When Arguments Fail, What Do Pro-Lifers Do?

After all the arguments have failed, there is little left but prayer. And really, it should never be our last resort.

With a rosary in hand, pro-lifer Nick Schadler from Dubuque, Iowa, left, prays for pro-choice activist James Ferguson from San Diego, Calif., as pro-choice and pro-life activists face off in front of the Supreme Court in Washington Monday, Jan. 23, 2006.

By Liberty McArtor Published on August 1, 2018

Wednesday I read a heartbreaking essay in The Atlantic. “Three Children, Two Abortions” is heartbreaking because of the author’s attachment to abortion and callousness toward unborn life.

My mind churned with arguments to refute her ridiculous statements and assumptions about life, parenthood and what rights we have as human beings. But at some point, the arguments stop making a difference.

How Many Times?

How many times do we have to argue that a girl who gets pregnant at 17 can be a mother, provide for her children and even accomplish her dreams? And that the pro-life movement is here to help her do just that?

How many times do we have to argue that adoption is one of the most loving, sacrificial things a birth mother can do? That putting her baby in the arms of an eager family, while difficult, does not give her a life of sorrow? And that dealing with the pain of giving your child to another family is abundantly worth it, if it means giving your child life and not death?

How many times do we have to argue that pro-lifers are not simply “pro-embryo and pro-fetus”? And that a baby is a baby complete with a unique genetic makeup from the moment of conception?

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

How many times do we have to argue that no child is more or less valuable, or has more or less right to life, depending on whether he or she is wanted by someone else?

How many times do we have to argue that statements such as, “Abortion should be as inalienable a right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” make absolutely no sense? If the right to life is inalienable, a right to end someone else’s life simply because it is inconvenient or unwanted cannot be tolerated. Those two rights cannot logically coexist.

How many times do we have to argue these points and point out these truths? 

Facts Don’t Change Minds

By now, we ought to know that facts simply don’t change many minds. People believe what they want to believe. They hear what they want to hear. We all have biases and preconceived notions. As open-minded as we think we are, we’re drawn to the arguments that verify what we already think.

It’s not that facts and arguments have no value. Sometimes, they get through to people. Maybe someone feels the truth but lets his mind be swayed by popular arguments. A good argument helps him see the truth. Maybe a good argument gives someone the courage to say what she really believes. Some people have decided what they believe based on wrong facts or misunderstandings. They change their minds when corrected.

I pray for Deborah Copaken, who penned “Three Children, Two Abortions.” I may not be able to change her mind about the value of unborn human life. But God can. More than that, he can change her heart, offer her forgiveness, and redeem her past.

But many pro-choice people are too entrenched in their preferences to notice the dark irony of their words. They’re too attached to their arguments to notice their lack of logic. Arguing won’t get us very far. As Christian pro-lifers, what should we do?

The Prayers of Pro-Lifers

Pray. Really, prayer should never be our last resort, but our first.

So I pray for Deborah Copaken, who penned “Three Children, Two Abortions.” I may not be able to change her mind about the value of unborn human life. But God can. More than that, he can change her heart, offer her forgiveness, and redeem her past.

I also pray for all the people who hold fast to the false belief that an unborn child’s destiny — whether they die in the womb or enter the world — is our choice to make. I pray that God’s love will win over those who won’t be won over by science and sound logic.

Finally, I pray for the pro-life movement. That we exemplify love more than hate. Hope more than anger. Grace more than judgment. That we continue to find innovative ways to address the legitimate concerns of pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike. Concerns like maternal mortality, access to affordable healthcare and childcare, and more practical assistance for families in need.

There is a time for debate. There is a time for solid facts and sound logic. But those times are limited.

Prayer that God will change hearts? There is always a time for that. And that will always be more powerful.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    Speak the truth in love. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

  • Kevin Quillen

    we should stop using the term “pro choice” and call it what it is. Pro abortion. Same applies to Lgtbqwxyz. Call them queers(dictionary definition) Because they are a tiny minority, they are queer in relation to the majority. Stop using their terminology. These terms only give legitimacy to their cause. Why do you think they call us…..anti-choice?

    • Andrew Mason

      While I agree about pro-abortion rather than pro-choice – pro-lifers being the real pro-choicers, I disagree about using queer, which has a legitimate use, as a label for homofascists and other such LGBTists. I also agree that kowtowing to enemy terminology frequently is halfway to losing the battle. Agreeing to terminology though may be a challenge.

  • >”How many times do we have to argue that a girl who gets pregnant at 17 can be a mother, provide for her children and even accomplish her dreams? And that the pro-life movement is here to help her do just that?”

    Respectfully, if that is the message of the pro-life movement, then the movement is doing a terrible job of getting it’s message out. Instead of blaming others for not listening, look to yourselves for not communicating.

    • Bryan

      Can you elaborate?

      • Start with the passage I quoted. “Help” is not the first word I associate with the movement.

        At the time I first commented there were just a few other comments, and two of those were pretty hateful (looks like a moderator might have removed them now). That kind of behavior is toxic to any perceived help that is accomplished (IMO).

        • BrokenPriest

          Blaming toxic commentators for the lack of “help” in the pro-life movement? Yeah that makes sense. Pro-lifers- Christians specifically- own a TON of non-profit organizations dedicated to providing help to mother’s who choose to have the baby. Christians adopt, set up clinics, set up non-profit orgs who fund women;s healthcare options, etc. Sometimes its easier to believe someone doesn’t want to help than to actually look at the help being provided.

          • Toxic comments were the convenient example, but not atypical of how the pro-life movement is too often represented in the actual world. *** Don’t get me wrong, I know there are well intentioned groups with much to offer, but when the pro-life movement allows people to spread toxic opinions in the name of the movement, that speaks for the movement and the kind of “help” they want to provide.

            I know that’s not exactly a fair criticism, but I think there is some truth to it. The actual world is not always fair in that respect. My suggestion would be to focus on the single message, “We want to make it easier to have this child”, to the exclusion of _all_other_ opinions, beliefs, politics, or agendas, and to actively counter those toxic opinions that burden the movement.

  • Anne Fernandes

    Liberty’s points are accurate, especially about prayer. Straight from the Word, 2 Corinthians 4:4 “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” I’m not the Holy Spirit, I don’t have enough influence or power to change the mind of an unbeliever even with all my factual ducks re: abortion in a row; however, the Word contains MANY scriptural references to prayer. We must pray for the Lord to un-blind unbelievers, and un-harden hearts. Tomato Addict, if you are referencing communication with God, I give you a thumb’s up!

    • I wasn’t, actually, but I appreciate the thought 🙂

      If you want to communicate with people, you first have to be willing to listen to them and try to understand them, allowing them the opportunity to do the same with you. Then you might begin to change minds.

      • Anne Fernandes

        YES!!!!

  • gladys1071

    i read the article “three children, two abortions” and I agree with the author, as a pro-choicer myself, i agree with this quote:

    “In other words, what’s at stake in this ridiculous debate over bodily autonomy is choice. It’s always been about choice. To be alive and human is to be in favor of life, but to bring an unwanted child into this world—or to force any woman to do so against her will, her health, her future, her finances, or her well-being, because that is your moral stance, not hers or her doctor’s—is not pro-life. It is control wearing the mask of virtue. It is government regulation at its most invasive. It is being willfully blind to the inevitable bloodshed from illegal abortions and high-risk pregnancies. It is choosing an embryo over the life of a woman. It is, to put it succinctly, anti-woman”

    Nobody has a right to tell a woman she must carry to term even against her will.

    • Kevin Quillen

      incredibly selfish to choose finances and future over a baby’s life. Speaks volumes. WWJD?

      • gladys1071

        So what? Her life, her circumstances, it is called minding your own business.

      • gladys1071

        How selfish and nosy of you to dictate what others should do.

      • jessica22

        Selfish doesn’t begin to describe this woman….

        Her anger and hostility preclude her from even guessing what Jesus would do…

        • gladys1071

          How about you worry about your ownself and your selfishness?

          It is really easy to point fingers when you are not walking in their shoes.

          “He or she that is without sin cast the first stone”

          I remember Jesus said that.

          Have you ever done anything selfish? do you think Jesus should turn his back on you?

          Who are you to judge?

          • jessica22

            Are you frickin’ kidding?
            “Who are you to judge?”???????????
            LMAO…

            Apparently you don’t understand the term “judge” as used by Jesus…
            When He talked to the adulteress, he WAS passing a judgment on her. He told her to go AND SIN NO MORE (caps added for emphasis). He didn’t condemn her to hell for her sin, but he made it clear that she had done wrong.

