Skip to content
Published: January 22, 2013 6:56 pm to Opinion Column

40 questions to ask on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Editor’s Note: This article was written by Mike Spielman, and was first published today at Abort73. It is reprinted with permission.

Supreme Court - SunsetToday marks the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that invalidated all state prohibitions against abortion and made it a constitutionally protected act. More than 50 million abortions have occurred in the four decades since—leaving us all with some questions to answer.

FOR ABORTION SUPPORTERS

  • If there is uncertainty as to when individual life begins, should we error on the side of protecting life or discarding life?
  • Which right is more fundamental, the right to not be killed or the right to not be pregnant?
  • Does it concern you that everyone who supports abortion is no longer threatened by it?
  • Have you considered the fact that the arguments used to justify abortion were once used to justify slavery?
  • Would you rather live in a country that protects the lives of all human beings or one that thinks some human beings are better off dead?
  • Was your support of abortion arrived at by an honest examination of the facts or by a desire to justify the elimination of unwanted pregnancy?
  • Does it bother you that 93% of abortions are performed on healthy mothers, with healthy babies, who chose to engage in sexual intercourse?
  • Which is more noble, to sacrifice a portion of your life for the sake of your child or to sacrifice your entire child for the sake of you?
  • Are poverty, parental immaturity, or unwantedness sufficient rationales for killing children after they’re born?
  • Is it more loving to kill a child you can’t raise or to give that child to someone who can?

FOR ABORTION OPPONENTS

  • If your grandkids ask you someday what you did to combat abortion, will you have anything to tell them?
  • If an outside observer were to secretly examine your life, specifically how you invest your time and money, would they conclude that abortion is a grave injustice or no big deal?
  • If all abortion-opponents responded to abortion as you do, would that help or hurt the cause?
  • Do you spend more money on coffee than you do on the defense of abortion-vulnerable children?
  • Would you be doing more to combat abortion if the lives of your own children hung in the balance?
  • Is it more important to believe that abortion is wrong or to act like abortion is wrong?
  • If it was your life that was threatened by fatal violence, would you want advocates who politely held their tongue, or advocates who actually spoke up in your defense?
  • How much time have you spent equipping yourself to be able to competently explain the injustice of abortion?
  • Does your engagement come from a place of arrogance or humility?
  • Does the way you treat people give credibility to your “pro-life” convictions or make them seem rather hypocritical?
Photo credit:  BaronBrian on Flickr

Photo credit: BaronBrian on Flickr

FOR CHRISTIANS

  • Is Jesus more likely to criticize someone for doing too much on behalf of abortion-vulnerable children or too little?
  • If you were to be judged according to what you did or didn’t do for the least of these among us, how would you fare?
  • Does Jesus’ warning to not overlook the little children have any application to abortion?
  • Does Jesus assertion that, “Whoever receives a child in my name receives me,” have any bearing on abortion?
  • How much of your prayer life is devoted to the elimination of abortion?
  • What are the chances your teenage daughter would have an abortion before she’d tell you she’s pregnant, for fear of your reaction?
  • Does your service to those threatened by abortion more closely mirror the Good Samaritan or the priest and the Levite–who were too busy to stop and do anything?
  • Does the flavor of your life give those around you a positive or negative view of humanity?
  • Is Jesus more concerned about how you feel or how you act?
  • If faith without works is dead, what is pro-life conviction without action?

FOR PASTORS AND ELDERS

  • Are you more concerned about your music and preaching than you are about intervening for the marginalized and vulnerable?
  • What does your church budget say about your commitment to protecting abortion-vulnerable children?
  • How many weeks, months or years could someone go to your church without hearing any public prayer or proclamation regarding abortion?
  • Is there a culture of grace at your church such that a single woman need not fear being condemned or ostracized for showing up pregnant?
  • If all churches were to follow your example, would we be looking at another 40 years of legal abortion?
  • Since 85% of most ministry budgets are dedicated to salaries and facilities, how much of your salaried time are you devoting to abortion-vulnerable children?
  • If John Ensor is correct, and abortion is the defining experience of this generation, are you faithfully equipping your people to be able to minister in a world full of post-abortive men and women?
  • Do your middle school, high school and college students have a clear understanding of what abortion is and why it is an affront to God?
  • In light of the fact that 65% of aborting women are professing Christians, how is your church doing with the Great Commission call to teach disciples to observe everything God has commanded—including the prohibition against shedding innocent blood?
  • If the church in America ever made the elimination of abortion an honest-to-goodness ministry priority, do you think Planned Parenthood would even stand a chance?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

    Where are your artificial wombs? That would virtually wipe abortion from the planet.

    • http://twitter.com/TheYazata Mandypants

      It’s true. If anti-choicers cared about babies at all, they’d have invented an artificial womb by now.

