Opinion

The logic cop says it’s a human baby

Back when the presidential campaign was in full swing, both Barack Obama and John McCain took part in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. During that forum, candidate Obama was asked, “When does a baby get human rights?” His answer was:

Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

What does pay grade have to do with the facts?

After his election, President Obama stated during his speech at Notre Dame:

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.

He is right to say that; this controversy should not be shoved aside. It is a life-and-death matter, and someone is wrong about it. That is something everyone should think about: one side of this debate is wrong, but which?

Think about the logic pro-abortionists use to justify their position. That life doesn’t start until the fetus is “viable.” Early on, it is just a mass of cells, and certainly not a human. They also hide behind the more socially acceptable title of “pro-choice” rather than calling themselves exactly what they are: pro-death. After all, death is the opposite of life, so “pro-death” is a more accurate description.

I’ve stated very clearly in the past that if you consider yourself “pro-choice,” you are in the same camp as a pro-abortionist, so let’s start the debate there. If you are pro-choice, what are you choosing between? You are choosing between eliminating something and keeping something.

Late-first-trimester human fetus.

The next question is, eliminate what? Is this “thing” an inert globule of organic matter? Or is it a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus? These latter terms are employed to describe different stages of gestational development. But do they define whether the “it” is human or non-human? It must be one or the other. This is like using the words “baby,” “child,” “teen,” “adult,” and “senior.” Do these expressions refer to humans or non-humans?

Let’s think about this issue from a coldly logical vantage point. Upon what core issues can all sides agree? (1) When a male sperm and a female egg unite, something happens. Something is henceforth there. (2) That something either is living or non-living. Is there a third option? Clearly, it is living. It takes nourishment and receives oxygen. It exhibits movement. It undergoes cell replication. All of this is undeniable. (3) This living thing either is human or non-human. DNA analysis will clearly identify it as human – 100% of the time, no matter the ideology of the scientist. If it were identified as non-human – say, if it were determined to be an avocado or a duck – then it may be eliminated at any time, at any stage, and for any purpose. We take the lives of plants and animals, to be used for a higher good, without hesitation. The assumption of civilized society always has been, however, that human life constitutes an entirely different category. Therefore, by logical examination, this “thing” that is being taken is a living human, and one must agree that abortion can be described only as an action that is the taking of a human life.

President Obama clearly believes and supports the theory that the lives of pre-born infants are subject to the choices of society’s democratic process. He obviously chooses not to believe that a living human being is purposefully killed in the abortion procedure. Since this is the case, why does he call for us to “reduce the number of women seeking abortions”?

There is something wrong with this logic. I hope you understand that.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Matthias

    “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a
    theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that
    question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

    Lamest cop out I’ve ever heard in my life.

  • Summer

    Amazing our own Dear Leader is into infanticide.
    All life is precious and a gift from God.

    And oh yea, we all know that everything is above the Dear Leaders pay grade.

  • rebeccarose7

    I certainly do understand it, and I hope others do as well! Very well written and thought out. 

  • Elsie

    How can eny body be pro abortion after reading this

  • Tammy

    It’s common sense, thank you for stating it so clearly and eloquently!

  • ralpheo

    As one who sees aborted babies, mostly through natural miscarriage and some purposefully eliminated, I have been pro-life for quite some time.  I do try to see and imagine the arguments some will use to convince others of the “merit” of abortions.  I wonder if mutations, trisomies, translocations, etc., would or have been used to declare that these babies are not human.  Certainly, many of these mutations do result in the death of the baby, often in utero, but surely they can’t use these unfortunate circumstances to declare these babies as non-human.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002387031704 Jae Terrell

    i am a kid at is a freaky pic

    • Ed DeMatteo

      Well Jae, it is kinda freaky, but I’d hope you think it’s pretty miraculous too.

  • Sbflicks

    Well said Ed.  Thank you. I have always said that you can not combine two human cells (ovum and sperm) and produce a dog or a cat; all you can produce with this union is a human being.

  • Kman78

    read it…still pro-choice…

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

      Why?

      • Ed DeMatteo

        I’m not sure what your question of why is pointed at. Are you asking why you must agree that abortion is that taking of a human life, or why you must be pro-choice on other laws of morality? I’ll assume that latter. If you agree that abortion is that taking of a human life and it is right for people to end that life, then on what moral ground can you say that people cannot murder, steal, beat their spouses, or commit any other act of violence against another person? I am not talking about what’s legal, rather what is right or wrong.

