The "Abortion is not Murder" Lie

| | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

This article shows up the lie that "abortion is not murder." Had all gone according to plan, Gianna Jessen would have been killed six weeks before she was due to be born. She has a life now. Had her abortion been successful, she would not have that life. Taking an innocent life is murder.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The "Abortion is not Murder" Lie.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/987

18 Comments

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Whenever pro-life people talk about the horrors of abortion, they focus specifically on late-term abortions. Why is this? Because they can use gruesome pictures?

To be brief, I've said before that I don't care for late term abortions. Given the passion that exists on both sides of this issue, I personally think (go on say it: "there you go thinking again") that ending late term abortions would be a reasonable compromise.

Pro-lifers could claim victory in ending what they seem to be the most upset about (because it's the focal point of all of their campaigns), while women would still have the choice of whether they wanted to bring a person into the world or not.

But I know you're not one to compromise, Jack. So you're wasting your time talking about late-term abortion if you want to make the case that ALL abortions are bad.

The problem with all this is that it inevitably ends up being an argument about when life begins, which is a belief more than anything. The bottom line is that pregnancy is a gray area, and people use their own beliefs and preconceptions to fill that area with meaning. SO some say life begins when the child takes it's first breath, or when the cord is cut, or at the moment of conception, once there's a heartbeat, at the moment of implantation, etc. You're never going to convince everyone that your idea is the right one and all the others are wrong.

Jack said:

Sort of like an Israeli "compromise" with the Islamists that only HALF of the Jews will be killed.

Most woman who get abortions HAD a choice, and made the wrong one.

If an abortion at seven-and-a-half months is bad, why is one at seven months OK? Oh, seven months is bad too? Then why is six months OK? Where is the line, puffalump, and why do you put it there?

I will tell you MY "belief and preconceptions," so that you may know why I think abortion is murder. When the DNA of the egg and sperm combine, they create a unique individual -- one that has never existed before, and that can never exist again. To intentionally end the existence of that individual is murder.

So tell me, what are your "beliefs and preconceptions" that lead you to declare that abortion at seven-and-a-half months is bad, but one at some earlier time is OK. What is the distinction?

Bruce said:

I am an atheist, and a 98 % pro-lifer.


Largely pro-life due to my belief that life for "me" began at conception,
that was the start of my existance,
that was my own personal "big bang" (no pun intended).
Three weeks after conception my heart started to beat.
First brain waves were recorded at six weeks after conception.
Seen sucking my thumb at seven weeks after conception.

You see, although moments after conception I was no more than a clump of cells,
that clump of cells was me,
I might have had a lot of growing to do but that clump of cells was me just the same.
I am glad I was left unhindered, to develope further,
safe inside my mothers womb until I was born.

Shouldn't they all be so lucky ?

They are our equil, no more, no less.


Revealing statements made by former abortion industry personnel.
These are direct quotes from men and women who worked in abortion facilities.
http://heavensdaydreamer.blogspot.com/2007/03/end-abortion.html
also:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_927hh.asp

Robin said:

But who are you to judge wheather a woman has a child or not? Also, by taking away safe, legal abortion you won't be stopping it but will only make it unsafe for women. But I suppose in your book, women's lives don't count.

I also have an arguement with groups who are, at the same time, trying to end legal aboration and are trying to limit access to birth control. Basically making women breeders with no control over their reproduction. This type of thing sets women back 100 years where they were considered nothing but chattel.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=55536

Bruce said:

If two people have sex without effective birth control, a pregnancy could be the result…. People know that, but alas…………….

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2000-2001 [8]

Reason or situation…….number……% of abortions

not using contraception…..4,957 ………..46.40
forced to have relations……~64 …………0.6
using contraception………5,726…………53.60
contraceptive failed…….~1,808…………16.9
(despite proper use)

………………total….10,683………..100

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Among women who had an unintended pregnancy in 2001,

52% had not been using a method during the month of conception.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3904807.pdf

If only people would choose to use an effective birth control,
(or two).

They wouldn’t have to make another choice……..

http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/hormonal_birth_control.htm

Cash payments for using birth control…………..

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/02/project-preventionthe-road-as-opposed.html

I know their are a number of people who can’t use birth control for one reason or another.

But is that true for all types of birth control,
there are many different types to choose from,
surely one to suite most every-one.

I would suggest that the number of people that can’t use any of them at all would be very small

but many use this as their reason.

sophia said:

Sheesh - not Gianna Jesson again! That woman is a liar; she has no proof of her story. Additionally, that oft-repeated detail about being "burned" for hours in a saline solution is a self-evident lie.
Try it for yourself - get some salt, pour lots of it in a cup of water; you've now got a saline solution. Now stick your finger in it and see if it "burns".
Jesson is taking the pro-life movement for a ride, suckers! Don't give her any more of your money.

