The Great Divider
by Doug TenNapelThis is not a discussion on the merits of life or abortion. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is about that issue because I’m talking about divisive politics. The claim of unity and an end to politics that divide is either President Obama’s greatest example of philosophical ignorance or his greatest lie.
There is no more divisive issue than abortion. The nation is torn and it’s not over something trivial like a Coke or Pepsi preference. It’s an argument over the definition of life and liberty itself. So a President who ran on putting partisan politics aside should have a lot of work to do with the other side of the aisle on an issue like abortion. Not with President Obama.
He chose to take the most divisive tack possible and his media played the obedient lap dog to bury the division in the backyard. To even find news on this presidential order called the Mexico City Policy one must Google with an electron microscope.
Synchronize Dictionaries: Unity = agree with me. Divisive = disagree with me.
Most Americans don’t believe in an unrestricted right to abortion, yet most people don’t believe it should be outlawed either. But most people disapprove of President Obama’s lifting of the ban for U.S. government money to be used in programs which provide or promote abortions overseas.
By “disapprove,” I mean 58% disapprove.
That’s a perfectly divided issue so we should assume that President Obama would work a lot with the other side to find a compromise, right? Hope? Nope. On day three of his presidency President Obama didn’t meet with one Republican, one pastor, one mother, one survivor of abortion, one international religious institution, not one person. He’s not “intellectually curious.” He may not think God is giving him messages but he sure implements controversial philosophical doctrine like it’s well within his pay-grade.
OFF TOPIC: Given this topic is unpopular even among Democrats we could expect a massive publicity uproar from the Republican party, right? Nope. This low hanging fruit is the stuff Republicans drive past every day, not because they’re unclear about the issue of abortion, but because it’s a difficult issue to clearly argue without sounding like you actually believe in an absolute.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
70 Comments
If the argument were about “life” then slaugherhouses would be part of the equation. But they aren’t. The argument is about HUMAN life and to answer that, you would have to define what it is to be a human. I think people are afraid of that debate.
If a patient had to have an arm amputated, with the illogical arguments presented both the arm and the other part would have equal rights. But we don’t practice that, so the theory is obviously inadequate.
And why are we told we must side with the Is – raelis when they are far more pro-abortion than the Palestinians who don’t even have a concept of such a thing?
Abortion is a real issue. It affects everything. Fewer babies born = fewer workers for future generations. Fewer babies born = fewer students for our schools. Fewer babies born = fewer soldiers for our military. Right there the declining birthrate affects the economy, education, and the military.
One could also argue that there will never be full consensus on how we should build our economy, or what our foreign policy should be, or what our education policy should be. Because there will never be full agreement, does that render those issues moot as well? Should we never take a stand upon them because not everyone can agree?
If we place the economy, national security and education ahead of human life then then those things become meaningless—–except for very selfish people
Ok, Back on Doug’s point. WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR ANYTHING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY????? Let alone Abortion, when we need the money here……..
“it’s a difficult issue to clearly argue without sounding like you actually believe in an absolute.”
Nice, Doug. And therein lies the problem with Republicans on the hill. No balls. Guess it’s just in the movies that brave Congressmen and women let passion lead by incendiary speeches, chained to the gates, hunger strikes, “I’m here to recwuit you!” Oh wait…that’s the Liberals. Awww, Geez…they stole all the passion and there’s none left on the Right. Pity…didn’t realize it’s apparently a zero-sum commodity.
Christopher – February 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“Ok, Back on Doug’s point. WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR ANYTHING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY????? Let alone Abortion, when we need the money here……..”
My sentiments exactly – why do we give more aid to the tiny, already-rich country of Is – rael? Why have we wasted a trillion dollars on these back-stabbers?
Abortion is considered an economic issue by Leftists. The Chinese don’t have a one baby policy for no reason.
This is why Planned Parenthood was created by Margaret Sanger. She wanted to sterilized the poor and those ‘unfit’ to breed. The socialists in Australia are close to adopting similar measures.
We are seeing more and more socialist European nations pushing for ‘baby taxes’ to control population. Many under the guise of fighting global warming.
Socialist Indira Ghandi also believed in eugenics. The list goes on. It wasn’t about right or wrong. It was/is about economic ideology. (and it’s wrong)
This IS the guy who said he is in favor of free abortion because he didn’t think his daughters “should be punished with a baby for making one mistake.”
AND we voted for him?
The idea of Obama bringing unity back to the country was a farce from the start. Anyone paying attention to his record in the Illinois State Senate would have seen how divisive he was from the get go. His record as US Senator reflected the same. His opponent had a proven track record of crossing party lines, especially on the issue of abortion (not to mention immigration).
