do.”
Clinton, clearly taken aback because he thought he had asked the ultimate trip-’em-up question stammered, “Well, at least you are consistent.”
This question has been out there for a long time and it doesn’t work.
Daniel
Although I, of course, could also find uneducated atheists and ask them a tough question too thus “stumping all atheists” and therefore find your tactic here deplorable. . .
I want to say congrats on being the “hawt post” and on the top posts for so long yet again . . .
Wow Daniel, a lot of comments. As you should get with a topic as culturally important as this one. I agree with other commentators who note that being stumped is a pretty common trait for we humans. I note that, typical of our contemporary society, the issue around abortion is still being couched in terms of the individual’s rights. And while I am not suggesting we turn back any view that a women’s right to choose, it actually points to one of our great social problems – that we don’t support each other near enough, not the adolescent girls, not the pregnant women, and not their growing babies.
On the legal idea, I think law is designed to protect us from ourselves. By this I mean that there is a point at which our ‘permissiveness’ can be detrimental to the progress of humanity (and therefore is against the concepts found in religion, humanist philosphy, and even Dawkins). So it is good to have some ‘gray areas’ that are governed by vigorous discussion and not necessarily readily solved. Such discussion in itself helps educate us and show us where to set limits to our own selfishness. My own view is that abortion should not be allowed without being considered formally under the law through medical, psychological and social evaluators bringing advice before a judge. This doesn’t need to be a prolonged process – the evaluations can be done within a week, the judge can pass on it within another week. Such an idea better balances the issues of rights and responsibilities. I think it should only be law within a social and public policy framework that gives adequate support to the pregnant woman. In that, I am supporting the idea that the unborn is not only part of a woman’s body but already part of society, entrusted to a great extent but not totally, with the mother.
Further, some scientists working in this area have suggested that, logically, abortion should be allowed at anytime before birth. My view is that any deliberate taking of a life in the period it might be expected a new-born will survive without severe disability (and I have friends with a blind child born 26 weeks who has just finished highschool), is murder. Even given it is murder, all considerations should be given by the legal system to the extenuating circumstances, but I very much disagree with the law washing its hands at this point. I think there is a case for choosing one life over the other if the mother is at high risk. Mind you, I am not entirely persuaded that a mother who is at risk because of her mental state is a better choice for society than her unborn child, but I am not yet able to entertain the thought that we might choose the baby over the mother without feeling just a little ill. In that case I suggest that we deliver such babies into intensive care and care for them to the extent of technology can bring.
Same thing with miscarriages, which are medically termed “spontaneous abortions.” Ever heard of those? Abortions happen all the time, naturally and medically.
What should be done to women who unfortunately lose their babies? Just because the mother didn’t premeditate the murder doesn’t mean she’s not the guilty party–she should be tried for manslaughter (murder that is not premeditated), according to the logic of the pro-life movement.
It’s ridiculous how people forget that 25% of pregnant women experience miscarriages. Who’s praying for those “lives” and demanding prosecution?
Just a scenario I’m wondering about:
If a 45 year old woman, about to reach menopause and gets pregnant knowing that viability of her embryo will have a slimmer chance. She then has a miscarriage. Should she be charged with manslaughter for deciding to take that risk?
Amen.
A woman HAS a choice: have sex or don’t have sex/use birth control or don’t use birth control. If she makes the CHOICE that results in a pregnancy – then she DOES NOT have the choice to murder the result of her FIRST choice.
That’s simplistic, I know – but basically the truth. In cases of rape I have read there is less than 1% that results in a pregnancy, due to the trauma of the act. However, even if there IS a pregnancy, a CHILD – the child is innocent …. and, as hard as it would be for the mother, that child has the right to birth …. and then probably adoption. Though there are women who have kept children of rape – and love them dearly. Continuing a pregnancy that was the result of a rape would be very hard, I agree – but not impossible, and certainly best for the innocent child that was formed.
There are many times in life when others make it HARD in our lives – should we have the “right” to murder them because it’s too difficult for us???? Abortion is killing a child – no matter the REASON given for an abortion – it is still killing a tiny life ….. other than if there is a medical choice to be made between the life of the mother and the child – choosing to help the mother live, and let the child die, is not the same as deliberately choosing to end your baby’s life for whatever reason.
It breaks my heart to read here of the very casual attitudes and the very vicious attitudes towards babies in the womb. We as a society have come a very long way in such a short time. We have a generation who has grown up being taught that destroying the baby in the womb is right and correct and the “answer” to all of the pregnant woman’s/girl/s problems. Not true. We have been taught that sex is just a “do-it-with-anybody-anytime-whenever-you-feel-like-it-married-or-not” thing – and if there is a child produced, as the result, don’t worry – the “answer” to that problem is abortion – simply get rid of the inconvenience.
Chop it up, scrape it out, burn it up with salt …. whatever. Get rid of it and continue our lives. It’s not a bloody-ugly thing to do; it’s not an immoral thing to do; it will have no effect on our emotions afterwards …. it’s not a BABY, so don’t worry about it.
But, it IS sometimes a bloody-ugly thing, it IS immoral (murder is immoral), it DOES have an effect on the aborted woman, and it IS a BABY.
Perhaps those who protest the loudest about having photos of aborted babies shown protest so loudly because they KNOW, in their hearts, that these “tissues” they are viewing ARE definitely BABIES! Let the animal rights people show all of the horrible, bloody, sad photos of abused animals that they wish to show – no big deal….it’s “needed” to show what happens sometimes to animals, they say (and I am against the abuse of animals, by the way). No loud protests against THOSE photos. But, show the dead babies and it’s big-time protests.
Well………that’s what abortion IS. It’s horrible. The aborted babies are hard to look at. It’s sad. They ARE tiny little humans …. tiny little feet, tiny little hands. Babies. Even before the tiny little hands and feet are formed – they are STILL babies, human beings. And they cry out for justice. Too bad for us if we don’t want to see the photos of these murdered little beings. We can protest. We can turn our eyes away. But we can’t change the fact that these are thousands of baby human beings who have had their lives cut short deliberately. Killed.
Answer:
The question doesn’t really address the morality of abortion, so it’s immediately irrelevant. It asks what a wise punishment would be.
The atheist in question relies on emotion and feelings instead of logic.
The atheist wants us to have an emotional reaction to the thought of a poor girl who’s decided to have an abortion.
The question’s also unfair because it asks us to determine a punishment for something that’s now quite common and legal. It would be like asking a slaver in 1820 Alabama, “Are you going to put people in jail for the rest of their life because they want to have slaves?” Or, “You’re going to take Jethro to jail just because he hit his wife?” Remember, up until recently, it was legal in some countries to kill one’s wife for adultery.
If he really wants a response, how about, “Well, what was the punishment before?”
That said, it’s not inappropriate to place abortion at a different level than murder. We currently have “degrees” of murder.
Let me ask twenty pro-choice people why slavery or torture is wrong.
http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2009/01/23/how-anti-abortionists-shouldn-t-be-stump
Oh my god!!! I can’t believe their answers!!!
Most have different views on different subjects
@joe
First of all: Godwin’s Law. You’re equating the legality of abortion with Nazim, which I think is more than a stretch.
Secondly, honestly? I didn’t know that there are people who find it rude to mention the term “vagina” while in an earnest discussion about abortion. Nor did I know that womb is used as an appropriate synonym for vagina, since it usually refers to another part of the body. I thought serena might have just made a mistake, and I’ll assume I have made one on the matter, at least until serena speaks up.
Thirdly, all serena’s and your argument boils down to is “when can a person be considered a person?” which I think has been adressed here before more than once. It’s certainly not at birth, and I don’t think it’s immediately after conception, either. I never said, or even implied, that ideals trump the life of a human, and I think you took some pretty big leaps of logic to get there.
I didn’t answer serena’s question because I thought the answer was so obvious.
“Nothing”.
Her whole argument is based on the grounds that “Abortionists believe a fetus is not a human right up to until it is born”, when in fact, I doubt you could find any pro-choicer who believes that statement.
The doctors should face jail time. And the women should have to pay large fines or spend up to one year in jail. I think abortion should absolutely be illegal.
Now what’s the punishment for a jerk who goes around acting superior to other people on camera?
To me abortion is like killing someone, someone defenseless. God only knows why it happened and we have no right to take life, because we would be playing to be God. God is not like we are, he is not human. An ant cannot make out what a human is, in the same way we cannot make out what God really is, we can only accept. Why should we destroy if all around us in Nature is beauty. We must transcend the animal we half are and sync to God’s Will. We cannot prove God’s existence we can only experience it. The truth will appear in our hearts and we will know that He is here. It’s the only way. So all the discussions and arguments fore and against God are useless, just seek to experience Him/Her. Let us remember that God is not logical as we think, to piece Him in order to understand him logically is a waste of time. Only by loving each other shall we reach God, because love is union; killing is disunion, abortion is disunion. Should the mother be jailed if she commits abortion? Leave it to man and his laws. “Give unto Caesar what is of the Caesar and unto God what is of God.” In some societies she may be jailed in others not. But I am sure all mothers who commit abortion are never the same again. Something will have changed deep inside them, which only them and God know.
When does life begin? Answer that before you make a short-sited statement about a position you cannot and will never understand.
Abortion is a difficult subject to discuss. Every person thinks they’re right, but the thing is that if you’re removing a fetus, it’s halting a life from coming into this world, which is no different from killing someone. The fetus has still experienced life as well. When the mother eats, it eats, and since you can’t really tell that the baby is there right away, it experiences life one way or another.
It’s true though what you’re saying, what should be done with the women who get illegal abortions?
That’s a tough nut to crack, because until we get an anti abortionist government, it’s never going to happen. (AKA, we’re never going to get abortions illegal.) This is a question you cannot answer until it happens, so if you try and say that to people, they shouldn’t have an answer for you.
That’s all.
Thanks.
-The Voice. (that’s my actual blog name. not just me having fun.)
As someone who thinks abortion should be illegal, I actually think this is a good question. I think making abortion illegal should actually have more of an effect on doctors than the mothers.
For example, I am an advocate for midwives and homebirth. I have had two births using these methods. In some states it is illegal to have a home birth. The consequences, however, are generally for the midwives, not the mothers. One might argue “why is it ok for abortion to be illegal and not homebirth?” There is a huge difference in that abortion takes a life, while homebirth is simply someone’s preference for the way they want their child to be born.
What I don’t understand is why abortion is chosen over adoption. It seems to me that no matter what one’s circumstances, giving birth and putting that baby up for adoption is a better option than killing the baby who did nothing wrong.
Back to your question “what should be done with the mothers who have abortions?” Perhaps prevention before the abortion and emotional/physical support afterwards is the answer. Steering women towards adoption and punishing doctors who actually kill the babies seems more logical to me.
That’s very effective. You can almost see the mental gears disengage and start to spin freely.
I particularly like “And when did god call you?”
“But then I have female evangelical friends who will admit that, when push comes to shove, they really do want to keep the legal option of having an abortion. They just are very careful to whom they admit that wish.”
I think that’s a big part of why all those anti-abortion measures last election didn’t pass — when a lot of publicly pro-life, evangelical women actually get into the ballot boxes away from the prying eyes of their pastor, husband, other insane family members or whoever, they can finally express what they truly believe without fear of the people who’ve otherwise cornered them into that public stance.
As a pro-lifer, it simultaneously saddens and infuriates me when anti-abortionists say that the punishment for abortion should be the death penalty. Please shut up. You are not helping the cause. The death penalty is almost a big a problem in our country as abortion is. If you aren’t smart enough to realize that being pro-life means you can’t be pro-death penalty, then, again, please shut up and leave the conversation to those who have at least half a functioning brain.
Hey,
thanks for bringing up this question. Up to know I cannot decide whether I am pro or con, but the aspect of the “punishment”question is a whole new aspect. Thanks.
“If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?”
Easy question, sterilization.
Well, there should be punishment for a woman who aborts. There will be no records of it because it’s illegal, but still if they find her guilty, there should be the same punishment for her than it is for any other murderer. Jail, or even death penalty.
She killed, then why shouldn’t she pay for it?
The fact that someone is unable or unwilling to answer a question doesn’t make their position invalid, particularly when the question is deliberately designed to so that any response is unacceptable to the questioner. “Have you stopped beating your wife today” is such a question, “If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions” is also such a question. This sort of question makes certain assumptions which are not necessarily true, which makes the question invalid and shows the questioner to be more interested in creating a situation where they can belittle and ridicule the questioner rather than creating a situation where a rational discussion can be had.
My momma taught me never to argue with a fool, so I must respectfully decline to answer.
I agree, you’ve stumped the anti-abortion activists, but I think thoughts like this must be pushed farther.
Regardless of a punishment that people may or may not agree on this does not change the central issue which is whether the fetus is actually a life or not. If it is not a life then we need not worry about the morality of abortion at all, but if we choose to view the fetus as a human life then we can’t question what is convenient or easiest.
I’m not saying that women should be punished but I don’t think that the question of punishment should cause us to decide if we are pro-life or pro-choice. Converting one’s political/morality views should not be based on the mother’s legality but on what is being aborted.
Regardless, it is an important question to ask.
I certaily take offense to this blog post. To assume that you can stump Christians with your question is painting with a broad brush.
Jeremiah 29:11 says, “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Let me explain what Pro-Life is to a true believer, and not one with immaturity running through their veins.
Pro-Life is exactly that. Pro-Life. It means we should instruct and teach people about the wonderful plans that God has for that child, and as the Mother! We encourage adoption, and giving that child a chance to have a special life. We teach that the child is alive and has a spirit and soul. Abortion is murder – period… but the problem with this is most of the woman having abortions are so deluded with emotions and confusion, along with half of the world telling them it’s okay, they lose the reality of what they’re doing. Do you think these women would just walk up to someone on the street and blow their brains out? Some are possibly just cruel and selfish, and didn’t care about the consequences of sex. Some just don’t want a child to ruin their happy life or perfect body so they selfishly kill a child. But how do we know who is who, and what they’re thinking? How can we tell who is wrapped in delusion and fear, verses who is a selfish immature person who cares nothing for the lives of others? We can’t – Only God knows the heart.
Psalm 44:21 “Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.”
Only the love of Christ can constrain a person. We can teach that abortion is murder, but only the love of God can truly change a person and lead them to repentance.
God judges the heart – period. How am I to know what is going on inside of a woman’s head who is about to have an abortion? Does she truly understand the reality of it? It isn’t my job to judge her, God’s Word already does. It also offers forgiveness.
Psalm 27:10 “For my father and mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me up.”
That’s right.. The Lord will take that child into His arms forever. And you know what else? His love covers over a multitude of sins, in which he freely offers to all murderers, theives, liars, adulterers, coveters, and the list goes on.
We teach that a child is created for eternity, and to let them have the chance to put their fingerprints in this world. It grieves the Holy Spirit deeply when a baby dies, in or out of the womb.
Psalm 139:13 “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.”
So they collapse a baby’s brain and suck it out with a vacuum? Or they inject it with a poison? That baby could think, feel, experience emotions and excitement? Then BOOM, dead? Heart stops? What is wrong with you pro-abortionists? How is this not wrong? How would you like to hold the dead baby not fully developed in your arms, as you look at the grayed skin of his/her face.. The little stubs of fingers that haven’t fully developed? Doesn’t that hurt you to even think about it? If it doesn’t then your heart has become hardened.
As a Christian artist I created a fine-art print and a t-shirt over this issue. I understand if you need to edit this post due to a link but I want to show you my heart in an artistic manner. The picture is a Baby in the Womb with God’s hands holding it.
http://imperishabledesign.com/EternallyCreatedCollection/tabid/87/Default.aspx
I do believe there needs to be some type of control. If it becomes obvious a person just likes sex, and has abortions just to remove resposibilty something needs to be done. Sterilization? Possibly!
For those who have had abortions.. for those who have lied, stolen, coveted, or filled their lives with immorality.
There is a Savior. His name is Jesus, and he bled and died for all of us.
Patrick
Just wanted to stop by and say that you really hit this one out of the ballpark. Great post!
As a follow up:
Pro-abortionist argue ‘the right to choose’, yet only allow that choice to some.
“Medical professionals should not be forced to perform abortions against their conscience,” said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom.
“Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and their pro-abortion allies are seeking to punish pro-life medical professionals for their beliefs,” Mattox said. “Far from arguing for ‘choice,’ these lawsuits seek to compel health care workers to perform abortions or face dire consequences.”
So, those in the medical profession do not get the same ‘right to choose’. Perhaps a return question to pro-abortionist should be:
If you truly believe in ‘the right to choose’, what should be done to doctors who themselves exercise that right by choosing not to provide an abortion?
Or perhaps this question:
If you truly believe in ‘the right to choose’, what should be done to the operators of ‘womens clinics’ who do not provide their clients access to information on the risks of abortion and options other than abortion so that their clients may make informed decisions?
Or perhaps this question:
If you truly believe in ‘the right to choose’, what should be done to the operators of ‘womens clinics’ who, rather than providing abortion services, provide their clients access to information on options other than abortion–options which may result in a woman choosing not to have an abortion?
Honest and consistent-with-their-’beliefs’ answers to all these questions are of course problematic for pro-abortionist since the pro-abortion ‘leaders’ do not believe doctors should have any such rights, that no abortion clinic should be ‘forced’ to provide information about abortion risks or non-abortive options (in their mind, there are no risks and no other options), nor should any other clinics be allowed to provide non-abortion information nor be allowed to dissuade a woman from having an abortion.
Hypocrisy is such a wonderful and seductive drug.
This is a simplistic “stumping”. The answers to both questions are simple – legally the punishment for the mothers ought to be along the same lines as for any other contract killing (with appeals for leniency as apropos), and for the doctors who did the abortions it ought to be the same as it would be for any contract killer.
The point in reversing the abortion culture in this country is not to throw women in jail. It’s to stop the murder of innocent children. And imo part of that process isn’t just making abortion illegal, but is in changing the culture so that people understand that abortion is murder and so that no woman would ever want to murder another child again. That includes counseling for pregnant women, services to help women who can’t afford to pay for a pregnancy, more money for adoption services, etc. Changing things so that women who get pregnant and get in trouble have options and alternatives to killing the child.
Women who have abortions aren’t criminals that need to be prosecuted. But as the people at [URL="http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/"]Rachel’s Vineyard[/URL] will tell you, women who are post abortive are suffering with both mental and physical problems. I don’t think that any woman goes out and actively gets pregnant in order to get an abortion and kill a child. And I don’t think that any woman ever really aspires to killing a child, or plans to murder their baby. It’s not a decision most women want to ever have to make. And I think that if people are really honest with themselves, they feel that way because they know abortion is wrong. But somehow we’ve tricked ourselves in this society into thinking it is okay if we are in trouble, or if we can’t afford the baby, or can’t take care of it, etc. So we allow it, ignoring the fact that it is murder, but thinking that it’s the better choice anyway because that murder takes care of the ‘problem’. These women don’t need jailtime, they need healing. And if we ever came to a point in society where no woman would ever need healing from an abortion again, I think that would be a great thing.
The goal isn’t to throw women in jail, but to keep babies alive and to change the culture of death in this country that sees a pregnancies as a burden, and not the miracle of life that it is. And to make sure that every human being, no matter how young or old, gets the dignity they deserve.
In making abortion illegal again, the people to be prosecuted and punished would be those performing the illegal abortions. Yes, that means doctors. If it was up to me these people would be in jail right now.
The women should be sterilized. Done deal.
You won’t be stumping anyone that easily. The issue of penology and the appropriate punishment for crime of moral turpitude is always distinguishable from whether or not the problem is serious enough to call for its illegality. Really, the strictest controls should always be available for the weakest members of a society. An implication of your post though is that all murders are alike. In Christian thought, they are not. Thus the traditional Christian distinction between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Abortion may not be as morally evil as the murder of a child already born, but it is morally evil none the less and worthy of sanctions by the state both to serve as a punishment and as a general moral influence against the people killing their unborn children. Expecting all Christians to have thought through every legal parameter of their common sense judgment that abortion is a social evil, or even that they all agree on every nuance, makes your argument unreasonable.
Neiswonger
A pregnant mother is driving and then is hit by another driver. The unborn child dies and the mother survives. THe news have a big deal about it and say that the other driver is a murderer and be sent to prison. He is sentenced for murdering a child. Sadly, the mother who was hit was on her way to get an abortion, so the child would have died anyways.
… Jurists and legislators in the past believed that the best way to prevent abortions from occurring and at the same time uphold the sanctity of human life is to
criminalize abortion,
prosecute the abortionist,
grant immunity or a light penalty to the woman,
and show her compassion by recognizing that in most cases she is indeed the second victim of abortion.
… if abortion is made illegal, legislatures will have to take the following five considerations into account:
It is a reality that unborn humans are persons and to kill them is no different than killing a newborn baby, an infant, a small child, an adolescent, or an adult.
Because of both the lack of education concerning prenatal development and the miseducation of abortion-rights propaganda that permeates the media, both men and women are often ignorant of the true nature of the unborn child and the philosophical arguments that support it.
The woman who will seek and obtain an illegal abortion is really a second victim. Women who seek illegal abortions will probably do so out of desperation. It is likely that the woman will be lied to both by those encouraging her to seek an abortion as well as the paid abortion provider.
Even if his intention may be to help the woman, the abortionist is a hired killer who is knowledgeable about his victim’s nature and should be treated as such.
The government has an interest in preventing unjustified and premeditated killing of persons, whether born or unborn, who live within its jurisdiction.
From http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/02/if-abortion-becomes-illegal-again.htmljurists
If a woman gives birth and then immediately kills the baby, should she be punished?
Hey, ever heard this one? “Thou shalt not kill?” Yeah, that’s what I thought. It’s one of the Ten Commandments, Monseiur Non-Believer.
Well, first of all, if the woman is at all moral and has a conscience, then she would likely have a lifelong guilt for her wrongdoings. That would be a terrible punishment in itself. Secondly, God would punish her by sending her to purgatory for an act against him if she was unrelenting. Lastly, she would probably have to have some sort of federal punishment: manslaughter, maybe? Murder? Either way, killing a human child in a way that is unlawful both to the country and to God should definetly be punished.
Not stumped in the slightest.
Still waiting for one single pro lifer to tell me that they have adopted an unwanted child from Africa or Eastern Europe. Or that you’re volunteering some babysitting time to poor mothers. Or that you believe life is so sacred that you are picketing against world hunger and helping starving children avoid a life of prostitution.
Oh, right. You don’t care about the lives of BORN children, just unborn. Anyone, any single one of you can say, I’m active saving children’s lives from torture, child slavery, or hunger?
As a fence sitter on this issue- I see it as an unpleasant necessity- it’s clear to me now that ‘pro life’ people are the ones who love death the most. Kind of personified by Bush, who gave lipservice to the sanctity of life but ruled over executions and even made jokes about the death row inmates as they died. Then there was that fake war where thousands were murdered. Didn’t he know those people were once unborn too?
And why all this focus on the women- kill that slut, bla bla bla- how many dads do you know stuck raising a kid by themself, poor? How many of you men wish she kept the baby? Yes, some. Not many. But the men interestingly avoid public condemnation and punishment.
Finally, I did some research on the claims that women who get abortions are victims, too. I read stuff online and I asked around. Of course some women regret their abortion- and some regret having children, or not going to Europe, or voting for George. By and large, she avoided making herself a victim, and giving a child an unhappy life.
Can’t this just be a private issue? How is it public business what difficult choices a woman makes? Get out there and start saving lives- you might start in Angeles City in the Philippines, where there are 200 brothels staffed by children. Poor children. Who have no one to look after them. Children who have customers, which mean some grown men are…..perhaps capital punishment for these kinds of crimes?
That question doesn’t stump me at all…
I still believe that anyone that commits murder should get the “eye for an eye” treatment. No reason to put a murderer in life for prison… execution works better.
Thank you. This is a great post and it is made even better by some of the intelligent and thought provoking responses. I think it sad that people embrace their interpretation of a religion as dogma and try to make life so ‘black or white’. I wouldn’t be surprised that more lives have been lost to religious conflict than the history of abortion.
Girl Can Write says:
“Still waiting for one single pro lifer to tell me that they have adopted an unwanted child from Africa or Eastern Europe.”
I adopted from China and have pro-life friends who have adopted unwanted (or, better, children who’s moms knew they could have a better life elsewhere) American kids, as well as kids from China, Vietnam, Romania, Russia, Latvia, the Philippines, Ghana, Guatemala, Ethiopia, and probably other countries. We do so because we want more children and we also believe that adoption is an alternative to abortion.
I am shocked that you actually don’t know any prolifers who have adopted because I know so many…
I find it interesting that even on the exceedingly liberal TV show Boston Legal, the Alan Shore character wrestles with the problem of abortion.
Like Shore, people are starting to see that their friends, women who had abortions in the late 70s, have had unbelievable emotional repercussions, from depression to suicide. I believe the women who have abortions are victims, too, having been led to believe they were making a personal choice, not taking the life of their children.
The Boston Legal show on abortion highlighted the horrific trend of the rising rate of abortions of female fetuses in cultures where males are preferred.
All I can say is that one day, we will all wake up to the holocaust we have supported. It will sicken us and we will do something about it.
My earlier comment, above, talks about the judicial repercussions if abortion were made illegal again, so I won’t address it here.
Here’s another question that I have found that pro-life people cannot answer. Most of the people that I have talked to about this subject say “What about the choice of the fetus that is being murdered? Does no one care about whether this person deserves to choose life over death?” To which I generally reply: “Well, do you support assisted suicide?”
999 times out of 1000 the Pro-Life person will reply “of course not”. This doesn’t make any sense to me. This is a rational older adult who is making the decision for themself that they would no longer like to live and want to do it in a medically safe way.
Which proves to me that this debate has nothing to do with the rights of the citizens but of a moral choice. I see the government of any country as the rational side of society. Pro-life is not based on things seen and rational thought, but faith in something that is “felt” to be correct.
You show me the Pro-Life person that will sit across the table from a 14 year old girl who has just found out that she is pregnant from being raped by her pedophile uncle and tell her that she HAS to have that child and I’ll show you the real anti-christ.
Life has consequences and people must re learn what personal responsibility is and how to use will power. It is not unreasonable thought. If some one breaks the law they should be punished plan and simple. However, should only the woman be punished? What about the actual person or persons who helped to kill that baby? Same thing. They killed someone. With that said, I do believe that abortion will never be illegal. I do not think government should be considered with the issue at all. I think concerned citizens should put their time and effect behind their beliefs to make sure that 1. People are making wise decisions and 2. alternative options are high suggested and celebrated. I dare you who believe that abortion has no impact to speak to a woman who has had one. Not only are major health risks involved but it has a highly emotional impact, that many do not recover from.
*******Quote: Still waiting for one single pro lifer to tell me that they have adopted an unwanted child from Africa or Eastern Europe. Or that you’re volunteering some babysitting time to poor mothers. Or that you believe life is so sacred that you are picketing against world hunger and helping starving children avoid a life of prostitution.
********Quote: Oh, right. You don’t care about the lives of BORN children, just unborn. Anyone, any single one of you can say, I’m active saving children’s lives from torture, child slavery, or hunger?
This is a ridiculous response. The subject was on abortion. Of course I care about the children who are born. I’m still learning how to take care of my own children, but I know 8 people within two churches who have adopted unwanted children from other countries.
We have a feed the hungry program at our church where we travel the streets looking for adults and children who need food. We bring them in and feed them.. and then clothe them with our clothing closet next to the kitchen.
There are many Christians, including myself who have donated toward mission trips, or personally attended them to third world countries to reach the sick and hurting.
Listen, you are going to have to stop using such a large brush and categorizing people without absolute knowledge of the situation.
Abortion destroys innocent life. I have no problem with the death penalty for people who have no regard for morality or the law. A child has no cause to be put to death, but a criminal who has had his or her chance to contribute to society and squandered it by committing an act of murder does not deserve to live. Your so called stumping says more about your inability to understand the difference between the innocent and the guilty than it does about any hypocricy on the part of an anti-abortionist.
I don’t know how to properly quote, but here is Thomas’ post.
*****Here’s another question that I have found that pro-life people cannot answer. Most of the people that I have talked to about this subject say “What about the choice of the fetus that is being murdered? Does no one care about whether this person deserves to choose life over death?” To which I generally reply: “Well, do you support assisted suicide?”
999 times out of 1000 the Pro-Life person will reply “of course not”. This doesn’t make any sense to me. This is a rational older adult who is making the decision for themself that they would no longer like to live and want to do it in a medically safe way.
Which proves to me that this debate has nothing to do with the rights of the citizens but of a moral choice. I see the government of any country as the rational side of society. Pro-life is not based on things seen and rational thought, but faith in something that is “felt” to be correct.
You show me the Pro-Life person that will sit across the table from a 14 year old girl who has just found out that she is pregnant from being raped by her pedophile uncle and tell her that she HAS to have that child and I’ll show you the real anti-christ.
My answer:
How in the world can you compare an elderly person who is sick and lying in a bed waiting to die, with an unborn baby that is awaiting life. You have stumped no one. This is a sad attempt to cover the reality of abortion being murder.
To your last comment about the 14 year old girl? That would be a sad and horrible thing that she will need a lot of support to recover from. Yet, this 14 year old girl would have one of the greatest opportunities in a lifetime, to bring a life through suffering. Now I will confess that I’m not perfect, and if I found out that my brother raped my daughter, I would probably break many laws… But here is what we should strive to do.
The scripture says, “Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good.” Romans 12:21
So did the baby do anything wrong? This 14 year old girl has a very tough decision before her. Considering her age, I would pray she would make the decision of adoption. You don’t want that child asking who their biological Dad is 15 years later. She will know in her heart that she gave that baby a chance to live, and that she had the strength to break the generational curse about to bring death to that baby. As far as the Uncle is concerned, God institutes Government, with laws… And there’s a place for him. We will all reap what we sow. I would not want to reap his punishment.
For your anti-Christ comment. Anti means against.
I’m not against Christ. Anyone who is not following Christ is against him.
how come it’s mainly men here commenting on abortion? very strange, must be the usual patronizing controlling tendencies of men frightened of female independence…
what the pro-lifers seem to forget is that you can’t organise society according to what YOU think life should be like, you have to take the natural course of actual life as it is into account.
I.E. people will get drunk and do irresponsible things, not everyone is capable of practising abstinence – most people aren’t in spite of presenting holier than thou attitudes. have noticed that abstinent people seem a little bit more irritable than others though so they might not contribute very well to an overall loving and positive atmosphere which is what so called Christians strive for, isn’t it? ;-)
i left the faith myself many years ago much to the improvement of my mental health as it was impossible to not constantly ‘sin’. finally i decided that if there is a god he/she would not impose rules upon humans which would effectively be impossible to follow.
I realise abortion is avoidable most of the time but for me the issue is not whether it’s life and hence murder, the issue is that there will always be unwanted pregnancies for a variety of reasons and making abortion illegal is just a refusal to accept reality as it is. Three monkeys politics; deaf blind and dumb.
Apologies if I repeat a lot of what has been said. I read through about the first third of comments, and then gave up. Wow, over 1000 comments.
I was given the link to this blog from someone who frequents mine and I am glad she did.
I am pro-choice. It’s simple really. A woman has the right to choose when she has a child. However, this is about more that abortion.
This is also about access to adequate health care for women, including access to contraception (I HATE that it’s called “birth” control. It’s either FERTILITY control or CONCEPTION control–not something that happens nine months after fertilization).
I have studied this topic a lot during my graduate work. One thing that most pro-lifers cannot seem to answer is this.
Your birth-date, the day your body became separated from your mother’s and you could breath and eat autonomously, is the date on your BIRTH certificate– the day you became who you are, with a LEGAL name and everything.
If pro-lifers are fixated on life beginning at conception, we need to start subtracting NINE months from everyone’s BIRTH certificate.
