When my brother was born, my mom got to hold him in her arms for a few minutes. Later, she told me that, IN SPITE of the way things ended, she was still glad she hadn’t had the abortion, because she’d at least had him for the nine months he grew inside her and the few minutes she got to told him.

LGM, people like you make me sick. Never presume to tell anyone what is best for them. Regardless of how things turned out in the end, the Harris family did not feel that was best for them and ultimately, theirs is the only opinion that counts.

But I have to weigh that with the pragmatic concerns of America today. And I don’t think women should be forced to bear children if what’s inside of them is scientifically not human.

What do you think are “pragmatic concerns”?

I have to disagree on the last part, however (that probably doesn’t surprise you ). An embryo – even in its earliest stages of development – is distinctly human. It does not have chicken DNA or gorilla DNA, but human DNA. So that child is human, even if it’s not developed.

These are nice chats. It’s nice to be able to rationally debate a heated topic without being called a troglodyte, or some of the other hysterical pejoratives I’ve had hurled at me.

We may not agree on everything, but you are respectful and I appreciate that.

I think we can find common ground in your personal decision to avoid chemical birth control on moral grounds while still thinking it should be legal. I’m the same way regarding abortion. Some people are far too cavalier about it and that saddens me. Anyone who gets a D&X (or, ugh, “PBA”) to go to a rock concert is acting selfishly.

Then again, you probably hear “I’m pro-choice but anti-abortion” so much that that loses its significance.

Abortion should not be just another form of birth control. But I have to weigh that with the pragmatic concerns of America today. And I don’t think women should be forced to bear children if what’s inside of them is scientifically not human.

BTW, this was fun and enlightening. I love these chats, EQ.

On December 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am, lgm said:
This story is disturbing. A loving couple brought into the world, deliberately, a person whose entire life experience was gasping for breath and dying of respiratory failure. If ever there was an argument for abortion, this is it.

The parents may have been at ease and peaceful, but the child was in excruciating, needless, and pointless pain.

I see two sides to this. I also see someone who, to me, is looking at the parents in a very condescending manner. I take your post as saying “Well, if they had just aborted then everything would have been just fine with the world”, and it tears you up that they would choose the opposite.

He didn’t spend his entire life suffocating, he died in his mother’s tender arms, having accomplished his own precious & short life.

sunandsteel said (#67):

Why is it that you liberals think that abortion is the only answer if the baby will be born with a defect or some condition?

Abortion is mostly about convienience IMO. A child might alter your lifestyle so lets kill it like a common pest.

He was born without functioning lungs. This is more than a “defect”. He was doomed to die within minutes never having taken a breath. I am not saying the mother made the wrong decision. But you have to have eyes shut very tight not to see two sides to this question.

I believe there are health concerns with the use of the Pill and other chemical contraception (links to breast cancer, blood clots, etc).

And I still believe life begins at conception. So, from that perspective, I do not use chemical contraception…and while it is a teaching of the Catholic church, I know many people – both of other denominations and not particularly religious – who use Natural Family Planning (NFP) for reasons both religious and health related (including the environmental impact of birth control hormones on water and water-dwelling species).

However, while I find it personally objectionable, not every instance of contraception causes an abortion and most prevent ovulation to begin with. So to outlaw all contraception would be – to use your words – “extreme”.

I don’t disagree that sexuality is an important part of human nature.

However, sexuality without respect for the dignity of the person and life turns what should be an act of love into a mechanical performance. As I’ve argued above, it turns people from someone into something – from the man and the woman down to the child they create.

Women are designed, by nature, to have children. It may not seem fair to some who look at men and think they can have all the “free” sex they want, but women and men aren’t cut from the same cloth. That’s why I fight for the father’s right and hold both the mother and father equally responsible for their child.

Men and women aren’t the same. Never were. Never will be. They are to be treated with respect and dignity, but the inherent biological, mental, emotional, and physical differences between the sexes cannot be whitewashed through feminism or political correctness.

Dilation and extraction abortions are extremely rare. Horrifying anecdotes aside, it is used primarily to preserve the woman’s health. And, no, the fetuses terminated in these abortions are not viable.

I have to disagree with your statistics on PBA. While I don’t have the time to find the links here, much of the testimony by nurses who assisted with such procedures strongly contradicts the notion that the children are “not viable” moments before birth. And – as I mentioned above – some of the reasons for PBAs were as frivolous as the woman wanting to play sports or go to rock concerts…hardly life threatening problems, Rusty.

Even in instances where PBA *might* be used to save the mother’s life, why can’t the child be delivered? I refuse to go into the details of PBA here, but it would seem logical that it’s faster, safer, and morally sound to deliver the child rather than do what PBA does.

The physical problems you describe are incredibly rare and are more common in childbirth than abortions.

I don’t have statistics here, and while in some instances childbirth is risky, abortion *does* cause harm and I would venture a guess that a vast majority of women who give birth don’t regret that decision (whether they kept or gave up the child for adoption) as much as women who’ve had an abortion. Project Rachel is one of the groups that help post-abortive women and men – some of their stories, and their regrets, are deeply profound.

Beyond that, many of the women who’ve had abortions felt coerced or were strong-armed into doing so, or were led to do so by an older adult – especially men sexually involved with underage girls. Look at the case against Planned Parenthood for violation of laws requiring notification of abuse of a minor. That behavior is not about “choice” or “women’s health” – that’s about helping criminals and abusers hide evidence of their crimes.

Add to that the fact that many pro-choice proponents rabidly fight against informed choice (like letting women view ultrasounds, and access to alternative help) simply because many women then *choose* not to have an abortion, and it makes me question their motives. I’ve also come across rather rabid pro-choice folks who openly criticize and mock women and men who mourn abortions they’ve regretted.

I believe abortion laws should be a states’ right issue and that Roe v. Wade, on a federal level, must be overturned. It too is “bad law” and this is an issue that should be decided by the people and votes, not a wily interpretation of the Constitution and the “right to privacy”.

Ultimately, you’re right in saying the issue of abortion can’t be legislated out of existence. I understand that, and I don’t think it would happen if abortion were a states’ right issue. Abortion needs to fade away through a conversion of heart and mind. Which can be done through many things – including open and honest discussion of the issues and allowing women access to ultrasounds and information on crisis pregnancy centers and other forms of aid.

I appreciate that you’re being respectful throughout this debate.

I am ok with birth control, pills, IUD’s and all that. What disturbs me is abortion as birth control. I have been around a few girls who have done that because they were fooling around or they didnt want to be a mom yet. And I have been around guys who didnt want to be a father to the child they helped create.

How am I not being an adult by implying that if a woman doesnt want to be bothered by a child that she should not procreate?

Because your language betrays you. EQ and I were haveing a serious and respectful argument and you have the audacity to talk about women “putting out.” As if it’s only her fault. Men can be expected to have sex, but a woman who does the same should be ashamed. If you wanted to say “people who have sex must be prepared for the consequences,” you would have said that. But instead you used language meant to annoy that blamed only women.

Finally, sunandsteel, shut the Heck up. The adults are trying to talk.

Ohh, the adults, lol. Good comeback. How am I not being an adult by implying that if a woman doesnt want to be bothered by a child that she should not procreate? Or are you just another liberal who says crap like that cause you dont have a good explanation.

“Because it’s not a person when it’s the size of a dime and can’t breathe on its own since it doesn’t have lungs. A person becomes a person when it can remain viable outside of the womb.”

So many statements upon which to comment, so little time…*sigh*….

Here is but one example, albeit a good, illustrative (there’s that word again!) one, of the many with which we have been provided, of the arrogance of a certain worldview.

Nothing more needs to be added.

Does ANYONE actually believe we are not involved in a deeply serious culture war?

Example # 1 gazillion of, “If you have to explain it to someone, they’ll never understand.”

Yes. Life begins at conception.

So you think Plan B, birth control (pills, the ring, the patch), and IUDs should all be outlawed? Because if you believe abortion should be illegal because it takes a life and “life begins at conception,” then your logical position is incredibly extreme. That only leaves condoms, calendars, and coitus interruptus. And those forms of birth control are unreliable.

Of course, that leaves the most reliable birth control: abstinence. Which is a pipe dream. Sexuality is a very important part of humanity and, frankly, is a civil right. People are going to have sex and people should have sex as responsibly as possible. But your position on birth control makes responsible sex impossible.

Given Planned Parenthood’s shady legal behavior, and the countless resources created to counsel post-abortive women (and men), plus the very real problems women have after abortion (trouble conceiving, trouble carrying a “wanted” pregnancy to term, etc.) – there are risks.

The physical problems you describe are incredibly rare and are more common in childbirth than abortions.

And of course abortion is a tough choice that isn’t right for many. Which is why they have a choice. Families like the Harrises can choose to carry to term and that decision is right for them. Good! But it’s not right for everyone. Some families aren’t ready.

It also gives rise to partial-birth abortion – where in children who are perfectly healthy, and – in your words – could live outside the womb, are killed moments before birth.

Dilation and extraction abortions are extremely rare. Horrifying anecdotes aside, it is used primarily to preserve the woman’s health. And, no, the fetuses terminated in these abortions are not viable.

EQ, I respect your position greatly. It just doesn’t make for good law. What’s right for you isn’t right for most others.

Finally, sunandsteel, shut the Heck up. The adults are trying to talk.

As for the adoption angle, yeah, I wish more people took that option seriously. But that’s a huge time, emotional, and physical commitment. And if someone in their first or second trimester doesn’t want to make that sacrifice, they shouldn’t have to.

Maybe the woman should have thought about the possible “sacrifice” when she was putting out.

Where do you draw the line? Conception?

Yes. Life begins at conception. Your “life begins when they can live outside the womb” position is all well and good – especially since it gives rise to folks like Peter Singer, who think children (up to age 1) aren’t really human and should be killed at any time.

It also gives rise to partial-birth abortion – where in children who are perfectly healthy, and – in your words – could live outside the womb, are killed moments before birth. Some of these children were killed for reasons as specious as the mother wanted to play sports or worried she wouldn’t be able to go to rock concerts.

That goes far beyond the typical liberal argument of keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” and in cases “for the life of the mother” and rape and incest, doesn’t it?

As for the adoption angle, yeah, I wish more people took that option seriously. But that’s a huge time, emotional, and physical commitment.

And abortion isn’t? You act as if going down to Planned Parenthood is no different from going to the hair salon. Given Planned Parenthood’s shady legal behavior, and the countless resources created to counsel post-abortive women (and men), plus the very real problems women have after abortion (trouble conceiving, trouble carrying a “wanted” pregnancy to term, etc.) – there are risks.

As I said above, the time to be “pro-choice” comes before the child is conceived. Not after.

That’s such a cop-out. Look at this ultrasound photo. That is clearly a developing person. A person.

Ok. Where do you draw the line? Conception? A month? Because it’s not a person when it’s the size of a dime and can’t breathe on its own since it doesn’t have lungs. A person becomes a person when it can remain viable outside of the womb. That’s – and this is being charitable – a good five months in.

I find it disturbing that you have no problem with a woman undergoing a severe, potentially deadly, unnatural medical procedure…

You know what’s deadlier than abortion? Childbirth!

As for the adoption angle, yeah, I wish more people took that option seriously. But that’s a huge time, emotional, and physical commitment. And if someone in their first or second trimester doesn’t want to make that sacrifice, they shouldn’t have to.

I don’t know what part of the country you call home, but you may enjoy the movie Juno. It’s only out on 40 screens across the country, but it’s a pretty great film. And it treats adoption and family responsibility very seriously (while not condemning abortion either). It may not be your cup of tea, but I imagine adoption proponents will be ecstatic with the film.