What Anti-Abortion Advocates Know In Their Bones But Can’t Acknowledge In Their Minds
The debate thus far:
Part 1: Calvin Freiburger uses the word “murder” to describe abortion
Part 2: I object.
Part 3: Calvin Defends.
Part 4: John Nampion jumps in to support Calvin’s position.
Terminating a pregnancy in the first term isn’t murder. You know it, I know it, and anti-abortion activists know it. The difference is that those who campaign against legalized abortion don’t realize they know it.
Here’s how we know: we judge people’s sincerity in holding their views based on what they do, not what they say.
When I presented the dialogue between Josh Marshall and David Horowitz I did not judge the editor of Talking Points Memo by what he said about his position on the war with Islamofascism. Whether he says — and thinks — he takes it seriously or not is irrelevant in uncovering what’s actually lurking in his heart and mind. Instead I studied where he chose to invest his publication’s time and resources. And the answer was that according to TPM conservatives and corporations were a greater threat to the world than Islamists. Just count up the number of stories and posts of both subjects and it becomes clear what Marshall really thinks.
So anti-abortion activists can use whatever rhetoric they want in trying to fight legalized abortion. But they won’t be taken seriously because their actions quite clearly do not match their rhetoric. (And it’s harder to take Calvin’s use of “murder” as anything more than emotional rhetoric when he actually confesses “does it make a difference?” as though words don’t matter. It’s as though the ends justify the means in the quest to criminalize abortion. And I’m sorry, but the question is important. If abortion is murder then women who get abortions should be regarded as murderers and considered social pariahs.)
If a stranger’s child is going to be murdered then you do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening. You’re morally obligated to do so. If you have to kidnap the child or shoot their would-be assassin then you do it. And you accept the consequences for it. If I had to commit a crime and spend time in jail to prevent a stranger’s child from being slaughtered then I would without hesitation.
If abortion is murder and the past 40 years of legalized abortion is indeed a Holocaust then the fact of the matter is that every bombing of a clinic and assassination of an abortion provider is entirely justified. It’s literally no different than waging guerilla warfare against Nazi Germany — no different than attacking a concentration camp. Thus, the main reason why mainstream anti-abortion advocates condemn such violence is because it’s such bad PR for the cause — not because they think it’s morally wrong for abortionists to get the death penalty or be prevented from ever aborting another fetus.
Here’s the secret for why we all know in our bones that abortion isn’t murder: we are trained instinctively by nature to understand that not every pregnancy will result in a new human being. John Nampion wrote in his post,
Whether a fetus is a life now seems to me to be beside the point. We can at least all agree that it will become life if not interfered with.
But that’s not true at all — it never has been true in any animal species on the planet and it’s not true in us. Miscarriage is a basic fact of reproduction:
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.
Continue reading page: 1 2
Thank you very much for this post, David. I felt like the debate was getting out of control, but you have shown that you truly are the editor of NewsRealBlog. This train felt like it was going to derail, but in this intelligent post, you have saved the day. Bravo!
If NRB's readers would like to judge for themselves whether or not her characterization of the debate thus far, they are welcome to do so here:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/06/12/murder-hav...
If Naomi would also like to refute so much as a word of what I have written thus far, I look forward to it.
I am not here to debate you Calvin. Go to your room!
Oh, you're just here to smear & run. I'll keep that in mind.
Exatly. Debate means exposing what is true which the pro-abortionist’s cannot do. All they can do is try to defend their belief that killing defenseless unborn human beings is morally acceptable.
Abortion is the INTENTIONAL destruction of innocent human life. All of the talk about trimesters and miscarriages are off point. To my mind the only issue is FAITH. Politics fail. We are human and were never meant to succeed on our own. We cannot survive spiritually or physically without the grace of God. The human race is corrupt and is in need of redemption. This has been proven and the faithful know this. Abortion IS murder. Murder is NOT the unforgivable sin. Repentance, though IS required.
Calvin, perhaps you would encourage David to review Peter Kreeft's book "The Unaborted Socrates". In it he presents a non-religous and logical argument. A few such issues: Refering to David saying " While the life of a zygote is not the same as the life of a fully developed child it still has value." First, what IS the difference between a Fully developed child and an Adult? Just 4 differences: Less Developed, More Dependent, Less Mobile and Smaller in size. Is it less of a crime then to kill a child compared to an adult? What difference is there between a "zygote" (merely the word ascribed to a human in a particular stage of developement) and a child? The SAME 4 noted above. The Zygote is an unfolding of potential NOT of essence. It is human from day one.
The real issue here is the harm of abortion. Worse for the mother than the child. Because the charecter of a person has value. Just as you must admit it would be better to suffer at the hands of a sadist than to be the sadist.
Please have David read this book THEN try to present an argument. I've given this book to countless "pro-choice" politicians and NOT ONE has presented an argument against its logic.
What Stephen said
The advocates of abortion have no interest in truth. They only want to try to relieve their consciences of acts of barbarianism and terrorism against the defenseless.
I second that motion. Thank you David for taking a courageous stand in a Right Wing setting.
Reductio ad absurdum of the anti-abortionist argument: Ovulating women who don't make a good faith effort to fertilize should be tried for negligent homicide.
David, c'mon, regarding miscarriages, we all know there's a difference between what might occur in nature and making sure it DOES occur, just like there's a difference between a bus accidentally hitting a pedestrian and the driver just deciding to RUN ONE DOWN….
Regarding your belief that abortion should be low on our priority list – I absolutely disagree! If we have no respect for our own, how in the world can we tell the world our idea of civilization is better than the Islamofascists? We are supposed to offer an alternate, superior vision to humanity – how can we do so if we routinely suction out fetuses and act like it's the same as eating breakfast? Our world view needs to be comprised of many factors, and they are all inter-related and important. It's the old saw: The gleaming skyscraper may look magnificent, but without a solid foundation it's bound to topple. You obviously get the analogy….
Next point: Why would I think it's ok to bomb an abortion clinic? That's what TERRORISTS do…kill innocents, with no regard for minimizing the carnage if it can be helped. Or are you a proponent of Hamas-style fighting, where civilians are dragged into targeted buildings so the Israelis don't dare shoot! The law currently says abortion is legal and I understand that – I think we need to change people's thinking, and work towards the day that people actually have respect for life, or as I called it, potential life, so that the whole subject matter becomes a non-issue. I don't think we need to kill Doctors or women to get our point across! (And yes, to those who commented on our pieces on this subject, if you really think I want to put a 16-year-old girl away for life due to an abortion, you have no clue – at all.) I know you agree with some of this, and I do acknowledge your ideas to help minimize this horrific practice.
Lastly: Practicality is a virtue. So I am not going to erase a candidate for public office from my wish list simply because he's pro-choice. I would look at the totality of his positions, and understand that it takes time to prevail in any kind of battle…you get what you can get and wait for your next opportunity.
Thanks for letting Calvin and I get our positions heard. Until the next time….
1. So what's the answer to my question? Pro-life foreign policy crackpot Ron Paul or pro-choice hawk Rudy Giuliani?
2. If the law of the land was that it was legal to kill Jews would you go along with it and just lobby the Nazi government to change it? Do you dispute the legitimacy of civil disobedience?