Then, by this same logic, we need to start having funerals for fetuses of women who miscarry.
Also, we must cover those fetuses as individuals on insurance policies, get them social security numbers and grant them full rights as those outside the womb.
If it’s going to be “life starts at conception” you need to treat it that way and follow the LAWS that are already in place.
What we should be focusing on here is not pro/anti abortion. It should be about access to contraception and adequate health care for women. There would be a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies if we took just this simple step.
Quote: how come it’s mainly men here commenting on abortion? very strange, must be the usual patronizing controlling tendencies of men frightened of female independence…
I don’t know.. Ask the women why they’re not posting. ;)
Quote: what the pro-lifers seem to forget is that you can’t organise society according to what YOU think life should be like, you have to take the natural course of actual life as it is into account.
It’s not about what I think, it’s about what the Word of God says.
Quote: i left the faith myself many years ago much to the improvement of my mental health as it was impossible to not constantly ’sin’. finally i decided that if there is a god he/she would not impose rules upon humans which would effectively be impossible to follow.
You do not understand the Love of the Father if you think Christianity is a life full of rules. Actually the bible says that anyone living under law is cursed. If you tried to lead a life of religious acts and always “doing the right thing” you probably drove yourself insane. God did something for us so there was a way for us to have a deep and personal relationship with him.
Here’s what the Word says,
“Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” Galatians 2:16
And no this isn’t a license to sin…
Its quite simple.
You seek God with all of your heart. You spend time with him.. Because you love him your life begins to change. It’s the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. The more time you spend with him and his Word, the more you begin to sound and act like him. The more your mind changes to be more like his.
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” romans 12:2
If you try to please God by binding yourself with rules, you’re going to fail, because it is our nature to break rules. The only true freedom comes from spending time in his presence, and letting him transform you into his likeness.
Although there are many “professing” Christians out there, that doesn’t mean they are truly born again and have a real relationship with the Lord, and His spirit dwellilng in them. But I can tell you this, that a true mature born again Christian will understand a lot more about the grace of God concerning abortion, lies, stealing, and any other subject you can come up with.
If you did truly have faith in Christ, then you can’t lose it.
1 Peter 1:23… I think that’s the one..
It says, “For you have been born again, not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, t hat is through the living and enduring Word of God.”
So if you are truly born again, you have stepped from death into life, and nothing can change that or remove the seed of God that dwells within you. There are even certain denominations that claim to be Christian that will disagree with me, but in the end the Word stands true.
Abortion is killing an unborn baby, but a life is a life, whether in or out of the womb. It’s just a different stage of life, in a different “housing.”
Thank you, Patrick1979 for proving my point. You can’t think of a rational argument. You can only point to a book. Written by MEN, decided upon by MEN on which books made it into the big book, and your “faith” as a defense. But no rational argument. Currently, the laws of every, EVERY, industrialized nation find that abortion should be legal. Doesn’t the Book which you so lovingly cling to say something about respecting and following the laws of the land?
You think that Pro-Choice people are “abortions for everyone” like they were buying shots at a bar, but most of us Pro-Choice people are strictly only for abortion an extreme cases such as incest, rape, or a situation in which there is an atypical pregnancy.
Yes, I did use the term anti-christ. If you remember from your Bible teachings you would remember that Christ hung out with the leppers, ate dinner with the prostitutes, and did pretty much everything he could to converse and befriend the people that you condemn to hell and purgatory. And who he did not hang out with? Holier than thou people in the church who always were out telling people where they were going wrong, that they would burn in hell, etc. etc.
Quote: Your birth-date, the day your body became separated from your mother’s and you could breath and eat autonomously, is the date on your BIRTH certificate– the day you became who you are, with a LEGAL name and everything.
I must greatly disagree with your statements. What makes you think that the “law” of this country or another country is the deciding factor on when a baby is considered alive or not? The laws of this land or any other are not the source of ultimate truth.
Is the baby alive inside of the womb? Yes
Does the baby feel inside of the womb? Yes
Is there blood and nutrients rolling through it’s body? Yes
Does the baby feel emotions from people while in the womb? Yes
Is that baby developing for the purpose of a life? Yes!
Okay, so man devloped birth certificates? Big deal! That does not change the fact that the baby is alive inside of the womb.
Insurance policies? More stuff invented by man.
So what you’re doing is reversing the order of creation and saying, “All things must conform to the Government & State Law and Practices, including the life of a human being.”
The problem here is a human being came before Governmental or State Law.
What we should be conforming to is the Word of God, but if a person doesn’t believe in the Word of God how can this happen?
I can only try to show the Love of Christ, and express the heart of God, according to what God has revealed to me.
On this issue? Abortion grieves the Holy Spirit. Choose Life.
Again…source of ultimate truth…Bible…can’t do it can you…no rationality
Abortion should be treated, not as murder, but as an unjust war. In other words, the top people might possibly get prosecuted but the ordinary “spear carriers” get ignored.
“Did you think you were dealing with amateurs?” — Gregor Vorbarra
After looking at the last few comments:
Support for fetal rights is not limited to Christians.
The lack of full funerals for fetuses does not mean they don’t have rights. According to Orthodox Judaism, infants that die less than a month after birth aren’t accorded full funerals, but Orthodox Judaism still treats infanticide as a crime.
Quote: Thank you, Patrick1979 for proving my point. You can’t think of a rational argument. You can only point to a book. Written by MEN, decided upon by MEN on which books made it into the big book, and your “faith” as a defense. But no rational argument. Currently, the laws of every, EVERY, industrialized nation find that abortion should be legal. Doesn’t the Book which you so lovingly cling to say something about respecting and following the laws of the land?
* Actually, I find my arguments have been very rational. A baby is alive inside of the womb – Stopping that baby’s life is murder. That’s rational Thomas.
* Yes the Bible says to follow the laws of the lands, unless it goes against God. This is a simple truth of Scripture. Even Paul said “It is better to obey God, than man.” Jesus himself did not obey the Religious rulers when they commanded him to stop teaching, because it violated the Father’s command. We should always honor the laws of the land, unless it violates God’s command.
Quote: You think that Pro-Choice people are “abortions for everyone” like they were buying shots at a bar, but most of us Pro-Choice people are strictly only for abortion an extreme cases such as incest, rape, or a situation in which there is an atypical pregnancy.
* No I don’t think that at all sir. And a previous post of mine displays my attitude toward extreme situations.
Quote: Yes, I did use the term anti-christ. If you remember from your Bible teachings you would remember that Christ hung out with the leppers, ate dinner with the prostitutes, and did pretty much everything he could to converse and befriend the people that you condemn to hell and purgatory. And who he did not hang out with? Holier than thou people in the church who always were out telling people where they were going wrong, that they would burn in hell, etc. etc.
* I dont’ beleive in purgatory for one. I do hang out with the poor, the sick, the hurting. I was the director of a local ministry that dealt with drug addicts. I have also not condemned anyone to Hell. If you read through my posts, I have ultimately edified and reinforced that God loves all of us, and his grace is sufficient.
So listen, I’m sorry if I offended you or misrepresented my arguments. Please take the time to read through the last few posts so you understand what I truly meant.
And of course, this subject gets kinda’ hot… A little friction can be good. Lets discuss things in a mature manner.
Quote: Again…source of ultimate truth…Bible…can’t do it can you…no rationality
Eerkk… don’t attack me too much!!
What have I quoted from the Bible that is not rational? What if I quoted from another book? Like.. the Dictionary? I think abortion is defined as the termination of an embryo or fetus from the womb? Something like that…
So, that’s Websters!
Does a fetus have life? The life of a human being?
And.. The Bible is truth. I can’t deny God’s Word for the sake of making people feel better in these debates.
I know it wasn’t directed at me, but thank you, Thomas, for pointing out that the Bible is not an unbiased source for secular arguments. If you consider this an “ultimate truth” then anyone who doesn’t believe in the Bible is wrong? Sorry, sir. But you are very blinded by your faith and can’t seem to get it that your beliefs are YOUR beliefs. They have nothing to do with OUR LAWS.
This is why the separation of church and state is sooooo crucial.
Folks (well, some Christians) seem to forget that over half the world does not believe the way they do.
For those who call themselves pro-choice, but only in extreme cases (rape, incest, etc.), you have to realize that those make up 1% or less of the abortions every year in the United States. Currently we abort an average of 1.37 million babies per year (42 million worldwide!). That means there are only about 13,700 abortions each year that are extreme cases. In other words, 1,356,300 abortions every year are nothing more than birth control. It’s never good to make an argument from 1% when making legislation that affects society as deeply as abortion.
Much of this issue has to do to a low sense of the value of children, and our tendencies to live beyond our means. A lot is due to the feminist movement and the breakdown of the American family (much of which is the result of irresponsibility on the part of men as well). A lot also has to do with the sexual revolution and the low sense of sexuality we now have.
As to what the Bible says on the issue… it never differentiates between a born child and an unborn child. In both the Greek and Hebrew languages, the word is the same. God values every life that the Bible tells us he “knits together in the womb.” The early church unanimously opposed abortions. Nearly every church father in the first 5 centuries wrote of his opposition to abortion. This is an old issue for the church that a lot of people in churches have missed the point on.
The Bible also tells us to support the government and obey the laws of the land, but there are exceptions to be made when laws of the land so clearly violate God’s laws.
This is also a racial issue. Black babies are aborted at a rate of 2 to 1 when compared to white babies. Half of all black children conceived in the last 36 years since Roe v Wade were aborted. Planned Parenthood was founded by a woman who was an outspoken racist and eugenics proponent. Margaret Sanger called black people “weeds” that needed to be “rooted out of society.” What about of all the Martin Luther King’s, George Washington Carver’s, and Maya Angelou’s that never saw the light of day?
This is not about women’s rights. A woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body. She has the choice to not have sex when she does not plan on getting pregnant. The life she chooses to take is a life she chose to make in 99% of the abortion cases. If women continue to have the option to have abortion on demand, we are only encouraging promiscuity, STDs, and poor choices.
A compassionate stance on this issue, from Christians, or anyone, needs to take these things into account. Abortion is absolutely wrong and must be stopped.
Skyewriter, with all due respect, this can be turned around by stating, Your belief in the LAW is your belief.
You’re putting your faith in man’s law.
I know that many do not believe in the Bible, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the truth.
Many of my arguments I believe to be very rational, even if I didn’t quote from the scripture.
Since many here are not willing to consider what the Bible says, atleast consider proving to me what is irational or unrealistic about what I have said.
skyewriter,
Separation of Church and State is not even a law. Did you know that? The idea comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. His point was that the government would not interfere in the business of the church. That is what our constitution says as well. So much for all-powerful secular logic…
First of all, I’m greatly pleased to see such an open debate that appears to be civilized for the most part.
Second, I must agree with Lance Williams about the fact that, instead of pointing fingers and raising voices, the pro-life and pro-choice factions need to agree on common ground and help everyone eliminate the reasons why women have abortions in the first place.
Third, I must point out that a poster used the words “celibate” and “celibacy” in relation to a person’s state of sexual abstinence. I’m afraid the more correct word is “chaste”. To be celibate is to be unmarried. To be chaste is to refrain from sexual contact.
Just trying to clear the grammatical air. Keep up the good dialogue; this, more than almost anything else, will help create a solution that honors God and protects the people.
There are several glaring holes in your argument.
For starters, you are confusing illegal with criminal. They are not necessarily one and the same. Illegal denotes and act which is prohibited by law, whereas criminal denotes an act which is prohibited by law AND prescribed a punishment.
Therefore, abortion could be prohibited and illegal yet not be punishable as a crime. To further complicate things, specific acts of the illegal abortion could be criminal, such as the person who performs the abortion being subject to criminal penalties, while the person receiving the abortion is not.
Second, you ASSUME (we all know what happens when you assume, don’t we?) that murder deserves “severe” punishment. Now that may or may not be true, depending on the individual views of the person you’re speaking with, but what gives you the moral authority to decree it?
Now don’t get me wrong. I agree with you that murder is despicable and deserves punishment. It’s just that your argument lacks substance when you present an obvious opinion as a common fact. You look dishonest.
Third, in relation to number 2 above, you assume that the reason a person doesn’t support severe punishment for an illegal abortion is because “they know that abortion isn’t murder.” This is an incredibly illogical conclusion. It’s mere speculation based on…..well, nothing.
Claps. Has anyone noticed how long this blog has become?
Another question I like to ask anti-choice folks: So, do you think that a woman who takes the morning after pill or gets an abortion should be punished the same as a woman who murders her twelve-year-old child? They SHOULD say yes.
HOW TO STUMP AN ABORTIONIST WITH JUST ONE QUESTION – When does life begin?
I think that the point of this post was to generate traffic, which it has nicely done, although many of the opinions on here make me sad. That said… I am personally a pro-life person. And that said, I’m not going to state my beliefs or disbelief’s as they may be.
I would like to point out that all the people bashing the Christians here over the in-accuracy of their Bible are mostly in the wrong. A huge percentage of that book is historically proven, to the point that it is used as a study reference by scholars to learn the culture. I just felt like pointing that out, it’s a little off topic I know, but I get a little annoyed when people hack at what other people believe in (or don’t believe in).
Back to the abortion topic…
I’ve been in this debate many a time, and I have heard the same argument many times over. This point was just brought up by LCE.
Yes, I think that murdering a twelve year-old child is a crime, deserves criminal punishment. Yes, I think abortion deserves criminal punishment. No, I do not think that the morning after pill should be punished the same. See, the morning after pill prevents the woman from becoming pregnant, while abortion kills the fetus. I consider anything that has a developed heart to be alive.
Lastly, arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not aside, can you imagine the impact that it would have if your friend or wife was aborted? Or if you were aborted? How could you possibly refuse a life that could potentially lead to a future like the one you have?
I think they should make the punishment fit the crime. So the woman should get a punishment for concenting or being an accomplise to murder and the doctor should have to go to prison for the first offense for a time and the electric chair for the second. That would be fair, after all the baby wasn’t given even that much consideration.
Mike said
<>
So what’s so special about a developed heart? Why not conception? The morning after pill destroys an embryo that has the capability of developing a heart…
Abortion should be illegal because it’s the taking of a life.
If abortion is illegal, that means it’s illegal to PERFORM one.
The women who have illegal abortions do so at their own risk. The abortionists should be prosecuted.
It’s really not that difficult.
The answer to your question on how to treat a woman who has had an illegal abortion is this:
With love.
If the law were written well, it would go after the people who perform the abortion, not the women who have them. A woman facing abortion is scared. You don’t further punish her for a poor choice. If you must punish someone, punish the doctors (if they are ones) who perform the abortion. The woman has suffered enough.
To the one suggesting that the development of the heart should determine abortion law:
Physical development should not play a role. The value of a human life should be seen in terms of mental development/state. Clearly, an embryo/fetus lacks the requisite mental development to consider it a person. Therefore, I see no problem if a pregnant woman wishes to kill/expel it. Clearly, personhood begins sometime soon after birth. But because personhood is not clearly an on/off state but a gradual emergence, we can’t say when *exactly* it becomes present. Therefore, the safest law is to ban the killing of infants but allow abortion.
@mydismalswamp
You say: “HOW TO STUMP AN ABORTIONIST WITH JUST ONE QUESTION – When does life begin?”
Life begins sometime during fertilization. I don’t know when exactly…but sometime in the middle of that process. Clearly, at very start of fertilization, life has yet to begin. But life has started once the fertilization process has ended.
I can easily say without flinching that women that have an abortion should be given the death penalty. I have thought about it many times, so don’t even give this crap that anti-death peeps haven’t thought about it.
Honestly, I would have had no problem with that answer. Do unto others…
I’ve found myself “unexpectedly” pregnant…but I took responsibility for the choice that I made. My irresponsibility was certainly not the fault of my beautiful daughter. Perhaps if the penalties for “fixing a mistake” were more severe, women would take a little more seriously the potential consequences of their actions.
Woman, doctor – tried and prosecuted. But not capital murder, manslaughter seems more appropriate since there is a question in intension, that is, as a “pro-lifer” I’ll at least admit that the subject is difficult enough to warrant some sympathy towards the pregnant woman in terms of not fully understanding the matter at hand and the influence culture and society have on her understanding of the nature of the unborn child. BUt the punishment needs to be severe enough to help more men and women (yes men pressure women to have abortions because it is inconvenient for them) understand the reality of the life that is being lost. Doctors, the actual agents of the murder, could perhaps be changed with the capital crime. This is the first thing I thought of after reading your question, that and the fact that your if-then logic is iffy.
That’s really funny. I will definitely use that question next time I’m in a situation where abortion comes up. But I hate hate hate how people think being pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s not like its something people get excited about or do for fun. I’m pro-CHOICE
I think Anti abortiionist should take responsibilities of all childrens who were supposed to be aborted. And later when those kids feel they were undesired on this planet, they should convince that they “really” wanted them.
Justifying other’s life is always easy if one does not have to suffer at all. After all its just an argument which does not cost them anything.
This is how you can also stump an anti abortionist:
Ask them if they would want to carry a child that resulted from a rape. I know I could never carry a baby under my heart knowing that the way it was conceived was a horrible experience. That would take a lot of courage.
I’m pro-choice. I think a woman should be allowed to do what she wants with her body and her child. It is her choice and no one should take that away from her.
I dated a guy who was the product of rape. It took a lot of courage for his mother to continue with the pregnancy- especially when she was a virgin- then left pregnant in a ultra-conservative home. That baby is still part hers.
I think its ridiculous that because bad things happen- it somehow justifies more bad things?
I mean I don’t care for Obama- does that mean I go over to the White House and kill him too? No.
Give me a break splendidmishap.
Why is God always brought about in this debate about the legal status of abortion?
Last time I checked there was supposed to be a separation between church and state. You can’t run around making things laws because that’s how you interpret the message of your religion’s God.
If anything this whole argument is moot in comparison to the greater and more drastic issues that plague the world. Which too are “outlawed” in just about every religious text you can find.
If people spent less time spinning their wheels about what’s basically a personal matter (and/or a matter to be dealt with between you and GOD) and started focusing on fixing the things that REALLY affect EVERYONE as a whole…then maybe we would finally live in a world where abortion wouldn’t be a decision that is even considered.
People need to use less of their time trying to make their religions and own personal interest motivate society and the government and more putting their heads together to make sure that every ones interest and real needs are satisfied. Too much time has been spent with people using the bully pulpit to control others for their own personal satisfaction.
At what point did God say it was your job to point fingers and impose punishment? If anything God summons all to teach His way and help others as defined through His way. Not to be His enforcers and being a zealot doesn’t give you a get out of hell card.
I would think that we could finally move toward a level of maturity, love, and understanding that can get us out of this mess and into a better place while still here on Earth.
and…yes I believe in God and btw murder is not illegal in US law because its a commandment. Its illegal because if it weren’t we would live in total chaos and instability and those that have power would be physically challenged for it on a daily basis.
this is kinda sad actually…for them…fighting for a cause w/ so much energy for so long not even knowing where they’re going!?
Barry raised a very good point.
Ask yourselves this question though: what would you have thought if someone had quickly and unequovically answered the question with a judgement of the death penalty? Would you have applauded their logic or been abhorred at their honesty?
I’m sure there are people out there that have no problem sentencing such women to life in prison, the death penalty, etc.
Hello. Abortion is one of the divisive issues that has contributed to the political polarization of this country since it’s legal passage, and it will continue to do so unless we can practice civility amongst ourselves with cool-headed and pragmatic deliberation. Come on, people – this is the 21st centry, a new era of politics as we heard a few days ago. We need new language, a new approach.
I will answer to my family, my children and my God on my own terms. I’m not liberal and I’m not conservative, and I can’t place all my faith in 1 political party over another simply on the basis of a moral stance such as abortion.
Let’s agree to disagree but do it with a sense of purposes that will narrow the gap between us rather than continue with the old-school tone of dogmatic conviction and critical narrow-mindedness that is so prevalent in both camps!
What I’m saying is let’s find a way to decrease abortions, increase funding for abstinence messaging for the under 25 age bracket, and focus on the pregnancy crisis amongst the low-income population by making contraception a clear reality despite the religious (and social) taboos that are prevalent.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/09/23/index.html
A few disjointed observations prompted by this post:
A) First, the woman isn’t the murderer, as has been pointed out. At worst, she’s involved in a conspiracy to murder. In formulating a just punishment, a jury would, I think, be obligated to take into account the fact she had been brainwashed into thinking the fetus wasn’t in fact a human being. Perhaps even the “mental disease or defect” defense could be used in this sort of case. It’s a fair question, but like so many legal questions, there are specific circumstances surrounding individual cases that would have to be weighed in coming to a decision, so I couldn’t give a firm answer, though I’ve detailed the process I think would need to be followed to reach one.
B) The arguments in favor of abortion, to me, gain strength as we approach conception, so it really becomes a question of where precisely we draw the line, and both sides of the question get extremely inconsistent as we try to do so. For example, fertilized eggs of the spotted owl are protected by law, but fertilized eggs of a human being are not, even though the penalty for killing an adult spotted owl is far less than the penalty for killing an adult human. To be consistent, shouldn’t the relative severity of the penalties remain consistent?
The original Roe v Wade drew the line at viability. It was an attempt at a reasonable compromise on a subject that neither side was willing to entertain a reasonable compromise on. Both wanted the line moved farther in their direction. I’ve met a few pro-choice folks just aren’t comfortable with the choice being made 10 minutes before delivery, Just as I’ve met a few pro-life folks who aren’t comfortable with banning the choice 10 minutes after conception, but both seem to be anomalies in their respective groups.
C) Honest hermaneutics have difficulty bringing the Bible into this argument, as it actually has very little to say on the subject; the closest probably being the passage about knowing you in the womb, which directly implies there is a “you” to know in that location. But if one is going to take the OT lawgiver seriously on the subject, then one is driven to the conclusion it is considered a crime less than murder, or at least a “minor murder” if such a thing exists, because the penalty for killing another’s unborn child was far less than the penalty for killing, for example, me.
D) The majority of Christians don’t think very much or very deeply. This is hardly news, and doesn’t really single them out as an unusual segment of modern society. The majority of people on the planet have apparently decided that thought is hard work, and that they’d rather leave that to others, either secular or religious. It’s depressing, but expected. What, you thought society had received a special dispensation that preserves it from the law of entropy?
Thought and civil discourse on this subject would be a welcome change for the norm.
Possible bias: My own pro-life views could very well be influenced by the fact that many/most pro-choicers would have prevented me from being born, had they been able to influence my mother on the subject. It’s been difficult, but I’ve managed to stop taking that personally.
Statement of Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey,
President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
On the Repeal of the Global Gag Rule
After Eight Years of Injustice, International Family Planning Funding is Restored
Washington, DC — After eight years of a policy that contributed to the suffering of women and children worldwide, President Obama has put the United States back on the path of charity, hope and compassion by overturning the Bush administration’s global gag rule. Although some political conservatives publicly implored President Obama not to rescind the rule for fear it would rattle pro-lifers, President Obama has reaffirmed that the United States is a caring and humane world citizen and has removed injurious barriers to funding family planning services for some of the world’s poorest women.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the national coalition of mainstream religious and religiously affiliated organizations with official pro-choice policies – praises President Obama’s executive order repealing the global gag rule. Also known as the Mexico City policy, the rule prohibited American dollars from being granted to foreign family planning clinics unless they agreed not to use their own private, non-U.S. funds for abortion services or counseling. The rule also prohibited organizations from lobbying to reform harmful anti-abortion policies and laws.
President Obama also stated that he supports an American contribution to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and a prompt release of the funds following the enactment of 2009 omnibus appropriations bill.
Member groups of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have a heritage of service to underserved and vulnerable communities and a commitment to the well being of families. Denominations including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church and the Union for Reform Judaism, among others, have urged the U.S. to support family planning overseas, teaching that wealthier groups and nations have a special responsibility to help and care for persons in the poorer countries of the world, which includes support for the basic reproductive health services.
More than 500,000 women in developing countries die each year from pregnancy-related causes, and 8 million more suffer serious complications, often due to pregnancies that occur at a young age or are too closely spaced. Each year, approximately 10.8 million children under the age of five die, frequently from low birth-weight or other causes related to complications in pregnancy.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice hopes that these orders will be one of many steps the Obama Administration takes to address the reproductive health crisis facing women worldwide.
Family planning clinics provide critical health services to women and families, making it all the more important that they receive support and assistance. Many of these clinics have integrated HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, pre- and post-natal care, and other services into their family planning care.
January 23, 2009
thegirlcanwrite,
You are making the wildly false assumption that if you haven’t heard about it, it doesn’t exist. There are many of us who have adopted. But why should that matter to pro-abortionist since pro-abortionists do not want adoption even mentioned or offered to their prospective clients as since that cuts into their state and federal funding. And are you showing a bias or just ignorance of reality when you suggest that the only “unwanted child[ren are] from Africa or Eastern Europe”? There are quite a few of unwanted children here in the U.S.
There are many of us who have adopted. But why should that matter to pro-abortionist since pro-abortionists do not want adoption even mentioned or offered to their prospective clients as since that cuts into their state and federal funding. And are you showing a bias or just
Bottom Line-every child should be wanted, loved and cared for. The truth is unfortunatley there are many children upon our earth that are not. How do we fix this?
It took me a while to come back here… Something bothered me, not as a pro-lifer, but as a human being in general, and I couldn’t quite put my finger on what that was…until I was sitting in church today. And it hit me.
Why do people say, blah, blah, blah…freedom of choice…blah, blah, blah… Then turn around two days later and make clarifications, “I do not like abortion nor do I usually counsel it. However, I do think it should be available for women who want it, especially if they were raped or have zero interest in caring for a child.” Too many people claim this.
This morning–and don’t ask me where this came from–I thought, what if we were given freedom of choice in 1862? Alot of people thought slavery was wrong, some people thought it was right. What if all those people who thought it was wrong decided their countrymen should have the choice to own slaves? They didn’t decide that, though. They didn’t say, “Oh, I know that man is beating and overworking his slaves, but, you know??? what can I do? it’s his right. his freedom of choice…and that’s what I believe.”
You can’t believe that a child exists, then be okay with this Freedom of Choice Act. It’s wishy-washy, liberal bullshit. I find your new realizations weak. If you are going to proclaim yourself a non-believer, than I suggest you act like one. If you are going to stand up for FOCA and stand on the scientific laws of man, than you are going to have to change your ideals.
For all the christians out there- why are you “judging” anyone? Isn’t that GOD’s job?
ladyblug,
The word “judging” has **deliberately** been misused by liberals to beat Christians over the head and to justify their own behaviours. As used in the correct scriptural context, the word means “to try, condemn, punish”. This is not the same as “judging something wrong”, as in weighing the facts and coming to a conclusion. At net.bible.org, there is this note attached to Luke 6:37 (the verse to which you obliquely refer)–”As the Gospel makes clear, with the statement do not judge Jesus had in mind making a judgment that caused one to cut oneself off from someone so that they ceased to be reached out to (5:27-32; 15:1-32). Jesus himself did make judgments about where people stand (11:37-54), but not in such a way that he ceased to continue to offer them God’s grace.”
Those who insist on misusing the word also violate their own standards as the “Who are you to judge me” attitude is itself a judgement: It is a judgement that the other person has no right to make any comment, have an opinion, or a belief, nor do they have the right to live by their beliefs or share them with others.
This is a cool post, but you won’t get anywhere talking, the right’s position is emotive, more than logical. the way to go is to hit the extremist right so hard and effectively (Just enforcing current hate speech laws, no religious beliefs exemption, with out being able to scream BABYKILLER the debate would tone down quickly. and the far right can be attacked for common hate speech eruptions against Blacks, Jews, Pro lifer, Illegals/Immigrants, Mormons peaceniks and Catholics just to name a few, not doing it implies wanting to continue intellectual gridlock?.
Hey Bethanne,
Maybe the reason you have a hard time understanding non-believer viewpoints is because you know nothing about atheism to begin with.
There are no rules regarding ethical or unethical values in atheism. This is only one acknowledgment: There is no god. As such all philosophical values are up to the individual atheist to determine and validate for themselves.
The reality is you haven’t figured out shit. Maybe instead of going to a church and wishing for the answers to come to you, maybe you should get out more and actually see what the rest of the world is like.
Bethane,
Having an abortion and slavery are two very different contexts. You feel your analogy is apt because you don’t see any justification for abortion. You feel it is wrong no matter what the circumstances – so you compare it with slavery – which any sane person will agree is unconscionable and without justification. Your hope is then that people who say they will tolerate abortion will suddenly have this awakening (like you claim you did in church) and realize that to tolerate abortion is equivalent to tolerating slavery.
Bethane, nothing “hit” you suddenly. I don’t need to “ask you where the thought came from” as it is obvious. You were thinking, “What is evil like abortion?…OK,OK, slavery is. Now how can I use that analogy to support my view that abortion is evil?”
But an embryo is not a person like a slave is. That’s why those who support abortion won’t agree with your analogy. In a way, your analogy simply preaches to the choir.
I love this question. If you are going to take a stand and make a claim you really must be fully consequent with that stand and claim.
Sure, abortion is something that can be (n.b. CAN be, not _is_) something done out of desperation. But it is nothing that can be done at a moments passion. It needs deciding, planing, scheduling and then the actual having it performed. In other words it is always a premeditated act. So if you _really_ think that abortion is murder you must see it as premeditated murder. (Because it is premeditated, you cant charge it under man slaughter).
And – to my knowledge – premeditated murder carries a life in prison or death penalty sentence in all of the US. However mitigating the circumstances may be, I have never heard of premeditated murder carrying less than a multi-decade prison sentence.
So there is no two ways about it: if you _really_ believe that abortion is murder, you _must_ accept that the legal consequence is life in prison or death penalty for the woman. If you try to twist it to that “she is not the one who actually commits the crime” then there is no other option than to convict her for conspiracy and aiding to commit murder (she is the one who decided to have the fetus killed, contacted the “hit man” and payed him/her, and she was at the scene of the crime and participated in such a way as to facilitate the murder). You simply cant get around that.
So if you are not willing to sign to those legal consequences then you cannot claim that abortion is murder.
lock the doctor up , They are the killers.
PS: I love your interview but would have liked to see you push it further: “Since you claim abortion is murder and – on those grounds – want abortion to be illegal, you support that the women be convicted as murderers. If not, explain why”.
I wrote a fairly detailed response to your blog (and the video featured in it.)
I would love to hear your thoughts.
http://oddnotunusual.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/how-to-stump-an-anti-abortionist-with-one-question-a-response/
Wow, I’ve been anti-choice for as long as I understood the concept sometime in 7th grade, though never a protester… but never thought about punishment before… I know that I can’t have an abortion… and that’s why I don’t protest it, but I’m anti-choice/pro-life, because of the same reason most the atheist I’ve ever met are anti-creation: Evolution. Look at the stages of development of a fetus, and you’re given some strong arguments for evolution, so I guess that if a tadpole is “ALIVE” then so is a zygote stage fetus, alive. Now to the point of punishment, I’ve always assumed that the risk and just rewards of potentially bleeding to death, suffering infection, and mental anguish were enough–but now that I think about it, you’re right, it isn’t enough. The Dr.’s and patients alike would be guilty of murder, and murder for hire respectively, so it’s obvious that if the law is ever righted (pun unintended, but noticed) then some caveats would have to be made in the law, like maybe sterilization of the woman, so that she can’t re-commit, and a stiff prison sentence, so that she’ll consider less extreme methods of birth control going forward, the doctor should simply lose his or her dominant hand the first time-and their other for subsequent offenses. Low recidivism rates would result.
I’m sorry, but what’s the logical connection between the question of punishment and the question of whether an unborn child is a human being with the right to life?