            The lesson in John 8:11 was NOT that we shouldn’t judge… of course we should judge! We were given brains and free will… in order that we use them to serve with righteousness and good will… to judge good behavior and bad behavior…

            Do you think Jesus is against our legal system?

          • gladys1071

            again worry about your own self sister!

          • Breezeyguy

            She’s not casting stones. We want to make it illegal to cast stones (or butcher knives) at unborn children.

            The selfish thing to do would be to let abortion continue unabated. We’re not judging people, but are discerning an act as murder and labeling it unjustifiable.

            Selfish is destroying your child because of some perceived benefit.

    • jessica22

      “Choice”????

      How about – if you’re a fully-functioning, mentally-stable adult – you CHOOSE not to get pregnant!?

      (and if you’re worried about the infinitesimal chance of bc failure, how bout you CHOOSE not to.have sex)

      • gladys1071

        How about you mind your own business, stop telling people what to do with their sex lives or pregnancies that do not concern YOU.

        Why don’t you worry about your own life and MYOB

        • jessica22

          When you ignore the right to life for a defenseless human being it becomes my business…

          Get over yourself, gladys… enjoy life… without killing the innocent… who you condemn out of ignorance or selfishness…

          (in your case, I’m not sure which one… maybe both??????)

          • gladys1071

            really how? what are you going to do, are you going to stop me from going to the doctor?

            How are you going to make it your business any pregnancy of mine?

            Are you going to stop me from having an abortion, how are you going to do that?

          • jessica22

            Take a deep breath and relax…
            (are you on drugs????)

            In a civil society, you “murdering someone defenseless” is every moral person’s business…

            As for you not understanding that… I’m not surprised…

          • jessica22

            You gotta be high…

            cuz I doubt anyone as incoherent as you would be reading and responding like you do UNLESS they were totally whacked out…

            Go back and keep hitting the bong, gladys….

          • gladys1071

            You said it was your business, so I am just answering you. So tell me how is any pregnancy of mine YOUR BUSINESS?

          • jessica22

            I said as a fully-functioning, mentally-stable, moral person the “right to life” of a defenseless person becomes my business by the natural law.

            I have repeated this many times!
            Sorry, gladys, but I can’t help your inability to understand the English language.

            One of many things you lack the ability to understand…

  • gladys1071

    To Liberty

    You have NO right to say that this woman was wrong in her choice. This woman had other children to think about, and a marriage. You are elevating an embryos rights over the woman and her family.

    That is why i am pro-choice, each woman needs to make the decision that is best for her and her family.

    • Kelly B

      Tell me, how would you have felt if the body parts that planned parenthood was caught selling were those of puppies, rather than humans?

      It seems to me that there is a hypocritical double standard when leftists cry “Save the Whales!” out of the left side of their mouth, while demanding “Kill the babies!” out of the other side…

      • gladys1071

        First of all i am not a leftist as you assume. I don’t care about saving whales either or puppies for that matter.

        What does the body parts have to do with the article about a woman making the choice that is best for her family at the time which was to terminate an unexpected pregnancy from a birth control failure.

        Does the woman and her family matter or only the embryo?

        • GLT

          “Does the woman and her family matter or only the embryo?”

          How is the embryo a threat to the family?

          • gladys1071

            The woman had other considerations , so she chose to not carry to term the pregnancy.

            Is that so difficult or you to accept that others might make different choices? depending on their circumstances?

            you really have no regard for other people’s lives or circumstances, all that matters to you is the a woman give birth.

            As i stated why should an embryo or fetus be more important than already born children, husband, or other family members that ARE already born?

            GEEZ!

          • GLT

            “The woman had other considerations , so she chose to not carry to term the pregnancy.”

            The woman had other considerations? And these considerations justify murdering an innocent child?

            “you really have no regard for other people’s lives or circumstances,…”

            That’s rich, I have no regard for other people’s lives or circumstances yet it is perfectly acceptable in your eyes that someone be allowed to murder an innocent child due to their ‘circumstances’. I’m inconsiderate and they are not? That’s really wonderful logic you’ve got going there, I must say.

            “As i stated why should an embryo or fetus be more important than already born children,…”

            Who’s talking about more important? Tell us, why should the unborn child be less important as you obviously believe it to be?

          • Ann Morgan

            **Tell us, why should the unborn child be less important as you obviously believe it to be?**
            How about – it has no brain function.
            Tell us, does the human mind have zero value, that the mindless fetus be as important as a thinking, feeling child, as you obviously pretend it to be?

          • GLT

            “as you obviously pretend it to be?”

            Who’s pretending? You do not get to define what I think is important and most of all you do not get to define what God thinks is important.

          • Ann Morgan

            1. Doesn’t matter what YOU ‘think’ is important. People can claim to ‘think’ pretty much anything under the sun is ‘important’, and to a very large degree, most people can be brainwashed into actually believing that almost anything is ‘important’. But what you ‘think’ doesn’t actually prove that something is actually important.

            2. No, I don’t get to define what God thinks is important. Neither do you, and unless you offer actual proof of the existence of your God, and proof of what he, she, it or they, think, it isn’t relevant.

          • Ann Morgan

            Is it legitimate for someone to ‘think’ than an ant is more important than a baby, such that if they feel ants are starving, it’s fine for them to feed a baby to the ants?

            If not, can you be certain that GOD does not think ants are more important than human babies? He certainly seems to have made many more ants than humans, and social insects are arguably far, far more important to the ecological well being of the earth than our species.

          • I❤️Life

            Do you believe in God, Ann?

          • Ann Morgan

            **How is the embryo a threat to the family?**
            Do you have 2 million dollars just lying around? Or are you merely 12 years old?

          • GLT

            “Do you have 2 million dollars just lying around? Or are you merely 12 years old?”

            I must assume you believe this constitutes a cogent argument. Sorry, not even close.

          • Ann Morgan

            So, you think that it has no effect on a family if they suddenly have to come up with $2 million to pay for that DS fetus? That they just go on merrily the way they were before. The college fund doesn’t go bye-bye to pay for the care of the Down’s individual? The parents don’t have to get extra jobs. All is merry, and money and medical care drop from the skies and the DS baby stays three years old perpetually and danced around forever in fields of flowers.

    • GLT

      “each woman needs to make the decision that is best for her and her family.”

      Is the unborn child not a part of that family?

      • gladys1071

        that is for the woman to decide, since she is the one doing the gestating, it is up to her whether or not to continue gestating.

        • GLT

          “that is for the woman to decide, since she is the one doing the gestating, it is up to her whether or not to continue gestating.”

          Nope, the child has a right to life and the mother does not have the power or the right to take it away. Her freedom to choose ends at conception, beyond that point she is no longer the only life involved.

          • gladys1071

            No their is no right to life that compels another to gestate. A woman has the right to refuse to gestate.

          • GLT

            “A woman has the right to refuse to gestate.”

            She has the right not to get pregnant, once she is the child also has rights and her rights do not include the right to kill another human being.

          • gladys1071

            I do not agree with your view. an embryo has no rights, and has no right to be gestated inside a woman’s body.

            legally an embryo has no rights, and women have rights to their bodies.

            You are free to carry to term all of your pregnancies, you cannot force others to gestate against their will.

          • jessica22

            There was a time the COTUS didn’t recognize blacks as ppl either…

          • Ann Morgan

            So, according to you, a thinking, feeling black person has no more value than a single, mindless cell.

          • jessica22

            WTH…
            Are you capable of having a civil, decent, productive debate?

            Or are you like most rabid, anti-social, extreme feminists….
            who distort other ppl’s comments in order to fit your agenda??

            When did I EVER express disrespect for blacks or claim that they’re legally any different than anyone else???? (I myself am a minority btw)

            gladys (besides you, the other pro-choice groupee here) argued that an embryo doesn’t deserve legal protection becuz “it has no rights” and I was explaining that the COTUS isnt infallible… that just becuz the COTUS doesn’t recognize the right to life of an embryo doesn’t mean an embryo doesn’t have a right to life…

            (I’ll have a civil debate with just about anyone… but when you start distorting my words and realigning my comments, forget it! I won’t waste my time…)

          • Ann Morgan

            **When did I EVER express disrespect for blacks or claim that they’re legally any different than anyone else????**

            Are you drunk? Read your own post!!

            **that just becuz the COTUS doesn’t recognize the right to life of an embryo doesn’t mean an embryo doesn’t have a right to life…**

            Doesn’t mean that it DOES have a ‘right to life’, either. And you should probably think long and hard about what, precisely, is meant by the verbal shorthand phrase ‘right to life’, because there is not a single born person for whom it means: ‘right to someone else’s organs if yours don’t work’.