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

          I’m asking why to Kman’s comment, not to yours.

    • Ed DeMatteo

      You are entitled to your opinion and choice in this matter. So long as you agree that abortion is the taking of a human life. If you do, then you are also pro-choice regarding all murder, and all other laws such as stealing, wife beating and child molestation; right?

  • JB

    This is a well-written post, you make a lot of good points.  I especially liked the point you made about how the abortion debate should not just go away, it’s an important issue and should be addressed because, as you said, one side is right and the other is wrong.  Now if the pro-choice side is wrong and the unborn is a human, then those that support abortion are killing humans so there’s a lot more at stake for them.

    People who say the unborn are not human or they aren’t persons, need to ask themselves, what if you’re wrong about that?  Would you still be for abortion?  In other words, if the unborn is a human being (scientific evidence shows that it is) does that make abortion wrong? 

    If the answer is yes, then why even risk it?  If you know there’s a possibility that the fetus is a human being then why would you want to take a chance of killing them?

    If the answer is no, that means you are okay with killing a human being.  If the unborn being human doesn’t matter to you and you would still support abortion then you are saying that you are okay with killing innocent human beings.

    If you support abortion this is something you need to think about. 

  • Anonymous

    An embryo, fetus, etc. is not yet human. It has the potential to become human, but only by feeding off of another human, often making her sick and miserable in the process, and sometimes killing her or both of them at the end of said process. 

    And “when does a baby get human rights?”  That is easy enough to answer: when it can survive on its own, when it doesn’t have to infringe upon the fundamental right of someone else to control her own body.

    • grdawg

       

      You miss
      the fact that the unborn child was almost always invited by the mother.
       Like it or not, engaging in sex does raise the possibilities of becoming
      pregnant.  Thus, if a woman or man willingly engages in sex, they should
      be willing to accept the responsibilities that accompany their actions.  A
      baby cannot be blamed for receiving nourishment from the mother who invited her
      in the first place.  It’s not as if women and men don’t have fair warning
      about how new human beings are created, fed, etc.  

       

      More
      importantly, setting the standard for human rights only for people who can
      “survive on their own” is quite dangerous.  A newborn baby
      cannot survive on his own; neither can a three year old or many disabled
      people.  What about people on oxygen or breathing machines?  And
      clearly, many other people have to give up their rights to care for these
      people.  It doesn’t make them unworthy of the right to life just because
      they need help staying alive.  In fact, these people are the ones society
      should care for the most…

      • Anonymous

        Sorry, but many (probably the vast majority) or people have sex for their own pleasure or to enhance their relationship, not to procreate. It’s not an “invitation”. Of course it’s irresponsible to have unprotected sex if you don’t want a baby, but birth control doesn’t always work. For humans, as well as for some other species, sex isn’t all about reproduction and nor should it be. We don’t have room or resources for that many more people.

        And on the second point–you’re ignoring the part where I clarified my meaning: it has rights when it can survive without infringing upon the right of a woman to control her own body. Yes, there are plenty of existing (not potential) people who cannot survive without the VOLUNTARY help of others. But that is the key–no one is forcing the caregivers to take care of these people. They may be paid for it or they may do it out of love and kindness. Once it’s out of its mother’s body, a baby can survive with the aid of someone who CHOOSES to care for it instead of someone who would be forced to do so. 

        • grdawg

          No one is saying that sex is only for procreation.  The fact remains that everyone knows sex can lead to procreation and therefore, everyone should be responsible for their actions and not kill an innocent human being just because they don’t want them.

          When a woman chooses to have sex, knowing she may get pregnant, she makes the choice to possibly allow a baby in her body.  So it’s not a matter of voluntary vs. forced.  She already made her choice (as did the man) when she had sex.  Plus, if you want to talk about caregivers voluntarily helping, if they killed the person they care for instead, you can bet that’s against the law.  So should abortion be.  It’s one thing if the woman had an option to just let someone else care for the baby…she could do that, then!  (Like with adoption once the baby’s born.)  But when her option is 1) care for the baby for nine months or 2) kill it, any sane society would go with #1.

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

      “An embryo, fetus, etc. is not yet human. It has the potential to become human.”

      This isn’t merely wrong; it’s the direct opposite of right. Where did you learn Biology?

      • Anonymous

        I’m sorry, perhaps I should have said, “a human”. An embryo might have human genetic material, but until it is its own separate person, it’s not ‘a human being’, it’s a part of another human being.

        Also, I’m not sure what “wrong” is if not “the direct opposite of right” in the first place… 

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

          Still shockingly, embarrassingly, wrong. PLEASE acquire a rudimentary familiarity with biology before you next comment.

          • Anonymous

            There is considerable debate about the topic among plenty of well-educated biologists and doctors. Simply claiming that someone is “wrong” isn’t an actual argument, no matter how many modifiers you use.

            In the words of a PhD-holding scientist:
            “Abortion foes claim that the procedure is murder, based on the notion that a fertilized egg has the same suite of rights enjoyed by all humans. The belief that a few cells derived from a fertilized egg is a human being is a sad example of good intentions based on misguided notions of biology. The small ball of cells is potentially a human being, but so are eggs and sperm, even if to an unequal degree. All require certain conditions to realize the potential to become human. Ovulation and male masturbation would be acts of murder by the same logic that confers the status of humanness on a fertilized egg or early-stage embryo. A fertilized egg has no special status compared to an egg not fertilized. Both have the potential to become human given the right set of circumstances. The moment of fertilization is nothing but one action in a series of millions that take us from a single cell to an independently living being. Granting that moment special status is completely arbitrary and meaningless biologically.” 

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

            Any ideologue with an agenda to push can find some hack (but apparently not his name) to exploit his credentials to deceive people. That doesn’t make your misstatements any less wrong. I’m talking about *real* medical authorities:

            “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a
            male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female
            gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This
            highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us
            as a unique individual.”

            “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

            Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male
            gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise
            to a zygote.”

            T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

            “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

            Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

            “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which,
            incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under
            ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is
            formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in
            the oocyte.”

            Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            “Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive
            male and female gametes during fertilization… This moment of zygote
            formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic
            development.”

            William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

            “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant
            mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that
            constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the
            initiation of the life of a new individual.”

            Clark Edward Corliss, Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

            “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops.”

            “The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

            J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

            “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is
            alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by
            some specific condition.”

            E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

            “Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg… It
            is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital
            links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within
            this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father’s sperm
            cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in
            penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin.”

            Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.

            “Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”

            The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006.

            “The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment
            of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a
            human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

            In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.

            “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is
            scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at
            conception.”

            Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

            “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

            Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

            “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into
            being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain
            experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at
            conception.”

            Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

            “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

            Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic

            “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view
            a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”

            Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

            “The
            first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character
            of the crime–a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is
            not alive till after the period of quickening.”
            American Medical Association Report on Criminal Abortion, 1859

            And if those 17 authorities don’t float your boat, then note that even several major abortion advocates admit what you don’t:

            “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know
            that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing
            is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it
            kills a fetus.”
            Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood President, 1997 Ms. Magazine interview

            “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no
            death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and
            evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with
            being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who
            share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the
            fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits
            that the death of a fetus is a real death.”
            Naomi Wolf

            “In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture
            was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The
            sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted
            back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing
            back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There
            is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very
            early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that
            the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been
            morally permissible to end his life at this point.”
            David Boonin, “A Defense of Abortion”

            “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as
            equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a
            member of a given species is something that can be determined
            scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in
            the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from
            the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm
            and eggs is a human being.”
            Peter Singer, “Practical Ethics”

          • Anonymous

            The person I quoted is Dr. Jeff Schweitzer, if that helps. All you’re proving is that, as I said, there’s a debate. Those are all people on one side of the debate, I assume (I don’t have time to read all of those opinions) except for the last one–I like Peter Singer and his philosophy, and he’s not some rabid anti-abortionist. His view is that abortion before about 20 weeks is acceptable because the fetus has no capacity for pain or consciousness: ”But mere membership of our species doesn’t settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible.”

             While I have other things to do today and so don’t have time to look up that many quotes that nobody will read anyway, I’d just like to point out that I don’t think that a woman’s right to body autonomy is just another “agenda”; it’s a fundamental right. The “idealogues with agendas to push” are the ones who want to turn women into incubators.

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

            I was going to post a longer reply, noting your not having time to educate yourself about what you’re talking about yet apparently having the time to pretend you’re *already* educated about what your talking about, your bait-and-switch between the factual question of when life begins and the philosophical one of abortion’s morality, and your childishly dishonest rhetoric about “turning women into incubators.”

            But then I did a double-take at this sentence: “I like Peter Singer and his philosophy, and he’s not some rabid anti-abortionist.”

            (A) The fact that you like Peter Singer at all is a frightening moral and intellectual admission, and (B) the fact that you think I was claiming he was anti-abortion is a testament to your lazy reading.

            That’s all I need to know to see that you’d be incapable of objectively or substantively grappling with any further arguments I’d make and that you will refuse to process any information or evidence that contradicts your ideology. I’ve wasted too much time on this dead end as it is.

          • Anonymous

            “[Y]ou will refuse to process any information or evidence that contradicts your ideology. I’ve wasted too much time onthis dead end as it is.” That’s funny; I’m feeling the same way about you!

            I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree, which is fine by me as long as you don’t try to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs. Since you, I assume from your name, are a man, you are lucky enough never to have to face the difficult decision about what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. In case you hadn’t noticed, this whole argument about the beginning of life has been in the context of the morality of abortion.

            I do have to add though that it’s interesting that you’re attacking my education when you’re the one who doesn’t appear to know the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

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

            I don’t know what’s funnier: that you compound your lack of credibility by going down the sexism road, or the fact that you apparently think a your/you’re typo is in the same ballpark as commenting on abortion without understanding basic human biology.

          • Anonymous

            I thought we had acknowledged that  this was fruitless since no one is changing anybody else’s mind? All I will say is that I have a very good understanding of biology, probably better than yours unless you’re a doctor or scientist (which I doubt since you apparently have time to look up and copy all of those quotes for no apparent reason).

            But I have to say: what is not sexist about denying someone the right to control her own body because of her gender? 

            Obviously I could keep going with this, but as I said, there’s no harm in someone having their own opinion as long as they don’t force it on others.

          • Kelsey Arnold

            As I understand it, Peter Singer and others are now promoting “after-birth abortion” and arguing that children up to approximately the age of two do not merit the protections due to full-grown members of the human species. Why? Because the newborn and the late-term fetus are biologically indistinguishable. If it is permissible to kill one, it is permissible to kill the other.

      • Ed DeMatteo

         Thanks Calvin. I commented to the original post before I got down here. You covered it well. Many will place the scientist over the science because the scientist will tickle their ears with what they want to hear.

        While I am not commenting on the human rights part of this, I wrote that there is no difference between the baby before birth vs. after. In the womb and after birth the DNA of the child is different and unique from both mother and father. Also the baby is equally dependent upon the mother for sustenance in the womb and out of the womb.

    • Cheetahwren

      if two living cells were discovered on another planet, there would be a huge new article about “ALIENS” being discovered, life existing on other planets, etc
      so why is it that when a fetus is discovered, you say that it only has the “potential” to become life.
      You must understand that at one point, everyone alive was at one point a fetus. A fetus has a heart beat at the age of about three weeks. you should really google what an aborted fetus looks like

    • Ed DeMatteo

      You say it is not yet human? Since you know what it isn’t I wonder if you can educate me as to what it is? Perhaps you are saying it is not yet a self sustaining human? There is a big difference.

      What I wrote in the article argues the fact that it is human, although dependent upon the mother for sustenance. However it is living by all scientific standards and it is determined to have it’s own unique DNA, different from the mother’s DNA. I would also submit that a new born infant exhibits all the same characteristics. An infant is still dependent upon the mother (or someone) for sustenance, it is just delivered by different modes. The baby is alive and has it’s own unique DNA, different from the mother.

  • Oedipa

    “something everyone should think about: one side of this debate is wrong, but which?”

    I’ve noted with some bemusement how fervently some of the “logic cops” in these parts take up the cause of proving the logical bona fides of their case. I get it. Reduced to the cold, hard schematics of a debate workflow, the complexity of the world is reduced to something with a lot more clarity. You can presumably then take that clarity to constituencies that wouldn’t necessarily agree with you and convince them that your policy positions are inexorable because — they’re so logical.

    But please note some of us can note the complexity of the world and know that sometimes two opposing positions have value. That’s to say, no, one side isn’t wrong. To wit, I’m not willing to subordinate women to the protection of embryos. But I realize by taking that stance I’m subordinating the embryo to the rights of women. I understand the difficult trade-off. Just once, I’d like a pro-lifer to acknowledge the trade-off instead of preening their self-righteousness and deluding themselves into thinking that “one side is wrong”.

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

      The claim asserted by this post — that the embryo is a live human being — is a straightforward empirical question that does have a clear right answer and a clear wrong answer. Pro-lifers are right, and pro-choicers are wrong. Saying so isn’t self-righteous, it’s just honest. The stubbornness with which so many pro-choicers cling to misstating basic biology deserves harsh responses.

      Now, the other question — whether human life comes with rights regardless of development stage — may not be a question of similar empiricism, but (a) I’m not aware of pro-lifers claiming otherwise, and (b) that doesn’t mean objective right and wrong answers can’t be found. Empiricism is but one method of seeking truth.

      And we discuss the “trade-off” all the time; in fact, one of our most common arguments is that abortion is far more burdensome to the baby than no-abortion would be to the mother.

      • Oedipa

        Your desire to drill down just to the narrow question Mr. DeMatteo poses illustrates my point. The clarity you’re seeking from debates like this might reinforce your own tribe’s opinions, but getting clarity from the big, messy world and its diversity of opinions will be elusive.

        That’s why the law strives to strike a balance (it’s no coincidence getting an abortion gets increasingly more difficult as viability increases), without attempting metaphysical clarity about when personhood can be pinpointed.

        • Calvin Freiburger

           Wow. You said absolutely nothing of substance in that reply. It didn’t meaningfully address any argument I made. It’s like you’re not even trying anymore.

          • Oedipa

            Oboy, the guy who likes to take me to task for not reading his posts carefully enough doesn’t read my post carefully enough.

            I’m saying you can debate this all day long, you can even win the debate, but when there’s no consensus, the law values even the opinions that lose debates and attempts to give them some protection.

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

            I gather you think you’ve said something profound, but it’s still more gibberish….capped off with a truly perverted claim to protection from an imaginary threat from someone dedicated to denying innocent people protection from actual threats.

    • Adam

      There can be many wrongs, but there can only be one right.

  • Leiapeison

    fi my contraception fails, i will abort full stop. no one can stop me

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

      So your choice to risk creating your son or daughter doesn’t come with ANY responsibility to that son or daughter?

    • Guest

      While I fully support your right to do so, I’m not really sure what the point of that comment was…But abortion isn’t exactly fun, and it isn’t a decision to be taken lightly. It’s best to just be vigilant about your contraception (even though nothing is foolproof). 

      In college, one of my friends had to get an abortion because her hormonal contraceptives (the pill) didn’t work because of an antibiotic. And condoms only work if used correctly. Just some things to keep in mind. 

  • http://www.rogerresler.com/ Roger Resler

    Excellent points. Humans can only reproduce other humans and abortion kills the human in womb, so, it logically follows that life has already begun before an abortion takes place. The point that often gets overlooked in this, is the fact that this is all based on repeatable, scientific observation – there is no religion involved, yet PC proponents insist the pro-life position is a religious imposition while theirs, they suggest, is neutral. It is not. I deal with that point in my blog here. 

    Great points, Ed. 

  • a mother

    No matter how you look at it, abortion is the epitome of selfishness, and the total opposite of love, which is to put anothers needs above your own. It always amazes me that there are so many people willing to spend so much time defending a womans right to be totally selfish and inconsiderate of the life that she started by having sex for “fun or to enhance a relationship”. I’m no doctor, and I couldn’t begin to argue the scientific facts. As a person who has carried three babies, I know they were human from the beginning, and so does everyone else. If you want to agree with abortion, it’s your right. But at least admit that you are agreeing with a womans right to selfish behavior and putting her own needs ahead of her baby’s.

  • Rose

    Most of those within the pro-choice camp do not argue that a fetus is not human life. They argue that it is not a PERSON. Most understand that a fetus is living human tissue, but when does it become a person? At conception? At birth? When it becomes viable? When it begins to show brain activity? This is the actual question that many people face. Only those who are ignorant do not understand that a fetus is a human being.