3. The Anti-Abortion Movement has had decades to convince people and change minds. It's failed. Perhaps because of the reason I cited — that we know in our bones that abortion isn't something to be celebrated like the pseudo feminists do but it isn't murder either. There isn't some magical argument that the anti-abortion movement is going to stumble upon that's suddenly going to change the tides.
4. I didn't say miscarriage and abortion were the same thing. I said that the universality of miscarriage among animal species has affected how we comprehend organisms at that early stage of life when the body so frequently chooses to reject continuing to develop a fetus into a human being.
1) Giuliani, all day long, with maybe a pro-life VP. Get what you can get.
2) You make a good point here, and I think there are many ways to disobey – one is to write about it, or be a pamphleteer, so to speak. Another is to lobby. Another is to demonstrate and agitate in public. You are trying to push me into saying It is legitimate to commit violence for the sake of the cause, and to that I say…it depends….For instance, if women were being forcibly rounded up like the Jews were in WWII and sent to abortion clinics and the fetuses were ripped from their wombs with no say so on their part, then, yes – killing Government agents as they carted these women off would be acceptable…but obviously we are nowhere near that point…women are bringing in their own children voluntarily and allowing them to be extinguished – which is more comparable (to use your example) to Jewish parents voluntarily leading their children to slaughter than it is to a law being passed where it is suddenly OK to snipe them like so many pigeons.
3) Basically you're saying the Pro-Lifers should just give up because they haven't succeeded in their cause. Are you kidding? Israel hasn't been very successful in swaying world opinion towards its side…so it should just yell "Uncle"? Please…if the fight is valuable, it must and will go on!
4) Miscarriage is a fact of life. It still has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is human interference in a natural process which is successful far more often than not. Big difference.
5) You are wearing me down, David. I am going to bed.
Also re: #3.) Think maybe the Supreme Court largely insulating abortion from the democratic process might have had something to do with it? Also, the time span between America's founding and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (which didn't come with a "change of the tides," either) was considerably longer than the time span between Roe and today.
Why? Because many people thought they "knew in their bones" that blacks weren't equal to whites. And come on: we know that, human nature being as emotional and self-interested as it is, political history is rarely as simple as "the guy with the best argument wins."
4.) … somewhat answers my comment below.
It wasn't that long ago that children in general had high mortality rates. In much of the world, that is still the case. Do we let that affect how we comprehend them as organisms? Are children worth less than adults if they die more frequently?
This really orbits around the same old debate of when a human being is a human being. It seems odd we might view an organism at an early stage of development as somehow not that organism. Aren't you just speaking to the emotional investment we make in the unborn, and not their actual identity as human beings? Does how I comprehend something matter to what it is?
David, regarding 3) I submitted an article that provides, what I hope is, a new argument. It's not based on faith or religion – but on science and law.
re: #3 – ultrasound technology is impacting the abortion rates. And that's because people are getting to see the humanity of the first trimester being in the womb. Our society has been able to numb our conscience to abortion for so long because we've bought the concept of this "being" is just a cluster of cells, nothing more. With ultrasound as advanced as it is, we can now see how amazingly human this little person is. From the moment of conception this collection of cells has all the information needed to grow into a sefl-sufficient human being. Yes, miscarriages happen. I've experienced it myself and 28 years later I still grieve over that lost child. In this fallen world, things like that will happen. But I am fully convinced that at the moment of conception there is a person – not just a cluster of cells, a real person. Therefore abortion is the murder of an innocent.
This is a ridiculous and false choice David. If you take conception to it's NATURAL conclusion it will result in a human life that is as valuable as yours. Choice ends after conception. Unlike a miscarriage, tearing a baby out of a uterus is NOT a natural process. If I understand your premise correctly, you are pro-abortion because it gives you a better choice of political candidate. That is disgusting. As far as the claim that if abortion were really a holocaust, people would be and should be bombing abortion clinics, you engage in Alinsky type logic. The ends don't justify the means David.
The body naturally chooses not to bring every child to full development when miscarriages happen.
It is a scientific, biological, medical, and known fact that a new human being is created at the moment of fertilization.
http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/fertilization.htm
Fertilization
The first two weeks of the human development are called the preembryonic period. This period begins with the fertilization. Fertilization is the beginning of the pregnancy and can be considered as the beginning of a new life.
You and other anti-human proponents can dance around the facts all you want but that doesn’t change them.
Every evil act man has perpetrated against man has been justified in the mind of the perpetrator.
The legal killing of defenseless human beings is the most despicable act of evil man has tried to justify.
The acceptance of evil and terrorism against the unborn will lead to greater evils against more human beings as the value of human life will be determined solely on the whim of the powerful.
If Obamacare comes to fruition, we will see the truth of this. Economics will demand the extermination of those who drain the coffers of the productive taxpayer. And to those who hold the mentality that abortion is not murder, this development will also not cause them any fear, unless of course, they are the ones to be exterminated.
"Terminating a pregnancy in the first term isn’t murder. You know it, I know it, and anti-abortion activists know it. The difference is that those who campaign against legalized abortion don’t realize they know it. . . .
"Here’s the secret for why we all know in our bones that abortion isn’t murder: we are trained _instinctively by nature_ to understand that not every pregnancy will result in a new human being."
Mr. Swindle, your logic contradicts itself here. Nature is the original abortionist, you say: therefore, it is not murder to terminate pregnancies _in the first term._ OK, but when did "nature" lay down this law that she terminates pregnancies only in the first term? Miscarriages happen in every trimester — so what makes the ones that nature performs in the first trimester fully worthy of emulation by man, but not the others? Just who is making the judgment that "first-term abortions — well, those are clearly not murder, but now third-term abortions, that's qualitatively different. . . " In so decreeing, you elevate yourself to a level with "nature." But nobody elected or appointed you to that position.
You are the ghost of Justice Blackmun, come back to haunt us. Before writing the opinion in Roe v. Wade, he closeted himself in the library of the Mayo Clinic over the summer and read everything he could about abortion practice; then used his legal mind to break all the data down into trimesters. There is nothing inherently "natural" about trimesters; they are Blackmun's legal construct.
If abortion clinics were contrary to current law, then your argument about fighting them might have more weight. But if they were illegal, then a word to the sheriff would suffice to shut them down, and there would be no necessity to take the law into your own hands. The problem with your argument is that it requires people to take the law into their own hands — because the law on the ground allows abortions. Terrorism and violence can always be resorted to, once you allow people the right to decide what the law should be on their own.
Your arguments are emotional and anthropocentric. They have nothing to do with what is at stake here.
Adding to your point about bombing abortion clinics: One may not arbitrarily murder, steal, or kidnap to prevent or punish wrongdoing. To suggest otherwise is to advocate lynch mobs. Part of the bargain one accepts to live in a civil society is enduring a degree of injustice to inhibit greater injustice. By that I mean we accept that the guilty will sometimes go free so that the innocent are less likely to be wronged.
One need not become a vigilante to justify their political beliefs. The "you'd kidnap someone's child to save them" argument doesn't hold water with me. First of all, I wouldn't. Secondly, if I did, I would still be breaking the law and in the wrong. Motive, while often applicable to the degree of crime, does not excuse it.