He’s only a unifier if you are sing song coom bye yah (misspelled on purpose…) Liberal who thinks that killing babies is just fine while convicted murderers need to live, then of course there is the notion that dialogue will save the world where military might won’t solve a darn thing…
Chris Clemency,
The issue of abortion will always be with us. The reason is because the Supreme Court chose to enshrine it as a Constitutional right (based on very weak reasoning) as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the people through their duly elected legislators. Overall there would be less heartburn on the issue if that were the case. Although I am ambivalent on the issue of abortion I can never say that it is less important than other issues. There are people in this county who honestly and fervently believe that it is murder. Since the point of when life begins cannot be definitively answered, it cannot be wrong for these people to believe it. I’m sure this won’t convince you, but it is just my two cents.
When a woman wants to keep her child, she calls it her child. When she does not, she calls it a fetus.
Fascinating. So, the distinction about human life simply rides on the “feelings” and desires of mother.
Must be nice to play God.
Hey, who are we kidding, we all KNOW it is wrong to take a life, even one that we can’t see just yet without a medical technology.
Gary Graham’s well written and well read piece explained what ignorant women don’t get—-Abortion is not to give women a choice, it give men a choice, to opt out of their responsibility.
I also agree with Richard; there are also women who “play God”…wonder what they will say to him and Saint Peter on judgement day.
This not being the biggest civil rights argument of all time astounds me.
During the whole Prop-8 ordeal (I like to think it’s over…maybe I’m misguided), people kept telling me: “Substitute ‘Asian-American’ or ‘Hispanic’ or etc. for ‘homosexual’ just to see how terrible Prop-8 is!” Regardless of the fact that I substituted ‘Mountain Caribou’ in return to show how absurd that argument is. People that stuck to that argument should see the same here, substitute ‘Jane Fonda’ for ‘unborn baby’ and see how wr…well maybe I need a new analogy.
Obama is scheduled to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday. Mother Teresa once spoke about abortion at the National Prayer Breakfast while the Clintons sat and looked uncomfortable. Maybe something like that will happen this year.
But I think that Rick Warren has given Obama cover with some evangelicals, so Obama isn’t going to moderate his stance on abortion.
Growl,
Which pro-choice groups “attacked” Palin for having a Downs baby? Provide some actual links to some actual stories.
@ Chris Clemency:
It’s true that there are important issues other than abortion, but because I think abortion is the murder of a child, can you see how I get hung up on it? I’d be a pretty horrible person if I really believed that abortion was murder but said, “Hey, no one’s going to agree, let’s forget about it and move on.”
hey this will help make the terroists like us. no wait thats one of the reasons they hate us
excellent article, points taken. To add to your points, see article on American Thinker “Obama and the Culture of Death.”
For those who have not kept up on epigenetics:
The DNA of the fertilized egg is half from Dad and half from Mom. Thus ends the high school health class. That is actually true, but very limited. The DNA from Dad is essentially deprogrammed during spermatogenesis, and comes into the egg as basically undifferentiated DNA. The DNA from Mom is partially deprogrammed. These two strands of DNA are unique in that they are not only different from the parental DNA in that they are half of each parent, but different in that genes that are spot welded shut in either parent are actively working in the egg.
These growth genes all turn off at some point determined largely by which parent they came from. WT-1 turns off at the 4th month of life–if it comes from Dad. Mom’s WT-1 copy trundles along for several years. The DNA becomes “programmed” so that we can make antibodies and hemoglobin, but not extra noses.
The DNA in your skin cells is different today, than it was when you were born. If you were to take a picture of DNA from an embryo, and then again every few months, each picture would be different as the DNA gets programmed.
The point of this science class is that there is no longer a philosophical debate on when life begins. That debate has become an antique, much like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Life begins when the DNA in the egg is unique to the world. That is the moment of conception.
Abortion is the premeditated destruction of a human life. There can be no other conclusion. The life in question began before the mother knew she was pregnant.
That said, we have situations where abortion is really needed. To end a life in a futile stay in the NICU is not without pain and suffering. If a pregnancy is found to have some terrible life ending defect, a fair minded person could agree that termination is not the worst outcome.
We need to consider this action in the context in which it is occurring in real time. If a couple can’t come to a group of learned and concerned citizens and rationally explain why they want to do such a horrible thing AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, what they are going to do to insure that they never have to do it again, then why should we as a good and honorable people not be willing to say “No, we are not going to stand by and let you do this.”?
We are noble when we stand on the side of the weak and not the side of the strong. We stand for those who cannot defend themselves. There is no one weaker than a baby in this stage of life. We must as a good people not support population control abortions. We must as a good people not support “I don’t want to go to the prom pregnant” abortions. We must instead stand for something better.
Do we fund contraception? Yes. Do we teach our kids to abstain from sex? Yes. Do we teach our kids to use contraception like it really matters? Yes.
Does that mean that Hollywood is going to have to hire writers who can portray love without sex? Yes. Does it mean that we the consumers of film and TV are going to have to refrain from the low brow stuff and hold people to a higher level? Yes.
Its not the easy road, but its the correct one.
American Thinker: Jan.31 by Miguel A.Guanipa
When is a woman pregnant?
Conception?
Birth?
When the doctor says so?
Pregnant with what?
A human [46 chromosomes]?
A horse?
A pencil?
Thomas Jefferson said that Rights begins when we are “created.”
When are we “created”?
Conception?
Birth?
When the doctor says so?
The question is important because we must determine when to give Rights to those who have the Right to get them.
Obama vs. Alan Keyes – Senate Debate on Abortion:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/354/Keyes-Obama-debate-Racism–Abortion
The appropriate and critical phrasing, on page 32, of Planned Parenthood v Casey says, “Roe did not declare an unqualified ‘constitutional right’ to an abortion.”
Since we’re getting into the details of life, take a look at this video and try to argue against it:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/996/A-Case-for-Life-The-Development-of-the-Unborn-Baby
It was posted by Pia Varma, the hottest Conservative chick you will ever see. That’s not exactly relevant, but it doesn’t hurt. You’ll see.
The global gag rule is an executive policy, I’m not sure how or why you would’ve expected him to compromise on this issue. I mean, Bush promised to be “a uniter, not a divider” and it’s not like he “worked closely” with Democrats when instating it.
Elections have consequences.
To one side, abortion is a positive good as a means of exterminating humans from this very fragile planet; it shouldn’t be limited or restricted in any way whatsoever.
To the other side, babies in the embryonic stage are people to be protected. The fact that they can feel it when their heads and limbs are ripped off leads this side to believe that modern abortion is one of the greatest atrocities in human history.
In context of what pro-choice and pro-life people do believe, insistence that abortion is a non-issue comes across as clueless. Abortion will be an issue as long as abortion exists.
The leftists continually insist that people are nothing but animals and that there is no shame in exterminating another human animal for the sake of one’s own convenience.
For “whatever reason” , the leftists have been unable to establish a clear moral difference between the inconvenient presence of an unborn child and the inconvenient presence of a born child.
This has its effects. When a teenager drowns her newborn in a toilet, she has only taken her years of lessons to their logical conclusion: If dismembering an inconvenient little animal before birth is a good thing, then what can possibly be morally wrong with drowning one after birth?
So back alley abortions are dangerous? Let’s extend that reasoning to achieve greater convenience for all, er, some. Any time one human animal sees another human animal as inconvenient, it would be much cleaner and safer overall if he or she could just plunk down the plastic and get a quick, neat, hygienic killing on the debit card.
The issue of abortion annoys me.
I think its more of an issue of distraction than division.
Maybe I’m just a little too libertarian (in that laissez-faire, I don’t care if you screw up your own life kind of way) but while I don’t like abortion, I don’t really care one way or the other whether its legal or not. I don’t really think its a “make it or brake it” issue for society.
Maybe I’m a little cold hearted but as long as nobody is forcing me to abort my own children it doesn’t really affect me.
Sure there’s the moral component. I’m a Christian and believe its immoral, but I also believe a lot of other things are immoral that I would NEVER seek to outlaw (like atheism, homosexuality, Islam, Rap music, etc).
I even acknowledge that there is a solid Libertarian argument against legalized abortion as well (its clearly a violation of the Non Aggression Principal).
But instead I see this issue as one that is devised purely to keep moderate, libertarian and even conservative folk from joining with Republicans on actual important issues like the role and scope of government, property rights, free market capitalism … things that will actually mean life and death to the mass of humanity.
Anyway as for the canard of “nonpartisanship” or “bipartisanship” or “unity”, its always a lie. Nobody wants to come together and compromise with their opponents (especially when they’re “winning”) when a Democrat says “nonpartisan” they really mean “Republicans shut up and go away, we’ll take things from here.”
Unfortunately when Republicans start talking about unity and bipartisanship they usually mean “Please Mr. Democrat, feel free to use and abuse my backside, and don’t worry about the lubricant, It doesn’t hurt that much.”
