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?

Comment viewing options

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

This article does not represent the views of most pro-choicers

Abortion has been practiced for over 3,000 years. So, it's completely irrational to suggest that there is some kind of "slippery slope" that will result in society becoming less moral. After all, there has been over a 50% reduction in violent crime since Roe V. Wade. Obviously I do not believe the reduction in violence is related to abortion, it just proves that your "slippery slope" theory is flat out wrong. I personally believe that abortion is awful, but I do not want the government throwing women and doctors in prison for performing abortions. It's really not the government's place to interfere with patient/doctor relationships. And I very much do not like it when pro-life people call pro-choice people murderers. A woman who chooses to have an abortion is nothing like a thug who murders a store clerk during a robbery. Plus, it is irrational. If life begins at conception, are all doctors and women who take the birth control pill also murderers? The birth control pill works primarily by altering hormones to prevent fertilization of the egg. However, the birth control pill is capable of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. It warns you about it right on the label. I find the "abortion is murder" crowd to be very inconsistent when it comes to which abortions count as murder. It seems more like the "abortion is murder" crowd just wants to act holier than thou.

Let's say this too

Murder, rape, slavery, violence, human trafficking, has been practice since the beginning of human history, so they are OK, too!

Not a fair comparison

All intelligent, moral, rational people can agree those things are wrong. All intelligent, moral, rational people can not agree as to when life begins. It is an opinion. You can not use the government to enforce your opinion of when life begins. It's that simple.

An exercise: Replace the

An exercise: Replace the word "abortion" with "murder" and reread your post.

The word abortion is a misnomer that masks the reality of what we are looking at. I see no reason to call the unlawful redaction of a person's natural right to life, simply because they are defenseless, as anything other than murder.

If we simply called it murder, perhaps so many dumb teenage girls wouldn't assume they were going to get a procedure done as one would to remove a wart. Perhaps we should start calling doctors who perform abortions Hit-men or assassins, and call the procedures contract killings. That might fix a few things.

Words matter.

This isn't holier than thou, I am an atheist and a father who has seen my baby girls on the ultrasound, swimming around and flapping their arms. Any fool could see that they are human beings and as deserving of life as anyone. To kill them for the utterly amazing excuse of "convenience" is as horrific a crime as I can think of. Those who don't understand this are ignorant or evil.

I have 0 problem with birth control or even the day after pill. However no one has a right to revoke the life of another human unless that human has deprived another unjustly of that right. I'm pretty sure there are no unborn babies guilty of murder.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Root cause? Like most societal ills, "Federal Reserve"

You said "To kill them for the utterly amazing excuse of "convenience" is as horrific a crime as I can think of."

The Federal Reserve is stealing our country's wealth and productivity. Due to this, many couples need to both work, when previously the man brought resources home (the circle with the arrow pointing out), while the woman cared for the little ones (the circle sitting above the plus, like a hen sits on her eggs).

Since the pilfering of America moved on in earnest (I'm thinking around 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard), the incidence of both couples needing to work has increased significantly, meaning also the "convenience" excuse of murdering children has become more common.

I find it horrendous, and ridiculous (as in, the people who do it are deserving of ridicule for the rest of their days), that we are still murdering our children, with no immediate consequence. I definitely think there will be consequences, and for some they are immediate (the woman dies during the procedure; or, is rendered sterile as a result of the procedure).

Words matter. As I pointed out using humor when a previous employer was throwing words around randomly: "Words have specific meaning; who told you otherwise, and how were they able to make themselves understood?!?"

Depriving a life of its life is murder. Even when it's a single cell.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)



Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

OK let's have a rational debate

You do not agree that life begins at conception, obviously. Because if you did, you would consider the fertilized egg to be a person. You obviously have no problem with the birth control pill preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, which kills the fertilized egg. So, if life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? At the implantation of the fertilized egg? What gives you the authority to use the government to enforce your belief of when life begins on to other people? Do you believe you have the authority to force women to responsibly carry her child? Should it be illegal for pregnant women to smoke, too? I believe in the authority to outlaw actual murder. I don't believe in the authority to outlaw abortion because they're two completely seperate issues. How is engaging in behaviors that could lead to a miscarriage any different than abortion? If it's all murder, you must believe in laws to protect the life of the child. But you're not really protecting the life of the child. You're just trying to use the government to enforce your opinion of when life begins on other people.

There is no proof that the

There is no proof that the pill expels the fertilized egg. It is a fact that the true intent of the pill is to prevent fertilization. They only have to throw in that scenario in the rare case it could happen. Very rare.

Is it expelled before it is implanted?


Do you want doctors artificially fertilizing the eggs of women to see the what percentage of "lives" the birth control pill aborts? If the number is too high, then you'll consider abortion by birth control pills to be murder? If only 40% of the fertilized eggs are aborted, that's OK? But if 90% of the fertilized eggs are aborted, then it's murder? Do you see how ideologically inconsistent and irrational that is? As a scientific fact, the birth control pill is capable of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. The FDA and the manufacturers both admit this. So, some abortion is OK with you? Go ahead and call pro-choice people murderers, at least their concept of murder is ideologically consistent and rational. Yours is not.

