Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Network in Spain televises an abortion
A television network in Spain has shown an abortion on national television, LifeSite.com reports. (WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC. If you can’t stand the visual truth about abortion, don’t click on the foregoing link. The link is to an article, not the video, but still contains a picture of a dismembered baby.)
The video, shot during a hidden-camera exposé on Spain’s abortion industry, shows a nurse injecting deadly poison into the fetus through the vagina of a pregnant woman, who then expels her dead child, about five months old. The doctor immediately covers the body.
“The baby is born dead. His cradle: a trash can,” says the commentator in voice-over on the tape. An abortion of the baby of a second woman is also shown . . .
Later, the undercover reporter examines one of the dead children. “Hands, feet, a face. The cadaver of a human being,” the commentator notes. The doctor, a woman, remarks that the baby is 21 weeks old, but says she “never” looks at the bodies of the fetuses.
“Never?” asks the undercover reporter, who is posing as a doctor looking for work at the clinic. “Never,” the woman repeats “Never, never, never again!”
A pro-life activist emailed me this story, wondering how such a broadcast in America might affect public opinion on abortion.
back to top97 Comments to “Network in Spain televises an abortion”
Anyone “pro-choice” should follow the links to this video. Look at what you support.
Report comment to moderator
If they don’t believe Moses & the Prophets, they will not believe even if One should rise from the dead.
Sadly,I don’t expect enough (any?) will change after seeing this video either.
Report comment to moderator
In my experience, “pro-choicers” just get mad at *you* when you show them pictures. (I have an extended family full of them.) The enlightened consider this to be in very poor taste!
How dare we!
Report comment to moderator
Janie, the anger thing is a device used by those who have run out of arguments. When you see a dead body–especially one that was alive only moments before–it is hard to argue that it is not murder.
In the presense of dead bodies the argument that maybe the mother was raped (less than 1%) comes off badly.
Or the distracting arguments, “Well, why do pro-lifers believe in the death penalty?” When many pro-lifers don’t.
Any thing to keep from dealing with what is obvious from the pictures. It’s like saying the holocaust didn’t happen; the pictures of all those piles of bodies were staged, etc.
Report comment to moderator
If only our media were brave enough to show something like this on television – or in a newspaper for that matter. We can only hope. It’s tough to fight for abortion when faced with the reality of it.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, this is a quiet thread. I can almost hear the crickets.
Report comment to moderator
Chirp chirp chirp
Report comment to moderator
Adios #4,
I think you’re right on there. (I’ll never forget the day I finally got my mother to admit that a human life was “probably” being taken. She said, “well, it’s justified though. It is a parasite on the mother’s body. If she doesn’t want it there, she has a right to get rid of it.”)
I was stunned. My younger sister looked at me and said, “well, I guess we’re lucky to be alive.”
Report comment to moderator
You need to make your warning even bigger and in bolder type. I lost it on the pieces of body parts. Intellectually I’ve always known it to be true, but to see them lined up like that . . .
A crisis pregnancy center prayer group I was in used to pray for the health care workers having to count the limbs . . . we couldn’t imagine the nightmares they must have. Having now seen a photo, it’s even worse than I imagined.
And if you try to show a photo, you’re considered the zealot, not those who perform the acts. How can their hearts be anything but hardened?
Report comment to moderator
I have no objection to televising abortions. I didn’t watch it because I am on a break at work, work, so it is probably not a good place or time. I will watch it on my own computer in privacy.
I think executions should also be televised and public.
People should also have the opportunity to watch wars if there is a way to make it reasonably safe for the audience.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
I increased the visibility on my warning.
Report comment to moderator
I am trying to work up the nerve to watch the video.
Don’t know if I can…
That’s why I’ve been silent.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my goodness..
I didn’t watch the video, but I read part of the text and saw the pictures. I clicked off immediately. I don’t think I’ll ever get over that.
The photos show the sad ugly truth. The doctor’s description of the procedure was awful.
I am deeply, deeply saddened and disturbed and sickened. Abortion is a horrible thing. I can’t believe I actually saw a dismembered, dead baby.
How incredibly sad and tragic.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn- The thread is quiet because there is not much one can say when faced with the truth other than “Oh, my!”
I remember in the 80s, I was a member of the college pro-life group. We would set up a TV in the entrance to the admin building and show a video with graphic pictures of aborted babies. Needless to say there was much oposition, especially when the local N.O.W. president came through on her way to her office.
Report comment to moderator
This is an abortion of a five-month-old fetus. Every state in the US is free to outlaw such abortions except for a few narrow circumstances. How, then is this video relevant to the abortion debate in the US, which is typically focused on early-term abortion?
The republishing of this video is disingenuous because the author fails to point out that abortions such as the one depicted are already vanishingly rare in this country. The video is presented as though it were a typical abortion.
The anti-abortion lobby claims that is bases its position on the “truth” that protectable human life begins at conception. Yet anti-abortion folks persistently play fast and loose with the truth when it suits their policy ambitions. These tendencies toward mendacity seem to belie the anti-abortion lobby’s purported concern for truth.
It is ironic that abortion may indeed remain legal in America because its staunchest opponents are seen as being little better than snake oil salesmen (or in some folks’ case, used car salesmen).
Report comment to moderator
I’m unable to watch the video but wouldn’t if I could. I don’t need to watch it to know how horribly wrong this is. I have seen pictures of these dismembered babies and as EYG says, the photos show the “sad ugly truth.”
As difficult as this topic is, Lynn, you are right in keeping it before us.
And yes it is very quiet on here – although we’ll still get those who deny or make their excuses.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi, are you saying that 20+ week abortions don’t happen in this country? Are you saying that there is no argument that they should be outlawed?
If so, we’ve found something rare: common ground in the abortion debate.
Report comment to moderator
I couldn’t bear to look.
I had an ultrasound at 20 weeks for my latest little guy (now 3 mos. old). I could see his beating heart, the dark spots that were his kidneys, the tiny spine and ribcage, the little waving arms, the profile so similar to his brothers’. He looked at one point as though he was sucking his thumb.
