You're about to see a 12 year old speak articulately to what is arguably the issue of our day. I challenge any 20, 25, 30, 35 year old or older liberal who is confidently "pro-choice" to speak to this issue with the truth and power that this 12 year old speaks.
I especially challenge you Religious Leftists who think that a woman's right to choose trumps a baby's right to live. You know who in hell you are.
It's more than 5 minutes long and that may be an issue for some of you. Fine. Bookmark the video and come back when you have the time. You'll not be disappointed. And may God richly bless the parents of this little girl. One helluva job of raising a child correctly. Helluva job:
With kudos to Cassy for bringing this young girl to our attention.
I hope for the sake of her classmates that this was given for a speech class and not a debate class. I pity the poor kid who would have to counter her arguments!
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I don't pity her opponents.
They'd have to actually think instead of parroting.
Posted by: Mommynator | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I don't know how people can think about this in black and white terms. And I mean that with no disrespect. It's just that there are so many non-standard situations that having any kind of "catch-all" seems doomed to fail at least some of the time.
And in addition to rape and incest, what about cases where the condom breaks or the birth control fails. And what about women who have had hysterectomies, but against all odds, still get pregnant? It's happened. What about children who are old enough to get pregnant, but too young to understand the implications, much less care for the child?
These may not change your mind, but at least factor them into your decision.
I get that lots of pro-lifers think that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. That in itself is a bit of a mystery. To me, it's just cells. Aborting at that point would kill fewer cells than by clapping your hands together. But I can understand and respect that.
I often hear people lamenting the missed opportunities, and the loss of someone who could have been great. But you can't know what the future holds. The child could grow up to be a murderer or a saint.
Knowing what you know now, can anyone say they would have allowed Hitler to have been born, even with the opportunity to abort him before he was even recognizable as a human being? If so, why? Why are 6 million established lives not worth a potential one.
Abortions are horrible things, and I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. And every day a pregnancy progresses, the prospect of abortion is that much more grim and unpleasant. But I know a lot of people who think that sometimes abortions are better than the alternatives.
People advocate adoption as an alternative. And in many cases, I think it's a great one. But then there are cases where the mother's behaviors during pregnancy negatively affect the child, potentially forever. This includes drug use, drinking, smoking, and probably a lot of other things. It's not the child's fault that it was born months premature, mentally retarded, and addicted to crack.
In this case, what is the right answer?
And outlawing abortion won't make it go away, it'll just make it go underground. Women will still end up with complications from the abortion, because the abortion will be unregulated. I've heard of women paying men to punch them in the stomach to kill the fetus. Or using wire hangars. And that's already illegal. Outlawing medical abortions will only increase these cases. And then they'll end up with serious physical trauma in addition to all of the psychological trauma mentioned in the video.
I hate abortions. But forcing a woman to carry a baby she can't or won't take care of for 9 months hardly seems like the best choice to me.
Mommynator: Since you're a student of the life sciences, I'm interested to know at what point you think a fertilized egg is the same as a human, and why.
Posted by: Craig | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Craig, the abortions resulting from:
...rape and incest, what about cases where the condom breaks or the birth control fails...
amount to less than 1% of the 53 million abortions... performed... since 1973.
I appreciate the tone of your question. Would we be willing to grant the less than 1% to save the 99%+?
Posted by: chuck aka xtnyoda | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 02:17 PM
So you want to punish someone innocent for other peoples' mistakes and misfortunes? I know this happens every day, but why take it out on a baby?
You're the innocent in the horrible car accident, so because you've got lots of broken bones and contusions, we should shoot you on the spot instead of rushing you off to the ER?
Rape and incest (that old chestnut) is an extremely small percentage of abortions. Likewise medical necessity of which I can only think of ectopic pregnancy.
The MAJOR problem most of us have with abortion on demand is that it was forced on states instead of allowing it to (rightly) be a states' rights issue, wherein some states would allow abortion and others would disallow it according to the citizens of each state.
You're trying to excuse what is MOSTLY an excuse to be selfish (try working admissions in an abortion clinic or in a crisis pregnancy center) and setting up the straw men of rape, incest and medical necessity which, tops, is maybe 10% of abortions (to be generous).
People who have sex risk pregnancy. Period. Unless you are willing to take the consequences of sex (pregnancy), don't have it. Period. Unless there is a family in place (husband and wife) who can encompass the consequence of their sexual relations, don't have sex. Period.
Sex has been regulated throughout history in various ways because it is too important and "magical" a thing to be left to the vagaries of lust, youth and stupidity. ADULTS made those decisions because the consequences of anything goes sexuality has been documented throughout history.
