18 votes

'Life Starts at Conception...So What?"; Mary Williams from Salon Magazine. Indeed! The Pro-Abortion Rhetoric Hits a New Low.

Admitting that life begins at conception should give one pause to consider actions against that life. There is a universe of difference between 'a blob of tissue' like a 'skin tag' and a child who simply has not grown enough to be born yet. The pro-abortion advocates are learning this, and are taking a darker path yet.

"Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always." http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

She actually hints at the logical end of what she is saying here, while 'pooh-poohing' it: If a life inside the womb is seen as of little value, how long will it be until the handicapped and infirm who have already been born are seen in the same light? This is where we should see clearly the slippery slope we are on. After all, this is the 'logic' used by tyrants of all stripes: religious and irreligious, to remove those they find 'undesirable'.

Admittedly, I have a vested interest in this, and it's not simply the 'more taxpayers' angle. I have seen evidence of my children's unique personalities from the womb: My first born child's sensitivity to my emotions, my middle-born child's peacefulness and frustration with injustice, my youngest child's bouncy, fun-loving nature.

Others see the likeness between myself and my children and comment and I smile. Then I read about an ultrasound nurse who found a 19 week old girl, and heard them say as the baby girl moved her arms behind her head in the same way her father preferred to sleep:

"Look at how cute she is! I wonder if we let her live, who would she look like?"

I can't see saying this of a kitten or puppy, much less a baby girl!
What have we become as a nation when this is a mindset with any weight?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is not an opinion. It is a

It is not an opinion. It is a fact backed up by lots of science. Pro abortionists simply like to change facts for their convenience.

What the hell are you talking about?

Pro-life people can not even agree when life begins. Some are anti-birth control pill because they believe life begins at conception. Some pro-life people don't believe life begins until the embryo is implanted. Some pro-life people don't believe life begins until there is a heart beat. You obviously have absolutely zero understanding of what "science" is if you think science can prove when life begins. Its a matter of opinion.

Birth control does not cause

Birth control does not cause abortion but a woman may have a miscarriage while on it.

Mechanism of actions for Birthcontrol

I think you are confused how birth control works. There is no fertilization (sperm to egg) that occurs when on a pill(theoretically). Birth control works by regulating the females ovulation process which leads to no egg being released and thickening of the uterus lining. However, it is still possible to become pregnant on birth control. I've never heard of a birth control causing an abortion. If you are thinking of the "Plan B" pill those do the exact same thing except they are higher doses.

Wrong

You can not say that no fertilization occurs when on the pill, then say it's possible to get pregnant while on birth control. Obviously, that does not make sense. Yes, the birth control pill works primarily by using hormones to prevent fertilization. However, the pill can also prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. There is no way to know how often the birth control pill aborts fertilized eggs, because the experiments would be unethical and immoral. Both the FDA and the birth control manufacturers warn that the pill is capable of aborting fertilized eggs. It's a scientific fact.

So, if life begins at conception, the birth control pill causes abortion. Does it really matter how often? If you believe abortion is murder, then you can not rationally justify abortion by birth control pills. All the doctors who prescribe it, and all the women who take it, must also be murderers. However, abortion is not murder. Rational people can disagree as to when life begins. It is not fair to call them murderers.

My stance on abortion

Life begins at conception. Obviously. But, this life is not sustainable on it's own. It requires the use of another persons body to live, and this is where constitutional rights come into play. No person has the right to the use of another persons body to live if that person does not consent. Now you can get into the moral area of "well the woman shouldn't have gotten pregnant/had sex, etc." but that really does not matter. At the present time of the pregnancy, the woman has the right to decide whether or not another human can make use of her body. It is for those reasons, as much as I feel that abortion is morally wrong, that I have to take the side of pro-choice.

No citizen has the right to use my body without my permission, even if I give permission and then take it away. If said citizen can survive on their own merit, or medical facilities can help the citizen survive, then all measures should be taken to save this person (i.e. no partial birth abortions, or abortions past the point of survivability that result in the killing of an otherwise viable baby).

This is my stance on abortion, which I have determined to be my best understanding of life and the constitution.

This should be the stance of a liberty candidate, to aknowledge that abortion is a horrible thing, immoral and wrong, murder and what not, but, the constitutional rights of the mother must be taken into consideration. The constitutional rights of the fetus are taken into consideration, and if the fetus can survive outside the womb, that is their right to do so.

I agree with you

Good explanation

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Thank you

and the supreme court agreed as well.

That life did not choose to

That life did not choose to stake a claim on the mothers body. The mother and father however used their free will (in most cases) to have sex. Often times the end result of sex is a baby. This is not a new theory...I'm certain most people are aware of how their body's work. Parents should be responsible for their children regardless of their selfish, careless actions that resulted in a life.

It really does not matter

the constitution is not situational, it is constant. If I invite a homeless man into my home and feed him, and the next day ask him to leave, I am not responsible for feeding him beyond the point where I exercise my rights to evict. He only entered because of my doing, and it is my right to make him leave. If he can not survive on his own, this is no blame to me.

Again I said I do feel it is morally wrong to have an abortion, but morals do not mean anything in regards to the constitution and rights.

Let me say it again. No person has the right to live if living means the unwarranted use of another persons body (which if you will take a step back from your high horse, you would see violates their constitutional rights).

You are talking about

You are talking about evictionism. You can't do that to a baby that has been born...it will die and now you are a murderer.

What?

Why are you talking about neglecting a baby that was born? Everyone can recognize that as immoral. We are talking about abortion. When life begins is an opinion. You can not enforce your opinion on other people.

Because you are talking about

Because you are talking about kicking out a homeless person. Your theory is in line with evictionism. It's plain silly.

You must have been quite the

You must have been quite the gymnast. You really compare a citizen making a claim on your body as similar to a woman with a fetus?

Wow...

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

If we are going to

give fetus the rights of a born human, then that fetus must respect the rights of others.

Again, no one has right to the use of your body for survival, so why would a fetus?

This is why I make the distinction between viable and non-viable abortions.

In the early stages of pregnancy, abortions occur and the fetus has no viability to live on it's own, but let's say a woman decides to have an abortion at 22 weeks. Rather than a surgical abortion, I feel a chemical induction of labor should be used, or even a surgical extraction. If the child can be made viable by use of hospital machinery, then all effort should be made to save the child, regardless of parental intent, as at that point they are essentially rendering the child a ward of the state (to later be adopted). This is why I am against partial birth abortions, as these childrens often are quite viable.

But all of this is about the rights of the fetus, we must also take into consideration the rights of the mother, who, constitutionally, has the full right to her body not to be used against consent.

done with the gymnastics

done with the gymnastics non-sense. But your first point is still inaccurate.
...give fetus the rights of a born human, then that fetus must respect the rights of others.

How could a fetus disrespect the rights of another person? This is truly silly.

I am sorry to be the one to explain this but the fetus is a by product of the host's behavior. The host made a choice to engage in behavior that leads to pregnancy. The host is responsible for all claims you allege the fetus is making. The fetus is a fetus. Nothing more nothing less, and a fetus is human.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

Either the fetus is a

product of the host, in which case the host owns the "product", or the fetus is an individual, in which must respect the rights of others, one of those being the right to their own body without consent of use. You can not have it both ways.

Constitution is not THE Truth

I think people are aware that the Constitution is a product of human mind. It is a framework in which humans established trying to regular the behaviors of humans in a society. The Constitution is NOT THE Truth. It is not absolute.

We are created by God. And God has designed a unique way for humans to beget our posterity. For us to procreate, it requires sacrifice, both on the mother and the father. It requires the mother and the father to GIVE unconditionally and not expecting any return! That's what motherhood and parenthood entails.

Ok, so you say that the woman has the right to deny the baby to rely on her body. It sounds nice, but do you realize that it wasn't the baby's choice to "rely" on her or his mother in the first place? Did the baby made a conscious and deliberate choice to "live" in the womb of her or his mother? Who brought that life to existence? In most of the case, the woman was a voluntary participant in the act (except rape). Every action has a consequence. So the consequence of fornication is that there is a life, but unwanted, inconvenient. And so we can justify murder just because someone doesn't want another person to rely on them now? Even though when they went through the act, they know this could happen? And know this, I am not faulting the woman, the man is as guilty in this as well!

Sex is not a recreational sport! This is the problem! The problem is with morality! The problem is sex! Without abortion, people cannot have free sex without consequence! For the people to fornicate freely there has to be a way to remove the most inconvenient result of sexual intercourse! And people are willing to commit murder for the sinful pleasure!

The so-called "rights" do no apply here when you become a mother and father. A mother has no right to murder the baby in her womb than any parents have the right to kill the dependent child in their home. Children, by definition, rely on their parents for life support, more than just physical, but emotional, mental, and spiritual. The argument that "I didn't agree to this" or "I didn't give my consent" or "I no long agree to this" is nonsense! These arguments apply to two adults, able-minded, making a social contract. It doesn't apply to parents and children. The baby didn't sign a contract with her mother the day she was conceived that the use of the mother's uterus is conditional upon the unilateral decision of the mother. The baby and the children aren't able to sign any lawful contract anyway! So stop this illogical argument about rights!

I feel

you would be more at home over at theblaze instead of at a libertarian site.

Separation of church and state?

There is this little thing called the "separation of church and state." You can not use the government to shove your religious views down my throat. You can not use your bible as a guideline for laws. Even if you could prove God exists, and you can not, how can you prove that your opinions about him are correct? You can not. That's why its called "faith." Religion and government belong separate. Your bible does not give you the authority to use our government to enforce your opinion of when life begins.

? !?!??! What about natural consequences of actions, and

preventing that citizen from entering in the first place? Further, that child feels pain before he or she is viable, what are we to do about it? The child is, regardless of any 'my body, my choice' arguments, an innocent in the whole matter. We're not dealing with a simple eviction of a tenant, we're dealing with life and death in this case: and not just any death, an excruciatingly painful one regardless of the mode chosen.

(Rant over!)

I presume you also acknowledge that just as you should not be forced at gunpoint (IRS) to support my position, I should not be forced to support the Planned (Un)Parenthood one. On this we can find common ground?

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

The attitude of some of you makes me sick

How can you call yourselves pro-life and then say we should go back to the days of back alley abortions because women might be less likely to get abortions if they could die from them. That's fucking disgusting. Pro-life people can't even agree when life begins. Some people believe that taking the birth control pill is murder because it can prevent implantation of the fertilized egg, which aborts that life. What makes your opinion more valuable than theirs? What gives you the authority to use the government to enforce your opinion of when life begins? Rational people can disagres as to when life begins. Calling your political rivals murderers just makes you look insane. It's the exact same thing the left does with guns, "everyone who disagrees with my political opinions hates kids!"

Self-righteous argument doesn't work

"What gives you the right to ....." This kind of argument doesn't work. No one defines life except God the Creator. We are simply stating the fact that abortion is murder. Why are you so mad about that? Why aren't you mad that millions of innocent children are being murdered every year? And do you know how many women died from "back alley" abortions before it was legal? Or you are just touting the numbers provided by the abortion propagandists?

Of course the government has the right and responsibility to protect innocent life. That is the first order of government business. If the government doesn't protect innocent life but only criminal life, then what good is it?

Your bible can't be used to write laws

There is this little thing called the "separation of church and state." You can not use the government to shove your religious views down my throat. You can not use your bible as a guideline for laws. Even if you could prove God exists, and you can not, how can you prove that your opinions about him are correct? You can not. That's why its called "faith." Religion and government belong separate. Your bible does not give you the authority to use our government to enforce your opinion of when life begins.

How does an abortion hurt You?

.

A legitimate question, deserving an answer.

1. It perpetuates a culture of irresponsibility. Why use birth control or abstain from sex if we can just 'get rid of' the 'results'?

2. It devalues human life, and encourages a culture of death. If you recognize that the 'thing' inside you is a child, and you still think that your (put any thing in this blank except life)__________ trumps the child's life, you have devalued that one's life. Like it or not!

3. Many of the same arguments used for abortion in case of those who recognize the child inside were (and are) used by racists, dictators, and tyrants who believe 'the ends justify the means' and that they are superior to everyone.

4. The abortion mindset flows over to even other fields: 'How could you afford that pregnancy?' is something some have even heard from a pro-life person. I have a response or two, depending on the person;

God will provide. (If the person claims belief)

I'll work harder, get a second job. (If they do not)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

And the solution is to use

And the solution is to use the police power of government to promote "a culture of responsibility", right? We should use the police power of government to "discourage a culture of death"?

Abhorrent though it is to traditional Republicans, using the government to promote or discourage cultural ideals is unacceptable.

Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive. A sperm merged with an egg is alive. A non-conscious, non-sentient, non-self-aware growth that -could- become a human in the future is alive. But none of these things are human. For that you need sentience. Without sentience (or a 'soul' if you will) a pre-human growth is no more a human being than is a lab-grown set of human lungs.

Hold your fire... Did you bother to read my last two sentences?

I by no means said, ever, that government should pay for the child. The solution for those of us who believe responsibility is part of the issue is not force, especially not government force, but to use the power of persuasion. Using the power of force just 'passes the buck' to other statists besides the ones who want to force believers in protecting pre-born lives to pay for abortion at gunpoint.( And is irresponsible in itself!)

There are lines at infertility clinics and adoption agencies to be filled, and some would pay a mother to carry a baby to term. There are also non-profits that would be happy to assist in helping a mother choose either life with her or life with an adoptive family.

It is my right not to be forced to pay for what I am diametrically opposed to, I want my First and Fourth Amendment rights honored.

http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/do-your-taxes-fund-...

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Well...

How does a murder hurt you?

A comment my friend made concerning this article:

"This blows my mind. I mean, it seems like abortion just makes progressive's brains short-circuit.

They would destroy society in order to make us equal, but all of a sudden when it comes to abortion it turns out we're not equal?"