Over 200 years after the USA has become a nation, we’re still debating what to do with murderers, whether capital punishment is acceptable or not. So what? Does that mean we should reconsider whether murder is a crime?
Will someone please justify the following argument?
1) We do not know how to punish abortion.
2) Therefore, an unborn child is not a human being.
3) Therefore, an unborn child does not have the right to life.
@Can’t Have 1:
I take it your name refers to a brain? Because you can’t possibly have one.
Okay, I’m not being Mr. Nice atheist, but how else should I react to such stupidity as this?
And that’s why we see many Christianists as being little different to the Taliban, for example.
How would you feel if the woman was your daughter, skippy? Or your wife? Presumably you don’t believe there should be exemptions for rape or incest, either. Which lines you up neatly with the Ayatollah, the Saudi religious police, and the Islamists holding court in Somalia.
It’s nice to know that there are people like Barack Obama pulling the US forward into the twenty-first century despite imbeciles like you trying to yank it back into the fifteenth. You could move to Iran, you know–they’d love to have someone like you.
Hey–what if it was your family doctor? Would you be happy knowing that from now on that rectal thermometer was going to be held in their “dumb” hand?
Presumably you’re quite happy with the domestic terrorism perpetrated by Army of God types in North America, are you? Because life is sacred. All life. Unless it’s a doctor.
Oversimplification.
I’d like to agree, or congratulate your thought process, but its erred.
There is difference b/t comparing taking the life of an abortionist (be it, life in prison, or death penalty..as you propose), compared to the actual death of the baby (fetus, whatever) in the womb.
The baby is innocent, has not had a chance to be an asshole, or good person yet. The abortionist is choosing to break the law (in your proposal).
Hence, I’m sure most pro-lifers will not care about saving the life of an abortionist should they be breaking the law.
Its the “Innocent” part here thats the critical part you overlook. The baby is a baby..deserves chance at life.
Oh, and I neglected to address the question of why, “going forward” (though Can’t Have 1 Brain Cell is quite clearly progressing in the other direction), a woman who’s been sterilized would need to choose “less extreme methods of birth control.”
The question is left as an exercise for the dopey.
That question would not stump me at all. Abortion is wrong and it should be illegal. Once it is illegal, anyone who has one or performs one should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law.
You cannot say you are not pro-abortion but support the legalization of it. That is a complete contradiction. Take that rationalization and apply it to any other crime. “I would never rape someone, but I support other people’s right to do so.” “I would never murder someone, but I support other people’s right to do so.” That logic, or complete lack of, is asinine and backwards. Much the same way that this article is.
Metro, you’re right I was typing “sortof stream of consciousness” when I wrote that, i probably should have said “or” not “and” either way, I’m mostly kidding but you guys are obviously pretty serious… which is so stupid, as this is all mute, Abortion will never be made illegal in this country. All those of us who’re opposed can hope for is that it will not quite keep getting worse. So all this is a waste of time, but it does make me happy to know that my comments can make you ”so eager to conform” morons wet your pants to disagree with me, or call me names. You’ll notice that I didn’t purport that the death penalty would be fitting for the doctors, or “would be mothers”–I merely suggested removal of a limb, and or sterilization–I bet there are some death row inmates who’d gladly trade those consequences for their own, either way Piss Off, and I hope it makes you all very unhappy when you realize I don’t care what you think because I KNOW it won’t change, but did want to see what the story was about, and then couldn’t help commenting. As for “what if it was my daughter or wife” crap, well I’d hope that I wouldn’t have reared a daughter as morally bankrupt as to have an abortion–and a wife I could always spare, should she prove as insensitive as to arbitrarily kill a baby. Seriously go to: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/111-14/fetus.jpg and tell me you’d like to stomp on it and twist your leftist heel upon the brittle bones, and tiny heart. Fume and fester idiots.
Babies aren’t aliens They are people.
I think that the items used to kill the babies should NOT be offered ANYWHERE unless the doctor says it has to happen or you could die… If it isn’t offered then they cant have an Abortion.
so i didn’t read anywhere near all the comments, i probably will not come back to read any replies to this comment. just an FYI – for once i am not here to argue, just throw out some statements that *I* perceive as true.
the first statement is that this “one question to stump anti-abortionists” is very much, for them at least, like the question “So, do you still beat your wife?” and this is because, almost invariably, an anti-abortion person really truly deep down DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT WOMEN ARE REAL PEOPLE. THAT WOMEN ARE LESS PEOPLE THAN UNFORMED FETUSES.
no. really. i have disease that will KILL me if i attempt to carry a pregnancy – i am, in effect, that strawwoman. and i have been told OVER AND FUCKING OVER that, if i get pregnant, I NEED TO DIE. that OBVIOUSLY this is somehow God’s will – but it is not the case that it is God’s will that a fetus is aborted. a dichotomy that puzzles me still – if *I* can die, can’t the fetus? wouldn’t the death of a full-grown adult human mean more than the death of a small collection of cells that MIGHT, with time, become viable?
apparently not. not even if it’s a female fetus, for some odd reason. so you are asking a question of people who are incapable of actuallally viewing the world the way that you do.
She should fast for 2 consecutive months.
aaaah… religious people make me sad;lkjfdsal;kjafdsjkl;asdflk;jdsal;kjdfsal;ksdfa;ljkdfsa;lj
This is just great! :-)
We – the people outside God’s own country – are watching the american hipocracy with mouths open and refusing to believe what we see.
I will ad this blog to my feed!
Forgive my impatience, but I still have not seen anyone logically connect the question of punishment to the question of whether an unborn child is a human being with rights. Is this an unreasonable request?
A pro-lifer can give three responses:
1) There should be severe punishment (death or jail)
2) There ought be no punishment.
3) I don’t know what the punishment ought to be.
If any of the response above are given, what does that prove about the nature of an embryo or fetus? Do any of those responses offer positive evidence such an organism is not a human being entitled to protection under the law?
I’m sorry, but I’m still not seeing how the question that started this thread is logically relevant. It may be entertaining to pro-choicers and inflammatory to pro-lifers, but really, what is being accomplished here?
Wow, this is such a beautiful straw man that has been constructed. So you have talked to some Christians who are bad at arguing and are maybe a little dumb. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t perfectly logical and intellectual arguments and arguers out there. I know some pretty ignorant atheists. In fact I don’t think I have ever talked to one who ever gave me an intelligent, rational argument for believing, or should I say not believing. For that matter, I have talked to very few pro-choice folks who gave responses that even made me ponder. I agree that many pro-life people just go with what their respective religions say. But I also know just as many or more that are pro-life for philosophical and rational well thought out reasons as well. If I respond the same way as many of you, I would have to say that atheists and pro-choicers, don’t use their heads and just follow blindly the teachings of the people the respect and their political leaders, but, that’s not the way a rational person treats the views of others. Please take a Logic class.
I enjoy the discussion here. However, it still does not make me agree that abortion should be legal for any reason. (You can think I’m ignorant or brain-washed, that is fine–but if you are going to think that, in a way everyone is ignorant or brain-washed to a degree)
I would like to point out one thing. The whole gist of this is that Christians do not take their arugments to their logical conclusions. At the beginning, a statement was made that people are going to have abortions and do drugs (even though you do not support them) so we should make them legal. How about we take that to it’s logical conclusion and do away with the entire legal system. The prisons are full of people who did things regardless of the conesquences or legality of them, simply because they wanted to.
There was also mention that, “This is not a simple question. A single cell is not a human being; ending the life of a single cell is not the same as killing a human being. Pro-life people need to stop acting as if the fetus remains the same during the nine months of pregnancy.” To this, I would ask if you have changed at all in say the last 10 years. Taking this to its logical conclusion would mean that someone could legally kill any of us because we are continually changing.
You know what’s even more mind-boggling?
That no one sees through the false front of an issue, pretending to be about babies.
It’s about keeping women chained to their pregnancy and fear of pregnancy, because that is “their place”. It is much too threatening to have women who could have sex without fear of unwanted pregnancy. That’s too much freedom for women to have. (Like a man!)
Daniel Florien, stump them with this question next:
“Are you for or against safe, inexpensive, easily obtainable contraception?”
If not, you have the obvious followups:
“Since contraception prevents pregnancy, and hence the need for abortions, why aren’t you out there pushing for easily obtainable, safe, inexpensive contraception?”
“Why aren’t you pushing for low-cost programs and health insurance to cover contraception?”
“If you’re against abortions, what are you doing to prevent the need for them? Why aren’t you doing everything possible to prevent them?”
If they say making abortion illegal, say, “No, I didn’t ask what you are doing to PUNISH for abortions; I asked what you are doing to PREVENT them.”
“How do you think you are showing compassion?”
“So if you’re not trying to prevent pregnancies, what ARE you trying to prevent, then?”
(If they say abortions, call them on their vicious circle- start over again.)
“So are you trying to stop women from having sex? Then what? So this isn’t really about babies, is it?”
As a wonderfully compassionate Planned Parenthood doctor said at a speech here:
“It’s never about babies.”
Never about babies? So when someone makes the decision to commit murder, we shouldn’t defend the victim? There are solutions on the woman’s side to be looked at, but in the meantime, babies are dying… 3,700 in the US and 115,000 around the world every day.
This issue is much deeper than prevention. Contraceptives are readily available, but this is more than contraceptives. It’s not about getting women pregnant (although less pregnancies would equal less abortions). The only fail proof contraceptive is abstinence. There is much to be said about not treating our sexuality like something cheap.
Christians that oppose abortions also support marriage and sex in that context. There aren’t many married women at abortion clinics having abortions. Problem solved. It’s not that we’re trying to trap women and spoil their fun. The truth is that sex within the context of marriage is the most fulfilling and has the least long term negative effects. It is God’s design for our sexuality.
If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?
This is a great question!!!!
Now watch their faces as the cognitive dissonance sets in. They believe abortion to be murder. Murder deserves severe punishment. Thus, women who have illegal abortions should receive severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty. That’s the logical conclusion.
This comment is absurd!!!!!
The correct answer to the question is…..
Murder is murder…it matters not whether you murder a 90 yr human, a 20 yr old human, a 3 yr old human or AN 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1or before MONTH OLD UNBORN “HUMAN”!!!! Those that take a life for anything other reason than self defense is a murder and ALL murders should be punished to the full extent of the law. (life in prison or the death penalty which ever applies in there state) Anyone who answers this question differently is not an Anti-Abortionist. They are a spineless sap!
Sorry here is the rest of the absurd statement!
But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.
You don’t punish the women, you punish the doctors. Fines and possible jailtime.
Why is it when people are scared of facing the truth of something they resort to using “gotcha” moments?
People who are Pro-Life believe that abortion is murder because it is. Whether you look at it truthfully, through religion and/or science. Where you “stump” someone with this question doesn’t conclude that they don’t truly believe it is murder. That is so ridiculous! What is shows is the compassion for these women who will suffer emotionally and physically the rest of their lives because of their abortion(s). We’ve been told that abortion is great and legal for over 30 years so it has been “impregnated” in us. So we feel compassion and heartbreak for the people who embrace it as truth. Murdering someone has always been a crime, so it is hard to see the two in the same box. Of course, killing someone in self defense is considered acceptable in our society. I don’t think someone should go to prison for killing someone in self defense or on the battle field, but I still consider it taking the life of another human being.
Quote: There aren’t many married women at abortion clinics having abortions.
False to fact. Non-factual. Untrue. Unsupported opinion only.
Since the Christian/Catholic women who get abortions aren’t going to admit it, they’re hurting their own (and others’) rights to abortion by the hypocrisy of keeping silent.
You may be able to find some statistics. (In the seventies, I read that one-fourth of abortions were Catholic women.)
Or continue on with your current policy: “I never let the facts stand in my way!”
The broader question of making abortion illegal is whom does it serve? Those who believe it should be illegal have likely not thought about the fact that illegal abortions are very unsafe and often result in death. Despite what anti-abortion advocates say, legal abortion performed by a licensed doctor is very safe.
For those who believe that abortion should be illegal, what do they think about the fact that more women will die from illegal abortions than would have died from legal ones? In a sense, anti-abortion advocates could be contributing to two “deaths” (only one of which can be legally affirmed as real) and one “death”. By supporting improper health care for a woman, anti-abortionists may, in effect, be contributing to their own murders of women they never know and will never meet (assuming they got their way and abortion were illegal). It is sad to see examples of people who have such circular thinking. If abortion were illegal, do they really believe that there would be no abortions? The only reason that there are no “recorded” abortions before 1973 is because THEY WERE NOT LEGAL. Prostitution is illegal, but it happens everyday, all over this country. Abortions have happened for centuries, and will happen for centuries more, until our species goes extinct.
Additionally, I think that anti-abortion advocates have very misleading facts about pregnancy, and fail to mention well known medical facts like only 1/3 of all confirmed pregnancies result in a live birth.
If you dont believe in abortion, dont have one.
I would like to see the interview with Joe Scheidler.
Salome points out that 1/3 of pregnancies result in a live birth. So 2/3 of conceived human beings die before birth naturally.
Outside the womb, 100% of human lives end naturally. Can someone explain to me how this justifies terminating an unborn human life?
Does something magical happen to a child passing through the birth canal, where, because the mother wants the child, he is given the right to life? Why should her choice end there? What if she doesn’t want to be chained to the burden of an infant? If it’s simply the mother’s choice determining whether a child has the right to life, why shouldn’t she be allowed to choose after birth as well?
VJ,
You may be right. Let me ask you, in your opinion, what is the nature of the unborn? Are they human beings? Are they not human beings? Or are you not sure?
How about the death penalty for any guy who impregnates a woman and then knowingly abandons the kid?
How about the death penalty for any preacher who suggests that any pregnancy isn’t divinely planned, and that therefore there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, and no woman should ever be chastised for being pregnant?
Even up the sides a little.
Take away the superstition of a soul existing and extracting some embryotic cells isnt worthy of a second glance. Perhaps anti-abortioin activists should get together and form an organization that will offer to care for unwanted children. They want abortion illegal but they aren’t prepared to do anything to supplement the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Apparently they would rather the child grow up in probable poverty with a mother that sees the child as the greatest mistake in her life than have the child not exist.
OR MAYBE work to get incredibly cheap birth control and stop putting so much emphasis on abstinence to prevent teen sex, its obviously not working.
For the ‘hardcore’ anti abortion activists that say a woman should be legally punished for abortions…What if your 12/13 y/o daughter was raped? She is now pregnant, she may die from pregnacy, be in poverty, miss school, be ridiculed, never truly experience what are the best years of our lives. What if she was 18? 20?
Obviously an anti-abortionist will dodge the question surely to note that the majority of abortions are not because of rape, never-the-less a question dodge. If 10+ y/o’s had better sexual education and a perpetual amount of gov’t supplied birth control the number of abortions would surely drop like flies. With the option of abortion still on the table for those that were sexually inactive and raped, or that 1% that got past the pill, how else would an unwanted pregnancy occur?
THATS the solution they SHOULD be trying to achieve, it would be much easier as well, for both sides of the fence and those sitting ON it would be able to work together for it.
Ed,
I believe those supporting the death penalty for abortion are grounding their reasoning in this: abortion is murder, and murder is punishable by death.
Since when was abandonment punishable by death?
Since when was voicing one’s opinion (anyone recall the first amendment right to free speech?) punishable by death?
Ryan,
The pro-life argument is not based on the ‘superstition of a soul existing’. An embryo is a living human being. If not, then what is it? A frog? A flea maybe? All human beings have the right to life, regardless of race, age, religion, handicap, and so on.
Salome – “If you dont believe in abortion, dont have one.”
Salome, how is this any different from someone saying, “If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t have one.”
Honestly, as a tax paying citizen, I would hate to have to pay for the jail time/death sentence for all the hypothetical women who have illegal abortions.
Aren’t the prisons crowded enough? I suppose that taxes could be raised to pay for it all, but please raise taxes on the “pro-life” people only.
Or maybe, if a woman has an illegal abortion, just shoot her, the doctor who performed it, and the father on the spot. Save a lot of our tax dollars that way.
Do that.. and hey, abortions are not only illegal, but there’s not a person out there who would get one, right?
Here’s something to ponder:
How many of them do you think would say that the doctor who performs the abortion should be punished?
My guess: 100%
How ridiculous.
Being a woman, I have thought about the issue a lot, and especially as a best friend of a teen mom, it hasn’t been absent from my life. My best friend knew right away that she wanted the child, and she is pro-choice. For me, I see a fetus as part of the mother until it is outside of her body. It’s her body, the fetus is attached and thriving only off her body, therefor the fetus is part of her. I think she should have absolute control over her body.
I have trouble on the issue, because I really do value the life of all things… but it’s people like these that I have no sympathy or empathy for. “God called me”? How about think for yourself? God has said nothing to you, you just have an idea of what God wants, how about getting more than one point of view on the subject?
“If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t have one.”
Kevin, this analogy is faulty because slavery is a condition that has ostensible affects on society. Abortion has an affect on those who have one. I realize at this point, if you are pro-life, the argument is becoming somewhat moralistic.
But I think that your primary issue is that slavery was once condoned in our society and now is not, abortion might be the same way.
You are right, there is this possibility. But then, why not prove that abortion is “immoral” and convince the rest of society that you are right. Not with scare tactics and dead fetus pictures, but with logic.
If you can present strong enough logical arguments to convince people that abortion is wrong, then maybe people will listen to you, like they did to abolitionists.
So, if you are willing please address the other issues that I discussed, such as dangerous illegal abortions that would kill the mother, what about people that are wealthy enough to just fly out of this country to another country to get an abortion (assuming it was illegal) (is it right that lower income women are not afforded this opportunity, which in turn will keep their socio-economic status lower?), what about the fact that there is insufficent public assistence available to single young mothers, and the chances of a mother raising an unwanted child or even being able to carry a healthy pregnancy to term is harmful to her own health. What about the fact that the foster system is so bad? Might some women have abortions to “save” a child that they would not be able to raise from an uncertain future? What about people that have abortions for voluntary medical reasons, such as when they find out that there are abnormalities in the fetus, and that it may have down sydrome or a worse abnormality. What if the child is only able to live for 10 days in constant pain and never able to leave the hospital. Was it worth carrying that deformity to term? If you are truely “pro-life” stop making “moral” arguments and start giving some real policy solutions to the underlying reasons why women have abortions. If you know history, however unfortunate it is, freeing the slaves in the US was not an entirely “moral” endevour, but was coupled with numerous political realities and incentives that made it the most expedient.
Jesse- I think you answered your own question: ” 1/3 of pregnancies result in a live birth. So 2/3 of conceived human beings die before birth naturally.
Outside the womb, 100% of human lives end naturally. Can someone explain to me how this justifies terminating an unborn human life?”
When talking about the “unborn” you are talking about the percentages 33.33% and 66.66%. By saying 66.66% of conceived “human beings” die before birth naturally means that there is a significant percentage (33.33%) that does not. This does not hold for born humans, who are recognized by the state and die “naturally” 100% of the time. 66.66% is very different from 100%.
You note your freedom of speech to talk about abortion, and that is being duely respected. But what about the women who want protection under the 14th amendment, that states that- “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
If you want to prove that “pro-life” is trying better policy and better for the country, address the points that Ryan and I have made, about having insufficient health care, more children born into poverty, more women dying having illegal abortions. How do you propose to deal with these thigns. Other than the fact that its a moral issue? Give some concrete examples of things that we can do.
Bottom Line- Every child should be wanted and loved. Look around. Are all of us doing anything with all the unwanted and unloved? Would you want to be one of the unwanted and unloved. I was!
I am 100% against abortion. With that said I also beleive it is the womans choice. If there is a god any woman who has an abortion will face judgement one day. It is not up to us to judge in this matter.
Abortion should be illegal, and there should be a punishment if a woman knowingly kills her unborn baby. Infanticide is never ok in my book. I pray for the women who have had abortions and also for those considering them. Oh, one last thought, I was adopted and each of those babies can be placed up for adoption as well.
One last thought……I know a young woman who was a “failed abortion” and I feel sorry for her emotional scars and the damage it did to her organs and insides. It is a grusome thing and should be illegal.
You’re hardly as smart and witty as you think they are. They should be prosecuted for murder, for that is exactly the crime they are committing. Whoaa……tough question.
Salome,
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That’s just what we’re arguing. Abortion deprives a human child of the right to life. The government would be violating this amendment to support abortion rights.
“about having insufficient health care, more children born into poverty, more women dying having illegal abortions. How do you propose to deal with these thigns”
If you can logically prove that these issues have anything to do with the nature of an unborn child, whether or not he/she is a human being with rights that ought to be protected by law, I’d be happy to address them because there are two options:
1) An unborn child is not a human being entitled to protection under the law.
2) An unborn child is a human being entitled to protection under the law.
By the logical law of the excluded middle, it is either 1) or 2), not both, not something in between.
If 1) then I have no problem with abortion (and neither should anyone else).
If 2) then if we are to be consistent with existing laws, abortion should be made illegal.
Salome,
“If you can present strong enough logical arguments to convince people that abortion is wrong, then maybe people will listen to you, like they did to abolitionists.”
The slave owners didn’t listen to the abolitionist’s arguments. If they had, we wouldn’t have lost over half a million lives to the Civil War.
But if you’re interested in logical arguments, check out the following:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5080
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5361
If you’re concerned with a logical argument, please consider the possibility that your objections to the pro-life standpoint have no bearing, logically speaking, on whether or not an unborn child is a human being with the right to life.
“Bob
Honestly, as a tax paying citizen, I would hate to have to pay for the jail time/death sentence for all the hypothetical women who have illegal abortions.
Aren’t the prisons crowded enough? I suppose that taxes could be raised to pay for it all, but please raise taxes on the “pro-life” people only.”
I agree. You go, Bob! We’re already paying all that stuff for criminals who were unwanted babies. But hey, pro-life means that abortion is bad, and overpopulation and poverty and forced births and criminals are good, right?
“Ed Darrell
How about the death penalty for any guy who impregnates a woman and then knowingly abandons the kid?
How about the death penalty for any preacher who suggests that any pregnancy isn’t divinely planned, and that therefore there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, and no woman should ever be chastised for being pregnant?
Even up the sides a little.”
I agree. You go, Ed! What you said supports my earlier post that this is not a fight for babies; it’s a fight against women.
People – especially anti-choice – are pretending to be blind and deaf to the real issue. Little is said and less is done about the males doing the impregnating. It is all about keeping women tied to forced pregnancy and the fear of it.
Men should be responsible for the pregnancy also, if he is forcing the woman to have one. But, in our society it’s the women who have the rights when it comes to abortion not the men. Tell me, when did babies come burdens, obstacles, mistakes, etc. instead of joy and blessings? Human beings are relative. How sad.
If you use reasons for abortion like poverty or unwanted/abandoned or being raised by a single parent, then President Obama should have been aborted. That was how he grew up.
Answering a statement from Sarah. Babies are reliant on their mothers after birth also. They can not live by themselves, so should they be aloud to be killed. I have heard that it is thought in some circles that a woman should have a grace period (like 3 months after birth) to decide if she wants to keep the baby or kill it. Sounds crazy? What one generation accepts the next will embrace.
VJ, why have you completely ignored the question about the nature of an unborn child? Is it a human being or not? Is it an unfair question?
Salome,
“66.66% is very different from 100%” Forgive me for being slow to follow your reasoning, but _how_ does this justify terminating the life of an unborn human being?
This question is simple.
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Amos 1:13
The topic of abortion didn’t arise in any Biblical text because of limited medical knowledge and lack of synthetic drugs. Any attempt at abortion would have been fatal to the mother and the child. Some may be confused about this. It is obvious though, that if a man was to kill an unborn child he was to suffer eye for an eye.
I have an answer for you : the death penalty
Did you really want to hear it?
If you really wanted to stimulate discussion you would ask this question. If a man hits a woman in any period of pregnancy and causes termination of a child she does want but he wants aborted, is he in the wrong? For you pro-abortionists if you were on a jury would you truly feel that the stage of development had anything to do with his action? Did he commit murder? I would surely say anyone I’ve asked this question has said yes. Precedents in the judicial system exist to back up your feeling. So then, why does the mother not commit murder? Should she not be charged with murder if the man wanted his child? What is different if the child is unwanted by the father. It may be inside your body but is he not entitled to a child he created? What would do you think our justice system do?
How come these people never consider the woman? If she’s raped or counseled by her doctor to get an abortion, why is the value of her life less than that of a fetus? I think it’s great that you’re willing to put yourself out there by putting up something this controversial. GO YOU!
Anyone who murders another human being should be punished. Period. And this includes the state government officials that utilize the death penalty…but that’s a whole other post…..
We have failed as humans when the “mistake” in this situation is defined as an unwanted child, not in the irresponsibility of our physical acts of love or failing to provide nurturing safe environments where a single woman who has been either raped or impregnated as a teenager feels she can carry the baby to term for adoption.
Would we really rather throw a still developing human in a trash can behind a clinic than see a happy little baby full of life?
Maybe if we loved each other a little more, we would see the beauty and not the burden of a baby in these situations.
Women’s rights aren’t about the power of over one’s body, it’s about the power OF one’s body. Women have the most beautiful gift and we’re making the option of disabling that gift into a decision similar to purchasing over-the-counter cold medicine.
We’re arguing over the wrong part of this scenario. Babies should be created in a loving situation. One night stands, rape, incest, poor planning….are not loving situations. We need to find ways to prevent. Maybe that sounds lofty and unattainable, but I believe it to be the only way.
@Ben: In all honesty, I don’t think you’ve thought this out very clearly. Rape will happen. One night stands will happen (and more so, as sexual freedom is celebrated and encouraged). Incest will happen. Human error will happen. There is no point saying “let’s ban abortion, instead try to ban the causes of unwanted pregnancy”. What about the women who have ALREADY become pregnant? Would you force them to raise a child in this situation?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not pro-abortion. But removing what is essentially a clump of cells from your body is far more preferable to raising a child which is unwanted. Or giving up your own flesh and blood for another to raise.
Besides which, there are so many children in orphanages and the like that need a good, caring home. Let’s get started on saving *their* lives before we even think about saving the potential lives of these ‘children’.
Salome:
let me take your arguments one at a time:
–“If you don’t believe in slavery, don’t have one.”
Kevin, this analogy is faulty because slavery is a condition that has ostensible affects on society.
I would consider millions of dead babies, millions of traumatized women and millions of dollars spent “ostensible affects”
–You are right, there is this possibility. But then, why not prove that abortion is “immoral” and convince the rest of society that you are right. Not with scare tactics and dead fetus pictures, but with logic. If you can present strong enough logical arguments to convince people that abortion is wrong, then maybe people will listen to you, like they did to abolitionists.
I will “prove” that abortion is immoral as soon as you prove that rape is. In other words, you can’t “prove” that anything is immoral because morality is not a logical construct.
–So, if you are willing please address the other issues that I discussed, such as dangerous illegal abortions that would kill the mother
Let’s see, if you do something that is both dangerous and illegal, you might die. How is this different from anything else in the world.
– What about people that are wealthy enough to just fly out of this country to another country to get an abortion (assuming it was illegal) (is it right that lower income women are not afforded this opportunity, which in turn will keep their socio-economic status lower?)
What about people that are wealthy enough to just fly out of this country to another country to buy a sex slave. Is
(is it right that lower income men are not afforded this opportunity, which in turn will keep their socio-economic status lower?)
–what about the fact that there is insufficent public assistence available to single young mothers, and the chances of a mother raising an unwanted child or even being able to carry a healthy pregnancy to term is harmful to her own health. What about the fact that the foster system is so bad? Might some women have abortions to “save” a child that they would not be able to raise from an uncertain future?
You have an interesting definition of “save”? If you ever see me about to trip on the stairs, do me a favor and don’t try to save me.
–What about people that have abortions for voluntary medical reasons, such as when they find out that there are abnormalities in the fetus, and that it may have down sydrome or a worse abnormality. What if the child is only able to live for 10 days in constant pain and never able to leave the hospital. Was it worth carrying that deformity to term? If you are truely “pro-life” stop making “moral” arguments and start giving some real policy solutions to the underlying reasons why women have abortions. If you know history, however unfortunate it is, freeing the slaves in the US was not an entirely “moral” endevour, but was coupled with numerous political realities and incentives that made it the most expedient.
Many of the former slaves who travelled north found that the northerners hated them more than their slave-owners did, they just had no interest in owning them.
Now, let me make one other thing clear. Although I do not think abortion should be legal, I do not want to spend a lot of time and money making it illegal. I would rather all the energy and money that was spent protesting clinics, writing congressmen trying to make it illegal and various other anti-abortion activities be spent doing things like volunteering to be foster parents, working with underprivileged youth to raise their education and socio-economic status, medical research to find a cure for all the abnormalities. Ideally, I would like a law outlawing abortion to be as necessary as a law against raping porcupines.
blufindr,
“Don’t get me wrong, I am not pro-abortion. But removing what is essentially a clump of cells from your body is far more preferable to raising a child which is unwanted. Or giving up your own flesh and blood for another to raise.”
Do you have any evidence that an embryo/fetus is just a clump of cells, and not a human being?
Does any pro-choice advocate have a logical argument to demonstrate that the unborn is not a human being? If there were a developmental biology textbook with a well-reasoned argument to that effect, I’d be open you know.
Oh right, I forgot– pro-lifers are the irrational, illogical ones here.
Jesse,
I think that once the process of fertilization is complete, a human being is present. But I have no problem with pregnant women who wish to destroy human beings in that state. An embryo/fetus lacks the mental development for it to be offered the right to life over the woman’s right over her body. Why anyone feels it is important to protect human beings in that stage from women who wish to abort is… beyond my comprehension.
Peter,
That’s a much better argument than the assertions I hear of an embryo/fetus being just a clump of cells. Why should mental development be the basis on which to grant rights?
Jesse,
If there is no mental development, who is it we would be giving rights to?
Peter,
That’s a very clever response! Are you equating a person with a brain?
Jesse,
No, mentation.
Peter,
By mentation do you mean a human being’s right to life depends on whether or not (s)he is engaged in the active processes of thinking? How sophisticated must mental capacity be before an organism has earned the right to life?
Jesse,
Not strictly. For instance, one could get knocked unconscious to the point that mental activity is virtually non-existent but that doesn’t mean personhood is suddenly revoked.
“How sophisticated” is a matter of discussion. However, the point is – arguing that an embryo is “sophisticated” enough to earn the right to live over the woman’s right to choose is senseless. I don’t get it.
I would not do what these people in the video are doing, but I asked a friend of mine the same question, and this was her response (she has taken it upon herself to understand the abortion debate in Canada):
even if abortion becomes illegal in canada, it won’t be called murder. the charge would be unlawful abortion. for unlawful abortions, the mother is, if it was she who sought the abortion, charged with a lesser charge than the professional illegally carrying out the abortion.
in the states, the professional is usually charged with a class D felony (jail sentences, if even given, ranging from 6 months to 1.5 years) and the woman is charged with a class A or B misdemeanor, equivalant to 4-6 months, sometimes as little as 30 days or a fine (so the same as a speeding ticket, because you get 30 days if u can’t pay).
basically the laws that are going thru right now are to make abortion illegal after certain periods. often there isn’t a strong push for them to be outright illegal because then it would put women in a really really dangerous place of getting illegal abortions done by non-medical professionals (or risking doing it themselves) which puts more lives at risk. basically there is one law going thru to make abortion illegal after 22 weeks, because babies are born and can live out of the womb at 22 weeks (the youngest baby to survive is 21 weeks and 5 days)… so it IS a statement on life, but no one performing an illegal abortion could ever get charged with murder, whther the baby was wanted or not, but could just be charged with illegal abortion.
it would be forcing women to get things together, get the information that they needed and make an informed choice to do what they decide before it puts her or her baby at such a risk… abortions done after these periods are more difficult on the woman, on her body and the baby is actually more developed, so its not just like a miscarriage, its more like a still birth.
its also important to get this kind of legislation in because right now there is another bill (C 484) to protect pregnant women. right now if a pregnant woman who wants her baby is assaulted and the baby dies, there is no way to charge that person with that crime because the baby isn’t considered a person at all. they cannot even charge them with ending a pregnancy because ending a pregnancy isn’t illegal, no matter how far along the woman was. in the USA, a person who did this crime could at least get charged with unlawful abortion, and since the media crazy Lacy Peterson case, there is a new law going thru that they could get charged with further things because there was a “wanted pregnancy” terminated. but in Canada, these laws could never go thru because there just arent any laws either way.
another thing (and this is the last thing) is that there isn’t any legal responsibility right now on the part of doctors to tell the women the risks that they are taking in getting an abortuion. women could never be able to have kids again because of their choice to get an abortion. there are many health risks, both physical and psychological that can really mess women and young girls up, but no one is obglicated to tell them about them.