            **(I’ll have a civil debate with just about anyone… but when you start distorting my words and realigning my comments, forget it! I won’t waste my time…)**

            You’re the one comparing blacks to mindless zefs. The fact that your comparison necessitates that you regard thinking, feeling black people as having no more value than a single, mindless cells is not my fault. If you don’t like it – stop comparing blacks to zefs.

          • jessica22

            Am I drunk?
            After reading your comments, I WISH…
            Sorry, Ann… but often you are incoherent!

            I feel like it’s a waste of time trying to debate with you… like you’ll twist and distort whatever I say… like you’ll turn this into a vicious spar rather than a civil debate… but here goes anyway…

            A RIGHT TO LIFE is an intrinsic right endowed to every human being created on earth. It’s part of the Natural Law.

            I’ll concede that the United States usurped that right in 1973 by allowing for the legal murder of an unborn child… and for that reason, I’ll continue to try to educate ppl like you who claim abortion is not murder… that it’s not wrong…

            Abortion is the killing of a defenseless, innocent unborn person.
            No matter how you rewrite that… it’s morally wrong!
            (and hopefully one day it will be legally wrong too)

          • Ann Morgan

            **A RIGHT TO LIFE is an intrinsic right endowed to every human being created on earth. It’s part of the Natural Law.**

            Really? Take the ‘rights’ and show them to me. As for ‘natural law’… there is no human society that has ever existed, nor any parentally reared species that does not, at times, engage in infanticide/infant abandonment. There are reasons for that, which apply to our species as well.

            **Abortion is the killing of a defenseless, innocent unborn person.**

            And by ‘innocent’, are you referring to PURITY of thought? Or ABSENCE of thought? Why are you unable to make an argument using specific language, and have to resort to words that conflate two different concepts, in a desperate effort to try to wave an image of a thinking, feeling infant in front of people?

            **No matter how you rewrite that… it’s morally wrong!**

            No matter what sad words you manage to use to refer to mindless cells – they are still MINDLESS CELLS. And the fact that you have to try to conflate them with thinking, feeling people by using overly broad words is good indication that you don’t have an actual argument that it is morally wrong.

          • jessica22

            nat·u·ral law
            noun
            1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

            Ann, you can mock CMs… jumble words… ignore science… throw insults… act like the typical liberal feminist that you are…. (what a disservice to happy, successful women!!!)

            But that won’t make your argument “truthful”… or your claims “meaningful”
            You’re just an angry, hostile, vagina-hat-wearing pretend-feminist… who ignores the honest truth in order to rile up other women to join your uncivil group of ppl… who SAY one thing (“prolifers are so stupid they want to deny ppl of their rights”) while they DO the exact opposite (“I think it’s wonderful that we deny the right to life of unwanted babies”)

            You’re a hypocrite and an embarrassment to educated women everywhere…

          • Ann Morgan

            **1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.**

            Ah. Well that would make abortion legitimate. There isn’t a single human society that has ever existed, that did not practice either abortion or infanticide.

            **who SAY one thing (“prolifers are so stupid they want to deny ppl of their rights”) while they DO the exact opposite (“I think it’s wonderful that we deny the right to life of unwanted babies”)**

            The only problem here, is that the ‘right to life’ is verbal shorthand. What it refers to, and how it is, and always has been, interpreted and practiced for every single born person, is that the ‘right to life’ refers to a right not to have your OWN organs and property, which are necessary to sustain your life, stolen or damaged. However, in the sad event that for some reason your own organs or property are not sufficient to sustain your life, it does NOT give you a ‘right’ to the organs or property of others. So no, I am not denying the fetus a ‘right to life’. It may keep it’s own organs. The fact that it’s own organs can’t sustain it doesn’t give it a right to the mother’s organs, any more than someone suffering from kidney failure has a right to someone else’s kidney.

            And regarding your repeated use of the word ‘baby’. Every time you use that word, you are proving you don’t have an argument regarding the mindless fetus, and must try to wave an image of a thinking, feeling infant instead. This is what is known as an ‘equivocation fallacy’. Stop wasting your time attempting equivocation fallacies on me, I am too sophisticated to fall for them.

          • jessica22

            “Too sophisticated” lol… un-frickin’-believable… YOU??? Sophisticated???? Bahahahaha

            Anger… lies… name-calling… deceit… flame-throwing… you just don’t stop!!!!

            You have an indefensible drive to malign decency and to defeat the weak and innocent… so you get nasty and pretend you’re “special”… better than those who live guided by morality and natural law…

            I don’t mind a civil debate… but when you get off-topic and start ranting about past civilizations who used infanticide… or your personal belief about a fetus not worthy of life… well we’ve beat that horse to death… and we disagree

            You don’t accept the natural law… human decency… or a right to life… as pro-lifers do… so be it…

            Good luck in your search for a meaning to life…

          • Ann Morgan

            You have no idea what ‘natural law’ is. Other than ‘I want it this way’. Unfortunately, YOUR way is contrary to the behavior of every known parentally reared species, and would lead to human extinction. As for human decency – that would be caring about thinking feeling people rather than demanding their lives be ruined for the sake of mindless cells.
            As for your ‘right to life’, can we strap you down and take your kidney? Or don’t people awaiting transplants have a ‘right to life’?

          • jessica22

            Such anger and hostility… smh

            Too bad you can’t show a little more compassion for the weak and defenseless (and “mindless” as you say)

            Let’s just hope YOU’RE never in need of a defender becuz you’re incapable of defending yourself…

          • Ann Morgan

            **Too bad you can’t show a little more compassion for the weak and defenseless (and “mindless” as you say)**

            Sorry, I save my compassion for thinking, feeling people. The mindlessness of the fetus is not merely ‘as I say’. It is scientific fact, no matter how sad it makes you. The brain of the fetus, until 22-25 weeks, is not capable of producing the sort of organized electrical activity necessary for thought, awareness, memory, or sensation.

            **Let’s just hope YOU’RE never in need of a defender becuz you’re incapable of defending yourself…**
            I’m able to deal with actual facts. That makes me about a thousand times more capable of defending myself than you. I’m also a hell of a good shot.

            But thanks for proving yet again that when pro-lifers can’t refute, they go immediately for the ad hominem in futile hopes of distracting.

          • GLT

            “legally an embryo has no rights, and women have rights to their bodies.”

            Am I to assume from this statement that you place the laws of man above those of God? That is certainly how it appears to me.

            “You are free to carry to term all of your pregnancies,…”

            I cannot become pregnant.

          • GLT

            “legally an embryo has no rights, and women have rights to their bodies.”

            In whose legal system, God’s or man’s?

          • gladys1071

            We don’t live in a theocracy.

          • GLT

            “We don’t live in a theocracy.”

            Yes, we do, simply due to the fact the will of God will not be subservient to the laws of man. Man can pass all the laws he wants, God is still supreme.

          • gladys1071

            If you have no problem with a theocracy, then you should have no problem with Sharia law then?

            Our laws are secular, and i want them to stay that way.

          • GLT

            “If you have no problem with a theocracy, then you should have no problem with Sharia law then?”

            You should get together with Ann and you could work on your logic and critical thinking together. This comment is so lacking in anything resembling logic I really don’t know where to start. Therefore, I will restrict my comment to the fact it is nothing more than palpable nonsense.

          • gladys1071

            Then stop responding to me, you don’t need to continue talking to me you know.

          • GLT

            Wish granted. Take care.

          • gladys1071

            sometimes it is better to just agree to disagree.

          • gladys1071

            Our legal system is secular in nature.

            I don’t know why that is confusing to you?

          • GLT

            It’s not confusing, not in the least. Of course our legal system is secular, who said it wasn’t? All I said is God is the ultimate legal authority, which is true.

          • gladys1071

            her freedom does NOT end at conception just because you say. A woman owns her body and she owns the uterus that the embryo implants itself .

            As the uterus owner, she has the right to evict.

          • GLT

            “As the uterus owner, she has the right to evict.”

            Her body is not her own, it was bought for a price as any Christian should know. The woman does not have the right to evict, she only has the right to not lease out in the first place.

          • gladys1071

            Let agree to disagree on this issue. You will not convince me that a woman loses her rights to a fertilized egg or embryo.

          • GLT

            “You will not convince me that a woman loses her rights to a fertilized egg or embryo.”

            Where did you get the idea a woman has rights over the embryo? The embryo belongs to God as does the life of the woman and the life of every human on Earth. We are not our own no matter how much we like to believe that to be the case. We were bought at a price. This you should understand as a Christian.

          • Ann Morgan

            If your beliefs are based on religion, then they should only apply to those who share your religion.

          • SpankyListens2U

            First we need to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a God actually exists; we have not done that yet.

          • I❤️Life

            Just curious here, but has it been established that God doesn’t exist?

          • SpankyListens2U

            Of course not, but we shouldn’t assume he does, either, right ?

          • I❤️Life

            I believe He does. But that’s just me. The way I see it if your right I haven’t lost anything, but if I’m right those who don’t believe will lose everything. Just my belief though.

          • SpankyListens2U

            You think I am in serious trouble for not accepting your faith ?
            Why would you think that is a Deity you could love ?

          • I❤️Life

            My favorite Bible verse: John 3:16
            We’re not commanded to believe in God. We voluntarily do so. And our gift is eternal life with our creator. I imagine non believers would not want to spend eternity with a God they didn’t believe in.

            I not only love God from my own experiences but also because what other God would humble Himself to be born as one of His creation, live a completely sinless life to be tempted, ridiculed, physically tortured, crucified and resurrected so we could be reconciled back to Him?

        • Kevin Quillen

          her choice was to get pregnant or not.

          • gladys1071

            Her birth control failed. Did you read the article?

            Does not matter she has the right to terminate. Women are not incubators that lose their rights to their bodies

            You are free to carry to term all of your pregnancies. Leave other women to decide for themselves!

      • Ann Morgan

        Are the sperm not part of that family, as well?

    • Kevin Quillen

      drop the nice sounding label. It is pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Actually it is pro-baby murder.

      • gladys1071

        Yes be simple minded, after all only the embryo matters right? Who cares about the woman her other children or her marriage.

        The embro has to be elevated to be more important then already born people.

  • RT Neary

    Thank God my mother did not think the way some of these pro-choicers do. Otherwise coming from a family of six, I would not be here and have had a family of my own too.

    Also, as far as labels go, I don’t resent being called Queer, as in today’s America it seems to be a queer position to be in favor of traditional marriage and the right to life both. In fact I am a TMRTLQ – proudly!

  • Kelly B

    My mom had me at 17, but I was born a couple years before Roe – lucky for me.

    A lifelong Christian, I found myself siding with pro “choicers” – reasoning that “if God wanted that baby to be born, it would have.” However, after opening up my dusty bible one day and spending time in scripture with the Lord after so many years, Jesus carried me, that one lost sheep, over his shoulder and back into the fold, and I realized that what I’d thought of as “left leaning” had actually been “walked away from the Lord.”

    I challenge any Christian who considers him or herself “liberal” or even “leftist” to get back into the word and ask the Lord to lead you to the Truth, no matter where it takes you. I guarantee you’ll never regret it!

    • gladys1071

      i am not a liberal or leftist, but i am pro-choice and i am a Christian. If anything i am conservative mostly in my leanings.

      I believe a woman’s right come first before any embryo.

      To me being a Christian has lead me to a woman having rights to her body and her rights superseding those of any embryo.

      To be a Christian is to allow women to make the choice that is best for them and their family, not what others dictate to her , or try to conform to some standard.

      • Joey Carroll

        It’s not an embryo. It’s a Baby! And if you kill it, it’s murder.

        • gladys1071

          an embryo is an embryo, i would agree to call it baby at a later term.

          1st trimester it is not a baby.

          • GLT

            “1st trimester it is not a baby.”

            Really, then what is it?

          • gladys1071

            an embryo that will eventually develop into a baby.

          • Don

            But not if the woman has it killed. Your Christianity sucks. Your advocating murder of the innocent and defending the actions of harlots.

          • gladys1071

            I think your Christianity sucks if you place more value to an embryo than to a woman.

            Your Christianity sucks if you think it is right to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy against her will.

          • Don

            You shall not murder Exodus 20:12 & Deuteronomy 5:16

            Exodus 23:7 Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

            Sounds like the unborn baby is innocent.

            Psalm 94:21 The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.

            Think it over 1071

            Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:21

            Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

            Take That 1071. Your the phony

          • SpankyListens2U

            Wow,
            Your ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking !
            It sounds more like ” you’re” the phony.

          • Don

            Yeah, because I don’t approve and affirm someones bad behavior.

          • Ann Morgan

            So, they advocate killing the mindless and defend the rights of thinking, feeling people. Your point is what?

          • Don

            That statement does not make sense. Oh well as long as I get what I want.

          • Ann Morgan

            The fact that you can’t parse a sentence or read English does not bode well for you being intelligent enough to get what you want.

          • SpankyListens2U

            Did someone notice harlots ?
            Where are they hiding ?

          • GLT

            An embryo that will inevitably develop into a baby.

          • gladys1071

            Medical Definition of Embryo. Embryo:
            An organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation, from
            fertilization to the beginning of the third month of pregnancy (in
            humans). After that point in time, an embryo is called a fetus.

          • GLT

            You’re playing semantic games, quite unbecoming for a Christian. At the moment of conception the result will be nothing but a human baby. Quit the games.

          • gladys1071

            how is it unbecoming that is the medical term?. At the moment of conception it is a fertilized egg, it is not a baby.

            Fertilized eggs do not have rights, a woman’s right to refuse to house that fertilized egg, zygote, embryo supersedes.

          • GLT

            “At the moment of conception it is a fertilized egg, it is not a baby.”

            At the moment of conception it will be nothing else than a human baby. You’re just playing semantic games.

          • gladys1071

            no it is not a baby, a fertilized egg is called a blastocyst which is microscopic, then it becomes a zygote when it implants into the uterus, it is still microscopic, it has no organs, no brain, no organs, that is NOT a baby

          • GLT

            Is it alive?

          • Ann Morgan

            I don’t care if it’s a ‘baby’ or a ‘child’ or a ‘little son or daughter’. In fact, I don’t care WHAT it is. If it has no brain function, I don’t care. Grow up and deal with it.

          • GLT

            “Grow up and deal with it.”

            Judging from the content and tone of your comments, I am not the one who needs to grow up. As usual, your type have no cogent arguments to present so you inevitably resort to nastiness and insults. All too typical.

          • Ann Morgan

            So, according to you, the human mind has no value, correct?

          • GLT

            “So, according to you, the human mind has no value, correct?”

            Where did you come up with that concept? It certainly could not have come from anything I said. Perhaps you just have a habit of setting up straw men so you can knock them down. That is not at all unusual for someone who cannot present a cogent argument.

          • Ann Morgan

            **Where did you come up with that concept? It certainly could not have come from anything I said. **

            It comes from EVERYTHING you said. Your entire argument is based on the premise that a mindless fetus is equal in value to a thinking, feeling infant. That argument only holds water if you place zero value on the human mind. If the human mind has value, than a human WITHOUT a mind can’t be equal in value to a thinking, feeling person.

            Just like – if you claim that an empty barrel is equal in value to a barrel of fresh apples, that premise can be true if and only if apples have zero value. If apples are worth so much as a single penny, each, then the barrel full of fresh apples must be more valuable than the empty barrel.

            Or as it would be expressed in algebra: H = H+M if and only if M=0.

            But thanks for proving that forced birthers don’t even understand simple math.

          • GLT

            “It comes from EVERYTHING you said.”

            No, it comes solely from your imagination and the need to erect straw man arguments in order to appear to be winning your case, nothing more than that.

            “That argument only holds water if you place zero value on the human mind.”

            Your Argument is woefully illogical. Can one not place value on a variety of conditions for different reasons. How shallow is your thinking, really?

            “if you claim that an empty barrel is equal in value to a barrel of fresh apples, that premise can be true if and only if apples have zero value.”

            You’re hilarious, you really are. An empty barrel can be of equal value to a barrel full of apples in that an empty barrel can be functional in some form other than holding apples in the same way apples do not exist just to fill barrels. The apples are not what define the barrel and the barrel is not what defines the apples. The barrel is an entity of value on its own merits as the apples are an entity of value on their merits. They can, of course, be combined to form a single valued entity as a barrel full of apples. The value of neither is diminished due the lack of the other. Value is a relative term, not an absolute concept. It would appear that not only should basic biology lessons be in your future but also lessons in critical thinking and rational thought.

            Like I said, simply hilarious.

