Both sides of the abortion issue have to answer this question - What makes human beings valuable? I think when it comes down to it, this is the biggest point of disagreement between pro-lifers and pro-abortion-choicers. It is undeniable that from the earliest time of its existence, human embryos/fetuses are in fact human. Anyone who denies that a human embryo is not human is rejecting science. However, many abortion-choicers get around this fact by creating a "Personhood Argument". They argue that humans are not valuable until they become "Persons", then define for themselves what "Personhood" means. The most common definitions of personhood I have heard are that persons have to be either, 1. Self-Aware or, 2. Have Sentience. These are the most common, but any definition of the personhood claim can be refuted.
Those who say self-awareness or having sentience is what gives fetuses value are saying that is what gives all humans value. There is a major problem about this: it then follows that people who have more self-awareness or more sentience are more valuable than those with less self-awareness or less sentience. This goes for any definition of personhood; whether it be the number of cells in the body or the ability to move or anything else - it is simply logically consistent to have to then accept that people who have more of whatever "personhood" is defined by are MORE valuable. This completely trashes the concept of equality that our society so firmly believes in (and rightly so).
Other problems of saying sentience/self-awareness are what gives humans value, is that people who make this argument to justify abortion must be referring to an immediate capacity for self-awareness/sentience. Since embryos/fetuses will eventually gain the ability to be self-aware and gain sentience, these young humans obviously have the potential capacity. In order to make this argument logically consistent with the claim fetuses are not valuable, you must accept that immediate self-awareness/sentience gives you value. So what about when you go to sleep? Are you very self-aware when you go to bed? No. So does that mean I can kill you while you sleep? I think that by this "logic" I COULD kill a sleeping person because they are no longer immediately self-aware and therefore have lost their personhood value. The same goes for people in reverse-able comas, people under anesthetics, some of the mentally-ill. (What is even stranger, is that some intelligent animals are self-aware. Therefore it would seem to follow that you have to regard some animals as valuable persons, but that some humans lack that same value.)
My last point against the sentience/self-awareness argument is that I have never heard a supporter of this view support WHY it is that sentience/self-awareness matters. It is an unsupported premise. What is it about sentience/self-awareness that makes it more important than other human traits? Why not hair color? Why not skin color? Why not the number of brain cells? Yeah, sentience enables us to do many things, but I don't see how that makes it the intrinsic value-giver of the universe. iPads enable us to do many things, also - that does not at all mean that iPads gives people value. Stating that sentience/self-awareness gives humans value is an unsupported premise in the defense of abortion.
But as I said, both sides of the abortion debate must answer the question what gives humans value? If pro-lifers are going to say embryos and fetuses are valuable, they better be able to explain why. And I think we can.
As we saw with the sentience/self-awareness argument, it screws up the firmly held belief that all people have equal value. The pro-life explanation for what gives people value needs to be consistent with the idea of equality in order to beat the sentience/self-awareness explanation. I think it is logical to state - "If all people have equal value, whatever trait that gives us value we must all have an equal quantity of it." So what trait do we all have equally? It is not sentience; it is not self-awareness; it is not a beating heart (some people have heart failure/need medicine to regulate their heart); it is not the ability to breathe (some people need ventilators); and the list could go on and on. There is no physical or mental trait that all humans have equally, except one: a common human nature. All people are equally human. In order to be consistent with the idea of equality, we must accept that the very fact of being human makes us valuable. Thus, human embryos and fetuses are just as valuable as you and me.
To be fair, I must also explain why being human matters. Why not being a dog? Or a bird? Why are humans valuable while other species are not? The answer to this is both simple and complex: Because humans are made in the image of their creator. Yes, this requires a spiritual/religious premise - but I don't think that saying fetuses have value is any more religious than saying teenagers have value. I challenge anyone who rejects this premise to try to define ANYTHING as intrinsically valuable without some sort of meta-physical premise. Furthermore, people should not reject a statement simply because they consider it meta-physical. Saying, "Metaphysical claims are not real knowledge" is a metaphysical claim. Likewise, saying empirical evidence is the only source of true knowledge/truth is also a metaphysical claim. Therefore, those who reject this premise of a creator that deemed humans as valuable must provide some other argument against it other than, "It is metaphysical."
In summary:
1. Defining personhood and intrinsic human value by any physical or mental trait trashes the firmly held belief of human equality.
2. Pro-lifers believe that simply being human is what makes humans intrinsically valuable and equal.
3. Since embryos/fetuses are human, they should be regarded as valuable people, equal to you and me.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Some Basic Biology
Although I am a Biomedical Science major, I have not yet taken any biology classes in college. I have only taken (and passed) the AP Biology exam in high school. But just that minimal knowledge of biology has been enough for me to understand how reproduction works. You would think that what I am about to explain would be common knowledge and commonly understood, but in our world of Choice it apparently is not.
First, some background information. There are 2 types of reproduction: asexual and sexual. The cells that make up our bodies reproduce asexually, meaning that almost every cell can divide into two "daughter cells". This is how we grow or heal wounds (mostly). But we as a species reproduce sexually. I know we all know this, but like I said, apparently a lot of people don't understand what this means.
A new organism is produced via sexual reproduction by two haploid cells combining to make one diploid cell. In humans, haploid cells are the sperm and egg. They are called HAploid because they have HAlf the number of chromatin necessary to develop. So when you combine TWO haploid cells, we call it a DIploid cell because you now have twice the amount of chromatin, which now make the normal 26 paired chromosomes. Scientifically, the first diploid cell is a new, unique, living organism. All animals reproduce this way, and even plants.
Another seemingly common-sense statement: species reproduce new organisms of the same species. SO, when two HUMAN haploid cells combine, SCIENCE tells us that those HUMANS have created a new organism that is the same species: HUMAN. (After all, what do people think sex was developed by evolution for? Just for fun? And then it just happened to be a good way for reproduction to fit into the mix? No! Obviously the way sex was created by evolution was because it could reproduce. The reason we genetically want it so bad is because reproducing is REALLY important, so nature (God) made sure we really liked it).
So Pro-Life realizes how this reproduction works and has adjusted our views about human life to incorporate it. Pro-Choice, on the other hand, has tried to find ways to avoid this SCIENTIFIC PROOF that a fertilized human egg is a human. Apparently they think there is some sort of extreme and undetectable exception to human diploid cells that make them different from every other species on the planet that reproduces in the same way. I am going to list a few common Pro-Choice arguments dealing with early stage of human development and explain why they are inconsistent or flawed.
"Humans are multi-cellular organisms. A single cell is not Human. Therefore, it can be removed if we want." This statement needs a correction: Humans are multi-cellular organisms for a majority of a human's life. From nearly day 1, that single diploid cell begins dividing and growing. But it is a fact that every human began as a single cell. We just don't see people while they are in this short single-cell stage of development, so we aren't used to thinking about it that way. So, in order to be consistent with this view, Pro-Choice needs to say that it is sometimes OKAY to kill humans, based on their size or abilities.
"Early cells of what will develop into a new life cannot think or feel. They do not have sentience. They are not persons in the same way that I would consider you or I persons." This argument draws a sharp contrast between being HUMAN and being a PERSON. Just to begin thinking this way should scare us. Saying there is a difference between being human and being a person is the same mind-set that helped the Nazis with their concentration camps. A truly compassionate and loving society would treat all humans as persons. If we try to redefine personhood, we are falling into the same mistakes that every society in history has made. In Ancient Greece and Rome, you had to be 18 years old and sometimes own property in order to be considered a full person and have rights. In some societies, parents could kill their children if they wanted because they weren't "persons" yet. In early American history, if you had black skin you weren't considered a person. We are making these same mistakes. We're saying you have to have detectable brain waves, or be developed enough to feel emotions in order for us to consider you a person. (Not to mention how a consistent view of this treats the mentally ill or disabled) We need to stop drawing these lines and encompass all humans in our scope of compassion and life. This would seem like common-sense, but sadly it is not.
"If you tell me that killing a single human cell is equivalent to murder, then every time I scratch my nose I'm committing genocide." When you scratch your nose, you're killing off less than 0.0001% of your body's cells. When you kill a human zygote, you're killing 100% of that organisms cells. You have killed that organism. Since that organism is human, you've just killed a human. Common sense? Apparently not...
This is why I get so upset when I see or hear people say that Pro-Life is outdated religious beliefs. I see it completely opposite. Pro-Life has seen the science, seen the facts, and incorporated it into what we believe. People seem to think that its different because the early stages of that human lives in his or her mother. But that is just a fact of nature.
As mammals, we live inside our mothers for the first 9 months of our lives.
I don't know why I would be any more upset about that than I would be upset about the fact that I don't have wings like a bird.
First, some background information. There are 2 types of reproduction: asexual and sexual. The cells that make up our bodies reproduce asexually, meaning that almost every cell can divide into two "daughter cells". This is how we grow or heal wounds (mostly). But we as a species reproduce sexually. I know we all know this, but like I said, apparently a lot of people don't understand what this means.
A new organism is produced via sexual reproduction by two haploid cells combining to make one diploid cell. In humans, haploid cells are the sperm and egg. They are called HAploid because they have HAlf the number of chromatin necessary to develop. So when you combine TWO haploid cells, we call it a DIploid cell because you now have twice the amount of chromatin, which now make the normal 26 paired chromosomes. Scientifically, the first diploid cell is a new, unique, living organism. All animals reproduce this way, and even plants.
Another seemingly common-sense statement: species reproduce new organisms of the same species. SO, when two HUMAN haploid cells combine, SCIENCE tells us that those HUMANS have created a new organism that is the same species: HUMAN. (After all, what do people think sex was developed by evolution for? Just for fun? And then it just happened to be a good way for reproduction to fit into the mix? No! Obviously the way sex was created by evolution was because it could reproduce. The reason we genetically want it so bad is because reproducing is REALLY important, so nature (God) made sure we really liked it).
So Pro-Life realizes how this reproduction works and has adjusted our views about human life to incorporate it. Pro-Choice, on the other hand, has tried to find ways to avoid this SCIENTIFIC PROOF that a fertilized human egg is a human. Apparently they think there is some sort of extreme and undetectable exception to human diploid cells that make them different from every other species on the planet that reproduces in the same way. I am going to list a few common Pro-Choice arguments dealing with early stage of human development and explain why they are inconsistent or flawed.
"Humans are multi-cellular organisms. A single cell is not Human. Therefore, it can be removed if we want." This statement needs a correction: Humans are multi-cellular organisms for a majority of a human's life. From nearly day 1, that single diploid cell begins dividing and growing. But it is a fact that every human began as a single cell. We just don't see people while they are in this short single-cell stage of development, so we aren't used to thinking about it that way. So, in order to be consistent with this view, Pro-Choice needs to say that it is sometimes OKAY to kill humans, based on their size or abilities.
"Early cells of what will develop into a new life cannot think or feel. They do not have sentience. They are not persons in the same way that I would consider you or I persons." This argument draws a sharp contrast between being HUMAN and being a PERSON. Just to begin thinking this way should scare us. Saying there is a difference between being human and being a person is the same mind-set that helped the Nazis with their concentration camps. A truly compassionate and loving society would treat all humans as persons. If we try to redefine personhood, we are falling into the same mistakes that every society in history has made. In Ancient Greece and Rome, you had to be 18 years old and sometimes own property in order to be considered a full person and have rights. In some societies, parents could kill their children if they wanted because they weren't "persons" yet. In early American history, if you had black skin you weren't considered a person. We are making these same mistakes. We're saying you have to have detectable brain waves, or be developed enough to feel emotions in order for us to consider you a person. (Not to mention how a consistent view of this treats the mentally ill or disabled) We need to stop drawing these lines and encompass all humans in our scope of compassion and life. This would seem like common-sense, but sadly it is not.
"If you tell me that killing a single human cell is equivalent to murder, then every time I scratch my nose I'm committing genocide." When you scratch your nose, you're killing off less than 0.0001% of your body's cells. When you kill a human zygote, you're killing 100% of that organisms cells. You have killed that organism. Since that organism is human, you've just killed a human. Common sense? Apparently not...
This is why I get so upset when I see or hear people say that Pro-Life is outdated religious beliefs. I see it completely opposite. Pro-Life has seen the science, seen the facts, and incorporated it into what we believe. People seem to think that its different because the early stages of that human lives in his or her mother. But that is just a fact of nature.
As mammals, we live inside our mothers for the first 9 months of our lives.
I don't know why I would be any more upset about that than I would be upset about the fact that I don't have wings like a bird.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Beauty
Today I found this video from Students for Life of America:
I thought this was a powerful and beautiful video. It got me thinking: "What would a video like this from the Pro-Choice side look like?" I have a hard time picturing how the other side could even attempt to make a video like this intended to be beautiful and powerful. Is there anything beautiful about the "right to choose an abortion"? If anyone reading this can give an example to answer this question, please comment or message me. Because I'm stumped.
So why is it that the Pro-Life movement seems easily able to create emotionally powerful messages? Why is there beauty here? After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is because the Pro-Life movement is not focused on itself. Those who support Life have nothing to gain - we all survived to birth. Abortion is no longer a threat to us. But we are going to fight for our fellow human beings who are being dealt the ultimate injustice - having their life violently taken from them during the most precious and vulnerable stage of life. Pro-Choice is focused on 'the Self': what I want, MY body, MY choices. That's why we have difficulty finding beauty on the Pro-Choice side.
Think about this:
Why do we find weddings beautiful? Why do parents weep for joy at the child's birth? Why are we inspired by the crucifixion? Why do we find movies like The Titanic or Saving Private Ryan beautiful or tearjerking?
It is because the beauty in humanity is in self-sacrifice. Weddings are beautiful because two people are giving up themselves for each other. The birth of a child is beautiful because it is all about someone ELSE's new life. The crucifixion is the ultimate sacrifice for other people, who don't deserve it at all but received that sacrifice anyway. Movies are powerful when people put others before themselves. Warriors who are inspired in battle do it for the sake of the freedom or life of those they love. Self-sacrifice is what we naturally find beautiful. It has been this way throughout all of humanity.
I don't think Pro-Choice people can be inspired forever. It requires fighting for other people to be truly inspired. When fighting for yourself, eventually you'll get sick of yourself.
I thought this was a powerful and beautiful video. It got me thinking: "What would a video like this from the Pro-Choice side look like?" I have a hard time picturing how the other side could even attempt to make a video like this intended to be beautiful and powerful. Is there anything beautiful about the "right to choose an abortion"? If anyone reading this can give an example to answer this question, please comment or message me. Because I'm stumped.
So why is it that the Pro-Life movement seems easily able to create emotionally powerful messages? Why is there beauty here? After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is because the Pro-Life movement is not focused on itself. Those who support Life have nothing to gain - we all survived to birth. Abortion is no longer a threat to us. But we are going to fight for our fellow human beings who are being dealt the ultimate injustice - having their life violently taken from them during the most precious and vulnerable stage of life. Pro-Choice is focused on 'the Self': what I want, MY body, MY choices. That's why we have difficulty finding beauty on the Pro-Choice side.
Think about this:
Why do we find weddings beautiful? Why do parents weep for joy at the child's birth? Why are we inspired by the crucifixion? Why do we find movies like The Titanic or Saving Private Ryan beautiful or tearjerking?
It is because the beauty in humanity is in self-sacrifice. Weddings are beautiful because two people are giving up themselves for each other. The birth of a child is beautiful because it is all about someone ELSE's new life. The crucifixion is the ultimate sacrifice for other people, who don't deserve it at all but received that sacrifice anyway. Movies are powerful when people put others before themselves. Warriors who are inspired in battle do it for the sake of the freedom or life of those they love. Self-sacrifice is what we naturally find beautiful. It has been this way throughout all of humanity.
I don't think Pro-Choice people can be inspired forever. It requires fighting for other people to be truly inspired. When fighting for yourself, eventually you'll get sick of yourself.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Don't Judge Me
(This post was written by my girlfriend, who is a student nurse)
"My mother didn't want me. I was exposed to toxins while in the womb which caused me to look like this. Thats why I depend on others for everything. I didn't ask to be a burden. If I could have, I would want to be able to run and go to college someday, maybe have my own family. But thank you for letting me live. Thank you for showing kindness to me and allowing my smile and laughter to touch your heart. Thank you for loving me. "
Recently I worked on the pediatric intensive care unit, it was my first time on the PICU, though I had worked on the regular pediatric unit previously. My shift started at 7am, I had finished receiving report by 7:15 and the 3rd shift nurse was going to help the day shift nurse and I turn the patient and then leave. I won't go into all the medical details but suffice to say the patient's heart rate dropped and the next thing I know my nurse is calling for a doctor, a crash cart and a whole team of people were pouring into the room. They did CPR for 15 minutes and then pronounced him dead less than an hour into my shift.
Death is a part of nursing, I've always known this, but this was the first time I've witnessed it, and it being my own patient, and a pediatric patient was not how I had anticipated my day starting. The boy who had just passed away was 15 years old. He had many health problems and had never led the life of a normal 15 year old, like my brother Michael. Unlike Michael he did not get up every morning and go to school, he did not run or play golf in the summertime with friends, he did not build k'nex creations and legos with his hands when he was a young boy. He was born with a condition that made him completely dependent on those around him. He had been exposed to harmful substances pre-natally and it affected him his whole life. He was cared for by his sister who was like a mother to him.
Yesterday in my maternity class we discussed among other things, genetic testing and how early it is done. It was brought up that they try to do it early enough so that way if the child has downs syndrome for example, the parents can choose to abort their child so they don't have to deal with the disability or the child won't have to live with it. It made me think about my patient who I had previously who passed away. You would think that he was a prime candidate for being aborted, I mean what kind of life did he live? And the burden it must have been to his family to care for him his whole life, in and out of the hospital etc. Yet, he was so loved.
The nurses in the room started weeping when he passed away because he had been a patient there since his birth, and many knew him and his family. Later, when I was talking with the nurses, something they all said many times was what a joy he was. He smiled and had an infectious laugh that made everyone laugh with him. He had impacted the whole hospital. I was walking in the basement with my nurse, and we ran into doctors, residents, even the cleaning crew who were asking about him and expressed their sorrow when they heard of his death. His sister spoke of how happy she was that he was in a better place now, but she was still upset to lose him. It taught me, and I hope this may show you, that every life here has a purpose. While we may not choose that life for ourselves, we should never deny another human being the right to live. There is a purpose for every person on this earth. We may not see what our purpose is in our lifetime, we may wonder if someones sole purpose here is to annoy us, or we may be able to see the monumental things some people can accomplish during their lifetime.
Something that appears to be a common saying in today's society is "Do not judge others". So heed your own advice America, do not judge the unborn and the potential life that they may live. Just because it's not what you would choose does not mean that you can deny them their chance to live.
Monday, March 14, 2011
"Rights" and Entitlement
(This post is on a slightly different topic than usual)
I think our society has forgotten what a right is. The current debate about Planned Parenthood's federal funding has got me thinking about this. I have seen numerous articles and videos of PP supporters outraged saying, "Congress is trying to take away our reproductive rights". I think these people are confusing about what kind of 'rights' they are talking about. I think people on both sides of the debate could benefit from rethinking what they mean when they defend their 'rights'.
Here's the common mistake: there is a difference between rights and inalienable rights. Rights are legal entitlements, inalienable rights are things all people are born with that should never be taken away. Whether people like to admit it or not, inalienable rights are based on morals. America's Declaration of Independence identifies what America believes to be inalienable rights - Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. From where I stand, I see our society as one that seems to think that everything they are legally entitled to are inalienable rights.
We are not born with a moral entitlement to every legal right. For example, I currently have the legal right to have a driver's license and drive on public roads. This does not mean that I was born to have a driver's license and that the right to a driver's license can never be taken away from me. According to the theory of Democracy, which America was built on, if the majority of people (or their representatives) vote to take away my right to a driver's license then I don't have a right to have a driver's license anymore. That might upset me, but I wouldn't cry foul and say that they are taking away one of my "most basic rights". I do not have an inalienable right to own a driver's license.
This is how I see people talking about abortion and free birth control. PP supporters seem to be saying that it is an inalienable right for men and women to have free birth control. FREE?!?! You're telling me that I was born with a moral entitlement to a condom whenever I want one? For FREE?!?!
Here's a thought - when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence they didn't have condoms or birth control pills. So if you think people DESERVE to have free condoms and birth control pills, does that mean Thomas Jefferson was lacking one of his inalienable rights? If people 100 years ago didn't have it, then how is it that we are now born with the right to have it? If a majority of our elected representatives vote to not pay for your condoms, it is not taking away one of your God-given rights. If you want birth control, pay for it yourself. If you can't afford it, no one is making you have "unprotected sex".
If Planned Parenthood wants to claim it is a NECESSARY HEALTH CARE PROVIDER and entitled to have every American help pay their bills, then they need to provide only the things that are NECESSARY for good health. Birth control, condoms, and abortions are not necessary for anyone to be healthy. People are free to have birth control and condoms, but they are not entitled to have other people pay for it.
I think our society has forgotten what a right is. The current debate about Planned Parenthood's federal funding has got me thinking about this. I have seen numerous articles and videos of PP supporters outraged saying, "Congress is trying to take away our reproductive rights". I think these people are confusing about what kind of 'rights' they are talking about. I think people on both sides of the debate could benefit from rethinking what they mean when they defend their 'rights'.
Here's the common mistake: there is a difference between rights and inalienable rights. Rights are legal entitlements, inalienable rights are things all people are born with that should never be taken away. Whether people like to admit it or not, inalienable rights are based on morals. America's Declaration of Independence identifies what America believes to be inalienable rights - Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. From where I stand, I see our society as one that seems to think that everything they are legally entitled to are inalienable rights.
We are not born with a moral entitlement to every legal right. For example, I currently have the legal right to have a driver's license and drive on public roads. This does not mean that I was born to have a driver's license and that the right to a driver's license can never be taken away from me. According to the theory of Democracy, which America was built on, if the majority of people (or their representatives) vote to take away my right to a driver's license then I don't have a right to have a driver's license anymore. That might upset me, but I wouldn't cry foul and say that they are taking away one of my "most basic rights". I do not have an inalienable right to own a driver's license.
This is how I see people talking about abortion and free birth control. PP supporters seem to be saying that it is an inalienable right for men and women to have free birth control. FREE?!?! You're telling me that I was born with a moral entitlement to a condom whenever I want one? For FREE?!?!
Here's a thought - when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence they didn't have condoms or birth control pills. So if you think people DESERVE to have free condoms and birth control pills, does that mean Thomas Jefferson was lacking one of his inalienable rights? If people 100 years ago didn't have it, then how is it that we are now born with the right to have it? If a majority of our elected representatives vote to not pay for your condoms, it is not taking away one of your God-given rights. If you want birth control, pay for it yourself. If you can't afford it, no one is making you have "unprotected sex".
If Planned Parenthood wants to claim it is a NECESSARY HEALTH CARE PROVIDER and entitled to have every American help pay their bills, then they need to provide only the things that are NECESSARY for good health. Birth control, condoms, and abortions are not necessary for anyone to be healthy. People are free to have birth control and condoms, but they are not entitled to have other people pay for it.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
"When Abortion Was Illegal, Tens Of Thousands Of Women Died Every Year From Back-Alley Abortions. We Won't Go Back."
This is probably one of the most common arguments used to advocate abortion. It is a strong argument. Like all things that try to mislead us in life, this argument is based on something we know to be good. This statement about back-alley abortions strives to receive sympathy and compassion for women who are faced with this difficulty. Sympathy and compassion are good things - we should have sympathy and compassion for women who are faced with this difficulty or who feel that abortion is the only option. By playing this argument, abortion advocates set up an argument that if you disagree or oppose them you appear to be cold and cruel. But it is so very important to show that TRUE compassion for women does not mean that you should support legalized abortion. I will first explain why this argument given by abortion advocates fails, and then will show that this argument is a LIE to begin with.
If abortion is once again made illegal, it will be because our society has finally realized that life begins at conception and that an unborn child is a human person. People who play this argument for back-alley deaths are still arguing under the premise that an unborn child is not a person. But if we realize that the unborn child IS just as much of a person as women are, then we need to be concerned with saving as many lives of combined mother and children as possible. (Again, I am not in any way down-playing the deaths of women who have died in illegal abortions - I have extreme compassion for them. No one 'should die' and I am heart-broken that those women felt that was their only option. I will provide an alternative later) If we are trying to SAVE LIVES, we can save more lives by making abortion illegal. Yes, there will still be a percentage of women who would probably still seek illegal abortions and the results may be fatal. This is a travesty, and I wish it would not happen. But at least 3,000 (low estimate) abortions take place in the U.S. DAILY resulting in deaths, where as even the most extreme estimates (will discuss below) say there were 10,000 illegal abortions resulting in death each YEAR before Roe v. Wade. Make abortion illegal, immediately start saving lives, and then we can turn our attention and passion to finding ways to help women who feel they still need illegal abortions.
Furthermore, the argument of "Women will still get abortion even if it is illegal" is completely faulty. This is like saying, "Theft at gun-point happens every day even though it is illegal, so theft at gun-point should be made legal so the thief has no reason to shoot". Fear of disobedience of the law is no reason to abolish the law. I mean, the whole point is to NOT GET AN ABORTION. The law would be to PROTECT WOMEN. Even when legalized, abortion is extremely dangerous for women.
If this was understood, the next Pro-Choice response would be:
"Okay, so maybe the fear of illegal abortions isn't a great argument for legalized abortions. But 10,000 deaths of pregnant women, AND their unborn children is still a LOT of deaths... We can't just let that happen". Unfortunately, this is where people are buying a lie. A BIG, FAT, UGLY, COMPLETE LIE.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was one of the co-founders of the National Association of the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later renamed National Abortion Rights Action League, now commonly referred to as NARAL. He was one of the most influential doctors in Roe v. Wade and specifically talked much about these back-alley abortions. He helped have the American people realize that 10,000 back-alley deaths occur a year and that 1,000,000 illegal abortions took place a year. However, since Roe v. Wade, Dr. Nathanson has completely changed his stance on the issue of abortion. He is now a pro-life advocate (Has anyone noticed this tendency of top abortion advocates and directors to have a complete change of heart??? 'Jane Roe' from Roe v. Wade is also now a pro-life advocate.) He has since confessed to what really went on during the push to legalize abortion. Here are some quotes from him:
"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
If abortion is once again made illegal, it will be because our society has finally realized that life begins at conception and that an unborn child is a human person. People who play this argument for back-alley deaths are still arguing under the premise that an unborn child is not a person. But if we realize that the unborn child IS just as much of a person as women are, then we need to be concerned with saving as many lives of combined mother and children as possible. (Again, I am not in any way down-playing the deaths of women who have died in illegal abortions - I have extreme compassion for them. No one 'should die' and I am heart-broken that those women felt that was their only option. I will provide an alternative later) If we are trying to SAVE LIVES, we can save more lives by making abortion illegal. Yes, there will still be a percentage of women who would probably still seek illegal abortions and the results may be fatal. This is a travesty, and I wish it would not happen. But at least 3,000 (low estimate) abortions take place in the U.S. DAILY resulting in deaths, where as even the most extreme estimates (will discuss below) say there were 10,000 illegal abortions resulting in death each YEAR before Roe v. Wade. Make abortion illegal, immediately start saving lives, and then we can turn our attention and passion to finding ways to help women who feel they still need illegal abortions.