There was this argument on a public facebook group the other day because a young girl 15 I believe had an abortion and this church leader knew her and was just expressing how sad it made her because not only was it a life gone, but also the girl was really having a hard time about her choice because no one told her the things that could happen. Basically someone had snapped that obviously she didn’t tell anyone because most chuches would then be angry at her and not offer her the grace and compassion that she needed and this church leader just expressed that “If I knew this girl, I would hug her to death” because she understood exactly why the girl didn’t say anything or talk to anyone, but knew that that wasn’t the way that it should be. they should be able to trust the church and get informed choices…
As much as I believe that we as Christians need to give grace to anyone who is sinning in any way, and that these girls are no different, the reason why our government exists is to protect people from making choices that they shouldn’t have to make… but because the government had removed itself from having any legal say in the matter of abortion, there isn’t an authority on the subject and babies are being killed AND women are being hurt. the gov’t is the only thing that has the authorty to say whether its OK or not and we have to submit to their decisions. thats one reason why i dont agree with protesting against something the government has said is ok, for instance, because protesting is not submitting to their authority. what is going on in parliament is completely under the government’s authority and that is why i believe it is so important to support them and to be informed about what is going on, because ethe gov’t has given US the authority to speak and agree with them because we live in a free and democratic country where we can elect the representatives that we want. because we live here, we have that authorty and its just important that we use it!!!
Peter,
I’m not arguing an embryo is ‘sophisticated’ enough to earn this right. My question is: _why_ should sophistication (mental or otherwise) be the basis upon which a human being has the right to life?
Also, if upon attaining mental sophistication a human being somehow acquires the right to life, then why wouldn’t that right be subject to revocation if mental capacity declines below a certain threshold? What rational basis is there for retaining this right?
Jesse,
No, not “or otherwise”. Mental is key. As I asked already – if one wishes to assign rights to an embryo, who is it they are assigning rights to? I’m not trying to be clever. Who are we protecting by outlawing abortion?
If one’s mental capability declines below a certain threshold, then that person will die soon so the question has no meaning. The situation where the question has validity is when the person is kept artificially alive on life support. I most certainly think there are cases where it makes sense to allow that person to die by removing the life support.
Peter,
I’m still not understanding why mental sophistication is the key to human rights, so please bear with me. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I’d just like to know why.
Were you ever, at any point in your life, an embryo? If we wind the clock back, when does Peter cease to exist?
If mental capacity has declined below this threshold, and a person is kept on life support.. wait, a ‘person’? Who are we keeping alive by life support? Do you mean instead:
“The situation where the question has validity is when the person, who has ceased to exist and is now merely a human being non-person, is kept artificially alive on life support. I most certainly think there are cases where it makes sense to allow that human being non-person to die by removing life support.”
“Were you ever, at any point in your life, an embryo?”
No. There was an embryo that was a physical foundation. It was needed in order for me to eventually become the person I am. But no, when there was an embryo, clearly I did not exist. How could I have existed?
“If we wind the clock back, when does Peter cease to exist?”
I don’t know exactly but it was sometime soon after birth. This is similar to asking, “When did the embryo that became Peter begin?” Again, I don’t know exactly but it was soon after fertilization had begun.
Yes, your rewording of the life-support scenario is more accurate. Those situations are more complex as it is not always easy to determine if one’s personhood has been lost. With abortion, it is cut and dry as the being has yet to experience any complex mentation.
If a man kills a child or “embryo” (ha) inside a woman in the first trimester by the current laws he has not killed a child. Think about that for a second. Why does nobody think of this. Do you not realize how hypocritical that is? Why should a man go to jail for murder for killing something that isn’t a “child” yet, as viewed by the judicial system by the precedent of Roe vs Wade. All other views are a moot point literally because of equality, given to us from the U.S. Constitution and in most countries their form of government. I can’t wait for a court case where a lawyer can actually argue this fact in court. It’s sad to hope that it will take a man to assault a pregnant women and kill the child or “embryo” in her first trimester for you to realize that it is murder. It would put the judge or jury in a position where a precedent has to be made. You either charge the man with assault and say it’s not murder (Yeah right…) or admit that destroying a fetus in the first trimester is murder. What would you say if you were on a jury? Honestly…think about that for a second. Someone please actually answer me this time…nobody seems to want to touch the topic. You want to ask me a hard question but you won’t respond to mine? I see how you all think. It’s obvious you would rather have 42 million children cease to exist a year, whom all have the inherit right to life just as you did…..
Dave,
“If a man kills a child or “embryo” (ha)”
The fact that you laugh at discerning language drives others away from having any discussion with you. An embryo is not a child or a baby. It is entirely reasonable to insist that an embryo not be called a child or baby just as it is reasonable to insist that little boys and girls not be called “women” and “men”.
So what is your question?
I, and most pro-life people that I know believe that exceptions should be made for victims of rape, incest and situations where the mothers life is at stake. I am just curious as to why pro-choice people just assume that we don’t think there are exceptions. I am from The South, Christian, and I don’t know a single person who has said they wouldn’t want a victim of rape to be able to have an early term abortion.
Peter your obviously a d*ck. My question was pretty obvious way to not answer it just as I predicted! I’ll use your words though, if it means that you won’t puss out. If a man assaults a woman and kills the fetus or embryo in the first trimester by the current laws he has not committed murder. Think about that for a second, of course as previously stated it’s clear you don’t want to. Do you not realize how hypocritical that is Peter? Why HAS AND DOES a man go to jail for murder for killing something that isn’t a child yet, BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION and as STATED by the judicial system in the precedent of Roe vs Wade. Your discernment on scientifically what it should be called are a moot point literally. I can’t wait for a court case where a lawyer points this fallacy out. It’s sad to hope that it will take a man to assault a pregnant women and destroy her embryo in the first trimester of pregnancy instead of the third for you to realize that it is murder. I hope you have a son or if not that you have one. That your son gets some girl pregnant, doesn’t want the child and assaults the girl killing the embryo. I sure as hell know that I consider that murder. It would put the judge or jury and yourself in a position where a precedent has to be made, clearly you would rather not have this happen. I agree it is much easier to sit idly by. You either charge the man with assault and rule he has not committed murder (Yeah right…) or admit that destroying a fetus in the first trimester is murder. What would you say if you were on a jury Peter? That man didn’t commit murder is what your saying to me. Again I have to repeat the question because you avoided it. Honestly…think about that for a second. Someone please actually answer me this time…it seems that Peter doesn’t have the balls. You want to ask me a hard question but you won’t respond to mine? I see how this is.
In response to my discernment on the meaning of a word (Yes because I posted in all on language…English) that is just something we will never agree on because I am faithful and subservient to God.
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)
Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4)
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16)
We all have the inherit right to life. I have delivered children from women who I had to warn there was, depending on the circumstances, a 5% to 85% chance of them losing there life during birth. Of course don’t forget that myself and doctors can’t predict the future and medicine is a science, which means it is fallible. They always ask if I think I can do it. I simply tell them I will do eveyrthing in my power. Every patient I’ve had that ended up delivering succsesfully with no death, regardless of what the science of medicine pointed to has made sure to return to speak with me. To tell me that they could never imagine the guilt that would have come with making the decision not to. I have as well seen husbands loose their wife’s, boyfriends, and even one night stands loose the woman they impregnated giving birth. They have all mourned their loss but as well return to me with their children for exams. They say they know in the their heart they did the right thing, and that the woman who was lost will always live in their hearts and they would not been able to choose if their life was more important than another. Especially in marriages the widow always seems to point out the aforementioned guilt he knew she would have felt in the decision to abort. Perfectly healthy women whom no doctor has advised the possibility of a single medical problem have died giving birth for UNKNOWN causes. I have signed their death certificates. That is a fact. Every women I have ever personally had confide in me that she has had an abortion, spiritual or not, has confided that she REGRETTED it. I have many colleagues in the psychological field and they confirm this is almost always the case as well; even in cases where the woman was raped.
Hi Dave,
A person assaulting a pregnant women and causing death to the embryo/fetus should receive a stronger penalty than simply the charges of assault. I would not classify it as murder but the penalty may be strong. The reason being that the trauma to the woman who was expecting to give birth to a child would be substantial.
@peter’s FIRST response:
Actually, in the Philippines, the Unborn child/children are given funeral services. No matter how early they were in the stage of their development.
Just so there’s no confusion, that “peter” is not me. The funeral observation is interesting though I’ve never believed funerals are for the deceased. Many say they are but the fact is, funerals are always for the living.
http://dummidumbwit.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/wet-willie-keep-on-smiling/
Anyone besides me notice that none of ‘em has uttered a peep about PREVENTING any need for abortions?
And that they’re all carrying on about PUNISHING women for abortions after the fact?
If this were actually a fight to “protect babies” that they are pretending it is, instead of a fight against women, they would be wildly, emphatically in favor of inexpensive, readily available, safe contraception.
(About which PREVENTION not a peep has been uttered.)
The true issue is clear – it ain’t babies, or they would be crazy for prevention – and they’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
I rest my case.
Has anyone else besides me noticed that the ones who are asking me whether I believe a fetus is alive, a human being, etc., are completely ignoring the real issue?
The question of what I or anyone else believes about an embryo is IRRELEVANT.
If these people truly believe that life begins at conception and abortion is murdering babies, then you would think they would be out there doing everything they possibly can to PREVENT abortions.
They would be providing safe, easily obtainable, effective, free or inexpensive contraception to PREVENT the need for abortions. They would be campaigning for insurance coverage and funding for them.
Not only are they not, but – unbelievably, I kid you not – some of them are even against contraception! Bizarre but true! They are blowing their chances to save lives, passing right by these chances to prevent abortion.
They want to PUNISH abortion. They want to be PUNITIVE TO WOMEN. They want to control women: have them sexless, or chained to the fear of pregnancy.
They talk of saving lives and then refuse to take obvious actions to prevent abortions. I see right through them, and right into their punitive, hate-filled hearts.
Do not let them fool you into their pretense at the real issue. Do not let them sidetrack you into debates of when life begins while they do nothing to PREVENT threats to the life in which they claim to believe.
VJ, suppose you’re right,and we’re not doing enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Suppose you’re right, and all pro-lifers really care about is to enslave women. Suppose that’s our motivation and driving force.
Can you explain to me how that motivation disproves that an unborn child is a human being with the right to life? An embryo/fetus/unborn is either a human being with the right to life or it is not. Its very nature and legal status stand independent of the motivation behind pro-lifers.
VJ, as an example, suppose I’m sick, I go to see the doctor and he tells me I have cancer and need surgery to remove the tumor. What if he’s only motivated by the need to earn a paycheck and pay off his medical school bills? Does that in and of itself make his diagnosis wrong?
Peter,
Thanks for your honest, consistent answer about your existence.
One question that remains to be addressed is though is:
Why is mental sophistication is the key to human rights? Why is this what defines a human person? It may be obvious to you, but it’s not to me. Please elaborate.
Peter,
Suppose we were to discover through science the point after birth at which a child develops the attributes of personality that you believe give rise to human rights. For the sake of argument, suppose we knew that point beyond a reasonable doubt to be after 3 weeks. In this scenario would you oppose killing infants less than 3 weeks old if the mother decided she did not want the child?
Jesse,
“One question that remains to be addressed is though is: Why is mental sophistication is the key to human rights?”
Because mental development is what makes us human. It is the most obvious difference between us and the beasts. We have inherited much from the animals but we are clearly very different. The key difference is our mental development.
As for your hypothetical situation, why should society accept my definition of personhood? Some may have a higher or lower bar they’ve set. This is why I am fine with making infanticide illegal. Anyone claiming that personhood is present in utero is not being reasonable. In fact, they are likely against abortion all-together and simply use “personhood” as a synonym for “human being”. As I’ve stated before, I believe a human being is present sometime during conception. I just don’t think being human in and of itself is enough to earn the right to live.
hello there,
one major point which is left out and makes rendering abortions illegal attractive for this movement is the question of the person who actually performs the abortion. I think those are the people who really go to jail for helping out desperate women, which is why most people who are appropriately qualified have reasons to hesitate, which increases the risk of life-threatening mistakes during the procedure due to sham or amateur work.
Anyway, a nice study of the sort of people that god told to stand on the street with a sign like a human lamppost (intellectually there doesn´t seem to be much difference either;)
VJ said:
VJ, I read what you wrote and you seem extremely angry at those who hold the position that the unborn should be protected by law just as those who are born should be.
In this age were tolerance is usually taught, even preached, and demanded in many circumstances, I find your intolerance hard to understand. There are organizations that do reach out to mothers who are in need of aid. Unlike abortion, that is funded by tax dollars, these organizations depend upon donations from a caring public to exist, but make no mistake, they are out there.
They receive little publicity, other than in Christian churches, so if you are not associated with a church, you may not have heard much about them.
Peter,
Thank you for your response.
“Some may have a higher or lower bar they’ve set. This is why I am fine with making infanticide illegal. Anyone claiming that personhood is present in utero is not being reasonable.”
If you’re fine with people disagreeing with where to set the standard, then why do you insist the absolute floor is at the point of birth?
Why am I being unreasonable in considering the possibility that a fetus may qualify as a human person?
What do you do with the scientific “..evidence of sustained attention, memory and learning by the fetus”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030513080440.htm
Quote: “There are organizations that do reach out to mothers who are in need of aid.”
Not everyone wants to be a mother, duh.
Even more of avoiding the real issue.
Again, and still:
Arguing about when human life begins, when it is irrelevant to the real issue: not providing contraceptives to PREVENT abortions, and being punitive to women.
As they continue to divert you with their “life” arguments, the above actual issue is STILL unaddressed.
“why do you insist the absolute floor is at the point of birth?”
Personhood emerges through experience. A newborn has significantly more experience than a fetus in that all senses are operational. Sight comes into play soon after birth. Olfactory and auditory senses take a significant step forward. Taste comes into play within days. The sense of touch is radically different than in utero. I think that birth is a significant event…a significant experience that helps shape a person. This is why I suggest drawing the line at that point.
Thanks for the article. I had read that before. I think it is interesting though I am not convinced that it implies personhood during the late in utero stage. A fetus reacting is much different than a self-aware person relating and fully sensing the world.
More importantly, this article tells us that a fetus reacting to sound certainly demonstrates a huge difference relative to a zygote or embryo. Does this mean that while you may disagree with me regarding a reasonable point in time to define personhood, you agree that early on in a pregnancy a person is not present? Otherwise, what does the article mean to you? If you are anti-abortion, then so what? Who cares about this science if life is precious at conception?
While an article like this may convince some pro-choice advocates to push back their acknowledgement of personhood, it simultaneously reinforces the fact that personhood is very real, not present from the outset, and emergent later in life. We can debate when “later” is, but accepting that personhood isn’t present from the onset of a human life is an important agreement that perhaps we can share.
With that, I’ll get back to my question for those who want a blanket ban on all elective abortion: Who are you protecting before personhood is present? Why fight to make it illegal to destroy beings who lack the mental development to be persons?
Peter,
Just a quick response. I actually think the human/person distinction is hogwash. But I’m still engaging with you and trying to understand your viewpoint more clearly, because I think the objection you raise is far more powerful than any objection I’ve seen thus far.
I don’t think your question of ‘who are we protecting’ is just a clever trick. I said it was clever because it has caused me to stop and ask myself _why_ do I think there is no such thing as a human being who is not a person.
At any rate, I still do not understand why personhood, as opposed to mere humanity, should be the basis for human rights. So even if I grant that the unborn is human, but not a person, *why* should he/she have any less of the right to life than an infant which has developed traits of personality?
Perhaps I can re-word my question. What, precisely, is it about personhood that an entity possessing qualities of personhood should be granted the right to life, freedom, etc?
…and another question
“I think that birth is a significant event…a significant experience that helps shape a person. This is why I suggest drawing the line at that point.”
If an unborn is not a person, then who is being shaped by the experience?
Anyone who thinks that the above video indicates that abortion should be legal or that pro-life people are uninformed is being ridiculous. The obvious question was not ask, that being, “What should be done to the abortionist?” Reader, why do you think that question wasn’t asked?
The interviewer is taking the superior position here. He has no questions to answer and he has control of what is being asked. He has a ‘bully pulpit’. Only a very small mind is not able to see through this type of set-up.
The question was asked of people who care deeply about women. That is because the questioner understood that most are not going to want to punish a woman any further. An abortion causes suffering. Most women are believing the pro-abortion group who says the fetus is not a person. They do not understand that they are killing a person.
Pro-abortionist have fought against full disclosure and counselling prior to abortion. Do you wonder why?
Finally, the reason a person may speak out against abortion when they have not thought about who should be punished is really quite simple. Abortion is clearly killing. Courts and judicial systems determine punishment when a crime is committed. I am against murdering post born people, but the circumstances surrounding each murder decides what the sentence will be. If you ask someone, what should happen to the man who kills his brother, no one is able to answer that without knowing the circumstances. A jury or judge will determine if the killing is murder and if that murder was pre-meditated, if the killer was legally insane at the time, or if the killing was actually manslaughter or accidental.
The video makes me think even less of the press and the abortion crowd.
Jesse,
“I actually think the human/person distinction is hogwash”
To be clear, the distinction is between person and non-person. All persons are human. But not all humans are persons. But since you believe this to be hogwash, then it appears we have come to the point at which we disagree.
“I still do not understand why personhood, as opposed to mere humanity, should be the basis for human rights.”
“mere”. Exactly. That’s why. What makes being human so special? I have an answer: personhood. But since you don’t think personhood means anything in this context, then what makes human beings so special? If you think the distinction between possessing personhood and not possessing personhood is “hogwash”, then please tell me what makes you so keen on defending rights for all human beings?
“What, precisely, is it about personhood that an entity possessing qualities of personhood should be granted the right to life, freedom, etc? [...]”
You’ve answered your own question. Possessing (or have possessed) the qualities of personhood is what, precisely, an entity needs to be granted human rights.
“If an unborn is not a person, then who is being shaped by the experience?”
When I say, “shape a person” I mean “help make a person come to be”, not “mold the already existing person”.
Peter,
I think we’re doing a good job of cutting down to the core differences in our beliefs.
I agree there is a difference between person and non-person. But I do not think there is such a thing as a human non-person. I think Greg Koukl puts it more eloquently than I could:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5117
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5245
I’ll be honest, I’ve not been particularly good at articulating my reasons for believing this, and what I’ve enjoyed most about this discussion is that I’ve been forced to re-examine what I believe and why.
Peter,
“Possessing (or have possessed) the qualities of personhood is what, precisely, an entity needs to be granted human rights”
Can we determine whether an entity qualifies for personhood by listing the qualities of personhood and comparing how that being lines up with these particular qualities?
“Possessing (or have possessed) the qualities of personhood is what, precisely, an entity needs to be granted human rights.”
Since when do we “grant human rights?” Aren’t rights inherent? Otherwise, they would not be rights.
Andrew,
Yes you are right. Really, the question is when do we grant personhood and then human rights are present automatically. Sloppy wording on my part.
Jesse,
I don’t see the point in listing criteria for personhood if you believe personhood is synonymous with a human being. If it is, then the criteria is easy – a zygote with DNA. The only point in listing criteria is if we accept that personhood is different than simply the genetic presence of a human being. Then a discussion can progress as we can have differing opinions on the criteria and possibly establish at least a partial agreement. There are many differing views on what sort of complexity mentation must have in order to establish personhood.
Thanks for the article by Koukl. He too disregards personhood. This is common among evangelical Christians. I believe Catholics have also started taking that stance since John Paul II.
Peter,
Biblically, personhood is a non-issue. There is no distinction between the unborn child and a child in the Greek or Hebrew language or in the eyes of God. It is not up to us to grant personhood. Personhood is itself inherent. We no more grant it than we tell ourselves to be born. It is beyond our control to do anything more than recognize personhood.
The issue is one of recognition, and we have failed to recognize the inherent rights of the unborn.
Andrew
“Recognize” is a much better word, yes. So the question is, when do we recognize personhood? To recognize something, you must be able to describe it. And “DNA” is an absurd requisite. It’s not enough for me to reasonably say “yes, that is a good way to describe personhood”. It’s a great way to describe a human being, but not personhood.
If the Bible (or any book) has nothing to say about personhood, then that pretty much makes the book irrelevant in regards to that topic.
To answer the main question – you’d do nothing to the woman, but you’d prosecute the person who did the abortion.
abortion is wrong!
“mexican”,
I don’t see anything wrong with abortion but to those who see it as murder, you are essentially saying it is OK for pregnant women to aid and abet a murder.
And only a fool then replies, “but the women are confused…they know not what they do…they need our support so nothing should happen to them”
If the women can get away without penalty for “confusion” then why can’t the doctor? do you think s/he performs the abortion because they think of it as murder and enjoy the opportunity to murder? Are not they (in the anti-abortionists’ eyes) confused too?
But worse, why should “confusion” be allowed as a defense to for any crime, let alone murder? Isn’t that opening up Pandora’s box?
I have to respectfully disagree.
I have not read the numerous responses to your post, only a few so my point of view may have already been stated.
I am a Christian conservative and am pro-life.
I fear that this is not a black and white issue as many people believe. While I feel so sad knowing how many lives (yes, I said ‘lives’) are lost due to abortion, I also think that the problem is an issue of responsibility. It seems to me that until people become more responsible for themselves and their actions, the options are: 1.) abortion or 2.) for us as tax payers to take care of children when their mothers or parents are unable to due to their own lifestyle.
I would answer that question with a jail sentence for a woman who illegally performed an abortion.
To me, the punishment of jail time doesn’t seem that unreasonable. After all, there are several degrees of murder and not all of them warrant life in prison or a death sentence – that suggestion seems a little outrageous.
I personally feel that if the punishment was severe, women would consider other options like adoption agencies or more careful use of contraception. I am not ignoring the pregnancies caused by crime. I believe that through intense therapy and counseling women in those situations could come to terms with what happened to them and either keep their child or allow someone else to care for it and love it as every child deserves regardless of how they came into the world.
What I really don’t like about this provision is that it is so unrestricted. I’m pro-life and I think that all life (regardless of embryonic stage) is created by God and I disagree with abortion altogether. But honestly I feel it would be a step in the right direction if abortions were performed as a result of rape or other crimes where it is not an issue of personal responsibility. As it is now, anyone who doesn’t think that a child fits into their lifestyle can go and get rid of it along with any consequences of their irresponsible actions. I am so disappointed that our President doesn’t believe that his own daughters should have consequences or be “punished” with a child if they aren’t careful.
This is a huge social problem and if this question was posed to any Christian who understood the teachings of Jesus, they would declare it a church problem. The only reason that social services exist today is because the church is not doing it’s job which is to take care of those in need, whatever their need may be.
Perhaps I’m an idealist but I truly believe that is as it should be, but I certainly don’t have any expectations that it’s how it will be.
FOR ALL ABORTIONISTS
READ THIS:
THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS THAT YOUR MOTHER WAS NOT ONE!
NOW WHAT CAN YOU SAY FOR MOTHERS WHO WERE ABORTIONISTS? WHAT CAN YOU SAY FOR THEIR ABORTED CHILDREN?
This was amazing great, I’m not taking a position, but I mean these kind of interviews are amazing. People do a lot of things without knowing what they are really doing…
Thanks for sharing!!!
D
You know… I have no problem with a position for or against abortion as I am a moderate myself in that area.
But I really think the smug attitude you take on this argument is quite ugly. Might wanna get an attitude check if you want to keep a respected opinion.
When it comes to issues like drugs, abortion, or the sex industry, making any of them illegal has done little to affect positive change. What we need is more effective sex education to help reduce overall demand by promoting informed decisions.
Conversely, making abortion illegal demolishes any kind of constructive regulations in favor of forceful determent and fear-mongering.
In terms of religion, we were given free will, correct? Decisions made by fear of persecution is not free will – it’s authoritarian rulership.
Peter,
Recognizing personhood is an interesting subject. But here’s the issue I find: we really have no consensus view. We don’t really know! The problem is, we can only recognize and our recognizing does nothing to establish personhood.
So basically what we have is an unanswerable question. At this point, our response should be to err on the side of caution. If we don’t know when personhood begins, we should not seek to end the life of any unborn child of which we are uncertain about their personhood. To do so is akin to going into a room blindfolded and shooting a gun. You may not kill anyone, but why take the chance?
There’s a video here with some food for thought:
http://www.catholicvote.com/
Andrew
http://seekingtheface.wordpress.com
Andrew,
Generally, we think that no person should be allowed to drive a motor vehicle on public roads until they reach adulthood. Thing is, there is no consensus on when adulthood begins. Some have written laws but many disagree with the decision as it’s arbitrary. Since there is no consensus on when adulthood is reached and we can never know an exact answer, I think we should play it safe and not let anyone drive. Doing so risks lives. Why take the chance?
“Well, there is no consensus Peter, but surely a 20-year old has reached adulthood. We have to draw the line somewhere. In fact, it would be absurd to claim that a 20-year old isn’t an adult. Of course, I agree that we should play it safe (maybe 16 isn’t wise? hard to say. we could discuss this) but you are proposing an extreme, blanket action when you suggest a ban on driving because we can’t say exactly when adulthood begins. In fact, I find your statement incomprehensible. In fact, what you say is so irrational that I wonder if you are actually against driving altogether and trying to circumnavigate to that goal.”
A zygote is not a person. To say we should “play it safe” in such instances is at best irrational and at worst, suggests an ulterior motive in such “advice”. I hope not the latter as attempting to get people to thoughtlessly agree is shameful.
The video: I couldn’t comprehend it. It kept talking about “this child” while displaying images not of a child, but of a fetus. Why do you suppose the makers of the video chose the words “this child” without showing any images of Barack as a child? Why not speak truthfully and say “this fetus”. That felt more like a feeble attempt to brainwash rather than an educational video.
Well Peter, I logged on to speak about the post Andrew posted, then I read yours. I think you fail to see the point of the post Andrew put up.
You speak about a fetus.
fe⋅tus /ˈfitəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fee-tuhs]
–noun, plural -tus⋅es. Embryology. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) THE YOUNG OF AN ANIMAL IN THE WOMB or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. IN HUMANS AFTER THE SECOND MONTH OF GESTATION.
“THE YOUNG OF AN ANIMAL IN THE WOMB” “IN HUMANS AFTER THE SECOND MONTH OF GESTATION.” So before the first trimester is over, the fetus can be recognized as a human. Just because it can not live out side of the womb makes it no less a human. At this point of life, common sense tells us that this “fetus” can feel pain.
I think what Andrew was trying to say is that BEFORE this fetus looks like a human, there is no RECONGNIZABLE way of telling when humanity starts. So if we can not recognize the fetus as a human before the end of the second month, does this make it any less human?
I too would rather ere on the side of ” Why take a chance?”
agentsmith592….I was exceedingly accurate in that the relationship between fetus and mother is a parasitic one. We are all “growths” of our Mothers’ bodies until such time as we are born. The key is Self Expression, Individual Self expression. Prior to birth, individual Self expression is a potential. It is not a realized fact.
There is a vast difference between potential and realized. Just as there is a vast difference between capital and credit.
I say again, there is a difference between a code which worships “Fear of Death” and one which Values “Love of Life”. For “death” is a part of Life, an experience of it.
Most of us do not know how to Love Life, for we have been taught conflicted codes that only love parts of it….the “good” and the “pleasant” parts of Life. This makes it a limited and conditional code.
Believing in these conditional codes creates/causes a whole pile of psychological issues related to emotional security and self esteem. By the time I mention that we are all in charge of the peptide production of our own hypothalumus glands, then the emotionally manipulative tactic of BLAMING others for how ever we feel, is nullified. Especially as it concerns being Fear-filled and emotionally insecure.
Quote: “jill maoney
FOR ALL ABORTIONISTS
READ THIS:
THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS THAT YOUR MOTHER WAS NOT ONE!
NOW WHAT CAN YOU SAY FOR MOTHERS WHO WERE ABORTIONISTS? WHAT CAN YOU SAY FOR THEIR ABORTED CHILDREN?”
I would come back in another body when it was time for me to live another lifetime. Duh… A non-problem! So get out there and provide contraceptives to prevent it if you think it’s a problem.
Quote: “Peter Rock If the women can get away without penalty for “confusion”….”
Showing his true colors – and true hatred. He doesn’t want women (only women, mind you) to “get away with” anything, like maybe sex without fear of pregnancy (like a man can).
Quote “Datajack So if we can not recognize the fetus as a human before the end of the second month, does this make it any less human?
I too would rather ere on the side of ” Why take a chance?”
Then get out there and provide, and campaign for, excellent contraceptives so women don’t have to take a chance. Put your preventive action where your mouth is.
Quote: “The issue is one of recognition, and we have failed to recognize the inherent rights of the unborn. Andrew”
Once they are born, they lose their inherent rights. If they’re female, it’s their obligation to be breeder stock so they can’t threaten men with their sexuality free from pregnancy.
Only men are supposed to have that!
Men, put your action where your mouth is: get snipped!
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=408520
Quick note first: As I quickly scanned the names of people posting here, I was shocked to see that they are mostly male, and the people being questioned in the tape were mostly sympathetic females. Also, I find abortion tragic, but I am pro-choice. Now; my opinion/question…..the big problem to most anti-abortionists is their stance that life begins at conception. I agree – to a point. Life begins at conception if the mother herself is alive, remains alive, that her uterus will remain intact, that her health is maintained, etc. The mother had to be fairly healthy to get impregnated. To you anti-abortionists, can you answer the following? What do you feel about women who have hysterectomies as a form of birth control? All those potential fertilized eggs, gone. What about women who don’t take care of themselves and can’t get pregnant? And, what about the male equation here? If there were 1 million abortions during the year in the U.S., there were 1 million potential daddies. (Correction – a certain percentage would end in miscarriage anyway – like 10-20%). I’m having a tough time trying to put all the blame on the women and doctors when there are men involved, 50% of the problem, acting like they have nothing to do with it. Help me out. For those of you who feel a woman should be jailed for having an abortion, shouldn’t the sperm supplier be jailed also if he was for the abortion? Or does he get a “get out of jail free” card if he can’t be located? Questions, questions, pesky things. Just like the tape showed.
@DataJack – If you read over the comments, you’ll see that Andrew and I are talking of recognizing personhood, not a human being. As far as I’m concerned, you can recognize a human being at the stage of a zygote by observing its DNA. Science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the life of a human being starts sometime during fertilization.
@Brandon – I was role-playing when I said “get away with”. I fully favor abortion rights for women and find the “get away with” mentality twisted.
@Peter Rock
Sorry Peter, my bad. I should have read more of the posts. Thankyou for letting me know that, “Science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the life of a human being starts sometime during fertilization.” But again common sense would have told me that were I to have used it. Again, Thankyou.
Peter,
So if, “Science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the life of a human being starts sometime during fertilization.” What is the difference between a human being and personhood? Can we truly separate the two and by whose authority?
