I think it’s a brilliant idea.
This is an ultrasound of an unborn baby at 12 weeks. First trimester baby murders occur during the first 12-14 weeks of life. Methods of first-trimester killings:
- Suction Aspiration: This is the “vacuum” method. The baby is sucked out of the woman’s womb.
- Dilatation and Curettage: Baby is cut to pieces and removed.
- RU 486/Mifeprex: Also called the “abortion pill,” RU 486 blocks production of the hormone progesterone, and the baby starves to death.
- Methotrexate : Another starvation technique.
What’s your opinion of death certificates for dead fetuses? I want to hear what pro-choicers think, too.
Update: Commenter Belle writes:
[I]n NC right now there is big debate going on as to whether Physicians need to be present during the executions of convicted murderers. The state medical society says NO!, that it would violate the physician’s Hippocratic oath. Yet, the same medical society has no problem with their members killing unborn babies. Go figure.
Update II (2/15 @ 7:55 p.m.): These baby-murdering discussions are causing me to do something I don’t like to do publicly: become too angry. Before I end up saying something I’ll regret, I’m closing the post tonight. I’ll re-open it to commenting in the morning.
Update III (2/16): Re-opened.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 72 comments }
I think it is a brilliant idea, politicians just need to keep coming up with creative ways to take on the powerful abortion rights groups.
Love it. How have we gone so long without having them? Aborted babies are people and killing them is murder.
A little off topic here, but not really, in NC right now there is big debate going on as to whether Physicians need to be present during the executions of convicted murderers. The state medical society says NO!, that it would violate the physician’s Hippocratic oath. Yet, the same medical society has no problem with their members killing unborn babies. Go figure.
LaShawn, a link regarding M.D.s at executions
http://www.ncmedsoc.org/non_members/regulatory/NCMB_capital_punishment.pdf
What information would be on such a death certificate? Names, SS#s, etc. are issued after birth. Are parent’s social security #s present on a child’s death cirtificate? Would such a certificate extend to miscarriages?
I thought of this idea many many years ago…I looked at how Japan deals with abortion, and I wondered why is that we do not bury our dead fetuses and why is this not involved in a more spirituall way..Feminist have always said that this choice by women is a tough one, and so I would think that most women who want abortions would like to do this in a way that is right with God. We all bury our dead right? Why not do the same for fetuses, or at least open the opportunity up to do so…
Lastly it was clearly said that abortion would not be used as birth control, well today that is exactly what abortion is being used for…
I am both pro-life and vegetarian. I personaly think abortion is horrible, and I also think eating meat or killing any animal that poses no direct harm to you is JUST AS disgusting.
I find it funny that people get all riled up about fetuses, yet don’t care when people shoot innocent deer who are also god’s creatures as well. The pro-life community will talk all day long about the fetus, yet they don’t care that lax environmental regulations have resulted in higher levels of mercury and other harmful pollutants in newborns. Our crumbling environment has also led to lower sperm counts in men, and decreasing fertility in women, yet that doesn’t seem to bother this so called pro-life community.
Conversely, I also find it funny that people get riled up about the environment and animals’ rights, yet don’t really seam to care about the human fetus.
If you want to call yourself pro-life, atleast be CONSISTENT in applying that philosophy to all of GOD’s Creation (EARTH).
I know, I’m a guy, and we’re not all that important in the abortion fight for some reason, but here’s my take on this, YES, a death certificate should be required, you see, I am one of those guys that believes LIFE starts at conception, blame it on my Catholic Mom and her teachings, blame it on my ‘backsliding’ Christian beliefs, whatever it is, I have a very narrow view on abortion, and I personally believe that if a woman seeking an ‘abortion on demand’ were forced to put a name to that BABY and accept the fact that she just had a BABY murdered, if that woman has a shred of human decency it ‘may’ make her think twice before this terrible procedure ends an innocent life…
Abortion is a tragedy in my opinion, and while an unwanted pregnancy can be a bit of a ‘distraction’ for the impregnated one, I feel that 1st, there should have been some personal responsibility involved and an effort made to avoid becoming pregnant, the most ideal being to refrain from having sexual relations outside of marriage…
I am, perhaps surprisingly, not opposed to the idea of birth control, many married couples, for whatever reason may choose to NOT have a child, while engaging in a healthy sex life…
And even though I know that pre-marital sex is wrong, I am not going to sit here and be a hypocrite and say that my wife and I didn’t engage IN it, luckily there was no pregnancy to deal with until some time later and I now have grown children and grand kids, but to expect that teaching abstinence will be enough to stop unwanted pregnancies is unrealistic…
There are people that make a mistake, they *mess around* and get pregnant, and don’t say it can’t, or won’t happen to MY kid, I sincerely hope it doesn’t, but it can, and I am guessing that most of La Shawn’s readers are the type of good people that even though an unwanted pregnancy would be a less than desired event, it’s one that you’d accept and work through, and NOT end in an abortion…
The shame is, not everyone is like that, there are woman out there that have had numerous abortion, and will likely have many more, simply because they regularly engage in unprotected sex and feel no remorse when they KILL an innocent baby…
Those are the ones that MUST be forced to face the EVIL they have wrought, and even then, some are so careless and so unconcerned that even a death certificate and a cold, hard reality check will be looked at as merely *paper work*…
As far as I know, stillbirths require death certificates. My aunt was once in a car accident that killed her unborn baby girl. The girl was given a name and her remains were buried in the family cemetary.
I wonder if a Leftist would have taken issue with that. After all, since they don’t believe life begins at conception, wouldn’t they find it pointless to bury a child that died in the womb? Or perhaps they only consider a fetus human if its mother wants it, and in all other cases it isn’t. Gee, I really would like to know how they do their mental gymnastics sometimes.
I don’t think it would serve any constructive purpose. It just makes people who are against abortion feel some smug satisfaction, but it doesn’t save lives. Put your energy into something worthwhile that would actually reduce the need for abortion.
One reason why this kind of language is abhorrent to me is because there are always going to be a percentage of women who need abortions for morally and medically justifiable reasons. Yet when you talk about abortion as murder, it is always in this “one size fits all” kind of way. When women who have needed, not wanted, to abort their babies read this kind of stuff, it causes significant harm to them. So unnecessary. So unkind. So thoughtless, really.
