From The Left On Abortion

20 Responses to “From The Left On Abortion”

1. BluePyramid writes
   November 2nd, 2009 10:54 pm

   But, being writers for Orbis, they will continue to pretend they are not human beings.

   This blog post says that pro-choice people shouldn’t “pretend that abortion is a hygienic quick-fix.” Unfortunately for them, that is exactly what their legal theory of reproductive rights is based on. Abortion may be a medical procedure with weighty emotional and physical concerns to them, but it is not morally distinct from a nose job (which coincidentally can also have weighty emotional and physical concerns).

2. GoldnI writes
   November 2nd, 2009 11:24 pm

   The whole premise of this argument is a straw man if I ever saw one.

   No serious person would deny that different people react in different ways to abortion. But just as the left shouldn’t lose sight of that, the right should be a little more consistent when they say that they don’t want the government intervening in an individual’s medical decisions.

3. Pro Life Democrat writes
   November 2nd, 2009 11:51 pm

   As far as the children involved in abortion, their reaction is consistently the same in all cases . . . . they die.

4. Steve Steffens (LWC) writes
   November 3rd, 2009 12:19 am

   There are no children, they are fetuses; until they are born, they are NOT children.

5. Earl writes
   November 3rd, 2009 4:25 am

   I completely agree with LWC’s point on this, they are fetuses. We agree on the correct definition. I, however, do not base my feelings and beliefs on what makes a human life based upon vocabulary. My beliefs are based on things physiological.

6. Rep. Bill Dunn writes
   November 3rd, 2009 7:00 am

   Actually, if you look up the definition of child in the dictionary you come up with:

   1 a : an unborn or recently born person

   http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

7. simon says writes
   November 3rd, 2009 7:14 am

   Once again LWC shows us why being a college student with a computer does not entitle you to an informed opinion with his statement about an unborn child not being a child. His foolish remark about childrens rights was preceeded by an equally foolish remark about animals and rape.

   “Well, we need to think of it in terms of rape, as a non-human animal does not have the capacity to consent. Just rewrite the laws to reflect that reality.”

   For the record I find LWC the most entertaining of bloggers. I love this guy!!

8. Josh writes
   November 3rd, 2009 7:59 am

   So, if a woman is said to be “with child,” that means she has given birth to a kid, not that she is pregnant?

9. what you are missing writes
   November 3rd, 2009 8:13 am

   The question is not whether a fetus is a child. It is whose rights trump whose, as are most areas of contention in a democracy where all are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
   So let’s be rigorously honest here. A fetus is growing into a viable human child, INSIDE of an already living, autonomous human being: a woman. No one has a higher stake in what happens with that dynamic than the gravid woman whose own life is at risk by carrying that pregnancy. And since women aren’t stripped of their rights the moment they are impregnated (by choice, accident, rape, or incest) a woman’s rights to chose to terminate a pregnancy is with us to stay.
   to the anti-choice movement: If you care about unborn embryos and fetuses, help the mothers carrying them and maybe you will “save” some. It you are a pro-life Christian and you disagree with me, take it up with God, he’s the one who designed things this way. If you want to legislate your religious teachings and beliefs, emigrate, find a new country and build your own theocracy. I hear that’s how America’s founders did it to escape religious tyranny and we aren’t having it back, thanks anyhow.

10. Just 'thinkin writes
    November 3rd, 2009 8:15 am

    I have come to the conclusion after reading many posts overtime on the issue of abortion that men really wish they could get pregnant and give birth. Of course, that means they would have to put up with a lot of other physical and emotional issues too;-)

11. Steve Steffens (LWC) writes
    November 3rd, 2009 8:23 am

    gee, simon, I haven’t been a college student for decades now, but thanks. Go read “what you are missing” as they have won this post clearly.

12. tiffany writes
    November 3rd, 2009 8:47 am

    just wondering to the comment by what you are missing ..as to the fact go find your own country, well that’s exactly what they did it’s called America.hmmm

13. Mary Mancini writes
    November 3rd, 2009 8:54 am

    1) We’re all pro-life.