Dana,
Yes, there are a lot of men on here. Men care about this issue. We are more than sperm donors, but some men are part of the problem. There is a lack of male responsibility in our society, that is being perpetuated by abortion. Men father children and are let off the hook by abortion. If the mothers were having the babies and calling the men to step it up and be a father, it could potentially make a big difference. Believe it or not, some of us 1. abstained from pre-marital sex 2. care about children, and 3. think it would be a tragedy if we fathered a child and the mother chose to abort.
_________________________________________________
The tragedy of abortion is that we are missing a generation of people: people like President Obama, who, had he been conceived after Roe v. Wade would have been a prime candidate to be aborted; people like Tim Tebow, one of the greatest college athletes alive, whose mother was advised to have an abortion due to a dangerous pregnancy; etc. Half of African American pregnancies in the last 36 years have ended in abortion! Is that not tragic, to think of where we could be?
“What is the difference between a human being and personhood?”
A working brain.
A zygote does not have a working brain, therefore it cannot be a person. What reasonable people can then do is discuss what qualifies as “working”.
“Can we truly separate [personhood and human being]”
Of course. To be a human being is to carry human DNA. To be a person is the based on the complexity of mentation. Clearly, there are instances of human beings who have no working brain and are therefore void of personhood.
Andrew says,
“The tragedy of abortion is that we are missing a generation of people: people like President Obama, who, had he been conceived after Roe v. Wade would have been a prime candidate to be aborted”
Yeah, and like Ted Bundy. Where would the world be without him?
Imagine The Potential (TM).
NO one is saying we should punish the father who provided the sperm.
Supports my argument that anti-choicers are not really interested in babies; they are interested in being PUNITIVE TO WOMEN.
It looks like mostly men being the self-appointed “enforcers”, but also women who hate other women (“if I had to get pregnant, so does everyone else!”).
I see right through them,and right into their punitive, hate-filled hearts.
I DON’T see them providing contraceptives to women and getting the men snipped.
Because their primary interest is not preventing abortion, but punishing women (not men, even though there’s one somewhere for every child produced). If every woman had good contraception and a snipped partner, these people would lose a lot of fun and “purpose” in their pathetic lives.
VJ, I do not consider a child a punishment. I consider it a joy.
Also, pro-life people did not bring up the punishment for women question, pro-death advocates thought that one up.
Fathers are the forgotten victims in abortion. Some do have a say in the life or death of the child, but many do not.
I am sorry you hate pro-life advocates, but the truth remains that except in the case of rape, the choice is made at conception. Most pro-lifers are also pro-choice advocates. Choose not to become sexually active if you do not have birth control methods and/or do not wish to have a child.
There is a long waiting list for families who wish to adopt, so your argument that the child cannot be cared for is invalid.
@jlue: “Choose not to become sexually active if you do not have birth control methods and/or do not wish to have a child. ”
There’s their true motive right there:
To make women sexless. Or mothers. Nothing else.
They are threatened by, and hate, a woman who has sexuality, and has sex without fear of pregnancy. (Like a man!) They want to punish women who dare to be like this.
I, too, see through their pretense, into this real motive.
Interesting and sneaky subject change, by the way, but I saw through it. “Punishment” (of women only, of course) is referring in this discussion to legal sentences; jail, killing, all the loving Christian things, etc..
jlue sneakily changed “punishment” of men as someone’s mistaken notion that a child was punishment. We were talking about legal sentences, duh. Before jlue pulled that trick – and then painted the provider of the sperm as “victims” – rather than half the equation in the pregnancy.
On top of the true motive of hatred of women, it’s some of the most muddled thinking I’ve heard.
Quote jlue: “Most pro-lifers are also pro-choice advocates.”
But only if women make the one and only only choice you want to force on them.
How much more clear can these people make it that they are uninterested in saving babies by preventing unwanted pregnancies?
Their only interest is in allowing unwanted pregancies to occur so that they can punish the women who desire to end them.
They want women to get pregnant. It gives them someone to punish.
If women never had unwanted pregnancies, these people would lose a lot of purpose in life. They would have to fill their now-empty time by trying to punish women for having sex. (But not men of course.) Perhaps they would fight to make illegal the contraceptives and sterilizations that prevent the unwanted pregnancies.
Insane, and full of hatred for women, but there you have it.
abortion is wrong. period. it murder without a just cause. you liberals always stand behind there is no just murder, then why should there be a just reason for a over the 100 million born and unborn fetuses crushed and destroyed since the 1980′s by certified, government sponsored people.
A few other good questions. What is moral today?
Anything you make it?
What is wrong?
What is right?
what is ok?
The majority of Americans make more a fuss about how we torture convicted or suspected terrorists, more than they give a shit about how a babies getting murdered.
Even more ridiculous?!
http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/
Somebody actually gives a fuck how a baby chicken gets killed to be cooked!? but still we pay taxes and support knowingly the same treatment and slaughter of our babies.
The youth are our future. Why do this just for the conveniences of living in the moment well?
American society is truly the one the worst, we come so far, to go so far into more and more inequity and unrighteous actions. There is no coming back.
http://www.hyscience.com/abortion10_weeks.jpg
http://www.rogueriver.tzo.com/blogginon/media/abortion001.jpg
More proof of my point.
What is Joesixxpack doing to get contraception to women, and to get the men snipped?
Ignoring that like anything.
If we prevented all unwanted pregnancies there wouldn’t be any abortion, duh.
Then what would he do when he’s feeling punitive?
haha VJ you really think that? What people like me are simply saying is stop killing babies. It murder. You know contraception is easily accessed in America for everyone. I said nothing in a hate against women either, I do highly dislike the actions of abortion though, and I’m simply influencing admonishment to abortion and the supporters of it.
People like you VJ and the tons others that have commented here who agree with you. Are simply the selfish discusting fools who have walked the earth, and you will no doubt have a seat reserved in Hell for you. America has outdone Hitler and the Nazi regime with abortion. No wonder why extremist muslims and catholics, wish death upon this nation.
You pro choicers that fully support abortion are ridiculous, i say my post, then you come back at me with what am i doing about contreception, you’re all in denial, like seriously, how do you expect to blame millions of abortions on pro lifers not doing stuff about contraception, (which we have dumbass!).
Like i said aboriton is wrong. There is no just reason. Although I am partial to the rape, or incest victim in it.
To: Joesixxpack
Getting back to the whole point of the video that was posted at the top – what should the punishment be to women that have illegal abortions? In your humble opinion.
The punishment should be prison time, even a life sentence if there is no sign of remorse. Otherwise, thats not likely to happen even if abortion is illegal, so the most fortunate decision would be to outlaw abortions in America.
I you dont see this
http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion06.jpg
as just for any reason. That why we have a foster and adoption system.
If women are having abortion still when they’re illegal, it doesnt make it any more right.
and dont reply “well if abortion is illegal then ladies are having nasty abortions in backyards and motel rooms”. theres no justification. So would it make it any more right if i killed the man who raped and messed up lil kids lives? then id be labeled a murder. So yea abortionists, and the women who partake aboritons, are blatant murders.
That’s a whole 6-pack of disjointed, hate-filled, illiterate rambling.
It’s the last thing that would cause anyone to reconsider.
There are better ways, but abortion would keep the gene pool from getting more polluted like that example.
Mr. Joe Six Pack: Thank you for responding in such a tough forum. Since you recommend jail time for women who have had illegal abortions, please tell me what term you would sentence the two following women in somewhat “made-up” conditions; 1) A woman who already has 3 kids; husband #1 died in Iraq, baby #3 fathered by a man who abandoned her and left her pregnant. Case #2) A 18 year old single woman who got pregnant the 2nd time she had sex with her boyfriend from highschool during their first year of college and she had parents who would want to kill her if they found out. Thank you for spending time on this. We need to know how to proceed.
Part of today’s problems stem from the thinking that an individual does not have to take responsiblity for their own behavior. Example: Some of you say that if someone doesn’t provide women with contraception they hate women. Huh??
This idea being propagated that ‘pro-lifers are only interested in punishing women who have had abortions’ is a smoke screen. It takes the focus off of the unborn and what the decision to abort really means.
The pro-life community offers services and aid to women who have had abortions.
What should the punishment be for someone who performs an abortion that results in a live birth and then kills the aborted?
What do you think it should be?
I have a neighbor who I posed this question to. She believes that “once abortion is banned, a woman who has an abortion and the person who does the abortion should be executed.
I believe that she means this literally – it makes no sense, but she believes it.
Quote@jlue: “This idea being propagated that ‘pro-lifers are only interested in punishing women who have had abortions’ is a smoke screen. It takes the focus off of the unborn and what the decision to abort really means.”
The “focus on the unborn” is a smoke screen. It takes the focus off the fact that when all unwanted pregnancies are prevented with fully available contraception, sterilization, and vasectomies, there won’t *be* any abortions! Duh!
The “focus on the unborn” is a smokescreen that takes the focus off the (your) hatred of women and tying them to fear of pregnancy that contraception and sterilization can prevent.
That’s too simple.
If you faced this, and faced your unwillingness to *prevent* all unwanted pregnancies, you would have to find some other outlet for your hate.
Here’s a strange one…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/index.html
By the arguments about personhood, there is no reason there was anything wrong with what was done to this child …
I’d appreciate if we stuck to the whole point of the video and this forum. If abortions were illegal, what should the penalty be?
Dana,
How are homicide cases treated involving the following three people?
A) The person who was killed.
B) The person who killed A.
C) The person who paid B to kill A,
bearing in mind one crucial detail: person C does not believe that A is even a person.
I think the reason this discussion strays so quickly is that the question of penalty has little to do with the rights of the unborn. For instance, we still disagree about the use of the death penalty to punish murder. It’s an ongoing debate in our time. But that doesn’t somehow mean that laws against murder ought not be prescribed.
Yet the heart of this post is insisting that an incomplete answer to the question of punishment somehow proves the pro-life position is irrational. I could be wrong, maybe that’s not the point Dan’s trying to make here.
Jesse, you said “Yet the heart of this post is insisting that an incomplete answer to the question of punishment somehow proves the pro-life position is irrational. I could be wrong, maybe that’s not the point Dan’s trying to make here.”
It’s not that being pro life is irrational; it’s just that trying to illegalize abortion and jailing people for it may be. I believe to reduce abortions, we have to get everyone to take more responsibility, not just the women or blame doctors. Parents, husbands, boyfriends, conservatives, liberals, all could help reduce abortions without jailing people or holding up pictures of aborted fetuses in front of restaurants that cause someone’s livlihood to be endangered (as the restaurant was in the video). To get the dialogue really going, if we stick to the whole reason for this particular forum, which is appropriate punishment, we may get somewhere. We may discover the punishment is already there.
Quote @jlue: “Example: Some of you say that if someone doesn’t provide women with contraception they hate women. Huh??
The pro-life community offers services and aid to women who have had abortions.”
[For how to make that forever unnecessary, read on:]
Quote @Dana: “I’d appreciate if we stuck to the whole point of the video and this forum. If abortions were illegal, what should the penalty be?”
Quote @jesse: “I think the reason this discussion strays so quickly is that the question of penalty has little to do with the rights of the unborn.”
[For how to make it irrelevant and unnecessary, read on:]
Look, I’ll explain it again, very slooowwwllly.
If you really want to prevent abortions – and I think you don’t – then you would be out there using your energy to educate everyone about contraceptives and sterilization. And then working to provide them. To everyone who wants or needs them.
(Funding, legislative action, donations, insurance coverge, passing them out, etc. Female sterility surgery is probably always advancing, but doctors try to get the men in to get snipped – it’s a much simpler, safer, operation, and very effective.)
If you prevent every unwanted pregnancy, there will not *be* any abortions.
How many times do you need to hear that to get it? Any child could get it. (It needs to be old enough to know about biology and reproduction. Then it could put you to shame understanding this very easy and obvious thing.)
There will not be any punishment, because there will be no abortions to punish! There will not need to be a deterrent, because with no unwanted pregnancies (here it comes again), there will be no one wanting or needing abortions. There won’t be any instances of “babies being murdered”.
How cool is that? Pretty neat, huh?
You would not need to have any protests or demonstrations. You would have all this extra time! You would have to get a life, or find another outlet for your hate. You would have to fill your time with some other activity, acting out your hate in other ways. Or, if you cared about “saving babies” – and I think you don’t – you could be educating people on, and providing, birth control.
It’s so simple! You could be out there preventing it with these actions, and you are not. You are failing. You are failing the cause of no unwanted pregnancies (which means no abortions, remember?) You are failing other people. And – you are just plain failing.
Brandon, I think that’s a fantastic idea. Why outlaw human rights violations when we can just address the underlying social causes?
Brandon, please forgive my previous post; it was a rather sarcastic response.
In spite of the belittling and demeaning language you used, your post did help clarify for me where pro-choicers are coming from. Let me see if I’ve heard you correctly.
From the pro-choice standpoint, it appears the one thing we agree upon is the goal of reducing abortions, which can be accomplished by reducing unintended pregnancies. You see very little engagement from pro-lifers on reducing unintended pregnancies, so you question whether we really are really committed to the principles we claim. You conclude there is another motive behind the pro-life position, namely hate.
Is this accurate?
This question is not as interesting as the many strange responses. Abortion is clearly murder, there is no logical defense. There are many defenses for abortion here, and NOT ONE of them is cogent, educated, intelligent, or proves otherwise. Thank you for this thought/comment provoking question.
Lao Tzu: So, what should the punishment be to a woman that has an illegal abortion?
Lao Tzu claims,
“Abortion is clearly murder, there is no logical defense.”
What is the logical defense that abortion is murder?
Most (all?) legal frameworks around the world require the victim to be a person in order to classify a crime as “murder”.
An embryo is not a person (it lacks the mental requisites for that to even be a possibility) and so has yet to experience the desire to be alive.
Jesse says,
“Why outlaw human rights violations”
The same goes for human rights. One must be a person to deserve human rights. Why offer rights to an embryo?
Hi everyone, ObviousMan here.
Quoting jlue (Who has utterly failed to read and respond to AnonymousDissenter’s post): “Example: Some of you say that if someone doesn’t provide women with contraception they hate women. Huh??”
Duh.
You pretend to want to prevent abortions. If you refuse to help provide to women (and men, duh) the means to prevent them, that’s hate. If you then want to punish women for what *you* could have helped prevent, that’s hate.
If you want to punish women, and sometimes their doctors, but almost never mention punishing the men who did the impregnating, that’s bigoted hate. If you want to punish them all, well, that’s non-bigoted hate.
You *want* to punish. That’s hate.
[Ref: Quoting Lao Tzu:“Abortion is clearly murder, there is no logical defense.”]
You withhold — or passively do not help provide — the contraception, sterilization and birth control that could prevent abortions in the first place. Then you tell the world you want to “stop” abortions. (But not prevent them!) Those are truly hateful actions.
It’s hateful to women. It’s also hateful to any fetus you claim to want to save, because you could have helped prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. You really prefer have some abortions happen – losing the fetus AND punishing the women. Neither one had to happen — no pregnancy, it doesn’t happen. (Take notes – there will be a quiz on this in Biology 010.)
But you want a few abortions for your “deterrent” – for something that could be prevented from ever occurring! You want punishment and deterrent so badly, that you will not do anything to prevent it from happening in the first place!
You could save babies by preventing the pregnancy, and you don’t. Pure hate.
This is Obviousman, signing off -
DUH!
[Wait for it...]
[Wait for it...]
So what does one do with existing fetal homicide laws?
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm
Do we throw them out?
Peter,
I want to personally thank you for keeping calm in this debate, and offering rational arguments about personhood. There have been many pro-choice postings here that have caused me to find it most ironic that the pro-lifers are the ones accused of hatred.
This is amazing. The anti-choice people just won’t answer a simple question – what should the penalty be to a woman who has an illegal abortion?
Dana, there have been plenty of answers given to your question, just none of them deemed acceptable by pro-choicers.
So what if pro-choice people don’t have an answer? Does that somehow prove an unborn child is not a human being with the right to life? Peter’s arguments seem to be much more compelling than the objection based on the question of penalty.
My view on abortion is based on personhood, as is my view on the death penalty – which I see as wrong. Abortion should be legal and the death penalty should be abolished.
All @jesse:
“So what if pro-choice people don’t have an answer? Does that somehow prove an unborn child is not a human being with the right to life?”
“So what does one do with existing fetal homicide laws?
Do we throw them out?”
“… why have you completely ignored the question about the nature of an unborn child? Is it a human being or not? Is it an unfair question?”
“The pro-life argument is not based on the ’superstition of a soul existing’. An embryo is a living human being.”
“For instance, we still disagree about the use of the death penalty to punish murder. It’s an ongoing debate in our time. But that doesn’t
somehow mean that laws against murder ought not be prescribed.”
“Does any pro-choice advocate have a logical argument to demonstrate that the unborn is not a human being? If there were a developmental biology textbook with a well-reasoned argument to that effect, I’d be open you know.
Oh right, I forgot– pro-lifers are the irrational, illogical ones here.”
Have you, even once, stepped away from the computer, given your debating a rest, stayed away from your protests and demonstrations, and gotten off your ass and and done something useful, compassionate and helpful toward providing sterilization, vasectomies and contraception?
The anti-choice people are so concerned about fertilized ova; they give fertilized ova the same attributes and value of 7 month old fetuses and living people. I say nonsense. You can go on and on about life beginning at conception; I say life began BEFORE fertilization; you had to have life to give life. It’s already there. If you’re going to freak out over fertilized eggs, then you should extend your concern to the healthy uterus, to the mental and physical health of the mother and father, to the community it will be raised in; but no – the anti-choice people only concern themselves with fertilized ova. That’s the easiest way for them to deal with the thought of abortion and makes them the most comfortable without leaving their couches.
Imagine living in a country where 500,000-1,000,000 woman are having babies they don’t want per year. (What are the numbers?) Imagine the cumulative effect of that over 10-20 years. I don’t like what I see. It will perpetuate even MORE unwanted pregnancies.
Imagine the legal and criminal machine necessary to prosecute women who have had abortions. What are they going to do – check their menstruation cycles every month? Check every woman who leaves the country with a pregnancy test?
If I follow the line of reasoning of the anti-choice people, women should be more valuable in our society since they are the ones that get pregnant and carry to term – but, guess what? They’re not.
To men: Have you ever considered what it’s like for a woman who is obviously pregnant? Suddenly, you are no longer your own person. Anti-choice people will treat you as if you are the world’s community property. Just try drinking a glass of wine while obviously pregnant in a restaurant. People will actually think they have a right to take it away from you, in front of other people, try to shame you publicly and righteously! They will also pat your belly without asking. You are no longer an individual with rights to many people. Think about that.
Males will never experience pregnancy. I find it odd that they seem to think they are the experts about it and appear the most likely to be anti-choice in this forum. Also, the women in the video were sympathetic to women who have had abortions, but still want to make it illegal. They really didn’t think it through, yet could work on that project for over 2 years. Amazing.
I am again going to ask of anyone who posts from now on to answer the question – if you think abortion should be illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have illegal abortions? What should the punishment be for someone that accidentally but carelessly drops an in vitro fertilized egg in a test-tube on the laboratory floor? Should that person be arrested for manslaughter? Poppycock. What if someone accidentally turned the electricity off on the freezer holding those test-tubes while drunk? Are we going to coin a new phrase ESUI? (egg slaughter under the influence.) etc. etc.
Anti-choice people: please try to relax. Life is full of serendipity. Where you came from is somewhat a mystery. Be happy. Stop worrying about fertilized ova the size of a piece of rice. Do something nice for someone in need today. THAT will help the abortion rate.
Dana,
“Imagine living in a country where 500,000-1,000,000 woman are having babies they don’t want per year.”
Actually the abortion numbers are close to 1.4 million per year in the US and 42 million worldwide. You have to understand, the pro-life argument is more imaginative! Imagine a world in which 1.4 million men and women were forced to pay the consequences of their actions. Imagine those who would think twice about doing what they did to get pregnant in the first place! Imagine those who would find the joy of loving that child more than they ever could have imagined!
This argument is seriously flawed.
Andrew – your post was seriously flawed also. You didn’t answer the question I keep posting and posting – if abortions are illegal, what should the penalty be to women who have abortions? Simple question. Answer it.
I think we should beat those women. With sticks.
Coming to think of it – we should beat everyone with sticks to inspire faith and charity.
I’m with you, stas.
World population at 6.9 billion isn’t enough. It’s not enough traffic congestion, air pollution, destruction of habitat, pavement, loss of farmland, “growth”, urban sprawl, housing costs, medical costs, welfare costs, slums, water pollution, lack of resources, overcrowding in the cities, global warming, or destruction of the rain forest.
The world needs more of God’s precious children crawling on it and competing for resources, or at least the next open spot in heavy traffic.
Let’s also stone them, but only the women, mind you; this entire forum Q and A is about how we should punish women. Read the posts about anti-choice motive being hatred of women, and then read all the posts answering how we should punish women. And then read the posts in which they deny hatred of women.
Let’s also stone them, and force them to be the breeders God wants them to be.
You’re right, Dana; Andrew isn’t answering the question.
I have little doubt, however, that he, if pressed, will have many scruples against punishing women. We have only to discover the specifics of his being punitive.
(Like jesse, he has probably not stepped away from the computer, given his debates and his desire for unspecified punishment a rest, gotten of his ass, and done something useful, compassionate, and helpful toward providing vasectomies and contraception.)
Andrew is seriously flawed.
Correction:
I meant that he would NOT have scruples against punishing women.
Lao Tzu wrote:
“Abortion is clearly murder, there is no logical defense. There are many defenses for abortion here, and NOT ONE of them is cogent, educated, intelligent, or proves otherwise……”
I’m still waiting for Lao’s logical and “cogent, educated, intelligent” answer to the question: If abortion was illegal, what would the penalty be?”
This is unsettling. I’m beginning to wonder – maybe all those anti-choice people WOULD line women who have had abortions and their doctors up against a wall and start shooting; that’s why they’re so quiet on this question. And, of course, the sperm suppliers would still be out working their “magic” for another day.
I think you’re right, Dana.
And they would be denying their hatred of women the whole way.
And, since they’re only killing women who have already had abortions (and their doctors, but not their impregnators), they won’t be killing any fetuses.
So they can still be doing only pro-life killing.
Christian want to be sensitive to the women that are struggling with their decision, because some women are doing it because of some type of crisis in their life. I am sensitive to these women and will and have helped them through there crisis. Though God wants us to be loving, He will hold each of us accountable for what we do. So the answer is: all killing of innocent life should be punished. How long depends on their state of mind, and the circumstances, just like other murders. Not every murderer gets the same punishment, but abortion should be treated like murder, because it is!!!
Thank you, Phyllis, that was brave of you.
As I understand you, you think some women should get off lightly depending on their mental states, and some could be condemned to death, just as if they murdered a living person during the commission of a robbery. Is that what you believe? Did I word it right?
But what if the woman who you think should be condemned to death or jailed for having an illegal abortion has 8 children under the age of 10 and is widowed? I need to understand you. Please enlighten us. And wouldn’t jailing women prevent them from having children when the time is right for them?
You said God holds us accountable; isn’t that sufficient punishment?
Dana,
Do you want answers from people or more things to make comments about? There’s no way to win other than agreeing with you and being pro-choice.
I realize that, if we were to make abortion illegal, the issue of how to punish women who have illegal abortions is a legitimate and serious one. I’m not sure what the answer is. While I do believe abortion is murder, it is obvious that many in our society do not see it as such. We have years of indoctrination calling it “a choice” and not “a child” that have clouded our judgment.
Part of the issue is, those of us that are pro-life really do care. We want to save the mother and the child. It gives us pause when considering compassionately how to proceed.
I think another part is an assumption we are making based on the current abortion statistics. It is difficult to project whether there would be hundreds or thousands or even more illegal abortions performed. I would venture to guess the number would be far lower than those who have legal abortions. Perhaps if we began to think about children as a child and not a choice, we could drastically reduce these numbers.
How do we proceed? I don’t know. What I do know is that abortion is the taking of an innocent and defenseless life. What would you suggest?
Andrew
Andrew says,
“We have years of indoctrination calling it “a choice” and not “a child” that have clouded our judgment.”
Abortion is the destruction of a human being in utero. A child is a person who is already born. I don’t know any pro-choice advocates who think it is OK to kill children nor is it even possible to abort a child. Calling a human being in utero a “child” is what clouds judgement.
What I am about to say will probably freak a lot of so called “Christians” right out of their shoes.
Christ came and died for “ALL” of humanity’s sins, both those who lived and died before him and those who would live and die after him.
Christ was asked what the greatest law was. He said all laws were good, but the greatest was the law of LOVE.
He also said how you judge is how you will be judged.
Love thy neighbour as thyself.
Judgment upon your neighbour to die for having an abortion does not fall under the love law, but rather the judgment law.(how you judge, is how you will be judged)
I am an imperfect Christian man, and as such where it concerns abortion will leave the judging of women up to God.
As a man I do not have a clue on what goes through a womans head when pregnant.
Therefore guys and gals, if you are Christian leave the abortion issue up to those better qualified to handle it.
I would like to preface everything I say here with this. Just because a person goes on a web blog and says they are a Christian and they want this or that done, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are Christians. I would guess some to this in order to attempt to influence others against Christians.
DataJack, What you said, isn’t a new revelation. All Christians know that Christ died for all and for the sins of the world. This is the reason for our faith.
I cannot understand what you are saying because it seems to make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Christians know the love of God. If you remember, it is the person who owns this site, along with a reporter, who brought up the question of punishing women. Pro-life people are not against women. We are for pre-counselling and equipping women with ALL the facts. We know that women are often victims and need help before and after the abortion.
You said,
With this logic, Christians should have no part in society and/or the judgements in court.
Do, however, rest assured that the issue of punishing women who have had abortion is not a Christian agenda. There are Christian ministries around the country where women who have had abortions are able to get help and encouragement.
The “sin of omission” is failing to do a helpful action when you could have done something.
So I ask the sinners of omission, Phyllis, Andrew and jlue, again:
Have they, even once, let alone repeatedly, ever stepped away from the computer, stepped away from their demonstrations, given their mouths and keyboards and debate a rest, gotten off their asses, and done something useful and compassionate and helpful toward providing vasectomies and contraception, to prevent the abortions they claim not to want?
Andrew:
You asked of me “how do we proceed?” I say do nothing. Leave abortion legal. That being said, I am very conflicted on what stage of pregnancy legal abortions should be allowed. I’m going to leave that to professionals and whatever higher power is out there.
In my first post, please remember, I wrote that I considered abortion tragic.
You wrote: “those of us that are pro-life really do care. We want to save the mother and the child. It gives us pause when considering compassionately how to proceed.”
That is very kind of you. Tell me what you have done for women AFTER the birth of a child who previously considered abortion, then did not because of your intervention. If you’ve been involved in that kind of work, I’d like to hear about it. I may donate to it.
With your group of people that are pro-life and really do care, have you gone to cities, deep in those scary parts of cities, and tried to do anything about the abortion problem there? Just wondering.
I am not being flippant. This forum makes me sad. I come from a place that believes reducing the abortion rate starts with effort to help people BEFORE they have an unwanted pregnancy, which means MORE work than simply “caring” while going to church and meeting other pro-life people.
Some of you may wonder about me; what really is making me sad in this world – I’m feeling the weight of the world on my shoulders because of our wars and the fact that we lost more soldiers to suicide than battle last month.
To Everyone: Peace be with you today, and try to have a happy Valentine’s Day.
No.
Phyllis wants to punish women for having sex without squeezing out a baby. No mention of punishing the men who were the sperm donors.
jlue wants to wait until the women have had abortions, and then “help” and counsel them after the fact. No mention of punishing the men who were the sperm donors.
Andrew wants to punish. Women. Period.
No mention of punishing the men who were the sperm donors.
I agree with Peter Rock and Dana. Many of us pro-choice people prefer there not being abortions. I think we prefer preventing the pregnancies, so that there need not be any. If they happen, fully born and grown humans should have choice about it.
The anti-choice people are not doing anything to prevent the pregnancies. I think they want some abortions to happen. Therefore, I can only conclude that they are guilty of the sin of omission.
Brandon,
What does wanting to stop abortion have to do with wanting to punish women? If I said I wanted to stop murder, is that the same as I want to punish murderers? You are drawing an unnecessary conclusion.
ObviousMan,
The issue goes much deeper than vasectomies and birth control. And perhaps I am doing my part to help. What are you doing?
If I said I wanted to stop murder, is that the same as I want to punish murderers? You are drawing an unnecessary conclusion.
But a true conclusion.
The issue goes much deeper than vasectomies and birth control.
No it doesn’t. Provide the. Stop the unwanted pregnancies – your game is then over.
And perhaps I am doing my part to help.
You’re not.
If we have come to the conclusion that abortion is murder, than it should be punished accordingly. However, the argument that if someone has a hard time stomaching the thought of punishing these women in desperate times as murderers, then that means that they are somehow “stumped” on whether abortion is ethical is not a cogent argument. These are 2 independent issues. One does not prove or disprove the other.
As for the cogent argument that Dana and Peter Rock are looking for as to whether an embryo is a living ogranism, then I recommend any introductory course in biology.
So, why do you think an embryo is NOT a living organism? I am curious.
Lao:
Thank you. You finally answered the question we’ve been asking this entire forum, which, is “if abortions are illegal, what should the punishment be to women that have them.” You answered, with rather frightful passivity “If we have come to the conclusion that abortion is murder, than it should be punished accordingly.” So, basically, you envision women being lined up against walls and shot. (No, I’m kidding. I’m sure you prefer the i.v. drip type of capital punishment.)
Question: An embryo is a living organism; kinda’ like cancer, right? Cancer grows and takes over. Kinda’ like organized religion. The result, a necessary website like this.
I am awaiting your cogent response to my more emotional post. Millions of women’s lives are at stake.
This page is getting too long to load. So if (not when, but if) we don’t come back to it, here is the summary and synopsis.
Many of the anti-choicers have muddled thinking about the legal process and legal sentencing. Some hesitate to punish women. None of them mention punishing the men who impregnated the women. They can’t answer what the legal sentence would be.
Others have no compunctions about punishing women. None of them mention punishing the; men who impregnated the women, either.
Both are punitive. Both are omit event he mention of punishing men, and therefore it can be concluded that they are punitive toward women only.
They call themselves, pro-life, but some are willing to murder people. Almost always, only women. The men: nothing.
Most of the hatred is shown by the anti-choice people. Lots of bible-quoting, which is a book only they believe, rather than something proven. The pro-choice people would rather there be no unwanted pregnancies, but are not showing hatred or forcing their choices on anyone, but simply protecting their choices from other’s force.
THe anti-choice people have not given their debates and demonstrations and bible-quoting a rest, gotten off their asses, and done something useful, compassionate, and helpful toward providing vasectomies and contraception, to prevent the abortions they claim not to want.
They ignore this point about their lack of prevention. only two answers were given to this: “…we have, dumbass!” and “perhaps I am doing my part to help”. The rest ignore it.
If pressed, one or two will say, “Women [again, no mention of the impregnating men] have a choice; if they don’t want pregnancy, they can choose not to have sex.” Although they won’t come out and admit that enforcing sexlessness on women [again, no mention of the impregnating men], unless the sex is followed by squeezing out a baby and becoming a mommy, the conclusion can be drawn that this is their true motive.
If it were not, they would be doing everything possible – legislative, medical, insurance, on the street providing, volunteering – to provide the sterilization and contraception that would prevent unwanted pregnancy, which would prevent the abortions they claim not to want.
Summary of the synopsis:
It is not sane thinking to be against abortion, and yet also against the sterilization and the contraception that prevents it.