At some point, you will figure out that this approach doesn’t win any battles. Let’s do something constructive to reduce abortion to only those that are truly necessary. Gimmicky stuff only serves to create more polarization.
Shade brings up several valid points.
Think about the impact of having to fill out death certificates? In addition, think of the available and reportable statistical data and how such a change will have an impact. Also, I see much more responsibility being placed on the woman, knowing she has to sign it – proving that she has made a decision to end potential life.
As a nurse, I once watched a young woman having an exploratory exam (in the OR) to diagnose her problems. Low and behold, she was pregnant and did not yet know it. Seeing that fetus (like your picture above) had a dramatic change on my views of abortion. I believe now, that unless it presents a potential risk of life to the Mother, abortions should not be allowed.
Good point Batyah. That’s why I don’t participate in these type of discussions.
Veggie Christian…I am with you on this!
I, too, am a longtime vegetarian (21 plus years) because I don’t want innocent animals to die for food I do not need.
I wish both animal rights activists and pro-lifers would expand their vision a bit. I wish animal rights activists would not be so cavalier towards abortion and pro-lifers would have some heart regarding the unspeakable suffering of animals just for our taste buds.
It took me awhile to see the “light”, though. Most of my life, I didn’t think much about it until I read Buddhist scripture. Anyone who has had an abortion…I don’t mean to offend or bother you at all, just relating what I read. It said that those who have abortions, will be aborted, because it is a form of killing. “If we knew how we struggled in the womb”.
I actually think these teachings are in line with Christianity, too…that our souls are *already there* in the womb, and thus, it is not right to kill and harmful to us spiritually.
I would wish that feminists stop working so hard for abortion and help women NOT have them as I feel it’s hard them as well. I wish they would concentrate on more important issues for feminists like the oppression of women outside the West.
Batyah is on point.
I agree that requiring a death certificate would be a good idea. Although it is stated in many of the news articles relating to this topic that abortions are reported–I believe that a death certificate and burial would help to curb or (hopefully), stop the practice of the sale of aborted baby parts.
I also wonder if abortion statistics are reported correctly? Perhaps if there was a death certificate required the reporting would be more honest and accurate…
Interesting how the vegetarians, while trying more than other environmentalists I have seen to be impartial, are still trying not to offend women who kill their own children but are trying to offend us meateaters.
As a woman who has lost babies and had it denied by my own doctor, who was supposedly pro-life, I think that much more should be done to personalize people who die before their birth, whether those people die from abortion or from miscarriage. And whoever thinks that pro-lifers are imposing their morals on others needs to take a second look at all the doctors who prescribe hormonal birth control without explaining how it works and refuse to provide information on natural family planning–that besides the fact that the child who is aborted always has his or her mother’s morality (or lack thereof) imposed on him or her.
Abortion is never a medical necessity except in the case of rare forms of cancer or ectopic pregnancy. I believe that the reason no alternatives have been found in these situation is that doctors do not value the lives of the children enough to try and find them. No doctor will ever touch my body when I am pregnant who does not have my son or daughter’s best interest in mind and, if necessary, have a plan to save that baby’s life, no matter how unconventional. I don’t believe a woman should have to die to save her baby’s life, but I am willing to do so if it comes to that.
Death certificates for abortion are a very logical idea. A dead human is a dead human, period. If a person dies, for any reason, there is a certificate to evidence that.
For the abortion deemed necessary, there is still the death of a human being. We’ve become so dedicated to putting the feelings of one above another that we’ve forgotten that there is still a dead person, and that person should be recognized.
This would also give the mother chance to grieve, which is easier to do for a person than a medical procedure. Grieving is the first step to healing, and unless we fully acknowledge our crisis issue, it can’t fully be grieved.
Jay: re: “I wonder if a Leftist would have taken issue with that. After all, since they don’t believe life begins at conception, wouldn’t they find it pointless to bury a child that died in the womb?”
What really torks me is that law that says that if a person attacks a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, that person can be charged with murder of the unborn. This flies in the face of logic (of the pro-abortion people) that the fetus is NOT a person. So a murder charge is completely at the whim of the mother!
Suppose a woman who is planning to get an abortion is beaten up by her no-good boyfriend, has a miscarriage, and decides to charge him with murdering her baby just out of spite? It could happen… and probably has. Seems to me that murder of an unborn is murder, planned or not.
On a personal note, my sister had a miscarriage about 20 years ago. In an act of sheer, unmittigated stupidity, the hospital put a woman who had minor complications from an abortion in her room with her. It was all they could do to keep my sister from killing the other woman before they put the other woman in another room. It was pure fury that provoked that attack… she was grieving for her lost baby… and my sister was never charged with anything. Putting them in the same room was unbelievably stupid.
In all, I think death certificates for the unborn are a wonderful idea. It could go a LONG way toward ridding the country of the lackidasical attitude too many have about abortion.
A gimmick that will never become law. It doesn’t serve any purpose other than to marginalize the pro-choice side. The decision to have an abortion is a very personal one. I thank God it is not a decision I will ever have to make.
An issue like this is why I struggle with the temptation to never pick up a newspaper or listen to talk radio ever again. Abortion should be taken off the public policy table and returned to the realm of medicine.
I don’t think it would help at all. Like it was said before, we should put our time and effort in other areas.
On another note — Am I the only one who felt squeamish reading the descriptions of the way they abort the fetuses?
Re: batyah
Women that have abortions for reasons besides simple birth control is an underwhelming 1%. I have yet to hear any pro-life organazation rail against abortion in cases of rape or incest. From what I have seen the pro-life crowd is the most empathetic to women that have been abused. So your point is a little moot.
“I have yet to hear any pro-life organazation rail against abortion in cases of rape or incest.”
Didn’t the SD law not contain an exception for rape or incest?
I’m almost certain the law originated with “pro-life organazations”.
I am anti-abortion personally, believe it is a matter that should be for the People to regulate through their State’s Representatives and that Roe was a cancerous seizure of power by the Courts over a matter they had no business meddling in.
