The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion

Pro-abortion advocates, and Michelle Goldberg, who frequently cheer-leads for the cause, see no value, no worth, no actual life in any fetus to begin with.  But a fetus which has developed some type of abnormality, such a Downs Syndrome, or where one or more of its body parts is either deformed or missing altogether is even less worth saving, from the pro-abortion perspective.  Many women obviously would want to abort such children “for their own good” – the child’s own good, that is.  But is the mother really aborting the child for its own good, or hers?

Outrage within the pro-abortion community is brewing over whether or not a doctor can intentionally keep information about a woman’s unborn child from her when abnormalities arise, thinking, fearing she might abort it if she found out.  Arizona just passed a bill to protect doctors who lie to pregnant mothers in what has been dubbed “wrongful birth”.  Wrongful birth, because had the mother known of the “malady” ahead of the birth, she might have opted for the abortion instead, thereby “sparing” the child all the “pain” and “hurt” and “psychological” and “emotional” scars it would encounter throughout its life.  Death, advocates Michelle Goldberg, and pro-abortion supporters, is the preferred option.

From The Daily Beast, writes Michelle:

In some states, though, anti-abortion activists are pushing legislation to protect doctors who don’t give women all available information about their pregnancies. Arizona and Kansas are considering bills that would ban lawsuits in cases where doctors fail to warn their patients about birth defects. The Arizona law, which is similar to legislation that exists in a handful of other states, would apply only when doctors make a mistake. But the Kansas provision, part of a sweeping, 69-page anti-abortion bill, would allow physicians to lie to women who might otherwise terminate their pregnancies. It is similar to a law in Oklahoma passed two years ago—in concert, ironically, with mandatory ultrasound legislation.

While Michelle is flabbergasted that a woman would not be given the information about her unborn child’s development, or underdevelopment, so she can quickly abort it if she chooses, interestingly, but not surprisingly, Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates, would rather deny women the right to know the child they are about to abort is actually a human being by showing the mother an ultrasound image of her child.  This begs the question – if a woman would feel uncomfortable viewing a picture of a healthy child she is about to kill, would a woman want to see the ultrasound picture of her underdeveloped child so she can feel more comfortable killing it?

Michelle argues that doctors who are allowed to lie are also getting away with their own responsibility in the prenatal care of the fetus, and should complications arise, a doctor who knowingly keeps such information from the mother would not be liable, and therefore cannot be sued.  Well, from the pro-abortion point of view, how can any doctor be sued for “negligence” if a fetus is not a human being to begin with?  Michelle’s argument is baseless if she is also taking the position that a fetus is not a human being.  But if a fetus is a human being, then her and the entire pro-abortion position becomes baseless as well as dangerous.  Michelle cannot have it both ways.

Doctors are fearful, and rightfully so, that when they relay the news to the mother her fetus will not be born “normal” she will want to abort her child rather than give it life.  Granted, doctors ought not lie, or feel compelled to lie, in order to protect the life of an unborn fetus.  Nor ought women feel helpless that a child born with an abnormality, disability or deformity is going to automatically have less quality of life than anyone else.  if anything, it is the pro-abortion movement which has placed doctors in the position of having to lie in order to protect the unborn child from being aborted.

We, who are born relatively normal, cannot fathom our lives without arms or legs, without sight or hearing, without a sound mind, etc.  But for those people who are born without arms or legs, who are born blind and/or deaf, who are born with an underdeveloped brain or any type of disability or abnormality – do they actually miss what they never had?  And would they rather their mothers had killed them in womb than give them a life, an opportunity for life, which pro-abortion advocates consider substandard and subhuman, but which they, and millions of others who were given life, consider a better alternative to death?

Millions of people are born with all sorts of disabilities, abnormalities, complications, etc, and do lead normal, healthy, worthwhile and satisfying lives.  Why would Michelle Goldberg and pro-abortion supporters so selfishly deny these people the right to live?

We, who are born relatively normal, are acting selfishly, and for ourselves, when we support abortion over life.  If a woman has a legal right to abort a child for one reason, then rationally she has a right to abort a child for any reason.  And therein lies the crux of the abortion problem and why this is a situation of all or nothing.  In other words, either we allow abortion for any reason, or we don’t allow it at all.  But if we allow abortion for any reason, pro-abortion advocates must accept, and be willing to accept abortion in cases where a child will be born gay, black (non-white) or female.  Can liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, stomach these types of abortions as well as they stomach every other type of abortion?