      • Calvin Freiburger

        ………………….really?

        Let’s see if you can see the error of your logic in the following statements: “If environmentalists cared about the environment at all, they’d have invented an engine that runs on water by now.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

          Thanks for conceding that the issue isn’t about saving fetuses – it’s about forcing women to endure pregnancy.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Confirmed: you only hear what you want to hear. Let me know how it works out going through life simply pretending people say things completely different than what they actually say.

          • http://www.facebook.com/carole.marie.906 Carole Marie

            Ayame, respectfully I disagree; I’m curious as to which part of the above material makes this point? I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, but I would ascribe greater nobility to women – that we’re not at the mercy of our drives and can choose to be wise with an action (sex) that makes another human being rather than be careless and then kill the resulting person as a solution. I also think a helpful step in the clean exchange of ideas is to resist the urge to be rude and sarcastic with those whom we think are wrong, yes? Thanks for listening.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

            If you believe that an embryo is equivalent to a newborn, you need to take up basic biology again.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            And a newborn isn’t equivalent to a five year old, who isn’t equivalent to a pre-adolescent, who isn’t equivalent to an adult, who isn’t equivalent to a senior citizen. So? As of these names describe human beings who each deserve an equal right to live.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            *All* of these names

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

            So women who suffer miscarraiges should be thrown in jail for manslaughter? That’s what you seem to be implying.

          • –genni

            A pregnancy is not an option without a fetus–no fetus, no pregnancy. The condition of being pregnant is gestating a baby. This mental gymnastics you are going through to understand a very simple concept is amazing and shows how uneducated pro-abortion trolls are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kelly.justus Kelly Ann McDonnell Justus

            A baby is tore apart limb from limb inside of the mother. You would have the woman endure an abortion. An abortion that give her ptsd twice as likely to comit suicide make her unable to hold a pregnancy, You lie to her when you tell them they can just get on with their life as if nothing ever happened. Tell them abortion will solve all their problems. I have heard too many women break into tear just by saying the word abortion. You and your kind don’t care anything about women. You don’t pick up the pieces after the abortion. I do that. You don’t tell them what can go wrong during an abortion. I do that. You don’t even offer choices. I do that . gving equal time to abortion keeping the baby and adoption. I don’t play off their fears, you do that. . Any reason is a good enough reason for abortion. according to you. I never endured pregnancy I cheerished it and the 3 girls I had because of it. I think you do a great misservice to women by telling them how alwful pregnancy is and how enslaving it is BOOO HOOO. I feel so sorry for you. You will never enjoy pregnancy. Only endure

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

            Got anything to back up your claims that abortions lead to higher rates of PTSD than pregnancy? And can you show that the fascist pro-”life” doesn’t have anything to do with it?

            Planned Parenthood spends more than 95% of its budget on contraception, cancer screening, and other non-abortion-related services.

            http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report.htm

        • Sorites Paradox

          How about a car that runs on sunlight? See also, wind and hydropower.

          Environmentalists *have* invented alternatives to fossil fuels and the traditional combustion engine.

          Try again.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            As shocked as we’d all be to learn that your grasp of energy and environmental is as shoddy as your grasp on human rights and constitutional law (eco activists get to take credit for the accomplishments of scientists and inventors and engineers? Solar, wind, and hydro have eliminated the need for fossil fuels in the same way Ayame and Mandypants’ hypothetical eliminates the “need” for abortion?), I’ll just point out that my underlying point remains unaddressed, and did not escape the comprehension of saner readers.

          • Sorites Paradox

            Look, I know you hate being told that you’re wrong, especially by me, but you chose a poor analogy. We DO have technologies that can exactly replace combustion generators.

            “As shocked as we’d all be to learn that your grasp of energy and
            environmental (sic) is as shoddy as your grasp on human rights and
            constitutional law…”

            You haven’t pointed out where I’m wrong, so don’t insult my knowledge, about which you know nothing.

            “eco activists get to take credit for the accomplishments of scientists and inventors and engineers?”

            Only if you’re conveniently defining your terms so that a scientist, inventor, or engineer could never simultaneously be an “eco-activist” or environmentalist, which, frankly, is stupid. Or, if you’re living in a reality (again, lol) where the advances in energy and other sustainability technologies aren’t in ANY WAY motivated by environmental concerns.

            In fact, I think that comparing a new, expensive, limited-application sustainability technology to an artificial womb is apt. No, on a practical level, as technologies and current laws and regulations stand, one alternative energy technology will not entirely replace our fossil fuel based energy economy.* This could be due to issues with the technology’s function, its expense, whatever. Similar issues would, at least initially, arise with an artificial womb. There would be limits to the technology’s capabilities and applications, not everyone could afford it, and it wouldn’t remove every motivation for abortion. But it would help.