That said, I think requiring death certificates for abortion and possibly for the administration of morning after pills – is one of the stupidest ideas I ever heard of.
Until certain religious zealots became obsessed with the idea that ensoulment happened at conception – sometime in the mid-19th Century thanks to a Papal Bull – Christianity did not care too much about miscarriages and stillbirths. No religious rites were given them, no Christening of names – go to an old cemetery and you see the small headstones of “an infant duaghter”, etc. – no name..And those were the prosperous families. Poorer families just put the remains in a pit in the backyard, sometimes along with trash. The Churches, both Catholic and Protestant, discouraged excessive mourning for “potential life lost” – and refused retroactive baptism, christenings, and other sacraments. Muslims and Asians were similar.
In the secular sphere, no death certificates generally were issued in America until recently when the Right to Life crowd began demanding States issue death certificates on stillborns, though some States had laws that documented loss of pregnancy in earlier decades for fetuses over 20 weeks. In the secular sphere, we also have begun to realize that 40-45% of fertilized eggs are discarded in mammalian reproduction. Some just because reproduction is sloppy and wasteful in nature, others we realize…do not implant because the zygote is lacking the signalling traits the uterine wall will accept -typically from genetic flaws. We have also come to realize that nature or God gives each woman the gift of being a mini abortion clinic herself. Scientists finally began looking at miscarriages and were surprised to learn most were not “preventable tragedies” but genetically unfit or unviable fetuses the animal or human female had detected and caused to miscarry to get rid of the unfit fetus and get the womb ready for a healthy one. From an evolutionary or religious sense – the females conservation of reproductive fertility solely for healthy offspring made perfect sense.
That added another 6-7% onto chucked zygotes and fetuses that occur without abortion.
The idea of a religious zealot in Tennessee trying to force women to fill out a death certificate for any “loss” from zygote on is simply a matter of one group trying to foist their religious beliefs on all in contravention to the history of law in the West and Christianity itself. It is another bone-headed overplay by theocrats like their meddling in the Terri Schiavo case was…where the Right to Life nuts inside and outside Congress and the White House had there heads handed to them by the public and by the Courts. (Plus, the long slow decline of Bush started with the Terri Schiavo Fiasco)
The idea of mandated death certificates for any abortion, having to sex test the aborted remains to see if the woman cares to name it Tom or Theresa –all while ignoring 2,000 years of Western Civ and Christian precident? Ignoring the 55-60% naturally discarded zygotes and fetuses? Trying sneaky backdoor tactics like death certificates to “get around” the courts and do some highly disruptive and resented measures to harass women? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb!
I want abortion ended as a unwritten Constitutional “right”. I want it returned to the States. Or, handled through a national referandum with proper legislation and period of debate and testimony – which is how societies in Europe and Asia handled their abortion debate with none of the divisiveness that America has been stuck with. Paralyzed by unelected lawyers in robes while great problems facing America are impossible to resolve because of extremists in both Party’s camps insisting nothing matters but pushing their abortion politics.
14. “…and pro-lifers would have some heart regarding the unspeakable suffering of animals just for our taste buds. – Kristina C.
Most pro-lifers are Christian, and what you call the “unspeakable suffering of animals” is therefore a fundamentally separate issue for them.
According to the Bible, humans are “made in the image of God” and animals are not. Therefore no theologically knowledgeable Christian would attempt to make a comparison between human suffering and animal suffering.
Furthermore, the animal rights movement, which by definition would require that animals have individual rights, can only be justified by making the assumption that humans have no special philosophical status and that animals can therefore be treated as equivalent. Animal rights activists are thus anti-Christian at the core.
That’s why there is minimal overlap between these two groups.
I’m reeling after reading the disturbing philosophy which equates deer with human babies.
Anyone who thinks that this would apply to zygotes who fail to implant due toe the morning after pill or other hormonal abortifacients seems to me to have a deficient knowledge of biology. These children–and, in fact, most children who don’t survive until at least two and a half weeks–are generally not detected. Their lives are just as real, but there is no way to tell they have existed.
Not all miscarriages happen because of the baby’s genetic anomalies. Some early miscarriages are due to hormone deficiencies or immune responses of the mother. Quite a few late miscarriages happen because the cervix does not stay closed. One of the risk factors for this condition–incompetence of the cervix–is a previous abortion. Women who suffer from early miscarriages are often ignored, and there is much more to be learned about recurrent early miscarriage. If the lives of very young children were valued, we might have learned it by now.
Every time someone says that these babies are not really people and have no rights, you are not just talking about “unwanted” babies, you are also talking about children who were loved by their parents but lost just the same. No one gave me a choice in whether my babies lived or died. There are even people trying to prevent treatments that could help very premature babies, because the more and the younger babies survive, the clearer it becomes that the goal of late-term abortions is purely to kill a baby, not just to end a pregnancy.
Oh, and for those who are arguing that the church hasn’t always been concerned, you are looking at a classic example of the understanding of a religious issue being advanced by scientific knowledge. That’s right–religious people really do take notice of real science. At one point very little was known about children in the womb, but now we know that a child is a unique human being with the potential to grow into a baby, child, adolescent, and adult from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. Arguing that some other point is when life begins is a position that is anti-science. It relies on some intangible quality, such as consciousness or self-determination, which cannot be measured, and presumably is gained by the child at some later point.
The most anti-fetus way of interpreting the bible would be to take the verse that tells us “the life is in the blood” and extrapolate that the baby is not alive until its blood supply develops–no later than three weeks, long before most abortions are done and before the baby even begins to look human.
I look forward to the day that abortion and abortifacient drugs are illegal everywhere due to the scientific knowledge that a human being is a human being at conception.
Chris;
I’ve never understood the thinking behind “I am against abortion personally but I think that women should be allowed to do it.”
Would you say the same about child abuse?
Given the unliklihood of an affirmative, I will take the liberty of assuming that you think that child abuse is worse than the taking of the life of an unborn child and should be prohibited by law.
Or, maybe you think that the unborn are not really life, in which case, I am not sure why you say you are anti-abortion. There is no compelling reason to be anti-abortion if it simply involves the removal of tissue.
