Study their behaviors. Observe their territorial boundaries. Leave their habitat as you found it. Report any signs of intelligence.

Loading Table of Contents...

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

The Undefended Popular High Ground On Abortion

Who would seriously claim a 12-week-old fetus is a person?
Who would seriously deny that a 24-week-old fetus is a person?

People say that abortion is divisive, but I don't think they realize just how much consensus there is on the issue in America. That consensus is obscured because the two incumbent parties pander to their hardcore base, but just look at the polling results. People were asked: "Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy?" The answers were:

“Legal” “Illegal”
First trimester 66% 29%
Second trimester 25% 68%
Third trimester 10% 84%

The Democrat/LP position (legal in every trimester) has only 10% support, and the Republican position (illegal in every trimester) has only 29% support. If the Libertarian Party advocated legal in the first trimester and illegal in the third, we would be consistent with the views of the remaining 61% of the public. Sample language from the Free Earth Manifesto: "Communities may choose the point, between the first trimester and birth, at which a healthy fetus starts acquiring rights and must if feasible be left unharmed by a termination of pregnancy."

(And no, my position on abortion is not determined by polls. The two extreme positions on when personhood begins -- conception and birth -- are both obviously wrong. The two tenable positions available are viability and neurological development. I used to assert the former, but the technology-driven malleability of that line brought me around to the latter position.)

The abortion issue is a unique opportunity for the LP to position itself as the party of common sense and reasonableness, showing how a sober analysis of individual rights can drive consensus among mainstream Americans. This opportunity is so unique that I'll pay that $200 bounty for a position that ANY of the top five parties (D, R, LP, Green, CP) could take (but hasn't yet) where both 60% of their members and 60% of Americans support it and it is not already staked out by any of the other four parties.

I don't think any other such position exists in American politics. You get my $200 if you can give a counter-example.


Anonymous said...

What are you proposing for the legal status of second trimester abortion? Legal, Illegal, or Undecided?

Brian Holtz said...

I would personally draw the line at the end of the second trimester, but I'd let the states decide for themselves where in the second trimester to draw the line, and whether factors like health of the mother and viability etc. should influence it.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that the choice is between murder and slavery; that's why this is such a difficult question. If you believe that all abortion is murder (it kills a human), then the only way to prevent that is slavery (forcing a woman to continue to be pregnant when she chooses not to). Consider the precedents: if a bone-marrow transplant would save the life of a child and the only viable donor refuses to do the donation, we do not force the donor to undergo the procedure involuntarily. Bone-marrow donation is painful and at least slightly dangerous. Retaining until term is potentially far more dangerous and painful. A bone-marrow donor is not required to be legally and financially responsible for the recipient for the next 18 years. If a government forbids a pregnant woman from terminating that pregnancy, making her a slave, perhaps that government should take all legal and financial responsibility for the child, from the time of enforcing that law forward, and perhaps it should pay her for her service. Where you stand on the trimesters is your responsibility, but you should consider these other issues too.

PlanetaryJim said...

Obviously, there are two issues here, not one. Yes, it is a choice of freedom for the woman and life for the baby. Here's how we get both: We accept that technology has changed and it is now possible to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host to a willing one, as well as to provide for the unborn child outside the womb with artificial systems.

Therefore, it is up to the woman to choose whether to carry to term, and up to the opponents of abortion to fund the care for the baby over whom they have previously expressed such concern.

It is wrong to violate the zero aggression principle. Therefore, a woman must be free at all times to use up to deadly force to defend herself and her property from parasites, thieves, looters, rapists, and killers, when, as, and how she sees fit. Equally, it is wrong to violate the zero aggression principle, therefore if it is possible to avoid killing the unborn child, that should be avoided.

Dr. Paul makes much of the experience he had of an abortion doctor removing a living fetus and then killing it. He notes that doing so is clearly murder, and wrong. There's nothing wrong with ending the pregnancy, though.

So, we should take the position that we want both the mother and the child to be free.

And if private sector research is needed to make transplants more reliable, that's good, too.

PlanetaryJim said...

Oh, and, to answer your question, I would seriously argue that a 12 day old fetus is a human being. A person is a person no matter how small. On what basis would you argue otherwise? That the skin color is different? That the size matters? That the shape seems odd? There are people who are adult humans who have oddly colored skin, are larger or smaller than average, or have physical deformities, and you obviously don't want to use eugenics to determine whether it is okay to kill some of them, right? Same thing applies here.

The abortion question does not hinge on selecting a magic number of months or weeks or days, nor years, nor decades to determine that a human being with the genes of a human is a human and entitled to the rights of a human, and is obligated to the responsibilities of a human. The abortion question is a matter of whether you prefer to enslave women for the term of their pregnancy, plus the upkeep through majority, or whether each individual is self-responsible from conception.

And, I firmly believe, the technology exists to divide the question. Let women choose to end an unwanted pregnancy and offer means for keeping the fetus alive outside the womb or transplant it to a willing host.

If no one offers to provide support to the infant, and the infant cannot support itself, it is not clear to me that any affirmative obligation rests on the parents, any more than I have an affirmative obligation to help my neighbor who lost her job. But, by dividing the question, we get at the underlying issue: are the abortion opponents ready to step up to the plate as hosts (men can be hosts as well as women, given the evidence from pregnancies that have been successfully brought to term outside the uterus)? If artificial technologies are used, are the abortion opponents willing to pay for the costs?

It is wrong to impose on a woman's choice over her body through force, just as it would be wrong for one twin to be forced to undergo a difficult and dangerous surgery to provide an organ or bone marrow to her sister. It is also wrong to kill someone when that can be avoided.

Anonymous said...

I am currently 12 weeks pregnant and can honestly say I have already bonded with the little person inside me. A year ago I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks. I cannot even describe how devastating it was to go to the doctor's office and frantically searching on the ultrasound screen for a heartbeat but not finding one. The loss of a life was absolute. I don't see how legally we could force someone to carry a child to term, but I think if the options were laid out (i.e. adoption, possibly transplanting to willing host, etc...) and the woman was supported and educated an arrangment could be made to most humanely and ethically handle the situation. My biggest problem is that you should NOT be having sex unless you are capable and willing to deal with the consequences, wanted or unwanted. I also believe that in cases of incest and rape or where the health of the mother is at risk those cases should be dealt with carefully but abortion may be the only solution. There is no easy answer here. It just becomes more apparent as to how it is all supposed to be - sex only after married, where in a committed relationship, with a mother and a father a child is brought in to the world. Even if unplanned it is a situation where it can appropriately be handled. I don't think any of our parents regret their unplanned children. I believe that life begins at conception. The immediate growth and development are evidence of life. It is an unbelievable miracle. People that cannot deal with pregnancy as a consequence of their actions should not do the act. Seriously, that's it. We're not animals, you can control yourself. Sex is an act where the consequence may result in your body not really being your own any more. It is a huge responsibility I feel to carry this child. As to supporting the child for 18 years, just look at the huge list of people waiting to adopt who are more than willing to do that. Adoption came about from unwanted pregnancis to benefit mother, the baby, and those who cannot have children of their own. Though not an easy endeavor, it is extremely admirable that women think of the child before themselves, carry the child to term, and give it the best life possible-to loving parents who truly want that baby. I think that is the best solution for everyone.

PlanetaryJim said...

Thank you for sharing about your recent miscarriage and current pregnancy. It is very important that women bond with the child they are carrying in the womb, and it is certainly no surprise that you had done so by twelve weeks. The trauma of your loss is very sad, and you have my condolences. I also wish you well in your current pregnancy.

It is certainly true that supported and educated parents are more able to take sensible choices. The law, however, necessarily applies to those who are uneducated and unable to support themselves, as well. One of the popular French philosophers once said that the law, in its majestic equality, punishes the rich and poor equally for sleeping under bridges.

Nor is it my view that the law has anything to say about when people have sex. Choices in sexual behavior are entirely outside the scope of powers of government.

Various socialists have tried to insist that the trained bureau-rat should license all parenting, should educate and support with taxpayer dollars every person, cradle to grave, and therefore get to say when an abortion is to be forced on this woman or that. "I don't hold to that," as Mal says in the film "Serenity."

Yes, I do understand that you did not say, "You should be prevented from having sex," but there is often a drift from "you should not be having sex" to this other sort of thinking. And I just want to nip it right in the bud and say, it is none of my business if you or anyone else has sex. It is none of the government's business. And if you want to educate young men and women as you see fit, that's great, tell them they should not be having sex.

On alternate weeks, I think telling adolescent humans they should not be having sex won't get you laughed out of the room.

Anonymous said...