Because I don't "kidnap the child or shoot their would-be assassin" I am not sending the message that abortion is murder of inocent human lives? I really can't believe that is your logic. Does this mean that everyone who didn't actively kill or fight against a Nazis doesn't believe that Holocaust happened or was wrong? "Here’s the secret for why we all know in our bones that abortion isn’t murder: we are trained instinctively by nature to understand that not every pregnancy will result in a new human being."
We know not every person will live to a ripe old age and we know every senior citizen will soon die anyway so if we decide to take their life it's not really murder then right? Natural deaths are a part of living so that justifies murder at any point in life right?
You can judge me and my anti abortion stance all you want but the fact remains — I know abortion is murder, the taking of an innocent human life. Just because a pregnancy might end in a miscarrage doen't justify murder in the same way that the murder of anyone's life is not justified just because statistically they are gonna die anyway.
Oh and to answer these questions "Here’s the question for all anti-abortion activists: is this issue the most important of the day? As in, can you vote for a candidate who does not share your view if they are right on other more consequential issues?"
Yes, it is.
I voted for a candidate who was pro-abortion once. Never again! My future votes stay with the candidate who will fight abortion. That's how important it is to me. Take that for your evidence that I believe abortion is murder, not if I bombed a clinic or not!
So you would vote for Ron Paul over Rudy Giuliani and you are more concerned with criminalizing abortion than winning the war against Islamist Nazis?
When I look at a canidate the first thing I look for is there stance on abortion. All other issues are secondary to me. However, some issues are too important to be ignored. In a case where I would have to choose between a candidate who supports Radical Islam and against abortion and a candidate who fights Radical Islam and for abortion, I probably who not vote for either. This doesn't mean I am any less concerned with fighting abortion or that Radical Islam is more important to me, it simply means the candidate would do too much other harm to justify his being in office. I would look for another candidate who is more appropriate or not place a vote for that office at all.
You want my honest opinion on what I am more concerned with? Abortion. I am not a radical but my beliefs are strong. I believe abortion is murder of innocent lives that have no voice. That fight is more important to me than any other issue. Like I say, judge me all you wish…but yes, abortion is the most important issue to be fought against by me.
BTW, there is a Right to Life party and I have defaulted to a vote for them before when the two main party candidates have fallen extemely short. I don't claim a party, but they have certainly received a good portion of my support. I would love to see this party get stronger with more candidates running for different offices.
My husband just said that it is rediculous to ask the question "Do you murder the Jew or do you murder the baby? Neither killing is acceptable. No sits back and allows Jews to die because abortion is their main fight."
Intentionally terminating a pregnancy is not murder because some pregnancies naturally terminate. Am I getting that right? So, if we're being consistent, intentionally killing a person is not murder, because some people (all, in fact) naturally die. Am I missing a distinction here?
There is a difference between a possibility and an actuality.
There is a difference between a probability and an actuality.
A possible, or probable person is not the same as an actual person.
The pro-life position does not dispute that. It simply identifies conception as the moment there is an actual person. Sperm and eggs separately, on the other hand, would represent the possibility or probability of a person.
A zygote is not an actual person. Other than it's DNA pattern a zygote has nothing in common with a person.
A zygote is a potential person.
One can only assert otherwise if one believes in the immortal soul and agrees with the Pope that the soul enters the flesh at the moment of conception. That standard asserts that the soul (which we can neither observe nor measure) is the defining characteristic of a person. By that standard it is reasonable to assert that a zygote is a person.
Nobody who doesn't hold those beliefs can reasonably agree to the notion that a zygote is an actual person. It would make no sense.
Forget religion. Evoking faith is an attempt to impose subjectivity upon the pro-life position. There is nothing mystical about the belief life begins at conception. As you observe, the DNA pattern is in place. This is the defining characteristic of an organism. Aside from combination of DNA into a new organism (i.e. conception) at what point can it be rationally said a human being is a human being? Your axiomatic assertion that a zygote is not a person is not sufficient. Identify what event or combination of circumstances makes one a human being.
Okey Doke. But I've got to sleep. It's late where I am. Let's pick this up tomorrow.
Please excuse.
I can appreciate that. I'll probably need you to repay the favor during the day, my nightime.
The missing piece of the puzzle is TIME. This is the only difference between a 3 month embryo and a 3 year old. The growth of the embryo is the equivalent to the growth experienced between a 3 year old and a 30 year old. As a nurse I can say that when a patient presents with a miscarriage, that "clump of cells" looks like a baby with all of the same chararteristics of a 3 month old baby, only on a smaller, developing scale. At what time does it become a human being? Having seen many patients in the ER with threatened miscarriage, I can assure you that their sole focus was "save my baby". Even at a 6 week gestation, these women accepted the "clump of cells" as their baby. I agree with you in that there is nothing "mystical" about life beginning at conception.
Excellent writing and exemplaring thinking Mr. Hudson! Thank you for your writing.
So …
What is a person? A person is a free standing biologically self-supporting animal, possessing human, that is to say conceptual, consciousness.
By this standard you don't have an actual person until after birth, when a baby draws it's first breath.
Since we recognize that human life is the ultimate primary value, one wishes, naturally I think, to avoid anything that even gives the appearance of infanticide. Hence I think that for abortion related decisions one wants to calibrate the bar somewhere before having a full fledged self-supporting actual person on hand.
My own take on the matter is that one should follow the standards of nature. There is a point in pregnancy (don't ask me, I don't know the biology) when it becomes possible for a baby to survive a premature birth under natural conditions. I think it is reasonable to say that before that point the question of an actual rather than a possible person is meaningless. After that point we are talking about probabilities of a person that tread too closely to reality to be harmonious with civilized values.
What one wants to do is to avoid sacrificing one actual person for another — unless that sacrifice is fully voluntary.
This is also where the rubber hits the road morally on an important question. What happens if you know that the process of giving birth would kill the mother? Do you abort? Up until when? Can a woman abort to save her own life in the first week? The first month? The first 6 months? How about the day before delivery?
My view of the matter is that any person may VOLUNTARILY sacrifice their own life to save the life of anybody else anytime they wish. But nobody can force a person to INVOLUNTARILY sacrifice their life for anybody anytime for any reason.
As it happens, an unborn, which is to say potential/probable person, does not yet have the consciousness to make decisions. So the categories of voluntary and involuntary don't apply.
My view is that in extremis it is inhuman not to allow a woman to save her own life. In non-emergency situations I think the natural premature birth standard should apply.
Please do not interpret this as meaning that I like the idea of abortion. I find it rather revolting. What is more, I have witnessed the destructive effects of abortion on the emotional lives of women and on relationships many times. I know several women who bear deep and painful emotional/mental scars decades after having aborted a pregnancy. It's not nice stuff.
But one cannot force one person to sacrifice their life for the life of another.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
The horrific dichotomy which emerges when an unborn child threatens the life of its mother is beside the point. Such cases constitute a negligible minority of abortions. The overwhelming majority are nothing more than parents dispensing with responsibility. It would be unjust for me to murder my wife to terminate marriage, or murder my 16-month-old to save money. I see no distinction between those crimes and abortion as birth control.
Speaking of my son, he is not "self-sustaining." I understand you mean not connected to the mother. However, that seems a meaningless distinction when you consider the role of the umbilical remains throughout childhood.
Were my son to be abandoned, the "standards of nature" would do him in as neatly as a chick fell from its nest. His mother and I have a responsibility to sustain him. If that is our responsibility now, how was it not our responsibility while he was in the womb? How was being inside his mother, connected by a literal umbilical, effectively different than being outside connected by obligation? If he was somehow imposing upon his mother in the womb, how is he not imposing now? I assure you, the effort, focus, and treasure required to sustain him is far greater now than it was before he was born.
I am sure you are sincere about finding abortion revolting. I am also sure you are motivated by a desire to justly weigh contradictory interests. In your effort to do so, it seems you have contrived a definition of personhood distinct from human life. Though undoubtedly not your intent, this exercise opens the door to devaluing life at any stage for any reason.
I share the following not to equate you with the sentiment or its originator, but to illustrate my point. Regarding the humanity of the Jew, Joseph Goebbels once said, “Certainly the Jew is also a Man, but the Flea is also an Animal.” Once we accept that personhood is somehow distinct from being human, we weaken our own claim to humanity.
To answer your disclaimer, please do not take me as one who feels any abortion is first degree murder. I merely object to the characterization of the unborn as less deserving of life.
Thanks likewise.
We seem to be on opposite sides of the clock. And if I am to give you the sort of answer your thoughtful comments deserve it will have to be put off till tomorrow once again.
Till then …
Walter: A clear, superb examination of the key issue here. The pro-abortion side usually takes "viability" as their criterion for life. As you note, this is not merely rationally weak but also quite dangerous. Your remarks deserve more prominence.
Acacia, did you read this?
"A person is a person, no matter how small."
Excellent points.
As science and technology have advanced, there are many more human babies surviving after being born weeks and months before the normal gestational period.
Are these premature babies non-persons because they could not survive without constant monitoring and technological and medical interventions?
Or are they only “persons” when the mother decides she wants the baby and allows the medical and technological interventions necessary for the baby to survive?
I have one more thing to add to this. The period of time you point to where there is a chemical pregnancy (an empty egg/no growing fetus after conception) resulting in miscarriage is in the first 4 weeks of the pregnancy. We women are lucky to realize we are pregnant by in that forth week when our periods are due because the official begining of pregnancy was the first day of our last period (before conception). Pregnancy does not begin at conception. When a chemical pregnancy ends it does so by the 4th week when most women don't even realize they are pregnant. The thing to point out here is the first trimester includes the next 8 weeks of pregnancy when an ultrasound will show a live human being with a beating heart in the 6th week. Women don't get abortions in the first four weeks of pregnancy as they don't even know they are pregnant. Usually by the time they realize they are pregnant and deciding if they wish to kill the baby or not, it is well into or past that 6th week when a live beating heart is thriving.
Your argument , if a woman miscarries a baby…. So then any one child out of the womb , who has cancer , should be allowed to die, because it to ,is natural? We don't accept that. We fight for that childs right though nature itself demands death. Abortion is not natural. It's just semantics. The convenient disposal of a an unseen human life. If I have too much extra ammo and I aim a weapon at the sky and the bullet streaks to earth killing someone then that is murder. I am responsible for my actions and it killed an innocent i can't see. I knew my actions,(Firing the weapon-Having unprotected sex) may have consequences. But I disregarded any responsibility. Someone else pays the price. The only difference is semantics. An unseen fully grown adult compared to an unseen future adult. It's still the murder of a human being. Just different stages of life.
Well with the logic of this 'segment', if David Horowitz truly believes what he writes about the Left/Leftist, etc – why isn't he out there shootin the bastards…
It isn't that Horowitz doesn't believe what he says and it isn't that pro-life/anti-abortion people don't believe what they say; it's that it's illegal to shoot the bastards.
That's a bit of a leap Julie. Very few leftists murder people.
You missed my point.
The point is people do not take the law into their own hands, they largely follow the law of the land & since it is illegal to take someone's life despite how adamantly we believe they deserve it, most people don't act on their beliefs. If they did, we'd have chaos/anarchy instead of the 'civil' society we all enjoy.
The difference between a zygote and an adult, isn't one of personhood, human, life, etc. it's simply a matter of development.
And since the law of the land is that it is legal to take a life in the early mid & in some cases late stages of fetal development (and life may be taken at any adult age should the society decide so – capital punishment) most people follow the law of the land rather than taking the law into their own hands; despite their opposition to societal laws.
Out of curiosity, can you give me a source for your statement "very few leftists murder people".?
Was it OK for people to take the law into their own hands in Nazi Germany? Was it OK for Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, and Mahatma Gandhi to break the law?
Rule of Law is indeed a conservative value, but it's not an absolute value.
Source: you've read "Radical Son" and David Horowitz's books. The fringe of political leftists who will murder people — like the Black Panthers — is very small.
Why are you asking me the first questions? I didn't imply it was okay for people to take the law into their own hands, however as a political tactic it often does work. And were the political right or left take the laws into their own hands for their respective ideology(s), I suspect there would be massive bloodshed as evidenced by the world wars we have fought.
Rule of law is not exclusively a conservative value. The liberal left believe in the rule of law.
I agree with you regarding the fringe political leftists (and rightist) who will murder is small; I was simply asking if you knew of a source i.e. bureau of justice statistics or something similar.
I don't remember King, Tubman or Gandhi killing anyone…
Disappointing post. This does not belong on Front Page Mag, unless you want to alienate a significant chunk of your audience.
Apparently you don't know very much about the editorial views of FPM…
We need these contentious discussions as well.
Groups of like minded people with common goals have to face, if possible resolve, or at least find ways of dealing with internal dissent if they are to find a way to get along and get on with the achievement of their goals.
From NRB's site 'About' us:
NewsReal is the team blog of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Its focus is to analyze and critique cable shows, newspapers, magazines, and the blogosphere to reveal the political Left’s methods and agendas.
While I enjoy a lively debate, I do agree with David S in his disappointment in the post as I believe it runs contrary to NRB's focus as stated on their web site. I fail to see how this discussion reveals the political Left's methods and agendas; it does more to reveal/disrupt/harm the political Right's methods, agenda's etc.
I am particularly disturbed by the 'snottly' response of the editor to David S in stating his disappointment "Apparently you don't know very much about the editorial views of FPM… "
Just sayin…
I am very interested in which canidate Calvin would vote for if only the pro abortion Guiliani and the pro life Paul were the only choices.
I know as a Catholic, i would be committing a mortal sin if i voted for Guiliani, which is why i never vote for a pro abortion canidate regardless of his other views.
Bravo Jack, my course of actions exactly. I'd just leave that category blank and move on to the next one.
There is nothing more sacred in this Universe than Human life, no matter at what stage of development. So says the Holy Scriptures also. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump; if you offend in one point of the Holy Law, then you offend in the total. Thank God, my Heavenly Father, that he sent a pure, holy and unblemished sacrifice to fulfill the required payment for the offences of the Law for all those who ask and believe; even those who commit murder of innocent babies.
What the abortionists don't get is that there is a vast difference between an accidental death and the planned homicide of an innocent human being. Miscarriages are accidentatl deaths; abortion is the planned destruction of another human being.
Life begins at conception and planning to destroy that life is homicide. Some women believe they have a right to that choce; I believe they have been fed a lie, and that there are better alternatives for unwanted pregnancies.