          • Ann Morgan

            **An empty barrel can be of equal value to a barrel full of apples in that an empty barrel can be functional in some form other than holding apples in the same way apples do not exist just to fill barrels**

            One word – Baloney. Doesn’t matter whether the barrels may have functions other than holding apples. Given two objects- one an empty barrel, the other a barrel full of apples, the ONLY way both objects are equal in value, at that point in time, is if you place zero value on apples. If you take the apples out of the second barrel, you are creating a different object – another empty barrel. The question of whether both barrels are worth the same EMPTY is not what you were asked. That is not one of the choices you were given, and you are proving you can’t refute by engaging in a straw man fallacy. You are handwaving to justify elevating the mindless fetus to the same value as a thinking, feeling person.

            ** Value is a relative term, not an absolute concept. It would appear that not only should basic biology lessons be in your future but also lessons in critical thinking and rational thought.**

            Doesn’t matter if it is relative or not. Some people might think an apple is worth 10 cents. Some people, if they are absolutely desperate for food, might pay you $100 for an apple. Doesn’t change the fact that the ONLY way a completely empty barrel can be equal in value to a barrel full of apples, is if your ‘relative value’ for apples is that they have absolutely no value whatsoever, at all.

            And btw, you’ve just destroyed all your arguments about the fetus. If value is relative, and not absolute, then you can’t claim the fetus has a gasping in awe value, such that it is a horrible moral offense to abort it, can you?

          • GLT

            “Given two objects- one an empty barrel, the other a barrel full of apples, the ONLY way both objects are equal in value, at that point in time, is if you place zero value on apples.”

            Logic is not your long suit, obviously. How do apples make the barrel more valuable? The barrel has a value and a purpose as do the apples. How does putting the apples in the barrel increase the value or purpose of the barrel or the apples? The barrel does not need the apples to be of value nor do the apples need the barrel. Neither are apples or barrels; empty or otherwise; analogous to sentient beings. The only value barrels or apples can possess is that which someone places upon them and such value is wholly relative to that individual’s needs. That is not the case with human beings who have inherent value simply by virtue of being human, and said value is not relative to the opinion of others.

            “The question of whether both barrels are worth the same EMPTY is not what you were asked.”

            What I was asked is irrelevant due to the fact that your analogy is nonsense, which is what I pointed out, nor do you possess the power or right to control the debate.

            “Doesn’t change the fact that the ONLY way a completely empty barrel can be equal in value to a barrel full of apples, is if your ‘relative value’ for apples is that they have absolutely no value whatsoever, at all.”

            Not even remotely true. Your logic is beyond atrocious, really. As I have already pointed out several times, obviously to no avail, barrels and apples have inherent value independent from one another. Neither depends on the other for value. I can remove the apples from the barrel, does that mean the apples are no longer of value because they are not in the barrel or that the barrel is no longer of value because it no longer holds the apples? Obviously not and to think otherwise is complete, palpable nonsense, which is what you are spouting in this inane attempt to draw an analogy between apples, barrels and the value of human life. You would be a hoot in a philosophy class.

            “If value is relative, and not absolute, then you can’t claim the fetus has a gasping in awe value, such that it is a horrible moral offense to abort it, can you?”

            Nice try but no cigar. It is clear from the context I was referring to value in the context of apples and barrels, not human life. This is clear from the fact the whole intent of my argument was to show your analogy to be foolish, which I have done by the way.

          • Ann Morgan

            **How do apples make the barrel more valuable? The barrel has a value and a purpose as do the apples. How does putting the apples in the barrel increase the value or purpose of the barrel or the apples? **

            So in other words you are frantically evading, so you can have your apples and eat them to. Or in this case, claim that a mindless embryo has the same value as a person WITH a mind, without the inconvenient mathematical necessity of having to place zero value on the human mind.

            **barrels and apples have inherent value independent from one another. Neither depends on the other for value. I can remove the apples from the barrel, does that mean the apples are no longer of value because they are not in the barrel or that the barrel is no longer of value because it no longer holds the apples? Obviously not and to think otherwise is complete, palpable nonsense, which is what you are spouting in this inane attempt to draw an analogy between apples, barrels and the value of human life. You would be a hoot in a philosophy class.**

            Actually, unless you would be willing to sell me a barrel of diamonds and gold for $15 (the cost of the barrel) YOU would be a hoot. Doesn’t matter if the apples may be taken out. But we will play your game to try and get past your pro-life weasels and evasions.

            There is an auction going on. There are two lots up for bidding.

            The first lot is a wooden barrel.

            The second lot is an identical wooden barrel PLUS 5 bushels of apples, which may or may not be in the barrel, but you cannot take them out of the lot to make your ‘custom lot’ and buy just the apples or just the barrel. The barrel PLUS the apples is a single lot at the auction. Once you’ve bought the lot, if you do so, you may do with the apples what you like.

            Which lot is more valuable, lot 1 or lot 2?

            **”If value is relative, and not absolute, then you can’t claim the fetus has a gasping in awe value, such that it is a horrible moral offense to abort it, can you?”
            Nice try but no cigar. It is clear from the context I was referring to value in the context of apples and barrels, not human life. **

            Sorry, but yes, cigar. Either value is relative, or it is not. You don’t get to claim it is relative one moment to get you out of the apple question, then suddenly claim it is not relative, so you may gasp in awe of mindless cells.

          • Breezeyguy

            The embryo is the offspring of two parents, and shares their nature. That is, the offspring of two human parents is a human, whether a zygote or fetus or embryo or 3rd trimester or born or toddler or baby or kindergardner or teen or young man or young woman or adult or senior or alzheimers sufferer. Using words to attempt to remove a human being’s perceived rights is a crime against humanity and a sin against God. Repent, that’s all.

          • Ann Morgan

            At the moment of gametogenesis, the result will be nothing but a human baby, as well. A human sperm will never go on to produce a dog or a pig. Quit the games.

          • GLT

            What is your point?

          • Ann Morgan

            What’s yours?

          • GLT

            If you don’t understand my point, you obviously do not have one.

          • Ann Morgan

            I understand your point perfectly well. You want to gasp in awe of a mindless zygote, because it will never produce anything but a human baby. The same is true of a sperm, so why are they handwaved away? Other than their being inconvenient and unwanted?

          • GLT

            “The same is true of a sperm,…”

            Not on their own, genius.

          • Ann Morgan

            Oh. The embryo becomes a baby ON IT’S OWN!.
            Well that certainly puts a different perspective on things, doesn’t it. I didn’t realize the embryo could do that, before. If that is the case, it certainly changes things, doesn’t it.
            The embryo may be taken out at 6 weeks, and we can watch it become a baby. All ‘on it’s own’.
            Problem solved.

          • SpankyListens2U

            Maybe Jesus could place his hands on it if he’s passing through.

          • GLT

            “The embryo becomes a baby ON IT’S OWN!.”

            WOW! You really don’t get how this works, do you? Rather funny, really, scary, but yet funny. Your reading comprehension is not so get either.

          • Ann Morgan

            I understand how it works, perfectly. The sperm can’t become a baby, without assistance from cells outside itself, to supply more genetic material. The zygote can’t become a baby, without assistance from cells outside itself, to supply nutrients, and oxygen. The term ‘ON IT’S OWN’ means ‘ON IT’S OWN’. It does NOT mean ‘it gets the sort of assistance that *I* say, to include the things I want to include, but not other sorts of assistance, so that I can exclude the sort of things I want to exclude. And you are playing the usual sort of game, you are pretending that whether or not something can become a baby ‘on it’s own’ – which the zygote CAN’T, btw, has some sort of inherent moral significance, above and beyond you merely wanting it that way.

          • GLT

            None of us actually survive ‘on our own’, if you want to use that line of logic. If the zygote is fair game, why would you not be fair game if something happened to you which made you more dependent on others than you already are? That’s the problem with your type, no ability to rationally think an argument through to its logical conclusions.

            “has some sort of inherent moral significance, above and beyond you merely wanting it that way.”

            What gives you moral significance above an beyond you merely wanting it that way?

          • Ann Morgan

            **None of us actually survive ‘on our own’, if you want to use that line of logic. If the zygote is fair game, why would you not be fair game if something happened to you which made you more dependent on others than you already are? That’s the problem with your type, no ability to rationally think an argument through to its logical conclusions.**

            Actually, I have thought it through. And by your logic – since you admit that none of us ‘survive on our own’, then if the sperm is fair game, why would YOU not be fair game, if something happened to you, which made you more dependent on others than you actually are?

            **”has some sort of inherent moral significance, above and beyond you merely wanting it that way.” What gives you moral significance above an beyond you merely wanting it that way?**

            My argument would be that it is the MIND that has moral significance, which is why neither the sperm nor the fetus (prior to 22-25 weeks) has moral significance. But that’s just my point of view, or my wanting it that way. However, an awful lot of people agree with me, including most pro-lifers, even though they refuse to admit it, because it ruins their fantasies about the fetus.

