« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

For What Do We Fight?

By: Ben Howe (Diary)  |  August 21st, 2012 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

No, this is not a post defending Todd Akin.  I, in no way endorse the concept (which Akin himself refutes at this point) that “legitimate rape” is a phrase that should ever have entered the American lexicon. In the light of a new day I wanted to offer some final thoughts around how things unfolded yesterday and what it revealed to me.

When I found out what Akin had said yesterday, one of the first phrases I heard was “magical uterus” which I’m told began with S.E. Cupp discussing Akin’s colorful way of describing a traumatic miscarriage.  Given my enduring faith that Akin is more of an idiot than an insane person, I still choose to believe he was speaking about the body miscarrying a pregnancy following a violent or traumatic event.  I could be wrong. That said, having had four children with my wife and speaking to doctors about the importance of being cautious and the dangers of miscarriages, it’s a bit jarring to see people running around laughing about magical uteri when, from what I can tell, they don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

Either way it’s irrelevant to what I learned yesterday.

What I learned was about a fracture within the movement that I didn’t know existed.  I got into some vicious arguments on twitter yesterday with people that I’m friends with.  People who came across my twitter feed mistakenly believed that I was defending Akin or that I was defending his comments.  In actuality, it had become abundantly clear to me fairly quickly that aside from Akin’s ridiculous comments, many people were simply offended that he thought rape didn’t justify abortion.  That alone was a ridiculous notion to many.  This was news to me.

One person (incidentally, who disagrees with me) in an email said that we don’t discuss these issues privately enough and as a result “people get the sense that their ideas are much more universally shared than they actually are.”  This is certainly true, we clearly don’t discuss it enough. But my shock at the pushback on rape abortions has nothing to do with how much we discuss it, it has to do with philosophical consistency. To be prolife with exceptions requires you to believe that there are some instances in which a choice must be granted. Whether people like it or not this is simply a more restrictive pro-choice perspective. And yes, I’m aware that offends others.

We as conservatives have always prided ourselves on our ability to objectively look at uncomfortable truths and accept them for what they are. The majority of people who proclaim themselves to be prochoice, have circumstances they believe a person should have a choice and circumstances in which they shouldn’t. This is identical in practice to the “prolife with exceptions” believer with the only differences being which circumstances are permitted.

As Aaron Gardner noted yesterday:

You see, I also believe murder is murder, and parsing and qualifying and slicing up what types of murder we are talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me. The left and President Obama parse, qualify, and slice up what types of abortions are murder and which ones are legitimate ways of relieving a “burden” with nary a peep coming from the media.

The view that Aaron notes is agreed upon throughout the prolife and conservative movement as far as I knew. However, it seems that for many, they believe that all the way to the point that they decide the circumstances warrant changing their mind.

I have stood beside countless conservatives screaming that abortion is baby murder, seen them tweet at planned parenthood or march on the Capitol all in the name of saving the unborn. Saying things about “innocent life,” and “protecting the least among us.” I have yet to have someone adequately explain to me how this changes when the circumstances surrounding the conception are tragic or evil.

I’ve been prolife my whole life and have been in more debates on this topic than I can recount. In my experiences, there are (generally) four kinds of views on abortion that I’ve seen:

1. Fetus is a living human being from conception and therefore must be protected as any other human would be (that’s me).
2. Fetus is not alive until much later in pregancy so early abortions are akin to removing a tumor. (much of the prochoice movement)
3. Fetus is alive the whole pregnancy but that doesn’t mean abortion is wrong. (radical prochoice movement)
4. Fetus is alive the whole pregnancy so we should minimize the necessity of aborting whenever possible. (Many on the right as revealed yesterday)

I had believed that most who called themselves “prolife” fell under category 1 above. If you’re saying abortion is murder and a fetus is an innocent human life, it seems like it would be nonsense to have exceptions, whether it’s rape or incest or whatever. If a fetus is as alive as a 5 year old, then the 5 year old’s rules should apply. And if the fetus is not as alive as a 5 year old then what the hell are we fighting to defend? A lump of cells? I’m still having a hard time accepting it, but the only logical conclusion is that many of our allies believe murdering an innocent life is justifiable if the event is traumatic enough. The fact that I find that appalling will result in countless emails about how I can’t sympathize or understand what it would be like to suffer those circumstances.

They’re right. I can’t. But others can.

Abortion is a choice. The only times that it is not a choice is when the life of the mother is in danger or some other medical emergency. The intellectual cartwheels one must undertake to look at the decision to abort a baby for no reason other than the fact that its existence is not desired and compare it to the tragedy of an eptopic pregnancy, is something I can’t understand and frankly, find deplorable. It’s merely an argumentative excuse to try to group things that are dissimilar.

As to whether or not Akin should stay in, at this point I definitely think he should get out if for no other reason that that I’m now arguing fundamental disagreements with my allies that were completely off the radar two days ago when we should be unified and working towards a successful convention and nomination.

What concerns me, and why I felt the need to post this, is that I see a lot of people latching on to the “magical uterus” part and adding their basic views on abortion as part of what is being disavowed. As though to say “Hey everyone, we totally disavow this Akin guy and everything he said, including that crazy part about being against abortion in cases of rape & incest.” That’s not something I can get behind.

Abortion is a choice. A legal choice. A wrong choice. A Godless choice.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • smagar

    The 2012 election is one that can be fought and won on fiscal grounds. That is the “big tent” that will rally enough people to defeat Obama and put the Senate back in GOP hands. Without the White House and the Senate, there will be no meaningful reform.

    We are heading off of a fiscal cliff. First things first. We need to fight the battle that we can win now.

    Does anyone here really think that a campaign with the abortion issue at its center is one that wins for us in November?

    I’m sorry, folks, but we live in a very imperfect world. The November election will be won or lost in that imperfect world.

    We must win or lose in November with the electorate we DO have, not the one we think we SHOULD have.

    The American electorate we DO have will not turn the White House or the Senate over to the GOP based on abortion. They gave the White House, plus a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House, to the Democrats in 2008, knowing full well how indifferent the Democrats were to infanticide.

    What changed everyone’s minds in 2010, resulting in a huge Dem defeat? It wasn’t the abortion issue. It was economics.

    Ben raises some very good points about some frank discussions that we pro-lifers need to have amongst ourselves. IMO that discussion should not drive our campaigning over the next 90 days. Because, in November, we have no choice but to win.

    • Ben Howe

      Not strategy.

      • smagar

        Thanks.

    • curtmilr

      and there are many ways of looking at the issue by those with good intentions and moral, ethical, and spiritual consistency.

      For example, I believe from my Christian scriptural understanding that life does not begin until the breath of life is instilled thru the holy spirit. Since the soul & human spirit have not been embued within an unborn fetus thru that breath, abortion is not murder.

      At the same time, human life is fully potential from the moment of conception, and, left undisturbed, will result in that life becoming actual, reflected by the biological reflex motility of the fetus. As a result, I am solidly opposed to abortion as a practice, but recognizing that I am not to be the Judge of sin.

      Certainly government at any level should not be involved in supporting or funding any such a practice. To do so dictates a definition of spiritual truth, and therefore violates the 1st Amemdment by establishing a religious tenet under law. But likewise, prohibition of same violates the same Amendment, only in the contrary way.

      The rule in all matters spiritual should thus always be “judge not, lest you be judged”. Politics and government should stay as far removed from these matters as possible, allowing our spiritual lives to remain personal and private.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        The societal prohibition against murder is spiritually rooted in the Ten Commandments. Does that mean we should have cut Timothy McVeigh or David Berkowitz a little more slack?

        • curtmilr

          prohibition of and penalty for murder require an actual life being wrongfully terminated, not merely a potential one. In the case of abortion, that life is not existent as the breath of life has not been infused the soul and human spirit.

          I am fully on board for the death penalty, including for forcible rape.

          I am not cutting anyone any slack, but neither am I setting myself up as a spiritual Judge. I am striving to be spiritually, scripturally, and Constitutionally consistent.

          • streiff

            where did you learn biology?

          • curtmilr

            are part of the spiritual dimension of Christian life, not the biologic part. That should be obvious.

            If you revert to pure biology as the rule, you devolve to a debate about fetal viability outside the womb. Not a good ground for a fight against early term abortion.

            Most folks define death as when a body stops breathing, though brain death can occur before. The logical loop is that life begins with breath as well. God inbreathed a human spirit to Adam making him a living soul.

            I’m not asking you to believe the way I do, BTW, just that you do not try to COMPEL me to believe the way you do.

          • streiff

            Historically, Christian societies have treated the fetus as a human being after “quickening” or about 14 weeks. None of your “soul and spirit” nonsense.

            If you revert to pure biology, a new life is created at conception, or if I go all Gingrich on you, implantation. This is excellent ground to fight abortion as it doesn’t depend on, Catholics like me for instance, to buy into your peculiar theology.

            I have not interest in either convincing you or compelling you, but I don’t take “soul and spirit” to be much of a usable idea when it comes to legislating.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            He could instill the breathe of life into any rock you see lying around on the ground. That sort of what omnipotent implies. May the scales one day fall from your eyes, Curtmilr.

          • curtmilr

            He could do anything in the heavens and earth He chooses, including destroying and recreating them in an instant. Such is the “mind” of God that we inhabit.

            As to the eye scales, I’d suggest that they have been lifted from MY eyes, as I’m not attempting to be a Judge when it is not my place.

            Please, let’s not make the personally injurious.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            When a baby has it’s skull opened, a vaccuum inserted into its cranium and it’s brains sucked out into a bag of medical waste, we’ve done something quite injurious. In fact, if the 1st Amendment protects the right to perform any abortion based upon the religious freedoms, your local cabal of Ba’al-worshippers could chuck live babies into a live, toasty furnace and as long as they had appropriate Ba’al-scripture justifying such an action, nobody could touch it.

          • avgjo

            You’re a Christian, right?

            Here’s a little of what the Bible says about judging..

            Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

            (Amos 5:14-15)

            Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

            (I Cor. 6:1-5)

            The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.

            (Psa. 37:30)

            You not only can judge, you are required to do so:

            Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
            When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
            Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

            Ezekiel 3:17-19

            How can you do this if you don’t judge the man’s behavior to be wrong or the man himself to be wicked?

            What is not our place is to judge what the Bible is silent on , or people’s souls to hell. That’s the Lord’s place alone.

            Christians use abuse ‘judge not’ to avoid the heavy lifting of calling out evil. Don’t fall into that trap.

          • PowerToThePeople

            it is amazing to me just how many buy into the warped and wrong translation of the very “judge not lest……..”

            It would be nice if people took the time to actually read the Word before they try to use it to justify a wrong position.

            Thanks for the clarity!!

          • PowerToThePeople

            ..

          • avgjo

            words, PttP. I expected the first comment to intended to rip me to shreds. A pleasant surprise. Thank you.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            abuse of the “judge not” principle was an essential rallying cry of the 150-year descent into which the flagship liberal Protestant denominations slowly-but-willfully plunged: from orthodoxy, through social gospel, through heterodoxy, through paganism, and out into the void of absurdity.

            Which should give contemporary evangelicals who hear its siren call pause–but no one studies history at the Church of What’s Happenin’ Now.

          • avgjo

            far superior-to-mine knowledge in this area, and what I just read from you explains so much that frustrates me about so many churches today.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            You vastly overrate my knowledge, but I have been blessed to have had access to some great teachers and resources. These two articles at the reformed White Horse Inn Blog expose the temptation faced by American evangelicalism, 19C mainline and 21C independent, to turn from being the sole dispenser of a solid theology which normally produces societal effects, to being one of a multitude of dispensers of personal/social well-being which inevitably abandons orthodox theology altogether:

            Reviving Christianity or Christendom?

            Culture-Changers: Mainline Denominations Losing Members but Making Their Mark

          • avgjo

            Literally just before I read your reply, I was reading Rush’s analysis of an AP survey about today’s youth. Rush made a comment, one I’m not even sure he meant to make, about how these kids have no problem with death panels. When churches and individuals claiming to be Christians compromise on important things like abortion, we end up with realities like what Rush was talking about. Any compromise with evil is surrender to evil…,

            Anyway, I digress. Church reformi and revival is something I pray fervently for. Your articles will deepen my understanding of the problem, I’m thinking. Thanks again.

          • curtmilr

            I certainly try to seek the good and select leaders who do the same. I trust you do too.
            But Christ himself self said, “Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone!”, and none could in all honesty. And so the adulteress was spared, but admonished.
            This is the precise situation we find ourselves in, all in the fallen state but presuming to sanctimoniously judge? Christ said not to in a capital offense case! Disregard Him if you choose.
            Yes, in the Millenium we are said to be set up as judges, and so it will be. But at this time Satan rules this world by the allowance of God’s will which is beyond our human understanding, though we strive mightily.
            I find abortion to be a horrid concept. How a mother could do it is beyond me! But I have held a fetus in my hand, a result of a miscarriage, and it was nowhere near life, except in loving potential. So please don’t go there. I have personally agonized over this issue, and am wholly at peace with my stance, morally, ethically, and spiritually, as is my wife, whom I had approve my initial post.

          • avgjo

            You held a fetus in your hand, a RESULT OF A MISCARRIAGE, and it was nowhere near life. It was dead, so no kidding it was nowhere near life. If you are referring to its appearance, shame, shame. I suppose then we could define life in general based on appearance. That brings us eventually to eugenics.

            As for what Jesus said, he was dealing with apostate hypocrites, who ignored (Jesus reminded them) the part of the Bible where God says ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’. He was not talking to Christians arriving at a correct conclusion based on the Word of God.

            You apparently didn’t read the whole scripture from Paul that I put there. He was talking about judging on earth, in the now.

          • curtmilr

            of what I write. Are you? How callous and uncaring ARE you?

            I am the only son of an only son. That fetus was the child that was to carry on my family’s genetic line, and it ended in my hands via miscarriage. Such events tend to focus one’s attention, wouldn’t you think? Of course it was dead, but looking at it, it was quite clear that it was NEVER independently alive either. That was my point in mentioning it.

            By citing my own religious beliefs as AN EXAMPLE of the variety of religious beliefs on RedState, I had no intention of starting a theological debate. I compounded the error by engaging in a back & forth during a busy work day, and, in my haste, made imprecise theological statements. But that was never the point.

            The gang-piling attempt to steamroll me under a pile of sectarian dogma was an abject failure. I am far too secure and convicted by the Holy Spirit to fall for such human tactics. I was not attempting to convert anyone or attack their believes. Yet, I was made a target as the gang-pilers formed the proverbial circular firing squad. and inflicted damage among their own coalition, most not brave enough to speak. That was a shame!

            The ONLY point of my original post was that our coalition is diverse. Some are not Christians at all! There is a nuance that must be respected to avoid alienating those who would otherwise be allies within the coalition. There is no religious test for federal office or RedState membership, nor should there be.

            I welcome anyone who can help our political coalition to defeat the amoral & immoral Left, including some who don’t hold to strict anti-abortion dogma. As I said before, I whole-heartedly oppose abortion but see 1st Amendment issues, as well as my own religious beliefs, standing in the way of simplistic, dogmatic solutions.

            I appreciate that your, and the rest of the gang-pilers, beliefs are sincere, but my only theological fealty belongs to the Holy Trinity, not to man’s dogmas. So grant me the right to pursue my walk with the Lord by the convictions of my own conscience as guided by the Spirit.

            I wish you peace beyond understanding, and will not see any response as I will now depart this thread.

          • avgjo

            If you decide after all not to run from debate, I’ll further elaborate.

          • PowerToThePeople

            that he should be concerned about the spirit that is convicting and securing him as the Holy Spirit would never lead him in a way that clearly violates the scripture.

            But then again, it is clear he is not only unable to defend his position, he is unwilling to try.

          • avgjo

            being judgmental. How dare you. You’ve got to understand that we live in a pluralistic society and that each Christian has her own interpretation of what the Bible says. My God is a loving God who would never have any nasty rules or put anyone in that hell place. I know this because I feel it. Although I can’t explain why all those ‘thou shalt nots’ are in the Bible…

            (Sorry, it was either that pathetic attempt at humor or an expression of irritation at the sort of stuff we’ve been dealing with out of mr. curt. )

            I do thank you for saving me some work. What you wrote about the leading of the Spirit was very nearly verbatim of what I had planned for a response if curt did in fact follow up.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and the message Jesus gave to the crowd had nothing to do with not judging sin or even having to be perfect prior to handing down judgement and punishment, it had to do with the hypocrisy of the religious ruling class of those days and their blatant evil who yet were so willing to punish those who broke the law that they themselves were unwilling to follow.

            You are twisting the Bible to fit your agenda or excuse your positions and that sir is a big problem if you claim to be a Christian.

          • jamesm

            nt

          • PowerToThePeople

            or you are just another moron trying to be clever yet failing miserably.

            Which one is it? I am blunt and cruel to idiots, but am no hypocrite, so that only leaves the moron possibility. And from your recent postings, you being a moron is a given.

            Now shove off back to the kiddie table, I am way above your level and will only embarrass you badly.

          • jamesm

            ..

          • avgjo

            have you nothing better to offer than insults?

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            –without which there is not spiritual consistency–requires that you get to know David, Solomon, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus a little more closely, because they are all standing against your at the moment.

            Not to mention every biologist on the planet.

            And the vast majority of the biblically-faithful historical church, which has seen only error arise from a trichotomous view of man.

          • curtmilr

            that I am being wholly consistent. “EVERY biologist”??? LOL!! You couldn’t get every biologist to agree on the day of the week!

            Devolving into a theological debate is not in the best interest of Red State, but we could continue the discussion privately if you would like.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            From apologeticspress:

            So Exodus 21 envisioned a situation in which two brawling men accidentally injure a pregnant bystander. The injury causes the woman to go into early labor, resulting in a premature birth of her child. If neither the woman nor the child is harmed, then the Law of Moses levied a fine against the one who caused the premature birth. But if injury or even death resulted from the brawl, then the law imposed a parallel punishment: if the premature baby died, the one who caused the premature birth was to be executed?life for life. To cause a pre-born infant?s death was homicide under the Old Testament?homicide punishable by death.

            Notice that this Mosaic regulation had to do with injury inflicted indirectly and accidentally: ?The phrasing of the case suggests that we are dealing with an instance of unintentional battery involving culpability? (Fishbane, 1985, p. 92). Abortion, on the other hand, is a deliberate, purposeful, intentional termination of a child?s life. If God dealt severely with the accidental death of a pre-born infant, how do you suppose He feels about the deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor in collusion with the mother? The Bible states explicitly how He feels: ?[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked? (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of the things that God hates is ?hands that shed innocent blood? (Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13).

            More suggested reading if you sincerely want to learn here, here, and an entire list of articles here.

          • curtmilr

            that passage.
            No permanent injury resulted in a minor fine.
            Loss of the fetus, but not the wife resulted in a major fine, added mainly because children were a source of labor, thus wealth lost in those times.
            Loss of the wife, with or without loss of the fetus, was murder.
            And even then, cities of refuge were provided for, if the aggressor managed to escape. But he could only emerge safe from execution if his family was able to negotiate a blood price to satisfy the family that suffered the loss.

            Again, theological discussion does not serve Red State. We can take this direct if you like.

          • avgjo

            The Hebrew in that passage is ‘yatsa’ – to physically come out, i.e. premature birth. The qualifier is ‘no mischief follow’. ‘Ason’ – harm, evil, hurt. If the baby or the lady dies, the next part prescribes the punishment – ‘life for life’.