Both mothers and babies deserve the loving care of their families and communities. When an abortion happens, a baby is deliberately destroyed with NO choice in the matter, and a mother is deceived and harmed. Neither one of them deserves that. Let's find a better way to help them both.
Life begins at conception, women who abort their children should go to jail, abortion is murder, it's even a higher degree of murder in my opinion because the human life is at it's most vulnerable stage of existence. This "fetus is part of the woman's body" brainwashing is one of the many reasons our civilization is headed for complete collapse. We can all thank the radical feminists and radical leftists of the 1960s who made all of this nonsense possible. Pro-choice is an oxymoron, tell me what choice does the child have when it's being cut in half? Where is the choice there? Pro-choice stems from radical feminist's quest at gender equality, something cultural marxist and gender hating utopians dreamed of long ago. Abortion rights will help hasten the death of Western civilization and Judeo Christian values, resulting in the victory for the our islamic enemies!
Cancer is also part of the human body. I guess it should be allowed to come to fruition too-at least according to your logic.
I don't see how you can compare a symbiotic relationship with a living being to a cancerous tumor.
I am claiming that a zygote is comprised of predatory cells that have the potential for human life. Cancer is comprised of predatory cells with the potential to form tumors, and usually invade the host, the human body.
The fact is that when a woman becomes pregnant, the zygote immediately starts feeding on the body to survive. A woman's gums may bleed, bones are robbed of calcium, and morning sickness commonly occur.
Hence, it is the woman's choice to carry a fetus to term or not considering the amount of vitamins and minerals the fetus takes from her body, not to mention 9 months of possible, uncomfortable pregnancy and possibly a difficult delivery.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN DESTINY? When a life is cut short, like a child's, the parents say, "He wanted own his own business. That's all he thought about." "She loved science and wanted to be a biologist."
Some say Obama is living his DESTINY. But what if his mother aborted him? The man DESTINED to be President was instead aborted? What if the real FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT was aborted years or decades ago?
DOES A FETUS HAVE A DESTINY? If "it" was aborted, who was "it" and what was their DESTINY? What if "it" was to invent a cure for AIDS, MD, or Breast Cancer? First person on another planet or its moon? A teacher who inspired others to live their DESTINY?
Even children born under the most extreme conditions become a productive, and even famous, citizen.
Was another Einstein aborted yesterday because the mother was to attend her class reunion and didn't want to be fat?
Was another Elvis aborted because the mother had planned a trip to Paris and being pregnant would ruin the trip?
Was the First Woman President aborted because she would be pregnant in the summer and hot months?
WHO WILL BE ABORTED TODAY?
No one know what will happen until it happens. You are on a fallacious slippery slope.
Abortion is murder. That is exactly why I do not feel bad when an abortionist is killed in defense of the defensless. I honor the sacrifice these individuals have made. Throughout my military career, I was sent to defend others or liberate them. Whether that is correct of not is debatable. If it were legal, I would willing march into an abortion clinic and subdue them as any other enemy.
The point is, you are correct, we should be stopping the abortionists regardless of the costs of our liberties. I choose to fight the battle through sponsorship of legal entities that will engage in a legal manner.
It amazes me to see the outright destruction or our society and yet we on the right are not fighting in the streets. Only the left seems to engage in daily violence to win their cause using any means. Only the occassional right wing person shows up to cause violence. I am amazed not more have done so.
The way to cut through the fog of a contentious issue is to stake out the areas everyone agrees on. Murder is illicit. Murder is intentionally taking the life of an innocent (non-threatening) human being. The "entity" (person, zygote, fetus, whatever) is surely innocent. Everyone can accept that, pro- or anti-abortion.
The abortion debate therefore hinges on a medical/theological/philosophical question–when is the zygote a human being? This is the absolute key to this problem. Unless the answer is unequivocal, the debate continues. In my opinion, picking out an arbitrary point as the SC did in 1973 is an empty compromise. Politically as well as morally, we must stand for what we believe is right and seek to persuade others. It's good to have this kind of debate here; it is a sign of the intellectual health among conservatives absent in their opposition.
Is an acorn an oak tree? No. Is a fetus a human? No.
Is an 18 year-old getting an abortion the same human person as the baby she once was? No, according to your logic, if I understand you correctly. Too much difference in size, appearance, brain activity, behavior. Yet that was her–"she" never left her (greatly changed) body. The seed is not the plant, but there is an unbroken line of growth between the original sprout and the mighty oak. The forms change drastically, the identity remains.
Excellent, a thinking human. Why is the seed of a plant different than a human seed? I know the difference, specific difference do you?
Again, does a parisitic fetus have more rights than the pregnant woman?
The question is whether the fetus is human. If it is, it has the right to life equal to that of the mother, the father, a guy with an MBA from Harvard, or a bum. Either it has it or it does not.
Any person of secular science will tell you that life began from a primordial cell in some aged pool eons ago, of which I disagree totally. As in the course of nature, let the nature of natural things be the deciding factor. If the nature of life is left to it natural course, then around 9 months we'll have a fully developed human being who was a less developed human being some 9 months earlier. Case solved!!!! End of discussion!!! End of argument!!!!! End of debate!!!!
Glad to see you solved it.
David, when you play a card like this…
"Thus, the main reason why mainstream anti-abortion advocates condemn such violence is because it’s such bad PR for the cause."
…I'm left with 2 options: chase the ball, or close this window. If I respond to your psycho-analysis, you might consider the response to be defensive — meaning proof of doubt. Maybe chemical engineers or scientists somewhere rely on such deductive reasoning to find cures for diseases or other innovations, but in the context of discerning others' character, this is commonly known as projecting negative.
And when you write it or speak it, it's commonly known as gossip.
David, anybody can throw doubt out there and expect others to chase it as a way to prove their character. Some people are intimidated by the thought that another person will give up on them, but the rest of us know better from experience. Distrust only ends when people decide to stop doing it.
So with that in mind, try to understand that pro-lifers like myself could care less whether anyone assumes this movement isn't serious. As we all know, some of our people have been too serious. I believe the simplistic "good vs. evil" perspective leads some to extreme measures. And I'm not saying everything is a shade of gray either; I'm saying dysfunctional people are a very real third category.
Follow along with me. Hitler demonized the Jews. The left hasn't demonized the fetus or purposefully attempted to eradicate all children out of hatred. There is a significant difference in modus operandi and attitude here, and it's easy to miss unless you are cognizant of moral development. Hitler was evil.
Leftists are just dysfunctional. Some strategically redefine life to avoid punishing themselves with guilt. These people chronically attempt to purify themselves, but they can't forgive themselves of murder. Guilt-complex personality. Others with the same insecurities are tagalongs, honestly uncertain of when life begins, but their friends are guilt-driven, and so they appease the more powerful personality by defending them. They're mellow until they perceive conflict, and then they take charge by possibly playing peacemaker, getting verbally abusive, or even violent.
To bring this back to the topic of discussion, observe how knowledge of personality types is relevant to the issue of criminal penalties for murder. Law does not equate vehicular manslaughter to first degree murder. The legal jargon "specific intent" has to be proven in court for this crime, except where the felony murder rule applies — the law assumes intent when death occurs during the commission of rape, burglary, etc.