First of all I would love to cover what the person said trying to relate an abortion to a bone marrow transplant. Number one, of course they wouldn't make the person get a bone marrow transplant.. but really if you found out you were the one and only are you really telling me you are so heartless that you would rather die than suffer a little bit of pain to save a human life? The biggest difference to me however is this... A person that is pregnant (usually) has chosen to have sex, a person that needs a bone marrow transplant hasn't been so thoughtless in their actions. They didn't make one choice that they knew could lead to needing the transplant, however the person that is pregnant chose to have sex (with or without protection) knowing the possible consequences. I am speaking from experience. Yes I was one of those teens that didn't listen to anyone and I got pregnant, yes I went to an abortion clinic. Yes I got told about the "procedure" I was going to have done on me as soon as the next day! However being there and hearing my child be called a "procedure" made me sick and I went into the bathroom multiple times at the clinic to throw up just because of those thoughts. I proceeded to look more into it (however I know many of my friends didn't) I was shocked how the class that was supposed to "inform" me of what was to happen with my body and my baby/fetus really told me nothing except basically I would be there for a few hours, then a few recovery then come back in a couple of weeks to make sure all was well. How is that being informed? Anyway I went ahead with my pregnancy, which I found out was twins. I placed them for adoption and it is the best choice I have ever made. Seeing them now, I can't imagine and I am in fact ashamed of myself for ever thinking I would kill them. They are wonderful children and their family loves them to death. Why should I have the right to take their right to life away? I had the right to procreate, I had the right to chose and I chose unwisely, but I don't think any child should have to suffer such a dire consequence because of their biological parents stupidity or lack of judgement or thought.

Anonymous said...

One more thing I want to touch on really quickly...
"Yes, I do understand that you did not say, "You should be prevented from having sex," but there is often a drift from "you should not be having sex" to this other sort of thinking. And I just want to nip it right in the bud and say, it is none of my business if you or anyone else has sex. "
Her drift of you should be not having sex is absolutely right. You should not be doing anything if you can't pay the consequences. A consequence of sex is getting pregnant, in fact that is why sex is there... to procreate. If you want to have sex with no worries get your tubes tied or your uterus taken out so pregnancy can never happen, then go be with whoever you want whenever you want. That way you are only putting your life and health in danger not an innocent childs (yes I mean CHILD). Are people really that self absorbed that they can't look beyond a few months of humiliation? Or a few months of being uncomfortable and having to run to the bathroom a lot? I have lived it, and no I still don't buy that crap about a stupid bone marrow transplant being the same thing or even close to it.. IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! I agree with planetaryjim, a person is a person no matter how small.

Anonymous said...

I feel abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester. I don't understand why a women would wait so long to have an abortion? I have heard of women having abortions at 23 weeks, and I feel thats plain out murder!!! Unless, there is some kind of serious birth defect or a risk to the mother, it should be illegal after the first trimester, and thats my opinion on it!

PlanetaryJim said...

I feel that there is no role for the state, whatsoever, in making any part of the reproductive processes legal, illegal, punishable by death, or punishable by fine or prison. The state has no role in people's bodies.

Look at the other things that the state has taken a role in: drainage in New Orleans in 2005; emergency response in Greensburg, KS in 2007; campaign finance reform since 1996; a war on recreational pharmaceuticals since 1971; a war on terror since 2001. Does anyone seriously believe that the government's work in the area of reproduction is going to be any more praiseworthy?

I certainly favor the life of every unborn child. All other things being equal, I'd like all children to be loved, to be born, and to become freedom loving adults. I also favor the freedom of each adult woman to defend her life, liberty, and property when, as, and how she sees fit.

And, I reiterate, there is no reason that technology won't divide these issues for us. Pitting the life of the child against the freedom of the mother is a false dichotomy. The sooner people realize it is possible to have both, the better.

Anonymous said...

As nursing student, there were a few ideas that I noted as grossly assumed or misinformed.
first- the example formerly used comparing carrying a fetus to full term (slavery), and a bone marrow transplant is medically incorrect. Bone marrow transplants are no longer nearly as painful as they used to be due to a newer procedure that involves venous injection of a formula that draws the marrow temporarily into the blood, therefore the procedure is as painless as drawing a blood sample and extracting the marrow.
second- addressing "slavery"- who made the choice to engage in the act that led to the pregnancy? That would be the mother, and if in fact the mother was raped- abortion is an option for her, however, rape victims account for less than 1% of all abortion recipients.
third- the chances of carrying a baby to full term being of a potentially lethal risk to the mother is highly rare, and it's actually more likely for the mother to commit suicide post-abortion than to have her life threatened by the fetus she is carrying.
fourth- if you agree with abortion I strongly urge you to look into the procedures used, during which there is no pain-killer administered to the fetus, who, in fact does feel pain. Abortion is legal until the end of the 12th week, yet by the 8th week the fetus's pain reflex is the same as that of a newborn. We claim to be such a developed society, but I'm afraid we are as a whole, not as ethically developed as we are technologically developed.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

An abortion at anytime is murder. I do not believe in it at all what so ever. I can see if you were rapped and couldn't bare raising a child from a monster. Other than that it's not cool. I think if you are mature enough to lay down with someone than you better be ready for anything that happens after that. There are way too many forms of preventing pregnancy if you do not want one for abortions to be ok. It's ridiculous to use abortions as a form of birth control, which is what way too many females do.

bonnie555 said...

to the anon lady who said she beleived that sex within marriage was the only way to counter abortion, i'm sorry, but you're being highly unrealistic. i'm 34, married and 12 weeks pregnant too but i was sexually active from the age of 16 and had multiple partners. i was always careful to use protection and never fell pregnant by accident. my mom explained sex and condoms to me at a very young age - without "condoning" promiscuity, she was broadminded enough to know that teenage sex happens, and it's very normal. we always had access to condoms, there was a box in the house with a constant supply that my brothers and i had free unsupervised acces to. she would stress protection every time sex came up and we all listened!

recently i was at a lunch and there were 2 moms discussing their 16 year old daughters. the 2 girls sometimes slept over at boys houses but these 2 moms were adamant that the boys were just friends and the girls still virgins. as if! education is the key to curbing teenage pregnancy.

bonnie555 said...

to the next anon who reckons that many "females" use abortion as birth control - bullsh&t! abortion is painful expensive and traumatic. no woman would put herself thru that rather than take birth control pills or use a condom. accidents happen and 99% of women who have abortions are traumatised by the experience.

Anonymous said...

To the person who compared the arguement of abortion to the decison between slavery and murder all I can say is how absurd. You leave one very important factor out of your arguement. That factor is getting pregnant in the first place. We all know where babies come from and how to prevent them. At least 99% of the time. We as a people seem to have taken the stance that we should be allowed to do as we please live as freely as we choose but be allowed to some how skate the consequences. How do you advacate that? I was taught that part of being a decent and mature human being was weighing the options and doing only what I can live with. Is that lesson no longer valid, or only when convenient?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Middle ground. Our country is built on compromises.

Anonymous said...

If someone chooses to have an abortion lets try to be somewhat decent about it and get it done within the first few weeks.

dcfrmhb said...

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. Well the fetus isn't a body part, it's a seperate individual sent down by God. Old people looked fucked up too, but we don't kill them off. Just because the fetus at some stage doesn't look human you don't think it is? Liberal idiots don't realize it's the dna that makes it human, whatever stage it's in, is moot. It's still human. And oh yeah, the woman does have the right to choose when she spreads her fucking legs open. Anyone that can't see that killing a fetus at any stage is murder is ridiculous, and not educated. It's pure evil to abort a fetus. But civilization moves more and more towards evil to the point where we think it's ok for a man to stick his penis in another mans ass hole, even though it is obvious the ass hole was created for humans by God to excrete shit.

Anonymous said...

I read with interest all the comments, I guess it goes back to Pro choice and it is only for the woman carring the unborn child to decide. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies or children born but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

I am a 38 year old woman who has two children, I have had a miscarraige and recently a termination.

Unfortunately the guilt of the termination remains with me, but I believe that I made the correct choice, to bring a child into the world under the circumstances I found myself would have been the wrong choice.

I belive in god and I belive my aborted babies are with him in a far better place.

To those that belive abortion is used as a form of contraception is nonsense - Many woman find themselves pregnant although they have taken the necessary precautions.

It is your choice!!!!

PlanetaryJim said...

It is obviously very important for some people to be extremely self-righteous and sanctimonious about choices other people have taken.

Pregnancy prevention techniques are not perfect. And sinners get into heaven.

We don't live in a perfect world with perfect techniques for preventing pregnancy, with any certainty that the drink you left on the table while you were dancing doesn't contain an hypnotic, so you end up pregnant whether you thought you were avoiding sex or not. We do have a capacity for decency and inventiveness, and I believe we can make the world a better place with technology.

With a technology for transplanting pregnancies, and with artificial wombs, we won't need the state to say who can do what, when. We won't need the state to rule on whether something with all the DNA of a human being is human, yet.

And, frankly, we don't need the state, now. Statists, particularly minarchist statists, are scum. They should be ashamed of themselves, and engage in retroactive self-abortion.

Anonymous said...

First of all, I am against abortion. Second, PlanetaryJim repeats transferring fetus' but I'm sure that would cost a lot and the majority of women who have abortions are poor. And a person is a person no matter how small. Something doesn't go from being a cat one day to a dog the next just because it changed and grew a little. For all the women who say they had an abortion because they didnt want to bring a baby into their circumstances, that is stupid. Adoption may be a hard decision but so isn't abortion. With adoption not only is that choosing to let a baby live but it's also making another family very happy. Anyone is allowed to get pregnant, but to adopt those people have to go through so much. They have a background check on them and they have to wait for years just to get a baby. So it's not like they're not going to be taken care of. Ask adopted people if they would have rathered their mother have an abortion, and the majority would say they're are happy to be here. My sister is adopted and my life would be so much different if her mother would have had an abortion. She was my playmate, my defender, and my hero. ADOPTION IS AN OPTION!! Think about it...
P.S. don't vote for Hilary Clinton, she is a baby killer, she's for abortion.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I do mention the technological solution of transplanting a fetus from a woman who wants to live her life without a baby, to a mother who wants one. An artificial womb would be another technology - with the advancing state of pre-natal and premature natal care, we are very close to an artificial womb now. Why do I mention this idea? Because it separates the slavery from the killing. If we could have more freedom with less death, that would be a blessing.

Yes, at first, it would likely be expensive. But, remember there are tens of millions of abortions every year. So, there is a huge market opportunity here for a reduction in death.

When pocket calculators first came out in 1971 or so, they were $1500. And there were only a hundred sold, or something like that, the first year or so. Same for VCRs. Same for every new consumer product. But, today I can go to Wal-Mart and pay about $5 (2007 dollars, to be sure) and get a calculator that does as much as the 1971 version did. Why? Because tens of millions of people are willing to buy a calculator every year.

Wikipedia's articles on abortion set the USA abortion number at around 1.5 to 2 million killings per year, and the global number at 42 million for 2003 alone. Okay, so, tens of millions of people would be in the market for a way of having more freedom with less killing, at least potentially. Which means the unit cost would go down very low, assuming widespread use of this method.

What does that mean about Lydia's comment that it would be expensive? It means that those of you who insist that women may not choose whether to have a fetus in their womb can put up the money to have the fetus transplanted, or you can shut up about the killings. Or just die a hypocrite, knowing that the only thing you needed to do to prevent a killing was spend some money.

Yes, a person is a person, no matter how small, as Horton and Dr. Seuss taught us. And, I think a person is a person from the moment of conception, even if they look weird at that time. I have met many weird looking people.

But, a person is a person no matter how large, too. And if you are going to take children seriously by insisting that we treat them as human beings from the moment of conception, then you should take women seriously, too, by treating them as human being, with property rights in their own bodies, with freedom and liberty, with justice, too. Anything you say about unborn children applies at least equally to born adult women.

Adoption is an option, yes. But, it is not a command performance. It is not an obligation.

Perhaps if technology were available to make it possible to end a pregnancy without ending the baby's life, it would be obligatory. Especially as the cost drops to make it similar in price.

Anonymous said...

no one knows what it is like being pregnant and not being able to give it the life a chil needs soo i say its your choice you should be in the position before you al judge

Anonymous said...

I did not say transferring a fetus was a bad idea, it just isn't an option for some people who have no way of getting that type of money. The price will likely go down if this is used a lot but how will it ever be women ever get to use this if it's too expensive to start out with. Adoption isn't an obligation, I just thinks it is overlooked too much. People don't take it into consideration. Who in their right mind would kill a baby rather than give it a life and make a family happy? Women who have abortions without considering adoption are selfish. It seems they have the mindset, well if I can't have this baby and be happy than no one else can either!

Anonymous said...

Personally I'm on the border of the issue of abortion. What I'd like to see is everyone dig a little deeper and consider this... I went to college with a girl who was sexually molested and raped by her step father who in turn got her pregnant at the age of 15. She lived in fear of not only her father but of people judging her becuase she was considering having an abortion because she said that she could not carry on day to day knowing she would be caring for a child that was the product of such a horrific incident. She ended up keeping the baby only for the sake of being harrassed by all the pro-life activists. She put the baby up for adoption at 16, and at the age of 21 committed suicide. She always lived in fear of knowing that there was a physical manifestation of her childhood trama walking around. She was too young to suffer so much. She dealt with the pain for years and finally could take it no longer. So I think everyone should really think who they harrass, it is up to the individual and the individual only.

Anonymous said...

As someone who is 3mo pregnant, I couldn't imagine aborting a child after the 1st trimester. If you don't want a baby, take the pill, have your tubes tied, use a condom, or don't have sex. If anything, give the baby up for adoption. I already love the life inside me, and couldn't imagine murdering my child. The one and only circumstance I could see for someone to get an abortion, is if they were raped.

Anonymous said...

I've seen so many posts on here about "slavery". Please. This has nothing to do with enslaving an irresponsible woman who couldn't use the proper protection. If you don't want a baby, USE PROTECTION or DON'T HAVE SEX! People need to start owning up to their personal responsibilities. You cannot enable this kind of behavior by protecting it. A fetus, zygote, baby, whatever is a human from the MOMENT it is conceived. You would not say that the embryo of a bear is not a bear because it hasn't been born yet. I have had an abortion as a teenager and it is the one decision I regret in life. Since then, I have had 3 kids and a miscarriage and you cannot convince me that I did not kill that baby. I stopped it from living - prevented it from growing into the child it would have become. If you don't believe that, you are insane. It doesn't matter which trimester you are in. Take responsibility for your actions.

PlanetaryJim said...

A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Human beings have the freedom to defend their property, including their own bodies, from other humans, with up to deadly force, as they see fit.

Only the technology of ending a pregnancy without killing the unborn child is going to resolve this issue.

Until then, whatever you think of them, whatever your opinion of their freedom to refuse their consent, women have an absolute property right over their own bodies, and they can use up to deadly force as they see fit against anyone they please. You and all the other apologists for slave holding don't impress me. Slaves are humans, too. And if a slave doesn't want to be in service to another human, she has the option of killing to stay free.

I would like it much better if you would stop complaining about people using force to defend their homes, their families, and their freedom. I would like it much better if you didn't want the government to intervene and force women to bear unwanted children. And I would like it much better if you took responsibility for the lives of some of these unborn children, as soon as they can be transplanted safely to wombs (natural or artificial) where they are wanted.

Anonymous said...

I think anyone who thinks having an abortion is ok should just kill themselves and MAYBE the problem will fix itself!

Anonymous said...

Wow, interesting discussion. I am intrigued by planetaryjim's comments especially on technological alternatives to abortion.
However, I'd like to approach this from a purely 'moral' viewpoint as this is a controversy that is enveloped by moralism. First, where do we get our standard of morality? When we create moral standards based on our own experiences or how we 'feel' then you end up with moral relativism. If it feels good to you, then do it. There are many examples of how this creates chaos in a society. However, when you look to something that transcends yourself to set the standards for morality, society operates more smoothly on the whole. That is the position that is taken when a person respects human life from the moment of conception. And then if you move from this concept to a purely religious position, one only needs to look and see what God says about this issue. And, yes, God would be considered the ultimate authority on morality standards. He says that he "knits" us and "forms" us in our mothers' wombs. That "he knew us before the foundation of the world." If this is the case, then our bodies are NOT our own. They belong to God to do with as HE PLEASES. Sometimes God is glorified through the most seemingly unfortunate of circumstances (i.e. rape). I have read the testimonies of ABORTION SURVIVORS, and all I can say is WOW. Ask them whether or not they deserved to live...
Anyway, to take the position that a women's body is to do with as she sees fit is a very humanistic approach and stems from moral relativism. The truth is, we need to be making decisions that keep in mind there is a moral standard that DOES transcend our own whether we want to believe it or not. Moral relativism is just the smokescreen to make us feel better when we make the WRONG choice of thinking abortion is o.k.

Anonymous said...

I also wanted to the 38 year-old who had an abortion...The guilt you are feeling is God's way of calling you to him to ask for forgiveness. You stated you believe you made the right choice, but the choice you made was for you not for God - therefore it was not the right choice based on his moral standards (the ultimate source). He speaks in length in His Word about the value of human life. But again, one only need ask His forgiveness. He knows your heart. After all, He knew you before the foundations of the world and intimately as he was knitting you in your mother's womb.