If we who are pro-life can challenge Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates on this, we can win this debate faster and easier than arguing abortion from strictly a religious point of view.  Abortion is a moral issue also, and either life has value or it hasn’t.  Force pro-abortion advocates to admit that they support killing black babies, gay babies and female babies in the womb; force them to admit they support killing blind babies, deaf babies, Downs Syndrome babies, and any babies that will be born with any type of abnormalities and they, along with their pro-abortion position, will disintegrate.  Are we up to that challenge?

About these ads

Single Post Navigation

23 thoughts on “Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion

  1. B. Barnes on said:

    Passing a law that allows a doctor to lie to their patient for any reason is idiotic. If a law like this becomes a reality, then why not lie to patients about the severity of their cancer? If they have only a small chance of survival with chemo, why tell them the truth and risk them forgoing chemo in order to spend their remaining days with their family in some small measure of comfort?
    You say that abortion is all or nothing. What about when it threatens the life of the mother? Are you okay with abortion in that situation, or do you believe the mother should die in an attempt to “save” her unborn child?
    Do you believe that a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child of her rapist, when in fact her pregnancy had nothing to do with her being irresponsible or “slutty”? What if that woman wasn’t a woman, but a girl…a 13 year old perhaps?

  2. Doctor’s ought not feel compelled to lie to their patients for any reason. We agree on that. The difference between lying to a pregnant woman about the condition of her fetus and lying to a patient who has a terminally ill cancer (although both are still wrong) is that a mother may feel pressured into abortion – killing – her unborn child, whereas a cancer patient, already alive, ought to be told so he/she can take all necessary steps to provide for their family, as well as to be able to seek a second opinion and pursue alternative treatments that might prolong life or make their time that much more comfortable.

    I have stated repeatedly in my abortion columns that the life of the mother supersedes the life of the unborn, and if a mother’s life is legitimately threatened by her unborn child, and there is nothing medical professionals can do, as tragic as it is (isn’t it?) then abortion is a rational and acceptable option.

  3. B. Barnes on said:

    So it isn’t all or nothing then? And what about the rape of a young girl? Should she be forced to have that child?

  4. Well, rape is a horrible thing to have happen to someone, you and I both agree with that. Let’s assume the rape victim is 13, as you suggested. Is the child that has been created by the violent rape any less of a human being than a child who is created by two thirteen year olds who happen to have unprotected sex with one another? Do we so callously end the life of an unborn child because it has been created through an act of violence rather than love? And what is it about being thirteen that is a sticking point?

    The word “force” is not the correct word. There are many things in life we must do, regardless of age; and there are many things which we must prohibit others from doing because of age. We “force” children and teenagers to do a lot of things in theirs lives they otherwise would not want to do, but for which we understand to be responsibility.

    So in the case of a thirteen year old girl being raped, rather than end the life of the child that has been created, we instill in the thirteen year old the idea and the importance of responsibility. The life inside of her needs to be cared for by her at least until it is born. Great care and comfort, as well as moral support is needed. Her family, her friends, and those in her community need to rally behind her. Yes it is cumbersome and difficult, and yes it would be easier to just have the abortion. But, this girl is going to have to live with the fact that she has been raped for the rest of her life. Ought she have to live with the fact that she killed the child for the rest of her life?

    As for the financial aspect of it, whatever money can be garnished from the rapist ought to go to the rape victim and her unborn child. After that, if she is still financially strapped, this is one area where a special right could be enacted by the federal government which pays the remaining prenatal cost during the pregnancy and for the birth itself.

    But what value is there in teaching our children to always take the easy way out in life, even if that easy way ends a life in the process?

  5. Pingback: Adoption is a win-win-win for mother, baby and loving parents « Trutherator's Weblog

  6. Pingback: Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords « The Neosecularist

  7. NeoS, honestly, not to begin an argument, but would you write a bit or point to somewhere where you’ve written and explain how/why or what criteria makes a fetus a human being?
    Thanks.

  8. You can begin here, go here, go here, go here – for starters.

    In another sense, at the moment of conception, which is fertilization, if life does not actually begin, then what is all that activity that is going on?

  9. Thanks, NeoS. The first link says a lot about the development of a human individual beginning with conception. I’m not sure that that is the same as saying a human is present. The development of many things–buildings, oak trees, etc.–begin with something different than what is ultimately developed.

    The second makes a mistake, I think, in reasoning that is not uncommon in those opposed to abortion from conception on, i.e. that “life” is the same as “human life”. I’m assuming this is based on genetics and that any form of life that has the same genetic make up as an adult human being is itself also human being. Is that right? It isn’t stated so the opening paragraph begs the question. And then “poisons the well” with its last comment.

    Understandably, I’m skeptical re. the ACPeds with regard to being a source of objective observation or data with regard to this issue. But I do understand they are medical professionals.

    Anyway, thanks for a very complete sourcing of those who regard conception to be the beginning, even establishment, of an individual life which is part of the human community.

    As you can tell from what I’ve written, I’m coming at this from a position of ethical subjectivism,(a position with its own weaknesses!) so I end up asking the question–what is it about the genetic make up of a homo sapien that grants the individual moral status? Is there something about the species unique genes alone that have value? Or something in the genes that we share with other primates? Or other forms of life? (A number of ethicists have argued that we ought to give much greater moral status–even property rights–to our fellow primates.)

    And thanks for calling into question the seeming disregard many on the other end of the spectrum have for the human fetus. One of the issues I have failed to see addressed by my fellow liberal thinkers is that of abortion as an act of violence against life, even if that life is not regarded by them as being fully human. In fact, I can’t find anyone supportive of the right to choose abortion who has addressed the moral status of the developing fetus other than to say “It’s not a child.” Well, OK, granting that it is not a child, what is it? It is, if nothing more, the incarnation of hope, of life seeking to become human. And in that sense must have more status than that of a bug…maybe a pet cat…what?

    I don’t mean to be difficult but to raise only for your consideration some of the complexity of the question and why I end up reasoning as I do.

  10. My pleasure. Life must begin somewhere. It neither begins with the sperm, with merely carries the genetic instructions for life, nor does it begin with egg, But when the two meet, when the sperm embeds itself into the egg, there is a literal, instant burst of action that occurs. That is creation, and to the point – creation of life. Pro-abortion supporters do not accept that life begins at conception, and they differ as to when they feel life actually begins. Many reject a fetus can be a human life at any stage of development so long as it remains within the womb. There is a reason for this. If a fetus is a human life, that brings into question moral and ethical consequences they cannot get around. And if life begins at conception (which science agrees does, and which is the same science pro-abortion advocates use to belittle creationists and young-Earthers) then abortion becomes, morally and ethically, akin to murder. Whenever life begins inside the womb, then legally it becomes imperative to protect that life as soon as possible. If life begins at conception (which it does) then logically that is when we must begin to protect that life from unnecessary/intentional destruction.

  11. A sperm cell is not alive? An egg cell is not alive? I agree that they are not each human life, but this is the point I raised earlier with re. to one of your sources, i.e. the equation of “life” with “human life.” And thus (and again) the question, What makes a form of life a =human= form of life?

    If human life is defined as beginning at conception then abortion is not “akin” to murder. It is murder. And every fertilized egg that is not implanted in the wall of the uterus is the death of a human being. And the corpse should be regarded as such and should be properly dealt with as any other corpse and mourned as the death of any other person. But do we?

    I absolutely agree with you about protecting the life of a person, a human being. But I think–correct me if I misunderstand–my question about what makes a form of life a form of human life you have answered with an event of genetics, that is, when the genetic material from the sperm and egg have merged.

    The question I’m still left with–and you don’t have to deal with it–is what is it about that genetic material that justifies its great value? (and does that question even make sense?)

  12. You are better off talking to a biologist or geneticist on some of this. What I can say is that sperm itself, as the seed, is the carrier of the genetic material, as I have stated. It may sound confusing, but while sperm is living, it is not life, and it is not human life. A healthy man has hundreds of millions of sperm at any given time. But sperm don’t survive throughout the entire course of a man’s life. They do die, and hundreds of millions more replace the old ones. As well, at ejaculation there are tens of millions of sperm present. Obviusly only one makes it to its target. What happens to the rest? They too die. So we can’t logically accept that the death of sperm is immoral or unethical. That is why we don’t waste time with las that protect sperm and egg. We are pro-life but we we do have common sense. And speaking of the egg, a new one is creating once a month within a woman and young girl who has begun puberty. If it is not used, what happens to it? It too dies and is replaced with a new one. That is how the process works, both in the natural and the religious sense. Therefore, that is why we do not “justify its great value” when it is only sperm and egg. However, once sperm meets egg, that is fertilization and the creation of human life. That is what science agrees with as well. And that is where we, those of us who are pro-life, look to begin to protect human life.

  13. Thanks, NeoS.
    Just to clarify re. genetic material and “great value,” I didn’t mean the genetic material of the sperm or egg but the genetic material that is unique to homo sapiens. IOW, what I understand you to be saying is that what makes a person a person, what makes a form of life a human life, is based in genetics. So I’m still left with the question–what is it about the particular and/or unique genetic make up of a homo sapien that grants the individual moral status?

    The non-subjective argument that there is something =there= that is of inherent value (and contra the subjective argument that I’ve put forward) depends on an answer. Or depends on the assertion/assumption that it just is.

    I’m not sure I’m making my query clear, so don’t feel obligated to respond. Thanks for an all-too-rare civil conversation on the subject.

    Peace and grace,

  14. Morality is a concept unique to human beings. Some other types of animals may display compassion and empathy, and we may interpret that as a form of morality. However, with humans, morality is based, in part, on our ability to think and to talk. Animals don’t really think – they have instincts and they act upon them. Animals can’t really talk – they communicate but not in as sophisticated a way as what we call language. Having the ability to think and to to talk means that we no longer need instincts – that is, to act upon out urges. If we no longer have or need those instincts, that gives us time to think, to reflect, to hesitate. The ability to think about something gave rise to the concept of morality within human beings. Speech, and the ability to talk about what us on our minds, allowed us to disseminate our thoughts to a wider audience of human beings.

    There nothing in genetics itself that “grants” us moral status. That is to be found somewhere in our brains, which, as stated, are unique from other life forms.

  15. There’s a bunch of things we disagree about re. animals, thinking, communicating, and instincts, but I’m not sure they’re relevant. :-)

    So, I agree that granting moral status is done somewhere in our brains and that is uniquely human. But I don’t think that’s where you want to go or end up. (geeze, can you tell I used to teach ethics? Sorry if I get too pedantic.) Because that’s my argument from subjectivism, that is, that value, moral status, personhood, is not something that is inherent in any form of life but one that granted by a thinking, reasoning, moralizing brain.

    And obviously, our brains do not agree. Some brains grant moral status to all fetuses, some only to “quickened” ones, etc. etc. varying from culture to culture, era to era. And we end up with my “You’re nobody ’til somebody loves you.”

    So, let me press you to not end up in subjectivism, but to do the hard thinking of what might be inherent in that fetus itself that justifies its moral status. Otherwise, you (well, logically anyway) have to grant your pro-abortion opponents the same credibility you give yourself, and I sense your heart is really not there.

    I’m enjoying our exchange and hope you are as well.

  16. All that goes back, perhaps, to my oft used statement – either life has value or it hasn’t. That is a statement of absolutism. (I am secular, by the way, if you were not aware. However, I do accept some absolutes, and the life issue is one of them.)

    Those who support abortion reject that the unborn are living, human beings, therefore reject they have any value, regardless of what stage of development they are in. We who are pro-life don’t judge the value of a fetus based on how well developed they, or any part of their being, is. We who are pro-life accept that life does have value, and because we extend that value to the unborn, which we recognize are human beings, we are apt to “grant moral status” to all fetuses indifferently. And because we accept the scientific data on when life begins – at conception, we are apt to “grant moral status” to a fetus at that time, as opposed to at a later time of development, such “quickening”.

    If you’re really “nobody ’til somebody loves you” there are probably scores of millions of people around the world who are unloved. Does that make them any less a human being? And should we reject they have any “moral status”? In other words, do we treat “unloved” humans with less importance, priority, respect, less moral relevance? If so, and there are people who support this, it makes it much easier to kill them in the name of “dignity”. Remember Jack Kevorkian? That is the road some people support going down in order to deal with people afflicted with myriad health problems.

    If we can treat life unequally, and if life cannot be defined until after birth, and if we allow some people to determine for us “moral status” based on emotional criteria, then what value is there left in human life? That is why I oft say, in some of my columns – either life has value, or it doesn’t.

    The question then is – if life begins at conception, and if we do place value on human life, then shouldn’t we place “moral status” on that life at the moment of conception and work to protect that life from unnecessary or intentional destruction?

  17. Re. your first paragraph–
    I assume your absolute/assumption is “Life has value.” not “either life has value or it hasn’t”. Some of the obvious questions that follow are: Do all forms of life have the same value? That is, is a bacterium of the same value as a whale? Do individual cells have value, in and of themselves, or is it only self-sustaining organisms that have value?

    Re. your second paragraph–
    Those who support abortion are not of one simple mindset as you portray them. Many supporters of abortion, indeed most of them, would see the fetus as living. You are right that they do not regard it as a “human being” in the sense of having personhood.
    This refers back to my questions above, but you seem to equate “life” with “human life” especially with regard to the use of scientific data. All biologists would agree that the life of a homo spiens begins with the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. And in this biological sense its life begins. No question. But this does not address the question of personhood unless one sees personhood as attained by a genetic event at the cellular level. Biology does not answer this question as it is a moral one having to do with granting value. Your equating of “life” with “human life”, i.e. personhood is not based on scientific data. It is based on the granting of moral status, a subjective act not an objective reality. There’s not a problem with this, Neo, if one is willing to take that stand. I think it is legitimate. The problem comes in then arguing that those who oppose this are doing so based on anything other than there own decision regarding the issue, reducing the difference to one of opinion.

    Re. you third paragraph–
    You are absolutely right. There are scores of persons around the world who are unloved. And throughout history there are persons who have been treated as less than human beings. This is the immorality of slavery and of giving daughters away in marriage. Persons are not possessions.
    And we do treat some forms of life considered human with less importance, priority, respect, etc. As I mentioned in my piece on this subject, our behaviors toward the unborn vary throughout the pregnancy.
    Not only does the dehumanizing of individuals make it easier to “kill” them with re. to euthanasia, but it justifies much of war as well. Very, very few people think anyone should be put death against their will because of any health problems. In fact, I don’t know anyone who would say this.

    Re. your fourth paragraph– (can you tell I’m avoiding work!)
    That’s a lot of “ifs” but you answered the question in a previous comment. There is not value in human life. The value of human life, as you’ve said above and beyond above is =granted=, a morally blank canvas on which the color of value is painted.
    (“There nothing in genetics itself that “grants” us moral status. That is to be found somewhere in our brains, which, as stated, are unique from other life forms.”)

    Re. your fifth paragraph–
    You leap again from “life” to “human life” as if biology constituted morality. But leaving that, you are right. If a fertilized egg is a human being we should be acting toward abortion clinics and providers the same way we would act toward a parent or anyone else murdering children. And we should have funerals and cemeteries for every miscarriage. Indeed, we should regard the results of every menstrual cycle occurring after intercourse with the same respect because of the possibility that it contains the body of a person.

    But we don’t. In fact, I don’t know anyone who does. And as I’ve asserted, our actions belie our beliefs more clearly than our blogs.

  18. I will take your “Re. your fifth paragraph” first – It isn’t biology that constitutes morality, it is of course human beings, who are the only known species on Earth (that can be accurately tested) to exhibit a penchant for morality and being moral. When I leap from “life” to “human life” it is not to be taken as generalities, but the assumption that it is understood when I simply say “life” I am referring to “human life”. When we “act against abortion clinics”, we must be careful not to act outside the law. Protecting the unborn through legal channels is how we must operate. George Tiller was murdered by a pro-lifer. We who are pro-life abhor such actions as they are themselves immoral. Two wrong do not make a right in this instance. You may be aware that many (religious-minded) people do mourn babies lost in miscarriage and do hold funerals services for them.

    Per your “Re. your fourth paragraph” – “In” and “of” are inseparable in the sense I may use them in my writing. We are, and all life is,a product of Genetics, that is genes and the adaption of those genes and chemical reactions. Genes, evolution or biology is not a living, thinking entity, so of course it would not say anything about “granting” us “moral status”. That is a completely human construct. What we ascribe as being moral, and why we ascribe something as moral and affix a “moral status” to something is a result of our highly evolved brains and our ability to think, to speak and to communicate with one another and rationalize. Other life forms do not rationalize but act upon instinct. Pro-life people say it is immoral to have an abortion because it is the killing of an unborn child. Pro-abortion people say it is moral because the woman has more rights than a fetus, and she may be made to be inconvenienced by the pregnancy. It is up to rational thinking human beings to decide which of the two positions is moral, or more moral, and why that is.

