In an office in Canada the nurse calls from outside the abortion procedure room. Standing by a counter. the products of conception are in a glass dish. The dish reveals a small pinkish liquid swirl. The nurse pulls down her surgical mask, using a latex gloved finger points at a miniscule, feathery item. “That is what we look for, that little bit of fluff.”
An abortion may be done utilizing local anesthetic in less than 10 minutes. It is safe, requires very little recovery time and almost no medication. In fact it is many times safer than being pregnant, and is the safest procedure done by doctors. Less than 3 per 100,000 have an difficulty. To place in perspective, the chance of dying from anesthesia in a hospital is 30x that. Most abortions are not done in hospitals, simply in doctor’s offices.
Statistics Canada Abortion reports 100,039 Canadian women had an abortion in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available. Another 337,072 did not have an abortion.
According to the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization, about 40% of pregnancies in development countries — including Canada — are unintended. Both organizations say 28% of all unintended pregnancies in developed countries end in abortion.
What follows here is not a debate about whether it is right or wrong. Not a discourse on whether the nurse at Toronto’s Morgentaler clinic was pointing at the byproduct of social evil or choice.
Twenty years ago next month, on Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of a case brought years earlier by Dr. Henry Morgentaler.
COMMITTEE DECISION
His lawyers argued a situation in place since 1969, where a woman seeking an abortion had to find and convince a three-member therapeutic abortion committee it was medically necessary to protect her health, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From then on, it would be a woman’s choice to terminate or continue her pregnancy. There are no limits on when. Abortion is treated like any other medical service. Except it is most definitely not. We don’t talk about abortion in Canada because for the most part, we don’t want to.
One 27-year-old Ottawa woman, who has had two abortions, tries to explain why. She’s comfortable with her decisions but knows others, including a close friend, would not be.
“People are judgmental and they look at you differently. For sure. Even if they agree with it,” she said, “she (her friend) looks at me as a lesser person because I did that. And so would other people.”
The country’s right-to-life movement has worked tirelessly to keep its cause alive since 1988.
“People are coming up who have lived with the Morgentaler decision a long time,” says Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of Campaign Life Coalition. “They don’t come to the issue with the same feeling we did. I think our attitude was ‘let’s stop the horrible killing.’ I think the feeling was we’d be able to do this in five years and go back to our families.”
Past serious challenges to the Supreme Court ruling failed and there aren’t any on the horizon in Canada, certainly nothing like what is happening in the United States, next month also marking an anniversary, the 35th, of 1973’s abortion-legalizing decision, Roe v. Wade. But there is a movement afoot here to implement certain gestational limits.
“I personally don’t think we should have a prohibition on early abortion, because I think if you can’t enforce it, then overall it does more harm than good,” said Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
“But Canada is unique in the Western world for having no prohibition on abortion at all. You can have an abortion the day before you give birth in Canada and that is perfectly legal.”
Morgentaler, now 84, says the fight is far from over.
“I think the way people think, it’s other people’s problem, and as long as it doesn’t affect them personally, there’s not much action on that,” he said. “Also, Canadians mostly believe the issue has been solved.”
Morgentaler warns while abortion may be legal in Canada, a variety of factors are at work to limit access. Those problems were reflected in a major survey of abortion access released this year by Canadians For Choice (CFC), an Ottawa-based group created after the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL) dissolved in 2004.
Building on a 2003 CARAL study, CFC research co-ordinator Jessica Shaw contacted 791 hospitals, posing as an out-of-province 22-year-old, 10 weeks pregnant, without a family doctor or any nearby family and friends, seeking an abortion.
AMONG HER FINDINGS:
– Abortion services are available in one of every six Canadian hospitals; a percentage that has dropped to 15.9% from 17.8% in 2003.
– In three out of four calls, hospital staff did not know if their facility offered abortions.
– The average waiting time for an abortion is two weeks, but can be four and as much as six. Until new funding came through, that was the length of the wait in Ottawa, proving access problems are not limited to small towns.
– Limits on when abortions can be performed vary widely among hospital and facilities — from 10 weeks to 22 weeks.
– Travel time and expenses are an issue. Shaw also encountered hospital staffers who tried to mislead or ridicule her.
“One nurse, in Central Canada, said ‘well, if you are thinking about having an abortion, you might want to first consider checking yourself into the inpatient psychiatric ward at the mental hospital,'” recalls Shaw, “‘because obviously you are not in a good frame of mind.'”
CFC executive director Patricia LaRue says after 20 years, the study shows women are still having to fight to have an abortion.
“We think if we ever need it, it’s going to be there,” she said, “but we don’t need to take a position on it until we ever need it.”
The way Canada’s health care system is structured can explain some of the obstacles to access. Health care is a provincial responsibility and subject to political will. In the months after the Supreme Court decision, many provinces moved to restrict abortion funding.
In New Brunswick, Morgentaler is suing the province over its policies, which funds hospital abortions only under restrictions he says violate the Canada Health Act. And not all provinces include abortion in their reciprocal billing agreements.
“There’s very clearly a two-tier system at work,” said Christabelle Sethna, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa Institute of Women’s Studies.
“Women are sort of ping-pong balls between provinces and different health care levels and facilities.”
Sethna is studying the explosion of privately operated abortion clinics in Canada since the Morgentaler decision: 45% of abortions are now done in clinics, compared to 7% in 1988. And while it is considered both “appalling” and “urgent” whenever news surfaces of Canadians who have to travel or pay for CAT scans or MRIs, said Sethna, “none of the discussion that is taking place about wait times and access to medical procedures like cancer treatments or hip replacements is going on about abortion.”
In the August edition of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada, Sethna reported on how access issues affect low-income women. In a survey done at the Toronto Morgentaler Clinic, she found women with incomes of less than $30,000 were more likely than wealthier women to have travelled between 200 to 1,000 km to have their abortion.
Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, agreed the access issue may not be a problem for women with money and means to travel.
“But it is a problem for many low-income women or immigrants or students who may not have access to the services they need,” she says.
Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), says because abortion is an unpopular topic, federal governments tend to have a “hands-off approach.”
“And if no one is doing anything to improve access,” she says, “it’s probably going to decrease.”
OTHER FACTORS
There are other factors at work. Medical schools in Canada provide little instruction on abortion. More than half of Canada’s abortion providers are near retirement age. The doctor shortage, size of the country and anti-abortion doctors who may conscientiously object to providing the service or information about it are also factors.
Pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups agree it still needs to be an issue.
On one side, LifeCanada president Joanne Byfield says the goal is to get people outraged.
“You don’t decide who is a human being by listening to a judge or a government,” she said. “These are inalienable human rights.”
On the other hand, the Morgentaler decision may have protected the right to choose an abortion, but it didn’t ensure abortion services will be available, says Joanna Erdman, adjunct professor at the University of Toronto’s International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme.

January 29, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Other resources on the impacts of abortion on women and society. I know many will discount these resources, but you must read them to be a critical thinker:
1) http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/
2) http://www.treatiseonlife.com/
3) “Of Human Life”: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
4) “The Good News of Life”: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
5) http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0102.html
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
January 29, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Andrew,
Please, there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles that will dispute probably most claims in these non reviewed articles.
Please note the massive difference in between peer reviewed literature and articles that are just written without proper review.
Simply, the recent well know multi-center Harvard Based study in The New England Journal of Medicine solved the abortion breast cancer risk issue – it is not an issue. On top of this the vast majority of Board Certified OBGYNs, even ProLife one’s would disagree with these points.
But to continue the discussion I sincerely beg you for an answer, which you just seem to refuse to give, in the above question regarding a women with a pregnancy in the tube. Do you allow an abortion under that circumstance, or one for any matter. From this simple point a discussion may arise that has a formal thread. Please just answer the question simply,
yes
or
no.
Expound past that, if you please.
One had to be able to answer to these common everyday situations if they want to talk about the nature of the very difficult abortion issue.
Regards
Hilda
LikeLike
January 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Andrew,
Please, there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles that will dispute probably most claims in these non reviewed articles.
Please note the massive difference in between peer reviewed literature and articles that are just written without proper review.
Simply, the recent well know multi-center Harvard Based study in The New England Journal of Medicine solved the abortion breast cancer risk issue – it is not an issue. On top of this the vast majority of Board Certified OBGYNs, even ProLife one’s would disagree with these points.
But to continue the discussion I sincerely beg you for an answer, which you just seem to refuse to give, in the above question regarding a women with a pregnancy in the tube. Do you allow an abortion under that circumstance, or one for any matter. From this simple point a discussion may arise that has a formal thread.
Please just answer the question simply,
yes
or
no.
Expound past that if you please.
One must be able to answer to these common everyday situations if they want to talk about the nature of the very difficult abortion issue.
