You are right that this is the great moral issue of our time. Science agrees that human life begins at conception. The abortion industry dehumanizes them by speaking of their size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Every argument for killing them at this stage can also be applied to infants. It is not about privacy or choice, it is about who are we killing with abortion. A human being. What justification is adequate.
Oops. I posted a comment about this on the issue below it. Sorry!
Rep. Campfield,
I totally agree with everything you said. I never thought about comparing abortion to slavery, but the similarities you pointed out are certainly there. I too get so sick of the excuses. I am a young female and I totally oppose abortion. If I were pregnant I don't consider it's a part of my body or my property. It is a human life, so it is not just about my body. I also hate when people use medical excuses like diabetes to justify abortion. I am diabetic and I would never have an abortion. If you don't want a baby, use protection or don't have sex. Also when a child is going to be handicapped some will abort it. I feel if that child is born God has some reason and purpose for him or her to be born, otherwise the mother would miscarry or have a stillbirth. Also I know this is a touchy subject, but even in cases of rape you are still dealing with a life and that child should not be punished. I know people who have been raped and had abortions. They all said that the abortion affected them as much as the rape and wouldn't have it if they could do it over. Before anyone jumps on me about having an opinion on this, I am speaking from experience. I was raped a few years ago and thought I was pregnant. However, I knew I could never have an abortion.
I know many people who want children so badly and can't have them, yet others use abortion as a form of birth control and have not one but numerous abortions. If you don't want the baby consider adoption. There are many people who would love to be parents and would provide a loving home for a child.
jl | 01.09.08 - 2:58 pm | #
Stacey, let's talk aobut slavery. Allowing people (females) governorship of their own bodies and life purposes is the conservative view. Without such individual freedom, there is no freedom at all.
"The right to swing your arms ends where another person’s face begins."
Freedom does not mean that you are free to do what ever you want to others. The respect for others has to be at the foundation of individual freedom no matter if they are born, unborn, elderly or crippled.
We are not an anarchy state. We have laws to protect the innocent, to protect the weak from the strong. We are not self serving islands unto ourselves. There are other people in the world. Sometimes inside a body, sometimes outside.
Their position, intelligence and age in life do not end those rights.
If you want to we can also state that a large part of conservativism is individual responsibility for your actions. Actions have consequences, some times they are not always what you want but consequences are a part of life. To say that you don’t want to pay for your actions flies in the face of conservative personal responsibility.
Stacey, I don't doubt you approach this issue from personal conviction, unlike many politicians who don't care either way but are happy to use the issue for political purposes. But you have to understand that many people have different, deeply held convictions and feel/know that the life already born must have precedence, must be the governor of its own vehicle and fate, and interference with a girl's or woman's choice in this matter is an abortion of sorts to the life already born, which has purposes unknown to you or any other person.
Many people do not consider a fetus a person, only a developing vehicle. This is my view and my experience from giving birth twice. I had something of a near-death experience with the first one. I do not believe a soul or spirit occupies or can occupy a human vehicle until after birth. Yes, the multiplying cells are alive, there is life there, there is even cellular consciousness, but the collection of cells do not constitute a human until ensouled. So, in that area of the argument, we get into spiritual belief and people trying to force their beliefs onto others. If you oppose abortion, don't have one. Again, such government interference and control IS NOT the truly conservative way. You Republicans need to ponder this.
Stacey,
I agree with your view.
Another way to look at the rape issue is this: We are all the result of a nearly endless chain of successive generations of humans, in which all of our direct ancestors procreated. They had to, or we wouldn't be here. We have all of them to thank for our very existence. We are all unique in our genetic makeup, and each of our ancestors, no matter how generationally removed from us, has part of their genetic makeup embedded in us.
Knowing this, there are many that claim that women that are raped should abort the fetus that is produced. But if we think about our own ancestry, I think it is entirely likely that each of us has an ancestor in our direct lineage that was a result of a rape. I believe this because humans were not always civilized; humans on the whole didn't live in societies that discouraged rape as we do now. Often the spoils of war involved the rape of the conquered. Women didn't always have the right to choose their partner (and don't in some places now). I would argue the chances of our entire lineage being free of any incidents of forced pregnancies on an ancestor are nearly zero.
So isn't it a betrayal of our own ancestry to treat a fetus that is the product of a rape as deserving of destruction? Aren't we in effect denying the right to our own existence?
Donna,
I am not quite sure how to take what you said. When you said "the life already born must have precedence, must be the governor of its own vehicle and fate, and interference with a girl's or woman's choice in this matter is an abortion of sorts to the life already born,"
You are again fighting for the right to do what ever you want no matter the consequences to others. That you, as the strong, should have pressidence over the weak. I think I covered this in my last comment but I will again state that we are not an anarchy state where power and force rule over all.
Then you say "I do not believe a soul or spirit occupies or can occupy a human vehicle until after birth."