Jack said:

Robin -- prior to Roe v. Wade, there were about 200 maternal deaths per year from abortions:
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2006/12/pre-roe-mortality-redux.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html

As for maternal mortality due to birth and abortion, women getting abortions are more likely to die within a year: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL09/franz.html

Never mind all the FEMALE children killed in sex-selection abortions: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030811.html

Sophia -- the saline abortion, described here:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/saline.htm
and here:
http://www.christiangallery.com/smdead.html
essentially sucks the water from the fetus' cells, dehydrating and killing him.

Fetal skin is far more delicate than adult skin. the baby also swallows the fluid. Try drinking extra-strength sea-water for a day.

Ms. Jessen does have the medical records of the circumstances of her birth.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Jack, it's interesting that you open your response by implying that compromise is folly. I wonder why exactly you're interested in having this conversation in the first place. Is it only to point out "liberal hypocrisies?" If you go into a discussion with the assumption that the other person is a hypocrite and that the purpose of having the discussion is to highlight that hypocracy, it seems like that conversation is dead on arrival (no pun intended)

nevertheless, I am compelled (for some reason) to give a response.

I am well aware that you believe abortion is murder. Your understanding of when life begins is valid and, given your beliefs on the matter, I would advise you against ever having an abortion.

as I've said before, I personally think the best option is the morning after pill, which can be taken within three days and prevents implantation. For myself, I think the more time goes by, the harder an abortion is to justify.

But I don't agree that a clump of cells is a person. I wonder if most anti-abortionists really do, either. In all their imagery they have pictures of fully developed fetuses, with eyes and noses and feet. I've never seen anyone trying to make the point that abortion is murder with a giant poster of a cluster of cells.

furthermore, we have a strong cultural tradition of defining life as beginning at birth. When a census estimates the population, it doesn't count fetuses. One can claim American citizenship if they are born in the country, not if they are conceived here. We celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and as we grow older, we gain rights and privileges based on how long we've been alive in the world, not on how much time has elapsed since our conception. Look at the meanings of the words "conception" and "birth" as they are commonly used. "Birth" tends to carry a more concrete, tangible meaning; things are born, whereas concepts are conceived. ie, "The birth of a nation" vs. "conceived in liberty"

the point of all this is that, while your beliefs are valid, a fairly strong argument can be made that within our culture, (through which we see the world and ascribe meaning to our experience) there exists a tradition of defining life as beginning at the time of birth.

but we've had this discussion before. Save us some time by searching the blog and rereading it.

Robin said:

Jack, I don't think your records are accurate. Those are recorded deaths. There were many more that the cause was not listed as abortion to protect the families (since it was illegal. Also, all your sources are a bit on the biased side.

Jack said:

Were you aware that, puffalump, that yesterday, March 25, used to be New Year's Day? A strange date indeed. No, it was not so because that is the date that Sauron's Ring went into the Sammath Naur, but the Feast of the Annunciation. We also celebrate Mary's conception at the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

All that aside, it is rather difficult for SOME of us to know when our children are conceived. Of course, if you only have sex once a month, it would be easier to figure out, but even then conception can occur several days after intercourse.

We agree that a clump of cells is not a person. My left pinkie is not a person, nor is a tumor. Both are clumps of cells that are not people. A fetus, however, no matter how few cells it actually contains, WILL, barring accident or malice, become what YOU define as a person. My left pinkie, despite being about the size of a fetus at twelve weeks gestation, will not become a person if impanted in a womb, nor will a tumor do so.

At twelve weeks gestation, a fetus has fingers and toes, eyes, ears, and a brain. But amniocentesis and testing for Down's Syndrome is generally not done until 15-18 weeks:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/pregnancy/prenatal-care.htm

Before my eldest was born, I would tap on my wife's stomach twice, and my daughter would kick twice. If I taped three times, she would kick three times. If I tapped twice on one side and once on the other, she would kick twice on the one side and once on the other. Was she not a person? Late term abortions are performed at later periods of gestation that that at which she was showing this behavior.

Yes, to some extent the point of this post, and others, is to point out the hypocrisy of the left, in the hopes that people will see that hypocrisy and the logical fallacies from which it stems.

I was, once upon a time, a supporter of abortion rights, and even drove a friend to a clinic to have an abortion. (I was 23 at the time, so I can claim that my frontal cortex was not fully developed at the time, and emotion overrode reason.) I have learned a lot since then about fetal development, biology, and religion, and have changed my views to reflect that.

Why would Planned Parenthood oppose a requirement that a woman have a FREE ultrasound before an abortion?
http://www.ppaction.org/ppga/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=6430103

To avoid giving women the truth of what they are about to do.