People in America have Freedom. It is what this country is all about. Freedom of choice is one of them. Most women want the freedom of choice to have an abortion, or not. I would like the freedom of choice to not pay for other people’s abortions. Especially people in other countries. Send aid, sure. Send food, yes. Send medicine, absolutely. But when I hear my tax dollars will be used for abortions it makes my stomach turn. What happens when we are forced to pay for abortions in this country? What happens when we loose all our choices? Do you think there may come a time when a woman who does not want to abort her child will have to? Because of some global warming population control nitwit in our government? Maybe not soon, but down the line. And I’m sure when Bush banned abortion funding overseas there was such an outcry from Liberals who lost the easy way to send abortion money to other countries. I’m sure there are charities that will take care of that for them if they would look into it. Thats a choice. They had the choice. Now its gone. And we all have to pay, whether we want to or not. The government will choose now where our money goes, all of it. We’d better adjust. Or fight.
Zundfolge
I’m a Christian and believe its immoral, but I also believe a lot of other things are immoral that I would NEVER seek to outlaw (like atheism, homosexuality, Islam, Rap music, etc).
Dude, that is funny…and weird. You are actually equating atheism, homosexuality, Islam and Rap music with abortion. Huh?
Where the foreign aid abortion money may go.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870
There are many women in the world who would very much prefer that we keep that money here.
“And why are we told we must side with the Is – raelis when they are far more pro-abortion than the Palestinians who don’t even have a concept of such a thing?”
Hilarious. That might have something to do with the fact that the mean age in ‘Palestine’ is 16. They birth kids to use them as soldiers and human shields.
Mr. TenNapel,
Well done. Very well done.
so, lefties, let me get this straight, if a woman keeps the kids, she has to be subservient to the man and do dishes for the rest of her life? whatever you say BABYKILLERS. at least be honest and go capital punishment and be consistent, at least that inconvenience serves a social good.
“To even find news on this presidential order called the Mexico City Policy one must Google with an electron microscope.”
That’s because he signed it on Friday afternoon after the press went home for the weekend. Watch for more of the same.
Great post, Doug.
Too many self-identified libertarians here define liberty as a negative, “You can’t tell me what to do!” sense of freedom.
This is the ‘Freedom’ peddled by the pimps, pushers, and panders who cater to those who are enslaved by drug, alchohol, sex, or gambling addictions. “Freedom of Choice”, as defined by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and President Obama means freedom from the consequences of real choices.
Our dignity as human beings is an INHERENT dignity. It is not given to us by judges or legislators who happened to be feeling generous when they draft laws or define them. Our founders RECOGNIZED these liberties as being “endowed by our Creator,” and hence indivisible from our human identity.
There can be no absolute guarantee to liberty if our claim to life itself can be finessed away by claiming that an ‘emanation’ from a ‘penumbra’ was discovered by seven Supreme Court justices under the sofa cushions of the Fourth Amendment.
This was essentally the same tack taken by the Supreme Court in the Dredd Scott decision of 1857 which denied the right to liberty to slaves.
What issue could be more important to freedom loving people than the sanctity of human life? Free human beings form a social contract and permit a government to have limited authority over them in exchange for their mutual protection. If that government permits the arbitrary killing of an innocent child, the essence of that contract has been broken. What makes you believe that said government won’t ultimately knock on your door and snuff you out because “someone else” deems you unnecessary. Far from being a peripheral issue, the sanctity of life is the bedrock of a free society. When the sanctity of life is not the foundation of that society, any “majority-driven”, utilitarian excuse can be raised to take away the life of any segment of society.
Ryan: It’s true that there are important issues other than abortion, but because I think abortion is the murder of a child, can you see how I get hung up on it? I’d be a pretty horrible person if I really believed that abortion was murder but said, “Hey, no one’s going to agree, let’s forget about it and move on.”
See, this is a problem for me. Do you really think abortion is the ‘murder of a child’ … I mean *really think it* in the sense that you are as physically and emotionally repelled by an abortion as by the violent death of a child (or of any independent, innocent person)? Would you instinctively act to stop an abortion the same way you would if you saw someone killing a child in front of your eyes? And would you stand by (and perhaps complain a bit here and there) without directly acting if a genocide against children (or Jews or Muslims or the elderly, etc.) was being conducted in this country, on the scale that the purported genocide against the unborn is being conducted right now?
I don’t say this as a provocateur to encourage any sort of direct action against abortion proponents and providers – I’m pro-choice. Rather I say it because I believe there *is* a measurable difference in the human understanding of what ‘life’ is pre-birth versus post-birth … and particularly in the very early (first trimester) stage of gestation. I think even many pro-life people understand the truth of this as well, if just at a gut level, but are reluctant to admit it.*
It remains a very tricky question. But I think saying things like pro-choice people are just ’selfish’ or claiming for themselves ‘the “Freedom” peddled by the pimps, pushers, and panders’ … is not helpful and absolutely misrepresents what is being talked about here.
