Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Pro-Life Conversation...The Worm Turns...

Photo: This is what we all looked like at 12 weeks in the womb. Legal to kill in all 50 states.  Anyone think its not a person?  Pass this along.  It literally might save a life.

This photo started a conversation on pro-life.  My counterpart Darcy will be in red and I will be in black.

The caption started this.

The caption is:  Very powerful picture and message...This is what we all looked like at 12 weeks in the womb. Legal to kill in all 50 states. Anyone think its not a person? Pass this along. It literally might save a life. 

My counterpart is named Darcy ...she begins with this:

What if it takes the life of the woman carrying it? It's not just one life at stake...It's a hugely complicated issue, made more ridiculously complicated by the many who are simultaneously against reproductive rights AND want to limit women's access to birth control. Hello? The single most effective cure for most non-health-related abortions is preventing the unwanted pregnancies in the first place! I think this is more about controlling women and not wanting them to have sex at all. (Which is hilarious, since Viagra is covered by so many insurance companies - so who are all these men having sex with in the first place?) Sorry, this whole mess has me very emotional.

To which I responded:

 Ok, Darcy, you ask, what about the mother. If the mother dies to save the life of the baby, then she dies a natural death. If the baby goes with her, then the baby dies a natural death. In both of those cases the life was not exterminated due to unnatural means, ie abortion.

There is nothing about controlling women. That is an absurd argument. Actually, the best way for controlling unwanted pregnancy is to not have sex. A novel concept I know, but nevertheless it is what is most responsible. It is also the only way 100% of the time to avoid pregnancy.

We do not have the right to take another life, regardless of the means. This includes abortion. If the child in the womb is a human person, then should it not be afforded the same rights as any other human person?

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Andy...maybe life does begin at conception. But as soon as any life depends on another life for its survival, then the issue of privacy enters the picture. If someone with a rare blood type that I happen to be a good match for desperately needs my blood for survival, that person does not have the right to demand that s/he use my body's resources to in order to survive. Birth control pills are used for many other purposes other than avoiding pregnancy, by the way. So you're saying that as long as the mother dies a "natural death" - that could have been prevented - then it's okay? Are you aware that the medical term abortion simply means "termination of pregnancy", regardless of whether it was ended by medical or natural means?

 Darcy, there is no maybe to it. Life does begin at conception. And there are many times during life where one is dependent upon another for survival. An infant doesn't have the ability to survive on it's own, so you have the right to drop it in a dumpster? I don't think so. An elderly stroke victim can no longer care for himself, therefore he has lost the right to life? I don't think so.

You're comparing apples to oranges when you speak about blood types v. the life of an unborn child. The person in the womb does have the right to life and that right is not incumbent upon the wants of the mother. The obligation of that mother is to care and nurture that child.

What is the main purpose of a birth control pill? I don't hear it being called a period regulator pill. I don't hear it being called a hormone suppressor pill. It is a birth control pill. That is a fallacy and a bad argument to say that there are other uses for the pill. Bottom line, the pill is designed for one thing, the regulation of births in an unnatural way. It is a drug. And it is a drug which is aimed at one thing, population control. That was the end when it was developed, that is the end now.

I am aware that the term abortion means this according to American Heritage dictionary: Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

According to American Heritage Medical Dictionary: The expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable.

So, I'd say it means a little more than just "termination of pregnancy."

Anti-choice...interesting use of words. What are those pro-choice people choosing, exactly? Answer. They are choosing to support the ending of a life by unnatural means. What are those who are "anti-choice," to use your words choosing not to do? They are not supporting the cessation of the ending of life by unnatural means. This isn't a choice issue.

 As for the argument that 77% are men...well let's look at this: In 2011, the last time Gallup did a study on abortion views, an equal percentage of men and women polled said that they believed abortion was “morally wrong”. 51% of both genders agreed on this. Furthermore, 5% more women than men felt that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Nearly a quarter of all women polled would be in favor of making abortion illegal in all cases.

The 77% statistic is based on the fact that there are more MEN elected to public office than women. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans. If you were going to make a percentage for “leaders” that are pro-abortion, it would be pretty close to the same thing.

If you look at the leaders of the major pro-life organizations, many of them are women. Some examples include women such as Abby Johnson, Live Action’s own Lila Rose, Charmaine Yoest who is President of Americans United for Life, Carol Tobias who is President of National Right to Life, Marjorie Dannenfelser who is President of SBA List, Concerned Women for America, and Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The idea that having a uterus is the only way you can have a valid opinion on abortion ignores the genetic truth that a baby is just as much the father’s as the mother’s. In a world where we expect men to take responsibility for their actions, it makes no sense that a father has no way to protect their children in the womb. If women want to be treated “equal” to men, then they should be required to take responsibility for the children they create – at least for 9 months.

I just don't buy your hype. It doesn't follow.

Andy...I have no delusions about changing your mind about any of this, but I do feel the need to correct you on several points. 

I never said that men aren't allowed to have opinions on women's pregnancies. But that men feel so entitled to LEGISLATE (as political leaders) - or push for legislation (anti-choice leaders) - about something that will never happen to them seems ludicrously unfair. It's like me, a totally privileged white woman, telling a black person what they're supposed to feel about racism. How presumptuous of me to think I could possibly know what it's like to be black. Likewise, these men will never know what it's like to be pregnant. Perhaps this doesn't matter to you, as you seem to have so little compassion for women who find themselves in possession of an unwanted pregnancy, or a pregnancy that threatens their lives. 

It is true that there is a causal relationship between poverty and abortion rate. Census data as well as international empirical evidence shows an undeniable causal relationship between overpopulation and poverty. Currently, minorities comprise a large percentage of the poverty demographic in our country. Making birth control more accessible to poorer communities is not an evil plot to eradicate minorities. That is so patently ridiculous I don't even know what else to say about it. If you think that providing access to birth control is the same as forced sterilization or legislating limits on the number of children you can have, then obviously I am wasting my time pointing these rather obvious facts out to you. 

Yes, the birth control pill is commonly known as such, and it is also known by its more commonly used moniker "the pill". I know *scads* of women, personally, who use the pill for reasons other than birth control. It's an excellent regulator of hormones and is thus used treat PMS, ovarian cancer, estrogen dominance, endometriosis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Perhaps you don't care about these diseases. I hope for your sake no woman you ever care about ever has one of them. 

Andy, I wish you well. I do not wish to continue this debate because, again, I suspect these facts and points of evidence will do little to get past your desire to believe what you believe.

See Darcy, there is where we differ. I do hope to change your mind and it isn't a delsuion. I sincerely hope that you are open enough to see the horrors of the abortion movement in this country and around the world. So, I'll begin there. That is a huge point and I make no bones about it. I don't wish for any human person to be subject to an abortion, mother, father, or child.

You assumed as much by saying what you said about men though. Your stats were intentionally misleading. You can go on and on about legislating this and legislating that, but the last time I checked, it was SCOTUS which legislated abortion in 1973. And the last time I checked it was an all male bench. So, let's not play the legislation game. It is a house of cards and it is an appeal to authority which just doesn't work. Also, to use your analogy, a psychatrist can never REALLY help a crazy person, becuase the psychatrist isn't crazy nor has he been crazy himself. Poppycock. Notice that the only one in this conversation who is making distinctions of sex is you? I am speaking of the human person and I am being inclusive of all persons, while a man can never have the sensory feeling of being pregnant, he can certainly empathize with the woman who is going through the pregnancy. 

And btw, how dare you assume I have no compassion. I have more compassion that you can possibly EVER know. To make a blanket statement like that is just plain rude. I have spent a good number of years as a sidewalk counselor and have worked with many women and men who have been faced with abortion. One of my very good friends has had an abortion, something she regrets daily. And another friend, who is an MD, rescued a baby girl who was discarded during an abortion and she is now a happy and healthy 16 year old. So, let's not put on any have no right to assume my level of compassion or lack thereof. I have spent the better part of 20 years in front of Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills speaking, praying and talking with those who would or did not have abortions. The ad hominem attack lessens your argument. You were doing better (albeit only slightly) before you started attacking my person.

Making birth control available to minorities is EXACTLY an evil plot to eradicate minorities. I'd have you read Margaret Sanger. You'll be shocked at what the founder of Planned Parenthood has to say. Not only was she a racist and a supporter of the KKK, but also Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals. So, please don't think me a fool. I know exactly what the purpose of birth control is about. I also know that while Planned Parenthood claims to distance themselves from some of Sanger's views, they still view her as a viable source for "reproductive health." Not a good place to be and not a good mark on the part of birth control advocates. Not to mention the very name...birth control. By default, if one controls births, then he is controlling the population. The facts aren't quite as obvious as they seem on your end now are they and they are a little, you haven't really given me any "facts" yet...just your opinion. Just sayin'...

