« Can Christians Get Married in God’s Eyes Without Government Registration? | Main | Links Mentioned on the 2/10/16 Show »

February 09, 2016

Comments

Sounds like "Sophie's Choice" being worked out on a culture-wide level. The difference of course, is that in the film the choice was imposed upon Sophie from without. Here, it's being self-chosen, many times on the basis of nothing more than self-convenience. Further evidence of a searing of the collective conscience of a nation. Terrifying.

First I'd ask her what she meant by calling the baby a "non-autonomous entity" or why she thinks the human life in the mother's womb is not equal with other human lives. I'm pretty sure she'd resort to some explanation that falls under one or more of the categories of the SLED test. Then I'd trot out the toddler and perhaps ask something along the lines of: So, using your criteria, because a mother has more rights as an individual than her toddler, and she believes that without the toddler, she'd be much better off, shouldn't that mother be allowed to kill her toddler? If not, why not? Why not apply your criteria to that situation?

"All life is not equal" I've heard that language before. It's in the "separate but equal" logic of the Jim Crow laws. It's in the "we're doing Africans a favor by bringing them to the United States, even if as slaves" argument many in the South, many in the American Church of the time, made in defense of slavery.

"Her life and what is right for her . . . should automatically trump the rights of the (*whatever standard for dehumanizing the humanity of the* baby)" logic also rings a bell. Let's try to see if this logic works this way:
The lives and what is right for the German Race should automatically trump the rights of the Jewish mongrels. Does it sound a little more familiar?

There is so much wrong in the third paragraph of the quotation . . .

  • Abortion rarely saves lives in the medical sense. Abortion ALWAYS kills at least one life. (Abortion is also linked to breast cancer, which kills millions of women.)

  • Killing that baby ends all the possible roads of that baby's life, and the possible roads that woman and her family may have traveled together. Abortion also often does incredible damage to the woman's uterus in ways that limit her future choices when she wants to have children. The loss of these "choices" is often at the core of post abortion depression.

  • If you acknowledge that the fetus is a life, but then argue that you would "put the life of the mother over the life of a fetus every single time", you're still denying that the baby is as much of a human life as the mother. You're still dehumanizing another human being based on superficial traits. And that logic always goes bad places (see my first couple of points). In the end, you're still viewing motherhood as a sexually transmitted disease for which abortion is a surgical cure. You're still denying the humanity, the "life" of the baby (for instance she consistently uses dehumanizing terms "non-autonomous" and "fetus" instead of "baby"

  • The last "sentence" is the most illuminating. Is the utter selfishness of the writer not completely apparent? She is willing to sacrifice somebody else's life for her own "happiness", but not willing to sacrifice her own immediate happiness for her baby and all the future joy that life might have brought into the world.


Jesus said, "Those who love their life in this world will lose it. Those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity." Sacrificing babies lives on the altar of "reproductive rights" (a term which here means the "right" of a woman to have promiscuous sex lives without the natural consequences that go along with immoral sexual activity) is no less evil than the ancient pagans who sacrificed their children to their idols for rain to come or victory in battle. Yes they burned their babies (that is, someone else) alive, but it was for the "good" of their country! That's a noble "sacrifice", isn't it? She talks about how motherhood limits the choices of the woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, but ignores the choices of the baby erased by killing it, or the choices and joys of the woman watching her child grow up.

In the end, she still dehumanizes the baby into something less human than she is. She still exalts her own life, freedom, and happiness over the child's. She is still looking at the idea "that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and saying "yes for me, but not for thee" to the weakest, most defenseless members of the human race. I would call it shallow selfishness if it wasn't so deeply and profoundly evil.

Anyone note the Super Bowl commercial about the actions of a baby in an ultrasound as dad enjoys Doritos?

Some groups criticized this advertisement.

Made "it" too human, I'm afraid.

I'd ask this person in what people were or were not equal. It's possible this person is thinking of instrumental value rather than intrinsic value, and it would be helpful to get to the bottom of that. Maybe they don't believe there's any such thing as intrinsic value and instrumental value is all that counts. It would also be interesting to know if she'd apply to the same reasoning to a new born. That would help to get to the bottom of why she thinks not all life is equal and in what sense. Without knowing these things, it's hard to give a response.

“So What if Abortion Ends Life?”

The title says so much doesn’t it? So much for, “safe, legal, and rare”. It can also be, “So what?”…what about, “Who cares?”

I guess being cavalier is supposed to mean Ms. Williams is making a strong argument.

Liljenborg has it right.

Ms. Williams thinks she’s being clever by paying lip service to the life and humanity of the unborn, but let’s not pretend that what she’s advocating isn’t dehumanizing unborn life to the point of just being a clump of cells anyway.

Ms. Williams is saying, sure it’s life but it’s really not. And of course she’s silent on under what circumstances abortion is morally wrong.