Also, to Planetaryjim who stated that sinners go to heaven. That is very true, and we are ALL sinners in God's eyes. Whether it be abortion, lies, bad thoughts, whatever the sin, it is still sin equally in God's eyes. However, the difference is that heaven awaits only those who seek forgiveness and place their trust in Jesus Christ. Again, we (in general) must not make God out to be who we want him to be or who we think he is through our own experiences (moral relativism). God is unchanging - absolute. And he gives us clear, inerrant words to help us live our lives that please Him most.

Anonymous said...

It annoys me when people say the women are "protecting their bodies" it's usually, except in the case of rape, the womens fault. It's not like the child is trying to hurt the woman... it's there because she didnt take precautions to prevent it from being there. If a women wants to protect her body from a baby she should take precautions b/4 not after she gets pregnant. And the government should not have to intervene but there are so many adults that refuse to take the blame for their own actions so the only way for the right thing to be done is if the government makes sure it is. But I doubt it will happen seeing as how Roe vs. Wade was in 1972 and it hasnt been changed since then.

PlanetaryJim said...

Protecting their property is what women are doing when they demand that a trespasser leave, or a burglar, or a thief, or a rapist. What makes you in charge of when the woman chooses to defend her life, her liberty, and her property? Who are you, Lydia, to tell any other person what to do for self-defense, or what constitutes a threat? You are nothing in that matter, you are nobody. It isn't your body, it isn't your life, it isn't your choice.

Each and every one of us has an individual right to use up to deadly force when, if, and how we see fit. I have the right to kill anyone that I view as a threat to my life, my liberty, my property, or the lives, liberty, and property of anyone I choose to defend. My judgement is the only judgement that matters when I choose to apply deadly force, and I am uniquely responsible for all of the consequences of my choices.

You don't think a baby can threaten the life of the mother? It is not your thought that matters. You don't think a baby can threaten the liberty of the mother? Your thoughts are not relevant. You don't think the baby threatens the property of the mother? So what? Who died and left you queen of the universe? These women are not your property.

Given a technology to transplant a living baby from the womb of a woman who doesn't want it in her body into your uterus, would you volunteer? Or is it only when the baby is somebody else's problem that you are sanctimonious?

Anonymous said...

Abortion is wrong plain and simple do you love life are you happy you get to expierence the things you do .you get that because somebody loved you enough to give birth to you nobody is saying that you have to keep the baby but at least be human enough to let it live and be with somebody that loves it give it up for adoption.If you don't want to have a baby then be responsible enough not to get pregnant but don't punish the innocent little life inside of you because your to self centered to do the right thing.I don't care what any ones excuse is it's wrong and not ok there is NO possible reason for killing a baby.

Anonymous said...

Everything you just said is the biggest load of you know what that i ever heard in my life.somebody killing somebody else because that person is threating you is so different from you choosing to kill your baby the only reason the bby is there is because that person made the choice not the baby in retarded theory the baby should have the right to kill the mother since she trying to kill the can't make the choice to grab somebody and put them on your property and then say hey i have the right to kill you now because your on my's wrong and just need to quit talking.when you have something smart to say then respond

Anonymous said...

From a scientific standpoint, matter is considered living when it: requires nutrients to survive, requires water to survive, has or will have the ability to reproduce, responds to stimuli and that grows and develops. So, from this standpoint, beginning at conception let us determine whether a fetus truly is a living thing.
At conception does the fetus need nutrients to survive? Yes.
At conception does the fetus need water to survive? Yes.
At conception does the fetus have the ability to reproduce its own cells? Yes.
At conception and beyond will the fetus grow and develop? Yes.
At conception does the fetus respond to internal and external stimuli? Yes.

Therefore, from a purely scientific standpoint, a child, from the moment of conception is a living thing. There can be no argument on the validity of that point. Any differentiation is purely matter of opinion.

So , now that we've answered that question we'd like to examine another common quandry. Should a child be considered human before it is born.
To answer this question we will need to examine what, scientifically, designates an organism as human.

From the moment of conception did the offspring have human DNA? (aka the DNA of the offspring came from two human parents)

All children, to my knowledge, fall into this category, and therefore are definately human from the moment of conception.

Now, whether or not abortion should be legalized is completely a matter of opinion and no matter how barbaric it may seem to some, it is by law the mother's choice.

But also, according to the idea that the taking of another human life is murder, abortion DOES scientifically count as murder.

Now for my actual opinion. I personally could never imagine having an abortion. I am twenty one weeks and five day's pregnant with my first child, a son . He is very much alive and I could never imagine hurting him. I believe that the right to take his life lies with nature, not myself. If he is not strong enough to survive on his own , then he will not, but that choice is not mine to make. I chose to have sex and I knew very well what the outcome would be as do most people who choose to have sex. I was willing to deal with whatever consequence accompanied that decision. My little boy, I must say, is the most wonderful consequence I will ever face. While I am vehemently opposed to the idea of abortion and the idea itself makes me sick, I do realize that others may not share this view. But no more do I think the government has the right to force a woman to carry a child she does not want to carry, than they have the right to tell someone like me that they must have an abortion.

This is a free country, and while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we must never try force our opinions on others. If we do, how are we seperated from the regimes that we so openly oppose? Abortion is not a topic that can be based on popular vote or government polls, it is an individual matter of choice and no matter how many people agree or disagree, it will always remain such.

PlanetaryJim said...

Killing another human being is certainly homicide, and abortion counts as homicide. Whether it is murder, and whether it is prosecuted as such, should depend in part on whether it is justifiable homicide, or not.

In my view, a woman has the right to use up to deadly force to defend her life, her liberty, and her property. If you prosecute her for abortion, would you also prosecute her for killing a trespasser in her home? How about a rapist?

Having gone to some trouble to establish the facts about life and humanity beginning at the moment of conception, with which I'm entirely in agreement, are you also going to agree that the human being is responsible for itself from the moment of conception? Or do you believe that some humans are the responsibility of others, who may be enslaved to their care?

Unknown said...

Fantastic post! My personal view (which is all we have to go on in abortion debates, really) is that once a baby can successfully live outside its host body's womb, it is considered a person and granted every right and freedom therein. If it still depends on the mother, whose cells created it in the first place, then it is the mother's choice (and father's, come to that, if she chooses).

It's quite funny to me that the only protest the pro-lifers can manage to sputter out is, "Well, she shouldn't have closed her legs in the first place, that dirty whore!"
Listen: Abortions WILL happen whether you make them illegal or legal; whether you want them to or not. All I can say is that it's far better to have facilities where an abortion will be safely and hygenically performed than to have fearful pregnant girls eviscerating themselves with coat hangers in order to hide their shame.

Don't like abortions? Then don't have one, and respect the decision of those who do.

Unknown said...

...sorry, that's "opened", not "closed". Phew!

(and by the way: this is a debate on abortion, NOT sex. They're related but entirely different processes, and the moment anti-abortionists try to take away my right to live in gleeful sin with my brilliant and supportive partner, by virtue of the fact that we are unmarried, is the moment I fucking lose it).

Anonymous said...

From the very moment conception occurs, life is created. To take that life is nothing less then murder. The Almighty God, the giver of life, has warned us about this. His words which He commanded were "thou shall not murder." If you repent, turn from your ways and trust in Christ, God is faithful and just, He will forgive you. If you continue to claim the lives of these innocent children of the Almighty God, I assure you, you will be punished. There will come a day in which you will give an account for the lives you've taken or have supported others taking. I assure you, our just and Holy God will defend the innocent and He will punish you accordingly. You have been warned and will be without excuse when you stand before Him.

blogger17 said...

Abortion is 100% a woman's choice, 100% percent of of time.
Unfortunately, there are many discrepancies and thus deciding when an embryo is indeed a person can be arbitrary. Defining what a person depends on many variables, morals, ethics, and of course religion. There will never be a coined answer to this problem. Personally, I would never get an abortion in the very late stages, but my morals and values should not serve as a model for other woman who do want an abortion.
I understand that having children can definitely affect your thoughts and feelings regarding this. My mother almost had an abortion with my younger sister. She is pregnant again, and would never think about having an abortion after seeing my younger sister grow perfectly healthy. But I can't stress enough that we cannot burden our morals on others and thus as hard as it is to accept, it's her choice 100% of the time.

PlanetaryJim said...

Defining what a person is may have religious overtones, but I would not trust a priest to do it. Especially one of those priests that molests small children.

Defining what a person is may have political overtones, but I would not trust a politician to do it. Especially one of those politicians that molests small children, Congressional pages, or the occasional anonymous man in an airport bathroom.

Defining what a person is may have scientific overtones, but I would not necessarily trust a scientist to do it, either, especially one funded by government research grants, or otherwise demonstrably a socialist.

No, I believe defining what a person is to be a uniquely personal thing, and so I do it. I am willing to use religious, political, and scientific arguments.

For some time, I have been convinced that the genetic make up of an embryo is human, therefore the embryo is human. A person is a person no matter how small. Discriminating against someone because they are only a few hours old seems wrong.

But, it is also mistaken not to take each person seriously. Which means that each person is self-responsible to the maximum extent possible. It also means that a person can be removed as a trespasser, or justifiably killed if that's what it takes to cause removal. Homicide can be justified.

For example, suppose a woman and a man have sex, and an embryo is formed. The woman doesn't welcome any strangers in her body, so she takes the morning after pill. Arguably, this pill kills the embryo.

But, those who want to prosecute her for murder now have to monitor the effluent of every toilet and garbage can in America in order to establish whether an embryo was eliminated, and whether chemical cues indicate she used an aborti-facient rather than simply had a miscarriage. The level of police state insanity involved in such monitoring ought to be sufficient argument against it for libertarians, if we are to suppose that Brian Holtz has attracted libertarians here.

But what about a first, second, or third trimester abortion? In my view, the woman has the right to defend her life, her liberty, and her property, from anyone and everyone, by means when, as, and how she sees fit, including using deadly force. I see no reason to create any exclusion for persons because of their size or age. And I am not going to tell a woman how to use her body, nor for whom.

Ultimately, as above, I favor having technologies to separate the matter of ending a pregnancy from the matter of ending a life. Of course, developing such technologies is challenging, especially given how much doing so would tend to clear up this issue.

Anonymous said...

Everyone acts like abortion is this liberating women's "choice." I just don't get it. It was a choice when you decided to have sex. It shouldn't be a choice once the formation of life starts.

PlanetaryJim said...

Why shouldn't it be a choice once life has started?

Let's say a woman is alone in her home and a rapist breaks in and attacks her. To secure her life and freedom she shoots and kills the rapist. That was a life she took.

If you believe that a woman should not be free to take the life of anyone who wants to use her body, then please justify that position.

If you believe that a woman should be free to take the life of an adult but not of a child, then please explain how the woman became a second class citizen and the child became her master. Also explain how the child's life is more important than the rapist's life. (I have no difficulty with the child being more important than the rapist, but both are lives, so take a crack at it, please.)

Who are you to say that the woman gets to choose whether or not to have sex, but she does not get to take any choices after conception? Is it your body? If it is not, then you don't get to choose. Is it your life? Your liberty? Your property? No? Then you aren't involved in the choice.

Every year, millions of women miscarry. Some of them never perceive that they were pregnant. They simply have a normal period, and the embryo goes away. Would you regard that as a normal situation? If that's normal, then why is it abnormal and wrong for a woman to take an abortifacient chemical to induce miscarriage? Again, why should you get to take the choice and not her? How did you get to be her owner?

Anonymous said...

In response to Sarah's comment.
You could say the same thing about making murder legal. Murder is illegal and it still happens, so should we just make murder legal just because it is going to happen anyways? Humm doesn't make much sense. Instead of promoting abortion, maybe we could promote education and teach people to love themselves. And just because women today aren't having back alley abortions don't think for a second that they are not still walking around full of guilt and shame. For all of you who are advocating for this painful choice, consider speaking to women who have actually gone through with this. The emotional pain that goes along with an abortion is enough to prove that abortion is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are right every year millions of women miscarry, but that is not a choice a women is making on her own. Something is wrong with the fetus or her body, and miscarriage is nature's way of stopping unhealthy babies.
Choosing to end a pregnancy on your own is not the same thing, and should not be a choice for us to make.
In response to: "Again, why should you get to take the choice and not her?"
Did you know that someone can be charged for manslaughter if they get into an accident with a women who is pregnant and her unborn baby dies? But that same women could "choose" to murder her own baby and not face the same charge... Makes a lot of sense.

PlanetaryJim said...

It does make a lot of sense that a woman may choose to commit justifiable homicide if she feels that her life, her liberty, or her property, is endangered by a trespasser, a robber, a burglar, a rapist, or a murderer.

Why is the unborn child exempt from these considerations?

PlanetaryJim said...

"Choosing to end a pregnancy on your own is not the same thing, and should not be a choice for us to make."

How is it any different? The circumstances of the mother's womb, external conditions, allergic reactions, what she ate, a sudden physical crisis, or any number of other things might contribute to a spontaneous miscarriage. Why is taking a pill any different?

Who says it should not be a choice?

If it is not a choice for humans, then for whom should it be a choice?

Anonymous said...

What about the babies choice. Who speaks for them?

PlanetaryJim said...

Who speaks for the babies? Good question. Why don't you take personal responsibility for each and every baby. Then you can demand government benefits, you can get the government to put a gun to the head of every woman, you can order government funds to watch every woman, you can turn the entire world into a concentration camp, and when the female babies are born, you can put a slave collar on each one so they know that the way you treat adult women is going to be the way they'll be treated, right?

Or, instead of all the babies, why don't you speak for just one baby, of just one mother, who wants to stop being pregnant. Let her transplant the baby into your body, into your womb if you're a woman, into your abdomen if you're a man, and you carry it to term, you bear it, you care for it, you love it, and you take responsibility for it until that baby becomes an adult? Or would that, somehow, not be fair to you?

Who speaks for the accused rapist that is shot dead in a woman's home? Who speaks for the accused trespasser that is shot dead in a woman's yard? Who speaks for the accused thief that is shot dead clutching a woman's jewelry case?

There is an ordinary process for investigating justifiable homicide and establishing whether or not there is sufficient cause to go to trial. The process sometimes involves prosecutors and coroners, and sometimes a grand jury. Very, very often the homeowner who kills someone unwanted in his home is exonerated or "no billed" and not indicted. You must be familiar with this process, it is part of what passes for justice in the USA.

What about the baby's choice? The baby wants to attach itself as an embryo to the uterus wall and become a fetus. How does that desire on the part of the embryo in any way compel or obligate the mother? If she says, "no," what then?

By the same token, what about the rapist's choice? The rapist wants to violently attack a woman sexually and deprive her of her dignity and choice in how her body is used. How does that desire on the part of the rapist in any way compel or obligate the mother? If she says, "no," what then?

I say, "what then" is she gets to choose. She gets to choose whether or not to give of her life, her blood, her treasure, her person. She cannot be compelled to donate blood or an organ to a neighbor or family member. She should not be compelled to give her blood and health to a child.

It is hers to choose. It is not yours. "What about the children, will no one think of the children?" is the clarion cry of the tyrant, the slave taker, the totalitarian.

The truth is that children are better off living and growing up in a free society. Children are better off if adults have more choices. Children are better provided for in a culture which has more freedom and, necessarily, more attendant prosperity - because capital always moves to where it is most free.

The sad, ugly truth is that if you get your government to make abortion into murder, again, you won't end the abortions. You'll just move them back to the rusty coat hanger wielding butchers in the back alleys. The choice you think you are giving to babies isn't going to reach them. But you'll set up the authoritarian systems, the identity systems, the chains, the slavery, the brutality, and the ugliness, and you'll claim it is all for the children.

But your claim is a lie. It is not for the children. It is only for your desire to control the lives and property of others. It is only for your deep seated need to be an authoritarian, to deny others their freedom, to whip the slaves, and to crush a human face beneath your boot, forever.

Anonymous said...

i had a abortion when i was 17 after being forced into it by my partner, it was the worst mistake of my life i was 5 weeks! since i have a new partner and a 18 mth old bby boy im now 15 weeks pregnant and have been reading the comments on this page! for me to say i am against abortion would be hyppicritical of me but i think there should be a lot lower cut off point, i can feel my bby moving and her its heart beat and see it moving and kicking on my scans so for me this is a real life inside
so y can you still kill bbys at this point it is not fair i think the cut off point should be no more than 6 weeks. after abortion takes place all the bbys are placed in a black untill it is full then burnt, thats not how id like to leave the world.
there are so many forms of contraception y are ther not used ??? its carlessness and selfishness in my eyes rape should be the only excuse

Anonymous said...

am 17 weeks pregnant and was almost forced into an abortion last year by my partner. He had his reasons one being his age at 47 (im 36) and many other reasons.

I do not believe abortion should be legalized unless the mother or the babys life is in jeopardy. Instead of an abortion a year ago I had a miscarriage at 7 weeks, I know I couldn't have lived with the decision of an abortion. The baby's heartbeat starts before you may even know you are pregnant and it is wrong to end an innocent life.

If you have sex as another person stated here, be prepared for such consequences as there are methods that prevent pregnancy, many are just too stupid to use them. The baby should not have to pay its life for the dumb mistakes adults make, there are many people out there willing to adopt babies, in fact so many that the local child protection agencies here in Canada take children they shouldn't from their homes especially young baby girls with the intention of putting them up for adoption.

People need to stop being so selfish, if you didn't want to get pregnant I say then don't have sex.

My baby's father couldn't even be bothered with us, but I will commend him on this, not once did the word abortion ever ever come to his mind.

