Select Page

Readers respond on abortion stance

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.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

35 Comments

  1. Mike

    Larry, I should be glad to be among your top three, but having an illogical guy such as yourself comment on my comments is hardly inspiring. I did note that you did take one of my concerns seriously however, when you correctly stated in this title that you are “anti-abortion” rather than the misnomer “pro-life”. And yes, abortion did happen in the pre Roe days, but it frequently resulted in loss of life to the mother because they were usually done under unsafe, unregulated conditions. Glad you think a Jewish man is anti-Semitic too-just proves your thinking to be faulty. My logic stands however-you are all for protecting a fetus., but once they are born,, they are on their own. I am pro-life unlike yourself, and believe in this rich country of ours, children deserve to be nourished, educated and receive health care. Until you can say that, stop with the “holier than though” bloviating on abortion

    Reply
  2. Dolores Bronowski

    Abortion is murder. If an individual kills anyone, regardless their age 5 or 55, they will be charged for the killing. What is the difference between that and an abortion? If a women doesn’t want to get pregnant there are means to avoid getting pregnant. Killing is not the answer, Adoption is also an alternative, but murder is wrong. How can they murder a baby with a beating heart and get away with it. It is WRONG.
    .

    Reply
  3. Joseph S. Bruder

    Larry, I’m sure it was an oversight that you neglected to mention my comments, and that you wouldn’t knowingly censor one of your respondents, so I’m attaching my letter here as well:

    Joseph S. Bruder on September 12, 2021 at 1:08 pm
    Well, Larry, nothing like a “red meat” photo for your loyal readership… So, where did the photo come from? Any details, besides “late term”? From the picture, the fetus (not a baby!) looks to be about 28 weeks, just barely at the point where it can live outside the mother’s body (and no, they have not changed the viability date by months – any baby born more than 3 weeks early is considered a “preemie” and heroic efforts are required to save its life). Do you know if this fetus was dead and had to be aborted because of that? Or was the mother’s life in danger? Maybe the fetus was deformed in some manner and would not have survived? No, you attached the photo to your article for shock value only – the lowest form of journalism. Like a dog to a bone, Republicans are drawn to the pro-life issue because Reagan made it part of his southern strategy, and convinced millions of people that it’s a problem.
    Since your belief is probably Bible-based, the only mention of abortion in the Bible, as far as I know, is in Numbers, where a woman that has sex outside of marriage is told to go to the priest who will give her a potion (“cursed water”) to cause her to miscarry. But there are also rather violent descriptions of what to do for not believing in the correct god, such as killing the women and children, and even (Hosea) “women with child shall be ripped up”. You’d think that an all-knowing God would have been aware of the abortion issue coming down the road at a later date, and would have included a commandment “Thou shall not abort an unborn fetus”.
    How many women have died because of “coat hanger” abortions? Desperate women take desparate measures. What are their lives worth?
    But since you’re now very publicly pro-life, then you must agree with Democrats’ inclusion of a monthly subsidy to families with children? And of course, you believe that all schools should offer free meals for all children – you want to keep those kids alive and healthy. And government-mandated special-needs classes for disabled or gifted children. And free medical care for everyone, since the better the health care, the better their lives will be. Oh, and don’t forget free dental care either. And as I mentioned before, heroic efforts are required to save a baby more than a few weeks premature, so profit-motivated insurance companies would not be willing to pay for that – which means that you must support a switch to government provided health care. And it’s usually the more religious folks that don’t believe in birth control – are you going to come out for free government-supplied birth control too?
    To save the lives of millions of children, of course they all need to be vaccinated too. And since COVID typically kills about 2% of the people who catch it, then you would certainly approve of mandatory vaccinations so that nobody needlessly die of COVID.
    And since you’re going to force women to be baby machines, then they need to be compensated. Any single woman with a baby should get free room and board, a salary, and a guaranteed income until the baby is of legal age. And the child should get a free education up to and including college – otherwise the child’s life is just wasted. And how many children have you adopted? Not all the mothers pumping out babies are capable of raising them… are you ready to take a few into your home?
    Let’s not forget the death penalty – I suppose you believe it should be abolished since you’re a pro-life kind of guy. And being pro-life takes war off the table, YAY! At the very least, you’d stop advocating that the US meddle in the affairs of other countries, and stop taking sides and supplying arms to combatants. Let’s put the military-industrial complex out of business! But there are still refugees – typically Republicans hate refugees, but since you’re publicly stating your pro-life position, you can start advocating for saving the lives of refugees from poor or war-torn countries.
    Then there’s all the guns in the hands of irresponsible people – 15,000 homicides and 25,000 thousand suicides per year – surely you believe that we need to take away all those guns and save up to 40,000 lives per year? And police reform – 600 people were shot by police so far this year – police need to be better trained in non-violent escalation, and without all the guns on the street (per your pro-life beliefs) that should be a lot easier. Better government-sponsored mental health services could help with the suicides and reduce some of the load on police too.
    I guess now you’ll stop hating people from the LGBT community too… They’re people, just like everyone else, right? If you’re going to support life for an unborn fetus, you’ll need to support the lives of the ones already born, no matter how different they might be…
    Animals are alive, too… Millions of animals are dying because of public environmental policies – overhunting, overgrazing, destruction of natural habitats and fire and other natural disasters, and even shifting of natural habitats because . If you want to save the animals, and all that life, you need to also support that planet – with man-made global warming, it may become uninhabitable for ALL life, except for maybe the stray cockroaches.
    So, you want to call yourself pro-life – prove it! Publicly state your positions on all the other pro-life issues. One topic at a time, and you even get paid to write the columns. I’m looking forward to your new change of heart, now that you’re a Progressive Republican.