What does she expect pro-lifers to say, “You got us. Darn. We have to go back to the drawing board on our arguments”?

Most of the same arguments against abortion apply to her, despite Ms. Williams’ best efforts to be unique or clever.

In my opinion, once a person has become so morally degenerate that they are willing to say that not all human beings are worthy of life (which is exactly what this Salon article is saying)... there is no reasoning with the person. I would parade this person around as a modern day Nazi so that other people who haven't become so morally callous can see the end of the path they are forced to take if they want to continue to ignore innocent human beings in the womb.

Perhaps when people stop thinking about what happens inside the womb, and start concentrating on the real issues of abortion, the answers become painfully obvious.

Abortion has very little to do with the 'life of a fetus'... It has everything to do with the life of a child and mother. It is what happens AFTER birth that is the problem...

Who is responsible for raising the unwanted child?

At the moment, there is no adequate support or care system for an unwanted child who is born. Abortion is the only method we have of dealing with unwanted children. (adoption process is far, far to slow and cumbersome to be practicle to deal with the current situation, image all of the otherwise-aborted children in the system as well)

This article, like all other "Christian" anti-abortion articles is "pro forced-birth" - Not one consideration to the woman who gives birth to an unwanted child.

Suddenly, by magic, all abortion issues are resolved when the child is born? - No, that is when the issues of not aborting are required to be faced.... And yet are constantly ignored.

Do people have abortions for fun? - No... Abortion is a last resort stop for a situation that is so bad, that killing is the only real alternative.

Perhaps if the author spent more time adopting children rather than preaching this rubbish, there may be a solution...

A challenge to Christian couples... Get steralized and adopt otherwise aborted children.... Stop idolising having childed. Sounds revolting right? - This is what is needed, not crap articles like this.

Curious; what happens to an aborted fetus based upon current Christian thought? Is there a consensus?

Heaven?
Hell?
Ceases to exist?

Wow, what a morally bankrupt society we live in where one would even have that line of thinking. I agree with one of the posters here that once someone reaches that thought process, there really isn't any reasoning you could do with them. That's just pure wickedness.

The best pro-abortionists can hope for is distraction techniques, like the ones ABS and Michael are trotting out.

It is what happens AFTER birth that is the problem...

Probably one of the dumbest statements I've seen on the internet recently. In what fantasy land is killing an innocent human being less problematic than supporting the innocent human being that you haven't consigned to death?

Who is responsible for raising the unwanted child?

Funny that the largest group of abortion supporters, liberals, are so quick to assign responsibility to the government in virtually every conceivable circumstance... yet are at a total loss of what they could possibly do with an unwanted human being... so let's kill it! How about they apply that same logic to the homeless?

At the moment, there is no adequate support or care system for an unwanted child who is born. Abortion is the only method we have of dealing with unwanted children.

Virtually anyone would agree that, at the moment, there is no adequate support or care system for unwanted homeless people. Solution for the morally "challenged"? Kill them.

This article, like all other "Christian" anti-abortion articles is "pro forced-birth"

For most people, not killing an innocent human being is the bare minimum of human decency. For the morally degenerate person, they only understand it as coercion. Out of curiosity, when you study the holocaust do you frame it in terms of the allied powers *forcing* Hitler not to kill people? Or is that just how you spin things when you've got no excuse for the class of people you favor killing?

Abortion is a last resort stop for a situation that is so bad, that killing is the only real alternative.

The parents going homeless and living in the Salvation Army is far superior alternative than the parents killing their child. That you find killing the child more acceptable than such alternatives only tells us how callous your moral conscience has become.

A challenge to Christian couples... Get steralized and adopt otherwise aborted children.... Stop idolising having childed.

How strange that your solution is for Christians to get sterilized instead of sterilizing the person who doesn't want or can't afford the child! Your "logic" is baffling.

Curious; what happens to an aborted fetus based upon current Christian thought? Is there a consensus?

Heaven? = 92% think those who are aborted or die for whatever reason before being born will go to heaven because they never had any opportunity to sin.

Hell? = 6% think it's possible that some fraction of aborted babies go to hell because they inherited the guilt of Adam's sin and were not elected to salvation.

Ceases to exist? = 9% think everybody ceases to exist when they die, including the unborn, and are brought back into existence at the resurrection.

I'm just kidding. I don't actually know the numbers. But I suspect I'm close.

We also need to go back up the chain a step. Modern society wants sex without babies. Or, more generally, sex without families.

From a biblical perspective this is abhorrent. Look at the OT - the man lies with his wife, and she gives birth. Look at the lists of laws forbidding ("abomination") sexual practices that are outside this norm.

