Monday, October 22, 2007

When is ABORTION Justified?


Alright boys and girls... this one might leave a mark and you might feel a little sting.
I spent some time reviewing the candidates for the 2007 Worst Blog of the Year award (Oklahoma) and certainly learned more than I wanted to about each of the nominees (VOTE in the right margin). Now I'm not going to steal the thunder from an upcoming post by "The Better Half", but in looking at the blog "I Am Emily X", I found some staggering comments by the paranoid but proud worker-bee at the Planned Un-parenthood here in OKC.
We'll just leave it at that for the moment, but it does cause me to post this next one which I had written some time ago on ABORTION and updated. I apologize in advance for the length of the post, but this is not a soundbite subject. I will try and be as clear and short as possible.

“Unwanted Pregnancy”

This is a term used frequently by abortion supporters but what exactly is an “unwanted pregnancy” anyway?

Does it mean someone WANTED to GET pregnant (or didn’t care enough to prevent it) but then (after getting pregnant) decided that she didn’t want to actually BE pregnant?

Or does it mean that she simply never thought about it and didn’t ask herself that question (do I care if I get pregnant now) beforehand and therefore is allowed to (after the fact) make the decision?

Is an unwanted pregnancy a justifiable reason to commit homicide?

One must consider how many ways are there to keep from getting pregnant in the first place.
(About a zillion...or more)

Which leads to asking how many legitimate ways are there to accidentally/unintentionally get pregnant?

Primarily two (rape and incest) since there is no such thing as “swimming pool” babies or airborne viruses that randomly cause unwanted pregnancy. (return to this point below) Contraception failure is extremely rare, but does also occur.

In fact it is much more difficult to GET pregnant than to NOT get pregnant.

A woman can only get pregnant about 4-5 days out of each 28-30 day cycle. (60 days maximum out of each 365 days) It is truly a “MIRACLE”!!

God made it that way (fairly difficult) for a reason.

We, as simple human beings, can only appreciate the gift of LIFE if it were not so easy to make happen. If women had litters or got pregnant every month, then it could be a burden and a "problem". But it isn’t either a burden or problem since it is a choice that one must take very seriously BEFORE the choice is made.

The baby human infant heart starts to beat at a mere 2 weeks after CONCEPTION. (which is at 1 week/1 late period). If you stop a living, beating, human heart, then what else can it be besides murder? Justifiable homicide under the “best” of conditions.

All any person has to do is use protection or abstain from sex for those 4-5 days/month to avoid getting pregnant. That is it. She can track which days those are quite easily by temperature and other means including instant at-home ovulation tests (for $1 ea).

So, how many ways are there to get pregnant without FIRST making the CHOICE to have unprotected sex? (basically two)

Rape and incest. These two examples represent less than 0.01% of all abortions in the US (9,000/1.3mi+) yet are used as some of the primary reasons for abortion rights. It is debatable if even under these circumstances abortion is appropriate. Here is an article by a group of Physicians on the subject of rare cases where abortion is justified including when the health of the mother is at risk.

"The unborn child’s right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. The right to life is inalienable: that is, not to be trespassed upon by another."

How can it be justified for a pregnant woman (who intended to get pregnant) to suddenly get mad at her husband (or significant other) and decide to kill THEIR unborn child as punishment for something he may or may not have done (without consulting him or anyone else) late in the pregnancy or even after the unborn child is capable of living outside the womb?

There is currently nothing to stop her and apparently (according to many) nothing wrong with it. There are more of these type abortions than the two examples (rape and incest) above COMBINED.

How can it be okay for a 13, 14. 15, 16 year old to (with the school nurse’s help) sneak out and get an abortion without parental consent, yet the school nurse can’t give her an aspirin without parental consent? (or not at some schools even WITH parental consent)

How did we become a society that would rather “kill the unborn baby” than to prevent the "unwanted pregnancy" from happening in the first place?

Now, don’t get me wrong I’m all about choices. Good choices however not bad ones.
I will defend an adult woman’s right to do with her body what she wants… (as long as it doesn’t involve killing someone else).