    larry Horist on September 14, 2021 at 12:56 am
    You just cannot stop lying. I wrote in my commentary specifically that my pro-life belief is NOT religious based. Other than that, I have no reason to respond to your addle-brained screeds. I sincerely hope that his latest post — and several others — are the result of intoxication for your sake.

    Joseph S. Bruder on September 15, 2021 at 1:53 am
    Oh, Larry… you already let it slip that you’re a Catholic boy… I know those nuns, they beat that Bible stuff into you at a young age. Whether you like it or not, or even believe it or not, your beliefs are religion-based.
    Boy, it sure is roomy living rent-free inside your head… reminds me of the old Munster mansion, dusty, cobwebs, kind of empty… Oh, look, there’s Grandpa hanging over in the corner… no, whoops, that Rudi Ghouliani… What’s Uncle Fester doing here? That’s the wrong TV show… Oh, that’s Trump, after he goes to prison and gets his head shaved…
    I’m still looking forward to your next pro-life essays… what will it be? Anti-war? Anti-guns? Pro-refugees?

    Reply
    • Roger Williams

      This Is to refute a letter  concluding that since, according to certain “cherry-picked” Bible verses, life doesn’t begin until a being has taken it’s first  breath, it condones abortion, legal or not, up until this time. The first reference is to Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being” after God had formed Adam from ” the dust of the earth”.  The second is from Ezekiel 37:4, the story of ” the valley of the dry bones”, where God breathed the breath of life into the beings he formed from those bones. Although the Bible is the inspired word of God , it is replete with allegories that are  not meant to be taken  literally. Re: The many parables of Jesus. This is an allegory  which Ezekiel employed as a prophecy to predict the resurgence of the nation of Israel after the diaspora. To my knowledge, this phenomenon is not mentioned in Scripture, or elsewhere, in any other of the billions of births since the beginning of time.The following truths, the first biblical, the other common knowledge, thoroughly disprove this conclusion:A.) When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, her baby (John ) leaped within her womb. How could he have leaped if he he were not alive? Certainly he had not yet begun to breathe!B.) Any woman who has ever given birth will testify that the sacred being  she is nurturing within her body is  alive long before it draws it’s first breath. 

      Reply
      • Ben

        Rodger,
        Thankfully we live in a land of laws, not a theocracy.
        Your book of fiction does not dictate how we live in America.

        Reply
      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Yes, the Bible contains lots of poetic references that are not to be taken literally, but the passges you cited have nothing to do with abortion. The passage I cited supports the history that priests were able to induce an abortion. There’s no judgement in the passage that it was considered wrong or sinful. It’s not allegory, and it doesn’t really have anything to do with the point of the story – it’s just mentioned as the required action to take if there’s a question about a woman’s fidelity (before or after marriage).

        The only conclusion from this passage is that the Bible is condoning and even advising abortion as a standard procedure if there doubt about the parentage of the fetus.The purpose could be to protect the man, or make the marriage more viable in the long term, but the resolution of the issue is clear.

