baby-question2

Is “personally pro-life” good enough?

A couple years ago, I wrote about why “there is no such thing as ‘personally pro-life.‘” But even beyond the question of whether it’s possible to be “personally pro-life,” there’s the question of whether it’s good enough.

Even if we could be “personally pro-life,” would it matter?

Well, since abortion seems to be a harder topic to wrap ourselves around these days, let’s bring up a few easy ones.

  • Is it good enough to be “personally pro-consent” when it comes to rape?
  • Is it good enough to be “personally pro-designated driver” when it comes to drunk driving?
  • Is it good enough to be “personally pro-paying for what I buy” when it comes to theft?

Sure, if we’re personally convinced of the right action in these situations, it’s likely that, when faced with the situation, we’ll make the right choice.

But if we think it’s important enough for women to have the right to consent to sex and not be raped, why wouldn’t we support a law about that? If we think we’d never drink and drive because it puts innocent lives at risk, why wouldn’t we support outlawing it? If we believe that it’s proper, moral, and right to pay for a sweater instead of holding up Dillard’s with a gun until they give us the sweater and all the money in the cash box, why wouldn’t we want to ban others from committing a violent robbery?

Simply put, if something is truly important, civilized societies often need to put the weight of law behind it.

How many more robberies, rapes, and drunk driving incidents do you think would occur if these actions weren’t outlawed? How many more people would feel free to commit these acts that harm and endanger other human beings if they weren’t against the law?

Making harmful, violent acts against innocent people illegal does reduce the frequency of these acts. It also sets into law that we, as a humane, dignified society, value the lives of innocent, helpless human beings. We do not support, fund, or condone the actions of those who intentionally harm other people.

It's not just wrong for me to kill this baby in her first trimester; it's wrong for anyone to kill this baby.
It’s not just wrong for me to kill this 6- to 7-week-old baby; it’s wrong for anyone to kill her.

So, no, being “personally pro-life” isn’t good enough. Relegating our beliefs to the corner of our “personal” lives does little good for anyone else or for society as a whole. And it surely does nothing to help the innocent people who can’t speak up for themselves.

Plus, when something is only a “personal” belief, it’s a lot easier to change it when your “personal” circumstances change. This is why, sometimes, “personally pro-life” people get abortions anyway. They “personally” thought abortion was wrong, but they also “personally” don’t think they’re ready for a child, and since it’s a “personal” decision anyway, they can “personally” go have an abortion, and no one needs to know.

It just doesn’t work well that way. Either I’m pro-slavery or I’m pro-freedom. Either I’m pro-rape or I’m pro-consent. Either I’m pro-robbery or I’m pro-paying. Either I’m pro-abortion or I’m pro-life. There’s nothing “personal” about it.

These actions — abortion included — either violate the rights of human beings every time they happen (not just when I’m personally involved), or they don’t. And it couldn’t be clearer that a basic human right is being violated every single time abortion happens.

It’s time we took a bold stand. It’s no longer good enough to say what we “personally” are. We either are or we aren’t, and we either support society saving the lives of innocent human beings, or we don’t.

So, are you “personally pro-life,” or are you ready to declare that you’re pro-life?

  • Mitzi

    I am pro life (; those people claiming to be “personally pro life” are just scared of the pro aborts.

  • JDC

    “So, are you “personally pro-life,” or are you ready to declare that you’re pro-life?”
    I’m pro-life.

  • BC

    I am pro choice and ready to fight against you

    • Mitzi

      Fights already started. And the pro life side is doing pretty darn good :)

      • waffle_anna

        Abortion needs to go the way of slavery, and it will in due time. The right to life is absolute, and it is not our place to arbitrarily deny it.

      • BC

        Expect resistance. Expect your ultimate loss. Get your hands out of others lives

        • waffle_anna

          Typical, when the pro-aborts are losing, their rhetoric becomes more and more radical and unreasonable.

          Soon your ilk will demand secession in the event Roe is overturned.

          • BC

            Once again, this ridiculous pro abort. Do you seriously think we tell women to abort because we love abortions, or do you (probably not) realize we think they should have the right to decide?

          • waffle_anna

            There is no right to decide to electively (98% of abortions are elective) eliminate a human being, born or unborn.

            And it is a verifiable fact that your ilk IS pro-abortion, as recently evidenced Quinnipac Law professor Stephen Gilles’ suggestion about artificial wombs to make abortion obsolete:

            http://liveactionnews.org/wow-pro-aborts-really-really-want-the-baby-to-die/

            The mask has fallen. You are nothing but supporters of a psychopathic death cult under the guise of a woman’s “choice”.

          • BC

            So every pro choice person agrees on everything? Interesting news

          • Nordog6561

            >>So every pro choice person agrees on everything? Interesting news<<

            Well, they all agree that killing the unborn is an important "right" for which to fight.

            And they're all champions of the Culture of Death.

            And they're all morally and intellectually bankrupt cretins.

            And they're…

            Well, I think you get the idea.

          • Mitzi

            Are you male? Do you really think women should have this extra special right to kill their unborn children? How about born children? Where is the line for you?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You missed the latest talking points: it’s all about celebrating one’s abortions now! Just ask Cecile Richards. No more guilt. After all, if abortion is a “right,” then it should be celebrated, right?!?

          • PJ4

            Wait…you don’t love abortion??
            Really?

          • BC

            Is it true that you have starred in Bollywood pictures,PJ4?

          • PJ4

            Lol

            What does that have to do with whether or not you do or don’t love abortion?

            If you don’t have the courage to answer my question, just say so instead of deflecting with non sequiturs.

          • waffle_anna

            he’s out of arguments, that’s what it usually means. what a non-sequitur.

          • PJ4

            Lol!
            I know
            That’s probably the silliest thing I’ve heard all night–and I’ve heard a lot of silliness from pro aborts tonight

          • PJ4

            And also, he’s probably too much of a coward to answer my question—you know how pro aborts are.

          • BC

            I can reply to your question.. No l do not love abortions. Does anyone? No.
            Re your film career, l am just curious

          • PJ4

            Why don’t you love abortions?
            Is there something wrong with them?
            Yes, actually…here’s just one:
            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0/

            What makes you think I ever had a career in Bollywood?
            What an absurd question
            It would be like me asking you if you were ever a penguin.

          • BC

            And you think everyone who is prochoice share exactly the same opinions?
            And someone pointed out the like to Deepika Padukone

          • PJ4

            Did I say that every pro abort shares exactly the same opinions?
            You asked who loves abortions.. I pointed you in the direction of just one.

            And you didn’t answer my question… why don’t you love abortion? Is there something wrong with it?

            Has anyone pointed out that you look like a penguin?

          • BC

            You called me pro abort. And it is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with football – but l don’t love it.
            Yes, people often tell me l do.

          • PJ4

            So, there’s nothing wrong with me calling you a pro abort then? Good.
            But you’re not fighting for the right to football.. you’re fighting for the right to kill the child in the womb.
            Why fight for something you don’t love?

            You look like a penguin, really?
            Is it the way you walk?

          • Nordog6561

            >>Once again, this ridiculous pro abort. Do you seriously think we tell women to abort because we love abortions, or do you (probably not) realize we think they should have the right to decide?<<

            You know, at some point we really don't care about the emotional state you work yourself up into regarding your adamant compulsion to justify killing the unborn.

            What you want to do, what you love to do, ultimately becomes of no concern.

            The bottom line is that you are all a coven of Cult of Death shrews and ghouls who need to be opposed for the sake of the innocent unborn.

            The rest is just a bunch of noise.

          • Valerie Finnigan

            Actually, yes. Because it has happened, and there are zero penalties if someone badgers, bullies, threatens, or otherwise pressures women into getting abortions they don’t want.

        • Mitzi

          I expect it. You mean women or unborn children lives? How about the fathers?

          • BC

            Do they take the risks of a pregnancy? No. Should they decide then? No

          • Mitzi

            I know! Your one of those “don’t like abortion dont get one” pro aborts. Well I disagree. It’s not just about he woman. Yes I know it’s her body but he body being ripped apart or sucked out is not HER body. It’s in her body but not a part of her. That child deserves the same EQUAL rights as the mother.

          • waffle_anna

            He is one of those that discriminate against the unborn by virtue of location – the mother’s womb. Bodily autonomy is a relative right. Absolute is our right to LIVE.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            He or she just wants sex without consequences. You ran over his or her arguments, but he or she keeps coming back for more punishment. :-)

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          And expect resistance from us. Expect your ultimate loss. Get your hands out of unborn babies’ lives and stop killing innocent defenseless babies.

          • waffle_anna

            Perhaps another Emancipation Proclamation will have to be written about this, by a future Republican President.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Darn right! And when the pro-abort Demon-crats come up after their defeat and say “we were with you all along,” I shall reply “No, you were not, but I am glad you having given up on killing babies!” They will get better treatment from me than the Nazi collaborators in France got from the Resistance. But, not much better. :-) And, I shall watch them closely to see what moral turpitude the Party of Slavery and Abortion comes up with next. Keep up the good fight, Waffle_Anna!

          • waffle_anna

            Those who openly celebrate abortion should receive the same treatment as the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials – condemned just the same.

          • BC

            Interesting to see that you want to punish legal actions with laws (if your terrible agenda) that were made after these actions were committed. It is no crime celebrating abortions (is it?) yet you want to punish those who do. An american taliban has spoken, thank you for showing your contempt for the legal system

          • PJ4

            Would you have made the same exact argument in favor of slavery when it was legal?

            Would you have called Anna the American Taliban for condemning slavery in the same way, when it was legal?

            Just curious.

            Btw, when the Nazi’s were carrying out their horrible deeds against the Jews, they were acting in accordance with German law at the time–so you’re taking her comment way out of context.

          • BC

            No, since Nazi germany was ruled by Fuhrer commands, for which there was no ground in the german constitution, not by legislation.

          • PJ4

            They were laws…
            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nurlaws.html

            But that doesn’t answer my question about slavery

            Would you have made the same exact argument in favor of slavery when it was legal?

            Would you have called Anna the American Taliban for condemning slavery in the same way, when it was legal?

          • BC

            I call her a taliban for wanting to punish people for actions that were legal when they were committed.

          • PJ4

            So if she wanted to punish slave owners for owning slaves during the time slavering was legal in the US, would you have still called her the Taliban?
            Why or why not?

          • BC

            Read the constitution article 1, section 9, clause 3. Like it or not, but that is the law, and similar laws are found in most countries, including India

          • PJ4

            So your answer is yes, you’d still call her the Taliban even if she were talking about slavery during the time slavery was legal
            Interesting

            Just out of curiosity, why would you include India?

          • BC

            I would condemn it, but they could not be subject to legal action, as Anna would. That is a huge difference. India was included as a kind of tribute to your film career.

          • PJ4

            Ok, but you’d want them (slave owners) to be subject to legal action, even if they couldnt be at the time, yes?
            See the similarity?

            What film career?
            I’d hardly call some extra work, a few V.O’s and a commercial or two a “film career”….that’s a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think?

          • MamaBear

            You have no idea what the Taliban really are?
            I guess by your standards, the Nuremberg trial were wrong. Those people committed atrocities, but under German law, they were legal.

          • BC

            As l said before, they were still not legal since Hitler ruled the country by Fuhrer Befehl (commands), for which there were no room in the german constitution. The racial laws of 1935 were german law, and awful as they are, they did not allow murders. You can question their legality too, since the last elections held were manipulated and most parties had “voluntarily” ceased to exist.
            And yes l know what a taliban is. It is a movement that grew in Afghanistan in resistance to the Soviet occupation during the 1980s, and supports an extreme version of islam, and even condemns the shia minority in the islamic community. We might, or rather we have, differing opinions, but do not even try to hint l am uneducated.

          • MamaBear

            Then quit accusing those whom you happen to disagree with of being Taliban.

            Hitler gained power through Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich or Enabling Act of 1933, which gave him powers that overrode the rest of the Weimar Constitution. It was then repeatedly renewed.

            The Enabling Act allowed Hitler and his cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and its adoption was by a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.
            Hitler’s government was accepted at the time as a legitimate government by other world powers, including those that later fought Germany in World War 2.

          • BC

            I did not accuse her of that because she does not share my opinions. I said it was because she wants to punish people Nuremberg style for things they have done when they were legal. And the holocaust was still not legal – no Fuhrer commands exists (if we should accept it as law, which is questionable). Or you have some? I would love to see it, and throw in the face of holocaust deniers. Please send the link.

          • MamaBear

            Personally, although I would like to do away with elective abortion, 98% (according to Guttmacher) have nothing to do with health or rape), I would not support prosecuting anyone for the time it was legal. But, that does not mean I do not think they deserve it.
            I think the Nuremberg trials were both legal (natural law) and necessary. As civilized people, we must believe that laws should reflect natural right and wrong rather than allow government to define it for us.
            But, whether the Nazis took control of the German government through trickery or legally (most historians believe there was some of both), they were recognized as a legitimate government by other nations of the world, just as other corrupt dictatorships such as Stalin have been.
            This link might help. Please note the number of Holocaust and pre-Holocaust laws and decrees. Deportations, resettlements, and relocations were all actions of the Nazi German government using both military and police, using trains belonging to the German government, and sending those people to concentration camps built and run by the German government.
            The Enabling Act of 1933 allowed all these things to be legal because it overrode the constitution.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/timeprint.html

            And here is a translation of the Wannsee Protocol. Please note the level of German government officials in the participants. It was not clandestine or unofficial. Hitler knew and approved.

            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Wannsee_Protocol.html

          • BC

            Of course Hitler knew and approved. Once again you treat me as l would be stupid, or worse, a Holocaust denier. I never said anything remotely like what you are implying. But there was never a law, or something equivalent to a law, that made the holocaust legal. I agree, like all decent people that the trials were necessary, but would beside natural law add that The League of Nations treaty and the Kellogg Briand pact were legal grounds for the trials. But l have a feeling we are getting off topic, and that you could not produce a document where the mass murdering of jews were made legal.

            The core of our discussion was abortion, and in my opinion this right is necessary for reaching full equality between men and women. It is not more difficult than that.
            I will not reply to more posts on thisthread since l simply do not have the time for this, but apart from Nordog, l would like to say that this discussion has been held in a decent tone, and l wish both sides of this debate would try to keep it that way. t

          • MamaBear

            Had you bothered to read the links, you would have seen proof.
            I can only assume you did not read them.
            I cannot figure out what more you need than the Enabling Act of 1933, which even if Hitler cheated on the election, was approved by the

          • BC

            There is still no document making it legal to kill jews. No signe Fuhrer command, no law. There are overwheming evidence it was carrie out, it was approved by Hitler…but the legal ground that would have made it legal in Nazi Germany is absent. Wannsee protocol is stamped Top Secret (a top secret law?), Nuremberg laws deal with eliminating civil rights from jews. Please note l am not a Holocaust denier, l just point out that no written document from Hitler exists, thus making it legal.

          • BC

            Your link is about the Nuremberg laws which are awful and depsicable. But they did not allow murders.
            If you can show me the law that permitted the holocaust, the day it passed the german Reichstag and some excerpts from it, l will accept it as a law. But there was no law about the holocaust. Not even a handwritten note from Hitler exists. The closest we get is the Wannsee protocol from dec 1941, but those were never made official, and never reached the Reichstag, because it had no sessions during the war. Not even the government had a conference after 1938

          • Nordog6561

            How about the American Gulag during WWII?

