Pinkmonkeybird tries to win me back to the pro-abortion side of politics in the comments to last Friday's “Notable Quotable”:
It’s not murder if the fetus isn’t yet born.
Especially if it is early fetal development stage.
Women have the right to control their bodies and control birth.
My arguments are not stupid, only rejected by you. Repeal of
Roe v. Wade would bring on unnecessary crime because women will
continue to seek abortions though they would be forbidden through
legal means. It would spawn thousands of families in poverty
with too many children in limited income. It would mean the
influx of thousands of unwanted children who were not affordable
but the State mandated their birthing.
Nurturing a child in the womb for 9 months and then giving it
away for adoption is a heart-wrenching proposition. That is
too high a price for a mother to pay.
Is a seed in the ground a tree? No.
Let’s try and conduct ourselves without calling names, Echo.
You may disagree, but my opinions are not stupid. Nor are yours.Modern medical science has the means to abort unwanted fetuses safely and
humanely. The world is suffering from over-population. Abortion
is a useful solution to human problems.
Sure, the current civil law doesn't define it as murder, but that doesn't mean it isn't murder. Using the argument that women have the right to control their bodies is pretty myopic, at best. Why does a woman have the right to terminate a life simply because that life is located within her womb? Why doesn't a woman have the same right to control her body when she wants to use narcotics or sell herself for sex? Why don't I have the right to control my body if I want to load it up with alcohol and go for a drive? You are saying that although this being has it's own unique DNA, brainwaves, fingerprints, blood type, and a beating heart, but has no right to live. It's life is so worthless that it can be terminated simply because the mother doesn't want to deal with the emotional consequences of adoption? Any woman who would be less affected emotionally by terminating the life of her child, born or unborn, than she would knowing that her giving it up for adoption to parents who have committed to loving it for life would be a noble act in that it gives a creature of value a shake at life, is pretty shallow and heartless if you ask me, not to mention she is the definition of selfish.
What you are probably unaware of, since the pro-aborts don't want you to know, is that even with modern medicine and legal abortion, abortion raises the risks of health problems in the mother. She is 50% more likely to get breast cancer if she has had an abortion. If she has an abortion before turning 18, she is 150% more likely to get breast cancer. She brings on similar risks of contracting cervical cancer. Most women who have had abortions also report a rise in depression and emotional problems, and why shouldn't they, they murdered a human being?
If you want to argue that forcing a woman to bring a child into the world impoverishes her, why not argue for an extension to the time line when abortion is legal? Why not allow a woman to humanely terminate her two-year-old. After all, there has to be women out there who thought they could care for their child when it was born, but due to unforeseen circumstances like the loss of a job can't care for a child after it is born. The difference between a two month old fetus and a two year old child is merely location. One is in the womb and the other is outside of the womb. Not allowing a child to live because it would grow up poor is pretty sadistic.
A seed in the ground may not be a tree, but is also not murder to cut down a full grown tree either. This argument is meaningless, it's simply a diversion from the main issue.
Modern medical science may be able to terminate the life of an unborn child with minimal risk to the mother, but the child would argue against it being a safe or humane procedure. Would you say that tearing you apart, limb by limb, and disposing of your body is a safe procedure because it brings no harm to the people around you? Hardly!
The world is NOT suffering from overpopulation either. Get out of your downtown Minneapolis urban jungle once in a while and go see the west. This world is full of land that is virtually untouched by civilization.
This world has seen countless dictators that have come along claiming overpopulation. One well-known dictator back in the 1940's felt that death camps for “degenerate races” was a useful solution to human problems. Another in the 1990's was said to have tried to wipe out millions of people in Kosovo. Yet another tried to wipe out entire cities of Kurds in norther Mesopotamia. I'm sorry, but eliminating human beings is not the solution to human problems. If you think it is, I suggest you volunteer to be the first to go.
I used to buy into the arguments for legal abortion. I got over my own pride though, and realized that I was only justifying murder.
No Comments “Mailbox: Killing Isn’t Murder”
Amen!
I’m reluctant to get into a full fledged knock out drag down knuckle scraper over this
issue, my friend. That’s because it’s such an emotional issue. I just recently got tons
of hard leftie BowieNutters upset with me because I recently changed my opinion on gay marriage.
I was in favor of gay marriage rights. Now am agin’. I don’t think I have to tell you that
was a difficult journey for me.
Reading your reply to my arguments, Echo, I see that it is necessary for me to clarify that
though I support abortion rights, I am not glib about it. Abortion is a very, very serious
matter and is not to be taken lightly.
“A seed in the ground may not be a tree, but is also not murder to cut down a full grown tree either. This argument is meaningless, it’s simply a diversion from the main issue.”
You seem to miss my point. I reject the notion that life begins at consumation. Life begins
at birth, imho. I am not attempting any such diversionary tactic. I merely try to explain
myself.
When there is a chance to save a fetus and bring a healthy new child into the world with lovi
loving parents and and a supportive domestic environment, yes, of course we should avoid
abortion. Some of your responses seem to depict my position as being anti-life or even of
favoring death. Not so.
I respect the pro-life position that many people hold. But child bearing is within the
capability of very, very young adults and teens. These children are, all too often, not capable of
making well-informed decisions about sex. Society should not force them to become ill-
equiped parents because they made a mistake.
My compassion is for the woman. If abortion rights are retracted, women will flock to
illegal and dangerous means to procure them when they feel it is necessary.
Society’s responsibility lies with fully formed children and adults before it lies with
seeds in the womb.
I understand your views. I used to share them. It is very easy to take the emotional response, and in some ways all responses are emotional. These days the words ‘compassion’ and ‘tolerance’ are thrown around by people trying to win arguments by appealing to the emotional responses of those they are debating. I think it’s important to consider these things logically though.
I’m glad you see that abortion is serious, and shouldn’t be taken lightly. I believe it is murder. I believe that unique DNA makes a creature a unique being and if that creature has human DNA, it is a human being with the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us human beings. Granted, a creature that is weeks past conception can hardly be said to have responsibilities, but that does not take from them the rights we should all enjoy, regardless of age. My views are closely tied to my faith, but because most people do not share my faith, and do not need to to hold a pro-life view, I try to appeal to non-faith based arguments to further my side of the debate.
If life doesn’t start at conception, than any other definition of when it begins is arbitrary. Most pro-aborts would not agree to make it illegal to abort a child when it’s heart starts beating. In many instances, the mother doesn’t even know she’s pregnant at that point yet. What makes any arbitrary definition any better than any other? As I asked before, why not make the arbitrary definition the child’s second birthday? Why not make it the point where the child can support himself, ie. get a job and pay his own room and board?
You continue to appeal to youth and poverty as a reason that abortion should be an option. I am trying to argue that taking a life should never be an option. Abstinence education is very powerful, and has the effect of drastically reducing unwanted pregnancies where it’s taught. For those who don’t listen, a pregnancy can be a sobering lesson. Those who advocate abortion, regardless of their views on when life begins, minimize the consequences of irresponsible activity. I know of no pro-life advocate that believes that all parents should be forced to raise the children they give birth to. There are thousands, if not millions, of couples in the United States alone who have been waiting years to adopt a child. They want to be parents, but for whatever reason specific to them cannot be. It saddens me that there is a holocaust going on here in America that is taking the lives of children who have people desiring very much for the chance to care for them.
Yes, if abortion is made illegal, women will seek them illegally. It will save millions of lives though. Do you advocate legalizing drugs because people skirt the law to use them? It would be much safer to buy heroine at an FDA certified retailer than from a street pusher. Do you really believe that every woman that has an abortion would do so regardless of the law? I seriously doubt it. I’d be shocked if we had 5% of the current level of abortions in America if they were outlawed.
There is only one instance where I would agree that abortion should be an option. That is when the woman’s life is seriously at risk. If the choice is between the life of the woman, the life of the child, or that they both would die, we can talk. With modern medicine, this is extremely rare though.
Your arguments seem to be:
1. Outlawing abortion will force countless children to grow up in poverty.
2. Outlawing abortion will force pregnant women into back alleys to get coat-hanger abortions (paraphrased)
3. Life does not begin at conception
4. Adoption puts a difficult strain on the birth mother
My response to each (though addressed already) is:
1. There are billions of people on Earth right now living in poverty. They still feel their life is worth living. Money isn’t everything, and it surely isn’t more valuable than life.
2. There are consequences to every decision we make, great and small. As with any other law, if you break it there are consequences, even if you don’t get caught. If the choice is between a woman getting a uterine infection and becoming infertile due to an illegal and botched abortion, or allowing the legal murder of her child to prevent that, I choose the infection.
3. When does it start? Any definition other than conception is arbitrary. At least conception has the science of DNA and medicine on it’s side. Our current understanding of DNA also wasn’t available at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
4. She’ll get over it. Mothers who give their children up for adoption are psychologically and emotionally healthier than women who have abortions.
“You seem to miss my point. I reject the notion that life
begins at consumation. Life begins
at birth, imho.”
So what of a prematurely developed baby
delivered by c-section?
It never came to 9 month term. It was not “born” through it’s
mothers birth canal. Yet if you went into the hospital and
performed an abortion procedure on the “unborn (not delivered
by conventional means) fetus (less than 9 months in age from
conception) you would be the defendant in a murder case and
wouldn’t get any sympathy from a rabid public.
I do want to say, pink, that I do appreciate the flavor of this little debate. Too often these things degenerate into name calling and appeals to emotion, as I described above. I did say in an earlier comment that your argument was stupid, but did not mean to infer that you were stupid as well. I also attempted to back up my statement by descriing why I thought it was stupid, rather than just using the word as an argument stopper, and I’m glad it wasn’t an argument stopper.
My mind was changed on this issue just a few years ago, and I hope that yours will be too, as it was on the gay marriage issue.
Spot on right! You articulate the position very well! Bravo!
Consumation? CONSUMATION??? This guy’s just a retard, if you want to get through to him, you’ll need pictures.