            I think what the initial commentator was trying to express was her desire that, instead of just bleating about the baybees and the collapse of morality, anti-abortion folks would actually address the underlying reasons women choose to abort.

            *If our society were willing to make the choices necessary to do so, we could move our energy economy away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources. We’re just choosing to drag our feet.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “You haven’t pointed out where I’m wrong, so don’t insult my knowledge, about which you know nothing.”

            Oh, I’m very confident that the record shows I have. Often.

            “Only if you’re conveniently defining your terms so that a scientist, inventor, or engineer could never simultaneously be an ‘eco-activist’ or environmentalist, which, frankly, is stupid. Or, if you’re living in a reality (again, lol) where the advances in energy and other sustainability technologies aren’t in ANY WAY motivated by environmental concerns.”

            As usual, you’re either being dense or intentionally misinterpreting. Of course there can be overlap. Of course environmental concerns motivate such innovations. Only a liar or a fool would seriously claim I was denying either proposition. The point is that suggesting pro-lifers who aren’t in such fields deserve praise or blame for the fate of an artificial womb, and assessing the movement’s merits by whether we’ve achieved one, is every bit as stupid and unfair as it would be to judge environmentalists generally for not solving this or that technological problem. It really stretches plausibility that someone as professional and educated as you claim to be can’t understand this…….

            “instead of just bleating about the baybees and the collapse of morality”

            Murder babies is evil. Good people will keep calling it that. Deal with it.

            “anti-abortion folks would actually address the underlying reasons women choose to abort.”

            As we get into time and time and time and time again, pro-lifers do a great deal to help educate the young about sex and aid unintended mothers. Yet when WE DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU PRETEND TO WANT US TO DO, what’s the response from phonies like you? To smear us. So kindly take your lecture and shove it. We both know it’s insincere, hate-motivated posturing.

            “We’re just choosing to drag our feet.”

            Confirmed: abortion isn’t the only issue where you base your positions in myth.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “You haven’t pointed out where I’m wrong, so don’t insult my knowledge, about which you know nothing.”

            “Oh, I’m very confident that the record shows I have. Often.”

            I was referring to environmental issues, which we have never discussed. You know nothing about my educational background except that I’m currently a lawyer. I’m really not sure why you think you’re qualified to tell me what I don’t know on issues we’ve never discussed. And if you want to discuss qualifications, come on kid- you have a poli-sci degree and you’re a blogger.

            “As usual, you’re either being dense or intentionally misinterpreting. Of course there can be overlap.” Oh, calvin, always respectful.

            “Of course environmental concerns motivate such innovations. Only a liar or a fool would seriously claim I was denying either proposition.”

            Calvin, in your second post that “environmentalists” haven’t come up with an alternative to fossil fuel technologies or can’t “take credit for” the work of engineers who have. Now you’re saying “of COURSE environmentalists can take some of the credit! gosh you’re an idiot for reading my post the way I wrote it.” Don’t backpedal. The analogy here is that surely there are pro-life doctors/ researchers who could work on an artificial womb. Mean while, the rest of you with non-STEM degrees can fund raise, or can motivate public support for such an artificial womb. Just because Calvin with his little poli-sci degree is limited to berating women over the internet doesn’t mean that SOMEONE in the pro-life movement can’t develop one, and the rest of you can’t push it.

            I disagree with the way the original posters styled their claims re; artificial wombs, just like you do. But looking past that, and seeing the forest for the trees, what they DID try and point out to you is that the very VALID criticism they were making about the “prolife” movement’s lack of actual help for women. Which I explained, and you did not respond to this point. How do you help women? Throwing a pack of diapers at them from a “crisis pregnancy center”? You didn’t respond to this intrinsic argument in response to the other posters either- that the pro life movement should DO something that addresses the reasons women abort- you simply snarked out a little analogy that failed miserably and now we’ve got this little gem of a “discussion.”

            “Confirmed: abortion isn’t the only issue where you base your positions in myth.”

            You literally have NOTHING to base this “smear” on. Its just a bunch of “insincere, hate-motivated posturing.” I said our country drags its feet on moving to a clean energy economy. You have offered nothing but insults and blanket claims that I’m lying. No citations, not even a counter-argument. If it’s so obvious that I’m lying, do please point out how our country is in ANY WAY progressive in clean energy technology/ carbon reduction/carbon capture-storage/fuel efficiency standards/ energy efficiency standards/ progressive legislation/or the phaseouts of carbon-based energy sources, etc.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “I’m really not sure why you think you’re qualified to tell me what I don’t know on issues we’ve never discussed.”

            Because you’ve given me extensive examples of your analytical skills, and because your environmental remarks are loaded with fallacies I am very familiar with.