        Reply
  4. Ben

    Larry,
    Ha! I made the cut! This is the highlight of my day!

    Just to clarify,, I don’t disagree with you solely on the premise that you’re old, but also an elitist that is out of touch with the majority of Americans. But mostly because you are a “conservative” who is diametrically opposite of everything I believe in. I mean face it, how can a Harvard lecturer living in an ivory tower in god’s waiting room have a clue what we normal Americans are going through? You lecture us as if we were your student of yesteryear.

    The abortion stance is a prime example. Why the fuck should an 85 yr old man have any say in what a woman does with her body?

    Now, on to war. Especially your WW2 reference. You conveniently forget ( must be the old age kicking in) that America did everything in its power to stay neutral while millions were slaughtered. Japan forced our hand.Vietnam ? That was to force our ideology on another Nation, not to save lives. Attacking Afghanistan when Saudi Nationals attacked us and Bin Laden was in Pakistan did nothing to save lives. Your buddy Rumsfeld and his useful idiot Starting a preemptive war in Iraq on false pretenses did nothing to save lives.

    There is a HUGE difference between being pro birth and pro life. You are anything but pro life. I won’t expect you to understand the difference, that was the point of my original post.
    Anyway, Thanks for the shout out !

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      I do believe appearing in my commentary made your day. Which evokes nothing but pity for you. My commentaries are THAT important to you? Our of exchanges have never been more than a minor diversion to me. As the saying goes, “Get a life.”

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Why doesn’t any body ever mention the $10,000 bounty?? Is that right??

        Reply
      • Ben

        Oh yes Larry!
        A man of your stature, at this stage of your life, dedicating an entire paragraph to refuting a post that took all of 2 min to compose, made my day!
        It’s quite an honor for a peasant like me to have time and energy devoted to me by a Harvard lecturer, the next Charles Krauthammer, the man, the legend, composing a well thought out paragraph entirely to me? It more than made my day, it made my week! I printed it out, and hung it above my desk!
        Great retort on the follow up post! Although I noticed you didn’t address the crux of my points. But I understand, it’s hard to really refute the facts, it’s much easier to seize on an obviously satirical comment and respond as if it was sincere. Once again, this backs up my stance that you are unable to process information any longer. You No longer understand what’s going on around you. Eat your jello and enjoy the twilight.

        Reply
      • Ben

        Larry,
        One more serious question, how big do you think a 6 week old embryo is?

        Reply
  5. frank stetson

    “Constant critic.” Sweet. Wouldn’t have to if you weren’t such a constant yourself.

    “often goes off on irrelevant tangents or creates straw man arguments,” you call em, I’ll retract em or correct you. Hitting me with that broad stroke is about the same as my comeback: Larry often goes off on irrelevant tangents or gets defensive about any constructive criticism. (Not a lot you can do with that, is there?). And for the great meanderer to critique a few roundabouts, hmm.

    You finally get to the point: “I note that the only unique process in the maturation of a human is conception…”FRANK went off – suggesting that I was arguing a religious point that life actually exists before conception.”

    While I take full blame for your misunderstanding of what I was trying to say, in no way was I suggesting it was your assertion. I said: “You say: “The only truly exceptional event is conception,” which seems to indicate that’s when you think “those first few cells contain all that is human.” Which sounds like the timestamp of the creation of life. To which I said “IF YOU believe in an all-knowing God then perhaps each life begins well before pregnancy.” One key here is IF…..as in maybe, possibly, it could happen. The second key, albeit more subtle, is YOU as in perhaps you, Larry, perhaps anyone. That’s my error, should have said IF “a person” I also framed the whole thought in a “perhaps” for the whole affair so pretty much cya’d myself across the board in this hypothetical that you took personally.

    The point was even with your incredible scientific determination of the exact moment of the creation of life, there can be another answer just as viable. God knew it all along, it was preordained well before the parents birth.

    But that was just one point amongst many that point to the problems of this cruel and unusual law. Oh hell, it’s not even law, it’s a workaround to an existing law they can’t get the votes to change. My conclusion: “It doesn’t matter Larry. This is a woman’s personal choice, more power to her IF she gets the guy to participate in the process, and in the decision, but still Larry — your thoughts, your conclusions, don’t matter didley. It is her right so just leave it alone.”

    But no, you think it’s your right to interfere on behalf of the unwanted, unborn. You think it’s an improvement to have a law making rape babies, incest babies, rape incest babies illegal to abort, providing bounties to neighbors who turn other neighbors over to the State, and the rest of the shit in this ten pound bag of Texas immorality.

    IOW, it’s my conclusion that it’s my life, my family, my responsibility, my freedom, my decision, so I say bugger off, see you in court. You can’t mandate me to produce unwanted babies for your gratification.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      To you last point. Can you be mandated not to kill a 3-month-old baby for all the reasons stated for abortions? Is that an issue of personal freedom. Of course not. It is just that you go mind dead when addressing the issue of WHEN a human life — a developing human being — has inalienable rights and the protections of a just society. Is leaving the womb the the declaration of humanness? And how do you then deal with babies who leave the womb at different times. Do you mean you can terminate an 8 month fetus if it is still in the womb — or can you kill a child prematurely born because it has not reached your magical stage of humanness? And I will not leave it alone any more than an abolitionist would not leave alone a supposed right to own slaves — was it was according to the Supreme Court in those days. I do not believe it is an inalienable right for a pregnant women to kill her offspring as a matter of convenience. The purpose of abortion is to terminate a life. Do you disagree?

      Reply
      • Ben

        Larry,
        The purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.

        Is a life a life if it can’t sustain itself? Science says no. The Supreme Court says no.

        If life begins at conception, why doesn’t child support? Why can’t the child tax credit be claimed starting at conception? Why no SS#? And I’m sure you would want registration for selective service at conception, gotta get those “lives” ready to die for the military industrial complex profits.

        Until you are able to get pregnant, it’s best you sit this one out. Stick to what you know, like what restaurants in Florida have the best early bird specials.

        Reply
        • larry Horist

          Ben… wrong again. Abortion can be said to both terminate a pregnancy — the condition of carrying a developing human being — and the termination of that human being. If it cannot sustain itself, you say it is not a life. And you say science says so … as does the Supreme Court. Wrong on both accounts. Frist of all, a new born full term baby cannot sustain itself. It requires care and nurturing to survive. I friend of mine delivered a pre-me baby girl at 1.5 pounds. She could not survive on here own, but she was a human being with all constitutional rights — and she grew to be a very healthy adult. Killing her at the time of birth would have been murder … period. Science and biology accept the fact that conception is the commencement of a developing human being. The only question is when in the gestation process does a just society bestow the rights and protections we provide all human beings. As with most pro-abortion advocates, you do not answer that question — maybe avoid even considering it because you cannot answer it.

          Reply
          • Ben

            Larry,
            I’ll be your huckleberry.

            When a fetus is able to breath and sustain life ( as opposed to being nurtured. I didn’t realize I had to differentiate the two words for you, god you’re bad at this) is about the time that society should consider if abortion is legally acceptable. Unless of course there are extenuating circumstances.. such as a non viable fetus, severe deformity, or other abnormality that would preclude a normal life for the fetus and parents.
            Nice antidotal story about your friend. I’m assuming she had healthcare and support from family and friends. And undertaking like that would impart a lifetime of crippling debt for most of our society.
            I also have an antidotal story, my sister in law had a fetus suddenly become non viable in the 8th month, would you suggest she carry it to term and then labor through birth? They made a medical decision and it shouldn’t be up to an old man in his ivory tower to dictate how they proceeded.

            Let’s face it, you and I debating what a woman should be able to do with her body is folly. Neither of us have any right to make that decision, let alone weigh in on it. It’s simply not for a man to say. Your views on abortion are antiquated and out of touch with the majority of Americans think on the subject.

            There ‘tis

          • Joseph S. Bruder

            Abortion is termination of a fetus, not a human being. When is the fetus alive? Coordinated brain funtion is said to start at 24-25 weeks. Does a mass of tissue that has no conciousness, no thoughts, and no memories mean that it’s alive? Is that human? Compared to what? If you cut your hand off, is it any more alive?

            Your hand would have the same amount of conciousness, probably a more developed circulatory system, if you poke it with a needle the nerves would jump as much as a fetus. Hell, when I was in high school biology, we poked frogs long-pickled in formaldehyde, and they would jump too. You could take one cell from the hand, and it would have as much potential with modern cloning technology to become a living sentient being.

            You can argue all you want to about what happens after that point (the point at which abortion is usually only performed if the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus is not viable), but before there’s brain function, it is not a person. 98% of abortions are performed before the 16th week of pregnancy (we’re talking about size of the thumb, not a hand), long before the fetus is anything but a few ounces of tissue with the host’s blood circulating through it..

  6. CMWRF

    This post-like countless others, refuses to acknowledge the constitutional solution. An injection of prostaglandin does NOT kill the fetus, but dissolves the corpus luteum, which prevents a woman from having to go through a pregnancy. It costs about $5. The anti-abortionists want to force women to go through a pregnancy and the pro-abortioists want to terminate a pregnancy no matter how cruel. BOTH sides want to force others into their way of thinking. I am fed-up with people claiming to be pro-constitution yet failing to offer constitutional solutions . The cost of unwanted children not only reaches hundreds of millions$$ in a few short years (BILLIONS$ in approx 10 years) but creates hundreds of thousands of anti-American welfare individuals that add to the destruction of America. Any person who thinks that a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy will properly raise the child she is forced to bear against her wishes is bat-crap crazy.

    Reply
  7. TOM

    You raise good points Larry. I was one of those males who had a child aborted without my consent when I was young, in the Navy, and away on duty. At first it was all hard to grapple with. Eventually I came to feel cheated, and a sense of zero control. As a Vietnam Era veteran it seems that I could ship out to save the children half way across the world but once home could not save my own child. I am much more at peace with it all these days as time has a way of mending wounds but I still wonder what he or she would have looked like and will I get to see that child once I die. Yes that research paper I sent to you with my last comment had some surprising stats in it for me too.

    Reply
    • Joseph S. Bruder

      Tom,

      Your comments are assuming that the man even knows that the woman got pregnant. Hook-ups are pretty common these days (and it wasn’t uncommon back when I was in my 20’s or 30’s either.)

      If for no other reason than that, it MUST be the woman’s decision. The woman has to trust that the man will be around to support the child, or she has to make the decision whether or not to raise the child by herself. Even if they’re in a relationship, the woman has to decide if there’s that level of trust or not.

      Reply
      • David SommerS

        You probably hooked up with men so you had nothing to worry about

        Reply
  8. Ben

    Larry,
    Also this from the AP today:
    But since the Taliban takeover in mid-August, the majority of Afghanistan’s countryside has seen a substantial drop in violence. Where airstrikes and pitched battles would be commonplace, the guns have fallen silent. The checkpoints have mostly disappeared.

    Reply
    • Dan Tyree

      Abortion is murder

      Reply
    • Joseph S. Bruder

      Post that to Gilbertson’s article, “14 million AFghan Women will be enslaved by Sharia, Where are the feminists?”

      Reply
    • larry Horist

      Good God, Ben. What are you trying to say? After Germany and Japan surrendered there was also a notable drop in violence. Duh! But if you are implying that the Taliban regime will be kinder and gentler on the masses in Afghanistan, you are simply too ill-informed to carry on an intelligent dialogue. They are not wanting to flee the country by the millions in anticipation of the wonderful world of Taliban terrorism. And what does that have to do with the subject of this thread. Or did you just need to vent again?

      Reply
      • Ben

        Larry,
        You felt the subject was important enough to write an entire paragraph refuting your pro war, anti life rant. Sooo.. if it was important enough for you to address, I figured it was important enough for me to point out how wrong you are. Plus, according to your previous articles, we lost the war, so how could the Taliban be defeated?
        In your old age, your memory is going, you can’t even remember what lead to your statements that caused you to make the points that you did yesterday. Again, at this stage in you life, put your teeth in, take your medicine and leave the rest to the population that is coherent enough to remember why they are debating such important topics such as women’s reproductive rights.

        Reply
  9. Ben

    Larry,
    Just one more point to your pro war, anti life stance. Over the last 10 years, America has killed more civilians using drone strikes than the Taliban has killed in all means combined.
    So.. would you like to amend your statement?

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    JJJJJJJJJ

    Reply
  11. frank stetson

    “Can you be mandated not to kill a 3-month-old baby for all the reasons stated for abortions?” No, not legally. Morally, I would say no too.
    “It is just that you go mind dead when addressing the issue of WHEN a human life — a developing human being — has inalienable rights and the protections of a just society. Is leaving the womb the the declaration of humanness?” No, but something slightly short of legally is. I think when pushed most will agree it’s aborting a life. Whether it starts at conception or just before that last glass of wine, really doesn’t matter, there was a very good distinct possibility of life. It is also the law, and without the law, the risks to born and unborn just get higher. Not much else changes when you make abortion an illegal act.

