kermit-gosnell

Why Kermit Gosnell should be acquitted

kermit-gosnell

Kermit Gosnell has been on trial for murder for the past month and a half. By now you’ve heard it all before: the filthy conditions, the racist practices, the contaminated instruments, and – of course – the babies delivered alive and killed by snipping their necks with scissors.

I say we acquit him.

There is nothing more disgusting about pulling a baby out and killing her than there is about sticking an instrument into the womb and killing her. Why is it worse if she’s a foot away? Is the difference location? Should a few feet of space be the difference between “perfectly legal” and “first degree murder?”

It’s preposterous. The whole trial is kind of a sham. Let him go. If it’s legal a few feet to the left inside the womb, then why not just let it be legal a few feet to the right outside the womb?

Let him go. You know what? Drop the charges. If I were the prosecuting attorney, I’d say, “We thought about it, and we decided, y’know, if it’s legal over here, then why not let it be legal over there? If it’s legal at 24.5 weeks, then what the hell is the difference at 25 weeks? Or 33 weeks? Or a couple days after birth?”

Maybe by putting a murderer back on the street, we can make our point that there already are murderers walking the streets, legally. They’re called all the abortionists.

Do we condemn Kermit Gosnell for committing abortions in a filthy, slovenly, contaminated manner? If we do, are we saying it’s okay to kill babies if you use clean instruments and don’t accidentally perforate the uterus? Is it okay to abort lots of black babies if you’re just as nice to the black mothers as you are to the white? Is it okay to kill children as long as they’re not a certain size or a certain age?

This is what the pro-abortion people are saying when they condemn Kermit Gosnell. It’s not what he did that’s the problem; it’s how he did it. It makes them look bad. They hate looking bad.

But some pro-lifers are doing the same thing. I’ve been doing it, too. We want the world to see what abortion is so badly that we’ve made a figurehead of evil out of Gosnell, when in reality he is absolutely a logical outcome of abortion law in the United States

Letting Kermit Gosnell go might show the citizens of this country how utterly schizophrenic are their attitudes toward abortion.

Try having a conversation with a pro-choice person. It’ll probably go something like this sample conversation, which I’ve had some version of about 400 times.

Pro-Choice Person: I’m pro-choice. I believe in a woman’s right to choose.

Me: Okay, so you think a woman should be able to go in and get an abortion the month before she’s due?

PCP: Give me a break, of course not!

Me: Why not?

PCP: Because… I mean… it’s a baby by then.

Me: When does it become a baby?

PCP: Well… I mean… it can feel pain by then.

Me: So it would be ok to kill me if you anesthetized me first?

PCP: Of course not, but you’re a person.

Me: When did I become a person?

Inevitably, the PCP ends up having to admit that there are only two logical criteria for the onset of personhood: conception or birth. Any argument for some designation between these two points is purely arbitrary. By this time the PCP is pretty committed to holding up his defense of abortion, so he goes for birth, although you can tell he doesn’t really like it. At which point it’s easy to show how the same arguments for late-term abortion can be made for infanticide. This makes PCPs feel bad, so they either become pro-life or make friends with denial.

Enter Kermit Gosnell. He is absolutely the logical conclusion of the pro-abortion mentality, which is not at all based in logic. Logical reasoning about abortion leads you to either a pro-life viewpoint or a pro-infanticide viewpoint. A human being of sound mental, emotional, and spiritual health retreats from a pro-infanticide viewpoint and becomes pro-life. The rest remain pro-choice, and they deserve to be represented by Kermit Gosnell.

I want Kermit Gosnell walking the streets. I want him free, because there is nothing he did that is incompatible with a pro-abortion ideology. I want him to serve as a constant reminder that abortion and infanticide are the same thing, and it was the Supreme Court’s idea – supported by around half of the citizens of this country - that some doctors are murderers who get to be free citizens.

I want him punished in the following way: he should have to wear a red T-shirt with white letters on it that say “I STABBED BABIES IN THE NECK AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT” for the rest of his life. Inevitably, there will be a new college band called I Stabbed Babies in the Neck, and you’ll be able to buy replicas of the T-shirt online, but that’s okay. I still want him to have to wear it, every day, for the rest of his life, and be buried in it.

As a country, we don’t deserve to get to put Kermit Gosnell in prison and feel good about ourselves. We deserve to have to think about him walking around free. We created him. We should have to see him at the grocery store and the post office, look at his face, and think about what we’ve done.

Actually, you know what, I changed my mind. I have a way better and more accurate idea for Kermit Gosnell’s T-shirt: “I STABBED BABIES IN THE NECK, BECAUSE YOU LET ME.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.l.parker.1 Beverly Levi Parker

    Wow! One of the best and most rational posts I’ve read on this subject. These have been my exact sentiments from the beginning! Thank you fo making it so concise and clear!

  • JDC

    Kristen, this article was incredibly sad, but also incredibly true. Keep up the good work.

  • Andrew

    Thank you for this compelling article, Kristen. I’ll admit you really got my attention with the headline.

    You’re right on target. Conviction of Gosnell, I fear, would (will?) only lead to a more concerted effort to hide abortionists’ crimes against humanity from the public. To make matters worse, PP, et al, will make a pretty show of “cleaning up their act,” if this is even deemed necessary from a public relations point of view.

  • Rob

    before there is a heart it is just a anybunch of cells. No diffrent than any pant cell. Once heart beats no abortion.

    • http://twitter.com/DOTCOM_MOM D.O.T.C.O.M.

      Rob: First: The “human” conceptus, that which results from conception and begins his or her life as a zygote, is the sexual product of HUMAN parents. Consequently, the conceptus can only be HUMAN.
      Secondly: resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes) the conceptus is a NEW, although very tiny, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PERSON with his/her own genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), a code that is neither her mother’s nor her father’s. From this point (LONG before the heart begins to beat), until death NO new genetic information is needed to make the preborn entity an individual human! His or Her genetic makeup is established AT CONCEPTION, determining his/her own individual physical characteristics: gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color. Since the “conceptus” can be brought into existence in a petri dish (as evidenced in the case of the test-tube baby)–and, since this entity, if he/she has white parents–is transferred into the womb of a black woman WILL be born—> white. Consequently, scientists have CLEARLY concluded the “conceptus” is NOT “part of the woman’s body.”
      YOU, Rob, started YOUR LIFE as a zygote. You did not COME from a ZYGOTE you WERE a ZYGOTE. YOU did not come from an embryo, you WERE an embryo! You did not come from a fetus. You WERE a fetus! You did not come from a toddler! You WERE a toddler! You did not come from an adolescent. You WERE an adolescent! Each and every one of us has experienced these various developmental stages of life!
      Dr. M. Krieger writes in “The human Reproductive System,” pg. 88: “All organisms, however large and complex they may be when fullgrown, begin life as but a single cell. This is true of the human being.”
      Dr. Bart T. Hefferman, M.D., writes:
      “The new combination of chromosomes (long before the heart begins to beat) [i.e. the zygote's genetic structure] sets in motion the individual’s life, controlled by his own individual code (genes) with its fantastic library of information projected from the past on the helix of DNA. A single trhead of DNA from a human cell contains information equivalent to six hundred THOUSAND printed pages with five hundred words on a page, or a library of one thousand VOLUMES. The stored knowledge at conception in the new individual’s library of instruction is FIFTY times MORE than that contained in the Encyclopedia Britannica. These unique and individual instructions are operative over the whole of the individual’s life and form a continuum of human existence even into succeeding generations.”
      Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Principle research associate in the Dept of Medicine at Harvard Medical School: “So therefore, it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of his/her life.”
      Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at the Mayo Clinic, reported: “I have never seen in my own scientific reading, long before I became concerned with issues of life in this nature, that anyone has ever argued that human life did not begin at the MOMENT of conception if it resulted from the fertilization of the human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, these have never been argued against. The question of the beginning of human life is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific FACT.”

    • Gary_1016

      Every human being is nothing but a bunch of cells. A beating heart doesn’t make us human. The ability to speak and to reason doesn’t make us human. The ability to work and to support our families doesn’t make us human. Even ants do as much. What makes us human is our immortal soul which we receive at the moment of conception in our mother’s womb.

  • Bobby Whitman

    I understand what you’re saying, and there are points made. However, this horrible string of murders (more than 3 thousand each day) is obviously going on without even disturbing the average American. This includes those who would tell you they are pro-life. If this piece of filth is punished, and it stops one murderer with a license to practice medicine from performing one abortion outside of the law (the word law hardly fitting), then I’ll take that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000174411885 Kent Martin

    It is murder no matter how you put it! You may not be found guilty in man’s court but in God’s ,”You are a GONER !”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000174411885 Kent Martin

    Does FEMINIST segregate you from a humanist?

  • hilda beard

    The women wanted it done, they didn’t care how it got done, just murder for hire

    • Heather Steenrod

      Evidence suggests that a number of factors influenced a woman’s decision to seek care at Gosnell’s clinic: Medicaid’s refusal to provide insurance coverage for most abortions; the scarcity of abortion providers in Pennsylvania (and across the nation); the fear of violence perpetrated by protestors at clinics, and the right-wing culture that has so stigmatized abortion that many think it is still illegal 40 years after Roe v. Wade.

      • Mary Lee

        To provide abortions past the arbitrary limit even abortion advocates support? Yeah, okay. Also, there is no scarcity of abortion providers in Pennsylvania, especially in Philadelphia.

        Abortion is stigmatized because it is awful, evil, sick, bloody, sad, and wrong. I’m so sorry that upsets you. *shrug* The NAF didn’t report him, and they KNEW what he was doing. And here’s the kicker: This is happening in other clinics across the country.

  • Gwenjfb

    Sorry don’t agree. If he is just one of these monsters to come to trial he is a good example of the free license to kill live babies and the coercement of women who are forced to get abortions who don’t even want them. This doesn’t remove or change the fact that all abortions are killing a human life but this does get the very fact that this industry is a killing factory funded by the government out in the light of day for those who will see it maybe for the first time while the rest of us have protested this form of population control for years. What we need to be teach is self control and re-teaching women what is truly means to be liberated from becoming sex objects for men’s enjoyment rather then cherished by a husband who will love and die for her and her baby. Children are a gift from God not something to be thrown away when they get in the way.

    • Zephyr

      Sigh. You DO realize that married women with husbands who will “love and die for her and her baby” have abortions? Do they need to learn self-control too? Abortion has nothing, NOTHING to do with being a sex object. It has everything to do with seeing yourself as valuable human being an not just an incubator. It’s about figuring out whether you can be an adequate parent, financially or otherwise, for your kid. It’s about making difficult, adult choices. If children are not something to be “thrown away when they get in the way,” are you then also against adoption?

      • Mary Lee

        Only pro-aborts use degrading terms like “incubator.” All of your arguments are rebutted and your questions answered in this thread.

        • Gary

          The use of the word is not even scientifically accurate. That which is placed in an incubator doesn’t take on the shape of the incubator.

        • zephyr

          Is it more degrading to use the term or to treat someone like one? BTW, I know many, many people who are pro-choice, and none of them are “pro-abortion.” So your little abbreviation “pro-aborts” is inaccurate.

          • Mary Lee

            If you believe that abortion is a right, then you are pro-abortion. “Pro-choice” is a euphemism and a lie. “Anti-choice” doesn’t make sense, but I have no problem with “anti-abortion.” Why is “pro-abortion” an insult? If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then why does your camp constantly try to deny that you are, in fact, pro-ABORTION?

          • Scott Z

            “If you believe that abortion is a right, then you are pro-abortion.” In general, merely being unwilling to support making X illegal, does not make one pro-X. It may in the case of abortion, however.

            The fact people who call themselves pro-choice don’t like being called pro-abortion is a GOOD thing. It means you actually have a chance of convincing them your position is the right one.

            If a zygote really is a person, then every women who’s ever had an abortion is an accomplice or accessory to murder. However, most people who call themselves pro-life are not calling for these women to be put on trial. (For which I’m quite glad.) Do you know why?

  • DMP

    Thank you for a clear and well thought out message on this topic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/monica.thompson1013 Monica Thompson

    I understand your point, but Kermit Gosnell is a serial killer. When free, he WILL kill again. More women and babies will die. That is certainly not what I want.

    • Gary_1016

      The people he kills don’t want that either.

  • Laura Wright

    There is a case in Nashville, Tn, where the mother delivered her twin boys, and then proceeded to strangle them to death. She just received 2 life terms. If I were on the jury, I would have acquitted her. What is the difference from what she did and an abortion. Perhaps she just couldn’t afford one! Unwanted babies get the death penalty. What difference does it make who does it, or how?

    • Gary_1016

      “What is the difference from what she did and an abortion.”
      None. That’s why she was given 2 life sentences. Murder is murder.

      • Calvin Freiburger

        Watch the F-bombs, please.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Ms. Spider

    “Inevitably, the PCP ends up having to admit that there are only two
    logical criteria for the onset of personhood: conception or birth.”

    Nope. A lot of us hew to the logic of the Supreme Court and have settled on viability. That your straw man “PCP” couldn’t come up with is no surprise, s/he seems pretty stupid to begin with. But that’s what makes a good straw man.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      Actually, in some ways “viability” is the most Naziesque (and I know, blah blah Godwin) abortion justification of all, rather than being the “moderate” position. It’s essentially a more palatable rephrasing of “Your weaknesses and infirmities are my excuse for killing you.”

      • Heather Steenrod

        No, women seek abortion for reasons far beyond “weaknessness and infirmities.” And this is what happens when it’s next-to-impossible for women in low-income areas to get a legal abortion.

        • Mary Lee

          No, this is what happens when the NAF turns a blind eye to the atrocities, the very nature of abortion. This isn’t about restrictions, this isn’t the fault of the pro-life movement. This is the ugly face of abortion, plain and simple. Women seek abortion because of fear, primarily. Fear. Women seek abortion because they’re told it’s okay to dismember and puree their own child so they can live as they wish. Women seek abortion because they’re told it’s their right. Women seek abortion because they are lied to. Women seek abortion because women are not demanding more. Women seek abortion because they feel they don’t have any other choice. Women seek abortion because we have dehumanized the unborn. Women seek abortion because they refuse to look abortion in the face and reject it. Women seek abortion because the pro-abortion lobby tells them abortion is not only okay, but GOOD. Women seek abortion because they are told it is healthcare. It’s not healthcare. It’s chaos. Women seek abortion because they’re poor, or they think they have too many kids, or they’re not ready, or their child isn’t perfect, or isn’t the gender they wanted….It’s all fear, and ignorance. All of it. Women seek abortions because of fear and ignorance.

          • Heather Steenrod

            Mary, abortion has happened for longer than you or I can even fathom. Not because of politics, not because of the internet. Because women had no control over their own bodies. Hence the hemlock, the wire hanger, the overdosing on Vitamin C.

            Women seek abortions because they do not want to have a child. And while I cannot ever imagine having to make that choice, I would never dream of imposing my beliefs on another woman. We don’t live each other’s lives; why would you want me to have say in something you do with your own body and family?

          • Mary Lee

            OH, right, the wire hanger. There were SO MANY of those! You know that the number of women who died from illegal abortion was actually made up, right? Bernard Nathanson admitted that THEY JUST MADE UP A NUMBER! A bigger one than the actual one, because it sounded, you know….bigger. You know what else? Women still die, from legal abortions. Women are hurt, in so many ways.

            So it’s existed for a long time. Wow, big whoop. You know what else has existed? Rape. Murder. Child abuse. Stealing.

            Women seek abortions because they do not want to have a child? Well, maybe they should take precautions. Nope, women seek abortions because they are told it is their choice. Having the ABILITY to choose something doesn’t mean it’s RIGHT to choose it. I have the ability to punch someone in the face….but I don’t. Is it because I am CHOOSING not to do it? No, because it is not something that anyone should do. I certainly CAN do it, and some have often done it, but it ought not be done.

            We DO live each other’s lives. And people tell me what to do with my body all the time. My doctor tells me what medicines to take and not to take. People tell me not to smoke. (Yes, I’m a smoker.) People tell me not to eat carbs, or chocolate cake. People tell me this or that or the other. Again, I’m not telling you what to do with YOUR body. I’m telling you that your rights end where another person’s body begins. What about our little sons and daughter’s in utero? Where’s THEIR bodily autonomy? We do not have the right to dismember and puree and incinerate people because “we don’t want to have a baby.” What the heck? I’ve said this many times: I have never heard an actual, valid argument from someone who supports abortion. I have only heard slogans, and excuses.

          • Mary Lee

            I keep saying “what the heck”…..I think it’s because my friend’s two-year old can’t stop saying it all the time. Except he says “UT DA HECK!”

          • Scott Z

            “I have never heard an actual, valid argument from someone who supports abortion.”

            A woman’s body is her property. People have the right to remove things from their property. A woman has the right to remove things from her uterus.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            1.) Where or what is the source of this “right”?
            2.) A human being is not a mere “thing.” He or she is a live human being, just as his or her mother is.
            3.) People may have a right “to remove things from their property,” but it doesn’t follow that their means of doing so are unlimited. If a homeless person has snuck into my living room, I may be entitled to kick him out, but I’m not entitled to grab a shotgun and blow him away while he’s sleeping.
            4.) The uterus’ function is to sustain a developing child. So why couldn’t it just as easily be said to be the fetus’ property, or at least his/hers and the mother’s joint property.

          • Scott Z

            My position on abortion is in flux, and I no longer stand by the argument I presented as an example. While you probably don’t care, I wanted to be polite and let you know the reason I hadn’t responded.

          • Mary Lee

            Again, slogans and excuses.

            If a woman has a Greyhound bus in her uterus, then yes, she has the right to have it removed. If a woman is pregnant with her own child, who has his or her OWN BODY, then she does NOT have the right to kill it. Our “bodily” rights end where another body begins. We do not have the right to violently kill our babies. Not an argument–it’s a slogan AND an excuse.

            I’ll be sure to dismember and incinerate the next child who sets foot on my lawn. It’s my property, after all. (Oh, but since the child is “born” it’s not okay. So, now we’re talking about “location.” In the living room, it’s okay to kill our babies. In the dining room, it’s not. In the living room, you are not a person, but in the dining room, you are a person.)

            Nope. Not an argument. Pffft. remove things from her uterus. Like her child is a “thing.”

          • Scott Z

            “then she does NOT have the right to kill it”

            I didn’t say she has the right to kill it, I said she has the right to remove it. I really should have added “remove it intact and non-violently”, however.

          • Julia

            So wait. If you suddenly decide that you don’t want your two-year old, are you free to tear that child to pieces (what happens in an abortion) or throw him/her out of you house (YOUR PROPERTY) and let that child starve or die from exposure?

            Of course not. Parents (including the mothers of preborn children) have duties towards their children. They must feed them, clothe them, shelter them, etc.using their bodies, their time, their property, etc.

            Based on your position, there is still no justification for abortion, anyway. Only induced labor, and then doing whatever can be doen to save that child’s life.

          • Scott Z

            “Based on your position”

            Actually, that’s not really my position–I gave it as an example of what I thought was a rational and logical pro-choice argument.

            So far, the only part of my position on abortion I’ve presented is that I think the group/cluster of human cells present immediately after conception is not yet a person/human being. And, obviously, I could be wrong about this.

          • twocents

            I’m sorry to see you getting such harsh replies. It seems to me like you’re just trying to gather information.

            As far as I see it, conception is the start of human life because, from that point on, the new being develops through stages until natural death, unless they are killed by an outside force. We might draw legal lines, like they can be killed before the heart beats, or before they emerge from the birth canal, but are those any less arbitrary than saying they can be killed before they take their first steps or before they can speak? It’s still the same life.

          • Scott Z

            “I’m sorry to see you getting such harsh replies. It seems to me like you’re just trying to gather information.”

            Yes, I am. And thank you. :)

            “As far as I see it, conception is the start of human life because, from that point on, the new being develops through stages until natural death, unless they are killed by an outside force. We might draw legal lines, like they can be killed before the heart beats, or before they emerge from the birth canal, but are those any less arbitrary than saying they can be killed before they take their first steps or before they can speak? It’s still the same life.”

            I think they are less arbitrary, but I’m really not sure.

            Numerous times, I have genuinely wished I’d been killed before I was born. Perhaps that is why my posts seem foreign, even cruel.

            Also, if anyone thinks I’m lying about my conditions, I can provide parts of my medical documentation as evidence.

          • Gary_1016

            Removing the child does not mean you can kill the child.

          • Julia

            “And while I cannot ever imagine having to make that choice, I would
            never dream of imposing my beliefs on another woman. We don’t live each
            other’s lives; why would you want me to have say in something you do
            with your own body and family?”

            But, you are imposing your beliefs on that preborn child.

            Serial killers usually don’t consider what they are doing is wrong. Should we impose our belief that it is wrong on them? Or is that unfair? Wife-beaters and child-abusers don’t necessarily think that what they are doing is wrong? So should we be able to impose our beliefs into their family lives, telling them that they can’t abuse their families?

          • Mary Lee

            Yes! Setting fire to small woodland creatures like Jeffrey Dahmer did was just his choice! We shouldn’t impose our beliefs on people. Even though we do it all the time, with our silly laws against killing and stealing and lying under oath. Even though there are laws against smoking, and prostitution, and all kinds of things that we do with our own bodies. We really should just let people do whatever they want to, because THEY know best about their own bodies and decisions.

            When I was pro-choice, I knew every argument. I wasn’t vehemently pro-choice, just mildly (I believed in certain legal limits, because late-term abortion just seemed cruel), and thought it was the woman’s decision, and all that stuff. I didn’t convert overnight, and I certainly wasn’t all EXCITED about it….When I realized what I was actually supporting, I felt incredibly sad, just unbearably sad. When I forced myself to look at this issue square in the face, and I used all my fancy education and applied logic and read biology and really understood what was being supported here…..Sometimes I feel a bit of sympathy for abortion advocates, because if and when they realize what this issue is, what it actually means, what it signifies, and how awful it is, and how damaging, they will feel great pain and sorrow. I can understand the refusal and ignorance. I think there is no excuse, but I do understand it. We don’t like to admit when we ran a stop sign; how can we admit when we were supportive of and complicit in the death of our children?

          • Heather Steenrod

            But Julia, that’s where we differ. I don’t believe a zygote is a child. So does the SCOTUS.

          • Mary Lee

            Again, by the time a woman finds out she’s pregnant…..her child is NOT A ZYGOTE. As if killing a zygnote is a-ok.

            The SCOTUS also said black people weren’t really people. Oops. Funny how pro-aborts argue and rail against the concept of Papal Infallibility (….I too question it), but seem to believe that the SCOTUS can never ever be wrong! And women, they are never wrong either! You know that bumper sticker “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?”……That is a Möbius strip if false logic.

          • Heather Steenrod

            Does that mean you support Plan B aka the “morning after” pill? It’s a zygote then…

          • Mary Lee

            Why would I? I don’t support abortifacient drugs. Also, I hate writing on my phone….obviously I meant “zygote” but it looks like I was talking about Zagnuts.

            I don’t even like to kill bugs. Should I? Because they’re small? And they can be annoying? I should just step on all of them.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          You need to read a little more carefully. “Weaknesses and infirmities” refers to the unborn baby’s lack of viability that’s being used as an excuse to kill him or her. It’s not any kind of reference to the pregnant woman’s motives.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Ms. Spider

        If post-viability is the point at which most of society gets uncomfortable with abortion, then that actually seems like a good moderate measure of where to draw the line. I know you like to think you have some sort of specialized moral compass that supercedes popular perceptions, but there’s a reason the law has gravitated around viability since 1973, and it’s not because of one sect’s specialized outrage.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          First, you didn’t explain why the viability standard *isn’t* merely a repackaging of Naziesque weak lording over the strong. You just made a morally and intellectually shallow appeal to “perception.” It’s tiresome that you can’t debate issues in any more depth than that, and it’s tiresome that you continually pretend not to know ho bankrupt it is.

          Second, I don’t think I have a “specialized moral compass”; just a functioning one. You only think it’s odd because you’re looking at me from within your own bubble of moral dysfunction. Your moral compass has collected dust for so long that you no longer know what a functioning one looks like. For any serious moral thinker, the inadequacy of popular opinion to determining moral right from wrong is elementary.

    • Dolce

      You do realize that viability changes depending on technology? All pro-choice philosophers agree that it is not a good cut-off point because it is based not on the mother or the baby, but on outside influences.

      • Gary_1016

        If pro-abortionists had their way, viability wouldn’t begin until the child graduates from high school.

        • Mary Lee

          *FIST BUMP*

          • Heather Steenrod

            Right. because that makes sense. Wanting to raise a healthy child to graduation AND supporting the right to abortion can’t possibly coexist. Silly, silly fist-bumpers.

          • Mary Lee

            Really, the fist-bump bothers you so much you need to comment on it? Ha ha ha ha ha ha

            But seriously, believing that your child’s life is worth sacrificing, at any stage, is warped. We are all flawed, and we can’t love perfectly, but if, at any stage, you believe your child’s body was actually your own, and supported the dismemberment and incineration of that body, then…..well, what IS that? So, no, they can’t coexist.

    • Julia

      So wait. You are saying that how scientifically advanced medicine is determines whether or not someone is a person? I guess 50 years ago an 7 month old preborn child was not a person, but now they are? What changed?