Jack said:

Robin -- Those are, of course, estimates, but why do you consider the American Medical Association biased?

spmm said:

What's that? One can also point to cultural institutions in arguing that life begins at conception? Two different ideas about when life begins, coexisting within one society? Imaging that!

I don't know why PP would refuse to give free ultrasounds. Who would be paying for the service?

I personally don't like the amniocentesis, it smacks of social engineering, which is Right-wing territory.

I've said that I don't like late term abortions, and they account for a tiny % of all abortions anyway. Why are you still talking about it?

if you're going to define things by what they will become, then there's no such thing as murder because we all will become dead (barring accident or malice).

Jack said:

Puffalump:

How 'bout we let those ideologies duke it out in the election arena, rather than in the courts?

If the state mandates the ultrasound, the state should pay for it.

Why do you say that social engineering is "right-wing territory"?

OK, you "don't like late-term abortions," for whatever that's worth. Are you willing to "compromise" and allow them to be outlawed?

But you don't have a problem with early abortions. What is the distinction? Where do you draw the line, and why?

Your last statement is completely nonsensical. Taking your logic, we will all be retired someday. So does that mean it does you no harm to lose your job? Of course not. If I take your food, have I done you no crime because you will be hungry tomorrow whether you eat today or not?

Since our current life expectancy at birth is on the order of 75 years, an abortion takes that much life, nevermind the potential for descendants.

(And I'd really like to know how and accident or malice can prevent our becoming dead!)

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

"OK, you "don't like late-term abortions," for whatever that's worth. Are you willing to "compromise" and allow them to be outlawed?"

If it would end the abortion question, yes.

The trouble with fighting it out in the election arena is that one side will get their way and the other side will plan for the next round. It's not a solution.

Jack said:

You have not answered the key questions, puffalump: where do you draw the line, and WHY?

"The trouble with fighting it out in the election arena is that one side will get their way and the other side will plan for the next round. It's not a solution."

That's the way a republic works. Would you rather have a dictatorship, just to avoid have to defend your positions?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

My position on this is the same as it is on gay marriage. I'd rather have free choice. Let people determine their actions, not the government.

Now you say, "What about the right of the unborn person to determine their actions?"

To that I'd say they aren't in a position to determine their actions; they have yet to gain personhood

When and why I "draw the line" is a moot point, because I'm saying people should have to make the determination themselves. As I've said, it's a gray area. and you want me to separate it into black and white.

I can say I personally wouldn't have an abortion after the 7th week, because before that point, the systems that develop are mammalian and pre-mammalian, not specifically human.

I could also have said the life of an individual begins when the baby draws it's first breath of air, just as it ends with a final breath. then what would you say?

...or I could say I wouldn't have an abortion at all. It wouldn't change my position that people must make up their own minds.

Robin said:

As far as the AMA, I've already covered that. Many deaths were listed as something else to protect the family. As far as truth is concerned please don't make me laugh! Planned Parenthood has provided women with sound medical care for quite some time while so-called Concerned Care clinics coherce and shame women into giving birth. Women have a right to decide about reproducing or not. It is a hard decision and not easily made but it is up to the women to decide that. I'll say it again. Outlawing abortion will not stop it;it will only result in the death of women.

Brian said:

The notion that when life begins is a gray area is relativistic nonsense. Life begins at conception. Not because its a personal belief for some. Even if nobody believed it, that would still be the scientific truth. Any other moment tries to bifurcate life and personhood, which, if history has taught us anything, is very dangerous. Every abortion ends a human life.

Nor is it a women's choice to end another life nor beyond the power of the state to prohibit the taking of life. The state does it all the time, only the context is different. It is not enough for abortionist sympathizers to say that breaking the law would cause more back-alley abortions and cause women's lives. The truth is that half of all abortions kill a female baby, and abortion remains more dangerous than live birth when you add in the resulting complications. If abortions continue illegally, the perpetrators will be jailed and held to account for their murder. Making murder illegal hasn't stopped murder either but that is still a good law.

Last, PP's medical "care" is not always up to snuff. Unlike the "concerned care" clinics, or "crisis pregnancy centers", PP does NOT provide a women with all her options. PP counseling results in abortion by a rate of about 170 to 1. So who is doing the coercing? PP is a business that profits off abortions whereas crisis pregnancy centers make no money and are usually staffed by volunteers, including women who have personally experienced and regret abortions. The fact that PP tries to use the courts to block laws that would simply give women info on all options show they are not so concerned about choice but rather wish to promote abortion. Its also worth noting that PP's founder Sanger, who is still honored by PP and awards given in her name, was a racist who wished to use abortion and birth control to promote eugenics and destroy "undesirable peoples" which pretty much meant any Catholic, Jew, or person of color. If you want to know the extent of PP's abortion center screw ups and medical malpractice and coverups, start by reading Lime 6.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM