by the Left Coast Rebel
I don't talk about abortion often on my site. I have readers that vary across the spectrum on the issue. I also know that it is tough to reach middle-ground between all trains of thought on the topic. I think that for myself, I planted my feet firmly on the life-side years ago when I saw what abortion on demand does to one's soul and society at large. To me it is a disgusting, barbaric, uncivilized act that in most cases can be argued as being the taking of an innocent life. I'm not sure, however; that the Federal Government should be the arbiter of all on the issue too.
I would love to see Roe V. Wade overturned and sent to the states.
I have also been privy to facts about Planned Parenthood over the years that puts them in the Abortion-Mill for Profit category. Just like this story:
Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson's life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure."I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Jonhson.
According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention,to one that focused on abortion.
Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.
Hits home, right? Do stories like this give you a bit of hesitation if you are pro-choice? I'd like to know.
Via Memeorandum
Also read BizzyBlog
Also read Moonbattery
"I would love to see Roe V. Wade overturned and sent to the states." me too...
ReplyDelete12 yrs. ago when i was pregnant, the doctor said he was going to run a test on the amniotic fluid to see if the baby was down syndrome. i asked that if it was, can you do anything about it? he says no. i refused the test because i'm afraid of needles but mainly because..if it was down syndrome i wouldn't have done anything about it anyway. moral of the story...it infuriated me that he ASSUMED i wanted to know and that he ASSUMED i would want to terminate it. (sorry so long)
@ labcat - I agree, everyone has a personal story on the topic. For me, it was a friend of mine 10 years ago that had an abortion. She was 7 months into her pregnancy and had no problem getting the 'procedure'. How disgusting is that?
ReplyDeleteLCR, I think a lot of the issue is the "only my rights matter" attitude that seems to be prevalent today. You wouldn't believe the nastiness I got for suggesting that abortion is not merely a "women's rights" issue.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from debating with pro-choicers, most of them seem to be stuck on the "unthinking, unfeeling pile of cells" blather. The minute you see an ultrasound, you know this is not just a "pile of cells". I have a first trimester ultrasound photo of my second son, and it's unmistakable that there is a baby in there.
The mindset of these 'abortion mills' is truly shocking. They know that if they show the mother the ultrasound of her child, they will proably lose money. Nevermind that whole business of saving a life.
I was ONCE long ago, pro-choice...
ReplyDeleteI have had two abortions. THEY ARE A TERRIBLE MURDEROUS outlet which NO PERSON should be offered WITHOUT the FULL TRUTH of the HORRIFIC TOLL the act takes on the UNBORN CHILD, and THE MOTHER'S SOUL FOREVER.
I never thought I could have another after I had the first, but I justified the second one because it was a non-medical termination very early...in other words, they gave me a dose of Methotrexate (also a compound used to stop cancer cell growth). This was not as invasive as the horrific alternative. SO I THOUGHT, the result is the same...I placed MY SELF IMPORTANCE above MY UNBORN CHILD.
These things all took place long ago before I was arrested by the power of TRUTH. My convictions are much different, and my attitude is one of awareness.
I would like to see the roe v. wade back to the states, and be completely private and NON funded by any public money. Funny, but the entrenched liberal progressive crowd takes offense to this notion. Wonder if it is because they know the number of abortions would decline or possibly be eliminated? Personally, would like to see the barbaric process abolished.
I can see abortion serves to debase the value of life. It places a person's own self-seeking, self-fulling, self-pleasing outlook as the GUIDING PILOT of the decision making process.
I don't mind divulging a personal story like this if it helps one person to view it in a different light. The TRUTH is the TRUTH, I have lived it, walked it, experienced it. I know the pro-choice utopia is just a facade for a very UGLY DISGUSTING INDUSTRY.
I realize I'll be the outlier here (and not to start/contribute to controversy or anything, just give my opinion), but I have a somewhat unique view on the issue, which I'll share. I think the state (federal, local, etc.) has the established right to legislate the circumstances under which it is legally permissible and socially acceptable to end a human life (for example: capital punishment, killing in self-defense, etc.). As such, the government is well within what I would consider its social imperative to legislate when it's legal to kill a fetus, who may do so, and under what circumstances.
ReplyDeleteNow, I could agree that it should be set at the state level, just because I'd like to see less top-down governing, but there's also an argument for legal consistency across the US, esp on matters of taking life (human, near-human, or otherwise). I also don't think the state needs to be bound to anyone's specific morality when making law to promote social policy, although obviously the general morality of the area/country will factor into laws designed to facilitate social norms. Further, I'd note that my own personal moral analysis (on how the government should legislate) doesn't factor into my stance on how or what the government should be allowed to legislate.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, and apologies if I lost anyone in legal philosophical analysis.
@Labcat...I am currently pregnant with my second son, and AGAIN, I was asked if I wanted the test to determine if my child had down syndrome. I politely declined, but on my way home from the office, I became angry.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it assumed that if you have a child with down syndrome, you would abort the fetus? My friend has a little girl with downs, and she is the sweetest thing in the world. It's just heartbreaking to think, that there are people who feel some lives are worth keeping, and some are disposable.
@ Lady lyzar - I am aware of the same. Thank you for sharing that.
ReplyDelete@ Unclogged - I am simply moved by your words. I appreciate your honesty so much and your story so much even more. Your words here speak to the downside of abortion more than I ever could. Maybe one day I could have you write a post here on this topic.
@ Nick - Appreciate the feedback and understand the viewpoint, although I am INCREDIBLY hesitant of putting the constraints of life/death decisions in the hands of the state. At any level.
@ Jessica and Labcat....
ReplyDeleteIt is sad, very sad...the medical community, who has by all intents agreed to and sworn the modern version of Hippocratic Oath, would automatically veer to the direction of murder.
A portion of the Oath follows (the modern translated version from the outline by Hippocrates. There is an even more modern version, but it has been tweaked for political agenda):
I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.
I encourage you both (Jessica, Labcat) to speak out and speak the truth...the young girls emerging into women must hear it.
@LCR,
I gladly accept the offer. You provide the timing and desired format, and the ultimate final editing so long as it does not change the meaning of the story I relate. I guarantee a powerful message of truth (I can't guarantee a SHORT one) and I am honored you would give me the opportunity to share it.
Wait a minute, LCR--are you a republican or a libertarian?
ReplyDeleteI really hate to get into this type of discussion because they always go nowhere (people's minds are already made up) or, worse, create bad feelings between people, but while respecting anyone who sees a fetus as a separate spirit and is compelled to act for themselves accordingly, I must stand up for those who do NOT see this the same way and do NOT wish the state to mandate what they do with their bodies.
Also, there is a bit of illogic in some people of faith in regard to the soul: if the soul is truly immortal and does NOT end at death, then it cannot "begin" at conception, either. Why then start connecting it to a physical, mortal phase of development of your particular choosing? It's a personal viewpoint. Did you know that in some cultures a baby is not considered to have a soul until several months after birth? I just mention that as something to provide perspective. It is a belief, not a principle, and beliefs are choosen. As a libertarian I think each individual must choose her/his own beliefs on this issue.
George Reisman has a great article from a libertarian standpoint on this: http://georgereisman.com/blog/2007/11/if-abortion-really-were-murder.html
Thank you for your willingness to listen to other points of view.
Quoted from and Linked to at:
ReplyDeleteHOW ABOUT SOME GOOD NEWS
@ Sonic - To answer your question, I am both :). I hate this type of discussion as well, it is so tough to get to an agreement and not offend. I truly do understand your point here and trust me, I don't believe that the government should be the arbiter of this issue. I just don't think that a 'one size fits all' from Roe V Wade was right and would rather see it as a state's right issue. Then liberal states like CA could be abortion on demand while a state like Texas could be more restrictive.
ReplyDeleteI'll read that libertarian link and appreciate your thoughts greatly!
@LCR - Why set the delimiter at states? Most states, even CA/TX, have both conservative and socialist areas/people; why not set the standard at the local level, to allow each community to apply the standard most befitting their population? Or, if that's not granular enough, set the standard at the individual level, and let each person/couple decide what's morally acceptable for them? That way the state wasn't infringing on the rights of people who want to have abortions, but people who felt it morally wrong could choose to make it illegal for themselves. Wouldn't that be more the libertarian way?
ReplyDeleteAlso, as uncomfortable as it makes you, there's really no way around the state being allowed to legislate what is acceptable behavior in the society, at least in a group operating under the rule of law. The least obtrusive/oppressive mandate would be to allow any behavior (killing, etc.), but it's long established that there must be constraints to preserve social order, from which derives the rule of law. The current system in the US WRT abortion is actually one of the least government-obtrusive legal frameworks possible, as it more/less matches the libertarian ideal outlined above. Strange, but true, and hopefully food for thought.
Eventually technology will be invented to save a fetus without infringing on the rights of the mother. Until then, if we say that the fetus' rights are paramount, could society tell pregnant people they must not go in certain areas and they must follow doctors' recommendations regarding bed rest and food restrictions? I don't see how we can use the power of the state to do that w/o decreasing someone's basic rights as soon as they become pregnant.
ReplyDelete