No regrets for choosing love over abortion

Indianapolis Star ^ | Jan 22, 2004 | J. Scofield

[workerbee]

She did not; fortunately for him her son was "normal."

Did you understand my point?

[GovernmentShrinker]

The extreme position of holding that a zygote should have all the same rights as a living breathing person, strikes me as very similar to the extremist animal-rights position that mice, chickens, etc. must never be killed. They're ALIVE! Who are we to say that a mouse's life is less valuable than a human life! scream the PETA nuts. And on a very technical, academic, philosophical level, they have a point. But common sense and gut instincts tell most of us that their position is impractical, hyper-emotional nonsense.

FWIW, until it is past the blastocyst stage, there is no reasonable basis whatosever for calling an embryo a "person", as it is still quite capable of turning into two (or more) people. A person doesn't divide. Amoebas divide, but people don't.

[cyborg]

I don't know. What else was I suppose to say?

[puroresu]

#####FWIW, until it is past the blastocyst stage, there is no reasonable basis whatosever for calling an embryo a "person", as it is still quite capable of turning into two (or more) people. A person doesn't divide. Amoebas divide, but people don't.#####


You're very wrong about this. Nothing in nature changes species. The early human embryo cannot be an amoeba, bacteria, or anything else. Nor is it a part of another human being. Sperm & ova fit that definition, as they carry a half-DNA strand from a man and a woman, which combine to begin the life of a new species member.

As for the term "person", it's a sociological term, not a scientific one. The argument that the unborn aren't "persons" is circular. You define "person" to exclude the unborn, and then justify killing them because they aren't "persons". "Personhood" has no scientific application.

[LWalk18]

Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that if abortion was outlawed, the number of "unwanted" babies being born would actually go down?

There might be a correlation between higher "unwanted" births and higher abortions, but that doesn't mean that the availability of abortion causes the higher "unwanted" birthrate- which is hard to calculate anyway. Abortion is far from the only social change to happen in the last thirty years.

[Steve0113]

Give me a baby no matter what the color and I can have a couple lined up in under a month.

In the last month we placed a toddler...

From your experience, at what age (if any) do they become more difficult to place?

[ican'tbelieveit]

What a shamefully weak argument. You have cells inside your body right now that are busily dividing to make you exist every single day. Each of those cells divide to make another identical cell. So, lets say I cut off your arm. Is it any less of a crime because, after all, that arm is just made up of dividing cells?

When a sperm & egg combine to make a CHILD, that is ALIVE, it divides rapidly so that those unique cells can form the end resulting child. Everything about that child is there, at that moment. The ameoba cells dividing will never form anything except an ameoba.

At which point during this whole process do you consider life to begin?

[puroresu]

#####There might be a correlation between higher "unwanted" births and higher abortions, but that doesn't mean that the availability of abortion causes the higher "unwanted" birthrate- which is hard to calculate anyway. Abortion is far from the only social change to happen in the last thirty years.#####


True, it's only a theory that legalizing abortion increases the "unwanted" birthrate. No studies have ever been done, to the best of my knowledge.

But the explosion in illegitimacy and births to unmarried teen girls has certainly occurred parallel to legal abortion, which proponents of legality assured us would not happen. Legal abortion was supposed to make "every child a wanted child". When abortion was illegal, cities didn't have to set up safe haven drop-off spots for "unwanted" babies in hopes their mothers wouldn't just toss them in a dumpster or a drainage ditch.

Is there a correlation? You be the judge!

[ican'tbelieveit]

unwanted babies being dumped in a dumpster (or toilet), etc. Isn't it amazing that if this teen would have just went to a dr and let him/her perform an abortion, it would have all been acceptable.

But if she dares dump this unwanted baby that is about to "ruin" her life, she is horrid. Which is it people? Either we dispose of unwanted babies, or we decide they are protected all of the way.

Just found this other thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063323/posts

Why should these parents be charged. Maybe they were just performing a post birth abortion?

[madprof98]

You have a friend on Free Republic. Good thing we have a Big Tent, huh?

[MHGinTN]

You asserted (in ghoulish 'lieberal' fashion which I'm sure you wouldn't otherwise intend): "I'd a lot rather see effective use of contraception take hold, both in developed and undeveloped countries. Until then, we're basically facing a choice between slaughter of already born children and slaughter of not yet born children, and I much prefer the latter." ... You are so simplistic to offer only such ghoulish alternatives; is it because you are unable to see any other possibilities? Are you so ghoulish because you're so limited in your conceptions? You suffer from your deadness of soul, but why desire the same deadness in the rest of the world?

[LWalk18]

But the explosion in illegitimacy and births to unmarried teen girls has certainly occurred parallel to legal abortion, which proponents of legality assured us would not happen.