      Glad to hear, that since you consider anyone passed viability is a person, that consider late term abortions murder (i.e., killing a person) and late term abortionists murderers. Why don’t you go protest outside a late term abortion clinic then?

  • Gary_1016

    You want to let a murderer go free? Are you out of your fucking mind???

  • http://www.facebook.com/jennifer.chase1 Jennifer Jenkins Chase

    Wow, you found a compelling way to view this I hadn’t considered. I personally want him bled to death by paper cuts, but you have a point. Why does his disgusting approach enrage me more than someone who achieves the same results in a sterile environment? Another awesome post, thanks Kristen.

    • Zephyr

      Most people, pro-choice people included, find third-trimester abortions difficult. Most third-trimester abortions are for either the health of the other or for that of the fetus (it would either die after birth or suffer tremendously before dying shortly thereafter… or it is already suffering in the womb — such things are agonies to their parents). There are legitimate medical and ethical reasons to allow them, but that doesn’t make them difficult to think about. However, most abortions happen in the first trimester, when you would not produce a live baby, or even a baby, so what happened in his clinic is not equivalent to the vast majority of abortions.

      Part of the horror of the unsterile environment was that it was harming women, something pro-life people don’t seem to give a da– about. Women died having procedures that shouldn’t have killed them. As back-alley abortions did before Roe v. Wade. If anything, the horror of Gosnell shows us what would happen if we went back go making abortion illegal. In fact, some of the women aborted in the 3rd trimester because anti-abortion laws (requiring waiting periods, etc.) delayed them getting one earlier!

      • Gary

        “Women died having procedures that shouldn’t have killed them”

        Women who die in childbearing are not killed. They die a natural death.

        Do you understand the difference between dying and killing?

        • Zephyr

          ? I wasn’t talking about childbirth, I was talking about women dying from the abortion procedures that, in a safe, legal clinic, would not do so.

          But, yes, women who die in childbirth that they are forced to have are most certainly killed.

  • Heather Steenrod

    Please. Reproductive choice is no more responsible for the actions of one man than marriage being responsible for divorce. Besides, most women who seek abortions go in the 1st and 2nd trimester, not “a month before” or “a day before” as Kristen Hatten suggests. Sensationalizing this atrocity to justify limiting women’s choice on whether or not to have a child (whether conceived by rape or not) is shameful.

    • Mary Lee

      Women’s choice? To kill their babies? There is no difference between killing in the first trimester or third. There is no difference. He or she is the same human being, doing just what he or she is supposed to do, living where he or she is supposed to live. “Reproductive choice” is a lie. There is NOTHING reproductive about abortion. This is not about women’s seeming infallibility to never be wrong. This is about killing baby people. You’re not less of a person at age 3 than you are at age 33. You’re not less of a person at 35 weeks gestation than you are at 5 weeks gestation. There is no difference. It is either OKAY to kill in all circumstances, or it’s not. This isn’t about “choice” and “bodily autonomy.” This is about the right to live–the right to LIVE, to not be killed–which overrides every other right in existence.

      • Heather Steenrod

        Your argument about personhood would hold more weight if fetuses were able to survive and thrive on their own – outside of the womb and without medical intervention.

        • Gary_1016

          Can you survive without food, water, and medical attention?

          • Mary Lee

            I know, right?

          • Heather Steenrod

            Can you become pregnant, Gary? Until that day comes, you don’t have a say in what women do with their bodies.

          • Mary Lee

            Oh please. Seriously. It’s okay if men support abortion, though, right? That’s okay, then.

            That’s like saying, “Heather, you can’t get prostate cancer, so you should just keep your trap shut.” What about women who can’t conceive? Should they have a say? Or not? Please, tell me, who should have a say. Just like you know who should live and who should die.

            By the by, no pro-lifer cares what a WOMAN does with HER body. We care what she does with her BABY’S body. All we are saying is, “Killing your baby, that’s gross, and not okay.” And to be sure, there is nothing feminist about killing your baby. There is nothing healthy about abortion. Nothing. Sorry, my liberty doesn’t hinge on the blood of dead babies.

          • Gary_1016

            I wish I could get pregnant. I’d be rich!

          • tom721

            Caesarean?

          • Gary_1016

            Any other method would hurt like hell.

          • Zephyr

            But when a woman is pregnant, what happens IS in her body, so you can’t separate the two, as much as you are desperately trying to. Until you change the fundamental way that babies develop, you are ALWAYS involving a woman’s body, and what happens to it is HER choice, not yours. Your “liberty” is to not have an abortion if you don’t want one. That’s where your “liberty” ends.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, you CAN separate the two, because there are TWO SEPARATE HUMAN BEINGS. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Abortion kills your child. How could that ever, EVER be okay? What kind of weird supremacist thinking is that? Do you hear yourself?

          • Scott Z

            “Abortion kills your child. How could that ever, EVER be okay?” It is not always possible to save the life of both mother and child in an ectopic pregnancy. While these circumstances are quite rare, they do happen.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, and most pro-lifers understand that. The problem is, the abortion lobby uses these rare cases (and other rare “hard cases”) to justify what it is they actually support: Abortion on demand and without apology. They want abortion to be legal for any reason at all, at any stage. The fact that they would use these hard cases, when 99% of abortions are committed for reasons of convenience, is dishonest and dangerous. Every lie has a hint of truth.

            The fact that they rail against regulations, they refuse to report clinics like Gosnell’s for fear that this WILL be regulated, the fact that they rail against parental notification laws, and restrictions of any kind, the fact that they do not want women to see ultrasounds of their babies (claiming that it’s some kind of emotional manipulation, something they practice incessantly–indeed, their entire “argument” is based on emotional manipulation)…..It’s clever…..Like the way pickpockets in Rome confuse you with newspaper and babies while they steal the wallet right out of your pocket. Obfuscation, manipulation, and outright lies, and the death of our own children for the sake of convenience….that is the pro-abortion movement.

          • Scott Z

            “They want abortion to be legal for any reason at all, at any stage.” But…why?! I mean, they must be under the impression it will lead to some sort of positive outcome. I know the reason isn’t “because they like killing babies”, for example.

            “Obfuscation, manipulation, and outright lies, and the death of our own children for the sake of convenience….that is the pro-abortion movement.” Honestly, the more I learn about the world, the more I’m convinced it’s best for me to not risk creating any new people. Is it safe to assume most pro-life people are okay with a person deciding to not engage in the type of sex that can lead to pregnancy?

          • Zephyr

            OK, Mary Lee, let’s suppose you can separate the two… the embryo/fetus and the mother. How do you propose doing that? Can we remove the zygote or embryo from the mother’s body and have it still live? If not, then you circle back to the idea that they are always inextricably linked.

          • Gary_1016

            The child she carries is not part of her body. It is a new person. Unless you are God, you have no right to put this innocent child to death.

          • Heather Steenrod

            Fine belief to have if you are a God-fearing person. But remember in this land of freedom, we don’t all believe in the big man in the sky.

          • Gary_1016

            Without faith and morality, this world would be ruled by total chaos. Death reigns where love is not. Your view of the world is fairly black.

          • Angelina Steiner

            Yeah, we don’t all believe in “random mutation” either!
            Heather, shame on you for supporting MURDER!

          • Scott Z

            And shame on you for worshiping a being that allows eternal torture!

          • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

            That being, God, has given you a way NOT to face eternal torture, it’s free choice-up to you, to accept or reject the way out. That’s real pro-choice. I worship God, who gave His son to save me from eternal torture, if you don’t, it’s your decision.

          • Scott Z

            A being that could prevent eternal torture but doesn’t is incomprehensibly evil. I refuse to worship such a vile entity, and I hold in contempt all who do.

          • Angelina Steiner

            Ah, but you don’t hold it “in contempt” for the people who want to MURDER their child in the womb? Scott, you are a hypocrite!
            Hypocrite (def.) – a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.
            You dare to judge God Who is the Author Life, yet you won’t judge the EVIL and the senseless killing of the innocent?
            Scott Z., YOU ARE SICK and TWISTED!

          • Scott Z

            You could combine every evil deed ever done on this Earth, and it would still be nothing compared to eternal torture.

            So yeah, everyone is virtuous compared to your God. Even the most sick and twisted among us.

          • Tim

            A mother can prevent the agony of her baby, and chooses not to. You say that a baby is less than human? It isn’t, but if it were, your logic just obliterated itself; because if a person has the right to make someone suffer because they are less of a person, than God would have the right to make us suffer because we are less of a god. Oops…

          • Scott Z

            “You say that a baby is less than human?”

            No, I said a zygote is not a person. Do you still want me to address the rest of your post?

          • Kylee

            God has (and continues to do so) given us every opportunity to be saved from hell. If a soul facing judgement still has unrepented sin in his heart, then he is evil. God cannot allow evil into his paradise without ruining this paradise and the people who live there. You mistake God. He does not gleefully choose among us who will suffer and who will live with him. Nor does He just let us walk into either state in a blasse manner. He loves us all and fights all that He can so that we may be with Him forever. But if a man keeps denying God and choosing evil, he cannot be allowed into heaven. The fact that God gives us so many chances when we are worth so little makes him the greatest entity ever, full of love and grace.

            And please. I personally do not wish you any harm nor do I demand that you conform to my opinions or my beliefs. I can truly say that I love and care about you . So why hate me because I love God?

          • Scott Z

            “So why hate me because I love God?” Because the God you love is an incredibly vile entity. And because people with beliefs like yours make my depression worse. Well, talking with them does, at least.

          • Scott Z

            “still has unrepented sin in his heart” How does one repent from sin, then? I ask because my assumptions are so often wrong.

          • Gary

            “God has (and continues to do so) given us every opportunity to be saved from hell. If a soul facing judgement still has unrepented sin in his heart, then he is evil.”

            Are you saying people who die with any amount of sin staining their souls are damned?

          • Scott Z

            I’m really sorry for hating you. You do seem like a very caring, thoughtful person. Some of the things you wrote just sounded so awful… I hope I didn’t upset you; sorry again for being so harsh.

          • Julia

            Why hell is so horrible is because God is not there. We were made to love God, and we can’t be truly happy without him.

            But God gives us free will – he doesn’t force us to choose to be with him. If we choose to reject God, we are choosing not to be in heaven, which means we are choosing to be in hell.
            God doesn’t “send” anyone to hell. We have chosen it for ourselves if we end up there.

          • Scott Z

            He still allows eternal torture when He could easily prevent it. And so He’s still incomprehensibly evil.

          • JWest

            No, It’s because he is perfect, and humanity, having at one point chosen to sin, cannot be with God. He cannot have imperfect beings with him. However, God sent his perfect son to die for our sins, thus allowing us to be with him, if we will only accept that he is god, and acknowledge that Jesus is his son, who died for us.

          • Scott Z

            Can He not just change it so He can have imperfect beings with Him? Why is the requirment for being with Him believing incredible things on insufficient reason and evidence?

          • JJ

            God doesn’t leave us to insufficient reason and evidence…He is a personal God. Ever see a beautiful sunset? That’s God saying “I am.” Ever think back as far as your could remember, and than realize that before you existed that you weren’t dead, you just WEREN’T? And then you realize than you never HAD to be and that’s such and terrible, frightening thought? But here you are and you realize that the only thing that HAS to be is what we call God. And you are just glad that you got to be because life is a good thing… God is the one to thank for life. And every baby that is conceived IS no matter how any individual feels about that and no one has the right to take that BEING away from it.

          • Scott Z

            “And then you realize than you never HAD to be and that’s such and terrible, frightening thought?”

            I actually don’t find such a thought to be terrible or frightening.

            “And you are just glad that you got to be because life is a good thing…”

            I have major depressive disorder and occasional thoughts of suicide. Sometimes, however, I feel life is a blessing and am glad to be alive.

          • Angelina Steiner

            Well SHAME on YOU for supporting the murder of an innocent baby in the womb. Yes, God will allow you eternal damnation because people like you support the killing of the innocent. So Scott Z, since you SUPPORT the killing of the innocent, you should be with a murderer like LUCIFER.

            Heaven or Hell is your choice, Scott Z!
            SAVING a baby or MURDERING a baby is also your choice!
            Being with God or with the Devil is also your choice!

            So SHAME ON YOU Scott Z., for supporting EVIL!

          • Scott Z

            Well, if I had no other choice, I would indeed support finite evil over infinite evil.

            Also, how can you shame me for anything when you worship a being of infinite evil?

          • Angelina Steiner

            Oh my your confused! No you support evil! God doesn’t want the baby to die, God wants you to save that baby!

            This is why you have mental issues in your own personal life.

            If you support evil (e.g. murdering the unborn) then you don’t want to be with the Author of Life. You chose to be with Death (the Devil in Hell).

            Supporter of Death=Be with the author of death (Devil).

            Supporter of Life=Be with the Author of Life (God).

            Heaven and Hell can not coexist with each other. You want to live in sin and be in heaven too! Ah, you want to eat your sinful cake and play in heaven too, it don’t work that way!

            Some begin their hell on earth and death is just a passage into the “Second Death.”

            You though is evil! Why? You want God to conform to you (live your sinful lifestyle and go to heaven too)
            but you don’t want to conform to God.

            You are your own little god!

            You time on earth is your testing people. Your soul is like a cement, once it’s dry (it the state of filth or the state of holiness) on earth, it is permanent! So repent and turn back before it’s too late!

          • Scott Z

            “This is why you have mental issues in your own personal life.” Well, it is true that people who think I deserve eternal agony make my depression worse. Which is why I really shouldn’t be talking with you…oh well.

            “Supporter of Death=Be with the author of death (Devil).” And it’s also true that I’ve wished to be dead numerous times.

            “You are your own little god!” This, however, is not true.

            Do you realize, if your religious beliefs are true, that killing me before I was born would have saved me from eternal damnation? How would saving me from eternal agony be “evil”?

          • Scott Z

            No, what I really want is your God to be moral. He chooses not to use His power to ensure no one goes to Hell. Such a choice is immoral. I merely want Him to make the moral choice.

            “You owe your very existence to him!” I don’t recall asking to exist. However, I suppose I should be grateful He didn’t give me an even worse existence…

          • Heather Steenrod

            Angelina, you accidentally left your caps lock on.

          • Scott Z

            Now that I think about it, there is one “murder of an innocent baby in the womb” that I would have supported: my own. And I dare you to condemn me for it. In fact, I dare ANYONE to condemn me for it.

          • Rebekah

            Condemn, no. But I do feel sorrow over the thought that anyone would wish that on themselves.

          • Scott Z

            You know, I just looked back through all my posts, and I didn’t find a single example of me saying I support abortion after the zygote stage. Well, I did respond by saying I would support my own abortion, but I stated elsewhere only before the stage where my brain began to develop. Though, if my body hadn’t developed a brain yet, there wouldn’t even be a “me”–yet. Anyway, please be more accurate in your accusations.

            However, I am very sorry for viewing Christians with contempt. While I do often find their views horrifying, that does not mean they’re bad people.

            So, I apologize for trying to shame you for your beliefs. I do still find some of your beliefs extremely disturbing, but I know you’re not a bad person just for believing them.

          • Angelina Steiner

            Why would you support your own abortion, that is crazy?
            If you find something in my religion extremely disturbing it is probably a misunderstand on your part. Any way I wish you well, I hope that one day (some how, some where) you will realize that there is a God. Peace.

          • Scott Z

            “Why would you support your own abortion, that is crazy?” Because it would have spared me the pain and suffering of existence. I’m not 100% sure I would support it, though.

            “If you find something in my religion extremely disturbing it is probably a misunderstand on your part.” Do you not find the idea of eternal torture extremely disturbing?

            “I hope that one day … you will realize that there is a God.” Why not just ask God to provide lots more evidence of His existence? I can guarantee doing that will not be any less effective than hoping.

          • Angelina Steiner

            I like you Scott Z,

            I will work with you but you will need to give me time to reply to you because I am working on an important project right now.

            About suffering and pain everyone goes through that. Welcome to the world of Original Sin. A world where we think that we are smarter than God.

            Regarding evidences for God– there are many Christians around the world who have personal relationships with Jesus Christ and I can’t dismiss that. The Saints who have done miraculous things and other witnesses testifying to their holiness and miracles– this I can not dismiss. In my own life there were moments of personal attention by God which were truly beautiful and unexplainable–this too I can not dismiss.

            Existence itself is miraculous! All the cosmic elements that must come together mathematically (all the constants in the universe with its own pinpoint precision) so that life could happen is miraculous!

            Random mutation and random chance can not organize and can not design anything.

            The beautiful landscapes of the world reveal an Intelligent Designer- The Ultimate Artist. The orderly complexities of the cosmos reveal an Intelligent Designer.

            Have you ever been to Hawaii? Man you need to go there!

            Peace!

          • Scott Z

            “I will work with you but you will need to give me time to reply to you because I am working on an important project right now.”
            Okay. Respond whenever you feel you have the time.

            “About suffering and pain everyone goes through that.”
            Yes, but not everyone has depression. How many times have you genuinely wished to be dead?

            “Welcome to the world of Original Sin.”
            Why do I deserve to be cursed and punished for something I didn’t do?

          • Gary_1016

            No one enters eternal damnation who does not wish to be there.

          • Scott Z

            Great! It’s very good to hear there won’t be anyone there. :)

          • Gary_1016

            Did I say there wouldn’t be anyone there? You’d be surprised how many people there are who would rather serve evil than good knowing the consequences. Guilt causes great emotional torment even to the living. In essence, they choose hell before they actually see the place and it’s a decision they’ll have to live with for all eternity.

          • Scott Z

            “In essence, they choose hell before they actually see the place and it’s a decision they’ll have to live with for all eternity.”

            I kinda wish you had told me earlier that this ‘choice’ is made based on faulty and/or incomplete information. Obviously people could accidently/mistakenly choose/wish to be there.

          • Gary_1016

            The choice is based on desire. The Scriptures are clear enough. Sin leads to death. Period. Man is between God and nothingness. He must choose.

            “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him. ” ~ Sirach 15:16-18

          • Gary_1016

            The choice is based on desire. There are no mistakes. The choice is deliberate. The Scriptures are clear. Sin leads to death. Period. Man is between God and nothingness. He must choose. When you die, your fate is sealed forever.

            “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him.” ~ Sirach 15:16-18

          • Gary_1016

            The choice is based on desire. There are no mistakes. The choice is deliberate. The Scriptures are clear. Sin leads to death. Period. Man is between God and nothingness. He must choose, and when you die, your fate is sealed forever.

            “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him.” – Sirach 15:16-18

          • Gary_1016

            The choice is based on desire. There are no mistakes. The choice is deliberate. The Scriptures are clear. Sin leads to death. Period. Man is between God and nothingness. He must choose. When you die, your fate is sealed forever.

          • Angelina Steiner

            Scott,
            “I kinda wish you had told me earlier that this ‘choice’ is made based on faulty and/or incomplete information. Obviously people could accidently/mistakenly choose/wish to be there.”

            Have you ever heard of Natural Law: e.g. don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t abuse people, etc.? This law is written in everybody’s heart. Don’t kill a defenseless innocent person.

            You have all the information that’s written in your heart!
            You have a brain too! You have the prophets. You have the Bible. You have Jesus too. You got no excuse!

          • Scott Z

            “Have you ever heard of Natural Law: e.g. don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t abuse people, etc.? This law is written in everybody’s heart.” Yes, I’ve heard of it. Not by the name “Natural Law”, however.

            “You have all the information that’s written in your heart!” So why did God write on my heart that allowing eternal torture is evil, but write on your heart that it’s acceptable as long as people get to “choose”? I’m assuming the whole “written on/in your heart” thing is metaphorical.

          • Mary Lee

            By the by, I am a secular pro-lifer.

          • Scott Z

            I’m very glad there’s at least one person who’s pro-life and doesn’t also think I deserve eternal agony. Seriously, I really, really appreciate it. :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            I am not pro-life because of my belief in God. I am very sorry that you have had bad experiences with religious people. so have I. I am sure that Mary would agree, there are more than enough compelling reasons to be pro-life without even bringing God up. My belief in God is definitely in line with my pro-life beliefs, but they are not necessarily intrinsically linked.

          • Scott Z

            I appreciate the kind words, but, unless you DON’T think I deserve eternal torture, I have no interest in talking with you.

          • Gary_1016

            The issue of abortion is primarily a human rights issue, not a religious one. It’s like the Nazis determining who will live and who will die. Their’s was also a human rights violation.

          • Zephyr

            Except the Nazis weren’t killing things living inside their own bodies, and they weren’t killing things that were half-formed or merely fertilized eggs. So, no, not the same thing at all.

          • Gary_1016

            The choice is based on desire. There are no mistakes. The choice is deliberate. The Scriptures are clear. Sin leads to death. Period. Man is between God and nothingness. He must choose. When you die, your fate is sealed forever.

            “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him.” ~ Sirach 15:16-18

          • Scott Z

            I don’t desire to go to Hell. However, I also don’t desire to give up my honesty or rational thinking.

          • Gary_1016

            There’s nothing wrong with honesty and rational thinking. People of faith must exercise these things. I’m glad to know you don’t want to go to hell. Most people don’t, although a lot of people don’t see the connection between pleasure-seeking and eternal damnation and this is where rational thinking comes into play.

          • Scott Z

            The problem for me is, I’d have to give up my honesty and rational thinking in order to become a Christian and be saved from Hell.

            Maybe God created me for the express purpose of going to Hell? Not a very pleasant thought…

          • Rebekah

            God didn’t create anybody for the express purpose of going to hell. He isn’t like that. The thoughts that he has for you are for good, not evil. The thing is, He will honor the choice you make about where you want to be.

          • Scott Z

            Even if my “choice” is made based on faulty and/or incomplete information?

            I am no more ‘choosing’ the Christian Hell than you are ‘choosing’ the hell of any other religion with such a concept. Like Islam, for example.

          • Rebekah

            God honors choices no matter what they are based on. What information we base choices off of is our business. If I decide to buy a car, not knowing that the oil leaks, I have to live with that car because I decided to buy it. If I decide to go white-water rafting, not knowing that the raft is old and splitting, I live with the consequences. If your choice between heaven and hell is based off of faulty and/or incomplete information, and you know it, find out what is true.

            You are right. If what I believe isn’t true, I am choosing the Islamic hell, or the hell of any other religion. Why have I chosen to follow the Christian God? I believe that He is the true one, and all the evidence I’ve found points to that conclusion. If you want to know that evidence, or more about who God is, I will be more than happy to share it with you.

          • Scott Z

            “If I decide to buy a car, not knowing that the oil leaks, I have to live with that car because I decided to buy it.” Maybe if it’s a used car that you bought “as is”.

            “If I decide to go white-water rafting, not knowing that the raft is old and splitting, I live with the consequences.” The fact that something does happen says nothing about whether or not it SHOULD happen.

            “If you want to know that evidence” I absolutely want to know that evidence.

          • Rebekah

            “I absolutely want to know that evidence.” Would it be fine with you if I get back to you on Saturday? This could be a long discussion and I have a lot of things to do for finals week. This is not a copout. I want to be able to answer your question fully and I intend to do so, but I won’t be able to until my workload goes down a bit, which it will once this week is over. Are you okay with that?

          • Scott Z

            Absolutely! Take as long as you need. Good luck on your finals! :)

          • Rebekah

            Thank you. I appreciate your understanding!

          • Rebekah

            “I absolutely want to know that evidence.” Well, here you go.

            1. The laws of nature point to a God. For example, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe is moving from a state of order to one of chaos, that things naturally move from a state of high energy to one of low energy unless there is some energy imput. This means that the universe must have a beginning, since, if the universe had just existed from eternity past, then all of the free energy in the universe would have been expended already. If the universe had a beginning, the beginning could have been caused or uncaused. If the beginning of the universe was uncaused, then it would not have begun, since an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force (a paraphrase of Newton’s second law of motion). If then, the beginning of the universe was caused, then the cause must have been either personal or impersonal. The problem with an impersonal cause to the universe is that matter came into being with the universe, therefore, the cause of the universe, to be distinct from the universe itself, must be by definition immaterial. Thus, the conclusion that makes the most sense is that the universe was caused by a person who was “uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and indeterministic”
            (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-cause-of-the-universe-be-personal-redux#ixzz2TmVpC7hK).

            2. Design points to a designer. One of the critera for life is that it exhibits design, that is, what it does is suited to its form. DNA is especially intriguing. In every living thing there is a molecule that codes for every protein in the body. Not only that, but the language that codes for these proteins is universal. The same codon codes for Methionine in jellyfish as in eagles. If DNA is a language, and it is (I would challenge you to find a human language that accomplishes so much with only four different letters) then how did it come about? Language is an incredibly intelligent creation. If I were to tell you that a language had come together completely by chance without any intervention of intelligence, you would probably laugh at me, and would be right to do so. If langauges come about by intelligence, than someone intelligent must have come up with the language of DNA. I submit to you that this someone is God. There are literally thousands of other examples of design in creation, but I will leave it at that to save room, unless you want more examples.