Take Care,
Hilda
LikeLike
January 29, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Andrew,
Regarding the above thread and your link to the Catholic site:
Brief quote:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
Moral Principles
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:
· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]
· Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]
———-
There a number of additional circumstances which are OK to perform an abortion in the article. Granted I have a little trouble interpreting the moral ivory tower they speak from, but at least in the first example it seems that salpingectomy is OK, although that typically is the stupidest (I can go into detail if anyone wants, but is would be superfluous here) thing for the mother depending on the circumstances.
If i do not misunderstand, the Catholic Church is saying it is OK to do an abortion in a wide variety of circumstances, they just declare it the double effect.
Andrew, do you agree with them? I presume you believe then Abortion is OK under certain circumstances given that you provided this article.
Unbelievably the article stated there were over 100,000 ectopics in the US alone. If this were extrapolated to the world (which we know most countries have higher tubal pregnancy rates) extrapolates to over 1.5 million worldwide. No small number. Not insignificant, especially when you add in all the other live saving measures that require abortion. Agreed – not the majority – Please don’t say 100,000 or 1.5 million is insignificant. They are large numbers. And even if you are just one of those people that is a very big number for yourself.
Andrew, just to understand your position better, because reading your messages it sounded like were against all abortion, under any circumstance.
Are you agreeable to abortion under those circumstances that you quoted as authoritative, or are you stricter then them and would not even allow those significant number of abortions to be done.
Not to add more rhetoric, but how about Anencephaly where the baby has no brain (no kidding, NO brain, horrible anomaly) and no chance of surviving or becoming anything more than a zombie on a respirator (the vast majority just die right after delivery if that is possible and there has never been one in the history of humanity that grew a brain afterwards), and can kill the mother in labor by it’s lack of cranium and horrible labor patterns.
Please note my testament:
I’ve seen a mother die with my own eye’s because she would not abort an early term fetus that did not and would not ever have a brain. She believed and was told by Jesus himself that the baby would grow a brain later, he would do this for her. She was Catholic. She was so sadly misinformed by her higher authority. I am saddened by this story, please don’t misunderstand. She died needlessly of intrapartum hemorrhage. The baby died within a few minutes of an emergency cesarean for a massive uterine rupture. It never had a chance to live because of it’s anomaly (no brain).
Looking forward to understand your perspective as well.
Everyone is begging for one simple answer, however you keep dodging it. You sound like a person of intelligent, and resilient enough character that would answer this very straightforward question, but you don’t, you keep not answering it.
Please answer the question now that you provided your authoritative literature.
Andrew, is abortion OK under certain circumstances like your article suggests?
Kat
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 10:31 am
Hilda, you apparently missed this section of my post:
You ask a good question on “extra-uterine” pregnancies, or ectopic pregnancies. You do sound intelligent, so I hope you will not discount, in a prejudicial way, a Catholic answer to this question. This is complicated question, so it requires a complicated answer. Please refer to the link: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
Specifically read the explanation of MTX vs. salpingostomy vs. full and partial salpingectomy, and the principle of double effect. I could not come up with a better answer than this one.
Kat, if the intent of a partial salpingectomy is to save the life of the mother (a good act), and has the unfortunate side effect of the death of the baby (a bad act), then this is OK. It is all about intent. I did not dodge the question. I said I did not have a better answer than the article to which I provided a link, which explained why an unintended abortion in this scenario is OK, because that is not the primary intent. Apparently, this was not clear, as I thought it was.
The problem is, abortion proponents promote abortion on demand for any reason. The intent is always to kill an innocent human being. I have explained many times why this is a bad thing for women, children, families and society, as it denies the basis of all human rights: the right to life.
As far as birth defects that almost always cause a baby to die soon after birth – these are part of nature. Human efforts on controlling nature offend the creator and never work out well. You also assume doctors always know and can explain everything that happens to human beings. This is a false assumption. It also discounts the many miracles that can happen. I propose that it would be better for society that all parents love their children enough (unconditionally) to not extinguish hope for the child, but hold out for a miracle. Many have happened. If a miracle doesn’t happen, then that is part of nature too. Distrust that God knows what he is doing by having nature run its course never works out in the long run.
I have answered your questions. I ask you to answer mine: Without resorting to prejudice, how can abortion on demand be reconciled with the founding principle of the USA: the self-evident principle that all humans are created equal, endowed by the creator with the inalienable right to life?
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 10:53 am
A couple more questions that I ask for an answer to:
1) A “right” to abortion on demand ALWAYS comes at the expense of the child to be killed. On a philosophical level, how can a “right” that only comes at the expense of another’s rights be considered anything other than oppression?
2) Why do so-called “pro-choice” supporters fight against informed consent and parental notification laws so much? It seems that you are saying that scared teenagers need to make uninformed choices with no help from their legal guardians.
3) The aborted baby, if female, has no right to abortion later in her life, because they are dead. Do you see the dichotomy here?
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 11:38 am
Hilda: one more comment. You say “One must be able to answer to these common everyday situations if they want to talk about the nature of the very difficult abortion issue.”
I would say: One must also be able to honestly and objectively discuss the philosophical, emotional, physical, pyschological, legal and social impact of abortion on demand on women, families, men, children, and society. I have raised many questions on these aspects.
LikeLike
January 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Andrew,
sorry there are so many thoughts here it is a difficult attempt at brevity.
I’m delighted to hear that you do believe that abortion is the absolute correct thing to do in the hundreds of disease processes that fall under the circumstances in your referred article.
I think part of the difference here is approach, you want to approach the grand biopychosocial model or as you say:
“philosophical, emotional, physical, psychological, legal and social impact of abortion on demand on women, families, men, children, and society.”
I would have to write a book in this little comment section to discuss all those topics, with time we can get there, it is nice to establish the points of commonality and difference to do so, in my humble opinion, and yes your questions deserve all the respect to be addressed appropriately (I tried to make mine a little easier, you know yes or no). I just take a different approach, talking about the small segments first as they are possible to discuss, where the gigantic issue may not be appropriate for a comment section. But i don’t think either method is better or worse right now than the other. Except, it is just a matter of pragmatisms to not write as long as i already have in a comment section.
It is, however important, to understand for brief conversation purposes that you are pro choice in certain matters and not in others. But do not fear as this is the case for almost all people on this issue and that is why to begin a discussion it is nice to know where one’s demarcation line is. The Catholic article was nice, as it appeared a lot of thought went into it rather than the usual (which is the impression I got from your initial comments) Abortion is just %#$@&%& wrong all the time. Yes usually those comments come with alot of profanity and threat of harm to someone just trying to discuss another’s perspective.
I don’t believe I ever met a prochoice person that believed it was OK to do an abortion under every of the infinite number of circumstances one could conceive. But I have met a lot of prolife individuals that believe it is not OK to perform an abortion under any condition. This is really important for the initiation of a real discourse. It is, sadly, a slippery slope (this is not meant in the common usage of this term so please do not leverage off that aphorism), but ya gotta start somewhere. This is even evident in the great detail (and some difficult articulation – like using licit in a possible double negative sentences – makes it really hard to know for sure what you are reading) in your catholic article. This is also why we begged the simple answer of if Abortion was ever OK. One can move then from that position in discussion rather than waste time in the areas of agreement.
Please know that I believe the vast majority of us have good intentions despite how wrong you or I think the other may be. That is one reason why this site is so wonderful. Of the the apparent thousands of visitors it appears debate is healthy with minimal profanity or threats. Thankfully, it appears the days of prolifers heinously murdering prochoice individuals and wounding their families and children(!) (even if they are even simply a janitor in the building supporting the buildings existence) to show how wrong killing someone is are over. I believe that when we were struck by terrorism, some of those prolifers got the point of how wrong terrorism is, even their brand of terrorism. Even after the terrorism of 9/11, they really still did not fully get it until our country was attacked by a multitude of Anthrax laced letters, but yet those threats are still even made to this day.
So the corollary I was getting to is that the vast majority of pro choice individuals have constraints, as well. So it is more an issue of where in the middle, vast overlap does the issue diverge for so many people with different opinions. Where can there be agreement and disagreement, and we can all work on those areas.
This is why it is important from the standpoint of logical argument, to partially get our nomenclature accurate, and to agree on at least some points so that when we talk of something we both agree we are talking about the same thing. Written correspondence like this is ripe for confusion and wrongefull inference, but we’ll do our best. Cool?
OK. I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that you implied earlier that Abortion was equivalent to 1st degree murder. Same thing as planning, and then proceeding with a killing without the predisposition of ailments that are mitigating, like insanities , self defense, etc. If you do not agree with summary of what I have read please clarify so we do know what you compare it to. ie, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter? 1st degree really sounds like it fits your description. But correct if this is mistaken.
It appears from the Catholic article that this is also implied under many circumstances of Abortion that are not allowed. In the cases where abortion is allowed, I certainly don’t believe you or the Catholic authority is calling it 1st degree murder.
However, in those many cases where it is not allowed it is 1st degree murder by your definition. Please correct me if my understanding of your position is inaccurate.
So to further understand the positions so I can answer the biopsychosocial model for you, if you could clarify what you would call abortion for these certain circumstances in one scenario, and this works within your framework as it can be extrapolated beyond that once we get our nomenclature on the same page:
1) Is abortion of a tubal pregnancy at 6 weeks by methotrexate for a 12 year old raped by her father (again, sadly I have seen this many times in medical residency) 1st degree murder of the fetus?
2) Is the doctor the murderer?
3) Is the 12 year old pregnant girl an accessory to that murder?
4) Are the others involved also part of the murderous act, from the nurse, to the hospital, to the drug manufacturer, to the all the people that support the endeavor willingly or even without knowing, like the staff keeping the hospital running, or in the billing department of the insurance company, etc. This is partially rhetorical as you cannot answer every individual here as it would theoretically extends even to you who pays taxes that supports some of these programs indirectly. Yes, you are part of that chain unbelievably, unless you want to be a maverick and not pay taxes. (I don’t recommend stopping your payments to support the social programs as the IRS will have a problem with that.)
Also for more clarity,
1) Many of your comments are hard to take seriously as they appear (only an inference as i do not have insite to your true thoughts) very on the fringe and globally bizarre (#2 below). The vast majority of doctors do know what they are doing, operating off several hundreds of years of evidence based medicine (biased toward the last half century). I would repeat again that even the prolife OBGYNs don’t dispute most of the well established facts, even though their opinion on Abortion is different. So I am really not sure where the objective evidence about the doctors comes from.
2) Also, I don’t know if i understand your comment, but it is hard to take you seriously when you doubt the severity of anencephally, or think that Jesus might really perform that miracle and actually grow a brain. I would love nothing more. In fact, this type of divine intervention would be quite welcomed, useful, and never desired in limitation. I just wish they were more common than Zero documented cases of anencephalics growing brains. There has never been one reported in any literature, even Catholic (if there is one please reveal, don’t keep it all to yourselves, I would to read it. It should be published so the whole medical community can read about it through the proper channels of review articles. Every, NICU in the world has the opportunity daily for one of these miracles, and we are left standing with nothing, sadly, in regards to miracles. Do you really think Jesus will grow brains or has ever done that in the absense of any documentation? – if so it places us out of the realm of objective fact and into mysticism which would make a discussion really difficult since there is nothing to grab hold of to make authoritative comments. Sort of the nature of Faith, agreed? A strong belief in the doctrine of a religion (your article) based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. It would be logically impossible to argue against Faith based discussions. I guess that’s why the Catholics wrote that article, the Faith is not clear enough, gotta get into the details, and reveal, yes, that it is OK to do an abortion in certain circumstances.
On that note I was delighted that Pope John Paul II finally forgave poor Galileo for all the stuff they put him through for saying the Earth revolved around the sun and that Jupiter had moons that revolved around it gigantic gaseous body. That simple act only took a few hundred years. Poor Galileo, and Kepler, Copernicus, and the long list of others where the church just kept getting it wrong, where science just kept getting it right. These items take a lot of the authority out of the Churches readings, they just get so much wrong. Although I think what JP II was a move in the right direction. They just have to keep up that momentum.
Sorry for the sidetrack, it just seemed to dovetail nicely,
Regards,
Kat
LikeLike
February 11, 2008 at 11:58 am
Kat, thanks for your reply.
Let me start by saying that I would not classify anyone who supports or participates in killing abortion doctors as “pro-life”. These people are the ultimate hypocrites.
I would also comment that I have read a lot of the history on Galileo and the church, and your comments seem to not reflect much of the actual history on the matter. It was Galileo’s position on theology and interpreting bible verses that were at issue, not his science. You mention Copernicus, who was actually a Catholic priest.
Some of your comments seem to imply that faith and reason are at odds. This is not the case. Please read Pope John Paul II’s “Faith and Reason”: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
You are still trying to focus on whether abortions are EVER acceptable. This is not the question. The question is: is the intentional killing of a human being ever acceptable? If the intent is to save the mother’s life (partial salpingectomy), with the unfortunate side effect of killing the baby, this is what is acceptable according to the principle of double effect. This is the formative principle at work here, which you did not address in your response.
I still did not see any conversation in your response that addressed this question:
Without resorting to prejudice, how can abortion on demand be reconciled with the founding principle of the USA: the self-evident principle that all humans are created equal, endowed by the creator with the inalienable right to life?
The problem is that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton allows for abortion on demand for any reason in all 9 months of pregnancy. If you think abortion should be limited for any reason, you must support the overturning of this Supreme Court decision. I may be going out on a limb here, but I doubt that is your opinion. The problem is that if abortion is ever the intended action, you also necessarily reject the right to life of that child. If you deny the right to life of one person, then on what basis does anyone have a right to life? This is the philosophical question that needs to be addressed.
I do not underestimate the severity of anencephally. It is a tragic situation. But, human beings should not be in charge of when another human being dies, especially innocent children. The creator of that life should be. The foundational principle of the US correctly recognizes that all human beings are endowed with the right to life by the creator when they are created.
As for who is “at fault” in the abortion, only the creator can judge the intent of the participants. You can say, however, if you intend to end the life of another person, that is objectively wrong, and contrary to the founding principle of the US. The principle of double effect comes in here as well, especially the tax issue. As for the 12 year old rape (or incest) victim – what a tragedy. But, to think that abortion is a solution is a very mistaken position. Your position seems to be that child must live with the physical, emotional, pyschological and social side effects of abortion for the rest of her life. If that baby is allowed to be born, wouldn’t that baby think her mother is a hero for not having killed him/her? If a human being is “disposable” for one reason, why can’t they be for another reason? Why not any Jewish person (Hitler’s position), or Tutsi tribe member (Idi Amin’s position), or Black person (position of the Ku Klux Klan and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood)? Why not anyone named Kat? Abortion is the highest form of prejudice. It is the highest form of child abuse. It denies that any human being deserves to be loved unconditionally (I will only love this child enough to let it live on the condition that my personal situation or the circumstances of that child’s conception are “convenient enough” to me). If anyone does not feel loved unconditionally, this can cause all sorts of emotional and psychological issues, affecting society in many ways.
Finally, I am sorry that you feel thinking that all human beings having a right to life is “on the fringe and globally bizarre”. I am hoping that feeling human beings are “dispensible” should be “on the fringe and globally bizarre”. But, I know that it is not, which is unfortunate.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
February 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm
One more comment: I am not “pro-choice” in some situations. The terms “Abortion” and “Pro-choice” necessarily means that it is acceptable to “choose” to intentionally kill another human being. My position, on the other hand, is that I agree with the principle of double effect that if the intent to save the mother’s life with an ectopic pregnancy, then a partial salpingectomy is morally licit. From your response, I am not sure you understand this principle of double effect, especially as it applies to our conversation: that if a good result is intended, and another bad result occurs unintentionally, it is not wrong to pursue the good result. I await your comments.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
November 12, 2008 at 10:30 pm
xzbhi469smdw4obe
LikeLike
December 25, 2009 at 12:10 am
Hello there,
My name is Jack Steele. I am the informant who helped police solve the James Kopp case.
I provided the tip that led to the arrest and conviction of James Kopp, who shot three Canadian doctors before shooting and killing an American doctor. Kopp is an anti-abortion fanatic who targeted the doctors because they were performing abortions.
LikeLike
January 17, 2010 at 9:48 pm
MANY PEOPLE THINK ABORTION IS PRETTY MUCH OK, and most really believe that it is only legal for the first few months. Ask a person on the street to describe PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, and they will just stare at you – and once you explain it to them, they insist that you are making it up, and they become angry with you for telling them something so gross. TRY IT!
SO WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT KILLING THE UNBORN?
EXODUS 21 THE BIBLE – KING JAMES version s says: 22If men (men or women, not gender specific) strive (conspire, take an action) , and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [early, before its time, or with problems], and yet no mischief (permanent damage) follow: he (they) shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he (they) shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief (permanent damage for child or mother) follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 An Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (pretty much describes abortion techniques)_ Basically, whatever is done to the unborn child will surely be done to those responsible for the damage – any damage, any time, anywhere. God himself will have the revenge, folks – and may God have mercy upon their souls.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 2:39 am
If only more than 22 people could hear this!
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:21 am
If only I had a buck for each time I came to abortion.ws! Great post.
LikeLike