Abortion is not premeditated murder, such as how Johan Van Der Sloot targeted Natalee Holloway. This man would fry in any death penalty state, but draw your attention to the profile of the victim here. This young~ woman was in a bar, in another country~, letting herself get picked up by strangers. Don't dismiss her as just naieve, but identify her risky thrill-seeking behavior for what it is: a common way guilt-complex sufferers cope — with getting attention.
All sociopaths knowingly and deliberately target dysfunctional people, simply because they are easy pickings. Scammers barely try to look legitimate, because they don't have to! For example, the current sob story from Nigeria. That poor man still needs us to wire him a transaction, and he still promises to pay us a load of money when we do. Dysfunctional people only see one thing in these letters: a chance to be important.
The death penalty is reserved for sociopaths. Of course, with the way conservatives oppose amnesty for Mexicans fleeing the drug mafia, which implies the desired mass-exportation of millions of people, it's understandable that you might conclude conservatives also want the mass-execution of millions of women. So I'm happy to see you've given us that much benefit of the doubt.
Rob, you need to take a nap. When you awake you might have more clarity.
It is useless to compare 'holocausts' and disingenuous. There are political and historical events that raise a culture up and ones that tear it down. Individual history is much the same. At some point one may do something life-affirming and heroic, at another destructive and hateful. They are a part of the historical fabric of that person and are sealed. The 'murder' label is also disingenuous; it gives wiggle room for the pro-choicers. Abortion causes death – it cannot be undone – all human rights are based on the right to be born since establishing rights or laws depends on being born in the first place. Therefore, all life, potential or fully developed must be protected and must be the first consideration of any society – why do you think one of the the first orders of business for totalitarian regimes is the control of reproductive processes? They get it.
Does anyone know history? During the colonial days, religious pamphlets advertised products to bring on menses. Abortion was not a major issue in the USA until the 1870's when doctors guilded themselves and claimed women were too dumb to make such a decision.
Besides, murder is illegal homicide, killing is legal homicide. Abortion is legal.
Those of you who are against abortion, do not have one, but do not interfere with a woman's FREEDOM to choose.
Aspacia, we know much more about embryology than we did back then:
http://rightcal.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/indisput...
Yes, I have read several scientific essay that state this as a fact. However, the fact they cannot dance around is that a fetus is not a salient human being. A zygote a compilation of cells that cannot breath, think or act on its own. Family members often pull the plug on a comatose relative that cannot breath, think or act on its own; that is, a human in this condition has lost most of its humanness.
By their logic, and they could not weasle out of this one, cells are life forms, hence any malignant cells we have in our body are life. Should we allow these life forms to grow? I think not. Should a zygot have more value than a woman who is economically, emotionally and physically unprepared to bring a fetus to term. Nope.
All you're really saying is that *you don't value* the rights of people without the qualities you mention. That doesn't show they aren't people, or don't have rights.
"Cells are life forms, hence any malignant cells we have in our body are life."
The argument isn't that the unborn are "life"; it's that they're LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.
Calvin,
Do you honestly believe a zygote is a salient human being?I sure do not. I will posit the same challeMge to you, as I did Peachey: If you oppose abortion, will you go to Planned Parenthood, and tell a pregnant mother that you will incur the expense of her being off work, the expense of a hospital delivery, and the expense for caring for that child for 18years or longer if the child is handicapped?
THIS IS A CHALLENGE–PUT YOUR MONEY AND TIME WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
I don't know what you're trying to convey with the "salient" modifier, but I don't just "believe" that a zygote is a human being – I KNOW IT. ALL AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA SAYS SO.
If I say I would be willing to do those things, would your position change? (I'm guessing not, since you know nothing about embryology and cast pro-lifers as heartless, despite all the charity work we do for unwed mothers via crisis pregnancy centers.)
If I say I wouldn't be willing to do those things, It would have no bearing whatsoever on which one of is correct on what an unborn baby is. If you had even a rudimentary grasp of logic, this would be obvious to you.
Further, in almost all cases of abortion, women seeking them could have prevented their getting pregnant; but they chose to take the risk. Why should anyone else pay for their actions? Do you believe in a little thing called responsibility? (Oh, and the cost wouldn't necessarily be 18 years – adoption ring a bell?)
Earlier you advocated dropping a neutron bomb on Afghanistan & Iraq, killing millions of innocents along with all the bad guys. By your logic, put your money where your mouth is: go over there and start killing 'em yourself.
Obviously, you are basing your opinion on your own experience rather than on facts or truth.
You say a zygote is not “considered” a human person. You mean to say YOU do not consider a zygote to be a human person.
Unless you can provide proof that you have extensive training in the science of embryology, and can cite documented writings of embryologist’s who can prove your theory, your emotional advocacy for the murder of innocent life is quite evil.
Where did you get the idea that the state is the final word on what or whom is human and what or when a murder has been committed? Leaving that decision up to the state is a very deadly proposition. Who's next? The elderly? The retarded? Episcopalians? The German state determined gassing Jews, retards etc. was legal. So does that mean the Jews in Germany were not murdered? After all, it was legal? The state said so. The state said the JEWS weren't human. The state defined what and who was a human.
It's not a RIGHT to murder your baby. It's not just your body once you have another one along with you. A pregnant woman is not a victim. There are consequences to good times. She can always refrain or at the very least make sure she has adequate protection and BTW, her accomplice, the man should be equally responsible..
riffenberg, I am merely stating the fact that in the USA abortion is not considered murder nor is it even considered homicide.
It is not up to the state, it is up to the woman to decide whether to carry the fetus to term or not.
Unfortunatly, you are correct, killing Jews in NAZI German was not murder, and for that matter not even homicide. Nazis view viable humans as expendable, and legally killed them.
Do not misunderstand, I am a strong Zionist who values the numerous moral and scientific and technological contributions Jews have made to humanity. As the Bible states they are to be a light unto humanity.
If I choose to abort a fetus rather than carry it to term, thankfully, this is my decision not yours.
Again, this was not an issue until the 1870's when doctors guilded themselves, consolidated their standing thus driving midwives and medicine men out of business. You might consider researching this fact. I have read numerous primary sources from colonial times that reveal many products were advertised to bring on menses. During this time, if a family already had 8+ children, had difficulty feeding them and childbirth was a life or death issue for women, abortion was the safer alternative.
BTW, birth control is not always 100% and the pill can be dangerous for some women.
I bet you're one of those people who run around claiming that soldiers are murderers and that them being legally allowed to kill is just a big show of American imperialism or some such nonsense. Of course the whole freedom to choose leaves out an important question; IF(and I say 'if' hypothetically) the fetus is a human being then how can any person claim the freedom to end it? In certain cases such as self defense, legal punishment, national defense and the like ending a life is a deplorable but necessary evil. By the logic you follow Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes are nothing more than his chosing to end a life, or Karla Homolka practicing her freedom/control over the life of others. If you can chose whether your child lives and dies whats to stop me from chosing whether you live or die? The argue is not about choice: nobody should be arbitrarily able to decide to end someone else's life, only by claiming that it isn't a life does your argument stick. Hence the real argument is whether the fetus is a human or not.
Right of Centre might consider not making ASSumptions regarding others.