Parallel does not equal cause. It is possible that all of the above was caused by another single factor. Women have more options concerning preventation and/or dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. There are far more choices in birth control now versus then. In the pre- legalized abortion era, a woman who got in "trouble" had two options- a shotgun wedding or adoption. Today, she can get married, give the child up for adoption (a far more humane process than in the fifties), have an abortion, or raise the child alone. Child support is earlier to collect, and more women have earning power to raise a baby on their own. Ironically, these social trends if anything has reduced the abortion rate- no longer is an unwanted pregnancy the disaster it was years ago. Contrary to your belief, the teen birth rate is at a record low- the number of unmarried teen births is more due to the drop in teens who are forced to get marriage due to pregnancy. Every year the governmment reports the drop in teen births, and people comment for a day and for the rest of the year go on about the "skyrocketing" teen birth rate, though it has been falling for about a decade now.

Legal abortion was supposed to make "every child a wanted child". When abortion was illegal, cities didn't have to set up safe haven drop-off spots for "unwanted" babies in hopes their mothers wouldn't just toss them in a dumpster or a drainage ditch.

I really wonder if the number of abandoned children has really gone up, or whether we just hear more about it now. You and I can go on FR or other media and hear about almost everything that goes on in the country. Both sides of the abortion debate like to bring up this phenomenon, but I am not so sure it has anything to do with availability of abortion or lack thereof. Sadly, there has always been sick mothers who have harmed their children. As far as Safe Haven drops are concerned, this is not a new concept. Some churches in the nineteenth century used to have places where women could leave their babies in the hope the church would take the child in.

[sarasmom]

Have you ever been pregnant?
Have you experienced the physical reality of a fertilised egg attaching itself to the wall of your uterus, or a fallopian tube?
It is very different from normal female biological monthly menstruation.
I again point out the differences of the facts of physical reality to mental,political, or spiritual conceptual theory.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for the ping to this thread, John. Rather than give a dead soul like GS a forum boost (the GSs of the world enjoy nothing more than to shock folks by displaying what the GSs believe is enlightened social dictum), allow me to address the article.

“I realize now that I was not only choosing for myself, I was choosing for my baby -- and it was his life. I was choosing for my husband. I was choosing for my other children. And I was choosing for their grandparents. The question, then, is not "Did I have a right to choose?" The real question is "Did I have a right to choose for everybody simply because I carried that baby in my body?" … Kind of shoots to Hell the demonic mantra of ‘a woman’s right to choose’ the serial killer.

"This baby did not belong to me. These babies belong to the ages. He was not my possession to dispose of as I wished.” … Each individual alive human, at whatever age she be found, has the unalienable right to her own life already being lived, or none have an unalienable right to their life. We’ve all read that assertion, but here’s why it is absolutely true: if someone or some court or some body of politicians can raise an arbitrary reason why the black person or the embryo has no right to their life already being lived, then all that awaits is a particular other group to assign a new arbitrary classification! Ask the slaves of 1860 or the Jews in ashes at Dachau … and ask the soulless Kate Michelman to explain it with the feminist’s arbitrary assignment. … No, not explain the abortion holocaust, have her explain why it was ‘legal and thus right’ to murder and destroy alive fellow human beings, because if that ghoul cannot explain why it was legal and right then, she sure as Hell cannot do so for the abortion slaughter she defends, at least not honestly!

“Feminists have told women that abortion is about reproductive freedom and will allow them to be empowered and fulfilled. But real power comes with love and responsibility. And there is neither love nor responsibility connected with abortion. There is no fulfillment or power in being soul-sick either.

Some day we will look back on this abortion era aghast at what we allowed to happen, as we now do with slavery and the Holocaust. The evil keeps popping up and it catches us every time, in spite of our "lest we forget" rhetoric.” If America continues to accept the lie that serial killing of unborn children is a ‘reproductive right’, this nation isn’t worth the honor of our Soldiers dying to defend it. Because if an unconstitutional activist supreme court can arbitrarily assign such a right to kill a class of fellow human beings, then the enlightenment claimed in abortion rights is nothing but a passing fad to be exploited then move on to the next dehumanization. And you know what, folks? I know what that next dehumanization is all about … exploitation and cannibalism of embryonic and then fetal human beings. If you cannot see it coming now, then you haven’t been paying attention, America.

[Ann Archy]

YOU fired off a weak talking point....your argument had no thought behind it...it sounded good, but was really weak.....like a liberal's.

[cyborg]

okay whatever... you can have your opinion but you're wrong

[ican'tbelieveit]

another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063395/posts

[puroresu]

Thanks for the link! Interesting that infant homicides doubled, reaching a new high in 2000 after 27 years of Roe. So much for Roe "solving" that problem. Not that it was much of a "solution" to encourage earlier killing as a way of decreasing later killing.

[votelife]

action alert: FReepers need to understand the importance of the Supreme Court. The justices are getting OLD. The Senate is very important, and getting Bush reelected is more important.

Here's a letter I sent W last year.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[votelife]

at church last week, the pastor announced Sanctity of Life day. Then the next week he told us their was a woman who was considering abortion, she heard him speak on it, than she decided to go to a crisis pregnancy center, decided NOT to get the abortion, and she gave her life to Christ!