Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Guest Post - How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-Slavery: An appeal to the Pro-Life movement
Guest Post - Abortion Is Not About Equality: An appeal to the Pro-Choice movement
Liberal Rhetoric 101: The False Premise
"I would never get an abortion myself, but a woman's body is her own business."
This is the classic, most prevalent liberal false premise. It is used to tell conservatives they don't have a right to argue against abortion, because it's essentially none of their business. They can feel free to not have an abortion themselves, of course, but they can't tell others what they can't do because of privacy, or something.
Don't get me wrong...privacy is important. People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.
That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Cliches about "a woman's body" are a false premise...it's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!
This is the classic, most prevalent liberal false premise. It is used to tell conservatives they don't have a right to argue against abortion, because it's essentially none of their business. They can feel free to not have an abortion themselves, of course, but they can't tell others what they can't do because of privacy, or something.
Don't get me wrong...privacy is important. People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.
That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Cliches about "a woman's body" are a false premise...it's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!
Let's take the "privacy" premise to it's next logical conclusion: if it's a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her unborn child in the womb, it logically would also be a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her BORN child. What's the difference?
Liberals will tell you that the unborn child is unable to survive without the mother, and this is true. You know who else is unable to survive without his parents? My two year-old nephew. He can't find himself, dress himself, change his own diaper, protect himself. Without his parents to care for him he would not survive. So if we applied the same logic that defends abortion, it'd be a matter of privacy if someone murdered him.
"OF COURSE NOT!" I hear you shout at your screen, "HE'S A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING!" You're right, he is a living, breathing human being, and if I anyone attempted to do my nephew harm you better believe I would move heaven and earth to stop them...and if they succeeded may God have mercy on their soul.
Now for my real question: Why is it different if the child is in the womb? My answer is that it is not. I can hear liberals responding (probably "Jeff") that that I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, or privacy, or the Supreme Court, or some other such deflection to avoid discussing the real question: IS THAT BABY A HUMAN BEING. If it is a person (which I argue that it is indeed a person) then you cannot destroy it for your own convienence.
Liberals cannot debate this issue on a true premise. The only true premise to debate abortion on is this: Is that unborn child a person. If it is a person, then, like all people, it is endowed by his or her creator with certain unalienable rights, among those are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the real question. If it isn't human, it's okay to destroy it, if it is, then it is a living, breathing human being then it is absolutely, unequivocally not okay to destroy it -- any more than it would be okay to destroy a living breathing two year-old human being -- with the sole exception being if the mother's life is in danger and it becomes necessary to save the more viable life (which in most cases would be the mother).
If you want to argue that the unborn child is not a person based on medical and/or scientific fact, be my guest. I'll have that discussion. Few liberals will. Liberals would rather deflect the reality on the false premise of "privacy" or "a woman's body is her own business" or perhaps on the back of what "the Supreme Court says." The bottom line, as demonstrated by the Kermit Gosnell trial, is a question of the humanity of that child. Any other premise of this debate is a false premise.
Liberals would love to debate this issue on any other subject. They won't debate it on the premise of protection of human life. It completely shuts down the rest of their arguments.
Reactions to the Gosnell Verdict
Kermit Gosnell is guilty and some of my faith in this country has been restored.
On Monday, a jury found Gosnell guilty of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter and countless lesser charges.
While Gosnell's actions were absolutely reprehensible and I would have far preferred that these children weren't murdered, the silver lining here is that his trial has shone a light on the realities of abortion. Stories have been told of individuals who were pro-choice have realized the reality of abortion -- and what is really going on in these procedures -- is as evil as those of us who are pro-life have said for years.
Gosnell is a murderer, plain and simple. He destroyed countless human lives in the womb, including several after he managed to botch the procedure destroying viable, living human beings. That's called murder, friends.
This verdict does give me hope for America. It gives me hope that there are people who have risen past the canned liberal rhetoric that refers to destroying an unborn human as a "choice" and "a woman's body" instead of paying attention to the right to life of that unborn child.
A jury has convicted Gosnell of murder for these atrocities. Now perhaps we can have a real conversation about the nature of abortion in America?
The real issue is one of protecting a human life. Despite how liberals keep the focus on the pregnant woman (who, in nearly all cases made the conscious choice to have consensual sex which caused her pregnancy), the real focus ought to be the child.
My good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak shared with me an article where a pro-choice columnist actually had their mind changed by the Gosnell trial. Thank the Lord! Even though the Drive-By Media has largely ignored this trial, the story is out there and we can FINALLY have a real discussion about the travesty that is abortion without faltering to false cliches about "privacy" and "a woman's body."
