
<p>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.</p>



<p>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. ; ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>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. ; ;</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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 12<sup>th</sup>, 13<sup>th</sup> and 14<sup>th</sup> constitutional amendments. ; ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>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 &#8212; potential offspring as a matter of convenience.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.”</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>