    You pro-lifers are not pro-life, you are just anti-abortion and then you wash you hands of it. Your answer is not a solution except to your feeling of guilt over terminating that which never was.

    Again, IMO, a pro life stand would be to create more and better programs and processes that encourage people to come to term, deliver healthy, happy outcomes, that actually have a great shot for a successful, happy life. If you’re pro life programs were any good, that would reduce the number. The Texas statute is an abortion of the law. IF this remains on the books, where do we deploy next. What crimes do we monetarily incentivize vigilantes to do the State’s bidding? $10 reward for a parking violation? $500 for turning in folks setting off fireworks. I mean abortion nets you $10,000. Can I rape someone and then turn them in? This is a really bad way for you to reach your goals.

    And it will change absolutely nothing for the affluent. They will continue to get their abortions out of state. It’s only those with difficulties in making that trip that will suffer your heinous law that puts a bounty on folks desiring to do something that is 100% legal throughout the land.

    So, Larry, if you are asking me if it is morally wrong to take a life, then yes. If you are asking me when life begins, I say I don’t know, could be anything from God’s preordained plan to one-second post breathing fresh air. I don’t know and really don’t care to debate. If you are asking me to support this law OR support making abortion illegal, then no. This is tough stuff, the morality is murky, no matter how you slice it, the responsibility is weighted significantly to one gender, not mine, and frankly, it’s gonna happen whether there’s laws on the books or not. But this law is wrong; it is wrong to incentivize citizens with bounties to police other citizens. We do not want this to be how we control our neighbors in America.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Frank … when it comes to the essential question to determine whether an abortion right or wrong, that is: When does the developing human acquire the inalienable rights we give to all humans equally? At what point do you … and society … believe it is no longer acceptable to terminate the future of the developing human being? Like every abortion advocate with whom I have debated, you say you do not know — and you do not wish to debate the point. You not only refuse to answer that question, you seem to be afraid of even pondering it. To me, you relegating the unborn to less than human states is no different than the white supremacists who looked upon blacks and Asians as lesser human beings or the Nazis who murdered Jews for being lesser human beings. When I pondered the question, I could not find a notable time in the development of the human that would reasonably mark the transition. Conception is the one event that gives the developing human being all the personal traits of an individual.

      I would close off with two clarifications. For very specific reasons, I make an exception for the life of the mother, incest and rape. I have explained those in my various commentaries on the subject.

      Other then a general approval of the purpose of the Texas law, I have never commented on in in detail. Obviously, I prefer to have the three exceptions and I am troubled by putting individual in the civil process in charge of enforcement. None of that would be necessary if the Supreme Court would overturn abortion-on-demand. I believe that will happen in the same corrective spirit that had the high Court overturn it rulings on slavery and Negro citizenship and voting rights… on segregations, etc.

      The entire abortion debate rests on the definition of a human with rights and protections. You prefer to protect you belief with vagueness. It was when I sincerely pondered that question that I shifted from pro-abortion to pro-life.

      Reply
      • Joseph S. Bruder

        So, according to your logic, a fetus is a human from conception unless it’s the product of rape or incest? In which case, the fetus is not human, so it’s OK to abort?

        Sounds more like a fig leaf to cover your meager … argument.

        Reply
        • Ben

          Joe,
          I noticed once Larry was backed into a corner with logical and nuanced debate , he has stopped responding to comments.
          Thank you for pointing out Larry’s hypocrisy. Larry proves when you live in an echo chamber, it’s easy to buy into your own greatness.

          Reply
  12. frank stetson

    You got it Larry; this is one where I have real difficulty in determining the answer resulting in my acceptance of the answer in the current law. You, on the other hand, have the answer and that is to mandate people to carry any conceived, unborn, to term. Worse yet, this affects one gender, not yours, more than the other, and you have no issues, not being of that gender, to make this mandate.

    Worse yet, you are willing to hold your nose in acceptance of the birth of rape babies, incest babies, rape incest babies, with citizens being incentivized via some big taxpayer bucks, to enforce your mandate on a gender of which you are not.

    Worse yet, you take no actions whatsoever to enhance your anti abortion stance post delivery to be pro life. Once the baby clears the womb, your work in being prolife ends. The mandate is your final solution.