A jury has declared that Gosnell was guilty of murder. They were 100% correct. Now, let's have a real discussion about abortion that isn't entirely focused on the mother (who, as we discussed before, made the conscious choice to have sex in 99% of cases) and instead remember there is a second human being involved in the discussion -- THE BABY!
On Monday, a jury found Gosnell guilty of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter and countless lesser charges.
While Gosnell's actions were absolutely reprehensible and I would have far preferred that these children weren't murdered, the silver lining here is that his trial has shone a light on the realities of abortion. Stories have been told of individuals who were pro-choice have realized the reality of abortion -- and what is really going on in these procedures -- is as evil as those of us who are pro-life have said for years.
Gosnell is a murderer, plain and simple. He destroyed countless human lives in the womb, including several after he managed to botch the procedure destroying viable, living human beings. That's called murder, friends.
This verdict does give me hope for America. It gives me hope that there are people who have risen past the canned liberal rhetoric that refers to destroying an unborn human as a "choice" and "a woman's body" instead of paying attention to the right to life of that unborn child.
A jury has convicted Gosnell of murder for these atrocities. Now perhaps we can have a real conversation about the nature of abortion in America?
The real issue is one of protecting a human life. Despite how liberals keep the focus on the pregnant woman (who, in nearly all cases made the conscious choice to have consensual sex which caused her pregnancy), the real focus ought to be the child.
My good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak shared with me an article where a pro-choice columnist actually had their mind changed by the Gosnell trial. Thank the Lord! Even though the Drive-By Media has largely ignored this trial, the story is out there and we can FINALLY have a real discussion about the travesty that is abortion without faltering to false cliches about "privacy" and "a woman's body."
|
| Just in case someone who reads this needs to have reality explained to them... |
A jury has declared that Gosnell was guilty of murder. They were 100% correct. Now, let's have a real discussion about abortion that isn't entirely focused on the mother (who, as we discussed before, made the conscious choice to have sex in 99% of cases) and instead remember there is a second human being involved in the discussion -- THE BABY!
Poorly Stated: What (I *Think*) Todd Akin Really Believes and Why
It was a terribly bad quote by Missouri State Representative Todd Akin, referring to the instances of pregnancy from forcible rape (as opposed to statuatory rape, by the way) and how the woman's body "shuts down" in the case of rape.
For the record, this is biologically unsound...of course pregnancy can result under the right circumstances (the rapist emits his...errr...genetic material...inside the woman and the woman is ovulating at the time). The idea that anything but this would be true makes no sense.
However, I would like to state for the record what I believe is the root of this argument from with Mr. Akin. (Yes I believe he does genuinely think that "a woman's body shuts down" as incredulous as it sounds.) I believe Mr. Akin is the type of person who only talks to people who share his beliefs. (Before you liberals get started, there are PLENTY of liberals who do this, which is why so many believe such ridiculous statements as "Republicans are declaring war on women!" (by defending the right of unborn children to live).
I believe the idea that a woman's body "shuts down" came from one such circle, this time of well meaning conservatives who are staunchly opposed to abortion, so much so that they believe even in cases of rape, abortion is wrong.
For the record, I agree with the following concept: The unborn baby has DONE NOTHING WRONG. It is still a human being and has the right to life. To do otherwise is to punish the child for the sins of the unfortunate father. It is simply saying, in short "We believe that any unborn child who has been conceived, under whatever circumstances, is a human being. Human beings have, above all other rights, the Right to Life. Ergo, it is not acceptable to destroy a human life, despite the circumstances of how it was created."
When you look at it by THAT measure, all of a sudden the "horrible, terrible" position of not wanting a rape exception to abortion isn't so horrible and terrible, now is it? It's just a lesser of two evils position that holds as it's highest ideal protection of human life. (Now I am even okay with having some sort of public service to help a woman who is impregnated under such circumstances with the costs involved, along with preferential adoption for the child.)
For those of you who don't think I get what this means to a woman, it turns out I do. I'm going to be a little bit graphic here, so if you're easily offended you may want to stop reading and come back tomorrow.
I know a woman who, it is speculated, may have been conceived from her believed grandfather having incestually raped her mother as a teenager. This woman (the child, not the mother) is one of the most wonderful, loving women on God's green Earth. She is, in fact, my own personal Rock of Gibralter and a wonderful mentor to me and many many other people. She is my grandmother. The incestually raped teenager was my great-grandmother, and the man in question was my great-great grandfather.
