Pages

Monday, February 17, 2014

Confronting the Gruesome Reality of Abortion

[Today's guest post by Rachel Cox is part of our paid blogging program.]

[WARNING: As the title implies, this blog post is highly disturbing. You should not read it if you have a weak stomach.]

Most people who see nothing wrong with abortion have that belief because they don’t think an unborn baby is a person. They don’t even like the term “unborn baby” because it lends to the idea that what’s in the womb is a person. They usually stick with the term “fetus” because the emotional response generated from discussion of killing a fetus is more palatable than that of killing a baby. But even if they were right about the absence of humanity in a fetus, it doesn’t change the fact that aborting a fetus is a horrific, senseless tragedy. 

Just for the sake of the argument, let’s use the term “fetus” and disregard that a quick overview of basic human embryology tells us fetuses are people. But before we can move on, we need to classify fetuses as something else if they aren’t people. So if a fetus is not a person, what is it? Fetuses are alive, no one can deny that. They’re obviously not plants, insects, or bacteria, so the only possibility left is that fetuses are animals.

So, let’s pretend a fetus is a non-human animal. Now that it's settled, allow me use an example to demonstrate why killing a non-human animal in a similar fashion as one used in a human abortion is still deplorable. 

Let’s say I have a puppy but I can’t afford one at this stage in my life (lack of money is a common reason for wanting to abort). What do I do with this puppy?

Since it's still small, I'm going to cram it in a blender while conscious and liquefy it to a bloody soup, disposing of the concoction in the trash.

That might work for a small puppy, but what about an older dog? It won't fit in a blender.

How about this then: Without using anesthesia, I'm going to chop each of the dogs legs off, one by one, with a pair of bolt cutters. But the dog is still alive at this point, so the job isn’t over yet. Now, I’m going to pick up a giant rock, slam it down on the dog’s head to crush it, and then throw the dog’s mangled body in a bio hazard bag.

Do you think the methods of getting rid of the dog were disturbing? Who wouldn’t?

If I got caught getting rid of just one dog with either of the two described methods, not only would I be jailed because it’s illegal, my mug shot would be all over the internet accompanied by hateful epithets demanding my torturous death. In my defense, I could argue that it was my right and choice to kill my dog. I could say what I did to the dog was none of the government’s business.  I could say the dog was better off dead than leading a less-than-ideal life. However,  not one of those excuses would sway a single person. 

But unfortunately, those two methods are basically the same used to kill thousands of fetuses every day.  Sound familiar? The first procedure I described was very similar to an aspiration abortion, commonly performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. Don’t believe me? See the diagram: 


The second method I described was akin to a "dilation and evacuation" abortion used in the second trimester:

There are other methods of abortion besides these. Not one of them could be described as non-violent, and they all obviously result in death.

Now let’s bring ourselves back to reality where fetuses are people, and virtually no one actually kills pets like that. However, it’s still true that abortion is not much different than the way I described it. 

If doing what I described to animals is so bad, why is it legally acceptable to do it to a fetus? Most people’s pets are treated better and have more legal protection than fetuses. Considering how terribly violent abortion is, it should still shock a society’s conscience even if the life being taken is demoted to a non-human status. It’s a sad state of affairs when the status of a human being isn’t even equal to that of a dog.  

84 comments:

E Buehrer (Elrabu) said...

Thank you for being so honest. I think more people would be against abortion if they understood the griity details. Many just aren't aware of the reality - including the people who have had aboritons themselves. This is why I really don't warm to any kind of statement that makes an abortive woman out to be a murderer. As far as she usually knows, there is nothing particularly murderous going on down there. How atrocious that women aren't even being told what's going on both inside and barely outside their own bodies. Hopefully people like you can spread the word.

Crystal Kupper said...

Most people I talk to have no idea what actually goes on in an abortion. They would prefer to be ignorant.

Charlotte Pollock said...

True early in pregnancy but at 23 weeks you are well aware of the squirming life inside, you've felt it fidget. At my 20 weeks scan the Dr poked my belly to get my son to open his legs, he responded to external stimuli in a very obvious way. How could anyone not see that abortion this late is painful bloody murder of the worst kind?

Jameson Graber said...