It's only us that's trying to do away with the consequences of thousands of years of observation that's stuck on stupid.
If you don't get pregnant without being ready to welcome a child into a family situation, there is no crisis, no problem and no abortion.
Muddying the waters with false compassion doesn't make things any better.
Posted by: Mommynator | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 02:21 PM
I've got a good friend who was born of rape.
Should she be killed because the sperm donor is a sleaze bag?
For that matter, as horrific as incest is, why should it be an automatic death sentence to the poor kid that has a slightly higher chance of birth defects as is? (although, I seem to recall, not as elevated a chance as a child born to a mother over 35)
Posted by: Foxfier | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Though I agree with the young lady’s argument I’m always uncomfortable with kids being used to promote political or other such adult ideas or beliefs. Though I do not know the particulars behind this video I can give her no more benefit of the doubt as to this being her own free will and independent thought than the video of a few short months ago of the young people singing the praises of Obama.
Let’s leave the kids out of it unless we’re willing to hear some little girl lecture us all about the benefits of abortion.
Posted by: tim aka The Godless Heathen | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 04:06 PM
The thing that gets forgotten in the cases of rape and incest, is that the grief, health risks and infertility that accompanies the abortion procedure doesn't magically disappear.
So instead of having one horrible thing happen to the woman, she is potentially subjected to two.
All out of "compassion" for her.
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 07:54 PM
These may not change your mind, but at least factor them into your decision.
So... Craig... because of these "factors", a baby in the womb ought to be destroyed? The lesson here being simple... when inconvenienced, kill. How compassionate.
Hmmm... I'm willing to bet that should I take the residue in my hands and examine it via microscope it wouldn't look anything like a baby in the womb at say 20 weeks... or 15... or even 10... this is ignorance, this isn't compassion.
And for this reason... this chance that a baby could grow up to be a murderer... we should kill it... and this Craig is compassion? I call this idiocy Craig... I'm serious... where in hell are you getting this crap? Do you honestly believe this tripe? Good grief man...
It's not the child's fault that it might be born with these problems and so your solution is to kill it... and this, again, is your definition of compassion? I now think you're smoking dope Craig... this can't in any way be the opinion of someone who is sober. This is beyond pathetic.
So to you, the compassionate one, the best choice is to kill the baby in the womb. In fact, to you, the compassionate one, it's the only choice.
Do me and the rest of humanity a favor Craig... take the word you use for compassion and substitute something else for it...
And don't come here telling us you hate abortion... that's a damned lie... abortion to you is nothing more sinister than clapping your damned hands... you said it your freakin' self... do you hate applause Craig?
What utter freakin' foolishness and we're to believe this is erudition?
Please.
Fool your liberal friends with this sort of crapola... you can't fool someone here however... most of us have brains.
Posted by: Rick | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 08:33 PM
Tim,
If you consider that this girl is growing up knowing that a third of her generation has been slaughtered 'by choice' - and being indoctrinated by the culture, by schools, by music, by TV, movies etc to allow herself to be used for the sake of genital stimulation and not, say, culturally to be a child bride (think Brave New World "Everyone belongs to everyone else") and that she is probably constantly absorbing the message that abortion is the 'right choice' when a condom fails 15% of the time teens use them...
...well, she has every reason and right to be learning and forming reasoned arguments against it. And trying to reach her peers.
This doesn't appear to be just mindless regurgitation of an adult's choir-music praising a man as an earthbound deity. This child is thinking or learning to think, using reason and using it effectively, and formuating arguments against a culture that tries to kill her peers, and then encourages her peers to do the same to their offspring.
How else can you stop this? 12 year olds are dragged to abortion clinics all the time.
Go to a non-homeschooled teen or preteen and ask them what they "believe" about abortion. You'll get a bunch of BS a mile wide that has been spoon fed to them by teachers & the culture but you won't get reason. You'll get 'feelings' and you'll get pure bull nonsense about sperm being cells and abortion being likened to wet dreams for girls. And if you use reason, you get called names and told you are anti-something-nasty. At her age, they are quite often indoctrinated already and being primed for sexual activity.
Try this: go to a site like Kupika.com or one of those prominent teen forum sites and try to intelligently discuss abortion in terms of it being a unique human being and so having the right to life. Go ahead and try to have a reasoned discussion. Pull out your college text on embryology and use every reasoned argument from biological sciences alone, and never once mention emotions or what you 'feel'.
I'll wait. I'll have tissues waiting.