All of this is speculation, of course, especially because my great-grandmother (the teenager from the story above) passed away when I was a baby. This theory is the product of my mother, a licensed clinical social worker with a Master's Degree in Social Work from Syracuse University. Mom has spent more than thirty years in family social work, including fifteen years of working with children in foster care. So she has a solid basis of expertise for her theory.
The bottom line of this true illustration is this: Irregardless of how my grandmother was conceived (whether our theory was correct or if we're entirely wrong and my great-grandmother was simply impregnated out of wedlock by some high school boyfriend), my unborn grandmother was and is a human being. She had the right to live.
Today, my grandmother is less than a month shy of her 80th birthday. She married a wonderful man, my grandfather, and had three children (including my mother). She also has today eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren (so far). Three of those grandchildren and one great grandchild are through marriage, but even so, a total of NINE living, breathing people between the ages of 8 years old and 56 years old would not exist (including me) if it was for a "rape exception" to abortion laws, had my great grandmother made that "choice." Even setting aside the NINE PEOPLE who have, to-date, sprung from Gram's branch of the family tree, had that "choice" been made, one of the single most wonderful people I have ever known would not have been born.
Thankfully, back in 1932 when Gram was born, abortion WASN'T legal in Maryland, where she was born (or any other state, I think). Thank God Gram WAS born, married my grandfather, lovingly conceived and raised my mother along with my aunt and uncle; all three each got married and in agregate conceived five children, including me, and one of those grandchildren, my cousin, now has an eight year old son of his own.
Now, what I have just done is given a GOOD explanation for the conservative position that says abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. I want this to be contrasted with what Todd Akin said. Both my story and Representative Akin's had the same goal: to protect unborn children, irregardless of if they were conceived under highly unfortunate circumstances. My story explains the realities of the the abortion discussion; specifically that it's not JUST about the woman (although please don't understand me, the rape victim deserves to be considered)...it's also about the child!
Representative Akin's story, on the other hand, comes with both a bad, unsubstantiated argument AND a poor explanation of the real crux of the matter. And THAT is the problem with what Mr. Akin said. His position is more than defensible, it is admirable. He wants to protect human life. There's nothing wrong with that. Lots of conservatives think that way. However, it's time conservatives learn how to articulate our perfectly reasonable point. It's either that or continue allow liberals to present complete straw man arguments. It's our choice.
For the record, this is biologically unsound...of course pregnancy can result under the right circumstances (the rapist emits his...errr...genetic material...inside the woman and the woman is ovulating at the time). The idea that anything but this would be true makes no sense.
However, I would like to state for the record what I believe is the root of this argument from with Mr. Akin. (Yes I believe he does genuinely think that "a woman's body shuts down" as incredulous as it sounds.) I believe Mr. Akin is the type of person who only talks to people who share his beliefs. (Before you liberals get started, there are PLENTY of liberals who do this, which is why so many believe such ridiculous statements as "Republicans are declaring war on women!" (by defending the right of unborn children to live).
I believe the idea that a woman's body "shuts down" came from one such circle, this time of well meaning conservatives who are staunchly opposed to abortion, so much so that they believe even in cases of rape, abortion is wrong.
For the record, I agree with the following concept: The unborn baby has DONE NOTHING WRONG. It is still a human being and has the right to life. To do otherwise is to punish the child for the sins of the unfortunate father. It is simply saying, in short "We believe that any unborn child who has been conceived, under whatever circumstances, is a human being. Human beings have, above all other rights, the Right to Life. Ergo, it is not acceptable to destroy a human life, despite the circumstances of how it was created."
When you look at it by THAT measure, all of a sudden the "horrible, terrible" position of not wanting a rape exception to abortion isn't so horrible and terrible, now is it? It's just a lesser of two evils position that holds as it's highest ideal protection of human life. (Now I am even okay with having some sort of public service to help a woman who is impregnated under such circumstances with the costs involved, along with preferential adoption for the child.)
For those of you who don't think I get what this means to a woman, it turns out I do. I'm going to be a little bit graphic here, so if you're easily offended you may want to stop reading and come back tomorrow.
I know a woman who, it is speculated, may have been conceived from her believed grandfather having incestually raped her mother as a teenager. This woman (the child, not the mother) is one of the most wonderful, loving women on God's green Earth. She is, in fact, my own personal Rock of Gibralter and a wonderful mentor to me and many many other people. She is my grandmother. The incestually raped teenager was my great-grandmother, and the man in question was my great-great grandfather.
All of this is speculation, of course, especially because my great-grandmother (the teenager from the story above) passed away when I was a baby. This theory is the product of my mother, a licensed clinical social worker with a Master's Degree in Social Work from Syracuse University. Mom has spent more than thirty years in family social work, including fifteen years of working with children in foster care. So she has a solid basis of expertise for her theory.