Now, a question – is it immutable, this difference in what we (some of us anyway) understand to be ‘life’ to be pre-birth versus post-birth? Perhaps not – some of our ancestors, after all, endorsed human slavery and even more distant ancestors practiced infanticide (for far longer than we have not, as it happens) … and we today universally** find both practices repellent. Still, we today have *not* all come to the universal conclusion that abortion (again, particularly at very early stages of gestation) is equivalent to murdering a living, breathing infant. We may evolve someday to the point where we *do* universally consider any violence committed to the human organism post-conception to be as terrible as slavery or infanticide. We’re not there yet, though, and it may be that abortion is simply not the same as those things.
Which is all a very long way of saying that both sides could do to give the other some credit, rather than assuming the worst motivations on the part of their opponents.
*If you’re American, pro-life and proud of your country, for example, do you ever wonder why you feel your country is at least as moral if not morally superior to other countries where abortion is illegal? Is this a rational belief if you also believe your country is committing mass genocide and those countries are not? Or do you not *really* believe your country is committing mass genocide?
**E.g. an anonymous survey of adults about the morality of slavery or infanticide might turn up a few psychopaths and pranksters, but probably close enough to the margin of error to call disapproval of those things ‘universal’.
Which pro-choice groups “attacked” Palin for having a Downs baby? Provide some actual links to some actual stories.
I think this is a subtle misconception the Right falls into. The Left loves to play the hypocrite card, especially when it comes to abortion (if I had a dime for every time I heard a Liberal say Republicans aren’t really pro-life because they don’t give enough to the poor or adopt enough black babies….well, I wouldn’t have enough free time to hang out here).
Sarah Palin kills that juvenile argument because she was over 40, already had a family, had an important career, and found out she was going to have a Downs Syndrome baby. Since she is pro-life, it would have fit in with Liberal’s hateful mantra if she’d chosen to have an abortion, but since she chose not to, they have to deal with the uncomfortable premise that she really isn’t a hypocrite (which is why you saw stories about him not being her baby, about her plane flight during her pregnancy, etc…).
No one in the MSM said outright that they hated her for not having an abortion (although I heard it a lot in talkbacks), but they attacked her for everything surrounding that decision, including how much credit supporters gave her for that choice. It was that annoyance that pushed so much of the irrational hatred towards her. They couldn’t use the usual talking point attacks, so they ratcheted it up a notch (no one ever accused Liberals of being overly deep thinkers).
Jeff said…..No, we “get” it, it’s a very seductive argument that applies to many other activities, such as smoking for example (funny how the same people are trying to restrict that act on our own bodies). However, we REJECT it because refuses to consider the life growing within, which is NOT her body to do with as she pleases.
To me the argument is not that simple. I talked to an ex-girlfriend tonight. Her sister’s first baby is undergoing radical gene treatment with stem cells to deal with a very rare condition. The child (18 months old) is rejecting the stem cells, so they’re bombarding her with chemo. Her skin is peeling off, and if the procedure somehow succeeds, she’ll have to have surgery on both hands, both feet, and rods inserted into her spine. I’m sure they’ve already spent well in excess of a million dollars of insurance money on this one child, and the family just found out that the woman is pregnant again. Since she and her husband are carriers of the gene, there is a 50/50 chance the next child will be born with the identical condition.
The mother had the option to have a prenatal test at 12 weeks that could have confirmed the condition so she could have terminated, but chose to avoid it (as a very religious person, she wouldn’t want to have an abortion regardless, so I’m guessing she just doesn’t want to know). With the first child on the edge of death after a year and a half of intense suffering and staggering costs, they might go right back through it again, while everyone moans about the rising costs of health care that no one can afford.
If it was me, I’d have taken the test and if positive, I would have aborted the child. No one should be put through that kind of suffering, especially before they are even old enough to understand why.
This camoflaged action by bhobama is just further proof of the LIES OF OBAMA
Was there really anyone of active intelligence that believed the lies and propaganda
We just did not think that bhobama was stupid enough to give the back of the hand in the first several days of his rule – the royal world of OBAMA LIESALOT
I dont think that is what jacky was thinking about with the camelot farce.
Why should we be surprised that the Repubicans have not stood up against this travesty? They’re cowed into a corner by the browbeaters who screech that we must “moderate” out views. Can we not remember Goldwater’s immortal words? “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
What about FOCA? Obama has promised to sign it – abortions for every female at any stage, no questions asked. Ninth month and you change your mind? No problem! You found a new guy who isn’t keen on being a step-daddy? Come on in! Responsibility for your actions? What a loser idea!
Funding overseas abortions is nothing short of eugenics. The Dems have clearly set themsevles up as the do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do party – abortions and birth control for the poor while Nancy Pelosi squeezed out five kids (yet Sarah Palin was vilified for having a family) and raising taxes while choosing not to pay them.
Is anyone really surprised?
==The real question is why President Obama does not see the hypocrisy in his position.==
What role does his inexperience — which is the point argued before the election — play in this and things to come…soon?
It’s not as though those who voted for this guy weren’t told about him before the vote.
If a woman can simply direct a doctor to “remove and destoy” a “fetus” from her womb, then the fetus must be legally speaking, either property or just a part of the woman’s body, like an organ. Thus, it is perfectly within her rights to dispose of her property as she sees fit. Some folks even want medicaid to pay for this decision, even though it only involves property.
However, if that same woman wants to allow her property to actually become a human being (when does this miracle occur exactly?) well, then, society is supposed to move heaven and earth to aceded to her wishes. This extends back to when the woman wants to have some property but can’t, ie can’t conceive a child by natural means.
Then, society is supposed to pay for invitro fertilization and the like. So, this property must be pretty important.
Wait, its better. If this woman’s fetus/property is terminated against her will by an assailant, the law NOW considers the property to be a life and the act, murder. A life has been taken clearly or this cannot be a crime of murder. You can’t murder property can you?
Wow, this is quite magical thinking. If I want, my fetus is a unborn child. If not, it is just my property, to be put out with the trash when I don’t want it. What do I feel like today, vanilla or chocolate???
Now, this is some very impressive logic we have got going there.
==The real issue here is how an attorney,who should know and understand the US Constitution, can claim to not be able to determine when a baby is entitled to Constitutional rights.==
Thomas Jefferson tells us that the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness begin when we are “created.”
The pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice extremists say that this Right to life begins at birth. So, they disagree with Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence.
Those who claim to be homosexual say that they were created homosexual. Some of them say that they were born homosexual, leaving us to believe that, before birth, they were not.
So, I’d like to know when people are “created.”
Are we created at conception? Are we created at birth? Or, are we created when the doctor says so?
There is no point in the continuum of gestation from conception to natural death at which an impartial observer could say, “Ah, yes…HERE is where the human component is added to the organism.”
True, but we can judge portions of the continuum at which self-consciousness and the ability to feel pain are present, more so or less so, even if we can’t identify the exact point at which those things arrive. The morning-after pill, for example, is a lot different than late-stage abortion. Categorization is always hard at the edges. That doesn’t mean it’s always a waste of time.
But the larger point is that this isn’t really about ‘human’ or ‘not human’ … of course every fertilized egg is human. The question, though, is whether the human life at the near-beginning of its gestation requires the same protections and rights as the human life at later stages. Stripping away other concerns — psychological impact on women who have abortions, the religious belief that conception introduces a ’soul’ into the world, etc. — this becomes a very important question for both sides.
To put it another way, here’s a question for those opposed to all abortion: if tomorrow, you could pick the absolute end of either a) all use of the morning-after pill or b) all late-stage abortion … which would you pick? Why?
When a man and a woman conceive, the result is a human from the very beginning. It’s not a mouse nor an anteater nor a giraffe nor even a chimpanzee. It’s a human being with conception being the first phase or stage of its life. Later, this tiny human goes through various other stages of growth and develops what we call arms and legs and internal organs, etc. Then at a later stage there is heartbeat, brain waves, reaction to stimuli. Further in its development come sexual organs, perhaps some hair and/or finger & toe nails.
When said individual is developed enough, he/she emerges from the womb and begins another phase of development that includes breathing air, crying for attention, eating, pooping, etc. Later on other stages of development occur that are more complex in nature. And so it will be for the rest of his/her life.
But from the moment of conception to the moment of physical death this little human being is alive and developing.
D.ARISTOPHANES: To put it another way, here’s a question for those opposed to all abortion: if tomorrow, you could pick the absolute end of either a) all use of the morning-after pill or b) all late-stage abortion … which would you pick? Why?
Short answer, DA, is both. Both contribute to the devaluing of all human rights. Both rely upon a dysfunctional perception of human life as simply a biological accident with which we can interfere with impunity. Neither recognizes the innate claim to human rights for all human beings which our founding document states is “endowed by our Creator”, not granted by a committee of either scientists or politicians claiming an authority which they don’t posess. This is not a claim that I and other pro-lifers are willing to concede in th4e interest of consensus.
In the 36 years since Roe V Wade, have we seen the reduction in unwanted pregnancies which NARAL promised? Fewer single-parent households on the dole? Less child abuse? Less domestic violence?
There is a reason why the Totalitarians of the 20th century used abortion as a weapon to subjugate their populations. Hitler, while forbidding it to “ubermensch” Germans, used abortion and sexual ‘liberation’ as a tool to reduce “untermensch” populations of Slavs to subjugation. The legacy of Soviet sexual ‘liberty’ in Russia and the former Iron Curtain countries is still seen in the depressing statistics relating to falling birth rates, high rates of abortion, and a burgeoning traffic in sex slaves. China’s one-child policy has resulted in the forced abortion of more than 400 million babies, as well as the murders of millions more ‘undesirable’ baby girls.
The issue of abortion is not an intellectual rubiks cube for posing theoretical conundrums. It is literally an issue of life and death.
The cat is already out of the bag–it has run off and had several litters of kittens of it’s own and THEY are out of their respective bags. Abortion has been around since the dawn of time and it has not destroyed civilization. Period. That is simple fact.
We will probably never eradicate abortion.
So we should attack the problem from a different direction. What can we do to make all conception volitional? No accidental pregnancies–that is something to work towards. Depo shots, the pill, all contraceptives aim for this.
And it’s the only solution with any real hope of causing the ‘need’ for abortion to vanish.
Regarding Obama’s actions, the Won never had any intention of being anything other than divisive.
“Regarding Obama’s actions, the Won never had any intention of being anything other than divisive.”
Jack, I know that you’re correct because I agree with you.
JACK:Abortion has been around since the dawn of time and it has not destroyed civilization. Period. That is simple fact.
We will probably never eradicate abortion.
Uh, Jack…
The same could be said for rape, murder, theft, slavery, and cheating on your taxes.
Civilizations which take no actions to suppress such activities don’t remain civilizations for very long.
As for your proposal that “Depo shots, the pill, and all contraceptives” are the “only hope” for eliminating the need for abortions, we’ve been there and done that for the past 40 years. Widespread reliance upon contraceptives has led to an explosion of STD’s. Diseases which used to be rare among port whores now regularly show up in high school girls from prosperous suburbs. And, incidentally, the rates of both abortions and out-of-wedlock pregnancies have skyrocketed.
When the Supreme Court decided Griswold v Connecticut in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was a “shocking” five percent. Today, it stands at more than 25%, with significantly higher rates among minority populations which, it should be noted, are specifically targeted by Planned Parenthood for their “services”.
==There is no point in the continuum of gestation from conception to natural death at which an impartial observer could say, “Ah, yes…HERE is where the human component is added to the organism.”==
Yes, there is. 46 chromosomes. At conception. Human. It’s not a cow.
Page 32, of “Planned Parenthood v Casey,” which says, “Roe did not declare an unqualified ‘constitutional right’ to an abortion.”
That clarification from SCOTUS fine-tunes Roe.
In another decision, SCOTUS — in Planned Parenthood v Pennsylvania, I think — Associate Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, said that there is human life in the womb.
The pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice crowd wants to distract us from noticing those little tidbits.
I’m in the choir, but I give you a big AMEN !
Give me my rights as a father.
==If the Supremes have decided that a woman can dispose of her property as she sees fit, as this is related to her right to privacy, then they might define when this property magically flips to being a human being.==
It's nice if she trashes her property; but what about HIS property that is part of the stuff that goes into making the baby?
==Give me my rights as a father.==
After all, you didn’t give up your privacy Right, and, outta that Right, you got choice, too, and, as owner of the property that went into making the baby, you gotta choice over what happens to that property. You did not give that property to her as a gift, nor did that property change ownership. It is a bailment, and an abortion amounts to conversion.
You, also, have the Right to an heir. You can argue that you expected an heir to come outta all this.
Inheritance law says that, although the child cannot actually BE an heir until birth, the unborn child obtains heirship — that is, “furture interests” — at conception. You have the Right to protect that Right to see an heir AND to protect, as a guardian, the child’s future interests.
So, all this speaks for the survival of the child. The State must, by law, protect these interests.
If the Supremes have decided that a woman can dispose of her property as she sees fit, as this is related to her right to privacy, then they might define when this property magically flips to being a human being.
I think this is a reasonably request. Otherwise, we are all left in suspense.
Good point mr incredible. The Supremes forgot to address that issue, among others.
Again, I go back to my point: property or life?
Choose!
This is from today’s AP Wire. Read it and weep, if you have any feelings.
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
Good point mr incredible. The Supremes forgot to address that issue, among others.
Again, I go back to my point: property or life?
Choose!==
If the Supremes forgot to address that issue, then whatever the current law on property is in force. So, go to it! Bailment. Conversion. Right to an heir.
By the way, where I wrote about “future interests” beginning at conception…that makes the unborn child what the law calls a “jural person+ — that is, a person for matters of law. We do this for corporations, for example. If a corporation can be a “person,” so can an unborn child. See? this is easy.