Posted by: shana sfo | Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 08:52 PM
Sorry, but I can't let this one go:
Actually, no, women cannot become pregnant with a viable embryo after a hysterectomy. Bringing a fetus to term requires a uterus. Even ectopic pregnancies are virtually unheard of after hysterectomy, with only a few dozen reported in the history of medical literature. And of course, all of those are unviable.
Posted by: Jenn Q. Public | Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 03:37 AM
@ Jenn Q. Public
Pregnancy after hysterectomy:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/364702/pregnancy_after_hysterectomy_can_i.html
I don't know how often it happens, but it can happen.
Posted by: Craig | Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 01:02 PM
So... Craig... because of these "factors", a baby in the womb ought to be destroyed? The lesson here being simple... when inconvenienced, kill. How compassionate.
No, the point I was trying to make is that there are factors other than just irresponsibility on the part of the mother. It seems like a lot of people don't consider anything other than a perfectly healthy baby conceived from unprotected sex. There are other situations to consider. For those pro-lifers that have considered these cases, however rare they may be, how would you handle them?
Hmmm... I'm willing to bet that should I take the residue in my hands and examine it via microscope it wouldn't look anything like a baby in the womb at say 20 weeks... or 15... or even 10... this is ignorance, this isn't compassion.
You're absolutely right. But I was talking about the period shortly after conception, not 10 weeks later. At what point is the zygote no longer a zygote, but is "human"?
And for this reason... this chance that a baby could grow up to be a murderer... we should kill it...
That isn't what I said. Check out the "Beethoven Almost Aborted" section at this link: http://www.biblecenter.com/illustrations/abortion.htm
That is what I was refuting. Nobody here mentioned it, but I hear it a lot. the argument is illogical. It could just as easily have been Hitler as Beethoven.
And don't come here telling us you hate abortion... that's a damned lie... abortion to you is nothing more sinister than clapping your damned hands...
No, it isn't a lie; you just didn't understand what I said. And I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. I think abortions are rotten things, and I don't think women should be able to get them in all but the most extreme cases. But I think an outright ban on abortion in every situation is the wrong answer, because I think there are times where it's better than the alternatives.
And I haven't seen anything about what should be done about the women that would get get back-alley abortions if an abortion ban were passed. I'm curious what you think should be done with them. Jail? For those that are injured in the process, should they be forced to live with and possibly die from their injuries?
Posted by: Craig | Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 01:35 PM
@Mommynator:
You're the innocent in the horrible car accident, so because you've got lots of broken bones and contusions, we should shoot you on the spot instead of rushing you off to the ER?
If I had no chance of survival, and was going to be a financial and emotional drain on my family, and if I was in constant pain, yeah, that might not be a bad idea.
Rape and incest (that old chestnut) is an extremely small percentage of abortions. Likewise medical necessity of which I can only think of ectopic pregnancy.
And however rare the edge cases are, they exist. What should be done about them?
Posted by: Craig | Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Is it that people have no response, or did this post just get forgotten? I'm interested to hear what people have to say on this matter.
Posted by: Craig | Monday, February 16, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Craig, I appreciate the calm tone with which you express your views even in response to some heated rebuttal. But surely you see that your posts are tossing up red herrings. Others here have dealt with the rape and incest charge. I'll just say that special cases make very BAD laws. Laws are made for the general cases. Unique cases (like tubal pregnancy) are dealt with in other ways.
You write as if we pro-life people have never considered special cases. Look here:
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/01/no-arms-or-legs-one-huge-heart.html
How special is he? He should've been or at least could have been aborted in your view, right?
Rick has a point when he says you don't really hate abortion. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "abortion makes you uncomfortable." There are just too many things in your view which seem to justify abortion to honestly say that you hate it.
So, you want to know when a zygote becomes human? Um, when did your finger become human? You say killing a group of cells in the womb (fewer cells than those killed by clapping your hands) is probably OK. Does the number of cells really determine humanity? Does size really matter? The real question is: When does a collection of cells (or is just one enough) become a person? I go with the little girl and Horton. "A person's a person no matter how small!" (Even one cell: fertilized egg)
Posted by: BroKen | Monday, February 16, 2009 at 05:01 PM
BroKen:
Likewise, I appreciate your calm and thoughtful reply.
I don't, however, think I'm tossing up red herrings. I brought up several special cases and asked what should be done about them. They have to be addressed somehow, and I've yet to get a straight answer.
And if I write as if pro-lifers haven't considered the special cases, it's because I haven't heard what their decisions are. I'm not trying to imply that anyone is stupid or hasn't done their homework, but I genuinely don't know what their stances are. That's why I was asking about them. If I offended anyone, my apologies.