The bottom line of this true illustration is this: Irregardless of how my grandmother was conceived (whether our theory was correct or if we're entirely wrong and my great-grandmother was simply impregnated out of wedlock by some high school boyfriend), my unborn grandmother was and is a human being. She had the right to live.
Today, my grandmother is less than a month shy of her 80th birthday. She married a wonderful man, my grandfather, and had three children (including my mother). She also has today eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren (so far). Three of those grandchildren and one great grandchild are through marriage, but even so, a total of NINE living, breathing people between the ages of 8 years old and 56 years old would not exist (including me) if it was for a "rape exception" to abortion laws, had my great grandmother made that "choice." Even setting aside the NINE PEOPLE who have, to-date, sprung from Gram's branch of the family tree, had that "choice" been made, one of the single most wonderful people I have ever known would not have been born.
Thankfully, back in 1932 when Gram was born, abortion WASN'T legal in Maryland, where she was born (or any other state, I think). Thank God Gram WAS born, married my grandfather, lovingly conceived and raised my mother along with my aunt and uncle; all three each got married and in agregate conceived five children, including me, and one of those grandchildren, my cousin, now has an eight year old son of his own.
Now, what I have just done is given a GOOD explanation for the conservative position that says abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest. I want this to be contrasted with what Todd Akin said. Both my story and Representative Akin's had the same goal: to protect unborn children, irregardless of if they were conceived under highly unfortunate circumstances. My story explains the realities of the the abortion discussion; specifically that it's not JUST about the woman (although please don't understand me, the rape victim deserves to be considered)...it's also about the child!
Representative Akin's story, on the other hand, comes with both a bad, unsubstantiated argument AND a poor explanation of the real crux of the matter. And THAT is the problem with what Mr. Akin said. His position is more than defensible, it is admirable. He wants to protect human life. There's nothing wrong with that. Lots of conservatives think that way. However, it's time conservatives learn how to articulate our perfectly reasonable point. It's either that or continue allow liberals to present complete straw man arguments. It's our choice.
Life in Danger and Rape Exceptions Don't Require All Abortion to be Legal
Yep...we're going to talk about abortion. Again. Specificially I'd like to discuss the common objection to overturning Roe v. Wade of "what about rape cases" and "what if the mother's life is in danger?"
First and foremost, I'd like to state again that there is absolutely zero rational person on the planet who argues against a life in danger exception. Simply stated, doctors should save the more viable life. That is almost always going to the the mother. That's basic medical ethics.
Now to the rape exception. I've made the point countless times that I do have an issue with this concept because of the very reason I am opposed to abortion: I believe the unborn child is a human being and therefore has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon (except in the above more viable life situation...and that applies to any two humans if only one life can be saved). Specifically, it's noting that the child has done nothing wrong. The unfortunate father has done the wrong. I cannot find my way, morally, to saying that it's okay to correct one huge and horrible crime (rape) by committing another huge and horrible crime (murder of an innocent human being).
That being said, in the interest of pragmatism, I could accept a compromise that only allowed abortion in cases of forcible rape and, of course, life in danger. It would need to be a very well defined exception, because such exceptions can be easily manipulated.
For example, a mother's life in danger exception should be defined specifically as genuine, physical danger to the mother that would cause her life to be actually extinguished. It should not be defined as "the mother's emotional health is in danger...she could become mentally unstable" to justify an abortion.
Similarly, a rape exception needs to be well defined. This is why I specifically note forcible rape. Forcible rape is the criminal act of physically forcing yourself on another person in a sexual manner. This may or may not involve a struggle, depending on the power situation between the two individuals. Statutory rape in many cases is very, very different. In the majority of cases of statutory rape, the participation of the minor involved is consensual in everything but name.
The average age of a female minor in a statutory rape case is 14-15 years old. A teenager in high school, most likely a freshman or sophomore. About 65% of the male offenders are 18-20 years old. In other words, those offenders are also often in high school, probably a senior based on the age, perhaps left back a year. Translation: a huge number of these cases are both high school students with the male being a couple years older. This is not a forced situation. This is consensual in everything but name (legally speaking).
To include the above situation in a rape exception is intellectually dishonest. It's a person making a choice that had a consequence. A consequence that is a human life that deserves to be protected. It's not like having a tattoo of Mr. Spock you had put on your posterior lasered off, friends. It's a human life. Just because statutory rape is legally a crime doesn't mean the female involved in the above type of cases (again, two high schoolers, one over age one under...not talking about forcible incest people) should get a pass on the consequences of her decision when that consequence is a living human being.
