Opinion

Pro-choice: Why I’m never going back

I get this a lot, in e-mails and comments:

“Hey ‘Kristen,’ if that’s your REAL name. I read your dumb article because I have nothing better to do than read stuff I hate on the Internet. You’re always talking about how you used to be this big pro-choice liberal because you were uninformed and lost in the darkness or whatever. Well, how do we know you’re not uninformed NOW? How do we know you’re not just brainwashed and in two years you’ll be writing for Jezebel and condemning your dumb pro-life self? Will the real Kristen please stand up?”

I’ve never addressed these comments because I have a life. But I have a less of a life now that I am a lowly, insignificant housewife, so I’m going to address these comments.

I am pro-life because of information. I was pro-choice because of lack of information.

That’s really the simplest answer. I could stop typing now, but then you all would weep and gnash your teeth because you want more paragraphs of my wisdom over which to rejoice or send me hate mail. So let me go into a little more detail.

Not everyone is pro-life because of information. Some people are pro-life because they grew up that way, and they have given as little thought to abortion as I had when I was pro-choice. I call this a “default” position. I was pro-choice by default, for the same reason I was politically liberal. It was the easy position, the one I absorbed from the media, pop culture, and other kids. Unless they receive a lot of correcting influence, most kids are gonna lean this way.

There’s a saying: “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you’re still a liberal at 40, you have no brain.” I get it. Liberalism is obvious to children, because the most obvious way to help people is to give them stuff and be “nice” to them. It takes a lifetime of learning – and, in my opinion, usually the influence of religion, which helps one understand that man can’t fix all of Earth’s problems - to realize that giving people “free” stuff is impossible, because nothing is free. And because giving people stuff and being “nice” to them is not nice, or helpful; it leads to dependency and corruption and general crappiness. (See Africa, ruined by aid. See also certain parts of Chicago, ruined by leniency.)

I read this book. It’s a great book to read if you want to understand why people are conservatives. It was written by David Mamet, the playwright, and it’s called The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture. He says something in that book that made me stop in my tracks, and it was this: “Kindness to the wicked is cruelty to the righteous.”

The Dalai Lama said, “My religion is kindness.” Doesn’t that sound like a beautiful thing? Liberals love it. You can buy a calendar festooned with quotes like that, and pictures of the Dalai Lama looking at flowers, in every bookstore in San Francisco.

The problem is that kindness doesn’t work in every situation. To use a pretty worn out example because it’s a good one, if we were kind to the Germans and Japanese in World War II, the good guys would have perished from the earth. We’d all be speaking German and heiling Hitler right now, or we’d be dead. We wouldn’t be America, that’s for sure. Kindness to Hitler would have been cruelty to the Jews and other enemies of the state he was busy slaughtering. In order to be kind to the Jews and the gypsies and the gays and the priests and the Americans, etc., we had to be cruel to the Nazis. We had to make a choice.

When it comes to abortion, kindness to the mother is cruelty to the child.

And in this case, as in many, kindness isn’t particularly kind. How is it kind to teach someone nothing, to offer her no instruction because it is “mean,” to watch her walk away to make the same mistakes again that caused her grief and desperation and pain and confusion and sorrow – and led to the death of her child? Is that kindness? Giving her some condoms and a phone number for Medicaid?

To me, kindness is telling people the truth: this will kill your child. You are a mother now. It is your responsibility to protect this child. You have other options, and we will help you every step of the way, but if you decide to let a doctor kill your baby, you will regret it for the rest of your life.

That is real kindness. Not the lie that a handful of cash will make it all go away.

But see, the other side has the easy sell. The lie is always easier: “Republicans are mean; here’s some free stuff.” The “default” position is the easy one you glean from movies and cool grownups. At 26, I had absolutely no idea what abortion really was. I literally, truly thought it was a “clump of cells.” It was information, it was truth, that changed my mind.

This is not to say everyone who is pro-choice lacks information. There are people right now working in clinics whose job it is to count the body parts and make sure there are no arms or fingers or heads left inside women to cause infection. Gotta make sure they got it all! These people certainly do not labor under any illusions about the baby being a “clump of cells.”

So how do they do it? Sister, you got me. I do not know. I know that even pro-choice Kristen would have run from that room screaming and puking. Listen: I know very good people who used to do this job and are now pro-life. Being Catholic, I think there are probably demons involved, and I am not even remotely joking. I think it is possible to delude yourself that you are doing “good” even while sifting through your bloody fingers tangible evidence of unspeakable evil. Humans are clever like that. We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.

I spent the first few weeks of being pro-life trying desperately to stuff the genie back in the bottle – to reverse the spell, if you will. I wanted the internet to make me pro-choice again soooo bad. I knew what I was in for: I was going to be one of the dumb, backwards, mean, lady-hating pro-life wackos. But it couldn’t be done. And that is your answer, e-mail-haters and internet-commenters. That is how you know I will not be backpedaling and becoming liberal, pro-choice Kristen again: because once things are learned, they can’t be unlearned. And in the past six years – almost exactly – of reading and talking and arguing and writing, I have learned nothing new that would un-convince me of the humanity of the unborn, or the evil of abortion.

Live Action on Facebook
  • http://RaisingWomen.com/ James Dibben

    This is by far the best pro-life article I have ever read.

    Kristen, you continue to astonish me with your wisdom and insight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/grace.napoli.10 Grace Napoli

    Fabulous article!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jessica.havican Jessica Havican

    It takes a lot of guts to write this article. Especially when you were once on the other side of the spectrum. I’ve always felt that those considering abortion need to be more educated. I think they should be forced to listen to the heart beat and look at their baby on the ultrasound and be informed of the harm they are doing to their baby and their body. If they are going to make the choice to abort their baby, they should face the reality of what they are doing.

    • Heather

      I agree- even somebody who is “pro-choice” should want the women to be fully informed before they make a decision. There are so many studies about the negative phsycological effects of abortion and how making a decision based on emotions or under pressure is a big risk factor.

  • Isilzha

    “When it comes to abortion, kindness to the mother is cruelty to the child.” Is the opposite then not true as well? Kindness to the unborn child is cruelty to the mother? If you have to choose between saving the mother’s life and saving the child’s, who do you choose?

    In addition, your graphic depiction of abortion is incorrect. The vast majority of abortions happen long before the fetus has developed fingers. It truly is a “clump of cells” little different than a tadpole. Later-term abortions are done only when there is something wrong with the fetus (or baby, if you prefer) or the pregnancy is putting the mother’s life in danger.

    • Julia

      Arms and legs are there at about 6 wks, fingers by 10 wks (gestational). Actually,you might as well say everyone is a “clump of cells” what do you think your body is make up of if not cells?

      Wait, so you think that if there’s something “wrong” with someone (down syndrome, wrong sex, etc.) that means it’s OK to kill them?

      “If you have to choose between saving the mother’s life and saving the child’s, who do you choose?”
      I believe these are the two main cases:
      Ectopic pregnacncies – you remove the tube to save the mother’s life, the child’s death is not intentional. And otherwise, usually both will die.
      Cases when the mother needs treatment to save her life, that may harm or kill the child – You give the mother the treatment, unless she decides (like Giana Molla) that she would rather not, and save her child. Again your purpose is to save the mother’s life, and the harm to the child is a side effect.
      The idea of late-term abortions to save the life of a mother makes no sense (I’m not sure there actually are any situations), because after the child is viable outside the womb (I think between 20 and 27 )wks you sould just do an emergency C to remove the child rather than kill the child in the womb.

      • Isilzha

        I honestly think it’s better for someone with a birth defect that will severely affect their quality of life to never have been born. But I also think that CHOICE rests with the person who will give birth to that child.

        • Julia

          Who are you decide whether or not someone’s life is worth living? No one knows the value of someone’s life.
          Say a down syndrome child’s mental age is 6; by saying their quality of life is so bad that they might as well not live, you are saying that anyone 6 or younger’s quality of life is so bad they might as well not live.
          Anyway, even if you believe someone’s life is miserable and will be miserable unitl death, do you think that that gives someone the right to kill them without their consent? Talk about “forcing your beliefs on someone”!!!
          By your reasoning, it’s OK for someone taking care of a toddler with a birth defect to have the CHOICE whether to allow that person to reach adulthood him or have her/him killed, since because of the quality of life they will have, it’s better that they never reach adulthood.

          “Never have been born” does not mean “never have existed”. Do you know the process of a late-term abortion? If you had seen or heard the description of a late-term abortion, I don’t think you would consider it an act of mercy towards the child; it’s more like the hung, drawn, & quartered death for traitors in the 1600′s.

          • Arielle

            geez you keep saying downs syndrome! not all birth defects are downs! second of all you know what? if I am the person who has a part in bringing a “person” into this world, I am responsible for their misery after being born. please stop with your god’s intentions nonsense! terminating an ill pregnancy ,in my opinion, prevents a soul from entering a disabled body thus it is the most kind act.

          • Julia

            So inside the womb doesn’t count as “in this world’? You think a soul is infused into a person as it goes down the birth canal? How about the fact that even 2nd trimester babies do stuff that born babies do like suck there thumbs. They also recognize their Mom’s voice, and the voices of people that are around her a lot. This idea of the magic birth canal is very unscientific.

            It’s not the parents fault if their their child is conceived with birth defects, but it is the parents fault if they decide to have their child killed because of the .defects. How about the misery a child suffers during an abortion? They can feel pain pretty early on. I think their sense of touch is developed by about 10 wks.

            Also, many times birth defects are wrongly diagnosed. I have heard about families where doctors told them that they should abort because their child had a birth defect, and then when the child was born. They found out that there was nothing “wrong” with the child after all.

            I mention downs syndrome because, because most downs syndrome babies that come into this world, never make it out of the womb. (This is the most extreme form of discrimination against mentally disabled people).

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

            my daughter was BORN during the 2nd trimester. she never made it to the 3rd. she had the SAME personality when she was born that she has NOW. and she’s 5. i see the same characteristics. she has grown and changed somewhat outwardly, but inwardly, she is the same child that came out of me at 24 weeks gestational age…. when she was not yet “finished baking” for lack of a better term. you think she should have died that day? God decided that she wasn’t ready to join him yet. no one else. not me. not the doctors. i had no right to tell her she had to live or had to die. God alone has that “Right”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

            so is your name God?? cuz last time i checked, no human being could claim that title.

        • http://www.facebook.com/chipmunk14228 Amy Vesperman Igou

          I have read so many stories of parents who were told that there was something medically/physically wrong with their child and they should abort and then went on to have perfectly healthy children. So why should anyone be given the right to kill their child because it MIGHT have problems? Why take that chance away from that child? Makes me wonder how many healthy children had their lives taken because a doctor was wrong. Doctors don’t know everything. That is why they PRACTICE medicine. And, even if they end up with some issues, why not give them the chance at life? You never know when medical science will come up with ways to improve their health/lives. Who are we to judge the quality of someone’s life? Take the case of the “Mermaid Girl”. Doctors didn’t expect her to live more than a few days yet she went on to live 10 years.

      • http://www.facebook.com/funnygood Matthew Herbert

        The problem I am starting to run into during abortion discussions is
        that people are admitting that abortion kills a human being’s life, but
        argue justifications for it anyway. I think this is a good advance for
        the pro-life cause, completely backed by science, common sense and
        technology by removing denial on the human life debate, but is is almost
        more scary and sickening that anyone’s stance does not change based on
        that, and they simply resort to *justifying killing a human being*. As you see…..

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

        you are correct!!!! :) THANK YOU!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

        my daughter was BORN alive at 24 weeks gestation and is about to turn 5 yrs old this next month, when the drs said she probably wouldnt live but for a couple of hours at most… she was 1 lb 5 ozs at birth. read a damn pregnancy book ppl!!! it’ll tell u ALL you need to know about unborn human life, and it definitely does NOT look like a frickin tadpole!

    • http://twitter.com/lauraBseymour Laura S.

      Do you have children? Have you been to an ultrasound? When I went to my first OB appointment, when my baby was merely 8 weeks old, we listened to his heart beating. That, my friend, is a living thing.

      • Isilzha

        The mouse in my basement is a living thing, too, and with more consciousness than a fetus. Yet I have no problem killing it, nor would most people.

        • Heather

          That mouse is a *mouse*, we are talking about *human* lives. The level of consciousness does not determine whether or not a human is allowed to live. A person that is sedated in the hospital is not conscious but they still have the right to life.

          • Isilzha

            But the person who makes medical decisions for the one unconscious in the hospital can decide to take them off life support. An abortion is the same.

          • Heather

            It’s not the same- there are people who are unconscious and not expected to recover. Yes, another can make the decision to take them off life support. And there are *some* abortions (like for trisomy 18) that are a similar situation. But say you have a child that was in a car accident and is sedated because they have the be on a ventilator while they recover. But the doctor tells the parents that he has a 95% chance of recovering fully and living a normal life. The parents can’t make a decision to take him off life support- that is what most abortions are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jillian.m.steger Jillian Michelle Steger

            Heather, You have made many good points in you argument, however I must take ask you, what do you mean when you say “there are *some* abortions (like for trisomy 18 ) that are a similar situation.”? Do you mean that in cases of trisomy 18 it is okay to kill this child because they have a good chance of dying shortly after birth?

            A good friend of mine had a brother born with trisomy 18. They were told he would not live two weeks, there was no help for him, and that they should just wrap him in a blanket and let him go.

