Readers respond on abortion stance
Since my commentary explaining why I am opposed to abortion, I have had a number of responses. Some were very supportive. Some seem to have been knee-jerk reactions – attacking me for my opinion. Some seem to have not even read the commentary. I have selected a few who have the strongest objections to my pro-life position because they represent the vapid arguments of the pro-abortion crowd.
ANDREW had the most ridiculous comparison. He argued that prohibiting most abortions – abortion-on-demand without an overriding health issue – places women (pregnant women who want abortions, that is) into slavery. He falsely claims that it makes a woman’s body a property of the state.
Sorry ANDREW, you are not making a good case for you opinion. The state is not taking ownership of the woman’s body, but merely preventing her from killing a developing human being – who also has rights, in my judgment. It might be more arguable that it is the woman who is taking away the developing human’s right to “LIFE, liberty and happiness.” What greater oppression can there be than to determine another’s right to life.
Opposing abortion has very little to do with women’s health – as the pro-abortion community likes to contend. More than 80 percent of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women carrying perfectly healthy human life. And for those in which there is a serious and bona fide health risk, most pro-lifers allow for those abortions. But the vast majority of abortions are performed for nothing more than the convenience of the mother. So, to say it is ALL about the HEALTH of the mother is political nonsense without biological foundation.
I noted in my commentary that if a healthy woman wanted to have a healthy kidney removed on demand, it would be unethical and possibly illegal for a doctor to perform such an unnecessary operation. And there is no doubt that a kidney is part of the original equipment of a woman’s body. There are no other lives involved – such as a father and a baby. Does ANDREW see that as the state making the hypothetical woman a slave by disallowing the removal of her healthy kidney?
TOM asked a critical question. “Who decides when the abortion is necessary and not necessary?” Good question. He sent along a research paper on the subject. The study confirmed my own information that most women get abortions because they simply do not want a baby that poses no threat to the health of the mother. It is mostly economic and social issues. Some do not want to face being a single mother.
The information TOM sent had one very interesting bit of data I had not seen before. According to the study, “more than one-third of interview respondents said they had considered adoption and concluded that it was a morally unconscionable option because giving one’s child away is wrong.” Ponder that for a moment. One-third of the women surveyed said that putting a child up for adoption “was a morally unconscionable option because giving one’s child away is wrong.” More wrong than taking the life of that budding child?
I got a loooong and largely incoherent response from MIKE, who obsessively responds to many of my commentaries with long and largely incoherent responses – often revealing his anti-Semitism by referring to me as “Horowitz” as a pejorative even though he knows I am not Jewish. He says that I lie when I say I am pro-life because I do not support all the radical Democrats’ federal big-spending social agenda. How is that for a non-sequitur? He takes up the old canard that a male has no right to have an opinion on abortion – although he does.
He raises yet another canard that without abortion, many would be “born into situations where they are unloved, unwanted, and have experiences as youth that could only be described as hellish.” Even with abortion-on-demand, many ARE “born into situations where they are unloved, unwanted, and have experiences as youth that could only be described as hellish.” In fact, my family has taken on three such unfortunate teenagers. But to use MIKE’s logic, maybe they should have had their lives terminated at the exclusive will of their mothers early on – even after a natural birth. An abortion advocate will find that an outrageous comparison – and a pro-lifer will see it is perfectly relevant.
MIKE suggests that abortions should be legal because they occurred illegally prior to Roe v. Wade. With that logic, one could argue that today’s human slavery should now be legal because it was legal before the Civil War and the 12th, 13th and 14th constitutional amendments.
BEN – who also regularly disagrees with anything I write based on his belief that I am too old – wonders how I square my pro-life position on abortion with what he calls my “pro-war position.” First of all, I am not pro-war. I just believe that when we are required to mount defensive warfare, we should win it. BEN fails to understand that I support war to save lives from murderous bad actors. We did not fight Hitler and the Axis nations – including Italy and Japan – because we wanted to kill people or acquire geography. We fought to stop the killing. For some reason, BEN does get it. I speak out against abortion because it saves lives. But BEN may be too immature to understand.
FRANK – another constant critic –often goes off on irrelevant tangents or creates straw man arguments. I note that the only unique process in the maturation of a human is conception because all that is human is in place – height, hair and eye color and even genetic diseases. For some reason, FRANK went off – suggesting that I was arguing a religious point that life actually exists before conception. I never made that assertion and I do not believe it – and I am not what one would consider a religious person. So, what is FRANK’s point?
What so many abortion advocates fail to address are the very questions I raise. When inside the womb does that embryo become sufficiently human to be considered a person with inalienable rights and legal protections? What day does that happen? And since when is the developing human being merely a possession and part of a woman? It is not standard equipment. Why does the father have no rights unless it is to pay for the child when there is not abortion?
The pro-abortion arguments have one commonality. They ASSUME the developing human is not a human – just an amorphous piece of useless flesh. AT least that is what I hope they assume. They ASSUME that it exists only because of the woman – literally denying the rights and the responsibilities of the father and that developing human being. They talk about the health of the mother when the vast majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy mothers and healthy – and even viable — potential offspring as a matter of convenience.
Ironically, all the arguments favoring aborting unwanted children could be equally applied to a two-month-old baby. What if a woman does not want that kid? Or the kid presents a financial hardship. As a single mother, maybe they do not want the responsibility. It would be unconscionable to kill that two-month-old baby, right? So why is it okay to kill him or her a few weeks earlier.
We have seen instances where mothers have killed their post-natal babies for many of the reasons mentioned above. In America, that is called murder. Terminate the life in the womb and it is called a “woman’s right.”
During my lifetime, I switched from pro-abortion to pro-life because I explored the facts instead of defending the narrative. I think society will eventually come to its moral senses, just like it did about slavery and human sacrifice were put in the rearview mirror of history. They both had widespread popular appeal in their times – but facts and civility eventually carried the day. I do believe that there is a similar future for abortion-on-demand. At least I hope so.
So, there ‘tis.