From a biological perspective, sex without families is folly. Our bodies go out of their way to get men and women together to procreate (if this isn't obvious, consider that most women experience a massive spike in sexual desire right when they are most fertile). Sexual pleasure, sexual bonding, maternal bonding and paternal bonding are all biological mechanisms oriented towards the creation and preservation of offspring. (It always amazes me when people embrace Darwinist evolution and then argue for non-procreative sex).

For the most part, the selfishness and folly doesn't occur at the point of abortion, it occurs at the point we want sex without procreation, sex without commitment, sex without appropriate context. Sex is expensive, but we want it for free. And because we have already made the choice to prioritise selfishness, we kill another human because they threaten our choice and are too small to object.

Finally, remember that the real "winners" of the feminist revolution are not women, but are powerful amoral men. These men are now free to indulge their appetites, and have convinced women and society as a whole to aid them in purging the consequences, whether these be broken women, dead babies, or discarded weaker men.

John McN:

You somewhat emphasis my point... There is no option but for the woman to (unsupported) face up to the problems of why abortion was an option in the first place. Living on the charity of the Salvos is not a life choice anyone wants to be forced in to. ever.

When faced with a life time of poverty and living off charity, where is the love for that child? - or is there going to be huge amounts of resentment and abuse? The worse the alternative situation to abortion, the easier it is to decide to abort.

Hence it IS up to government/society/church to provide a decent alternative - Without the love and support of others, abortion is the only way forward.

Love and support is NOT forcing the woman to raise an unwanted child - it is taking the unwanted child away.

What about the father of the child? - does he have no responsibility? - of course, if the father is required to marry/take care of the child, then there are some serious consequences to certain situations such as rape.

If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman does - what are the responsibilities here? - Does the man simply get to up and walk away?

You have done what every anti-abortion person does, skirt around some very serious issues without a moment of thought.

When faced with a life time of poverty and living off charity, where is the love for that child? - or is there going to be huge amounts of resentment and abuse?

You are pretending like it is a fact that if a woman wants an abortion but isn't able to obtain it that she will inevitably abuse and resent her child. But that's not a fact, nor is it a fact that every woman wants an abortion but doesn't obtain one is forced to keep her child rather than give it up to adoption.

Hence it IS up to government/society/church to provide a decent alternative - Without the love and support of others, abortion is the only way forward.

Spoken like a true moral monster: murdering a child is the only solution to someone who doesn't want their child. This same logic must apply to a 2 month old child right? If not, why not?

By the way, your entire morally depraved appeal to the condition of the mother only applies to mothers who are financially incapable of supporting a child. So are you in favor of banning all abortions that are not had by women in financially dire situations? In other words, would you be willing to support a law which said that before a woman could receive an abortion she had to be audited by the IRS to make sure that this really was "the only way forward"? If you don't support such a law then you are clearly using this narrow issue as a distraction technique from the broader question of the ethics of abortion.

Love and support is NOT forcing the woman to raise an unwanted child - it is taking the unwanted child away.

How is it LOVE and SUPPORT to the CHILD you are KILLING?

You have done what every anti-abortion person does, skirt around some very serious issues without a moment of thought.

You have done what every pro-abortionist does and tried to distract the issue away from the child you are killing. You talk about love and support for the mother as you murder the child.

Let's apply ABS logic to homeless people:

Society doesn't have an adequate system to support them right now.

Society often resents them and abuses them.

Therefore, the only way forward is to start murdering homeless people.

Let's apply ABS logic to a 2 month old child.

The mother, after caring for the child for 1 month, decides that she really doesn't like children.

The mother's husband abandons her and she has no job.

There is not an adequate system of support for the mother and there isn't a perfect adoption system either.

Therefore, the only way forward is for the mother to throw the 2 month old child into the river in a potato sack so that it drowns.

This is the infanticidal and demented logic of the pro-abortionists.

By the way,

Murdering the homeless and infants is advocated with a tone of deep concern and with talk about how it's loving and compassionate on the whole... Because the devil can wear a smile.

My daughter's birth was a revelation. I was a dad. It was awesome. But only six months after my daughter was born we found out that my wife's lingering health problems were because she was already two months pregnant. We were not ready for a second child. I was still in grad school. My wife and I were both working part-time jobs to pay for all our new living expenses (diapers ain't cheap) and, because my wife was an immigrant, we couldn't get welfare. When my son was finally born I was so overwhelmed I slipped into four months of depression, lost my part time job and nearly flunked out of school. My son fit the definition of an "unwanted child".

An my son would go on to present us with other challenges. He was autistic (though they didn't have the whole Asperger's spectrum diagnosis back then) and had endless troubles with school, socializing with neighbors and classmates, fitting in at church.

But he's my son. He's the one who will get his guys together and binge watch the extended editions of all the Lord of the Rings movies with me. (The gangly beanpole thinks Gimli is the coolest character in all of fiction, in which he's totally wrong, of course, Sam Gamgee is). I can't imagine what my life would have been if we had caved to the temptation to terminate the baby we weren't emotionally or financially ready for twenty-one years ago. I can't imagine the "It's a Wonderful Life" hole he would leave in our lives, in our family, in our neighborhood, or in the lives of his friends, or the life of the girl who's sweet on him.

"Unwanted Child" is not a doomed life.

The "what happens after birth" argument is a red herring. You don't know the future and possible future suffering doesn't justify murdering an utterly innocent baby. The real question, as Andrew points out, is why so many young women (and men, women generally can't get pregnant without them) are having babies they don't want in the first place. Where babies come from is not a mystery. The solution to the problem is very simple: if you don't want "unwanted babies" don't have sex.

But this solution is deemed utterly unrealistic. The whole mission of Planned Parenthood, our sex-ed curricula (which means our government), our Kardashian obsessed pop-culture is to encourage commitment free, consequence free promiscuity (and then wonder deer-in-the-headlights at a "rape-culture" developing in the most sexually libertine sectors of our society). Our culture deems the freedom to have sex as the quintessential freedom (whereas we used to believe that freedom of conscience or freedom of speech were the most foundational freedoms). Out commitment to the right to have sex (euphemistically referred to as "reproductive rights") is so great that we are willing to justify murdering babies on the grounds that they might have hard childhoods.

The argument of both the Salon article and ABS's posts is that the freedom of the here-in-front-of-me human woman to engage in the human behavior that creates children (that is, sex) with men she has no desire to actually have children with trumps the rights of the human baby-I-can't-see simply because they refuse to see it. Which brings us right back to where I started from in my response above: dehumanizing people we find inconvenient in order to justify stripping them of their most basic human rights so we can remove the crimp their existence poses to our preferred lifestyle (and/or exploit them for our benefit) is a road humanity has gone down before. We've already seen where it leads. We know it is evil.

If the view that "All life is not equal" is true, then why should I support or fight for a woman's right to choose?
After all, all life is not equal, what makes a woman equal that she should have the same rights as men?

You can't demand bodily autonomy and then say all life is not equal, it contradicts the demand.

It certainly needs to be asked what is the grounds for arguing that the fetus' life is somehow less important than the mother's. Also, at what point does this line of thinking get cut off? What's to stop people from treating the lives of children outside of the womb in the same manner? Dangerous ideas

It's interesting when asking "who is responsible for looking after the unwanted child" - because of this question, it is clear that the anti-abortion folk clearly rank life outside the womb in a totally different manner to inside...

Look at the consequences.

Parents who actively want to murder a child that has been born - the child is whisked away by social services and put in to care. Parents who want to murder their child are not fit to raise children. Easy.

and yet....

Parents who actively want to murder a non-born child, are forced to raise that child. The child's safety or well being is not considered at all.

Why do you want to force child-raising on someone who is willing to murder a child? - This is simply unreasonable.


Is the value of life inside the womb different to outside the womb - most certainly is when looking at the "Christian" response!!

There's a lot of assumed rubbish here -- Let me be very clear:

I am not saying abortion is good and right...

I am saying that there are a lot of upstream problems that require resolving in order to resolve (stop) abortion.

Simply stating abortion is bad and attempting to stop it is never going to make it go away.

Solve the social-Economic issues that make abortion a realistic option in the first place!

Parents who actively want to murder a non-born child, are forced to raise that child. The child's safety or well being is not considered at all.

Why do you want to force child-raising on someone who is willing to murder a child? - This is simply unreasonable.

I can't tell whether you're trying to by sarcastic here or not.

Is it seriously your contention that for the well being of the child, parents who want to murder it should be allowed to do so?

WisdomLover:

This is the situation!

When people state that abortion is murder - then damn well treat it as such!

Why are you making parents who wish to murder (abort) a child raise that child?

WisdomLover:

"Is it seriously your contention that for the well being of the child, parents who want to murder it should be allowed to do so?"

I haven't said that anywhere! - please re-read my comment.

Why do you want to force child-raising on someone who is willing to murder a child?

I am saying that there are a lot of upstream problems that require resolving in order to resolve (stop) abortion.

Simply stating abortion is bad and attempting to stop it is never going to make it go away.

Solve the social-Economic issues that make abortion a realistic option in the first place!

Perhaps we should adopt the same policy with regard to other murders.

People don't just wake up one day and start murdering other people. There are always socio-economic reasons for the murders.

Until we solve those, I guess we should hold off on our legal restrictions against murder, because just doing that won't make murder go away. I mean, look, we've had laws against murder forever, but we still have a non-zero murder rate.

What you are actually proposing here is that, well gee, we can't illegalize abortion now, even though it's juuust horrible, because we haven't resolved all the problems that might arise from illegalizing it, and we haven't come up with a plan to guarantee 100% compliance with the law.

Do you honestly think that this effort to shift the goalposts will work?

Bold monster escaped.

Trying to stop.

Maybe that did it.

Why do you want to force child-raising on someone who is willing to murder a child?
Well golly, I guess we can't illegalize abortion until we solve that problem.

Love to do it.

Just can't

Is that what you're hoping for?

If we take your worry seriously, then, since every pro-choice person is willing to kill a child, it would follow that pro-choice people should have their children, even the ones they didn't consider aborting, taken away.

Is that what you want someone to say?

Or were you hoping that someone would suggest sterilization of the pro-choice?

No one is going to do that.

Because we know that this is what will happen instead:

The parents who considered aborting their child will instead come to love it in virtually every case.
And in those cases where that doesn't happen, you probably have parents that would not be fit even if every one of their children were 'planned and wanted children'.

OK... NOW we're getting there...

The consequences of treating abortion as first degree murder is, as you say:
"since every pro-choice person is willing to kill a child, it would follow that pro-choice people should have their children, even the ones they didn't consider aborting, taken away."

As the above statement is clearly stupid.....

"Murder" inside the womb is NOT the same as "murder" outside of the womb.

To compare Abortion with homicide and first degree murder REQUIRES it to have the same consequences.


Who is responsible for raising the unwanted child?

Wow.... hang on a moment,

Just read your post correctly:
"The parents who considered aborting their child will instead come to love it in virtually every case."

Errr. no. not ever. no.

Google "Child Abuse"...

No - just because you have a child does not, ever mean that you automatically love and care for the child.

No - wrong....

And so the mask slips.

"Err no, not ever..."

Unplanned children are always abused. Got it. Therefore, better off killed.

"Unplanned children are always abused. Got it. Therefore, better off killed."

What are you reading? - NOT what I said...

Perhaps if you read what I wrote...

Why are the consequences of "murder" different for different lives?

1)Parents who want to murder a born child have no choice - the child is removed from them.
2)Parents who want to murder an unborn child have no choice - the child is forced on them.

When abortion is the same as first degree murder, AND all life is equal.... WHY are there two completely opposite consequences to exactly the same action?

Who is responsible for raising the unwanted child?

You can not have all angles.

The consequences for the SAME action of murder MUST be the same for ALL lives.

If you have different consequences for unborn child murder to born child murder, then YOU are assigning different life values to the children.

That is why it is so important to answer the question "who is responsible for raising the unwanted child"

IF the response is "the parents" - then either abortion is not murder, or all live is not equal.

IF the response is "anyone except the parents" - then abortion can be murder, and all life equal.

A question to those who suggest "If you are having sex, then you must have children"...

How many children is acceptable to justify birth control?

In today's medical amazingness where child mortality rates are next to non existent... Clearly a couple with a healthy sex life are going to have an enormous amount of children...

Is having one child enough of a responsabilty that you are now permitted to have sex without consequences of further children?

Is 10 children enough?
20?
0?

To suggest to a young couple who have just got married, that they must only have sex if they are prepared to have children is simply downright dangerous and damaging.

Needless to say, it is also incredibly disrespectful to God as he has provided children as a blessing, not as a punishment for enjoying sex.


ABS,

To compare Abortion with homicide and first degree murder REQUIRES it to have the same consequences.

What on earth gives you this silly idea? If someone wanted (they did) to compare the murder of a slave to the murder of a white man or the murder of a Jew and the murder of a member of the Waffen-SS would that be ok with you or would you have a problem with that too?

Further, women sometimes compare rape and murder because women that have experienced rape have said it felt like a death except they didn’t physically die. Is that comparison ok with you? All of these comparisons have different consequences so by your logic all of them shouldn’t be compared. Slaves and slave owners, Nazis and Jews, etc.

Who is responsible for raising the unwanted child?

You’re in luck! This one is easy. The parents that engaged in the sex to bring the child into existence are responsible. There is no law that the parents have to be excited or happy about the child. There’s no law that requires parents to even love the child. They must, however, take care of it. Once the child is born, if the parents decide they want to kill or abuse the child, the state steps in to protect the child.

In other words, say the parents want to kill the child in utero (but it’s illegal), if they keep that attitude once the baby born, they don’t get to keep the child. The government steps in to protect the child (obviously, the state can't step in until the child is born).

But we all know, even if you knew these “unwanted” children would be cared for, you’d still be all for abortion on demand. It doesn’t matter one iota to you. That leads to the question:

Why bring this up?