I have such a hard time reconciling the juxtaposition of your statement that you are anti-abortion but think it is alright for society to engage in it.
Rodney, I think you know as well as I do that pro-lifers do NOT make an exception for victims of rape or incest who become pregnant. To do so would be to compromise their argument, since they don’t believe in “situational ethics.”
Even in ancient times, our Jewish sages realized that the situation has everything to do with the ethics. Most issues, then and now, are dealt with on a case by case basis by rabbis who are expert in the law, examining the details of the situation with painstaking attentiveness. Abortion was allowed in certain situations thousands of years ago, and continues to be allowed today.
Pro-lifers are terribly afraid to let compassion or understanding creep in to their moral decision making because they fear it will weaken their position. Nothing could be further from the truth; we are meant to struggle for understanding in order to reach the most moral conclusion for any given situation, not just apply a blanket rule to everything, no matter who gets hurt.
I’d like to see pro-lifers focus more on prevention (and some do just that by running centers that offer counseling and practical support with baby equipment and money) than on condemnation of the aborting woman after the fact. Every single one of us knows what it feels like to face a personal trial in which it feels as if no one understands us, and wish there were somewhere we could turn for guidance; would any of us go running to a group who sneers and yells and calls us murderers and simplifies our ordeal or deliberately distorts it in order to AVOID understanding it? I doubt it. No, we’d run as far away as we could from those kind of people and decide from that day forward that they have nothing to teach us, nothing to show us, about anything.
Is this the impact you want to have on people? Or do you want to change the world and make it a better place? I’m not talking about pretending that abortion is morally neutral in order to be popular — it’s not, and popularity is not the aim of moral people. You can still stand strong for your beliefs without alienating others unnecessarily. And in fact, a meanspirited and condemning face will turn people away from the G-d you claim to represent, and you may inadvertently be CAUSING more abortions than you are preventing.
As for the death certificates — how can you all seriously just embrace this idea without asking the very obvious questions? Is this for ALL women experiencing pregnancy loss, or only for those women going in for abortions? And if the answer is the latter, then aren’t you making a case for aborted babies being humans when miscarried babies aren’t? No, it seems this law would have to apply to all miscarried babies, too. But that raises another question. When is a baby a baby? If a woman has a high beta hcg level but no sac or fetal pole is visualized on ultrasound (could be a molar pregnancy, could be a blighted ovum, among other things), is that a baby whose demise requires a death certificate? No? So then, when is a baby a baby? Is it when a fetal pole is visualized? A heartbeat? And if the answer is “yes,” then aren’t you setting yourselves up for the argument that you have demonstrated you actually believe life begins at the heartbeat, and not at conception? Or is it when the beta hcg level is greater than 3 miu’s? (Less than 2 miu’s is considered a negative pregnancy test.) A low beta in the absence of ultrasound visualization is termed a chemical pregnancy. Shall we issue death certs for chemical pregnancies? I hope we don’t have a paper shortage in this country, cause there’s gonna be a whole lotta death certs generated.
Really, this is a most absurd idea, but what bothers me more is that not very many of you seem to have considered even the most basic of ramifications. I’m not pro-abortion, folks, but conversations like this really depress me and confirm for me that decisions concerning abortion belong in the realm of the medically educated. Once again, I will go back to my lonely corner, feeling kinship with neither the pro-choice nor pro-life.
I’m not pro-abortion, folks, but conversations like this really depress me and confirm for me that decisions concerning abortion belong in the realm of the medically educated. Once again, I will go back to my lonely corner, feeling kinship with neither the pro-choice nor pro-life.
Pardon our ignorance, batyah, but there is no need to be depressed by our medically “uneducated” opinions. I always advise people who feel such stress and anxiety while reading my blog to allieve the problem and read like-minded blogs instead. I guess there are a lot of masochists out there. But that’s a medically uneducated opinion, so I hope it won’t depress you. No offense, but I guess it’s obvious that I have a sensitive spot when it comes to commenters complaining about my opinions and those of other commenters who happen to agree with me.
I want to address your earlier comment about pro-lifers lacking compassion as you define it, but I must return to it later. Paying tasks call…
Batyah said: “…decisions concerning abortion belong in the realm of the medically educated.”
I see. Then I’m sure Batyah would agree that decisions concerning bank robbery belong in the realm of the legally educated, and the rest of us non-lawyers should not voice an opinion for or against the fine art of heisting a bank.
Then I’m sure Batyah would agree that decisions concerning bank robbery belong in the realm of the legally educated, and the rest of us non-lawyers should not voice an opinion for or against the fine art of heisting a bank.
Abortion impacts one person, potentially two. Bank robbery can impact several people. Employees of the bank, law enforcement, bystanders. Society has an obligation to say bank robbery is wrong because taking something that doesn’t belong to you is wrong. But, a pregnant woman is carrying the something in question if you continue the analogy. The fetus belongs to her in a physical and legal sense. The idea that someone who has no interest in her whatsover could interfere with her personal decision is absurd.
My question: Where does it stop? A lot of pro-lifers are anti-contraception as well. Will we stop pharmacies from stocking contraceptive medicines and devices to please the pro-life movement.
I agree with Batyah. This decision is too personal to be a political football. That is what this is really about. Power. The power of politicians to impose the personal beliefs of total strangers on women at the most difficult time of their lives. The power of using this issue to get elected over and over again to chip away at the right to privacy which includes medical privacy.
Kendrick
Not wanting to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals does not mean animals are the same as us or that they are on the same level spiritually. I know humans have a special place, we have an abilitiy to get closer to God unlike the animals.
You say humans are in the likeness of God. I agree with that. Are we showing it by being careless to the suffering of sentient beings? Mercy and compassion is part of being in the “likeness of God”. Being callous and indifferent is not. Further there are many references in the Bible towards not eating plants. I don’t have them at my fingertips, but they are there. Google “vegetarianism Bible”. You will find them. You may also want to check out http://www.christianveg.org (or .com).
I don’t say that animals should have the same “rights” as us. I ask that we be good stewards, that we practice mercy, that we are not a slave to our taste buds without thought to the suffering caused by our choices, that we recognize that animals feel and can suffer, that we not want to inflict violence when we have a choice not to, that we be responsible. That is what I ask.
Batyah;
The charicature that you paint of those who are pro-life is more a figment of your imagination than it is reality.
I know of no example of someone that is pro-life actually telling a woman who has had an abortion that she is a murderer?
I know of no example of a pro-lifer treating a woman with condemnation who has come to them for help.
I know of no example where pro-lifers condemned a raped woman who got pregnant and had an abortion?
Most pro-lifers save their rhetoric for those on the left that they are debating.
It would be a mistake to confuse the debate with their feelings about women who are in trouble.
It would be a mistake to confuse the debate with the way that pro-lifers treat women in real life.
I think its an excellent idea..
I recently saw an pro-life ad on a vehilce they had a pic of a aborted fetus next to a pic of dead baby killed by our military during the US Invastion of Iraq, early 2003, with a big equals sign in the middle of them.
Powerful stuff.
Jan, you are not making any sense at all. You should not have one rhetoric for “those on the left we are debating” and another rhetoric for women facing abortion. The women facing abortion are reading this blog (where LaShawn, a prolifer, is calling them murderers, quite blatently), they are reading essays written by prolifers and interviews of prolifers, they are walking along the sidewalk outside clinics where prolifers carry their banners, they are listening to the news where prolifer initiated laws are being discussed, and so on and so forth. And believe me Jan, I KNOW prolifers — I’ve spent a lot of time with them at various stages in my life partly because we do agree on a few things. So don’t accuse me of falling victim to my imagination.
LaShawn, you asked for pro-choice opinions. I’m not even in that camp, but somewhere in the middle, and yet, you are inviting me to leave your blog because I expressed feelings or opinions that offended you. Did I say something to deserve that? I’ve been a loyal reader, usually in agreement with you, and it seems a bit strange that you treat me this way. Who’s the one who doesn’t like to hear a differing opinion?
I stand by my position that if you are medically ignorant (and it appears that some of you are proud of that and unwilling to correct it by educating yourselves a bit), you have no business making decisions that profoundly affect other people’s lives. Anyone who would say, as a commenter did here, that the only time pregnancy endangers a woman’s life is in the case of cancer or ectopic pregnancy, is just PROVING MY POINT. There are many medical conditions which, combined with pregnancy, can create an immediate danger to the life of the mother.
Now, go and study.
You know, I find it humorous when commenters think they can say whatever they want about my or other commenters’ views, and then act all shocked and offended if I call them on it. It doesn’t work with me. I’ve been dealing with it for three years.
You implied that some people on this board, and I’m including myself because I’m certain you meant to include me, are “meanspirted and condemning” and will turn people away from God, “inadvertently” causing “more abortions.” That’s one of the most absurd and offensive statements I’ve heard in awhile, and yes, I took it personally and said so.
You also said that such conversations (we non-medical folks talking about “medical procedures” like child killing?) depress you, and I was merely offering a solution to your problem. If someone is “depressed” by my posts and the ensuing discussions, they certainly shouldn’t aggravate the condition by continuing to read them.
If you agree with me most of the time, good for you. But that doesn’t require me to ignore whatever you say or prevent me from responding to something I find offensive. And there is plenty of disagreement on this blog, so don’t play the old “Who’s the one who doesn’t like to hear a differing opinion?” card. Implying that I don’t allow dissent, when it’s quite obvious that I do, is the quickest route to rubbing me the wrong way.
Whether commenters agree with me or not, love me or hate me, they all need to be reminded from time to time that this blog is my forum, and I make the rules. I allow readers to comment at my pleasure. If that sounds arrogant, then call it arrogant.
Wow. I think I’ve just had my knuckles rapped with a ruler. Strange phenomenon, given the fact that I haven’t been in elementary school for decades.
#41 was aimed at #39, just to be clear.
Batyah;
Say what you will, it IS a figment of your imagination that pro-lifers are mean-spirited and condemning. While there is no doubt in my mind that you could trot out an anecdote or the exception to the rule, the vast majority are simply deeply concerned by the destruction of unborn human beings.
Batyah;
It isn’t that folks are just medically ignorant, it is that the vast majority of abortions have little or nothing to do with the life of the mother.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Insitute:
On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[12]
Parents of Stillborn Babies Push for Recognition
Rather predictably abortion rights groups (the story specifically mentions the National Organization of Women) are concerned that this could lead to an erosion of access to on demand abortions.
“Animal rights activists are thus anti-Christian at the core.”
Isn’t that saying that opposing cruelty to animals is anti-Christian?
There’s a philosophical conundrum … I give in.
I’m never cruel to animals. Whenever I kill a steer, I do so quickly and painlessly. Then I add some spices, a small dab of Emeril’s hot pepper grilling sauce, charbroil it, and eat it. With some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
>>“Animal rights activists are thus anti-Christian at the core.â€
Isn’t that saying that opposing cruelty to animals is anti-Christian?>>
Without getting into this discussion(don’t have time), there’s a major difference between animal “rights” groups, and groups who oppose cruelty to animals. The rights groups equate animals with people and would try to give them many of the same rights humans have.(Good ole SF has changed their laws so that you don’t have pet “owners”, you have pet “companions” or “minders” or “sponsors” or “protectors” or some other term that doesn’t offend the rights people who say that it’s wrong for people to consider pets “property”) The anti-cruelty groups state that humans have a moral and legal obligation to treat animals humanely.
We in Kansas are praying for the passage of Alexa’s Law which, when a pregnant mother is murdered, would also allow prosecution for the murdered unborn child. Very tragic case in Wichita last year. Here’s a snippet from AP.
Associated Press, January 16, 2007
TOPEKA, Kan. – Prompted by last year’s murder of a pregnant Wichita teenager, legislators are renewing their push for a law aimed at protecting mothers-to-be and the fetuses they are carrying.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/16474588.htm
Angel: “Abortion impacts one person, potentially two. Bank robbery can impact several people. Employees of the bank, law enforcement, bystanders.”
I hope you are counting the “one person” impacted by abortion as the baby. The baby is, after all, the one most seriously impacted, being murdered.
If the “one person” impacted that you’re talking about is the mother, then you’re completely missing the point of the people who believe abortion is murder.
The fact is that people who believe abortion is murder believe that abortion is murder. It’s that simple. The belief that murdering an unborn child is no different from murdering a born child is so simple that caveats and exceptions and philosophical discussions don’t apply. You can’t change the mind of someone who believes abortion is murder.
The person who thinks abortion is murder reacts to the idea of abortion the same way any sane human being reacts to the news of a mother who has murdered her own born child… exactly the same sense of horror and disgust. To the person who believes that human life begins at conception, there is NO difference. To try to argue them around with caveats and philosophy does no good… it’s murder, and that’s that.
Lyn, I will certainly pray with you for the passage of that law.
Completely aside from the trajedy of unborn babies killed by thugs who need to be punished for that, I’d also love to see a law like this trip up Roe. The decision on whether or not the death of an unborn can be called “murder” can not be left up to whether or not the mother WANTS the baby. That’s leaving a major felony to the whim of the woman. Laws like this have been in force in several states for several years… and I’m just waiting for someone to get a “whim of the mother” objection to a murder conviction to the Supremes.
LaShawn, I think everyone understands that this is your party and you can cry if you want to. I have a blog myself; I understand and I don’t consider it arrogant. No one, least of all me, is telling you what you can say or not say, but I am telling you what I think about what you said. Your reaction seems disproportionate, given the circumstances, that’s all. There are a dozen points on which we could agree, and there are at least a few points that were worthy of further discussion or clarification. I get the feeling that you don’t want discussion, despite requesting it. You want a forum for your emotions. Okay, that’s fine too. As you say, it’s your blog.
I lead a moral life by biblical standards, as I’m sure you and some others here do. I agree that abortion in this country is way out of hand. I’d like to see it reigned in, as you would. But an extremely emotional, irrational, and yes, meanspirited and condemning approach is ineffective ultimately. You will keep losing political battles, and babies will continue to die. If a battle is worth winning, as I think this one is, then it’s worth thinking carefully about when developing a strategy, and considering all criticisms for their potential value. I’ve made several points that I consider worthy of discussion, yet no one wants to discuss them. It seems that it’s more satisfying to assume I’m the enemy, then rant and rave, and then sit back and basque in the glow of self righteousness, rather than actually develop a rational and effective battle plan for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Why not join forces with people from all walks of life who share that goal, rather than cloistering in groups that like to talk mean and tough? Why wait until a woman is pregnant before taking action? Why focus so much venom on the woman who has just had an abortion? Wouldn’t it be more effective to work to change aspects of society that foster disregard for life? Disregard for family and the sanctity of marital sex? It seems to me that would be a better place to start and a better place to put one’s energy. Remember what mom always said: you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Leaders who lead with firm love and positive examples change the world; people who spurt caustic stuff ultimately just get tuned out by the very people they were hoping to reach. Preaching to the choir just gets the choir all worked up. THAT was my point, which you chose to ignore except to get offended.
LaShawn, it’s a terrible thing to call a woman who has an abortion a murderer. That IS meanspirited and condemning, particularly since you are completely unaware of what each woman’s situation is, and you may have readers who are very vulnerable. I think you know it, and maybe that’s why you got so upset to be called out on it. You can get offended if you want to, but maybe you’ll think about it some more.
#48 Suek:
…”there’s a major difference between animal “rights†groups, and groups who oppose cruelty to animals.”
Thanks for the clarification Suek.
Regards,
John.
(Happy now to feasibly avoid hurting animals and not offend Christianity! *** Sweet!
)
batyah — I have neither the time these days nor the desire to go back and forth with individual commenters. But I’ll respond to your recent comment (ignoring the snarky first paragraph), and this will be the last word on this blog about whether I am a “meanspirtied and condemning” pro-lifer.
I certainly wouldn’t expect you to think my reaction to you is reasonable, just as I didn’t think your reaction to my comments was reasonable. No point in going back and forth over how “emotional” or “disproportionate” either reaction may be.
There is no doubt in my mind that a person who actually slaughters the baby in the womb is a murderer. Is the woman complicit in the murder? I certainly think so, although I don’t recall referring to women who kill their babies as murderers.
While individual circumstances abound, I’m also certain the woman who has her baby killed probably had a myriad of choices other than killing the baby. Why would my opinion change upon knowing “each woman’s situation”? (That’s rhetorical, so there is no need to answer.) Follow through with that line of reasoning, and we may as well suspend judging the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, because, you know, “each person’s situation” is different.
Ultimately, women who have their babies killed and the people who do the murdering will have to answer to Someone, and that someone isn’t me. In the court of public opinion, however, I judge abortionists guilty of murder and the women guilty for allowing it to happen.
If there are vulnerable LBC readers out there, faced with the decision to kill their babies, I hope my words, in whatever capacity, will influence them not to do it, even if my words hurt them. I doubt very seriously that vulnerable pregnant women weighing the pros and cons of killing their babies are reading LBC to find out what the pro-life Christians have to say, but whatever you say. There are dozens upon dozens of pro-life bloggers out there, and each blogger takes a different approach to the abortion issue. I have links to some of them (mostly in the Christian section) and links to Pro Life Blogs, an aggregator of pro-life posts. Any vulnerable pregnant blog reader seeking a word from Christians on abortion is intelligent enough, I hope, to consult “second opinions,” as it were.
If you think you have me figured out, about why your comment offended me, I offer no other defense but my responses to you on this post, the post itself, and the entire blog. Nothing I say will change your opinion that you’ve somehow “called” me out. I told you why I reacted the way I did, but think whatever you want.
Now, as you’ve reminded me, this is my blog, so change the subject.
I think it’s a fantastic idea. How about setting up Death Benefits in the form of a fine, which would fund education about the sin of abortion.
In response to veggiechristian:
I don’t know how a sane person can equate killing a deer with
killing an unborn child. Deer are animals and are hunted for food. I love animals, but the saying “We Are All God’s Creatures” is a bit naive. Yes, we’re all God’s creatures, but where the deer and the antelope play is where I step off…
La Shawn – I think you came down too hard on batyah. You solicited opinion: What’s your opinion of death certificates for dead fetuses? I want to hear what pro-choicers think, too.