    And you have the gall to say: “you relegating the unborn to less than human states is no different than the white supremacists who looked upon blacks and Asians as lesser human beings or the Nazis who murdered Jews for being lesser human beings.” That’s some pure bullshit and a fall equivalency of the nth degree. One can always smell a bad argument when they throw the Nazi card.

    Again, Larry, I have been pretty clear with my thoughts on the beginning of life, how abortion is termination of life, when I wrote: ” I think when pushed most will agree it’s aborting a life.” You gotta a problem understanding the meaning of that? Seem to.

    Then I added: “Whether it starts at conception or just before that last glass of wine, really doesn’t matter, there was a very good distinct possibility of life. It is also the law, and without the law, the risks to born and unborn just get higher.” Who the fuck are you to determine the exact time when life begins, much less the exact time that the Bill of Rights kick in? My point is, even as whack it would be to take your advise on the exact time life begins, who cares: I will follow the law of the land on this one and, if needed, argue that point where it should be argued, a court of law.

    I just love these holier-than-thou forcing their way upon others. Let me guess — no abortions in your family? Yeah, so how many unwanted babies are there? How many adoptions of other unwanted babies? Have you ever dedicated anything to a rape momma to be mandated to carry to term? How does one support pending incest mammas? Like I have been saying: you all be gung ho to be hand-off in your mandate of carrying to term but bar the door, Katie, and run for the hills once the delivery is made.

    The Texas Law is an abortion of law, no amount of nose pinching can stop the terrible amount of pain and loss this will incur, and already is incurring. And the rich are unaffected by it all, just an inconvenience, not a barrier. The law targets the less affluent as you hold your nose and feel good about the direction even if there are a couple of things you wouldn’t do, you can accept rape babies, incest babies, and rape incest babies as long as you can invoke your vigilante supported mandate forcing people not of your gender to come to term.

    I say: let the Federal Law be the law of the land, no end runs or workarounds, and IF you desire less abortion, then work the pro life side of the issue in providing care and support, not the forced mandate to come to term with your inadequacy to convince people you can provide care and support for the unborn, and the nine months once gives up to get there.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Because you at least have intelligent response, I tend to engage more with you. You admit that you cannot answer the question of when a developing embryo become a human with rights. Fair enough. But that is the fundamental question that needs to be answered if we are to justify an abortion at some point. You say you must rely on the law. But the law does not answer that question. In fact, the law moves about as science suggest viability is earlier and earlier — with nurturing, of course. Would you have accepted slavery because it was sanctioned in law. An unfair question, by you get the point. Obviously, I believe the law is wrong.

      It is not a one gender issue for two reasons. One of the other genders was part of the process — and the aborted developing humans, who I feel a moral need to protect, are of both genders. In fact, girl babies get aborted more than male when the abolition is desired to produce an alternative gender child.

      I used slavery and anti-Semitism only as two relevant examples of the horror of placing other human beings in a subclass — with less rights. I am not accusing you of supporting slaver or anti-Semitism.

      I thought I responded to one of your earlier comments. I have noted in my commentaries that I make an exception for the life of the mother, incest and rape. Although I admit that they are based on a pragmatic argument … sort of a Sophie’s Choice. Both options — abort or not abort — are unfortunate.

      As far as the Texas law is concerned, I am waiting for a bit of dust to settle on that one. My knee jerk reaction is opposed to empowering enforcement only through civil action — and I certainly oppose extending the circle of culpability to far. I would limit it to the two people involved in an illegal abortion … the woman, the doctor (medical staff and clinic). Others who may encourage it or facilitate it should not be included. I may suggest you should rob a bank, but if you do, that is on you …not me. If I drive you to the bank … still on you. If I drive the getaway car… I am in.

      Now that you brought up my family, I will answer. I honestly do not know if any in my family have had an abortion. I am not aware of any even by those who are pro abortion. Actually, I have donated to organizations that both discourage abortions and provide post-birth care — including orphan placement. Jerry Falwell once said that it is not a complete moral to be opposed to abolition unless you answer the question regarding the future of the unwanted babies. For that reason he spent millions setting up an orphan operation for that very purpose. My immediate family has included three homeless kids — two sons and a daughter — who were invited to be part of the family. Other kids have temporarily passed through the family with more temporary needs. My house was a magnet for run-away kids who were given safe shelter as we worked to reunite them with their parents. One young man visited often. He had a wonderful mother, but said that I was the father he never had. I am VERY pro-life in many ways. Data shows that conservatives adopt far more children than liberals — and especially those who are opposed to abortion. My belief is not religious .. not political … but very personal.