    Per your “Re. you third paragraph–” – In fact there are many, many people who support euthanasia, or mercy killing. But – “mercy” for whom? Take a look at this and see for yourself what I am talking about.

    Per your “Re. your second paragraph–” – If many pro-abortion supporters do in fact see the fetus as living, what is there continued moral justification for abortion? And if they do see the fetus as living, how can they not see it as a living human being? In other words, if the fetus is living, if it is not human, what is it? And so far as “personhood” goes – I guess the question to ask is, must a fetus look like a human before it is considered human? In other words, do we wait until the fetus has developed enough of a human appearance before we “grant” it “moral status”? My “stand” is that life (human life) has value, and that human life, which begins at conception, has just as much value at conception as during any time of the pregnancy. That it is in an embryonic stage very early on, and does not look like, and resemble, a human being does not rationally mean it is any less of a human being. So, “granting” human life “moral status” and personhood at the moment of conception, rather than later on during the fetal stage as it begins to take on human form and characteristics seems to be the more rational and moral approach. Otherwise we are merely cheapening life (human life). And that leads to the question – if we can cheapen life early in its development, how much longer can we extend that cheapening of life (human life) before we begin to cheapen life (human life) in of itself, regardless if it is in the womb or not. Remember – euthanasia…

    Per your “Re. your first paragraph–” – I do indeed take the position that life has value. Of course I am referring more to human life, however, I absolute oppose the euthanasia of animals (check my about page). There certainly is value in good bacterium, but we, as humans, obviously do not treat bacterium life as we do human life. Many people, myself included, do find value in other forms of life. You mentioned whales – we ought to value whales enough not to be hunting them for their oil at this stage. The same goes with sharks, which are hunting for their bones, which are believed, without any evidence, to hold medicinal properties. Ideally we all would be vegetarians, but that may never happen, if we wanted to take it to that extreme. Human beings are, naturally, going to be more biased towards their own species than others. But that does not mean we, as human beings, cannot find value in other forms of life also.

  19. “I will take your “Re. your fifth paragraph” first – It isn’t biology that constitutes morality, it is of course human beings, who are the only known species on Earth (that can be accurately tested) to exhibit a penchant for morality and being moral.”

    Do you mean “penchant” or “ability”? And how would one “test” for morality?
    You do know that many adult primate species have reasoning and problem solving abilities superior to young humans, right? :-)

    Protecting the unborn must be done through legal channels? That assumes and asserts that the law is superior to morality and that there is never any moral justification for acting illegally. That’s absurd on its face unless you assert that morality is defined by the majority, and I know that’s not your position. This is exactly the sort of data I point to for my reasoning, i.e. the behavior of people, both pro-life and pro-abortion, belies a different belief than that which they profess. In other words, NeoS, if I truly believed that they were killing children in the hospital down the road from me I would sure as hell break the law–short of taking another person’s life. I don’t see the majority pro-life people acting as if there were children being murdered. I see them protesting what is happening but with no more conviction or willingness to be arrested or harmed than anti-war folks.

    ” You may be aware that many (religious-minded) people do mourn babies lost in miscarriage and do hold funerals services for them.”
    In 35+ years of parish ministry I am indeed aware of persons who have mourned the premature ending of pregnancies or those that have ended in “still births.” I have never been asked to perform a funeral for a fetus/child. I don’t know that I know any colleague who has. We have been asked to pray for the couple, provide support, help them grieve, but have you ever been invited or heard about a funeral for a miscarriage, especially for the first or second trimester? Me either. Again, as I mention above, actions belie true beliefs. We act differently toward the unborn at different times during the pregnancy.

    ” It is up to rational thinking human beings to decide which of the two positions is moral, or more moral, and why that is.”
    Two things. One, rationality follows emotion; it does not lead it. IOW, we feel a certain way about something and then we think about how/why that is so. Google “emotion precedes reason.” I’m big on brain studies and how we think. It’s important to know this so that we are rigorous in examining our morality.
    Second, you are right in the above as a worthy goal. Might I suggest that it takes dialogue and especially an examination of assumptions. What I–and perhaps you too–too often see is the two sides of this issue dismissing and demonizing one another as either not caring about women or having no regard for life.

    “Otherwise we are merely cheapening life (human life). And that leads to the question.”
    No. Otherwise we have different assumptions as to what constitutes human life and different reasoning based on those assumptions. Accusing someone of “cheapening human life” is the sort emotionally charged rhetoric that ends the dialogue.