            He died Aug. 2011, age 6-and- a-half. I never met him, but I heard about him and prayed for him from the day he was born to the day he died. He touched my life, and I am so grateful for that. I encourage you to read his story.
            http://thecatholicspirit.com/special-sections/respect-life/peter-kellett-little-teacher-of-souls/#.Tl_gvD59pWo.facebook
            All Children deserve the chance to live. Peter is proof of that.

          • Heather

            Jillian- what a beautiful story! Maybe I should clarify my point- I was trying to highlight the difference between removing a terminal patient from life support and the majority of abortions. The moral implications of abortions performed for cases of severe birth defects such as Trisomy 18 is a fantastic discussion to have, but it is a different debate and different decision making process than the debate about abortion in general. On one you are looking at quality of life issues & determining which route will cause less suffering for the baby vs. trying to argue that a human baby is something other than what it is.

            I’m not arguing for abortions for severe birth defects, and I tend to agree with you about always giving children a chance at life. I’m just trying to say that you can’t make the argument that abortion is okay because people are allowed to take a terminal patient off life support. Maybe using ectopic pregnancies would have been a better example? With an ectopic pregnancy, there is still a living human, but they have no chances of survival. In that case, yes, you can morally remove life support (I think one of the other commenters hit on this point too) just like a terminal patient in the hospital. But you are not allowed to remove life support from a patient, or a fetus!, that is fully expected to recover.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jillian.m.steger Jillian Michelle Steger

            Heather, Thank you for clarifying and thank you for reading Peter’s story.

            I agree with you that arguing abortion is okay because people are allowed to take a terminal patient off life support is a very poor argument to make. In one case a doctor removes the machine keeping someones heart beating, allowing them to die a natural death. In the other case a abortionist violently ends a persons life. There is a big difference and it is a shame so many people can’t see that.

          • Arielle

            totally the same, the fetus is dependent on its mother, a human being that is, which is far worse than being dependent on a machine, which makes abortion a more rational decision rather than cutting someone off of life support.

          • Julia

            So, a newborn baby on a desert island is totally dependent on her mother. Does that make it OK for the mother to kill her?
            A person who is not able to walk is totally dependant on someone to bring her food and water. Does this make it OK for the people who bring her food and water to kill her?
            In years past, when someone scuba-diving, he would be totally dependant on the person pumping air for him? Does that make it OK for the person pumping to kill him?
            The idea that because someone is dependent on you makes it OK for you to kill him/her is ludicrous.

          • Mariana

            Wait, halt there. Are you comparing a person who is being mechanically kept alive to a child that is naturally growing in it’s proper environment? One that is about to naturally die, and another that is being artificially/forcefully killed, they were NOT ABOUT TO DIE, that baby was about to keep growing and develop. Two VERY different scenarios.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

            wow. the arguments that ppl come up with on here for allowing the legalized murder of the unborn is absolutely astonishing to me. astonishing how absolutely stupid some ppl can truly be.

          • http://twitter.com/lauraBseymour Laura S.

            Thank you, Heather. Comparing a mouse to a human? Seriously? That’s like comparing, well, a mouse to a human. P.S. A tadpole also has a beating heart, and is a “baby” frog.

        • Lauren Brown

          Really? What’s wrong with catching the mouse and putting it outside?

      • H

        A bacterium is also a living thing, with the same level of consciousness as a first trimester embryo. Please form a coherent argument why either should not be removed from a person’s body.

        • Sarah

          Because a first trimester embryo is an unique HUMAN person. If human life isn’t valuable, what is?
          Also, by the time abortions ae performed, that human being has a lot more concsiousness than a bacteria.
          Anyway, Consciousness=rights? A cat probably has a higher level of consciousness than a newborn baby, but no reasobable person would think that a cat should have more rights than a newborn baby. I guess if someone faints, it’s OK to kill them?

          • H

            Please explain why human life is valuable, without resorting to unprovable claims about “God”. I bet consciousness features somewhere in your explanation.

            I think animals and newborns should be given approximately similar levels of rights, yes.

            What exactly do you gain by killing a person who has fainted? Have they managed to faint their way inside someone else’s body?

          • Julia

            Wait, so you don’t think a human life is valuable? If a human life is not valuable, that means it’s OK to kill anyone for any reason, if you can, if you have anything to “gain” from it.

            “What exactly do you gain by killing a person who has fainted?”
            So the only reason you wouldn’t kill a fainted person is because you have nothing to gain from it? and killing another person is OK if it benefits you?

            “I think animals and newborns should be given approximately similar levels of rights, yes.”
            Seriously? So you think it is OK to kill a newborn baby that is not wanted, like an unwanted animal at the animal shelter? I guess you also think it is OK to kill a newborn baby and make their flesh into hamburger patties to eat?
            Also if it a “right”, it is not “given” but inherent; privileges are given.

          • H

            Killing is justified if the benefit is greater than the harm done, like any action.

            Life is not intrinsically valuable. The conscious experience of the human being is valuable.

            I’m a vegetarian and don’t think that unwanted animals should be put down.

          • Lauren Brown

            Justified for the benefits? As in the end justifies the means? That has a habit of causing much bigger trouble.

    • Sherrie

      Actually, having taught embryology, maybe I can clarify. Limb buds develop very early on with actual digits (fingers and toes) developing by 8-9 weeks gestation. 88% of abortions are performed in the irate trimester. That said, the author is correct about fetal body parts. While in graduate school, a friend of mine (medical student) came to me horrified by her experience; she was volunteering in the hospital and had been asked to take a container of “surgical waste” to one of our research labs. She was curious and looked in and was disgusted and horrified to see obvious, identifiable legs, arms, hands and feet. Though very tiny, they were what they were. You can continue to be willfully ignorant or you can own up to the scientific fact that abortion destroys a unique human life and is not a simple curettage of a “clump of cells”. I get very tired of correcting people’s misconceptions of what is scientifically true. Information is extremely easy to come by……learn before you speak.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

        thank you for sharing this! knowledge IS power.

    • eurekagal

      Wrong! In the United States it is legal to kill a fetus throughout all 9 months for ANY reason. The only reason there are limits is because states and counties have placed them. Obama told Planned Parenthood, the first time around, that the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which would lift all restrictions at the local levels. This is one promise I’m glad he did not keep!
      Also, the heart begins to beat between 18-21 days, before many women even know they are pregnant.

    • Guest

      The problem I am starting to run into during abortion discussions is that people are admitting that abortion kills a human being’s life, but argue justifications for it anyway. I think this is a good advance for the pro-life cause, completely backed by science, common sense and technology by removing denial on the human life debate, but is is almost more scary and sickening that anyone’s stance does not change based on that, and they simply resort to *justifying killing a human being*.

  • David

    Dear Kristen,
    Great article, except for this: “See Africa, ruined by aid.” – May I suggest that’s far too simplistic? Or do you think this claim is actually justifiable??

  • Richard

    Kristen, Thank you so much for your sharing!

  • Kimberly Wedel

    Absolutely amazing. If this couldn’t change the mind of a pro-choicer I don’t think anything could.

  • Heather

    This is a wonderful article! I was pro-choice as well for a long time. I had the best intentions- it wasn’t my place to tell somebody else what to do with their body or to “force” my beliefs on somebody. I could think of a million situations where it was better for the mother to NOT have a baby. Then, I got pregnant unintentionally- in a bad (very bad) situation. I was going to have an abortion; there was no way I could have that baby. But I couldn’t get past the fact that it was a living human being. Trust me, I *wanted* to be pro-choice at that point, I wanted an abortion. I couldn’t do it. And all of my arguments for abortion fell flat because of the simple fact that there was another living human baby inside me. I ended up not getting an abortion. (as an aside, things worked out just fine with my situation but even if they hadn’t, it still would not have been a good enough reason to take the life of another).

    “You can’t tell somebody what to do with their body”- I can when it involves another human life. There are laws that say you can’t pick up a knife and stab your neighbor too but I don’t see anybody crying out that those laws restrict what you can do with your body. All of the arguments for abortion would be great and valid, if there wasn’t another body involved.

    • Isilzha

      You made a choice. Awesome. Would you now deny that choice to others?

      • Heather

        I did not make that choice because of my situation or because I thought it would be better (at the time) to have the baby instead of an abortion. I made it because it was clear that it was a living human baby and I did not have the right to take another life. So, yes, I do not believe that others can make the “choice” to take a life either. Everybody’s situation is different, but the fact that pregnancy involves a human life does not.

        • Isilzha

          You make it sound as if you wish to force women to have children they don’t want.

          • Julia

            The fact is, the woman already has the child. . We are just telling her she can’t kill her/him.
            Nobody is forcing her to care for the child after she/he is born. Lot’s of couples are waiting to adopt a newborn baby.
            It’s a fairytale that people somehow pop into existence when they pop out the womb, (and it’s definitely not science).

          • dntmkmecomoverther

            @isilzha: the time for the ‘choice’ was before one becomes pregnant. Once you’re pregnant, there are two lives at stake…one has ‘no choice’. Think on that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeanette-Hancock/1451440326 Jeanette Hancock

            You make it sound like some nasty foetus decided to crawl under the door at night and implants itself in some unsuspecting woman’s uterus, some poor hapless woman just trying to mind her business, make cupcakes for orphans and save puppies from a sack of rocks and a river.

            For the majority of pregnancies, no one forced that woman to do anything. Getting pregnant while engaging in the act that’s sole purpose is to get pregnant? Fancy that.

            Don’t want a baby? Don’t want to be pregnant? Don’t have sex. Seesh, it really is just that simple, nothing judgemental or prudish about it.

          • Steve Farrell

            “Don’t want a baby? Don’t want to be pregnant? Don’t have sex. Seesh, it really is just that simple, nothing judgemental or prudish about it.” Don’t want to make it obvious that you have creepy issues about female sexual autonomy? Don’t make moralistic pronouncements about women who have sex for different reasons than you do.

          • Opinionater

            Right steve?! And how about the women who didn’t choose to have sex in the first place? When do they get their choice? Or the women who took precautions with birth control and condoms and still got pregnant? They made a choice to prevent and still were not prevented. Also… Why does everyone talk about abortion like it has to be 4 months into the pregnancy when the fetus is fully formed? Don’t you guys realize that most abortions are done within the first month-2months when there is no scraping of legs and arms etc? The oral pill simply induces a miscarriage of a small embryo. Isn’t this more humane than raising a child in a family of 8 on a social security check? Or raising a child you never wanted and screwing him emotionally by not loving him or by despising him every day? And lastly…. Not everyone who has had an abortion regrets it. I know this for sure.

          • Julia

            “Why does everyone talk about abortion like it has to be 4 months into the pregnancy when the fetus is fully formed? Don’t you guys realize that most abortions are done within the first month-2months when there is no scraping of legs and arms etc?”
            Why does everyone talk about abortion being of formless blobs of tissue? Arms and legs are there by 6wks (gestational) or 4 wks from conception. You obviously don’t know much about fetal development and just repeating something you heard as good talking point.

            Nobody is forcing the parents to raise the child. They can put it up for adoption. Lots of couples are waiting to adopt a newborn baby.

            “The oral pill simply induces a miscarriage of a small embryo.”
            I guess you could say that poisoning a baby is just causing the mis-raising of a small infant, instead of killing her/him.

          • Joe Wetterling

            By definition, abortion (even ‘simple’ chemical abortions in the first weeks) are inhumane. To be “humane” is to be characterized by consideration for humans. The embryo, like the mother, is a unique human with distinct human DNA.

            One person forced his choice on a helpless, innocent human being, so let’s solve the problem by… forcing our choice on a helpless, innocent human being.

          • Beth

            “Why does everyone talk about abortion like it has to be 4 months into
            the pregnancy when the fetus is fully formed? Don’t you guys realize
            that most abortions are done within the first month-2months when there
            is no scraping of legs and arms etc?”

            Is it then better to kill younger children? Does this principal apply universally? If not, why not? Because by that logic, I suppose it’s better to kill a 5 year-old than an 18 year-old.

            Growth and development is a continual process; by definition humans are not “fully formed” until we are adults. We call this process growing up, and I for one got the strange impression that somehow those who are younger (and thus more vulnerable and dependent) aught to be protected more. Not less.

          • Vertebrae8

            I love when abortionists transmogrify from compassionate providers and nurturing people into Ayn Randian cut-throat libertarians in saying things like “oh, we’ll save so much public money on social programs if we kill children before they’re born.”

          • Brady

            So death is better than actually allowing people to live on earth? Who is to determine what kind of “good” life one will have? When someone raises a child we bring lots of emotional baggage to the table, it doesn’t mean that we should determine if a person will be too “emotional” to have a good life. Also,what does it mean to have a “good” life? Either way the question really comes down too, when does life begin and when do we protect people’s lives?

          • RWN&B

            Yes, that’s much easier on the conscience, when your baby doesn’t really look like a baby yet.

          • Emily Jane

            uhm.. sex is for procreation, reguardless of what you think its about. When a man ejaculates, his body is trying to get a women pregnant, whether the brain attatched to the penis wants to or not. Sex is for making babies. The other stuff is frosting.

          • Jamie

            It has not been for procreation in 25 years of my marriage. The other stuff is commonly known as bonding. Children aren’t necessary for that, obviously.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeanette-Hancock/1451440326 Jeanette Hancock

        Everything is a choice. Some choices are good, some are morally neutral, and some are evil.

        Abortion is a choice where one person, or a group of people, deny another human being their life. A possible 80 years down the toilet in a blaze of bloody and emotional trauma.

        Rape, murder, robbery, drunk driving, these are choices. Going to McD’s, wearing pants, wiping back to front, all these are choices. ITs assainine to harp on about “denying others choices” when you’re talking about murder.

    • Steve Farrell

      For the record, I’m glad you made a choice that you’re still glad you made. Every woman should be able to make that choice for herself.

      • Mark

        No, they shouldn’t. No one person should ever have the inherent right to destroy another person solely because they are inconvenienced by the life of the other. I’m sorry, but the rights of those with power MUST end where they infringe on the rights of those with no power. Otherwise our culture, our very humanity, is in contention.

        • Steve Farrell

          Mark, I was being honest in congratulating Heather for making a choice she doesn’t regret. Both times my wife was pregnant, we made the same choice. But I don’t feel justified in making that choice for others.
          Preventing someone from being born is not the same as “destroying another person.” But I’m pretty sure that forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will is oppressing the powerless.

          • Vertebrae8

            I feel totally comfortable making that choice for women. That is called “civilization.” That is called “justice.” That is my duty as a man- to provide justice and continue civilization- where the nice men with guns come along and take you away when you disobey another human’s rights. I was comfortable with that in the military, and would be comfortable with it as a cop, legislator, judge, etc.
            Don’t like it? Find another “civilization” that tolerates butchering the unborn. Bye.

          • Steve Farrell

            You’ve certainly got that “oppressor” thing down cold.

          • Vertebrae8

            Your PC terminology has no currency with me. I am going to legally take away the woman’s choice to kill her baby, and am comfortable with that. Rephrasing what i said was not substantive.

          • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

            Actually you arent going to do anything except continue to lose elections and watch the pro-life movement become more and more marginal.

          • RWN&B

            Cool, Doey. You won! You got your REVENGE. Now that you’ve aborted the conservatives, who paid for everything, who’s going to be next to pay?

          • Jamie

            And then what behaviors will you go after when abortion is illegal? There are probably many things you would like to prevent people from doing. I’m genuinely curious to know what would other choices you would like to make for everyone.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Gee, I wonder what would make someone think abortion is a choice people shouldn’t be able to make? That’s a real stumper……….

          • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

            You’re outnumbered and the numbers you do have now are dwindling. We won the culture war and you lost. Dont like It? LEAVE! I hear Ireland is a great place to live if you like seeing women die from complicated deliveries instead of the child mercifully being aborted.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ChristopherNewgent Christopher Lee Newgent

      “You can’t tell ME what to do with MY body!!!”

      Oh yeah, try and get a drink bigger than 16oz in New York. Then come back and we’ll talk about how far your right to ‘choose’ goes.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    You’ve been pretty explicit about your Leftist activities, and the associations that underpinned it, so I find it hard to believe that you’d dismiss your past as just the product of a “lack of information”. Here, let me cut n’ paste from one of your blogs:

    http://evesransom.blogspot.com/
    —————————————————————————
    “I used to be a liberal. And I don’t mean a mild, gentle, lukewarm liberal, like John McCain. I mean a rabid, screeching liberal. I made Keith Olbermann look like Charles Krauthammer. I was a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and MoveOn.org. I got Ralph Nader to come speak at my college during his 2004 campaign. I owned Fahrenheit 9/11on DVD. I edited a student magazine with an anti-war theme so extreme a concerned father called the school and threatened to remove his son from the journalism department. I believed in freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal, the immediate closure of Guantanamo, and that Bush, Cheney, and Rove were the real “Axis of Evil.” I believed our government was complicit in 9/11 and would not rule out the idea that Dubya and his cohorts orchestrated the entire thing as an excuse to go to war “for oil.” I even went out in the middle of the night with stickers reading “FORTIFIED WITH 100% PURE IRAQI BLOOD” and stuck them on gas pumps around the city.

    I was barely to the right of those people in black bandannas in Seattle who hurled Molotov cocktails at World Bank officials… and honestly if Icould have afforded the plane ticket I probably would have been there and done that.

    I owned several books by the organization CrimeThinc., which encouraged armed resistance against our corporatist, fascistic, totalitarian police state, as well as dumpster diving, shoplifting, and forming anarchosyndicalist squat communities in abandoned buildings. I also evangelized, passing these books and ones containing similarly crazy ideas, such as Kalle Lasn’s Culture Jam, on to my younger brothers. (God forgive me.)

    The anti-war magazine I edited featured a giant full-color comic as the center spread, which I commissioned from a very talented artist on the newspaper staff. It was a parody of The Wizard of Oz called “The Wizard of Oil.”

    I argued about the war with everybody who would sit still long enough. Iknew all the talking points, and I threw in lots of colorful little tidbits. “Halliburton got an illegal no-bid contract! Condi Rice had intel from the CIA in August showing a Bin Laden attack was imminent! Dubya’s National Guard papers were doctored! The towers collapsed into their own footprints! Into their own footprints!” Etcetera.

    Every year on 9/11′s anniversary, my friends and I would have 9/11 parties. We would watch conspiracy theory videos and “jokingly” toast to jihad.”
    —————————————————————————
    Now, while I think it’s hard to argue that any of that activity is driven by a “lack of information”, it’s also kind of cartoonish, so I don’t blame you for growing out of it. But it’s not really indicative of mainstream liberalism. And neither is the cartoon of a liberal you hold dear now: the San Franciscan latte-sipping Buddhist who insists on “niceness” and although s/he can afford Volvos, hipster clothes, and import beers, somehow still requires “free stuff”.

    So, the clinging you’d do to these cartoons makes me wonder if you’ve got anything but stereotypes to inform your politics and, frankly, your writing.

    • Lyme Gal

      Do tell, what does a mainstream liberal look like and believe in?

    • Arielle

      funny, what I got from your post is that she was always an extremist, always emotion driven rather than logic driven. the only thing that has changed about her is that she went from one extreme to another.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Nail, meet hammer.

    • BuzEaston

      While the image seems cartoonish, it is no less accurate. I live in the Bay Area. I assure you that these cartoonish people are everywhere. As laughable as it sounds, they are real. They are walking, talking caricatures of themselves.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        I know plenty of Bay Area liberals. Not one of them would hold “jihad” parties, contemplate attending WTO protests, deface private property with political agitprop, consider our own government an “Axis of Evil”, or obsess over celebrity death-row causes. Those are “cartoons”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/thesjg Samuel J. Greear

    EXCUSE ME, pro- “choice” is absolutely NOT pro-abortion. Stop pretending that it is. Pro-choice is a nice way of saying that no matter what your beliefs are, you respect the ability of others to make their own choices. Lots of people are pro-life when it comes to their individual decision but outwardly pro-choice, because they are mature enough to know that everyone has their own point of view. The pro-choicer’s of the world think it is great that you have developed an informed pro-life opinion, but do not feel that gives you or anyone else the right to lobby or legislate to restrict the ability of others to make their own choices.

    • Julia

      “The pro-choicer’s of the world think it is great that you have developed an informed pro-life opinion, but do not feel that gives you or anyone else the right to lobby or legislate to restrict the ability of others to make their own choices.”

      IF you truly believe that and act on that belief, you can’t tell anyone ANY choice they make is wrong. That means that :
      - You can’t tell an employer that their choice to not provide contraception & abortion to their employees is bad
      -You can’t tell a robber that their choice to steal you car is bad
      -You can’t tell a murder or a rapist there choice to murder or rape is bad
      -You can’t tell Kristen that her choice to lobby or legislate for unborn rights is bad!!!! (or even as you put “to restrict the ability of others to make their own choices”)

      Basically, you end up living in anarchy.

      • Arielle

        there are laws that protects the society regarding the situations you made above. but guess what! the difference between all of them and abortion is that those that you mentioned hurt “born” people who are already part of the society. the abortion however, does not hurt the mother and only results in elimination of a potential member of the society. no harm done. please at least try to “sound” logical when you wanna argue.

        • Sarah

          If you believe that unborn children are only potential people and do not deserve protection from people who want to kill them , that doesn’t mean you get to force you belief on them!

          • LauraW.

            Yep. And nobody does. Again, this tired but oh so true trope: don’t want an abortion? Don’t get one!!

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          So it’s apparently membership in society that gives people rights. Thanks for that terrifying new rule.

          • Arielle

            um duh?! you honestly dont believe that?! then tell me why as a nation we have borders and require other “human beings” from foreign countries to obtain visas before entering our country. these borders are being guarded by armed men who are free to shot upon illegal entry, mind you!

          • amos d

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
            don’t see anything in there about borders or visa’s.. wonder if you even know what that quote is from

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            With all due respect, the ignorance of this comment is staggering. For one thing, you’re confusing natural rights with legal rights. There are some rights that are mere creations of law, like voting at 18 or rights against self-incrimination, but what we’re talking about — the right to one’s life, liberty, and property — are rights rooted in nature, which ALL people possess simply because they are human beings. So, for instance, an illegal immigrant may not be entitled to enter the US or access all the bells and whistles of our legal system and social services, but that doesn’t mean our government would have the right to kill him or experiment on him or sell him into slavery.

          • amos d

            um.. look up the word unalienable. whenever you get a chance.. maybe then your ignorance wouldn’t be so staggering.. or endowed.. you could look that one up as well

          • Arielle

            what I meant to point out to you was that society has no legal obligations to protect the life of all the fetuses that are in the women’s wombs unless the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term. you can try to argue that it is the moral thing to do( which I believe it is not) please give me a real logical reason why society has to protect the unborn, if they are going to be eliminated they will have no impact on it.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “society has no legal obligations to protect the life of all the fetuses”
            Your view of the relationship between legality and justice seems dangerously backward. You’re basically proposing a tautology – abortion should be legal because it is legal. But the mere descriptive fact about what law currently says has no bearing whatsoever on whether that’s what the law SHOULD say. I mean, good grief, one of the basics of government is that when the law is wrong, it can be changed. We change laws all the time. Tell me, on how many other issues would you say that we shouldn’t change the law just because the law currently says one thing?

            “please give me a real logical reason why society has to protect the unborn”

            Amos and I already did. This is not complicated.

            “if they are going to be eliminated they will have no impact on it.”

            Wow. Do you have any idea how terrifying this statement is, too? We could eliminate lots of people – toddlers, the homeless, the severely ill, slackers – without their loss having an impact on society. That doesn’t mean it should be legal to kill them!

          • Joe Wetterling

            Arielle, I don’t understand how you can say with certainty that a particular unborn child will have no impact on society. Without perfect knowledge of the future, how can we tell who will have what impact? Society needs not just “people” to survive but individual persons – that particular person in that particular womb who is going to invent the next clean fuel or prevent a war or travel to Mars. You may argue that, yes, that particular embryo may grow up to be the next Hitler. Yet it is your way of thinking that limits which embryos will grow – so that perhaps, by luck, only the “bad ones” will come to term. A fully pro-life approach gets all the bad and the good, with faith that society will deal with the bad in time, when need be.

            A second logical reason is the slippery slope of not protecting a class of people because they aren’t impacting society (or are negatively impacting them). No culture has every codified a group as not-human without horrific consequences. Further, if humans can be eliminated because they won’t mipact society, then other groups that “won’t have a negative impact” can be eliminated – such as prisoners, the elderly, and the disabled. Would it really *hurt* society as a whole if we all just killed all the disabled people tomorrow? We’d have a cleaner gene pool. Our insurance premiums would drop without all that permanent medical equipment being paid for. Its a plus for society. So why not?

        • Julia

          It was perfectly logical. Samuel’s said “do not feel that gives you or anyone else the right to lobby or legislate to restrict the ability of others to make their own choices” That is exacly what laws do resict the ability of others to make their own choices about certain things, especially if they harm other people. A new life begins at conception; since humans reproduce humans, it is an unique human life. Abortion kills this person, so it is murder.

          The only things different about an unborn child is its size, level of development, environment, and dependancy.

          -Do you believe it’s OK to kill somone based their size? Shouldn’t people the tiny 2 ft tall Indian lady have as much rights as 7 foot basketball star?
          -Do you believe it’s OK to kill someone based on their level of development? Infants can’t think rationally like adults; children before puberty aren’t fully developed; your brain isnt’ fully developed unitl your about 20; elderly peoples’ bodies are staring to stop gradually; Is it OK to kill any of these people based on their level of development?
          -Do you believe it’s OK to kill someone based on their evironment? Maybe you can kill someone on your own property, but not in public? What about someone under water. A baby in her mother’s arms? Why is the womb the only place where it’s OK to kill someone?
          -Do you believe it’s OK to kill some based on level of dependancy? A newborn baby in an isolated location is totally dependant on her mother; an astronaut in space is totally dependant on others; an severely crippled person can’t do anything for themselves; can you kill these people because of their level of dependancy?

        • http://www.facebook.com/funnygood Matthew Herbert

          Babies in utero aren’t human beings, eh? History has heard that argument before and it never turns out well. Blacks were owned as property for slavery, Jews were inferior and slaughtered by the millions….

          No harm done.

          • Steve Farrell

            It can’t be gainsaid that the form of “human being” represented by a fetus is different than African-Americans or Jews in that a fetus is still inside its mother’s body. If you don’t consider that a relevant distinction, maybe you don’t consider women human beings.

        • materetmagistra

          “…those that you mentioned hurt “born” people who are already part of the society.”
          “….people…”
          You said it yourself. Abortion kills a “people.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.klein.9003888 David Klein

          The abortion doesn’t hurt the mother, you say? Tell that to the family of Tonya Reeves and all the other women who have died trying to get abortions. Your ignorance is downright tragic!

        • Stephen

          since you are clearly so medially knowledgeable and more so than any medical institution in the world today (as non have not definitively made this distinction) please define when a “fetus” becomes a “human”. Is it when their heart begins to beat (because that is in utero) is it when they can begin to make decisions for themselves (in which case we can start killing all the toddlers out there). You are truly the most misinformed and ignorant person if you believe that you can define when a fetus becomes a baby. Before you try to ask someone else to sound logical kindly pull your head out of your a** and go read up on medical classifications.

        • Lauren Brown

          Uh, she is being logical. And it’s illogical to deny that “potential” a chance at life, and would be discriminatory.

      • http://www.facebook.com/angela.buckman.7 Angela Joy

        good point

    • Guest

      I think Julia responded perfectly, but I would add that anyone who is pro-life personally but ‘outwardly’ pro-choice has simply not thought through their position. After all, you must think it’s murder, right? Why else be pro-life? If it’s murder, then should it be allowed for anyone?

    • Rose

      “Lots of people are pro-life when it comes to their individual decision but outwardly pro-choice, because they are mature enough to know that everyone has their own point of view.” It is never mature, in any circumstance, to kill a human being.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeanette-Hancock/1451440326 Jeanette Hancock

      Don’t be naive. The govt. tells you what choices you can or can’t make all the time. When you can smoke, when you can drink, when you can vote, when you can join the army.

      When someone says they are pro-choice, everyone and their dog’s vet knows they mean “I support abortion”, thererfore, its not “pro-choice” its pro-abortion, because really, to say someone’s not pro-choice really is just stupid. Everything is a choice, right or wrong. Some choices have to be banned and criminalised. Abortion is one such choice.

      • Joe Wetterling

        Absolutely Jeanette.

        I’d like to see some consistency from pro-choicers. I’m hearing a few people argue that if birth control failed, the mother shouldn’t be punished. What about the father? Are we all sexist suddenly?

        If birth control fails and the mother “chooses” to keep her child, why should she be able to force her choice on the father? Keep your uterus off his wallet and let him abort his fatherhood and walk away? Or do only women get to make choices? Let’s see some picket lines protesting pregnant women forcing THEIR choice on those men and trying to make them pay child support.

    • materetmagistra

      “…but do not feel that gives you or anyone else the right to lobby or legislate to restrict the ability of others to make their own choices..”
      Really? Should we not restrict murder? Or, do you prefer everyone should make the decision for himself whether he wants to murder or not? What is the purpose of law, anyway?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=585273802 Kelsey Shannon Arnold

      Pro-choice is pro-abortion in the same way that those who support the legality of the death penalty are “pro-death penalty.” It does not imply that they think all criminals should be subject to lethal injection, only that the option should be available. If you think X should be legal, you are pro-X.

  • Cate R.

    I wish someone had been “mean” to me and informed me I’d regret my abortion the rest of my life. I feel like I had a very dirty trick played on me as a dumb 18 year old. I would have listened to someone like you, as I was little punk rocker… not too concerned about what the ladies in floral jumpers were saying. Fight the power, Kristin! You are my new favorite person on the interweb.

    • H

      How could anyone have told you that? You might have ended up as one of the millions of women who don’t regret abortion, or, worse, one of those who regret their children. You made a decision you regret and I’m sorry about that, but not everyone does regret that choice.

      • Vertebrae8

        Oh, you’re so concerned about all these remote potentialities. Look at you go! Usually, abortionists hate potentialities- namely the one that abortion potentially destroys a human life. That is one potential that is not to be discussed among abortionists. Or that a woman might grow to love her babies. Or that a baby might live a hellish childhood but grow to become a proud adult. Or that abortion is a great option. How’s them potentialities for ya, H?

      • cass

        H, why do you assume that a woman only has two choices-to murder the unborn life growing inside of her or to raise the baby? There is the choice of adoption-a choice that the pro-abortion side seems to never consider.

        • H

          Adoption is an alternative to parenting; it’s not an alternative to pregnancy or the long-term health issues that can result from carrying and birthing a child. I assume that Cate R was aware that adoption exists as an option when she made her decision.

          • Jenna

            See, that’s the problem with that manor of thinking. People who think the way you do act as if pregnancy is some sort of horrible traumatic disease that effects you for the rest of your life. It isn’t. And may I say, there are plenty of long-term health and fertility issues that can result from an abortion.

            Pregnancy is temporary, abortion is forever. It’s just like what people say about suicide: it’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

            So why is it that women have to believe that they just can’t be pregnant for the following nine months of their life when the only other alternative is to put an end to the following 90 years of their child’s life?

      • Jenna

        I find it very sad when people will feverishly defend their views with the fact that some women don’t regret their abortions (and you will not find any women who regrets their children–the only women like that whom I have ever come across were women who showed overwhelming signs of psychological problems), but then when a woman comes along who regrets her abortion you just dismiss them and show no sympathy.

    • Brady

      Cate…in Christ you are forgiven. God bless everyone with this powerful article.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kathleenhiler Kathleen Hiler

      Dear sweet Cate..my heart goes out to you.Please look for and find solace and joy again in the arms of Jesus. Use what you have been through for the good of others.

  • k2

    Thank you so much for this fabulous article! I feel like it sums up my experience so well and gives a great explanation as to why I am pro-life now. I love this line especially: “I am pro-life because of information. I was pro-choice because of lack of information.” ps: My name is Kristin also :) pps: I had a first trimester ultrasound this year and I was amazed that my son was already formed – heartbeat, arms, legs and all!

  • Leah

    best article I’ve read in a long while. wow. wow.

  • Goblin

    This should be a skittles commercial: What a contradiction!

    • mb

      starburst, dear. starburst.

  • pjdr

    THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS!

  • sarahbraaksma

    what a fantastic article~ every single word of it!!

  • JD

    No, the Republicans are not “mean”; they are a corporate-owed, violent, misogynistic,homophobic, apocalyptic death cult.

    • Shannon

      Clarify violent…

      • Nix

        Republicans love violence and bloodshed. They hunt, they love guns, they start unnecessary wars for money. The problem with American politics is that you people look at it like there are 2 teams, one are the good guys are one are the bad guys. It’s utter bullshit and the rest of the world doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at your stupidity.

        • Shannon

          Please remember that W. Wilson entered the US in WWI while FDR entered WWII…both were democrats. Also, the use of “you people” leads me to believe hat you are not American, so please ensure your education on topics is sufficient so as to make blanketed judgements, otherwise you simply come off as ignorant.

          • Timmehh

            I think most people can agree that helping the rest of the world out in both the world wars was not a bad idea. However, many people are conflicted when it comes to the wars we entered under Bush.

        • Lauren Brown

          And what gives you the reason to diss Americans? We’re not the only imperfect people out there. It doesn’t sound like you have gotten to know anyone from the U.S. really well.

  • Adam

    Thank you for writing this. It’s very interesting to me as someone who is very blessed to have never believed the lie about abortion. As a young teen, I was told what abortion is and I inherently knew it was wrong. But I think stories like yours are incredibly insightful and impacting on people who are still blinded. I’m glad there are people who were on the other side and have come to know the truth, so we can have stories like this.

    • Vertebrae8

      Even when I was a pro-abortion nihilist atheist, I knew and freely admitted abortion was murder.

  • ky

    Do us all a favor: go read up on who Gisella Perl was and what she did for pregnant women in Auschwitz. And then, don’t ever compare abortion to the Holocaust again.

    • velarieth

      Why you are wrong in just a few easy steps!

      1: Gisella Perl performed abortions on women in Auschwitz to ‘save those women’s lives’
      2: Women today get abortions
      3: Therefore abortions save lives

      This is a logical fallacy known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This Therefore Because Of This). It is an invalid way of arguing and an easily deconstructed argument that is so simple to destroy it makes one wonder if the author is has intelligent thoughts (sorry that was mean).

      Deconstruction:
      The author implies that abortions are okay because they save women’s lives, and the reference for this is a woman who aborted babies during the Holocaust to save them from deadly beatings or vivisection. The fallacy is abundantly clear when it is expressed WHY these women received abortions, they were in physical danger of beatings. The moral ethics aside (for a moment), this argument falls apart because women in Western Civilization do not receive beatings or vivisection as a result of pregnancy! Congratulations you have successfully learned a little bit more about logic!

      Side Notes:

      The moral ethics of whether or not it is okay to abort a baby in the cases surrounding Gisella Perl’s efforts are akin to many moral conundrums. One of the most relevant being the old question outlined as follows: “If you were hiding Jews in your house in Berlin during the second world war and a member of the Secret Police or Gestapo knocked on your door and asked you ‘Are you hiding Jews here?’ Would it be moral to lie?” The question is inquiring about the several things, but primarily if there is a hierarchy of morality. However, the author of this statement above misuses the actions of Gisella Perl in a way akin to saying “Well, since it would be morally justifiable to lie to the Gestapo, then it is okay to lie to everyone for any reason.” The absurdity of that statement is self evident (I hope at least…).

      Another note would be whether or not the morality of an action is super-ceded by the presence of a greater moral evil being committed. This would speak more as to whether or not Gisella Perl’s actions were morally justifiable in light of the moral situation she found herself in. That debate seems like a rather lengthy one I would not be prepared to discuss at the moment, but never the less, the logical fallacies expressed by the author above are still clear.

      Finally, the correlations between the Holocaust and the current modern day pro-choice/pro-abortion movement are actually quite clear. For example, there is a great propensity to select to end the life of a baby should they be in need of special medical care and/or are likely to be special needs all their life. In much the same way, the Germans exterminated people who were infirm, mentally handicapped or ill, and etc. So again, the correlations are valid (in spite of Godwin’s Law which is also typically used to dismiss correlations between something in the modern day, versus the actions of the Third Reich). All this to say, the author (ky) is completely and totally wrong.

      Nice try though!

      • ky

        Why you’re wrong in 1 easy step:

        1. Your entire argument is a straw man.

        I won’t bother defining it, as anyone unfamiliar with the term can look it up on their own. But yes, i too am familiar with logical fallacies.

        I never implied that abortions are ok because they save women’s lives. I never even implied they were ok for any reason. My point was simply that the horror of the Nazi death camps was so profound that Gisella Perl considered abortion a mercy, compared to the horrors that awaited pregnant women and their children otherwise. I simply find it offensive to compare the two, as I would with any attempt to equate an act of murder with The Holocaust.

      • H

        You do realize that just last week a woman died because of Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws? In any civilized country, she would have been given the abortion and would have survived. What you’re campaigning for is for more women to die in similar circumstances. You will kill people’s wives, sisters, mothers. Does that not bother you?

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      You’re right about one thing: abortion isn’t exactly comparable to the Holocaust; given the US numbers, it’s more like eight Holocausts.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

        AMEN!

      • Timmehh

        Just because abortion has taken more lives than the Holocaust, doesn’t make it any worse than what happened during the Holocaust.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Doesn’t make it *any* worse? Really? Yes, there were other horrors involved in the Holocaust (fear, torture, displacement, families separated, etc.), but the core yardstick that atrocities are generally measured by is still death toll. Besides, the important point is that comparisons between the two are fundamentally sound.

  • Hilary

    Great article. I just have a couple of questions so I can understand your viewpoint a little more. I am pro-life, however I do not think that banning abortion will really solve any problems. Realistically, what do you think is the best way forward for a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want the child? Perhaps she may be a drug/alcohol user and will live a lifestyle not conducive for a healthy pregnancy? What if the child is conceived through rape? In an ideal world the woman will change and become healthy and love and protect her child, but that isn’t realistic. I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10016948 Shannon Nicole Stewart

      my daughter was conceived thru rape. i had her. she is still my child. the father is not involved at all. and i dont even remember what he looked like. so it is not traumatic for me to see her face every day. she is mine. ALL mine. :) and i’ve seen drug/alcohol babies be adopted and live normal or at least as close to normal as you can get, lives. true, they might suffer some physical effects from their mother’s poor choices. but killing them in the womb would be wrong. giving a human being life is never wrong. justify it any way you like, but abortion will always be wrong.

      • FreedomForAll

        Do you not think that the choice you made, to keep your child conceived through rape, would have been a lot less empowering if it was not a choice, but rather had been forced upon you? I’m genuinely curious about your answer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/funnygood Matthew Herbert

    Awesome column Kristen! You are wise beyond your age (for a lowly insignificant housewife that is). Keep up the good work.

  • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

    As someone who has faced the same reactions when I tell people I was once both pro-choice and an atheist (both because of ignorance), I completely understand. Believe me, you’ll continue to receive such comments and have to constantly address them whenever you tell people about your past. It’s very strange — the people who question us never question others who say they were once pro-life. I guess they have a hard time believing that the pro-life position can be based on being informed and the pro-choice position can be based on ignorance.

  • asdf

    >think you’re informed
    >believe in demons

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      >think you’re informed
      >don’t believe in God

      Or better yet:

      >think you’re informed
      >be a troll

  • Beck

    Thank you for this. Thank you so much. I’m praying YOUR message is the one to get through all the mainstream noise. I was there, too, not so very long ago.

  • http://www.facebook.com/liz.adolf Liz Adolf

    Kristen this was beautiful and well put!

    God bless!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1375895636 Miriam Conners

    Marriage defined as the union between one man and one woman and no sex out side of marriage. The net beneficial outcome over two generations? Few to no unwanted children. Children raised by their very own mother and father. Far fewer single parents. AIDS drops out of sight. Educational outcomes skyrocket. Economy improves. Poverty dramatically declines. A lofty ideal that would solve a whole slew of societal pathologies. Save your keystrokes… I know I’m a dreamer. (and you know I’m right)

    • Mickey

      You mean like the two abortions Scott Desjarlais and his wife had?

    • Kay

      I’m married. I would still abort any child that invaded my body.

      As for no sex outside of marriage – how do you plan to enforce that?

  • Micah

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

    I think you should read this whole article. It clarified a lot of my misconceptions about the issue and it presents solid statistical information. I wish you all the best.

    • velarieth

      Actually, the author of that article does a horrible job because she gives no logically consistent foundation to justify abortion.

      I will just focus on one point here, because I do not have a lot of time, but as an aside, right off the bat, she starts out on the wrong foot. She says that banning abortion will not reduce abortion rates. That is a poor reason to not outlaw an immoral action. If it could be proven that legalizing murder by requiring people to apply for them, would reduce the murder rates, would that be a reason to legalize murder? No! Of course not! Murder is wrong. This example can be used with pretty much every outlawed action. In any case there is a conceivable law which could ‘reduce the rate’ of the action even though that action is fundamentally immoral.

      The real tragedy of this article, though, is that the presupposition she now holds is that a “Zygote is not a person”. The comments she makes to support this claim include “I don’t believe a Zygote is a person”, “Zygote’s die naturally all the time”, “Zygotes are growing inside another person”, and my favourite “No one runs 5k’s for Zygotes (seriously?!)”.

      I would like to point out that absolutely NONE of these claims actually speak to whether or not a Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus is a person! The closest she seems to come to actually supporting her assertion is in saying that Zygotes die naturally all the time. This argument, however, is easily defeated by begging the question of “does that then mean we can murder old people because, they too, die naturally all the time?”

      There may be more assertions she makes as to whether or not the unborn is indeed a person. However, I have not seen a logically consistent argument for the non-personhood of the unborn at a particular level of development.

      The typical examples:

      1) The unborn depends on the life of the mother and cannot survive outside the womb.

      2) The unborn has no brain (up to a point).

      3) The unborn cannot feel any pain (up to a point).

      These would be the primary three arguments for the non-personhood of the unborn that I currently see in some form or another. They all center around the question of level of development.

      Pro-choice advocates assert (without evidence, logic, or rationality) that at some point a fetus becomes a person and has reached a developmental milestone to be granted basic human rights. This also begs a big question regarding the evidence and logic of their assertion. That is, “why is it okay to end the life of a human at one point based entirely on their level of development, and can this be applied to other people in similar situations?”

      To break down these arguments one at a time:

      1) Then is it okay to kill people who require the support of others in any form (ventilators, requiring their parents to feed and care for them, pacemakers, IV’s, surgery, etc)?

      2) Is personhood revoked when brain activity is reduced? Does this mean people in coma’s should be killed because they are both requiring support for life from others and have little to no brain function?

      3) Does this mean that in order to kill a person, all one has to do is relieve them of pain before ending their life?

      A few more comments on the first point. There are ethicists and philosophers out there who would actually argue that people requiring aid from others and no longer contributing to society are on the same moral level as an embryo conceived 1 second ago. Peter Singer has (in)famously argued that he believes, until a human gains a specific level of self awareness, they do not hold personhood and can therefore be killed if desired. He has argued for infanticide up to two years after the child is born, in keeping with his ideas of this. In the same way, he would also argue that people at the end of their life can loose their personhood and should also be killed to allow for a better thriving population who would not have to support the elderly.

      In conclusions, there are basically three popular arguments for outlining the lack of personhood for the unborn that do not logically hold up when just held under even a little light (and trust me, there are far more devastating arguments out there that show just how bad pro-choice arguments are; they take longer to outline though). There are various variations in these arguments either appealing to emotion of the listener or attempting to cause a level of fear in those who would worry about loosing their rights or their lives. But the reality is that is those of us are for the unborn, really seek greater understanding and information on the injustice being perpetuated throughout the world today to the persons living in what should be the safest place in the world, the mother’s womb.

      So I would implore you, use your mind, think critically of the arguments you see on the side of those arguing for the murder of the unborn. If you do, if you expand out and see the arguments, the good, sound, logical, rational arguments by those of us for the lives of babies; Then you will also see just how silly, unsound, illogical and irrational, the arguments of those who decry choice really are.

      • Steve Farrell

        “I have not seen a logically consistent argument for the non-personhood of the unborn at a particular level of development.”
        How about that the person hasn’t been born yet? Doesn’t the fact that this person is in a developmental state inside another person effectively make the matter different than a live human being who’s disabled or dependent? The most accurate analogy I can think of for the circumstance is a parasite. However, I don’t think we should force people to carry tapeworms and liver flukes in their bodies just because they have distinct DNA from that of their hosts.

        And pregnancy and childbirth are no walk in the park. Pregnant women routinely develop health issues such as anemia, diabetes, or thyroid disorders. Natural births can cause pelvic floor dysfunction or urinary incontinence. My wife had to undergo back surgery after my son was born. If a woman wants to take the risks, good for her. But there’s no reason she should be forced to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

        • Julia

          What about being born makes you a person? Location doesn’t makes someone not a person. “developmental state” people are in a developmental state long after they leave the womb.

          If you can call your child a parasite when they are in the womb, they are just as much of a parasite after they are born. The parents still must clothe them, feed them, provide them shelter, etc. Is it OK for a mother with a child who cannot eat solid food yet, to refuse to nurse the child because it’s inconvenient if there is no other food the child can eat, untill the child starves? however, it’s illegal to kick your young child out of your home, or not give them food to eat. “forced parenting!!!!!!”

          Anyway, at least we can agree that late-term abortions aren’t OK(after 21 wks), we can just remove the child then when it is viable instead of killing it.

          “But there’s no reason she should be forced to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will.” In 99% of cases the woman does agree to the pregnancy by having sex, which often resuts in your child being created inside of you, pregnancy. (and let’s focus on the rule not the exception)

          Hey, a guy having sex is faced with the fact that if the a child is created by it and the woman decides not have it killed, he is going to have to pay child support, etc. And rightly so; it his child ! Similarily, a woman should go into sex knowing that a child can be created by it, and she is also going to have to care for it.and rightly so, it’s her child! ( granted, the woman’s job is more difficult, by that doesn’t change the parallel)
          Since the Dad is held responsible for the child he helped to create, why shouldn’t the woman be held responsible the child she helped to create?

          • Steve Farrell

            “What about being born makes you a person?”

            Um, that IS what makes you a person. Can we be serious here?

            “If you can call your child a parasite when they are in the womb, they are just as much of a parasite after they are born”

            Except they’re not, because they’re not still *in the womb*. If a potential child is *inside its mother*, I don’t see why it’s so strange to imagine that the mother should have some say in the matter of whether it gets born or not.

            ” the woman does agree to the pregnancy by having sex”
            No, she agrees to have sex. If she gets pregnant and wants to have the baby, that’s great. If she chooses not to have the baby, that should be her choice.

          • Julia

            “”What about being born makes you a person?”
            Um, that IS what makes you a person.”
            Well, that’s just you’re opinion, so you can’t force you beliefs on the pre-born children.
            Like I said, magic birth canal – Before you go down it, you are not a person; after you get to the bottom you are.

          • Steve Farrell

            “Well, that’s just you’re opinion, so you can’t force you beliefs on the pre-born children. ”

            And what gives you the right to force your beliefs on the mothers of these unborn children? Do women disappear from the context at the moment of conception?

          • Lauren Brown

            Because they are human beings. And the second half of the comment is silly. Of course Moms are part of the context. You’re not willing to address the situation of a baby’s humanity, and so you attack Julia for supposedly not caring about the woman.

            Here’s something else: the world does not around a respective human being. Your needs don’t go above others’ lives just because it’s inconvenient.

            So far, I have seen constant repetition in your arguments, insulting and accusing women of not caring about other women, and not really bothering to take a look at the other side’s point of view.

            So, your arguing has a lot of holes in it. From what I’ve seen, you like to lurk on this website and do what I’ve mentioned above. That floats dangerously near troll territory. I suggest you take a break from this blog.

        • velarieth

          Hi Steve!

          Thanks for your response! Allow me to destroy it for you and expose your horrible logic! :)

          This won’t take to long, don’t worry.

          You are using a fallacy known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter (After This Therefore Because Of This). You are asserting that because we do not seek to save parasites we do not need to save unborn human babies. This is an absolutely absurd comparison! Let me explain why. Human babies will always, under natural circumstances become adult humans. Tapeworms and other non-human parasites will never become adult persons.

          People are granted ‘inalienable rights’ which include ‘life’ that are imbued to them upon their creation. Disconnecting personhood from humanity is not a leap you want to make. Please read my comments on Peter Singer and look him up. He is taking your arguments to their logical conclusion and those arguments go even further than him!

          Second, your argument that because childbirth can create burden on the part of the mother is equally ridiculous! If it was the case, that no one should be forced to bare the burdens of anyone else who would impose their requirements for life on society. Then I should not be required to pay any taxes that do not directly benefit me right now! In fact, any person should be able to kill their own children simply for the reason they are causing burden. Do you see how silly your assertions are?

          All this is in light of the fact that I actually answered both of your comments already, which makes me question your ability to read. Please re-read my comments and actually respond to them in a substantive way. Have a fantastic day!

          • Steve Farrell

            Thank you for your courteous message. I think you’re getting your logical fallacies mixed up. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is when we mistake something that merely precedes an event with the cause of that event. That fallacy isn’t relevant to this discussion.

            More to the point is your Begging the Question, i.e. asserting constantly that fetuses are fully human without taking on the burden of demonstrating that, and ignoring all assertions to the contrary. You merely complain about pro-choice arguments against the personhood of fetuses, instead of presenting evidence to support your contention that they are humans. I pointed out that fetuses and blastocysts are fundamentally different forms of life from toddlers, Jews, and African-Americans, because they are physically inside the body of another human being. The only form of life they realistically resemble is that of parasites. Your only response to this was that fetuses are unlike parasites because they are human, which (once again) is assuming what you’re supposed to be proving. Add in the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (your assertion that since fetuses will become human —or have traits in common with real human beings— that they are therefore human), and you’re getting further away from valid reasoning with every statement you make.

            So the only thing you’ve demolished here is any expectation I had that pro-choicers are considered worthy of civil dialogue. You have a fantastic day, too!

          • velarieth

            Thank’s again for the reply Steve!

            My apologies on the poor example of the Post Hoc fallacy (I was very tired when I wrote that reply last night, which is no excuse, but it is the cause for any poor reasoning). Your example, however, still technically falls under that fallacy, which I will show, but in reality is closer to the Sweeping Generalization fallacy.

            Why your argument is a Post Hoc fallacy:

            1) Babies are not persons because they live inside the mother.

            2) Parasites live in a host body.

            3) Therefore we can kill babies.

            I realize you would agree with this outline, but it is actually Post Hoc AND a Sweeping Generalization. You would say that this is a correct assertion and that the fallacies you are promoting do not apply because fetus’ are like parasites. My point was not to offer a counter argument, just a destruction to your argument

            The reason your argument does fall under Post Hoc is because you are concluding that a human fetus cannot be a person because they rely on they mother to survive. The justification for this conclusion is that parasites also rely on a host to survive. That is not an argument for or against personhood and falls under Post Hoc.

            Another reason your argument completely fails is because parasites and fetus’ are fundamentally different, which is what I was attempting to point out in my previous response. I will give you one striking example of this. Fetus’ are born and go on to aid and bring joy to their parents as children and later adults. Parasites spend the entirety of their lives living in the host and generally causing harm to the host via direct contact to the host’s flesh. Babies in the womb do not come into contact with the mother and, given proper care and nutrition, do not cause harm to her. A striking bonus example would be that, fetus’ also lead to the propagation of the species and are necessary for reproduction, parasites never benefit a species in that same way.

            So while I do bare some burden of proof to show that the unborn are persons, the default and majority demand for proof lies with you to prove that it is okay to kill babies in the womb.

            This can be easily demonstrated using the following example:

            Say you had a child come up to you with their hands cupped together and then ask you the question: “Can I kill this?” Your first response would be: “What is ‘it’?”

            The purpose of that example is to show that in order to kill something you must show that it is morally acceptable to kill that ‘thing’. If it is an ant, then you would have no problem with it. If it was a puppy, you would likely have a problem with it. And if it was a toddler you would likely recognize that killing it would be murder and morally abhorrent.

            Since I did not originally give you proof that a fetus is in fact a human and person from creation, allow me to do that now.

            This is called Leibniz’s Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles. It states, simply, that you cannot separate objects or entities that have all of their properties in common.

            Since I have already shown that being metabolically relent on the mother for a time does not make one non-identical to one at a later stage in life, it is irrelevant to this example (just to be clear).

            Outline:

            Say you have a person who is 20 years old, named Mike. Mike has some extremely unique characteristics that are only unique to him. To start he has two parents who created him, but he could have siblings with the same parents. There is one more thing though, Mike also has unique DNA that is unique only to him but also points back to his parents who created him.

            Now suppose we rewind time 20 years and here we see Mike in the womb of his mother. Does Mike still have those same parents who created him? Yes, they each contributed the necessary building blocks for his life to exist. Does Mike also still possess that DNA that makes him a unique person? Yes, from the moment he was conceived that DNA has been there uniquely assigned to him. Since my criteria for Mike to be a person require him to be a unique person with unique DNA that defines only him as both a human and an individual in the species, then Mike is still Mike both at the moment he is conceived and 20 years later.

            Ah, but you would say, Mike does not fulfil the criteria of ‘person’ in the womb because, while he did have unique DNA he did not have property ‘X’ in the womb.

            This is where the debate lies. You would say, apparently, that that criteria is the mere fact that he is in the womb. But as has been pointed out numerous times, your examples fail and fall into logical fallacy territory on multiple fronts (and I am sure even more, had I the time to look into them). There is also the fact that the location, reliance on others, and the level of development of a person never defines whether or not they are a person. You are free to disagree with me on that, but now the burden of proof is completely on your shoulders I have outlined my position, you must now explain why extra criteria must be taken into account to determine personhood (and keep in mind, the arguments that destroy anything that exempts people from personhood under the criteria of level of dependence, level of development, and location have been so completely destroyed you probably should not bother referencing them).

            Finally, was that a typo in your last sentence? I am pro-life, not pro-choice… Also, if you are so blind that you cannot see you should discuss this with me, so that in the case I am wrong, I might discover something true, then I feel sorry for you. You should never seek to cut off conversation with someone because they disagree with you, heck maybe I do have horrible argumentation as well. You should be positive and try to promote your thoughts so that both of us might end our disagreement and come to a true understanding on a topic. I was not being snide, or snarky, I was being punchy and trying to express a positive tone while being excessively critical (because, you know, you are wrong). Anyway, hopefully you see that your arguments are invalid and will change your mind to a true understanding on this topic (even though I have not been even close to exhaustive)! Have a fantastic day!

          • Steve Farrell

            Thanks for the response. Incidentally, I did mean “pro-choicers” in my last message. Your tone was so patronizing that I assume you don’t consider us worthy of civil dialogue. It remains to be seen whether my assumption is unwarranted.

            First off, you should step away from the Post Hoc. So far (in replies to me and to others), you have never, not once, described the fallacy in the way it’s technically understood by logicians. I explained the fallacy once, to no avail. I won’t waste time doing so again.

            In your long response, you never dealt with the point I made about the woman’s body. The dehumanization and erasure of the mother is the most troubling thing, by far, about discussing the matter with pro-lifers. If a life form is inside a woman’s body, how can you see fit to compare it to a 20-year-old? Mike isn’t the same person he was at conception, because at conception, he was a fertilized egg inside his mother’s body. Could you please present one instance where an adult human is legally prohibited from removing cells or organisms from his or her body for medical reasons? If she has cancerous tissue developing inside her, a woman is justified in having those cells removed. If she has a tapeworm or liver fluke in her digestive tract, she’s allowed to undergo surgery to have it removed. Having a first-trimester fetus removed is much more like either of these procedures than killing a toddler, except in the overheated rhetoric of a pro-lifer. Like it or not, the woman deserves to have control over her body and have a say in whether she undergoes the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth.

            It’s really not, despite your claim, about whether or not a fetus displays some arbitrarily-chosen ‘property X.’ It’s about recognizing an adult human being’s subjecthood and dignity instead of discarding it in some wrong-headed moralistic crusade. Equating a blastocyst or a first-trimester fetus with baby in its crib deliberately and inhumanely ignores the phenomenon of the mother’s body. The mere fact that pro-lifers don’t consider the woman’s body a valid distinction demonstrates the fatal flaw in their reasoning.

          • velarieth

            P.S. Steve! As an aside, I have spent a little to much time discussing this, and looking at your other, it is clear that you hold to way more incorrect notions on this topic than I really have time to discuss going into the holiday season. I have appreciated our conversation and I would just like to recommend this. Please take a look at the arguments for the other side of this debate. Almost everything I have read from you has been substantively addressed somewhere. I would highly recommend Stand To Reason, which is a Christian organization, but focuses on more ontological arguments in all the discuss. Here is a bunch of articles that may be of some use: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=search_iframe&cx=012394203280333296866%3Anuevnz1zgwa&cof=FORID%3A11&q=abortion&sa=Search&siteurl=www.str.org%2Fsite%2FPageServer&ref=&ss=960j160000j8

  • http://twitter.com/Kwinkinc7 Karen R Winkelman,MS

    I could not have said it better! I learned I was no longer pro-choice on the operating table having an abortion.and in the years of grief afterwards. Too late for my child, but my eyes were opened and they can’t be shut ever again. When it was later suggested by multiple physicians that I abort my unborn baby because he was expected to have birth defects, I knew better and we were able to spend cherished time with our child before he passed away in his time, not by our hand.

  • Steve Farrell

    “We can do all sorts of mental acrobatics to make ourselves the good guys.” Um, right. Like pretend that a fetus developing inside its mother is a human being. Or pretend that hundreds of women —adult females, not week-old blastocysts— don’t die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth every year in the USA. Or pretend that you can advocate abolishing female reproductive choice and still be a feminist.

    • Julia

      “Like pretend that a fetus ["little one"] develoing inside its mother is a human being.” Well, if the child isn’t human what is she? ape? buffalo?. The child is also alive (heartbeat, moves, is growing, sucks thumb, etc. “alive and kicking” as the saying goes). To be = “to exist; to have life”. Ergo, human being.
      If it is OK to kill someone because they are developing, that it’s OK to kill someone unitl they are about 20 or so (when their brain is fully developed) or unitl they reach puberty or unitl they can think rationally at about 6 or so.

      “Or pretend that hundreds of women —adult females, not week-old blastocysts— don’t die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth every year in the USA.”
      People die from lots of things; for instance, adult women die sometimes die from legal abortions. It a woman thinks the risk of pregnancy and child-birth is too great, she can decide not to have sex, since a child is a very common result. Also, let’s not pretend that fact that women on a VERY rare occasion die in childbirth is the reason most women decide to get abortions.

      “Or pretend that you can advocate abolishing female reproductive choice and still be a feminist.”
      I guess you don’t think the women who lead the charge for women’s votes, etc. like Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and the early feminists were “real” feminists. They opposed abortion. Because they saw that separating child-bearing from sex just reduced women to sex objects to be exploited by men.
      It is grossly insulting to me as a women that you think that I need to artificially stop something my body does naturallly and be able to kill my children in order to be socially equal to men. Basically, you are saying that unless l make my body more like a man’s, I cannot be a man’s equal. *That is misogynist.*
      Also, we are not adovocation to abolish female reproductive choice – we are not trying to force a woman who doesn’t want to to have sex. We are just fighting for existential choice for the child that is the result of sex.
      .

      • Steve Farrell

        “If it is OK to kill someone because they are developing, that (sic) it’s OK to kill someone unitl (sic) they are about 20 or so”

        Like I said, it seems rhetorically convenient to pretend that there’s no conceivable difference between a week-old blastocyst developing inside its mother’s body and a twenty-year old human. But the mother herself is the difference. Pro-lifers like to talk about a fetus’s brainwave activity and chromosome count, but they never seem to acknowledge that this “human being” hasn’t been born yet. The relevance of the mother is something pro-choicers can’t simply handwave away.

        “It is grossly insulting to me as a women that you think that I need to artificially stop something my body does naturallly and be able to kill my children in order to be socially equal to men.”

        Enough crazy talk. No one’s forcing you to do anything, are they? If you want to have children, best of luck to you. I have two of my own. But we shouldn’t be making family planning choices for others. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are serious matters, and they should be undertaken by those who are ready to do so.

        • Julia

          “Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are serious matters, and they should be undertaken by those who are ready to do so.”
          Yeah exacly. Save sex until you are ready to have kids. If you are irresponsible and have sex before you are ready to have a child, that doesn’t mean that you get to kill your child that already exists.

          “week-old blastocyst” Actually, a unborn child is way older than that before a women even knows she is pregnant. Most abortions take place after six weeks 6 (gestational) when the child has a hearbeat, is pumping blood and has all four heart chambers, has arms, legs, head, brain, nostils, intestine, etc. Yeah, it doesn’t look exactly like the 20 year old, but neither does a newborn baby. If you mean because a 20 year old can think rationally and a unborn baby can’t, well neither can an baby or toddler.

          “they never seem to acknowledge that this “human being” hasn’t been born yet.” Yeah, that’s we call them unborn babies. So you also believe in this idea of the magic all-right conferring birth canal? The child is exactly the same as he/she was a moment before, just in a few feet away.

          • Steve Farrell

            “Save sex until you are ready to have kids. If you are irresponsible and have sex before you are ready to have a child, that doesn’t mean that you get to kill your child that already exists.”

            What better way to demonstrate that this is all about punishing sexually active women who don’t want to become mothers? Creepy stuff.

            “So you also believe in this idea of the magic all-right conferring birth canal? The child is exactly the same as he/she was a moment before, just in a few feet away.”

            In fact, I believe in nothing of the sort. I don’t think there’s any magic point where a fetus develops its personhood. You’re the only one of us who seems to think that a zygote or a blastocyst is a “human being.” And that’s why I figure the best thing is to leave it up to the mother, the person inside whose body this being is developing. If she wants to have the baby, great. If she doesn’t want it to be born, that should be her choice.

          • Basset_Hound

            Yes. Julia is right. A woman should be capable of weighing her economic and relational status, and of setting personal boundaries BEFORE she has sex. A woman should also be capable of delaying short term gratification especially if other people (even those who are unborn) would be adversely affected by the consequences of those choices . It’s called being an ADULT.

            What’s “creepy” is that you don’t think that women should be expected to be capable of such rational behavior.

            So you want to “leave it up to the mother”. What if she’s at 38 weeks and decides that a child will be too much of a change to her lifestyle?

          • Steve Farrell

            I hope it doesn’t surprise you that I’m not going to answer. I don’t spend my life judging people whose procreative behavior differs from my own, particularly hypothetical people.

          • Basset_Hound

            Wow! You sure didn’t mind “judging” Julia.

            Perhaps you’re “not going to answer” because Julia’s shown your arguments to be vacuous.

          • Steve Farrell

            Use logic, don’t abuse it. Drunk driving endangers others, you know, other people who are living outside mommy’s tummy. Abortion prevents people from being born in the first place. The anti-choice dogma about “taking the life of an innocent child” is less persuasive every time it gets repeated.

          • Julia

            Yeah, it prevents them from being born by killilng them; but the child already exists.
            Like I said -magic birth canal – . “I can’t see if it is in “mommy’s tummy”, so it must not exist”
            So, your location determines whether or not you are person?

            “In essence, the statement that an abortion terminates a whole, separate, unique, living member of the species human sapiens is nothing but an unremarkable tautology. It is essentially a restatment of the definition of ‘abortion’” Planned Parenthood vs. Rounds, 2006
            terminating someone=killing someone=taking someone’s life
            child=member of the species homo sapiens that’s hasn’t reached adulthood yet
            innocent=hasn’t commited a crime (and don’t say that the child isn’t innocent because they are in the mother’s womb; Hey, it’s not like the child forced her way into there. The man and the woman brought her into there by having sex.)

            Therefore, “taking the life of an innocent child” is an accurate description of abortion.

          • Steve Farrell

            No, the “magic birth canal” was something you came up with, because you think everybody is as comfortable as you are making completely arbitrary distinctions about when a fetus “becomes” a child. What I’ve been saying is that in the first trimester, the form of “life” that a fetus represents is completely different from every form of life except a parasitic one. Do we force people to carry tapeworms and liver flukes because they have a full complement of chromosomes? The woman inside whose body this form of life is developing should have some say in whether she wants it to be born or not. If she wants a baby, fine. If not, that should be her choice.

          • Julia

            I am not the one making the distinctions about when a fetus becomes a child or a person. (It’s always a human person, embro, fetus, infant, adolescent, adult). You are. Now, It sounds like you don’t think a very late-term abortion is OK, but that an early one is. Then by your reasoning, there must be a point where it stops being OK and becomes not OK. Therefore, you are the one drawing a line.

            You just ignored my arguements, and repeated basically exactly what you said earlier, so I’m not going to answere them again.

          • Steve Farrell

            Essentially, Julia, I think the concept of a being while being wholly within another being’s body creates a unique situation where we can’t easily say that the rights of this “human person” trumps the rights of the adult female carrying it. Pro-life absolutism oversimplifies a very complex matter, and I feel it’s better to err on the side of caution and allow the mother to decide if she wants the baby to be born or not.

          • Basset_Hound

            It seems that you are the one oversimplying things by reducing an unborn child to chattel and property.

          • Steve Farrell

            That could be. But I’d rather dehumanize a fetus, a person who hasn’t been born yet, than dehumanize an adult female by reducing her to an incubating machine with no rights over her own body.

          • Basset_Hound

            So she should exercise the right to control her own body taking stock of her economic circumstances and the status of her relationship. If she is not in a position to deal with the contingency of having a child, then she should take responsibility for her own body by not WILLINGLY engaging in an act that could create one.

          • Steve Farrell

            How odd that you know the economic and emotional status of every pregnant woman, Basset Hound. And how is it you’re so sure that her circumstances are exactly the same as when she willingly engaged in the “act”? I could imagine countless factors that could make a woman change her mind about having a child. Shouldn’t that be left up to her? Or would you rather pretend that it’s compassionate to force her to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will?

          • Basset_Hound

            “How odd that you know the economic and emotional status of every pregnant woman, Basset Hound. And how is it you’re so sure that her circumstances are exactly the same as when she willingly engaged in the “act”?”

            I didn’t say I did, Steve. That’s one more of your straw man arguments. The VAST majority of pregnancies come from consensual sex. Life is about choices and choices have consequences. An ADULT takes responsibility for those choices, and does not harm an innocent person affected by said choices simply to extricate herself out of an inconvenient situation.

            So what if a woman’s circumstances change after she gives birth? Caring for a demanding, crying newborn makes pregnancy seem like a cake walk. I know. I’ve been there. So shouldn’t it be “left up to her” to make THAT decision too and take the child’s life? Why not?

          • Steve Farrell

            You pro-lifers show your compassion every time you trot out the tired trope that says “preventing a baby from being born is the same as murdering a newborn.” The mother deserves to be considered a relevant distinction when you’re denying that there’s any conceivable difference between a week-old blastocyst and a baby lying in its crib. But the contempt and indifference you have for sexually active women is so morbid and all-consuming that I guess you can’t remember a time when you were supposed to have qualms about calling a woman a baby-killer.

          • Basset_Hound

            “You pro-lifers show your compassion every time you trot out the tired trope that says “preventing a baby from being born is the same as murdering a newborn.”

            I reiterate. A woman can prevent a baby from being born by exercising personal responsibility and risk avoidance. After a child is born, she has several choices. She can relinquish it for an open or closed adoption. She can place it in temporary foster care. She can raise it with or without the assistance of her partner. But she CANNOT neglect the child and she CANNOT kill it. Society steps in and protects a helpless individual against those who would gain an advantage by harming him. Because the alternative if a society does not protect the weakest ones is anarchy.

            ” you’re denying that there’s any conceivable difference between a week-old blastocyst and a baby lying in its crib”

            Steve, by the time a woman misses her period and realizes she may be pregnant, the child has already developed way beyond the “week old blastocyst” phase. The heart is already beating, and the other organ systems are already starting to form. The ONLY difference between a child at this stage, a baby lying in its crib, an toddler throwing a tantrum, a school age child on his way to a scout meeting, a teenager sobbing over a failed romance and an adult typing a repsonse in a political blog etc..etc..etc is the level of development. It does NOT follow that a person’s right to live is directly proportional to his size and age. So it seems like you’re the one in denial here.

            “But the contempt and indifference you have for sexually active women is so morbid and all-consuming that I guess you can’t remember a time when you were supposed to have qualms about calling a woman a baby-killer.”

            REALLY STEVE??????

            How on earth do you know how I feel about “sexually active women”? Are you a Betazoid telepath like Counselor Troi on Star Trek TNG? I feel a great deal of empathy for women who WANT to be loved and respected but who are used and thrown away like tissue by immature d*bag males because of our sexed out popular culture. How do you know I ever called ANYONE a “baby killer” except for those who would lure girls in to a promiscuous lifestyle so that they could profit from the abortions they market to women in crisis situations. OUR side maintains crisis pregnancy centers where women can go to find resources to care for their families and to manage their households and counseling so that they can engage in healthy relationships. Where is PP, once they’ve vacuumed out the woman’s womb (and wallet)? No where to be found.

          • Steve Farrell

            “The ONLY difference between a child at this stage, a baby lying in its crib, an toddler throwing a tantrum, a school age child on his way to a scout meeting, a teenager sobbing over a failed romance and an adult typing a repsonse in a political blog etc..etc..etc is the level of development.”

            The only difference…aside from the fact that the fetus is, unlike baby/toddler/child/adult, living inside mommy’s tummy. The fact that I have to keep reminding you of this, and reminding you that it’s a relevant distinction, is the reason I conclude that you have nothing but contempt and indifference for the woman contemplating abortion. You have all your colorful pictures of glowing fetuses, and you forget that the entire gestation process is taking place inside someone’s body. This is what makes it different, and this is why a woman’s consent is a realistic notion for anyone not already tipsy on pro-life Kool Aid.

          • Basset_Hound

            The only difference…aside from the fact that the fetus is, unlike baby/toddler/child/adult, living inside mommy’s tummy. The fact that I have to keep reminding you of this, and reminding you that it’s a relevant distinction,”

            No. It is NOT a relevant distinction in the slightest. A baby “in his mommy’s tummy” to use your snarky, demeaning term is still a separate, distinct and unique individual. And we have to keep reminding you of this and reminding you of that that the individual comes to a very cruel and brutal death. If you weren’t tipsy on the pro-abortion Kool Aid yourself, you’d realize the irony that people seem to have more compassion for unwanted pets in an animal shelter than they do for these children.

            I also have to keep reminding you and reminding you that choices have consequences, and that one person’s circumstances do NOT justify causing the death of an innocent human being.

            “I conclude that you have nothing but contempt and indifference for the woman contemplating abortion.”

            Then you are passing judgement on me. Your conclusion is based on nothing but your own prejudices, and not on any basis of fact.

            “You have all your colorful pictures of glowing fetuses, and you forget that the entire gestation process is taking place inside someone’s body”

            EXCUSE ME?????

            I’ve gone through that so-called “gestation process” twice. I know damn well what took place in my body. I felt a deep and profound connection with another unique human being from the time I suspected I might be pregnant. I can only imagine what I would feel to get up off that table and realize that that little life was gone because I had torn it from my body and thrown it in a landfill. I would be overcome with grief.

          • Steve Farrell

            “No. It is NOT a relevant distinction in the slightest.”

            This is called “denial.” It would be like both of us arguing over who gets to drive your car, and I assert that the fact that you paid for the car and hold the title doesn’t give you special rights over it or anything. Certain things by definition are relevant distinctions. The fact that a fetus is inside mommy’s tummy and a teenager isn’t, by definition makes them different. The number of chromosomes the fetus has isn’t relevant. The fact that it exists wholly inside another person makes that person relevant to the matter.

            And certain statements you make have implications that you can’t deny. If I say, “It’s five degrees Fahrenheit outside,” I can’t complain that you’re putting words in my mouth if you say, “Steve says it’s cold outside.” That’s what the statement means. In the exact same way, if you say that a woman’s body is nothing more than some vague location where the all-important human fetus begins its life, I’m well within my rights to accuse you of indifference to the mother. If you make it seem like a mother has no rights and in essence is nothing more than an incubating machine for this fetus, then you can’t complain if I point out just how contemptuous your attitude toward female empowerment is.

          • Basset_Hound

            You can spin your little straw men, assumptions and logical fallacies all you want.

            There is NO distinction between a human that has not been born and one that has. That is a scientific fact.

            I never said that a mother has no rights. She has every right to have sex and to use birth control. But once she is pregnant, her circumstances do not justify taking the child’s life any more than she is justified in taking the child’s life after it is born. Life is about choices and choices have consequences.

            And as for that “female empowermennt” you crow about? It’s nothing but a mockery and a joke. It is irresponsible MEN who have been empowered, because they are now free to use women like tissue and throw them away. WE are the ones who have seen our bodies, our lives and our self esteems destroyed because of it because WE are the ones who have to throw our children away and deny our own biology to be socially acceptable.

          • Steve Farrell

            “There is NO distinction between a human that has not been born and one that has. That is a scientific fact.”

            Right, because a woman —particularly a sexually active one— means nothing to you. She’s not relevant to the discussion, not even as important as a fetus’s chromosome count, and not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. “Scientific fact” my eye.

          • Basset_Hound

            Once again, your assumption of what “means nothing” to me, and of what is worthy of my consideration is based on nothing but YOUR prejudices.

          • Guineapiggypiggy

            “The suffering of women who want love, and who have to settle for being used by one guy after another breaks my heart”

            Again, you assume that women who are sexually active with different partners are somehow disordered or have something wrong with them or are being exploited.

            It may shock you to know that many women enjoy casual sex on a regular basis and it doesn’t affect them emotionally or speak about their “suffering as they look for love”.

            It’s incredibly narrow-minded to think that women base their choices on the male model.

          • Basset_Hound

            No it doesn’t “shock” me at all. People “enjoy” all kinds of behaviors that are destructive. Casual sex on a regular basis happens to be one of them.

            And yes, there are a lot of women who turn to casual sex because they have not had any kind of emotional stability while they were growing up.

            If you want to think that I’m “narrow minded”, so be it.

          • Guineapiggypiggy

            @Basset_Hound:disqus
            “People “enjoy” all kinds of behaviors that are destructive. Casual sex on a regular basis happens to be one of them.”

            Again, like I’ve said, not everyone thinks it’s destructive. YOU might think so and that is your right. But that does not necessarily make you correct in your assumption. Perhaps some women find casual sex destructive. Many don’t.

            That’s the fundamental difference between someone with a strongly held belief who wants to control what other people do based on that belief and someone with a more “live and let live” approach.

            Someone like you wants to enforce their beliefs and “morals” on everyone else whereas someone like me thinks that it’s none of your business if a woman goes out and has sex with ten guys each night or decides to abort a foetus. It’s none of your business.

            And I’ve yet to find an answer to these two questions from the “pro-life” brigade.

            1. How does a woman you don’t even know, having an abortion you don’t even know about, affect your personally?

            2. And if a woman who is raped is forced to give birth to a baby she doesn’t want, and then that baby grows up to become an adult and she is raped and becomes pregnant with a baby she does not want, what’s your opinion on that hypothetical scenario?

            Where does the foetus lose its important status of being first and foremost, above the mother? Is it when she’s capable of bearing a foetus and then she becomes secondary?

          • Guineapiggypiggy

            @Basset_Hound:disqus

            This comment speaks volumes: “It is irresponsible MEN who have been empowered, because they are now free to use women like tissue and throw them away. ”

            From that comment, are we to assume to think that women are incapable of making their own choices about their sexuality? That all women are being exploited sexually against their will?

            Please give women some credibility.

            Also, what are your views on women who conceive after rape? (And please don’t try to say that it never happens because 47,000 women in the U.S become pregnant after rape each year).

          • Basset_Hound

            “From that comment, are we to assume to think that women are incapable of making their own choices about their sexuality? That all women are being exploited sexually against their will?”

            No. Women are capable of making their own choices about their sexuality. Unfortunately, the ones being encouraged and glamorized are the bad choices. The women who decide to exercise self restraint and self control are held up for ridicule.

            As for rape, I’m prepared to grant the exception to a woman who has gone to the ER after the crime to seek emergency treatment.

          • Guineapiggypiggy

            “As for rape, I’m prepared to grant the exception to a woman who has gone to the ER after the crime to seek emergency treatment.”

            I appreciate your honesty. However, I suppose I’d have to question how that helps those women who are simply too traumatised to go to the hospital.

            We simply cannot say that women “should” go to hospital immediately after being raped. Human beings are deeply individual people and what’s good for one might be too much for another. Some women might simply not have the strength to do so and as a result, must then suffer having to bear a child of their rapist.

          • Julia

            Thanks for backing me up, Basset hound! You always make great points!

          • Basset_Hound

            Thanks for the complement. I’m new here. Thanks for making me feel welcome.

          • Lauren Brown

            *thumbs up* Better than I could say.

        • Julia

          “Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are serious matters, and they should be undertaken by those who are ready to do so.” Exactly. That’s why you should save sex until you are ready to have kids. But if you are irresponsible, you’ve made your choice, and you don’t get to kill the child that is the result of sex which already EXISTS. Telling someone they can’t get an abortion is no more coercion then telling a mother she can’t kill her born child.

          If woman is holding a child in her arms and all of a sudden decides she doesn’t want it, she can’t just throw it down on the concrete even though it’s on her body. She picked the child up and therefore has the responsiblity to put it down safely. Similarily, if she has sex and creates a child, she can’t just kill the child if she decides she doesn’t want her/him, but has the responsibility to carry it till it’s born even though it is in her body at which point she can hand the child over to loving couple that do, through adoption.

          “a week-old blastocyst” An unborn child is way older than that by the time a women usually finds out she’s pregnant. Most abortions take place after six wks, by which time the child has a beating heart, arms, legs, head, brain, etc. Sure the child can’t think rationally yet or look exactly like a 20 year old, but neither does a newborn baby. The point I made is that human rights (note: not legal priveleges like voting) aren’t based on how developed a child is. What matter is that they are human beings.

          “they never seem to acknowledge that this “human being” hasn’t been born yet.” Yeah, that’s why we call them unborn/preborn babies/children. I guess you believe in this idea of the magic all-right-conferring birth canal? It is a very unscientific idea. The child is exactly the same as a couple minutes of before, just a couple of feet away. Yet somehow they had no rights whatsoever a couple of minutes before, and now they do.

      • Basset_Hound

        “Basically, you are saying that unless l make my body more like a man’s, I cannot be a man’s equal. *That is misogynist.*

        You’re right, Julia, but you don’t take it quite far enough. What the feminists are saying that unless you make your feelings and your life “more like a man” you can’t be “free and equal”. Consider who gets the most respect in their world, the female engineer or the woman who stays at home to be a full time mother.

      • Lauren Brown

        Go, girl!

