The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Walking with Aubrey

February 10, 2009 | 114 Comments

TRT commenter Carla knows what children are. With her husband Patrick, she is now raising four beautiful children of her own, ages 3, 5, 8 and 11. She has a degree in Special Education and is licensed to teach the learning disabled and the mild to moderately mentally challenged.

I first encountered Carla three months ago, stumbling by chance over a video linked from the 100th comment on a post at another blog. In it, she was not talking about children of the sort that our society and its laws now recognizes as such. Her mind was fixed on a sad September day nearly 20 years ago when she had aborted her daugther Aubrey, and on another day a few years later when she realized that our society is sadly wrong:

Carla also discussed the effects of her abortion in an interview last year on the Faces of Abortion program:

Carla reaches out to men and women hurt by abortion as the Wisconsin Team Leader for Operation Outcry. She volunteers for the local pregnancy care center and pregnancy helpline. She is a comments moderator at Jill Stanek’s Pro-Life Pulse blog. She attends rallies against abortion. Last month she traveled to Washington D.C. for the March for Life, where she joined with many other women active in the pro-life movement to speak out for the sanctity of all human life. And by year’s end she will publish a book honoring the memory of her long-lost daughter, joined in its pages by other mothers who made the same tragic “choice.”

Many dismiss vocal post-abortive women like Carla as the depressed, obsessed, mentally unstable and exploited victims of conniving patriarchal elders of the pro-life movement. Take the time to watch the videos posted above and draw your own conclusions. I do not see how she is any different from countless mothers who, also suffering from tragic experiences, take time out of their busy schedules to speak out against drunk driving and pedophiles, or in favor of child safety seats and airbags.

Carla does not need to “get over it.” As the archives of her mommy blog demonstrate, she lives a life filled with love and joy. But after seven pregnancies, including the abortion and two miscarriages, she has attained a unique and valuable perspective on life. By sharing it she helps others experience that same love and joy, free from the burden of sadness and regret.

Watch those videos again. One day, somewhere, a desperate young woman may see herself in Carla, listen to her words, take her hand, turn around and walk away from the darkness and in to the light. And with them will walk Aubrey, who, although left behind in the shadows of a clinic on a dark autumn afternoon so many years ago, never left Carla’s heart.

Comments

114 Responses to “Walking with Aubrey”

  1. Beelzebub
    February 10th, 2009 @ 5:35 am

    I “feel your pain” Carla, and I would be the last to push a woman into having an abortion against her will. Truly, some women should not have abortions due to constitution or even covert or suppressed beliefs that should be sympathetically dealt with prior to the procedure, if it is ever to happen. As Clinton said, ideally it should be “available, safe, and rare” or something like that.

    Again, I would urge everyone in this debate to turn away from demagoguery and try to address this topic in a rational and hopefully scientific manner. But, since I seem to one of the few people this appeal “appeals” to, I’ve taken it on myself to find a reference that might actually benefit everyone. This link is actually very informative from both a religious and scientific perspective, so that you might make a more informed decision regard the inception of human life:

    http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

  2. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 6:51 am

    BB,

    First, I’ve read that article before. Second, the history of abortion is superfluous as without the advent of ultrasound and DNA testing there WAS no scientific evidence that a fetus was a human being.

    Second, the article that it links to debunking fetal pictures is ridiculous. Claiming that WE use these pictures in a dishonest way, when the other side continually uses the term fetus to describe a “what” instead of a when, is disingenuous. Anyone that doesn’t know that a “fetus” is INSIDE of a woman is probably too challenged mentally to be having sex to begin with. Those are pictures of real babies, at real stages of life in real mothers wombs. If people have a problem understanding that these babies are INSIDE of a woman, then they need more help than we can give them. OBVIOUSLY they are inside of a woman, or they wouldn’t need to be killed! DUH! How dumb is the public that we need to remind them that babies grow in women, and sometimes women don’t want them there so they kill them. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ABORTION DEBATE. The babies ARE separate INDIVIDUALS. They AREN’T part of the mother! That IS the message we are trying to send!

    3rd, every argument after the “Genetic View” is nonsense. If we are going to make sentience, or consciousness part of the definition of life, then there is a whole segment of the population that is expendable. What next? IQ tests? HOW MUCH sentience does a person need?

    What about those in comas? Are they persons until they go into a coma, when they become non persons, and then back to persons if they should come out of the coma? What about the Terri Schiavos? Do they stop being persons because they can’t speak? Are we that arrogant that we think we can determine what constitutes enough awareness that one should be granted the right to live?
    Who will make these decisions?

    What about conjoined twins. What if one twin decides she is tired of the other twin? Can she off her, since she is just “using” her body without permission?

    You said this was a scientific paper. Well I only saw three paragraphs that dealt with the scientific question.

    When life begins is an objective question, with an objective answer. When “personhood” begins is NOT a scientific question. It is a subjective question and is totally dependent on the outcome you wish. If you want abortion to be legal, just dehumanize the victim. It’s an old trick.

    Sorry if I sound a bit heated. But these arguments really get to me.

    The truth is, it wouldn’t matter one iota what proof we had that life begins at fertilization. The Sebelius’, Pelosis’ and Clintons of the world don’t CARE when life begins. They only care about their precious rights to do what they want when they want, and that includes have sex and off the kids that are conceived.

    Honestly, do you realize how ludicrous some of these arguments are?

    Look at partial birth abortion…Past the navel, human being…push the fetus back in…non human being…take it back out to the navel…human being…push it back…no longer a human being.

    The day we decided that the location of a human being was the single greatest factor in whether it had a right to live is the day we, as a nation, began to die.

  3. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 6:56 am

    Carla,

    YOU GO GIRL!!!!

  4. Lily
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:46 am

    I cannot in a million years offer a better answer than mk– but Bbub your statement needs an answer:

    Again, I would urge everyone in this debate to turn away from demagoguery and try to address this topic in a rational and hopefully scientific manner. But, since I seem to one of the few people this appeal “appeals” to …

    So, we are irrational demagogues who don’t like or understand science? Or is it that we recognize its limits while others don’t? Can you tell me what questions science ansswers? Can it answer any question that starts:

    “Should we…? If your answer is yes, could you give an example of such a question?

  5. Beelzebub
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:49 am

    I’d be interested in your opinion of the “Neurological” argument in that paper/article/chapter whatever it is.

    I’m not a doctor and don’t play one but from what I know Shiavo was brain dead beyond the possibility of recovery. Does a brain ever go completely electronically silent and then regain function? Not qualified to say.

    Conjoined twins: The real fact is that there are times when these infants are surgically separated while the surgeons know that only one child will survive. I can’t imagine what that must be like; I can only surmise that during the course of the procedure it must become evident which will be most likely to survive. I mention these things because this is our reality; this is the world we live in, where there are often very hard decisions, made with imperfect information. I wish I could paint you a storybook life, but you know as well as I do that that’s not real.

  6. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:54 am

    Beelzebub,
    You don’t have to force a woman to have an abortion. When she is pregnant, terrified, broke and all alone just lie to her. Make abortion seem like the only “choice” she has. Tell her it’s a bunch of cells and that she can get on with her life and have the career she has always wanted.

  7. Beelzebub
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:02 am

    Prev comment was for mk.


    “Should we…? If your answer is yes, could you give an example of such a question?

    Yes, of course, that’s my point. If science can in fact give us an inception date for human life we should be able to abort pregnancy before it with a clear conscience. You of course might react to that with outrage, but that’s only because you’ve already made up your mind that there are other authorities that always trump science, but unless you can give me a good reason for your squeamishness, there’s no reason I shouldn’t ignore you.

    Notice that I’ve predicated the dialog on the idea that a valid scientific determination CAN be made. But of course without a concerted effort that may never happen.

    “Should we abort babies?”

    “Yes, because before stage X it isn’t a human life and because there are other mitigating circumstances that substantially harm the lives of women and in some cases men as well.”

  8. Beelzebub
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:05 am


    Tell her it’s a bunch of cells and that she can get on with her life and have the career she has always wanted.

    Given your obvious sentiments I would have to agree that that was a great disservice to you.

  9. Beelzebub
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:10 am

    The problem for me here is that there’s no way I can win this argument given your frame of reference, which is the only one that is relevant at the moment. Your religioun tells you it’s wrong, while I’m on a completely different bandwidth. And really, I’m trying to alleviate suffering too. Yours.

    Like fools we keep trying, right?

  10. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:18 am

    You are right. An abortion story is irrefutable. You don’t need to win. You just need to listen. My abortion was wrong before I ever reached out to God and I knew it. The emotional turmoil came from knowing I had my child killed and NOT knowing what to do about it.

    My suffering has been alleviated, B. If you are trying to see it from my point of view, I thank you.

  11. MaryAnne
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:46 am

    Beelzebub,

    The problem with your argument is that you (and abortion advocates) don’t want to hear that the second the sperm & egg join, you have a separate human life. Everything else doesn’t matter. Just because that separate human life is completely dependent on it’s mother for the next 9 months, or 18-22 years, does not mean that it deserves to be killed. There are no mitigating circumstances. Just as my 6 year old gets…. a person’s a person no matter how small. You can call it a potential person, or any other names you want, it’s still a separate human being with it’s own set of DNA, personality characteristics, etc.

    Have you heard of the story of the “kid” (late teens/early 20’s) that snuck into the attic of someone’s house in PA & lived there for a week or so? They caught him because they found food & some other things missing. I don’t think anyone would argue that that kid deserved to be killed because he “peacefully” invaded someone’s home (akin to a baby in the mother’s womb).

  12. Lily
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:55 am

    Bbub: Carla is right. You need to listen. You are trotting out some very tired defenses!

    If science can in fact give us an inception date for human life we should be able to abort pregnancy before it with a clear conscience.

    Science already has given us that date. Consult any 1st year medical text book.

    You of course might react to that with outrage, but that’s only because you’ve already made up your mind that there are other authorities that always trump science, but unless you can give me a good reason for your squeamishness, there’s no reason I shouldn’t ignore you. OF course there are other authorities that always trump science! Science is a tool. It tells us how, not why. We must decide how to use that tool, it does not decide.

    You gave as an example of a “should” question that science can answer: “Should we abort babies?”

    “Yes, because before stage X it isn’t a human life and because there are other mitigating circumstances that substantially harm the lives of women and in some cases men as well.”