            How about the brief time that Prop 8 was legal.

            Do you really hold that positive, codified law is the final arbiter of the just?

            Really?

            Did you hold that opinion prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling?

            Really?

            An unjust law is not law at all.

            Go screw.

          • PJ4

            Nordog! That last part was uncalled for. :-(

          • Nordog6561

            I’m rotten that way I guess.

          • PJ4

            lol
            Well, you’re not that bad

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I liked it, frankly. Very manly – we need more of it! I actually thought that you were referring to BC going and building a house for a woman in a crisis pregnancy using screws. :-) One of the best replies I heard was on a Christian site. Gary wrote: “I am very pleased by your future” to a real sickie. I thought that was much classier than my reply to him which was “Enjoy Hell.” :-)

          • Mitzi

            Gary???? That’s horrible.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It’s a guy thing, Mitzi. :-) We are wired for justice and truth. Gals are wired for mercy and love. (with exceptions of course) And, a good thing too. Both are needed.

          • Valerie Finnigan

            Oh, you don’t see much mercy from women whose children are threatened. It is with humans as it is with other mammals- threaten a female with young, and she will prove she’s the more dangerous of the species. Thankfully, the people who tried to badger me into aborting my daughter had the sense to recognize this and back down, but even remembering the pressure I faced makes me itch to destroy the status quo.

          • BC

            Pj l upvoted this one

          • PJ4
          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Your facts, data, and impeccable logic will go nowhere with Brainwashed Child (BC), Locomotive PJ4.

          • PJ4
          • Valerie Finnigan

            The war crimes committed by the Nazis were “legal actions.”

          • BC

            After the heavily manipulated elections of 1934, after which no free elections were held, no actions by german authorities can be considered legal

          • PJ4

            Hind sight is 20/20

          • Valerie Finnigan

            Sadly I don’t see any Republicans of Lincoln’s calibre these days. And forget about the Dems. While I’d support a real pro-life Democrat in a heartbeat, the DNC would not even allow such a person a chance.

          • waffle_anna

            All the more reason why the pro-life movement needs to keep the pressure and never let up.

        • Basset_Hound

          Resistance Is Futile
          Opposition Is Irrelevant
          We Are The Borg
          You Will Be Assimilated

        • Valerie Finnigan

          Excuse me? Elective abortion has taken an average of 1.3 million human lives per year in the US alone since 1973. I suggest you get your “choice” out of their lives.

  • waffle_anna

    I am pro-life and neither scared nor ashamed – I was an unborn baby once, and I do have the moral decency to extend the right to life to my own children as did my mother with me.

    • BC

      Yes you do. To your children. Not to others

      • waffle_anna

        The right to life is universal and absolute – it applies to ALL unborn children, not just mine.

        • BC

          You decide over your pregnancy. Others have the same right

          • waffle_anna

            They do not have the right to arbitrarily end their unborn baby’s life (98% of abortions are elective). There is no right that sanctions killing another human being by virtue of being unborn.

      • Mitzi

        At least you agree they’re children that are being killed in the womb.

      • Valerie Finnigan

        Does that mean we’re only allowed to protect our own children, but have to let others abuse or kill theirs?

        • PJ4

          Too much logic for him to handle

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    I am anti-abortion. And I pray that God will wipe abortion from this once great land just as He wiped slavery from this once great land.

  • MamaBear

    You can personally oppose drinking alcohol, yet allow alcohol to be sold and served. (Drunk driving is a different issue as it risks lives). You can, as so many of our Jewish friends, personally oppose eating ham and bacon, yet still not oppose it’s sale and consumption by others. You can oppose many things that affect only yourself while allowing others different choices.

    But, when it involves a human life, there is no being “personally opposed.” If we look the other way when the innocent die, we become complicit in the evil.

    “Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
    hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
    If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?”
    Proverbs 24:11-12

    • BC

      Bible bs

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      That comment is about as good as it gets, MamaBear!