You're the second person here who has asked me if I think someone should have been aborted. This question strikes me as a red herring. Replace Nick Vujicic with Hitler and think about your answer.
The point I'm trying to make (and was trying to make before) is that whatever decision is made, the outcome of the opposite choice can never be known. So asking "what if?" gets the discussion nowhere.
And I asked when a zygote becomes human because I'm trying to nail down the views here. I'm trying, for my own education, to understand why people have the views that they do, and what it is, specifically, that makes abortion so abhorrent to the people here. If a zygote isn't a human, then is aborting a zygote ok? If it is a human, what makes it so? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
And again, thanks for your response. I think I'm starting to understand your(plural) positions a bit more clearly.
Posted by: Craig | Monday, February 16, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Here is why your posts are red herrings, Craig.
"But I think an outright ban on abortion in every situation is the wrong answer, because I think there are times where it's better than the alternatives."
No one on this site has advocated an "outright ban" on abortion. Not even the Catholic Church does that! So why even bring it up? It's a straw man, a red herring.
Right now there are no practical limits on abortion in this country. Why take issue with those of us who think there should be limits on abortion because an unborn child has a right to life? Why do you make this false dichotomy of total ban or total license? It's a red herring!
Now, concerning Hitler vs. Beethoven (or Obama, et. al.) you only think the argument is illogical because you think some person SHOULD have aborted Hitler. Some babies with troubled beginnings will grow up to do great things. Some babies born of priviledge will do terrible things.
Do you really take the utilitarian approach that if the odds favor a baby doing terrible things we SHOULD abort it? You think that even though a baby might become another Beethoven, that possibility is canceled by the fact that she might actually become another Hitler? If that is what you really think, Craig, then you might as well kill us all!
You see, the "what if?" takes the discussion into the realm of human potential. We all have potential greatness and potential for horror. Which one do we choose? Abortion answers the question by eliminating the potential. Don't you see the HORROR in that answer?
Posted by: BroKen | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 02:35 AM
The only reason I've been assuming a total ban on abortion is because that's what it always sounds like pro-lifers are advocating. I've yet to ever hear a self-identified pro-lifer give a detailed explanation of their stances. That's why I brought it up. You're the only one who has even approached giving a specific answer, and I still don't know what your actual beliefs are. In what situations is abortion allowed and when is it not?
Why take issue with those of us who think there should be limits on abortion because an unborn child has a right to life?
I'm not trying to. In fact, I agree with this position. But since the majority of my questions about the specifics of everyone's stances have gone unanswered, I had to take a guess.
Do you really take the utilitarian approach that if the odds favor a baby doing terrible things we SHOULD abort it?
If I knew that a baby would grow up to be a brutal, murderous dictator, then yes, I'd want to abort. But since nobody can ever know those things, I try not to make decisions based on them.
You think that even though a baby might become another Beethoven, that possibility is canceled by the fact that she might actually become another Hitler?
I think I understand your position now. Abortion, in large part removes the potential good that could come from a newborn. And in your view, the potential for good generally outweighs the potential for bad. In some cases, abortion is an option because the damage the pregnancy or birth could cause outweighs the possibility and opportunities you'd lose as a result of the abortion.
Am I close?
I'd like to hear what other people's stances are on this issue.
Posted by: Craig | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Craig, for me personally, the exception is the life of the mother which has ALWAYS been an exception for every pro-life person I've ever heard of. Most people will add the exceptions of rape and incest because in those cases the woman's choice is violated. Again, personally, I think the life of the baby is a greater good than sparing the woman psychological turmoil. Good can come from evil if we allow it to, as Foxfier comments above. But I wouldn't complain too much about a law that allowed those exceptions since it would be a thousand times better than what we have now.
We know that in many places around the world abortion is used for gender selection and may be used for that here in the US. How would we know? We know it is used a birth control method and to limit "undesirables" like Down Syndrome babies and others with birth defects like Nick Vujicic. And since black babies are aborted at a higher rate than white babies, it's not hard to see it as a form of genocide.
So, what is your view of those uses for abortion and what would you advocate in those not so special cases?
While the pro-choice lobby makes noises about wanting to make abortion rare, they never EVER favor any legal action that might actually limit abortion. I think that is what set Rick off. Your comments seemed to head in that direction. It seemed like you were saying, "I hate abortion but I would never do anything to try to prevent it."
Posted by: BroKen | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Am I close?
No. You're not. You're obtuse. Or worse.
Abortion is the killing of a human being. The most innocent of human beings. Period.
The rest of your ignorant rant misses that point by a damned mile.
This has nothing, I say again, nothing, to do with that life's potential. It has everything to with the life. Get it?
Life is a precious thing Craig. Most precious. It's a gift from God. Who in hell are you to decide, based on what you arbitrarily decide to be potential, that this gift should be quashed?
Who. In. Hell. Are. You?
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 08:39 PM
Craig-
the article you linked did not counter what Jenn Q. Public said; it just said that Fallopian pregnancies-- which are never viable-- can happen if there is a partial hysterectomy.
I thought I was pretty clear-- I am against killing a child because her father is scum, or because he might be imperfect.
If you can't see what folks have been saying, then you haven't been trying to read what they say.
At a guess, most folks realized you weren't listening to what they were saying, just what you expected to hear, and figured it wasn't worth the bother.
(In my case, I didn't reply because I had to go on a trip.)
Posted by: Foxfier | Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 07:23 PM
How about a little follow up? The girl went on to a regional competition... appears she lost the competition because of her topic...
but reportedly saved at least one life. She's alright with that...
...Despite warnings that her pro-life message would disqualify her from the school competition, Lia's speech impressed both her pro-choice teacher and the school so deeply that she won the contest, despite a controversy that erupted in the judge's panel, which had at first disqualified her. Winning the school wide contest meant she would go on to compete at the regional level.
Lia's mother told Matt Lockett of the Moral Outcry blog that Lia presented the speech at the regional contest flawlessly, and though many testified to hers being the strongest speech, the family believed she likely lost because she spoke on the topic of abortion.
"Lia has a much bigger trophy - somebody commented to us on our YouTube account that her aunt watched Lia's video and decided to NOT have an abortion because of it. Yay God! Others have commented that they either never thought of the issue before or were pro-choice - but now they have changed their opinions. So, having a life saved is the best trophy ever!" wrote Lia's mother.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021807.html
Posted by: chuck aka xtnyoda | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 05:36 PM
That is just too awesome!
Posted by: Foxfier | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 09:10 PM
The Jews have a saying that saving one life is like saving the world because you never know how many other lives will be brought into this world/saved because of it.
I also think she done good.
Posted by: Mommynator | Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 09:57 PM
@ BroKen:
Thank you! I finally got a specific answer.
So, what is your view of those uses for abortion and what would you advocate in those not so special cases?
In cases where the mother's life is at risk, I agree that performing an abortion is a better option than not.
I don't think a zygote is the same thing as a baby. So I don't have problems with early term abortions.
Once the fetus has begun to develop all the internal systems it'll have at birth, I don't think abortions should be allowed in general, except in cases where the mother is in danger.
But I do think exceptions should be allowable after a review of some sort, to allow for extenuating circumstances not specifically addressed by any laws.
Posted by: Craig | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 01:00 PM
Foxfier:
I thought I was pretty clear-- I am against killing a child because her father is scum, or because he might be imperfect.
I didn't think you were very clear at all. You never stated any position. All you did was ask me questions. And even now, I still only have the vaguest notion of your view on the matter, save that you don't think babies from rape, or "imperfect" babies (whatever that means) should be aborted. There are other situations I've brought up that you've not addressed.
If you can't see what folks have been saying, then you haven't been trying to read what they say.
Actually, I've been trying, but most have been too busy attacking me to actually answer my questions. Or they've partially answered them, in which case I've tried to ask for clarification.
the article you linked did not counter what Jenn Q. Public said; it just said that Fallopian pregnancies-- which are never viable-- can happen if there is a partial hysterectomy.
Technically, Jenn Q. didn't counter what I said, either. I mentioned pregnancy. She qualified her reply, talking about viable pregnancies.
I never was and she never wasn't. So really, the whole of our exchange should be ignored.
Posted by: Craig | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 01:03 PM
@ Rick:
Abortion is the killing of a human being. The most innocent of human beings. Period.
The rest of your ignorant rant misses that point by a damned mile.
*sigh* I didn't miss the point. I just don't completely agree with it.
And Rick, for you to call any of my comments on your blog "rants" is so hypocritical I can't help but laugh.
This has nothing, I say again, nothing, to do with that life's potential. It has everything to with the life. Get it?
Yep. Thank you for clarifying. And I was attempting to summarize, to the best of my understanding, BroKen's stance, not yours. So your indignation is misplaced.
Life is a precious thing Craig. Most precious. It's a gift from God. Who in hell are you to decide, based on what you arbitrarily decide to be potential, that this gift should be quashed?
Despite what I'm sure you think, I agree that life is precious. But ultimately, I think the health of the society is more important. If sparing one life costs two, three, etc, we're going backwards. So in situations where a pregnancy or new child would cause more harm than good to the family, I'm more willing to be ok with an abortion that meets the criteria I mentioned above.
And since you say life is precious and a gift from God, I'm assuming you oppose the death penalty? Hunting?
Or did you just mean human life, assuming it hasn't broken any laws or offended you personally?
Posted by: Craig | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Craig, you're welcome. But your response to my question is about as murky as you claim ours are.
What about gender selection? You're fine with that in the first trimester?
Eliminating "undesirables" like Down Syndrome or birth defects is practical in your view as long as you do it before "it has begun to develop all the internal systems?"
Now there is this. You say "a zygote is not the same as a baby" as justification for it's destruction. But consider that logically, by your argument since a baby is not the same as an adult, infanticide could be OK. The question is NOT "is a zygote a baby?" That's silly. The question IS, "does a fetus or zygote deserve protection by society under the law?" Obviously, I think they do so deserve protection. You should too because even a zygote "HAS BEGUN TO DEVELOP ALL THE INTERNAL SYSTEMS IT WILL HAVE AT BIRTH!"
Posted by: BroKen | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Hypocritical only if I deny engaging in rants. I don't. My emphasis was on your ignorant rant... not the rant itself... See how that works?
Society is more important than the indidual eh? Now we get to the center of your thinking. Or the lack thereof. A society is made up of individuals. You can't have the former without the latter. It's no small coincidence Craig that you, and people who believe abortion is viable, share a mindset with Hitler.
Or did you just mean human life, assuming it hasn't broken any laws or offended you personally?
Craig... you're the one proposing the killing of innocent life because it's existence somehow offends some intangible you call society. You're the one proposing the killing of a child that's not broken any laws. Don't point your illogical finger of blame my way or attempt to distract us from the larger point.
You continue to propose the slaughtering of innocents and you think you stand on higher ground because I might think that a murderer deserves death or because I eat meat?
That's some seriously flawed thinking Craig. Seriously flawed.
Posted by: Rick | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 10:33 AM
@BroKen
What about gender selection? You're fine with that in the first trimester?
No. I'm not. But in the 34 years since Roe v. Wade I haven't noticed gender selection, or any other kind of selection of specific genetic criteria become a big problem. It might be happening now, and if so it will probably continue in the future. But I think it makes more sense to combat it if/when it becomes an issue.
If you have specific numbers relating to this, I'd be interested to see them.
Eliminating "undesirables" like Down Syndrome or birth defects is practical in your view as long as you do it before "it has begun to develop all the internal systems?"
I don't hold my position so that future parents can weed out any kids they don't like. That isn't the point.
But consider that logically, by your argument since a baby is not the same as an adult, infanticide could be OK.
This doesn't make sense. One does not logically follow the other. I didn't imply this and I don't agree with it.
Posted by: Craig | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 01:41 PM
@Rick:
Society is more important than the indidual eh? Now we get to the center of your thinking. Or the lack thereof. A society is made up of individuals. You can't have the former without the latter.
I even explained what I meant when I said that. Did you not read that part, or not understand it? Or did you just ignore it?
And I'll just ignore your Godwin because it's so stupid.
Craig... you're the one proposing the killing of innocent life because it's existence somehow offends some intangible you call society. You're the one proposing the killing of a child that's not broken any laws.
You keep mentioning that they're innocent, or that they've broken no laws. Do you think I don't know that? Why you keep mentioning it, I don't know. Abortion isn't a punishment. Nobody I've ever talked to thinks it is. So innocence, no matter how cold you may find it, isn't a factor.
You continue to propose the slaughtering of innocents and you think you stand on higher ground because I might think that a murderer deserves death or because I eat meat?
You said "Life is a precious thing Craig. Most precious. It's a gift from God." You didn't qualify your statement, so I can only conclude that you therefore believe that ALL life is equally precious (since it's all most precious). So then you must also be ok with snuffing out lives that God created.
I never claimed that I was morally superior to anyone. But unlike you, I also never said that life was the most precious gift from God.
Posted by: Craig | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 02:02 PM
>"If you have specific numbers relating to this(gender selection), I'd be interested to see them."
From Wikipedia: "In 2005, 90 million women were estimated to be missing in seven Asian countries alone, apparently due to sex-selective abortion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion_and_infanticide
>"I don't hold my position so that future parents can weed out any kids they don't like. That isn't the point."
So, you are not responsible for unintended consequences of your position. How convenient for you! I would suggest that there are far more abortions done so "parents can weed out any kids they don't like" than the "tough cases" (incest or rape). I'm just trying to get you to take a stand on those issues, like you want us pro-life folks to express our position on those "tough cases." It's not the point? Perhaps it should be.
>>But consider that logically, by your argument since a baby is not the same as an adult, infanticide could be OK.
>"This doesn't make sense. One does not logically follow the other. I didn't imply this and I don't agree with it."
I didn't think you did agree with it. It was ruductio ad absurdum (hope I spelled that right). It is just as silly to say that you can flush a zygote because it isn't a baby, as to say you can kill a baby because it isn't an adult. The real question is, "Does a zygote deserve any protection under the law?" I think it does because, as you say, "it has begun to develop all the internal systems it will have at birth." You do not think it deserves protection. But I have yet to hear a RATIONAL explanation why. Want to try again?
Posted by: BroKen | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM
From Wikipedia: "In 2005, 90 million women were estimated to be missing in seven Asian countries alone, apparently due to sex-selective abortion."
I was actually asking about numbers for the USA. From the same article: "These practices arise in areas where cultural norms value male children over female children."
I've lived in the US all my life and I've not seen a dramatic preference for males over females. So I don't think the evidence you've provided is valid for the USA.
So, you are not responsible for unintended consequences of your position.
I tried to address this in my previous post:
I haven't noticed gender selection, or any other kind of selection of specific genetic criteria become a big problem. It might be happening now, and if so it will probably continue in the future. But I think it makes more sense to combat it if/when it becomes an issue.
I think it makes more sense to combat any unintended consequences if/when they becomes issues. For medical issues, though, I'm inclined to have doctors weigh in.
I didn't think you did agree with it. It was ruductio ad absurdum (hope I spelled that right). It is just as silly to say that you can flush a zygote because it isn't a baby, as to say you can kill a baby because it isn't an adult.
This still doesn't make sense. If I haven't made it clear, infanticide is not ok. So then the fact that baby =/= adult is irrelevant because in both cases intentionally causing their deaths is not ok.
You do not think it deserves protection. But I have yet to hear a RATIONAL explanation why. Want to try again?
Yes, it is a living organism, but since it isn't a fully-formed human, and since it does not posses the capacity for suffering, I don't have any moral qualms with aborting it.
Posted by: Craig | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 01:50 PM
Craig, I'll set aside your Anglo-centrism for the moment. If you don't care about Asian women... fine. But you ignore the thrust of my post. You say, "I don't hold my position so that future parents can weed out any kids they don't like." Yet almost all abortions in this country are done to "weed out kids they don't like." There are many varied reasons that they don't like them, too expensive, too noisy, too much schedule revision necessary, maybe the kid is flawed (Down Syndrome, for example) but in the end they just DON'T WANT the kid. So, they kill it. Now, your position is, that's OK, most of the time? Or you don't like it but you'll do NOTHING to try to prevent it, which is about the same thing.
Maybe I'll give up on the Reductio ad absurdum. For some reason, you don't get it. And you ignore my repeated restatement of YOUR criterion for protection (begun to form internal systems it will have at birth) which applies to a zygote as well as a fetus. But now you have presented two new criteria which you think will justify abortion: Fetus is not fully formed and/or has no capacity for suffering.
How "fully-formed" does a human have to be to deserve protection? If a baby is sleeping and you smash it's skull... it doesn't suffer. Is that OK? Oh, I know, you don't support infanticide only abortion... because it causes no suffering. There are many stages of human development. The lines between them are notoriously blurry. Here is the point, Craig. Whatever line you try to draw is purely arbitrary. The only rational line is conception. The unique DNA is there. The zygote assembles itself into the being described in its code, just like your body still does. Any other stage of development that you might pick (implantation, "quickening," organs, brain waves, thumb-sucking, birth, APGAR score, puberty,.....) is chosen soley for your convenience at the expense of that little one growing in the womb. Quite sad, really.
Posted by: BroKen | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Not simply quite sad... but quite Nazi-like... Godwin be damned... it's the truth and Craig's lack of rebuttal seals it as such.
Craig's words depict the worst of humanity. It's manifest evil steeped in ignorance and apathy.
Posted by: Rick | Friday, February 27, 2009 at 06:24 AM
@ Rick
Dude, I'm on your side in all of this. I really am. But do you think the way you go about this, flying off the handle and such, will really convince anyone? I'm not trying to disrespect you but bring to your attention that Craig probably didn't respond because he was tired of dealing with you. If we want to convince people we have to treat them as equals. They aren't stupid, maybe misinformed (or in some cases not informed at all), but not stupid. Next time it might be a good idea to cool down and use the same logic you had without getting angry and insulting people.
Posted by: Ben | Monday, April 27, 2009 at 03:06 AM
Ben... dude... I find it... interesting... that your use of the '@' sign mimics the use engaged in by Craig...
Interesting indeed...
Posted by: Rick | Monday, April 27, 2009 at 02:09 PM
Remember
A Person is a person no matter how small evan if we can not hear it or see it at all
You were formed in your mothers womb....
she gave you life but above all God gave you life....you were conceived because your heavenly father put you there..
One of you said keep kids out of this
but they are the ones who are forced this cruel murder ... they are also the ones who might make the mistake of having an abortion and losing a precious life.
I am 14 yet I see the world crumble....
In God we Tust
Posted by: Hannah | Wednesday, May 06, 2009 at 08:25 PM
The pro life position is that abortion is immoral because a fetus has a soul from the moment of conception. And that it follows that it is wrong to abort a fetus at any time because it is always a human being.
Not all people believe in God, or that a fetus is a human. In a secular democracy (which seems to be the best way to run things) issues of morality which are specific to a particular religious view should not be made law. A woman who is not Christian, or who does not believe a fetus is a human with full human rights should not be made a criminal by Christians seeking to enforce their idea of morality on everyone.
Christians are free to believe that abortion is wrong, they should not be free to impose their religious views on others who disagree.
It is not for you to judge.
Posted by: Matt | Saturday, May 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM
So Matt, how does a society make any "moral" judgment? Majority opinion? Is that what decides what is "moral" ... a majority?
Slippery slop there...
Posted by: chuck aka xtnyoda | Saturday, May 23, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Matt,
Your argument is basically, "Don't legislate morality." But ALL laws are an attempt to legislate morality. Can you name one that isn't?
Anti-abortion is not specifically Christian, anymore than anti-murder, or anti-theft, or anti-public nudity are. There are lots of pro-life Jews, Muslims, even atheists.
So, Matt, are you free to impose your secular "non-judgmental" view on us? Huh?
Chuck, I like your typo. "Slippery slop!"
Posted by: BroKen | Saturday, May 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Gosh, what a difference an "e" makes!
LOL
Posted by: chuck aka xtnyoda | Saturday, May 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Bravo on your acting abilities sweetie! Its sad that the parents of a 12 year old girl coached her to say these things. And I say coached because a 12 year old girl has no idea what the after effects of abortion have on a woman. Yet she's preaching about it!! She is just too young to even be discussing this! When she becomes a woman she might feel differently. Until then she should be doing all the fun things that 12 year old girls do. Shame on her parents for making a spectacle of her!
Posted by: T. Hunter | Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Sooooooooooo you're saying that a 12-year-old can't understand morals and ethics?
How stupid do you think 12-year-olds are?
Maybe you're the stupid one, since you seem to want to think that shredding babies is acceptable.
Maybe a 12-year-old presented with the facts of what abortion does will be so horrified that she will not consider it should she fall pregnant under less than optimal circumstances.
Posted by: Mommynator | Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Anybody watch South Park? Cartman is an eight year old boy and the spoof was that his mother wanted a 27th trimester abortion. She kept screaming, "It's my body."
Even though Cartman could walk, talk and openly object to his own death his mother still took him to the doctors and demanded the abortion. It was hillarious and perfectly frames the morons who believe we aren't really hurting anybody.
I love when I hear "It's my body!" Seeing as how most abortions are people weasling out of careless sexual accounters then yes it is your body so stop being an irresponsible whore.
I love the Left Wing. "It's my body, it's my right, it's my life... now give me wellfare, food stamps, medical coverage... It's all about them until it's inconvenient or difficult, then it's my our fault, our taxes, our communal bullshit. I hate the Left.
Posted by: Frank | Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM
It all boils down to what it is.
If it is a child then it is human and has the right to life (no matter if he/she will be poor or a result of rape or incest). If we don't know, then surely the favor should go in favor of the fetus. If a hunter sees a movement in some bushes and doesn't know whether it is a deer or a human, he shouldn't just shoot should he?
If it is not indeed human, then it is ok. But how do you know it is not. The burden of proof is on the Pro-Choice advocate as she is the one making the decision to terminate him/her/it not the Pro-Choicer.
Posted by: Danny B | Monday, February 22, 2010 at 09:13 PM