          • curtmilr

            thiough I should qualify it to say that in the case of an accidentally induced live birth wherein the then baby still dies, the judgement mentioned would be correct. But until live birth occurs, no independent life or soul exists in the fetus. Those who want to set aside the soul set aside the entire Judeo-Christrian tradition, which is their right, but not my belief.
            BTW, I misspoke about the inbreathing of the spirit to fallen man, that was true for Adam, but not you or I. Thus by our action we grieve or quench the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when we repeatedly fail.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            to not make this theological–though you have been the one using a variant of “spiritual” in most of your recent posts–it behooves you to reconcile your “until live birth occurs, no independent life or soul exists in the fetus” with, as I suggested earlier, the counterexamples provided by (I won’t cite ‘em as I’m sure you know ‘em) at least David, Solomon, Jeremiah and John the Baptist.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            You brought theology into the discussion. Like I said, if you’re sincere about the discussion, get back to me after you’ve read the links I posted.

          • emptybucket

            n/t

  • Darin_H

    I would assume people could believe 1, but realize that pushing for 4 is a good step to take since the amount of abortions resulting from rape and incest are small compared to the number of elective abortions and thus are trying to save a million babies a year – and once that is accomplished work on the rest. To say then that 4 is acceptable on the way to 1 insofar as our laws are concerned.

    • Ben Howe

      Not strategy. Which I pointed out in the post. My issue is that people are latching onto the strategic decision to drop Akin by also disavowing the idea that abortion isn’t ok in cases of rape & incest.

      As I said in the post, I don’t only vote for people who 100% agree with me on this point.

      • Darin_H

        ,

      • smagar

        This is an important discussion to have.

      • curtmilr

        was the purpose of the hyperbolic overreaction to Akin’s misstatement by the Left and MSM.

        While I don’t agree with Akin’s abortions definitions, I would most likely be able to support him on virtually every other issue.

  • jccbin

    Apparently some folks have no problem falling back on medieval concepts.

    Just as surely as the son or daughter of a mobster is no guilty of the father’s crimes, the child of a rapist is not guilty of rape, except in the eyes of your friends, it seems.

    There are those whose own emotional immaturity would make it impossible for them to look past the source of the child. It is up to everyone to comfort them, and encourage them to behave with maturity. Sadly, some people are weak. These same people would kill someone else if they felt that other person had the same negative impact on them as the fetus of a rapist. The aftermath of the rape merely exposes their weakness.

    Those who are truly mature also need comfort, care, and all the necessary things that go with being savagely attacked and the recovery from that attack. But they are mature enough to see that the child is not the father and is as innocent as she is. These women would never murder someone for convenience. The aftermath exposes their true humanity.

    If abortion is murder, then killing the child of a rapist is murder most foul.

  • streiff

    Tactically, I’d be willing to trade a rape/incest exception (so long as the exception was accompanied by an arrest warrant for the perpetrator) for the rest of the 1 million plus babies killed in the womb each year. And when that was accomplished I’d try to end the exemption.

    But it is morally reprehensible, and logically incomprehensible, to support the exemption for any other reason.

    • acat

      Let’s suppose Woman X goes to get an abortion. If she says rape, she should be counseled – gently and with all due care – to file a police report because we all know rapes are under-reported.

      Mew

      p.s. cat supports the death penalty for rapists

  • wintermute

    Many conservatives I know are not the ‘life begins at conception’ types. But they generally feel its maybe a few weeks when abortion becomes ending the life of a human being. Your jump from “begins at conception” to “much later in pregnancy” seems to exclude these types who would side with you in a choice between the 2 if they were pushed b/c they do feel that at some point early on that fetus becomes a living human being.

    To be clear, I haven’t exactly pulsed the nation but I would guess most conservatives are LBAC types. I am not plugged in to any religious movement or even the grassroots activist population (not yet). The point about overestimating the amount at which our views are shared is apt. Most of our social and professional circles are self selecting and usually reflect ourselves in some manner. Echo chambers are all around and aren’t healthy.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Sadly, I can’t say I’m surprised. Man has tried to justify sin since the fall in the Garden and will continue doing so until the end of time as we know it.

    That said, the topic is being used for politican gain by those who didn’t support Akin to begin with. Their failure to defend the pro life position as you and others have, even if they agreed with the strategy of calling for him to leave the race, tells me more about their character than Akin’s. It’s not something I’m likely to forget.

  • keen

    To preface, I want to say that I really appreciate you writing this, and hope we can engage on the more sober philosophical questions of abortion.

    I’m pro-choice. Very, very pro-choice. I subscribe to the philosophy described, sort of, by #3:

    “3. Fetus is alive the whole pregnancy but that doesn?t mean abortion is wrong.”

    Now, I’ll break rank with my pro-choice peers and say what I think is obvious: fetuses are human beings. I continue to be surprised that pro-choicers maintain the tactic of describing any stage of fetal development as “a clump of cells” or whatnot.

    I mean, the entire point of an abortion is that it terminates human life. It’s not like you get an abortion for something other than the deliberate killing of a person.

    And yet despite this I remain pro-choice because?and this is a conservative position!?I believe that individuals have an inherent right to determine what occurs to their own bodies.

    Now, it’s true that this belief bears on the legal status of the fetus, because as a person it also retains an inherent right to self-determination. But the only reason that a fetus possesses that self-determination is because the individual in whose womb it resides allows it be there at all.

    That’s an important detail which, for reasons I do understand, the anti-abortion crowd refuses to discuss. If you want the pro-choice side to acknowledge the fact that a fetus is uniquely innocent, uniquely vulnerable?which it is?you have to acknowledge the fact that a fetus’ personhood, a fetus’ survival, a fetus’ most basic existence, depends on the mother carrying it. Honest debate requires acknowledgement of all of these things, not just those which bolster your side.

    It’s also unclear to me how the pro-life side acknowledges the political reality of their position, which, if implemented in law, gives the state the power to force women to carry their pregnancies to term. That’s nine months of rapid physical changes to your body, against your will. I cannot think of a similar law that would exert such a massive force on the actual bodies of ordinary citizens.

    • beach91

      believe what I read in your post. What a bunch of crap! You actually have the gall to call “pro-choice” a conservative position so the mother has the “inherent right” to murder? That is essentially what you said! Unbelievable! Well at least you admit it and I am sorry for you.

      Is it right for any person to just go around and kill another then claim it was their right?

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      And the Jews were alive during the whole train ride, but that doesn’t mean Triblinka was wrong.

    • streiff

      this site is pro-life.

      We don’t debate it.

      Though I will say this, I find your argument to be the most grotesque and nauseating defense of abortion I’ve ever read.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        and that’s what made it nauseating. When liberals actually speak the truth about abortion and can still support it we learn about the disgusting vaccuum within the modern Leftisit soul.

        • lineholder

          It pertains to how we are approaching this battle against abortion. And I’m not meaning to be critical of anyone…it’s just a curiosity point on my part and I’m looking for feedback.

          We say that we support liberty and freedom. Freedom implies being able to choose. But in the way that we have been approaching the issue of abortion, we can come across as “no choice”.

          If we shifted our approach a bit, defined that we are pro-choice but choose life whereas the left chooses death…do you think it would help us any? It draws a very stark contrast as to the reality of what is actually being chosen.

          I’ve been thinking about this one a lot lately. Any feedback would be appreciated.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Once you take that tack, get ready to explain why rape and incest victims should carry the pregnancy to term.

          • renl57

            Now if she’s a member of an established church, perhaps the church can help her.

            But if she’s not, and she can’t get adequate support from her family, then she’s on her own.

            I would feel better about saying she must give birth to the child if conservatives had set up an adequate support network for such victims.

          • Joshua Persons

            If your church does so, renl57, I’d suggest you seek a new one.

          • streiff

            but most don’t.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            “I would feel better about saying she must give birth to the child if conservatives had set up an adequate support network for such victims.”

            You mean like the thousands of crises pregnancy centers and the hundreds of adoption agencies run by both religious and secular people?

            You are a putz.

          • Joshua Persons

            Here’s a worldwide directory of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers:

            http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/worldwide-directory-of-pregnancy-help/

            Nearly 50 within 25 miles of my address.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            If a young woman came to me right now and said I am going to abort my baby because I cannot care for it.

            I would BEG her to let me adopt, and I would pay her medical expenses.

            My wife and I tried an international adoption because there are so few kids available here. (because of abortion) But we ran out of money and the home country of the child changed it’s policies.

          • acat

            The Catholics had this down to a science, right up until the ’60s or ’70s….

            Girl in, let’s say Ohio gets knocked up.

            Parents say that girl has gone to “care for an aunt or other relative” for a year.

            Girl is actually out of state, living in a Catholic dormitory in Wisconsin with other knocked-up girls, getting some counseling and decent food. Sometimes, they decided to stay and become nuns, sometimes they went back home and got on with their lives.

            When the baby is born, it’s sent to a host family briefly, 3-6 months, to make sure it’s okay. Afterward, it’s adopted out to a waiting family in Illinois. (children of in-trouble girls from Illinois went to Ohio or Pennsylvania or .. any State but Illinois ..)

            The birth certificate that the family are given has a (routine) couple clerical errors… specifically, the mother is listed as a resident of Wisconsin, and the baby’s birth date is off by at least 2 weeks so nobody can put two and two together.

            Like I said, the Catholics had this down to a science.

            Mew

          • acat

            to affirm your position, kyle8 – i.e. adoption operations may have had a slump in the ’70s as the Catholics were pushed out, but it has made a strong comeback under the Evangelicals.

            Mew

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            -nt

          • 10ab

            I am pro life…a Christian, but in all honesty IF rape or incest had touched my daughters, I would have wanted them to have a “choice.” Does that make me pro choice? Hardly in my mind…and I believe they would have made the rught decision. BUT the social conservatives unwavering stance on rape and incest does play right into the Left’s hands. It gives us few converts.

          • Joshua Persons

            Honest question — what is your philosophical reason for wanting to outlaw abortions?

      • keen

        “this site is pro-life. We don?t debate it.”

        Sorry if this sounds flippant, but isn’t the above post indicative of the opposite?

        My impression of RedState, as a reader for the past six months, is that it believes in less, not more, government. A pro-life viewpoint?which requires the belief that women do not have control over their bodies?defies this line, which I think puts it up for debate.

        Again, I’m sorry if I misjudged the range of acceptable debate here. Is RedState “pro-life” in the way that one might guess it is “anti-gay-marriage”? Is the definition of marriage up for debate in a way that abortion is not up for debate? I’m genuinely curious because I’ve appreciated RedState for the discourse provided in its comments. But it’s not a discourse if certain arguments, if arguments at all, are off-limits simply because they strike others as “grotesque” but otherwise attempt to make a case on the basis of the site’s ethos?in particular, the trust a government places in its individuals to determine their own lives.

        • beach91

          others have the opportunity to kill or murder because to really prosecute something like that would involve some sort of governing body. So laws against murder in your mind would also be more government.

          You need your head examined!

          • keen

            If we allow the state to force women to carry pregnancies to term, don’t we also give that same state unlimited license to do whatever it wants to the bodies of its people?

            What am I missing here?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            you’re missing the point that you have sanctioned infanticide for the sake of convenience. Nobody thinks making a woman carry a rape or an incest baby to term is a good thing or a positive thing. It’s a lesser of two evils. It is an inconvenient birth versus an unnecessary and therefore inexcusable infanticide. My sympathy goes out to anyone forced to endure such a thing, but my greater sympathy goes out to anyone that has their skull cracked open, a vacuum inserted into their cranium and their brain sucked out.

          • keen

            “the sake of convenience” is the right of a person to what happens to their own body. I don’t you think you can discount the importance of that by dismissing it as some sort of indulgence.

            “Nobody thinks making a woman carry a rape or an incest baby to term is a good thing or a positive thing.”

            A lot of people do, actually. And clearly the pro-life lobby does too, otherwise they wouldn’t be advocating it.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            >>>Nobody thinks making a woman carry a rape or an incest baby to term is a good thing or a positive thing. It?s a lesser of two evils.

            At no point did anyone say it was a good thing. What part of a “A Lesser of Two Evils” are you twisted enough to believe is a good?

          • keen

            if you stopped calling me “twisted” and other kinds of names. I am trying to engage you in debate. I’m not perfect, but I’m not calling you a bevy of insults, either.

            I don’t locate “good” or “bad” in either the abortion itself or the pregnancy carried to term?and not just in cases of rape or incest but in all cases of pregnancy.

            I locate “good” in the power of an individual to decide what happens to their own bodies, and I locate “bad” in a state overriding that.

            A woman who is forced to have an abortion is as wronged as a woman who is forced carry her pregnancy to term.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Yet you still have no problem killing them. You believe killing other human beings can be justified that easily. I can’t believe that you are a good or a decent human being, based directly upon your own statements.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            in order to decide what happens to their own body? Or does the other body have any right to life despite the temporary invasion of the other body’s space? Whether the gluing was intentional or accidental….

          • acat

            the (barely-watchable) “Basket Case” ?

            If you prefer, what are the rights of one siamese twin over the other?

            Mew

            (cat is, like many insomniacs, something of a connoisseur of late-night movies)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I watch TCM more than any other movie channel, but not horror films, unless they star Vincent Price, Bela Legosi or a few select others.

          • aesthete

            The one carrying a pregnancy to term, or the one who is having his/her brains sucked out? As you noted above, both individuals are alive — as such, there should be a concern for the autonomy of both subjects. In a perfect world all rights would be discrete and well-defined. It is not a perfect world, which is why we’ve instituted governments and courts to protect rights and arbitrate when rights come into conflict, as they do in well-defined cases (e.g., murder) or fuzzier cases (e.g., easements). Excluding abortion — a case where the end result of a successful case is the termination of a human life — from government arbitration is, well, arbitrary. In point of fact the argument that you are making is not much different from an argument which would allow parental negligence and wrongdoing up to and including filicide.

          • lineholder

            would they use it against us?

            The value of life applies to the entire spectrum of life from conception to death.
            Undermining the value of the lives of the unborn can be used to diminish the value of life across the entire spectrum of life itself.

            Do we want government to have the power of defining which lives are worthy of living and which ones are not? Which lives are “productive to society” and which ones are not?

            That’s the risk we face with the situation as it stands on the issue of abortion…that similar principles can be applied in other areas of life.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            The most evil supporters of abortion and euthenasia support both knowing good and well that they are killing a human being. This is seen as a feature, not a bug.

          • lineholder

            I also think that many of them have been deceived into seeing it as “good thing” rather than recognizing the dangers it presents.

            It’s like anything else we’ve been dealing with lately where deceitfulness exists. All we can do is try to pull back the veil.

          • lineholder

            ,

          • keen

            Nobody who calls themselves pro-choice “supports” abortion. That would be a contradiction of terms. They support the right of a woman to decide whether or not to have one.

          • lineholder

            There are people and organizations who claim to be “pro-choice” who support abortion for many reasons other than ensuring that a woman has a right to choose.

            Their reasons range from having concerns about population control to biases against people on the basis of race to desire for greater power and control in our society.

            It isn’t as innocent as the pro-choice movement tries to present it as being.

          • keen

            That’s a very, very, very good point. I’ll be the first to admit the eugenic history of Planned Parenthood.

            But it’s crucial that none of these organizations?at least none that I know of?literally force women to have abortions. They may find that the right of a woman to have an abortion aligns with their hidden political motives, but that doesn’t mean that that right is any less valid.

            I think this goes back to the radical expansion of government the pro-life lobby desires, and why that expansion is bad.

            If the state government can force women to carry their pregnancies to term, it can also force women to abort their children. Such extreme power over the lives of citizens is exactly, I think, what this debate is about.

          • streiff

            1. I told you as nicely as I am capable of to knock this off.

            2. You didn’t.

            3. Any time we spend arguing with you is time taken away from discussing how to move our agenda forward.

            4. If you think paying attention is a behavior you can live with, hit the contact button and let me know and I’ll turn your account back on.

          • kentucky

            I assume you have banned him pursuant to rule 7:

            “7. Promotion of certain theories and ideas contrary to our site principles is not allowed.”

            This is followed by a list of things that are specifically disallowed. While the list is accompanied by a “including but not limited to” caveat, abortion is not mentioned at all and the list essentially boils down to bigoted beliefs, 9/11 trutherism, and “chickenhawking”.

            All this person did was post something that is a minority opinion within the conservative movement, couched in conservative-libertarian terms. As a party are we going to blacklist all the libertarians again? I don’t see the need for rigid compliance with conservative orthodoxy on comments such as this. It smacks of weakness.

          • streiff

            This is not a debating forum. This is an activist forum. This is not a libertarian forum. This is a conservative forum.

            We are not here to debate issues that are settled from a conservative and even from a GOP perspective. The GOP platform is totally pro-life.

            This is not weakness. We are not going to spend time debating our core values with people who do not share them..

            If you think the rules don’t cover this, then I am more than willing to change them.

          • kentucky

            and of course that means you can set whatever parameters you like.

            I don’t know the guy’s history, but it seemed to me he was disagreeing with the mainstream conservative position on a single issue, and doing so in a not-rude manner.

            Again, though, you DID build this. I don’t begrudge your right to do as you see fit.

            Just so I understand, you stated that “we are not going to spend time debating our core principles with those who do not share them”. I assume “core principles” are the key words in this, as one cannot debate someone who holds an identical opinion. So, for instance, we can debate (and I think this has been mentioned in this thread) the appropriateness of certain exceptions in which abortions should be allowed, because that is not settled within the conservative movement. A person cannot however come here and express disagreement, generally, with the pro-life position?

            I’m relatively new here and don’t want to run afoul of the rules.

          • streiff

            and in my defense, if you read the entire thread, you’ll see that was made clear as well as a path back to commenting.

            You won’t get a lot of sympathy for anything other than a 100% pro life view but obviously we have elected officials out there who aren’t on board.

          • PowerToThePeople

            unless you enjoy contact button use.

          • kentucky

            except instead of “contact button use” he said “the pipe”.

          • PowerToThePeople

            at clever, but you failed miserably.Stick to what you know even if it is very little.

          • kentucky

            But, it turns out you really are so dumb to think it makes sense to tell someone they should learn to mind their own business in an Internet forum. Did anyone say anything in this thread that concerned you, personally? And yet, I see you have made multiple comments. Did anyone tell you to mind your own business? No, because no one else would be so rude. Internet Tough Guy. Congratulations.

          • streiff

            generally you don’t want to get involved in a scuffle between a mod and an offender. Not a great evolutionary strategy because often there is collateral damage.

          • kentucky

            However, I know better than to be troll or be impolite to you or anyone else. I have a general idea of where the line is and will not cross it. I don’t need him telling me to mind my own business.

          • kentucky

            that is.

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            He has absolutely no – as in ZERO – understanding of even fairly recent history. Apparently you don’t either.

            I think this goes back to the radical expansion of government the pro-life lobby desires, and why that expansion is bad.

            The pro-life lobby is NOT desiring an expansion of government. The pro-life lobby – and anybody with any understanding of Constitutional Law – wants Roe v Wade overturned because THAT decision was an expansion of the Constitution that has led to government expansion and the death of over 50 million unborn children.

            Roe overturned almost 200 years of legal history that saw virtually all abortions outlawed. You might want to check the original version of the Hippocratic Oath with regard to a doctor’s oath respecting, among other things, abortion.

            Roe is widely recognized as a “manufactured decision” that was made for solely political purposes, not Constitutional purposes. If you follow the logic – or lack thereof – in the decision absolutely anything could pass Constitutional muster.

            Redstate – and I’m no moderator – doesn’t have “the need for rigid compliance with conservative orthodoxy” and if you’d bothered to read the site you’d know that. Some of us do have a problem with utter stupidity, and that is what keen demonstrated. He’s obviously, from his comment, Constitutionally ignorant and when being told by a moderator – streiff – to stand down, he didn’t bother. That is simply stupid.

          • kentucky

            And I agree with everything you have said here about Roe. Historically speaking, his comment about the “radical expansion of government the pro-life lobby desires” is off-base because the states had that power pre-Roe, and because of the other facts you mentioned. But, its not like abortion is automatically outlawed if Roe is overturned. We will have to win the debate on the state level against people who hold views similar to keen and perhaps even persuade people like him to join our side.