1. It's clearly not a good argument.

and

2. Even if all the children would be cared for you’d still be a pro-abort.

KWM:

I use this argument because of the hysteria over "murdering a child" - Abortion is not murder...

as you say:

"You’re in luck! This one is easy. The parents that engaged in the sex to bring the child into existence are responsible. There is no law that the parents have to be excited or happy about the child. There’s no law that requires parents to even love the child. They must, however, take care of it. Once the child is born, if the parents decide they want to kill or abuse the child, the state steps in to protect the child."

You are stating that there is a fundamental difference between a child being born and not being born!

Abortion is not the same as first degree murder! Therefore it is acceptable for the parents to take charge of an otherwise aborted child, because abortion is not the same as murder of a born child!

KWM:

"If someone wanted (they did) to compare the murder of a slave to the murder of a white man or the murder of a Jew and the murder of a member of the Waffen-SS would that be ok with you or would you have a problem with that too?"

Yes, I have a massive problem with that! - Murdering a human is murdering a human! - It doesn't matter if they are black, white, Jew, Christian, child, baby etc - It is all equally bad! Therefore needs to be treated with equal severity!

Having clearly defined opposite consequences (punishments) for killing different humans is utter sh1t....

We all agree with that!

Therefore, why would you define the punishment of murdering one child to be different from another?

You don't

Until you start discussing abortion, then you do....

ABS,

Your argument attempts to say that if people treat two things differently then the two things must be different and if two people treat two things the same then they must be the same.

Why do you keep making such ridiculous assumptions about human action? Earlier you were assuming that all persons who want an abortion but can't obtain one will abuse their children. Now you are assuming that all people who want to kill their child in the womb must want to kill the child outside the womb.

Why is your set of assumptions so bad? Because it requires us to assume that people are perfectly consistent and unchanging. Since that is an obviously false assumption then your argument falls apart.

People who aren't desperately grasping for anything at the bottom of the barrel to support abortion will recognize that people are often inconsistent. A woman will often try to dehumanize the baby in her womb (pro-abortionists have invented a whole language game around this, e.g., only referring to the pre-born child as a fetus) but once the baby is born the humanity of it is overwhelming and the mother who would have killed her child can no longer hide behind the dehumanizing language and excuses. Thus, she embraces the child and loves it.

This is why it's perfectly acceptable to allow a mother who was going to abort her child to raise her child.

Ironically, your own behavior in this thread is a case in point. You have used excuses to justify abortion that, when applied consistently, would also justify murdering homeless people and infanticide. Yet no one who hears you making these horrible arguments that, were they applied consistently, would lead to infanticide is seriously concerned that you are going to leave this thread and go commit infanticide. Why? Because you are inconsistent. You have allowed your moral conscience to be blinded and hardened against an infant that you cannot see because it is in the womb, but you have not yet become so depraved as to deny the infants inherent human worth.

A question to those who suggest "If you are having sex, then you must have children"... How many children is acceptable to justify birth control?

I don't think anyone here has said that if you have sex you must have children. We simply say that anyone who engages in sex knowing that it is naturally designed to produce a new human being is responsible for the life of that human being if their sex act happens to produce it.

"In other words, say the parents want to kill the child in utero (but it’s illegal), if they keep that attitude once the baby born, they don’t get to keep the child. The government steps in to protect the child (obviously, the state can't step in until the child is born)."

Which perfectly links in to the "If you have sex, you must have children" argument....

How do those that want to enforce children on people for having sex feel about the above?

ABS,

KWM: "If someone wanted (they did) to compare the murder of a slave to the murder of a white man or the murder of a Jew and the murder of a member of the Waffen-SS would that be ok with you or would you have a problem with that too?" Yes, I have a massive problem with that! - Murdering a human is murdering a human! - It doesn't matter if they are black, white, Jew, Christian, child, baby etc - It is all equally bad! Therefore needs to be treated with equal severity! Having clearly defined opposite consequences (punishments) for killing different humans is utter sh1t.... We all agree with that! Therefore, why would you define the punishment of murdering one child to be different from another? You don't Until you start discussing abortion, then you do....

First of all, take a step back and look at your posts... you seem to be falling apart mentally here. Maybe you should take a break and reassess your position.

Second, this is another illustration of how ridiculous your latest argument is:

According to you, we could prove that black people were not fully human during the era of slavery because society treated killing a black person differently than killing a white person. Because they were treated differently then they must have truly been different.

ABS

How do those that want to enforce children on people for having sex feel about the above?

Earth to ABS, Earth to ABS. Are we coming in clear? If you are pregnant you already have a child... no one has forced a child upon you. If you don't want a child don't engage in an act that by nature produces children... it's not rocket science.

I have not said any where that black people are not fully human!

I have been. Very specific that ALL human life is equal!

No one has forced a child on to you.. Apart from rape, or such deed...

The punishment for having sex is that you must have a child... Unless, after it is born u want to kill it....

