I was watching a television show recently where a pro-choice person was asked if abortion was “murder.”
The pro-choicer stuttered and stammered, clearly uncomfortable with the question and possibly the answer in her head. I think she epitomized the pro-choice movement in general which has stumbled over inflammatory words for many years.
We know abortion is not “murder” because murder is a legal term and the Supreme Court has sanctioned the use of abortion.
But is not abortion a form of killing?
Let’s face it. Something is alive in the woman’s body when the woman enters the clinic and it is not alive when she leaves.
How do you define that act? Can “killing” actually be good (e.g., in times of war, some people support the death penalty)?
It’s like the use of the word “baby.” When women call a clinic, they never say “I cannot have this fetus.” Instead, they say “I cannot have this baby.” And when it is a wanted pregnancy, from the minute the woman finds out she is telling everyone that she is having a baby.
Or do the words even matter?
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
March 12, 2010 at 11:29 am
I am on the opposite side of the fence, but I always somehow agree with most of what you say.
You tell it like it is.
Thanks.
LikeLike
March 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm
When you went out to gather vegetables from your garden, did you imagine them screaming?
In order for something to live, something else dies We should accept this casually, but we can’t. We have too much imagination to eat the family’s pet pig; some of us can’t stand the sight of the meat counter after seeing a movie like “Food, Incorporated.” But most of us soldier on, repressing the thought of a steer’s last day, a chicken’s last hour. After all, we have to live.
When a woman says, “I can’t have this baby,” she is thinking of her ability to nurture it into a human being, to give it a chance to live– and she has determined that with the resources available to her, she cannot. She is well aware that nobody else can, either: they cannot protect it from her exposure to cigarette smoke, alcohol, controlled substances, abusive and dangerous environments; they cannot guarantee it to arrive at a healthy birthweight or in reasonably good physical condition, nor can they even guarantee they would nurture it as well as she would, if she could. But that doesn’t stop so-called “pro-lifers” from trying to convince her she has to have it.
So they use every means, including calling abortion “murder” and selling the concept to society. They’re quite happy to call it “killing,” too, because they can easily push the public into making the leap to “of an unborn child.”
But anybody who has pithed a frog in a high school biology class has inflicted more pain on a frog than is inflicted on a three-month fetus. The frog is far more cognitively developed.
Whether your post will attract so-called “pro-lifers” to chime in is an open question, but if it succeeds, you might be sorry! I hope this helps…
LikeLike
March 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Really appreciate your words, James. I know that folks on both sides mean well and just bring different perspectives to the table. But I also know that we all tend to get our signals from national organizations and leaders who feel the need to inflame their members. That’s how they raise money. The abortion issue is not always black and white. And there are extremists on both sides. Thanks, again, James…Have a good one…
LikeLike
March 12, 2010 at 11:40 pm
I believe an abortion is most definitely a form of killing. If you want to talk “definitions” then abortion fits the profile. Abortion ENDS a life. It doesn’t matter if the life form is the size of a dime, it has a heart beat and this “operation” ceases this heart beat. I would call that killing. Inflicting pain on a frog is completely different. We need to take the “potential” of a life into account. I would consider the potential of a baby much greater than that of a frog. Plus, who gives a crap about frogs. We are talking about people for Christ’s sake! Pat, I would like to hear your specific rather than listen to you pose these questions.
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 9:55 am
How can you not like frogs, Andy?
Not sure why you would care about my personal opinion but, while I am pro-choice, I do acknowledge that abortion is a form of killing. As you said, there is something alive when a woman enters the clinic and it is not alive when she leaves. I think that, no matter what we call it, history has shown that women will always seek abortions and, if that is the case, I would rather it be done in a safe, clean environment. Of course, the ultimate goal is that every child is a wanted child.
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 10:36 am
I don’t really appreciate your sarcasm Pat. We are talking about a serious issue. I am pro-choice but I still believe that we need to focus our efforts more on preventive care. Sure, if we make abortion illegal women will still seek them and will end up harming themselves a lot more. However, that doesn’t mean that we should treat abortions like they are the ONLY way. What do you think about that Pat?
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I wasn’t being sarcastic, Andy, I was just trying to inject a little humor in an otherwise serious issue. On the other hand, I really dont know how anyone can hate frogs, except they do give you warts, right? Bottom line is that I”m glad you’re pro-choice and that you support measures that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. Glad you’re home…
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 2:31 pm
hmmmm…(to http yada yada)…I think I learned enough in science class to know that veggies dont have a brain or its connected nervous system, which is why you feel pain and perhaps a vegetable does not. So I will continue with caution.
When you keep repeating “so-called pro-lifers”, I get very agitated. If you’re breathing, then you are a pro-lifer. You must NOT have too much against it, because you’re still here. So, http:… I consider you a pro-lifer.
But, at any rate, I do understand why you feel that way. You believe the quality of a child’s life means something and if the quality of their life is not ideal, or the mother says that she’s “not ready” for a child, then their life should be aborted. I get that. I didn’t understand most of your analogies, though. Perhaps this only happened in MY class, but I distinctly remember 90% of the class being squeamish when it came down to cutting on that frog (though I suppose it HAD to be done)! I opted to skip school that day quite honestly…it just grossed me out…
And you remember what it felt like to be a fetus?? hmmmm…probably not. Then please don’t speak for the fetus. It sounds uneducated. I saw a video of an abortion that was being shown on ultrasound. The baby actually “ran” (for lack of a better term) from the vaccuum. He coward farther and farther away until it was too strong and pulled him in. Thus, ripping his little body apart. Please don’t speak for him, you have no idea what it feels like and I doubt you want to know. I’m alright with all my body parts intact, thanks!
Pat, don’t you get tired of chasing your own tail?? hahaha
I think you’re too smart for this machine. If I had to categorize you, I couldn’t, because you sound too much like me. And I am one of those “so-called pro-lifers”…
Have a good day!
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 2:50 pm
When it comes down to it, James, I am pro-choice. And while I am “pro-life” on many issues (e.g., against capital punishment)I respect that your “side” has coined that phrase and so I will call you that. And while I am pro-choice, I acknowledge the truth: that abortion is a form of killing, that at some point it is a baby, that some women regret their abortions (although most feel “relief”) and that there are bad doctors. On the other hand, I side with the woman during that very difficult process. Really, the only way to stop abortion is to do whatever we can to make sure that women (and men) are educated, that they do not take unnecessary risks and that ultimately avoid getting into that situation in the first place.
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 3:10 pm
agreed.
LikeLike
March 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Andy, there is absolutely no place in my entire life when I have said, thought or felt that because a child’s quality of life “is not ideal,” it should have been aborted.
I have always maintained that a born child deserves protection from the thousands of bad things that want to happen to it, and that somebody who thinks a child should be born ought to have the guts to raise it– which “pro-lifers” don’t do.
In fact, their conspicuous absence in a woman’s life once she gets to the delivery room door is outstandingly noticeable (although their PR machine would have you believe others. And that is why I call them “so-called ‘pro-lifers.’ ” They talk the talk and let others walk the 583,200,000-second walk from conception to graduation from high school. Parents bear full responsibility for absolutely everything their child is, does or suffers, for every second of its child, whether they are present or not.
So-called “pro-lifers” need to shoulder no responsibility, learn any new skills or assume any responsibility– unless it suits their schedule, their needs and their desires. I will start granting them a little respect the day that they show themselves willing to sacrifice as much for the future of their “unborn humans” as expectant parents are for theirs.
If they had been running Bomber Command in World War II, we would have lost the air war. I suggest you cut and paste my name to find out why, or google “aborticentrism.”
LikeLike
March 14, 2010 at 5:22 am
Andy: ps– a worm would run away from that implement. The reaction was simply a genetically implanted response to an external stimulus. It would have retreated had you tried to give it a loving touch. But of course, they weren’t going to point that out; they had a job to sell you on supporting their point of view.
The “humanity” you endowed the fetus with was entirely of your own ability to extrapolate from a parasitical entity to a fully-developed person.
I will donate $10 to the Planned Parenthood of your choice if there was not an audio track accompanying the visuals. For “pro-lifers” it’s important to stimulate the imagination of their audience.
LikeLike
March 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Charles,
You say that pro-lifers don’t have the “guts” to raise a child and only defend the baby before birth. Well, you should spend a day in my life. I am, and have been a defender of life. I even organized a movement to end animal cruelty in high school biology classes while I was a student. Most importantly, I am a single mother raising four children – four adopted children. Most recently, I adopted a Haitian orphan while volunteering with the Red Cross in Port au Prince. I spend a majority of my day working in the local homeless shelter and use the rest of my time assisting disabled children at the Children’s hospital downtown. While I wish I could do more to help the unwanted and less fortunate, there is just not enough time in the day. There are many women like myself who dedicate their lives to supporting children, either by raising them or making their lives easier. With that said, I suggest you think twice about labeling all pro-lifers as “gutless.”
P.S. – I am against capital punishment, the development of nuclear weapons, and am life-long supporter of diplomacy. Your assumptions about pro-lifers don’t apply to the aggregate. Perhaps you should try supporting an unwanted child instead of advertising your name on this blog.
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 4:58 am
Nancy, YOU are the person so-called “pro-lifers” point to when I say they don’t care for human life. You are their excuse for not doing it themselves. This was the case for the 160 people I challenged at the local so-called “pro-life” demonstration– I posted it elsewhere on this blog. The adoption rate among them was 0.375 babies per person. The fact was that they all talked about the one person who had adopted five of the six. Not a particularly deep commitment to “unborn angels” for 158 others in the crowd.