            3. Jesus was a real person and did what the Bible says He did (This is one of the reasons I believe in the Christian God). Since this could take hours for me to discuss, I will point you to Lee Strobel’s book “The Case for Christ” for the evidence for Jesus’s life. If you want, I can give you a synopsis, but he outlines the evidence better than me.
            4. Jesus has changed my life. If you had known me before I was a Christian, you would not have seen much to envy or approve of. Oh, I didn’t smoke, drink, or do drugs, but I was spiteful, arrogent, lonely, and depressed. I trusted no one and took great pains to keep other people away from me. God changed me. He took me and gave me a love for other people that I can’t explain. I still have issues, but they no longer define me. How do I know God’s real? Well, I talk with Him, and He talks with me. I ask Him to help me through difficulties and He does. I experience His love and care for me everyday. I can’t doubt His existance any more than I can doubt my mother’s existance.
            5. Jesus has worked in the lives of others around me. There’s a distinct difference between those I know who are Christians and those who aren’t, even in my family. My siblings especially have shown how God can change lives, just as God changed my life.
            In the end though, I could lay out for you all of the evidence for God, but it would not absolutely prove God’s existence. God meant for it to be that way, because He values our free will and desires that we choose to believe in Him. If He absolutely proved He was real, then there would be no choice. Being a gentlemen, God will always leave the choice not to believe. I wish you well on your search for what is real. I hope it is successful.

          • Scott Z

            Your last sentence makes me unsure of whether or not you want me to respond. Consequently, I’ll try to keep my response short.

            What does God say to you? What is He like?

            What is the distinct difference between those you know who are Christians and those you know who aren’t?

          • Rebekah

            Sorry about that, I only wanted you to know that I wish you well. If you want to keep talking, I am completely willing to do so.

            What does God say to you? What is He like?” Good questions. God usually uses the Bible to speak to me, though sometimes He speaks directly to my heart and mind, guiding me in what I should do depending on the situation. If I’m having trouble with my self-worth, He speaks to me of His love and care for His people. If I’m worried, He tells me to trust and rest in Him, reassuring me that He is in control. If I’m struggling with anger or frusteration with those around me, He tells me to have patience. It’s like the Bible is God’s letter to me. No matter what I’m going through, He has an answer.

            As to who He is, I could go on for hours, but I’ll try to keep it brief. God is holy, completely perfect and pure. There is no sin or evil in Him. God is mighty, able to create worlds with a word. God is loving, willing to sacrifice Himself for us. God is unchanging. He is who He is and His character is constant. God is patient, kind, and not easily angered. He protects, trusts, and never fails. He is immaterial, eternal, and self-sustaining. Every good thing that exists is a gift from Him. Every moral principle is rooted in the character of God. God is just, righteous, and glorious.
            “What is the distinct difference between those you know who are Christians and those you know who aren’t?” Another good question. Those I know who are Christians, in general, are centered on what God wants, not on self-advancement. They are generally more content with where they are, even if they’re going through difficulties. They exhibit patience during difficulty, and love to one another as well as those who are opposed to them. Most important, they are secure in their future. They don’t have to worry about what’s going to happen to them, because they know that their eternal destination is secure. Now, I am fully aware that not everyone who says they’re a Christian exhibits these characteristics. The reason for this is that it’s God who gives Christians every ability to deny themselves and act in ways that give glory to God. Christians, just like everyone else, can ignore God’s voice if they want to. When they do, they stop acting like Christians and start acting as if they don’t know God. I hope that makes sense.
            What has your experience with Christians been in the past?
            Do you have any other questions?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Well, then it’s a good thing that science, not faith, has proven the live humanity of unborn children from fertilization onward……

          • Zephyr

            ??? Science has proven that a fertilized egg is alive, and that it carries unique human DNA. Well, so does a skin cell. Doesn’t make it a “human being” just as you and I are. So, no, science hasn’t proven what you are saying it has. BTW, the Bible also never discusses abortion. Ever. So the religious argument “God is against it” doesn’t hold water either.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Actually, all you’ve demonstrated is your ignorance of both biology and theology.

            First, you don’t know the first thing about the difference between a zygote and a skin cell. The former is a genetically-complete organism whose DNA is *different* from his or her mother. He/she has his/her own genetic identity, growth, etc. A skin cell, however, is genetically and functionally just part of whoever the skin belongs to. It’s not an organism and doesn’t have different DNA. Here’s some remedial science for you:

            http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
            http://www.abort73.com/abortion/are_sperm_and_egg_cells_alive/

            Second, the Bible doesn’t “discuss abortion” for the same reason it “never discusses” drive-by shootings, anthrax letters, pressure cooker bombs, or nuclear missiles. Those are all merely *methods* of how to murder someone, not morally unique acts. The Bible clearly condemns murder generally, therefore it clearly condemns abortion.

          • Zephyr

            When you have to resort to insults, it means your argument doesn’t hold much water. I wasn’t comparing the relationship of a cells’ DNA to its host. I was saying simply that any cell in a human body is “human.” So is a fertilized egg. But in neither case are they a HUMAN BEING.

            You are certainly welcome to believe abortion is wrong, but you cannot base those claims on the Bible, simply because the Bible never mentions it. And in claiming that abortion is murder, you are making yet another leap that the Bible never makes, and which many Christians throughout history have also not made. In fact, in Exodus 21: 22-24 we see that the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense, as killing the mother would be.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            If you don’t want to be called ignorant, then don’t say ignorant things. Speaking of which, I can’t wait to see how contrived your definition of “human being” must be to sustain your position.

            And you couldn’t possibly be more wrong about the Bible. I’ll try to lay this out in baby steps for you:

            1.) The Bible teaches that every human being is created in God’s image, and therefore his life
            2.) The Bible forbids murder.
            3.) Therefore, it is murder to kill anyone who is a human being.
            4.) Science unambiguously shows that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings (and it really does, despite your foot-stamping; you are aware how many pro-choicers admit this point, right?).

            Now, can you figure out Step 5?

            And it figures that you’d fall back on shoddy interpretation of Scripture:
            http://liveactionnews.org/even-the-devil-can-quote-scripture-biblical-arguments-for-abortion/
            http://liveactionnews.org/arguing-that-the-bible-is-pro-choice-is-a-dead-end-game/

          • Zephyr

            Calvin: are you a Christian? And you speak to other people that way? Just sayin’, might want to take a look at that.

            Not sure why I’m taking the time to debate this with you… oh, heck, I’m doing it for the other folks, not you. In your list, 1) and 2) are in the Bible. #3 is a little sketchy, because the Bible clearly allows killing in battle and killing in self-defense. #4 is extra-biblical and therefore cannot be used in support of your argument that the Bible lays this all out.

            Ah, your interpretation of scripture, my interpretation of scripture (not just mine by the way, many theologians). I notice the links you are linking to are all yours! So you are using your own arguments to support yourself? LOL. Nice.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Yep. Nowhere does Christianity state that I can’t or shouldn’t accurately call out stupidity in the service of mass murder.

            “the Bible clearly allows killing in battle and killing in self-defense.”

            I thought that went without saying. Even after all this, apparently I STILL gave you too much credit.

            “#4 is extra-biblical and therefore cannot be used in support of your argument that the Bible lays this all out.”

            Good grief, I can’t believe I have to explain this. It simply means following the empirical evidence to determine the factual question of who/what the Bible is referring to.

            “not just mine by the way, many theologians”

            Crap theologians who take Christianity about as seriously as Mark Sanford and John Edwards take their marital vows.

            “So you are using your own arguments to support yourself?”

            You know you’re dealing with a petty troll whenever this nonsense comes out. Why wouldn’t somebody making a case cite exactly the arguments he wishes to convey? It’s just what I would have re-typed anyway; what’s the difference?

          • Zephyr

            Yes, so clearly, not all killing, according to the Bible is wrong. You merely insulted me, you didn’t explain why abortion is considered murder (in your eyes, or God’s eyes, as you believe), but that those other types of killing aren’t. Please note: insults are NOT argumentation.

            “It simply means following the empirical evidence to determine the factual question of who/what the Bible is referring to.”

            Still you are making logical leaps and yet under the illusion that you are making a seamless connection. Science has only stated that a fertilized egg has unique DNA and is how life begins. It doesn’t make the leap to say that, therefore, this fertilized egg is the same thing as a human being. I understand that that is how YOU see it, but that’s not how science sees it, sorry. And it doesn’t even approach the question of whether God uses the same criteria as science does. Fundamentally, we don’t know God’s mind on this issue, because he doesn’t tell us. Don’t you think if it were as important an issue as the pro-life movement seems to think it is, that Jesus would have talked about? Or the Bible would have talked about it more? One would think.

            Since you feel so strongly, however, that the Bible should use science as reference, what are your feelings on evolution?

            “Crap theologians who take Christianity about as seriously as Mark Sanford and John Edwards take their marital vows.”

            I’m not sure this factless dismissal is worthy of comment, but I will ask if you are familiar with the spiritual principle that we cannot know the spiritual state of another Christian?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Any accurate assessment of this comment I could possibly make you would just call an “insult,” because it is impossible to take your continued obtuseness seriously. You insist that your blatantly false view of both biology and scripture are obviously true, and defend your position with some of the most convoluted reasoning that I have ever seen. I don’t know whether to attribute it to intentional dishonesty or brainwashing by religious & scientific instruction that was intentionally dishonest, but those are the only possibilities. So it appears we are at an impasse.

          • zephyr

            Calvin….. I don’t know what to say. Your comment about science, at any rate, are just flat-out wrong. Here is a possibility for you: you have spent so much time just around people who think exactly like you, who reinforce your own narrow worldview, that anything else just seems preposterous, even if that “anything else” is, in fact, the majority view. It would be nice if you could be more intellectually honest. At least I’m glad to see you backed off your insult posture. That’s at least an improvement. Best wishes to you.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “It would be nice if you could be more intellectually honest.”

            Adding dishonest hypocrisy to your list of infractions, I see….

          • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

            Whoa! You don’t have to believe in God to believe that life is precious and killing is wrong, so please, do not mock God. You have every right not to believe but show respect for the people who do.

          • Basset_Hound

            My husband is an agnostic…and believes that abortion is murder

          • Scott Z

            Oh, so God does have the right to put innocent children to death?

          • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

            God does not put innocent children to death, they die either by accident illness, or the actions of another person but He takes these innocents to Him, and while we grieve for our loss, they lare in His arms, safe and happy.

          • Julia

            Yeah. That’s what “natural death” means. Your statement is like saying “Oh, so Nature has the right to put innocent children to death?”

          • Scott Z

            Yeah, but ‘Nature’ isn’t a conscious entity…

          • Gary_1016

            Rights were made for man. God is who He is. He does not destroy unjustly. God is love, and this love was nailed to a cross by those who hate.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Ah, rank sexism in the name of women’s rights. Gotta love it.

          • JP

            You have a rebellion issue too Heather. You don’t want to be “told what to do” by God, or any other higher power, and certainly not by a man. You’ve got some issues to deal with girl. I know I’ve been in your shoes. I’ve walked some tough roads. I know what it’s like to be bitter, atheist, rebellious, and selfish. You’re not really “free” when you get to kill your unborn – just afraid and desperate. I counsel women thinking about abortion and they aren’t happy about the idea to abort. They are scared. The rant “my body my right” isn’t going off in their heads. You live in a fantasy land to think abortion empowers women. It just enslaves us to poor men who push abortion on us and don’t take responsibility. It demoralizes us. Have you ever talked to someone who’s had an abortion? They aren’t free but dealing with regret. Have you dealt with regret of abortion? It’s burden is more than you can ever imagine. Ask the post-abortive women and they will tell you. You are never the same.

          • Heather Steenrod

            Where should I mail my check for your therapeutic services?

            P.S. I’m not bitter nor rebellious for speaking my mind and participating in the political process. Furthermore, I’m a patriot (in case that was your next slur) because I engage in and encourage debate. But it’s funny that you think such.

            P.P.S. Yes, I know women who have had abortions. Was it the toughest decision of their life? Yes. Do they regret it? NOT ONE BIT.

            P.P.P.S. Just because I don’t believe your god doesn’t mean I’m less of an American, a person, a woman. I might even be watching your kids or grandchildren at day care ….

          • Mary Lee

            So, because they don’t regret it, it’s okay? I know shoplifters who don’t regret stealing. Many serial killers don’t regret killing—and other people who kill. Lots of people don’t regret things. So what? It’s okay if you don’t regret it? Even though someone DIED because your life is so special and important that nothing else mattered, not even someone’s right to not be killed? You need to think this through a little more. Maybe do some reading.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

            I had an abortion, and I’ve regretted it every day, I’ve repented and apologized to God, and been forgiven but now I know how terribly wrong I was. I will fight abortion with everything I have, my unborn baby deserves it. I think any woman who does not regret, at least a bit, having had an abortion is missing something in her heart or soul. And not believing in my God? Your option, of course, but I wish you did know Him, He’s wonderful! He gave us His son, to pay for our sins, now that’s real love.
            And I don’t doubt that you’re a good American.

          • Zephyr

            I have also talked to women who have had abortions and they don’t regret it. I’m not sure where you “counsel” women or what kind of “counseling” you are giving, but I would agree that women seeking abortions are afraid and desperate. THAT’S WHY THEY’RE SEEKING ABORTIONS. They’re not doing it on a whim like it’s a walk in the park. My guess is if you are “counseling” people at a pro-life crisis pregnancy clinic, and if it’s a legitimate one that is not disguising the fact that it discourages abortions, then you are self-selecting a portion of the populace that wants to be given viable options other than abortion. I have no problem with that, although you’ll get the same options going to Planned Parenthood or the like. No pro-choice person thinks women who don’t want abortions should have one. But there are many, many women who know that they want an abortion and do not regret it. Most likely they would not show up at your clinic.

            Women who regret their abortions — and I have no doubt that they do exist — would also seek out someone like you who validates their feelings that their experience was awful. Again, it’s self-selecting. Lastly, if you spend all your time reading pro-life literature, websites, blogs, etc., and I’m certain you do, you will become convinced that abortion is some terrible crime pushed on women, because that is the only story that literature and those blogs convey. And you believe it because it validates your worldview that abortion is wrong. Spend some time reading other stuff… read the horror stories about back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade, read the about the unbearable burden borne by many women who give their babies up for adoption, and read horror stories about women whose fetuses are in severe distress because of life-threatening health issues, and the agonies these women and their fetuses go through because well-meaning “pro-lifers” have decided that no fetus should ever be aborted, even those for whom abortion would be a mercy. And, most of all, stop thinking of yourself as the most moral person in the debate and look at the harm the so-called “pro-life” position can bring.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            Even though I have never met you, I know some things about you. Heather, you are a valuable and important human being. You have the ability to love people, and people love you. You have the potential to benefit yourself, your family and friends, your society, and maybe even the world. The reason I know this is because, whether he or she ever chooses to live up to that potential, it is true about every human being. I do not know if you are a believer or not, but due to my personal beliefs you are amazingly valuable simply because you are created in the image of God. Having said all of that, I want to be very clear that it is not your body that we are so desperate to protect. Would anyone argue that my 4 year old and 6 year old are simply a part of my wife’s body? If not, then when did they become seperate? When I cut the umbillical? In that case, lets simply deliver the baby, then kill them before the cord is cut. Think about it Heather. I am not judging you, I am trying to reason with you. There is such a thing as truth. there is such a thing as right and wrong. I am not just a male, I am a human, and I am opposed to the taking of innocent human life at every stage.

          • Graeme

            Just remember Heather, that a child in the mothers womb IS NOT the mothers body. It is a separate individual human.

          • monica

            Seriously? That baby has 1/2 of a man’s DNA. Why the hell shouldn’t men get a say in what is done to their babies. If women don’t want to get pregnant, then don’t. Our country seems hell bent on providing birth control to everyone, so use it. Or get yourself fixed. But, don’t tell me men shouldn’t have equal say in the case of abortion. What about men who don’t want a baby, shouldn’t he not have to pay child support?

          • Heather Steenrod

            To clarify, I was speaking about men legislating policy not an individual man involved in the decision to have or not have a child with his pregnnant partner. Oh, and what dream world are you living in where women in poverty can just “get fixed” like an animal?.

          • Heather Steenrod

            The world where women who are forced to stay in unhealthy, abusive relationships with men who make them have unwanted sex don’t exist? Because I see this population and work with these women and trust me, it’s a lot more complicated than “not having sex” and a loooong way down from your ivory tower.

          • Basset_Hound

            I guess I can’t really have an opinion about puppy mills because I’m not really a dog. I just portray one in discussion forums.

          • Zephyr

            Without having to siphon that from someone else’s body? Yes.

          • Gary

            In a manner similar to the way unemployed, disabled, and homeless people “siphon” benefits from the government. Everyone has a right to live.
            You can ride the ferris wheel all you want. You’re not going anywhere.

          • Zephyr

            um, OK, let’s hook someone up to your body to siphon vitamins and minerals out of it, and see if that feels the same as giving someone money. You game?

        • Mary Lee

          Oh would it? It would hold more weight? What the heck? Because they can’t stand up and do Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” dance and recite the Jabberwocky? Newborns can’t survive and thrive on their own. Adults can’t survive and thrive on their own either (total isolation leads to madness). You are actually holding their stage of life against them. They ARE persons. Persons at that age should not be expected to behave as someone older than they are. We don’t berate our 3 year olds for not being able to do Calculus. What does a person do at 5 weeks gestation? That is what they do. By the by, in utero, babies hiccup, cry, suck their thumbs, and dream. Those sound very person-y, don’t they? But please, go ahead with your justification of killing babies who–through no fault of their own–don’t pass your qualifications of beings worth of life.

          • Zephyr

            “You are actually holding their stage of life against them” – why, yes, Mary Lee, we are. What you are trying to do is make some false equivalency, where someone that is already a fully formed human being is the *exact same thing* as a fertilized egg. If it were exactly the same, then why does it need to use my body in order to develop into something that has organs, and skin, and can function on its own? What do they do when a 5-year-old needs medical support to live. Do they put it inside someone’s body? No, they don’t. No one would consent to that, and it would be morally reprehensible to conscript someone for that purpose, even if that were the best way to support/save them.

            And if “stage of life” doesn’t matter, then can you live in a building that is just a blueprint? What about one that has only had the frame built, but no walls or roof? Is it already a “building” when it’s just a 2-dimensional drawing on a piece of paper?

            The fact is that the beginning of life is an awesome mystery. How do we transform from a single blueprint (a fertilized egg) into a person? If you ignore that some kind of fundamental transforming happens, completely different from anything else that happens once you are born, then you are ignoring reality.

          • Mary Lee

            Do you realize how fascist and frightening you sound? I only hope that one day, when you are inconvenient and need help, those around you don’t deem you unworthy of living and make sure that you can be killed.

            Pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be cured. The pro-abort language about their unborn children, the language about pregnancy and even motherhood, it is horrifyingly negative and destructive. Your belief in your infallibility and importance is unwarranted. I am already equal to men; I do not need a surgical procedure (a destructive, child-killing procedure) to achieve equality.

            Pro-abortion language and attitudes are ANTI-FEMINIST. They are so anti-woman I cannot get my brain around it.

          • Zephyr

            Hmm, I think I said pretty clearly that if a 5-year-old (or anyone) needs life support, that they get it, but that they shouldn’t be attached to my body to make it happen. Are you suggesting that some day when I am “inconvenient (?) and need help” that they should find some other human being to hook me up to so I can live off them?

            But enough of that: I’m fascinated by your statement that pro-abortion attitudes and language are anti-woman. Can you give some concrete examples of how that is true, or at least some logical reasons?

        • http://profiles.google.com/jvangeld Jeremy VanGelder

          Not all 33 year olds can survive outside of the womb and without medical intervention. Are they not human?

          • Heather Steenrod

            In no way am I advocating euthanasia for adults. But this is one of the issues with debating women’s reproductive rights: each side sees the other’s as “all or nothing”. I don’t believe that abortion is morally right because I believe some people are worthy of living and some are not. Especially when one of my family members has cerebral palsy.

            What I believe is that women should not be forced to carry a child they do not want or do not have the means to support. Bringing an unwanted child into this world is harmful and damaging to that child. I am pro-choice because I believe every child should be a wanted child who can grow up with the resources to make he/she a healthy, viable member of society. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

            Try to look at the argument of “every fetus must be born” in the case of rape or incest. How is that not cruel and unjustifiable to the woman who already experienced extreme trauma? And yet, if you make an exception for that, the lines begin to grey as we become more and more subjective.

          • Mary Lee

            Forced to carry a pregnancy? So, because of all the choices the mother made, which led to the existence of her son or daughter, telling her she can’t kill her own son or daughter is CRUEL? Excuse me? Every child a wanted child? Please. I have a good friend who was not a wanted child. At all. He was abused and he had a sad childhood. He is also pro-life, because the idea of killing children who are “unwanted” (whatever that means) makes him sick. He is alive, and he is well, and he has his own children. He is alive. We can always try to make someone’s life better. We can help the abused, we can feed the hungry, we can minister to the sick, and we MUST do these things. But we must not kill our own children because life is hard, or because they’re “not wanted” or because of this or because of that. We have no right to kill our own children, ever.

            And as a rape survivor, please spare me your rape argument. Here’s my big problem with that: STOP EXPLOITING WOMEN LIKE ME TO JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF OUR CHILDREN. Here’s another problem: If rape and incest (which count for 1% of abortions) are such a huuuuge problem, why don’t we work on that, hmmm? Why don’t we do what we can to prevent our women from being raped, from being abused? No, it’s just abort, abort, abort at all costs. Abortion uber alles.

            Some wanted children end up being serial killers (Jeffrey Dahmner, say. His parents loved him.)….some “unwanted,” complicated children end up changing the world (Beethoven, Steve Jobs, Jack Nicholson). Who are you to say who lives and who dies? We do not have that right. Killing human beings…..that is wrong. I’m sorry it’s such a hard concept for you to grasp. You seem intelligent, so I will chalk it up to pure ignorance.

          • Heather Steenrod

            As a rape survivor, I’m not going to allow you to close off that argument simply because you know it’s valid.

          • Mary Lee

            No, it’s not. It’s a smokescreen. It’s a cop-out. It’s insulting, it’s deceitful, and it’s manipulative.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            Wow, Mary. Very powerfully said!

          • Zephyr

            Aaaand, you have also just proven that the pro-life movement is not about saving babies, it’s about punishing people for having sex. I know plenty of formerly abused kids who are pro-choice, because they see the harm that came from them growing up not wanted and to people who couldn’t care for them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

            “bringing an unwanted child into this world is harmful and damaging to that child”–so giving it the death penalty is good for Seriously?it?

          • Scott Z

            “What’s more damaging than murder?”

            Eternal torture…

          • Calvin Freiburger

            You’re obsessed with the heaven/hell thing. We get it.

            Seriously, though, if you’re that worried about it, Christianity doesn’t actually make hell THAT difficult to avoid. Check it out sometime.

          • Scott Z

            I’m just fascinated by the fact some Christians are capable of living normal, happy lives while believing countless souls are suffering in horrible agony every moment and that there’s nothing they can do about it.

            It would require me to give up my honesty and my rational thinking. It would require me to worship a being of infinite evil. Doing those seems pretty difficult to me.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I wish you luck in someday overcoming your prejudices and misconceptions about Christianity and the afterlife. Sadly, curing them seems beyond the treatment possible on an Internet comment thread, given that you seem to have made very little effort in seeking real answers before formulating your own.

          • Scott Z

            “given that you seem to have made very little effort in seeking real answers before formulating your own”

            I’ve been talking with Christians and reading ideas from both sides off and on (mostly on) for almost four years now. That may not be very much, but it’s definitely not “very little”. I’ve talked with dozens of Christians about what they believe and why–sometimes for hours on end.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            And yet this is the result? I find that….suspicious.

          • Scott Z

            Well, I find you arrogant and condescending.

            Would you like some evidence for what I say?

          • Scott Z

            I mean evidence for this: “I’ve been talking with Christians and reading ideas from both sides off and on (mostly on) for almost four years now. … I’ve talked with dozens of Christians about what they believe and why–sometimes for hours on end.”

            Though I’d be willing to provide evidence of your arrogance and condescension, too.

          • zephyr

            Bravo!!!!!

          • Scott Z

            Since, as Mary Lee mentioned, I don’t know you, I apologize for making my judgment about your character and/or who you are as a human being. It is your behavior towards me I find condescending and arrogant, rather than you yourself.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I appreciate your demonstrated willingness to reconsider and amend statements. Hopefully the following will clarify where I’m coming from.

            First, my tone is primarily a reaction to the way you’ve been insulting people by accusing them of worshiping a “being of infinite evil.” We don’t accept that premise, and you’ve offered very little to support it, yet you speak as if it’s self-evident enough to make judgments about people’s character and hypocrisy.

            Second, I am suspicious because, with all due respect, your objections sound like they’re based on a very superficial familiarity with Christian thought, devoid of all depth, nuance, or competing interpretation, and I really don’t understand how the exploration you describe wouldn’t have familiarized you with more of it.

            For example, you present hell as eternal torment nobody could possibly deserve, but there’s a difference between symbolic descriptions of pop-culture’s image of fiery caves where horned satyrs run around with pitchforks, and what hell would literally be like if it exists. We obviously can’t truly know, but the speculation on the concept is illuminating. Some theologians suggest hell would be not eternal torture, but eternal nothingness and non-being in which, having been permanently separated from God, there would no longer be a “you” to perceive pain. Horrible to contemplate here, but not what you’re describing, and since that’d be pretty much what atheists expect after death anyway, I fail to see why that would be some big crime on God’s part. In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis depicts a hell that is spiritually and psychologically torturous, but escapable even after death. And the concept of purgatory most directly undermines your objection: for those who don’t deserve *eternal* punishment, punishment won’t be eternal. I don’t know who’s right, and there are proponents for any number of competing interpretations and variants of interpretations, etc., but my point is, it’s a lot more complex than you’re making it out to be, and you don’t necessarily have to force yourself or others into an either-or.

            Lastly, I don’t mean this to sound insulting or hurtful, but I think there’s a crucial link between the positions you’ve pushed and the issues with depression you’ve described. When I see serious investment in the suggestions that life and free will aren’t work the risk, that tells me that something other than competing viewpoints is at play. I mean this sincerely: I would advise trying to sort out how much your views on human life’s sanctity and the afterlife are really derived from reason and evidence, and how much they’re colored by other factors.

            I wish you luck finding answers and happiness.

          • Scott Z

            “First, my tone is primarily a reaction to the way you’ve been insulting people by accusing them of worshiping a “being of infinite evil.” We don’t accept that premise, and you’ve offered very little to support it, yet you speak as if it’s self-evident enough to make judgments about people’s character and hypocrisy.” Well, in the sense it’s self-evident the average person doesn’t deserve to be raped, it’s self-evident no person deserves to be tortured forever. However, I thought I only made the accusation against those Christians who explicitly stated God allows eternal torture. I definitely wasn’t trying to accuse ALL Christians of worshiping a “being of infinite evil”, because I know not all Christians have the same ideas about Hell, God, salvation, etc. Sorry, I really should have been much more careful with my wording.

            “When I see serious investment in the suggestions that life and free will aren’t work the risk” I only meant they’re not ALWAYS worth it; I know they’re definitely worth it to some.

            “sort out how much your views on human life’s sanctity and the afterlife are really derived from reason and evidence” Well, I only lack belief in an afterlife because of how little evidence I’ve been able to find for one. Humans don’t get choose whether or not they want to be brought into existence. Most who are alive are happy with the choice made for them. Some, however, are not. But, by the time they realize this fact, it’s already far too late.

            So, to everyone who decides to bring a new human being into existence: Please, do your best to ensure that being will be happy with the choice you made for it.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “it’s self-evident no person deserves to be tortured forever.”

            I don’t think this is self-evident at all. And besides, it’s sort of putting the cart before the horse: if God is just, then by definition, nobody but those who do deserve it (whatever constitutes “deserving it”) will end up there.

          • Scott Z

            Is there a harsher standard of justice than “an eye for an eye” that can still be considered just? If not, then the only way to deserve eternal torture is to inflict it oneself. And even if their is a harsher standard than can still be considered just, it doesn’t automatically follow that any bad thing done while on this Earth can make one deserve eternal torture.

          • Scott Z

            *And even if there is a harsher that can still be considered just, it doesn’t automatically follow that it’s possible for someone to deserve eternal torture for what they did in life.

          • Scott Z

            The sentence that came before the one you quoted was actually rather important to the overall meaning…

            I’m guessing you also don’t plan on responding to my question about standards of justice?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            This is a month-old conversation that was long, convoluted, and to the best of my recollection seemed like it was going around in circles. What questions haven’t I addressed?

          • Scott Z

            You have not explicitly answered the following questions I posed:

            1. So, if having free will gave a 100% chance of at least one person being damned for eternity, you would still keep it?

            2. Oh, also, do you think I deserve eternal damnation?

            3. Is there a harsher standard of justice than “an eye for an eye” that can still be considered just?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            1. Yes.
            2. Nope.
            3. Eternal damnation is perfectly just if someone either willingly rejects salvation or if they are unrepentant in their evil/genuinely have no decency left in their character.

          • Scott Z

            Okay. Thank you for taking the time to answer; I really do appreciate it.

          • Scott Z

            Before my brain started growing and developing in the womb, I’m not sure it’s accurate to say “I” existed. However, even if it is, I would not view killing me before that point to be better or worse than allowing me to live. It’s far too late now, though.

          • Julia

            “Bringing an unwanted child into this world is harmful and damaging to that child.”

            The child is in the world already. Are you saying that the mother’s uterus is not “in the world”? I guess you think being torn to pieces alive is not “harmful and damaging to that child”?

            What if the the mother wants her child, but then when the baby is six months old, the mother loses her job and now the baby is unwanted, should the mother be able to terminate the parenthood by killing her child, so that the child won’t go into the adult world with such a bad childhood experience that is “harmful and damaging”?

            “every child should be a wanted child” you mean “every unwanted child a dead child”. Your slogan makes about as much sense as someone claiming to have found the cure for cancer – just shoot everyone who has cancer – tada – not a single death from cancer!

            As far as rape or incest, do you believe in the death penalty for innocent people? I don’t. The mother in this case has been horribly abused, but does that give her the right to horribly abuse someone else, equally innocent?
            What if she when the child is born she finds out that he/she looks exactly like the rapists, should she be able to kill her child then because otherwise we are forcing this extreme trauma on her?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            Heather, Every baby is a wanted baby. In some cases people are lined up on waiting lists for years to adopt a newborn. The couple who produced this “unwanted” baby were not forced to have sexual intercourse. Why should someone who drinks and drives be forced to deal with the consequences that can come with it? Except in the instance of rape, it is an issue of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions and ending their new child’s life to cover for their mistake. Does that sound like a good way to handle it? Does it sound legal?
            By the way, the mother and father are not the only two people involved in this issue. When a woman is raped and a pregnancy occurs, the child is innocent and did nothing wrong. The rapist should pay the penalty, not the innocent child who was created as a result. The woman is forced (by the rapist) to pay a penalty also due to the emotional scarring that inevitably comes. The baby is beautiful. Why not allow something beautiful to grow from a pile of filthy excrement? It would be very understandable if the woman did not feel that she could raise that child. However, as I mentioned there are hundreds of couples, some not physically able to bear their own children, who are waiting in line for a baby.

          • Heather Steenrod

            Why not let a “special gift from god” come into the world? 1. Extreme emotional, mental, and possible trauma to the mother who was already traumatized. 2. Because pro-life fanatics have now succeeded in allowing rapists rights to see the children they created. As if they have paternal “rights” like we non-criminals. Talk about a mindfuck.

          • zephyr

            I think you’ve just proven that the real motivation of the pro-life movement is to punish people for having sex that they don’t approve of, not saving babies. Thanks.

          • Brooke

            “I am pro-choice because I believe every child should be a wanted
            child who can grow up with the resources to make he/she a healthy, viable member of society. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.”

            Then, I believe you would be a great proponent of adoption, right? Because there is enough demand for adopting infants that those ‘unwanted’ babies can be wanted and loved by a family that would otherwise be bereft of a child of their own.

            “Try to look at the argument of “every fetus must be born” in the case of rape or incest. How is that not cruel and unjustifiable to the woman who already experienced extreme trauma? And yet, if you make an exception for that, the lines begin to grey as we become more and more subjective.”

            Rape is such a small portion of overall abortions, that it should not be used to justify all cases.

            That being said, not everyone allows exceptions for rape. Quite a few of us believe that every life has meaning, no matter their parentage or the situation of their conception. There are plenty of mothers out there who kept their child that was conceived in rape and now love that child, no matter what. It doesn’t have to taint the relationship between mother and child.

            And, if the mother doesn’t want to go through the trauma or hassle of raising the child, there is always adoption.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            Jeremy, what an amazing point!

        • http://www.facebook.com/teresa.demien Teresa Sears DeMien

          A new born fetus ( which is magically called a baby then) can Not survive or thrive without the “intervention” of another person, ie parent, medical professional, etc. for MANY years of of life outside the womb. So does that make a newborn not a person? When does a person become a person then?

        • http://www.facebook.com/tracey.lok Tracey Lok

          Generally speaking children from birth to probably 11 depending on what culture you are brought up in cannot survive on their own, in some cases some can’t survive even through adulthood without help so your statement is illogical. Where do you draw the line? – you can’t because there is no line!

          • Zephyr

            I’d say the line of **not being inside someone else’s body** is pretty clear.

        • JP

          so to your logic all of those patients on life support are worthless. I mean, they can’t live on their own at the moment (but even critical patients can recover to good health) so just pull the plug right? Heather, you’re problem isn’t with pro-life people it’s a lack of compassion. When was the last time you showed mercy and compassion to another human being? Or is your problem that someone showed a total lack of compassion to you and now you’re just a bitter, jaded woman picking on defenseless and vulnerable human beings?

          • Heather Steenrod

            JP – not worth a reply, but I’m amused to see that you think you know my life and levels of compassion. Thanks for the laugh!

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, that’s not fair. I do support you there, Heather. But seeing that you’re an intelligent person, and a thoughtful person, and I do believe you are coming at this issue from a place of good intentions…..I get very impatient sometimes (if you seemed to be just a troll, or someone who is just incredibly dim-witted, I wouldn’t even engage)…..because I, too, was once pro-choice. I don’t doubt that you love your family, and animals, and that you mean well. But the blatant arrogance in abortion advocacy (this is not even your fault, I would wager, but the lies fed to you by the abortion lobby, which has a LOT of money, and beautiful shiny people) is disheartening and causes my teeth to itch.

            I am also, in many ways, liberal. (I am not against birth control in the slightest, and I support gay marriage.) I’m not a Republican; more like a pro-life Libertarian. When I hear pro-choice arguments (which I once believed), I feel both angry and sad, because this act, which defies everything good and just and beautiful in the world, is what is keeping us from finding true peace. When I realized, in all my feminism–I come from a long line of feisty, feminist women–that this act is the most ANTI-FEMINIST and cruel actions in existence, it shocked me. The truth hurt. Sometimes it hurts. Sometimes it’s ugly and awful. But it will set all of us free, if we have the courage to face it, and to reject it completely.

          • Heather Steenrod

            Thank you, Mary, for meeting me on the ground of debate and dissent. We don’t have to agree, but we don’t have to sling mud either. I actually came to this original post to learn what pro-life feminists thought about the issue. It’s an online forum, so I expected some shite, but to be called some of things other post-ers have called me is unnecessary and not conducive to the debate process. But when it comes to the truth, we all find our ways to our own truth. I respect your conviction.

            P.S. I do love animals. Like crazy.

          • Mary Lee

            Me too. My little cat is at the vet today! But he’s fine.

            I’ve been on pro-choice boards and been utterly decimated, too. I didn’t even say any of the watchwords. It can get awful. I do get fired up, and answer posts beginning with questions….though I’m not angry. This issue does make me angry, but I know that most people aren’t evil, and people on both sides of the issue have virtues and flaws. We’re never going to get anywhere if we don’t stop villainizing our “opponents.” I used to get angry with the term “anti-choice.” Now it makes me laugh. Because it doesn’t really mean anything. (Anti-abortion is pretty accurate, and I have no problems with this term.) Also, I’m pretty damn proud of it. Anti-choice? You betcha. If that choice results in the death of person. (I am philosophically against the death penalty…..though I do understand gray areas. I mentioned it before because I do see a difference between the death penalty for a murderer and the death penalty for our little babies. But there is something about the death penalty that also makes me very sad. …As for being a vegetarian, I seem to be a fish-and-fowl eater mainly….Just covering all the bases here.)

          • Angelina Steiner

            You’re sick and twisted. JP is right! You have no compassion by what you’re revealing! You are STONE COLD!!! And murdering babies is okay with you? How about ADOPTION INSTEAD of MURDER? How about waiting 9 months to give the baby away, oh my the inconvenience of waiting 9 months!!!

            Heather, is it too much of a sacrifice for you???

            Killing is easy for you but waiting 9 months to give the baby away is just too hard?

            You have serious mental illness!

          • Heather Steenrod

            So Angelina, exactly how many children have you adopted?

            When I ask the sign-holding anti-choicers on the street, nobody seems to have a good answer.Just curious if you’ve put your money where your mouth is.

            P.S. I’ve requested an appt with a psychiatrist based on your obvious care for my mental health.

          • Mary Lee

            We have to adopt all the children? If we don’t adopt them all, it’s okay to kill them? What a vapid argument. It’s okay to kill all the puppies in shelters since nobody will adopt them all! But don’t kill actual murderers sentenced to death, that’s just mean.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            So not only do men need to shut up about killing babies, so do people who haven’t adopted? I’m always fascinated how in the modern world the label “liberal,” which used to be associated with things like freedom and expression and reason, has been co-opted by people constantly looking for pretenses to silence people they disagree with.

            Aside from the not-insignificant matter of you having no clue about whether the individual pro-lifers you sneer at have a home life or financial situation suited to providing a child a good home, the idea that people can only protect children from murder if they’ve personally adopted is preposterous on moral and logical grounds.

            Trying to change the subject to the messenger won’t snuff out the message.

          • Angelina Steiner

            I have 2 kids but I want more, and I have given monthly donation to Catholic Agency to support children and elderly who are in poverty.

            So Heather how many children have you killed?
            Or how many have you assisted in killing?

            I am worry about your mental health.
            So sad!

          • Heather Steenrod

            So if I count correctly, that’s zero children that would have been born and then adopted by you. Hmmm. Oh, and just imagine … I could be someone’s mother and think this way. Hell, I could be pregnant right now!

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I repeat: Aside from the not-insignificant matter of you having no clue about whether the individual pro-lifers you sneer at have a home life or financial situation suited to providing a child a good home, the idea that people can only protect children from murder if they’ve personally adopted is preposterous on moral and logical grounds.

          • Zephyr

            No, in fact, it is showing your hypocrisy. If you want to force people to have babies and make it YOUR choice, then you’d better be there to pay the consequences for that choice. Right?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Depends. If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow mine?

            And I’m not forcing anyone “to have babies”; just to not kill the ones they already created.

          • Zephyr

            If your neighbor’s car were in their body, then I would say yes.

            You’re not forcing anyone to have babies?! Good to know. So, how do you suggest we let these women get out of their unwanted pregnancies without “killing” anything?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            *sigh* This is getting too stupid even for my patience. Someone else wanna play with Zephyr?

          • monica

            Most women who don’t want their babies aren’t giving them up for adoption. I’m sure many people would if there were more to adopt.

          • Angelina Steiner

            You are one strange woman!
            Oh, since I didn’t adopt then I should support MURDER?

            Wow, your logic is DARK!

            Look, poverty, rape or incest can never JUSTIFY the MURDERING of the defenseless innocent!

          • Scott Z

            The fact you’re willing to force people to give birth shows your compassion is also less than perfect.

            Also, it doesn’t instantly become a person after fertilization.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Sure it does. The very concept of human beings that aren’t persons is illogical and ethically terrifying.

          • Scott Z

            It doesn’t become a “human being” instantly after fertilization either. It is definitely human, but it is not a human being–yet.

          • Mary Lee

            Then tell me what he or she is. He or she has a gender, and a blood type. If he or she is not an “actual human being” (whatever that is, according to your arbitrary criteria), but a “potential” human being, then he or she must be an actual SOMETHING. So what is he or she? What is that actual something? The only logical conclusion is that these are human beings, period. They don’t BECOME human beings, they ARE human beings. But that’s not fair to abortion advocates, is it? That means you are killing HUMAN BEINGS and you can’t have that, can you? So you have to make up some ridiculous non-existent marker to bestow, in all your glory, the label of “human being” when you see fit.

            We BECOME teenagers. We BECOME senior citizens. We are ALWAYS human beings. Our little sons and daughters in utero, they are human beings, doing what all human beings do at that stage. Life is a continuum. It begins at one point, and it ends at another. And no point is there a chance of a woman being pregnancy with a puppy, or a carrot, or a chimpanzee. She is pregnant with a human child—her son or daughter. It is ALWAYS a human being, from the beginning. It cannot be anything else. That means that killing them cannot be justified: So be it. It is not convenient or fun for me to admit to the humanity and personhood of our unborn sons and daughters. But it means I must be mindful and aware of my actions, and it means that I am not the center of the world, not even my own world. It means that abortion–the violent, gruesome killing of our own baby–ought to be absolutely unthinkable, it ought to make us sick at the thought of it. Instead, it is championed, and funded, and celebrated, this, the worst thing a mother can do to her child, the worst thing a doctor can do to his or her patient. That is absolutely horrifying.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It’s telling that the only way you can sustain your position is by playing semantic games with the word “being.” However, by any scientifically-sound definition of the term “human being” – for instance, “live, individual member of the species Homo sapiens” – you’re wrong.

          • Scott Z

            I hope my response to Mary Lee was adequate for you.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It wasn’t.

          • Scott Z

            What more would you like to know?

          • Scott Z

            So, nothing more?

          • Scott Z

            Okay, nothing more it is.

          • Zephyr

            Wow, that’s exceptionally reductionist. I prefer to be in awe of the mystery of how life springs from a single fertilized cell into the magnificence that is a human being. I also find the concept that human beings cease to be human beings with rights over their own bodies as soon as an egg inside them is fertilized to be illogical and ethically terrifying.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            In your case, “mystery” seems to be code for “I’m going to pretend not to know that this question already has a clear biological answer.”

            And I too would cringe at “the concept that human beings cease to be human beings with rights over
            their own bodies as soon as an egg inside them is fertilized.” It sure is a good thing, then, that it’s an emotionalistic straw-man of your own invention, rather than a position pro-lifers actually hold or would subject women to.

          • Scott Z

            Then, women do have the right to remove the other human being from their body, so long as it remains intact and alive?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Sure.

          • Scott Z

            What if it’s removed undamaged and alive, but is not developed enough to survive outside the womb? Does the right still hold?

          • zephyr

            Oh, so you are pro-life but don’t advocate outlawing abortion? Good to know. Because otherwise, that’s exactly what you’re subjecting women to.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            To the rational adults in the room, “outlawing abortion” =/= “human beings cease to be human beings with rights over their own bodies.”

          • Mary Lee

            Well, yes it does. Or “implantation” as it were. But that happens waaay before the woman pees on a stick.

            Forcing women to give birth? Yes, we are all holding them at gun point. Here’s a thing: All pregnancies terminate. All of them. It is not a permanent condition. But when you abort, you don’t “terminate” a pregnancy, you actually kill someone. It is the only so-called “medical procedure” in which the sole purpose is to KILL another human being, with a heart, and limbs, and head, and legs, and eyes, and….But WE’RE cruel, wondering why women are so hard-hearted at this point that they actually call their unborn sons and daughters “invaders,” or “intruders,” as if their own son or daughter was supposed to fill out an application and sign a lease in order to exist? Sex leads to babies. That’s how it happens, dude. To say “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy” is like saying “consent to eat McDonald’s is not consent to weight gain or obesity.” People are made through sex. There is no other way to exist. It is just a fact. We have not figured out how to twitch our noses and create a person out of thin air like Samantha Stephens, but there you are. So if you have sex, then you should know that what MIGHT HAPPEN is a baby. Should that happen, it is NOT your right to decide if he or she lives or dies. It is the child’s right to exist. Why this dehumanization of our unborn sons and daughters? Why this hatred towards them? It’s very telling.

          • Scott Z

            “So if you have sex, then you should know that what MIGHT HAPPEN is a baby.”
            Correct. Which is why I may simply decide to never have vaginal intercourse.

            “Why this hatred towards them? It’s very telling.”

            Telling of what? And how did you come to the conclusion I hated them?

          • Mary Lee

            If you decide to never have vaginal intercourse (thanks for sharing), then, fine. Nobody really cares. But if you DO and a PERSON exists because of it, you have NO RIGHT to kill him or her because his or her mere EXISTENCE is inconvenient for YOU.

            Oh, you’re right. No hatred. I just re-read all of your posts and they all gave me warm fuzzies. *eye roll*

          • Scott Z

            “Nobody really cares.”
            Well, since I don’t want children, I figured those posting here would be pleased to know I’m going to prevent it through abstinence rather than abortion.

            “Oh, you’re right. No hatred. I just re-read all of your posts and they all gave me warm fuzzies. *eye roll*”
            When you’re done being obnoxious and sarcastic, can you please explain what you think my posts are telling of?

          • Mary Lee

            Obnoxious and sarcastic? Why, thank you!

            I didn’t personally call you names, but it’s nice to see that when you don’t actually have an argument, you use obfuscation and name-calling. Nice! I haven’t actually called you any names, but I would not expect any less from a pro-abort.

            And I’m not sure why you think I haven’t answered your question. The anger and hatred towards unborn children, the weird manipulative dehumanizing language, that is telling—of the psyche and motivation behind pro-abort thinking. People have tells. Not just in poker, all the time. They have tells. Your obsession with zygotes and arbitrary criteria needed in order to be considered “human”…it is telling. Why must I explain more?

            Ta da. *jazz hands*

          • Scott Z

            I don’t recall having even stated my position on abortion. Make fun of me as much as you like, but I seriously don’t understand how something with human DNA can be an individual human being if it lacks any semblance of a human brain.

            You don’t “have” to talk with me at all.
            I don’t blame my parents at all, and they never even considered abortion. However, if for some reason my mom had gotten an abortion, I’d have been spared the pain of living with depression.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            Scott,The Nazis claimed that Jews were not human beings. . . was that hatred or just ignorance?

          • Scott Z

            I imagine it was both.

          • Scott Z

            Huh, I guess you were right, Mary Lee. The posters here really don’t care that they helped convince someone it’s best to abstain completely from sex that can lead to pregnancy if one doesn’t want to create people. Sorry, my mistake.

          • Basset_Hound

            Or you could choose use a device like Ensure or have a tubal. That way you’ve taken a permanent precaution.

          • Scott Z

            Since I’m not a woman, neither of those would work very well for me. I have thought about getting a vasectomy, though. However, since I have no idea if and when I’ll become sexually active, I’m not going to do it yet.

          • Zephyr

            You’ve sort of just proven the point that the pro-life argument is not about “saving babies,” but about regulating sex. People should not have to just “suffer being pregnant” for having sex. You said above that you were once pro-choice, but I wonder how much pro-choice material or statistics you’ve actually read?

            “The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.” source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

            In other words, those who have abortions understand very well their obligations to other human beings. They are taking life and parenthood very, very seriously. I would submit that those who get dewy-eyed about fetuses being “babies” are the ones who are not taking it seriously, especially when it isn’t happening to them.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “In other words, those who have abortions understand very well their obligations to other human beings.”

            Except for the whole “mothers don’t kill their own children” part. Y’know, the one that’s the most obvious.

            “They are taking life and parenthood very, very seriously.”

            So if I think really, really hard about it before I kill my neighbor, that somehow makes it okay. Gotcha.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1383827285 Jeremy Eden

            Scott Z, do you think it is heartless to make people live with the consequences of poor choices? Giving birth is getting off pretty easy for being so irresponsible as to concieve an “unwanted” child.

          • Scott Z

            “do you think it is heartless to make people live with the consequences of poor choices?”It is sometimes.

          • Zephyr

            Yikes! So forcing someone to stay pregnant is your goal, to punish them for making “poor choices”? So I guess my married friends who all had “oops” babies were also making irresponsible choices to have sex within marriage? You are quite simply terrifying.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

            Heather, you show your lack of compassion with every word you write, when you think being murdered is kinder than being born, what else can we think?

          • Zephyr

            Hey, no, patients on life support are totally worthwhile. But I might object if, in order for them to be life support, they had to be hooked up to by body, siphoning off my nutrients, moving my pelvic bones in permanent ways, and ultimately causing me to endure an agonizing experience (i.e., childbirth) that could either kill me or permanently injure me. So here’s the thing: find a way for fetuses/zygotes/whatever to be hooked up to life support, or bottle fed, or whatever, like the people you mentioned, so that it doesn’t have to happen against my will in my own body, and we’ve got a deal. Start working on that, OK?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Your premise is dubious. Why wouldn’t your own developing son or daughter have more of a claim to live off your body than a stranger? (Also, the mere fact that it is your own hypothetical son or daughter you’re talking about this way should be enough to tell you something very unpleasant…)

          • Zephyr

            No. Nobody has a claim to live off my body, period. But I’m glad you’ve just shown a huge gap in your logic. Because if it’s really about the value of ALL life, it shouldn’t matter whose body is being conscripted, right?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “Nobody has a claim to live off my body, period.”

            Because you say so? Why *doesn’t* your son or daughter? And I honestly don’t know what you think you said in the rest of that gibberish.

          • Scott Z

            Because making people slaves should not be legal–that’s why. Besides, I thought you agreed women should have the right to, if they so desire, have babies removed from their uterus, so long as the baby isn’t harmed or killed in the process.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Sure, if it were possible, it would be permissible to non-lethally sever the physical bonds, just as we recognize valid reasons for mothers to sever their bods to their children by giving them up for adoption. That’s not inconsistent with recognizing that the pregnant mother/unborn child relationship is fundamentally unlike a master/slave relationship, for the reasons I listed in a previous reply to you.

          • Scott Z

            Any law stating one person has a right to the body of another, regardless of the wishes of that other, is a law that, if enforced, would make that other a slave of their government.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            That’s absurd. The only aspects of the mother’s body the baby has a right to are the biological process and organs that exist and function for the baby’s own development and sustenance. We also have plenty of laws that hold parents after birth both responsible for their child’s well being and liable for harm and property damage they do. Do those also make women “slaves of their government”?

            It’s also worth noting that the “of their government” part is no better than the “slave” part. Laws protecting individual rights aren’t there to serve government’s interests, but government serving the people’s.

          • Scott Z

            “Do those also make women “slaves of their government”?” If a parent does not willingly want to raise and care for his or her biological children, using a law to force them to do so does indeed make that parent “a slave to their government”. And I don’t mean forcing people not to harm their children–I mean forcing people to provide all the day-to-day care involved in raising children. Besides, in the US at least, their are plenty of couples who would LOVE to care for those children.

            “Laws protecting individual rights aren’t there to serve government’s interests, but government serving the people’s.” That’s how those laws are supposed to work, yes.

        • Ernestwb

          Heather Steenrod you are totally removed from reality, what kind of extremely weird suggestion is that?????

      • Scott Z

        A fertilized egg is a person?

        “It is either OKAY to kill in all circumstances, or it’s not.”
        An excellent example of black-and-white thinking.

        • Mary Lee

          There’s no such thing as a “fertilized egg.” Once the egg is fertilized, then it’s a person. It’s not an egg. He or she has his or her own unique DNA, and gender, and blood type. By the time the woman takes a pregnancy test and ponders whether or not she should kill her child, that child has fingernails, and arms, and legs, and a heart beating. So. Yeah. Black-and-white thinking indeed, because killing babies is wrong wrong wrong.

          • Scott Z

            “Once the egg is fertilized, then it’s a person.”

            That seriously doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

          • Mary Lee

            Well, I’ll send you a biology book in the mail. Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm, it is not an egg and a sperm, it’s a PEOPLE. It’s a new being! It’s just how it goes. Evidently biology is really hard for pro-aborts to grasp.

            Your comment is like saying “Once the blue is added to the red, then it’s PURPLE? That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.” “When you add water to flour, it’s suddenly GLUE? That doesn’t make sense to me at all.” “When you add an egg to the flour and the water, you get CAKE? That doesn’t make sense to me at all.”

            I could do this all day.

          • Scott Z

            You’re much less pleasant than I originally thought.

            Also, a zygote is not yet a person or a human being

          • Mary Lee

            Gosh, I’m sorry to disappoint you, I’m so crushed, I don’t know when I’ll stop crying.

            Anyway.

            A zygote? An embryo? Yes, these ARE persons. But again (how many times to do I have to listen to myself tell you this), by the time the woman pees on a stick and bites her knuckles and sees the little pink lines, this child is no longer a “zygote.” Let’s just say it’s perfectly fine to kill a zygote or whatever. Well, at this point, it’s NOT A ZYGOTE.

            Anyway, why ISN’T a zygote a person? Why not? Because……? You say so? Because that would make abortion wrong? Because…..? Logically, a z/e/f is a person. I’m sorry that they don’t perform such amazing acts as older persons, like making excuses and drawing pictures of horses, but they are persons nonetheless. We don’t BECOME persons. We ARE persons. We BECOME exhausted trying to explain logic and biology. But we ARE persons.

          • Scott Z

            “Gosh, I’m sorry to disappoint you, I’m so crushed, I don’t know when I’ll stop crying.”

            I know you don’t care, but actually you did disappoint me.

            Seriously, though, I was only hoping you’d live up to how you presented yourself in the response to Heather that began with “Yes, that’s not fair. I do support…”.

          • Mary Lee

            Dear Scott Z (for “Zygote,” maybe): I am sorry I did not hold hands with you and sing Kumbaya. You can be disappointed all you like; you don’t know me, and how I spend my time and what charities I give money to or volunteer for. I am here to defend the lives of the unborn babies. That doesn’t make me feel all cozy inside. Because other posters were attacking Heather’s character and making bizarre judgments, I defended her. Just like if I saw Nancy Pelosi (who I find to be extremely YUCK) on the side of the road, injured and bleeding, I would stop and help her because that is how I do. If you want to see the warm, nice, cozy side of me, then you can read my blog or come to my house for lasagna and cake.

          • Scott Z

            “Dear Scott Z (for “Zygote,” maybe): I am sorry I did not hold hands with you and sing Kumbaya.”

            I admire your creativity in mocking me.

            “I am here to defend the lives of the unborn babies.”

            And I am here to learn about people and their ideas.

            “Because other posters were attacking Heather’s character and making bizarre judgments, I defended her.”

            I know. That’s why I was surprised when you started mocking me.

            “If you want to see the warm, nice, cozy side of me, then you can read my blog or come to my house for lasagna and cake.”

            Is the above statement sarcastic?

          • Scott Z

            I’m curious, do you enjoy mocking me?

            Because I just went back through your posts and you did it like every chance you got…

            Both you and Calvin Freiburger view me as inferior in mental and intellectual capacity. Correct?

          • Mary Lee

            First, I am a snarky wiseass. It’s annoying to many people. It’s not personal. Secondively, I am sorry that I made you sad; it seemed I misread your posts. However, I have friends who were once pro-choice, and are now pro-life. How did that happen? I talked to them. I had them over for dinner. I recognized the good in them, and their intelligence, and, to be honest, it was my snark that won them over. (There are three individuals I am thinking of in particular; they have the same sense of humor and snark as I do.)

            But my last word is this….Let’s look at it this way: Instead of wondering “when does IT [sic] become a baby,” why don’t we look at this issue in reverse. Let’s take my daughter (the beautiful result of a crisis pregnancy). She is now twelve (God help me). She is beautiful! She is tall, and funny, and smart, and she is a very, very good artist (she gets that from her great-grandfather, her grandmother, and her aunt). Can we kill her now? Of course not, you say. Let’s rewind five years, when she was seven, and not nearly as complex and articulate as she is now. Can we kill her NOW? Of course not, you say. Let’s rewind another five years, when she was two, and pronounced “Peppermint Patty” as “Pee-pee Potty”. Can we kill her now? Of course not, you say. Let’s rewind some more. She is now 30 weeks in my womb. She moves around, sucks her thumb, and gets the hiccups. Can we kill her NOW? Well, no, of course not. Let’s just keep rewinding. 19 weeks, and she was sucking her thumb then, too, and the doctor couldn’t be sure of the sex because she was also crossing her legs and kicking her little foot? No, we cannot kill her. What about when she was 8 weeks along, the first time I saw her, her little heart flickering like a light on the ultrasound, making a gorgeous SWOOSHSWOOSHSWOOSHSWOOSH? Can I kill her now?

            When can I kill her? When is it okay to kill her?

            The answer is: Never.

          • Scott Z

            “First, I am a snarky wiseass.” I think that is an extremely accurate description.

            “I am sorry that I made you sad; it seemed I misread your posts.” Thank you, seriously.

            Is it rare, then, to not want to be alive? To sincerely wish for death and/or non-existence? Just to clarify, I’m being sincere when I ask these questions.

          • Mary Lee

            A few last things:

            First, as one who battles depression, I can safely say I empathize with you.

            Second, it is unwise to judge the character of a commenter. I have not done so with you. I could use many unpleasant adjectives to describe you, but I should not because I do not know you in person, and because it is destructive and not a good way to debate. My snarky attitude comes from reading D-Listed on a daily basis. But do not make judgments about people you have not met.

            My blog is called Good Evening, Ladies & Gentlemen. If you like pop culture and Hitchcock, this is the blog for you.

          • Basset_Hound

            “My blog is called Good Evening, Ladies & Gentlemen. If you like pop culture and Hitchcock, this is the blog for you.”

            Could you post a link to it, or give us a little more information???

          • Scott Zu

            I second the above notion. I’m having a really hard time finding a blog matching the given description.

          • Mary Lee

            For some reason, my link will not post, which is fine because I am reluctant to promote my own blog on another blog….But if you Google: Pie Hitchcock Television Good Evening Ladies & Gentleman, it should do the trick. It’s a WordPress blog.

          • Scott Z

            Oh, I’d actually found that blog; I just didn’t think it was yours. Thanks for the extra info.

          • Scott Z

            “First, as one who battles depression, I can safely say I empathize with you.” Well, the biggest reason I never intend to have biological children, is the amount of cruelty and suffering in the world.

            “Second, it is unwise to judge the character of a commenter.” I agree. However, I thought my judgments were only about the behavior of poster, rather than about his or her character.

            “My blog is called Good Evening, Ladies & Gentlemen. If you like pop culture and Hitchcock, this is the blog for you.” Well, I don’t like or dislike either of those things. However, I think you’re the first pro-life person I’ve communicated with, who doesn’t think I’m evil or deserving of eternal pain. Wait, you don’t think those things, right?

          • anAmericanByChoice

            No, Scott it is not rare… just unfortunate and sad that someone would wish to be dead or “non-existent”… and I know you are sincere in asking these questions (and by the way, just in case you start wondering, I am not trying to save your soul… no one can do that but yourself, and through Christ…)
            Please, please, as suggested in some of my previous posts, do go read C. S. Lewis… I am seriously suggesting this…

          • Scott Z

            I appreciate the suggestion, and I may indeed go read C. S. Lewis. However, I cannot guarantee doing so will convince me Christianity is true. In all likelihood, only lots, and lots of evidence will be able to save my soul from Hell. I’m still rather doubtful of the existence of souls and Hell.

          • Scott Z

            “then you can read my blog” Provided you actually have a blog, would you mind pointing me to it?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Another enlightened secularist literally does not know the scientific meaning of “human being.” No matter how many times I see it, the irony still cracks me up.

          • Scott Z

            I’m glad I amused you. I seriously didn’t claim to be ‘enlightened’, though.

            The irony of claiming to be pro-life while worshiping a being that allows eternal torture never ceases to baffle me. So I guess we’re even.

      • Zephyr

        Mary Lee, you said “It is either OKAY to kill in all circumstances, or it’s not.” OK, then I guess you are anti- death penalty? Also anti-war? And against the right to kill in self-defense? You are against any sort of killing at any time?

        Ok, let’s say for the moment that I agree with you: everyone deserves to live, period. What you cannot say, however, is that, in order to live, one can force themselves into another person’s body in order to do it. So, yes, let’s let all the zygotes and fetuses live, if they can do so outside of someone else’s body. You on board with that? Then we’re not talking about killing anymore, we’re making everyone of every gestational age equivalent, which seems to matter greatly to you.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      It’s not that “reproductive choice” is “responsible for” what Gosnell did; it’s that “reproductive choice” IS what he did.

      • Mary Lee

        YES! Yes yes yes yes yes. Oh, succinct and apt. I want to buy you a beer!

        • Calvin Freiburger

          :) I don’t drink, but I appreciate the sentiment!

          • Mary Lee

            I’ll buy a beer and make a toast to you and then drink it!

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Deal.

          • Basset_Hound

            Buy ME the beer, and I’ll drink it on Calvin’s behalf.

      • Zephyr

        sorry, no. It’s only a reproductive choice if isn’t happening to you and inside your body, not if someone is murdering an infant he already delivered.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          So death happening to the same baby can go from “legitimate reproductive choice” to “unacceptable murder” based solely on whether he/she is inside or outside of Mom’s womb?

          Moral reasoning, ladies and gentlemen. This is what passes for it in the Cult of Choice.

          • Zephyr

            Are you seriously suggesting that flushing out a handful of cells, a fertilized egg, or something that doesn’t have a brain yet is morally equivalent to killing a newborn baby?! My God! That’s unbelievably depraved. Is THAT what passes for pro-life logic? Lord help us!

          • Scott Z

            Most, if not all, of the pro-life people posting here do say that a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a baby are all equally people and all deserve the same legal rights. If I’ve misrepresented your position in any way, please let me know and correct me. Sorry in advance.

          • Zephyr

            No, Scott, you have not misrepresented me. Perhaps your server is acting up again and you are seeing my name in place of someone else’s? I don’t agree that a zygote is the same thing as a baby; simple logic shows that it cannot be. A blueprint is not the same thing as a building, a lump of clay isn’t a statue. It is pro-life extremism that has led to this sort of “there’s no difference between these things” thinking.

          • Scott Z

            Oh, I agree with you that a zygote is not a person. Since no one had answered your question about moral equivalence, I figured I’d try to clarify based on what I knew. The “I” refers to anyone pro-life who is currently reading it. Sorry for the confusion.

          • anAmericanByChoice

            I was going to say, please!, do not call upon the name of the Lord in vain!, but then, if you believe what you write, and I am sure you do (with the best of, albeit misguided intentions!) I am sure we do ot speak of nor call upon the same God… so, no harm done…

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It would look that way to you, since you’re committed to ignoring the relevant biology and theology that a responsible person would dedicate themselves to seriously understanding before forming an opinion on the subject.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sueotk2001 Susan Kohler

      A woman has a choice to get pregnant or not, she does not have a choice whether or not to commit murder, maybe by law she does, but facing God with your own child’s blood on your hands? No, I think not.

    • Zephyr

      Yes! Thank you, Heather! Those who are trying to make their point that any fetus/embryo/zygote is the exact same thing as a human being are mistaking potentialities for realities. It’s a very seductive illusion, so I understand why so many are falling for it. The point remains that “pro-life” is actually pro-fetus, and if you are pro-fetus, you are raising the rights and life of the fetus over that of the existing person. No fertilized egg is more of a person than I am, and, no, it does not deserve to use my body as an incubator because somebody else pictures it as a cuddly little baby or because they regret their own abortion. Forcing someone to carry an unwanted child is nothing short of slavery.

      • anAmericanByChoice

        RIP!

        (may you be able to…)

      • Rebekah

        If you don’t mind my asking, why isn’t an embryo, fetus, zygote, etc. a human? If it isn’t human what is it?

        And by the way, I am pro-Life, which means that I believe all human beings are made in the image of God, and that this, rather than convenience or interests makes all humans worthy of life. I do not raise the life of a fetus over the woman. I see children as a reward, not a burden. Choosing to have sex involves choosing the possibility of becoming pregnant, because that’s what sex is primarily there for. So, by having sex, a woman is choosing the possibility of having a baby. The baby did not ask to be conceived. The baby is there because, whether they meant to have a baby or not, a couple decided to engage in a reproductive act. The baby didn’t decide to use the woman’s body as an incubator, that’s just what sex is meant to create.

    • anAmericanByChoice

      It just depends on your capacity to acknowledge that God will hold you accountable for what you chose. Accept it or not, the CHOICE is and must remain yours and yours alone and God WILL hold you accountable!

      BUT do not forget that by legalizing abortion, passing laws on it, and making it part of state welfare you are making my tax dollars pay for something I consider heinous! Why should YOU take my choice away? This is why I believe no laws should be passed on this issue, not one cent of tax money should be channeled to abortions, etc.,

      … and the same with gay marriages: No gay couple should be able to legally adopt a child. If they want a child, let them “be equal” to a man and a woman coming together and bearing one… because that is what they claim, right?, the right to be equal?

      • Scott Z

        I would support your right to not have to pay for something you find immoral. Would you support my right to not have to pay for something I find immoral? War, for example?

        Making abortion illegal IS passing a law on it. Making it illegal for gay couples to adopt children IS passing a law on adoption.

        Not all heterosexual married couples are capable of “coming together and bearing” children. Should they also not be allowed to adopt?

  • Jonathan Cariveau

    I completely agree with you, Kristen, in principle. I could not agree with you more; however, having said that, I’m concerned much like Bobby below me, that the consciences of most Americans are so dulled, who are addicted to the pleasures and comforts of American cultural ethos and whose minds are numbed to abortion in general, that they simply will not pay attention or be grieved of conscience if Gosnell is freed. The only thing he will be is a weapon for pro-life individuals in their continued struggle to wake people up to the silent, sterile genocide occurring in our midst. I suppose that’s better than nothing/

  • Heather

    Your posts are always very thought provoking, and I fully agree with your basic premise. I do disagree a little with your example “debate” with a person that is Pro-choice… You stated that they will never be able to find an arguable reason for allowing abortion somewhere in between conception and birth. After many discussions with pro-choicers, I can never get past the argument that the fetus is not a separate person with his/her own rights until there is higher brain development (25ish weeks I believe). I don’t agree with that premise, but I can’t seem to get past that argument.

  • Perry Robinson

    Personhood is a metaphysical concept, not a biological one.
    Second, if we can’t abolish slavery and prosecute all slave holders, how does it follow that we should not abolish some forms of it and prosecute those forms?

  • http://www.facebook.com/tracey.lok Tracey Lok

    Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t think this article is seriously thinking that Gosnell should walk free. Rather it is a sarcastic swipe at the hypocrisy of abortion being okay as long as it is in the womb when in actual fact abortion equates the same as infanticide.

    • Gary_1016

      Because there are so many extremists and pinheads in the world, it can’t always be easily determined if what someone says is sarcasm or opinion. One needs to specify.

    • Zephyr

      OK, Tracey, let’s take you at your word that you believe that abortion “equates the same as infanticide.” Let’s pose a hypothetical situation. You’re at a fertility clinic when it catches fire. You have the choice of saving either (a) a freezer filled with thousands of fertilized eggs (or test tubes filled with thousands of embryos), OR one single 9-month-old baby. Which do you choose?

      • Calvin Freiburger
        • Zephyr

          Thanks for responding, Calvin. Actually, the thoughts in that link are quite chilling: so you might choose the embryos over the live baby if the live baby had a genetic defect that meant it wouldn’t last long? Aren’t pro-lifers always saying you don’t “throw someone away” because they have a medical problem? And it should matter whether the embryos would survive or not taken out of the clinic? Well, then, shouldn’t we care less about them then if they wouldn’t survive outside of the mother? And we’re supposed to care about how unhappy the baby’s family might feel, but not care about how a woman faced with a pregnancy she doesn’t want feels?

          Ultimately, what the analogy is revealing is that pro-life people do not, in fact, think a fertilized egg or an embryo is the same as a baby. Unlike the examples at the end of that link, we’re not talking a one-to-one ratio. We’re talking about saving THOUSANDS of “people” versus one baby. If you truly believe all that these are people, the choice is an easy one. But thanks for trying.

          BTW: which would you choose? The embryos/eggs? Or the baby?

          • Gary

            You need to put your clothes back on. Those shivers can lead to a cold.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Yawn. I don’t see anything here that wouldn’t have been answered or refuted by simply reading my article. Not that I was expecting anything more, mind you……..

          • Zephyr

            Um, if I didn’t read your article, how did I pull those examples out of it? Please. And you haven’t told me which one you would choose: the embryos or the baby. Still waiting….

          • Gary

            I’m responding for Calvin. I hope no one minds.

            “And you haven’t told me which one you would choose: the embryos or the baby”

            Choose for what? Is there a difference? Is a disabled person less deserving of life than the President?

            Aren’t you getting dizzy spinning around in circles?

            http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/

          • Zephyr

            That’s not a response, that’s an evasion. Which would you choose? Still waiting….

          • Gary

            The matter is not open to debate.
            Rome has spoken.

          • Scott Z

            “Is a disabled person less deserving of life than the President?” Not at all, necessarily. However, letting the President die would cause a lot more problems than letting the disabled person die.

          • Scott Z

            I wasn’t really talking about a specific President in the example I gave. However, do you think his successor would be any better?

          • anAmericanByChoice

            Depends on who will be the successor… cannot comment until we have one to see what s/he says and then does… (let me edit this and add, cynically, maybe not… the powers that be have a choke on govs. and will not probably allow anyone decent to get there… but hope is the last thing to die!, and it is worth dying for! Maybe another revolution is coming?)

          • Scott Z

            If Obama died while still President, his successor would be Joe Biden.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Exactly. That’s the whole point that Zephyr is hell-bent on pretending not to grasp: that such emergency scenarios where an either-or is forced upon someone demand consideration of factors other than an individual’s innate worth or natural rights.

          • Zephyr

            Most women in a crisis (i.e., unwanted) pregnancy would consider it an emergency scenario.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Yes, because clearly not wanting to carry the son/daughter you created is inherently and in all cases the equivalent to dying in a fire.

          • Zephyr

            That’s not actually for you to decide. And death by childbirth still happens. At any rate, if your focus is shifting from the inherent worth of the embryo to “well, you create it, live with it,” then you are finally getting down to brass tacks about what the “pro-life” movement is all about: making sure that people “pay the consequences” for having sex. It’s clear that what makes pro-lifers angriest is that people aren’t having to own up for getting pregnant by having to give birth. So thanks for helping prove my point.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “That’s not actually for you to decide.”

            Uh, it’s for anyone with a functioning brain to admit is obviously true.

            “And death by childbirth still happens.”

            Complete non-sequitur. You know full well that’s not what we’re talking about, and nobody on the pro-life side advocates forcing women to continue their pregnancies in life-of-the-mother cases.

            “what the ‘pro-life’ movement is all about: making sure that people ‘pay the consequences’ for having sex.”

            I saw you pull this crap with a couple other commenters, and I was wondering how long it would take for you to intentionally and knowingly lie about me in the same way. Thanks for the final proof that my every “insult” about you being a brainwashed, dishonest demagogue was right on the money.

            Hint: next time you wanna be taken seriously somewhere, try developing your own material. All this time it was painfully obvious that your every “thought” came from a script.

          • Scott Z

            I’m thinking it only seems that way because he disagrees with you that all human embryos, regardless of developmental stage, are people/human beings. Since the brain has not started to develop when it’s first classified as an ‘embryo’, I’m inclined to agree with him. While I could be wrong, I think my body existed before “I” existed. And I know my body will continue to exist, at least for a little while, even after I cease to. Well, unless there actually is an afterlife.

          • Gary

            “However, letting the President die would cause a lot more problems than letting the disabled person die.”

            Oh, brilliant. Your measure of compassion is limited to those who may have some importance of a political nature.

            Good post, Adolf.

          • Scott Z

            “Good post, Adolf.” You’re quite welcome, liar.

            I did not say the disabled person was less deserving of life than the President. I merely stated the FACT that letting the disabled die would result in less chaos. I never stated which one I would pick, either.

          • Zephyr

            So far what I’m seeing on this site is pro-lifers resorting to rank insults and sneering and thinking that somehow they are making a point. “Pro-life” apparently doesn’t extend toward respect for people who are already existing, and it doesn’t seem to have much substance in its favor. Not impressed.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Good question. But considering your the one who wrote your previous reply as if you hadn’t read it, it’s on you to explain the inconsistency in your words.

          • anAmericanByChoice

            Fallacy: the discussion here becomes a different one… an ethical one; where does one draw the line? Should people be playing God and doing in vitro fertilization to start with? Etc. What about DNA manipulation? GMOs?

            It is very different to speak of an embryo in a test tube, eggs and sperm artificially collected, and an embryo in the mother’s womb: one would never even come into existence, left alone, would never develop into anything, the other, by nature of its condition, will develop into a child, and be given birth to.

            Others may argue there is no difference. Still, one is facilitating life, the other terminating it.

            You may also argue, what about a 5 month old preemie? Left alone should certainly die! But we can save preemies this day like was never possible before; etc. Still, there is a difference…

            Can you see it? One is doing all one can to save a life, the other, violating mother and baby, terminating a life… etc.

            If you cannot see the difference…

          • Zephyr

            Why is it different to speak of an embryo in a test tube, or eggs and sperm artificially collected. If pro-lifers mean what they say, that ALL of these are equally human, then it doesn’t matter where that “human” resides, does it? And, if you truly believe these embryos are as fully human as you or I, then how can you use a phrase like “left alone would never develop into anything.” Because if it already IS something, then what does it matter what it develops into?

            You have, in fact, shown the limitations of the “all of these are people” way of thinking, and the strength of the “burning building” scenario, Calvin’s opinions notwithstanding. That is, you have pointed out that embryos, by themselves, are not the same thing as a person, that in fact *they require the use of someone else’s body* in order to become a person. It’s the “use of someone else’s body” where things become problematic, because if you assert that this embryo has the right to use a body to develop, the you are saying the person whose body it’s inhabiting is, in fact, inferior to the embryo, that the embryo’s rights trump theirs, and that they are merely a slave to the needs of said embryo (or the state, if the state decides that abortion should be outlawed).

            Furthermore, the idea of all these embryos raises an important point: whose body are they “deserving” of? Should we just start pulling women off the streets and saying we have the right to use your body to grow these embryos? If not, why not? If your argument then is that people who become *pregnant* with said embryos should by default be the ones to carry them, then you are not actually arguing about the right of the embryo to life, you are arguing for punishing the woman for allowing the egg to be fertilized inside her in the first place.

    • Zephyr

      A couple articles for you all to read: first, a series of testimonials about 3rd-trimester abortions: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/threads/its-so-personal/

      And another about a pro-life person who came to see how misguided and untruthful the movement is:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

      • Calvin Freiburger

        Citing Libby Anne? Boy, are you late to the party:
        https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22libby+anne%22+site:liveactionnews.org&oq=%22libby+anne%22+site:liveactionnews.org&gs_l=hp.3…1003.10312.0.10444.51.44.7.0.0.0.888.6185.26j14j2j6-2.44.0…0.0…1c.1.12.psy-ab.HHaTrQJdmaU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.aWc&fp=221154a1b1e683fb&biw=1280&bih=660

        • Zephyr

          Calvin, at the bottom of the link I gave you are links to her rebuttals of the arguments made against her. I’m afraid she eviscerates every one. But thanks again for trying.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I’ve read her. I’ve personally refuted her on several points. I’ve read the rest of the refutations. And I’ve read — and demolished — her preposterous attempts to defend her work. It’s nothing but false premises, logical fallacies, and selective statistics. But, since your only response is pretty much “my links can beat up your links,” then I guess we’ll just let the readers decide.

          • Zephyr

            None of the links you pointed me showed any pro-life side “demolishing” what she said, only sort of foaming at the mouth with rage. I actually find her to be refreshingly honest about her own struggles and calm and reasoned in her responses to those who are so enraged with what she is saying. Her statistics are sound, and she shows quite easily the inconsistencies of the pro-life movement. I’m sorry you can’t see that. Best wishes to you.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Thank you for this final indictment of your analytical skills.

          • Zephyr

            Still thinking insults are an argument, are we? Ok, then.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            You proved that was the only level of discourse you were fit for.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            When you continually ignore evidence and give me little more to work with beyond “because I say so,” you give me little other choice.

      • Gary

        The only thing she is supporting are abortion and contraception. Neither of these options will ever be morally or legally correct. Killing an innocent person will always be murder and it has been that way since Adam and Evil. The idea that contraception eliminates abortion is illogical. Contraception, itself, being immoral will always lead to abortion when it fails. You can’t rely on immoral behavior to prevent an evil and those who believe otherwise have been greatly deceived. The end never justifies the means.

        What polls seem to indicate is a moot point. Decisions should not be made according to their outcome. The results of polls are not a moral compass; and for those who have faith the moral compass is the Gospels.

        http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman

        • Zephyr

          Wow, that’s some pretty interesting logic. The idea that contraception eliminates (nobody said that — they said reduces) abortion is illogical? Gee, we can’t put anything past you, can we? Because preventing unwanted pregnancies won’t mean fewer women wanting to get rid of those unwanted pregnancies, would it? All right, my friend, if that’s the logic you’re putting forth, then the pro-choice movement has nothing to fear from you.

          • Gary

            “Because preventing unwanted pregnancies won’t mean fewer women wanting to get rid of those unwanted pregnancies, would it?”

            There is no such thing as an “unwanted pregnancy.” All life is precious.

          • Scott Z

            I’m quite sure Zephyr means “not wanted by the one who’s pregnant”. Life may be precious, but it sure can suck, too. Is it safe to assume you’re okay with people deciding to not risk creating new humans in the first place?

          • Zephyr

            Glad to see you’re still around, Scott Z. I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts on this thread. I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Check out the links I posted for some other thoughts on abortion.

          • Scott Z

            Oh, thank you! I’ve enjoyed reading yours as well. I’m sure I’ll find some of the answers I’m looking for. Okay, I’ll try to look through them later.

          • Zephyr

            Scott Z, I am also a Christian (I’m sure someone will make a snarky comment about that), and I want you to know that I read your concerns about God with great interest and empathy. I understand completely where you are coming from and appreciate that you are willing to struggle with an idea that so many other people brush off. I hope it’s also clear that Christians can differ on the specific issue of abortion. I also want you to know that I, too, struggle with depression. As I said, I hope you are able to find the answers you are looking for. :-)

          • anAmericanByChoice

            Zephyr, if you are a Christian, I am sure you will get the difference… unless you are a Christian who does not believe that life is God given, and not ours to take as we please?… But I am sure that an honest seeker with find the way — the amazing thing about God is His capacity to forgive and look into people’s hearts…
            You will not have to struggle with depression anymore once you see the whole puzzle together… that, I can tell you without a shred of a doubt.

          • Zephyr

            I know you mean well (sort of — you are very biased in your beliefs about what position a Christian should take on social issues), but even Christians who supposedly “see the whole puzzle together” can suffer from depression. Witness Pastor Rick Warren’s son who recently committed suicide. Nowhere does the Bible say that when we become Christians, all our problems will wither away. The apostle Paul often spoke of his “thorn” and physical challenges. When Christians take this attitude, what it suggests is that Christians who still struggle (as many, many do) are somehow not as “right” with God as the speaker. This is not only wrong, but a terrible insensitivity to the needs of our fellow human beings. No illness, mental or otherwise, should be stigmatized in a Christian community, and we should also be willing to admit that none of us “has it all together.” Thanks.

          • Angelina Steiner

            You are a Christian who support the destruction of the Temple of God?

            “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.”- 1 Corinthians 3:17

            Oh you are such a GOOD CHRISTIAN for supporting the destruction of the Temple of the Holy Spirit (supporting abortion).- You sound like a Wicked Demented FOOL!

            What a joke! “Gee, I am a Christian who support the cutting of the spinal cords (beheading) of the babies at the Gosnell clinic. Oh I am sooooo holy I can’t stand it! Oh we must support the killing of more babies —this way I will feel like a SUPER SAINT! And God will let me go straight to Heaven for supporting the destruction of His temples!–Zephyr

          • Gary

            Selfishness is not a virtue.

          • Scott Z

            Can you please answer my question directly? I am significantly worse than most when it comes to things involving unstated/hidden meaning.

          • Scott Z

            *when it comes to understanding things

        • anAmericanByChoice

          Sorry, but… “since Adam and Evil”??? Totally inappropriate!

          • Scott Z

            Wait, I thought that was a typo…

  • http://profiles.google.com/jasondake Jason Dake

    If we outright ban abortion, would we not end up with a whole bunch of Kermits doing the same kinds of things without any licensing, registration, or medical training, and with much less of a chance of finding out and prosecuting them? Take a look at a film like “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” which is fictional but very realistic in its account of abortion bans and their effects on society. By your argument, you’d prefer Romania 1987 to current US policy, and that’s rather sad and, frankly, sickening.

    In the end it has little to do with the law. Laws should be used as guiding principals and a way of creating some control over who does what, when, where, and why. If you want to end abortion, you need pervasive and effective sex education, NOT abstinence education, as well as educational and monetary resources for the communities most often choosing to abort babies. Preventing pregnancies is the best way to prevent abortions, hands down.

    These same principals apply to other hot-button issues. Banning drugs and guns doesn’t prevent them from getting to people’s hands and causing harm/death. Only extreme groups will argue for complete banning or anarchy. The rational approach is having some laws to prevent the worst situations combined with some good education to create a society of critical thinkers and empathetic citizens.

    Good luck.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      “would we not end up with a whole bunch of Kermits doing the same kinds of things”

      Nope: http://liveactionnews.org/naral-spokeswoman-lies-about-abortion-on-complicit-msnbc/

      “NOT abstinence education”

      Why? It works:
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/executive-summary-abstinence-education-assessing-the-evidence
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-110507-6225r/
      http://www.acpeds.org/Abstinence-Education.html
      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abstinence-education-reduces-teen-sex-rates-study-shows/
      http://www.abstinenceassociation.org/research/index.html
      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-study-says-abstinence-only-programs-are-best/
      http://www.heritageservices.org/faq_effectiveness.html

      “Preventing pregnancies is the best way to prevent abortions, hands down.”

      We’re all for preventing pregnancies, but that doesn’t mean it’s tolerable to keep abortion legal. We could just as easily say that various murders and thefts are motivated in part by economic circumstances, but nobody would argue that we should only alleviate those circumstances while leaving it legal to kill or steal.

      “The rational approach is having some laws to prevent the worst situations”

      And any way you slice it, having one’s own child killed IS one of “the worst situations.”

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Ms. Spider

        You’re going to make me trot out my list again, Calvin? *sigh*. Abstinence does not work:

        10 States with *highest* teen birth rate (per 1,000 teen girls):

        Mississippi (55) Sex ed not required. If taught, must be abstinence-only.

        New Mexico (53) Loosely regulated. Spending on abstinence ed is high.

        Arkansas: (52.5) Sex ed not required. If taught, must stress abstinence.

        Texas (52) Sex ed not required. If taught, must be abstinence-only.

        Oklahoma (50) Sex ed not required. If taught, must stress abstinence.

        Louisiana (48) Sex ed not required. If taught, must be abstinence-only.

        Kentucky (46) Loosely regulated. Some guidelines around pregancy and HIV.

        West Virginia (45) Not regulated at all.

        Alabama (43.5) Sex ed must stress abstinence.

        Tennessee (43) Sex ed not required. If taught, must stress abstinence.

        10 States with *lowest* teen birth rate (per 1,000 teen girls):

        Wisconsin (26) Sex ed not required. If taught, must stress abstinence.

        New York (22.5) Loosely regulated. HIV prevention mandated.

        Minnesota (22.5) Comprehensive sex ed required.

        Rhode Island (22) Comprehensive sex ed required.

        Maine (21.5) Comprehensive sex ed required.

        New Jersey (20) Comprehensive sex ed required.

        Connecticut (19) Loosely regulated. HIV prevention mandated.

        Vermont (18) Comprehensive sex ed required.

        Massachusetts (17) Sex ed not required. If taught, must be comprehensive.

        New Hampshire (16) Comprehensive sex ed required.

        http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/for-professionals/sex-education-resource-center/766?task=vie

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57411738/u.s-teen-birth-rates-fall-to-historic-lows/

        • Calvin Freiburger

          You’re going to make me explain to you things you’ve already been schooled on ad nauseum, Spider? *sigh*.

          First, I see a lot more scholarly heft in my list than yours. Second, you originally trotted out this list the last time I presented the exact same list of studies, and you didn’t have compelling answers to their findings. Third, at the time I directed you to analysis of those numbers by Michael New you didn’t bother to respond to, because that’s kind of your whole deal.

          Among his relevant caveats were that nearly a third of states don’t report any data on teen birth-control use to the CDC, that there is reason to believe teen pregnancy rates and the states’ poverty rates rather than their sex education programs, and, most importantly, the fact that fewer teens *giving birth* isn’t the same as fewer teens *having sex* or *getting pregnant* – they simply abort more babies and use more contraception.

          • Basset_Hound

            There’s another factor. In some of the Southern states, a teen giving birth a few weeks before her 20th birthday might actually be a married woman. She’s still thrown into the statistical hodgepodge as the girl giving birth at 14 or 15. As Mark Twain once said in Life on the Mississippi….”There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

          • Timmehh

            I’m sure a big reason why those teens are married is because they got pregnant in the first place. That’s probably why they are still counted. My cousin grew up in the South (I did not), and I think all but one (I think) of her classmates who got pregnant as a teen ended up getting married as a result.

            But this is just anecdotal, and by no means is what happens everywhere.

          • Basset_Hound

            Yes, some did get married as a result of a pregnancy as in “Down by the River” by Bruce Springsteen. However that is not always the case. Our daughter graduated from high school a year ago. There were two couples from her class who got married, and not because there were any pregnancies involved. It’s just what they wanted to do, especially if they’re pushing 20 and they’ve been out of high school for a year or more. Sometimes they’re actually able to make it work.

      • http://profiles.google.com/jasondake Jason Dake

        If I had the time and passion, I could find just as many studies that point out abstinence only education fails on every front. And I’m sure they’d be biased on the other side just as many of your sources are. If you want to ban abortions, go for it. And good luck.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          Yawn. Better luck next time, then.

        • anAmericanByChoice

          “abstinence only education fails on every front” — sure EDUCATION fails… ABSTINENCE however NEVER fails.

          The problem is the fact that education is not doing a very good job… Wonder why? Parents shouldn’t be handing others — most teachers, the State (or disgrace!,) etc., the education and care of their children; God should not be banned from schools, education, etc.

          It’s really simple.

          We agree on one thing: bans don’t work, because where there is a will, there is a way, be that will for good or evil.

    • Gary_1016

      “If we outright ban abortion, would we not end up with a whole bunch of Kermits”

      Possibly. But that’s the way it needs to be. When you permit murder, it can only get worse, not better.

  • Scott Z

    “there are only two logical criteria for the onset of personhood: conception or birth. Any argument for some designation between these two points is purely arbitrary.”
    The start of brain development is no more arbitrary a criteria than conception or birth.

    “Logical reasoning about abortion either leads you to a pro-life viewpoint, or a pro-infanticide viewpoint.”
    A textbook-worthy example of a false dichotomy.

    “Does she “deserve” to burn in Hell for all eternity? Well, do I? Do you? Does anyone? Is it up to us to decide? It’s not.”

    It is literally impossible for anyone to deserve to burn in Hell for eternity. However, according to Catholic doctrine, would not killing infants after they’re baptized send their souls straight to Heaven? And would not allowing them to live put them at risk of eternal Hell?

    • Calvin Freiburger

      “The start of brain development is no more arbitrary a criteria than conception.”

      Of course it is. Brain development is a change that someone undergoes; conception is when that someone comes into existence.

      “It is literally impossible for anyone to deserve to burn in Hell for eternity.”

      Really?

      “would not killing infants after they’re baptized send their souls straight to Heaven? And would not allowing them to live put them at risk of eternal Hell?”

      I want to facepalm every time someone suggests this. It presupposes that
      others’ lives are ours to decide, as if there’s no purpose to our spending time on Earth at all beyond getting to Heaven. Also, if true it could be a defense for all sorts of post-birth murders, which means (a) it can’t be a valid theological interpretation since it contradicts “thou shalt not murder,” etc., and (b) it has no relevance specifically to the abortion debate.

      • Scott Z

        “conception is when that someone comes into existence”
        There cannot be a ‘someone’ without some semblance of a brain.

        “Really?”
        Yes, really.

        “It presupposes that others’ lives are ours to decide, as if there’s no purpose to our spending time on Earth at all beyond getting to Heaven.”
        If eternal punishment actually existed, there could be nothing more important than avoiding it. And any action would be justified in preventing it.

        “Also, if true it could be a defense for all sorts of post-birth murders”
        Obviously.

        “it can’t be a valid theological interpretation since it contradicts “thou shalt not murder,”

        If killing people condemns one to Hell, then a person who baptizes then kills babies would actually be incredibly selfless and heroic. He/she would be a person willing to endure eternal, infinite agony so as to prevent others from doing the same–it would be the ultimate sacrifice.

        • Mary Lee

          There is a “someone” when the DNA, and the heart, and the body is present. Now you’re all about functionalism. Hey, our unborn babies HAVE BRAINS. So what if they’re small? So what?

          Excuse. Also, biologically false excuse.

          • Scott Z

            A zygote does not possess any semblance of a brain.

          • Mary Lee

            Neither do many pro-aborts. *DOH!*

            Again, yeah, NOT A ZYGOTE. By the time the woman discovers she’s pregnant, yeah, there’s a little heart beating, and a teeny tiny brain, and arm buds and all kinds of people things. *GAME SHOW BUZZER*

          • Basset_Hound

            Thank you Mary Lee….you took the words right out of my laptop. Have a blessed day…

          • Scott Z

            “Neither do many pro-aborts. *DOH!*”

            Speaking of dehumanizing language…

            “there’s a little heart beating, and a teeny tiny brain, and arm buds and all kinds of people things”
            I think that would qualify as a person.

          • Rebekah

            So what? When the sperm and egg join, they create an entirely
            new being with its own unique, human genetic code. All of the DNA necessary for hair color, eye color, approximate height, blood type, etc. are already there. The only difference between this single-celled zygote and a newborn baby are its size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.

            Of these differences, size is not a reasonable criterion for personhood. If so, then short people would be considered less human than tall people. Can you imagine the outrage the American people would express if a judge gave a lighter penalty
            to a murderer simply because the person he killed had dwarfism?

            The level of development of a human is not a criterion for personhood either. If so, then a man who killed a toddler would get a lighter penalty than one who killed a teenager. If we use degree of dependency as a measuring rod for personhood, then pre-teens would be considered less human than college students. Is a school shooter guilty of a lesser crime if he kills elementary students instead of high-school teens? If degree of development makes a creature what it is, then why do smashing a bald eagle’s egg and killing an adult eagle carry the same penalty? http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

            Environment would be one of the most ridiculous requirements for personhood of them all. If we adopt this standard, then what makes a man human is where he is. People could be considered less human in their houses than they would be walking down the street. Does a man living in South America become more human if he immigrates to the U.S.? Should there be a lighter penalty for killing a child in Georgia than in Montana?

            Degree of dependency is not a criterion for personhood either. People on ventilators or insulin are not less human than anyone else. Should there be a lighter penalty for killing people who smoke than there is for killing someone who doesn’t?

            A human zygote is a person. There is no way around this fact. Every person who has ever lived was, at one time, a single cell. To terminate even that one cell would be to terminate that person. That set of DNA has never been in existance before and never will be again. All of the things that make a zygote different from a newborn don’t matter. What matters is that this one cell is human. If it isn’t human, what is it? Can we say that because someone is smaller than us, dependent on us, in a different place than us, and less developed than us that they don’t deserve the same rights as us?

          • Scott Z

            Thank for taking the time to give such a detailed, well thought-out, argument. I really do appreciate it.

            However, I’m still having trouble understanding how something without any sort of human brain can be considered a person/human being. If you don’t mind, could you go into more detail about what makes a person, a person? I’d really appreciate it.

            Also, assuming you believe people have a right to life, do you think they have a right to death, too?

          • anAmericanByChoice

            Scott, as said above, you may have god intentions, and an inquisitive mind is a good thing (and the sign of free agency, yeah, that which may set you up fr bliss or damnation) and I think Rebekah really put it black on white… but if you still need more detail to what makes a person a person, I think it all comes down to the eternal quest for life: God giveth, God taketh. The big mistake is to believe people have a “right” to life. In a way we don’t have a right to ether life or death, because you cannot give life to yourself… nor can we give life to others… our children are born because we make it possible for them to physically come into existence, but can we say that we give life? No. Same with what is happening with the what we call inalienable rights as stated in the Constitution, they come from God. The government does not give me anything, period. So, cannot take it away, unless I play against / brake certain rules, etc. (such as, thou shalt not kill…) So, what does it all boil down to? An understanding, a realization (not a belief, no, because God is that He His, and He is there, even if you do not believe in Him!) that certain things are a Gift from a Loving Creator… and that is the reason why we should not be killing babies, depriving spirits of their bodies and chance of spending time in this earth fulfilling their purpose in Life. Life does not start at conception, or birth, the same way it does not end with death…

            As for what makes a person a person, a soul and a body does.

            In Walter Miller’s “A Canticle for Leibowitz” you find this very clear explanation of what a person is:

            Abbot Zerchi smiled thinly. “Yon don’t have a soul, Doctor. You are a soul. You have a body, temporarily.”

            … so, at conception, a soul comes to the body, and leaves at physical death. To be a complete person, we need both and that is why our bodies and souls will be again reunited when the time comes for resurrection to take place.

            Are you familiar with C. S. Lewis? You might get somewhere in your quest if you read his books… Start with Mere Christianity. There are many things we do not understand until we get some other things sorted out first. It is the way it should be. Babies start by figuring out how to flip on their tummies, then crawl, than stand, than walk, than run… They cannot enter the world running!… Same happens in our quest for meaning and spirituality.

            All the best in your quest. The Lord will guide you if you seek with full purpose of heart. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened…

          • Rebekah

            “If you don’t mind, could you go into more detail about what makes a person, a person?” Sure can.

            Being a Christian, I agree with anAmericanByChoice that what makes a person a person is the soul, put into all humans at conception. This is the seat of being that makes humans different than animals.

            I also understand that many non-Christians, especially humanists, believe that there is no soul, and that the mind is the ultimate criterion for life and person-hood. From that standpoint, it makes sense that you would argue that the development of the brain is the start of a person. If I’m understanding right, you’re coming from an “I think, therefore I am” standpoint. (If not, please let me know so I can address the standpoint you are coming from.) However, this almost makes it sound as if there was no life in this zygote before the brain formed. This falls under the “level of development” difference between a zygote and a newborn. Earlier, I explained some of the reason that the level of development of a human does not make them more or less of a person, but I’ll elaborate a little further, particularly in the area of the brain and thinking, since this is the stage of development that you are focusing on.

            If we take the brain and thought as the ultimate answer to when human life begins, then we have to ask, do we consider those with higher IQ’s to be more human than other people? This leads to all sorts of problems. Could you imagine a judge giving a particular penalty to a murderer based on the intelligence of the person he killed? This may sound far-fetched, but it is the logical conclusion to the idea that it is the brain and the level of thought that the brain is capable of that makes a person human. From that standpoint, a newborn child is more human than any of us, because a newborn has more neurons, and therefore, more potential for thought, than any adult.

            Life, on the other hand, begins at conception. That is when the new set of DNA (which, yes, codes for every single neuron that will ever be in this new person) comes into existence. This is when all of the intricate processes that cause this zygote to change and develop are set in motion. No, a zygote doesn’t have a human brain. It’s not at the stage where a brain would do it any good. But is it alive? Is the DNA in it human DNA? If you were to run that DNA through a machine that maps the various genes, what creature would it say the genes belong to? Human beings are persons, not because they have brains, but because they are human. A person with brain damage is not less human for it. A child born without a brain who dies within moments of birth is still human. A procedure that snuffs out the life of a zygote snuffs out the life of the child just as surely as allowing it to be born and then snipping its neck with scissors does.

            In the end, however, it is not DNA or a brain that ultimately makes a person human. It is that God made man in His image. That is where the worth of human life comes from. Without God, life doesn’t have any worth. Without God, arguments that say that person-hood begins here or there are just so many words. Is a brain important? Yes. Is DNA important? Absolutely, but neither a brain nor DNA makes a person. A soul does.

            The existence of a soul is why I cannot agree that humans have a right to death. Are we all going to die? Of course. Is the timing of that death something that we have the right to control? No. Why? Because we didn’t create ourselves. We cannot choose when we come into this world, and we don’t have the right to choose when we leave it. In my mind, the reason that even human zygotes have a right to life is that God has already granted them life, and humans have no business taking away what God gave unless it is in a situation (such as capital punishment or a just war) that He commands them to. God is the one that gave life, and only He has the right to dictate when it should come to an end. If you have any other questions, please let me know and I will try to answer them.

          • Scott Z

            “Without God, life doesn’t have any worth. Without God, arguments that say that person-hood begins here or there are just so many words.” I guess I’ll just stop talking with you, then.

          • Rebekah

            Okay. Thanks for the discussion. I will be praying for you.

          • Scott Z

            “I will be praying for you.” Unless praying for me will help you in some way, please, don’t waste your time. There are just so many more constructive uses for it. For example, reading your post near the top of this thread (if you sort by newest) made my day so much better. :) At least until I read “Without God, life doesn’t have any worth”, that is. It just seems so contradictory to your statements in your top post.

            Since I am not convinced your God is real, my thoughts and ideas about person-hood will not involve Him. Since you explicitly stated arguments for person-hood that don’t involve God “are just so many words”. I figured that meant you weren’t interested in what I had to say on the subject.

            What makes life worth protecting, is that some living things are aware of their own existence and desire to continue existing.

          • Rebekah

            Well Scott Z, I’m a Christian, so for me, God is the ultimate source of decision on what life is and what life means. If God didn’t exist, then humans are just glorified animals. That’s what I meant when I said that without God, life doesn’t have any worth or meaning. Since I’m a Christian, most of my arguments will end up talking in some way about God. If He said something is life, then in my mind that is the most convincing proof I can give that it’s life. What I was trying to point out in my first post are the biological differences between a zygote and a newborn and why they are not sufficient grounds for a lack of personhood on the part of the zygote. Nothing in my first post negates believing that God is the ultimate source of life and that, if He exists and has said that life is worth protecting, then that, in my mind, far supersedes any other argument.

            But that doesn’t mean that I am not interested in your ideas on life. Having strong convictions of my own does not mean that I do not want to hear what others think. I welcome hearing your thoughts on the subject, so long as you are okay with me talking about God, because He is probably going to enter into the conversation. In return, I will understand that since you aren’t convinced that God is real, there will be things that we don’t and probably won’t agree on, and that some of my arguments may sound strange.

            If you see any areas of inconsistency in my arguments, please let me know and I will try to clarify.

          • Scott Z

            “If God didn’t exist, then humans are just glorified animals. That’s what I meant when I said that without God, life doesn’t have any worth or meaning.” Okay, thank you for clarifying. Though…you’re not saying the lives of other animals have no worth or meaning, are you?

            “if He exists and has said that life is worth protecting, then that, in my mind, far supersedes any other argument.” Okay, that makes more sense. However, what you wrote earlier was “Without God, life doesn’t have any worth. Without God, arguments that say that person-hood begins here or there are just so many words.”, which I feel has a very different meaning. What I feel is common to both is ‘we should protect and value life because that is what God does’. However, one says ‘this is the best reason to protect and value life’, and the other says ‘this is the ONLY reason to protect and value life’.

            “it is the logical conclusion to the idea that it is the brain and the level of thought that the brain is capable of that makes a person human” I’m not claiming a superior brain makes one more of a person, only that a brain with some level of neural activity is necessary for person-hood.

            Basically, my body existed before “I” existed.

          • Rebekah

            I am not saying that the lives of animals have no worth, only that the lives of humans are worth infinitely more because they are made in the image of God. And when you compare infinity to any other numbers, they look pretty small in comparison. Also, it’s God who ultimately gives worth to any life, since without Him, there isn’t life.

            “However, one says ‘this is the best reason to protect and value life’ and the other says ‘this is the only reason to value life.’” You are right that I believe that God is the best reason to value life because He has said it’s worth protecting. I also believe that without God life doesn’t have any worth. What I mean by that is that it doesn’t have any point, that, if there was no God, all of the beauty and wonder and glory of life would be lost. It’s like God is the variable by which a constant is multiplied. If the variable equals zero (if God’s not in the picture) then the whole function is zero. (Conversely, if God does exist, then the other factors that make someone human, DNA and such, also have worth.) What is the point to life if there is nothing beyond us to live for? If there isn’t a God, then we can argue all day about what makes someone human, but without God, there IS no standard for what makes someone human. At the same time, God is the standard of ultimate morality, so without Him, there is no right and wrong and no point to arguing about whether abortion is right or not or if someone being a person means we can’t kill them. So I guess I’m saying that not only is God the best reason to value life, without Him, there’s no morality and no absolute reason to value life anyway. I know this may sound extreme, but think it out. If God exists, then all of the things we think are good and right are defined by Him. If not, we decide what is good and right and when personhood begins according to our own whims, and there is no ultimate authority to say whether we are right or not. Does that make sense? If not, just let me know and I’ll try to clarify.

            I can understand your thoughts about brain activity being a standard for personhood. Without God, it makes about as much sense as most arguments for when personhood begins. However, if God is in the equation, He knew from eternity past every person that would ever live and designed them with infinite care and love. Every day that they would ever live was written in His mind before it happened. “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.” (Psalm 139:16) If God is in the equation, then He saw you as a person before you were even conceived. Think about that. God knew you and loved you before you were even a single cell. When you came into existence, you were a person, because there was an infinite mind who knew you perfectly and considered your life worthy of protecting. He is the ultimate standard of personhood, not us. It is His awareness of us that makes us people, not our own.

            I hope that clarifies what I believe, and I hope that you will come to realize how much God loves you.

          • Scott Z

            I’m not really sure how to respond to most of your post. Honestly, I find your ideas about life to be rather dark and disturbing.

            “I hope that you will come to realize how much God loves you.” If God loves me, why did He create me to have depression?

          • Rebekah

            Do you find my ideas about life dark and disturbing because of who you think God is, or because you don’t think there’s a God? I am just wondering, because I don’t see anything dark or disturbing about an infinite, all loving, all powerful God bringing meaning and purpose to life. Yes, the world would be a dark and disturbing place without God, BUT, because He is real and He loves us, there is wonder and glory and beauty and purpose and meaning in the midst of a dark world. Life matters because the one who made it matters.

            “If God loves me, why did He create me to have depression?” God created mankind to need Him. A large part of the reason you’re depressed is probably because you’re trying to fill the part of you that God was meant to fill with other things, and they don’t work. Also, God gives different people different struggles, and He longs for them to bring those struggles to Him and lay them at His feet, for them to trust Him through their pain. In my case, I suffer from feelings of anxiety and issues with self-worth. God gave me those struggles in order for me to realize how much I need Him, so that I can say that I don’t need to fear because He is with me and I don’t need to seek after the approval of others because I’m precious in God’s eyes.

          • Scott Z

            What I find dark and disturbing are the implications of your views on life. Let me put it this way: If you stopped believing God was real, would you then view any and all life as completely pointless and worthless?

            “A large part of the reason you’re depressed is probably because you’re trying to fill the part of you that God was meant to fill with other things, and they don’t work.” The biggest reason I’m depressed is this: I’m overly empathetic, and I take too many of the things people say and do too personally.

            Sorry for not responding to your whole post. Also, if you still have finals to study for and take, please don’t feel you have to respond or anything.

          • Rebekah

            “Also, if you still have finals to study for and take, please don’t feel you have to respond or anything.” Thank you for being so considerate! I can get distracted easily from scholastic things to those I’m passionate about. I will respond to your post fully, but probably after Saturday. Thank you for giving me that freedom. :)

          • Scott Z

            Oh, you’re welcome. :)

            I think it’d be more accurate to say that I helped remind you of a freedom you already had. But, anyway, good luck on your finals! :)

          • Rebekah

            “I think it’d be more accurate to say that I helped remind you of a freedom you already had.” Well, maybe. :) Sometimes on forums like this, especially ones on controversial topics, if you don’t respond in a few days people assume you’re not going to, or that you’re being rude, even when that’s not your intent.

            Anyway, thanks!

          • Rebekah

            “If you stopped believing God was real, would you then view any and all life as completely worthless?” First of all, let me clarify that this will never happen. That said, I feel I should point out that the existence of God, and therefore of an absolute moral code, is completely independent of my belief or disbelief in them. The sun does not stop shining if I cease to think that it exists. The reason human beings value life is because God’s moral code is written in their souls, witnessing of the character and the existance of God. That moral code would not go away if I stopped believing in it, just as the IRS tax code doesn’t disappear if I stop believing it’s real. Now, if there was no God, what would be the reason that life is precious? According to a humanist viewpoint, there wouldn’t be any real reason to value the life of another unless it does you some good. For example, a male lion will often kill the cubs of another lion so that he can mate with the lioness. He sees no reason to see the cubs of any but himself as worth protecting. On the other hand, humans can and do express concern for the well-being of people that they have never met. Is it dark and disturbing to think of a world where there is no morality? Yes. It is also disturbing to think of what would happen if the sun just ceased to exist one day. The fact of the matter is that, just as the sun gives light and warmth to the world, God gives life and worth to the world, whether or not we think He’s real.
            “The biggest reason I’m depressed is this: I’m overly empathetic, and I take many of the things people say and do too personally.” I hear you on that. People have no idea how much their words and actions can hurt others. (Note: If my words ever cross the line and start attacking you as a person, please call me out on it.) In the same way, we have no idea how much our words and actions hurt the heart of God. When we wound and insult each other, we are really hurting God. Think of it this way: God is like the ultimate father, loving and caring for His children. Just as the careless words and disobedience of a child hurt a father, our sins hurt the heart of God. Just as a loving father disciplines his children, God disciplines us. But it hurts Him. I don’t know if you’ve read the Bible, but in the book of Acts there’s a passage where God confronted a man named Saul who had been throwing Christians in jail for their faith. God didn’t ask, “Why are you hurting my people?” He asked, “Why are you persecuting me?” So, just as much as you’ve been hurt, God has been hurt more on your behalf. Just as much as you feel the sting of people’s uncaring words, He’s felt your pain. And, just like a good father, He wants to comfort you through that pain. But you have to let Him. He won’t force Himself on anyone.
            If you have any other questions, or if my response doesn’t make sense, let me know.

          • Scott Z

            Reading your first paragraph made me think of a set of three YouTube videos I watched a while back. Their topic is morality, and the first discusses how it can exist without God. I’m not saying you have to agree with what the videos say, but I’d really like you to watch them. You can find them by typing “qualiasoup morality” into the search bar on YouTube’s website.

            “When we wound and insult each other, we are really hurting God.”
            Given the sheer amount of suffering in the world, why would God allow Himself to be hurt by it? Does it make Him more motivated to stop it?

            “And, just like a good father, He wants to comfort you through that pain.”
            My parents would take away my depression in an instant if they had the ability to do so.

            “But you have to let Him.” …how?

          • Rebekah

            “Given the sheer amount of suffering in the world, why would God allow Himself to be hurt by it? Does it make Him more motivated to stop it?” Glad you asked that. I think you would agree that most of the suffering in the world is caused by human beings. The fact of the matter is, we have chosen evil and are evil by nature. If you disagree with me on this, I will be happy to talk that over with you. It is the evil in us that causes the suffering that’s in the world. Thus, in order to eradicate that evil, God would have to do away with humanity. Now, being both all good and all powerful, God’s very nature demands that He must deal with evil. Since humanity is evil, that would mean wiping us out. I know that is a heavy statement to make, and one you might not be comfortable thinking about. The good news is, God made a way for us to be free of evil. Jesus paid the price for our wrongdoing when He died on the cross. He suffered God’s wrath so that we wouldn’t have to. Now, being a gentleman, God won’t force anyone to accept this payment. Instead, He offers it to all. But this gift does come with a price. It requires that we give up our right to rule our own lives. It requires that we acknowledge that God is who He says He is, and that, as Creator and Lord of the universe, He deserves our allegiance.

            These are also the conditions to receiving God’s comfort through trials. Unless I am surrendered to God and my life is His, I will push Him away from me and will be unable to hear His voice. Now, this doesn’t mean that Christians lead pain-free lives. Far from it! However, these periods of suffering are not meaningless to Christians. Though God does not remove suffering from us, He uses those difficult times to draw us closer to Him and cause us to rely on His strength in our weakness.

          • Scott Z

            “…most of the suffering in the world is caused by human beings.”
            I don’t know enough to say whether or not such a statement is correct.

            “The fact of the matter is, we have chosen evil and are evil by nature.”
            I think people are neither good nor evil by nature. Everyone does good, bad, and neutral things. Furthermore, the average person has never killed anyone. Whereas, according to the Bible, God once drowned almost everyone on the planet.

            “Now, being a gentleman, God won’t force anyone to accept this payment.”
            Gentleman don’t require torture and human sacrifice in order to forgive people.

            Did you watch the videos I recommended? I promise they’re not that long, and they explain things much better than I can.

            I know I haven’t responded to your whole post, but I’d really like you to watch those videos–they’re seriously no more than 15 minutes each.

          • Rebekah

            “Everyone does good, bad, and neutral things.” I’d agree, however, an entity that was good by nature would only be able to do good, whereas the ability to do evil comes from evil that is already inside a person. If there was no evil in me I couldn’t feel hate or envy toward others. The fact that I can do any evil points to evil in my nature.
            “Furthermore, the average person has never killed anyone.” According to God, hatred is murder. If you have committed an act in your mind, that is the same to God as if you had carried it out. Besides that, God is so holy that any evil inside a person makes them unable to be in His presence. Think about it this way; if someone gave you a glass of water and said there was just one drop of poison in it, would you drink it? If someone gave you a brownie and said that there was just a little bit of dog feces in it, would you eat it? One sin is enough to separate us completely from God. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” James 2:10

            “Whereas, according to the Bible, God once drowned almost everyone on the planet.” Very true. But why did He? That is the crucial point of the story. God drowned almost everyone on the planet because of their absolute debauchery. “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5. I would encourage you to read all of Genesis 6-9 to get the whole story. The second point I would like to make is that all creation belongs to God. Why? He made it. Thus, only He has the absolute right to take or give life. The lives of men are in His hands because they belong to Him. We do not have the right to take the lives of others as we please because their lives don’t belong to us. This is one reason that suicide is also wrong. Our own lives are not really ours. They are God’s. He brought them into being and will choose when they end.

            “Gentleman don’t require torture and human sacrifice in order to forgive people.” If death is the price for sin, then death must occur in order for that sin to be washed away. “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Hebrews 9:22. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23. In a sense, by saying that God should not require the shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins, you are saying that God must change His nature in order for you to be comfortable with Him. You are asking Him not to be all good or all powerful. If, as you said, all people do evil, then that must be paid for. God is so holy that His nature requires Him to punish evil. The gentlemanliness of God is shown in that He chose to bear the punishment Himself instead of requiring it from us.

          • Scott Z

            So, the nature of people is a mix of both good an evil?

            “According to God, hatred is murder.”
            The words “hatred” and “murder” describe two very different things. They are not equivalent acts. Do you mean God thinks hatred is just as bad as murder?

            “if someone gave you a glass of water and said there was just one drop of poison in it, would you drink it?”
            It really depends on the identity of the poison.

            “If someone gave you a brownie and said that there was just a little bit of dog feces in it, would you eat it?”
            No. However, I really don’t know how harmful eating dog poop is for people. If it wasn’t harmful, I’d probably eat that brownie.

            “and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”
            Except it’s not possible for a person to think only evil thoughts all the time. When people are hungry, they think about where to get food. When people are thirsty, they think about where to get water. When people are tired, they think about when and where they can sleep. How are thoughts like those evil?

            “The second point I would like to make is that all creation belongs to God. Why? He made it.”
            How and why does creation necessarily confer ownership in all cases?

            Why must an all-good, all-powerful being require death and violence for the forgiveness of sins? Why would having different requirements strip God of His omnipotence and omnibenevolence?

            “The gentlemanliness of God is shown in that He chose to bear the punishment Himself instead of requiring it from us.”
            I agree. Unfortunately, however, His plan didn’t work. Despite His desire to do so, God has been unable to save everyone from Hell. Or so I’m told, at least.

          • Rebekah

            “So, the nature of people is a mix of both good an evil?” Yes. But to God, the fact that there is any evil is the point.

            “The words “hatred” and “murder” describe two very different things. They are not equivalent acts. Do you mean God thinks hatred is just as bad as murder?” According to the dictionary, hatred is “to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest.” Hatred is a feeling or desire to do harm to another. The desire to do something is, to God, the same as carrying out that act.

            The point about my analogies about sin is that one sin corrupts the whole being.

            “Except it’s not possible for a person to think only evil thoughts all the time. When people are hungry, they think about where to get food. When people are thirsty, they think about where to get water. When people are tired, they think about when and where they can sleep. How are thoughts like those evil?” If God said that something happened thousands of years ago, even if I do not know how it could happen, I trust that He’s telling the truth, because that’s what He does. He was there, I wasn’t. In addition, the key word in that verse is intention, which is different than thought. This means that the things people were intending to do were evil, and that is completely possible.

            “How and why does creation necessarily confer ownership in all cases?” That’s the whole point of copyrights. Ideas and objects, even in flawed modern society, are recognized as belonging to those who come up with them. If I come up with a new process that allows television stations to run on half the electricity, the idea belongs to me.

            “Why must an all-good, all-powerful being require death and violence for the forgiveness of sins? Why would having different requirements strip God of His omnipotence and omnibenevolence?” The nature of good destroys evil. That fact has been exploited for hundreds of years in films, books, and various stories. If God is all good, then His very presence destroys evil. If the law of things says that good destroys evil, then a good judge must enforce that law. If the wages of sin is death, then, being a good judge, God has to enforce that law. For example, if someone murdered your best friend and the judge let the murderer off without any penalty, the judge wouldn’t be a good one, would he? In order to be just, the judge would have to enforce the law and impose whatever penalties the law requires.

            “I agree. Unfortunately, however, His plan didn’t work. Despite His desire to do so, God has been unable to save everyone from Hell. Or so I’m told, at least.” Yes, it’s heartbreaking. However, God would have provided a way to save mankind from hell even if He knew only one person would take Him up on the offer. The point is that He cares enough about the individual to give each person the opportunity to escape eternal punishment.

          • Scott Z

            “The desire to do something is, to God, the same as carrying out that act.”
            Wanting to do something is not at all the same as actually doing it. Not on Earth, at least. If they are the same to God, then His understanding does not match the reality we currently live in.

            Since laws are not necessarily just, a just being would not automatically enforce all laws.

            “For example, if someone murdered your best friend and the judge let the murderer off without any penalty, the judge wouldn’t be a good one, would he?”
            Without evidence linking the person to the crime, the rules of the US justice system dictate a judge must let him/her go.

            But it says in the Bible that God wants everyone to be saved. What is preventing Him from accomplishing this?

            Sorry I didn’t respond to your whole post; I’m having trouble coming up with the proper wording for several parts. I went ahead and posted this because I didn’t want you to feel I was ignoring your response.

          • Rebekah

            Sorry for the delay in answering. I wanted to wait until I had the time to answer your questions fully. I am in no way trying to ignore your response.

            “Wanting to do something is not at all the same as actually doing it.” I would agree that the immediate outcome of wanting to do something is not the same as actually doing it, but the external consequences are not the point. The point is that wanting to murder someone is evil in the same way that actually murdering them is. The desire to kill is evil. I do not think you would have a problem agreeing with me on that. Actually murdering someone has more immediate and external consequences, but the action stems from the desire. Without the desire, there is no action.

            “If they are the same to God, then His understanding does not match the reality we currently live in.” The difference between God’s law and human law is that God has the ability to punish all evil, even evil that is only thought and not acted upon. Humanly, we have no ability to see the thoughts of mankind. God does, and because of His nature, He must punish thought evil as well as evil actions. I would not say that God’s understanding does not match the world we can see, but I would say that God’s understanding is far deeper than the world we see. God knows that the problem of murder exists because of the problem of hate. That is why they are the same to Him.

            “Since laws are not necessarily just, a just being would not automatically enforce all laws.” I would agree, and it is obvious that God does not enforce all laws. However, the laws I was talking about in my earlier post were the laws that God Himself put over the world. God’s code of law is just because the one it stems from is just.

            “Without evidence linking the person to the crime, the rules of the US justice system dictate a judge must let him/her go.” True. However, imagine that the judge is God. Since God knows and sees everything, there is no way that anyone could be wrongly found innocent through a lack of evidence. With that in mind, would God be a good judge if, knowing without a shadow of a doubt that someone committed murder and proving the matter beyond doubt, He let them go free without paying the penalty?

            “But it says in the Bible that God wants everyone to be saved. What is preventing Him from accomplishing this?” Excellent question. Here we come to the matter of free will. God made humans to be creatures with the choice to do good or to do evil. That choice also extends to the matter of salvation. Because of our free will, human beings have the choice to accept or deny God’s offer of salvation. In short, we humans are preventing everyone from being saved. Now, God does have enough power that He could easily override free will, but He does not. Why? Because taking away another’s power of free will is evil, and God cannot, and will not, commit any evil. Does that make sense?

            “I went ahead and posted this because I didn’t want you to feel I was ignoring your response.” Thank you. I appreciate it, and I will try to respond to your posts more promptly in the future so that you do not feel that I am ignoring you either.

          • Scott Z

            “The desire to kill is evil.”
            It is sometimes, yes. However, since the desire does not always result in the action, the desire is less evil than the action.

            “would God be a good judge if, knowing without a shadow of a doubt that someone committed murder and proving the matter beyond doubt, He let them go free without paying the penalty?”
            No. However, the penalty for murder is not eternal torture.

            “Because taking away another’s power of free will is evil”
            Not in all cases it isn’t. Taking away people’s freedom to choose to rape, murder, and torture would be a very good thing.

            It’s completely okay if you want to wait until you can respond in full. I have a rather bad habit of not completing my partial responses… Can you let me know if I ever don’t respond to a part you really want a response to?

          • Rebekah

            Sorry it took me a while to respond. I have a rather bad habit of waiting to respond, perhaps for too long. If this ever annoys you, please let me know.

            “However, since the desire does not always result in the action, the desire is less evil than the action.” By whose standards? We do not see the thoughts of others, so of course we cannot know when they are thinking evil toward others. But think of this; if someone hates someone else, how long does that hate endure? How many times have they killed them or wished harm to them? God sees that evil, and, since His standards are so high, the thought is as evil as the action.
            “However, the penalty for murder is not eternal torture.” Again, by whose standards? By human standards, the penalty for murder is certainly not hell. However, this is a moot point since we do not have the ability to condemn anyone to hell or the ability to enforce the sentence. God, on the other hand, has the ability, and must enforce the sentence. And it’s not just murder. The penalty for any sin, by God’s standards, is hell. But the choice to go there is our own.

            “Not in all cases it isn’t. Taking away people’s freedom to choose to rape, murder, and torture would be a very good thing.” Why? If the only choice available was to do good, would that be freedom? Taking away the autonomy of another creature removes the ability to choose to do good, and, however “merciful” it may seem, is not an action of love. Such an action says, “I want you to love me, I want you to be good, so I’ll take away any choice you have in the matter.” Would you want your family to love you in that way?
            Does that make sense? If not, I can elaborate further on any point that’s not clear.

          • Scott Z

            “God sees that evil, and, since His standards are so high, the thought is as evil as the action.”
            If God’s standards state having the desire to kill a person is no less evil than killing a person, then they are not applicable to the reality we currently live in.

            “The penalty for any sin, by God’s standards, is hell.”
            Then God’s standards are unjust.

            “Why? If the only choice available was to do good, would that be freedom?”
            Taking away the freedom to choose to rape, murder, and torture does not take away the freedom to choose to do good. For example, one could still choose whether or not to help someone in need.

          • Rebekah

            “I just skimmed through our past responses to each other, and…I’m not sure I wish to continue our conversation. Sorry”
            That is fine. It was nice talking to you.

          • Scott Z

            It was nice talking with you, as well. I learned a lot.

          • Rebekah

            I hope you find what you’re looking for.

          • Rebekah

            P.S. I will be praying for you. (I promise, this is my last note on this post. :) )

          • Rebekah

            I have not yet watched the videos you suggested. Life has been hectic lately. I will try to watch them when I get a chance, but, to be completely honest, I will probably disagree with them.

          • Scott Z

            Of course. However, agreement is not necessary for learning. If it was, I would not be talking with Christians on a pro-life website.

          • Gary

            “Hey, our unborn babies HAVE BRAINS”

            Which is more than I can say for that maniac in the White House.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          “There cannot be a ‘someone’ without some semblance of a brain.”

          Most actual embryologists would disagree with you.

          “Yes, really.”

          Huh. Sounds like an article of faith to me.

          As for the rest of your comment, I’ll simply ask you to consult an actual theologian, and make some effort to understand a belief system you don’t share before making sweeping judgments on imaginary nuances of it.

          • Scott Z

            “Most actual embryologists would disagree with you.”

            Okay, I’ll look into it.

            “Huh. Sounds like an article of faith to me.”

            While I of course have certain basic/foundational beliefs I take on faith, that is not one of them. It is based on the fact that most societies try to make punishments proportional to crimes.

            “As for the rest of your comment, I’ll simply ask you to consult an
            actual theologian, and make some effort to understand a belief system you don’t share before making sweeping judgments on imaginary nuances of it.”

            Could you at least spend a little time telling me what I got wrong?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I thought I already did. You assume that it can be right to deprive others of their very lives, and all that they entail, because you perceive it as doing them a favor in the afterlife. I simply don’t see how that idea gains traction in the absence of severe hang-ups about religion.

          • Scott Z

            If allowing choice would lead to people suffering in eternal agony and despair, and not allowing choice would prevent it, should you allow choice?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Of course. So now you’re willing sacrifice free will itself to your fear of hell?

            And allowing choice opens the door to the POSSIBILITY OF eternal damnation, which isn’t the same as directly causing it or “leading” them to it. That’s an important distinction.

          • Scott Z

            If getting rid of free will is the only way to save everyone from eternal damnation, then it is absolutely the right thing to do.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Wow.

          • Scott Z

            So, if having free will gave a 100% chance of at least one person being damned for eternity, you would still keep it?

            If yes, may I quote you on that?

          • Scott Z

            Oh, also, do you think I deserve eternal damnation?

          • Scott Z

            I’m guessing you have no intention of answering either of the two questions I left in response to your post of “Wow.”?

          • anAmericanByChoice

            WOW!
            That’s the devil’s way, Scott! You may have some good intentions, but you are being totally misled… pure evil thinking, pure evil strategy, my friend!

            Take away free agency!, decide everything for everyone, we know better than you!

            Ooops!… Wait!… that’s what libtards, statists, etc., and that guy, Mr. O’bummer, would like to turn this country into… no wonder abortionists roam around free!

          • Scott Z

            To clarify, I was saying God should get rid of free will if it’s the only way to save everyone from eternal damnation. However, I don’t even think Hell is real, so I definitely don’t support the use of force to save people from it.

            Also, how would ensuring that no one ends up in eternal agony be “pure evil”?

          • anAmericanByChoice

            God would NEVER get rid of free agency, because that is what satan would do; free will, is God’s gift to all of us who come here… or in other words, responsibility for one’s own choices… accountability…

            Hell is not real? That, Scott, is something no one can convince you of… you will have to find out fr yourself.
            I also do not support the use of force to save people from anything: and that is EXACTLY why free will, free agency is so important: you make the choice, you chose, you are accountable, you are not forced… if someone else decides for me, then they are forcing me… are there times when force is unfortunately a necessity? Well, check what God says about it… check the Constitution: if I brake the (His) Law… then I may be deprived of life, liberty and property…
            And yes my friend, if you are depriving me of my free agency, that IS pure EVIL…

            (Check my longer post below… I think you are on a quest… you are seeking… It may be of help…)

          • Scott Z

            Also, “libtards”? Libertarians are very much against governments attempting to decide everything for everyone. They’re also pretty much the exact opposite of statists.

          • anAmericanByChoice

            Scott,
            Libtard = liberal+retard… not libertarian.
            And by the way, I am 1,000% against abortion, yet, I do not want the government making decisions for me or any one else. Why? Because I believe I am accountable to God for all my doings. I have His Law to follow and abide by… other than that, the Constitution and BoR is enough law, and everything else is the gov. overstepping their limits, and statism.

            Now, the question is, murder is murder, and according to BOTH men and God’s law, there is a law that stands supreme: thou shalt not kill.

          • Scott Z

            “Libtard = liberal+retard… not libertarian.” Oh, oops, sorry about that.

            “thou shalt not kill” Is it acceptable to kill in self-defense? Is it acceptable to kill oneself?

            “is something no one can convince you of” Any person with evidence of the existence of Hell could convince me.

            “if you are depriving me of my free agency, that IS pure EVIL” I would rather have no free will and go to Heaven, then free will and go to Hell. If the only way for God to save me from Hell was to take away my free will, then that’s exactly what I would want Him to do.

            As with Hell, I’m going to need some evidence souls and God are the way you describe before I accept what you say about them as true.

          • anAmericanByChoice

            Libtards – No problem.

            Killing in self-defense: I would kill to defend my family or myself if necessary, if threatened, if certain that my life or their lives were in jeopardy. Does it make it right? Does it change the fact that the commandment is, thou shalt not kill? No. Taking another life is wrong, yet, if someone else has made the move to take mine, that person has lost the right to have his or her own life preserved. In legal terms it is called attenuating circumstances, etc. Don’t want to get into 2nd amendment rights discussion here, but such is the nature of the issue. It remains an individual choice one will have to answer for. (As food for thought, please look for and watch a video called Conscientious Objector, it’s the real story of World War II veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Desmond Doss — well worth your money and time, I promise.)

            Killing-self, aka suicide: no. Again, your choice. And you have to answer for it.

            Without free will/agency you CANNOT go to Heaven, because going to heaven is conditional: you live your life, CHOSE to commit to God and Christ, CHOSE to do good, CHOSE not to do wrong, CHOSE to repent (root of the word means “turn away from”) your sins (mistakes, transgressions against God and men, etc., and mend your ways, do them no more, CHOSE to share your blessings (life is a blessing, if you ahve no free agency, kill yourself, etc. you cannot enjoy this blessing!) CHOSE to care for others, the widow, he afflicted, the poor, the orphan, the naked, the hungry and thirsty, etc., you CHOSE to… you CHOSE to… you CHOSE to… so, you see, you simply CANNOT be forced to do good and your CANNOT be forced and pushed int Heaven (as it would be if your agency would be taken away by evil, satan, dictators, statists, communists, socialists, etc., etc., etc.,)

            You MUST have free agency, so you may chose right or wrong, be accountable, accounted, and received your due wages… it is a sine qua non condition to be admitted to Heaven and exalted…

            So, if you asking God to do an evil thing, you friend, you may well get what you asked for, but not from Him… from evil, from the power that be… It is our choice: either we live by the principle “Thy Will be Done…” or, in the end, He will be the one telling us, “thy will be done…” and we pay the price…

            You want proof of hell, souls and God? It is a personal quest my friend… I see God everyday in the beauty of ALL CREATION… Souls? There are billions of them walking the streets all over this world… Hell? Look around… how much more hell do you want to see t be able to acknowledge it? You doubt that pulling a baby out of the mother’s womb and killing that baby is not hell? Wars that should never be fought? Ruined lives spent on addiction (whatever the addiction may be, from drugs, to improper “entertainment,” to pride, to pornography, child/adult prostitution, governments and people who seek power, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, FDR, Obama, etc., all these people have served evil in one way of another, have killed millions, or conspired to take away the life, liberty and happiness of many more millions, etc., etc., etc… the list is endless…)

            Don’t forget that the greatest trick the devil ever plaid on people was convincing them he does not exist! (You have to read C. S. Lewis, really… You will find it a light, often chilling, always inspiring reading! This one is from The Screwtape Letters. Do get yourself a copy… it is enlightening…)

            Hell: literally, as per scriptural reading, a lake of fire and brimstone, is that what you need proof of? Well, I have never been there, but the examples above certainly are enough to me to not want to find out about it that close!…

            All the best in your quest, Scott.

          • Scott Z

            Look, if everyone found life to be a blessing, there would be no suicide.

            “You want proof of hell, souls and God?” YES!! Look, if your religious beliefs are true, only lots, and lots of evidence is going to save me from Hell. Without this evidence, making all the choices necessary to get to Heaven would mean sacrificing my honesty and rationality.

            Oh, I definitely think the world has enough suffering to qualify as Hell. However, a significant number of Christians have told me the real Hell is far, far worse.

          • Basset_Hound

            Actually, that type of rationale was utilized by both Andrea Yates and Deena Schlosser used to brutally murder their children.

          • Scott Z

            Well, I don’t even think Hell is real. If it is real, however, the parents’ actions could have been morally correct.

        • Gary_1016

          “There cannot be a ‘someone’ without some semblance of a brain.”
          Yeah, I always knew Obama was a nobody.

          • JDC

            “Yeah, I always knew Obama was a nobody.”

            I wish I could up arrow this 10000000 times!

          • Gary

            Thank you!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rosalinda.lozano Rosalinda Lozano

    Great article, point taken and no, we should not let him go, we should prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and start arresting ALL OF THESE SERIAL KILLERS one by one until all of the unborn are protected under the law! PERSONHOOD NOW!

    • Gary_1016

      Maybe we should let him go. Invite him to a pro-life convention. I’m sure he’d get a bang out of that.

  • Ernestwb

    So what should we say, what is the answer? Should we stop people killing babies? or should we stop young boys and girls having sex?, oh and some immature older people as well. Which would you say is more humane, more sane, more responsible?

    • Scott Z

      You can have sex without getting pregnant you know…

      • Ernestwb

        So Scott Z does your statement solve the problem, are you justifying what you are doing, or what your children might be doing? Many terminated pregnancies happened while people took precautions. Very many happened to people as young as 9 years old, maybe even younger, does your statement cover that???
        You are in denial of truth. it can happen to anybody, but if it happens within a marriage the child is legitimate and the pregnancy does not need to be terminated.

        • Scott Z

          I don’t have any children, and I don’t plan on having any, either.

          “but if it happens within a marriage the child is legitimate and the pregnancy does not need to be terminated”

          Huh? Are you saying if it happens outside of marriage the child is illegitimate and the pregnancy needs to be terminated?!

          Oh, the point of my first response was only to point out that your dichotomy was a false one–that there are more than just the two options you presented.

          • Ernestwb

            No Scott Z, I am not at all saying any pregnancy needs to be terminated, that thought is in your mind not mine.
            And yes there are more options, not wise ones but some that impact very negatively on a child’s life, especially from the age of 4 when the child starts realizing other children have a mother and a father but s/he does not.
            To argue the point does not solve the problems of youth having sex or abortion, they are both wrong and a mature approach can find a solution.
            Gosnell and all others practicing their extremely heinous crimes should feel the full might of the law, and it should be done publicly to discourage any following in their footsteps.
            OH, and having children is an absolute blessing, you should reconsider your thoughts, grandchildren are the crown that follows.

          • Scott Z

            “No Scott Z, I am not at all saying any pregnancy needs to be terminated, that thought is in your mind not mine.”

            I’m glad. I figured you weren’t saying that, but I was confused by the wording.

            “Oh, and having children is an absolute blessing, you should reconsider your thoughts, grandchildren are the crown that follows.”

            I’m sure I’ll think more about it in the years to come, but I sincerely doubt I’ll change my mind. If you knew me personally, I’d think you’d agree it’s for the best.

            Understand that choosing life over death for a new human being means you’re forcing that human being to endure both much more suffering, and much more joy. And that by the time that human being is old enough to decide for itself whether it wants to live or die, it is already far too late.

    • Gary_1016

      “Should we stop people killing babies? or should we stop young boys and girls having sex?”

      Stopping both would be nice.

      • Ernestwb

        Agreed wholeheartedly Gary.

        • Gary_1016

          Thank you!

  • Pingback: Latest Philosophy Skin Care Gift Sets News | our health life

  • Basset_Hound

    If Gosnell is acquitted, EVERY conservative and pro-life site…LiveAction, Townhall, Breitbartt, National Review, LifeSiteNews….all of them will be inundated not only by pro-abortion talking points, but by vile insults and by trolls counting coup over the death of the “anti-choice” movement.

    • Zephyr

      ’cause pro-life people never troll pro-choice sites, calling people murders or telling them they’re going to hell or anything. Nope, never happens. ;-)

      • Basset_Hound

        ’cause pro-life people who actually take the time to construct well written cogent refutations are never called ugly names in comment after comment (by the same people who are accusing ‘the right’ of ‘spewing hate’). Their comments are never deleted. They are never banned….Nope…the tolerant Left always welcomes those who disagree with them. Ask Clarence Thomas…Sarah Palin…Michelle Malkin….Chris Broussard…even RGIII

        • Mary Lee

          Seriously. Zephyr’s comments are still on here, and she’s getting all foot-stompy about sarcasm or whatever. Pro-abortion sites almost never allow pro-life comments, and their attitude is far worse than sarcastic–it is often downright foul, abusive, and profane.

          • Basset_Hound

            Yeah, I read her whining diatribe to Calvin. I’ve had enough bad experiences just with posting comments on my local newspaper’s web site to be VERY gun shy.

  • Wolfalice

    You’re not a feminist, that’s pretty clear. Say whatever you want on this issue, you’re not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination.

    • Mary Lee

      Oh no I guess I’m not a feminist either because I’m a pro-life woman. I’ll just go put on my apron and pearls and high heels and vacuum until I feel better.

      Not a feminist? Fine by me.

      • Zephyr

        A feminist is someone who sees women as being as fully human. You’re not considered fully human if your rights can be suspended by others for 9 months the instant an egg inside you is fertilized. And you’re not a feminist if you think you have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies, to make them chattel of the state. So, no, you are not a feminist, apron and pearls or no.

        • Mary Lee

          Yeah, I’m so upset I’m not allowed to be in a club that believes in murdering its own children. I don’t care WHAT you would call me….I will no longer support such a tragic, bloody, selfish act.

          You have no idea what you’re talking about. Again, please read through this thread before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.

          • Scott Z

            Um, could you please pick a different username if you’re a different user? The conversation becomes extremely confusing otherwise…

          • Mary Lee

            I’m not a different user.

          • Scott Z

            I swear I saw that post with the name ‘Zephyr’ next to it. Oh, it was probably my browser messing up again… I’m really sorry, I just got extremely confused.

          • Mary Lee

            LOL! That’s okay. I’m sorry about the short response….While I was writing I realized my tomato sauce was burning!

          • Gary

            You making spaghetti?

          • Mary Lee

            YUP!

          • Gary

            I thought so. I can almost smell it.

          • Zephyr

            “You have no idea what you’re talking about. Again, please read through this thread before you open your mouth and put your foot in it.”

            Ah, insults in place of argumentation. Seems to be a common practice on this thread. Well, I’m glad at least you have admitted you are not actually a feminist.

        • Basset_Hound

          And how does the egg inside the woman get to be fertilized. In the vast majority of cases through an act that a woman voluntarily chooses. Yet you would have us believe that women are so stupid and weak that they must be sheilded from the consequences of acts they freely choose. It’s ironic that you whine about women as being “chattel of the state”. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an early sufferagette once wrote the following…”
          “When we consider that women are treated as property it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” She was referring to abortion…

          • Zephyr

            Well, goll-y, if an early suffragette said it, we must needs all follow what she said! But, uh-oh, what if another suffragette disagrees with her? Hmm, now it gets tricky.

            Listen, the argument you’ve made is that the woman should have to “pay the price” for having sex. That’s not an argument about the humanity of the fetus or its right to life, it’s about punishment or “consequences.” At bottom, I believe that’s what the pro-life movement is actually about, all their lofty language or dewy-eyed words about babies notwithstanding.

            Yes, telling someone that their rights are suspended because an egg has been fertilized inside them is making them chattel of the state.

          • Basset_Hound

            The argument that I’ve made is that a woman is capable of facing responsibility by not killing her unborn child if she engages in sex and becomes pregnant. It is indeed about the humanity of the unborn child. You are the one treating human beings like chattel, especially if the human being is an unborn child in the wrong womb at the wrong time.

          • Mary Lee

            Well, by golly, if the Supreme Court said it….

            Zephyr, you are just as snarky as the rest of us. Just own it. Come on, do it! Own it, woo hoo

  • Pingback: ‘Gosnell Should Be Acquitted’: Feminist Argues That Abortion Doc Should Be Released, Trial Is a ‘Sham’ — But It’s Not What You Think

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000249736063 Vicky Ledford Jenkins

    I agree 100% one of the best articles I have seen…Very sarcastic…to the point and PINPOINTS the chilling hypocrisy that abortion is ok ONLY up to a certain stage of pregnancy, HONESTLY a baby is a baby is a baby from conception to NATURAL DEATH HESHE is HUMAN!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ross.7505468 Michael Ross

    Sure. In fact, why don’t we make it legal to have an abortion thirty or forty years after birth! The fact that murder is illegal never stopped the murderers anyway!

    Yeah, I know, it sounds stupid. But since you conveniently forgot that one of Gosnell’s victims was a forty-year-old patient, that’s effectively what you’re arguing when you suggest he should be acquitted.

    This is what happens when you let your emotions write your articles without letting your sense of reason proofread it: You give John Stewart more material.

  • Janet

    Sorry, Kristen – but as a Pro-Choice person I find your straw man argument extremely offensive. Certainly – given a specific level of development, there is no difference between a baby/fetus inside or outside the womb.

    But to claim that the only two options are that life begins at birth, or conception is to create a completely artificial dichotomy.

    The moral issue that must and should be discussed, is what LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT qualifies a fetus as gaining human status, with attendant rights.

    Surely, you wouldn’t argue that a fetus with no brain activity or nervous system development has rights? Because if you do, then you’re arguing from a subjective, emotional – and illogical – position. Not from any concern for protecting a sentient creature.

    And, unless you’re a vegetarian, it also shouldn’t be enough for you that a fetus has some minimal brain activity. It has to have reached a certain level of development and self-consciousness before it qualifies as a human (with the resulting with rights to life, protection, etc. ) After all, there are plenty of animals that are more developed than a first trimester fetus, that are killed regularly as part of the food chain. Are you prepared to argue against that, as well?

    Then there’s the issue of viability…which is a separate issue, altogether.

    Is it easy to draw the line where potential ends and sentience begins? No. But I can guarantee that it DOESN’T begin at conception. And that’s a question best left to the neuroscientists – not politicians or demagogues.

    • Mary Lee

      But we are ALWAYS developing. Life is a continuum and human beings grow in stages. We do not BECOME people, and gain the right to live based on what we do or how big we are. Potential never ends. I just started painting. I am 35 years old. I didn’t know I was good at it until last year. No, the pro-abortion arguments are all based on what will “justify” the killing of the child. You are EITHER a person or you are NOT. You do not BECOME a person. Who cares about sentience and functionalism? It’s about what you are, not what stage of life you’re in. Is it a right for a mother to kill her own baby, her human being son or daughter, because she can? So, might makes right. That’s your argument.

      • Basset_Hound

        A painter?

        I know this is totally off-topic, but I have to ask…..Do you do water color or oil? Have you ever used Photoshop or Adobe Illustrator?

    • Basset_Hound

      Peter Singer argues that the “certain level of development and self-consciousness” doesn’t develop until early childhood. If a woman decides that her demanding toddler is too much of a crimp on her lifestyle, should she be allowed to throw it against the wall until it stops screaming? I mean, who are we to judge? Isn’t the determination of sentience and personhood a decision left up to the individual?

    • Gary_1016

      “The moral issue that must and should be discussed, is what LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT qualifies a fetus as gaining human status, with attendant rights.”
      The key word is “qualifies.” Humans have existed since time began, or perhaps a little after. No one qualifies to make the determination of what qualifies as a human being. It is a fact that human developement begins at conception and ends with natural death. There is no logic whatsoever in the thought that a fetus is less human than a grown person. Coming up with “criteria” like brainwaves to determine humanity is foolishness. If every fetus were destroyed from here on in, human life would cease to exist on earth, and only then would you realize that a fetus is a human being.

  • Pingback: Forbidden News » Kristen Hatten: "Kermit Gosnell should be acquitted"

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-D-Gelinas/1776685926 Peter D. Gelinas

    Your facetious perspective could then lead to a society where all murder is legal, where anarchy and survival of the fittest prevail.

  • Pingback: Acquit Gosnell? | Wading Across

  • Tia

    Very, VERY, we’ll written piece! Though I believe it is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek it really makes one think. Are your thought and ideas incorrect? No. They are completely sound and logical and should incite inward reflection and shame on every person reading no matter what their stance on this “issue”. Thank you for writing this.

    • Tia

      *well. Darned auto correct.

  • Pingback: Pro-life blog buzz 5-3-13

  • laricc

    I like it Kristen.
    Very logical analysis!

    Should we call you Spock…?

    It shows clearly how pro-abortion mentality is in really pro-death mentality. It naturally leads to infanticide, euthanasia, selective killings, destruction, etc…

  • Blair

    Kristen, you’re an idiot.

  • Zephyr

    What Gosnell shows us is a picture of what abortion looks like when abortion is illegal. The third-trimester abortions he was performing were illegal, but desperate women still were willing to put up with appalling conditions to get them. Ironically, laws passed by pro-lifers that criminalize abortion at earlier gestational dates, that put clinics out of business, deny public funding for abortions, or delay a woman’s ability to get an abortion (mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, etc.) actually have the effect of producing MORE late-term abortions, because by the time women are able to travel or afford one, that’s where they are.

    At any rate, most women still have abortions during the first trimester, when you would not produce a living baby or even an actual baby, so not at all equivalent to what Gosnell was doing.

    • Calvin Freiburger
      • Zephyr

        Calvin: it seems you cannot conduct a debate without resorting to insulting the intelligence of those you disagree with. I’m OK with that; it’s your issue. At any rate, I didn’t claim that ALL clinics would look like his, only that, instead of safe, legal abortion, we would now have more illegal abortion, which in the past often DID look like his clinic. Any time a necessary part of life is made illegal, abuses happen. His clinic is a perfect example. He was the only one offering third-trimester abortions, because anti-choice forces had passed too many restrictive laws. But I won’t claim he was solely the creation of the pro-life movement, although they certainly share part of the blame. Clearly he was an evil and heartless man.

        I wouldn’t call the government officials “pro-choice”; due to TRAP laws (passed by pro-lifers), many clinics in Pennsylvania had closed. It is one of the tactics of the pro-life movement at present to try to shut clinics down by imposing onerous and not medically necessary regulations on them (like regulating size of parking lots). They have politicized a medical issue. The state of Pennsylvania, to its detriment, simply opted out of that politicization. They should have been inspecting that clinic, I agree. But in light of the extreme harrassment clinics receive from pro-life forces both in and out of government, I can understand, at least somewhat, why they opted not to.

        If you read that Libby Anne piece that you made fun of, you will see that she discusses how abortion rates between countries where it is legal vs. illegal are hardly different, but how illegal abortion raises maternal death rates substantially. And that’s what happened with Gosnell. In a legal abortion setting, women don’t typically die from abortion; many of his patients did. So, yes, legality matters, across the board.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          Geez, if that’s how little it takes for you to start whining about insults, maybe this isn’t your forte.

          And it seems I was dead-on. You don’t seem to be actually grappling with the counter-evidence; you’re just reiterating what you want to be true. Rest assured, the refutation of what your saying is in the links you so dutifully ignore (hint: focus on whether the scenario you describe fits with the truth about the pre-Roe years.

          Closing abortion mills and restricting abortion doesn’t force anyone to commit or submit to a so-called “unsafe abortion.” It doesn’t make anyone pregnant against their will. It doesn’t deprive anyone of non-lethal options. People who chose to break laws and go to unsavory places to hire killers are knowingly making a risky choice. It’s tragic, and we should work against “back-alley” abortions as well as the ones done in a nice, clean Planned Parenthood, but you can’t expect the law to insulate everyone from their bad choices.

          “They have politicized a medical issue.”

          That’s meaningless sloganeering, not a substantive statement. Protecting people from killers is the most basic purpose of law, and one person’s choice to kill another is no “medical issue.”

          “The state of Pennsylvania, to its detriment, simply opted out of that politicization. They should have been inspecting that clinic, I agree. But in light of the extreme harrassment clinics receive from pro-life forces both in and out of government, I can understand, at least somewhat, why they opted not to.”

          I honestly cannot think of a way to describe this statement which you would not consider insulting. So I’ll just take comfort in the confidence that most readers will be thinking the same thing as me.

          Lastly, like I said, I’m well aware of Anne’s hack work. It’s been exhaustively refuted, both here and elsewhere. Again, I’ve already provided all the links you need.

          • Zephyr

            OK, keep insulting me. It only reflects poorly on you. Back to the topic: You seem to be operating under the illusion that your links are irrefutably genius, and that simply by presenting them, you have won the argument. I say: meh, not so much. Yes, I have read quite a bit about the pre-Roe years, read testimonies, and my point of view is correct. I realize that “illegal abortion never hurt any woman” is a comfortable position for you, since it validates your position, but unfortunately, it is not factual.

            Yes, closing off legal avenues to abortion does, in fact, give women *who are seeking an abortion* only one avenue, and that is illegal abortions. Your comment that they know what they are doing and you shouldn’t expect the law to “insulate people from their bad choices” is breathtakingly heartless. You call that kind of callousness toward living, breathing human beings made in God’s image pro-life?

            Abortion is most certainly a medical issue. Since you enjoy playing “let’s show each other our links,” why don’t you check out the one I posted above the link for Libby Anne? The testimonies from those for whom abortion was most definitely a medical issue.

            Please stop closing your mind and heart to your fellow human beings.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “You seem to be operating under the illusion that your links are
            irrefutably genius, and that simply by presenting them, you have won the argument.”

            Nope; I just figured out early on that’s all the more effort you were worth. You can lead a horse to water, but…

            “I have read quite a bit about the pre-Roe years, read testimonies, and my point of view is correct.”

            Keep telling yourself that. Someday you might even believe it.

            “I realize that ‘illegal abortion never hurt any woman’ is a comfortable position for you”

            Aaaand now you’ve moved to openly lying about my position. It was only a matter of time, given the low character of the average pro-choicer.

            No serious person would consider it “breathtakingly heartless” to simply state the obvious: that it’s a utopian delusion to think the law’s purpose is to insulate people from the fallout of destructive and murderous behavior.

            “Please stop closing your mind and heart to your fellow human beings”….said the advocate of executing an entire class of human beings for convenience. Pure evil.

    • Basset_Hound

      On the other hand, maybe the women find it within themselves to take a good look at their circumstances. They end up not getting pregnant in the first place because with abortion not so readily available they practice self-restraint and self-control.

      Also waiting periods, informed consent and gestational limits are the law in Europe. They have fewer abortions than in the US….

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

  • Zephyr

    Kristen, if those are the conversations you’ve had with pro-choice people “about 400 times,” then I’m afraid you’ve been talking with people who haven’t given it much thought. The pro-choice argument isn’t black and white, that’s true. Because life isn’t black and white. Contrary to what you say, there aren’t “just two choices”: either human life begins at conception or birth. What feels like arbitrariness to you is really just a lack of absolutist thinking. We can look at a fertilized egg and see that it is not in any way the same thing as a newborn baby. At some point, it changes from one into the other, just as a lump of clay molded by a sculptor changes into a statue at some point. But that doesn’t make the lump of clay a statue. If it’s on its way to becoming something, by definition it hasn’t arrived yet. That’s why a single fertilized egg, or a 10-week-old embryo can’t survive outside the womb, but a 35-week-old fetus can. Because they are fundamentally different entities. Acknowledging this fact does not obligate me to be able to pinpoint the exact point at which the transformation into what we call a “baby” occurs; it merely obligates me to consider within moral and ethical bounds the rights of all involved, not only the right of the baby-to-be. This is what the law does.

    The majority of abortions – 80 to 90%- occur in the 1st trimester. If we’re talking about something like the morning after pill, we’re talking about single cells or small clumps of cells. If you can’t see the difference between eliminating that from your body versus snipping the spinal columns of living, breathing infants, then I do not feel your “pro-life” philosophy is doing anything to ground you in reality.

  • Gary

    Am I the only one who hates seeing kermit’s picture everytime they visit this page? It reminds me of Hitler’s delight in learning about the death toll at Auschwitz.

  • Rebekah

    There is one thing I think needs to be said across the board. An argument is right or wrong and is worth discussing, but a person is worth respect, no matter who they are. Dehumanizing and insulting language does nothing to strengthen a viewpoint, and if we call ourselves pro-life, we should honor the lives of those who disagree with us enough to give them the respect we want them to give the unborn.

  • Pingback: Why no pro-choice person can accuse Gosnell… | FideCogitActio : omnis per gratiam

  • Samantha

    The issue with this is that this isn’t legal. 1) Abortion is illegal after 23 weeks, these babies are killed long after that date, and if a baby is born alive, he’s required to be helped. Unfortunately, it’s not enforced. His potential conviction just might be a good start.

  • John Schafer

    Very well written article. Nice to see that there are Feminists out there that do not believe in abortion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennie-Maroney/100000103701068 Jennie Maroney

    She’s right. ALL abortionists are murderers, not just Kermit Gosnell. We can see the babies he murdered. We can’t see the babies “legally” murdered. The only difference is that we can actually see the live baby which was murdered. Life begins at conception. Killing an unborn child at ANY stage is murder.

  • Bridget Walker

    I’ll be anti-women! Because I’m pro-life! And feminazis know everything that a woman wants, and Gosnell loved women so much, he killed them!

  • Pingback: NY Times: Ripping babies apart not “subpar medical techniques” | Foundation Life

  • Pingback: Justice in Gosnell case, but what about the rest?

  • Pingback: Justice in Gosnell case, but what about the rest? | Foundation Life