Once a friend of mine asked why I cared so much about abortion. I told her that it was enough just to see what it was--the gruesome images you describe. She said I should "just get over it".

Awesome.

Nevertheless, I think an honest assessment of public opinion shows that abortion does prick our conscience. I think it's only a relatively small, but highly influential, minority that has absolutely no ambivalence on the issue.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a better way to do abortions, and it starts with cutting the umbilical cord. We have technologies that can be adapted to do this, involving "endoscopy", fiber optics, with a decent-powered laser. It can very precisely cut only what we want to cut.


Remember that NO ONE complains about how painful cutting the umbilical cord after birth might be, so, logically, no one should complain about any pain associated with cutting it before birth.


After the cord is cut, the unwanted unborn human animal organism no longer has an oxygen supply, and its brain will gracefully start shutting down, just like an adult brain brain that has its oxygen cut off (say by applying pressure to the carotid arteries). Unconsciousness happens within a minute, and brain death will happen in maybe 6 minutes.


So simply wait a bit after cutting the umbilical cord. After that, hacking a corpse to bits in any ordinary abortion procedure will cause the corpse no pain whatsoever.

Lindsey said...

Asphyxiating a fetus is still violent and wrong.

Michelle Ewing said...

In mammals cutting the cord is a natural thing to do after birth, so no, I don't see a reason to complain about the pain if there is any. Cutting the cord in the womb would ruin the bodily rights argument because the ZBEF does not rely on the mother and can be evacuated. They already attempt to not cause pain for fetuses by inducing cardiac arrest the day before, but because this in not guided by ultrasound, it often goes into the amniotic sac and burns the fetus to death.

I think its also important to bring up what kind of animal would this be. lets say it's like a rat, you like that example right? This rat 99% of the time is a pet. your actions made this animal reliant on you. for whatever reason, you decide having a pet rat is not something you want to do. you could put this rat down at the vet if it is suffering, you can give it away, or you could bring it to a shelter.

if the ZBEF is most like a pet rat, then the only way to end it's life is if it is suffering, or attempt for it to be adopted for a short period of time before ending it's life by injection.
When a pet is adopted by a couple, both have a say in the wellbeing and placement of the animal. So if the other owner of the ZBEF didn't want to end it's life it, wouldn't happen.

If the ZBEF was conceived in rape you could argue that it is most like a wild rat. In that case you can hire an exterminator you take it's life yourself. it's then ok to poison, break it's neck, smash it's skull, suffocate, and drown the ZBEF.

As for hacking the corps to bits, we have more respect for the dead then that and doing it to a rat would at least get you sent to the hospital for a phyc evaluation.

I believe that animals should have more rights, that's why I don't agree with every one of these statements, but if we, at the very least treated the unborn with the same rights as other pets it would be a good start.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Your mere claim that it is wrong is worthless without evidence. We ARE talking about killing an animal organism that is acting in ways, toward an adult human, that would be completely unacceptable if one adult did them to another adult. It steals nutrients from the blood supply, dumps toxic biowastes into the blood supply, infuses addictive substances into the blood supply, and also infuses other substances into the blood supply that affect the mental outlook of the adult (which is the reason why so many pregnant women, originally willing to give up their babies for adoption, change their minds).


When a pregnant woman doesn't want those awful things to happen to her, that is as good a reason as any to kill the animal doing those things to her. I might now point out classic "vampire" stories, in which it is generally considered that the proper thing to do to an ADULT person-class blood-sucker is to drive a wooden stake through its heart. And unborn humans act WORSE than vampires!

Mirable said...

What if the rat was living inside your abdomen?

Mirable said...

In the case of obstructed labour in humans, the fetus is sometimes removed in pieces if that is the only safe way to get it out without killing the woman.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Exactly pro lifers exhibit inconsistency when they allow the women to kill ANYTHING inside her body like tape and hookworms but not an unborn human.
I could probably understand the objection if the unborn human ALREADY had the brainpower to accommodate mental abilities like self recognition, and theory of mind, but that isn't until after birth that the ''on/off'' switch is there for those two items and we know the unborn human and a newborn human doesn't have that ''on/off'' switch yet from what we know of newborns when awake.

Mirable said...

From the article:

I'm going to chop each of the dogs legs off,
one by one, with a pair of bolt cutters. But the dog is still alive at this
point, so the job isn’t over yet. Now, I’m
going to pick up a giant rock, slam it down on the dog’s head to crush it, and then
throw the dog’s mangled body in a bio hazard bag.


Would it be acceptable to torture a dog in this way if one single zygote could be saved from the possibility of abortion? (but not natural miscarriage, inability to implant on it's own etc)

Is the life of a human zygote so valuable that it would be ethical to torture a dog or cat to death?

The Nun said...

Very well done.

Mirable said...

An anencephalic fetus can also respond to noxious stimuli.

ignorance_is_curable said...

You appear to be trying to distort this part of the discussion away from its starting point, which is to take advantage of various facts about the umbilical cord, to ensure an unborn human is dead, as painlessly as possible, BEFORE it is cut to pieces.


You are also committing the error of failing to recognize that There Is No Such Thing As Intrinsic Value. All valuations are relative. If you asked a bacterium to assign relative values to a pile of dung, and a diamond, the dung would rate higher (it is FOOD to a bacterium!).


Humans value other humans for reasons having NOTHING to do with Intrinsic Value, and two of those reasons come straight from Biology.


One is a moderate degree of prejudice, which leads to such things as "birds of a feather flocking together".


The second is our "K-strategy" reproduction system, in which we have relatively few offspring (while an R-strategist like an oyster can have sever hundred thousand offspring at once), and give them lots of care to help them survive.


Then there is the sociological reason to value humans, based on selfishness and reciprocity. "I value myself, and it is in my self-interest to get you to value me, also. Let us compromise by valuing each other equally...." --and that leads to such things as claims of "right to life" and so on. It generally works, and helps humans to get along with each other.


Meanwhile, of course an unborn human CANNOT participate in any such sociological reciprocity, because it doesn't have the brainpower for it. The fact that pregnancy can sometimes be very detrimental to a woman's health means absolutely nothing to an unborn human; it is too busy stealing resources, and worse, like a mindless animal. For much of a pregnancy (the first months, when the vast majority of abortions are done) it exactly IS an utterly mindless animal.

ignorance_is_curable said...

And sometimes they do a Caesarean section. I suspect some women feel strongly enough about their offspring that they would be willing to accept death as a consequence of a Caesarean section, so long as the baby lives.

Mirable said...

I am well aware of all of your arguments. I still think the question is valid. I do wonder how many pro-lifers would put a single celled human zygote above the suffering of a pet.

That whole 'prejudice' thing, you know?

Mirable said...

Furthermore, I don't think a fetus would feel pain from abortion, even *if* it was completely conscious while in the womb at every stage of gestation.

Take shark bites. The injury is so sudden, and so drastic, that the victim often feels a 'bump' - and nothing more. Even in war, soldiers have spoken of having an eye hanging out of it's socket, and an arm hanging by a tendon - and they haven't felt any pain. The body has ways of protecting itself from sudden, violent injury. An abortion would be over so fast that the embryo/fetus, even if it could feel pain, probably wouldn't register it until it's too late.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Then you should be asking the pro-lifers that question, not me.

ignorance_is_curable said...

From what I've read, I would tend to doubt that the overall ordinary abortion process is "quick".


On the other hand, there is the Fact that the brain and the spinal column develop separately for the first six months of a pregnancy, and only "connect" about the beginning of the third trimester.


This means that for any unborn human younger than 6 months from conception, it CANNOT feel pain at the brain, for any mangling that its body might experience (except for the head). Since the head is usually last, and I'm expecting the overall process to take rather longer than 6 minutes, I'd say that the wounds caused by the first cuttings could very likely lead to exanguination, death from blood loss, by the time the abortion doctor's tools reach the head.

Mirable said...

I never asked you. It was directed at geixbattlerifle, not you. As a continuation of his thought.

Jameson Graber said...

So our own offspring are actually vampires eating us. Dang, it really sucks to be human.

ignorance_is_curable said...

That's not what I wrote. They cannot be vampires if they act WORSE than vampires!

ignorance_is_curable said...

Well, that other person is a pro-choicer, also....

Mirable said...

Yes. And it was a continuation of his thought. Thinking out loud. Besides, anti- abortionists will read it...

Melissa Hunter-Kilmer said...

Why are you emphasizing that anencephalic fetuses respond in the same way as normal fetuses? Are you implying that it is okay to abort an anencephalic fetus?

Russell Crawford said...

Pro lifers have a choice they may choose to save innocent babies, children and adults or they may choose to let them die and save fetuses instead. This post is about your intent to stop the pulling apart and killing of a fetus that cannot feel pain and has no idea that it is alive. It is a scientific fact that a zef cannot be proved to be alive or human enough to live as a human until birth.
The choice of the pro life movement is to save the fetus and let born life die. Born life feels pain, is loved by large numbers of people and is proved to be alive and human. So the choice for pro lifers is to stop the arms and legs of a born person from being ripped off or stop the ripping off of the arms of an unborn fetus.

My choice is to save innocent babies that are being killed. I am opposed to anyone that chooses to let innocent 1 and 2 year old girls be raped and murdered simply to save fetuses.

Mirable said...

Do you not understand the importance of the cerebral cortex?

Melissa Hunter-Kilmer said...

I understand that my anencephalic nephew was no less a person than any other newborn.

Mirable said...

If by person you mean, genetically homo sapiens, yes.

But otherwise, just an empty bag of skin and bone.

The equivalent of a braindead corpse, essentially.

Melissa Hunter-Kilmer said...

I'm glad that you were not in his family. We treated him like a live person, because he was one. And now I will stop feeding you, because I have seen that you are not here to discuss matters politely.

Mirable said...

I am discussing matters politely. It's just not what you want to hear.

If Hannibal Lecter was to drill a hole in your skull and suck your cerebral cortex with a straw, while leaving your brainstem intact, you would still be alive, technically, because your brainstem can keep your heart and organs going. But, 'you' would be gone! Because your mind...your personality...is in your cerebral cortex. Without that, you are for all intents and purposes, dead. This is why beating heart cadavers are routinely taken off life support - because when the mind is permanently gone, there is no person, and never will be.

someone45 said...

See the difference is the dog is not INSIDE your body. You can easily give the dog to someone to care for. You example fails because of this reason.

The fetus IS INSIDE the woman's body.

Michelle Ewing said...

What I was implying is that we could give human animals the same rights as other animals that are reliant on there owners.
I used the rat example because you had said before that the ZBEF has no more value than a rat. the unborn may not act exactly like legal persons, or other animals/pets, but this is the value you assigned to them.
In most cases the existence of the needy human animal was brought on by sex. This was a conscious choice by the mother who most likely also knew it could cause this new life. These ZBEFs would be considered pets because the owners made this human animal reliant on one of them.
you seemed to have lost me there. I was not talking about, " oh this animal invaded my personal space and is annoying/harmful." i'm talking about "I invited this animal into my personal space and for said reason, I no longer want to be responsible for it."
sperm go though some though stuff to reach the egg. once a zygote it has half the father's and half the mothers dna. if the cells of the father only contributed .1% to the child, child support wouldn't be expected, and it would also be morally wrong to force a man to have anything to do with the child. he would also have no right to the child.
But that is really beyond the point. the point is he is responsible for half of the human animals existence through his dna, and should also be responsible for the needy human animal.
We wont agree on the bodily rights augment, but I thought I could try and meet you half way on the value of animals, human, and unhuman. more specially, the animals reliant on humans that invited them into there personal lives.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Most anencephalic humans are treated like pets. We don't treat them like ''persons'' at all heck even we don't even treat newborn humans like persons since their intelligence is on par with a cat and since a cat is treated like a pet then logically a newborn human can be treated like one also and that is to remain consistent.