            However, I do have a better argument, which you aren’t going to like. Which is that giving people ABOVE a certain age ‘rights’ (or an equivalent behavior mechanism) is necessary for the survival of the human species. Or a given subset within that species. A society in which there was no such thing as ‘rights’ for people above a certain age, would be at the stone age level – everyone would spend their time hiding in fortified caves and skulking around and bashing everyone else’s head in. That isn’t a good scenario for being able to develop technology, and cave men armed with clubs don’t do well against tanks. Or even archers. And both the latter require this nice thing we call ‘civilization’, in which people can cooperate with a fairly good guarantee that their boss and co-workers PROBABLY aren’t going to try to decapitate them in the bathroom.

            Unfortunately for you, fetal rights do not fall under this category. Not only are they not necessary for the survival of the human species (unless our circumstances were to very drastically change), but attempting to enforce fetal rights (or rights of very young infants in the absence of abortion) would eventually cause the human race – or any other species – to go extinct. To understand why this is – consider the fact that a mother deer will abandon a fawn with so slight an injury as a sprained ankle. Which would heal up by itself in a few weeks.

            The reason why is – once it gets injured, it’s wolf bait. Absent extremely unlikely very, very, very good luck (under which category I include intervention by humans), it’s doomed. It will almost certainly not live long enough for the ankle to heal.

            And the ONLY reason a mother deer has fawns – or any animal reproduces – is to pass on her genes to ALL subsequent future generations, not merely the single next one represented by an injured fawn or unwanted fetus here and now. Continuing to care for the fawn is an evolutionary resource investment that is justified (by nature) only so long as the fawn is a ‘good bet’ for being able to survive long enough to have baby fawns of it’s own. Once something happens such that it’s a ‘bad bet’, continuing to spend more resources on it, rather than the mother deer giving all her milk to any uninjured sibling fawns, or simply keeping the nutrients for herself and ‘drying up’, is a bad idea from an evolutionary perspective. Worse than bad, because the presence of an injured fawn near herself, and any other HEALTHY fawns, is going to attract wolves to the mother and any siblings as well.

            While humans usually aren’t attacked by predators, that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t actually matter if a parent or sibling dies because of an unwanted fetus, if it’s not likely to reproduce, and it uses so many resources that it reduces the chances of the siblings reproducing – it’s a bad bet from a Darwinistic perspective.

            Doesn’t matter if it’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or how sad you are or how cute a fetus is. Darwin always wins in the end. Always. If a woman is guilted into carrying an unwanted Down’s fetus, and therefore has to spend $2 million on it that could have gone to healthy siblings, therefore has no grandchildren – the winner is going to be the woman who aborts the Down’s fetus, and thereby makes sure she has 6 grandchildren. You now have 6 grandchildren with whatever genes go towards NOT being guilted, and NO grandchildren with the ‘compassion for Down’s genes’.

            And pro-lifers frantically scream at any suggestion of fixing this problem by handing women a $2 million check for gestating that Down’s fetus. Though you really ought to, as your failure to do so is slowly wiping out the genes for ‘caring about the fetus’. But then, I don’t believe most pro-lifers actually care about the fetus, anyways. Your only use for it is to ruin lives, and giving the families of the disabled money to care for them would be contrary to the real goal of ruining lives.

          • GLT

            “then if the sperm is fair game, why would YOU not be fair game,…”

            What is with your fixation on sperm?

            “My argument would be that it is the MIND that has moral significance,…”

            Would you mind constructing a cogent argument to support that opinion?

            “Which is that giving people ABOVE a certain age ‘rights’ (or an equivalent behavior mechanism) is necessary for the survival of the human species.”

            Why does a human being have to be above a certain age to be granted rights? How does granting rights to only those above a certain age provide a better chance of survival for the ‘species’? Why does granting rights to all humans not provide for the survival of the species?

            “A society in which there was no such thing as ‘rights’ for people above a certain age, would be at the stone age level – everyone would spend their time hiding in fortified caves and skulking around and bashing everyone else’s head in.”

            Is that scenario also the inevitable result of a society which grants rights to all its members, including the fetus? How does granting rights to only a group above a specified age prevent such a scenario?

            “Unfortunately for you, fetal rights do not fall under this category. Not only are they not necessary for the survival of the human species,…”

            They aren’t? I would love to see your logic defending that palpable nonsense.

            “attempting to enforce fetal rights (or rights of very young infants in the absence of abortion) would eventually cause the human race – or any other species – to go extinct.”

            Like I said, you’re hilarious. Let’s see your logic supporting this stupidity.

            “consider the fact that a mother deer,…”

            We are not discussing deer or any other animal, we are discussing humans and human embryos. In case you were not aware there is a difference.

            “Darwin always wins in the end.”

            Darwin and his failed theory are destined for the dust bin of history. If you had read anything published in the last twenty years you would see that is obvious. As Dr. Michael Egnor describes him, Darwin was nothing more than a low level barnacle collector. In case you were unaware Darwin had zero scientific education, nothing, zilch, nada. His only formal university training was in theology.

            “has to spend $2 million on it,…”

            So, money is the crucial factor in your reasoning? That is below despicable. Sorry to have to say it but it is the truth. Down syndrome people can living happy and productive lives, your relegation of them to an inferior status is abhorrent, to say the least. You should be ashamed of yourself, seriously.

          • Ann Morgan

            And I’ve seen the game you are playing, before. You have a predetermined conclusion that the zygote ‘counts’, but that the sperm ‘doesn’t count’. So you compose a recipe list of traits that distinguish the zygote from the sperm, such as having diploid chromosomes, and claim that those traits are what prove ‘rights’. If the sperm was blue but the zygote turned purple, you would no doubt claim that being purple ‘proved rights’.

            Sorry, no. The fact that the zygote has diploid chromosomes proves only that it has diploid chromosomes. It does not prove that it has ‘rights’. Nor does the fact that the sperm is haploid prove that it doesn’t have ‘rights’.

          • GLT

            “So you compose a recipe list of traits that distinguish the zygote from the sperm,…”

            Duh, yeah, as they are not the same. I think some basic biology should be in your future as you are embarrassing yourself with your demonstration of your total lack of knowledge of the basics.

            “It does not prove that it has ‘rights’.”

            That’s not a logical argument or a scientific argument, it is simply a personal opinion and as such not worth a lot in the scheme of things. Sorry.

          • Ann Morgan

            Duh, yes, the zygote and the infant are ALSO not the same. I think some basic logic should be your future, because:

            1. The mere fact they are not the same, and the differences between them, do not prove one has rights, and/or that the other doesn’t. It merely proves they are biologically different.

            2. If you can handwave away the sperm because it has biological differences from the zygote, then you have no real grounds for complaining if others handwave away the zygote, because it has biological differences from the infant.

            You cannot merely claim that some differences ‘count’ and others ‘don’t count’. You are not the one who gets to decide that.

          • GLT

            “the zygote and the infant are ALSO not the same.”

            Will the zygote become anything other than the infant?

            “If you can handwave away the sperm because it has biological differences from the zygote,…”

            WOW! Of course the zygote is biologically different from the sperm, it is the result of recombination of two biological patterns creating a new and unique biological pattern. You really don’t get how this works, do you? You don’t understand the simple basics of biological reproduction. It’s absolutely mind boggling, really.

            “You are not the one who gets to decide that.”

            Then why do you believe you get to decide? What gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies and when someone becomes that ‘who’? You really don’t see the basic hypocrisy inherent in your arguments, do you? Truly amazing.

          • Kevin Quillen

            complete DNA set= human, from conception.

          • gladys1071

            So what ?that does not give it any rights . Women have rights to refuse to gestate. Women do not lose their rights to a fertilized egg

          • Ann Morgan

            Nope. Complete DNA set – human from gametogenesis.

            TWO DNA sets – at conception.

            You seem to babble a lot about DNA. Do you even know what DNA does, or how it works? How about you describe to me in your own words the function of Reverse Transcriptase in HIV patients?

            Too hard? Here’s an easier one. Explain to me in your own words, the difference between a genotype and a phenotype.

            Let me guess, you really don’t know anything about DNA, other than that the embryo has 2 sets, so you pretend to gasp in awe of it, right?

          • BrokenPriest

            Science says differently. You also cannot reconcile Christianity with any form of abortion. Might want to dig in deeper to the Word. Psalm 127:3-5 is a good place to start. God Bless, and please come out of Babylon.

          • gladys1071

            I would think that God would say that a woman has more rights then an embryo.

