Being pro-life is not easy today … but still a just cause
Ever since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, abortion has become the major moral issue of the day. Under Roe v. Wade, both sides of the issue held strong opinions on the subject — but the issue had very little influence on voting. For sure, there were small contingents on both sides who cast their vote on the basis of abortion – but not enough to make a difference in election outcomes generally.
People cast their ballots on what issues they decide to decide upon. Abortion was not at the top for the vast majority of voters. Other issues drove the voting decisions – that is until Dobbs v. Jackson.
That decision was correct constitutionally. Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg alluded to that problem – fearing it could be justifiably overturned. The Dobbs Decision did not make abortion illegal. It merely left the decision up to the people of the several states.
As can be expected in our federal system, the responses from the states varied from near total bans on abortion to legislation protecting the practice to the time of birth While most Americans favor legalized abortions, the vast majority – up to 70 percent in some polls – want restrictions, especially on second and third trimester abortions. There is a common ground.
The sentiment in favor of legalized abortions was seen when abortion was singularly the issue on the ballot – as was the case in Kansas and more recently in Ohio. An overwhelming majority of voters sided with the pro-abortion advocates.
It is clear that a vast majority of Americans believe that abortion was both moral and a civil right. Of course, there was a time that most Americans believed the same of slavery.
The allusion to slavery is not gratuitous. Many pro-lifers – like this writer – see our situation as similar to the abolitionist in the later Eighteenth Century when the evil institution of slavery was culturally accepted as … moral and a civil right of owners. In fact, the abolition of slavery had less public support in the late 1700s than the pro-life position today. Like abortion, slavery was predicated on a malignant belief that the subject was something less than human – mostly based on differences in appearance.
Most Germans in the 1930s seemed to support Hitler’s genocidal polices against Jews by characterizing them as lesser humans unworthy of life. The Jews genetic inferiority, according to Hitler, was a threat to his Aryan race. Again, we see dehumanization as a rationale for genocidal extermination.
The question of abortion is a profound fundamental moral issue. It is not a political issue as pro-abortion advocates suggest. It is the political narrative that argues in favor of abortion without any consideration for moral issues involving both the developing human being and the involvement of a father the partner in producing that developing human being. The public narrative perpetuates the false claim that abortion is exclusively a woman’s issue despite the obvious involvement of the developing human being and the father.
By the science of evolution, the human woman has been given responsibility for the nurturing of the new life – first inside her body and then as the young life mature outside the womb. It is an unbroken chain of responsibility. The argument that the new life in the womb cannot survive on its own – and is therefore not entitled to life – could be applied to the one-month-old baby for whom the mother – and others – bear legal and criminal responsibility to care for and nurture. The biological responsibility for the health, wellbeing and life of the fetus and the toddler remains the same reality. The only thing that changes is the political issue of legal responsibility.
In addition to the moral issue, the decision to abort is not based on science or biology. Most pro-abortion folks consider the developing human being as something less than a developing human being. Some even concede that the fetus IS a developing human being, but not yet entitled to the constitutional rights afforded human beings. Both arguments are fundamentally flawed.
As some point in the maturation process, we all agree that the developing human being attains human status AND the civil rights of citizenship – particularly the existential right to life. But when does that significant moment take place? Pro-abortion advocates dodge that issue – and let it up to politicians to make such determinations without a biological rationale. When an abortion is allowable is based on the pragmatic political need to create an arbitrary moment of transition. There is no consistent reference to science. Different folks and different politicians select their own favored moment to determine humanity – six weeks, twelve weeks, heartbeat, presence of pain … or never.
In the past, I have alluded to several political myths that permeate the pro-abortion narratives. I have already mentioned the “woman exclusivity fallacy” and the “non-human fetus” claim. There are others.
Abortion is a woman’s health issue. It is not a matter of “health.” The vast majority of abortions-on-demand are performed on healthy women and healthy developing human beings — fetuses. The issues that drive abortions are largely economic and a sense of personal inconvenience. Most pro-lifers make exceptions for the health and life of the mother – and also for rape and incest.
Preventing the birth of bad people. As preposterous as it may seem, many abortion advocates argue that abortions prevent the birth of people who will live miserable and counterproductive lives. They will be abused as unwanted children – or turn out to be criminals and psychopaths. There is no more validity to that claim than it would be to argue all the saved babies would mostly turn out to be Albert Einsteins or Mother Theresas. There is no statistical data to support the claims of abortion supporters. In fact, that argument tracks more closely to false claims of Nazis and racists.
Meaningless blob of flesh. Abortion advocates often see the aborted developing human being as merely a blob of flesh. In fact, many abortions are performed on fetuses that have already taken on human traits and appearances. There are heads with eyes and brains. Tiny arms and legs with fingers and toes. There are internal organs and heartbeats – and nerves that feel pain. So much so that Planned Parenthood – in what can only be described as a grisly service — harvests and sells such body parts. (I know PP claims they do not “sell” body parts, but only takes money for “services” in extracting and packaging them. You only pay “shipping and handling.” Un huh.) The picture atop this commentary is of a fetus eligible for abortion by human vivisection.
Pro-lifers hate women. Pro-abortion advocates claim that the opposition to abortion is not only male dominated but is based on anti-female misogyny – the product of so-called toxic masculinity. They obfuscate the fact that millions of pro-lifers are women – and that millions of lives that would be saved are mostly female. In fact, abortions of female fetuses out number male fetuses because many abortions-on-demand are based on gender preferences. The pro-life position is based on the protection of ALL human life at all stages of development.
Pro-abortion denialism. Many of my pro-abortion friends take offense to my use of the term “pro-abortion.” They claim that they are not personally in favor of abortion but see no reason to prevent others from engaging in the practice. That is the rationale of many Catholic politicians, such as President Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. To me that suggests a conscious or subconscious uneasiness with the procedure. I take no offence at being referred to as pro-life or anti-abortion. They are two sides of the same proverbial coin. When someone supports abortion-on-demand and opposes efforts to ban or limit it– when they lobby for legislation to expand it – I see that as a pro-abortion position. They should own it proudly – but they do not.
Summary
Conversely, I have long pushed back on those in the Pro-Life Movement who describe those who have abortions or advocate for abortions as “baby killers.” While I think they are on the wrong side of morality and science, I understand that they are also a product of the times in which abortion-on-demand has become part of the culture. Family and friends I love and care about deeply do not share my pro-life position. I do not consider them evil baby killers.
Again, it is similar to the many good people who were educated and influenced by society to honestly believe that Negroes were an inferior race of humans, and that slavery was an appropriate part of farming and commerce – or the ancient peoples who believed that sacrificing humans was moral and essential.
Political pragmatists call on the Republican Party to come in line with the current cultural opinion on abortion in order to succeed POLITICALLY. They do not understand that one does not surrender deeply held moral beliefs on the altar of political expediency. Yes, abortion is an issue currently working against the GOP, but that is not a reason for pro-lifers to bend to the zeitgeist of the times.
I do believe that there will be a future enlightenment as there has been slavery and human sacrifices. That will not happen in my lifetime, but the pro-life effort will continue well into the future. I do believe, however, that there will come a time when abortion-on-demand will be viewed in hindsight as a misguided and primitive practice based on political power and economics – not science or morality.
So, there ‘tis.
I’m pro life and proud of it. I believe in God and his son Jesus. I believe in the right to bear arms. And the list goes on. But I’ve made myself clear. Any questions?
Dan Tyree .. Wait! I am sure Frank is currently working on his loooooong repetitious screed as a counterpoint.
Frank is soooo predictable….lol
Dan Tyree … LOL Frank got his long repetitious screed in before prediction was uploaded. No matter. He is predictable. He says, it is “personal.” Yep! He has a personal obsession to espouse … and espouse. of course he rants rather than make any counterpoints to the points I raised. Typical.
Wait, Horist is upset that I did not have counterpoints for him not to read and not to intelligently discuss except for his usual name calling? Counterpoints that he tells his readers he has no time to read?
Wow Larry, You bromance better than anyone else!
I’m pro life . . . and ABORTION is an ABOMINATION as per Proverb 6th chapter. Jesus is LORD.
If you are referring to “17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,”, that is a reference to a living, breathing, sentient being killing a living, breathing, sentient human being. It is not a reference to abortion.
Sorry buddy, this time it’s not only political, it’s personal.
You impregnated the national discourse with the seeds of your restrictions, bans, and gender-based laws and now you can reap what you sow. Fifty years of rights stiped away in an instant. Don’t try to abort the political discourse you created with your political hijacking of the SCOTUS by denying, for political reasons, Obama from selected a judge. It’s about women, their rights, their bodies, and they are coming for you, politically. And they have lots of friends and supporters. You have the deep state, deep south. Don’t tell me it’s up to the states, up to the people, ——-> the people HAD decided. The people ARE deciding again. And it does not look good for those who did not listen to the people the first time.
It’s personal, it’s political, you started it, you cheated to win, and we will finish it at the State Level. State after state. Even Florida.
Politics is people, the people are speaking, and while it may not be a party vote, it is most certainly a vote against your party.
It galls me to see you attempt to play victim here. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your party is responsible for the current situation and you will continue to lose over and over because it is political, and now it’s local too. Ought to be more fun as Republicans find more ways to pit neighbor against neighbor.
Those so called rights never existed. The very wrong roe v wade farce was a mind fart of liberal activists on the scotus. But it proved something that deserves attention. The fact that the democrats are millions more evil than Hitler. They don’t just stand for a mother’s life or rape and incest. It’s all about murdering babies for any or no good reason. The fact is that it doesn’t take smart people to just not like the constitution or parts of it and legislate from the bench. I truly thank God for our originalist justices
Nor did your right to ban abortion ever exist either.
What gives you the right to force women to deliver like brood sows.
Frank Stetson… Before you start throwing around your armchair opinion of what is a “right” under the Constitution and what is a “privilege” of living in a free nation, you need to consult with constitutional scholars and legal authorities. There is not “right” to abortion. In fact, there is no individual “right” to medical care … or an education … or a job. You are just showing your profound ignorance on the subject.
Hoirst, so now you obsess over whether I will submit or not. Funny. Then, as an armchair expert in the Constitution, you consult on what it means. Ironic.
Not sure you comprehended that I said: “Nor did your right to ban abortion ever exist either.” Basically I was agreeing with the comment I was commenting on that you felt obliged to go out of your way to wrongly comment about.
Sweet. No obsession.
Larry, I am pretty sure that Frank was saying that your right to cancel out abortion is no more existent than Frank’s right to abortion which you claim does not exist. I might add I would add that the US Constitution does guarantee a woman’s right to life and liberty. I would think that means that if her life is being negatively affected by a pregnancy and impinging upon her liberties to pursue economic freedom, then she has the right to do something about it.
Tom … You are giving an armchair interpretation of the Constitution. You should know better. Study the difference between rights and privileges in our society. You need to get a better grip on the constitutional distinction. Lots of people claim things are their “rights” — but legally, they are not.
Frank, even SCOTUS justice RBG thought they got it wrong the first time and that their decision would eventually be overturned. Yes I do agree with you when you say that Larry is playing victim here. Isn’t this exactly what Trump is doing, you know, the “I am sacrificing myself for you.” statements he makes. The problem with the GOP is that they cannot decide; some want no abortion, some six weeks, some twelve weeks, etc. All they really have to do is all come together and make their decision and stick by it. I agree that they will most likely lose big time at the polls in 2024.
While I think you sort of left a turd on the table when you say: “Frank, even SCOTUS justice RBG thought they got it wrong the first time and that their decision would eventually be overturned,” I trust you are roughly right at least. And you are.
If you had only added the word “structurally” before “wrong” you would have been spot on. But, for you, I don’t knee jerk and instead looked it up since I knew you were in the ballpark. And, as I said, that was our bad for not listening, to becoming complacent, and for not recognizing that the forces against pro-choice were not going away, getting more frustrated at their lack of success, and still in pretty good numbers. We will fix that this time around.
I think I also noted a desire by RBG to solve this at the federal level. Based on our current experience, the States have totally fucked this up. What’s next? NJ is inundated by Southerners seeking health care. I hope we start charging a freaking expensive out-of-state VAT on this procedure since they are bringing our health care system to it’s knees. Thank God so many good doctors are also migrating North. If we are going to care for other State’s mistakes, I think we should be compensated accordingly.
Here’s the piece where RBG pretty much explains her thinking, thanks, found it interesting: *https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/*
And while I don’t know what will happen in 2024, it’s the economy stupid, after all, I do know that on the issue of abortion: politically, the Trumplicant party loses. IT is political, Horist and company made it so, not that it was not already, but now it is personal too. Very personal. Not party centric, it’s bipartisan and right-minded independents too.
Yes I agree. The GOP has made a mess of things when it comes to abortion. It appears to me that this is a good case for stronger central government to tackle issues that affect the whole country like transportation, commerce, defense, and yes, abortion as well. A very good point that states with more liberal abortion laws will see much higher use of services by out of state customers. I have already read several articles about states that can not handle the influx of abortion customers.
Yes I agree with Ginsburg that it this whole abortion issue should be framed as “equal protection under the law” rather than “privacy”. And this “equal protection” piece is what is missing in the arguments of the Pro-Life folks, and honestly, I do not hear much about sex based discrimination and equal protection from the Pro-Choice folks because they keep talking about a woman’s right to choose and do not seem to ever get to the point of protecting all women from sexual discrimination by protecting their right to an abortion under the law. I felt Ginsburg was spot on in her analysis/comparison of a man and woman, both participate in the process of conception, yet the man gets to live his life, go to work, get promoted, enjoy men things while the woman so often has to make a choice that results in her freedom being diminished by either child bearing or child raising because men do not in general want these tie-downs, and many will deny their participation. And the law does not allow for mandatory paternity testing!
Her logic and reasoning was the basis for why I said in earlier blogs that we need to change the conversation (or as she says, framing) of the issue from “abortion” to “successful pregnancy outcomes for women” which should include abortion, child support payment starting at conception, Medicare/Medicaid care for all pregnant women of any income if the father does not want to acknowledge his paternity in the pregnancy, streamlined adoption laws that don’t take two years or more for a child to be adopted, special tax breaks for women raising a pre-school child alone such as the father’s tax break going to the single women, stronger anti-discrimination laws where needed to protect pregnant women, free contraception including the morning after pill and reversible vasectomies, mandatory paternity testing, tax breaks for people who want to help a single pregnant mother by funding her through state child support systems, etc. I think if we followed a course like this there would be many less women deciding on abortions. The issue is very solvable and such a solution can instill true sexual equity between men and women!
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOSE PRO-LIFERS ARE THE SAME ONES THAT VOTE AGAINST EXPANSION OF PROGRAMS THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THIS PLAN. THEY VOTE FOR TAX CUTS THAT WILL RESULT IN SLIMMING DOWN PROGRAMS INSTEAD! AND THEN THEY SAY “THERE ARE PROGRAMS…” AND “THEY WANT TO SAVE CHILDREN”! By the way, at the other end of the spectrum, many vote against elder programs such as social security and Medicare being fully funded, etc. but do not touch their gun rights!!!
I wonder how many men on this blog who are strong Pro-life people actually have saved a child from abortion by funding the child through at least high school, or adopting the child. How many times have they gone to a pregnant single woman’s household and repaired something so she does not have to struggle to pay a contractor. How often have they filled her refrigerator or paid her electric bill or gave her a gas card. My suspicion is probably not very often, and at most infrequently!
Tom… You have said words that would terrify our nation’s Founders by calling for a “stronger central government.” You seem totally unaware of the fact that the Founders warned against a strong central government as tyranny. The Constitution they enacted — and as a conservative, I admire — is all about restraining the federal government,. It articulates our inalienable rights. And what is the threat to those rights? Big central government. Read the Tenth Amendment and you will understand their intent, Read their writings. The more powerful the central government, the more it becomes authoritarian. Your one comment is a complete repudiation of the American experiment in democracy .. American exceptionalism … and the basic concepts upon which this nation was founded and succeeded. I hope you just misspoke.
Thanks Tom, you clarified RBG for me, my grey matter was dribbling out…
I hear ya and have consistently asked what are these ban people planning to do with all the unwanted children. Fact is most kids in the US get adopted before they age out, but not all. Still, this too might change once the South unloads all of it’s unwanted kids, rape babies, incest babies. Personally, that might be the three-step pecking order —- in reverse form with incest babies being the least wanted. And if I expect a history report before buying a used car, a house, and any sort of sunshine law exists, the incest babies will be known….. No one is stepping up to thwart any of these unintended outcomes. Not to mention a growth market potential for predatory baby brokers, the need to adjust for a rise in unhealthy babies looking for adoption, and people just looking for a buck not through welfare baby machines, but capitalist baby brokering machines. All sorts of grifting potentials here.
One thing is certain: demand is the same, supply is up for the adoption market.
Like I said, in the 70’s I was active in all this. I chaperoned a number of folks through the process, not my own at that time, but they had no one to help. The boys were most certainly NOT back in town. Once, a nice person stated she wouldn’t tell because it was her choice and she was not going to muddy that water with a one-night-stand error from some dude desiring to be a Daddy after the fact, but with no love involved. IE — it was her choice and she also opted to shut him out. I did not agree, for many reasons, but respected her right to choose. As I noted before, I also interviewed a number of folks at the clinic, and no men, except parents or older, were among the patients. There was one older couple that basically just couldn’t handle having a second family at their age and health. At 50 years, they had just paid off college, and were settling in for the last tour of life and physically just could not handle it. But beyond that, no couples and I did a couple dozen interviews.
As far as when to centralize, when to have state’s rights handle the job, to me, I take an economic vantage point. IOW — some call this recent change returning power to the people. I say that’s just GOP bullshit that they can’t govern at the Federal Level. Fuck, the other day I heard MTGreene testify she gets her news from Twitter. Freakin Representative in Congress for the United States of American relies on Twitter…… SO —– the best part of state’s rights is seeing 50 different experiments hoping that 49 states will copy the winner. I think you are right, evidence seems to point to the fact that, in this case, the results are a clusterfuck and no way will you ever pick a winner. Instead, we will just have 49 inferior processes, one winner, but no one knows or cares.
Meanwhile the thought that Larry forces his neighbors to get to NJ to get the legal health care they demand seems so stupid to be beyond belief. He hasn’t fixed anything, he has just put hurdles in the way which, as is the case with Trumplicant policies, affects the poor but not the rich. For the rich, it’s just a inconvenience to get to NJ; for the poor an impossible journey. Reap what you sow Larry.
Strict Pro Life is about loosing elections. I feel a baby has every right to be born and not a just a Decision or a way to win elections.
But the facts are there.
With that said, I also feel Abortion should be considered in cases of:
Death to the Mother at time of delivery.
In Cases of Rape.
In cases of incest.
With this 40% of Democrat’s would become Republicans TOMORROW as Biden has set the Bar so low!
The same people that argue the sanctity of life have NO problem letting a Mother Die?
The Old Die every day in horrible conditions, even at hospitals because there life is not worth the extra cost?
It is no longer practiced in this country we tried everything we could to save him. Its how much will this cost, and is his time worth it!
A woman gets Raped as a VICTOM and you want her to raise a baby that was not produced out of LOVE?
Now she has a child from a Rapist who already has mental problems and you want her life shut down taking care of a child she as of yesterday had no idea she was going to have who may inherit mental conditions?
Then a reminder to her everyday for the rest of her life what took place on that day she got raped. Really?
Incest, another criminal act. The male should be in Jail. And the child decision should be left up to the family as this
is a Family matter.
The Stance of NO ABORTION NO MATTER WHAT is Barbaric! there is technology that exists to find threats to a Mother.
Abortion up to birth or after is MURDER. Period!
Do not get caught up in Religion to such a point your head is buried in the sand.
I believe Satin was a child as well!
Darren … Most pro lifers believe in exceptions for the of the mother, incest and rape. Most Americans also believe that abortions should be illegal after a certain time in the gestation period. The break point seems to be around 20 weeks. Many of the states have abortion restrictions that will pass constitutional muster — and be popular among most folks in those states. My pro-life positions is not religion based. I am not a member of any organized religions. If anything, it is because I love children and think their right to life trumps a woman’s convenience. There are innumerable responsible ways to prevent a pregnancy and options for the unwanted children — although I will never understand that. I never based my desire to have children on my personal economics or career plans. It is also intellectual malpractice to prejudge the future of the unborn as an effort to make a case for abortion.
Darren, the same people arguing for pro-life are the same people that argue for budget cuts, scaling down programs, and tax cuts for the rich.
Larry, This post is outright disgusting, you have stooped to a new low, comparing people who favor a woman’s right to choose to those who though slavery was okay. You claim that Republican’s are the party in favor of people’s rights, that Democrats are the “authoritarian” party that wants to eliminate people’s right to do as they wish. What a crock of bullshit! Republican’s want people to have the right to do whatever they want, as long as what they want to do what Republican officials tell them is “the right thing to do”. Republicans want to regulate what people say, what can be taught in school, what individuals can read-if that is not “authoritarian”, I don’t know what is…. The majority of the public agrees however, that having the government regulate a woman’s healthcare is a bad idea, and (as you pointed out) have expressed that view every time their legislators allowed them to express their opinion (of course, most Republican legislatures have found ways to prevent their voters from expressing their opinion-full well in the knowledge that if the voters understand what the issues are, they will be rejected-true with abortion and most other Republican positions…) The republican party has become the party of idiots and bully’s (just look at your congressional leaders picking fight right in the halls of the Capitol) and they should be proud that Larry Horist supports their ignorant bullshit….
Mike f … At least I do not support your ignorant bullshit. So, you think widespread acceptance of slavery was sufficient to justify it. Human sacrifice was okay in your book because most people supported it at the time. Exterminating Jews is okay merely become most Germans supported Hitler. (Oh yeah, I forgot, you are antisemitic.) I do not know if you simply do not understand my comparison — or just cannot understand the logic.
Larry, disgusting as usual, it’s obvious when you resort to name calling, that you really have no response to what commenters are saying. You are a bitter old man, whose lifetime failures are all due to those crooked democrats. Your opinions are out of step with the majority-and No, just because German people went along with hitler does not equate people who favor a women’s right to choose to that situation. Most of us know that the best people to determine if an abortion is necessary are the pregnant woman and her doctor. You are so ignorant that you believe this should be regulated by the government, even though all legislation written to date places far too many restrictions on abortion. But you really don’t care about the people involved, only some abstract unborn. As is usually the case, you are spouting off information that has no basis in fact….
Mike f … what is it about you and Frank who say that I am “bitter” “a failure” “a victim.” Those are the traits of the imaginary Larry Horist that you and Frank use as a straw man to support your ignorant statements. You really know nothing about me … so why the phony Larry Horist? If you really knew me, you would be so disappointed to see how inaccurate and misguided all your baseless assumptions really are. Does making childish insults make you feel good? If so, be my guest. Es macht nichts to me.
Why does Horist have to link me in with any attack he launches on someone else.
He consistently blames many for creating an imaginary Larry Horist. He blames a number of people for this.
Someday he might realize how poor his writing is that no one can comprehend who he is. He has been writing, and writing, sharing anecdotes, personal history and more. But yet: “Those are the traits of the imaginary Larry Horist that you and Frank use as a straw man to support your ignorant statements. You really know nothing about me … so why the phony Larry Horist? If you really knew me, you would be so disappointed to see how inaccurate and misguided all your baseless assumptions really are.”
We feel your pain Larry. Instead of bitching, moaning, and whining, why don’t you just tell us who you really are; why we don’t know you given all your writings, and help us understand where we misinterpreted you.
One of my early writing coaches made an impression when he noted: “most often, it’s the reader’s impression that is correct, and the writer that needs to correct.”
Your readers constantly seem to misinterpret unless they agree with you 100%. You can fix that you know. First step is to listen, second is to dialog. Or just continue to call them stupid as you like.
Larry, Making up childish insults is your specialty (I guess you studied in the school of trump) or have you forgotten (dementia?) that you insist on believing I am anti-Semitic without reason? I have no problem with the name Horowitz-it is you who is troubled being labeled with (and I quote you Larry) a “Jewish sounding name”. Is it really an insult to be thought to be Jewish? Not in my world, but obviously that is not the case in yours. Yes, you are a bitter old man who has failed in life, and now is lashing out with lies and half truths in an attempt to redeem yourself. It’s not working….
Mike f … In the past you have expressed you broadly negatives view of Israel. And you change my name to an obvious Jewish name and tie it to a rampage of nasty insults about my personality and character. The negative association is obvious. You associated those negative mischaracterizations to Jews. Every Jew I raised your comments with said they consider your comments as antisemitic. The problem is not that you gave me that name, but how YOU associated it with bad traits. You can double-talk all you like, but unless you clarify yourself and apologize, you own it.
Larry, Your comments display nothing but ignorance. While it is possible that you know some Jewish people (as my Jewish friends from the northeast tell me that Boca is a favorite place for Jewish people), given your propensity to lie, I find that doubtful. Equating issues with Israel (which I unabashedly have due to their mistreatment of the Palestinians, and reneging on the two state agreement) with being anti-Semitic shows extreme ignorance on your part, and not truly understanding what is “anti-semitic”.. However, discussion of the ignorance of your lie regarding me being antisemitic was not the purpose of my original comment-as I subsequently noted, you resort to name-calling when you don’t have a real response to a comment. Abortion rights was the issue of the day, and I pointed out that all the laws restricting abortion since overturning Roe v Wade did not allow for any exceptions due to health, age or abnormality of the fetus. Your position that the government is in a better position to determine when and if an abortion is required is the very definition of the authoritarian government that you seem to believe that Democrats would bring to the US if allowed to remain in office, when actually Republicans are attempting to do that currently. You need only check what is happening in Florida currently, and listen to what the frontrunner for Republican President nomination is planning to know that is true-however, due to you blaming the Democrats for your lifetime of failure, we can hardly expect you to be objective, can we?
Larry, I also think your comparisons are absurd. You are talking about living, breathing, sentient human beings trapped in institutional wrongs. And six states even had slavery written into their constitutions. They were beaten, killed, families broken up, forced sex, rape, kept ignorant and not allowed to read or better their lot in life, etc. And in the holocaust, again, living, breathing sentient human beings who were transported by trains right into camps where they were killed. They had their homes, possessions, and livelihoods taken from them. I do not think that an abortion in the first 24 weeks is anywhere close to the suffering visited upon the victims of the institution of slavery, and victims of the holocaust. And to politicize those human tragedies and use them as justification for your position on abortion is revealing of your inability to make fair and just comparisons. I, and most Americans, do not view the abortion issue the same as slavery or the holocaust.
When does the life of a human being start? Think science. The white supremacist of the past … and present… claim that the victims of thier ignorance are lesser human. Just as the Nazis saw Jews and others as a lesser strain of human, you are making the same distinction for the human life inside the womb. For you it is not a human life. Are you really willing to rip apart an unborn that looks like the pic atop this commentary. That is what abortions do. Follow the biology of the human development in the womb and tell me when you are willing to say it does not deserve to live. Folks who support abortion tend to get testy and defensive when confronted with facts. How are they absurd. I have given you the reasons for my comparisons … the commonality of debasing human life. And that thing in the womb IS a human life that you declare to be otherwise.
Sorry Larry, I do not recall saying that you were a victim. I have reread all of my responses and cannot find where I called you a victim. Although perhaps this “great life” you said you have had which would also imply that you have not had to experience the poor life of many women due to pregnancy issues. Thus it is easy for you to take a far right extreme view of this issue. As for me, I would never want any woman that I personally am involved in impregnating to get an abortion. But I am not willing to impose my psyche on other women. No, I have consistently said that once a fetus can feel pain, there should not be an abortion. That would be according to the science that you so love, to be about 24 weeks – which almost all scientist agree upon. I have also stated many times to change the discussion from “abortion” to “successful pregnancy outcomes for women”. I have suggested changes in our laws that would support such success. I have asked you if you are willing to have federal and state tax hikes to fund such a system that would minimize or maybe even eliminate abortions. YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED ME ON THIS!!! ANSWER ME NOW!!!
By the way, do you know how many months it takes for that picture to occur? I would estimate that according to my research you are showing a picture of a fetus at about 19 weeks to 24 weeks. I have consistently stated 12-15 weeks should be permissible for abortion, and for the sake of peace between factions would support up to 20 so as to stay on the safe side of the science. . What I am seeing is states that deny abortion all together except where mother’s life is at stake and then its hard to prove that. I see states with 6 week bans. The far right GOP by overturning Roe vs Wade has created a mess by sending the decision back to the states.
As I said earlier, I can find no biblical scripture that calls abortion a murder. I can find scriptures that appear to call an abortion a loss of property, and only when the mother is killed as a result of the act that caused the abortion is it considered murder, but it is the death of the adult breathing sentient, self supporting human being that is the murder, not the child in the womb. Argue that one with the Jews and God. Also the definition of immoral is an act that goes against the accepted morality of a society. So by your own words, 70% of society accepts abortion and feels it should be legalized or coded in federal law. Thus, abortion cannot be considered immoral.
Lastly, I think a woman deciding on an abortion may lower the value of human life in your mind, but not mine because again, according to biblical teaching and scriptures, it is not a human life worthy of rights until it breathes its first breath out of the womb. If anything, it debases the value of God’s gift of human sexuality because it means anyone can have casual sex and not worry about the outcome thereby making God’s perfect gift nothing more than a mere toy!
Larry, I really think the reason it is so hard for you to be pro-life really has more to do more with the mess the far right extreme view has created, and rather than take responsibility for the mess, it is easier to blame and debase Pro-Choice folks. What I am seeing is states that deny abortion all together except where mother’s life is at stake and then its hard to prove that. I see states with 6 week bans. I see women traveling to states with more liberal abortion rules for their abortions and overloading the medical systems of those states, I see the travel as dangerous just like women would die in a traffic accident to travel to NY to get an abortion in the 1960’s. I see the far right that wants the “feel good” but not suggesting how to improve laws and systems to support women’s successful pregnancy outcomes. The far right GOP by overturning Roe vs Wade has created a mess by sending the decision back to the states. And it is becoming more of a mess, and that is why it is hard for you. Other people see the mess the far right has created and are showing it to you in your article blog responses. You do not wish to view the mess you have created or their responses – you said so yourself. You would rather debase Frank and others that see the mess and want to do something sensible about it. Shame on you Larry!
I would rip that baby out, crumble it up, and burn it.
WHY: because it beats nailing babies to the floor.
After all, you are talking about an artist’s rendering, not a real baby, not even a picture of a real baby.
Freakin idiot.
Hey, side topic: how do you find a viable baby in a truck full of aborted babies?
Pitchfork.
ba dum, bump.
That’s right, it’s Friday funnies time of the gross blackhearted variety.
Seriously, that baby is a human when it exits the birth canal. Before that it’s a fetus. The Jews are right and I support Israel.
My God, it’s time to move on. This baby story has been aborted. Time to get on with life.
Tom… Sorry. I conflated you with your ankle-biting pal, Frank. you are correct about the image. But such a fetus is eligible for abortion. You can look up an image of fetuses at every stage — even before your 16 week arbitrary metamorphous date. According to the science, a feus at 16 weeks has arms, legs, toes fingers and marketable body parts. It can taste. It can suck its thumb and make facial expressions. It appears more like a baby than a tadpole. And there is only one way to abort it. Babies have survived birth at 21 weeks. Science puts the generally survivable age at 24 weeks. 16 weeks is considered to be a very active stage of fetal development. Even your 12-week fetuse is very human looking. You may be okey with preforming human vivisection on those cute little humans, but not me. And yes, I do support programs — private and government — for birthed babies. But you do not need to “scream” and demand like a dictator… LOL.
Frank, Read my response to Tom and you will learn something. You attack an accurate illustration. If you are curious, look up images’ of real fetuses at any stage of development. You can even see the aftermath of abortions on these little humans. It is a lot worse than crumbling up and burning a piece of paper that offends you. It is one thing to be pro-abortion, but quite another to defend you opinion without knowing the science and the facts …. much less the morality. So, you would abort a full term baby that has not yet emerged from the womb … maybe even a later delivery baby. Your self-described Friday humor is pathetic. Have you ever considered that your desire to garner attention and claim superiority by being pugnacious … outrageous — and constantly insulting is a lot like… oh … Donald Trump? And you even come across as a bitter loser. I think I found a shoe that fits you.
The unborn baby resulting from rape or incest is also a VICTIM of the crime. Murdering an innocent victim should never be permitted. Abortion is always MURDER!
A very hard right Roman Catholic point of view. How many babies have you adopted to save them from being aborted? Or are you just mouthing off?
Well David, let the fetus sue the host. Make aure they include the male donor as a coconspirator. Plus the bartender who mixed those drinks. And the Holiday Inn that had the attractive nuance of a bedroom for rent.
Horist plays the victim again. Poor man, got his SCOTUS decision, told us it’s not that bad and then it was. Told us we had the political power but holds it against us when we use it. Poor victim Horist.
Poor victim needs slavery, jews, concentration camps, Hitler, to support his lame theory because they are equivalent to what Horist labels as pro-abortion people. Yeah, peas in a pod. Apt comparison. Probably a great icebreaker for Larry’s liberal friends.
Dedicated to Larry, the victim, who sorely misses my tomes and has been just begging for this one…..you as he begs for a little name calling. Now that whiner boy’s Trumplicant party is getting tossed in almost every formal election there is, old man Horist has decided to look “rational,” and try to get you to believe in his logical arguments re abortion, a discussion, which amazingly coincides with his Trumplicant party’s losses in recent elections. He wants you to believe his “kinder, gentler” bans, restrictions, constraints, jail times, and fines are really pretty nice, pretty flexible way of forcing women to have unwanted children because he has morals. They even attempted to ban the morning after pill because they are so, so rational. Well, Larry, so do we have morals and our morals say stay the fuck out of women’s private parts. Don’t tell them what to do with them.
Here’s your requested tome……
For a guy who see’s politics in everything including his career, the amazing Horist asks his readers to avoid thinking of abortion in political terms now that he has got his way using politics. Hard ball at that. He uses the low-brow political branding of “pro-abortion” or “abortion advocates,” even though I, and many other readers, have tried to make him understand that there are very few Americans that are pro-abortion and there is no one advocating abortion. He attempts to smear us with his labels and brands. To dehumanize us as pro-murder, pro-abortion. Brands belong on soup cans Larry. It’s Trumpian to brand those of differing beliefs as subhuman abortion advocates or those pro-abortion types. We support women in their rights to control their own lives, their own bodies and not be a slave to the Horist-master-race of the world who ban abortion, forcing unwilling women to do Horist’s bidding with their own bodies, forcing them to have rape babies, incest babies, for babies to have babies, just because his morals tell him to. Fact Horist, our morals are equal in value to yours, and we are pro-choice. You want to tell women what to do by making things they want to do, illegal. We want to give them freedom of choice to do whatever they want —– with professional consultation on options.
“The question of abortion is a profound fundamental moral issue. It is not a political issue as pro-abortion advocates suggest. It is the political narrative that argues in favor of abortion without any consideration for moral issues involving both the developing human being and the involvement of a father the partner in producing that developing human being. The public narrative perpetuates the false claim that abortion is exclusively a woman’s issue despite the obvious involvement of the developing human being and the father.” How old are you and how long have you had your head under that 1950’s rock? It’s most certainly a political issue, more so today than yesterday, but no more so than in the 1970’s when we shoved your head under that rock. And we will do it again. And again. Via politics AS YOU HAVE ASKED FOR.
We don’t like abortion. We are for woman’s rights, not Horist who is always right about women and he will force them to obey what he says is right for them. With their bodies. Chattel. Brood sows.
I remember early 1973 when Roe v Wade passed, and it sure seemed political. I was there. I was active. I remember writing a story about people coming through an abortion clinic, the process, and what they called the politics of the whole thing. What they told me then is true today. There were young folks, one older couple, single girls, but not one with a guy, unless much older like a parent. Apparently, in my small sample, the “involvement of a father the partner” was nonexistent as Horist knows is often the case that the woman stands alone. He’s just amplifying the lesser cases of male involvement after the act because he needs all the support he can get. Come on, what is the percentage of woman that go this part alone? Horist must know…. Maybe it’s changed with the next generation, but I doubt it. My High School story was picked up in a city paper, I was almost tossed from school, it sure seemed political and personal at the time. Political only after a time.
As 50 years went by, it became just another right for some, for others like Horist it became a political cause celeb which they solved by having his Trumplicant party stall a Democratic righteous pick for SCOTUS so they could politically seize the power to have multiple SCOTUS political picks from their political party and suddenly, voila, it’s State’s rights time again, this time the abortion version. The SCOTUS stall was about as hard as hard ball politics gets. Totally Republican.
“The allusion to slavery is not gratuitous.” Yes, it is, plain and simple. How often has Horist argued against bullshit comparisons like this? But wait, there’s more as Horist grabs the old name calling, Naiz harkening, arguments to play……
“Most Germans in the 1930s seemed to support Hitler’s genocidal polices against Jews by characterizing them as lesser humans unworthy of life. The Jews genetic inferiority, according to Hitler, was a threat to his Aryan race. Again, we see dehumanization as a rationale for genocidal extermination.” Yet Horist supports the man who is dehumanizing liberals as vermin, less than human. Horist has announced that he will vote for the guy who plans to exterminate them. He is voting for a guy who promises retribution starting with the 1.6.2021 revenge tour. But it’s not political. After all, we’re sub-human “pro-abortion” vermin.
Maybe Horist is right; it’s not political. It’s personal. You have fired the first shot and either banned or severely restricted abortions in the entire deep state formerly known as the deep south. You force delivery of rape babies, incest babies, you even make babies to have babies, and people who should for health reasons should not have babies, you force them to have babies. And really, not “have,” but forced. Like slaves. Like Jews in Hitler’s camps. Like Trumplicants separating kids from parents, like the concentration camps Trump plans to build in 2025.
Can you believe it: slavery, Jews, Hitler, and the camps — all in one Horist tome. The man is really slumming now.
Eighteen States BAN abortion for RAPE, and for INCEST. In many States that have the exception, Doctors turn them down, it’s difficult and painful to get exception approval (like proving you were raped or Dad did it). It’s bullshit. And it’s the entire deep south Deep State all the way through Texass. So quit minimalizing it asshole. It’s bad, it’s political, and for these folks, its fucking personal.
So sorry buddy, this time it’s not only political, it’s personal.
Frank Stetson … My, my, my …. doesn’t Little Frankie have his undies in a bunch. Your fragile ego is showing. You spend lots of words attacking the imaginary Larry Horist of your obsession. Most of what you wrote is not accurate … not responsive … and not relevant. I am not the Larry Horist you peddle ad nauseum. You write thousands of words attacking my writing, my opinions and me personally — along with attacking almost every writer on this site and the site itself. Once in a whille I respond with a few words, and you call me obsessed. LMAO. Look up “obsession” and “projection” in the dictionary. I must assume I make a pretty good case for my position on abortion or you would not have gone so bonkers. Even considering your generally low standards of intelligent civil discourse, this screed was a beaut. And I understand that you are pro-abortion — and apparently ashamed to be associated with the practice. You are either in favor of legalized abortion-on-demand or against it. You cannot have it both. You ARE pro-abortion. Own it.
I am so glad you finally decided to stay on point and attack my points.
Oh wait, it was just a long tirade from a very old man totally out of step with reality as we know it.
He keeps repeating that we don’t know him. He tells most of his detractors that is THEIR problem.
Sure helps him from discussing the real issues, staying on point, as if he actually had a point that was anchored in any actual fact except “Larry says so.”
Frank Stetson … Time to put “Little Frankie” back on the shelf. And who are these “detractors” you have conjured in your mind to support your bogus contentions. I have some folks who agree with me … some disagree. I have not seen any personal “detractors” … except you. In case you have not noticed you are among a population of one — or maybe two, if you count Mike f. LOL. And Mike f is a critic prone to a bit of name-calling, but I do not see the your emotional obsession in him. You really do a lot of inventing and imagining to shore up you ego.
Frank doesn’t think that separate opinions are good. Like a true Marxist it’s his way or the highway. And I have mentioned that ignorant judges have no other option than to pick and chose until the constitution is ripped to pieces
Dan, I have often said your opinion is unassailable. That’s the nature of opinions.
Facts are different.
As to your last sentence, it just makes no sense. What judges? What constitution: state, federal, both?
If you think I am a Marxist, you should view my portfolio. My Defense is up over 15% as the merchant of patriotic causes funds and profits wars which are certainly not marxist on my behalf. You are crazy wrong on that one. Try free market capitalist on steroids.
You’re whatever fits you at a given time. Like a tree frog changing colors depending on their surroundings. And yes, judges many times legislate from the bench to suit their personal opinions. For example, the 4/5 decisions on the 2A several years ago. Speaking of Heller and Miller. And Ginsberg tried like hell in 2020 to get Al gore seated as president. These are a few examples. There’s many more. Unfortunately some so-called conservatives have been guilty. Now that we have an originalist majority they have been threatened, lied about and harassed by the left. But we have their backs. The left has been emboldened by getting away with the death of justice Scalia
Dan, honestly, Pro-life folks are simply ripping the US Constitution to the right in the same manner that they accuse Pro-Choice folks of ripping the US Constitution to the left. I might suggest not ripping it at all! Please read this article about one SCOTUS judge’s opinion on abortion at *https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/* . Compliments to Frank for finding it!
If you read this article you will see that this judge’s logic and reasoning was the basis for why I said in earlier blogs that we need to change the conversation (or as she says, framing) of the issue from “abortion” to “successful pregnancy outcomes for women” which should include abortion, child support payment starting at conception, Medicare/Medicaid care for all pregnant women of any income if the father does not want to acknowledge his paternity in the pregnancy, streamlined adoption laws that don’t take two years or more for a child to be adopted, special tax breaks for women raising a pre-school child alone such as the father’s tax break going to the single women, stronger anti-discrimination laws where needed to protect pregnant women, free contraception including the morning after pill and reversible vasectomies, mandatory paternity testing, tax breaks for people who want to help a single pregnant mother by funding her through state child support systems, etc. I think if we followed a course like this there would be many less women deciding on abortions. The issue is very solvable and such a solution can instill true sexual equity between men and women!
By the way, more than once in previous conversations I have asked Larry if he was in favor of raising federal taxes to fund such a great system that would severely limit abortion because of other better choices that are supported by We The People. He did not respond.
So let me ask you, are you in favor of raising federal and state taxes to afford a system of care for all pregnant women that will lead to the best successful outcome for that pregnancy and ensure sexual equity between men and women?
Tom .. Where to you and Frank get this “victim” bs. I am not a victim of abortion … or anything else that I can think of. I do not feel victimized. In fact, I think I have been very blessed in life … luckier than most. You guys like to throw around a lot of inaccurate characteristics about someone you do not know in the least. Sorry Tom. the victim thing is a nonstarter.
I see, so it’s all judges which you guess means many judges, many times in your OPINION, rule based on personal opinions meaning the entire judicial system many times is corrupt. And your proof is a split decision. Does that mean all split decisions indicate personal bias, not the facts, not the law, is guided the courts? That would mean greater than 50% of all cases are decided in a corrupt fashion.
How did Ginsburg do anything to “get Al gore seated as president” and how does that prove it was a corrupt personal opinion, not fact, that guided her?
And we know from listening to the right that the FBI, DOJ, and prosecutors are all corrupt. But just some of you guys.
You guys really don’t have much to fall back on given that it seems you feel the only thing not corrupt in the entire system is convicted criminal Trump with over 90 more charges pending against him. SHIT —- no wonder Republicans violently stormed the Capitol to overturn the election. You think everything is corrupt.
Or maybe it’s just the guy leading the Trumplicant Party, formerly known as Republicans, but the real ones all retired, maybe it’s just thing guy that’s misleading you. You know, they say he lies a lot. He certainly has been lying, and losing, in the court system lately……
But even with your terrible, incomplete, and not viable examples, ascertains, and conclusions, yes, I admit judges bring personal baggage to the court room. However, it is infrequent that judgements are tainted by it. Either personal, or political. Even this SCOTUS which has leaned about as far to the right as a judge can, can generally make a factual case for their decisions. We knew, for example, on ROE that it was not over until codified. Our bad, we won’t be fooled again.
I feel bad for your frustration that you entire world is basically corrupt. However, I do not see you presenting proof to support that yet. Certainly not in those examples.
When the witch hunt is over and if you commiecrats finally get trump have a circle jerk with your leftist friends. They might elect you to pivot man. And yes, democrats judges and politicians are corrupt. Some more than others. That’s what made some lawmakers including Manchin jump ship
Larry, I am pro-life and in favor of a wide range of solutions for women during pregnancy. Those solutions should range from abortion up to about 16 weeks to adoption with system supports, and everything inbetween including free and accessible birth control. Personally, I think that comparing abortion to slavery is even low for you buddy! And comparing abortion to the Holocaust is in my book is morally reprehensible.
According to the scriptures (and by the way you seem to espouse being a Christian) a fetus is property, and, Judaism which Christianity is based upon, does not consider any fetus as having human rights until after its first breath outside of the womb. Once the head it out, it is considered human.
I do agree with you that fathers should have a say. That is provided that they are willing to own up to being the father and fully intend on supporting the child through at least 21 years of age. As far as comparing anti-abortion folks to abolitionists, gosh, were you touching yourself below when you wrote that! Anti-abortionists folks are nowhere near the abolitionists in my view. But that is just my view. Larry you often have affirmed that you believe in following the science but in this issue you ignore the science as well as ignoring the scriptures that you believe in, that is if you believe in Jesus because he was a Jew, and they had abortion in his day as well!!!
You say, “Some even concede that the fetus IS a developing human being, but not yet entitled to the constitutional rights afforded human beings.” Believe it or not, this is exactly what the Old Testament pretty much says! And wow! This statement is a pile of bullshit when you say, “As some point in the maturation process, we all agree that the developing human being attains human status AND the civil rights of citizenship – particularly the existential right to life. “. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried buddy! This is you superimposing your thoughts on others, not the belief of most Americans. And you are very wrong on your statement when you say, “When an abortion is allowable is based on the pragmatic political need to create an arbitrary moment of transition. There is no consistent reference to science. “. Fact is, science is very much in agreement that pain is not felt by a fetus until about 24 weeks. It is you that is out of step buddy!
I do agree with you that at some point in the future there will be an enlightenment. Hopefully it will be you! As far as GOP goes, hey its a free country. If they want to stick to their cause, fine by me. I really do not care if you lose every election buddy!
Tom … First of all, if you favor abortion up to 16 weeks, you are not a pro-lifer. You seem to be wounded by my suggesting that public popularity does not make cultural practices proper or moral, You believe that public opinion made slavey okay? Violent antisemitism was popular among the German people in the 1930s. Would you defend that based on popular opinion. In each of those cases, the victims were considered lessor human forms — not worthy of civil rights. Same with the fetus. you are dread wrong that a fetus does not attain civil rights — the right to life — before exiting the womb. It is the accepting view encoded in law. People have been charged with murder for killing unborn children being carried by the mother. Mothers have been charged for damaging or killing the unborn through the excessive use of drugs and alcohol. When does science tell us that moment when a developing human being transform into a person with rights. There is no such moment because the science cannot support that moment of transition. I follow the science that tells us the fertilized egg is the beginning of a developing human with all the traits contained in the complete DNA. You disagree? And you can save all you Bible thumping. I am not a member of any religion. I do have a personal spiritual belief, but I would not be considered a good Christian any more than you are a good pro-lifer. And you must admit that the Bible expresses opinion on subjects that are quite contrary to modern civilized zeitgeist. I do not see the Bible as an infallible word of an old man cartoon God — or a document that is timely, especially in the Old Testament. In view of all you claim to believe, why do you oppose abortion after 16 weeks. Is it a different person one day before your16 week magical moment? Not according to science. You make an arbitrary political decision. Not based in sciences at all. Science tells us that we have a developing human being from the moment of conception. How we view that being politically is the crux of the issue. When does that developing human being gain civil rights — most importantly the most fundamental RIGHT to life? That fact that fact that you frame the issue around winning elections, proves my point that the pro-abortion position is all political — not based in science, morality or common sense. Read about “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, who won the South Carolina governorship and a us Senate set on the fame for murdering a number of black soldiers during Reconstruction. The fact that his actions won public support does make them right. You disagree? I am not comptempting of people who are pro-abortion. I see them more the victims of a cultural zeitgeist. Good people with a misguided social view. But I still believe that the unborn developing human has an inalienable right to life — with only the most limited an persuasive circumstances. Sorry if I wounded you by drawing tough, but relevant, comparisons.
Larry, believe me when I tell you that you do not wound me at all. And we all know what you mean when you say this – it is that you mean I have a pre-existing mental problem. You said this in other blogs. Society or God are the determinants of morality depending on your spiritual point of view. You are attempting to make the far right GOP the determinant of morality, something that I reject. I go by what is in biblical scriptures which you know little about according to you. Your faith is in limited government and free market as you have said before. Yet you will not apply the same free market principles to a woman in pregnancy crisis and will support laws that may diminish her life.
When it comes to slavery, Jesus said, that your lot in life is determined by God for your own good. Personally no, I do not condone slavery. And it happened in a time that I was not born in. Hitler killed innocent, sentient, breathing, self supporting life. Therefore Hitler and his Nazi party “murdered”. Again, if you ever would read a bible you would see that murder in the bible occurs when one living, breathing, sentient person outside of the womb end the life of another living, breathing, sentient person outside of the womb. See Exodus 21. Or see *https://humanjourney.org.uk/articles/exodus-21-and-abortion/*.
Yes you have been quite clear on your spirituality. I do not follow any one religion either. I follow scriptures and what they actually say. Yet, when Pro-Lifers are under examination, most cite Exodus 21 or Psalm 139: 13. My question to you is why do you say you do not follow any religion, yet you follow the hard right Christian group which is what most Pro-Lifers are? Why do you make yourself out to be so intelligent and then follow the misinterpretations and unfounded extensions of the scriptures they recite as their defense of why abortion is murder?
With regards to after 16 weeks, read for yourself as I have done. Around 20-24 weeks the nervous system develops and by 24 weeks the fetus can feel pain. I suspect it may be more like around 20 weeks the fetus can feel pain. So I have established 16 weeks as being safely far from the point of feeling pain. Again, I have been very in favor of contraception and the morning after pill which prevent or at least terminate conception at the initial embryo stage – but your far right friends do not accept this either thanks to their religious believes that you follow by default. You are very in error on the science of pain, so read this and be informed at *https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain*.
Published research generally supports an experience of pain being possible only later in gestation than 20 weeks. A synthesis of available evidence was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 by experts from the University of California, San Francisco, and elsewhere, and their report concluded: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception. Read full article at *https://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/*. Argue with them, not me!
I did not frame my argument around winning elections, that is your misguided interpretation. Anyone who reads my responses will see clearly that I frame my responses around biblical scriptures, science where I have graciously given you two articles to read, and definition of morality. All of which I have deeply researched. And now there is fair and equitable treatment under the law as RGB points out. I have never framed it as a political argument. I merely stated that the political result of the extreme right position on this issue will be that they will continue to lose elections. I was merely predicting the result of extremism. What a pity that you cannot make the distinction my dear friend!
Regarding the SC governor and murder of soldiers. This sounds like it was an act between breathing, sentient, self supporting human beings outside of the womb. You seem not to be able to grasp that concept of in or out of the womb and breathing air on their own. The issue is really what defines murder but you do not seem to grasp this concept properly.
Lastly, you say, “? I am not comptempting of people who are pro-abortion. I see them more the victims of a cultural zeitgeist. Good people with a misguided social view.” Actually Larry, I do not think their views are necessarily misguided. That is your attempt to debase them, their views, and what they see in their reality. It is a form of bullying them. You do it to several of your respondents all of the time.
No Larry, you have not wounded me at all. I simply disagree with you and can cite specifics for all of my disagreements. But the title of your article and responses to some of us does reveal that you have been wounded on this issue, but you are too manly to admit it. :>)
Again, please answer my question: Would you be willing to raise federal and state taxes to support a system that would have a range of solutions and would minimize or maybe even eliminate abortions? My bet is you will not answer!
Tom … If you did not feel wounded … great. But you should not assume my meaning and then claim your misinterpretation is a more widely held view. I have never believed, said or implied you have a mental problem. In fact, I consider you quite intelligent and articulate. We may disagree, but that just is a fact — not a diagnosis. There are people who seem to act from a bit of mental instability, but that is not you. Sorry, If I made you think that.
Your contention that is breathing on one’s one is the moment we bestow humanity and civil rights on a person is problematic. If a 25 month child is born prematurely while a, let’s say. 28 month child is still in the womb. You would allow the older developing human but protect the less mature one. Must they breath on their one to be exempt from abortion. If the premie is on life support — artificial breathing — is abortion still an option?
Your breath of life theory was conceived when society was ignorant of true nature of life in the womb. We now know that the fetus becomes a fully survivable human as early as 21 weeks thanks to science and technology — and that date is continuing to move closer to conception based on even newer technologies.
Those issues may not matter in your view, since you seem to oppose abortion after 16 weeks — with notable but rate exceptions.. I would happily support such legislation as a step in the right direction.
I did answer your question in an early posting that is still up approval. Yes, I would support more programs to aid birthed children — by private or government means. Jerry Falwell put it best many years ago. He said you cannot be pro-life if you do not consider the wellbeing of those who are spared from abortion. That is why his ministry set up a major adoption program. A small number of children saved from abortion will have special needs — as do children born of mothers who would not consider abortion or desire the child. That also needs to be addressed. We already provide all sorts of assistance to single moms — allowing many to be stay-at-home- mothers. Being pro-life also carries with it a concern for the qualify of life — but that is a universal that applies to all children.