Sunday, January 16, 2005

Why is Abortion My #1 Issue?

For some reason, I've been wandering into posts on abortion on several liberal blogs that I check from time to time. I've left some comments, but I felt I should write something explaining my own pro-life position on my own blog. I can't think of anything that explains my outright hatred of abortion more than an article I just found through a friends blog. I had to fight back tears as I read this and thought of my innocent little 7 month old daughter. If you are pro-life and you feel uneasy reading about what goes on in an abortion clinic, please do not read this article or any of the links on this post. If you are pro-abortion or pro-choice or whatever you choose to call yourself, you owe it to yourself to read about what you are supporting.

Liberals, it doesn't matter how much you support world peace, famine relief, multiculturalism, the environment, the poor, the sick, the whales or the trees. If you just finished reading what happens in an abortion clinic and you still support abortion, there is something seriously wrong with you. How can you possibly condone this in good conscience? Seek help because you are truly a psychopath.

I am absolutely certain that years from now, history will show that abortion was the greatest atrocity mankind has ever perpetrated upon itself. No war, no ten wars could ever be as horrible as a mother killing her own child.

13 comments:

Ian McGibboney said...

No one denies that abortion is a terrible thing, and quite a graphic procedure. I don't think anyone is really FOR it. We certainly don't need to read one of a nearly infinite number of graphic depictions--presumably written by those who profess to care about life yet have no trouble reveling in the disgusting aftermath of such procedures--to realize that.

But neither do we believe that the government should have the right to determine who lives and who dies. A government that can decide a baby must live can also decide that a baby MUST die. Why? Because we would have given government the power to pick and choose the fates of individual lives. This is the same reason that most pro-choice activists are against the death penalty. Same reasoning--a government that can demand life or death is too monstrous to be healthy.

And the argument that government should ban abortion because it's gross and destructive holds very little water. By this logic, we should ban taxes for military weapons, corporations and even toxic-waste disposal. Why? Because to somebody out there, these programs are morally wrong, wasteful or otherwise disgusting. If we made value judgments this way, we would have no programs whatsoever. I know that I am certainly against the current atrocities ongoing in Iraq at this moment. It sickens me further that I am paying for all of that needless death. If we're looking to nip obscene governmental programs, that would be one good place to start.

Finally, I understand that people oppose abortion (including, believe it or not, many pro-choice activists). But why make it your only political issue? I know people who will willingly vote for a candidate they totally despise based entirely on abortion stance. Sick! Like it or not, Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere anytime soon. To suggest otherwise is to display ignorance of Supreme Court procedure and judicial review. Instead, pro-lifers should focus on how to make conditions to where people want to bring life into this world in the first place. I could definitely get behind that.

Ian McGibboney said...

After viewing the abortion pictures, I am awed by their graphic poses. Why are only extreme late-term abortions shown? Third-trimester aborions are legal only in life-threatening situations for the mother. Most abortions are performed within days of fertilization. Why don't we see any of those cell-clumps on the site? Or would that detract from the appeal to emtions that is obviously the point there?

That said, those babies look horrible. Not unlike the dead Iraqis.

BeerMan said...

Ian Ian Ian

What do you mean by, "A government that can decide a baby must live can also decide that a baby MUST die. "

This is nonsense. You have no justification for this statement. This is just leftist propaganda.

You go on to say, "Most abortions are performed within days of fertilization. "

Sure if by "days", you mean 200 days.

Give it a rest. Abortion is horrible. All of the pro-abortion leftits and abortionists need to work with pro-life Americans to find ways to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies so that women do not feel that these abortions are necessary. All that time and effort spent on bickering should be spent on saving lives.

I do not understand how we can live in a society where California and other states assert the rights of the unborn as independent of their mother's rights, with laws such as Conner's Law and then allow those rights to be trampled on willy-nilly when the mother decides she wants to do so.

Since we agree that the unborn baby has rights, fine. Lets protect them. This is not to say that the mother does not have rights as well, but we need to find a way to consider the rights of the child when making decisions regarding the child, and that is not being done, not at all.

Ian McGibboney said...

What do you mean by, "A government that can decide a baby must live can also decide that a baby MUST die. "

Don't dismiss this as "leftist propaganda." When you give the government the right to stop abortions, you are in effect granting the right to hold control over the fate of birth, one way or the other. Under the right leadership, this legal precedent could just as easily be used in the other direction. Do you want that? I don't!

"Sure if by 'days', you mean 200 days."

You could say that. It would only technically be true, but you could say that. 200 days is almost the entire gestation time. When else would abortions occur? It's like saying that most abortions occur within the first nine months of pregnancy. Well, yeah. The question is, when?

"Give it a rest. Abortion is horrible."

So is war. But the government allows that!

All of the pro-abortion leftits and abortionists need to work with pro-life Americans to find ways to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies so that women do not feel that these abortions are necessary."

Well, the minute our beloved Republican politicians start giving one damn about life AFTER it's born, then we might make progress in this area.

"Since we agree that the unborn baby has rights, fine."

Did I say this? I think life begins, for legal purposes, when you're born. But I agree that anyone who kills a pregnant woman and her baby ought to be charged for double homicide. Why? Because the mother did not choose to terminate that pregnancy. I see the moral high ground; I also realize, however, the reality of many women's situations. As well as the imminent tragic fate that awaits most of these children if born.

BeerMan said...

Well, you are back to your usual tricks. I am not going to address them right now.

With regard to your idea that if some restriction is placed on the ability of a woman to have an abortion, the government could "just as easily" use it the other way to force them is utter nonsense. You are in effect, saying, that if the government protects our rights, it could just as easily take them away. Wrong. Read the Constitution or something. Stop talking jive.

