September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Why Not Use Ridicule? | Main | Pluralism & Christianity »

January 31, 2013


Spot on, to the point, and so very true--a great piece, Amy.

Great article. Can't wait to see what the pro-choice readers on the site who promote abortion say about this.

Darth Dutch

Either all humans are equal, or they are not all equal.

If they are not all equal, why is birth state the only criteria? Other cultures have had other criteria. Why not have economics?

Depending on how you define slavery, it hasn't gone away, and may be rising.

In this whole abortion debate I find the term "unintended pregnancy" particularly interesting. It is like a overweight person saying that they are a victim of unintended digestion. But as Al Roker recently stated on an interview on NPR he was clearly the one responsible for his weight problems. It wasn't a matter of his stuffing his mouth with food and then the unintended digestion, the prevention for which he was not provided a physician and a stomach pump, that victimized him. Yet this phrase is used to justify the assertion that women are victims at the hands of others when they act to initiate a human life that resides in them due to a pregnancy. To me it seems to be just another form of blame shifting instead of accepting the responsibility for one's actions. Why is it that we are willing to admit in the case of overeating that it is our responsibility what we put into our bodies, but when it comes to pregnancy, what we put into our bodies suddenly is no longer our responsibility? It boggles the mind.

"The Boss/mother" as it were, has already been born, lived life, formed connections with other humans.

There are degrees of tragedy...

If it was your daughter, and you had to choose would you rather:
1. Lose her in death in a late-term miscarraige or still birth, where you never get to meet her, interact her with her, know her heart, have great stories about her?

Or 2. Have her die later as 12-year-old after 1st knowing all the great things about her, and then losing all those things?

Likewise, if you knew your wife and love of your life was going to die or in severe jeopardy of dying unless you end her pregnancy, would you honestly value that potential for life in her womb equally to your wife's life?

Mike, this isn't a matter of making a decision about whether or not it's okay to kill someone based on the relative pain it will cause to others. Imagine an orphan girl that nobody cares about. Is it less wrong to kill her than somebody who has friends? Or is the offense of killing either one of them an equally wrong offense against the person killed?

Likewise, the reason why we say it's okay for a mother to have an abortion when her life is in danger (and we do) isn't because more people happen to care about the mother. Rather, in the case of literal life vs. literal life, the objective moral claims of the mother and child to live are equal, and so the mother is justified in doing what is necessary to save her life, if she so chooses (and in fact, usually in a case where her life is in danger, the child can't be saved, even if the mother wanted to give her life for her child, because if the mother dies, the child dies).

In your illustration, you ask which life we would subjectively value more, but again, that's not the question. A human being is objectively valuable and has a right to life regardless of whether or not we personally know him--even whether or not anyone personally knows him. Just because we don't know a person, that doesn't make it okay to kill him.


As for your dilemma: Better to have loved and lost than never loved at
all. So 2. And I speak not just from a maxim, but from personal
experience of having raised my nephew who is now 9 (and his mother
considered abortion).

As for your likewise: it isn't "potential for life" but actual life in
the pro-life view.and yes I would value it equally and add that
parents have a duty to put the loved of their children above their
own. What kind of scumbag would, if a gun was put to his head say
"please kill my two month old, not me! I've formed

I have to say, I was completely apalled by Williams' words. It never ceases to amaze me how selfish we humans have the ability to be. Is this the new way that pro-choicers are going to base their argument on? They are going to concede that the fetus is a human being, yet the woman's rights to her body supercede the fetus' right to life?

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution would disagree with that assessment.


The "would you rather" scenarios aren't really the issue here; and they don't prove anything either. All it proves is that you can come up with different scenarios that would steer people to agree with your viewpoint. The bigger issue here the value of life. Williams is essentially being a bully here with her thinking. Since she's the bigger person in stature, she feels she can do what she pleases.

Amy, thank you for maintaining the high level of snyaptic connectivity necessary to engage this debate in terms that bring clarity where pro-abortionists have been blurring the lines for decades. The need for objective acuity has never been greater, and your writing opens dimensions of thought that must be grappled with by all.

The comments to this entry are closed.