  • AC

    One thing to remember though, is that the best way to minimize abortions is to PREVENT women from needing them, not to make it illegal. i.e. better sex ed and wider availability of contraceptives. Studies have shown that when abortions are illegal it just makes the process more dangerous and deadly to the mother but does not discourage people from seeking them (http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/en/index.html). Let’s be honest, no one likes the idea of baby parts being scraped out of a woman’s body. We should all come together to work on preventing it from even being an issue, so no woman needs to make that terrible decision.

    • Basset_Hound

      Actually wider availability of contraception does NOT decrease unwanted pregnancy. Quite the opposite. In fact several European countries have seen teen pregnancy INCREASE when they made contraceptives readily available. In the UK, authorities are seeing teens having repeat abortions…

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html

      In actuality, the legality of abortion DOES discourage women from seeking them. In the five years after the Roe decision the number of abortions in the US doubled.

      What truly is effective in reducing the number of abortions is abstinence education, in which teens are encouraged to delay their first sexual experience until they are adults, and are in a better position to raise a child.

  • H

    “When it comes to abortion, kindness to the mother is cruelty to the child.”

    Correct. The crucial point, however, is that the mother is able to feel, appreciate, and experience that kindness. The child (certainly in 1st trimester, also beyond to some extent) is blissfully ignorant of any cruelty you could impose on it. You could very slowly dismember an embryo limb by limb and it wouldn’t feel a thing: it has no pain pathways, no brain capable of decoding the signals (the ability to feel pain develops about week 30). You might as well say that digging up a carrot is cruel.

    Kindness to the child is cruelty to the mother, and she will experience every single agonizing second of your cruelty.

    • Julia

      The sense of touch is developed by 10 wks gestanional

      Is it OK to kill someone who under an anesthetic since they won’t feel any pain? Of course not. Because it’s about justice.

      • H

        Most abortions are done by 10 weeks (at least in the UK, in the US you encourage late abortions through high costs and lack of access in many parts of the country).

        Sense of touch is developed by then, sense of pain isn’t. The brain infrastructure needed to interpret pain does not exist.

        Faced with the choice between killing someone humanely under anaesthetic, or torturing a conscious person for 9 months, I’d probably choose the former.

        • Tim

          Curious to know what you’d choose for yourself: would you prefer slight discomfort and occasional pain for 9 months, after which you are still alive, or would you choose to be killed while under anaesthetic, after which you are still dead?

          • H

            If you’re asking would I rather be pregnant or dead, I pick dead. If I am ever pregnant and can’t get an abortion through official channels, I will either find a way to do it myself or kill myself. Life lived as a slave is not worth living.

          • Lauren Brown

            How is that slavery? If you are thinking about your needs first, then that’s a sad way to live. No one’s making you keep the child. The little booger can’t hurt anyone. Why don’t pro-choicers talk about adoption?

    • Julia

      Is it OK to kill anyone who is under an anesthetic because they won’t feel a thing? Of course not, because even if they won’t feel any pain, it’s unjust. Just like killing an unborn child, even one we don’t know can feel pain, is wrong because it is unjust. However, the child’s sense of touch is developed by 10 wks (gestational), and they grasp things. (the idea that that sense isn’t there until 30 wks is ridiculous, since babies have been born as eariler as 21 wks and can feel.)

      If a woman really believes going through a normal pregnancy is such agonizing pain and cruelty, she should think about that before she has sex, since a child is a very common result. Now that she already has a child inside her womb, we wil help in every possible way (read up on crisis pregnancy centers which give all sorts of free help to mothers), we just shouldn’t allow her have her child killed, because that interfere’s with her child’s right to life (or right to not be killed).

      • Julia

        Wups, didn’t mean to duplicate!

  • Carlos Helms

    Well-stated…especially the reference to demons. Abortion is an entirely demonic activity. Of course, the demons have managed to dissolve most of the belief in the existence of demons. We live under the influence of the god of this world – by default. We CHOOSE to live under the influence of the One, True God. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s a war. Fire for effect.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KaosKlerik Michael Welch

    I was the same way. Raised liberal, raised pro-abortion. It was when I started to truly look into the arguments that I realized I couldn’t defend it. The final straw was realizing that at conception unique DNA is created. A human being has been createdat that moment.
    Another turning point was the viability issue. In the 40 years since RoevWade that line has shifted by 4 weeks. So the switch from “lumps of cells” to “Life” shifted with medical technology. Eventually an egg can be fetilized and grown in an artificial womb. When does it become a human being with all the rights therein? When he/she graduates Kindergarten?

  • JustSaying

    “The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being an image of God” – Adolf Hitler

    The “pro-choice” might want to heed these words the next time they say a fetus “isn’t human anyway”.

    • Steve Farrell

      You know, Hitler said a lot of things.

      “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” – Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

      • Sarah

        Exactly, both those statments sound like the kind of things pro-abortion people say. The first how you justify abortion. The second by pro-abortion “Catholics” who claim to be Catholic, though they are continually doing something that gets them de facto excommunicated (even if it the excommunication isn’t public).

    • Kay

      A fetus is human.

      A human doesn’t have the right to use another human’s body without their consent.

      Therefore a fetus doesn’t have that right either.

      Abortion should be the decision of the pregnant woman and no-one else.

  • http://twitter.com/catholic_c Catholic Charities

    WELL WRITTEN! Makes perfect sense.

  • Troy Sim

    Like you Kristen, I was once pro-abortion/pro-choice until I learned more information. Thank you for writing this.

  • Stephen
  • Itsme

    Your validation does not support your overarching statement that everyone should be pro-life and those who aren’t are ignorant. You cannot compare women’s rights to the Holocaust. This is not a mass killing of all unborn children; it is the right of women, on a case-to-case basis, to decide whether or not they want the baby they are carrying. Also, Africa is failing because of resource exploitation by foreign countries and a lack of transition from an imperialistic continent to self-governed nations- nations which were created with no regard to tribal boundaries, therefore leading to inevitable civil warfare and other global crises. And you do not mention this “information” you claim made you turn from pro-choice to pro-life other than religion, which is subjective, and therefore is not valid in an argument. Not everyone believes it is their duty to God to procreate, and therefore they should not be forced to do so.

    If that is your PERSONAL belief- awesome! Go you! (That’s not sarcasm.) You are entitled to believe whatever it is you believe. I just think everyone should have a personal stance on abortion (and maybe all controversial issues?), pro-choice or pro-life, and a broad stance of being pro-choice. Not everyone sees the world through the same eyes or has the same perspective as everyone else, and we have to embrace the diversity. Being pro-choice doesn’t make someone pro-abortion or pro-death, it just means being open to having choices and opportunities- a principle our country is founded upon.

    • Basset_Hound

      But hurting or killing another human being to extricate one’s own self should not be a viable option.

      • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

        An unborn fetus is not a human being and I shouldnt be forced by law to care for or have children i dont want due to an unplanned pregnancy.

        • Lauren Brown

          Of course you shouldn’t. But just because you don’t want to take care of a baby doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t want to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorraine.odowd.9 Lorraine O’Dowd

    Great post. Thank you Kristen. And I agree with you … people should do their own due diligence on abortion. Before anyone fully supports the horrific act of ending the lives of the unborn, they should be fully informed. I also agree with you about demons being involved. It is easy to see in the eyes and hearts of the pro-death supports. Their fury and vitriol towards pro-life supporters comes straight from hell.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ChristopherNewgent Christopher Lee Newgent

    History show us time and time again that the greatest evils always follow when we try to strip someone’s humanity from them. The Jews weren’t Human, the Indians weren’t humans, nor were the slaves being brought over from Africa. In all of these instances we deluded ourselves into not believing what was clearly true, that they were all human, and in ignoring their humanity we licensed ourselves to do all sorts of evils. And now we are busy pretending that the most innocent of us is not human. When will we learn the lesson?

    • Steve Farrell

      It’s unfortunate that we’re not admitting that pregnant women are human and deserve to be considered in all this moralistic talk about “the innocent”. Reducing an adult woman to the level of an incubating machine isn’t exactly acknowledging her humanity.

      • Lauren Brown

        If that were so, then obstetricians and gynecologists wouldn’t have a job. Based on your other acts, the mod might need to be notified.

  • Cher L.

    Thank you for this article, Kristen. Abortion is a horrible thing and I firmly believe that only through education, can we get people to understand exactly what abortion is, and does. Christian Life Resources is an organization which provides many services for women who unexpectedly become pregnant – including a home they can stay at (in Denver, CO) and receive education and help make a decision about their & their baby’s future. (as in to keep or place for adoption). I so wish that there were homes like this everywhere in the United States, and many more organizations like this that counsel pregnant women. If these types of organizations were as prolific as Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics, women would be more educated and understand that abortion does not result in a good outcome.

  • Wyldeirishman

    EPIC WIN

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

    YOU LOST THE CULTURE WAR. and even the GOP leadership is throwing you under the bus. You want to see a culture destroyed by anti-choice polices? Try Romania where you have dead women, hundreds of thousands of children born with birth defects and other maladies condemned to spend their lives in institutions, along with numerous others who wound up on the streets selling themselves at as young as 10 years old and addicted to drugs. Yeah, wonderful life! That’s compassion and what your God truly wants. You’re disgusting.

    • Lauren Brown

      Uh, no we haven’t. If we had lost it, then there wouldn’t be a battle still running. And calling someone a fool? Really? Yeah, that lends a lot of weight to your argument, Bud.

  • Steve Farrell

    Kristen changed her mind six years ago, but she’s not going to do it again! Honest!

    • Lauren Brown

      And you think making fun of people justifies your argument?

  • Joshua Thompson

    This might have been mentioned in earlier comments, but I have two questions:
    a) Does this for of kindness and thought apply to all pregnant women, and if not
    b) What would you say for those who didn’t willingly become pregnant?

  • Brian

    Great article Kristen. But I want to make a quick point. I am pro-life. But I am also a liberal. I don’t think being pro-life and liberal are mutually exclusive as you seem to suggest in your article. In converse, I don’t think I should be obligated to support every item on the conservative agenda ( i.e. lower taxes for the rich, cut government spending on Medicaire and education, increasing defense spending) just because I happen to be pro-life. I’ve written to senators regarding abortion and participated in pro-life marches. But I absolutely refuse to support conservative candidates who support policies that favor the rich while hurting minorities, the poor, and the sick. I’m Catholic too. And as a Catholic in a church with a rich history of social justice, it is my duty to be in solidarity with the poor, the sick, and the disenfranchised.

  • Pingback: The pro-choice delusion

  • http://www.facebook.com/tom.lagesse.5 Tom LaGesse

    I’ve never admitted it in writing before, but I paid for the contract killing of my first unborn child when I was 19. In college, got my girlfriend pregnant. When she told me, I was actually excited! We were engaged to be married, after all! The thought of abortion never crossed my mind. I was in the “default pro-life” category. I, too, was Catholic, and the only Republican in my house, even though I was never political.
    When she said she wanted the abortion, I was stunned. I didn’t want any part of it. But, she went on to say that she would have the baby and I would never see her or the baby again if I didn’t pay for it. Somehow, I came to the conclusion and, to my everlasting shame, paid for it. We ended up breaking up shortly afterwards. I haven’t seen her … or the baby since.
    I have sought and received my forgiveness for my actions through my Lord and my God. Upon receiving my forgiveness, I have been assured in my spirit that I will see my child when I enter into my eternal reward. That gives me joy.
    While I don’t shout it from the rooftops or participate in demonstrations, I am still, most definitely, pro-life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kathleenhiler Kathleen Hiler

    Astounding to hear the truth spoken with such power..your words are like ROCKS that clamour against evil..and the rocks cannot be broken..Keep it up!

  • CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

    I disagree. I’ve read countless articles written by women who DONT REGRET ABORTION.

    I think it all boils down to you valuing the child. To me, I see abortion as an easy solution to a problem. If I valued the clump of cells (that I myself dont consider a child yet), then it would be more difficult for me.

    Yes, I’ve seen those disgusting abortion videos with arms and legs and body parts all over the place. I would prefer that compared to a lifetime of suffering.

    You see, I’ve grown up in a 3rd world country where the government here doesn’t give a shit about children begging on the street and poor beggars making more beggar children. Not all women can understand “You’re a mother now. It’s your job to protect your child.” How can these poor people possibly raise and protect a child? I have seen these people with my own eyes. Trust me, these kids were better off dead before they were fetuses. There is more to keeping that child than delivery, babies cost money. Perhaps in a developed country, you’re better off. But here, No. I don’t think you’d be able to go up to a beggar woman and give her a pat on the back and say, “Good choice on keeping that baby! You seem to be in the same shit as usual, but what the heck!”

    Also, I’m pro-choice simply because I don’t want to tell people what to do. So Kristen, you’re pro-life and you want to keep that baby? Okay. Suit yourself.

    Abortion should be available to everyone who NEEDS it. Including poor people who can’t afford children.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      First, what you “consider” the unborn baby to be means nothing. What the unborn baby OBJECTIVELY IS means everything. And your reducing him/her to a mere “clump of cells” is biologically untrue.

      Second, you say you don’t wanna tell people what to do, but the rest of your comment shows you don’t really mean it. It’s all about how you’re telling millions of babies that they don’t deserve a chance at life because you’ve decided for them that their lives won’t be worth living. I don’t care what merciful, humanitarian window-dressing you give it, that’s a tyrannical impulse (not to mention an incredibly arrogant one – no human being can possibly know enough about another’s life to assume absolute dominion over it).

  • Carole Q

    MWAH! Heart your face, lady.