Also, if you think that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer should be charged with double murder, it is automatically the case that not only do you affirm that the unborn baby is alive (and thus can be murdered), he/she is also a person AND he/she has rights that need to be protected independently of the mother's rights. Otherwise, it would be illogical to think that such a murder should result in a double murder charge!

Stop the double talk. Stop the ballyhoo. Get real.

Ian McGibboney said...

"You are in effect, saying, that if the government protects our rights, it could just as easily take them away. Wrong. Read the Constitution or something. Stop talking jive."

No, Beerman, the government does not protect our rights. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution protect our rights. They also protect us from the illegal actions of an overreaching government. The Founders knew that government could indeed supersede the Constitution if left unchecked, so they installed safeguards in the documents to protect the citizenry. Your side constantly worried about the government during the Clinton years, sometimes justifiably so, so obviously it is not the government that protects rights.

I stand by my claim that by banning abortion, you give the government the right to determine life and death. Banning abortion and requiring it are not two opposing regulations; they could both come out the SAME ruling! That ruling being just what I said, that the government has the right to decide what babies may live and what babies may not.

"Also, if you think that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer should be charged with double murder, it is automatically the case that not only do you affirm that the unborn baby is alive (and thus can be murdered), he/she is also a person AND he/she has rights that need to be protected independently of the mother's rights. Otherwise, it would be illogical to think that such a murder should result in a double murder charge!"

I disagree. I believe that a woman should allowed control over her own body and if she wants to terminate a new pregnancy, then that's between her, her doctor and her god. I don't think anyone else has the right to make that decision for her. If a woman has decided to carry her child with the intention of giving birth to it, then I think it would be double homicide if someone killed them both. Not because the fetus is a full citizen, but because the mother has decided to set the path for that to happen.

BeerMan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ian McGibboney said...

Wow, BeerMan, even Ragin Cajun removed your comment. I would have paid to have read that!

Ragin Cajun said...

While BeerMan and I seem to agree on the issue of abortion, his patience had obviously worn thin with that last comment. I can relate to the frustration, but I'm not real big on foul language (sorry BeerMan).

Ragin Cajun said...

The government is in the business of protecting our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the government didn't defend these rights, we would not have a country today. Don't you want the government to protect YOUR right to life? It does whether you think it should or not.

The right to life is not to be decided by the mother (or the father) either. Would it be OK for me to kill you as long as I got your mom's permission first? Life is an inalienable human right, independent of parental consent.

You also made some comparisons to Iraq. In spite of your apparent love for the despotic leadership of Saddam Hussein, there are many people here and in Iraq who are overjoyed to see an end to his reign of terror. One can argue that the human rights benfits of this war are quite substantial. The same argument cannot be made for abortion. This is simply one individual paying another to kill her baby.

Abortion is not my only issue, it is simply my #1 issue (as implied by the title of my post). There are lots of important issues out there. There just aren't any that even approach the importance of this one. You could argue that the war in Iraq is second, but I wouldn't even call it a close second. Over 1 million babies killed each year in this country alone for no reason other than someone else's convenience, v/s how many thousands dead in Iraq (IMHO, trying to end tyranny and promote freedom)? No comparison in my book.

BTW, if you want to see the Democrats gain huge numbers, kick the pro-choice baby killers out of your party and watch the Republicans scramble to champion more social issues. I assure you, the socio-political landscape of the country will slide decidedly to the left.

Ragin Cajun said...

Oh, I almost forgot. Here are the first trimester abortion pics you asked for.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

Not exactly the "blob of cells" that pro-abortion folks like to talk about is it?

Anonymous said...

I once read a very disturbing comment elsewhere by a pro-life person. The interviewer asked him if he ever considered that one way to decrease the number of abortions is to make single parenting less difficult--the interviewer wondered why the pro-life movement wasn't putting their time, money, and considerable zeal into creating job training, childcare programs, housing for women who actually, if there was enough real support, might choose to have and raise their babies. He said he wasn't interested or responsible for what happened to these babies after their birth.

I realize this was just one guy, speaking for himself (though he was representing a pro-life stance)--but here's a thought: though I believe abortion should be legal, I also feel that more women would choose not to terminate pregnancies if being a single mother in this society wasn't such a terribly difficult thing. I know--I have four kids and raised them by myself after my husband left me. He paid no child support whatsoever and, though I worked two jobs, it was very hard to make ends meet and pay my mortgage--even though I did provide for my kids and managed to keep a roof over our heads.

Just my opinion, but I know a lot of women who would terminated their pregnancies because they were afraid of bringing a child into the world and not being able to give it the most basic necessities of life--or they were in college or high school and there were no childcare programs, no support of any kind that they could see.

When I was a single mother, I actually had a few programs I availed myself of that really helped--my kids' school had a program called Healthy Start, with an advocate that would help you get a ride to the grocery store or doctor's appointments. She also helped arrange for tutoring for my youngest son, helped me get a coat for him when I just couldn't afford it, and made some great suggestions for doing free and fun stuff with the kids. My youngest son had no idea we were poor, partially because of her help and suggestions. That program has been axed now, along with afterschool care and schoolbus service. Programs are being cut all over the country that have, in the past, helped families.

I think our society SHOULD care about children after they are born. I know that pro-lifers want to stop all abortions, but if you want the chance to try and prevent a few, maybe you can start working to improve the quality of life for families in this country. Make that your #1 issue and you might find you have really made a difference in people's lives.

Anonymous said...

NSU - 4efer, 5210 - rulez