The whole thing here is that the anti abortion folk seem to value the life of a born child over an unborn child. As the unborn child's value is to punish the woman for gasp.. Having sex.

It is only after the child is born when people think 'oh, you really don't want a child'.. We better do something. Then, it doesn't matter about having sex or not.

How hypocritical.

WL: The parents who considered aborting their child will instead come to love it in virtually every case.

ABS: Errr. no. not ever. Google "Child Abuse"...

WL: Unplanned children are always abused. Got it.

ABS: What are you reading? - NOT what I said...

I'm reading your words ABS, and it kinda IS what you said.

So that's settled.

BTW, what I said in the first place is true (because biology). So there is little risk that parents who might have considered abortion while the child remains unseen, will abuse their children when they can actually see them.

--------------------------------------------------

Who, oh who, will take care of children who would otherwise be aborted?

The parents will.

But if abortion is murder, how can you propose leaving the child in the clutches of a murderer?

Three cases

Case 1: Murder

Does the state step in when parents actually kill their born children?

Yes, because murder is illegal.

Does the state step in when parents actually abort their unborn children?

No, because abortion is legal, but it shouldn't be.

What should the punishment be for abortion?

Same as for murder, with all the complexities of homicide law being in full swing (meaning abortion, like other forms of homicide, will often not be first-degree murder.)

Notice that in this case, there is no question of who is taking care of the children. The children are dead.

Case 2: Attempted Murder

Does the state step in when parents try (but fail) to kill their born children?

Yes, because murder, and attempted murder, is illegal.

Does the state step in when parents try (but fail) to abort their unborn children?

No, because abortion, and attempted abortion, is legal, though it should not be.

What should the punishment be for attempted abortion?

Same as for attempted murder, with all the complexities of homicide law being in full swing (meaning attempted abortion, like other forms of attempted homicide, will often not be attempted first-degree murder.)

Notice that in this case, in both sub-cases, the parents continue to take care of the children. In cases of harm to born children, the effort is almost always made to counsel the parents to manage whatever it is that made them abusive. And the child is returned to their care when they are able to manage the child.

Parents, who actually cross the line and try to kill their child, by abortion, (with the full knowledge that they are trying to kill a human) being need some help. But, in the end, even if abortion were treated like what it is, the state would probably make every effort to keep the child in the care of the parent.

Case 3: Willingness to Murder

Does the state step in when parents want to kill their born children?

No, because thought crime is not illegal. Nor should it be.

Does the state step in when parents want to abort their unborn children?

No, because thought crime is not illegal. Nor should it be.

Which of these three cases, is applicable when pro-abortion parents who would otherwise have an abortion, are 'forced' to raise their children?

It's clearly case 3.

What you've been saying, ABS, is that unless we punish thought crime the same as attempted murder, we'll just (with a teary eye) have to keep the abortion laws as is.

So that's settled.

Really heroic effort at shifting the goalposts though!

There is some confusion here. Consequence is not synonymous with punishment. A person who smokes a pack a day for twenty years is not "punished" with emphysema. A child who asks his mother "may I have a cookie, please" is not punished by getting what he, so politely, asked for. And people who have sex are not "punished" with pregnancy. They are merely experiencing the natural, predictable consequence of engaging in reproductive behavior.

Apparently, it's okay to sentence the baby to capital punishment for the crime of not being "wanted".

You point out that there are a lot of downstream possible problems raising an unwanted child. But trying to argue that a woman is justified killing her baby because we don't know how to make sure the baby will never experience hard times only insures that the baby (and the baby's parents) will never experience all the good times they would have had also.

Besides saying that you cannot correct this evil until you solve all the other problems in the world only leads you around in a circle: you can't stop abortion until you solve poverty? But the leading cause of poverty in America is men abandoning the women they impregnate and the babies they make instead of manning up, marrying their girlfriends, and being their kids' dads. Single mothers are more likely to live in poverty. Their kids have a harder time in school, which make them more likely to live in poverty when they join the ranks of adults.

In other words, abortion is a part of the CAUSE of those "downstream problems" you say we have to solve before we can start restricting abortions.

You focus on the downstream problems of unwanted pregnancies, but I think you really need to look a bit more closely at the upstream problems. Dehumanizing babies into something we are allowed to kill, encourages people into an utterly false view of sex as nothing more than a recreational activity with no moral component, no implied commitment, and no meaning beyond the pleasure of an orgasm unless it's a way to keep score in some social game. It discourages socially healthy marriage and the formation of families. Instead it encourages men to view women as little more than tonight's next potential sex toy instead of potential life partners in the adventure of building a civilization. Yes, the quintessential women's rights issue, actually encourages the dehumanization of women.

When you start throwing individual moral ideals out the window, you miss that they are all interconnected. You don't realize what babies you are (almost literally) throwing out with the bathwater.

WL:

I have never said that ALL unwanted children are abused.... Get real!

Your statement of "The parents who considered aborting their child will instead come to love it in virtually every case." implies that all, apart from a tiny minority of children will be loved whatever.

If what you say is true, then the concept of abortion simply wouldn't ever exist. Neither would child abuse be so prevalent.

If every child ends up by being wanted and loved no matter what - why the discussion in the first place? - Just have every child born, and the problem goes away...

Only, no matter how many "unwanted" children are born, the problem doesn't go away. Therefore you simply are not right in what you say.

For all of those who are of the view "sex=children"

I put to you a real case study... me... (This is of interest, not trolling)


I do not like children nor do I want children.. (No surprises there?)

Therefore I have had myself sterilized..... I am voluntarily unable to have children. (Abortion is a tricky subject, and I now have no need for every thinking about it for myself)

Is it right that I have sex as I have voluntarily made it that I can not have children?

Or am I just going straight to hell?

liljenborg:
"There is some confusion here. Consequence is not synonymous with punishment"

I quite agree! - There seems to be a very clear theme in this thread... "Do the crime, do the time"..

If you have sex, then you must have children...

There is no consideration to helping take the unwanted child away from the parents - the parents are responsible because they had sex.

There is no give in the situation at all - That's it - no further discussion.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is "do the crime, do the time". Having an unwanted child is a punishment for having sex.

The views here are uncompromising and have no compassion or support for either the mother or child.

The child is born, abortion debate is over - move on.

Hence why abortion still exists, because there is simply no realistic alternative.

liljenborg:

To address some of the significant issues you have raised:

I am not saying that we can't approach abortion until all other issues are resolved. Equally, we can not blanket ban abortion in the hope that the associated social-eco problems will solve themselves.

All the issues need to be approached together - the acceptance of certain amount of abortions must be considered while we undo many years of mis-information & bad education.

A man not facing up to his responsibilities as a dad is a fine example... One that a decent sex education would be a great first step to resolving. Yet in the US, abstinence is considered to be the only/best education required. How does a man get taught not to run away from his responsibilities? - when he is never taught what his responsibilities are in the first place!

When the teaching is sex=children - how do you expect people to react? - a child costs upwards of $300,000 to raise in 18 years - yet people on this post want to teach people to have unlimited number of children... No wonder guys can not cope and simply run away.... It is not feasible to expect a young, newly married guy to support 4,5,6+ children. This will be why he runs away from his responsibilities - because, there is no chance at all, ever, of him meeting his responsibilities. Not because he is weak.

Sex before marriage is bad - yes - contraception use when married is not bad. Not wanting children and taking actions to have sex without having children is not bad. Where and when are we going to teach this?

Take responsibility for your actions - utterly yes! - I don't want to have children, therefore I use permanent contraception. My actions are responsible.

People in this thread teaching sex=children, and no matter what, you will live a life full of raising children is not an acceptable solution.

If you want to teach abortion = murder & all life is sacred, then you need to act like it is! Then treat people with respect and compassion when they say they don't want the child - help them remove the child from the situation.

If all life is sacred, then treat it as such - a child is a blessing, not a "natural consequence" of having sex...

The inconsistent views of a child being sacred beyond everything else then to state, well, you had sex therefore it is your problem is the de-humanising action that allows abortion to exist. YOU have de-humanized the child, not the pregnant woman. Abortion in part is a reaction to the utterly uncompromising views stated here.

When you disallow there to being an alternative to "you had sex, therefore your responsibility", you are generating the requirement and justification for abortion.


Views such as "It discourages socially healthy marriage and the formation of families." Are utterly misleading - I have a perfectly healthy and amazing marriage - without children.... Children without doubt would break my relationship. I am part of two families - a family does not require children.

Views such as this are what stops people getting in to relationships. "OH, I can't be in a relationship, because I'm not ready to have children" - WFT???? - HOW is this healthy?

A guy is always going to "play the field" in this case, as he will not 'settle down' until he is ready for children. (perhaps never?) - Are you wanting to deny him the love of a relationship for such a point?

You want guys to take responsibility for their actions and yet offer them no choice in their lives? - A guy will of course rebel and run away.

The backwards "Everybody must want and have children" view is part of the abortion problem. - Are you willing to help solve that part?


"I have never said that ALL unwanted children are abused.... Get real!"

No, you made an even more ridiculous claim.

To my remark that unplanned children are usually loved, you said:

"Errr. no. not ever. Google "Child Abuse""

So, at a minimum, you said that unplanned children are never loved.

I suppose, in fairness, the bit about Googling child abuse may have been saying only that these unplanned-and-therefore-inevitably-unloved children were often victims of abuse.

Even that's a bit too much isn't it.

You know, you don't need to double-down on howlers like this.

The comments to this entry are closed.