If 100 people ask any so-called “pro-life” friends of yours how many children they have adopted, those friends will, I assure, you point to you rather than admit that no, they haven’t. The result will be that 100 people will walk away with the idea that there are 100 truly “pro-life” women who have adopted 400 children! How wonderful. How misleading.
This is how the so-called “pro-life” movement uses synechdoche– the part standing for the whole– to make itself look good. You’re doing them good, even if you don’t intend to.
I think you’re doing a terrific job for human life; it’s just that statistics show that while so-called “pro-lifers” are indeed more involved with charitable activities than “pro-choicers,” they actually don’t foster, adopt or work with children at a significantly higher rate. So you can’t show yourself to be the norm.
Years ago I realized that if the 400,000 so-called “pro-lifers” each adopted 4 children annually, it would eradicate the need for abortion. I tried recruiting them, even offering to firebomb an abortion mill in their name if they stuck with the program for 15 years, but nobody took me up on it.
I think with your track record, you have much more credibility with them than I do, and I’d like to set you a task. Choose any fifty of them at random and ask them how many children they have adopted. ( I think you could do a great job making your standard their norm. )
When they say they haven’t, lower the standard progressively. Ask them if they’re foster parents, Family Court guardians ad litem, Bg Brothers and Big Sisters, public school classroom volunteers, volunteer staffers for the local parent-child center, or volunteer aides to pediatric paraplegics. When they say no to all those, ask them if they deal with kids in their church’s programs or baby-sit for friends and relatives. You’ll almost always get an affirmative on one of those. It’s always easier to work with wanted children.
I think you’re going to find they are incapable of meeting your standard, because of their aborticentrism.
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 6:52 am
I want to thank you, Nancy, for chiming in and thank you for your great work. The problem we have in this country is that, no matter what the issue, we paint everything in broad strokes. We cubby-hole people, demand that they say “yes” or “no” and not “I need to think about it.” We dont have dialogues anymore, it’s just dueling press releases. That’s why nothing gets done in the Congress. No one really listens, they just yell at each other. I admire Nancy’s committment. I choose to believe that there are many more like her out there.
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 9:49 am
“Years ago I realized that if the 400,000 so-called “pro-lifers” each adopted 4 children annually, it would eradicate the need for abortion. I tried recruiting them, even offering to firebomb an abortion mill in their name if they stuck with the program for 15 years, but nobody took me up on it.”
Is this, at all, realistic??
Nancy, your post is inspiring. I have tried to be a foster parent in the past, but ran into obstacles that stopped me dead in my tracks–things I had no control over and couldn’t change. I would foster every orphaned child in this country and beyond if that were possible, but it’s just not realistic.
Instead, I opted to help teen mothers by offering to babysit, get diapers, food, anything that can help, so that they could become self-sufficient and have a friend to lean on when they need to.
You’re doing an amazing job. Maybe one day, the rest of the world will man up and take resposibility for their brothers and sisters like you do.
PS- I don’t think that firebombing a clinic will eradicate abortion, and I AM against the murders of these doctors just like I am against the murder of these children.
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 10:19 am
Jamie: I appreciate your sentiment but if I were you I would not publicize any more the fact that you offered to bomb a clinic. Approximately 73,000 people a day read this blog.
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Pat, I think your caution about offering to “firebomb a clinic” was misdirect to James, when you meant me. I did feel I should offer a generous incentive to people who joined RRTL and adopted 4 children every year for 15 years. I mean, when you are raising 60 kids (120 if you’re a couple), it’s the least I could do.
And please not that I didn’t say, ‘a clinic.’ I said “an abortion mill.” Carol Everett ran one of those before she found Jesus. She told her staff that every woman who walked in was pregnant, and they shouldn’t let them get out without undergoing the procedure. They lied and lied, and Carol had just upped her sights to grossing $250,000 (about $543,000 today) when the gendarmerie, tipped off by her Christian bookkeeper (Molly Ivins was right when she said bidnessmen in Texas are a different breed: She hired a Christian bookkeepeer to shepherd a racket involving abortion?) raided her place.
Surprisingly, she found Jesus!!!
And then proceeded to counsel pregnant women at the Good Shepherd Crisis Center. She is a terrible counselor. She blamed an eleven-year-old’s first pregnancy and her second pregnancy (at 14 w/ a 30-year-old boy friend) on post-abortion syndrome. Not a clue about child sexual abuse. And does anyone know if Texas has a responsible reporter law?
Yet another example of how aborticentrism warps so-called “pro-lifers.” Sorry, but there it is.
cg
cg
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Hey thanks buddy! I don’t think she read far enough in to see that I am as against killing these doctors as I am against the killing of the fetus…
c’mon, Pat, give me a little credit…:)
LikeLike
March 15, 2010 at 7:31 pm
As they say in Chile, “No hay por que,” James. You’re welcome.
cg
LikeLike