But 2007 is not 1807 or even 1957.

Today, there are more ways to keep from getting pregnant than there are ways to have sex (and get pregnant).

Women who cannot afford contraception can get it for free.

Men can purchase a condom at virtually every gas station, grocery store or pharmacy for a couple of quarters, and women can simply say “no protection - no sex”.

But that is not enough for the “murdering moms” and Planned un-Parenthood.
They pretend pregnancy is like an air-born “virus” that women get by just walking around at the mall and therefore they have the right (or duty) to kill that unwanted “virus”.

"Speaking for the PP, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)"

How in the wide world of sports can liberal-left Democrats protest passionately against capitol punishment for convicted mass murderers, but support capitol punishment for innocent unborn children?

Someone explain that one to me.

If Mary and Joseph were alive today and living in America, would Mary choose to kill her unborn child rather than try and convince her husband that God is actually the baby’s father and that she had NOT been unfaithful? (good luck with that one)

If YOU were chosen by God to have HIS son, would you have the “right” to CHOOSE to kill that unborn baby and deprive the world of His grace?

In fact, all babies are given to us by the grace of God, no matter when or how they were conceived.

Women are quick to blame the problems of the world on men and our violent ways yet it is women who are responsible for the needless slaughter of millions of unborn children each and every year. Hundreds of times the number of deaths in a war that people protest over each and every death. Well over 5 million American children have died from abortion just since the start of the Iraq war. All justified?

Women get away with murder every single day and call it a simple choice.

We all assume that women have been hardwired with compassion. But, where is the compassion in this kind of genocidal murder? What kind of woman could do that to her own flesh and blood without thinking twice?
Answer: They don’t think twice and it is the job of people like Planned Un-parenthood to make sure they don’t think twice by denying them access to sonograms, information on adoption and alternatives to abortion.

Natural? You never see any other animal on this planet intentionally kill its UNBORN babies in an act of genocide for any reason. It doesn’t happen. Yes, you will see an animal kill it’s young after being touched by humans and you will see male animals killing small babies as a part of self preservation, but NEVER before they are even born as a “choice” or because it just wasn’t “a good time” for them. Nature takes care of such matters very effectively.

If abortion HAD been a common practice 100 or 200 years ago, would we have ever known George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Marie Currie, Martin Luther King, or Albert Einstein? What if Hillary Roddam Clinton’s mother had felt the way Hillary feels about abortion, would we have a Hillary running for President today?

What great works of art or literature would have never been written had the mothers of those individuals “chosen” to kill them before they were born?

If we truly are a compassionate higher species, then we need to BAN genocidal baby-killing in our lifetime. As the Doctors I mentioned (and linked )above wrote...

"In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand."

UPDATE: 10/24-07 Sarah raised some very good points in the comments section which are fairly well addressed by the Association of Pro-Life Physicians such as When Does Human Life Begin?. The legal system is wrestling with this issue as well.. What is a human being?

Thanks for linking to this post Oklahoma Lefty

Update2: 10/25- Coining the term First degree prenatal justifiable homicide. "1st degree (premeditated) Prenatal (unborn infant) *Justifiable Homicide (death of another resulting from justifiable actions) . Yes, I'm aware of this case... tough call. But my definition wouldn't criminalize "the big A" but merely calls it what it is... and in fact would legalize it...(but expose it).

Then you can be as "pro-choice" as you want. Under my definition the debate would be about the "Justifiable" part (when it is and when it isn't) instead of assuming it is only a womens health right. Under my definition, (1st degree PJH) self defense would be considered "justifiable" to most people for example. Involuntary prenatal manslaughter could apply to car accidents... and so on. Now, of course I'm no downtown city laawyah, nor do I claim to be, I'm just sayin'... the unborn are human beings and might deserve to be protected by the same laws as the rest of us.

- Red S Tater

Labels: , ,

16 Comments:

Blogger Red S Tater said...