    2) Let’s concentrate our efforts on doing all we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education about the human body, the human reproductive system (you know, answering the question “where do babies come from?”), and the use of contraception.

    3) Tennessee has a real problem with infant mortality. Let’s fix it.

14. Pro Life Democrat writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:00 am

    Steve Steffens is obviously not a parent. If he were, he would realize that stupidity of his comments.

    In his theoretical world, a baby has the rights of a tumor until he or she makes the trip down the birth canal, regardless of his or her viablility for the previous 3-4 months. Then suddenly the child is the most precious thing in the world. That is, unless he is now for infanticide as well.

15. Josh writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:10 am

    So “what you are missing,”
    Would you accept a law that states abortion is not a viable form of birth control, and could only be used when the “fetus” endangers the life or physical well being of a mother?

16. Pro Life Democrat writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:12 am

    “what you are missing”, you are missing the most important point. The vast majority of women are not in danger due to pregnancy. They do suffer the normal discomforts during pregnancy and the pains of childbirth but they not in danger. In those vast majority of cases, the one who has the most to lose is the developing child. So you think it’s worth ending the life of the developing child to save a woman her pains, discomforts, and possibly some social stigma?

    If the mother’s life is in danger, then yes. In rape or incest, I can live with that as legal reasons for abortion, though I have many qualms.

    As Mary said, we should work towards less infant mortality, protecting the health of all concerned, not only before but after birth.

17. martin kennedy writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:23 am

    I appreciate the honesty in the original blog post that Kleinheider linked. There is truth too in saying that when a young girl is pregnant, alone, and scared it is no longer an abstract/theoretical issue. Most get an abortion because they don’t think they have a choice.

    As we slog through all this there really has to emerge a “with charity toward all and malice toward none” type of approach.

18. Pro Life Democrat writes
    November 3rd, 2009 9:47 am

    I agree Martin and that’s where the Democratic Party has lost it’s way from the Hubert Humphrey Moral Test of Government. “Pro choicers” side totally with the Mother. Republican pro lifers side with the unborn child but pretty much forget the mother and the child after he or she is born.

19. what you are missing writes
    November 3rd, 2009 12:57 pm

    Josh & PLD: Every pregnancy puts every mother’s life at some level of potential risk. That’s what happens when there is another person trying to grow inside of you. I am making the point that YES, a pregnancy is a human child underway, but ONLY the mother has the right and responsibility to decide what happens to the pregnancy. Again, women have rights whether they are pregnant or not, including total ownership over their bodies. So hey, how about the radical idea that THE PREGNANT LADY gets to decide. Period. End of it. Her Body, Her Decision. If it’s a good enough system for God who designed it, why not you? If the bun’s still in the oven, be respectfully helpful or mind your own business. Because there is already a decision-maker in the equation and NEWSFLASH: it ain’t you.
    You could be creating public policies that make it less common to want an abortion or feel you must get an abortion. Feel free to help women who are trapped by their economic or other environments. But there will always be unwanted pregnancies that are terminated, there always have been. Just like there will always be wanted pregnancies that end in miscarriage, still-birth, or other tragic death. Life and death are inescapable.
    If you really want to preserve life to the best of your ability and are excited about saving babies in particular (the are really really cute, aren’t they?!), there are plenty of the post-born to get up off yer ass and take care of, like Mary said. Pass any laws you want about protecting the rights of the post-born, I’m for it. You aren’t infringing the rights of another human to do so.
    Hey while you are at it, how about the right to some mandatory sex education for the post-born, right before they start to be able to make cute little babies of their own. Ya think?

    Tiffany: not sure if you read my last sentence about escaping religious tyranny and are somehow agreeing with me, or didn’t read my last sentence and think you are disagreeing with me. Feel free to restate the question.

20. Steve Steffens (LWC) writes
    November 3rd, 2009 1:08 pm

    Again, what are you missing wins the thread.

    Simply put, to be anti-choice (or pro-forced childbirth) means that you value the potential life of the fetus more than the fully-formed life of the mother who has the choice to decide whether to carry to term.

    You’re either pro-woman or you’re not.