      I follow the science that tells me that the human being development begins at the point of conception — when all the traits of humanness are present — albeit not yet in the mature form. It is a developing human being that is likely to survive to become a adult unless we terminate it. I do not allow the capricious nature of law to determine my belief any more than I would have allowed the law-of-the-day to provide my personal judgment of slavery.

      Reply
  13. frank stetson

    “Because you at least have intelligent response” Yeah, then watch yourself on the jabs, my xmas card list comment was serious; that one, and a few others, were a bit pointed. My bottom line is like I started: very brave of you to even enter this topic, I generally avoid because logic gets a bit tossed on this one given all the unknowns and our well-founded sanctity of life. Like I said, I believe abortion is morally wrong and pro-choice is correctly, legally right at the same time. Doesn’t make sense, but to quote: so there it freakin tis is. Oh mine: just freakin get used to it.

    “But that is the fundamental question that needs to be answered if we are to justify an abortion at some point.” Larry, you have to admit, it is not really answered. And you should admit, it may never be. But we do have one answer, the law. And the law may change. So your current answer change; you yourself admit is has changed. I am betting it may change again. But today we have the law; and the Texas law is just a really bad workaround created by people who will do anything to have their way, even if it costs us so much more through unintended consequences like extending this abortion of law to other crimes, misdemeanors, whatever. It is the next Texas lynch mob law not applicable to other states and other crimes thank you Supremes.

    You may make acceptations, the Texas law does not, you accept the Texas law, need I say more? Apparently.

    “I follow the science that tells me that the human being development begins at the point of conception — when all the traits of humanness are present — albeit not yet in the mature form.” No, Larry, that’s your opinion. Informed perhaps. I personally agree with your “development begins” part, but completely disagree with your “all traits of humanness are present.” So does the current Law of the land.

    I take back whatever I said about you not being pro-life; knew it was a dangerous gambit, a bit of a low blow. Turns out you are special in this regard. I don’t think you are average or usual even in your charity. I wouldn’t know where to start, but luckily, I have other charity priorities like Planned Parenthood. But I got to tell you, if you look at the “adoption industry,” it’s a murky world that I would never want to enter as a prospective giver or taker. First you have to decide, profit or non-profit; then you probably need to decide if the business is reputable, viable, and capable. You look and tell me what you find. I find it hard to believe you could even assess the places you donate to. It’s byzantine.

    “Data shows that conservatives adopt far more children than liberals — and especially those who are opposed to abortion.” Love to see that one, although sure passes the sniff test of what I might expect given stands on abortion. Likewise, love to know how many kids don’t get adopted and grow up in the system: only 2% of Americans actually adopt. The reality of these kids is: “More than 60% of children in foster care spend two to five years in the system before being adopted. Almost 20% spend five or more years in foster care before being adopted. Some never get adopted.” “Unfortunately, instead of being safely reunified with their families — or moved quickly into adoptive homes — many will languish for years in foster homes or institutions.” With 400,000 in foster care, 140,000 kids adopted every year, you get the math. There are over 1.3M abortions each year.

    Larry, you gonna need a bigger boat…..

    Larry, I applaud your work with these children, sounds like you have a fun, diverse, and therefore, very strong family. You are atypical here. It also appears that the “adoption industry” is a hodgepodge of non-profit and profit organizations in a strangely inconsistent partially regulated market that certainly can’t meet the needs of the Texas law and what it is about to unleash. Nor do you have the money necessary to do this job, much less do this job right. But that’s a downstream discussion from your point.

    Think we agree to disagree, but I still think you are fubar to support this Texas law, and to say “it’s OK except for a few parts” is a bullshit conclusion. The law sucks even if you like the intent. Cruel and unusual punishment as a workaround end run to a law they can’t muster the stuff to change outright. Your opinion on life notwithstanding, the law is wrong. Totally.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. USSANews.com | The Tea Party's Front Page. - […] post Readers respond on abortion stance appeared first on The Punching Bag […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

  1. When a Democrat does better than (or beto than) expected in a blood-red state like Texas, chances are pretty good…