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            nt

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            you really should read the diaries she’s posted on the subject which exposes the left’s support for abortion and PP .

            Start here.

            Then go here, and be sure to read the series of diaries she links in the third paragraph.

          • lineholder

            To a certain extent, that is what this debate is about.

            By undermining the value of human life within our society, will society respond in a way that protects and preserves the sanctity of life OR will allow government to define the value of life for them?

            By undermining the value of the life of the unborn, there is a very real risk that the sanctity of life for this portion of our population could be eroded to the point that society does not fight to protect and preserve the rights of those human beings.

            In such a case, could it be possible for government to expand its power in such a way that it begins to determine which children should be allowed to be born or which should be killed?

            If Obamacare includes genetic testing for the purpose of defining which children are allowed to live or die, would you support it?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2011/08/24/is-it-pro-choice-if-it%e2%80%99s-an-offer-you-can%e2%80%99t-refuse/

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Take a look here.

            https://www.facebook.com/abortionsofficial

            And tell me again how it is not pro abortion for Obama and others to vote against the ban on partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is halfway out of the womb who then has his or her brains sucked out with scissors and a vacuum). How do you justify that one?

        • streiff

          less government does not imply that some people aren’t entitled to legal protection. That is the heart of the pro-life argument. You can’t kill people, the unborn, the aged, the disabled, the sick, the poor, the unpopular, just because you’d like to be rid of them. That is why you argument is fairly unique in its grotesqueness. At least if you take the anti-science position that a fetus has to magically become a baby at some point, there is a logical consistency in supporting abortion and you don’t put yourself in the same camp as the Nazi regime (pace Godwin’s Law but I can’t think of another organized program for killing the unwanted).

          Your “control of their own bodies” is clever, I’ll give you, but it hardly gives one the right to kill another person.

          You have seriously misjudged the environment here on this topic.

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      Did you read that defense of abortion in the The Deliberate Stranger?

      • keen

        many times

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      babies are dependent outside of the womb as well. So are children for the most part. How about folks with disabilities who are dependent upon others for their care? The elderly?

      Geography and size of the human being don’t make any difference to those of us who are actually pro life. Neither do the circumstances under which conception occurred.

      And for the record, when I was pregnant, I was healthier than at any other time in my life.

    • indieinvirginnie

      A guy broke down your door on a snowy night, deposited a newborn baby and left. He had no right to do it. It is your home. He’s a bad man. It’s not fair.

      But do you throw the baby out into the snow?

      That’s the rape case. The toughest one.

      In the normal case, you invite the guy into your home, knowing that he just might leave the baby.

      • JSobieski

        can proceed to take the baby to another neighbor, a hospital, a church, etc.

        If a baby could be easily transfered from one uterus to another—we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

        A better analogy is that while you are sleeping, a mad doctor surgically attaches a baby to you such that the two of you cannot be safely separated for the next 6 months.

        Don’t get me wrong, I oppose abortion in that circumstance as well, but if we want to reach people in the middle or even change minds from those on the other side, you can’t give short shrift to the other side’s argument.

      • lineholder

        I heard of a story (wish I could find it) about a woman who was married with three children who was raped. (And I’m not interested in getting into any racial battles here but the fact that the woman was white and the man she was raped by was black plays a part in the situation).

        When she found out she was pregnant, she was devastated. She and her husband discussed it. They knew that it could be difficult for them to raise a bi-racial child. Everyone would know that her husband wasn’t the father. People could talk about them behind their backs, say ugly things, their reputation in the community could be destroyed. How would the child be received? How would their other children respond? I can only imagine the questions that went through their minds!!!

        They decided that they believed the right thing for them to do would be to raise the child as their own.

        She could easily have sought an abortion, but she didn’t. She made a choice.

      • keen

        Putting that baby in safety by dropping it off at a hospital would require a couple of hours (at most). The pro-life philosophy forces a woman, using her body, to carry the child for nine months. I’m not saying the two scenarios are completely different, but they are different enough to require a better analogy.

        • streiff

          we are not going to debate abortion on the front page of RedState. That’s the English version. Is there another language that you want me to use?

          • keen

            …is debating abortion on the front page of RedState.

            Also, there is a specific value to clarifying the underlying notions of each side. I don’t understand why abortion is off-limits when it is literally the most contentious issue of the GOP platform.

          • streiff

            it is talking about how inside the pro-life community there is a debate over the rape/incest exception.

            There is no debate about abortion because it is not contentious inside the GOP.

            Look, I’ve tried to be nice to you. You repay me by being a jerk. My patience is at an end. Do with that bit of information what you will.

        • indieinvirginnie

          Now we have made progress. You accept the basic argument, but merely quibble about precisely what constitutes an appropriate amount of inconvenience one should be required to bear as a result of another’s misdeeds. I didn’t address that point because I figured that’s where it would lead. Thank you. I’m done.

          • keen

            Well, it’s important what we mean by that. The inconvenience I’m speaking of is being forced to carry a child to term for nine months. That is a league different than dropping a child off at a hospital.

            That inconvenience?being denied agency over your own body?undermines the most basic tenets of individual liberty. If you’re going to call that an inconvenience, fine, but you have to accept what that means.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            It simply not as bad as having your skull cracked open, having a vaccuum stuck inside and then having your brains sucked into a waste disposal. Being forced to carry a rape or an incest baby is a very bad thing. It is not as bad of a thing as an infanticide.

        • aesthete

          IF you believe that a person’s right to autonomy is absolute, then you can’t make a distinction between a couple of hours and a couple of months, as far as morality goes — that’s what a principle is.

          The vast majority of abortions are of convenience, not rape — at which point any consent-based argument for ALL abortions not based on an absolute right to autonomy falls apart.

          Try again.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      and every once in a while I find myself tempted to agree, but then I read comments like this and I’m reminded why it’s important to keep people who think this way out of positions of authority. So it seems they have at least some salutary effect, after all.

  • mspector

    It is about philosophy not strategy.

    The law has run rings around itself for centuries on this topic. English common law basically held that you could not murder a fetus, but that there was a certain point in development (“quickening”) when abortion, otherwise legal, became “a great misprision”. But still, not murder.

    In California and other states the murder statute creates two categories: “human being” and “fetus”, putting the two in the disjunctive rather than equating them (in California PC 187 exempts abortion and other homicide statutes, eg PC 189 [voluntary manslaughter] do not include fetuses)

    The fact is the law is not likely (at least in my dwindling lifetime) to come around to the perspective that a fetus is a human being worthy of protection as such. But it is therefore all the more necessary that we advocate the philosophy of reverence for life, especially as we encounter increased disdain for life from the left.

    All that said, Akin made an idiotic statement. We don’t need an entire campaign focused on the word “legitimate”

  • dt

    Thanks for the post. Philosophically, how do you square being in category 1 with a “life of the mother” or “some other medical emergency” exception?

  • lineholder

    I’m actually a female who had a doctor recommend to me that I should have an abortion. With my third child. Because the AFP tests indicated she had Down’s Syndome.

    I had to make a choice. Perhaps, for that reason, I’ve been more inclined to acknowledge the reality of that choice than other people might be.

    I had already given birth to two children by then, so there was no question in my mind that from the point of conception what was growing in my womb was another human being.

    I never questioned what was right for me to do…to give that child the best chance at life that I could provide. Not once did I question it in the context of right and wrong. I KNEW it to be right.

    I made my choice. BTW, the tests were wrong. My daughter is now 26 with two children of her own. I’m as proud of her as any mother could be.

    • prof_jay

      :)

    • lineholder

      It IS a choice.

      I despise the act of abortion and see it as murder. I especially despise the kind of mindset that I see coming from the left that abortion on demand should be considered acceptable within our society because the very act of being conceived inconveniences the mother. That is by far the weakest excuse for killing another human being that could ever exist.

      Yet all the same, because of my own experiences, I do acknowledge the reality of that choice.

      I think sometimes those of us who are pro-life want so much to protect those innocent young lives from harm and to give them a chance to live that we don’t always acknowledge the reality of that choice in a way that we could, and that this hurts us when it comes to gaining support for pro-life positions.

      Just one person’s opinion, FWIW

  • timhawke

    I agree with you. A life is a life, and murder is murder. But seems like most people disagree:
    – Gallup finds that 59% of people who call themselves “Pro-Life” believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx)
    – Polls consistently find that 20% or fewer of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all cases (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm)

    While I think this is generally an excellent post, I take issue with one thing you wrote: “Abortion is a choice. The only times that it is not a choice is when the life of the mother is in danger or some other medical emergency.” The fact is, it is STILL a choice, even when the mother’s life is at stake, just one with much starker consequences on both sides. Some argue that even if the mother’s life is at stake, terminating the pregnancy is still wrong. It’s still killing a baby, and we should let the pregnancy unfold as God intended. I don’t think I agree with stance, because those cases mean that both the mother and child will die. But if we truly believe the act of killing a baby is repugnant under all circumstances, it’s repugnant here too, even if it’s necessary.

    • avgjo

      The fact that there is some basis in reality for all this concern on our side about threading the needle just so, so as not to offend people tells me that there are indeed enough people in this country with a twisted understanding of the sanctity of life. That bodes very badly for the future of this nation. God hates hands that shed innocent blood and He will have His judgement. IIRC, in the Old Testament, drought was one of the first signs a nation was under God’s judgement. Anyone look at a recent drought chart? The heartland, the breadbasket of the world, is hardest hit. As a society, we sanction at least some murder of innocents. And that’s just part of the big heap.

      Watch out. It’s only beginning.

  • freemkts

    The view I see professed the most frequently is that abortion is murder plain and simple. And those people have trouble rationalizing abortion in the case of rape. But consider this, the Travon Martin case in FL galvanized the country earlier this year.

    The facts of the case are not in dispute. George Zimmerman shot and killed Travon Martin. Liberals say it was a case of cold blooded murder and that is why Zimmerman now faces trial. Conservatives say it was not murder, that Zimmerman was justified due to FL’s Stand Your Ground law. Either way Martin is dead. The only question is do you think Zimmerman had just cause?

    Well abortion after a rape is similar. A fetus is no more a living being than Travon Martin was. If you think George Zimmerman is innocent of commiting murder then it shouldn’t be hard to also justify allowing abortions after a rape. There’s just cause. If you want to take to no exceptions stance then I guess you should also join the Rev Al Shaprton in calling George Zimmerman a murderer.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Too bad Akin couldn’t have let you answer that question for him.

  • avgjo

    The last words are the kicker.

    A Godless choice.

    All the ‘smart kids’ on our side compromising on this issue think they’re saving the country by making the political clever choice. In reality, they’re sealing our doom.

    God hates hands that shed innocent blood. He will judge us. And to those who say He is not real etc. etc. I paraphrase Daniel Bell’s rabbi: ‘And what makes you think God cares about your opinion?’

    God’s views on things like this are all or nothing. You’re either pro life or you’re not. Either you think innocent blood is sacred and must be protected or you don’t. And you either fall on the side of God’s blessing or His wrath on this issue.

    He is watching. He misses nothing. And he’s taking names.

    You, o reader, have been warned.

  • kentucky

    For me, the answer is simply this: the rule of law- the law being what is enacted by state legislatures within the bounds of the Constitution. My beef is with Roe and the removal of the question of abortion from the purview of states. I dislike all kinds of laws in many states, but that doesn’t mean I think those states should the power to make their own determinations.

    Furthermore, I think significantly reducing the number of abortions in America by having pro-life states ban the procedure is highly unlikely. Individuals retain the right to interstate travel and would simply travel to a more pro-choice state to have the procedure. The answer lies in reducing the number of unintended and unwanted (there is a difference, unfortunately) pregnancies.

    • avgjo

      in something absolute? If it is not, it is merely hand waving.

      • kentucky

        but there are going to be sharp disagreements among people about what constitutes an absolute morality, (what God wants, if you will). Fight for what you believe and to make changes within the system, but staying within that system is also important.

  • macwell

    abortion is sin, plain and simple. It, like every other example of sin, is the result of a fallen world, and a fallen mankind. We will not win this war on this earth, not that we shouldn’t try. This fallen earth, and all of her inhabitants, will face far more egresses trials than abortion and without God’s help will not survive them.
    We who’ve read God’s plan for this earth, understand that we have to fight till the end knowing all along that we will lose this earthly battle.
    We cannot allow ourselves to be sidetracked by this man, or the abortion issue, we have a duty to take America back from the hands of those who believe America needs to be “fundamentally transformed”.
    If anything, America NEEDS to be reset to a time when we did business with a handshake instead of a lawyer.

  • Viet71

    There is no countering your argument as to #1.

  • SoFiMil

    Often, a frequent abortion exception is described as “rape or incest.”
    I believe describing an incestual, non-consensual sexual assault – often occuring ver a long period of time as “incest” (only), does a disservice to the victim and the gravity of this crime – rape.

    I see no argument for abortion in the case of a *consensual* incestual relationship as the baby is not to blame for the decision- in this case, of two consenting adults.

    God bless those who are victims of assaults.

  • Pingback: Albert Burkhard

  • Pingback: Everette Roxbury

  • Pingback: Gilberto Curcuru

  • Pingback: Errol Christensen