Now before you come in here and claim the old standard line "Millions of women will be forced into back-allies and coat hanger abortions if we ban legal abortions"...

That argument assumes that women by nature want to kill their unborn children and there is nothing we can do about that.
Wrong and Wrong again.

We don't allow them to kill their babies even one day after they are born, no matter the justification and women are not predisposed to murder.

Okay, have at it.
Tell me all about how I'm wrong.
-red

12:20 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

Call me crazy but to me unless you are the pregnant woman, the man who impregnated said woman, and/or (depending on the aforementioned peoples ages) their parents, your opinion on abortion does not matter. The only exception to that rule is for individuals/families that are willing to adopt the child.

Abortion is an ugly thing and unless you have been in that situation and had to make the decision, you really don't know what those involved are going through. There is a lot of demonizing on both sides of this issue. Neither side has the "moral high ground" and honestly politicians use this as a wedge issue (and it is also a great way to keep the masses distracted from the terrible job that is being done in Washington DC with our money). I highly, highly doubt that Roe v. Wade is going to ever be overturned, yet this issue never seems to go away. Both sides would be much better suited by perusing increased education in the areas of abstinence, contraception, adoption, and so on.

I know that you are going to flame me on this Red, but that's how I see it.

1:06 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Naw, I'm not gonna flame on ya.
disagree maybe.

By your definition then unless I have murdered someone or been murdered or had a family member murdered, I have no right to say that murder is wrong.
HOGWASH.
That is a copout and men have been doing just that for far too long.

BTW- the father of the unborn child has absolutely NO say in whether an abortion is justified/allowed or not.

Sure we could spend more money on more abortion clinics... that might do it. How about giving birth control to middle schoolers without parental concent... that oughta' eliminate abortions right there...NOT.

How about instead of making excuses and turning our heads the other way for convenience...we actually try and reduce the number of abortions instead of defending them?

Most of the European countries that have implemented liberal abortion laws and encouraged fewer children are now headed for a population crisis (i just read a story on this yesterday) and trying to figure out how to encourage people to have more than 0 or 1 child.
To replenish a population...a country must maintain at least a 2.1 child/family ratio just to barley stay ahead of the curve.
(1 for mommy 1 for daddy and .1 for increase) America currently is at exactly 2.1 and going down.

Now, murder is either right or wrong.
Life either begins at conception or not at all.
Right to life is not given by the mother,father or state...but by the grace of God.

Add those up and let me know what you get.
-red
(see I didn't even call you a moonbat!)

1:23 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

My "Better Half" raised the following point... IF men were responsible for childbirth and were killing them at over 1 million/year so we could play golf year 'round (or whatever) without interruption, WOMEN would be outraged and call us monsters.

But men are afraid to challenge women on this issue because we can claim it's none of our business.
Copout?
YOu bet it is.

1:31 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

"The only exception to that rule is for individuals/families that are willing to adopt the child."

I missed this part of your comment last night...
Therefore my opinion does matter on abortion.
-red

7:56 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Murder is murder. Period.

2:35 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

yup, ...personally I think that if we are going to allow ourselves to "abort" our children... it should be legal until they are about 17 or 18 years old... this would give us time to determine better if they are worth saving or..."abort" and start over,
make a new better, smarter one... this might also solve the problem of teenage respect for parents and minding their manners.
If you kill it before it's born...how do you know you didn't abort a good one?
makes as much sense as the pro-abortion crowd does.

"Women's health" my rear.
-red

9:39 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

"How about instead of making excuses and turning our heads the other way for convenience...we actually try and reduce the number of abortions instead of defending them?"

That has nothing to do with anything I said. By all means though we do need to do everything humanly possible to reduce the number of abortions. I think we can all agree on this. Also I'm not defending abortions. I just want to make sure that they are legal and safe for those women who make that extremely hard decision.

At the end of the day unless you are the one who is ready, willing, and able to step in and take care of the child then you need to stay out of it. I know this is a bit callous and I know you think that it is bogus and that is okay. This is how I see it. This is not a black and white issue and it is a lot more complicated than most people realize.

11:42 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

At the end of the day murder is murder...no matter what you or I say or whether I am willing to adopt 1 million babies per year. your copout is indeed a defense for it.

We are not talking about black and white... but right and wrong and there is such a thing as right and wrong...yes? (or are you now going to debate whether that exists?)

Lets walk through this one more time.

Life begins when life begins... which according to science and medicine... is at conception.

It's either alive or not... there is no middle ground. A rock is not, a living thing is- alive from the moment it is a living thing.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... sound familiar?

There are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being.

Abortion (like it or not) is the killing of an innocent human being.

Now you can call it justifiable homicide if you like... then I will ask you to in fact justify it how?

But condoning it and silencing discussion on it and saying someones opinion isn't valid on it unless they are willing to single handedly solve the problem for everyone else is absurd and wrong.

I will continue to speak out on this with the full support of my wife... who happens to be a woman, and BTW- we did raise a child other than our own. So give up on that one dave.

homicide is homicide... the only question remaining is whether it was justified or not.

-red

1:25 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

dave, did you read any of the post and links or just skim over it closed minded?
If you can read the words of the founder of Planned unParenthood and still tell me that abortion is in any way a "womens health" issue...then I'll write you off as a lost cause.

dave, are you upset that I didn't put your blog on my list, or what?
Post a nice pro-abortion story or how it is not society's business what happens to unborn children in this country... that oughta' get you on there as a write in if thats what you're after.

7:59 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

Admittedly I skimmed your post but I will give it a more through reading later tonight.

No I'm not upset about being left out of the contest and I'm sorry if I have angered or upset you in anyway, that was not at all my intent. This is a very emotional issue, for very good reasons, but we just don't see eye to eye on this topic. I will bring some more up after I re-read your post though.

And for the record, there is right and wrong.

Again though I will go through this all again later when I have a bit more time and get back with you.

7:03 PM  
Anonymous Sarah said...

Oh, boy. My better judgment tells me to stay out of this, but I can't help myself. Some of the comments made here have been quite interesting, and have raised some interesting questions in my mind.

First of all, cheers for being pro- birth control (at least that's the impression I got from your post). I will never understand the folks who are against abortion and also against birth control. Seems like decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies should be something both the Left and the Right can get behind.

Now...while I can appreciate the appeal of a "black and white" viewpoint, it's been my experience thus far that life doesn't always follow such clear-cut distinctions. A couple of examples...

Let's talk about the assertion that "life begins at conception or not at all." While technically this may be correct, isn't there a little more nuance involved in the issue than that? For example, say I had cancerous cells growing in my body. Aren't those cells also, technically, alive? But I don't think anyone would call it murder for me to try and get rid of those cancerous cells. I realize that this may be an unfortunate example, and it's not my intention to compare a fetus to a tumor, but it's the best way I can think of to illustrate my point...which is, that when determining what is "life" and what isn't, maybe one might do well to ask, "Is this 'life' sentient and viable?" Is it aware? And would it still be "alive" once it was no longer in my body?

This also brings up some interesting end-of-life issues. Is someone in a persistent vegative state really "alive?" Again, technically, yes...but I don't know that I would necessarily consider that "life." I certainly wouldn't want to exist in that state.

And going even further, why draw the line at humans? We eat animals every day, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that these animals are more sentient (and obviously more viable) than an eight week-old fetus. In some ways, killing an animal seems worse to me than killing what is basically a clump of cells. (Keep in mind, I'm only referring to first-trimester abortions in this comment, which are the most common abortions, anyway.)

I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs, I'm simply trying to raise some questions that I feel have been overlooked thus far in this discussion.

9:59 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

naw, don't be nervous sarah, you are among friends.

I can address each of your concerns from the pro-life physicians Association perspective which I happen to agree with...link When does Human Life Begin

They also address your other point of life support...
"Medical science already refers to a spontaneous heart rhythm and the presence of brain waves to determine whether someone is alive at the other spectrum of human existence. In simplistic terms, if an organ donor is in an automobile accident and is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot “pull the plug” and donate the patient’s organs to others unless the patient is “brain dead” and his/her heart is not beating (on its own)."