Actually, I am a strong patriot, who would prefer a neutron bomb in Afghanistan and Iraq, and simply win the war using disproportionate force similar to what we did in WWII. They started the fight, we end it, and do not cry when you nose is bloodied.
A fetus is not considered a human, only a potential human, just as an acorn is not an oak tree, just a potential oak tree.
You are again making a false analogy by comparing my prochoice stance to a sociopathic cannibal Dahmer. He murdered and ate viable humans, and a fetus is not a viable human.
Again, a fetus is not a viable human until born.
BTW; I have a successful 31 year old son. I chose to have only one, because that was all I could afford. You see my ex refused to pay court ordered child support, and if I had accidentally become pregnant afterward, I would have not hesitated in aborting the fetus. You see, I prefer quality of life to quantity, and again, have a successful, happy, productive son.
BTW: In Islam, a human is not human until 100 days after birth.
Aspacia, you have revealed your criterion: one is not human until one is "viable." The problem is that this isn't a "viable" proposition, ethically speaking. The comatose patient isn't viable; continued existence is totally dependent on the care of others, otherwise death comes quickly. The same for infants, or severely retarded, or paraplegics…If the criterion for humanness is "viability," we are all on a demonstrably slippery slope.
The fetus about to be born but still in the womb–is that a potential or an actual human?
I believe that abortion is murder and I speak for the murdered baby that was denied it's freedom to choose to live a full life.
Okay Peachey,,
Put you life and money where your mouth is. Stop by Panned Parenthood, and tell an expectant mother that you will bear the financial burden of her pregnancy, and her delivery, and you will raise the child, EVEN IF THE CHILD WILL BE HANDICAPPED.
I DARE YOU.
Most posting on this issue do not donate time or money to abused or battered children. Most live on an ideological, morally bankrupt bandwagon.
Simple question: why are you so full of hate for pro-lifers?
I guess if you're anti-abortion you ought to assume responsibility for raising all unwanted children, right? If you want to debate, debate. Tell us what "viable" is, and justify it.
Well then the men who encourage,intimidate,persuade,escort ,finance these abortions should be chargeed as an accessory to murder..
Just because cowards can't bring themself to defend the unborn doesn't mean they don't consider abortion murder and ……………….just because the abortion issue isn't the number one issue on a person's mind doesn't mean they don't consider abortion ,murder.
Let's simply reduce Mr. Swindle's entire argument to "Abortion isn't murder because I say it isn't." His strained and stretched logic could only satisfy those predisposed to his conclusion but should not be mistaken for a reasoned philosophical or even scientific construct. It may be that his level is the best a forum of this sort is capable, a glancing blow at one of the most fundamental questions of our age, reduced to the absurdity of a choice between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. Opinions of this sort, however, will continue to float on the depths like flotsam while beneath in the hearts and minds of those desiring truth, men will decide without regard for what passes today for wisdom or knowledge.
Regardless of the words and rhetoric used to describe abortion the FACT remains that a life has been discontinued and there is no question that there is life in all phases of pregnancy.
A live seed sought refuge in a live egg and they melded and changed but there was never a lack of life.
The second greatest miracle in the universe is the existance and CONTINUANCE of intelligent life and there is no doubt that such an intelligent life would consider the act of continuance a sacred event.
The way our species reacts to miracles and the abortion issue must give question as to if humanity can actually and accurately be described as intelligent.
Are we immune from the evils of past generations? Does evil change it's face and its' arguments in order to seem more palatable to the current generation? Do we even believe in evil anymore?
We march and protest and write articles, justifiably, shouting "Never Again!". Did evil die with Hitler? Or Pol Pot, or Lenin, or Mao, or any of the perpetraters of great evil in our past? Shouting "Never Again!", by itself, is never enough. Because evil does change its' guise and arguments in its' attempt to convince people that the evil deed is the "right" or "good" or 'needed" action to be taken.
My main question to all the pro-choice people is this(and it is a frequently asked question): at what stage of development is the fetus no longer a fetus but a human being? I know the law says at birth but that doesn't fly, what difference is there between 20 secs after birth from 20 secs before birth? Of course you could argue that it is the ability to walk, reason, speak, live independently that separates a human from a fetus but then I could round up all the handicapped, disabled and welfare people and start killing them based on that criteria. By my thinking the human becomes a human when it meets the following criteria: it has human DNA, it is a living, growing being(of course the fetus is living and growing, it eats, moves and grows many times over during those 9 months), and finally when it is a unique, separate being. That last one is the whole crux of the matter; the argument is always whether it's an individual or simply a part of the mother to be disposed of at her will. Now that my question is out there with my answer, I pose a challenge: can a single pro-choice person actually prove in any way that the fetus does not comply with all 3 of my criteria?
The clump of cells that pro-choicers like to refer to meets the scientific definition of life. It: 1. metabolizes (eats) 2. respirates (O2/CO2 thing through the placenta and body metabolism) 3. excretes. Even the docs that perform abortions recognize this but, have chosen to redefine their relationship with life and the protection of that life.
Just as with all leftwing ideology, the contradictions are ignored. They only see the goal. Facts and truth are not central in anything they fight for.
According to their leader, Barack Obama, it DOESN'T matter if 20 seconds before a birth, the child is murdered.. Because to leftist's it DOESN'T matter whether abortion kills a human being. All that matters is giving a woman the right to kill a child she doesn't want. That is simply the entire matter to them, although they don't have enough integrity to come right out and tell the truth.
Without the continuouse struggle to free ourselves of the myopic blindness that "yes, we have finally rid ourselves of evil", the eventual denial of any right, of any person or group, for any reason will be imposed by the strong against the weak. It is incumbant on each of us to resist the pull towards conformity to evil, call it by its' name and fight it.
Finally, if our government can deny the "inalienable right to life" to any member of our society it deems necessary, whether because "choice" is a "right", or old people cost too much money to care for, or it's compassionate to let old people die (or to kill them outright), how can we expect that same government to care a whit about our "inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
And indeed, our government continues to chip away at our liberty, and our ability to pursue happiness.
Abortions are big business,BIG BUCKS and it is a big industry. In 1999,1 out of every 3 pregnancies ended in murder in the womb. Over 1,000,000 MILLION babies a year are aborted. Insurance companies and Planned Parenthood, lobby hard to keep abortion legal.
That's what it is all about,money. Who makes the money. Who keeps their jobs if babies are killed. Otherwise we would have endless commercials asking us to protect our babies. We'd have ads as prominent as "buckel your seat belts or obesity ads". The govt. would be behind it.
You are certainly right about that.
Think of all of the money Planned Parenthood would lose if their big abortion business vanished.
Abortion is also an extremely effective and profitable business to decimate the black population – which was one of it's racist and eugenics founder, Margaret Sanger's, primary goals.. Planned Parenthood makes certain it has abortuaries in predominately black neighborhoods and blacks have 3 to 4 times the numbers of abortions compared to their population that any other group.
You don't hear the progressives advertising that fact.