My husband had a medical school classmate whose sister worked for Planned Parenthood. This woman had bought into the idea that at 20 weeks gestation, it’s “just a blob of tissue”. I imagine she sees things a little differently now that’s she been through an obstetrics rotation.
Another of his classmates, walking with the obstetrician he was shadowing that day but not really knowing where he was going, accompanied the doctor, who had just performed an abortion, to the room, tucked away in the bowels of the hospital, where they inventory the body parts. He was very shaken by that experience, rightly so.
I think that hardened hearts are the only explanation for why the scourge of abortion continues around the world.
Report comment to moderator
#15, It is indeed amazing how human beings can twist truth. So it is really the pro-lifers who are responsible for abortions being done! I don’t need to look either, as I saw this long ago. Have you ever seen the look on the face of a young woman who was told that it was just a blob of tissue and then saw something similar to this after having had an abortion? There is none so blind as those who will not see.
Report comment to moderator
I looked at the pictures.
I imagine the founding fathers would be heartily ashamed of the country they started.
Report comment to moderator
adios – I get the “hit” about not opposing capital punishment (in principle – I live in a state that is incapable of fairly administering such a program and I don’t believe we should have it here until we can fix the “justice” system).
I have a simple answer – I don’t have a problem with the guilty being executed, only with the innocent being executed.
Report comment to moderator
gross
Report comment to moderator
I was converted to the pro-life cause, years ago, by seeing a similar video.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting that the only “opposition” commentary so far has been a disingenuous attempt by Kiyoshi to change the topic.
Report comment to moderator
DR
Opposition posts on choice on this board, are I have found an exercise in futility. You can make the point as I have that a pro-choice position is just that, not a position that forces a woman to abort or not to abort. You can say yes its an awful and a times as demonstrated by this video a brutal procedure. You can make the point that no where in scripture (except vague generalities about life) is abortion prohibited. You can be logical, it makes no difference as folks on this board have incorporated the anti-choice position as part of their religious creed and it is nearly impossible to argue a matter faith in any constructive kind of way.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting, coyote. I seem to remember a commandment about “murder.” Ending the life of an innocent human qualifies.
Report comment to moderator
Go watch the video, then come back and explain how this is about “choice.”
Report comment to moderator
“The republishing of this video is disingenuous because the author fails to point out that abortions such as the one depicted are already vanishingly rare in this country.”
Sigh… am I hallucinating or was it not that long ago the Partial Birth Abortions were a real hot topic? That’s not “early term” as I understand it. And the “pro-choice” rabble were defending that scant months ago!!!!
Interesting that you should actually agree (as StuBob points out) that this procedure is pretty murderous, and should be limited to the early terms. My question is, if late term abortions are so horrendous, why allow even early term abortions? The fact that we should be limiting the horror of late term abortions seems to lend a lot of strength to the argument that life begins at conception, and not some arbitrary point of fetal development.
Seems to me the pro-choice crowd are the ones who are “playing fast and loose”. There’s no logic to their arguments.
Report comment to moderator
“You can make the point that no where in scripture (except vague generalities about life) is abortion prohibited.”
Wow. As long as I’ve been blogging on WMB, I’ve never seen you have such a weak, illogical, and unreasonable stance…
Your statement; “vague generalities about life” is a real stretch honey. I wish you’d reconsider.
That all life belongs to God because he is the creator of it, is not a “vague” concept. And neither is the command “Thou shalt not Murder”. (As opposed to the stupid translation that substitutes “kill” for “murder”.) Although that commandment is stated in the negative, it’s meant in a positive way – to protect life! YOUR LIFE! MY LIFE! A DEFENSLESS LIFE! If you are in some way helpless to defend yourself, then this is a command to those who would take advantage of that. In this case the fetus cannot protect themselves from the very people who should be caring and nurturing them! It’s horrendous to even contemplate, and arguments in the face of the brutal truth of abortion are weak and cowardly. If an early term abortion were shown, I doubt very much whether the impact would be much less.
Report comment to moderator
“Opposition posts on choice on this board, are I have found an exercise in futility.”
I know what you’re talking about. I’ve also found it hard to sustain unconscionable positions for any length of time. The moral cramps…Oy!
Report comment to moderator
Don’t know if I will watch it, I have seen pics before and believe strongly that killing small children is wrong. But I might to get a reminder. I am currently looking through Randy Alcorn’s book on abortion and, as I recall, he points out that the same doctor who did the in womb surgery on the little spina bifida baby who is videotaped reaching out to touch his hand continues to perform abortions. This brings us to Jeremiah 17: “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick, who can understand it?” and 10: “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind. Even to give to each man according to the results of his deeds.”
Report comment to moderator
Posts 26, 29 and 30. Why thank you for so elegantly making my point. There is of course, the preceding debate on abortion about when human life begins. Your argument MIM hinges on that in order to take the position that you do. Murder is prohibited is vague. Because the rul basically is unless there are extenuating circumstances — war, self-defense, etc. Your emotions cause you to react so strongly, and that’s ok, but it does make having a rationale conceversation on this topic, as it is also now a part of your faith, impossible. If I write about this much more it will only be minutes to the Baby-killing, God-hating, Commie, liberal, traitor scum diatribe starts coming from or at least being thought by a number of the more virulently “pro-life” on these boards.
Report comment to moderator
“Choice” is the followup question. The primary question is “Is what this video shows ever acceptable?” If the answer is “yes,” then the followup is “Under what circumstances?”
If the answer is “no,” then there is no discussion of “choice.”
Report comment to moderator
Interesting, drb. I seem to remember a commandment about “murder.” Ending the life of ANY human qualifies. Yet that doesn’t stop so-called evangelicals from supporting the death penalty. God decides innocence and guilt. Human judgments are imperfect and thus the death penalty is never appropriate.
The video demonstrates that abortion is disgusting and that fetuses have (surprise!) human form. Well, duh. Show the video all you want. Try to educate people to reduce the incidence of abortion. But legislating your position is a completely different issue.
You might get further in your advocacy, and find more common ground, if you would separate the two issues and focus on reducing abortions.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer,
Evangelicals who support the death penalty (as I do) do so because God Himself commands it. (No, it’s not only Old Testament–in the New Testament rulers still bear “the sword.”) In other words, God doesn’t call it murder to execute someone for killing someone else, so we cannot call it murder either.