Like I said, in a very rare

Like I said, in a very rare case they said it "may" prevent implantation. A woman's own uterus can prevent implantation.

To use the Birth control pill as an argument for abortion is not even in the same ball park. Are you saying it is ok to use abortion as a form of birth control?


A woman's body can also have a miscarriage very late into the pregnancy. So, I dont see your point about implantation. If you believe life begins at conception, the birth control pill can cause abortion. If you believe abortion is murder, you're saying murder is OK as long it's done with the birth control pill? Obviously you don't really believe abortion is murder if it's OK sometimes.

Birth control pill

The birth control pills on the market are not causing an abortion. They prevent fertilization from ever occurring.


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.

I never heard of that. Good

I never heard of that. Good info. Id say that if that's the case, someone should make some money developing a better preventative pill.

I think when its a human is the only real debate, and a great debate to have on a state level. In no way can I see a difference between slaying an unborn child and slaying a child which has been born.


You're implying that there is something wrong with the birth control pill. There isn't. It doesn't seem to have any lasting negative effects on women, and it is effective. You do not have the right to enforce your opinion of when life begins on other people.

I'm not qualified to have an

I'm not qualified to have an opinion on when life begins. I'm a business owner, not a doctor/scientist. That isn't a question open to "opinion" anyway, its a question open to a ruling based on evidence.

My "opinion" is that we should determine to the best possible point when a human life has begun, erroring on the side of caution, then call the intentional slaying of that life thereafter what it is; murder.

Naturally self defense as in the case of significant risk of the mother dying or cases of rape/incest are a different matter. There is no excuse to murder a human however for the sake of convenience. If birth control pills are doing that (which I had not heard before) than they are not doing a good job. My understanding was that they prevented pregnancy, not kill human beings. If that is true, there is probably a lawsuit for fraud in the future for birth control companies who have claimed otherwise.

You don't have a right to take a human's life by force in violation of their rights. A baby's right to live trumps your right to avoid inconvenience. If you got pregnant by your own actions, that makes you responsible for that life.

All that is left to do is to determine when that smattering of cells is a human life. I'm not qualified to say, however I know this; if we discovered a single celled algae on Mars, we'd call it life.

All that said: I do have a right to defend my child's life, born or not. If someone tried to kill my child in her mother's womb, I would kill them, and I would also be perfectly justified to do so according to my natural right to self defense. The defendant's case would in no way be able to use "It wasn't a human life yet" as a defense. That wouldn't hold water. Its the same reason a person who kills a pregnant woman gets double homicide.

You can't have it both ways. No matter if a woman is 1 day pregnant or 8 months, if you take her babies life maliciously or even accidentally, you will be charged with his/her wrongful death if you're found guilty of murder/manslaughter. That's the law. How come when a woman decides to assassinate her own child, she is somehow above the same law I would face in taking her child's life? Is an unborn human someone's personal property? If so, are all defenseless humans devoid of their natural rights simply because they depend on others to survive? Can I go down and purchase a retard as a personal slave? Or buy a person in a coma to do with as I please? Ridiculous.

According to natural law, humans cannot own humans. If you cannot own someone, than you have no right to take from them their right to life. Period. So, the only question is, when is it a human life? I want a ruling, then I want the language to reflect reality so ignorance isn't an excuse, and then I want the damned law to be enforced.

I have already dismantled

I have already dismantled your argument. Thanks for playing.


The action of oral contraceptives vary. The oldest type prevents ovulation. The newer ones like RU47 prevent implantation. The use of either type is up to the woman.

It is hard for me to say the implantation prevention is just as normal as what is happening in the normal human body. My wife had problems holding onto a fetus! The loss of the pregnancies were devastating to her. Spontaneous abortions are likely more common than we know.

That said, late term abortions and partial birth abortions are abysmal! They should not be needed, except to save the life of a woman.

deacon's picture

Remember the saying about opinions?

That birth control pill does not abort a live fetus because it is swallowed.
It keeps one from getting pregnant,this means no life.And it also means
a baby has not been murdered.
If you cannot or won't protect the lives of ones who cannot,then what good are you?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

OK let's have a rational debate

If you believe that life begins at conception, the fertilizing of the egg, the birth control pill is capable of aborting the child because it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That is a scientific fact. If you believe life begins after conception, how are you any different than the pro-choice people? Do you think it would be rational for someone to call you a murderer because you believe live begins after fertilization of the egg? That's exactly what you're doing when you call someone a murderer because they disagree with you about when life begins.

deacon's picture

A debate?

I corrected your own words on contraception,and its purpose
I said nothing more,I formed no opinion otherwise,and it was not pro or con or when I thought life began,reread what I wrote

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

No, I corrected you

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is a scientific fact. You can't just disagree with a scientific fact. The FDA and the manufacturers of the birth control pill both acknowledge the FACT that the pill can prevent implantation of a ferilized egg. To some pro-life people, that's abortion. To them, you're a murderer because you approve of the use of the birth control pill.

deacon's picture

From you first comment

You compared an unfertilized egg to aborting a child,If that egg is not fertile,and it hasn't been made fertile by sperm,then it is not aborting a child

From this comment to me
"It is a scientific fact. You can't just disagree with a scientific fact. The FDA and the manufacturers of the birth control pill both acknowledge the FACT that the pill can prevent implantation of a ferilized egg."
If the egg has not been in contact with sperm,then it is not fertile,so it can not grow into a child
If life begins at conception,then that would mean that the egg has been made fertile..If what you say about the prolifers is true,then to me,they sound wrong,as life has not taken place yet..anyway,at this point,this is how I see it,and it does make sense looking at it this way..again,to me

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

What GB is saying is that

What GB is saying is that there is a very rare instance from which oral contraceptives may infact prevent a fertilized egg from implanting because the membrane of the uterus has become thin...which may be a side affect of the hormones...and thus the fertilized egg would be flushed out. The very same thing that Plan B does. However, it is a very rare case if this occurs. The main purpose of coarse is to prevent fertilization.

GB and all other pro abortionists love this argument.


Thank you for understanding what I was saying. But I am not pro-abortion in any way. I'm just pointing out the fact that some people pro-life people think you're murderers for supporting the use of the birth control pill. If you think abortion is murder, why is it OK if the birth control pill aborts a fertilized egg? Why should it be OK if it only happens rarely? I'm just trying to point out that is would be best to address the reasons people choose to get abortions, like poverty for example, than to call your political opponents murderers. Especially when pro-life people can not agree among themselves as to when life begins.

third time responding to your comment on this idea

I would suggest looking at how the mechanism of action works for birth control pills. If the process of fertilization occurred it would most likely be either an ectopic pregnancy (occuring in the fallopian tubes) which would result in miscarriage. This wouldn't be considered an abortion as the means of growing in that portion of the body is not possible. The same could be said of a possible fertilization in the uterus which failed because it was unable to attach to the maternal source- this too would be considered a miscarriage. Its a spontaneous event which doesn't have outside involvement.


A miscarriage can happen throughout an entire pregnancy... So, I'm not sure what your point is. Are late term abortions OK because you can have a miscarriage at 9 months? You're not being rational. And I really hate it when people tell ME to research a topic because THEY have not spent the time researching it. I know exactly what I am talking about. I have had this discussion with multiples doctors. Plus, the FDA and the birth control manufacturers both warn consumers that the birth control pill prevents implantation of fertilized eggs. If you believe life beings at conception, the fertilization of the egg, then the birth control pill causes abortion. Would you like it if pro-life people called you a murderer because you think the birth control pill is OK? In their eyes, it's abortion because life begins at conception. Your view of when life begins is no different than a pro-choice person's. You think of terminating a fertilized egg to be similar to a miscarriage. Some pro-choice people see terminating the pregnancy at a later date to be similar to a miscarriage. You can't rationally call them murderers when you yourself are justifying the termination of a pregnancy by birth control pills.

Here's my take. Oral

Heres my take. Oral contraception is not taken to intentionally thin out the lining of the uterus. For what ever reason...perhaps an underlying factor...in a rare case, the hormones rom the pill may cause such a "side effect". This is not the intent of the pill nor is it the intent of the person...this is nature. I think this could be looked at more as a miscarriage rather than abortion.

If I was on the pill and I got pregnant and lost the baby because of being on the pill I would infact be devastated and feel the loss as I did with all of my other miscarriages.

I suffer from a disorder and have suffered through many miscarriages. After my last one I decided I could not go through losing another child. I also worry about getting pregnant again and have thought about oral contraception as a means to avoid the pain of losing another one of my babies.

I'd like for you to make your argument again to me that oral contraception is abortion.


First, let me say that I feel awful to hear about your disorder. I offer you my most sincere condolences. I do believe abortion is awful. But it is not fair to call it murder. Murder is something that all rational people can identify. Not all rational people can agree as to when life begins. It's a matter of opinion.

About the pill: No one knows how rare it is for this to occur. It's an assumption to say that it occurs rarely. It may occur frequently, but experimenting to find a percentage would be unethical and immoral. We know as scientific fact that the birth control pill is capable of aborting a fertilized egg. If you believe abortion is murder, you can not rationalize abortion by birth control pill. What you're saying is some murder is OK. But murder is never OK. Calling abortion murder is simply an improper use of the word, because when life begins is an opinion. But you can not say life begins at conception, abortion is murder, but murder is OK if you're using the pill to do it. That is simply an irrational argument. You can be against abortion without calling people murderers. Fighting poverty and the federal reserve would do more to stop abortions than anything else. That's what pro-life people should be doing, not calling their political opponents murderers.

I will again make the

I will again make the argument that it would be considered a miscarriage as it was not the intent of the pill nor the person. What is the difference if I have a miscarriage on or off the pill?

If I chose to take oral contraception and I happen to by chance become pregnant and lose the baby, you are telling me I aborted my baby? Remember...I'm taking the pill as a precaution because of my disorder.

It's a miscarriage, not murder. I'm not sitting in a clinic paying to have my baby ripped apart and scraped out of my body. There's a big difference buddy.