I would encourage David and all readers of this post, to review Peter Kreeft's book "The Unaborted Socrates". In it he presents a non-religous and logical argument. A few such issues: Refering to David saying " While the life of a zygote is not the same as the life of a fully developed child it still has value." First, what IS the difference between a Fully developed child and an Adult? Just 4 differences: Less Developed, More Dependent, Less Mobile and Smaller in size. Is it less of a crime then to kill a child compared to an adult? What difference is there between a "zygote" (merely the word ascribed to a human in a particular stage of developement) and a child? The SAME 4 noted above. The Zygote is an unfolding of potential NOT of essence. It is human from day one.
Stephen, I agree with you. Peter Kreeft is a philospher professor and writes books about the important questions in life using the method of Socrates to get to the point that ideas and acts do have consequences.
We are a people unable to understand the great philosophical truths and Professor Kreeft does a fine job in leading us to think critically about the great moral issues of our time (and all times.)
Opps. I mean philosphY professor. (My fingers seem to be faster than my mind.:)
The real issue here is the harm of abortion. Worse for the mother than the child. Because the charecter of a person has value. Just as you must admit it would be better to suffer at the hands of a sadist than to be the sadist.
Please have David read this book THEN try to present an argument. I've given this book to countless "pro-choice" politicians and NOT ONE has presented an argument against its logic.
I am happy to read so many comments based on rational, intelligent thought processes that make the case that abortion is indeed murder. There is, however, something that has not been emphasized, and that is our faith in God, and the truth of His Word. The Bible has many passages that deal specifically with when life begins, i.e. at conception. Why do we deny what deep in our soul we know to be the truth when we set about to argue that abortion is a choice? The millions of tiny spirits that have been done away with cry out for justice. Our nation is being destroyed because God has taken His hand of protection away from us. We need to repent.
We deny what is true because we have discarded God and replaced him with the state as arbiter and giver of rights.
This was and is the intent of the progressives who lust for power and control over others and cannot succeed if the people believe in a power greater than the state.
I stopped reading this garbage because there isn’t a true right winger among you! Too bad you can’t spent this much energy converting or more accurately re-assimilating liberals sucked from our ranks; the democrats will defeat us and we will become ‘Mother Russia’ because none of you get it, the libs are constantly active, always recruiting, constantly indoctrinating, and misleading anyone who will listen… we sit here and debate this inconsequential trash. We need focus and a few abortions would probably help cut down on the steady liberal troop production occurring in our bloated welfare system which rewards reproduction. Get on task.
Mike, if supporting human life, particularly the lives of the defenseless is garbage to you, then there is really no point in worrying about whether the Dems stay in power or not. After all, what difference does the extermination of millions of lives make and how does the legality of the murder of these souls not directly affect every single aspect of our social, political, and economic realities?
Every decision humans make is either a choice for or against life. If we value human life, we will affirm it every time, no matter how inconvenient.
Our culture does not properly understand the value of children. How sad, that family reunions have fewer children than adults. We are a culture that does not even replace ourselves. How can we thrive into the future? Children are the only heritage that matter, yet we are consumed with acquiring wealth, to live extravagant, empty lives. Children are a financial burden, they will limit our economic freedom. What a lie we have come to believe! Ask your grandparents what they value most about their lives!
Since we are all going to die, would David agree to a post-natal termination on himself?
We should have someone kill Swindle cause we dont like it and then say it isnt wrong because nature
is going to kill him anyway someday. Makes sense huh?
Without diminishing the true nature of abortion which is murder as well as a never before form of discrimination against father's of aborted children, why have we lost the sense that a panel of nine men, selected for a life position on our highest court, took it upon themselves to grant themselves the power to determine that their opinon, not based on facts, would now be the law of the land?
How did we let these men become like gods to foist their disregard for nascent human life upon this nation resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths of the unborn?
They should have been impeached and then put in prison to contemplate their degeneracy……..William
Part 1
I tend to agree with Mr. Swindle's statement:
"Terminating a pregnancy in the first term isn’t murder. You know it, I know it, and anti-abortion activists know it. The difference is that those who campaign against legalized abortion don’t realize they know it."
On a practical level, how would the proponents of the view that abortion is murder deal with the murderers? There have been 40 million abortions in the U.S. (roughly speaking) in the last 40 years. Even if I allow that the average number of abortions per woman was two, that make at least 20 million woman out there who the anti-abortion proponents would accuse and convicte of pre-meditated murder.
What should be the penalty for this crime? Life in prison or the death penalty? Twenty million women in prison for life or do we execute 20 million women? If there are any here would actually agree with either of these two options, then please make another comment stating that, so we know who you are.
Google "ex post facto" sometime…
OK, Calvin, I'll try to explain what I was asking for. I was asking people who consider abortion to be murder to consider the legal consequences of their position.
How about you Calvin? Do you think that women who obtain an abortion should be convicted of pre-meditated murder with the application of the usual penalties?
No. If you really want to know why (and have asked because you want an answer and not a gotcha):
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/06/15/unalienabl...
I have read your essay and there are many points in it that are unclear to me so I would like to re-phrase your remarks and ask you if I have a clear understanding of what you are saying?
Murder is a homicide but it not just that. It must be prohibited by law; it must be done with intent (whether 1st or 2nd degree) and the person who has committed the homicide must appreciate the nature of their act.
I think you are arguing that, whithin the current climate of public opinion, women who are obtaining an abortion may not appreciate what they are doing hence, they are not culpable.
If I am correct in understanding your position, then I accept the point that while you may appreciate the nature of the act, they may not. This position is kind, merciful and just – as far as it goes.
However, I do not accept your position that abortion is a homicide. The subject is too complex to advance an argument in this forum so I will write up my position in an essay over the next few days and post it on my site and give you a heads up over at your personal site when I have posted it.
viktor
"However, I do not accept your position that abortion is a homicide." should read:
"….that 1st trimester abortion is a homicide."
Jews and blacks ought to be the two groups who are the most ardent advocates AGAINST abortion yet are two groups that fully embrace the killing of human life.
Historically, both groups have been systematically exterminated, discriminated against and murdered.
Yet, both groups are adamantly pro-abortion. Both groups are predominately politically liberal and support Democrats who are predominately anti-life, anti-human, and pro-Marxist/Atheist/Communist/Homosexual/anti-religious bigots/terrorists.
One should ask why? Why are so many Jews and blacks on the side of human degradition, human extermination, and human devaluatiion?
You wonder David why Conservatives do not take to the streets and do in the abortionists. There are
reasons, I for one would be glad to do it but am restrained by my Christian faith. We are admonished
in Romans 12:19, Never take your own revenge beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God for
it's written "Vengence Is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. I am left without recourse but have a deep
and overwhelming disgust at my fellow human beings that are killing the most innocent of all.
Abortion was illegal when I was born and when the perverted Supreme Court changed the laws
and brought about a holocaust of over 50 million abortions, I can hardly believe that America is
still here. It is a debt that must be paid, for anyone so inclined for further understanding see,
John 10:10 and 1John 2:15. Had there been a leader so inclined this may have been averted.
Continued……..
The American people in my opinion waited to see that this would be undone but were beguiled by
comefort and pleasure and a who cares attitude, Americans separated themselves from
admitting that they were responsible for the laws of this land. Abortion is a sign and a statement
about America, that it is not deserving of life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness. This curse and
so many other evils in our society must change, November should be the start of the return
to rational, moral living. If we continue to devolve and decend into greater evil the future will
be horrific……………………………….William