Anonymous said...

The primary reason that abortion is wrong is because God has said that we are not to murder. But, not all people believe what God says. So, let's look at it from a different angle.

We are allowed to take life under the prescribed requirements of law such as self defense, war, execution, etc. Each of these areas deals with Law. Self defense is justified because an antagonist is breaking the law (burglary, robbery, assault, etc.) and we can use force to protect ourselves and our property. War is the legal declaration of hostilities towards another nation. Execution is the legal taking of life against someone who has committed a crime or crimes worthy of execution. In each case, the antagonists are dealt with for the wrongs they are committing.

However, the baby in the womb has done no wrong yet it is executed. It is executed but has broken no law! What crime has been committed? What law have a broken in their existence? None. Yet they are killed.

I am reminded of Nazi Germany. The Jews were guilty of being Jews, and were, according to the Nazis, worthy of death. Likewise, the babies in the womb are guilty of being babies in the womb, and are, according to the parents, worthy of death. What laws did they break? What made them unworthy of life? The answer is simple: It depends on the opinion of those in power, of those wielding the knife who redefine what is life, who decide who is worthy of life and who should die.

It is only in abortion where someone is executed, and yet that person has violated no law. This is fundamentally wrong and this is why abortion is wrong.

Since when do we kill someone who's broken no law?

Since when do we kill someone who's only "crime" was to be brought into existence via the copulation of his parents?

PlanetaryJim said...

God says we aren't to murder, true. God has also said a number of things about killing to defend life, liberty, and property. These aren't exactly approved activities, but they are justifiable. Circumstances make a difference.

To say that "we kill someone" is not correct. I haven't killed anyone.

Since when does someone kill someone who is trespassing? Happens fairly often. People get killed for trespassing on other people's property.

Since when does someone kill someone for threatening the life of someone else? Happens often enough. We understand this situation, right? If the life of one person is threatened by the actions, or the consequences of the actions, of another person, and the only way to save the life of one is to end the life of the other, people take a choice.

If you are saying that an unborn child is fully human, which I think you are, and with which I agree, then why is this person not responsible in any way? Why does that person get a responsibility-free ride?

Because of the age, size, height, or weight of that person? Why should that matter? Because of the extent of their education? Can anyone ride that train?

The fact is that you are only interested in the one life you perceive as important. The woman's life is nothing to you, right? Or you'd be concerned if her life was endangered by the pregnancy. Her liberty is nothing to you, right? Or you'd be concerned for her choices. Her property in her body is nothing to you, right? Or you'd let her defend it as she sees fit.

I don't like the killing. I am against it, by preference. Given a choice, I'd rather see everyone live. But, it isn't my choice. And I'm not willing to second guess the woman in taking her choices. She has to choose how to defend her life, liberty, and property against rapists, against people who want to steal from her, against trespassers, against tyrants, and, yes, against someone in her womb.

Because I am against the killing, I am interested in the developing technologies of fetus transplantation and artificial wombs. With transplantation, a woman who does not want to be pregnant may be able to find a woman who does and have doctors transplant the fetus to a willing host. With an artificial womb, the willing host would be a mechanism of some sort.

When these technologies are widely available it ceases to be a matter of choosing one life or the other, but of finding money to afford the transplant. So, I think that would be a blessing.

The comparison you make to the Nazis killing Jews doesn't apply. There is no justification for genocide. There are types of justifiable homicide, such as defending life, liberty, or property. These justifications cannot be applied to the Nazis.

They may, in various cases, be applied to women choosing abortion.

Finally, applying murder charges to women who have miscarriages, consume abortifacient chemicals, or have actual abortions is wrong. We've tried living with that sort of legal environment, and the result is the same as when prohibiting the consumption of alcohol. The activity goes underground, prices go up, quality goes down, and more people die.

So, in addition to a basic ethical concern with your call to charge women with murder for having abortions, especially in cases where homicide would otherwise be justifiable, there is an implementation problem with getting the government involved. Are you going to have the government spy on every toilet to make sure that no miscarried embryos are being flushed away? Exactly how much of a police state are you prepared to have?

And what does God say about tyranny?

Anonymous said...

abortion is wrong and i think we all know that or at least we should i am prolife all the way and pregnancy is not slavery it is your choice to have sex deal with the consequences i am an 18 yr old student and carrying a child yes it will be hard but so are final exams! if you do not want to get pregnant DON'T HAVE SEX!! its that simple! you know the risk and why take a human life for your mistake it wasn't the baby's fault (yes i belive it is a baby from the moment of conception) at 25 days your BABY has a beating heart just like you should someone just come up and kill you while your minding your own buisness NO so why kill an innocent child oh and for those who say its ok for rape victims to have abortions i still say no how likely is it to get pregnant after 1 time not very yea it happens but not very often its called plan B people if you are already pregnant it does not terminate pregnancy it is NOT an abortion pill it is a contreceptive JUST LIKE CONDOMS AND THE PILL!! please get educated and then see how you feel about it and for all of you who is afraid of pregnancy whatever the reason may be ITS NOT THAT BAD!! adoption is the answer please help stop abortion!!

Anonymous said...

PlanetaryJim, your comparison of the "trespassing" of an unborn child in a liberal woman's body to a rapist breaking into her home is completely off of what is true. This tiny precious life has no voice because it is dependant on the mother to defend its life. Completely and solely dependent on her love and devotion to her offspring. Unfortunately, there are murder-minded and selfish driven people who think otherwise.

DO YOU KNOW HOW ABORTIONS IN 2ND TRIMESTER ARE PERFORMED? I watched a video of one - it was the most horrific procedure I have ever viewed in my life! The baby's (in this case was 22 weeks) body was birthed except for the head. A sharp set of scissors with a suction tube where stabbed into the back of the baby's head, sucking out all the brain matter. After that the head is then delivered and the baby has been murdered. I know this will not change your mind on your stance as I see you take great pride in your intellect and fancy words, but one day... one day... your words will come back to greet you as you stand before the Lord on judgement day and he asks you what you have done! I do not wish eternal pain on anyone, but just as the mother of an unborn child must suffer the consequences of hosting a "trespasser" (as you put it) and aborting/murdering him/her, so you must own your actions as well and suffer the consequences. Even though you offer advice on options other than abortion you still condone the act itself.

There is always going to be a fight on this issue and no, we cannot save them all! That's the evil in our world that we must dwell in. But my prayer is for you Jim... that you see one day the misleading speeches that you bring forth so eloquently.

PlanetaryJim said...

"PlanetaryJim, your comparison of the "trespassing" of an unborn child in a liberal woman's body to a rapist breaking into her home is completely off of what is true."

It is amusing to me that you think only liberals get abortions. Perhaps you also know everything about their religious convictions, too? Why not just call them pariah and stone them for holding views with which you don't agree?

"This tiny precious life has no voice because it is dependant on the mother to defend its life."

It has no voice because it has not fully formed vocal cords. It depends on the mother, yes. And I gather that you would deny the mother the choice of saying, "no thanks," even if that choice did not end the life of the child? In your view, which you so timidly won't associate with your own name, you can demand that the woman provide for the child.

On what basis is this demand made? That you know better? That you own the woman? That your God told you how things are to be done in this world, and transplanting a pregnancy to another, more willing mother is wrong? And what is the ethical or moral or religious basis for saying it would be wrong to do so?

I have been inspired to write about this issue. I write what I believe I've been called upon to express. You are free to believe any ignorant, shameful, hate-filled thing you please.

"Completely and solely dependent on her love and devotion to her offspring."

What if she has no love and no devotion to offer? You seem to be one to stand over her with a gun, or all the guns of the government, and brutalise her until she does what you demand. How is that healthy?

My argument is not to kill the child, but to separate the unwanted child from the mother without death. What is wrong with you that you can't embrace that possibility?

"Unfortunately, there are murder-minded and selfish driven people who think otherwise."

Obviously, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of ever separating the termination of a woman's pregnancy from the death of the unborn child. I acknowledge that there is a child involved, and seek to have its life transplanted into a another womb, one which welcomes it. Or into an artificial womb where you can put up your money to show your high regard for this child's life.

What's so murderous about that?

Yes, people act for self-interested reasons. You call it selfishness. I call it self-interest. You call it greed. I call it ambition for a better life. You cannot stop people from acting in their own interests as they see it. You can whine about it, you can demand that they believe as you believe, and you can get people in your country to use the power of the government to force people to pretend to believe as you believe, which I am quite sure you want to do. You cannot, however, change what is in their hearts.

Jesus did not call on us to take up swords to attack people of other faiths, but to defend those of our faith. Jesus did not call on us to rampage through the world forcing pregnant women to adopt your beliefs, but to share the Good News and let them choose for themselves. I say that you are no follower of the teachings of Jesus. I suspect you are an authoritarian, perhaps following the misguided teachings of Saul of Tarsus.

Yes, I know how abortions are performed. I've watched similar videos. I also know how prohibition failed to stop abortions from being performed, but shifted them from places of antiseptic cleanliness and care, such as clinics, to back alleys and filthy kitchen tables. I am also very aware of the suffering and death caused by prohibition of abortion, a government program which cannot be shown to have prevented any significant number of abortions, not even 1%.

So, I doubt your intentions and I castigate your methods. Prohibiting abortion, as you evidently prefer, won't reduce the bloodshed. And your lack of compassion for the choice taking behavior of others reveals your desire to enslave them, either to you, to your religion, or to your state.

I don't take any particular pride in my intellect. It is a gift. I acknowledge it, because false modesty would also be sinful, and stupid. God blessed me with a mind that has been measured several standard deviations beyond the mean. What am I to do? Pretend to be a humble stupid sinner, drink beers, fart in public, and make fun of intellectuals, so I can fit in with you and your church crowd? I choose another path.

I am prepared to stand before God and Jesus on Judgement Day and stand by my words. Are you? How are you going to explain to Jesus that you gave up on the idea of persuading people about the Good News of salvation through His love, and chose instead to force your will on people who did not agree?

I have not called for the murder of anyone, born or unborn. I have, instead, called for research into advances in premature and neo natal care, the development of a technology of an artificial womb, and the development of effective procedures for transplantation of pregnancies. Like Solomon's knife, I seek to divide the issue.

No doubt you'll label such developments unnatural and sinful, in order to maintain your view that women who do not choose as you would should be stoned as sinners. You get to stand before the Almighty and explain yourself, too. Perhaps you already feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis, I don't know.

I did not call the unborn child a trespasser. I said that there was an analogy to trespass, or to rape, and that the woman whose body you so eagerly seek to enslave has to choose how to consider this new life growing in her belly. I'm sure that you feel comfortable making the choice for her, because God gave you all knowledge, and divine power to see the future. Yes?

No?! Well, that's startling. Perhaps you should be more humble, then, and let other people choose for themselves as they see fit. Perhaps you aren't smart enough, or Holy enough to decide that if John's twin brother Joseph needs a bone marrow transplant, and John doesn't want to undergo the surgery, which one gets what he wants. Maybe you are prepared to take a kidney from one human and give it to another. You are certainly prepared to take the life giving blood of a woman and give it to a child she hasn't met.

I don't condone the act of abortion. I attempt to understand it. I have compassion for those who choose it. I regard your assertion that I seek to condone the murder of millions of humans as unChristian and unfriendly. Having named yourself my oppressor with this lie, what do you plan to do about it?

I don't know who you are, because you are too timid to identify yourself. Should I be expecting a bullet from you as your expression of criticism for my ideas? Or would you rather turn me into your government so you don't have to attend to the dirty work yourself?

You say we cannot save them all. I say you are full of crap. We can save them all. We can choose to develop technologies to save every single child. We have the knowledge, the power, the money, the abilities. Humans could choose, as a culture, a path of enlightenment, peace, freedom, and life.

Your arrogance won't save any of these children, nor any of their mothers. Your determination to cast down sinners and bludgeon them with force won't make them less sinful. Your refusal to follow the teachings of Jesus in this matter sickens me.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

It isn't a "fetus" till after the 8th week. Before that it's an embryo. There is a difference.
I myself was pregnant and ended up miscarrying unfortunately. It hurts because I became quite attached to my embryo. I was 5 1/2 weeks in.
Something that I'm not seeing getting covered about abortion is- say the expectant mother doesn't want the living thing inside her? Do you really feel it's in best interest of the child to be brought up by a parent who doesn't want it nor love it?
Also, adoption. Not all infants get adopted. And those who get older go into foster homes. I know personally how wretched foster homes can be and how sexual/physical/emotional abuse can be just as likely to happen in a foster home as in a regular home, if not worse.
Personally, I think if the mother doesn't want it during the first trimester, that she should be able to abort it. Negative emotions she may be feeling about it may get sensed by it anyway since it's so human. I think the second and third trimester it should be illegal. Common sense though that if it became fully illegal, it'd still go on, just in terrible conditions. If you truly feel for that baby, do you think a hanger would be any better to it? Honestly?

When all foster homes are safe, when transfering a fetus to a wanting mother is being done, when people start caring more about the children already OUT of the womb that don't have loving parents... then start talking about change with abortion. Otherwise you're simply endorsing a vicious cycle.

PlanetaryJim said...

Michelle, I feel very much in agreement with what you've written. The only thing that I can assure you won't happen is your request for people to await the developments you list before talking about changes to abortion. People will talk.

Indeed, one of the ways to change the things you are most concerned about, such as bad foster homes, is to talk about them.

Henry David Thoreau once said that the first thing that is necessary to have a better government is for everyone to say what would be a better government to them.

Anonymous said...

abortions are fucked up, the only reason someone should get one is if they are raped, if you get prego, you should have to have the baby, if you cant take care of it, give it up.
No matter how far along you are, an abortion is killing a baby

Cass said...

A picture says one thing...but it doesn't show a heartbeat...when you have heard a heartbeat at 12 weeks, when you have seen the organs doesn't matter what the law says. It IS a baby. It deserves to live.

Misty Derringer said...

"PlanetaryJim, you facinate me..

"Protecting their property is what women are doing when they demand that a trespasser leave, or a burglar, or a thief, or a rapist. What makes you in charge of when the woman chooses to defend her life,
her liberty, and her property? Who are you, Lydia, to tell any other person what to do for self-defense, or what constitutes a threat? You are nothing in that matter, you are nobody. It isn't your body,
it isn't your life, it isn't your choice. Each and every one of us has an individual right to use up to deadly force when, if, and how we see fit.
I have the right to kill anyone that I view as a threat to my life, my liberty, my property, or the lives, liberty, and property of anyone I choose to defend. My judgement is the only judgement that matters when
I choose to apply deadly force, and I am uniquely responsible for all of the consequences of my choices.You don't think a baby can threaten the life of the mother?
It is not your thought that matters. You don't think a baby can threaten the liberty of the mother? Your thoughts are not relevant.
You don't think the baby threatens the property of the mother? So what? Who died and left you queen of the universe? These women are not your property.

Given a technology to transplant a living baby from the womb of a woman who doesn't want it in her body into your uterus, would you volunteer?
Or is it only when the baby is somebody else's problem that you are sanctimonious?"

PlanetaryJim.. You fascinate me.

I've thought for years of the possible benefits of there being an affordable, and safe, method to transplant an unwanted fetus to a willing woman's uterus.
Unfortunately such technology is not around, and I honestly doubt it will exist for many years to come..
Until such "transplants" are available, "enslaving women for the term of their pregnancy" is nowhere near as inhumane as ending another life.
To defend a woman who chooses abortion over adoption (or even better.. raising the child she made) by comparing the fetus to an "intruder" is insane.
Upon having sex, an educated woman knows there is a possibility of pregnancy. This is true no matter HOW protected she may be..
Therefore.. there's no possible way the child is uninvited. In fact.. she "opened the doors" to let the fetus in.

If a woman has the right to apply deadly force, as she sees fit.. NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.. and only has to accept the consequences for her actions..
It's only fair that the consequences for aborting a healthy child, when he or she poses no threat to the mother, be as severe as murdering a 1 month old, a 1 year old, a 10 year old, or any other person.

Misty Derringer said...

And Oh..
If there were a possibility of transferring an unwanted fetus..

Yes I'd volunteer my body.
Anyone else who truly supports the rights of the unborn would.

Anonymous said...

Just the Basics... Keep it simple, keep it honest, keep it clear
First:, genetically it is human, not pig. Second, genetically, “it” is distinct from a woman's own genetic makeup. Third, it is not a part but a whole in itself hence clearly, this is not a part of a woman's body. Fourth, it is alive.

The issue here is whether or not a woman (society) can unilaterally (one is a silent participant) choose to to terminate a host relationship with a totally dependent yet individual human guest, the result of which being that the guest will die.
Historically and culturally, we find many reasons, valid or invalid as it may, to kill. When a life ends, not accidentally but as a result of willful design, it is then called killing.

We kill. We kill to defend ourselves, our culture, our interests. This is all there is here. Don't confuse the issue by bringing the God factor or the Woman's body obsolete considerations into this.

And lastly: In as much as Legal does not make anything right, illegal does not make anything wrong either.
Do we, or do we not kill under these circumstances. That is the question, nothing else.

If you confuse the question, how can you possibly arrive at a clear answer?

Anonymous said...

hi i got preganant at the age of 15 i went and booked my abortion but 3 days before i cancelled it my daughter chloe s 4 this saturday and to be honest yes i have missed out on alot but i am so glad i never killed her!!i think abortion should be stoped at 12 weeks max the baby can feel pain and to be ripped out of a body into bits is the last thing that baby feels , if your stupid enough to get pregnant it shouldnt take 20 weeks to decide no i dont want it if you miss the morning after pill get an abortion but dont wait untill the baby can suvive your all sick who ever kill there own children!!

Anonymous said...

PlanetaryJim, you still have not responded to the very valid question posed to you regarding your comparison of a woman's right to defend herself against a child she is carrying to defending herself against a trespasser. In most cases of abortion, the pregnancy is not a case of rape. As such, the woman chose a course of action that led to the child being there. In your trespasser example, a person can not, through their own physical action, bring a person onto their property and then claim they were "trespassing" and shoot them.

I am not supporting the abstinence or "Keep your legs closed" solution, but it a person's responsibility to accept the results of their decisions. When you choose to buy stock, you know there is a risk of losing your money. If that happens it is not right for you to rob someone else to regain your money. Likewise, when you choose to have sex, you know that there is chance of becoming pregnant (or fathering a child). If this happens, is it right to harm the child (or coerce the mother to have an abortion) in order to recover the status quo that existed before the decision? I think not - accept the fact that you made a decision hoping for one outcome, but a different outcome resulted, and own the responsibility of the result of your free-will choice.

brisnicki said...

I'm up late reading so only got up to PlanetJim's post on 25 Sept 2008.

This comment stuck out that I want to respond to: "If you believe that a woman should not be free to take the life of anyone who wants to use her body, then please justify that position."

Jim, if you think that a woman has the right to kill her unborn child for using her body, then surely she has the right to kill her newborn child for the same reason.

I might come back another night to finish reading comments and post somemore...

PlanetaryJim said...

brisnicki quotes me saying, "If you believe that a woman should not be free to take the life of anyone who wants to use her body, then please justify that position."

And then neglects to justify that position. An unborn person is a person. A newborn person is a person. An adult woman is a person. A person has the right to use up to deadly force to defend life, liberty, and property, her own or others.

If that were not true, then a person would be a slave. Which begs the question, who owns you, brisnicki? I say you own yourself, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have a case to make. Maybe you think you are owned by the state, or the church, or some other collective.

Killing another person is always homicide, but homicide is not always unjustified. Where does the burden of proof rest? It rests with the prosecution, not the defense. The defendant is presumed to be not guilty unless and until convicted.

So you have a woman who has killed a newborn, or an unborn child. Convict her of murder - motive, method, opportunity. Prove that she never has in any case any right to use deadly force to defend herself. If you can.

You haven't, and substituting newborn for unborn doesn't do it.

As to the technologies involved in pre-natal and neo-natal care, yes there is clearly a trend in existing technologies toward earlier and earlier birth being survivable. There is clearly technology under development for transplantation of a fetus from one womb to another. If you aren't finding this technology, you aren't looking very hard.

And that's shameful, since the whole issue which makes this question one of criminality for women is whether it is necessary to kill the unborn child to end the pregnancy. If you don't want to look for a technological solution, you are clearly a reprehensible person. Best you go to the devil, straight away.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the person above (up abit) who said about the rape.
Other than that I personaly don't think abortions should be allowed.
But still, even if they were illegal people would still probaly get it done.

brisnicki said...

Jim, you said:

“So you have a woman who has killed a newborn, or an unborn child. Convict her of murder - motive, method, opportunity. Prove that she never has in any case any right to use deadly force to defend herself. If you can.”

In a court of law, if it has been proven that the woman has in fact killed her child, then isn’t it up to the defense (not the prosecution) to prove that mother had the right to use deadly force to defend herself from her child -- she would have to prove that the killing was “justifiable homicide” and not murder/manslaughter.

I don’t think arguments such as “I was not ready to be a mother”, “we could not afford another child”, “my parents would disown me if they knew about the child”, “the child’s father raped me” could excuse her from the crime. “The child had birth defects or severe medical problems” may be excusable IF the medical problems somehow risked the life of the mother, but again it would be up to the defense to prove this.

I’d also be interested in a response from you to the posts by ‘Anonymous’ from 8 May 2009 and ‘Misty Derringer’ from 27 March 2009 which you seemed to have overlooked.

brisnicki said...

To Anonymous (28 Aug 2009): I encourage you to check out the book “Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their pregnancies, abortions, and children resulting from sexual assault”.

It shares the stories of 20 women who became pregnant from rape and incest. Some had abortions and some carried their baby to term. Their stories talk of the pain of sexual assault, the trauma of abortion, and healing of giving birth.

Some quotes from the book:

"After my daughter was born, it was love at first sight . . . I know I made the right decision in having her." —Nancy "Cole"

"Often I cry. Cry because I could not stop the attacks. Cry because my daughter is dead. And I cry because it still hurts." —Edith Young

"I think that rape victims with pregnancies are discriminated against because people seem to think you're nuts to have a baby by a man who raped you. We are looked upon as being liars, or stupid." —Sharon "Bailey"

"They say abortion is the easy way out, the best thing for everyone, but they are wrong. It has been over 15 years, and I still suffer." —"Rebecca Morris"

"I thank God for the strength He gave me to go through the bad times and for all of the joy in the good times. I will never regret that I chose to give life to my daughter." —Mary Murray

"Abortion does not help or solve a problem—it only compounds and creates another trauma for the already grieving victim by taking away the one thing that can bring joy." —Helene Evans

"The effects of the abortion are much more far-reaching than the effects of the rape in my life." —"Patricia Ryan"

"I, having lived through rape, and having raised a child ‘conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal for rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story." —Kathleen DeZeeuw

PlanetaryJim said...

I wrote "convict her...if you can." You who are so eager to do so would have to respond to her defense in court. Prover her wrong, as it were. Go ahead. Make your case.

Women still die in childbirth. I suggest that you carry a child to term before you declare that there is no case for a woman defending her life from her child.

You are welcome to be interested in anything you please. If you want something in particular from me, you should ask politely.

Émilie Molière said...

Example 1) A RESPONSIBLE woman who knows she does NOT want to have children takes birth control. She takes each pill, each and every day, at the same exact time, like the doctor said she should in order for the pill to be effective. One day, her period doesn't come. It turns out she's pregnant.

Example 2) A RESPONSIBLE man who knows he does NOT want to have children uses a condom, ALWAYS. He uses it properly, and the condoms are NEVER expired, however, his partner becomes pregnant with his child. She also does NOT want children.

Example 3) A female of any given age is walking home when she is stopped, brutalized, and raped. This event leads to her becoming pregnant.

Do NOT tell me that the characters of these examples of real life situations are stupid, irresponsible, or careless. If they choose to have an abortion... so be it. Just because you might not agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. The way I see it, abortion is like gay marriage. It's the nosy, pious types that have nothing better to do than judge others and talk so much smack.

Émilie Molière said...

PS- brisnicki said...

To Anonymous (28 Aug 2009): I encourage you to check out the book “Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their pregnancies, abortions, and children resulting from sexual assault”.

It shares the stories of 20 women who became pregnant from rape and incest...

Yes, it shares the story of TWENTY women. Convenient. Twenty women among how many others... millions? I wonder if the author had something to prove... and maybe omitted other women's stories? Women who do NOT regret having had the child of her attacker?

Émilie Molière said...

PS- brisnicki said...

To Anonymous (28 Aug 2009): I encourage you to check out the book “Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their pregnancies, abortions, and children resulting from sexual assault”.

It shares the stories of 20 women who became pregnant from rape and incest...

Yes, it shares the story of TWENTY women. Convenient. Twenty women among how many others... millions? I wonder if the author had something to prove... and maybe omitted other women's stories? Women who do NOT regret having had the child of her attacker? That's a rarity. Being that I worked with victims of rape for over 20 years, and I never once heard anyone say they regretted the abortion. Something's not right here.

Rebecca Goldberg said...

Misty Derringer said...

And Oh..
If there were a possibility of transferring an unwanted fetus..

Yes I'd volunteer my body.
Anyone else who truly supports the rights of the unborn would.

Talk is cheap, honey.

crisanthy said...

LOL that would mean that every person who thinks like Misty would have to get prego like every year, being that abortion rates are up there. How old are you, and what do you do for a living?

Looks like you and others like you are gonna get stuck with MANY children, none of which are actually yours, and your ass won't even be able to feed all of them, or send them to college.

Good luck!

PlanetaryJim said...

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, FG wrote:

> your ass won't even be able to
> feed all of them, or send them
> to college.

My understanding of your species is that feeding is done with the breasts, not the ass. But there is individual variation, and perhaps FG got his baby meals out of a different orifice from the rest of you.

It is a sort of bizarre Western ritual to send children to college. Since your high schools aren't competent to graduate students who can read, one wonders why you bother with college.