Well, batyah told you what she thought….
If anything, my post #25 or Angel’s post #21 are far harsher on the idea of death certificates than what batyah said. Yes, she claimed that the “death certificate” idea was from people with significant medical ignorance, but is that so much worse than Angels verdict it is a disigenuous gimmick by pro-lifers craving Power to shove their beliefs down other’s throats? Or my notion that it is odds with societal and Christian tradition on fetuses and thus dumb, dumb, dumb?
Remember, you solicited pro choicers and those of us with mixed opinions to tell you what they thought…
Dissenting opinions aren’t the issue; personal insults are. Anyway, you’re jumping into the discussion in the middle, and you’re misinformed about what’s going on. I would say “stay out of it,” but that would be quite ridiculous, as this post is (was) open for discussion. – Admin
As an anti-abortionist (I am not pro-life, for reasons I will discuss later) I am not sure where I stand on this. I would need to study the legal ramificationsa first. On the surface however, I am against this. It seems to be to be a ploy to get people emotional about the issue, one way or the other, without any real reason behind it. Will need to delve deeper before I form a solid opinion.
As for the term “pro-life”, I don’t use it as I am also very pro-death penalty.
For the Christian vegetarians, all I have to say is this: do what you want, but save your condemnation for elsewhere. I eat meat, and will continue to do so. The sad truth of this life is that for something to live, something else must die. Animals and humans die so that plants might live, and plants and animals die so that humans and other animals might live. If you desire to be vegetarian, best of luck. Do not tell me that to be a good steward I must do so as well.
Toothpick Johnny,
Being pro-death penalty for murder is being pro-life.
As for being emotional about brutally murdering babies, that seems appropriate to me.
#57,
“do what you want, but save your condemnation for elsewhere.”
In Kristina’s defence, I did not detect a hint of condemnation in that post, just a polite request to consider. I actually read the link she posted and was pleasantly surprized by the good spirit and sobering facts. All presented in an unpatronizing, civil fashion.
Vegetarians get pasted with the same kind of broad brush as ‘pro-lifers.’
Two statements:
‘Consider innocent life is all I ask’
‘Be a good steward for life is all I ask’
Neither of the above typify raging moralizers or ‘condemners’, yet both get painted so, because of a small number of vocal extremists or terrorists.
‘Asking’ is not the same as ‘telling’.
Though I will admit, this is arguably the most civilized ‘abortion discussion’ in blog history, which is a credit to commenters here.
Regards,
John
Toothpick Johnnie:
Go ahead and eat meat but please do not make this excuse:
“For the Christian vegetarians, all I have to say is this: do what you want, but save your condemnation for elsewhere. I eat meat, and will continue to do so. The sad truth of this life is that for something to live, something else must die. Animals and humans die so that plants might live, and plants and animals die so that humans and other animals might live. If you desire to be vegetarian, best of luck. Do not tell me that to be a good steward I must do so as well.”
The truth is, we do what we can to make the world a better place. Sure, you’ve probably stepped on some bugs unintentionally but that is different that purposely making a choice to eat animals, that did not want to be eaten, simply because it tastes good and it’s a habit. I accept that is what most people want to do…but please don’t try and make it noble or something you can’t make a difference. You can and you choose not to.
So many conservatives have no enlarged their vision to sentient beings. I have. I have enlarged my vision to include the unborn. You cannot expect others to remove their blindspots if you refuse to remove your own.
I have seen no proof whatsoever that any animals are sentient. If you have such proof, please show it to me. Don’t chide me about blind spots after comparing the murder of human life with the death of an animal. They are in no way equivelant. I am totally against cruelty to animals, but it is more than just habit to eat meat. We are omnivores. Our bodies are built to eat both meat and veggies. Look at our teeth and digestive systems.
After having dogs my whole life, I’m convinced they are sentient. But I don’t eat dogs.
I raise beef cattle. Sentient is not a word I would attach to those critters. The only time they seem intelligent in the slightest is when they’re trying to avoid going where I want them to go. Other than that, they’re as dumb as a post. Still, I treat them with respect, care for their health, insure their comfort, and never allow them to suffer.
Respecting the animal world is one thing, a good thing. But equating animal deaths with human baby deaths is disturbing, to say the least.
I’m not sure this is such a good idea. After all there are little things like HIPAA to worry about. Aren’t there better ways to get the pro-life message across without theatrics like this? I think his heart is in the right place but honestly, it feels like a cheap political ploy. I’m pro-life but I often feel like we’re approaching this all wrong. Oh, and I’m glad you changed your mind yet again and re-opened this up…
Do you have any problems killing microorganisms? Or bugs? We don’t need them for food or for any other purposes! I agree, that babies are more special to humans, but they can’t know what’s happening. Surely a baby will hear his mom talking to a scary doctor and think:” Oh no, they’re going to kill me! I have every right of a citizen! Where is the law!” That’s not even the issue. The issue is a woman not having control over her own life. Why is it that before she’s pregnant she has every right of a citizen, but all of the sudden she’s depleted of her right to manage her life?
When is death ok to democrats?
unborn babies — yes
Soldiers — no — but not because they like the military — it’s so they can use their deaths as levers. Always ok to kill a baby, never a soldier.
DUI victims — off the radar
Weather related deaths — not so much worry
Age related passings — it happens
3000 9/11 victims. Not ok to kill, but time has passed enough to forget it happened.
Palestinians – horrible
Israeli’s — too bad but it’s their fault.
Homeless in the US — martrys
Homeless in the world — I don’t want to know
Political killing in the world — It’s not my problem.
To answer a couple of questions I’ve seen here, we went through a stillbirth last fall and learned that a death certificate-equivalent is available in many if not most states. IIRC the statistical filing wasn’t optional but actually receiving the certificate was. Also, you weren’t required to name the baby so it was possible to keep things extremely impersonal.
Thanks for this post. May I strongly suggest y’all go to an excellent, compelling site that I discovered — abort73.com , where you will also get an excellent education on what these abortion procedures are all about PLUS you will see photos of what an aborted baby looks like at 7 weeks and up. It is absolutely amazing. I was pro-life before I went to that site. After viewing it, I am VERY VERY pro-life. You will be, too. Just go look and get your eyes opened!
Nina. your post made a cold chill run down my spine. It’s ok to kill a baby if the kid doesn’t know what’s happening? By your logic, then, it would be ok to kill a 2 year old, as long as you sneak up from behind and do it quickly.
The end of your post demonstrates the coldness of the pro-abortion camp, by talking about only the woman’s rights. There is another life involved. Deny that all you like, but that won’t change the fact that there are two beating hearts. You can deny the sunrise, but it’s there every day just the same.
Nina–the “right to manage her own life” is a canard and you know it–it is an argument that proves too much, as it can equally well be employed to justify killing a child after it has been born is the mother finds its presence inconvenient–and hey, come to think of it, why shouldn’t I be able to kill my girlfriend or my parents if they’re imposing some burden on my existence? The philosophy you and the pro baby-murder crowd extol is solipsism pure and simple. And Batyah, I suppose being so medically literate, you could explain to us all how partial birth abortions are necessary for the mother’s health? So you can pull the head out of the vagina no problem, but if you went ahead and pulled the rest of the baby out instead of crushing its skull and draining the brain, the mother would suddenly drop dead? Yeah right….
Nina, re: “Do you have any problems killing microorganisms? Or bugs?”
A virus or bug does not develop into a thinking, adult human if left alone.
Kristina: re: “Sure, you’ve probably stepped on some bugs unintentionally but that is different that purposely making a choice to eat animals, that did not want to be eaten, simply because it tastes good and it’s a habit.”
Toothpick Johnny is right. Humans were designed to be omnivorous. We eat plants AND animals. To do less would be extremely unhealthy for us. Even the 7th Day Adventists found that they had to modify their vegan diet to allow dairy, fish, and some poultry because their children were getting completely avoidable diseases like ricketts and iron deficiency anemia. The 7th Day Adventists have the very BEST records on this sort of thing. Their hospitals and record-keeping system are among the top in the nation. The vegan diet they formerly had is now only for those who can eat it AND stay healthy. Most of them use dairy products today, many fish and poultry.
Further, while I HAVE “accidentally” stepped on bugs, if the things are in my house I step on them quite deliberately, with a scurrilous “You’re not hanging out in MY house, bud!”
46. “Animal rights activists are thus anti-Christian at the core.â€
Isn’t that saying that opposing cruelty to animals is anti-Christian?
There’s a philosophical conundrum … I give in. – JohnD
No, I’m not saying that cruelty to animals* is considered moral or admirable in Christian philosophy. I’m saying that it doesn’t come under the philosophically justifiable purview of human law. Much like other things that the Bible describes as unholy or displeasing to God – hateful thoughts, lust, homosexuality, idol worship, and so on – which do not harm a non-consenting adult**, animal cruelty laws don’t belong in a just government. Advocating animal cruelty laws is identical in logic to advocating anti-sodomy laws and a government established Christian church with compulsory attendance.
And if it makes a difference to you when considering this, I’m not a Christian. I’m a Deist, but familiar with the philosophy and theology because I’m apostate.
*I’m talking about actual cruelty to animals – torture and unnecessarily cruel killing and so on rather than normal exploitation. I’m not saying that the lunatics who believe in moral vegetarianism are biblically grounded, because they’re not. They’re either theologically illiterate fools or creation worshiping heretics.
** I’m aware that most Christians believe that homosexual sex harms all participants. Even if it does, as long as they’re all consenting adults it would be between them and God and not your business.
Why is it that before she’s pregnant she has every right of a citizen, but all of the sudden she’s depleted of her right to manage her life?
Comment by Nina — 02.16.07 @ 8:09 pm
————————————————
Nina, no one says she no longer has the right to manage her own life (that’s emotional manipulation by the pro-abortion crowd talking)–they’re saying that now there are TWO lives to consider, and because of that you shouldn’t make decisions for yourself IN THE SAME WAY (sorry for the caps but I don’t know how to do italics) as you did before you were pregnant. That’s why I never call the pro-abortion crowd “pro-choice”–the only choice, only “right”, they seem to care about is the woman’s choice to abort. Pro-lifers are the real “pro-choicers” because only they seem to understand that there are many choices for women facing an unplanned pregnancy that don’t involve terminating her baby’s life. And not all of us are against birth control, either. We’re just against blindly giving it out to children without educating them on ALL the possibilities of what could happen to them if they have sex, which education they don’t necessarily get in their schools. If they are going to be taught about methods of birth control, they NEED to be taught about abstinence, because contrary to what the drug companies and condom manufacturers will tell you, abstinence education DOES work, for a lot of people, and not every teenager alive is out having sex. Not all sides of the story are being heard because of how society has made talk of abstinence “politically incorrect.”
On another note I heard in some above comments, people talking about a person “needing” an abortion–I have a big problem with the over-use of the “necessary abortion” argument. Pro-abortioners trot this argument out all the time to justify keeping abortion clinics open at all costs; however, as has already been said but I’ll say it again anyway, abortions done for reasons of life and health of the mother are very much in the minority of abortions performed, and(hopefully!!!) are determined to be “medically necessary” by the woman’s doctor and performed in a hospital and not some Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinic. It’s a bad argument, and has very little to do with the real goal of the pro-abortion movement, which is abortion on demand, paid for by our taxes and accepted without question. I sincerely hope we never see that day.
Nina, but the baby DOES know something terrible is happening just before being torn to shreds. Go to silentcream.org and see video of a baby about to be torn to shreds by the suction tube. You can see that the baby is TRYING to get away from the suction. He/she knows something bad is happening and is trying to get away. It’s heartbreaking. and please go to abort73.com with an open mind and I think you’ll learn things that will probably change your whole view of this subject.
I study history, and that of course means alot of visits to cemeteries. In the very old ones you always find little headstones with a single date and a name; which would indicate a still-born baby. Others have an inscription “A Child Known Only To God”, which indicates a miscarriage. Our ancestors would not have done this had they believed in just “blobs of cells”.
Comments on this entry are closed.