But guess what? That’s off topic here. There’s no question that with abortion we’re talking about killing innocent life, not murderers.
Report comment to moderator
Is the practice shown in this video ever acceptable? Watch the video before answering.
CB?
DCL?
Report comment to moderator
RE 35. Well said, Cheryl D.
RE 36. I can already hear the crickets chirping.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
Calling capital punishment murder is a typical liberal response to being told abortion is murder. Instead of addressing the issue of abortion, they’d rather say “but you murder too!” They KNOW they’re making an obviously inane and unsupportable argument, but they’ve got nothing better to argue with.
DC Lawyer stated “ending the life of ANY human qualifies.” Apparently DC Lawyer believes individuals do NOT have a right to life because she’s stating that lethal self defense is also murder.
Report comment to moderator
Is the practice shown in this video ever acceptable? Watch the video before answering.
CB?
DCL?
I will be interested to hear the response…
Report comment to moderator
For me, no. I support the partial birth abortion ban and parental notification (with exceptions for incest). Do I think I have the right to impose my view on someone else? No. Abortion *nd unwanted pregnancies are extremely difficult and the situations can vary in the extreme. I am not competent to make that decision for you or anyone else. Do I think it is ok to air a video like this? Yes. It is graphic and not the cartoon violence we are so used to in America but still when splayed body parts are entertainment, it makes no sense to prevent a program for education.
On the murder aspect, I don’t know when life begins. Many on this board are certain that you do. OK, but reasonable people don’t agree. Why should your conception of morality be enforced over theirs? (Erf, did not mean to pun, sorry about that.). Because you cite generalities about sanctity of life and then tie that to the commandment on murder? And if there is disagreement with your logic does that then make the person in disagreement somehow evil?
Sorry for felayed responses, work gets intense and there is not always time to respond.
Report comment to moderator
For me, no. I support the partial birth abortion ban and parental notification (with exceptions for incest). Do I think I have the right to impose my view on someone else?
In certain cases, I would argue, yes. Some things are objectively evil and should be stopped. Torture. Slavery. Racism. Murder. The killing of the defenseless.
What has happened is that the twin American cultures of convenience and “tolerance” have numbed our consciences so that we no longer feel able to call evil by its right name. We have elevated the ethic “live and let live” to the point that it has become “live and let die” — so much so that those who dare not to embrace “live and let die” are themselves condemned.
Let me emphasize that our refusal to impose our moral views on others is a cultural phenomenon that we apply mainly to ourselves.
Example: We Americans have no problem condemning the genital mutilation of young girls in Muslim countries. We are willing to say that such a practice is objectively cruel. But why? To adapt CB’s question, who are we to say that grinding off a girl’s clitoris is wrong? After all, it’s part of someone else’s culture.
I don’t think many here who are arguing that we shouldn’t try to stop what’s happening in that video — an action CB euphemisticallly calls “imposing our view” — would stand idly by and watch a group of men mutilate a young girl’s genitals. Why? Because it is objectively evil, empirically cruel.
If another culture’s human rights abuses can be viewed as objectively evil, then why not ours? If we would stop a group of men from mutilating a girl, why shouldn’t we try to stop others from killing a baby?
“Because abortion is legal” isn’t an argument. Slavery once was legal and yet we all “impose our views” on it today.
So the answer to your question, CB, is yes, there are times to impose your moral views on others. In fact, that’s the basis of our criminal justice system. Murder, rape, theft — all crimes against society’s shared morality.
It just so happens the justice system got this crime — the killing of the defenseless unborn — wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn
Thank you. I have spoken with people at length on the pro-life style. You are the first that gave a more objective argument using clear examples. You have given me somthing to think about.
Report comment to moderator
Those who purpose in their heart to stray from God, will look upon abortion much differently than those of us who call it murder –
Executing infants as a way to appease the girl/woman of her responsibility and then calling it a choice is; NO CHOICE for the child, the choice is for the selfish girl/woman who thinks only of herself –
If we believe in God we don’t have a choice to do evil, and then believe we had that right – Those who continue in their evil ways are given over to a reprobate mind, (Romans 1:28) which means their conscience no longer bothers them –
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28
We may not be able to stop all the crimes, all the pain around the world, but we can certainly make our voices heard here in the US against EXECUTING the unborn – What crime did they committ to deserve such a death?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
Note for your file on speaking to the evil among you: See above and how Lynn V handled it. Now read your post. Between her post 41 and your post 43 which one do you think a pro-choicer is going to listen to and which one will they immediately dismiss? If all you want to do is condemn those who don’t share your view and widen the gaps, by all means, keep thumping that Bible. If you actually want to reach people then look for common ground. Lynn did that with me because she knows I work in the human rights field and has read carefully and hence has given me something to think about to the extent where I may change my position. You on the other hand present the same name-calling tone the Christian right has developed a well-deserved reputation for deploying.
Report comment to moderator
#44 CoyoteBlue,
Excellent point. Although many evangelicals may be what I call “objectively correct”, some of them have very bad manners.
Report comment to moderator
If this isn’t the most illogical argument ever, I don’t know what is…
Your use of the words “Never” and “Any” defy all common sense.
“Any” taking of human life qualifies as murder? Even when God perscribes it? You are being extremely illogical.
The death penalty is “never” appropriate? Even when God says those who do murder must die? Again, you are being extremely illogical.
Killing and Murder are not synonymous no matter how much to try to mush them together. Please make a distinction between killing and murder. Don’t you ever wonder why a person is not convicted of murder if they kill someone in self-defense? It’s NOT the same thing…
Report comment to moderator
Coyote,
I hope you will forgive me if I’ve had the “bad manners” that Janie alludes to. I have more respect for your even-tempered posts than for most bloggers here, and I don’t mean to be rude.
I struggle to be reasonable and put forth the effort that Lynn has in her post because what she says in that post seems so glaringly obvious! I get frustrated that folks use the argument “can’t impose morality upon others” argument because it’s so obviously false. Please forgive my impatience in the matter, and thank you for being considerate and reasonable. And even more, thank you for keeping an open mind, and thinking about the issue.
Kudos to Lynn for her eloquent and emminently reasonable statement.
Report comment to moderator
#47 It always amazes me that people still use the arguement ” can’t impose our morallity on others”. That statement defies the law of non-contradiction, which means it contradicts itsself, which means it is a false statement.
The person who says that statement is impossing their morality on me, while at the same time stating that no one can impose their morality on others. ( it contradicts itself)
It also doesn’t make any sense, because all laws are based on some ones morality. Why not base laws on the highest expression of morality available?
Report comment to moderator
The idea behind “not imposing our morality on others” is that it distinguishes between laws that have another purpose – to protect members of society from hurt by others – and those that do not. While you could make an argument that any behavior that is morally wrong (according to the person making the argument) will eventually hurt other people, a society would not be well-served to have people’s every act scrutinized as to its moral value with a view to legal action.
Many of the big debates over what laws are appropriate have to do with whether there is a clear link (if any at all) between behavior and hurting others. The arguments regarding laws to restrict or ban smoking, whether to allow gays to marry/adopt children), and environmental regulations, all have to do with whether a certain behavior leads to harm of others or not.
The issue with abortion is whether it is a person who is being killed, or simply some tissue in the mother’s body that has no personhood yet. If the developing baby is a person, then preventing abortion is a moral issue comparable to preventing any other murder. If not, then the “imposing morality on others” argument applies, same as if we legally required people to attend church or tithe.
I find some of the Bible verses quoted to support “life begins at conception” to be weak arguments, but from a practical stance, either conception or implantation seems to be the only place to draw a clear line, past which we can say the mother – and society – have a responsibility to protect that child.
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday the kids did the unusual. One picked up a book I had been reading and looked at it. It has the pic of the little hand reaching out of the womb during surgery. This opened up a rather lengthy discussion on responsibility and consequences and choices and such. Interesting that they are well informed through school and life to know a great deal about sex but had no idea what a young human looked like or that people often choose to kill them.
Report comment to moderator
MIM
It’s ok — we just all need to remember that what is obvious to one is not necessarily obvious to another.
Fivess
See Pauline’s statement.
That which is called moral is sometimes a matter of perspective (see Lynn’s statement).
The highest expression of morality — such as feeding the hungry, housing the poor? Which standards would say must be used and how are those to be judged?
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue – 44
I have heard your argument before from those who are pro-choice, believe that homosexuality is not a sin, have turned from God, OR no longer believe, (if they ever did) that the Bible is inspired – The first point, which involves the sins of this world, is to believe that the Bible isn’t the inspired Word of God. In this way, man can make up his own rules and laws, forgetting God Almighty –
The comments are made much as those you have posted to me, making a comparison which doesn’t agree with their beliefs but OFFERS an appeal to soften the harsh reality of the ‘execution’ of the unborn – The HARSH reality is not accepted, …….however a SOFTER approach is deemed acceptable, only to SILENCE the UGLINESS and HORROR of abortion –
I was there when they buried over 16,000 infants back in the late 80’s, I was there when about 350 of us stood, in front of six newly dug graves under a tent – we stood there, waiting for the hearse to arrive with the caskets it was the most awful, sad, mournful moment, ….. but when those 6 coffins where brought down, all polished wood, with all those thousands of infants, it was more than we could fathom. The measure of grief knowing that over 16,000 human beings were all fitted into those coffins, never to grow up, never to have a chance to live, it was a space in time which couldn’t be measured –
I had been involved with Pro-LIFE, but from that day on, I realized there was NO SOFT approach that would appeal to those intent on making these laws stick, or those who were making it easier for girls/women to obtain abortions – Every kind of approach had/has been made to help people understand, but alas……the EARS are closed, just as they are to other sins –
NO, I will not be filing and noting your request because it simply doesn’t work, however it is often used as you tried and failed to convince me, that approaching abortion in a different way is more TOLERABLE – For you yes, but for the unborn, it has no validity, their lives are snuffed out as I write this post – SILENCE is permanent when an infant is torn from the womb, but those of us who stand together against this atrocity, are NOT SILENT.
Report comment to moderator
Pay attention to the exchange between Lynn and CoyoteBlue.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds good doesn’t it?
These exchanges are nothing new when one is pro-choice …. its often said they will consider it, perhaps even ‘changing their position’-
Report comment to moderator
CB wrote: Your emotions cause you to react so strongly, and that’s ok, but it does make having a rationale conceversation on this topic, as it is also now a part of your faith, impossible.”
Typos aside, which I suspect are a result of emotion, I hope the day never comes when the vast majority of people do not become emotional over such pictures. I guess pro-choice doesn’t really mean making a fully informed choice. The pro-choice people never want these things — the truth of what is happening — to be seen. That’s dishonest. Pro-choice people never want to talk about the consequences of the conduct they endorse and promote, whether it is pre-marital sex by young teens or abortions. And yes, it is because of the hardness of hearts of the liberals in this country that children are now engaging in pre-teen sex. How any of you wish that pressure on little girls (and boys) is beyond me. They should be sheltered and protected. So, yes, as Victoria says, silence is not a good thing.
I, for one, am glad this was televised, and I do wish it would be televised here. Lynn has made an excellent argument. I hope our liberal friends read it several times and try to refute it. I don’t think they can.
Report comment to moderator
NJ
Typos were the result of using a blackberry. And generally, I typo, alot — a slight bit of dyslexia would be the cause of that. Sorry for them as I know they are distracting.
Victoria
There’s really no point to even trying to have a discussion with you as you have already judged that you know who I am and what I think on the very surface basis of what you have seen me write on this blog. You lost me with the first sentence. It is a shame, because I suspect that in person you may actually display the compassion and love from Christ that you state so loudly that you have.
Report comment to moderator
Since I am currently 21 weeks pregnant and have experienced 2 misscarriages myself, I know that I could not handle the pictures or the video right now. Personally I do not understand how any women could feel her unborn child moving and kicking in the womb and choose to destroy it. If I tap my tummy, my baby will kick back right where I pushed it. The thought of discarding that little human life as if I personally have some sort of right to decide who lives and who dies on this earth just doesn’t make sense to me. I have yet to meet the human I would hand the power of life or death to. Can you imagine if one person had the power to decide if anyone had the right to live or die? It would be like Hitler on Steroids.
Report comment to moderator
Well now. That argument that the needs of the mother outweigh the life of the child seems to ring a little hollow….
Where’s Adam Beckham now?
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue – 32 and 56
CoyoteBlue – 32
Your comments above accuse others of their “emotions” however, that doesn’t fly when it comes to your outburst later telling people all the ‘NAMES THEY WILL CALL YOU’ – …….’emotional’……. should be reversed in this paragraph – You are not able to have a discussion without taking the FIRST STEP in accusing others what they ‘might’ call you, as you say above “Baby-killing, God-hating, Commie, liberal, traitor scum” Except for being called “liberal” I have NEVER read a post where anyone called you even one of these names –
——————–
CoyoteBlue – 56
CoyoteBlue, if you bother to look at your post 32 above you don’t have a discussion, you blast away at what you dramatically accuse people of saying, OR their thought . . . who haven’t called you any names at all, and if that doesn’t cover it, you end it with, ……”If I write about this much more it will only be minutes to the Baby-killing, God-hating, Commie, liberal, traitor scum diatribe starts coming from or at least being thought”…. ………you actually believe you know how people think? If they don’t post it, then they must at least “or at least being thought” …. that isn’t rational, you don’t know my “thought” anymore than you know anyone else’s -
I only know who you say you are on this blog, and the beliefs you have posted as being yours, that’s all any of us would have to base our conclusions on – no one has a ‘crystal ball’ –
If displaying Christ’s love means condoning sin in any fashion that wouldn’t make sense – Christ didn’t condone sin nor did He have compassion for sin. Christ had compassion for the sinner, as he said to the woman caught in adultery, “sin no more” she didn’t have options, and we don’t either –
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
John 8:11
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure that I will be of any help to Coyote Blue, though I am closer to her than I am to the general point of view here.
In general, I am more in favor of positive reinforcement and encouragement than I am in favor of punishment and threats as deterrence.
I am against capital punishment. It is not a priority issue for me.
I am uninterested in the argument that Jesus wants capital punishment. As a secular person, I consider it very dubious as an effective deterrent. However, I can’t think of any practical method of discouraging murderers by any positive reinforcement. (Except the one that I listed in my Cyberia series, but even I admit that suggestion was pretty silly.)
I am against punishing women for having abortions. I am against punishing doctors for performing abortions.
I imagine that there are many positive things that can be done to encourage women not to have abortions–to put it more positively–to bring children to term and give birth to them. I think there are many parents who wish to adopt and sometimes it may be harder than it needs to be to allow or facilitate adoption, though some filtering to encourage responsible adoptive parents also seems appropriate.
As I’ve mentioned, when my wife and I were newly married we found ourselves expecting a baby we had not planned on. We thought about abortion and did not pursue the idea. The baby kept me from being drafted for Vietnam. I don’t know if that qualifies as no bad deed goes unrewarded or a good deed that didn’t get punished.
My brother and his wife (a head nurse at a maternity department of a large hospital at the time), both secular people like me, after raising two children had what she called an “oopsie” and found themselves expecting. Like us they thought about abortion, but bore the child. (I just saw a picture of him a few days ago, now 15.)
I am sure many people here do many positive things to help people find reasons not to have abortions.
Again, as a secular, not-at-all-religious-person, my pragmatic point of view is that more unborn children will be saved by positive encouragements than by punitive deterrents.
That’s about as far as I can get in responding to this topic. I’m not sure even CB finds anything to agree with in my twee comment. (That will be my moniker for the coming week. I be twee.)
Preborn babies are twee?
My granddaughter with two mommies was looking at pictures of her Mommy when pregnant with fascination this morning before I took her to preschool, as well as pictures of herself as an infant. (She told me that she is 3 and three quarters, so I guess she is learning her math.)
Looking at pictures of herself as an infant she sometimes said “she” and sometimes said “I.”
Next time I see her I will show her the pictures again and tell her that she was twee as an infant.
Whether this will encourage her to be a sexually responsible person when she is old enough to be fertile and whether she will live in such a way that she never has to consider having an abortion I don’t know.
As usual, mileage will vary, except for Peter (that Peter, not the other Peter), whose non-twee mileage never varies. For that matter, he doesn’t need a brake pedal, either. Just get out of his non-wee way, or else.
Report comment to moderator
Random,
Your twee comments actually do make sense to me. If as much effort were put into cotraception as is poured into the pro-life movement, I would bet that there would be a decline. But gee, that’s awfully practical. Isn’t it more fun to generally make cranky at the folks who disagree? Why be practical when you can be a clanging cymbal?
Report comment to moderator
If as much effort were put into cotraception as is poured into the pro-life movement, I would bet that there would be a decline.
What would that look like? The effort, I mean. No amount of contraceptive education, counseling, or availability has ever been shown to decrease the incidence of unintended pregnancy or abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Contraception, what a novel idea –
The schools have been blowing steam over this idea for years, the kids know all about it, the adults have heard the word on this one, what does that prove?
Anyone who can read, has been told of every ‘method’ of birth control available, has that helped?
Do you think we need ‘LOUD SPEAKERS’ to spread the word?
WHOA….. and then someone comes up with a nifty idea, ‘lets pour all the money that would have been spent on PRO-LIFE into CONTRACEPTION’ ……. AT LAST there would be a decline – Anyone who falls for this tripe, isn’t reading, or falls asleep every other line – But more importantly has tried to detour, and derail the PRO-LIFE movement – I could say ‘nice try’ but with that sort of thinking its so transparent, as to be DULL-WITTED, but those who come up with these ideas are, thinking the rest of us will listen -
Report comment to moderator
Stubob
I think the lack of result is more likely due to the failure to make many contraceptives more easily available — but that is debatable no doubt there.
Victoria
While it is hardly worth the effort to explain it to you, the suggestion is not meant to preempt what pro-lifers are doing in the courts or legislatures but as a second track. Most people can figure out how to do two things at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
CB –
I posted this on the “British Contraception Controversy” (or something like that) thread a couple of days ago:
“Let’s do a little medical research, shall we?
This study showed that free, advance access to emergency contraception resulted in no decrease in the rates of abortion in a Scottish population: Glasier A, Fairhurst W et al. Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates. Contraception 69:361-366, 2004.
This study, from San Francisco, showed no decrease in the rate of unintended pregnancy when participants were given free, advance access to emergency contraception, as well as specific instructions on the use of Plan B: Raine T, Harper C, et al. Direct access to emergency contraception through pharmacies and effect on unintended pregnancy and STI’s: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 293:54-62, 2005.
So, giving people Plan B to keep in their purses doesn’t decrease the rate of unintended pregnancy or abortion. I have no idea what the Dorset health officials are hoping to accomplish, but the medical literature doesn’t support a conclusion that their plan will fix the problem they’re claiming to address.”
Completely unlimited access accomplishes nothing, evidently.
It’s probably a netiquette violation of some kind to quote myself, but I think it’s important to use the most credible source to make one’s point!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for bearing with us CB, even if we don’t agree. I appreciate hearing your point of view because it gives me insight into the way people think with whom I talk.
I usually don’t agree with them either, but if I can understand where they’re coming from, I can help them see their situation from a slightly different angle. Sometimes it makes a difference, sometimes it doesn’t but it makes us all feel better about their choice.
Even when I don’t like it.
And StuBob, of course, is right on in his posting.
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue
______”While it is hardly worth the effort to explain it to you, the suggestion is not meant to preempt what pro-lifers are doing in the courts or legislatures but as a second track. Most people can figure out how to do two things at the same time.”_____
You forget, or it appears you need to have it explained to you again and again, contraception has been around for a long time, as Stubob points out. It’s available, but maybe you aren’t aware of that either, schools have been teaching about it endlessly, PERHAPS you didn’t know that either –
Do you keep up with all the sex education in public school? If you do, then you would understand that its a well worn subject, that ALL parents are aware of –
Contraception isn’t the answer, the answer is not having sex until one is married – That is such an old fashioned idea, so ‘twee’ as some of you like to say – It is God’s idea, His ways work. Man has never come up with a solution for sin apart from the LORD Jesus Christ, no matter how hard they try –
It’s not a matter of doing two (2) things at one time, ….. it’s a stand against pre-marital sex which causes pain and suffering for everyone involved -
Report comment to moderator
LOL StuBob — the most credible source would be you?
I wasn’t aware of those studies and do thank you for the education.
Michelle,
I appreciate the kind words. Sometimes there is common ground, even on hard issues. Agreement may not come on the underlying bases for taking an action, but if there is agreement on the action, then that’s not such a bad thing.
Victoria
Enough screeching for today, ok?
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue
Calm yourself, the drama isn’t necessary!
Report comment to moderator
Abortion and the death penalty are not two sides of the same coin at all. So stop the pretense that it is.
I notice that DCL hasn’t been back to the board since he was challenged yesterday.
What amazes me so much about the pro-choice position is its unwillingness to see the consequences of the behavior it endorses. Whether it is death by dismemberment or some other method used by an abortionist or STDs or AIDs, not to mention the psychological effects, they just don’t seem to be capable of seeing how all of this not only hurts the body but the soul. Maybe they don’t believe there is a soul.
Report comment to moderator
“Calm yourself, the drama isn’t necessary!”
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!
Report comment to moderator
I am not particularly optimistic about contraception as a magic bullet for problems caused by out-of-control human sexuality.
I am not particularly optimistic about prayer and sending children to Sunday School as a magic bullet for problems caused by out-of-control human sexuality.
The non-magic bullets would have to be fired one at a time at men’s private parts. I am not particularly optimistic about that method of birth control, either. Also, the market for men who sing with high voices has decreased a bit.
While I am much closer to Coyote Blue on this issue, my thought is still is to encourage people to have babies and give them up for adoption and my opposition is still to criminalizing abortion.
On the other hand, while the war in Iraq has been an effective way for conservative Christians to undercut their success in the political world, criminalizing abortion will be a brilliant way to end their stay in the end zone. Go for it.
As far as screeching on worldmagblog, that is so yesterday. As of next week, the proper mode of expressing yourself will be “tweeching.”
Report comment to moderator
“tweeching” . . . and again your “reaching” for something ‘twee’-
Are you all packed yet?
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
If you are still reading I’d be interested in your professional take on the following — got to looking at this when considering when life begins:
A few hours after conception when the ovum splits into two cells. Some regard human personhood as being defined by the first act of cell splitting.
bullet About two weeks after conception, when a yellow streak develops in the embryo. This will later become the neural tube which will be protected by the backbone. It develops into the brain and central nervous system. Once this develops, it is impossible for the embryo to split into a pair of identical twins. The concept of personhood implies a single entity; twins develop into two persons. After two weeks from conception, the embryo can no longer split and grow to become two persons. Some consider it a person at this stage.
0 3 weeks from conception when the embryo is about 2 mm long and has started to develop visible external body parts. It is no longer a blob of tissue.
0 At about 4 weeks. when its heart starts to beat.
0 6 weeks from conception, when primitive brain waves can be first sensed.
0 2 months, when the fetus has lost its neck structures which resemble gill slits, and its tail. Its face resembles that of a primate.
bullet 3 months the fetus begins to “look like” a baby. The recent development of high resolution 3-D ultrasound equipment provides incredibly detailed pictures of the fetus at this stage. These photographs are convincing many people that the fetus is a human person at this stage because it looks like one — even though none of its higher brain functions are functioning. 6
bullet 16 weeks: Fetal movement, often called quickening, is usually detectable by the 16th week of pregnancy. It is apparently an involuntary movement of arms and legs. The fetal brain is not developed to the point where the fetus is conscious at this stage in gestation.
0 4 months when the fetus’ face has developed to the point where one can tell one fetus from another.
bullet About 24 weeks, when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb) with current technology. When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question “So when does life begin?,” she answered: “If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo.” 7
0 At 26 weeks or later, when the fetal brain’s higher functions become operational. Scientists have: ” measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation.” 8 Carl Sagan discusses this point in his final book. He suggests that the one factor that is uniquely human is our ability to think. Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and “large-scale linking up of neurons” begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy — the sixth month.
0 Most Jewish traditions teach that a fetus becomes a full person usually when its head emerges from the birth canal.
0 Some believe that a personhood happens when a soul enters the body at some stage of gestation or — as in the case of some Aboriginals — after birth has taken place.
Report comment to moderator
CB–
Off the cuff:
-I’ve never heard of anyone defining personhood at the first cell division. Most people who believe life begins before implantation would place it at fertilization. At fertilization, two cells with 23 chromosomes each combine and form a single cell with 46 chromosomes. Only humans have 46 chromosomes, and each fertilization results in a unique, never-seen-before set of genes.
-Describing gestational ages in “months” and “weeks” in the same essay is confusing, and indicates that whoever wrote this doesn’t do embryology for a living. That sounds harsher — more elitist — than I mean for it to.
-The timing on heartbeats, brainwaves, and faces sounds roughly correct, but it’s been a while since I took a test on such details.
-This sentence is washed up: “The fetal brain is not developed to the point where the fetus is conscious at this stage in gestation.”
Nobody can say when a fetus becomes conscious, because no two people could agree on what they meant by that.
-When they talk about survival at 24 weeks, they’ve switched from a discussion of gestational weeks to menstrual weeks. 24 menstrual weeks is 22 gestational weeks. I can’t say if this is deliberately tricky or if the writer just doesn’t know better.
-24 menstrual weeks is about the lower limit of survival, although I’ve seen a few at 23 or 23 1/2. A very short time ago (late 80’s), it was more like 28 weeks. The big difference is the availability of surfactant, which improves lung function in preemies. This one new drug knocked four weeks off the lower limit of survival. Perhaps the next new drug will push it back to 20 weeks.
-Attributing moral status based on awareness of surroundings seems pretty arbitrary. Is it enough to be aware of hot and cold? If so, that awareness may be present in the mid-second trimester. Or, by “awareness,” does she mean “ability to interact?” That hardly seems fair, and the unintended consequences of using such a philosophy to set policy would be, well, worse than intended. Parents of autistic children, for example, would rightly fear such a thing.
-This essay makes it sound like there’s settled dogma on “higher functions.” That just isn’t so. As in the above point, it assumes there are steps where there is actually a gradient. At the time of birth, neural function is at a certain point. Regardless of where that point is, development continues into young adulthood. Imagine neural development as a car trip, driving from Cleveland to Denver. Sagan is essentially saying that you’re not really traveling until you’ve passed St. Louis. [Sorry -- it's the best I can do at this hour]
-I can’t speak to Jewish traditions. My conviction that personhood begins at conception is based on science, not Scripture. At conception, a totally new, 46-chromosome genotype is formed. This is a qualitative event. At every subsequent stage, the changes are quantitative. For instance, when Sagan talks about higher functions, he’s basically talking about a larger number of neurons or a larger quantity of a substance called “myelin” in the brain and nerves. It isn’t like nerves or myelin appear one day, having been absent the day before; it’s a gradual process.
Apologies where I’m not clear; I’ve been up for a long time.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
Thank you and you don’t sound elitist. Trying to make sense of the thing myself, which was why I asked you as a Doctor of Medicine. This was not an essay so much as a when does life begin for dummies and here in two thoughts or less is all the stuff they could find about it.
As I said above, Lynn made me think so I went into research mode a little. I read but always wind up asking experts as I find they do a better job explaining live questions than literature does. Where I am left is with at least a slightly better understanding and even sympathy for the folks who cry holocaust, as I now get what they are saying. Not sure I agree with them as the question seems kinda complex, but I understand going to the root and saying that if there is a life and no doubt that it is life, then it is murder. I think I understand that now. And they say understanding is the beginning of wisdom. Thank you for helping.
Report comment to moderator
I will be honest. There are conservative Christians on this web site who strike me as pleasant and considerate people.
There are conservative Christians on this web site who do not present a pleasant demeanor.
The honesty is that my decision not to be a Christian (or any other kind of religious believer) doesn’t depend on whether I find a particular believer pleasant or otherwise.
However, I do have to say, that whether they are reaching or screeching or tweeching, I find it hard to believe the people with the bitter, angry, obsessed demeanor imagine in the slightest that they are likely to draw very many people to their belief system.
Or that they would care for the people they might attract. But some people’s mileage really does vary, that’s for sure.
As Joan Armatrading sang in “Down to Zero”:
Oh the feeling
When you’re reeling
You step lightly thinking you’re number one
Down to zero with a word
Leaving
For another one
Now you walk with your feet
Back on the ground
Down to the ground
Down to the ground
Down to the ground
Down to the ground
Report comment to moderator
I’m gone when I’m gone.
I’m here while I’m here.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob, once again, sorry, to clarify my thought processes, such as they are: I had previously subscribed to the idea that we can’t know when life begins so calling abortion murder was, well an intuitive and absurd leap as well as an imposition of one’s morals based on uncertain suppositions. Vincent caused me to stop, explaining the consequences of that assumption. Pauline caused me to reexamine my own assumptions. Hence, my question to you. Now I am not so sure and really have to think a bit more, I may come out where Random is if I understand him correctly — do all we can to encourage life and adoption but not criminalize. But I am still mulling so I don’t know where I will end up.
Report comment to moderator
Random
And wherever you go, there you are. :O
Report comment to moderator
RN
Yep, that’s what I thought…..
So you are ‘backing out’. . . no one will be surprised if you are!
Report comment to moderator
As the passage of Scripture says below. How do we know how the bones grow in the womb? As SMALL MAN tries to figure out how an infant grows, its foolish to try and settle a case ‘against GOD’ as to when that small infant is a ‘real human’ how absurd, unlearned, and un-Godly to continue to argue against God, when HE alone forms the child from the womb. It’s a person, its formed by God, …. unless of course you believe you know as much or more than God. Lucifer believed he was equal, that he could make his own rules, and today we have a multitude of people who feel the same way.
How can any person who has ever been adopted question God’s plan? Do they wish they had not been born? Do they question at what point their bones were formed? What do all the questions have to do with God’s plan, as if the ’small person’ whom we are constantly question’s God’s work, as though HE needs an ‘overseer’ ?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
Elementary question. See predestination. If a person was not born then they were not known in the womb. Unless you believe in limbo or baptism for the dead.
Report comment to moderator
Ok on that last comment, I am still mulling when life begins, but Victoria brings out the worst in me. So she says. more or less, how can and adopted person scoff at the pot maker? And I reply easy, because the pot maker knows if the clay will be a pot or not. Who has more faith in the almighty, the one who says, ok, born, not born, that was meant to be, or the one who rails about not born?
Report comment to moderator
If it helps at all Victoria, my very native beliefed Mother tells me I chose to be born.
Somehow, though, I suspect that may not give you any comfort at all.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Her hypothesis is that there was something I needed to learn and so I chose to be where I am. American Indian spiritual belief (note, mileage varies on that not all native peoples have the same traditional beliefs but a great many are similar in their metaphysical thinking) is that all life touches itself beyond the time and space continuum. So when Pocahantas dreamed about the end of the Powhattan and how to maybe stop it well before John Smith arrived, the native explanation is that all things touch each other and she, in effect, was in the future. There are a great may native prophesies about the arrival of the Europeans and their own subsequent decline which may explain something of Joseph Smith’s “revelations” in the Book of Mormon, but I digress hugely from the topic.
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue
______”If it helps at all Victoria, my very native beliefed Mother tells me I chose to be born.”______
I don’t need the comfort, so you can lay that one to rest. You didn’t chose anything when you were in the womb, you were at the very MERCY of the one whose womb you inhabited -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
You haven’t enough quotes or bolding to even start on the last few posts. But I look forward to seeing what you make of it when I awake.
In the meantime, Merry Christmas and Peace.
And for Pete’s sake call me CB, really saves on the typing and diminishes the possibility of typos. Something I am unequivocally for. Ending sentences in prepositions will have to wait for another day.
Report comment to moderator
At the mercy, oh no, the very theory means I chose and so there was no question about whether I would be born or into what circumstances. When you think about it that is like the pot maker talking to the clay. Not saying I buy her theory, but it is an interesting one for anyone who thinks there is more to us than dust.
And now I really do need to sleep as keyboard impressions in the forehead are unattractive, I’m told.
Report comment to moderator
CB – 88
The quotes from the Bible may have no impact on you, they may fall on deaf ears, but the Word of God, is what I believe. Whatever I have become, whatever the world calls success, is NOTHING, compared to what God has done for me, what HE as promised.
So…. as far as those quotes from Scripture, they are all I have, if they aren’t enough, if they don’t fill the void in your life, if they have no impact, then I can only say “I have done my best, it is your responsibility to know HIM, the only TRUE GOD, the LORD who died for you, who loved you” -
Report comment to moderator
I wish the World no abortions this Christmas and a very Merry Christmas for all.
Report comment to moderator
And now I really do need to sleep as keyboard impressions in the forehead are unattractive, I’m told.
CB:
Many years ago (in the days before the IBM PC had been developed), my wife and I ran a “typesetting” business where we prepared camera-ready copy.
A printer we knew had his own typesetting department. Each year, he prepared a little booklet for a group of Masons, with a transcript of their previous year’s proceedings. It was a work of stupefying dullness and boredom.
His typesetting operator was typing it up one hot summer day. The owner of the print shop noticed the sound of typing had stopped, so he stopped into the room where the operator was working.
He literally found him face down on the keyboard, fast asleep. The next year, he farmed the job out to my wife and I. It was the most boring document I’ve ever typed up in my life, but I stayed awake to the very end, though someone reading my message may be face down on their keyboard at this very moment.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue – 86
Whatever this is supposed to mean, “Her hypothesis is that there was something I needed to learn and so I chose to be where I am.” Pocahantas ? You aren’t here because you chose to be born, you are here by the Grace of God –
You mix up Joseph Smith in the latter part of your post 86 as being relevant to your being born? Pocahantas, John Smith, Joseph Smith . . . . none of this makes any sense at all -
Report comment to moderator
CB- Saying that involuntary movement begins at 16 weeks is incorrect. Movement begins much earlier between 7 and 9 weeks. 16 weeks is just the point that most Moms will begin to feel them move. Right now babies are Legally viable at 24 weeks, although at 23 weeks there is a 25% chance of surviving. Babies can be born alive much earlier than that, but there is no chance of surviving past a few hours. A friend of mine just lost triplets at 21 weeks, (they were unable to stop her labor) they were born alive each weighing under 1 pound, but none of them lived longer than 20 minutes (unassisted). And if they hadn’t been triplets, they probably would have been a little bigger.
If any of you are interested in a chart of week by week development with pictures,
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
Report comment to moderator
The above post wasn’t meant to be entirely for CB, just the first sentence.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Rose.
Victoria
The explication on Pocahantas was meant to demonstrate a metaphysical belief that is quite different from western thinking, including Christianity. So where you would say grace of God, Mom would likely agree with you and add, the Creator makes opportunities for us to make the most of. Her way of thinking is different, very different, from any of the religions derived from the near east and it is non-linear. The Joseph Smith comment was a bit of snarkiness as the connection I implied there was that he (Smith) may have had an awareness of native prophecy and used that to interpret the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Report comment to moderator
DCL, NJL Abortion and the death penalty are not two sides of the same coin at all.
Since you are both lawyers, you realize of course, that punishment has to do with societal values. The more we value something, like property or life, the higher the penalty for taking it.
The highest price anyone can pay is to give their own life. The highest crimes exacts the highest cost.
A baby has committed no crime, but is forced to pay the highest penalty for the convenience of the mother.
To oppose the death penalty cheapens life. To support abortion also cheapens it.
Those who place a premium on life generally oppose abortion while simultaneously placing the highest penalty on heinous murder. Those who don’t value life so highly are willing to let murderers off easy and don’t care as much about ripping children limb from limb. To them life is cheap.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!