Furthermore, the argument of "Women will still get abortion even if it is illegal" is completely faulty. This is like saying, "Theft at gun-point happens every day even though it is illegal, so theft at gun-point should be made legal so the thief has no reason to shoot". Fear of disobedience of the law is no reason to abolish the law. I mean, the whole point is to NOT GET AN ABORTION. The law would be to PROTECT WOMEN. Even when legalized, abortion is extremely dangerous for women.
If this was understood, the next Pro-Choice response would be:
"Okay, so maybe the fear of illegal abortions isn't a great argument for legalized abortions. But 10,000 deaths of pregnant women, AND their unborn children is still a LOT of deaths... We can't just let that happen". Unfortunately, this is where people are buying a lie. A BIG, FAT, UGLY, COMPLETE LIE.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was one of the co-founders of the National Association of the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later renamed National Abortion Rights Action League, now commonly referred to as NARAL. He was one of the most influential doctors in Roe v. Wade and specifically talked much about these back-alley abortions. He helped have the American people realize that 10,000 back-alley deaths occur a year and that 1,000,000 illegal abortions took place a year. However, since Roe v. Wade, Dr. Nathanson has completely changed his stance on the issue of abortion. He is now a pro-life advocate (Has anyone noticed this tendency of top abortion advocates and directors to have a complete change of heart??? 'Jane Roe' from Roe v. Wade is also now a pro-life advocate.) He has since confessed to what really went on during the push to legalize abortion. Here are some quotes from him:
"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.""We announced to the media that wehad taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissiveabortion. This isthe tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We arousedenough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number ofillegal abortions done annually in the U.S."
"The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000."
"
The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000."
"We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its 'socially backward ideas' and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion." "A favourite pro- abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy."PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH GIVEN BY DR. BERNARD NATHANSON.www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.htmlSo instead of accepting this lie and telling women we care for them by wide-spread abortion, I suggest a social and cultural shift. It's been done before and we could do it again. We need to make sex a more sacred part of our culture, not a publicized one. Instead of telling women it's impossible to have children and be successful, we need to make both these things possible for women. We need to make pregnancy a much more common and usual thing. We need to have systems and programs set up in the work-place to accommodate this aspect of natural reproduction. It's a beautiful thing! Why don't we embrace it?Also, Roe v. Wade should be thrown out as a mistrial. They lied.Sunday, February 6, 2011
"We Need Abortion Because The World Is Becoming Over-Populated"
Who's heard this one before? I know I have. While I think this is one of the weaker Pro-Choice arguments, people still like to throw it out there. People like to claim that a larger population creates more poverty, that a larger population causes a shortage of food, and that a larger population runs out of land to live on. Besides the fact that these claims are FALSE, would these things really justify murdering our own children? I may not be a parent yet, but I know I would rather sacrifice my own life than take the life of my own child (or any child, for that matter) so that I could have more food. Even if these claims of over-population were true, I would rather work together in society to find a way to support more of my world wide family than settle for abortion. If we come to the conclusion that abortion takes a life, then that is no better than starving people from a lack of natural resources. The claim that abortion is necessarily to maintain resources is like saying, "X amount of people might die from natural shortages, so let's just go ahead and go against nature and murder 5X amount of people to make sure that doesn't happen".
But like I said, it's still a moot point. Because over-population isn't real anyway. Don't believe me? Here are some entertaining and informative clips from the folks at OverPopulationIsAMyth.com
But like I said, it's still a moot point. Because over-population isn't real anyway. Don't believe me? Here are some entertaining and informative clips from the folks at OverPopulationIsAMyth.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)