When you start to talk of a "soul" I guess you are speaking of the biblical reference as to when life begins. I think you may want to check your bible in reference to your point. It speaks clearly to the issue. Possibly you may have read the biblical reference "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you". If that is your reference, although I have never argued my point based on that, I think you will see your logic does not hold up to the lightest of scrutiny. Again, I have not argued my point based on that because I will agree that religous belifes may be different.
I would rather base the argument on when cellular life begins. There also you make the point. “Yes, the multiplying cells are alive, there is life there, there is even cellular consciousness" So again you admit there is life based on a scientific reason. If you disagree with the religious reason or do not hold a religious faith or belive in a soul then the science as well as legal history is more then strong enough to hold up to the scrutiny and has many times over.
You then go to "If you oppose abortion, don't have one." We covered that in the original post but I will expound a little more. We as a representative democracy make laws for the people of the state that all must live by for the betterment of society. We are not all self governing self serving individuals only. Please refer back to my last comment on this thread for more on this and of what is conservative.
Rep. I don't know how your pro-choice PETA folks are going to square their feelings to something so profound.
Reckon they'll have to consult their vegetarian homeless gurus and the We-don't-need-the-men, "me-Equality N.O.W. folk?
Thank you for telling us like it is.
Donna chooses her words carefully to work with her pro abortion position. The fetus(young one) is a collection of cells...aren't we all? Does not constitute a human.....is it a fish?Is a developing vehicle....so is a newborn. Basically she says mother is more important than the baby in the womb....mother has dominance. She places great importance on location...life outside the womb takes precedent.....why do we have laws to punish those who attack a pregnant woman and kill the developing human being. Because there is a human life, that's why. Ask Scott Peterson... She is the mother of two, does she love the older one more because he/she has been on the outside longer? Why do we grieve our miscarriage if it is just a developing vehicle. I suspect Ms. Locke would recall feeling like she knew her child in the womb even though she may not know the sex yet.
I think the more she examines the evidence and ponders the evidence will lead her to the understanding that the pro life position is correct. I appreciate her careful words and thoughtfulness on this subject. At a relatively late stage of my life, the evidence changed my mind.
Have you ever heard a pregnant woman or expectant father say we are having a fetus or an embryo? Of course not! They say we are having a baby no matter how far along they are. I find it really interesting that pro-choice people are usually against the death penalty and for saving every animal known to man. It's okay to kill an innocent baby, but not a hardened criminal? I am sure the pro-choicers will argue thst most of them are innocent. While I don't want innocent people killed, I feel the majority are guilty. And just so you known I am not a strong advocate for the death penalty, but how someone can oppose it and be pro-abortion is beyond me.
I am not religious, so quoting to me the Christian or any other holy book has no meaning for me. I do have ideas and convictions based on my own life quest and experience.
Actually, Anonymous, I did experience the presence of my children when I was carrying their vehicles. Their presence was outside me. Definitely outside me. Something separate from the vehicle. The one who would occupy it. You could say I had Contact. Especially with the second one, a girl. My husband and I talked about it at the time. It was a powerful experience. That was a major factor in the informing of my belief in this matter. My experience was one of an agreement.
Regardless of that, it wouldn't matter, because I am convinced the life already born must have precedence in this matter. Some females, though, because of circumstances, end up with no real choice over a continued pregnancy. That is wrong. Disastrous for both.
Nature itself aborts many pregnancies, more than humans abort, but if a vehicle makes it to birth, Nature, or whatever watches and waits, usually takes advantage of the opportunity.
I've written about this on other blogs: I worked as a rape crisis counselor for a number of years in Atlanta. Many of the rape victims we worked with -- we were there, called by police, from the time the victims were brought to hospitals -- chose abortion if they became pregnant as a result of the rape -- we stayed neutral on the choice -- and we helped them with the decisions they made. The behavior of the "Christian" abortion anti-choice protesters as we walked with the victims to the clinic -- yelling, insulting, and putting their hands on us, piling further trauma onto the rape victims -- also informed my view on this matter.
I am in my fifties, with a long history on this issue. I didn't come to my views lightly.
Abortion will never be illegal in this country again. Some parts of the country will try to outlaw it and make it as difficult to obtain as possible, but we will not return to the back alleys. You can count on it.
I want to add one more thing I've mentioned on other blogs. For me, and others, the overriding principle with the abortion issue will always be who gets the rule over the female body and life -- the owner of the body or others. A subset of this principle is the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are always, always, threats to the health and life of the female in question. It is a risk. A major risk. No one else has the right, or should have the right, to force another human to risk her or his health and life. If the female chooses to abort, whether for health concerns OR NOT, no one has the right to force her to take a risk she has declined to take, for whatever reason.
This principle is also why I oppose the military draft.
Roe v. Wade was built on the right to privacy, which has strong precedent in law.
Fanaticism clouds the abortion issue. I think Americans have had about enough of fanaticism, of any persuasion. When you study most of the religious fanaticism in the world, you start to see a pattern. Back of most of these ideologies is a common directive: First, control all the females.
Donna don't assume that everyone that is raped wants an abortion or feels that is their only choice. I know from experience that a lot of women are pushed or pressured to have one i while they are in a severe emotional state. As I stated before, I was raped a few years ago and thought I was pregnant, so I am not someone that is just speaking in theory and shooting my mouth off. It turned out that I wasn't pregnant. People that were supposedly there to help me didn't talk about how I was feeling or discuss my options, they just pointed me to abortion clinics. It was like they felt that was the right choice and expected me to follow it. All of my life I have been against abortion. It is not just a moral or religious issue for me, I feel it is the crime of murder. When faced with a possible pregnancy I didn't even consider an abortion. I knew I would have the baby and love it even though it was the result of a violent act. When I told people this, they told me I should have an abortion, because I would look at the baby and see the man that attacked me and resent the baby. I knew I wouldn't, because that child would also be a part of me and would share my wonderful family's DNA. How could I murder a precious life that was my own flesh and blood? There are issues that are clearly just moral in nature to me and everyone must decide for themselves, but I feel abortion is both moral and a criminal act.
Jl, you are making assumptions about me that directly contradict what I wrote above. I don't care if anyone of legal age has an abortion or not. I support the CHOICE, the right to make that CHOICE. Be clear on that, and don't lose sight of that word. To try to control another's choice in this most private and personal of matters is immoral. You and others do not have the corner on morality.
Why not wait and ask the child what his or her choice is? Maybe they would like to choose life if given the chance?
Donna,
All people are "controlled" by government not just women. They are called laws.
50% of the babies killed are female. Much more then that in some countries. Where is the NOW org on that issue?
"Fanaticism clouds the abortion issue. I think Americans have had about enough of fanaticism, of any persuasion. When you study most of the religious fanaticism in the world, you start to see a pattern."
Yes like fanaticism of people who say " Abortion will never be illegal in this country again.... You can count on it."
And the most scary pattern you see in fanaticism is one of disrespect for human life and the diminishing in the value of certain groups of people (See: unborn)
As long as you are alive There is always a chance of death. There is a chance I could get run over by a car walking down the sidewalk but that does not give me the right to kill any one with a driver's license if I choose to walk down the sidewalk.
The arguement of Rape, incest and the life of the mother is less then 2% of all abortion cases combined. For the sake of arguement I will give you the 2%. I will work to save the 98% first and then we can talk about the 2%.
In an abortion 1/2 the people who go into a clinic die in the clinic.
Rep:
I like how you used the "power to swing your arms ends at my nose" argument, yet voted against banning smoking in public places. Nice contradiction.
I think you may want to check up on your vote history a little better.
Vote history checked. You didn't even have the guts to vote against it. You just put 'present not voting'
Check the video for the facts. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions.
Donna, take your own advice and don't assume things about me. I never claimed to have the "corner on morality" as you put it. I am not perfect and have made more than my fair share of mistakes. I shared my experience and the CHOICE I would have made, although I considered it a baby and not a CHOICE. It may have been in my body, but it was still a life. Again these are my opinions. I am not preaching hell, fire, and brimstone to those that don't agree. I did, however, have a problem when some pro-choice groups protested that Scott Peterson was being charged with the murder of his unborn child along with his wife. I guess they were afraid that this case may set a precedent regarding abortion laws. So they were more interestin in furthering their agenda (as pro-lifers get accused of all the time regarding certain issues) than in seeing a murderer punished. We clearly have different view on this topic and we aren't going to change each other minds. I always respect other people's opinions even if I disagree. So I expect the same consideration. And I don't appreciate being looked at as some moral fanatic, just because I have a certain view that differs from yours.
Interesting,
You do realize that sometimes when legislators vote against a Bill that they may not be against the Bill itself, don't you? They may vote against it based on one passage or sentence that they don't agree with. This does happen at the state and federal levels. So don't assume something when you see that someone has voted against a Bill, because you don't know the whole story. The press and each party will try to make legislatures look bad in these situations. They are counting on the public to not be informed or know all of the details involved.
Jl, you brought up morality above. If you are going to express views about morality, expect others to disagree and tell you that your sense of morality is not necessarily someone else's.
Donna, I only mentioned morality in response to your accusation that I think I have the corner on morality. My main point in all of these posts is that I faced the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy. Since I was in that position, I shared my personal experience instead of just speaking in theory. As to the comment that other people have different opinions, you clearly didn't read my entire post. I stated that I realize other people (including you) have different opinions and I respect that. I do expect the same treatment, however, as I have the same right to my opinions as you do. I am not trying to force my opinions on you. And don't assume things about me or my character just because you disagree with me on issues. I don't do that to you. My opinions are just as important to me as yours are to you. And that doesn't make me a "holier than thou" fanatic. I know several non-religious people that are pro-life. For many people this is not a moral issue, and they have other reasons for their view on this issue. Oh sorry I hope I didn't offend you with the use of the "M" word. Just kidding. Seriously thou you have every right to your opinion and I am certainly not trying to change you or force my views on you. Please don't do that to me.
Commenting by HaloScan
