RSS
Home
Continuing an exchange of views on abortion
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
SLB has submitted her opening statement in which she takes issue with some of my views. To make matters clearer for the readers of these points of view, I have reproduced her statement and interspersed my comments. My comments are in boldface type.
Since Jim has provided such a lengthy report on differing religious and political views, there is no need for me to go over the same ground again.
At the risk of being called an "ideologue", I will begin my opening statement with anecdotal evidence to prove that abortion is not the "agonizing, grueling and heartbreaking" decision that some would have us believe. Many women think no more of having an abortion than of swatting a fly. It's simple, it's easy and it allows them to have non-stop sex with multiple partners and not have to worry about using birth control.
Shannon, who has had at least five abortions, only allowed one of her children to live. The "agonizing decision" for her consisted of rearranging her schedule to make time for a visit to the "clinic."
Roxanne was between six and seven months pregnant and still using drugs. Knowing that she'd "get in trouble" with the doctor and possibly be forced to give up the drugs (so as not to harm the baby) she decided to kill the baby instead. She was on welfare for her two little girls, so the state paid.
Jeanette didn't have a problem when her son and his girlfriend were having sex (shacking up in Jeanette's house). When the girlfriend, Cathy, got pregnant, Jeanette was horrified and demanded that they kill the baby because she didn't want to be embarrassed by a bastard. Cathy's boyfriend (Mike) brought her a bouquet on Mother's Day and accompanied her to the "clinic" the following morning. They continued to shack up and a couple of years later got pregnant again. The second time, they tried the novel approach of getting married instead of murdering their child.
A thirteen year old girl was raped and impregnated by her step father. She ran away from home and was picked up by the police. After being placed in a foster home, she was encouraged to kill the baby. No charges were pressed against the step father and she was returned to his custody a month later.
I know every one of the aforementioned women. I am related to them. Abortion was not a hard decision for most of them (the 13 year old was pressured by social workers), and they had no remorse whatsoever.
I confess to an inability to dispute anecdotal evidence about women with whom SLB is acquainted. There are, without doubt, some women who abort pregnancies as a substitute for contraception. In my opening remarks, I clearly stated that abortion is a heart-rending decision by a pregnant woman and the fact that some women may use the procedure casually and “not have to worry about using birth control” is hardly relevant. Not being a woman, I cannot personally attest to the anguish most women would feel -- and perhaps that is why it should be the woman’s decision to abort.
In any event, anecdotal stories prove nothing. Imputing motivation on behalf of the women cited is even less helpful or valid. There have been a plethora of studies regarding the seriousness that most women make that decision.
Life begins as soon as the DNA exists, folks. The only difference between a "zygote" and an adult is size and education. Biology, not religion.
Over the centuries, the question of the beginning of “personhood” has been debated, questioned, evolved. And, most of the questions are whether an act is moral or immoral; science is easy, morality is tough. I simply cannot just ignore the opinions and beliefs of those who addressed these issues for eons and in the light of religious, moral and ethical principles.
Does anyone remember the baby who was born alive, dropped into a plastic bag and tossed on the abortion clinic roof? It's wasn't the first case of such a crime against humanity. That odious monster, George Tiller (May he rot in hell) merrily killed babies on their way through the birth canal. If they survived the "procedure", he killed them anyway so as not to infringe on the rights of the mother.
Dr. Tiller isn’t the issue here. The issue of abortion covers all voluntary terminations of a pregnancy. One may certainly find a difference in attitude towards abortion in the first trimester or in the third. I will not allow myself to digress into the issue of late-term abortions which pose different issues. For what it’s worth, the adverb “merrily” is not helpful to a civil discussion. And the procedures performed by Dr. Tiller were legal and specifically permitted under Kansas statutes.
When asked when life begins, B.O. (B.S.) smugly quipped that it was "above my pay grade." He favors abortion survivors being killed rather than fail to follow the will of the "mother."
How in the world did this “debate” turn into a President Obama bashing? This isn’t what he said nor does he favor abortion survivors to be killed. The remark is as silly as the nickname you give him. Actually, the President was asked his opinion, from a theological viewpoint, on the time when “personhood” begins. His response was not as clear as he might have wished, but it was simply that he would prefer to leave religious concepts to the theologians. As to the President favoring “abortion survivors” to be killed – that is simply trash talk.
Surely you are not suggesting Roe v Wade was Barack Obama’s doing.
Even the woman who caused abortion to become legal has seen the error of her ways and tried to get the courts to reverse the terrible decision that has permitted millions of helpless, innocent children to be brutally murdered so that women aren't inconvenienced.
As Jim pointed out, there have always been monsters ready, willing and able to murder children. Is there a difference to the baby who is being torn to pieces, burned to death or having its brains sucked out whether the environment is clean and sterile or dirty? Somehow, I doubt it.
A couple of things I would object to here. SLB is lumping all abortions, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy, together. Is the product of a theoretical pregnancy two hours old a “child” or a “baby”? What’s the difference to the mother, a back alley or a sterile medical facility? The mother’s death, perhaps.
Abortion is, indeed, a divisive issue. It is the biggest crime against humanity that we face. When human life is so cheapened, we all suffer in the long run.
I will agree with Jim that there are ways to limit the death toll. One is to educate (not just teaching kids in grade school how to use a condom, but teaching morality). Another way is to stop glorifying indiscriminate sex and multiple partners. Another is cutting off welfare payments to women who mass produce illegitimate children for bigger pay checks. Another idea is to encourage adoption, because there are plenty of childless couples who want babies but can't have them naturally.
I can accept the idea of abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or if the baby has died and the miscarriage is not complete. The child who is the product of rape or incest is not responsible for what the father has done and should not have to face the death penalty because of it. Who would want to be killed if one or both of their parents did wrong?
So, would you have a 13 year old rape or incest victim forced to carry to term? Again, this is not an issue of late-term abortions
Since Jim has provided such a lengthy report on differing religious and political views, there is no need for me to go over the same ground again.
At the risk of being called an "ideologue", I will begin my opening statement with anecdotal evidence to prove that abortion is not the "agonizing, grueling and heartbreaking" decision that some would have us believe. Many women think no more of having an abortion than of swatting a fly. It's simple, it's easy and it allows them to have non-stop sex with multiple partners and not have to worry about using birth control.
Shannon, who has had at least five abortions, only allowed one of her children to live. The "agonizing decision" for her consisted of rearranging her schedule to make time for a visit to the "clinic."
Roxanne was between six and seven months pregnant and still using drugs. Knowing that she'd "get in trouble" with the doctor and possibly be forced to give up the drugs (so as not to harm the baby) she decided to kill the baby instead. She was on welfare for her two little girls, so the state paid.
Jeanette didn't have a problem when her son and his girlfriend were having sex (shacking up in Jeanette's house). When the girlfriend, Cathy, got pregnant, Jeanette was horrified and demanded that they kill the baby because she didn't want to be embarrassed by a bastard. Cathy's boyfriend (Mike) brought her a bouquet on Mother's Day and accompanied her to the "clinic" the following morning. They continued to shack up and a couple of years later got pregnant again. The second time, they tried the novel approach of getting married instead of murdering their child.
A thirteen year old girl was raped and impregnated by her step father. She ran away from home and was picked up by the police. After being placed in a foster home, she was encouraged to kill the baby. No charges were pressed against the step father and she was returned to his custody a month later.
I know every one of the aforementioned women. I am related to them. Abortion was not a hard decision for most of them (the 13 year old was pressured by social workers), and they had no remorse whatsoever.
I confess to an inability to dispute anecdotal evidence about women with whom SLB is acquainted. There are, without doubt, some women who abort pregnancies as a substitute for contraception. In my opening remarks, I clearly stated that abortion is a heart-rending decision by a pregnant woman and the fact that some women may use the procedure casually and “not have to worry about using birth control” is hardly relevant. Not being a woman, I cannot personally attest to the anguish most women would feel -- and perhaps that is why it should be the woman’s decision to abort.
In any event, anecdotal stories prove nothing. Imputing motivation on behalf of the women cited is even less helpful or valid. There have been a plethora of studies regarding the seriousness that most women make that decision.
Life begins as soon as the DNA exists, folks. The only difference between a "zygote" and an adult is size and education. Biology, not religion.
Over the centuries, the question of the beginning of “personhood” has been debated, questioned, evolved. And, most of the questions are whether an act is moral or immoral; science is easy, morality is tough. I simply cannot just ignore the opinions and beliefs of those who addressed these issues for eons and in the light of religious, moral and ethical principles.
Does anyone remember the baby who was born alive, dropped into a plastic bag and tossed on the abortion clinic roof? It's wasn't the first case of such a crime against humanity. That odious monster, George Tiller (May he rot in hell) merrily killed babies on their way through the birth canal. If they survived the "procedure", he killed them anyway so as not to infringe on the rights of the mother.
Dr. Tiller isn’t the issue here. The issue of abortion covers all voluntary terminations of a pregnancy. One may certainly find a difference in attitude towards abortion in the first trimester or in the third. I will not allow myself to digress into the issue of late-term abortions which pose different issues. For what it’s worth, the adverb “merrily” is not helpful to a civil discussion. And the procedures performed by Dr. Tiller were legal and specifically permitted under Kansas statutes.
When asked when life begins, B.O. (B.S.) smugly quipped that it was "above my pay grade." He favors abortion survivors being killed rather than fail to follow the will of the "mother."
How in the world did this “debate” turn into a President Obama bashing? This isn’t what he said nor does he favor abortion survivors to be killed. The remark is as silly as the nickname you give him. Actually, the President was asked his opinion, from a theological viewpoint, on the time when “personhood” begins. His response was not as clear as he might have wished, but it was simply that he would prefer to leave religious concepts to the theologians. As to the President favoring “abortion survivors” to be killed – that is simply trash talk.
Surely you are not suggesting Roe v Wade was Barack Obama’s doing.
Even the woman who caused abortion to become legal has seen the error of her ways and tried to get the courts to reverse the terrible decision that has permitted millions of helpless, innocent children to be brutally murdered so that women aren't inconvenienced.
As Jim pointed out, there have always been monsters ready, willing and able to murder children. Is there a difference to the baby who is being torn to pieces, burned to death or having its brains sucked out whether the environment is clean and sterile or dirty? Somehow, I doubt it.
A couple of things I would object to here. SLB is lumping all abortions, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy, together. Is the product of a theoretical pregnancy two hours old a “child” or a “baby”? What’s the difference to the mother, a back alley or a sterile medical facility? The mother’s death, perhaps.
Abortion is, indeed, a divisive issue. It is the biggest crime against humanity that we face. When human life is so cheapened, we all suffer in the long run.
I will agree with Jim that there are ways to limit the death toll. One is to educate (not just teaching kids in grade school how to use a condom, but teaching morality). Another way is to stop glorifying indiscriminate sex and multiple partners. Another is cutting off welfare payments to women who mass produce illegitimate children for bigger pay checks. Another idea is to encourage adoption, because there are plenty of childless couples who want babies but can't have them naturally.
I can accept the idea of abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or if the baby has died and the miscarriage is not complete. The child who is the product of rape or incest is not responsible for what the father has done and should not have to face the death penalty because of it. Who would want to be killed if one or both of their parents did wrong?
So, would you have a 13 year old rape or incest victim forced to carry to term? Again, this is not an issue of late-term abortions
Everyone who is reading this debate should be mindful of the fact that their mother was pro-life at least once.
More About:
Obama ·
abortion ·
abstinence-only sex education ·
William Long ·
Charles Tiller ·
abortion doctor
Related Articles:
Comments
SLB is quite correct when she suggests that I, too, go beyond the topic, but I am forced to think of all the consequences of a total acceptance of …
- Email criticisms and accolades to jstillman@iqzero.net
- Check out advertisers on this page