It is not sane behavior to be against abortion, and yet passively to do nothing to prevent it.
There must be a different agenda.
This is ObviousMan, signing off with….
DUH!
Lao Tzu says.
“As for the cogent argument that Dana and Peter Rock are looking for as to whether an embryo is a living ogranism, then I recommend any introductory course in biology.”
I can’t speak for Dana but I think I’ve been quite clear that I don’t argue whether or not an embryo is a living organism. What an embryo is not however, is a person (it lacks the mental development to be a person). Therefore, I see no issue in destroying an embryo if that is what a pregnant woman wishes to do.
This post is still generating comments. Amazing. Some of the comments are getting seriously weird too.
It demonstrates the degree to which people have difficulty accepting Nature — life as it merely IS and our human place inside Nature. What strange claims are made here about something as normal as pregnancy and childbirth.
All of us are writing — are able to write here — because we had a mom.
I can explain their agenda. An anti-choice person speaking honestly would say:
There are some huge assumptions being made here. Does contraception and sterilization prevent abortion? If it makes it to the right people, maybe. Are you going to force people to get sterilized and take contraceptives? That is unethical.
The solution being proposed only treats the symptoms and not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is our disregard for the laws of God:
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
Abortion is murder and usually the result of adultery (affairs or sex out of wedlock). Our solution must deal with these issues, or it will never work.
No Shit?
And that convinces anyone that women should have no choice about their own pregnancy and be punished for exercising that choice, how?
DUH!
Prattle, blather, the hidden agenda showing.
Punitive. To women. Spouting bible verses to justify being punitive and doing nothing to help.
Doing nothing to help.
His verbal answer to
was
These is going to be my last post on this blog. The higher level thinking skills are just too much for me.
It took this blog to open my eyes to the fact that if a pro-abortion zealot makes an accusation, and a pro-lifer does not jump quickly in self-defense, BINGO, there you have proof that what the zealot said was “true”. I never knew that.
Also, I have learned that because Andrew believes in life for the unborn, he never steps away from his computer(very unlike the pro-abortionists here who hardly have time to write a post). Andrew even had the nerve to ask his accusers the same question that was asked of him. I have learned that means a pro-life person must certainly have a “Hidden Agenda” to dare and do such a thing.
The last thing I learned is that the real reason for abortion has nothing to do with responsiblity or lack of it on the part of two sexual partners who want to enjoy sexual intimacy but do not want to accept the consequences. Instead it has everything to do with the failure of some third party individual from taking their responsibility. I have learned here that if I am to be pro-life, I have the responsibility of paying for sterilizing the men involved and/or providing contraception for the women.
Let me make sure I have it right. If I will agree to abortion and to sending my tax dollars to Washington to fund the abortions, I am fine. Otherwise, I must stand on a street corner and hand out dollars and contraception or I am the guilty one when an abortionist performs an abortion. Did I get it right?
jlue claims to be against abortion, and when faced with the question of whether s/he has gotten off his/her ass and done something useful to prevent it with contraception and sterilization, starts in with the counter-objections to distract from the point (So that means the answer is “no”, huh, jlue?).
The point has repeatedly been made that those claiming to be against abortion would be doing everything to prevent the need for it —- you would think!
jllue must not be responsible for helping others with prevention, sex education, contraception and sterilization — but has time to go to all those protests trying to make abortion illegal!
Not responsible for prevention…… But it’s much easier and self-righteous (and serving the hidden agenda above) to do punishing after the horse has left the barn, so to speak.
Anti-choice people, starting with jlue, are answerable for this nonsense, self-contradiction, and avoidance of prevention, but do so only with counter-attacks, diversion from the issue, and being punitive.
Andrew is just the raving nutter the summary of the hidden agenda described. The description of his hostility and hidden agenda, while doing nothing in the way of helpful prevention, is spot-on.
I can’t believe the arrogance that exists with many of you pro-baby-killers. First, the author of this post titled it, “How to Stump Anti-Abortionists With One Question”. Ooh, you’re so smart, you met a couple of people at a rally who showed compassion towards the mother of an abortion, and suddenly you’re so powerful you can stump everyone! Woohoo.
The question is so easy to answer it makes it stupid, as if you couldn’t figure it out yourself. That was probably what the protesters were thinking, “What a dumb question, isn’t this person smart enough to figure it out? Isn’t he smart enough to realize that if something is illegal they should be punished?”
The other arrogance is that hundreds of people have intelligently posted responses to this question and have given other valid arguments but most of the smug pro-choicers here ignore or can’t answer those issues. Irony or hypocrisy?
The other thing, it’s ignorance to consistently pin anti-abortion values on right wing conservative Christians. There are thousands of people who do not sit on the right that are anti-murder. Imagine if Hitler had a Blog like this in his day; he would probably pin all Jews as anti-choice too.
Finally, you’re weak if you are for pro-lifer and feel you have to give yourself credibility so you won’t be persecuted by writing lines like, “By the way, I’m an atheist”, or “I’m a Christian but I’m not like those Christians”, Or yadda, yadda. The fact that you can claim that you value human life is credibility enough. There is no shame in valuing human life or to feel that everyone should have a chance regardless of another’s irrsponsibility. Shame is not standing up for innocent people.
It is also shameless to realize and have concern that abortions have a huge mental impact on most women and will affect them for the rest of their lives–They are also the ones we’re protecting.
BT starts by saying:
“I can’t believe the arrogance that exists with many of you pro-baby-killers”
There are well over 1000 comments on this post and I don’t recall anyone claiming to support infanticide. What are you talking about?
Barack Obama has shown himself to be a thinking man instead of a reactionary zealot who cannot do the math.
The funds that Bush withheld because a third world agency might mention abortion did not save any lives. They murdered millions. So much for prolife. Obama is not so powerful that he is changing any laws in the world- most third world countries (Muslim, Catholic) do not allow abortion on demand, only in the circumstance of risk of mother’s life. Do some research and you’ll find this is true. So he is actually preventing death by providing contraception.
The math is this- whether you are for or against abortion,
“Like all wars – there are casualties: the innocent pregnant women of poor countries around the world who depend on the UNFPA to safe their lives. The UNFPA estimates that the withheld fund annually would have prevented up to 2 million pregnancies, nearly 800,000 abortions, 77,000 infant and child deaths and 4,700 maternal deaths. That’s a lot of blood on the hands of these “right to lifers.””
This paragraph by Paul Tobin is from a well researched and documented, thoughtful article if anyone is actually concerned about educating themselves and making sure they know what they are talking about, on either side of the issue, instead of just getting emotional and throwing around the word ‘babykiller.’
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ambush.html
Peter Rock, the arrogance to not qualify a human fetus as a baby is exactly my point. The killing of a fetus is infanticide genius.
Let’s take a look at the following lines from the article:
“But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder.”
Now, I read several article in the past few years about or BY women who had abortions and are very emotional about it. One woman named the baby and bought him a blanket. Another wrote a letter to the baby/fetus, addressing the fetus as a “potential person”. She and her husband felt very bad, and felt very brave.
Some who support abortion see it as taking out a decayed tooth. It’s not murder. It’s a medical procedure. So WHY THE HARDSHIPS?
I don’t cry or feel bad when I’m going to the dentist to get a tooth pulled. I don’t call it “dear potential person”. I don’t name my tooth. I don’t see myself as some kind of a noble hero going through an emotional hardship for my dear tooth. Because it’s nothing! It’s just a stupid tooth!
So why do “pro-choice” people who have abortions sometimes have a tough time with it? Why do their pro-choice friends hold their hands and help them through it? Why are there pro-choice people who councel people who have abortions?
Gee, maybe it’s because deep down they KNOW it’s not a decayed tooth or a cancer cell?
Tomer,
“WHY THE HARDSHIPS?”
I would think there are many women who haven’t thought about the actual facts of abortion deeply. They may be taken-in somewhat by the anti-choice crowd’s “abortion is murder because it is the killing of a human being!” propaganda and thus feel torn inside.
Millions claim that horrible things are abound when you don’t believe in god. Many who haven’t thought about the question of god and are on the fence may struggle with a desire to embrace a secular life. But that struggle doesn’t justify the position of the believers. It simply explains the power of propaganda over the human psyche.
Actually, the reason why they can’t argue that women who get abortions should be given life imprisonment is simply the same reason why it would be hard to argue that a 3 yr old child who killed his younger brother should get life imprisonment. – The child doesn’t understand the gravity of what he just did. Its as simple as that. And therefore doesn’t deserve such a harsh punishment. Do you think if the fetus was yelling “mama! don’t kill me!” the lady would actually still think it wasn’t murder? They don’t know it’s murder.
I don’t think you’ve ‘revealed’ anything ‘special’ here. Like a ‘secret-anti-anti-abortionist-question-that-would-shut-them-up-in-one-second’ kinda thing, like your make it out to be.
There’s another Dana posting on other subjects at this site who is anti-abortion so I’m signing in as Dana 2.
To poster Toner – the fact that some women who have had abortions later feel some sadness about the experience doesn’t mean they feel they are now murderesses. They’re just sad. Understand the difference? They’re sad over it. Maybe due to their financial hardships that resulted in not being able to support children. Maybe they’re sad over how many times they’ve been beaten by their impregnators. Maybe they’re sad they can’t get their boyfriends to marry them because their men would rather buy cars and attend car races. Lots of reasons to be sad why they ended up aborting. None of these sadness causing emotions should result in illegalizing abortion so only women and their doctors end up populating jails or filling our court systems (paid by tax dollars). Did you read the facts coming out lately about our American society? “Criminal correction spending is outpacing budget growth in education, transportation and public assistance, based on state and federal data……” google it. “Toner” – so you want to add to the prison population lots of sane women and intelligent doctors? I am amazed at you, and all of the rest of you that are “pro-life” zealots who are really anti-privacy, anti-intellectual, anti-education (abstinence works!) whackos. Wow. I got a little nasty there.
I want to thank you, thank you for asking the question, thank you for posting the video, just thank you. I agree whole heatedly with everything you said especially:
“I support the legalization of abortion. I do not like abortion nor do I usually counsel it. However, I do think it should be available for women who want it, especially if they were raped or have zero interest in caring for a child.”
I didn’t take the time to read the comments I only read what you wrote and watched the video. I like your tact, next time someone flashes those nasty pictures at my car (so my son asks me why that baby is hurt in the picture) instead of wanting to pull over and smash their poster over their head I will think of you and what you said and how you reminded me that they are just sheep following their path without giving it thought from both sides.
THANK YOU.
Good question (and great video)! I’m not surprised that these people never considered the consequences of what they are pushing. It’ sad that they have such a simple view and are unaware that every law requires a defined penalty for breaking it. The question I’d like to pose to the pro-lifers is if abortion was outlawed completely, would THEY be willing and able to adopt, raise, and love ALL of the unwanted babies…? If not, then who would?
The woman does take part in the abortion-no doubt about that, but the abortionist is the one taking an innocent life. I’ve yet to hear of a woman that delivers the head of her baby and inserts a tube into the base of the skull and sucks out the brain causing the skull to collapse while giving birth. It is the abortionist that should be prosecuted and if the jury sees fitting, sent to death row for the destruction of an innocent child.
and Jason you’re saying that just because the parent doesnt have the heart to take care of their own child that it doesnt have a right to live. Simply because some people don’t want to sacrifice their precious money and time, the baby should just cease to exist.
blondie3221 says:
“the heart to take care of their own child that it doesnt have a right”
and
“the baby should just cease to exist”
This discussion is in regard to abortion. Therefore, it is implied that we are not talking about “babies” or “children”. Using these terms to discuss the human beings in utero confuses the issue.
The fact is that if your mother chose to have an abortion, you wouldnt be here! are you a human? personally, i believe that there is life the second a sperm fertilizes an egg, but even if you dont there is no denying that an abortion cuts off the potential to being a baby
I also dont understand how killing a fetus is perfectly fine as long as the whole body is not out of the woman’s body, yet the second it can breathe on his or her own, the killing or even abuse becomes tragic and heartbreaking and dispicable.
blondie3221,
Yes, if our mothers chose to have abortions, we wouldn’t be here. So?
Of course human life has begun once a zygote is present. But what’s so special about human life in and of itself? And yes, abortion ends the “potential” to become a baby. And that is precisely why there is no problem with it. Ending a potential baby versus ending a baby are two totally different acts.
As for late-term abortions, I can see why some feel uncomfortable about them. After all, the fetus has a wired brain by the 7th month. This is a fundamental prerequisite to personhood. For any time before this it’s absurd to feel unease.
i just want to leave my opinion.
just because one person emotionally feels that a behavior is wrong doesn’t mean that behavior should be illegal or subject the person to punishment. there has to be something more substantial to back up a claim that an action is wrong. none of our laws are based off of pure morality.
no one is really under any moral authority to determine what reasons behind getting an abortion are and are not valid- because it isn’t a moral issue. morality alone is nothing. you need logically coherent reasons as to why certain reasons are valid and others aren’t, not simply that it feels wrong.
making it illegal won’t stop it from happening, abortion has happened for thousands of years and will continue for many more. what gives someone the right to legislate morality or what one person does with their own body? if you feel abortion is “murder ” or “evil” then don’t have one. all you do by removing the right to one is decrease the safety of having an abortion. when was the last time a woman bleed to death from an abortion? since they have become legal they have become much safer, and less women have been having abortions. if they become illegal again we loose that safety margin. abortions will still happen if it becomes illegal, they just won’t be as safe.
abortion is not murder, and i think it’s ridiculous when people say it is. murder is defined as: “the UNLAWFUL killing of another human person with intent or malice aforethought”
now, let’s break this down.
1) is abortion unlawful? – no, abortion is legal. in some states, you can only get an abortion up until a certain point, however in other states you can get an abortion at any time. the power to decide this, is up to the states.
now, sometimes when a pregnant woman is killed, it is a considered a double murder. that is because the woman did not consent to the termination of the fetus. it is not double murder if the woman is less than her third trimester, and that is on a state by state basis. in some, it isn’t a double murder until it is medically a baby (first breath.)
2) is a fetus a human person? – no. human, yes; a fetus is definitely human because it has human dna and human characteristics. but is it a human being/person? no. a fetus is not an independent person. a fetus is completely reliant on the body of its mother for survival. webster’s dictionary lists a person as “being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity.” a fetus does not, in any way, fit that description. a fetus is completely reliant on the body of its mother to survive. once you are born, you become socially dependent on others, but you also become physically independent. those who are born no longer solely rely on the body of another to exist. one of the defining marks between something that is human and someone who is a person is ‘consciousness.’ it is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet.
3) does the pregnant woman have an abortion out of spite? – no, there is no evidence to support that. there are a number of reasons why a woman chooses to have an abortion, including health, family welfare, financial situation, and other personal reasons, but the decision itself is not one that is ever taken lightly. most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. no one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. no one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it.
even though abortion is not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. it’s hard enough as it is. women certainly don’t need others telling them it’s a murder.
Matt,
Having an opinion, and everybody does, is fine.
But you should get your facts right. You said:
The number of abortions increased dramatically after the Roe vs Wade decision and abortion has a very high death rate for the unborn. 99.9% end in the death of the unborn.
Abortion stops a beating heart.
Another thing that I want to mention is your definition of murder. Murder can occur without premeditation or malice.
What if one uses this dictionary definition? (crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) Still, I agree with you that women who have had abortions should not be called murderers. The sad fact is they allow an abortionist who understands completely what abortion is to do that, many times because the mother is uninformed.
I agree with you that it is a very hard thing and because of this, and since we are allowing it to be legal, we should insist that all women have couseling prior to the visit to the abortion ‘clinic’ and a chance to reflect on the procedure without being pressured by a staff who work in an abortion ‘clinic’. Every woman should be allowed to know all of her options, exactly what the procedure does, and then given some time to consider the decision. This is the very least we can do, but isn’t the way it is being done.
Some of the writers on this blog are ranting, raving, and demanding others tell them what they are doing to help without mentioning things that truly would help such as giving women access to information.
Regardless of what we do, however, abortion stops a beating heart, and because of that, it should be illegal. That is my opinion.
“Abortion stops a beating heart.”
No, it very often doesn’t. And even when it does, is that the definition of personhood now? A beating heart?
Because, if so, hospital doctors murdered my sister. Sure, she was completely brain dead, and was breathing only because of a tube down her throat, but her heart was beating away.
Funny that the cops never made any arrests on that one.
Ty,
I am saddened and sorry that you lost your sister.
Reread what I wrote. I did not say that this is the definition for a person.
Sometimes a heart is beating toward the end of life, and sometimes it is at the beginning. Most of the time, by the time the woman discovers she is pregnant, the heart is beating.
I just think the child should be given a chance to live. As I said, that is my opinion.
jlue says:
“I just think the child should be given a chance to live.”
Yes, I am against infanticide also. However, that’s not what we are discussing here.
“The number of abortions increased dramatically after the Roe vs Wade decision”
actually, the abortion rate has decreased. less woman have been generally getting abortions. want me to site my many sources?
Marti,
You do not have to name your sources. I know that the number of abortions decreased during the Bush administration.
I am referring to before Roe vs. Wade. There, of course, is no actual count because the procedure was illegal. There are some who may give numbers, but I would like to know how they accumulated the data. You can find all sorts of statements, but accuracy is important. Having been an adult prior to Roe vs Wade, I can tell you that abortion was much less frequent. The majority of Americans are law abiding. There were women who had illegal abortions, but no where near the number who have abortions now.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html
The site given above has a pretty accurate count of abortion numbers.
Ultra-sound technology has been a factor in reducing the number of abortions.
I am very much in favor of better educating and more couseling for women who are considering abortion. I want to see the numbers to continue to go down if we are unable to get the decision reversed. I would think everybody would want women to have all of the facts and time to consider such a decision.
What should happen to a woman that kills a toddler?
how is this different from an unborn baby?
a few years of growth
All right, then, anti-choicers,
What should be done in a case like this?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
A nine year old is raped by her step father.
Choose your argument carefully (I warn you!)
What sort of punishment will be meted out to those who do not “choose their arguments carefully”?
There really is nothing to “argue” about. A terrible crime was committed against this child. The question should be what happens to the rapist? Usually the same people who defend abortion fight against capital punishment (Not that this case is deserving of capital punishment). But that is the question as I see it.
Two wrongs will never make a ‘right’, but I suspect the child’s life would have been endangered by giving birth. The only time I would say allowing the baby to die is when there is going to be a death of either the mother or child. In this case it would have been either the ‘child’ or the ‘baby’?
Thankfully instances such as this are rare and have nothing to do with legalizing abortion on demand.
alright. Obviously people throw the word, “murder” around to try and make it abortion seem bad.
Let’s try and use some logic here. What makes a human life? The medical definition of a living human being is having all vital functions including brain activity, a heartbeat, and breathing.
If it can not do those things on its own, then by definition, it is not living. The same thing for a brain dead person; they aren’t living.
what is being killed is a group of cells. The same thing that is killed when I take my nails and scratch my arm, but I dont hear anyone calling me a murderer.
Abortion will never be illegal. Thousands of women death’s would be caused from it.
I originally came on to reply about the case in Brazil, but the logic employed by Ghostalker so overwhelmed me that I have to reply to it instead:
Unbelievable!!! The problem with your logic is that there is no logic here at all. The “medical definition of a living human being” you refer to is narrow and selective. I doubt it even exists as you state it. Where did it come from? Differing definitions can be found that support a wider scope. Tell us please!
A more logical take is to define “alive”. Here’s a neutral take on “alive”:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alive
By the definitions stated here, an emryo is alive.
OK, let’s be broader still. An embryo that “dies” is recognized as such by the body and is normally reabsorbed or eliminated through spontaneous abortion. The body knows what is alive and what is not. It is a better judge to define this topic than are men with their biases.
A so-called medical definition here in the US is not necessarily the same in England or Germany, language and wording aside. However, human beings are “universal” with regards to living or not. The definition for human life in use here in this country is not or may not be the end-all/be-all on the matter. But if it works for you…
Your argument also falls flat on its face if applied to a late-term abortion. It is no longer a group of cells that is being killed, but what might otherwise be a viable life ex utero.
You may be right that abortion will never AGAIN be illegal in this immoral land in which we live, but those of us who value human life–ALL human life–can still hope.
Those of us with the intelliegence and logic to see the situation for what it is may lose, but we will have tried.
Abortion is a matter of convenience. It is man’s attempt to eliminate the consequences of uninhibited sexual activity. It is an attempt to ensure one can have the fun without the natural consequences of putting egg and sperm in close proximity to one another. It is man’s biological “eraser” for a mistake.
Just because it can be done does not mean it should. Absent man’s willingness to live by a moral code that would eliminate rape, incest, and extramarital affairs, abortion would only come up as a question for those facing documented and non-speculative medical issues as to the child’s health and viability or the mother’s health.
And for the record, I do not support the death penalty either.
Ever learnig but far from the TRUTH all of you.
yeah save those thousands of womens deaths, just not the MILLIONS of UNBORN CHILDREN, Societies are judged by how they protect those who cant protect themselves, we FAIL. As of 1998 32 MILLION abortions where done in the US. We should be proud of all the people we killed and never let exist or partake in life, Hitler had targets, we dont care who we kill, thus our punishment will be more severe than his. He atleast killed in the open you people kill in the dark, we will all fail God if these MURDERS dont stop. This Country is coming to an end, everyone can smell its decay, maybe its time for a more GODLY NATION.
how about:
The person who PERFORMS the Abortion should be locked up, not the one who receives it. Any woman who finds herself in a position to take her child’s life and does so is obviously severely affected emotionally, and should be offered therapy to cope with the decision she has made.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
How about:
You shutting up your protests, getting off your ass and helping provide sex education, safe, effective and inexpensive contraception and sterilizations, so that health providers will seldom have to PERFORM an abortion?
Didn’t think so! Ulterior motives, huh?
In Brazil is Illegal and the woman or anybody who facilitates the abortion can get 4 years in prison..
The reason for abortion is that all women are too stupid to know what to do.These women become pregnant and are surprised so they need the help of informed men to decide for them. In the late term abortions a woman wakes up 1 morning and realizes that she wouldn’t be able to fit into her new dress so she goes for an abortion to correct this mistake.Of cause most late terms are done because the fetus doesn’t have a brain or is so deformed it may cause the death of the mother or wouldn’t live outside the womb.Up to the 2nd month the fetus is just a group of cells that doesn’t look like a baby.So it is the calling of the Religious Right to decide for these stupid females how they should run their lives.It is therefore important that Religion should be the Governing force in our society.One problem! who should decide which religion would Reign Supreme?
The difference between murder and abortion killing is grey to alot of people. But what we see is that those who lived a life and were murdered have thier life fought for. So we have laws that enact the punishment for those who murder someone else.Who will fight those who takes their first breathe. The mother? Why would she incriminate herself? If it is illegal they will do it no matter what. The mother will not go to court and confess that she killed the child then go to jail. I tis unethical so there will be no law punshment no matter what. What the difference is the human feeling of justice.Personally they should be punished but that should be determined bysomeone of a higher knowledge than me.
This is a strong post. Thank you for producing such excellent content on this sensitive issue. As a Catholic libertarian, I share your anti-abortion inclinations but am unable to be on the side of anti-choice. You’ve gained yourself another reader.
Abortion used to be illegal in the United States. What did we use to do with women who received illegal abortions? I know at one time, it was not the women who were prosecuted at all, it was the doctors, but I don’t know what kinds of penalties they faced.
Abortion might be considered murder, but people wake up please. We murder cows, chickens, sheeps, dogs, cats on a daily basis. What makes humans any different? We are animals, and we could be used as food but no theres the whole ‘human rights act. What about the cow acts, or chicken acts?
Abortion prevents people from living on the streets, it prevents people from being mothers of unwanted children due to rape.
No woman should be forced to bare a child, and abortion is saving a live instead of ‘killing’ it.
I am neither religious nor extremist, but abortion is murder. If you were to ask me this same question, my reply would be simple, “they should be put on trial as murderers and the doctors who assisted as well.” As for the punishment, I don’t necessarily agree with the death penalty so I don’t know.That would be up to a judge to decide anyways, not me. I don’t care who it inconveniences, who’s life is forever changed, or what hardships are in store due to it; life is the most important thing. Ending one just because you don’t want it is wrong. Finding narrow definitions of life to ease you conscious should your first clue that it’s wrong. Splitting hairs about when life begins is the cowards way out.
Don’t get me wrong, this same principal holds true for anyone who takes the life of another for selfish reasons. Life should be protected, at ALL costs. Not just at the cost of what some find convenient.
You got me, wow, what great logic.
How about this one
How can a pregnant women get an abortion and it not be murder, but if that same women is murdered the convicted person can be charged with 2 murders?
Try that one big boooy.
Because law and biological science are completely separate fields and because of the element of choice on the part of the mother. Next obvious question, please.
I know of pro-lifers that believe that if the illegal abortion does not kill the woman, then she should be executed.
So that’s not a difficult question to answer, you just need to find a “pro-lifer” willing enough to say what they really think.
That doesn’t stop me in my tracks at all. The person performing the abortion is the one doing the actual murder. I wouldn’t be opposed to the woman getting accessory to murder charges.
If the rest of the pro-life movement thought as you do then you would have no problem getting Abortion outlawed.
But they don’t. Most of the pro life movement doesn’t think abortion is murder.
I am ANTI-ABORTIONIST and i can answer this stupid question for you!If ABORTION was illegal and women that does it on their own(not forced to have one)but does it on their own should be charged with accessory to murder and should get the same sentence as anybody that was charged for accessory to murder.If its life in prison so be it if its the death penalty so be it.
Thank you, Glenn, for proving the point of the OP: Extremists are thoughtless morons who snap to judgement and want to impose their (provably wrong) “values” on the rest of society and who respond to challenges which prove them wrong with extreme anger – and, on the internet, with CAPS-LOCK. Kudos.
Well, ANTI-ABORTIONIST Glenn…that doesn’t make one lick of sense. You say that if a woman aborts her fetus by herself, she should be charged as an accessory to murder. You should probably watch a few more episodes of Law and Order, because your argument is stuck on stupid. An accessory to murder means that there is someone else who actually committed the murder. In your case, who would be charged with manslaughter or murder?
First of all, you can’t admit the obvious: dead baby.
Second of all, go back to law school, the doctor performing it would be the one who actually did the deed. Now, accessory or for that matter being the one asking for the abortion might flip the priority here.
Personally, nothing significant happens until implantation. I might even push it up to differentiation. Maybe first brain cell firing. But with all the hype and ignorance on both sides I would declare most 2nd term abortions insanity. Look we have people on the Florida beaches using Goo Gone to get tar balls off their kids’ feet. Why are you even at the beach? Second termers are like that.
First of all, you can’t admit the obvious: dead baby.
If we’ve learned one thing, whether from science or religion, it is that the obvious is almost never the truth. Reality is deeply counterintuitive.
“the obvious is almost never the truth”
Me like.
Dodge.
Is it alive? Was it alive? Did have feedback loops?
He’s dead, Jim. And that makes you a spineless twit.
This question has no premise, its easy you kill the mothers that have abortions. it kills two birds with one stone, they no longer have abortions and it reduces our poverty level!
“they know abortion is not really murder” – agreed. I’ve been around devout Catholics and Baptists all my life, and I have never witnessed any commemoration of the “loss of life” due to miscarriage, a.k.a. natural abortion. Perhaps a candle was lit, a few prayers privately said, but that’s it. No mad assaults on tobacco companies, responsible for many miscarriages. If they truly believed the fetus was a human with a soul, you’d think there would be some special mass, sacrament, service, or whatever. When a woman I know who assists at mass lost twins at 4 months, her husband – bought her a cocktail ring. I didn’t ask what happened to the bodies, but I know they’re not in the family plot. The only case I know of where the family behaved as if a life had been truly lost was in the case of a stillborn full-term infant that received a private funeral service and burial. In that instance, the stillborn would have been disposed of as medical waste by the hospital if the family had not made their wishes known immediately. Sure, there is grieving for a miscarriage, but it’s within the family and close friends. Historically, babies weren’t even christened until they were several months old. If the modern right-to-lifers actually believe that a fetus is a person, then they should be performing a funeral every time a married woman has a period; after all, a fertilized egg may well have died.
I am anti-abortion, prolife, or whatever you want to call it and I immediately know how I would answer this question: The women should not be charged for anything. They have been told by numerous people that they are not killing anything, thus they do not perceive they are doing anything wrong because they have been deceived. You can’t hold them accountable for something they probably would not have done if they knew that they were tearing apart a fetus and then vacuuming the pieces, and then putting the arms, legs, torso and head together to make sure they got all the pieces. Watch an ultrasound of an abortion taking place, or talk to a women who has had breast cancer, mass depression, or the inability to conceive after having an abortion, and you will agree that it is wrong.
Except that those links to breast cancer, depression, or infertility are all lies made up by the anti-woman religious nutters to scare us out of having an abortion.
What’s WRONG is you (and others of your kind) wanting to force women to remain pregnant against their will.
Abortion is not wrong.
Who do you think you are kidding? Please show me the links I gave you… yeah. I personally know many women who face conflicts such as daily. If you don’t want to believe it well that’s your problem. I’m not here to convert you or something, maybe you should just be a little more open-minded. If you only get information from one side, how much can you really expect to know?
I am a huge supporter of women and that is another reason why I disapprove of abortion. Whether you agree with me or not is your problem.
And I know many women who have had abortions and never had a problem.
If you REALLY support women, you would support our right to choose what happens to our bodies, instead of reinforcing the patriarchal idea that women are baby-factories.
Why are you turning this into an argument? You just won’t take anything I have to say because I’m not a woman. Maybe you should wake up and get off all this “you’re antiwoman” crap. So fine, go have your picture perfect body.
I met with a Planned Parenthood offical who had a change of heart. She told me once a beautiful model came inside to have an abortion. They started the procedure, but the vacuum used to suck the child out accidentally attached to her intestines. The doctor tried to pry the vacuum off, but it was locked on so tight that he pulled her bowels out of her vagina. He told the Planned Parenthood woman to drive her to a distant hospital in her car, so as not to attract attention to incoming “customers.” She barely managed to survive, but she refused to file a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood because she was trying to keep her abortion a secret from her parents, and she did not want anyone to know. The week continued on like nothing happened.
You can say whatever you want about “Oh that MAN made that up!” or just call me anti-woman again. But you know what? I don’t care what you have to say because I know what I’ve said is true.
That’s entirely impossible, as the uterus is a fairly closed system. The “vacuum” would have had to perforate the uterus, and they’d obviously catch that BEFORE it had time to “latch on to” a patient’s intestines.
So, until you can show me the actual medical records of this woman, I call bullshit.
you’re obviously a misogynist.
hahahhhahahahah
yeah i think i told it wrong. i kinda forgot what happened so i just kind of made it up as i went along. sorry about that! do you think suicide should be a right of women? it’s their life… so why should that be wrong eh? come on wmdkitty get a life.
yeah sorry dude i told that one wrong… it was a good 15 months ago…. i shouldnt have said what i could not quote.
And the dog ate your homework as well. You tried to push some lie you heard on fix noise or some other crap monger anti choice organization and you just got called out.
ooooh. okay. you know a big problem with you “internet arguers” is that you won’t admit to ever screwing up. I did… sort of. I had a conversation with her a while back and I said something wrong, what’s the big deal.
All I came on here to say was that I could get around this question they asked me, but I ended up learning a better lesson: never say something that you are not 100% positive on, because otherwise your case will crumble due to the little bit of failure. So thanks guys, now I’m better prepared for any REAL argument. I doubt I taught you guys anything… cause you all seem to know EVERYTHING. But hey, I’m tired. Good night guys, it was nice talking with you. Oh and by the way, IT WAS MY CAT WHO ATE MY HOMEWORK I SWEAR!!!! :)
Thanks Brian, your totally bullshit lies have convinced me, praise jebus and don’t kill ya babies.