    Oy veh! If it isn’t human life, it isn’t a baby, is it? If it isn’t a human life, there is no problem is there? Your very language gives the show away, I am afraid.

  13. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 9:14 am

    I’ll get to your question in a bit BB. I have to go to a class, but I’ll answer when I get back…

  14. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 9:19 am

    But before I go, I have a question for you BB.

    You say that If science can in fact give us an inception date for human life

    What is it before that date? Tell me what “it” is. You can’t use the word fetus, because that doesn’t tell me anything about what “it” is. You can’t use the word “potential human being” because that too, gives me no definition of what it “is”.

    A skin cell is a part of a human being. An arm is a limb. What is the fertilized egg created with human sperm? What is “it” if not human life?

  15. Angele
    February 10th, 2009 @ 9:53 am

    Carla’s “choice, doesn’t seem to be much of a choice does it?

    Re-read her comments above.

    If you take a moment, close your eyes and step into her shoes, pregnant, frightened alone, it might seem as though the walls were closing in on you.

    Then imagine being sold a bill of goods, that “it” is only a clump of tissue..so you pay..have the “procedure” and “move on”.

    It doesn’t work that way folks.

    You wake up, Christianity or none..you still wake up.

    When you do, you realize what might have been. You realize, that you killed your CHILD.

    Its not a good feel.

    For some it happens shortly after the false sense of relief wears off. For others it may take years. Still? It comes..it wakes you up, literally and figuratively.

    There is no turning back either. No way to truly escape the facts.

    Women like Carla, (whom I admire and adore) are here for women and men..like her or not..putting her pain and regret on the line…in hopes of sparing you from experiencing her pain.

    She doesn’t mind the judgement or even the ridicule. She doen’t mind the labels you may pin to her chest. None of them are more deeply defining than the blood stained letter A she wears already…despite anything you say to dismiss her (and others like her) you cannot say she did not try to warn others and spare them her pain.

    There is much to be said about that kind of courage.

    Thank you Carla for loving humanity, for being courageous and for being my friend.

    God blesses you abundantly and Aubrey is so very proud of her Mommy.

    (Please forgive all typos, I’m driving) : )

  16. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 10:01 am

    I love you, Angele.

  17. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 10:34 am

    If during birth, the doctor comes out and says to the family: “Both the mother and the child are at risk. I can save one. Make your choice!” What would your answer be?

  18. Pat
    February 10th, 2009 @ 10:54 am

    Nile – I am intrigued by the context presented by your question and how it relates to abortion. Help me understand more. What do you mean by your question? Is it centered on the choice between two lives?

  19. Paco
    February 10th, 2009 @ 11:15 am

    to Nile, (17)

    My answer might be “Get your a__ back in there and save both!

  20. Kim
    February 10th, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

    Thank you for posting this. I needed to find this today. God bless you.

  21. Joanne
    February 10th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    Carla, I am so so sorry for your pain! God bless –
    Joanne

  22. Mike Melendez
    February 10th, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

    I’m surprised that B thought the article she pointed to was scientific. Certainly science is involved, but as soon as it starts talking about philosophy, in the modern sense, it is out of the scope of science. It is a summary of a number of ideas about human life and it does reference what “anti-abortion” folks think human life exists.

    Maybe I missed it, I don’t recall reading when “pro-abortion” folks think life begins or even if “human” life deserves protection at all. Many such people avoid the conversation saying it is the woman’s choice in consultation with her doctor. The claim is that it is a medical decision as if that resolves the issue. But then why stop at birth? The question as to when human life begins remains.

    I also don’t understand why all the differing ideas don’t lead the “pro-abortion” folks to conclude that is would be safest for human rights to use the earliest point that an entity “could” have human life.

    I hope Niles knows that the majority of abortions don’t involve an either/or decision.

  23. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

    Pat: Exactly. Choice between two lives. Because, I also think that being pro-abortion or pro-life is a choice between two lives. A woman need not be literally dead, but being left, say with her rapists’ child with no work and no hope for the future, constantly remembering every minute of the horror she has gone through is death in itself. And the mother can’t even commit suicide because, in this case, her conscience won’t let down the baby in her lap. It will be hell for both of them. So, I seem to think it is a choice between the child’s or the mother’s death. And if even in a case, where the baby is almost born, we are apt to decide in favor of the mother, then at earlier stages of pregnancy, abortion should be ‘available, rare and safe’.

  24. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

    Niles,

    In the Catholic church, if the woman’s life REALLY is going to end if she continues her pregnancy, (like an ectopic) then a doctor is allowed to remove the baby. BUT, the intention is to save the mothers life, not to kill the baby. If at all possible, everything should be done to give the baby the greatest chance of survival. The intention must NEVER be to kill the child. Death might be a consequence, but never the goal…

    Some women choose to take their chances. This is considered heroic. At least one of these women has been canonized (made a saint) Like Gianna Molla…

    http://www.saintgianna.org/

  25. Erin
    February 10th, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

    The Devil always wants to tell you that he has an easier way to relieve your suffering. Trouble is, he’s a liar through and through, every time and always. There is only one Truth, and that will never change.

  26. Pat
    February 10th, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

    Nile, first off, forgive me for I am not trying to discect the meaning of each and every word you use but you have me very interested in your perspective.

    I am trying to make sense of what you mean by “It will be hell for both of them.” How did you come to the conclusion that your opinion applies to all factors surrounding the tragedy of rape and a resulting pregnancy?

    I am not trying to put words in your mouth but when I consider where you must be coming from, it seems to me that in your opinion the issue is not really about abortion but instead its about determining how to place the appropriate value on life. Right?

  27. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

    “The Devil always wants to tell you that he has an easier way to relieve your suffering. Trouble is, he’s a liar through and through, every time and always. There is only one Truth, and that will never change.”

    How do you know Devil is not Truth?

  28. tmr-brat
    February 10th, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

    Nile-
    Apropos the “choice between two lives” argument: even though “a woman need not be literally dead, but being left … with her rapist’s child wiht no work and no hope for the future, constantly remembering every minute of the horror she has gone through is death itself.”

    Consider that this mother is in fact alive, albeit emotionally busted up by the rape, she CAN give the child up for adoption, and give joy to a couple hungering for a child.

  29. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

    Hi Nile,
    I have friends that have been raped. Some have aborted and some haven’t. The abortion added to the trauma of the rape. For those who carried their child(NOT a rapist’s child)to term they thank God that such a beautiful blessing could come from such a horrific event. They do not regret NOT aborting.
    Bear in mind abortions for rape/incest make up only 1% of all abortions.

  30. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

    Pat: Isn’t abortion all about ‘determining how to place the appropriate value on life’?

    And what does my comment here has to do with ‘where I must be coming from?’

    The example I gave without mentioning source was a common incident in Bosnia-Herzegovia war in Europe. Serbs raped many Bosnian women. I guess from ‘where you must be coming’, to live with this rape and the resulting pregnancy seems like living in heaven.

    It was Clinton – I learned from Beelzebub – who used the expression ‘available, safe and rare’ – a president from where you must be coming!

  31. Pat
    February 10th, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

    Nile – I haven’t said anything about “where I must be coming from” (thanks for latching on to that phrase by the way.) You made the comments. I am trying to understand what you mean by them. Or, are you saying they’re not what you believe.

    We’re off topic from the original post but you have captured my attention and I would like to know what is your point. Are you offended by my questions?

  32. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

    Why should abortion be rare?

  33. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

    Pat: Never mind. I just tried an analogy whereby a decision for or against abortion is a choice between life for the child or life for the mother – and I took living with the rapists’ child as death for the mother.

  34. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

    Should be rare because people are expected to behave responsibly and take measures if they don’t want children.

  35. Pat
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

    Nile – I was following you and hoped for more.

    Whatever the analogy or real life context may be, if the issue is really about determining the ultimate value of life, then the issue applies to every human being. One day anyone may find themselves in the spot where someone else is deciding how valuable their life is (or is not.)

  36. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

    Should be rare. But isn’t.

    Should be safe. But isn’t.

  37. Angele
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

    Carla,

    Of the women who were raped and maintained their pregnancies…have you EVER heard a single one of them say, they wish they had sought to terminate instead?

    How many Mommies ever really look at their children (even in the most trying times of parenting) and say to themselves…”If only I had aborted little Johnny and Heather, I would be so much happier with my life.” (???)

    Oh I’m sure someone will supply links to the Andrea Yates and Casey Anthony type cases…but they are obviously not a good standard of measure.

    I betcha that Carla can tell of many testimonies from women who wish that they had not fallen prey to the rhetoric of choice …and wish they were parenting those very children concieved of rape. Women who will always miss what will never be.

  38. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

    Carla: Then we need more education and better facilities.

  39. Colin Gormley
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

    Nile: should be rare because people are expected to behave responsibly and take measures if they don’t want children.

    Curious, why?

  40. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

    I think Angele that people try to put themselves in another’s shoes in the instance of rape. “IF I were raped, I would NEVER carry a rapist’s child.” That may be true but there are several women I know who have and have not aborted. The ones with the children have never regretted carrying THEIR child.
    The choice rhetoric follows the line of abort the child, and that somehow helps you through the rape. Sorry. 2 very separate traumas to get through.

  41. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

    More education and better facilities.

    Please describe.

  42. Angele
    February 10th, 2009 @ 4:44 pm

    Agreed Carla.

    I have never met a woman who was raped,impregnated and opted to keep her child, who EVER regretted it. Quite the contrary actually. Most find it empowering!

    Repeated trauma has not been proven to heal original trauma.

  43. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

    Carla: For better facilities, say, any health center or hospital where you give birth. Better education is obviously teaching a student – starting with primary education – that having a child means taking responsibility and it’s no game. It’s a life-long commitment. If we create awareness in our our children that having a baby means – as well as loving him – planning a future both for the parents and the baby and leaving everything to fate just may not work, then I’m sure they will be more alert to avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

    No need to say, all the methods of birth-control should be taught in detail.

  44. nile
    February 10th, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

    Colin (post 39) I didn’t understand what you’re curious about. Shouldn’t people take measures if they don’t want children?

  45. Colin Gormley
    February 10th, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

    nile #44

    Isn’t abortion the responsible thing to do? If you have contraception failure or something as such (which occurs quite often) then isn’t abortion the next logical step? Esp. if the “fetus” is not human, why should it be rare then if the ultimate goal is to not have children irresponsibly?

    Why should people be expected to “behave responsibly”?

    If people shouldn’t have children then isn’t the most surefire way to avoid that is to not have sex (setting aside the whole rape/incest line for a moment)?

  46. Chris Arsenault
    February 10th, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

    Wow. Thank you Carla for being so steadfast a witness. Great post TRT.

    I believe Angele also deserves thanks and encouragement for her efforts as well. (Laura Ingraham said it was her toughest interview.)

  47. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

    Isn’t abortion the responsible thing to do? If you have contraception failure or something as such (which occurs quite often) then isn’t abortion the next logical step?

    The RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to NOT have sex unless you are prepared for the possibility of pregnancy. Period. You don’t want to do the time? Don’t do the crime.

    Even if you use birth control, it can fail. If you’re not prepared to take responsibility for that, you are not prepared to have sex in the first place.

    There is a girl on my blog, who says she is neither pro life, nor pro choice. She is simply anti stupidity. Anyone that has sex, gets pregnant, acts surprised and then calls killing another human being the “responsible” thing to do, fits that definition.

  48. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

    Angele,

    How have you been? I don’t know if you remember me from Jill’s…we talked on the morning that you found out a movie was coming out…then you emailed me and I haven’t spoken to you since, tho I HAVE thought of you often. I hope all is well and I second Chris’ sentiments. You and Carla both have more courage in your baby fingers than I have in my entire body…Thank you.

  49. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

    The phrase is not available, safe and rare. The phrase is Safe, Legal and Rare.

    50,000,000…that’s 50 MILLION dead in THIS country alone since 1973. If that’s rare, I’d like to know what commonplace is.

    As Carla asked, if abortion is morally acceptable, why should it be rare? Why, if there is nothing wrong with it, as it is not a “human being”, should we care whether there are 50 BILLION children aborted a day? And if we care, then doesn’t that mean, that deep down, we recognize that abortion is WRONG?

  50. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

    There are 42 MILLION abortions a YEAR, worldwide.

    85% of all children diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome are aborted.

    While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

    1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). (My addition? This would be what my commenter is anti stupid)

    An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

    48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds

    These statistics do not include abortions caused by the morning after pill, or RU486.

    California and New York do not supply abortion statistics.

  51. Carla
    February 10th, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

    Chris,
    Thank you! I could not do this alone.
    I agree with your sentiments about Angele. She is amazing!

    MK,
    YOU GO GIRL!!

  52. frustrated(mk)
    February 10th, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

    Group Hug ;)

  53. Angele
    February 10th, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

    Thanks Chris, Carla and MK… a group hug is definitely in order…YAY!

    Carla, my sweet, you have been on my mind all day. You and Aubrey.

    MK, Hey there, were you in DC? If so, how did we miss each other?

    Let’s catch up by email soon, so that we don’t veer off topic here.

    Oh, and TRT (I still want to type TRA…pleh) Thank you for writing such a fine post. :) :) :)

    Christ’s peace,

    Angele

  54. nile
    February 11th, 2009 @ 2:49 am

    “As Carla asked, if abortion is morally acceptable, why should it be rare? ”

    The problem is that you see things black and white. Life is full of grays, remember?

  55. nile
    February 11th, 2009 @ 3:09 am

    “I have never met a woman who was raped,impregnated and opted to keep her child, who EVER regretted it. Quite the contrary actually. Most find it empowering!”

    This is one of the most simplistic statements I have read so far.

    Have you ever met anyone who admits that it was a mistake to have had the child? Of course the defense mechanism will start working. Of course, she will say she finds it empowering. Of course there would be social pressure if anyone admitted that she did not want the child. Of course the mother has conscience – she wouldn’t want the child to grow up knowing he/she was unwanted.

    Just try to imagine how all these conflicting feelings act upon the mother. It is very likely that she will have psychological disorder at some period in her life. And add to this a probable financial problem. This is why I described the situation as ‘death in this life’ for the mother.

    Can you honestly declare that those friends of yours who were raped and had a child lived with none of these disturbances?

  56. Beelzebub
    February 11th, 2009 @ 3:58 am


    Can you honestly declare that those friends of yours who were raped and had a child lived with none of these disturbances?

    This is a powerful point. Most mothers, forced to bring a rape pregnancy to term, would never overtly claim to not want the baby. Yet it would remain a reminder of that trauma, EVEN IF she did her best to love it in every way. At its very tamest, this would entail living with “I’ve been raped” for nine months before handing the baby off to adoption. This is precisely the kind of real-world scenario that should make everyone take pause. There is no simple formula. Even if you’re an ardent pro-lifer, you can’t discount the potential for great suffering here. To dismiss it out of hand because it doesn’t perfect fit with your moral scheme of the world is hard-hearted. The circumstances force you to consider the philosophic, meta-physical and, yes, scientific ramifications of drawing the line for human life somewhere within gestation. You owe it to the rape victim to give this consideration.

    Perhaps you think I’m using this as a wedge issue. Yes, I AM using this as a wedge issue (well, Nile and I are). I’m jamming it under your eyelids trying to get you to see that there MAY be problems with your absolutist view.

  57. frustrated(mk)
    February 11th, 2009 @ 6:19 am

    Perhaps you think I’m using this as a wedge issue. Yes, I AM using this as a wedge issue (well, Nile and I are). I’m jamming it under your eyelids trying to get you to see that there MAY be problems with your absolutist view.

    Aaaaaand…murder will alleviate the pain of rape, how?

  58. Carla
    February 11th, 2009 @ 7:47 am

    A rape survivor will live with “I’ve been raped” for the rest of her life. That is truth. Simplistic. True. Have you ever met a rape survivor? Ever talked with one? They are some of the most courageous women I know. They have gotten THROUGH it with counseling. It requires help. The kind of help that is available to women who have been brutalized in this way. Those that I know that have kept their babies INITIALLY did not know what to do, did not want to have their child, were terrified, BUT they were surrounded in love and given hope to heal from the trauma of rape. They did heal and have a beautiful child today.

    Nile and B,
    It is your opinions you are sharing. You have come up with your own worst possible scenarios when real life is quite different.

  59. frustrated(mk)
    February 11th, 2009 @ 8:05 am

    One of the most remarkable things about human beings IS their ability to heal and get through things. It takes a lot to truly break a person.

    I think a big difference between believers and non believers is that non believers do everything in their power to avoid pain/suffering. Believers don’t. We understand that not only is pain, part of it, but that it can be used for unimaginable good. If your main goal in life is to avoid unpleasantness, then aborting after a rape makes sense.

    If however, you understand the value of suffering, then you can see “rape” through different eyes. You understand that killing the life growing in you will NOT alleviate the pain, and will in all liklihood add to it.

  60. Pat
    February 11th, 2009 @ 8:08 am

    Nile and B,

    Are you arguing for abortion? Or what? With your gray area analogies you keep changing the rules and it does your reasoning great disservice. Not one of your reasons have come to final truth for me to consider. I ask again, what is the point you are after?

    When you say “I’m jamming it under your eyelids trying to get you to see that there MAY be problems with your absolutist view.” You’re sounding pretty absolutist in your views that there are no absolutes. How does that work?

  61. Lily
    February 11th, 2009 @ 8:15 am

    Bbub and Nile have come up with a wholly fictional “this is how women who are raped will feel” that shows no acquaintance with real life. It does their hearts credit that they feel this concern but they need to talk to real women who have actually lived with the pain of rape to get a better understanding of reality.

    Nile– What social pressure? What financial burden? There is no particular correlation between rape and poverty. There would be no social pressure in this country on any woman who doesn’t want a child, particularly one conceived in a rape. Nor does any woman, raped or not raped need to keep a baby she cannot love. These scenarios just don’t ring true. What women in other cultures might face is another question.

    Rape victims have enough to deal with without people telling them that they are going to be psychologically disturbed in later life by it.

  62. Gail F
    February 11th, 2009 @ 9:05 am

    Beelzebub:

    What an interesting choice (while we’re talking about choice…) for a screen name.

    I am sure you already know this but I’m bringing it up for anyone else who might be reading: Science DOES tell us when human life begins. The SCIENCE of embryology tells us that every organism’s life begins at conception. The moment the organism is conceived, it is an individual organism of that kind and species. It cannot become anything else, and the only thing that will stop it from becoming an adult member of its species is its death — natural or otherwise.

    It is dishonest to pretend that there is a “prehuman” life of some kind that doesn’t count as life, and that therefore you can “stop” it without “killing” it. The fact is that YOU were YOU the moment you were conceived, and if you’d died in the womb (whether at one day old or just before birth) or your mother had killed you, it would have been YOU that was dead. Not a “nonhuman” sort of life that suddenly changed to a human one — talk about clinging to some sort of philosophical mumbo-jumbo! That’s a simple refusal to face facts. It was you the whole time, and that is a scientific fact not a religious statement or an opinion.

    Women get abortions because they believe what our society teaches — that they should have sex without consequences. Then they aren’t prepared for the inevitable (not inevitable for each person but, because all birth control methods have a failure rate, for a certain but real and predictable number of women — and that’s going by the number of people who use birth control methods regularly and correctly, not by the people who don’t use them correctly or every time) pregnancies that happen, they feel that they can’t get out of a situation they never bargained on. Abortion is billed as a way to be “unpregnant.” But you can never be “unpregnant.” The only way to end a pregnancy is by the baby’s birth or its death. That’s the elephant in the room, and the reason that people won’t see it is because the only real solution is to give up our current Western delusion of sex without consequences.

  63. nile
    February 11th, 2009 @ 9:24 am

    Here’s a summary of my view:

    Regardless of which part of the world we live, I am all for: “Abortion should be legal, rare and safe.”

    1. Legal, because having to keep the child may cause disturbance for the young mother to the extent that she may feel buried alive.(as I explained in post 55)
    2. Rare, because abortion is obviously not a preferred method of avoiding any kind of unwanted pregnancy. That’s why I pointed above that through education, more awareness should be created toward responsibility of having a child. (as I explained in post 43)
    3. Safe: Well, if it is legal, then it is safe. You can go to any hospital then.

  64. nile
    February 11th, 2009 @ 9:37 am

    Lily: “There would be no social pressure in this country on any woman who doesn’t want a child, particularly one conceived in a rape.”

    I was talking about something completely different. I was questioning whether a young mother could admit socially that the child of rape she has given birth is a burden for herself and that she never actually wanted to have the baby. All I am saying is that after the baby is born, through some defense mechanism, conscience, social pressure and other factors, the young mother is in a position to defend her case. She can not do otherwise. However, in the depths of her mind and emotions, she may feel disturbed, and this, she can only share with a psychologist. Therefore, people who seem to be haply growing their children may just happen to be acting becasue they don’t have any other choice!

  65. frustrated(mk)
    February 11th, 2009 @ 9:59 am

    Nile,

    You have some of that right. No one is denying that rape is horrible and can have long lasting consequences. That is true, True and TRUE.

    And no one is denying that some women will resent the baby as an intrusion and a reminder of the rape. Also true, True and TRUE.

    Where you are losing the Truth is when you say that murdering the baby in her womb will lessen that pain. In all likelihood it will ADD to it.

    You are claiming that these women might harbor a secret resentment, a resentment they might not even be aware of, if they choose to carry the pregnancy and keep the baby.

    You say they have no CHOICE. But they DO have a choice. They can put the child up for adoption. Every woman knows this. IF she decides to keep the child, it is because she CHOSE to…

    You are also forgetting that this baby, that was created out of violence, is part of HER. It carries her DNA, her genes…it is not just “HIS”…

    Killing HIS baby will result in killing HER baby. Some suffering simply cannot be wiped clean. Abortion is NEVER a solution. It is simply another problem.

    I understand that your sympathies lie with the woman, I really do. She is HERE. She is “real”. But so is that child. And it did NOT rape the mother. It should not be punished for the sins of a man it will never meet.

    It is not that we are unsympathetic to the woman’s pain, it is that we are not willing to totally dismiss another human beings life in favor of it. For many reasons, not the least of which, is that aborting this child will do NOTHING to alleviate the pain of being raped and will quite possibly compound the problem. Both lives MUST be taken into consideration. Both lives.

    Many people that are pro choice deny that woman that have abortions suffer post abortion trauma. They are written off as having had problems before the abortion, or feeling guilty due to societal pressures. This denial is the same denial that you are accusing us of. Not recognizing that woman feel pain, both after being raped and after aborting.

    But we ARE acknowledging the pain of rape victims. What we are not acknowledging is that abortion will abate that pain. You are not acknowledging that abortion carries with it it’s own pain…pain that could be worse than rape, as rape was not the woman’s choice, but killing the result of that rape, HER child, was her choice.

  66. Lily
    February 11th, 2009 @ 10:00 am

    But Nile– you simply do not know that after a birth that the mother will find the child a burden and will not be able to “defend her case.” You simply do not know what is going on in the depths of her emotions and mind. This is all fantasy on your part.

    Whatever may be the case in other countries, any woman who makes a decision to give birth to a child conceived as a result of rape in this country is acting deliberately. The pressure on such a woman to abort is normally very strong.

    We have got to stop thinking about this in the absence of real women telling us how they made their decisions and how they feel about it a year later, 10 years later and so on.

  67. Joanne
    February 11th, 2009 @ 10:26 am

    “stumbling by chance”

    By chance? I have come to be skeptical over the past few years that there is any such thing!

    Take care :)

  68. Skeptimal
    February 11th, 2009 @ 11:00 am

    “We have got to stop thinking about this in the absence of real women telling us how they made their decisions and how they feel about it a year later, 10 years later and so on.”

    Even those women, faced with the same choices again, might very well make the same decision. I had a friend years ago who was Baptist and spoke at her church regularly on how she regretted having an abortion when she was younger. Then she thought she was pregnant again, and she told me she was considering the same decision again.

    I never gave her a hard time about it, because I understood both positions: the part of her that wished she’d kept the baby, and the part of her that knew that both her life and the new baby’s would be hellacious if she continued to term.

    What I learned from this was that unwanted pregnancy is similar to cold in the proverb on being cold by Alexander Sozhenitsyn. “How can you expect a man who’s warm to understand one who’s cold?”

    The saying comes from “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch,” in which I.D. is talking through a window to a man who is inside, and the insider tries to comfort him by saying something akin to “I’ve been cold. I know how you feel.”

    Those who have had abortions and regret it *can* sympathize in a way no one else can with a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. What they can’t do is say that they wouldn’t make the same decision in the woman’s shoes.

  69. Angele
    February 11th, 2009 @ 11:46 am

    Hey there, its me, Angele…the chick who wrote the overly simplistic post yesterday. :D

    Anyhoo, I actually hoped you would jam it under my eyelids so to speak.

    Here’s another simplistic tidbit for you.

    I either sat in group counseling for a year with these women, befriended them at some point after their rape or met them while volunteering with my local rape crisis center.

    I dunno dudes..maybe they’re all lying to the therapist, to me, to each other and to themselves. It could happen..I will admit that.

    The thing is..we were all in a very private setting.. We all said stuff we couldn’t tell our families or other friends who hadn’t “been there”.

    I can also say, speaking only for myself here, that abortion only added to the trauma of rape. It abated nothing. It did however add the burden of guilt to my plate…that’s not a good feel.

    So, for me perasonally, I would give my right eye (literally) for a do-over.

    I would love to be raising my son.

    So, in my overly simplistic manner…I’m a bit curious…

    How many women do you know who kept or aborted children concieved out of an act of violence?

    Were you in a group setting with them…where everyone could lay it out there..and be as honset and raw as they needed without fear of judgement from peers or society?

    What did they tell you? I’m really curious.

    Also, have you ever experienced what a couple of us are trying to tell you is our first hand experience?

    If you have actually been raped, or had an abortion or kept the child, placed said child..or anything else that pretty much alots you some first hand experience, I wouuld sooooo appreciate hearing more..seriusly, it will help me to know as much as possible.

    Meanwhile, all I was saying was… I know women who thought such and such…I’m even one of them…that does not mean I’m any sort of absolutist.. I was simply speaking from experience.

    Just because you wanna jam stuff under eyelids…please do not presume that I am attempting to do the same.

    Thanks.

    Angele

  70. nile
    February 11th, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

    “..speaking only for myself here, that abortion only added to the trauma of rape.”

    Can you say that the second trauma (trauma of abortion)was all humanistic and had nothing to do with their religious belief?

  71. Carla
    February 11th, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

    Angele,
    Thank you once again for your precious witness and your strength to stand. I appreciate every time you share your experience. How could I love you any more than I do??:)

  72. Lily
    February 11th, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

    Angele– I didn’t realize that you were speaking from experience. What a witness– I am simply left speechless. May God continue to bless you.

  73. Ron
    February 11th, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

    Abortion is a reduction of thought to what is most convenient for us who can make choices (i.e. the ones with power). It really isn’t an argument that we are taking human life. Is it?

    John Piper learned that after speaking to an abortionist in the 1990’s who admitted that he is terminating (a nice word for murdering) human life. Piper was stunned since he thought all he needed to do was convince the abortionist that he was taking human life. The abortionist’s reasoning was it’s all about what applies the least pressure on society or the individual. A “sacrifice of life” for the betterment of all. A modern day sacrifice into the volcano if you will.

    I realize people face very difficult circumstance, and I know Carla and the others posting here would never dismiss that truth, but in simplest terms they stand for upholding the truth before succumbing to convenience or removing burden. Hearts must be changed. It’s as simple as that.

    God Bless you Carla for fighting the good fight.

  74. Carla
    February 11th, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

    God Bless you, Ron.

  75. Beelzebub
    February 11th, 2009 @ 7:07 pm


    Abortion is a reduction of thought to what is most convenient for us who can make choices (i.e. the ones with power). It really isn’t an argument that we are taking human life. Is it?

    There are actually people who take that position, but I’m not one of them — any more than I’m a person that thinks animals should be used experimentally just because we can do it, although I think utilitarianism must be given some sway in things like experimentation. e.g. will sacrificing 1000 mice save a million humans, etc.

    Utilitarianism as applied to something like abortion, or human experimentation, or eugenics is immoral, but my position is superior to that. I don’t propose killing human life out of utilitarian convenience, instead coming to a global consensus about where in gestation human life begins. We immediately run into difficulty with semiotics, like what it means to be “me” and “you” and whether killing a petri dish of cells is equivalent to killing a two day blastocyst. If I had been aborted would “I” have died? Of course, there is no better example of begging the question, since if I had been aborted there never would have been an “I” to begin with. And here is why I’m never going to make any headway here. You will never stop believing that human individuality appears at conception because that’s what written into your religion.

  76. Angele
    February 11th, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

    Hey Nile,

    Hmm, that’s a pretty decent question there buddy… well, here’s what I can tell you.

    At the time all of this occured, I felt pretty forsaken by my God, my peers, my fiance, family and friends.

    As a matter of fact, looking back, it felt like my faith had, “left the building.”

    Bottom line Nile…I wish I had Rowan. He would be almost four now, with big blue eyes, wavy dirty blonde hair and big red lips and cheeks.

    I would be overjoyed to be kissing boo boos and headed out to soccer practice or at home playing with transformers.

    It’s not so much about faith making abortion traumatizing or not… it is about L-O-V-E man.

    If you have children, do you love them? It’s highly likely that you do.

    I love mine…check this out…even the aborted one, the one concieved of rape.

    He was my baby too ya know?

    While I am honestly impressed with your care and concern for women who were violated and how becoming pregnant may affect their mental well being…I just don’t think you give some of us enough credit for having internal strength. (I can say this now, because, in hindsight…I had enough strength, I just let fear reign supreme.)Hindsight, eh?

    A gfew of my simplistic beliefs:

    Abortion is not a cool experience. Have you heard many people say, I hope I get to have an abortion when I grow up?

    Women would be less likely to choose abortion, if it werent an option.

    Adoption, as I understand it, works for some but may also be a form of secondary trauma.

    Most people love their kids.

    So, go with this randomness too for a second…help me out here okay?

    The divorce rate in this country is staggering, right?

    You or someone you know well is probably divorced, with kids.

    They may even DESPISE their former spouses.

    How many people do you know like that?… because they are certainly out there amongst all of us.

    Ok, so, how many of them despise the children too?

    I doubt those numbers are very high.

    We are made to love our offspring. Whether you think this is evolution or God, himself… somewhere in my overly simplistic statements, you gotta know that is true….

    WE ARE MADE TO LOVE OUR OFFSPRING.

    That’s pretty much all I’m saying…when you take away the fear, the pressures and the doubt…

    WE ARE MADE TO LOVE OUR OFFSPRING…our hardwired instincts are really all we need to tap into…it makes it all simple..we just need to trust ourselves, to empower ourselves.

    Again, thank you for really caring about women. That’s pretty awesome and I admire you for it. :)

  77. Carla
    February 11th, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

    I love Rowan.

  78. Angele
    February 11th, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

    Nile,

    I am guilty of too much multi tasking and to little concentration…to directly answer your question…

    no, I do not think it was my religious beliefs that led me to feel,think, believe or determine that abortion was a secondary form of trauma… abortion led me to that conclusion.

  79. Angele
    February 11th, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

    I love Carla and Aubrey!

  80. Angele
    February 11th, 2009 @ 8:49 pm

    May God bless you abundantly Lily!

    Angele

  81. Carla
    February 11th, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

    I love Angele and Rowan. But you already knew that.

    Praying for you.

  82. Angele
    February 11th, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

    Yes, I do. :)

    You already know I love and admire you too. I’m just feeling the love tonight.

    I love TRT too.

    Hey, while I’m at it, I love everyone here. tee hee.

    I am praying for everyone here, too, whether ya want me to or not. It won’t hurt you I promise.

  83. Ron
    February 11th, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

    instead coming to a global consensus about where in gestation human life begins.

    If you are honest with yourself you must realize that the only options are conception, birth or when a child becomes sentient (read some Peter Singer if you want some modern Nazi-like theories on when human life begins).

    Attempting to put a “global stamp” on when life begins during gestation is preposterous, and that is aside from religious conviction. If you resolve that an abortion cannot take human life (which I am presupposing by your argument) you must support abortion through the ninth month or more accurately, anytime before delivery.

    At least that is intellectually honest.

  84. Mike Melendez
    February 12th, 2009 @ 9:13 am

    When I know the answers, it’s easy to ignore the evidence. When I’m unsure, I just might learn something.

    For Niles: I follow my religion because I am a humanist.

  85. nile
    February 12th, 2009 @ 9:53 am

    Mike: And I don’t follow my religion – or any religion -because I’m a humanist.

  86. nile
    February 12th, 2009 @ 10:48 am

    Angele: I apologize for using the word ‘simplistic’ thoughtlessly. I didn’t mean to hurt anybody’s feelings or underestimate any opinion. I have noted that you have had a lot of experience with people who have been raped or have chosen abortion and regretted that later.

    I have a son and I love him dearly. However, to be honest, as far as I can remember, the moment I really felt a great emotional attachment was when the nurse gave him into my arms. I looked at his face, and I knew that he would be the one precious being for me as long as I live.

    As to before birth, I do remember we enjoyed it with my husband when he kicked, but it was a warm, intimate feeling between myself and my husband, rather than a great love for the embryo within my womb. The embryo as an embryo was not what I imagined when I lay and thought about the days to come. It was the real child, the child I would have after birth.

    Now, as far as I know, abortion is not advised after 3 months. So we are talking about human fetus from the moment of conception to three months. I remember it was mentioned here that miscarriage is frequent with people who have taken birth-control pills. If we think that such miscarriages take place, say within two-three weeks after conception, then abortion within three months involves almost the same amount of time.

    Under these circumstances:

    1. I find the emotional attachment to the fetus metioned in the above comments highly exaggurated. I seem to think, the emotion has been created consciously or unconsciously in the following years in proportion with the guilt felt. And the feeling of guilt increases as the person becomes more religious.

    2. You do argue that it is not religious, but humanistic. I agree and I have mentioned above that it should be rare.

    3. Regarding humanism, when we focus all our concern on the three-month old fetus, I feel we are being unfair to the mother. Plus, I believe that, if I’m a humanist, and I decide to have a child, it’s not only giving life and creating a new being of my own species. I take it to be a great task for the parents to properly raise, educate and provide facilities to make him happy. We are not making one of our own species; we are creating a human being.

    To sum up, I believe that life is all about making decisions and the concepts of ‘human’ and ‘humanistic’ are more than a being alive.

    To repeat the three little words I learned above, legal, rare and safe! I love you all.

  87. She must be destroyed! « DaTechguy’s Blog
    February 12th, 2009 @ 11:47 am

    […] If you want a message from an adult instead check this out via the raving atheist: […]

  88. Carla
    February 12th, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

    Thanks for the link DaTechguy.

  89. Kent
    February 12th, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

    Nile,

    The question we are dealing with is simple. When is a person a person? You don’t have to complicated it with “I was raped how fair was that?” or “I don’t feel an emotional attachment, so how important can it be?” This is NOT a question that can be answered scientifically (however, scientists tend to agree that the beginning of life is at the moment of fertilization). As a medical student nearing doctorhood, I can attest to having seen the images of fetuses on Hysteroscopy and ultrasound. It is my firm belief that in this case, life equals personhood (in the context of DNA that is human, I don’t believe (no matter how fluffy they are) that non-human life forms ever attain the status of “person”) and as such endowed with a fundamental right to life. As a corollary, if I own a piece of real estate that you would desperately love to build a theme park in, you may not simply evict me of my land (despite the fact that my power and water lines run through yours) or cut off my supplies to starve me out. You must allow me to live no matter how inconvenient for you. Simple enough, it’s my right. Four weeks into the pregnancy (or the day of the missed period, the FIRST day pregnancy tests will reliably come back positive) the baby inside the womb already has it’s own ectoderm (outer skin in latin). It’s own little layer of skin to say “Everything outside this is the outside world, and everything in it is ME.” Before you know you’re pregnant your baby has already set boundaries to where it’s body ends and yours begins. And it is totally dependent on you. This is a state that will last another 5 years. Or more, depending on how fast you make Jr. grow up. An individual does not relinquish basic human rights on the basis of dependency. If I were to attempt to kill my little baby, it would be (legally) attempted murder, despite the fact that the cute lil’ guy is still in my wife’s womb. Why? Why would my wife’s murder be classified as a double homicide? Because my wife wants our baby. We as a society have determined, however, that that baby looses personhood as soon as my wife decides she does not want him (which she never would, she is thrilled to be having him despite the fact that it puts serious strain on her academic career and makes it doubtful that she will get the graduate degree she wants within the next two decades, if ever). This is an intolerable state of affairs. To even imply that someones personhood is dependent on how much they are “wanted” is highly dangerous and morally bankrupt, no matter what moral system you choose (unless your choice is Amorality, then you’re good). It’s what happened to blacks here in the US in the 1800’s. It’s ok to kill ‘em, they aren’t people like we are. It’s the mentality that brought us the slave trade and the ensuing horrors of abuse. All of this stems from taking a person and viewing them as a non-person. And this is all only the philosophical argument. The medical argument is also important. In medicine we are required to give something called informed consent. This means that before doing any sort of procedure on a person, we must tell them in detail all the risks they are taking in electing to undergo the procedure. This is NOT standard of practice in the abortion clinics. I know, I’ve seen them at work. I have never observed a clinic that ever told women of their risks. The risks are numerous and life threatening. Immediately a woman is subjected to significant risk of trauma to the pelvic area that may leave her barren or dead. I personally observed the case of a woman here in our hospital who had to have a colostomy due to her abortion. I would say that the rate of serious uterine trauma complications is about one per abortion clinic per month (obviously depending on the size of the clinic that number may rise or fall). Natural childbirth has a far lower complication rate. ADDITIONALLY, there are risks incurred later in life. A woman who has had an abortion is 33-45% more likely to have breast cancer. As one who understands clinical risk, let me tell you, that is a HUGE risk. The only risk factor for cancer that I can immediately think of that is bigger is chronic smoking, and it’s not that much bigger. And the picture gets worse. Childbirth is PROTECTIVE against breast cancer. Women with children are LESS LIKELY to have breast cancer than women without children who have not had abortions. However, laws in several states that require this information to be given to women before they undergo an abortion have been found to be illegal in most cases on the basis that they “obstruct a woman’s right to choose.” The abortion lobby states that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” This is patently impossible. You can make abortion legal, it’s possible it could someday be rare (though at present about 28% of women in the US have had an abortion, and many of those have had more than one.) but due to the nature of the procedure, we will never manage to make it safe.

    Kent Powers

  90. nile
    February 13th, 2009 @ 5:46 am

    Kent: “The question we are dealing with is simple. When is a person a person?”

    My reply was for Angele and in the course of the conversation, we did talk about lots of other subjects and hence what I wrote.

    Now to answer you, according to Darwin, what we call species is actually a name we have invented to describe a variety concerning organic beings. So, a human being is actually a variety of, say the animal kingdom. Now, while it is a great sin (in the religious sense) or guilt (by law) to kill another human being, it is absolutely natural to kill animals to feed ourselves. Come to think of it, animals are just a variety.

    Now I must relate this seemingly very absurd paragraph to our subject.

    The Webster’s dictionary definition of human is: having human form or attributes.

    Does a three month old fetus have human form or attributes? No he doesn’t. So what you’re killing is not a human being, but some form of life of the animal kingdom, which you already kill every day.

    I must mention that I gave the above explanation trying not to include any emotions. However I’m aware that abortion is not all that mechanic, and therefore, I defend that it should be rare.

    Then you say: “..It’s what happened to blacks here in the US in the 1800’s. It’s ok to kill ‘em, they aren’t people like we are. It’s the mentality that brought us the slave trade and the ensuing horrors of abuse. All of this stems from taking a person and viewing them as a non-person.”

    You seem to forget that it was mostly Christians who killed the blacks and killing a fetus was still a sin in 1800!

    On the other hand, we must consider the situation from a world-wide perspective. Apart from what the young mothers suffer from unwanted pregnancies and births, thousands of children in poorer areas of the world are born and wasted on the streets. You must not take the facilities in U.S. as reference, if we are evaluating the issue from a humanistic point of view.

    About safety measures, we are always at risk in the smallest surgery. That’s why the hospital management always takes our signatures giving consent before any operation. Abortion is not any different. Saying that we can never make abortion safe is the same as saying we can never make any surgery safe. Well, that’s a risk we choose to take.

  91. Carla
    February 13th, 2009 @ 7:58 am

    What human attributes are missing in a 3 month old fetus?

  92. Lily
    February 13th, 2009 @ 8:15 am

    A 3 month old fetus has human form and attributes. The attributes are those appropriate to humans at 3 months of gestational age. His form is appropriate to a human at 3 months of gestational age as well.

    Nile– you write “On the other hand, we must consider the situation from a world-wide perspective. Apart from what the young mothers suffer from unwanted pregnancies and births, thousands of children in poorer areas of the world are born and wasted on the streets”

    Uh– wouldn’t it make more sense to do something about the poverty and the condition of women? I mean killing those children is one solution. I can think of better.

  93. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    February 13th, 2009 @ 8:48 am

    Nice post Nile, but I would stay away from “human form” as a test for “peopleness.” After all, although the three month fetus is obviously not fully formed (or they would be able to exist outside the womb) the comatose person on life support is fully formed.

    A humane policy would not ask a man to work two jobs to the end of his days to keep a corpse with a heart beat alive.

  94. Ron
    February 13th, 2009 @ 9:00 am

    So, a human being is actually a variety of, say the animal kingdom.

    So when no longer wanted we can “put them down” as we do an unwanted animal since we are nothing but a variey of animal? Lily makes a point above. Thousands of children in poor areas of the world are born into misery so why are we letting them suffer? We could put them down. Better for them and the world to not suffer this burden. Some people who support abortion might say ridiculous, but is it really?

    I’m also curious as to how you stop the aborting at a certain gestational point. Apparently you are satisfied that there is possibility to decree that it becomes human during gestation. What is it? Exactly 12 weeks? One second past this development stage and it’s human? According to your line of reasoning we are killing at that point. Or is it subjective to the individual carrying the baby, I mean fetus.

    I know this sounds harsh, but I’m trying to help you think about certain assumptions that must be made with your line of reasoning, which seems to be that human life is no more valuable than a rat, which you know has been reasoned by people of supposed intellect.

  95. Ron
    February 13th, 2009 @ 10:12 am

    You seem to forget that it was mostly Christians who killed the blacks

    A broad statement, indeed. Not that Christians weren’t culpable during that era, but could you be more specific as to Christians and this killing? I assume you know people have done things in under the guise of being Christian, when they were nothing of the sort.

  96. Haunted : The Raving Theist
    February 13th, 2009 @ 10:41 am

    […] 18 years later. The pregnant woman was Carla, whose cheer that night masked an anguish I related here. The occasion of the memory was the realization, early last month, that her long-lost bar friend […]

  97. Kent
    February 13th, 2009 @ 11:15 am

    “Does a three month old fetus have human form or attributes? ”

    Yes, I have seen them. I have watched them on ultrasound try to get away from the suction. After the abortion, I have looked on the “tissue mass.” At a measly little 10 weeks of age, they have fingers, arms, legs, and a distinct face. They are all people. Abortionists must reconstruct the fetus (you know, find the head, arms, all the fingers, all that) in order to insure that they have not left any fetal tissue that will be left in the woman to become necrotic.

    “I defend that it should be rare.”

    Regardless of what you want, it is NOT. Again, 28% of women 14-65 have had an abortion in their lives. This is NOT rare occurrence.

    “You seem to forget that it was mostly Christians who killed the blacks and killing a fetus was still a sin in 1800!”

    Who mentioned Christians or Christ? This is ad hominem attack on the basis of the assumption (which merely happens to be correct in this particular case) that I am a Christian. Who cares if any of them were Christian (and I would argue that history shows that far fewer slave owners during this period were Christian than the normal population, they simply supported that the slaves be Christians, because Christians are forbidden to break the law unless doing so would cause them to break the laws laid down in scripture, but that is getting of the point) or not. The point is it was WRONG. It was EVIL. And it was all based on the idea that blacks were not people. (Some of that reasoning was even based on their cognitive development and the “scientific” studies at the time that showed that blacks were less intelligent than whites.) It does not matter who did it, what matters is that it was wrong and that the justification proposed to make it right was that blacks are not people, just as the proposed justification for abortion is that the fetus is not a person.

    “On the other hand, we must consider the situation from a world-wide perspective. Apart from what the young mothers suffer from unwanted pregnancies and births, thousands of children in poorer areas of the world are born and wasted on the streets. You must not take the facilities in U.S. as reference, if we are evaluating the issue from a humanistic point of view. ”

    Perhaps as a method of reducing overall suffering, in the interests of humanism, we should round up all the poor and suffering people and shoot them. Death by gunshot is actually relatively painless if you can manage to his the base of the brain. Or I could make a modest proposal, lets allow the women to take the child almost to term, and instead of charging them to have it taken out (since their primary problem is poverty (despite the fact that over half of all abortions in the US are performed on women whose family income is above $30,000 a year)) we could advocate selling the “tissue mass” as a delicacy. (If you don’t get the literary reference, look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal )

    Again, I will emphasize, the solution to poverty issues should never be to kill people.

    “About safety measures, we are always at risk in the smallest surgery. That’s why the hospital management always takes our signatures giving consent before any operation. Abortion is not any different. Saying that we can never make abortion safe is the same as saying we can never make any surgery safe. Well, that’s a risk we choose to take.”

    True point. However, my point here is two fold and this addresses only the first, and that only partially. First off, abortion is high risk even for surgery. This is the case simply as it relates to the intimidate complications. The breast cancer issue is unparalleled in surgery. (Yes silicone implants were suspected to increase breast cancer. Subsequent study has found that suspicion to be unfounded, yet despite that the FDA still restricted the use of silicone implants in 1992.) I did not mention in my previous post (for space and length reasons) that abortion is a MAJOR risk factor for PTSD, depression, and suicide. The main point is that IF this were any other issue, abortion would NOT be allowed as a MEDICAL PROCEDURE (smoking increases risk, but it’s not a medical procedure and does not fall under the same lines of jurisdiction) in the US simply based on the cancer risk and other sequelae. A secondary point is that the entire abortion industry is completely hypocritical. They talk about “helping women” and at the same time completely ignore all the ethics of patient care that go into the requirement to get informed consent. Not only are they not required to provide informed consent, most efforts to attempt to force them to have been struck down judicially (in, I might add, cases where judges overstep their authority and legislate from the bench, ask any lawyer, even Roe vs. Wade is HORRIBLE case law, the majority opinion is based on the judges personal opinion and references to French law, which has no bearing on our legal system, it is not actually based directly on any US legal document. It is a judge’s job to interpret our internal written documents.) This hypocrisy goes farther. I can’t treat a minor without parental consent without direct judicial order and allegations that nearly rise to parental abuse. With the exception of reproductive rights. If a 15 year old is pregnant, I cannot tell her parents that she is pregnant and I may perform an abortion on her should she request it. This is true despite the fact that I CANNOT EVEN REMOVE A MOLE OR FREEZE OFF A WART WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. We are giving young girls adult status in areas that are medically, ethically, and morally complex when we have simultaneously stated that they are not old enough to determine if it is wiser to burn off that wart on their knee or leave it (for those of you that don’t know, this is, generally speaking, a SIMPLE decision, either way it turns out fine, burn it off, the wart dies and you have a barely noticeable scar, leave it alone and generally speaking within a couple years the body takes care of it by itself).

    I would like to also take a moment to shift my focus as well. My medical argument is a practical one, and therefore, less important. The real focus and item of import is this. I believe that a fetus is a person. This is based on having observed them under ultrasound both during normal gestation and during abortions (trust me, the majority of the time, they actually try to get away from the vacuum) and having looked on their shredded bodies following abortions. I’ve studied embryology in great detail and not just in theory, I have looked on real live fetuses under hysteroscopy. Can you say the same? It is NOT simply a clump of cells. The blastosphere stage is over hours after implantation (before you know you are pregnant), before you even know you are pregnant, that is when it looks like a clump of cells. (And I don’t believe that personhood should be defined by appearance.) This is what a fetus looks like at 8 weeks (the earliest it is called a fetus):

    http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/images/8-week-unborn-baby.jpg

    This is the only online picture I could come up with quickly, but I have, just now, compared it to my own embryology and prenatal development text and it is nearly identical. It has a arms, legs, a face, a central nervous system, and a heartbeat.

    This is what it looks like post abort:

    http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/05.html

    (If you have the bravery to look at the link, I applaud you. Most people of your ideological group will not willingly look upon an aborted fetus)

    THIS is the center of my argument. PROVE to me completely that that is not a person, and I will concede my argument. I would like to point out that the burden of proof lies on you, not me. If I am hunting in the woods, the burden is on me to insure that there is no other person somewhere in front of my gun. If I am not sure if there is a person in that area, I don’t shoot. If we are uncertain in areas where we have the potential to kill someone, we err on the side of caution.

    I will admit there are cases in which I condone abortion. In the case that the infant has no chance of survival, and has a decent chance of taking the mother down with it, I support abortion. I support it only so long as everything that can possibly be done to preserve that child’s life is done. (Unless the child is at least 24 weeks, chances are it will die). A good example of that is pre-eclampsia. The best option for mother and child in this case is removal of the fetus as soon as the mother is stable enough for operation. We can bypass the whole abortion argument by calling it a C-section (in which case, the intent is clearly to try to save the fetus if possble.)

    “What if the mother is raped or the child is a product of incest, then the mother will be reminded of the horrible experience her whole life.” Ok, I’ll bite, despite the fact that this makes up the severe minority of abortions. A bastard child of a rapist is still a child, and worthy of life. I understand it might be hard for the woman emotionally, however, rape in general is emotionally hard on women. My data for this case is purely anecdotal, but I have known two women who were victims of rape and became pregnant and not only carried the child to term, but raised it. I spoke to them when their children were 2 and 5 at the time I spoke to them. They both related to me that raising the child was actually something that was healing for them. It brought them comfort from the trauma of their rape. However, for women who are not that emotionally brave, there is always adoption as an option (this option also goes for single women who are living in poverty and find themselves present) I know personally of 2 couples that are infertile and would deeply love to have a child, and know many more through clinical experience. The sad reality is that the vast majority of these couples spend 3 or 4 years (keep in mind most of these couples tried for 2-3 years without success on their own, and then spent a year or two getting medical work ups to get to this point) and $30,000-$40,000 trying to adopt and ultimately usually adopt from a foreign country. Why? Because there is a severe shortage of children up for adoption here in this country.

    In short, not only are there a number of philosophical and moral reasons that abortion should not be tolerated, there are a number of practical concerns that also dictate that abortion should be heavily proscribed. Any one of these practical considerations would be reason enough to severely scrutinize abortion. Together, they become a mountain of evidence that demands our attention.

    The there are only three ways in which one may make abortion allowable. One, convince oneself that a fetus is not a human life (I challenge you to look at all the pictures I have linked to and do this). Two, you may say that human life is something that is sacred (in which case, the question is not, should I kill the people I don’t like, but can I get away with it without other people killing me or otherwise negatively impacting me). Three, you may state that you are the most important thing in the universe (i.e. say I am God) and therefore “good” is what benefits you most (in which case, “good” being what benefits you most, you may commit any act, such as rape, murder, or genocide, so long as you firmly believe that everything works out best for you that way.)

  98. Kent
    February 13th, 2009 @ 11:30 am

    My apologies for my grammatical and spelling errors, I am a little passionate about this debate and did not take the time to proof-read my post.

    In case you were wondering, point two in the last paragraph is supposed to read “….something that is not sacred….”

    Thank you so much for your patience through my two very long posts. If you got through them both I applaud you, most Americans do not have the attention span to read all of that.

  99. Mike Melendez
    February 13th, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

    Carla, Angele,

    Thank you for being teachers.

  100. nile
    February 14th, 2009 @ 11:39 am

    To be honest, I don’t have much knowledge about the scientific side of the story. When I mentioned human form, I meant a fully developed born baby who can live on his/her own outside mommy’s womb. That sure looks different from the pictures Kent has provided.

    Kent, you have distorted everything so dramatically that you have created murderers out of abortion defenders. I’m sure we have all witnessed many life defenders who have given orders to kill thousands of children, women and innnocent men. The blacks you mentioned were only part of this. So you better stop pretending that pro-life people are all ethics.

    Remember that it is our very God Who created us in such a way that we have to kill another being for survival. A newly born lamb has just as much right to live as a newly born baby, but somehow one is created so that the other can feed on it. So, I think we have to blame God for basing life on killing in the first place. (But God didn’t know that we all belonged to one animal kingdom!)

    I love my baby, not an unborn embryo.

    Calling people murderers for aborting a 3-month old fetus and continually encouraging negative emotion toward abortion is what makes young mothers suffer from guilt rather than the act itself.

  101. Kent
    February 14th, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

    “To be honest, I don’t have much knowledge about the scientific side of the story. When I mentioned human form, I meant a fully developed born baby who can live on his/her own outside mommy’s womb. That sure looks different from the pictures Kent has provided.”

    That is a matter of perspective. It looks a lot like a baby to me. Just a little smaller and more helpless. Infants and adult humans are more different than a fetus and an infant. But all three are human. A fetus is alive, otherwise there is no need to kill it. A fetus is human on the basis that its genetics dictate that that be the case. It even has its own unique set of genetics. Therefore, it is a human life.

    “Kent, you have distorted everything so dramatically that you have created murderers out of abortion defenders. I’m sure we have all witnessed many life defenders who have given orders to kill thousands of children, women and innnocent men. The blacks you mentioned were only part of this. So you better stop pretending that pro-life people are all ethics.”

    I have not advocated that abortion defenders are murderers. I believe that would be the abortionists. Abortion defenders are merely those who advocate the right to murder, not necessarily commit it themselves. I have not witnessed any such thing, but will take your word that you have. It does not change this argument in the least. Again, this is an ad hominem attack. I never pretended that anyone was without sin. I believe all are fully worthy of the just and righteous wrath of God for what we have done here on earth. However, I also believe that Christians, though no better morally than anyone else, have seized God’s offer of pardon. Christians are not “good people” and anyone who would say that they are either lying or have not met many Christians. However, while not good, Christians are forgiven. Not for anything they have done that is good, but because of God’s goodness and mercy. David himself, the psalmist, harp player, and man after God’s own heart, nearly avenged himself on Nabal, and would have killed him and every man that stood with him, but he did not. And he realized that only God had prevented him from sinning in this way. Christ teaches us that being angry with a man is the same as killing him and lusting after a woman is the same as committing adultery with her. I cannot honestly say that I am innocent of either. I have allowed myself to be angry with people, and not contained my anger to their sin (a righteous application of anger). And I have found women other than my wife to be sexually alluring. I am a guilty sinner, make no mistake about that, but I will not look upon sin and call it anything other that what it is, Evil.

    “Remember that it is our very God Who created us in such a way that we have to kill another being for survival. A newly born lamb has just as much right to live as a newly born baby, but somehow one is created so that the other can feed on it.”

    We were created to eat nothing but fruit and vegetables (see Genesis), but God gave us clean animals to eat blamelessly after the flood (see Genesis), and all animals after the death of Christ (see Acts). God created humans as set apart from the rest of creation. Of all his creation, the only creature that can claim to be made in the image of God is man(gender inclusive).

    “So, I think we have to blame God for basing life on killing in the first place. (But God didn’t know that we all belonged to one animal kingdom!)”

    First, the classification of creatures into kingdoms is a development of man in order to better study life. It says we are more like animals than bacteria. Second, who are you to accuse God, or assign him blame? Where were you when he laid the foundation of the Earth? Have you ever given orders to the morning or shown the dawn its place? Can you demand that nature submit to you and have it do so merely by your word? Can you generate hurricanes from nothing? Does the tornado turn aside at your call? How can a mere creation rebuke the creator? Does the clay critique the potter on his work? From what source can you claim the authority to dictate to the Almighty, the maker and upholder of ultimate law?

    “I love my baby, not an unborn embryo.”

    And your love is what grants the right to life?

    “Calling people murderers for aborting a 3-month old fetus and continually encouraging negative emotion toward abortion is what makes young mothers suffer from guilt rather than the act itself.”

    Not so, a patient I have talked to at length who is firmly committed to her atheistic beliefs had an abortion about 3 years ago. I did share with her that I was a Christian, however, I still maintained her trust and she felt she was not judged by me (I am not a good actor at all, the reason she felt this way is because I did not judge her, I would never try to take God’s job) Before her abortion she was a perfectly happy, normal girl. She does not believe abortion to be wrong, in fact she has mild pity on those who have a moral stance against it. Despite her firm belief that she has done no wrong, she has a large number of mental problems that are heavily associated with abortion. Since the abortion, she suffers from depression and suicidal thoughts. Her relationship with her boyfriend has become unbearable for her. When he is not around, she has a strong longing to be with him, even if he only left her a half hour ago. When he is around, she feels like she hates him and everything he does makes her angry. Additionally, now the very thought of sex is disgusting to her. She has a severe aversion to anything related to sex, and she wants to enjoy sex again the way she did before her abortion. This aversion does not come from any physical pain or scarring associated with the abortion. She reports no pain during or associated with sex, and a pelvic reveals that her abortion did no apparent damage to her reproductive tract. All of these problems started after her abortion, and she cannot comprehend why she suddenly started feeling this way. Women who have had an abortion usually feel that their life is empty, hollow, and pointless. This is not limited to women who are Christian, Islamic, Atheist, Jewish, or any other world view. It’s consistent across all groups. More than half of women who have an abortion will have symptoms of PTSD. The women at highest risk include: teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women who have had more than one abortion. More than half of women who have had an abortion have subsequent sexual dysfunction. Of those who have sequelae, 60% will seriously consider suicide and 28% will attempt it. And most will have problems with increased smoking, alcohol use, eating disorders, violent behavior, drug abuse, and reduced maternal bonding with subsequent children. Many will attempt to have a replacement pregnancy. Women who have had abortions are much more likely to be abusive toward their children following the abortion. This is not related to people telling them they are murderers. They avoid people that do that. It is because abortion in and of itself is psychologically traumatic, like rape and domestic violence. Abortion predisposes just as strongly to the same sort of things. Many post-abortive women report that they feel that the doctor who performed the abortion violated them. They feel that way because that is what happened. The doctor who performed the abortion violently (don’t think it’s violent? watch one. Watch as cold surgical instruments are pushed into the vagina to force the cervix open, then watch as the vacuum tube is shoved into the uterus, and then watch on ultrasound as the baby tries to get away, but is eventually ripped apart by the suction hose) entered inside that woman and prevented her body from doing what it was naturally designed to do; protect and care for that little life until it could do so on its own. Don’t get in a tizzy over this, I am not saying that all women are good for is bearing children, I am saying that their bodies are designed to do something and abortion is a direct violation of that design.

    Let me sum up what I am saying succinctly. First, abortion is WRONG, mainly because it destroys an innocent life. Second, abortion is destructive to the women who undergo the procedure. It is destructive emotionally as well as physically. Third, the entire abortion industry disingenuously claims to be “caring for women” while simultaneously attempting to suppress knowledge that abortion destroys women’s lives. Some recover, however, many are still found with entire bottles of tylenol in their stomachs or dead on the floor at a rave. (random tangent: if you’re going to try to kill yourself, tylenol is the worst idea ever. People who kill themselves with tylenol end up slowly and painfully dying over a 3 week period because they just completely killed their liver. They usually decide they wanted to live after a few nights in agony, but it’s a little hard to survive without a liver, and transplants are not easy to come by.)

  102. Kent
    February 14th, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

    Major edit:

    “…I can honestly say I am NOT innocent of either…”

  103. Carla
    February 14th, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

    Kent,
    I am so glad you are here. I actually have read every single one of your comments. Yes. Word for word.

  104. nile
    February 14th, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

    “From what source can you claim the authority to dictate to the Almighty, the maker and upholder of ultimate law?”

    I cannot dictate to a non-existence; everything I wrote was to emphasize our conflicting situation here on earth.

    We have to kill to survive; yet we don’t want to kill each other. We love animals, yet we eat them. Animals eat each other. If we believe in evolution, then we are animals anyhow, so we are killing our variety. If as the theists say, there is a God, then what kind of an unintelligent design is this? Don’t you see this dilemma?

    You argue pro-life. On the other hand, if we could save every one of our children – this is a projection from Origin of Species – then the world would be full of human beings to the expense of animals and we wouldn’t find food to eat. The population of a certain species need to be in balance with the others. Abortion may be considered as countering long-life, etc.

    Unfortunately the situation is far more complicated than either pro-choice or pro-life arguments. The Almighty seems not to care for us in this world; all He does is give us hope for another world; so let law protect us from the evils of this world. If you as a family don’t want abortion, then just don’t do it. Simple. But leave it open for others who do want.

  105. Lily
    February 14th, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

    Nile, that is so overwrought it is hard to disentangle it. Seriously, where to even begin? We (humans) don’t *have* to kill to survive. We eat animals because we evolved to be carnivores. Why? Who knows? How many species of mammals routinely kill their healthy young? Besides humans, I mean?

    The idea that we need abortion to keep the planet from being overburdened with humans, leading to mass starvation is preposterous. Just preposterous. Frankly, since we need young people far more than we need old ones, why don’t we spare the young and kill everyone over 50? That would certainly reduce the human population to manageable proportions, while making sure that there are enough stong, young people to do whatever useful human beings do.

  106. Kelly Clark
    February 14th, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

    Dear Carla,

    As I posted on your 4×4 blog (a great one, by the way!) I discovered the truth about my abortion in a similar way that you did.

    Thanks for all that you do!

    (I’m the “other Kelly” — not the “Jean” but the “Carla.”

  107. Carla
    February 14th, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

    Lily,
    I applaud your effort!! :)

    Kelly Clark,
    God bless you, girl!!! I read your story on your blog. SO glad that we found each other. Let’s fight together!!

  108. nile
    February 15th, 2009 @ 5:38 am

    “.The idea that we need abortion to keep the planet from being overburdened with humans, leading to mass starvation is preposterous. Just preposterous.”

    I said this was a projection from Origin of Species and here I am quoting the book:

    “……Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them……There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thoussnd years, there would literally not be standing room for his progeny. Linnaeus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds – and there is no plant so unproductive as this – and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be a million plants. The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pairs of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair.”

    It all goes under struggle for life, adaptation and natural/sexual or other kinds of selection. If the factors involved in evolution were not so many and diversified, we would not conceive nature as one great design.

    Do you see? You think God gave the design whereas I think that the totality of all the factors I mentioned above – elements of evolution – made nature look like designed.

    To come back to our subject, some of the progeny of a species are always destroyed this way or that way.

    That’s why I say, regarding killing, everything is far more complicated than being pro-life or pro-choice advocates. And we need to think more deeply into the subject.

  109. nile
    February 15th, 2009 @ 7:17 am

    And Lily, I didn’t say ‘we need abortion’. I used the expression ‘may be considered’ and this was, again, to emphasize that the selection process in evolution involves many elements and abortion might just be considered one of them. I didn’t even say ‘it is one of them’. This is a problem with many unknowns.

  110. Kent
    February 16th, 2009 @ 9:43 am

    Nile,

    “That’s why I say, regarding killing, everything is far more complicated than being pro-life or pro-choice advocates. And we need to think more deeply into the subject.”

    Many things are highly complicated. This is not. Is it or is it not acceptable to kill other people for one’s own convenience? If you think it is acceptable, just say so. If not, how in the world can abortion be justified with ANY CHANCE AT ALL that a fetus is a person?
    Secondarily, if abortion is part of “natural selection” does that not indicate that eventually people who are willing to abort their children will be selected out? Or our species will be selected out to make room for other species with either more care for their young or less capability for technology?

    “We have to kill to survive; yet we don’t want to kill each other. We love animals, yet we eat them. Animals eat each other. If we believe in evolution, then we are animals anyhow, so we are killing our variety. If as the theists say, there is a God, then what kind of an unintelligent design is this? Don’t you see this dilemma?”

    We’re not carnivores, we’re omnivores, so no, we’re not of necessity the “killing variety.” I like my dog, she’s a great dog. If I had to choose between my (currently unborn) child and my dog, I would pick my child. Every time. There is no comparison here. There is no dilemma. The only way anyone can construe a dilemma in this set of facts is if they were to attach equal value to the life of a human and the life of an animal. As regards unintelligent design, do you realize how much of a miracle it is that all your blood neither runs out of your body like a sieve or clots in your veins? The clotting cascade is a complete wonder. It is perfectly balanced and intricately complex. And guess what? As far as biological systems go, it is relatively simple. You have no idea the complexity of your design. I have spent YEARS of my life studying the human body and have still only scratched the surface in terms of my understanding of the biochemical processes that keep people alive. It’s like saying the space shuttle only looks designed, it actually all fell together in a scrapyard. Only this comparison falls far short. The simplest single cell is much more complicated than the shuttle, not to mention multi-cellular organisms. Trillions of cells all working together for a single unified purpose. Every one of them must know its place and function. Every single one, as complex as the shuttle, must interact in an appropriate manner with all the other cells in the body. Don’t tell me that the body only “looks” designed. I’ve devoted my life to understanding it. It’s a feat of complexity so extraordinary, there is nothing else against which it can be compared.

  111. nile
    February 16th, 2009 @ 11:51 am

    Kent: “Is it or is it not acceptable to kill other people for one’s own convenience? If you think it is acceptable, just say so. If not, how in the world can abortion be justified..”

    Of course, it is not acceptable to kill other people; yet, we do kill so many people in wars. No pesident has stood up until today and declared: We shall not make war and will not kill people NO MATTER WHAT! You see it depends. Life is always a matter of making choices. There is no absolute right or wrong. It always depends!

    “if abortion is part of “natural selection” does that not indicate that eventually people who are willing to abort their children will be selected out?”

    You are right, we may be selected out; but so what? It is this life – that concerns me. I want to make the best out of it with my family and those around me. And this includes love and respect for each other as well as a proper home and education. I have only one child and I doubt if I could provide the same facilities and give equal love to say, ten children as a tired mother and working woman. I prefer a decent home, a decent life with smaller number of children, but all qualified to the best a family can afford.

    “We’re not carnivores, we’re omnivores, so no, we’re not of necessity the “killing variety.”

    Well, we’re still killing plants. So, we’re “of necessity” the “killing variety”

    Regarding complexity, it is hard for us to imagine the time concept involved in evolution. An explanation that takes 6000 years from the beginning of the earth and the concept of billions of years is beyond our imagination. It takes hard work to focus on the elements of evolution working through these billions of years. Origin of Species has convinced me that this is possible. Of course, the reason that gave start to me to look for better explanations was the conflicts the religious texts included.

    I think we are going off-topic. To conclude, I am aware that abortion is a compromise, butI don’t find those who abort to be murderers necessarily more than a president who commands war on other people. Until the child is born, it is part of my body and it is this part I am exchanging for both the good of my and my family’s only life and the good of the unborn child – so that he doesn’t live the difficulties he will encounter in this life, should I give him birth.

  112. Kent
    February 17th, 2009 @ 8:45 am

    “Of course, it is not acceptable to kill other people; yet, we do kill so many people in wars. No pesident has stood up until today and declared: We shall not make war and will not kill people NO MATTER WHAT! You see it depends. Life is always a matter of making choices. There is no absolute right or wrong. It always depends!”

    So it’s not acceptable, but it’s going to happen, so we might as well accept it when it does?

    “Well, we’re still killing plants. So, we’re “of necessity” the “killing variety””

    Again, not necessarily, most plants design their fruit to be eaten in order to provide a fertile environment (feces) for the seedling to begin to grow in. I’m not advocating such a lifestyle, but I am pointing out that it is possible. So far from killing the plant (in this case) we are helping it to reproduce.

    “Regarding complexity, it is hard for us to imagine the time concept involved in evolution. An explanation that takes 6000 years from the beginning of the earth and the concept of billions of years is beyond our imagination. It takes hard work to focus on the elements of evolution working through these billions of years.”

    It’s not the time that is the problem. Believe it or not, I accept that evolution is compatible with the teachings of the bible, if read in the original Hebrew. I personally believe that the evidence for evolution is very poor and therefore don’t believe it from a scientific perspective, but it is in no way an affront to my religion. Let me repeat that to emphasize it; I do not reject evolution as a theory because of my religion, but simply because the science is weak. (By the way, many modern biologists have stated that there seems to be something “guiding” evolution. I remember one paper in which a biologist proposed that the force guiding evolution was “probably electromagnetic” (utterly preposterous, but if you’re trying to avoid the conclusion of an intelligent design, then it’s about the only way out at this point. Additionally, a great number of biologists have given up on the idea that life began on earth de novo because it seems impossible for that to have occurred in any conditions we can think of or generate here, so they have reasoned that life must have started somewhere else (in conditions we cannot imagine or conditions we cannot replicate) and been “seeded” here by a meteor, or some such as that (google search exogenesis (panspermia works, though this idea is slightly different, it is a more common term, and therefore, easier to find information on (there is even a wiki entry on it)))) Anyways, the point is that I have no trouble with “imagining” the vast stretches of time, I even subscribe to the theory that the universe is about 15 billion years old (this theory has some plausible science behind it). It does not matter. Even with this huge amount of time, the evidence for evolution is weaker than the evidence against it. The only reason it still holds credence is that there is no SCIENTIFIC theory that seems more probable. Keep in mind that all scientific theories, by nature, exclude the possibility of the supernatural.

    Aside: Origin of the Species is a very old document that was well written at the time, however, discoveries in biology in the past 100 years have shown it to be incorrect in several areas. There are no Darwinists among scientists today. All of the modern scientists who believe in evolutionary theory are accurately described as “neo-Darwinists,” which is a modification of Darwin’s ideas such that they fit much of our modern understanding. However, while Darwin addressed the issue of seemingly irreducible complexity in macroscopic systems found in life very well, no theory has been proposed that accounts for the apparent irreducible complexity of life at the molecular level (which was not understood at Darwin’s time, so Darwin was right not to address it, as it was not well understood at his time, but we cannot ignore the knowledge we now have at this level and his theories must be judged in light of this knowledge).

    “To conclude, I am aware that abortion is a compromise, but I don’t find those who abort to be murderers necessarily more than a president who commands war on other people.”

    So since you are pro-choice, I would, by logical extension of your argument, assume that you support going to war with random peoples across the globe?

    “Until the child is born, it is part of my body and it is this part I am exchanging for both the good of my and my family’s only life and the good of the unborn child – so that he doesn’t live the difficulties he will encounter in this life, should I give him birth.”

    You may choose to believe that your unborn child is a part of your body. This is not borne out by the apparent facts of the matter. It is not your place to decide for your child weather or not the difficulty of life will make life not worth living. If a person decides that that is the case, they usually commit suicide shortly thereafter, so why don’t you give the fetus a choice in that matter and allow it to decide if it will commit suicide or not.

  113. Tea With Tiffany
    February 18th, 2009 @ 7:43 am

    Thank you for speaking out for life! I’m passionate to share too. I will be on internet radio today talking about my abortion experience and the road to freedom!

    http://www.herfreedom.org

    God bless you and your family,

    Tiffany

  114. Walking with Aubrey : The Raving Theist | Eng raving live today
    September 1st, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

    […] admin Haunted : The Raving Theist Feb 13th, 2009 @ 10:41 am. 18 eld later. Original post:  Walking with Aubrey : The Raving Theist Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: carla, early-last, memory, pregnant-woman, realization, […]

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links