            “And if you want to discuss qualifications, come on kid- you have a poli-sci degree and you’re a blogger.”

            Which must make it all the more frustrating that your debate performance pales in comparison.

            “Now you’re saying ‘of COURSE environmentalists can take some of the credit!’”

            True to your MO, you’re conjuring up a phony inconsistency. I already took more time than would have been necessary in a sane discussion to explain the difference between a movement and people identified with that movement who are in a position to invent something, and the disconnect between technological achievement and whether that’s supposed to reflect on the cause associated with it. That you’re now making this already-asinine detour even further into the weeds by arguing about how much or how little people have to do to take credit is a level of pettiness I have no interest in indulging. Again, I simply trust the non-lunatics to get it.

            “Just because Calvin with his little poli-sci degree is limited to berating women over the internet”

            Yes, because calling out dishonest babykilling advocates in response to their vicious personal attacks is so much less admirable and dignified than unprovoked tirades about how pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists.

            “the ‘prolife” movement’s lack of actual help for women. Which I explained, and you did not respond to this point. How do you help women? Throwing a pack of diapers at them from a ‘crisis pregnancy center’?”

            Thanks for proving my point: WE’RE ALREADY DOING what you incessantly shriek that you want us to do, and what’s your reaction? To sneer and lie about it. The “argument” you falsely accuse me of not addressing isn’t an argument at all: it’s empty slander. Nothing we do will ever be enough to get the likes of you to stop lying about and spewing hate at us, as long as it doesn’t also come with us letting you execute your child.

            Sick. Evil. Shameless. And that’s why your whining about not getting respect will always fall on deaf ears.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “and because your environmental remarks are loaded with fallacies I am very familiar with.”

            Such as? You keep saying this, and generally engaging in ad homs, but you haven’t actually pointed any out. Hmm. I think the rest of your inane, angry rant speaks for your inability to do so.

            “than unprovoked tirades about how pro-lifers are the equivalent of rapists”

            I told you you sounded like my rapist. Your words provoked my statement. Cope with it. You weren’t present for my rape- I was. Yet your anger and rage and your statements about using women’s bodies remind me of it.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “Such as?”

            Forgive me for not further overcomplicated an already convoluted thread by starting an entire debate about another policy area that’s only tangentially connected to the real subject by an analogy you obsessed over because you’re too think to see the basic point it was making. Suffice to say, attributing the status quo to “just choosing to drag our feet” is a stereotypical article of eco-faith. I’m sure a smart cookie like you could figure out where to brush up on the dissenting view, if you really wanted to.

            “I told you you sounded like my rapist.”

            And I told you that was an absurd lie. Which it is. Horrific experiences are not a perpetual I-get-to-smear-whoever-I-want license. And if you’re truly a rational adult, it’s well past time for you to own up to the fact that your hatred was colored by serious emotional issues that impair your perception of reality.

            “You weren’t present for my rape- I was.”

            That doesn’t mean the stupidity of your comparison can’t be rationally analyzed.

            “Yet your anger and rage and your statements about using women’s bodies remind me of it.”

            Then your analytical capabilities must really be abysmal.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “I’m sure a smart cookie like you could figure out where to brush up on the dissenting view, if you really wanted to.”

            Translation: I can’t. But accusing you of knowing nothing about environmental policy it sounded like good, saucy rhetoric when I wrote it, so I’m sticking to it!

            “And I told you that was an absurd lie. Which it is.”

            You aren’t qualified to say that it was a lie, because you weren’t there.

            “Horrific experiences are not a perpetual I-get-to-smear-whoever-I-want license.””

            What’s your excuse then?

            “That doesn’t mean the stupidity of your comparison can’t be rationally analyzed.”

            It’s not stupid. You just don’t like it. Both of you claimed the right to make a woman use let someone use her body against her will (hint: him, it was sex, you, its gestation).

            If I can have the intellectual integrity admit that abortion kills a human entity, why can’t you admit that outlawing abortion forces a woman to gestate against her will, and just own that?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “You aren’t qualified to say that it was a lie, because you weren’t there.”

            What stupidity. The average person is perfectly capable of knowing what rape is, knowing what arguing the pro-life position is, and using basic reason to conclude that they are nothing alike in anything but the most tortured semantic gymnastics.

            “What’s your excuse then?”

            Sorty, Sorty, Sorty…..I keep explaining the difference, but you keep not getting it: the difference is that I’m being honest.

            “Both of you claimed the right to make a woman use let someone use her body against her will”

            First, you’re apparently too far gone to comprehend or acknowledge the vast differences between those “uses.” Second, I’m not claiming any right for myself; I’m asserting that your son or daughter possesses that right.

            Third, if comparing people to rapists is okay by your book, might I suggest that someone who aborts fits the bill far closer than someone who opposes it? What you desire is to do far more than “use” your son or daughter’s body; you want to completely subordinate him or her to your will. For all the lasting horrors a rapist inflicts on his victims, he doesn’t rob one of her very existence as you would.

            “If I can have the intellectual integrity admit that abortion kills a human entity”

            Some integrity. You’re still being evasive with the “entity” mumbo jumbo. Try this: “I admit abortion kills a live, distinct human being.”

            “why can’t you admit that”

            You have this recurring obsession with pretending I haven’t acknowledge things I repeatedly have.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “And I told you that was an absurd lie. Which it is. Horrific experiences
            are not a perpetual I-get-to-smear-whoever-I-want license. And if
            you’re truly a rational adult, it’s well past time for you to own up to
            the fact that your hatred was colored by serious emotional issues that
            impair your perception of reality.”

            This miserable little paragraph really deserves more of a response. You seem to think that you are sort of judge, jury, and executioner on what constitutes morality and reality. It’s pervasive throughout your posts. Calvin, think long and hard about what makes you qualified to be a neutral arbitrator on what “reality” is. You sit here from behind your computer, a middle class white kid, writing about reproductive health issues that you will never, ever experience. You write posts claiming that women who are raped should have their attackers’ babies and smile about it.

            I am a woman who is directly affective by reproductive justice issues. I have lived through them. I have lived through a rape. It galls me that my actual, real life experience, in your eyes, literally disqualifies me from making accurate judgments on the morality and reality of these situations.

            Why is YOUR perception of reality the correct one, while mine is necessarily wrong? If I was a rape victim who became pregnant and chose to have the baby (an emotionally traumatic situation, clearly), would my opinion be thrown out? How about Rebecca Kissling- her “reality” is entirely motivated by selfishness- she wouldn’t be alive if her mother wasn’t legally forced to gestate her. Why isn’t her opinion colored by “serious emotional issues?” Why don’t you think that her reality isn’t impaired by her own self interest? Or do you just think that about me because I disagree with you?

            It’s very easy to advocate for a policy position when you sit comfortably behind a keyboard knowing you will never be forced to endure the consequences of those policies.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “You seem to think that you are sort of judge, jury, and executioner on what constitutes morality and reality.”

            No more so or less so than any informed human being with functioning mental faculties.

            “Calvin, think long and hard about what makes you qualified to be a neutral arbitrator on what ‘reality’ is.”

            Um, I have eyes? Ears? A brain? A conscience?

            “that you will never, ever experience [....] you will never be forced to endure the consequences of those policies.”

            You mean like you will never experience being aborted?

            “and smile about it”

            Aaaaaand here you go, undermining all your fake moral indignation with YET ANOTHER intentional lie. Shouldn’t you be trying to get people to take you *more* seriously, not less?

            I have consistently gone out of my way to acknowledge that it’s a horrible situation for pregnant rape victims that I wish there was another way out of, but that executing a child cannot be an acceptable solution in a decent society.

            “my actual, real life experience, in your eyes, literally disqualifies me from making accurate judgments”

            I didn’t make that call. You did. You’re the one who repeatedly and unapologetically exploits your rape as an excuse to smear and emotionally browbeat people. If you’re really capable of rationality, prove it by changing your vile ways.

            “Why is YOUR perception of reality the correct one, while mine is necessarily wrong?”

            Because I made a better case for it.

            “If I was a rape victim who became pregnant and chose to have the baby
            (an emotionally traumatic situation, clearly), would my opinion be
            thrown out?”

            First, I’m not throwing out your opinion because you’re a rape victim, I’m throwing out your opinion because you’re a dishonest hatemonger who exploits her rape to hurl despicable and infantile slurs at people. Surely you can grasp the difference. Second, of course the opinions of rape victims who make both decisions count. But ultimately, the right to not be killed wins out.

            “her ‘reality’ is entirely motivated by selfishness”

            So her desire to NOT BE DEAD (at the expense of her mother’s pregnancy) is “selfish,” but your desire to not be pregnant at the expense of your son or daughter’s very life isn’t? You are a real piece of work.

            “Why isn’t her opinion colored by ‘serious emotional issues?’”

            Because I’m not aware of her smearing anyone the way you love to. It’s as simple as that.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “Infantile slurs,” eh Calvin? Like, “dishonest hatemonger, vile ways, evil/sick/shameless, abysmal analytical capabilities, exploiting my own rape, stupid, dishonest babykill[er]” Wow. Get a grip, kid. You know, one day, you’re going to be looking for a real job, and your name is going to be attached to all of this (lol).

            Speaking about my experience is not exploiting my rape. Of course you would try and silence me, shame me for talking about my experience, and de-legitimize what I have to say.

            “…I’m not claiming any right for myself; I’m asserting that your son or daughter possesses [the right to use your body against your will]”

            Ok… getting there.. so if my “son or daughter” (lol) can use my body against my will, why not my born son or daughter? Why not my husband? Why not you? Why not any dude? Don’t you get it-all people are sovereign over their own bodies.

            Look. You know as well as anyone that forcing someone to let another use her body against her will is inconsistent with all our laws and sense of justice. That’s why we don’t force parents to donate blood or tissue to their children. I notice you’re not spending any time arguing for legislation that might put YOU in the position of being forced to donate your body to someone else’s use against your will. I wonder why?

            ” your desire to not be pregnant at the expense of your son or daughter’s very life isn’t [selfish]?”

            Meh, maybe its a little selfish, but who cares? Selfish is not per se immoral and certainly not illegal. We do selfish things all the time. Do you still have both of your kidneys? Ever donated liver or bone marrow? Should I be expected to provide blood regularly? Or is it only ok to force bodily donation on women? And you wonder why I think you’re sexist….

            “Because I made a better case for it.”

            The classic calvin ipse dixit.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “Like, ‘dishonest hatemonger, vile ways, evil/sick/shameless, abysmal
            analytical capabilities, exploiting my own rape, stupid, dishonest
            babykill[er]‘”

            Nope. Those are all accurate. Keep whining about them though, rather than making an effort to stop fitting them. That’s a real winning strategy.

            “You know, one day, you’re going to be looking for a real job, and your name is going to be attached to all of this (lol).”

            I’m perfectly content to be associated with anything I’ve written, because it’s all justified. But since you mention it, I don’t believe the character of your postings and your hiding behind a screen name are coincidental. I suspect part of you is well aware that your rants would be seen as wildly unhinged, unprofessional, and dishonest by more than a few people you work with.

            “Speaking about my experience is not exploiting my rape. Of course you would try and silence me, shame me for talking about my experience, and de-legitimize what I have to say.”

            It’s incredible how shameless you are in continually trying to out-lie yourself. You know full well that merely discussing your rape isn’t what I’m criticizing, and you know that you’ve been exploiting it for the very purposes I describe.

            And “silence”? What a joke! It’s a further indictment of your merit as a legal mind that you equate harsh criticism with “silencing,” especially considering how generously long you’ve been allowed to keep commenting here even though you violate basically every standard of civil discourse. It seems that generosity has been futile.

            “why not my born son or daughter? Why not my husband? Why not you? Why not any dude?”

            The idiocy of this comparison is mind-blowing. I know you’ll pout about being called an idiot, but there really is no better word. That you can’t (or won’t) register the difference between someone being sustained via a natural biological process and by certain organs THAT EXIST FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING THAT PERSON (and that you don’t register a difference between this and someone claiming a right to the bodily resources of a completely separate person), and the general category of infringements by one person against another — that you stamp your feet and throw temper tantrums when people don’t acquiesce to your insane assertion that it’s all the same — speaks for itself.

            “all people are sovereign over their own bodies.”

            Not when nature puts one body in another. If we have a natural right to life, it follows that we have a right to the essential requirements and supports nature gives us to sustain that life.

            “Meh, maybe its a little selfish, but who cares?”

            Oh, so Kissling’s desire not to be murdered wasn’t actually objectionable? You just threw it in because of a whim to point out that, “by the way, I really hate Rebecca Kissling too”? Why am I not surprised….

            And then you have the gall to suggest your insistence that a child must die for your benefit is only “a little” selfish? Rebecca is asking far, FAR less of her mother than you are asking of your son or daughter.

            “And you wonder why I think you’re sexist….”

            Actually, I don’t. I don’t believe you truly do see me as sexist. I think that it’s just a line you find useful and comforting, truth be damned.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “I’m perfectly content to be associated with anything I’ve written, because it’s all justified.”

            Wow, ok then. Shocking, considering you come off as wildly unhinged and filled with rage (I was just listing your insults to demonstrate your hypocrisy-your fave activity). I post under a screen name because my job does not permit me to engage in public advocacy on any side of an issue like this, or even mundane things like tax reform. I wouldn’t be permitted to advocate the anti-choice side, either.

            ” you violate basically every standard of civil discourse. It seems that generosity has been futile.”

            Lol.

            “That you can’t (or won’t) register the difference between someone being sustained via a natural biological process and by certain organs THAT EXIST FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING THAT PERSON (and that you don’t register a difference between this and someone claiming a right to the bodily resources of a completely separate person)”

            All this sh*t really boils down to a natural rights fallacy? What a let down! I can certainly distinguish the difference between a fetus and a grown man but you have NO WHERE established that the “naturalness” of gestation establishes a right by the fetus that overrides a woman’s bodily autonomy.

            Look calvin. Replace uterus with vagina, and see how far that gets you. Sexual reproduction is NATURAL, too. My vagina is there FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTION. It in no way follows that any old man has the right to use it for reproduction, even though that is its purpose, nor that I do not have the right to decide who uses it.

            “don’t register a difference between this and someone claiming a right to the bodily resources of a completely separate person”

            Um, I thought your side’s entire stchick was that the fetus was a completely separate human entity that merely resides in its mother… now its not?

            “Rebecca is asking far, FAR less of her mother than you are asking of your son or daughter.”

            Why have you not answered my question as to why you are not advocating for any legal and policy reforms that would require men, or YOU, to donate any miniscule amounts of bodily resource that would save lives? CALVIN!!!! It requires FAR LESS of you to donate a pint of blood that than YOU are asking of a car accident victim who will DIE without it!! Surely you must get to the hospital right now!?

            “”And you wonder why I think you’re sexist/ Actually, I don’t.”

            I assure, you, oh wise mind-reader, I do.

            “You know full well that merely discussing your rape isn’t what I’m
            criticizing, and you know that you’ve been exploiting it for the very
            purposes I describe.”

            No, calvy. By saying that I’m ‘exploiting’ it by drawing on my experience to inform my opinion and to discuss the ramifications of your policy proposals, you are attempting to de-legitimize what I am saying by painting me in a negative light. You recognize that.

          • Sorites Paradox

            The rebecca kissling point is just to demonstrate that she, like me, uses the story of a rape (not even her own) to form the basis of some of her opinions and advocate for policy positions. You don’t tell her she’s exploiting her mother’s rape. Why? Because she agrees with you.

            The fact that you have no real-life experience with women’s reproductive health issues makes me doubt how genuinely you are capable of assessing your positions. I can and have experienced the ramification of your advocacy, making me better informed about what that is actually like to experience and putting a “human” face on your policy outcomes. That makes you uncomfortable, so you de-legitimize it.

            I’d rather shoot myself than bear a rape baby. That doesn’t fit in to your cute narrative of a woman recognizing the “life inside her” and peacefully having her rape baby while pro-lifers “wuv them both!!!1″

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Blah blah blah. More lying about your conduct, more refusal to take responsibility, more regurgitation of insipid comparisons I’ve refuted before. And of course I acknowledge that my argument uses Lockean natural law as a starting point (which, last time I checked, was kind of THE FOUNDATION OF THE WHOLE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK WE’RE OPERATING IN HERE), but criticizing that begs the question of what first principles you’d use instead. Unfortunately, we already know the answer: you have none. The only guiding principle for you is “my body, my death camp.” All the rest is bile, heartlessness, and rationalization.

            I pray you defeat your inner demons some day. But you’re not indulging them here any more.

      • Stormii

        If Pro-Choice were really about woman, they would have invented a full-proof birth control that prevents conception.Since they hadn’t it shows how they only care about the money of an abortion.
        - See, it works both ways.

        • Sorites Paradox

          How about sterilization?

          • Stormii

            I said full proof. (Like the universe is more likely to explode than the chances are of you getting pregnant) Even though sterilization, unlike the everyday birth control is more effective, it’s still not 100 percent guaranteed, there have been cases where a woman can get pregnant when having her tubes tied. Rare, but it happens. By the way, while we’re talking about fake wombs and such, why is this all falling on the Pro-Life? Shouldn’t this be something pro-life and pro-choice work together on, if possible?

            Just a thought.

      • –genni

        We are not anti-choice. We just take murder out of the choices available. Am i correct in assuming that you are pro-infanticide?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

          So all motorists who injure others should donate blood and/or organs to save them?

          Sorry, but I find that position totalitarian and also rather gruesome.

    • LoveTheLeast8

      That would be awesome to have but science hasn’t developed enough yet to make this a reality. It would save the lives of many preemies as well.

  • SAA5of5

    Families should discuss these together. These are great questions people should be prepared to ask or answer on Friday. Thanks again, LiveAction, for your leadership, conviction and commitment. God bless you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1737770702 Katherine Stimpson

    All great questions, but I think some of them might be a trifle narrow-minded. Before you all jump on me, let me explain what I mean.
    Take, for example, the question about whether you spend more on coffee than you do on pro-life things. As someone who’s trying to save up the money to go to college, I simply do not have the money to spare at the moment (or for coffee either). The question about time: as I said, I’m trying to save for college, and I still have some classes, and some work to do around the house. I don’t have time to do anything else? Would I donate/volunteer if I could? Absolutely. But at the moment, I can’t.
    So, while they’re all great questions, I feel like thay aren’t very fair toward those of us who simply can’t.

    • lovethink

      Precious Katherine, you my dear are doing MORE than MOST. You are sharing your pro-life heart with humility, Bless you! As you speak truth in love to those you know THAT will change hearts. I feel this article was meant to open eyes, hearts and wallets of ALL of us, not just bash the abortion industry and their blind supporters (see-I can’t NOt be arrogant, I have much to work on). You instpired ME to do more, I love your heart. :)

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Katherine, it’s definitely true that we can’t all do the same things. No one has enough time in their day or money in the bank to take care of all the things that go on in our world today. I think the point of this article, though, was to encourage people to evaluate themselves, personally, and ask if it IS possible to do more. And only each of us can answer that honestly for ourselves. =) So don’t feel bad! Just do what you can, and perhaps one day, you’ll be able to do as much as you want. Here, by the way, is one idea I’ve written about that take hardly any time or money – it’s pretty cool, imho =) http://liveactionnews.org/an-easy-pro-life-project-that-anyone-can-do/

    • Basset_Hound

      When I think back through my life in high school and college, I recall several girls who were the most genuine, kindest people I’ve ever met. They all manifested a certain serenity and calmness in their lives…not that their lives were perfect or peaceful, far from it. I wasn’t impacted by the money they donated, or by the volunteer work they did. They were just there for me when I needed them. If all you can do right now is to be a peaceful, soothing person in somebody else’s life, that can have an impact far beyond what you may ever realize.

  • lovethink

    LOVE this!!! I’m going to post a question regularly on fb, this is great! We are ALL at fault for abortion, not just the abortion industry and the poor souls that justify it. My favorite ?…”If your grandkids ask you someday what you did to combat abortion, will you have anything to tell them?” History has a striking way of portraying those that supported: slavery, Nazi Germany, eugenics, etc. I’m off to teach sexual self control to young mom’s in recovery, thanks for the motivation!

  • Love One Another

    God is our creator. Our bodies are not our own.(1Corinthians 6:19) I do not understand how we can defend life after birth but not before. Research show”[The first month of life] will bring a marvelous transformation, the greatest developmental change of a lifetime. The hundreds of cells turn into many thousands and together they become ten thousand times larger than the early cluster had been. The wonder of it is that these myriad cells organize themselves into a human body with the beginnings of all its exquisitely specialized components, all in their right places and some already practicing their functions.”

    Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 37.s evidence that a human being grows more in 9 months than any other time. These questions are good questions food for thought so to speak. The real question is “What are we doing to merit eternal salvation? Are we courageous enought to fight and defend those who can not defend themselves?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

      Fascist theocrat.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Janzen/100002850437081 Nancy Janzen

    The population explosion didn’t exist. The danger to the world is the demographic bomb. You will not end the problem of declining economies until you end the declining birth rate of countries. The majority of my life is over so I will not be the one living in the depths of demographic winter you will. Change it for your sake I can only tell you the truth I can’t make you change your lives to fix it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

      And when the environment implodes because of denialists such as yourself, there won’t even be economies to worry about anymore, because no one will be able to survive in such an inhospitable environment.

      • Basset_Hound

        Paul Ehrlich wrote his book “The Population Bomb” in 1968. He had dire predictions of famines, plagues and economic collapse for the 1980′s. Thirty years have passed, and we’re still here. As a matter of fact, many of the developed countries have aging populations. Russia is actually losing population, and many countries in Europe are below “replacement level”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayame-Sohma/100002225988462 Ayame Sohma

          Just because his predictions were inaccurate doesn’t mean that the world isn’t overpopulated. Millions of people (many of them children) dying of starvation go against your argument.

  • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

    I think “How many weeks, months or years could someone go to your church without hearing any public prayer or proclamation regarding abortion?” is a particularly good question. I’m from Minnesota, and in the last election we had a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; it bothered me a lot that support for the amendment was getting more “air time” in church in roughly four months than I’ve ever heard abortion get in twenty-six years. We’re talking disapproved-of relationships versus dead kids.

    “If your grandkids ask you someday what you did to combat abortion, will you have anything to tell them?” is also a great question. When I was a little kid, I was really interested in history and one time I asked my mom if we would’ve helped slaves on the Underground Railroad if we’d lived in the North back when slavery was legal. She said that we would have, and I think that gave me a very strong sense of responsibility when it comes to nominally opposing a thing versus working to end it.

  • Pingback: A plan to end abortion – what’s your part?

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Calvin, please do not feed the trolls. He / she / it cannot admit to himself / herself / itself that he / she / it is on the wrong side of 55 million murders, slavery, and the holocaust. That is why he / she / it repeatedly fails logic 101. Calvin, they murder babies because they can. You can’t argue with beasts like that.

  • Pingback: Ruth Institute Blog » Roe at 40