==I go back to my point: property or life?==
Well, I think it is Planned Parenthood v Pennsylvania wherein Associate Justice O’Connor refers to “the human life in the womb.” that’s another tidbit the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicers would like to gloss over.
There can be absolutely NO compromise where true pro-lifers are concerned. Human life is human life. We cannot “dialogue” where this issue is concerned. This issue is THE absolute issue. All other considerations pale in comparison, indeed they fade into insignificance when compared with the issue of abortion.
That does indeed make me a “one issue” type. So be it.
We now have wolves in sheeps clothing in our midst advising us to “dialogue” and “discuss” the problem while our enemies (yes, they are our enemies) carry through all of their death dealing designs. These turncoats would have us look elsewhere while their new “dialogue partners” rip our future and moral fabric to shreds.
==If that “thing” in the womb of a human female, planted by a human male is not human, then what is it?==
Pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicers want not to commit themselves on that cuz that would paint them squarely in a corner. So, they “claim” not to know, hoping that the Creator won’t hold them accountable for being ignorant. Of course, He will, but they are comfy cozy denying some facts in order to feel heady about their position.
== If it is human, then why is it ok to kill it?==
As I say, they want not to admit that it’s human. They know that saying so will make it so.
=I’d have no problem outlawing abortion totally.==
If it’s a question of whether the mother dies, or the unborn child, I gotta choose to let the mother live. Other than that, I agree with you.
The issue of abortion is over done by both ends of the arguement. If you're pro abortion it doesn't mean you're a profligate human being or vice verse. What the issue at hand really comes down to is the woman that is pregnant. A woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she is not fit to raise a child or if her life is in danger because of the pregnancy, end of discussion. If a young girl gets pregnant and can not raise it properly why should she be forced to ? Accidents happen, a child shouldn't be forced to raise one and it is wrong to make her. It is also wrong to say that she should put it up for adoption. THat is a very hard thing to do for any woman, there are chemical bounds formed over the pregnancy that won't allow you to do such a thing and can cause mental trauma which is unhealthy for the woman at hand. People need to stop being so myopic it is not MURDER it does not make the woman licentious. It means she's doing what is best for HER and ultimately what is best for her is best for the cells that are multiplying inside of her womb that will one day create a baby.
I do not think it should be done blindly, there are ways to regulate it and the qualification should be if the woman is fit to raise it or not.
==…the qualification should be if the woman is fit to raise it or not. ==
So, the CHILD should pay for the crimes of the parent[s] and/or the woman's fitness???
[...] Someone I’ve heard of added an interesting post on Big Hollywood Blog Archive The Great DividerHere’s a small excerptJames Posey Arm Gear, Knee Pads, Tats- ORLANDO MAGIC. Freedom Large Cup Holder Price: 25.16 Large Cupholder adjusts to hold 16 oz. GoldenCAN Affiliate Data Feed Integration enables affiliates to add millions of products, coupons, recent price drop Posey Padded Legsleeve provides.com/product/Posey-Padded-l.com/product/Posey-Soft-Seat-and-l. The use of an arm sleeve, knee sleeve, and lower leg sleeve is. Ideal for anyone recovering from hip, This thing was constructed on December 17, 2008, and it was Posey Padded Legsleeve. The Posey Padded Legsleeve provides comfortable protection for fragile or Learn more about Posey Padded Legsleeve by visiting our website. Measures 15 x 3 in, stretches to 36 x 10 in. Posey SkinSleeves are a latex-free barrier that helps protect fragile skin. Information about 25: Legsleeve; Body Care Long Handle 12 Inch Brush And Comb Set; Posey Wheelchair Side Supports. Posey SkinSleeves ‘Leg’, Style: Leg, dark tone. We have lots of specialty products that are not [...] [...]
[...] Another decent blogger added an interesting post on Big Hollywood Blog Archive The Great DividerHere’s a small excerptRamsey Horse also delivered a key two-run single in the fourth inning for DAC. Key Turners Around the House Ergonomic key turner makes turning keys and opening doors easier for those with positions. Atlanta wins first one with knife, analyst says at Turner trial. Key turner single Code: ES6155 Description: This key turner holds one key and makes it easier to hold and turn the key when it is inserted in a lock. All R&B Artists Melinda Doolittle’s Single “It’s Your Love” Hits Airwaves American Idol favorite. STAYAWAY Gold Coast recruit Steve Turner may receive his wish to remain in Single venue: Mayer calls for an extra round. Colonial Medical Supplies Single key is secured to the turner with a high binding post. Sock-eez Compression Sock & Stocking Remover. Provides increased leverage to turn a key with a comfortable grip. as the Battle of Sharpsburg) produced the bloodiest single day of the Civil [...] [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.