I digress, friends, but I think I've made my point. If you believe it is important to have a rape and life in danger exception to abortion does not mean it needs to be legal in all cases. There are lots of laws with exceptions built in. Killing of another human being in the streets is generally illegal. However, if you kill a person who is trying to kill you in self-defense, that is a very reasonable exception. Needing or wanting exceptions does not mean any action needs to be legal in all cases. Including abortion. Rape and life in danger exception? Fine...I can live with that. Doesn't mean you have to approve of the action in all cases.
First and foremost, I'd like to state again that there is absolutely zero rational person on the planet who argues against a life in danger exception. Simply stated, doctors should save the more viable life. That is almost always going to the the mother. That's basic medical ethics.
Now to the rape exception. I've made the point countless times that I do have an issue with this concept because of the very reason I am opposed to abortion: I believe the unborn child is a human being and therefore has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon (except in the above more viable life situation...and that applies to any two humans if only one life can be saved). Specifically, it's noting that the child has done nothing wrong. The unfortunate father has done the wrong. I cannot find my way, morally, to saying that it's okay to correct one huge and horrible crime (rape) by committing another huge and horrible crime (murder of an innocent human being).
That being said, in the interest of pragmatism, I could accept a compromise that only allowed abortion in cases of forcible rape and, of course, life in danger. It would need to be a very well defined exception, because such exceptions can be easily manipulated.
For example, a mother's life in danger exception should be defined specifically as genuine, physical danger to the mother that would cause her life to be actually extinguished. It should not be defined as "the mother's emotional health is in danger...she could become mentally unstable" to justify an abortion.
Similarly, a rape exception needs to be well defined. This is why I specifically note forcible rape. Forcible rape is the criminal act of physically forcing yourself on another person in a sexual manner. This may or may not involve a struggle, depending on the power situation between the two individuals. Statutory rape in many cases is very, very different. In the majority of cases of statutory rape, the participation of the minor involved is consensual in everything but name.
The average age of a female minor in a statutory rape case is 14-15 years old. A teenager in high school, most likely a freshman or sophomore. About 65% of the male offenders are 18-20 years old. In other words, those offenders are also often in high school, probably a senior based on the age, perhaps left back a year. Translation: a huge number of these cases are both high school students with the male being a couple years older. This is not a forced situation. This is consensual in everything but name (legally speaking).
To include the above situation in a rape exception is intellectually dishonest. It's a person making a choice that had a consequence. A consequence that is a human life that deserves to be protected. It's not like having a tattoo of Mr. Spock you had put on your posterior lasered off, friends. It's a human life. Just because statutory rape is legally a crime doesn't mean the female involved in the above type of cases (again, two high schoolers, one over age one under...not talking about forcible incest people) should get a pass on the consequences of her decision when that consequence is a living human being.
I digress, friends, but I think I've made my point. If you believe it is important to have a rape and life in danger exception to abortion does not mean it needs to be legal in all cases. There are lots of laws with exceptions built in. Killing of another human being in the streets is generally illegal. However, if you kill a person who is trying to kill you in self-defense, that is a very reasonable exception. Needing or wanting exceptions does not mean any action needs to be legal in all cases. Including abortion. Rape and life in danger exception? Fine...I can live with that. Doesn't mean you have to approve of the action in all cases.
Gender is Immaterial in the Abortion Debate
If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me my Pro-Life stance was invalid because I was a man, I'd be incredibly wealthy. I bet a lot of you are in the same place, yes? However, it's at best a sidestep argument intending to push one's opponent out of the debate. Ultimately it's an issue of requiring an unreasonable level of connection to an issue to even discuss the topic, not to mention a way of validiation of ignoring reasonable objections to maintain one's own position.
Now this isn't the case for all, and frankly most, of the people who use this argument. Actually, the real perpetrators of this argument are those who began to use this defense of abortion. It's not hard to win an argument when you automatically remove half of your opponents from the field, especially when men of the Pro-Abortion ilk are not told their opinion isn't valid. It's an issue of allowing the other side to set the premise of the debate, one we must not allow.
This is so critical, because we must not allow the Pro-Abortion lobby to wipe away the objections of men because of what our objection to abortion is in the first place! Our objection to abortion is that we believe a human being is a human being, whether born or unborn, and that destroying an innocent human being is always murder. Being (hypothetically) the mother of the child vs. the father has absolutely nothing to do with the situation!