As a matter of fact Darcy, more than a few of the women I am close to have had to deal with these issues. My sister included. The interesting thing...most of them (not all, because not everyone will buy into what I'm sharing with you) found a way to deal with those issues, including ovarian cancer WITHOUT resorting to birth control pills. Again, to assume that I don't care or that I don't have compassion severely weakens your position and simply paints you as someone who must tear me down as a person, rather than discussing the topic. I have as much care and compassion as the most liberal person you know.

Finally Darcy, if you don't wish to continue this discussion, fine. I have worked my way through this issue many times. I am open to discussing it as many times as necessary to show the fallacy which exists within it. Am I convinced that you're right? No. Can you convince me to abandon the need to support unborn, innocent babies like the one in the photos above? I doubt it. But if you think that I do this to spite women or to oppress them,'re not only wrong, but you're missing the point.

I am always available. I will always make time to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to have it. Good day!

As another bit of support for my position on birth control being a way to eradicate minorities, Sanger said: We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. (Letter to Clarence Gamble, 1939). 

That is exactly the reason for birth control. Sanger's view on this goes on in her book, Family Limitation (catchy, no?): no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.

Yes, there is something truly depraved about the abortion movement. And it isn't men who oppose it.

 Wow, Andy. The harm that the pro-life, anti-contraception movement has wrought on the world through furthering the spread of AIDS, overpopulation, and death of women in childbirth is undeniable. Research data proves that "abstinence only" programs do not work. (

I questioned your compassion because in a former comment, you alluded that it would be preferable that the woman die naturally rather than have an abortion to save her life. This, at least by my definition, is not compassionate. 

Clearly, Andy, you and I are at an impasse, and while I am amused that you thought you were going to change my mind with your highly questionable propaganda and pro-life hype, I do appreciate your taking the time to illustrate to me just how far we need to come as a country with regard to women's reproductive choice and health. Thank you, and have a good night. Respond if you like, but I am done.

 Sources on Third World Countries and contraception and abortion:

Darcy, Let me make sure that I am not misunderstanding you. You are blaming the pro-life movement for the spread of AIDS. You are blaming the pro-life movement for overpopulation. And you are blaming the pro-life movement for the death of women in childbirth. Ok. Where to start. Every single one of those claims is unprovable and unfounded. 

1. The spread of AIDS is due to one thing, sexual promiscuity. Had abstinence played any part in that and there would be a much less rampant spread of AIDS. A secondary point is that it was spread by bad blood transfusions, had those who were positive been honest with the doctors and disclosed their conditions, then perhaps that too would have been less, but it wasn't the pro-life movement which furthered this.

2. Overpopulation. According to whom? Who's standard are we applying this by. Russia's? The USA's? China's? Who exactly is the standard and who's society is the basis for this? Again, regardless of your answer, the pro-life movement cannot be blamed for this. There is a concept called continence which promotes responsibility within marriage with regard to the sexual action. There does come a time when the sexual action is neither necessary nor is it warranted. Love can develop from simply the erotic into agape. Or a love of the other which goes beyond simply the physical. The physical is important, please don't misunderstand, but it is not the end all be all of a relationship.

3. Death of women in childbirth. Really? Women have been dying in childbirth forever. This isn't a matter of pro-lifers causing anything.

Those arguments hold no water. They are absurd and they are specious, at best.

Because I support natural death rather than killing or murder, I am somehow uncompassionate? C'mon...please be intellectually honest about this. That argument is not only a stretch it is completely out of the realm of decency. Honestly.

I am sad that you think that this was a joke or something of amusement. I can assure you that it is not. I can back up any claim I have made with fact. I can provide you with proof after proof after proof. My motive is clear and my motive is honest. It is also utterly simple. To protect the life of the innocent human person in the womb, while promoting the dignity of the parents. I can assure you there is no propaganda, it is clear fact and sustainable truth, which does not compromise the life of the innocent human person.

Regarding your WaPo article, it is specious and logically unsound because in one sentence it states: This study isn't rigorous enough to show whether or not [abstinence-only] education works.

Then turns around and says: Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.

There is no basis for that AND the final quote is unsourced...absolutely unsound. The premise doesn't follow to the conclusion.

With regard to the second article, it is nonsensical. It makes no sense and it has very little to do with this conversation. If you can expound upon the second article, I would be all ears...

Andrea Hines Cutlip, I have no problem with you leaving this up. Actually, it is my hope that you do. It is important to understand that everything I've said is quantifiable and everything I've said is supportable as fact.

No comments:

Post a Comment