Michelle Ewing said...

secularist and prolifers unite

What of the additional biological fact that that an unborn human is purely an animal, no more of a person than a rat?"
This may not have been might to be an agreement for human value, but why do we give most humans personhood in general? I think it directly links to value. We never tested women, blacks, and disabled humans a test for personhood, so why give them rights if being a legal person means having these abilities?
these people were also not valued by others in the same way, more like an animal or non-living tool or machine, but we still gave them rights. Not everyone had to agree on the value of the particular human.
the swatting a mosquito I could understand (value aside), but, if it was the only way to naturally encounter a mosquito and you don't want to get bit, you should avoid that swamp. you can stay all the repellant you want, but I wont grantee you wont get bit.
Sex is great, most spend less than 5 years trying to get pregnant and bearing children, so I do agree sex is mostly not used for reproduction. I just think, if the only natural cause of babies starts with sex, it should be avoided by those not willing to take responsibility for there actions.
The link with passages was no help to me because it is so long and I don't have that much free time to read it, and I do not own a bible so I could not see the full context of the bible passages. it may be more useful on a Christian oriented site.
I am curious if you think we should attempt to lower the abortion rate. some pro choicers say, yeah, no woman should have to go through that, others say, no, its a slippery slope to outlawing abortion. I honestly don't care about other peoples personal beliefs other than learning different perspective and having my own challenged. I care about what gets stuff done. I know many people are not a fan of Obama, but the abortion rate has gone down despite his personal views on the subject. that's something I can support.

Coyote said...

And if purely hypothetically no one else wants to take care of your dog? Then what?

Mirable said...

In certain developing countries, when people have more children than they can feed (generally due to lack of access to birth control, extreme poverty etc) they simply abandon the kids on the street.

No doubt you have heard of Brazil's street children?

And then there is infanticide.

IMO, it is better to have an abortion at the embryonic stage than to have the kid and torture it. But then again, I'm a PC psycho, so what do you expect?

Chris R said...

If you're going to base human rights on brainpower, you're also going to have to exclude newborns.

Chris R said...

There's no inconsistency there. Even if a woman found a tape/hookworm on the ground somewhere, we wouldn't lock her up for stamping it to death. The reason we allow women to kill tapeworms isn't because they're in their bodies; it's because they're tapeworms.

Chris R said...

I have no idea what gave you the idea that death by asphyxiation was "graceful" or "painless". Try holding your breath for 30 seconds. Not fun, is it?

Michelle Ewing said...

The unborn could be the size of a poppy seed or a watermelon.
pro lifers don’t care about the size.

We are animals too. I think this is more of a philosophical question, so I
doubt there would be any real evidence for either side; only hypothesizes. I think it is more than an animal because 1)
it is human ( I think seeing any human slaughtered for food would be much more
sad than a chicken) 2) although it is not a legal person, it has the potential
(animals do not) 3) they are rarely considers anything less than a baby to the
mother.



I feel that unborn human should be protected from homicide, (not
all homicide is unlawful, but murder is. I feel that because of the current
laws it would be inappropriate to call it murder.)

Yes, rights are an invention,
but I doubt morals are. But I believe that because I am agnostic. If there was
no higher power, ‘d be able to accept that they were invented buy our
ancestors.

“We MIGHT now define "a person" as "any entity
ABLE to understand, agree with, and abide by a Social Contract". We would
not exclude from the definition those who refuse to agree with it, so long as
they are actually able to understand it --we simply/clinically note that, by
their own choice, those persons have placed themselves into the "open
season" for getting stabbed in the back”---- this definition wouldn’t even
apply to most elementary school children! let alone a zygote.

These examples you gave were not animals. 99% of the time it is morally acceptable
to destroy plants. But less find it morally right to kill any animal.

“what about those independent
entities, and the responsibility that can be assigned to them for being
involved in what got created???”---- The parents are responsible for making the
creation possible, sometimes, only one parent. I don’t think individual human
cells can be responsible for anything more than reproducing and dying.



“I keep saying that there is NO
anti-abortion argument that can be applied to this day-and-age, and withstand
close scrutiny. When are you folks going to start believing me?” maybe the day
all anti-abortion arguments don’t withstand close scrutiny



Your link didn’t work



I’m glad you think abortion isn’t birth control. I think we can
both agree that birth control needs to be more effective, accessible, and available
to a wider variety of people.

I
do think it is important to work on the reason women get abortions. we should
provide sterilization to men and women who never want children. we should fight
against pregnancy discrimination, in and outside of the work place. Fathers
should have more rights to the child, so proper care for the child is free and
they have a better chance for life. we need pro life clinics and resources, not
pro birth. If we don’t agree to help give women a better outlook on the
pregnancy, you cant call yourself pro life or pro choice, your either pro
birth, or pro abortion at that point

Pertinacia said...

"I am opposed to anyone that chooses to let innocent 1 and 2 year old girls be raped and murdered simply to save fetuses."

What the hell are you talking about?!

Russell Crawford said...

It is indisputable that there are 1 and 2 year old baby girls being raped and murdered and pro lifers have a choice. They may choose to save the innocent baby girls or they can continue to let them die and save fetuses instead. Pro lifers choose to let the baby girls be raped and murdered. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

ignorance_is_curable said...

You are conflating lung function with blood functions. The unborn have NO lung functions. A better comparison involves applying pressure to the carotid arteries. Unconsciousness can result in maybe 20 seconds. You would of course feel the pressure physically applied to the neck area --but even THAT is something an unborn human wouldn't feel, since we are talking about cutting the umbilical cord.
www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1l79yd/are_there_nerves_in_the_umbilical_cord/

Ariela said...

you are evidently an ignoramus... if pregnancy was really that bad, no one would go through with it. your definition of "person-class-blood-suckers" would fit wanted preborn children too, making it just in your eyes, to stake them also... heck, you'd be doing women a favor to kill their baby whether they wanted you to or not.

Pertinacia said...

I had a choice to save a 1-year-old girl from rape, I'd do it. Again, what's your point? Are you gsuggesting I have to support abortion to save a child from rape? That makes no sense.

"Pro lifers have a choice. They may choose to save the innocent baby
girls or they can continue to let them die and save fetuses instead."

Wrong. It's not either/or, it's and/both.

BTW, the half of abortion victims *are* innocent baby girls. The other half are innocent baby boys.

Ariela said...

Depending on age of baby, cutting the cord internally somehow won't necessarily mean baby will die, but you may cause premature birth and baby born alive. One of my sons was born early (at 34 weeks) because his placenta became detached from my uterus before he was born. But pro-lifers aren't against abortion because it is a gruesome way to kill a child, they are against it because it kills a child, usually for no better reason then them being an inconvenience.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''Including putting down newborns if they are no longer wanted and no home can be found for them?''

Yes that is what we do with cats and dogs at the animal shelter right? We euthanized them to relive them of the pain/suffering so I don't see a problem with it being applied to newborns. Another option is that they could be put up for adoption as well. Most I meant and talked to in my life when I was at the adoption shelter myself (still teenager got adopted 5 years ago.) gave there opinions on the matter. The responses I got was either one of the two things I outlined above.

'' Or if sick or injured and treatment costs too much?''

That should up to the one's taking care of them. They would know what is better for them not me or you.

''When does the "newborn" stage end in your opinion?''

Well, there are many different interpretations of when the ''newborn'' stage ends. In medical contexts from the last time I checked, newborn stage ends once the newborn is 28 days old after birth. So we could since we allow abortion give women a first month trial and see if the newborn would work out for her.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Nice one this is true. When I was at the adoption shelter for about 5 years. Most of the people that came in to adopt were looking for specifics like strength and stupid stuff. So all this talk about pro lifers claiming those adopting will pick out any child regardless of (insert) here is false up to a certain degree. I lived the experience so websites claiming false information will not fly by in the real world.
Lucky for me I got adopted based on pure luck nothing more nothing less.

Russell Crawford said...

"I had a choice to save a 1-year-old girl from rape, I'd do it."
You have a chance right this instant to save a baby girl from being raped and murdered, but you chose to be here instead. Your choice it to let innocent babies die to save fetuses. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
" Again, what's your point? "

My point is that you may choose whom to save, babies or zygotes. Your choice is to save zygotes and let babies die. You can't save both because 1.8 are dying each second and you cannot save 1.8 per second.


"Are you gsuggesting I have to support abortion to save a child from rape? That makes no sense."


I am saying that you have a choice of saving innocent babies or letting them die and attempting to save a fetus. You choose to let the babies die.

{"Pro lifers have a choice. They may choose to save the innocent baby
girls or they can continue to let them die and save fetuses instead."

Wrong. It's not either/or, it's and/both.}
Until you prove you can save 1.8 babies each second, you are wrong. The scientific proof is that 7 billion people are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. Each second you spend saving a fetus, a born baby, child or adult dies. You choose let babies die.

"BTW, the half of abortion victims *are* innocent baby girls. The other half are innocent baby boys."
There are no " babies" killed in abortion. That is simply a Definist Fallacy that is designed to make you feel better about letting babies die.

Jay Smith said...

This is all simply a fallacy, an Appeal to Emotion, and that dog, pun intended, won't hunt.

Jay Smith said...

Actually he was, just not in your heart.

Mirable said...

I always like to ask PL women how many snowflake embryos they would be willing to gestate. If they say that pregnancy is a minor thing, and that every baby can be easily given up for adoption, then PL women should be able to give the gift of life to up to 4 babies at a time until menopause.

Michelle Ewing said...

I understand abortion only affects embryos and fetuses. The reason I bring up potential for being a legal person, is because animals will never become legal persons. the land having the potential to become a skyscraper has no value in this. they are both property, but you can tell the difference between one being able to be made into a sky scraper, and one that will not even have a house on it, (with current technology and laws) most abortion minded women use the term baby, not a medical term, unless this is not the first abortion because the abortionist has corrected them. the world is not over populated. we simply don't share resources well. again, a zygote can't understand ethics, most children don't even hear the word till high school or college, yet they have a right to life. two mindless cells made solely for reproduction cannot be blamed for two people knowingly doing something that is the only natural way to place them there. resorption and other forms of miscarriage are completely natural and ethical/moral. killing offspring is not. You want it, you pay for it, my thoughts on abortion exactly. you want to do something unethical, that over half of the us doesn't support, and most other support it because they feel women are too stupid to take into consideration there own health, and gut themselves through abortion. maybe pro choicer should pay for all abortion, abortion lawsuits, post abortive consoling, and while theyre at it "pro choice" would seem to me that they would support more than abortion (otherwise its pro abortion), so they would pay along with pro lifers to make adopting and raising a baby affordable. being pro choice would be much more costly than being pro life.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Well, I was thinking about RU-486, which is definitely something that can prevent implantation, if used as a Morning After Pill. I admit I wasn't thinking about other variations on that type of Pill.

Pertinacia said...

I won't feed a troll. Bye.

Pertinacia said...

"You have a chance right this instant to save a baby girl from being raped and murdered, but you chose to be here instead."

Same to you.

You have a chance right this instant to save a baby girl from being raped and murdered, but you chose to troll Secular Pro-Life Perspectives instead.

Hypocrite.

lady_black said...

If you had no lungs, you cannot hold your breath. That's by definition.

Russell Crawford said...

My choice is to save a baby girl, your choice is to save a fetus that may not be alive or human and let the baby girl die.
I am saving baby girls and you are trolling Secular pro life Perspectives. I save real life, you let it die.
You are the one that claims to be saving life while actually letting baby girls be raped and murdered. I am actually saving baby girls by stopping pro lifers from letting them die. If I stop one baby girl from being raped and murdered because you choose to let them die, then my choice is worth the effort.

Russell Crawford said...

You have a choice Guest, you can save innocent babies or you can let them die. A troll would choose to let them die and claim to save life. I save the innocent babies that you let die.

H said...

I somewhat agree with this post, but I remain pro abortion. I do not agree with the puppy analogy because the animal is already born and can obviously feel pain. An unborn baby is NOT the same as a living animal or human. I believe the puppy analogy was stretching the truth because a baby human, or fetus, in my opinion, is still part of the mother. I believe it is up to the mother and or father to decide wether or not they want the abortion, not anyone else's.

never said...

how dare you talk about dark people like, God make everyone balck and white, and just cause your skin is white does not mean you are a better person then anybody that has a different skin colour then you, and ending a pregancy is a sin no matter if it happens in week 23 or in week one.

conversate said...

I am simply stating a fact.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/05/markets_everything

Plum Dumpling said...

Who are you kidding? Not me. Fetus freaks love the 'gruesome reality of abortion.'
A lot of you, and I do mean YOU, are totally into murderporn. And you think you will be seen as sane and caring thereby. That is the chief delusion of the fetus freaks.

Plum Dumpling said...

Some people eat it. Some people send it to the pet impound for disposal.

Plum Dumpling said...

Yeah, Brazil will not allow Mothers to 'kill' fetuses. They prefer to wait until the fetuses are born children to kill them. And they call it 'moral.'

Plum Dumpling said...

Russell is not a troll.

Plum Dumpling said...

You want to force a woman who 'aborts a child for convenience' to give birth? Do you dislike children?

Plum Dumpling said...

This is the tool used to do most abortions. It is akin to a large straw.
https://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v6/v6c123.html

There is no 'cramming in a blender' or limbs to be chopped off. There are two tablespoons of slimy goo. I had a miscarriage at the time most abortions are done. I poked through the goo looking for anything human. Nada.

Plum Dumpling said...

That cannot be true. Most men would be true. 1 in every 3 women has had an abortion or will have an abortion.

Plum Dumpling said...

It is just as OK to abort an anencephalic fetus as it is to abort a normal fetus.
You probably should not have an abortion.

Plum Dumpling said...

Yes he was. That is the reason he is dead.

Plum Dumpling said...

Trying to force women to give birth when they want to abort is POLITE?

Plum Dumpling said...

If ending a pregnancy is a sin, then Jehovah is a sinner and a proabort. Hosea 13:16.

Crystal Kupper said...

First, check out Kelsey's helpful article on the "1 in 3 women" statistic:http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/13/false-no-1-in-3-women-will-not-have-an-abortion-in-her-lifetime/.

And even a woman who has had an abortion isn't necessarily an expert on what the doctor was doing. Many of my friends who have had abortions had no idea what the procedure actually entailed; they were so traumatized to be pregnant and wanted so badly for it to be not true that they purposefully avoided learning how the baby would be removed from them. It was only later that one of them, for example, figured out that her fetus had been dismembered and then sucked from her, or that other methods involve poison, scissors to the skull, or a needle to the heart.

I still think that if you ask the average person on the street, "How does a doctor perform an abortion?" most would be clueless.

Plum Dumpling said...

LifeNews? Get the fug out of here. At least try to provide an unbiased source.

Plum Dumpling said...

SIN = self inflicted nonsense.

Plum Dumpling said...

Yes he was, your fantasy notwithstanding.

Crystal Kupper said...

Kelsey Hazzard, the president of the organization that publishes the blog you're reading, wrote it. In fact, it ran in this exact same space before LifeNews picked it up.

In the article, she cites figures from the Guttmacher Institute's -- Planned Parenthood's research arm. I'd hardly call that biased toward the pro-life side.

But if you can't debate without resorting to "Get the fug out of here," I don't see the point in continuing this conversation, and I do mean that as kindly as possible. I sincerely wish you all the best.

Plum Dumpling said...

For a moment I regretted being rude to you. And then I read this:
The 1 in 3 campaign cites to a factsheet by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion think tank.

lady_black said...

Cutting the cord internally will ALWAYS cause death. What color is the sky on your planet?

Dylan McIntyre said...

First of all: You already have the dogs physically in your possession, so killing them like that instead of selling them or putting them up for adoption is just cruel. Second: If the morning after pill, or birth control don't work to prevent this pregnancy, then what else are you going to do? yeah you could have it and then give it up, but thats kinda worse knowing your mom couldnt/wouldnt have you. Third: Why wait until week 23 to abort? Find out as soon as possible and catch it before its too late, no reason to kill a fetus, thats why we have the pills and patches to help prevent it in the first place. I'm pro-choice still, i;m not gonna look at these images and say "omg thats horrible, stop abortion, save the fetus." An early fetus as no brain at all, can't think, can't talk, can't do anything. Really you're taking out a blob of what COULD be a human being, in a few weeks.

Gaiuse Strome said...

An abortion past 20 weeks is usually because...

Medical necessity
Fetal deformity or illness (anencephaly etc)
Woman has irregular cycle
Woman is very poor, took months to save money
Woman was on birth control, didn't notice until late
Couldn't get time off work, find daycare for existing children etc


Red states are also putting up many barriers, banning affordable first trimester abortions, 3 day waiting periods, closing clinics, and forcing women to pay for and submit to forced vaginal ultrasounds. All of the above is an undue burden on the poor, who don't have 1k just laying around.