Brian you are an idiot. I had an abortion and it did not involve sucking anything out of my womb. I had two shots a week apart and a heavy period. I can still have children, breast cancer doesn’t run in my family (BRCA gene is responsible for breast cancer and has nothing to do with abortions) and I have never regretted, let alone been depressed about, my decision.
You, as a male, will never face making this choice, so quite frankly STFU about things you know nothing about.
I have a life, thx. I do this for fun.
You, on the other hand, need to get your head out of your ass, and get a fucking clue.
I firmly believe that men have no place in abortion conversations, because they will never have to make that choice.
Brian is such a troll and female anatomy continues to be a mystery to him. Suuuuuuure, Brian, if you think so, the vagina is a hole in a woman leading to her entire tum-tum area and it’s so easy to accidentally suck someone’s intestines out through their vagina. Idiot. I mean, it happened that you heard the story a long time ago so you got mixed up, but not making any sense didn’t stop you from writing it down, and now you’re trying to get out of appearing so stupid with lame excuses. And just because you read it somewhere or someone told you, you have to apply some logic, some critical thinking, some knowledge of human anatomy that you apparently are clueless about, before you retell it, and you didn’t. If it didn’t seem too stupid to write down and you hit send, that is date-stamped yesterday, so you were stupid enough to believe such a thing yesterday, not 15 months ago.
New christard definition: Making up Bullshit: is a “little bit of failure”
LOL, you lied, you knew you were lying and you did it anyway all in some kind of lame attempt to prove a point. Are we supposed to feel sorry for you now?
Protip: If you are trying to prove a point and you find yourself lying, stop.
Protip: When caught in a lie don’t try to claim its your audience’s fault.
“New christard definition: Making up Bullshit: is a “little bit of failure””
I think you’ll find that it’s worked so well for a couple of thousand years they don’t see why they should change now.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/12/17/edge/
That’s such a load of BS. The intestine is not in anyway connected to the vagina so your story is an obvious lie for jeebus. If the vacuum get stuck all you need to do is turn the pump off and you’re done.
“Why are you turning this into an argument?”
Because you are an obvious deceptive sh!tbag.
I’m a Christian and I do believe abortion is murder. You actually didn’t stump me because I believe that if abortion was illegal, which it should be, that you should get same punishment you would for murder. I don’t find that unreasonable at all.
So then what punishment should a woman who gets an abortion receive, Ben? Be specific.
probably life, or at least whatever the sentence is for assisting a homicide. the drs should have who perform the procedure should have equal punishment as well
Greaaaaat, another one throwing around the “abortion is murder” meme. Too bad/It’s a good thing, most of the right to lifer’s don’t believe it.
Ben when you can’t convince your own side that abortion is murder, how do you expect to convince us?
im sure that the video doesn’t represent most “right to lifers” views. the video was obviously made by some spineless atheist liberal to make Christians or people of conservative values look stupid. The people on the far left always use this tactic because they can’t come up with good points on why there idea is good so they figure they will slam the other guy. its disgusting really….
Try to pay attention, you’ve had over a month to think about it. We’re not talking about the people in the video, we’re talking about you and the simple fact that you toss around the abortion is murder meme when by your own actions you show it not to be true.
You and others don’t believe that fetus’ are people. If so where are all the secret funerals for all the poor 1 month old pre-born “children” who’s mothers bodies abort “naturally”? Where are all the protesters and political leaders chaining themselves to the doors of the clinics?
wow…just wow… well first off no one would go to a “secret funeral” anyway because no one other than close family would even know the fetus. About protesters they do a right to life march every year. i wish i could have attended but i was still in school then and my parents wouldnt let me skip for it. and as far as political leaders go…. our world is a very dangerous place. Socialist ideals seem to be on the rise and govt is very very corrupt. Socialism, which is a “lighter form” of Communism which is based on the “fact” in their mind that their is no God. If you believe that then human life can be devalued, hence the belief of killing off undesirable people(abortion, eugenics, etc.) would be ok . Progressives(people that want this fundamental change) are on both sides of the isle. It’s few and far between to find a politician who hasn’t sold there soul for power or money…
Ben, just so you’re aware: The only reason that I approved this comment through the spam filter was its comedy value.
Your preconceptions (read: pure ignorance) are so wrong on so many levels it’s just hillarious! Communism is based on atheism?! Socialism is eeeevil and is a short step from communism?!
Dude, you’re a McCarthy Era cliche of yourself!
Yes those horrible values such as subsidising farming and the defence industry which only happens in those evil soc**list countries!
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
…which is a “lighter form” of Communism which is based on the “fact” in their mind that their is no God.
Communism is based on atheism the same way that the KKK is based on Christianity. Do you think the KKK have anything useful to say about Christianity? Exactly.
“… to make Christians or people of conservative values look stupid.”
Why make the effort when you do such a good job without any help?
Not everyones like Bush lol yeah he’s an idiot everyone knows that. I can’t find anything wrong with conservative values. Whats wrong with wanting less government intrusion in peoples lives and letting the people take responsibility for themselves. As a conservative I think the governments responsibility ends with making and enforcing laws to protect citizens(i believe this includes a living and growing fetus) life, liberty, and there pursuit of happiness. If you want to call me stupid for having these values go right ahead.
“If you want to call me stupid for having these values go right ahead.”
yep, I’ll certainly call you stupid for the following …
“Socialism, which is a “lighter form” of Communism which is based on the “fact” in their mind that their is no God.”
… do you have anything else you would like me to call you stupid for as you’re doing ever so well with proving my point that “Why make the effort when you do such a good job without any help?”
What I’m getting at is that you are endowed by your creator with certain rights. That is what America was founded on. In communist countries they outlaw any kind of faith and the state dictates what your rights are and what is morally ok. I’m just saying that Socialism is evil, maybe not the idea, which I find completely unfair, but it always ends in the same way. Death.
Just…. Wow. How old are you?
Jabster, you shouldn’t make Ben look stupid. Let him pull himself up by his bootstraps and make himself look stupid without any help.
@Ben
“… do you have anything else you would like me to call you stupid for …”
I see that’s a yes.
@Custy
Unless he’s under the age on five he has no excuse.
@JMW
Sometimes you get stupid people posting and then sometimes you get the likes of Ben and it makes you think, could evolution really have spent millions of years and produced this?
Ben reminds me of the Dave Spikey quote: “Sixty million sperm, and YOU had to win….”
Ben.
What conservative ideals, the redistribution of wealth from the middle class and poor to the rich (which is not socialzt and evil at all) that republicans are willing to stop everything to achieve. The willingness to allow millions to lose their last life line by not extending unemployment benefits even tough all the experts says it’s the best way to stimulate the economy. You’re still young and I hope you will learn to not believe everything you hear on fix noise before your conservative, christian, for-profit health insurance decide not to pay for your surgery and have you choose between losing everything and leave your family destitute or die.
Custador beat me to it. :(
You don’t have values. WIth that cover-up word you are glorifying what is actually your hard, petrified hatred and desire to control people. You do not want to help them. Scroll down and read what I told you again.
Everyone I can think of, among people I know, who are upset by abortion and seem to have genuine concern about “babies”, have been strong users of contraception. They all now have vasectomies. They accept sex education as a matter of “of course”. It would be unimaginable not to have sex education, out of the question.
There you have it – these people practice, they do, the three things you keep ignoring (For the reasons I told you about yourself below): sex education, contraception, sterilization. Unlike you, they have actual concern, rather than (like you) using the pretended concern as a pretense to cover up your real desire to forcibly control people’s (mostly women’s) sexuality and sexual lives. Unlike you, they want to prevent abortions. Unlike you, they are genuine.
I don’t agree with their strong views about abortion, but unlike you, they care, and they want to prevent. It’s about preventing what genuinely disturbs them.
The difference between them and you is antipodean, diametric. You could not possibly be any more unlike them.
You hate, and to the extent that you can, you control.
Here is the exact difference between you pretending you are concerned about “babies” in order to hate abortion, and people who genuinely deplore abortion out of genuine concern. (Some of whom are -pro-choice, and very pro-prevention, which you would see if you would read the heading of Daniel’s article.)
When people genuinely abhor a result of an action, they do all they can to prevent the result by applying preventive measures. [Them]
Waiting for it to happen so you can punish it is not prevention. [You]
Sex education, contraception, and sterilization prevent the need for almost all abortions. (Based on various methods of contraception alone being over 90 % effective.) [Them]
Telling people “don’t have sex”, and then punishing them for having it, never worked, is not working, and will never work. Telling, and punishing, only the women, but not the men, is vicious, hateful, bigoted, and even a child who knows biology would find it ludicrous.[You]
@claid
“If you believe that then human life can be devalued, hence the belief of killing off undesirable people(abortion, eugenics, etc.) would be ok .”
What’s the betting that Ben believes in the death penalty?
I would bet money that pretend-to-value-life-Ben believes in the death penalty.
Then get out there and do your moral duty of helping to provide inexpensive or free contraception, sterilization, and sex education to prevent the abortions you pretend you abhor. If you don’t, you’re shirking your responsibility to help prevent murder, you immoral, lying, dishonest, ungodly, sinning, pretentious reprobate.
hey hey stop with the name calling it only makes you look dumb. I somewhat agree with what your saying with the education part. People should be educated to the barbaric ways in which fetuses are murdered. If they were people would think twice. My opinion is that if you have sex and a pregnacy “happens” you have to assume responsibilty. Thats the problem with the world in which we live. There is no responsibility.
As LRA just said on a recent abortion blog here, having an abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions. Duh!
It was in reply to someone saying the same cliche that you are using now. You are that predictable. I will tell you how you are lying, and how you are pretending, and what your ulterior motives are.
Since having an abortion *is* taking responsibility for oneself and one’s actions, your saying that people must take responsibility really means this: the actions are “having sex”, as you said, and “taking responsibility” is your lying cover-up words for “bring forced to have forced pregnancy and forced birth as punishment” for having sex.
Your ulterior motive is to have women not have sex, to be asexual, and be force to have children and be mommies, because you think that is “their place”.
Pretending to care about “babies” is your socially accepted cover-up for your hatred of people (mostly women) having sex.
Your “education” is a pathetic excuse for pushing your views, and includes *nothing* about sex education, and providing access to inexpensive or free birth control, contraception, and sterilization.
Therefore, you have absolutely NO desire to prevent abortions. You want women (but not the men who had sex with them and impregnated them) to be punished for having sex. You carry a lot of hatred, and are punitive. You use a false front of “concern” for “babies” when your real motive is to punish women (but not men) for being sexual.
If you actually wanted to prevent abortions, you would be providing access to the contraception and sterilization and sex education, which would prevent the need for many of them. Especially if you though it was murder, you would consider yourself helping out to prevent murder. You would consider *not* doing this as making you a passive accessory to murder. If it is murder, that is what you are now: an accessory, by your sitting back and doing nothing to prevent it.
But you do not want to prevent abortions. You ignored those things I tole you you can be doing in my last post. Your real desire is simply punitive, to “punish”. And to force women (but not the men) to be sexless, or else be mommies. If abortions were prevented, you would not have the satisfaction of this punishment.
(Which your lying cover-words call “taking responsibility”.)
You will continue to ignore that abortion, and better yet, sex education, contraception, and sterilization, ARE taking responsibility for one’s actions.
I challenge you to prevent abortions with contraception, sterilization, and biology-based and psychology-based sex education. You won’t do it, because your hatred could not tolerate people (mostly women) being sexual. And you would have fewer abortions, and fewer women, to “punish”.
These are your true colors. These are your ulterior motives. This is what you are.
This
That.
You put the left one in …
Wow, Claid! That was freakin’ AWESOME!
:D
Standing ovation time fo’ sho’.
Answer to your question of what crime there is that is not punishable by jail time adultery. Although it is a way to get out of a marriage it is not illegal its just a crime of passion lol
The reason these people cannot answer the question about what should be done with women who would have abortions if abortions were made illegal is that these people interviewed have not been told what to think . They have been told what to think and say regarding legal abortion and that’s all they are capable of, regurgitating what they have been told to think, they are all followers.
This.
“Thank you and god bless” is a religotards way of saying “Go &^$# yourself”. When you hear that you can confidently walk away knowing that you’ve won the argument.
Hm, argumentum ad Yoda? Get himself in trouble, Ty will?
Save your screaming, Linda. You obviously don’t even understand Ty’s point. Or any other point made by anyone, for that matter. And I’m not even trying to be insulting. You simply don’t get it.
Sorry TRJ! Linda’s been banned twice already that I know of but keeps changing her IP address, hence the latest crop of lunacy is in the spam pile.
That’s ok. If there’s one person I can agree to ban, it’s Linda.
I am anti-abortion. However, I do not think abortion should be made illegal. I think that each and every woman who is going to get an abortion should have to look at sonograms of their fetus and have a brief lesson by their doctor on the stages of child development, and how developed their child would be at the time of abortion. This is only fair, since it is a medical procedure and for all medical procedures a person should be fully informed of everything behind it. You wouldn’t get a cancerous tumor removed without explanation and pictures beforehand, so the same should go for abortion. Funny, though, how reluctant people are to do that…Uncomfortable much?
Speaking in my role as a NURSE: You’re full of shit. Most people with cancer want to know what they’re fighting, and most people who need a termination (“abortion” as a medical term refers to when the body spontaneously ends a pregnancy on its own) do so because either their foetus is already dead or becasue to continue to carry it would kill them. You’re an idiot and I make no apology for telling you to go fuck yourself.
You wouldn’t get a cancerous tumor removed without explanation and pictures beforehand
Yes I would.
Your argument is invalid. Do you have anything else?
Why makes you think you know whats best for me and what I do?
This sums up most of the forced pregnancy crowd’s arguments.
That’s a wonderful phrase. I’m going to start calling “pro-lifers” “pregnancy forcers” from now on.
Dude, the Pregnancy Enforcers…
It’s like, a group of police specifically there to make sure all pregnant women — from the moment they find out they are pregnant — not only carry to term, but do everything a specific, “correct” way. Any deviation from The One True Way — birth control, abortion, lifting heavy objects, consuming anything not approved by the Enforcers, etc.,– is punished by confinement to a hospital bed for the duration of the pregnancy.
I suppose, in that system, a miscarriage is tragic, but the woman is placed under closer observation — if she turns out to be incapable of carrying to term, she’d be sterilized, and assigned to some job or another, perhaps even assigned to tend the infants of other, more “worthy” women.
Whoa. That could make one hell of a dystopian scenario.
This attempt to stump Right to Life advocates fails to engage why we believe elective abortion should be illegal in the first place. Rather, it is a sophistry designed to exploit average Right to Lifers who have not thought through their entire belief system. But as a matter of pure logic it is possible for a person to be correct in his or her general conclusion and inconsistent in applying those conclusions to one or more particulars. A trick question may be effective rhetorically, but it ignores the argument given for the conclusion (that elective abortion should be illegal). We should then work from that main argument to draw out the logical implications. The fundamental question should not be “if abortion were illegal, what would be done to women who have abortions?” but should be instead “should abortion be illegal, and if so, then why?” After all, just because some actions may lead to undesirable consequences, this does not mean we should endorse the choice to perform the action.
The penalty for crimes which we consider serious seem be harsh but we recognize their justice because we already acknowledge the crime as serious enough to warrant Government intervention. So the real question is not about what happens if people break the law, it is whether there should be a law and, if so, then why? Among Pro-Lifers themselves there may be disagreement over what constitutes appropriate legal measures, but first we endeavor to prove that elective abortion should be considered a serious crime.
Based on what? The Bible certainly doesn’t condemn abortion, and I thought that was your universal moral code right there?
My argument in opposition to abortion is simple and straightforward.
If it is a serious moral wrong to kill innocent human life for reasons of convenience, and if elective abortion kills innocent human life for reasons of convenience, then elective abortion is a serious moral wrong – and should be outlawed.
What all the responses to my initial post so far suggest is that the respondents do not understand the argument made by Right to Life advocates. It is simply incredible for a group which accuses an entire movement of religious motivation not to provide a single cogent argument in refutation of what has become scientific dogma and is usually philosophical commonsense: from the moment of conception, a unique human individual comes into existence. No contemporary biologist and / or human embryologist on the planet denies what 2nd Graders learn in their elementary textbooks and what can be found in a number of other embryology textbooks as prestigious medical schools. Even Abortion Rights Advocates such as Marry Ann Warren, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Peter Singer, and David Boonin *concede* the full humanity of the embryo or fetus yet deny his or her (sex is determined at conception) right to life on other grounds.
So the humanity of the preborn isn’t up for discussion, because science has settled the question. Or does anyone have an argument (other than “That’s just religious”) with scientific evidence to prove that preborn humans are somehow “sub-human”? A misunderstanding of the basic mechanics of biology may account for the crude notion that Right to Lifers have this hidden – or plain – agenda to “control women’s bodies.” But this begs the question since in abortion, as any embryologist or abortionist may confirm, the woman’s body is not the -only- body in the procedure. (Which is obvious given a moment’s reflection on what is involved in an abortion procedure.) To treat the conceptus as being literally “part” of the woman’s body is, scientifically and medically, nonsense. If he or she is part of the woman’s body, does a woman with a male conceptus have a penis? And why does the conceptus have a DNA distinct from any part of his or her mother’s body? Do pro-abortionists really believe that a dependency relation – even intensive, sustained physical dependency – erases any distinction between nurturer and dependent?
There are many other reasons why I oppose abortion, but the central argument is this. I will simply set down the argument without any further elaboration. Pick at it, object to it, insult me, whatever you can do to keep from responding to it, right? :-)
Major premise: It is a serious moral wrong to kill innocent human life for reasons of convenience.
Minor premise: Elective abortion kills innocent human life for reasons of convenience.
Conclusion: Therefore, elective abortion is a serious moral wrong.
Anything else is just a distraction from that single argument.
Note: I wrote this several hours ago but am just now posting, therefore I’ll choose not to respond to all the several replies to my last point. It would take too much time and my browser is in crawl mode.
Answer: Where to begin…
First, it’s phrasing like that which tells me you’re religious (despite you refusing to answer a simple yes or no question below – your reason for being a pregnancy-forcer are horribly transparent).
Second: Define “convenience”. You’re assuming an awful lot of knowledge about the reasons people have for have terminations (“abortion” is a medical term for the body spontaneously ending a pregnancy on its own – when a doctor does it, it’s called a “termination”). I’ve been in emergency theatres and seen a fair few terminations; all of them were done because the foetus was no longer viable and/or because the pregnancy was seriously endangering the woman’s life. Pregnancy-forcers all too often don’t care that a woman will probably bleed to death if she continues her pregnancy – if there’s a 0.01% chance of the foetus coming to term, then to terminate it would be an elective procedure “for convenience”.
Third: You’r approaching the issue from the angle of moral absolutism, which is very theistic but also very invalid and very easy to argue against. Google it, I can’t be bothered to rehash old arguments for you.
First: Terminations don’t kill humans. 99.9999% of them remove something that looks like a sea-monkey from a woman’s uterus. It’s not a human being, it’s a little bunch of cells which has about as much in common with humanity as a verucca.
Second: I’ve already addressed your use of the word “convenience”, but since you seem so determined that there’s no such thing as a medically or socially necessary termination – Do you think it’s “convenient” for a woman to come and spend a day in hospital, an hour or two of which she’ll be in an operating theatre in quite possibly the most undignified pose possible, having a team of people staring into her vagina? I don’t.
EDIT: I should also have pointed out that you hold human life to be in some way special or unique as compared to animal life; without the benefit of exceptionalism bestowed by religion, that worldview is quickly shown to be nonsense.
That is a flat-out lie. Seriously. That’s not even a little lie. It’s a whopper. Nobody knows when a unique, viable human comes out of a pregnancy – it necessarily must vary for different pregnancies – but it’s certainly not at conception, and not until well past the 22-24 week stage. Very, very few terminations occur after that, and all of them are medically necessary.
Custador – off topic, but I could not find your recent comment countering the growth of religion statement by some Christian, so here’s the link,hope you find it.
http://peoplesworld.org/atheism-grows-among-youth-high-school-students/
Thanks, Mike. It was on this thread right here.
Nobody is arguing against the humanity of a piece of human tissue that could someday with pain and effort become a human being. What you and the emotional arguments on your suggested site haven’t shown is why it should be considered a person.
You have by no means demonstrated this premise to be true, so you can’t assume your conclusion is. That a unique DNA sequence automatically mean a unique human is a ridiculous claim, do you consider identical twins to be one person? Since DNA replication is not perfect there are currently millions of cells in your body that have a unique DNA sequence, should each of them be considered a unique person with a right to life? You haven’t addressed my question from below, should a woman who had a natural abortion after acting in a way that is know to endanger a pregnancy (such as smoking or drinking) be charged with negligent homicide? If it turned out she did these things with the aim of causing a miscarriage (maybe because she no longer had the access to medical abortion) should she be charged with murder? In your world is any pregnancy that doesn’t end in a live birth investigated to make sure the mother had always acted in the best interest of the fetus?
I’m not even going to bother with the convenience point since it’s just part of the demagoguery aimed at portraying women who seek abortion as being casual about the decision in order to vilify them.
Go for it. So far all we get is, invisible magic man shove invisible immortal fairy into the egg at the moment of conception, really, my pastor said so and he and his bronze age book is a much more reliable source of information than all these scientists and their “reality”.
Custador, you know nothing about me yet assume I am religious. None of what I said relied for support on the Bible or theology. So your response is a red herring.
I wonder how these people http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
would view your uneducated, misinformed, and ill-thought caricature of the Pro-Life view being a merely “religious.”
Generally it’s considered polite to ask a person what they believe before you assume you know what they believe.
Generally, it’s religious types who want to have control over women’s bodies.
What’s your “godless” rationale for taking control of another living breathing person’s body?
Sorry to take a pro-lifer’s side in this, but not all religious are anti-abortion, or at least not strictly so, rather more preferentially but not after changing the laws, and some atheists are anti-abortion. Can’t assume one has to do with another, even if usually. If religion=anti-abortion, it would still be illegal. If anti-abortion=religion, well, it’s just not the same thing. I’m also curious for his rationale, but not extremely so. I will probably forget to follow up on this, actually. I imagine there’s more info on the link.
I said “generally”. As in “most of them”. Not “all”.
Sorry, I’m on an anti-generalization kick. While this is an atheist site, and most of the time an abortion thread happens, people line up their biblical objections, I would hesitate to jump to the conclusion an anti-abortion person was religious if they had not made any mention of that. Nor would I infer they must be a man, although I actually did say “he” on this one, and another one yesterday who says she’s a she and an atheist.
Radical, I know, but I think if there’s no evidence of religious motivations for the opinion, it’s a little embarrassing when you fill in that blank with the usual, and they get to say “HA!” It’s a bit of a red herring to fight against their religious beliefs when you don’t know if they exist, when you could just argue what’s in front of you, whether a cluster of cells is a human being or not.
I’m still waiting for his reasoning on this.
My take?
If a clump of cells can be considered a human being, it would also be illegal to remove tumors or other growths — they are, after all, “clumps of cells” with human DNA. The only difference is that one clump of cells has the potential to become a human being.
I don’t think that a “potential human being” should take precedence over an actual, living, breathing human being. I believe that the living human being has sole dominion over his or her own body, and has the right to decide whether or not something takes up (or continues) residence in that body, doesn’t matter if it’s a tapeworm or a fetus or an alien parasite from the next galaxy over. My body, my choice.
I agree with that. My take on the rest of it is, I’d like to see more behaving rationally and not reacting to statements on assumption behind it or usual bugaboos, like “linda”. I thought, aside from disagreeing with drichards, the couple paragraphs had enough to deal with and no biblical content. And a treat more coherent than linda!
*snrk*
My cat could dance on the keyboard and be more coherent than linda.
Generally it’s considered polite to leave a woman’s uterus alone.
Agreed.
Question: Are you religious? Yes or no.
Generally it’s considered polite to ask a person what they believe before you assume you know what they believe.
He did you idiot. Based on what?
Just because you didn’t like what he said after the question is no reason to ignore it and play wounded victim.
I looked at your site and it doesn’t give any arguments as to why abortion should be made illegal other then the claim that a fetus is a living human but not a shred of argument as to why we should consider it to be one. If we accept your reasoning, should a woman who smoked while pregnant and had a spontaneous abortion charged with negligent homicide?
I checked the site too and was disappointed to find nothing but screeds of rambling about the sanctity of human life. They may not cite the bible, but it sure sounds religious, and everything was couched in very emotional language. While I’m sure there are atheists or secularists who still are against abortion (in fact a friend of mine is like that, though he admits he cannot really give a reason other than he thinks it is a person), some of this site is so hysterical I cannot help but be suspicious, if you know what I mean.
Suspicious nothing – That site was authored by liars for jesus.
I have no association with that site and have not read most of its contents. I linked it in direct response to the point assumed by Custador that because someone is pro-life therefore they are religious. This is demonstrably false.
Custador has attempted to drag me into a conversation about religion, which is irrelevant to the argument I make. Suppose he thinks if he can show I am religious, then he can show my beliefs are “just religious” and from there seek to prove that my arguments are false. But then, that’s called a genetic fallacy.
You ARE religious. So many of your presuppositions are based entirely on religious possitions that it IS relevant to the debate. You are not impartial, in fact your are imcapable of impartiality until you get away from that mindst.
And incidentally: Having the same username as one of the Rational Response Squad fools nobody when you also use the same username on a bunch of Christian forums. Liar. For. Jeebus.
Your continual evasion of the question by going on ad naseum about how your religious beliefs have no bearing on what you think, speak volumes about the supposed validity of your arguments.
“philosophical commonsense: from the moment of conception, a unique human individual comes into existence. ”
Based on what? You dont get to hand waive away by saying Everyone thinks because obviously they don’t.
Just pick one, you claim a fetus is a human being since the moment of conception. Why, what makes it a person? Is it the ability to feel pain?, or think? A blueprint isn’t a house, a seed is not a tree.
Go ahead a pick one of the varied questions instead of beating the I’m not religious lie so repeatedly.
“10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.”
“Nobody is arguing against the humanity of a piece of human tissue that could someday with pain and effort become a human being. What you and the emotional arguments on your suggested site haven’t shown is why it should be considered a person.”
“If a clump of cells can be considered a human being, it would also be illegal to remove tumors or other growths — they are, after all, “clumps of cells” with human DNA. The only difference is that one clump of cells has the potential to become a human being.
“I don’t think that a “potential human being” should take precedence over an actual, living, breathing human being. I believe that the living human being has sole dominion over his or her own body, and has the right to decide whether or not something takes up (or continues) residence in that body, doesn’t matter if it’s a tapeworm or a fetus or an alien parasite from the next galaxy over. My body, my choice.”
“doesn’t give any arguments as to why abortion should be made illegal other then the claim that a fetus is a living human but not a shred of argument as to why we should consider it to be one.”
“10. Finally, Since one can kill a deer or a lamb or a bat, all of which have more brain function and feeling than an embryo, the “it could turn into a person if you supply enough blood circulation, food, care, and pain” argument is, in my opinion, proxy for “But it has a soul! It’s people to God!”
If abortion is considered a serious crime, then what is the sentence for not having one? If you value the potential life prior to birth, what would you be willing to provide for it. It seems like you are willing to condemn any woman already, no matter what, and all their babies you want them to have. What kind of life are they going to have if they begin unwanted?
Oh, but not having an abortion is rewarded with nine months of pregnancy, and the joy of pushing a watermelon out your vagina! Being a MOMMY is what ALL women should aspire to!
*gag*
I am pro-life.
Yes i have thought about the answer, i am not stumped.
If abortion was illegal…
Those who are caught giving abortions would be penalized for 2 to 3 years in prison for performing an illegal practice.
Women caught having an abortions would be sentenced to 6-12 months in sex ed. counseling (that would teach them about safe sex, and about when life really begins, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN AT CONCEPTION) that they must attend. If they refuse to attend, then they may get prison time for refusing to obey their sentence.
Yes it is murder, but it is murder under a totally different circumstance, so it does not need the same penalty as murder outside the womb does. Just like if a 13yr were to shoot someone. It’s murder but it has a catch. He was under the age of full consent (18). Just because it’s murder doesn’t mean he gets life in prison. Yes abortion is murder, but the baby IS in the woman’s body and the pregnancy could have been a surprise and the baby was human, but was not potentially a “person” yet, so those should be the consequences. Not life in prison. Id say if the woman was caught more that 3 times having an abortion though, that a few years in prison could come into play.
I bet you the number of teen pregnancies and abortions would really drop if these were the laws.
Also, if these were the laws, we could use that tax money that we used to use for abortions and turn to using it for helping pregnant mothers to have their babies born and possibly to help put them up for adoption if the mother can’t take care of the baby.
For rape victims (if the case could be proved most likely as rape) the mother would get extreme help from the government so she could carry and deliver the baby with ease and send it to a foster home.
Simple
“WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN AT CONCEPTION”
Sorry, but no. It doesn’t even work logically as that’s still a single cell. If we permit that single cell to be defined as alive, we are still stuck on the fact that it is still a single cell and not human.
“I bet you the number of teen pregnancies and abortions would really drop…”
Then why are there still significant amounts of dangerous abortions (dangerous because they lack adequate medical facilities, and even knowledge depending on who’s performing them) in countries where abortion is illegal? Abortion is a practice that has been going on for a few thousand years.
You know, for every 100 pregnancies, god aborts about 25-35; and that is neither noticed or complained about.
Please read son, “The Developing Human” by Keith Moore, it states that the life of a human begins at conception. Please get your facts before you criticize.
and god doesn’t abort babies, the devil does
Poe …
Agree. Not even a pro-life Christard is as stupid as Christin.
Thank you jabster but i am a girl and i found this site while getting facts to write my prolife speech for writing class.
Yes, of course you did, of course you did …
great come back jabster lol. and yes, thank you for finally beliving me, but actually im only in the middle of it right now, i can email it to you for proof if your interested in reading it :)
“but actually im only in the middle of it right now,”
You writing from the loo, what will your parents think?
Hang on I’m just about to have another crap (must have been that beef vindaloo I had last night – boy did they do a good ruby, you should try it sometime) anyway … so catching it’s ok but do you think I should let it go in the garden or maybe just keep it in carboard box until the weather becomes nicer?
keep it inside in a box so i can laugh when your house smells like a beefy crap whole. way to compare the life of unique human DNA the the poop out of a beefy burito
I don’t know why I’m asking the turd murderer but anyway, should I use plain straw or newspaper to line the inside of the box – I know sawdust is good but it’s just so expensive nowdays!
1. I am not your ‘son’.
2. Lots of religious hits when searching for your Keith Moore, so I don’t feel I can trust him to be unbiased.
Please read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511 .
That’s an abstract for a peer reviewed article– meaning, it’s fairly unbiased and is only looking at the facts. Prior to ~23-25 weeks, a fetus is not considered to be a individual human being on ethical and biological grounds. So no, human life does not begin at conception; at conception you only have life of a single-celled-parasitic organism.
Kieth moore wasn’t the only author, every single book in my city’s library stated that, i dont know who your listening to. and ps that single celled thing just happens to be made of human DNA, and it is a life, and since its a life we shouldnt kill it.
That large turd I just splashed down had human DNA in it … are you suggesting that I just murdered someone through drowning?
I kind of laugh when someone says they’ve dropped the kids off at the pool, because normally in 1-2 hours, you’re supposed to pick them up. Abandonment is more like it. How horrible are you! Lol.
retard i already told you thats YOUR human DNA, not the unique dna that is created when sperm MEETS egg.
Do you eat meat? Do all the animals you eat have unique DNA? I am suspecting you have a special excuse for it and are not a vegan, but let me know if you are consistent or not.