Let's imagine we all woke up this morning and opened our favorite online newspaper (or perhaps hard copy newspaper if you're one of the seventeen people who still read the hard copy paper while also still consuming blogs like this one) and read this headline: "Father Smothers 6-year old son with Pillow." Would anyone consider it a valid statement to say to a woman, "You know what? You're not a man so you can't possibly understand why a father would snap like that and kill his child!" Absolutely nobody would accept this argument! Nor should they. It does not require someone to be male or be a father to believe it's reprehensible for a parent to murder their child. Period.
Yet somehow the Pro-Abortion lobby wants us to suspend our own personal outrage at destroying an innocent human being because we don't have a uterus. It's silly. Our issue is protecting a human life. That's the issue. We can have an honest and open debate about it without having to disregard someone's valid opinion because of their gender. It's a false rejection of a position.
Bottom line, if you're going to debate with somebody, don't disregard positions for such frivolity as gender. Especially when the question at hand genuinely ought to be "is that unborn child human," with the logical conclusion being "if the child is human, abortion is wrong, if the child is not human, abortion is fine."
Unfortunately, debate on this premise is not going to help the pro-abortion lobby's position in the least, because the most logical conclusion is, at least for now, fall on the side of caution. It is better to protect something that isn't human than to accidentally destroy something that is human.
Now this isn't the case for all, and frankly most, of the people who use this argument. Actually, the real perpetrators of this argument are those who began to use this defense of abortion. It's not hard to win an argument when you automatically remove half of your opponents from the field, especially when men of the Pro-Abortion ilk are not told their opinion isn't valid. It's an issue of allowing the other side to set the premise of the debate, one we must not allow.
This is so critical, because we must not allow the Pro-Abortion lobby to wipe away the objections of men because of what our objection to abortion is in the first place! Our objection to abortion is that we believe a human being is a human being, whether born or unborn, and that destroying an innocent human being is always murder. Being (hypothetically) the mother of the child vs. the father has absolutely nothing to do with the situation!
Let's imagine we all woke up this morning and opened our favorite online newspaper (or perhaps hard copy newspaper if you're one of the seventeen people who still read the hard copy paper while also still consuming blogs like this one) and read this headline: "Father Smothers 6-year old son with Pillow." Would anyone consider it a valid statement to say to a woman, "You know what? You're not a man so you can't possibly understand why a father would snap like that and kill his child!" Absolutely nobody would accept this argument! Nor should they. It does not require someone to be male or be a father to believe it's reprehensible for a parent to murder their child. Period.
Yet somehow the Pro-Abortion lobby wants us to suspend our own personal outrage at destroying an innocent human being because we don't have a uterus. It's silly. Our issue is protecting a human life. That's the issue. We can have an honest and open debate about it without having to disregard someone's valid opinion because of their gender. It's a false rejection of a position.
Bottom line, if you're going to debate with somebody, don't disregard positions for such frivolity as gender. Especially when the question at hand genuinely ought to be "is that unborn child human," with the logical conclusion being "if the child is human, abortion is wrong, if the child is not human, abortion is fine."
Unfortunately, debate on this premise is not going to help the pro-abortion lobby's position in the least, because the most logical conclusion is, at least for now, fall on the side of caution. It is better to protect something that isn't human than to accidentally destroy something that is human.
Explaining the Conservative Abortion Stance
Abortion is, of course, one of the biggest hot-buttons in the world. The Left has done a really good job of presenting their side of the issue in such a way that I regularly speak to people who tell me they absolutely never would have an abortion themselves but still consider themselves pro-choice. The reason given by these individuals almost universally is either "I can't tell some other woman what to do with her body" or more generally "I can't tell other people what to do."
Conservatives as well as Pro-Life liberals and moderates (my childhood pastor, for example, is a staunchly Pro-Life liberal) are simply not explaining our argument simply and concisely. I'm going to attempt to do just that right now.
Simply stated, we believe that unborn child is a human being. Admittedly, this is a default perspective focused on being 100% sure that life is protected. The fact is no human being knows when a fertilized human egg has become officially human. One thing we can say with scientific certainty is this: It happens no sooner than the moment of conception. That's why the vast majority of individuals have no issue with legitimate contraception. (For the record, legitimate contraception is defined by something that stops a human egg cell from being fertilized by a human sperm cell, whether done via a barrier or medication.)
If life begins no sooner than conception, stopping said conception from occuring is not destroying anything. To give an analogy: Fire does not cause explosions on it's own. Neither does gunpowder. Only when fire and gunpowder are combined do we get an explosion. Similarly, a sperm cell on it's own does not create a human, nor does an egg cell on it's own. Only when the sperm cell and egg cell are combined is a human being created.