In this report, they also address rights given to human beings that are not provided to animals in our constitution.
"According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a person is “a human being.” Attempts to render an entire class of human beings as “non-persons” based upon arbitrary qualities such as age and place of residence in order to discriminate against them is immoral and unjust. History is full of infamous examples of governments legalizing the discrimination of an entire class of human beings by rendering them “non-persons.” Jews were rendered “sub-humans” in Germany in the 1940’s and colonial slaveowners bought and sold Africans as “property.” As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a “person” with rights but the “property” of his master. Was the Court wrong then? Of course! The Supreme Court of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide with its Roe v. Wade decision was just as immoral and unjust. They dehumanized an entire class of human beings in order to legitimize wholesale discrimination against them. Abortion may go down in history as the greatest human rights abuse of all time."

And finally,
"As our nation’s founding documents make clear, the right to life is God-given and inalienable. The right to live cannot be legitimately usurped by men. No man, no government has the right to deprive one of life or liberty without a trial by jury, regardless of skin color, age, stage of development, level of dependence upon others for survival, or place of residence.
Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. It is immoral and unjust when evaluated in the light of the law of the land (our founding documents) and the divine commandment that forbids taking the life of an innocent human being (Exodus 20:13)."

I would agree with this and add that we are talking about the consitution, human life, human rights and when life begins... I am also a strong advocate for animal protection... but thats another subject and not in the realm of "human life" and homicide or murder.

I realize these are strong right/wrong beliefs, but not drawing a clear line between right and wrong certainly hasn't worked out very well considering that there are well over 1 million abortions per year in this country alone.

something has gotta' change.
-red

11:36 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

I just re-read your post Red and all the comments and I must say that you have done a very good job of articulating your point of view. I also agree with Sarah that I am impressed with your support of the use of birth control. I also 100% agree that we should do more to prevent "unwanted pregnancies" in the first place. That is definitely a must.

Looking back on my comments I get the feeling that maybe I wasn't clear enough in expressing my point of view. Abortion is a horrible, horrible thing and while I too think it is wrong and the wrong choice for someone to make (especially considering, as you so eloquently pointed out, the plethora of ways to prevent pregnancies in the first place), I'm not ready to allow the government to make that decision for the individual pregnant woman. I totally and completely respect that you are willing to adopt "unwanted children" (good lord that is a sad phrase) and the fact that you have raised a child who was not biologically yours, in my eyes lends a lot more credence to your opinion/position on the subject. A similar example would be Kevin Moore who ran for State House in 2004 in district 54. He's a pro-life Democrat who adopted a little boy from a woman who chose adoption over abortion. That is a man whose opinion on abortion I can respect. He put his money where his mouth is (and we all can appreciate people who actually walk the walk).

I'm not sure if this explains my position a bit better, but I hope it helps. I know that you probably still think it is a copout and that is cool, but I do want you to know that you have given me something to think about.

One last thing... In your original post you made the following statement:

"How in the wide world of sports can liberal-left Democrats protest passionately against capitol punishment for convicted mass murderers, but support capitol punishment for innocent unborn children?"

This is something that I have always wondered about myself and on the flip-side how pro-life folks can support the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty, but have often wondered about the dichotomy of these different positions.

On that note I'm going to head home for my two days away from work (YAY!). I am going to post a link though to this thread over on my blog because I think you have raised some good points and it is definitely worth folks reading (not that my blog gets all that much traffic mind you, but...).

1:07 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

You get a medal just for making it through all that... and another for being a stand-up guy.

Together you and I could solve the worlds problems if they would just let us...
thank you dave for your kind words and sincere consideration.

If all liberals were like you...heck I might even join ya'.
naw, on second thought you wouldn't have me.
-red
-red

1:55 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Let us close with the words of the founder of Planned Parenthood...

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

-Margaret Sanger, from her book "Women and the New Race"

11:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home