So Jabster’s DNA is not unique? But it was unique at the point of his conception? Hm, this is very complicated.
… ah, so you want to murder my turds do you. Think of the children, think of the children …
@trj
Don’t speak to the turd murderer …
If you want to play the unique DNA game, then what about maternal twins? Two individuals being born, with the exact DNA; based on your logic, to conclusions can be made:
1. It is alright for one to kill the other as they have the same DNA and are therefore not truly unique.
2. Maternal twins don’t exist at conception, it takes time before the embryo splits into two. So if life begins at conception, you have a problem: When did the second twin’s life start– there weren’t two conceptions?
yes trj jabsters DNA is unique, so thats why its illegal to murder HIS BODY and not his poop. Thats why i think it should be illegal to kill a fetus’ body, a body of unique human dna, not a piece of poop FROM a body of DNA
Seriously entertaining the idea of murdering poop? Ok, now I agree with Jabster and Custy, this has to be a poe.
TURD MURDERER!!!!!!1111!!!!!!
@PAUL
true, but twins or not, its still alive at conception. only since the embryos hadn’t split yet, you’d only killing one life rather than two. And in twins its different, that two unique BODIES of identical human DNA. Not a the identical dna of a person and their poop.
@ Jabster
lol this is just ridiculous.
@Christin
Unless you are made of poop, I’m pretty sure that poop has it’s own unique body too. I know that my body is NOT the same body as what I crap out…
And you missed the point– when does the second twin become alive? There is no second conception for that twin to become alive? So, by your definition of life, twins are essentially zombies.
“that single celled thing just happens to be made of human DNA, and it is a life, and since its a life we shouldnt kill it.”
Ever scratch an itch? Skin cells of the dermis are alive and have human DNA. What about tumors? How about the tonsils or the appendix? What about sperm, ya know, the ones that the male body’s immune system attacks (so it’s illogical to assume they are truly apart of us)? There are plenty of cells that we kill off, the ‘life’ of a zygote is nothing special.
And I’m listening to the scientific literature.
I read the reviews for her book on Amazon. It appears to be a clinically oriented textbook on embryology even bio students find to struggle through to the terminology used. I imagine it would be difficult for any fundie to get past the part where an embryologist might need to know the stages all the way back to a fertilized egg. I do not know about this author’s ideologies, but I would grasp that anyone interested in embryology would have to have a special interest in the stages of a live embryo before it becomes a viable human baby, and that all can get conflated by people of special interest. I.e., use science against scientists, when it suits them. Ignore it when it doesn’t.
I’m glad you agree its not murder. Why such a harsh penalty. If its a problem with a medical procedure you see as unsafe tell us where it’s going wrong.
That seems like an excessively long time. How long are the sessions and how often do you meet? I can see the whole what is a condom and how to use them and where to get them May take up 3-4 hours, what will the rest of the time be spent doing? I hope you will be suggesting general sexual instructions on how to spot some STD’s, and certain tips and tricks of various Erogenous Zones and sexual techniques to please themselves and their male and or female partners.
Life began way past that point, Ova are alive and Sperm are alive so are Tumors. What these 3 things are not is People.
But you just said it wasn’t murder it was an illegal medical procedure. Are you confused?
So you admit it’s not a person but you want to punish people for it. How does that work? Is every sperm and ova somehow special to you?
No teen pregnancies would stay about the same and the stats for abortions wouldn’t change at all for the rich.
What tax money? Now you’re just making shit up and ignoring the additional cost of raising that unwanted child to adulthood. Going to save 5 cents now to pay 100$ next year?
So the rape victim gets punished four times. Firstly with their rape. Second, they get raped mentally and emotionally again and again by constantly being reminded of their trama for nearly a year. Thirdly they undergo a permanent change in their lifestyle and health. Fourth they risk their lives giving birth to their rapists child.
Why are you so intent on punishing women?
there is a problem, its a procedure of killing a HUMAN, LIFE, and dont say its not, get your facts and read some embryology books. it is human because it has human DNA, and human DNA that is different from the mothers body. it is an individual. It has life it is alive, from the moment of conception, please read “The Developing Human” by Keith Moore
also, in the counseling, it would be, like, i guess more of a health class. where they learn more about STDs and stuff. There IS a lot you can learn in a year. not just using a condom.
“There IS a lot you can learn in a year.”
I think you show that’s not always true …
well in fact i just took a YEAR LONG class on health and it was ALL about how we can respect our bodies and about stds and about why to wait for sex till marriage.
Yes of course you did … so then what made you want to troll this site … I presume by your writing skills you’re probably a teenage male – is it half-term already?
Why to wait until you get married for sex? I would love to know what you learned in a year. Did you have to drink spit in this class? How do you know you’ll ever get married?
So you’ve just been taught abstinence only sex-ed. Congrats. You are now statistically more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock and/or have an STI than any other demographic of your age in the developed world. You might not like it, but that really is proven.
Who is paying for these abstinence-only sex-ed courses!
@Kodie the one who made the choice to have an abortion.
Taking a whole year to learn how not to have sex: That’s what I call special ed…
That explains it. A good brainwashing and indoctrination takes a long time.
Funny teaching people the truth doesn’t take nearly as long.
A seed is not a tree, a blueprint is not a house.
You’ve already admitted its not a person and apparently you cant come to grips that life does not begin at conception as the Twin question has completely flummoxed you. You’ve even gone as far as to start with transparently lies about “every book in your city” claims that life begins at conception.
also, yes, your right, Ova and Sperm are alive, but they are part of you. they are not their own living thing. only when they come together, do they create something separate with its own different DNA
Cancer tumors have their own unique human DNA.
@But you just said it wasn’t murder it was an illegal medical procedure. Are you confused?
Yes, it would be called an illegal medical procedure because it is killing a living fetus with its own separate human DNA, Also known as murder! gez
@So you admit it’s not a person but you want to punish people for it. How does that work?
It works because, yes, some people claim that it cant be a person yet so i was playin it safe, but YES it has been proven that a fetus is human, and person or not, it is HUMAN with its own unique HUMAN DNA. I think that there should atleast be SOME penalty for killing a LIVING HUMAN life. please go read an embryology book.
Christin, you keep talking about how things have been “proven”; please cite reliable scientific studies.
proudly, “The Developing Human” by Keith L. Moore, and all the other embryology books in my city’s library.
No, I said cite a scientific study, not religious propganda. Try again.
religious propaganda in the medical and health section of my library? that would be a lot of books in the wrong section…
@Custador – at least on the surface, this text appears to be an advanced textbook for the study of embryology, in which a prospective embryologist would need to know. This is more a case of cherry-picking science to promote propaganda when it suits the propagandist, who has shown clear signs of not knowing what anything she reads even means. She’s just looking for pieces to support her opinion and ignoring pieces that do not support her opinion.
@”No teen pregnancies would stay about the same and the stats for abortions wouldn’t change at all for the rich. ”
actually the number would drop a lot. Of course there will still be many illegal abortions taking place, but not nearly as many as would if it were legal. The abortion rate rose when it became legal. Even if the rate only drops be 2000, that’s 2000 babies saved. and the women? well its their choice whether they want to put themselves in dangers hands or not
*sighs* Termination rates in countries where termination is illegal are no lower than anywhere else. Women are going to have terminations one way or another; I for one would rather that they were safe and looked after. Of course, if you’re a spiteful, vindictive little madam who just wants women to suffer, that’s your lookout.
i really dont know what statistics your looking at here please show me? cause i know thats not 100% true
It is 100% true, actually.
[Education For Choice]
cool, but those are other countries, not America, the rate of abortions went up a lot in America when they made it legal in America, and more women die from unsafe abortions rather than labor anyways, so why dont they just have the baby and give it to a foster home?
A foster home? And you pretend to care about the individual’s DNA as a separate human person, but not actually about life. Life costs more than abortion, welfare costs more than state-funded abortion, and pregnancy causes more deaths than abortions. That’s not even getting into the quality of life, which you seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO REGARD FOR.
If you are for real, you are for real, real dumb.
You keep saying that, but as long as you don’t provide any statistics that back you up on this I see no reason why we should take this as anyhting but an unfounded assertion on your part. Please back up your claim. My guess is, though, that no reliable statistics exists – for obvious reasons.
If you would pull your head out of your ass and stop lying for jesus you could actually back up your words with some studies instead of the vague “I know it would”.
Teen pregnancies would stay the same as lack of access to adaquate medical care doesn’t change anything. Your silly ass year long indoctrination of abstinence only sex education has been proven to increase teen pregnancies. The rich will still have no problems getting abortions as they can always go to where they are performed without any undue hardship. Sucks to be poor.
@”What tax money?”
thanks to Obama of last year, now some of our tax money goes to helping poor women get abortions. don’t accuse someone of making something up unless your sure.
That’s not what he meant. It’s a fact that every 5 cents spent on medical terminations saves the state $100 in welfare payments. Again, you are ignoring some quite important facts here.
ok, i found it, IN SOME STATES the government uses a small amount of tax money to help some women get abortions
Christin, you have all but admitted you don’t read for comprehension, so it’s time to shut up and go home.
annnd you do?………….
Yes.
And what kind of argument is this? You think you can just form an opinion, argue with someone with a different opinion, and assume nobody knows what they’re talking about, how to read for comprehension, so it’s ok if you don’t either? I do know what I’m reading what you write, what you copy/paste from sites you don’t even read, I’m just reading what you put out there and translating it for you because you are not smart enough to read for yourself what it means. You’re not even smart enough to require I go find any other facts to counter what you’ve written. Everything you found is self-conflicting and contradicts your position, and I’m just pointing it out to you, because, yes, I can read, and obviously, you cannot.
@”So the rape victim gets punished four times.”
well who ever said that abortion was the safe way out for the women anyways? 48% of women who have abortions have trouble with their following pregnancies. only one in 4800 U.S. women will die from pregnancies, while one out of every 6,000 women who have an abortion after 21 weeks gestation die through out the world!
Math not your strong subject?
hey thats just what the website said dude.
So you just post things without knowing what they mean? And you’re calling any of us a retard?
i know what it means and it makes sense and i said that as in means to site my source to say that im not making crap up, not to say im unsure what it says. and the only one im calling a retard is the guy calling me a poop murder
TURD MURDERER!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Learn to be discerning about your sources. You’re talking about a speach-writing class? Well, that bit at the end of the speach where you say “Any questions?” – you’re going to get eaten alive if your audience contains one person with a functioning brain.
Who are you to say that only pro choicers have a brain? thankfully i go to a catholic school where ALL human life is respected. from the unborn to the autistic, to the dying and elderly. and dont say i dont respect women. i respect them by saying you should try to have your baby, because its a life that they created, and if the pregnancy can be done safely, and the baby can go to a foster home if needed, then there we have it a happy healthy women and child going on to live their lives, end of story.
Christin, I spend my life caring for ALL human life. I’ve seen people at their best and worst, I’ve seen death and held people’s hands while they’ve done it. I’ve cared for old, young, physically ill, mentally ill, emotionally scarred, men, women, transgender and all points in between. Do not presume to lecture me about respect for life.
“End of story.” Is that how the Catholic school wraps it up for you? No wonder you’re so simple.
Now, Kodie. About that card you don’t like me waving. Can I? Please? *flutters eyelids*
(that was a joke by the way)
Since when do the catholics know anything about science? The catholics told physics what physics is and lost. They’ve been whining since then and physics has just become more robust and accurate. The catholics told biology what biology is and lost. They’ve been whining since then and biology has just become more robust and accurate. The catholics have a lot to do in catching up with science if they ever want to be any sort of authority on science.
“i respect them by saying you should try to have your because its a life that they created…”
Except you don’t. You said that rape victims should still carry the pregnancy to term. Rape is not something that the mother would have chosen, and the resulting pregnancy would certainly not something that they consented to create or would have wanted. Why is forcing an unwanted burden on those women, a burden that violated all of their human rights to begin with, being respectful?
I’m actually a bit worried that your rebuttal might be along the lines of the “tight jeans defense”…
well have you cared for that tiny little innocent life inside a womb?
I’ve cared for pregnant women, yes – but applying a human concept like innocence to an entity which is about as human as a verruca is asinine in the extreme.
@ Paul
first i didn’t say we knew science, which we do, i take the same science classes you did, and their are many scientists in the world who and catholic, second, who are you to say you know about catholics? and this isn’t about my religion, its about whether unborn babies should be allowed to be killed or not!
Nope. And I’m confused about you’re question… My name is a masculine name in all of the languages I’m aware of, so why do you think I could care for a little innocent life in my womb? I mean… last time I checked, I didn’t have a womb… did that catholic school of yours not cover anatomy?
You still haven’t proven it constitutes the life of a human being.
Nope, sorry. That’s my limit of tolerance. I’m not going to let an uneducated ditz call me a baby-killer.
How is a fetus both innocent and a sinner? Or is it not a sinner until outside the womb? Its mother is a sinner, even if she’s a married procreative slave to her husband’s carnal needs and would never in a million years consider abortion. It’s made from its parent DNA, both sinners. How do you get away with lying about the moral state of something you consider a life as both innocent and a sinner?
The generalization I meant by “the catholics” was referring to the centralized portion of the catholic religion– the Vatican, the pope. Apologies for confusion over generalizations; of course individual catholics can know science, to say otherwise is just arrogant.
The part about whether or not I know catholics; i think this is still stemming from the miscommunication, but nevertheless: History isn’t on your side. The catholic church attacked Galileo et al, it wasn’t too keen with Darwin and his theories either. The catholic church has since then retracted its stances in lieu of the overwhelming data and peer reviewed consensus. You may be interested that it even attacked chemistry and mathematics once upon a time. Atoms were heretical, especially in Spain where the inquisition took to policing. Likewise, the mathematical concept of infinity was heretical when Cantor first started studying it.
You also haven’t shown that your religion, which will have undoubtedly put a spin on what is being taught at a religious school, hasn’t played into your views. Although not all, most pro-lifers fall back to religious arguments about the sanctity of life, so my assumption is not wholly unwarranted.
Furthermore, it does show that my assumption has validity that you are triumphing life beginning at conception. This is a talking point that I have only heard from those promoting religious view points as the scientific literature clearly shows that the life of a human being (note “being,” I’m trying to be careful about rhetoric now) does not begin at conception. There is a difference between life of a human cell, and that of a human being.
Unless a priest want to get his rocks off and then fu*k’um (literally).
If it’s done properly by medical professionals, it’s extremely safe. Complications are very rare.
Yes, because most of them are done illegally in non-medical conditions by non-medical people. That stat is not true for legal terminations.
no, 48% of women WHO HAVE “SAFE” LEGAL PREGNANCIES HAVE COMPLICATIONS WITH PREGNANCIES LATER ON! NOT ILLEGAL PRGNANCIES
BURN THE WITCH I SAY …. that’s what we do with people like you in my country.
p.s. Do you know that 99.85647% of all murders are caused by people therefore having more abortions will actually reduce the murder rate.
sadly they for got to reduce you
kay that was a little mean, but think about, you could say the same the opposite way, the abortions could be reducing the rate of nice people
But… if abortion is immoral and unethical and unholy etc then those getting them will fit that category, and their offspring would therefore fit that category, so the only people being aborted are the bad ones! teh logic is undeniable!
Citation, please.
just be happy pro abortionists, that yo mama didnt abort you.
Why? We were all dead for many billions of years prior to being born, and that didn’t cause any of us harm, not one bit.
Also, just be sad pro lifer that hitler wasn’t aborted. The reasoning goes both ways.
Just be happy, pregnancy-forcer, that you weren’t one of the statistically overwhelming majority of pregnancies that end in natural termination rather than proceeding to term.
“thankfully i go to a catholic school where ALL human life is respected”
…except heretics, muslims, jews, pagans, suspected pagans, cathars, protestants, atheists, suspected atheists.
Do you have any f*cking idea how many people the catholic church has murdered? Not unconscious clumps of cells. Living breathing screaming conscious people that were tortured and executed on the order of catholic priests. But then, they probably don’t mention too much about catholic history at catholic school.
I just read on an anti-abortion site that 1 in 166,000 abortions end in death for the woman. Even if that is correct and from a reputable source, you get that 1/166,000 is a lot less than 1/4800, or don’t you? That’s 34.6 times more likely to die if you don’t have an abortion. If you wait until after 21 weeks, as per your own assertion and not any other facts I went to look for, you are still 1.25 times more likely to die (in the US) if you don’t have an abortion after 21 weeks than if you do (even worldwide). I don’t know how you figure mixing stats like that, or confusing less with more, much less an advanced textbook on clinically oriented embryology that even grad students claim is extraordinarily difficult to read without an anatomy text handy. Worldwide stats, even including countries where medical care is less available, where dying in childbirth is higher than the US, where abortions may be illegal or more difficult to obtain before getting 21 weeks along or farther, you’re still MORE LIKELY TO DIE from being pregnant than not – in the US based on global statistics you use for abortions. You are not as smart as you think you were. I bet you got an A in your abstinence-only sex/health class.
well are you really gonna kill the life inside of you because of the 1.25 chance higher of dying from labor rather than abortion anyways?
your mom made that choice to have you
Yes? And? So? What?
Ok, so let’s list the fallacies so far:
Appeal to authority: book about embryology
Appeal to authority: websites full of propaganda false/fudged/invented statistics which one doesn’t read or think one has to read for comprehension
Tu Quoque: “annnd you do [read for comprehension]?”
Appeal to emotion: your mother had you.
Let me tell you Christin – if I was aborted, I would not know about it. Certainly would have been a lot easier for me many times over. Do not even try to fool yourself that matters any such way.
You haven’t made any non-fallacious arguments to support your position or provided evidence. Read the book, read the book, I just copied it off a website, I don’t know what it means. Seriously, you just have opinions and because you are convinced by those fallacies is no reason anyone smart would be.
If people don’t lie about statistics, or are not lied to about them, or have them dramatized inordinately, like you have (which is a lie you made in utter ignorance, but which is still a lie), they are able to account for that risk and use it to help them make a decision; that still doesn’t make it your decision unless it’s in your uterus.
Oh what the hell, I think I’ll join in this dogpile:
And yet the punishment for murder is twenty five years to life imprisonment – so you’ve just agreed that the “life” (wrong word, but never mind) of a fertilised ova or of a zygote or of a foetus is worth less than that of a human being – between eight and twleve percent of the value by your own reckoning. At this point you’ve already conceded that the pro-choice possition is essentially correct and you’re quibbling over details.
First of all: Citation, please. I want you to cite the studies which prove that the moment a sperm hits an egg, the combination is magically imbued with human life. I want you to cite it, because I want you to look for it and realise for yourself that it doesn’t exist. The reason it doesn’t exist is because it’s not true. I don’t for a second doubt that you believe what you said there, but let’s be clear: The preacher who told it to you is a liar. You’re repeating somebody else’s lie.
BOOM! There it is! The pregnancy-forcer money-shot: You want women to do what you want them to do with their bodies, and you want to be able to threaten them with punishment for not giving over control of their bodies to your warped ideology.
So you begin by saying that we should always assume a rape victim is lying until proven otherwise (a laughable possition when you realise how difficult any crime is to prove when the entire case amounts to victim’s word versus criminal’s word – can we all say “beyond a reasonable doubt”). You then go on to imply that those rape victims who can’t prove that they were raped (the vast majority of rape victims, FYI) shouldn’t get any support at all – and that those who can prove it should still be forced to carry and bear the child of their rapist.
You know, at the start of this little ramble I just thought you were naive, badly educated and a bit stupid. Now, having read that last sentance, I think you’re a vicious, vindictive, nasty little SoB.
For me, it comes down to two things.
1.) A woman should not be forced to have a child she does not want.
2.) A child should be raised in a loving environment, and feel wanted and cared for.
For many women crippling poverty plays a large part who choose to have abortions. I would like to quote Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development from the International Planned Parenthood Federation website, as he explains this point much better than I could:
“Millions of women have no access to reproductive health services; many more have little or no control in choosing whether to become pregnant. As a result, every year, some 19 million women have no other choice than to have an unsafe abortion. Many of these women will die as a result; many more are permanently injured. Nearly all the women who die or are injured are poor and live in poor countries.
Preventing these deaths and injuries will not be achieved without stopping unsafe abortions which cause around 13 per cent of all maternal deaths. Virtually all the deaths of women from unsafe abortion are in fact preventable. A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy should not have to risk death through having an unsafe abortion.
Access to legal and safe abortion care – as well as to care to treat incomplete abortion or complications from unsafe abortion – would help save the lives of thousands of women every year. It would also provide a vital opportunity to ensure women can subsequently access family planning and contraception to help avoid repeat abortions.
Punitive legal measures and restricting access to safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion; they just make it more dangerous. The result is that more women suffer. Not surprisingly, it is the poorest women – women least able to pay for any minimal level of care – who end up paying the highest price.”
I am sickened by those who suggest legal punishment, as though this were a black and white issue of legality rather than an issue of society helping women desperate situations, as well as protecting the potential quality of life for unborn children. Making abortions illegal isn’t going to do that. No woman wants to undergo an abortion if she feels she has another option; she will have it whether it is illegal or not, and all its prohibition will do is make it more dangerous for her. Plus, we’ll end up in a situation with many single mothers in poorer sections of society forced to have children they never wanted as a result of the State deciding what’s “best” for her and a ball of cells. This creates vicious cycles of neglect, poor education and unplanned pregnancy. Not a society I want to live in, nor one I would want to bring a child into.
I know women who have had abortions at a young age, and women who have decided to keep a child at a young age because they believe the fetus has a right to life. I don’t judge either of them, but I do value their right to choose.
Thank you for doing this. I know that you say you don’t support abortion but that you’d like it to be there for those who are in dire need of it.
I agree with you 110% and Am glad I have something to say to those people out there who heckle me for having done what I did.
She is right though, it’s not easy living through it after wards and we are paying a dear price…
but thanks, I’m glad I saw this.
its such an easy answer… they should get counseling and be sent back into society same as someone who commits a petty assault would get anger management etc…
maybe they could do comunity service for a short stint?
Im pro abortion tho, my gf and I had one late last year due to an unplanned pregnancy when her contraception failed… its a free service in australia and the level of care was fantastic – the reality is abortion will never be illegal in australia.
Well done for asking the ill informed. Did you ask any intelligent people of just chase the ignorent and single minded? …. I guess youre outnumbered by the latter?
sucks to be american huh? hows your dollar going anyway? lolz
@steve: Yay for missing the point of the video and displaying xenophobia, all while maintaining an attitude of superiority.
Sorry but you haven’t stumped this pro-lifer. Here’s the answer: Doctors and other medical personal preform illegal acts in our country everyday. We don’t arrest the victims of those illegal acts, we arrest the ones preforming it. In the case of illegal abortion it is not the mother who would be punished but the person or doctor who actually kills the baby. If a woman is going to someone else for the abortion than the woman is not actually the one stopping the baby’s heartbeat is she?
And what about a woman who throws herself down a flight of stairs to end her pregnancy herself, you may ask? Many illegal acts are committed by desperate people, our legal system is designed to adjust for that. This is why we have trials, this is why everyone gets a lawyer. This is why you are judged by a jury of your peers.
No group of 12 people are going to sentence a woman to life for one desperate act – but they may sentence a woman who repeatedly takes the life of her own children and in that instance it would be justified (barring any type of abuse situation of course).
Justified why? Because abortion IS murder. Plain and simple. Having an abortion doesn’t make you not pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead child.
Wow, nonsense.
Here’s the answer: Doctors and other medical personal preform illegal acts in our country everyday. We don’t arrest the victims of those illegal acts, we arrest the ones preforming it. In the case of illegal abortion it is not the mother who would be punished but the person or doctor who actually kills the baby. If a woman is going to someone else for the abortion than the woman is not actually the one stopping the baby’s heartbeat is she?
The law doesn’t work like that at all. Look up the crime ‘conspiracy to commit murder’.
And what about a woman who throws herself down a flight of stairs to end her pregnancy herself, you may ask? Many illegal acts are committed by desperate people, our legal system is designed to adjust for that.
No it doesn’t. A crime committed out of desperation is still that crime.
No group of 12 people are going to sentence a woman to life for one desperate act – but they may sentence a woman who repeatedly takes the life of her own children and in that instance it would be justified (barring any type of abuse situation of course).
Weirdly, 12 people are regularly willing to sentence people to life for a desperate act that caused another person’s death. Happens quite a lot, actually.
You have some very odd, factually challenged views about how the law works or you are ignoring what you already know in an attempt to wriggle out of the dilemma. It’s not working.
Aren’t most crimes committed out of desperation?
Bullsh*t, If I hire a hitman to shoot you I’ll be charged for murder, If I kill someone who been abusing me in an act of desperation I may get a reduced sentence but I will still be convicted of murder. You have basically admitted that you know that abortion is not murder but you’re just too attached to your mythology to say it out loud.
If I hire a hitman to shoot you I’ll be charged for murder,
Wouldn’t it be “Conspiracy to commit murder”? I think I watched a documentary about this once…
Ignorant emotional assertions from someone whose knowledge of the subjects presented was (probably) dictated to her by her religious leader.
Being a second-hand know-it-all doesn’t make you smarter than everyone around you, it just makes you an irritating echo of someone else that doesn’t have any actual knowledge of what they’re talking about.
*note: assumptions based on fundamental lack of anything resembling knowledge of the subjects presented*
@Ayla
If I ever have to go to trial I pray to God that you’ll be the prosecutor …
Except you’re wrong. Just sayin’.
Wow, long thread. Guess I’ll have to say my piece on this:
Personally, I am against any abstract laws, laws which pertain to the potential for something. In this case, a potential life, you know, “save our sperm” type stuff.
However, I am also pro responsibility, and I believe that a mother-to-be, by a certain stage, has a responsibility for her unborn child weather she likes it or not. And IMO, it should be that ‘certain stage’ which, if passed, the abortion of the child would be illegal, as it would be deemed to be a separate human being and not simply a mass of cells.
In the UK, this stage is 24 weeks, 2/3 of a pregnancy. In America it varies, as do all things. Thing is, though, babies have survived after only 24 weeks in the womb, so it needs to be lower than that. I remember reading somewhere about ancient Greek/Egyptian philosophy on the matter: they said that first, the foetus had the soul of a mineral, then a vegetable, then an animal, and finally a human being, so aborting it at that point would be murder. Although a colourful analogy, it makes sense that a foetus obtains greater levels of sentience as it develops, so now we just need to find the boundaries, the key stages of development in which a foetus can no longer be considered a ‘thing’, and then when it can finally be considered a human being. Thoughts?
I remember reading somewhere about ancient Greek/Egyptian philosophy on the matter: they said that first, the foetus had the soul of a mineral, then a vegetable, then an animal, and finally a human being, so aborting it at that point would be murder. Although a colourful analogy, it makes sense that a foetus obtains greater levels of sentience as it develops, so now we just need to find the boundaries, the key stages of development in which a foetus can no longer be considered a ‘thing’, and then when it can finally be considered a human being. Thoughts?
The origin of this concept rests with Aristotle, and strangely enough this was the reason that the position of the Catholic Church on the issue for many, many centuries was that abortion is not murder until the fetus shows independent signs of life.
I would not be stumped. I think a person who had an abortion should be put into prison. Like any other criminal.
Except, what they did isn’t illegal.
What buisness do peopel have telling a woman who got raped what they can do about the problem they have in their bodies? Why is someone expected to give birth to the child of a monster?
but not so open that your mind falls out
I support you, Dame.
Ask them:
“Have you ever stepped away from the demonstrations, given your debate a rest, and done something useful, compassionate, and helpful, that contributed to providing safe, effective, and available vasectomies and contraception, to prevent the abortion you pretend you don’t want?”
“Well, if you truly didn’t want abortions happening, you would be doing everything you could to prevent the need for them. You must have a hidden agenda. It probably has to do with controlling women’s sexuality and being punitive toward women.”
Sure, because every pro-lifer has a hidden agenda. You know it’s just possible they didn’t think of doing those things or they think that those things are in the same box and just lower the resistance threshold to abortion, so they probably won’t do those things.
It takes some pretty deep conceit to think that pro-lifers are on a mission to control women. Politicians are one thing. You are painting everybody with a broad brush.
Nobody’s out to get you.
I am not personally in favor of mutilating one’s body, so I do not volunteer to pay for people to damage their bodies. I do not think they should be punished for it, though I believe it is wrong.
I think that if a man wants to have the entire thing removed that he is free to do so perhaps after a psychiatric evaluation.
If a woman wants to have all or part of her reproductive “plumbing” removed, that is her business, perhaps after a psychiatric evaluation.
Just don’t expect me to pay for it.
True contraception, not using abortifacients, is a matter of personal choice.
Contraception is immoral. Not everything that is immoral should be declared criminal and threatened with punishment. Contraception is the gateway to all kinds of immorality and corruption, and abortion.
You must be male.
Forcing women to have babies isn’t about controlling women? No matter how you frame, not matter what justification you slap on it, forcing someone to do something with their own bodies against their will is about controlling them. Stop candy coating your warped worldview to make it more palatable. No one here is swallowing it.
You beat me to it.
No one “forces” women to bear children. No one who I know or have ever heard of wants to “force” women to have babies.
Perhaps a short lesson in reproductive biology is called for:
Not a single spermatozoon can get into the woman’s womb unless she (her cervix):
1) opens;
2) produces the specialized mucuses that provide an avenue for the sperm to swim through the cervix and into the womb; these mucuses activate the sperm, which up to that point are passive;
3) she (her ovary) releases an ovum (egg) into the fallopian tube;
4) she (her tubal cilia) sweep the ovum toward the womb and the sperms toward the ovum on its way;
5) she (her womb) grows the endometrium in preparation for the fertilized ovum (zygote-blastocyst-embryo) to implant.
If the woman does not do all these things at the proper time to receive the sperm, no conception will take place.
Pro-abortion leaders have just about stopped claiming that the preborn child is a part of the mother’s body as it is biologically untenable.
However, no one is claiming that the woman’s womb, fallopian tubes and ovaries are not part of her body. The reproductive organs are not some alien creature that have sneaked into her belly like an incubus. They are controlled by (glands that are part of) her brain.
We all have bodily functions that are not under our conscious control. We are held responsible for them. Not criminally but civilly. If your body does something that is objectionable to others, like fall asleep at the wheel, you are held financially responsible for the consequences. Each of us has to deal with our excretions in a responsible manner.
The male reproductive organs, unlike those of the female, are not under the immediate control of his brain. They are controlled by a “mini-brain” at the base of his spinal cord. That this is true is evidenced by the fact that paraplegics and quadriplegics who have no sensation and whose reproductive organs do not respond to mental, visual, or tactile stimulation above the damaged part of the spinal cord can in some cases be aroused by tactile stimulation of the genitals and can be fully functional, able to impregnate a woman who is willing to do all the “work.”
Yet every male is held responsible for the behavior of his generative organs. Even if a man is drunk or drugged and a woman has sex with him while he is conscious, he will be forced to provide support for the child. And he can’t legally force the woman who has gotten pregnant from him to abort the baby.
He IS forced to be responsible for the autonomic functions of his body.
Why is a mother not also as obligated to be responsible for the autonomic functions of her body, especially when stopping an already-begun autonomic function causes the death of a human being?
As far as this thing about “forcing” and “controlling” women: “forcing” and “controlling” people is what law is all about. Law is not polite suggestions or advice; law is “obey or face the consequences.” All law is compulsory or it is not law.
Some years ago congress passed a bill prohibiting smoking in elevators. No penalty was provided. This was not a law but was no more than a “sense of the congress resolution.”
HERP DERP DERP DERP DEPR HERP HERP HERP DERP! Congratulations you’re a FUCKING IDIOT!
What is this… I don’t even…. Just… Are you a troll or are you really this stupid?