            In the Jewish faith the woman was given more consideration then an embryo

            Science says an embryo is an embryo in the 1st trimester.

          • Kevin Quillen

            “science says”
            putting your faith in an ever changing discipline.

          • Ann Morgan

            Oh, well if we aren’t going to put our faith in science, problem solved. Science says that the lungs in a fetus can’t perform oxygen exchange until 22 weeks at the very earliest, but since we aren’t putting our faith in an ever-changing discipline, problem solved. The embryo can be taken out in one piece at 6 weeks, and we can just pretend to be puzzled and sad when it dies of hypoxia.

          • GLT

            “Science says,…”

            Science also says a human egg and a human sperm will combine to produce a human being. Too bad science doesn’t support your argument that the fetus is not human. A scientific fact you wish to conveniently ignore, in the name of science, of course. 🙂

          • Ann Morgan

            Cut and paste where I said that the fetus was not genetically diploid human, or you will have proven that you are a liar.

          • GLT

            Your whole argument has been the fetus does not have the rights of an indiviual human or is this coming as a surprise to you?

          • Ann Morgan

            Firstly, that is not what my argument was.

            What my argument actually is:

            1. That rights belong to THINKING FEELING humans.
            2. That there is no right, even for thinking, feeling humans to use someone else’s body.

            Neither of those equates to what you claimed, that I said that the fetus was not genetically diploid human.

            So, guess we can chalk you down as a liar, correct?

          • GLT

            “That rights belong to THINKING FEELING humans.”

            And it follows with your argument that as the fetus is not a thinking, feeling human and therefore has no rights. So, how am I wrong when I say your argument is that the fetus does not have rights?

            “So, guess we can chalk you down as a liar, correct?”

            Nope, you have clearly and consistently argued a fetus is not human, diploid or not is irrelevant to that fact.

            Like I said, logic is not your strong suit.

          • Ann Morgan

            **So, how am I wrong when I say your argument is that the fetus does not have rights?**

            But that is NOT what you said that my argument was. You said my argument was that it wasn’t ‘human’.

            **Nope, you have clearly and consistently argued a fetus is not human,**

            Nope. That was not and never has been my argument. Re-read my previous post.

            ** diploid or not is irrelevant to that fact.**

            OH! REALLY! So the truth comes out at last!! You admit that being diploid is irrelevant to being human!! So you are finally admitting that men commit mass murder of millions of innocent human lives every time they masturbate or get oral favors? Since you now admit being diploid is not relevant to the fact of being ‘human’, you must include the haploid sperm, mustn’t you?

            **Like I said, logic is not your strong suit.**

            Telling the truth is not your strong suit, and you have yet to cut and paste where I said one single time that the fetus is not ‘human’. Until that time, you are a liar, not to mention that you have now confessed to multiple mass murders of millions of innocent human lives.

          • GLT

            “You said my argument was that it wasn’t ‘human’.”

            Yes, and I stand by that claim. In my opinion the presentation of your argument is bordering on cognitive dissonance. You seem to believe you claim the fetus is human while at the same time you claim the fetus does not have the rights which are inherent with being human. How can the fetus be human and at the same time not have the rights of being human? To put it mildly, your position is a logical train wreck.

            “You admit that being diploid is irrelevant to being human!!”

            Apparently reading comprehension is not a strong suit for you either. That is not what I said, I said the distinction was irrelevant to your argument.

            “Until that time, you are a liar,…”

            Perhaps in your opinion but that is something which bothers me not one iota.

            Take care. 🙂

          • Ann Morgan

            **You seem to believe you claim the fetus is human while at the same time you claim the fetus does not have the rights which are inherent with being human. **

            The problem here is, you are asserting TWO things that you actually need to prove.

            1. That ‘rights’ exist because and only because of ‘being human’, rather than for some other reason, such as being a thinking, feeling person. And, incidentally, claiming that rights exist for reasons other than merely ‘being human’ is not the same thing as claiming that the fetus is not ‘human’, no matter how many times you claim so. So I believe we have safely established that you are a LIAR.

            2. Since not one single born person has a right to the internal contents of another person’s body, even if I did agree – which I do not – that rights exist because of ‘being human’, merely granting the fetus ‘human rights’ will not get you where you want to go.

            **To put it mildly, your position is a logical train wreck.**

            No, my position is logically sound. If I believe that rights exist for reasons other than merely ‘being human’, then there is no logical contradiction in stating that the fetus can be human, yet not have rights. Pints of blood are ‘human’ as well, and I don’t think THEY have rights, either. The only ‘train wreck’ here is that you are a liar regarding what I said, and you are making assertions of things that you actually need to prove.

            **That is not what I said, I said the distinction was irrelevant to your argument.**

            You do not get to decide when distinctions are irrelevant. And if the distinction between being merely a diploid human organism and a thinking feeling person is ‘irrelevant’, why can’t I claim that the distinction between being a diploid human organism (the zygote) and a haploid human organism is ‘irrelevent’?

            **”Until that time, you are a liar,…”
            Perhaps in your opinion but that is something which bothers me not one iota.**

            Since you have yet to show precisely where I said what you claimed I said, and the only ‘proof’ you offer is an unrelated, and unproven assertion that rights exist because of merely ‘being human’, therefore to deny something rights is to deny that it is ‘human’, you are a liar both in my opinion and in fact. Such assertions are easily made, but not so easily proven.

            I could just as validly claim that the right to sodomize GLT is a right that exists because one is ‘human’, rather than for some other reason, such as GLT agreeing to the matter, so if GLT won’t let me do him with a strap-on, then he is therefore denying I am ‘human’. Except the only problem is – you would not be denying that I am ‘human’, you are merely denying that the right to sodomize you exists merely because of being ‘human’, which is a completely different matter, and there is no ‘logical trainwreck’ involved at all.

          • GLT

            “That ‘rights’ exist because and only because of ‘being human'”

            For what other reason would human rights exist if not for the fact of one being human? Do you think your arguments through or just toss them out and hope they stick? My feeling is that it is the latter.

            “So I believe we have safely established that you are a LIAR.”

            Like I said, that you believe I am a liar matters not one iota to me. As such, you will need to do better than ad hominems, which, by the way, are the last refuge of a failed argument.

            “Since not one single born person,…”

            We’re not talking about the born, remember? In case you were not aware science has determined the fetus is its own person and not a part of another person. By definition and by law an individual has the right to life even if that right may encroach on those of another. We cannot kill our neighbour because we believe them to be inconvenient or detrimental to our well being.

            “Pints of blood are ‘human’ as well,…”

            Wow! Seriously? You are getting loonier and more desperate by the minute. Blood is not human simply because it is human blood. Your logic is beyond humourous, it is down right hilarious. Do you have any concept of equivocation?

            “You do not get to decide when distinctions are irrelevant.”

            You may consider them relevant, that does not mean I am required to do so. So yes, I do get to decide what is relevant from my point of view, just as you do from yours.

            “I could just as validly claim that the right to sodomize GLT is a right that exists,….”

            I believe you could justify anything you want in your sick, perverted little mind. With this comment you’ve crossed the line. I am done. I sincerely suggest you grow up.

          • Ann Morgan

            **For what other reason would human rights exist if not for the fact of one being human**

            How about – having a functioning mind? And you are attempting to assert the very thing you actually need to prove, which is that they are ‘human rights’, rather than ‘thinking, feeling human rights.’

            **Do you think your arguments through or just toss them out and hope they stick? My feeling is that it is the latter.**

            Talking about yourself?

            **”Since not one single born person,…”
            We’re not talking about the born, remember? In case you were not aware science has determined the fetus is its own person and not a part of another person. **

            If your basis for granting the fetus rights is that it is ‘human’, then you can’t give it special rights that other humans don’t have on the basis of it not being born, can you? If you can do that, then I could just as easily claim that born humans get special rights that fetuses don’t have, for the very same reason.

            By definition and by law an individual has the right to life even if that right may encroach on those of another. We cannot kill our neighbour because we believe them to be inconvenient or detrimental to our well being.

            **By definition and by law an individual has the right to life even if that right may encroach on those of another.**

            Actually, no, they don’t.

            ** We cannot kill our neighbour because we believe them to be inconvenient or detrimental to our well being.**

            But we CAN deny our neighbor the internal contents of our body, even if they need it for their ‘very life’.

            **You may consider them relevant, that does not mean I am required to do so. So yes, I do get to decide what is relevant from my point of view, just as you do from yours.**

            Precisely. YOU get to decide what is relevant from your own point of view. Meaning – you may gestate every fetus you find inside your OWN body. You don’t get to decide what is relevant to other people, and tell them that they must gestate mindless cells because of what YOU think is relevant. You only get to decide that for yourself.

            **Blood is not human simply because it is human blood. Your logic is beyond humourous, it is down right hilarious. Do you have any concept of equivocation?**

            Then you agree that it is possible to validly state that it is HUMAN blood, but to also hold that the pint of blood does not have rights merely because it is ‘human’ blood, and that other, additional properties are needed in order to have rights, beyond merely being ‘human’, without denying that the blood is, in fact, ‘human’.

            Well, the very same thing applies to the fetus. It is possible to agree that the fetus is a ‘human being’, but to ALSO hold that the fetus does not have rights, merely because it is a ‘human being’, and that other, additional properties are needed in order to have rights, beyond merely being a ‘human being’, without denying that the fetus is, in fact, a ‘human being’.

            So, you are still a provable liar. I never said that the fetus was not human, and nothing I said necessitates that it not be human, because of what you claim are ‘inherent’ properties of human beings. That would only be true if it were a PROVABLE ‘inherent’ property of human beings. If I were to, say, claim that the fetus did not have diploid human DNA, then I would be denying that it was a ‘human being’.

            But rights are not a provable inherent property of ‘human beings’. They are, in fact, not provable at all.

            Your contention that rights exist because of being a ‘human being’ is merely your belief. The Jains believe that rights exist because of being a living animal, from an insect on up. I happen to believe that rights exist because of being a thinking, feeling member of a sentient species. You have no proof that your beliefs are any more valid that those of the Jains, or of myself, other than you merely wanting it that way.

          • Citizen_Candy_Cane

            Hi Ann, nice rebuttal. You could go even farther with your response to GLT’s neighbor analogy. Not only can we deny the neighbor access to our resources even if the neighbor needs the resources for survival…but the Castle doctrine empowers us to actively remove an unwanted person from our home even if doing so results in the person dying from lack of shelter. Yet somehow the same conservatives who gladly support the Castle doctrine conveniently avoid applying its logic to women’s ownership of uteri.

            @GLT is just another in a long line of anti-abortion folks whose stance is likely rooted in a preference for controlling women.

          • GLT

            What part of ‘I am done’ do you not understand? I don’t carry on conversations with foul mouthed, vulgar people such as yourself. I told you that you crossed a line with your last post and I was done and I meant it. I also meant it when I suggested you grow up. Good bye.

          • Ann Morgan

            **What part of ‘I am done’ do you not understand? I don’t carry on conversations with foul mouthed, vulgar people such as yourself. I told you that you crossed a line with your last post and I was done and I meant it.**

            If you said you were done and you meant it, then why are you posting to me again?

            ** I also meant it when I suggested you grow up. Good bye.**

            I’m 50. How ‘grown up’ are you?

          • GLT

            “I’m 50. How ‘grown up’ are you?”

            Then why do you act like a teenager?

            “then why are you posting to me again?”

            I am done as I will not engage you on the previous topic any longer. I just am polite enough to answer an honest enquiry. I am more than fifty. 🙂 Age is just a number, maturity is something more.

          • Ann Morgan

            Yet, so far you have said that you are done, yet posted back twice to me. And you are the one who acts like a teenager.

          • gladys1071

            Hi Ann, i have another disqus account called Athena771, i have been using that one on LAN.

            I have been debating a lady over there that is basically a rape apologist. She claims to have graduated with honors and studied civil rights and political theory, yet she does NOT know what compulsory organ donation is.

            You should check out my interaction with her on LAN, my other discus name is Athena771.

          • SpankyListens2U

            Here’s the thing Gladys,
            Many on this site aren’t interested in ” science”

  • Chris Griffin

    Speak the truth in love… abortion is murder in the eyes of God, the baby cries out to God for vengeance, she immediately becomes a murderer and the abortive woman is hated by God, an enemy of God and under the wrath of God.

    • Don

      Correct.

    • SpankyListens2U

      So, your idea of a caring God is to sit back , watch the fetus or embryo get destroyed , do nothing to stop this and then wait until the evil female’ slide is over and arrange to have her tortured forever ?
      The main difference is that I would intervene , and so would you, I’m thinking.

      • Chris Griffin

        Yes, thank you sincerely. I have saved 251 babies at the abortion clinic sidewalk. That is about 5% success rate. Very few are saved at the abortion clinic but each one is a gift from God.

  • Don

    Eventually Liberty, we either need to make abortion a crime via support of heartbeat and personhood legislation. Or pray for God’s judgement cause he will say enough is enough.

    • gladys1071

      so basically you want to force women to remain pregnant even against her will?

      You basically are saying that an fertilized egg or an embryo should have MORE rights then the woman?

      You are saying once a woman becomes pregnant, she has to REMAIN pregnant?

      That is what a heartbeat personhood bill would accomplish.

      • Kevin Quillen

        get it through your head Gladys, abortion is primarily used as birth control. DON”T get pregnant!! There is your answer to the debate.

        • gladys1071

          Oh yes “don’t get pregnant” is your simplistic answer?

          So birth control failure never happens?

          So women lose their rights to their bodies because of pregnancy?

          • Don

            Not when they is another innocent life growing in her. But you care about your libido and theirs.

          • Breezeyguy

            Why are you taking away the right of the baby to his or her body?

          • gladys1071

            What part of you cannot force a woman to stay pregnant that does not want to be, do you not understand?

            You are basically saying that an embyo or fetus has a right to a woman’s uterus

            What about the woman? does she not own her uterus?

          • Breezeyguy

            What part of ‘a woman can’t can’t dismember her child’s living body’ don’t you understand?

            If the child is in the uterus due to the mother’s activity, yes the child has a right to be there for 9 months unmolested.

            What about the child? Doesn’t the child have a right to her uterus, indeed all her or his organs, in spite of your desire to tear them apart?

          • jessica22

            When bc fails, then pull up your bootstraps and give birth!

            Ppl who race cars, crash and lose a leg… deal with it!
            Ppl who dive in a pool, hit the bottom and become a quad… deal with it!
            Ppl who climb Kilimanjaro, get frostbite and lose their fingers… deal with it!

            Some things in life are tough; sometimes tough things happen to good ppl…
            Never should you have the right to deprive someone else their life…

          • gladys1071

            oh wow ! i will make sure not to ask you for any help!

          • jessica22

            gladys, I would help you any way I could to defend your life… 😉

            (but I wouldn’t help you murder a defenseless being…
            why don’t you get it?)

          • gladys1071

            When bc fails, then pull up your bootstraps and give birth!

            No I don’t have to.

          • Ann Morgan

            **When bc fails, then pull up your bootstraps and give birth!**

            When a parent has a disabled child – pro-lifers can pull up their bootstraps and care for it 24-7 once the parent dies, so the INNOCENT SIBLINGS don’t have to.

            **Ppl who climb Kilimanjaro, get frostbite and lose their fingers… deal with it!

            Some things in life are tough; sometimes tough things happen to good ppl…**

            Fetuses who implant and get aborted – deal with it!! Sometimes things are tough!!

            **Never should you have the right to deprive someone else of their life**

            Never should you have the right to demand that someone else ‘live’, and have their ‘very life’ paid for by innocent third parties, because you are not willing to step up yourself.

            And mindless cells are not a ‘someone else’. Pull up your own bootstraps and deal with it!!

  • Jaegwon

    That piece in the Atlantic is thoroughly lacking in any rational argumentation or thought-provoking material whatsoever; even worse, the author shows no evidence of even grasping why this moral issue exists in the first place, nor does she show any evidence of even caring to find out. She already has a deeply ingrained prejudice about this issue that controls her beliefs and emotions and behavior with respect to this topic and that filters out any contrary information completely… or at least I think this is highly plausible given my experience with such people in the past.

    I suspect, though, that most of these people already know that they are morally bankrupt, which is why they so frequently try to turn the issue personal when a debate over abortion arises. They try to bring down (in their own mind) the moral standing of those who oppose abortion because it makes them feel better about themselves. This is why they always try to pretend that those who oppose abortion “don’t care about the baby after birth” or that they are “pro-fetus” or that they are somehow attacking women, rather than facing the primary issue that is at stake here: the worth of the unborn child and her right not to be killed. If this is correct, then the issue is rarely going to be an intellectual debate anyways, so of course rational arguments are not going to phase someone who already knows what they are doing is wrong.

    • Breezeyguy

      Wow, very well said! Thank you.

    • I❤️Life

      Right on the mark!

Inspiration
Don’t Let a Pit Become a Grave
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us