Abortion, on the other hand, is quite different. Abortion takes a human that has already been conceived and destroys it by removing it from the womb during development. What Pro-Life individuals say is this: you may stop the conception of a child, but once it is conceived it has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon by another person's right to liberty or pursue happiness.
The woman who is desiring to abort her unborn child has a right to pursue happiness, which in this case means not having a baby. However, as I have stated so many times, I believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are a heirarchy. I believe my right to Life outranks your right to Liberty (that is, to be free to do what you want), and that might right to Liberty outranks your right to Pursue Happiness. Your Right to Pursue Happiness ends at any danger to my Liberty and my Life; and your Liberty likewise ends at any danger to my Life.
So here it is, short and sweet, why conservatives and people of faith of all political ilks are opposed to abortion: We cannot abide by the either purposeful destruction of a human life. There's actually a word for purposefully destroying a human life (except in cases of war, self defense, genuine accident, etc): Murder. Yes, I know that's a harsh point. But a human being does have a right to be alive.
Now, let me qualify that statement: One, the vast majority of people who have had abortions have done so in ignorance, believing they are simply removing "a mass of cells from their body." I do not think they ought to be tried for murder. It's an act of ignorance 99% of the time and not malicious. I want the practice stopped, not the individuals prosecuted.
Now it's time to ask you well meaning Neighborhood Liberals a question: Can you understand where we're coming from? We see that child as human and having a right to life. We also see it as completely independent of the mother's body, albeit reliant on that mother. Then again, my best friend and his wife have an almost 1 year old, and he's completely reliant on his parents too...so the argument that the baby can't survive without the mother in utero becomes really silly. (As a matter of fact, I think I was about 12 years old before I could even potentially care for myself in any real way, and even then I would have sucked at it...so by the aforementioned logic killing a 9 year old isn't murder either.)
My point is that we are not going to put aside our beliefs on this...and frankly anybody who says we ought to deserves to be smacked. We're talking about a human life, friends. We're not talking about a mass of cells and we're not talking about a "choice with one's own body." We're talking about destroying another person's body, that unborn child's.* And that is something we cannot morally fathom.
*I know some atheist or another is going to send me that picture of a cracked egg and a caption that says "this is not a chicken." I'll spare you the trouble: Yes, actually, it is a chicken. I just have no issue with eating chickens.
Conservatives as well as Pro-Life liberals and moderates (my childhood pastor, for example, is a staunchly Pro-Life liberal) are simply not explaining our argument simply and concisely. I'm going to attempt to do just that right now.
Simply stated, we believe that unborn child is a human being. Admittedly, this is a default perspective focused on being 100% sure that life is protected. The fact is no human being knows when a fertilized human egg has become officially human. One thing we can say with scientific certainty is this: It happens no sooner than the moment of conception. That's why the vast majority of individuals have no issue with legitimate contraception. (For the record, legitimate contraception is defined by something that stops a human egg cell from being fertilized by a human sperm cell, whether done via a barrier or medication.)
If life begins no sooner than conception, stopping said conception from occuring is not destroying anything. To give an analogy: Fire does not cause explosions on it's own. Neither does gunpowder. Only when fire and gunpowder are combined do we get an explosion. Similarly, a sperm cell on it's own does not create a human, nor does an egg cell on it's own. Only when the sperm cell and egg cell are combined is a human being created.
Abortion, on the other hand, is quite different. Abortion takes a human that has already been conceived and destroys it by removing it from the womb during development. What Pro-Life individuals say is this: you may stop the conception of a child, but once it is conceived it has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon by another person's right to liberty or pursue happiness.
The woman who is desiring to abort her unborn child has a right to pursue happiness, which in this case means not having a baby. However, as I have stated so many times, I believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are a heirarchy. I believe my right to Life outranks your right to Liberty (that is, to be free to do what you want), and that might right to Liberty outranks your right to Pursue Happiness. Your Right to Pursue Happiness ends at any danger to my Liberty and my Life; and your Liberty likewise ends at any danger to my Life.
So here it is, short and sweet, why conservatives and people of faith of all political ilks are opposed to abortion: We cannot abide by the either purposeful destruction of a human life. There's actually a word for purposefully destroying a human life (except in cases of war, self defense, genuine accident, etc): Murder. Yes, I know that's a harsh point. But a human being does have a right to be alive.
Now, let me qualify that statement: One, the vast majority of people who have had abortions have done so in ignorance, believing they are simply removing "a mass of cells from their body." I do not think they ought to be tried for murder. It's an act of ignorance 99% of the time and not malicious. I want the practice stopped, not the individuals prosecuted.
Now it's time to ask you well meaning Neighborhood Liberals a question: Can you understand where we're coming from? We see that child as human and having a right to life. We also see it as completely independent of the mother's body, albeit reliant on that mother. Then again, my best friend and his wife have an almost 1 year old, and he's completely reliant on his parents too...so the argument that the baby can't survive without the mother in utero becomes really silly. (As a matter of fact, I think I was about 12 years old before I could even potentially care for myself in any real way, and even then I would have sucked at it...so by the aforementioned logic killing a 9 year old isn't murder either.)
My point is that we are not going to put aside our beliefs on this...and frankly anybody who says we ought to deserves to be smacked. We're talking about a human life, friends. We're not talking about a mass of cells and we're not talking about a "choice with one's own body." We're talking about destroying another person's body, that unborn child's.* And that is something we cannot morally fathom.
*I know some atheist or another is going to send me that picture of a cracked egg and a caption that says "this is not a chicken." I'll spare you the trouble: Yes, actually, it is a chicken. I just have no issue with eating chickens.
Reactions to Obama’s Non-Compromise on Abortion
One of the more difficult things about writing a daily political blog is trying to discuss all pertinent issues in a timely fashion. Sometimes, when the President tries to pull the wool over our eyes the day before a Republican Primary, something gets pushed off to the side. For a day.
Last week, the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations went to the wall with President Obama on one of those lovely hidden rules in the Obamacare law (you know, the ones we had to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it” hidden rules), this time requiring all hospitals and other medical practices to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization (for the record, this usually means vasectomy or tubal ligation aka tube tying) services or not receive any federal funding.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to quickly outline my personal views on this subject. I have no moral objection to contraception. Contraception means methods of preventing pregnancy through either a barrier that stops the male genetic material from fertilizing the female genetic material. (For the record, I consider vasectomy and tubal ligation as contraception, albeit permanent…they keep one or both sets of genetic material in their respective biological storehouses.) I have huge moral objections to abortion. Abortion is the process of destroying a fertilized human embryo. I believe that life begins at conception, and that all human life is precious because it is created in the image of God.
To give a crude analogy, let’s consider the male genetic material a lit match and the female genetic material as a bucket of gasoline. Contraception would be the process of keeping the match away from the gasoline. Abortion is extinguishing the fire after the match hits the gasoline. My belief according to my faith is that it is ok to stop the fire from happening (preventing pregnancy), but not to extinguish the fire (aka destroying the human life).
I am not alone. The Roman Catholic Church, most traditional Protestant denominations and pretty much all Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations are opposed to abortion. In those groups the beliefs on contraception are not so universal. Many of those are also opposed to contraception. I believe that human life begins at conception; not at some point after conception, but also not at some point before conception. Simply stated, it’s not a human until the genetic material combines.
The President, however, has decided to take for himself a power that does not belong to him: the power to force individuals of faith to fund procedures their faith says is murder. Now the Constitution is clear, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You know why it says “Congress shall make no law”? Because the President DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS! Period. The President may either sign off on laws or veto them, but he has no right to pass them on his own. Period. But we’ll get back to that. Congress has no right to force any individual to go against their religion. (The only exception is that one man’s liberty ends at another person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.)
So the President’s attempt to force individuals and hospitals and organizations to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization services is absolutely, 100% Unconstitutional. Period. But there is more to this problem. The Obamacare law and the President wanted to force these organizations not only to provide these services but to PAY FOR THEM! He wants to force organizations with moral objections to not only provide these services but pay for them for their employees, free of charge.
So then, last week, the President came out with a “compromise.” Instead of requiring the organizations to provide these services to their employees free of charge, now, out of the goodness of his heart, he’s telling the Insurance Company that THEY must pay for these services. Oh, and by the way, do you know who is forced to provide Insurance to their employees due to the Obamacare law? Employers! So the same conscientious objecting employers are being forced to provide the Insurance which is forced to provide the objectionable services. Translation: Obama is still requiring those groups to pay for services they find morally objectionable!
One last thing: The President calls these new services that insurance companies are required to cover “free of charge.” Baloney. Does the President HONESTLY believe that Insurance companies are going to just provide these services, which by the way are far more expensive than the co-pay that we shell out as consumers, letting that cut into their profit margins? OF COURSE NOT! You know how insurance companies will recoup that loss? I’ll tell you how: Raise premiums. But Obamacare will lower costs, right?
Bottom line, this is just another liberal social program being forced on people against their will because Obama and the liberals know better than we do what’s best for us. So let’s do our nation a favor and elect ourselves a new President.