    ” In other words, if the fetus is living, if it is not human, what is it?” I think this is a great question and one I’ve asked pro-abortion people myself. It is not one

    My answer is that the “what” refers not to an objective reality–what it is, is an embryo, a fetus, a developing form of life–but to the moral status, i.e. “human”. And my answer is on my blog.

    Hey, speaking of, would you be will to read and respond to that? I mean other than just posting the url for this discussion?

    Thanks.

  20. Do you mean “penchant” or “ability”? And how would one “test” for morality?
    Penchant as in a strong inclination, but ability works too. I am sure there have been many studies gone on how to test for morality, and I am sure most or all of them came up inconclusive. We used to have laws on the books, and codes and statutes, that dealt with morality. So in that sense, society, and politicians enacted various moral standards so we did not have do bother ourselves with tests. Of course, many things once considered immoral are now either moral, or at least normal and tolerated in public society. And some things that were once immoral, but now moral, some folks are trying to make immoral again. Trying to test for morality is generally a fruitless endeavor as morality is a human construct, and even what is moral and what is immoral is hotly debated among humans. However, humans do have the ability to rationalize, to exhibit logic, to show just cause and reason why one thing may be moral even though another person may find it to be immoral.

    You do know that many adult primate species have reasoning and problem solving abilities superior to young humans, right?
    I have seen documentaries on chimpanzees and apes and the like, and know that some of them can, and have learned sign language, and show very strong emotions and attachments to one another. I have also seen the documentaries with regards to the tests done on primates that clearly show they can differentiate between colors and shapes. Primates have the intelligence of a three or four year old human child. Well, even a three or four year old child still has a lot of learning ahead of them. But the primate will not advance any further with age as the human child will.

    Protecting the unborn must be done through legal channels? That assumes and asserts that the law is superior to morality and that there is never any moral justification for acting illegally. That’s absurd on its face unless you assert that morality is defined by the majority, and I know that’s not your position. This is exactly the sort of data I point to for my reasoning, i.e. the behavior of people, both pro-life and pro-abortion, belies a different belief than that which they profess.
    The law is not necessarily superior to morality, but moral human being follow the laws that are in place or are in the books. Pertaining to those laws we don’t like – we try to overrule and abolish them. But those of us that are moral don’t break the laws in the meantime, or disregard them.

    We consign ourselves to accepting the law is the law. In other words, if we didn’t, we would still be living in the wild west. There are probably times where it is morally justified to act illegally, like, for example when an intruder breaks into your home with the intent to rob you. He has a gun – but so do you. The problem is, you know your gun is not registered and by using it illegally to defend yourself you know you will be arrested, you might have to pay a fine or do jail time. What do you do? Use the gun to defend yourself and accept the consequences, or let the intruder rob you and maybe kill you as well, and any members of your family that might be in the house with you?

    Most practicing Christians, Catholics and Jews believe morality is derived from the word of God, and use the Bible for direction on moral issues. Since they are still the majority, that is where morality is derived. That is what I must assert. Or – should morality be derived from the minority? How would that make sense?

    In other words, NeoS, if I truly believed that they were killing children in the hospital down the road from me I would sure as hell break the law–short of taking another person’s life.
    That is what they do in abortion clinics, and any hospitals that perform abortions.

    I don’t see the majority pro-life people acting as if there were children being murdered. I see them protesting what is happening but with no more conviction or willingness to be arrested or harmed than anti-war folks.
    Because two wrongs don’t make a right. In other words, morality, as we see it, dictates we cannot commit an illegal crime to stop a legally recognized procedure. Doing that promotes lawlessness chaos and anarchy. Some individuals do take extreme measures to stop abortions. What ever becomes of that? They are arrested and charged, and the pro-life movement suffers a set back because of the actions of one individual. Abortion is the killing of an unborn children. We are working all over the country to pass laws that do everything possible to protect the unborn from the earliest stages possible from being unnecessarily and intentionally killed. But we, as morality dictates, are doing it through legal channels, rather than through corrupt channels.

  21. Pingback: Pro-Abortion Stance Must Include Killing Gays, Blacks And Girls In The Womb « The Neosecularist

  22. Pingback: How To Challenge Obama, All Pro-Abortion Politicians, Expose Their Hypocrisy – And Ruin Their Political Careers « The Neosecularist

  23. Pingback: Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls « The Neosecularist

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: