A Moment of Truth for Pro-Lifers?

“Progressives” all over the Internet are absolutely dismayed over the Stupak amendment, but they way in which they are expressing it is rather curious. Rather than standing up and proudly defending a woman’s right to murder her unborn child – or even to, in the more clinical and dehumanizing language, “terminate her pregnancy” – they are chiefly complaining about the class discrimination they believe is inherent in the amendment. Allegedly the Stupak amendment will only make it harder for poor and middle class women to get abortions, while rich women will continue to have access to them.

This distraction is as old as it is absurd. No one objects to abortions for the poor while supporting abortions for the rich. It’s easier for a rich person to buy drugs, to hire hit-men to take out an annoying spouse, or to commit any number of crimes against individuals and society. This has never been an argument for legalizing objectionable or violent behavior.

While the moral point the progressives wish to make is bankrupt, their concerns are based on recent and objective analysis of the larger implications of the Stupak amendment. If Stupak remains in the health care bill, it will actually have the effect of significantly reducing the abortion rate.

I can’t believe that I didn’t see it before – or that no one else did (that I know of, until now). So caught up have some of us been either with simply winning the battle to stop government funding of abortion, or to stop government health care altogether, that we failed to see the far-ranging implications of the Stupak amendment. This is more of a moment-of-truth for pro-lifers than previously imagined. This is from The Wonk Room’s analysis of Stupak:

Pro-life proponents may claim that Stupak simply preserves current policy but if they bother to examine the implications of their amendment they would discover that it actually accomplishes their goal of significantly restricting access to abortion.

The finer points demonstrate how, in one way or another, anyone whose health insurance depends in any way on the government, will not have abortion coverage at all. As another worried progressive blog puts it,

The Stupak amendment would not just stop the insurance plans for the roughly 30 million people on the exchange from covering abortion. (That assumes the exchange is not expanded like some hope it will be.) There are many parts of the bill that provide some direct money to many employer-provided insurance plans. There is the retiree reinsurance plan, the small business tax credits, and the wellness program. A literal interpretation of the Stupak amendment could force employer-provided insurance plans to stop covering abortion for tens of millions of Americans. The long reach of the Stupak amendment could have huge ramifications on the current aviability of insurance coverage for abortion services.

The passage of the health care bill with the Stupak amendment in-tact could have a domino effect, in other words, and effectively cut off abortion services for the majority of Americans. It goes far beyond, I believe, what its creators and supporters have yet realized. Abortion rates would plummet by necessity. Millions of lives could be saved. Thus, in an ironic twist, a massive expansion of government control over health care with pro-life provisions attached means a massive expansion of government control over access to abortion, for the better.

There are some aspects of the current health care legislation that I really dislike – especially the notion of fining or imprisoning people who do not wish to participate. I am not convinced that the basic Democratic Party model is better than the basic models used in other countries that the US might look to, such as the Netherlands.  And my first preference is for the federal government to help local governments work more efficiently rather than making them redundant. But the prospect of putting a stop to what could amount to tens of millions of abortions is something I can’t turn away from, and neither can you.

So what do we do? It seems to me that the USCCB position was right after all – support universal health care, as long as abortion is not covered. If that is what we get in the end, then we will have gotten much more than we originally bargained for. It won’t destroy the Culture of Death, and it won’t overturn Roe v. Wade, but it may remove abortion as an option for millions of women.

While progressives see the greatest evil in all this the notion that rich women may continue to have abortions while poor women can’t – boo hoo, boo hoo – we can see the greatest good in the promise that millions of children will not die simply because they are poor. I suspect, anyway, that poor men will be more angry about this than poor women. They’re usually the ones pressuring their mates for abortion in the first place, and now when they discover that abortion is too expensive, they’ll have no choice but to take responsibility for their sexual behavior.

I know that some of you will see in this a Faustian pact, but on the other hand, I can’t think of any other way the result we want will ever actually be achieved. Roe isn’t going anywhere. Our culture isn’t going to revert to 1950′s norms of decency. This may be it. We can’t change the law or the hearts of men and women, but it seems that we can close the store.

I really want to see some good comments on this one! Let’s assume the worried progressives have a point – will you support the current health care legislation if it means cutting off abortion services to the majority of Americans? And if you think the analysis linked to above is misguided or wrong, I’d also like to hear arguments on that.

49 Responses to A Moment of Truth for Pro-Lifers?

  • American Knight says:

    In theory what you state makes sense. But that is not how government works. Our government is running off book. They have not followed the Constitution in over 100 years. Why would you beleive that giving them control over the lives of every American and over 7% of the economy would result in anything good?

    They may not fund abortions through this debacle if it passes with an abortion ban in it, which I seriously doubt. What is to stop them from developing another program outside of this scheme to give abortions away? They can choose to fund Planned Parenthood directly the way they fund ACORN. Through every bill that is not an assault on health care.

    In the remote chance the assault on health care bill passes with a prohibition on abortion. It will be challenged in court and some liberal activist judge that has impregnated several mistrisses, a couple probably underage, will ensure that is stricken from the law and voila, assult on health care with baby killing in-tact.

    It is very naive to think that more power to this government will result in anything good. We are being fooled. At the highest levels it is engrossed with murder. The only way to stop the death is to curtail the power and change the culture. Why would any Christian want more power given to a pagan government while the population becomes more and more pagan everyday?

    Perhaps I am too much of a cynic but I can’t think of any expansion of power at the federal level that has resulted in good things. I fear that we will end up with death on a scale to rival China if we give the established structure more power.

    Obama is about to sign us over to the UN in Copenhagen in December and the UN is not exactly a stalwart defender of human life.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I don’t understand why some conservatives are so pessimistic, or cynical, you might say, about the prospects of the Stupak amendment as the bill progresses.

    Aren’t you underestimating the resolve of the pro-life Democrats and Republicans who fought tooth and nail to get Pelosi to allow a vote on it in the first place? I think you are.

    They may not prevail in the end, but I feel justified in having a little bit of faith in their efforts. They overcame a major obstacle, and I don’t see why they can’t do it again. Part of the problem here is also an overestimation of Obama’s power, or Pelosi’s or Reed’s. They don’t have dictatorial powers even if they wanted them – when a tough minded group of pro-life legislators stands up to them, they have to listen and they have to react.

    If abortion funding were such a sure thing in the end, I don’t think the leftist blogs would be in such a panic, I don’t think 40 pro-abortion House Democrats would be sending letters to Pelosi threatening a “no” vote if Stupak isn’t stripped out of the bill. I think we can partially gauge our prospects by gauging the panic of the other side. And there is panic. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and all of the other pro-abort vermin are up in arms about this. That means we ought to be happy about it!

    This isn’t China and it isn’t Copenhagen. We can stem the tide by sending more pro-life Democrats and Republicans to Congress. They’re demonstrating a willingness to fight, and I think they deserve our support instead of cynicism.

  • American Knight says:

    Joe,

    I am very happy about the Stupak ammendment and I will set aside my cynicism and assume that all of the pro-lifers on both sides of the aisle voted with conviction. That is great. I pray for all of them to remain strong. I give thanks to God for the vote.

    Nevertheless, I have to be somewhat realistic about what is likely to happen. That doesn’t mean I am not hopeful, but we can’t confuse hope for naivete.

    The culture of death is an attack from above, government oligarchs (sadly many with a Catholic label) and an attack from below, Holywierd and Madison Ave influencing the people with cunning.

    We have to fight back on both fronts and also the first front of the invisible. We need ballots, advertising and rosaries.

  • When you and Blackadder both agree on a policy idea, there may be something to it, but at the same time, it’s worth pointing out that simply because something isn’t covered by insurance doesn’t mean that no one gets it. Breast implants aren’t covered by insurance, and yet they happen quite a bit. And indeed, they’re more expensive than early term abortions (the vast majority).

    I believe the study Blackadder linked to said that 13% of abortions are paid (in part or in whole) by insurance. The rest are cash. However, even a reduction of one tenth of that 1.3% would end up meaning thousands of lives. It would be interesting to know if there’s any data from the states that already ban insurance from covering abortion as to whether that reduced abortion rates.

  • Found this abstract of a study from 1996 on the effects of restricting abortion coverage under Medicaid: http://www.popline.org/docs/1188/121812.html

    Restricting coverage for the poor cuts the abortion rate but also cuts the birth rate which may imply more birth control.

    Those on Medicaid are less likely to be able to afford an abortion than those who’d merely receive subsidies under ObamaCare but there should still be an effect.

  • Jesurgislac says:

    Why, yes.

    The Stupak amendment is, after all, not directly against the provision of safe, legal abortion: but it is as pro-death as any of the anti-abortion campaigners.

    The chief point of the Stupak amendment is to make access to safe, legal abortion even more strongly income-related than it already is the United States. A woman who can afford to pay directly for her abortion need not worry that she is now unable to get her insurance company to pay for it: but a woman for whom paying for a hospital abortion is beyond her means, will thanks to Stupak, get to choose between coat-hanger and knitting-needle.

    The Stupak amendment was nakedly anti-women, yes, as much as any “pro-lifer” is: but also nakedly dismissive of the right of any woman, no matter what her income, to protect her life, her health, and her fertility.

  • jesurgislac says:

    Donald, I cited on my blog the example of a woman who discovered on the eve of All Saints Day that her much-wanted baby had died inside her at 8 weeks, and at 12 weeks pregnant she had to choose between $40 chemical abortion that would have left her bleeding out her aborted, dead fetus at home and the $1500 D&C abortion that would best preserve her health and her future fertility. Stupak’s amendment would have meant she had to choose the $40 chemical abortion and hope: for other women in the same situation for whom it is far too late to use a chemical abortion, they have the choice of coathanger or knitting-needle.

    I value human life, and respect human dignity. Damn right I am upset when men who value neither are cheering on an amendment to ensure that poorer women are left bleeding at home.

  • Tito Edwards says:

    I am considering the possibility of going to jail for my beliefs if this does pass the Senate and committee, though it’ll be with a lot of prayer.

    I am adamantly against this bill, though the ONLY silver lining in it is that it will save thousands of lives of innocent children.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    “I value human life, and respect human dignity.”

    Wrong. You have nothing but contempt for the lives of unborn children who their mothers decide to slay. You view them as completely disposable.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Jesurg,

    It is typical of pro-aborts such as yourself to invoke ridiculously rare “hard cases” to make a case for legalized abortion.

    It goes without saying that a procedure that simply removes an already dead human being from a womb is not murder and should be covered under any health care plan. I certainly have no moral objection to it.

    I don’t care about the class discrimination. If there were a practical way to do it, I’d ban abortion for the rich too. The fact is that they have an easier time with all sorts of nefarious and immoral things than poor people – I’m not about to consider cocaine subsidies so that poor people have “equal access” to hard drugs, and I’m not going to do the same with abortion.

    Your concern for women is touching. Consider that studies show that the vast majority of the time it is the father and his actions that prove decisive in a woman’s “choice” to abort – most often she feels she has “no choice”, which ought to strike you as ironic. Consider also that what this really means is that tens of thousands of children will not be murdered simply because they are poor.

    Cheap abortion is the ultimate class discrimination, it is how some people propose to deal with the problem of poverty, by simply having the poor kill their own children instead of raise them. Cheap abortions for all = overwhelming number of aborted babies are poor. Not only is it classism, but racism – for every 100 black children born, 73 are aborted. 73! The KKK couldn’t have hoped for such numbers at the height of their movement.

    Classism, racism, and even sexism – all are present in the pro-abortion mindset. It is poor children who are exterminated, it is black and Hispanic children who are killed, and it is poor women of all races who are pressured, coerced, threatened and sometimes harmed by the fathers of their children so that they get an abortion. If this passes they will all be done a magnificent favor.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, and I don’t think I am, but removing an ALREADY DEAD BABY, especially one that has been dead for four weeks, from the womb is not and never has been classified as an “abortion,” has it?

    So how could the poor woman that jesgurislac refers to possibly have been forced to resort to a “chemical abortion” under the Stupak Amendment?

  • jesurgislac says:

    Tito Edwards: I am adamantly against this bill, though the ONLY silver lining in it is that it will save thousands of lives of innocent children.

    How do you suppose making safe abortions too expensive for many women to afford, so that they have to have unsafe illegal abortions, with the consequent risks to their life, health, and future fertility, will save any lives? Innocent children who have been made pregnant by rape are more likely to die as a result of this bill, not less.

    It’s extremely disturbing that you announce your intention of committing crimes in defiance of this bill: I hope you mean as a non-violent tax resistor, not as part of the pro-lifer terrorist campaign against healthcare clinics.

    Donald: You have nothing but contempt for the lives of unborn children who their mothers decide to slay.

    And you know this how? Magic writing from God saying you know that my concern for women who need abortions somehow translates to “contempt” for fetuses? And what about your contempt for the women and children who are pregnant and need abortions?

    Joe: It goes without saying that a procedure that simply removes an already dead human being from a womb is not murder and should be covered under any health care plan.

    It does not go “without saying” – and Stupak’s amendment makes no distinction, merely banning all tax funding for abortion – including the abortion of a dead fetus.

    If there were a practical way to do it, I’d ban abortion for the rich too.

    I’m sure you would be happy to see rich women die as well as poor ones. The fact is, however, any attempt to restrict healthcare access, and thus kill people who need it, will always bear more heavily upon the poor than on the rich. Curious that so many people so willing to call themselves Christians have apparently forgotten that Jesus himself declared that “what you do to the least of these” – each poor woman dying because you decided she didn’t merit healthcare – “you do it to Me”.

    Consider that studies show that the vast majority of the time it is the father and his actions that prove decisive in a woman’s “choice” to abort

    Wouldn’t it be great if Republicans and pro-lifers were so concerned for women on a low income, that they worked to provide a welfare net so that no woman needed to decide she had to have an abortion just because as a single mother she wouldn’t be able to care for her child? Sadly, Republicans tend to support anti-family, anti-mother, and anti-child legislation – especially if they also support anti-choice legislation – and “pro-lifers” never seem to care if the politician they support is doing anything to prevent abortions, so long as they work on making safe legal abortion more expensive and harder to obtain.

    Cheap abortion is the ultimate class discrimination, it is how some people propose to deal with the problem of poverty, by simply having the poor kill their own children instead of raise them.

    Well, yes. And it’s triply immoral, as I note above, Republicans who “deal with the problem of poverty” by promoting pro-abortion policies, also promote policies to make safe abortion harder to get. So not only do they refuse to help the poor raise their own children, they also strive to make the abortions their policies promote more dangerous to the women who have no choice.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    “I’m sure you would be happy to see rich women die as well as poor ones.”

    You are simply out of your mind if you believe that death – for the mother – is the only alternative to abortion. This isn’t a serious argument, but the verbal equivalent of hurling feces at your opponent.

    What I would be happy to see are all women AND men taking responsibility for the lives they create, or, alternatively, abstaining from the behavior that creates lives. Since you’re new here, I’ll inform you that I believe in the oppression of men as well as women – I believe they should be compelled to remain fathers and held criminally responsible for abortions if their neglect or coercion played a role. Oppression for everyone, rich, poor, male, female, naked oppression to simply get them to carry out their basic responsibilities as human beings that separate them from the animals of the jungle. Accuse me of any number of things, but please, don’t accuse me of double standards.

    “and “pro-lifers” never seem to care if the politician they support is doing anything to prevent abortions, so long as they work on making safe legal abortion more expensive and harder to obtain.”

    We have our priorities. I do care about prevention, but following your advice is a little like asking, in the middle of WWII, “how could we prevent more people from becoming Nazis?” It’s an interesting and important idea, but not so much when the already-existing Nazis are dropping shells on you.

    “Well, yes”

    Really? Yes? So you agree that cheap abortion is the ultimate class discrimination? If so, why are you arguing with me? Or is it sarcasm? I can’t detect your tone through text.

    Why don’t you name me a policy Republicans have passed that have somehow ended up “pro-abortion”? In the final equation, any such policy would have probably had significant Democratic support as well, if we are talking about trade or taxes or some other economic policy. The Democrats think that standing firm on “choice” will be sufficient enough for you that you won’t care that they actually support Republican economic policies much of the time, this health care thing aside.

    The Catholic Church supports workers rights – and has done so more consistently and for a longer period of time than any secular organization. Part of supporting workers rights means advocating for family wages – jobs that pay well enough for parents to raise their children, ideally for a man to support an entire family.

    But we are not materialists. As important as it is to defend the rights of workers, it is more important to defend innocent life itself, without which all other rights become meaningless. The vast political power of the Catholic Church could actually be unleashed all over economic issues if abortion and other threats to life were not so callously and carelessly embraced by people such as yourself. For if abortion were no longer an issue, there’s no doubt in my mind that poverty and workers rights would be the top social priority of the Church.

    Try reading Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. Do a google search on it, and read it over the next few days.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    And as for this:

    “Curious that so many people so willing to call themselves Christians have apparently forgotten that Jesus himself declared that “what you do to the least of these” – each poor woman dying because you decided she didn’t merit healthcare – “you do it to Me”.”

    It isn’t curious, but ridiculous, and embarrassing, for you, that you would invoke this while championing for the right to murder innocent children. You do THAT to Christ as well.

    None of us have forgotten Matthew 25 – that’s where that comes from, if you didn’t know. It is because of it that we fight for the innocent lives lost through abortion.

    Don’t you understand how much damage abortion does, not just to the dead child, but to the mother, sometimes the father, the siblings who lose a brother or sister? You dare to call us callous – do you have any idea what the personal psychological and long-term social ramifications of this policy you recklessly advocate are?

  • American Knight says:

    Reducing the number of abortions is nice and we should certainly be in favor of it; however, one murdered baby is an infinite loss. We are hacking at the branches here. Branches that need to be hacked; however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that as long as people like the pro-murder, misguided person above have a conviction that murder is OK when they massage whatever moral code they say they adhere to says it is OK then we have not addressed the core problem.

    For example, “. . .so that they have to have unsafe illegal abortions. . .”

    Why does anyone HAVE TO HAVE an abortion? Does a serial killer have to kill, does a rapist have to rape? No one HAS to do something that is morally objectionable, it is a choice. Why do you people call it ‘pro-choice’? Ironic, huh? Maybe moronic is a better choice of words. No one has a right to choose evil, we merely have the freedom to do it, but that doesn’t make it right.

    “. . .not as part of the pro-lifer terrorist campaign against healthcare clinics.”

    How can you not see the idiocy in that statement. How can a sane person be pro-life, as in wanting human dignity and life to be protected, want to launch a ‘terrorist’ campaign. This is just silly.

    “. . .provide a welfare net so that no woman needed to decide she had to have an abortion just because as a single mother she wouldn’t be able to care for her child?”

    That’s a gem. First in order for her to be a single mother before the baby was born means she would have to be a widow, in which case a little bit of life insurance would solve that problem. If she isn’t a widow then it means that she was never married or got divorced during pregnancy. If it is divorce then she may have recourse to collect from the father. If she was never married, why the heck is she pregnant? She could have chosen to NOT have sex or misuse science to make a baby. Of course, you’ll trot out she may have been raped. Well that sucks, but it isn’t the babies fault. By your logic, next time a mass murder kills people and gets away we should seek justice by killing one of the victims’ family members. I am baffled by your confusion – do you even know what logic is?

  • jesurgislac says:

    American Knight: You are simply out of your mind if you believe that death – for the mother – is the only alternative to abortion.

    Depends on the abortion. Where abortion is carried out early as a matter of personal choice, legal abortion is safe; illegal abortion is less safe; childbirth is the least safe option. Wherever abortion is made illegal, more women die.

    This is partly because women who have abortions as a matter of choice have no alternative but the less-safe illegal abortions. (Abortion rates do not change whether the operation is legal or illegal: a woman who needs an abortion will get one. What changes is how many women die.)

    But where denial of safe hospital abortion is a real killer is the medically-required abortions – for example, the woman who pointed out that a year later if the Stupak amendment had gone through, her All Saint’s Eve abortion of her dead fetus would have had to be the $40 chemical abortion that left her to bleed out at home (her other option, to wait until her dead fetus either killed her or miscarried of itself or both…) Or the women who went to Doctor Tiller before a pro-lifer murdered him, who were pregnant with fetuses that could not live and whose continued pregnancies were damaging her health.

    For any pregnancy, death or permanent physical damage is always a possibility. To protect women, and their children, someone truly respectful of human life and human rights would trust pregnant women to make the right decision. Of course, trusting pregnant women and acting accordingly is what got Doctor Tiller murdered.

    Why does anyone HAVE TO HAVE an abortion?

    If you really want an answer to that question, Planned Parenthood has a website that will begin to give you some answers. Most women list multiple reasons. The most common single reason is that the pregnancy was unplanned, and the next-most is that the woman knows she can’t afford it. So, if you want to prevent the most number of abortions, promote free contraception and contraceptive use, and strong welfare and healthcare support for pregnant women, mothers, and children.

    How can a sane person be pro-life, as in wanting human dignity and life to be protected, want to launch a ‘terrorist’ campaign.

    I wish I knew the answer to that myself, but in the past thirty years, pro-lifers have committed murder, kidnapping, arson, and other terrorist crimes against health care providers as part of the pro-life campaign to shut down health care clinics that provide abortions and to terrorize clinic staff and patients. You’re right that this is neither sane nor sensible, but it happens. Sad but true.

    If she was never married, why the heck is she pregnant?

    Because she had heterosexual intercourse and got pregnant as a result. Do you care more about penalizing her for having sex outside marriage, or about supporting her so that she can choose without economic considerations, to decide whether to have the baby or have an abortion?

    From what you’re saying, you care more about penalizing her for having sex outside marriage (or, if she’s a widow, for not having been married to a man with life insurance) than you do about preventing abortion.

  • jesurgislac says:

    Joe: Don’t you understand how much damage abortion does, not just to the dead child, but to the mother, sometimes the father, the siblings who lose a brother or sister?

    I understand that pro-lifers like to claim that abortion does some kind of invisible damage that there’s no evidence of, while completely ignoring the very plain damage caused by denying access to safe legal abortion.

    To argue that Jesus wants you to attack poor people, especially women, in order to ensure that when they have an abortion, they have an unsafe illegal abortion, strikes me as being a very peculiar misuse of your belief that what you do to “the least” you do to Jesus.

  • jesurgislac says:

    Sorry – going up and down the thread, I seem to have mixed up a couple of responses to Joe Hargrave with responses to American Knight. My answers would have been the same in either case, but I do apologize for any confusion that resulted.

  • skeeton says:

    Elaine,
    Of course, it seems quite simple to say that removing an already dead fetus from the womb is not an abortion and therefore should be covered by insurance. However, I know from personal experience that some insurers refer to those procedures precisely as “abortions”.

    Earlier this year, my wife and I lost our son almost halfway through the pregnancy. Due to the baby’s size, my wife had to be induced to deliver the child. We were crushed by the episode, but at least we were given the grace to hold our perfectly formed child in our hands and give him a proper burial. Some weeks later after the healing process was begun, the scab on the wound was ripped off when we received the EOB from our insurance company, and it listed the procedure that my wife endured as an “abortion”. I was equally depressed and enraged, and I felt compelled to write a letter to my wife’s doctor and our insurance company to refute that we had, in fact, had an abortion. I would never contemplate aborting a child, and I am certainly not about to have anyone, even an anonymous insurance claims processor, believe that I would consider it.

    Now, nomenclature aside, clearly the procedure my wife had should be allowed by law and covered by insurance. But the name of the procedure certainly needs to be modified.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    First of all, you mistakenly attributed what I said to American Knight.

    Cutting through the nonsense, I only wish to address this:

    “To protect women, and their children, someone truly respectful of human life and human rights would trust pregnant women to make the right decision.”

    This completely misses the point. You’re like a broken record. I wish I could at least be dealing with a semi-intelligent pro-abort who understands that the pro-life position is based on an assumption of the humanity and human rights of the unborn, and not the decision making powers of women.

    Are you really that dense, “jesurgislac”? We object to abortion because we believe it is MURDER, not because we object to people making decisions. Only dishonesty or stupidity could be the cause of your failing to see this point.

    If you want to argue that the unborn human being isn’t really a human being, fine. Make that argument. But if the unborn human being IS a human being, and has human rights, then your argument is as ridiculous, callous, insensitive and barbaric as an argument in favor of child abuse, rape, torture or any number of serious offenses against human beings and their dignity.

    Let me put it to you this way: if I believed, as you presumably do, that abortion was merely the surgical removal of tissue, then I would be in favor of it.

    Because I believe that abortion takes an innocent life that has an inherent right to existence, I oppose it. At LEAST pay us the basic respect of acknowledging the premise of our argument instead of inventing it for us.

    If abortion is not murder, no justification for it is necessary. If abortion IS murder, no justification is adequate. That’s the crux of this debate.

    As for women dying from abortions, no one has to have one. If death is such a great risk in getting an abortion, then it would be better to take a risk on simply having a child that might one day grow up to provide for you than disposing of it. In any case, society is under NO OBLIGATION to make child murder easy, affordable, or safe, anymore than it is obligated to provide you a “safe” environment for say, child molestation.

    “I understand that pro-lifers like to claim that abortion does some kind of invisible damage that there’s no evidence of…”

    Evidence? Have you seen what has happened to Russia as a result of abortion? Their population is in a downward spiral, the number of abortions outpaces the number of live births! There are millions of women rendered sterile from repeat abortions. Abortion is used as a regular form of birth control there – it is the logical consequence of legalized and state-promoted abortion, a sterile society in population decline. It’s as if society itself were given an abortion.

    Aside from that, there actually are many women who regret their abortions, who wish they had an alternative – the sort of alternatives Christian pro-life activists provide them through charity. They provide many women with the real choice that they want to make.

    Why do you even care about social policies that would prevent or reduce abortions? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then you should be championing for more abortions, not less. Then we can be like Russia!

    “To argue that Jesus wants you to attack poor people, especially women, in order to ensure that when they have an abortion, they have an unsafe illegal abortion, strikes me as being a very peculiar misuse of your belief that what you do to “the least” you do to Jesus.”

    Again, how dare you lecture us on what Jesus would want. Jesus would not want us to confront the challenge of an unexpected pregnancy with murder and death. Jesus would not want us to go into a sterile operating room and give a degenerate calling himself a “doctor” a few hundred dollars to violently dismember our children. Jesus would not accept our own poverty as an excuse for a complete failure to love our own children, which are a gift from God.

    Jesus wants us, rather, to extend our love and charity to the poor, including the pregnant poor, to give freely to them what they ask. That is what millions of Christians do – they give their time, their money, sometimes their very homes, to needy pregnant women. They help them set up adoptions, they help them find jobs, all so that they don’t have to resort to murder and death.

    If you think our loving God condones for one second the murder of an innocent child simply for financial reasons or for “sexual liberation”, you’re out of your mind. We respond to all challenges with love, and we respond to all people with love. You respond with murder, with butchery, with the slaughter of innocents. There is no love in an abortion clinic.

  • Anonomouse says:

    FYI, jesurgislac is one of the most well-known pro-abortion trolls on all the liberal blogs. Modus operandi is to try to wear you down with unending streams of posts with arguments about how abortion is really the best thing for women.

  • American Knight says:

    Your confusion is astounding. I call it confusion, because if it isn’t, then something really bad is going inside of you.

    Abortion is a personal choice, huh? I think all morons who voted for Obama in the last election between the ages of 18-34 should be killed. You may not agree, but that is just my personal choice and there is nothing wrong with that, right?

    Tiller was killed because of the disordered choices of his murderer and no other reason. Babies are murdered because of the disordered choices of some women and usually the disordered choices of those who pressure women into killing their babies. Murder is murder – no matter how you massage it, it is just wrong.

    The most common reason women list for killing babies is that the pregnany was unplanned. What more needs to be said? Sexual intercourse has its end in pregnancy, just becuase it doesn’t happen every time doesn’t change the primary purpose of the act. BTW – that is a biological statement – I left theology out of it. So when one engages in sexual intercourse consent for the pregnancy is explicit therefore it cannot be unplanned.

    It is a fact that contraception leads to more demand for abortions. Instead of killing babies, thwarting biology and scoffing at God, why don’t you just keep your genetials to yourself?

    I stated that no sane pro-lifer would engage in terrorism becuase I meant that the problem of engaging in evil is for the insane and the evil. The pro-life positon is sane and good. The actions of those with evil intentions or the insane reflect the disorder of that individual and not the intent of the pro-life movement. Again you need to excercise that gift of reason we are given. When not used it tends to atrophy.

    “Because she had heterosexual intercourse and got pregnant as a result.”

    Look at you – reason, good for you. Yes, normal sexual intercourse will likely result in pregnancy. That’s what it is designed for.

    “Do you care more about penalizing her for having sex outside marriage, or about supporting her so that she can choose without economic considerations, to decide whether to have the baby or have an abortion?”

    Then you fall back to that. I am not penalizing her for adultary, she does that all by herself. If she makes a dumb decision to have sex knowing she can get pregnant, then she has to be responsible for her actions as regards the child she helped create. So should the man; however, it is easy for men to walk away – we can’t get pregnant. This is why abortions free men to be more sinful and still shackle women.

    To ask me if I think she should have the choice to kill a human being based on economic considerations is disgusting. All the wealth in the world isn’t worth one life.

    “From what you’re saying, you care more about penalizing her for having sex outside marriage (or, if she’s a widow, for not having been married to a man with life insurance) than you do about preventing abortion.”

    How the heck did you get that leap of illogic? The best way to prevent abortion is to only have sexual intercourse when a baby is the desired result. That is going to take a mssive cultural shift and libertines like yourself will never accept it, so the next best thing is to make it illegal, you know like murder is illegal. Does that mean murder doesn’t occur? No. But murder doesn’t occur legally and there is no debate about it except when the victim is inside the woman, or at least, their head is. Although I think the President wants that changed to some term of time after birth.

    Why can’t you be honest and stop trying to come up with a moral reason for wanting babies dead. You want to have all the sex that you can and don’t want to be punished with a baby. Just honestly defend your position and quit trying to find a moral reason for wanting babies dead – there isn’t one.

  • jesurgislac says:

    I wish I could at least be dealing with a semi-intelligent pro-abort who understands that the pro-life position is based on an assumption of the humanity and human rights of the unborn, and not the decision making powers of women.

    Well, sadly, you’re stuck with me: an intelligent (not just “semi”) pro-choicer who understands that your argument for forced pregnancy is based on taking away the humanity, human rights, and decision making powers of pregnant women. I’m in no way pro-abortion: I’d prefer to prevent abortions.

    Why do you even care about social policies that would prevent or reduce abortions?

    Why are you even asking this question? Do you really regard preventing/reducing abortions as an undesirable goal?

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Jes,

    You’re not demonstrating any of that intelligence in this argument.

    I make no denial – I am in favor of what you call “forced pregnancy”, though with Paul’s comments in mind, that is in no way an endorsement of forced impregnation. I am also in favor of forced fatherhood. I hold no double standards. I believe all parents have obligations to their children that cannot be broken.

    What an intelligent person would do is ask “why”? The answer is that we believe the unborn are really human beings, children with parents who have duties towards them. How can you justify murdering a human being, an innocent child? How can you so carelessly argue for the disposal of human life as if it were garbage?

    What IS abortion in your view? What is the thing being aborted, in your view? These are the questions that must be answered before any further discussion can occur.

    The reason I ask you why you want to prevent abortions is simple: you don’t seem to think anything is wrong with abortion, so why would you want to see less of it? At best you ought to be indifferent to it. If abortion isn’t bad, it doesn’t follow that there ought to be less of it.

    On the other hand, by admitting that you want to see less abortion, you are admitting that abortion is a problem. Why is it a problem?

    You completely dismissed pro-life arguments about the complications abortion can cause for women and society. There’s no “evidence” for that (the entire former Soviet bloc is evidence, but that is besides the point). If you dismiss the idea that abortion has negative consequences, why do you care about reducing it?

    Sounds like you’re admitting that abortion is a “choice” women actually don’t want to make, something they are FORCED into – as actual studies show, most of the time by their MALE partners who don’t want to be fathers. Sounds like you don’t think abortion is that great. Why?

    I don’t know how to get you to see the inconsistency in your argument. You think about it. You think about why you are arguing for less of a thing that you don’t think causes any problems, that is perfectly moral, a legitimate “choice” women make. You should be arguing for more of it.

  • jesurgislac,

    To claim that legality of abortion has no affect on the number of abortions flies totally in the face of the facts — even as reported by the Guttmacher Institute (which is hardly an anti-abortion organization). Legality does affect abortion, and indeed, the abortion rate sky-rocketed in the US after Roe v. Wade, mainly for the obvious behavior economics reason that it reduce the effective cost (not just monetary, but risk, reputation and legal) of getting an abortion. As such, it mostly served to make unprotected sex “cheaper” — a benefit falling primarily to unscrupulous men.

    Unless you’re one of these, it’s hard to tell what your problem is.

  • jesurgislac says:

    DarwinCatholic: To claim that legality of abortion has no affect on the number of abortions flies totally in the face of the facts — even as reported by the Guttmacher Institute

    No, the Guttmacher Institute, in its recent global report, recorded that countries with similiar social/economic backgrounds had similiar abortion rates. Making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion: it prevents women getting legal abortions.

    Because making abortion illegal tends to occur when a country is trying to restrict access to contraception and has a consequence of restricting access to healthcare for women, countries where abortion is illegal are strongly associated with high abortion rates.

    , and indeed, the abortion rate sky-rocketed in the US after Roe v. Wade

    Actually, no. Statistics show the abortion rate has stayed about the same in the US over the past 40 years. A woman who didn’t want to be pregnant before Roe vs Wade had to have an illegal abortion, that’s all.

    What really changed after Roe vs Wade was that women who did want to be pregnant were no longer prepared to abandon their baby to adoption agencies: having made the choice to continue their pregnancy, they were enabled to choose to keep their baby.

    Joe Hargrave: What an intelligent person would do is ask “why”? The answer is that we believe the unborn are really human beings, children with parents who have duties towards them.

    And yet, you do not believe that the pregnant woman is a human being, with a right to decide for herself whether or when to have a baby. If the pregnant woman is a human being, she has the right to make all her own healthcare decisions, including – if she deems necessary – the right to terminate her pregnancy. If you believe she is really a human being, you have no difficulty with that.

    If you really believed that abortion is an undesirable response to pregnancy – you would then have to act to prevent abortions. Which is not to get abortions made illegal, or legal abortion made much more difficult to access, since that does nothing but threaten the lives of women, but to actively promote access to and use of contraception.

    On the other hand, by admitting that you want to see less abortion, you are admitting that abortion is a problem. Why is it a problem?

    Because it’s a painful operation for women to experience. Either chemical or D&C. It’s also, often, a tough decision for a woman to have to make. Much better for women – and men – to have access to contraception, and use it, consistently, unless they have decided to have a baby together. Surely this is obvious – except perhaps to believers in forced pregnancy.

    How can you so carelessly argue for the disposal of human life as if it were garbage?

    How can you so carelessly argue that it does not matter if a woman is forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will – condemned to nine months forced use of her body, possible permanent damage and death?

    How can you assume that a pregnant woman who decides to have an abortion will therefore be “disposing” of her fetus as if it were “garbage”? Do you really dislike and distrust women so much that you cannot believe a woman will make reliable, responsible, and caring decisions about her own body and her own life?

    And yes, I have asked why. And I have concluded that as pro-lifers never support contraception provision and are more usually found on the anti-healthcare, anti-welfare, and anti-maternity leave side of any argument, their claims to be preventing women from safe legal abortions because they care about “unborn children” are rank hypocrisy. If they cared, they would work to prevent abortions by contraceptive provision, and they would work to support mothers and children by tax-funded welfare, healthcare, and maternity leave. They don’t, so they don’t care.

    Their motives for forcing women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will appear to be purely misogynist, often expressed openly as a belief that a woman shouldn’t have sex unless she intends to get pregnant, and if she has sex for pleasure, joy, intimacy, she deserves to be punished with forced pregnancy.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    This is the last response you get. Enjoy it.

    “you do not believe that the pregnant woman is a human being”

    More rhetorical feces. This is not an argument. It’s a baseless, stupid accusation. No one argues this, no one believes this. We just reject your insane logic that “refusing a right to murder a child” = “not recognizing humanity”. Every “terminated pregnancy” is a murdered child.

    You just don’t get it, do you? There is no excuse, no reason, you can possibly EVER invoke to justify, or get us to accept, child murder. It’s never going to happen, so either address the question of the status of the unborn or go away.

    Your next argument is just as ridiculous – we pro-lifers believe in a mutli-faceted approach that includes both prevention and prohibition. We rule out nothing because we are fighting to save human lives. So I DO believe in prevention, but I don’t LIMIT myself to it – you can wrap your brain around that, I’m sure.

    “How can you so carelessly argue that it does not matter if a woman is forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will – condemned to nine months forced use of her body, possible permanent damage and death?”

    EVERY parent – male and female, has an unbreakable obligation to their children. On what grounds do you dismiss it? No one has a right to beat or torture their child, and no one has a right to have a hired hitman dismember their child in the womb. It is murder.

    So yes, I believe men and women both should be FORCED to care for their children, FORCED. I am proud to say so, I do not deny it. Parental obligation is one of the cornerstones of society, without which we are no better than animals rolling around in their own filth.

    “How can you assume that a pregnant woman who decides to have an abortion will therefore be “disposing” of her fetus as if it were “garbage”?

    Where do you think an aborted child ends up? It ends up in the trash. If these are beings are valuable enough to be thought of as real people and NOT garbage then MURDERING THEM IS UNCONSCIONABLE.

    “often expressed openly as a belief that a woman shouldn’t have sex unless she intends to get pregnant”

    That’s right, but it applies to MEN as well, no matter what you or anyone else says. I am an equal opportunity oppressor, and I would force every man who impregnantes a woman into fatherhood if I could. I would visit no punishment on a woman that I would not also visit on a man.

    “she deserves to be punished with forced pregnancy.”

    It is not a punishment to take responsibility for the lives you create! THIS is why I think you regard human life as garbage – because you view it as a punishment, a curse, an unfortunate side effect of your disgusting, selfish behavior. You make me sick. And you’re banned. Have a nice life.

  • Just in the interest of truth:

    - I’ve read the last several Guttmacher global surveys and the data tables behind them. The data is fairly good, though the press releases they put out based on them are often deeply misleading. In short, their data itself does _not_ show that similar countries have similar abortion rates regardless of legality. Indeed, that would run totally contrary to reason and experience. (Name one other activity which does not reduce at all when it’s made illegal. Even the notorious failure, prohibition, resulted in a net reduction in alcohol consumption, contrary to popular belief.) Indeed, Guttmacher admits this in their advocacy when the bewail the fact that many women in Ireland and Poland (two countries with _much_ lower abortion rates that their pro-choice, economically similar neighbors) are deprived of the chance to have abortions. One can’t have it both ways.

    - It’s also totally false that the abortion rate has remained constant in the US for the last forty years. According to Guttmacher’s own data, the abortion ratio (the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion) shot up by 50% from 1972 to 1982, from 19.3 to 30.1. The conception rate also went up (the marginal cost of risky sexual behavior effectively went down) so the number of actual abortions more than doubled. The ratio has since declined back down to 22.4, in great part due to restrictions on abortion being gradually put back in place over the last 30 years.

    Source here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf

    Advice for the future: Don’t make patently false statements to analysists. They will never let you get away with it.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    Skeeton,

    I am very sorry to hear that. My condolences on the loss of your child. I did not realize that some insurance companies refer to such procedures as “abortions” regardless of whether the unborn baby is alive or dead when it occurs.

    It may be related to the fact that in medical terminology, ANY premature termination of a pregnancy, regardless of the cause, is referred to as an abortion — if it happens naturally it’s called “spontaneous abortion,” i.e. miscarriage, and if it’s done by direct medical intervention it’s called “therapeutic abortion.”

    Other medical terms doctors probably shouldn’t use within earshot of patients include “habitual aborter” for a woman who has repeated miscarriages and “senile gravida” for a pregnant woman over age 35. The medical insurance companies probably pick up on the medical jargon for coding purposes, without giving thought to how offensive it sounds.

  • rayn says:

    Oh man, if I had a penny for every time I heard the “you don’t look (however far along)”. I really never did get big, and when people would ask me when I’m due, they wouldn’t believe me. Seriously, like I’m going to lie and say I’m due any day, when I truly had months to go. Yeah, not likely. Just tell them to stick it…lol

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    There is nothing more beautiful than a happy pregnant woman. My wife absolutely glowed during each of her pregnancies, especially during her first pregnancy when she was carrying our twins.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .