responses to abortion commenters

Well, I did it again – I went and read some other peoples’ comments about the South Dakota legislature, and I got so fired up, that I had to respond. 
The blog "Bring it on!" decided to ask about the deafening silence from "the right" about S.D.’s law.  I originally posted an innocuous comment about how the Republican party might be concerned about winning the abortion debate, because if the abortion issue is closed (probably won’t be closed any time soon), then they don’t really have that many other arguments to keep Catholics in the party, for faith reasons alone.  (Granted, there are plenty of other issues that good Catholics can dissent with each other on, choosing differing parties, and still remain good Catholics.)
The mistake I made was when I clicked the box to receive emails of future comments to this article.  I thought (in my vanity) that some people might respond to my comments, and so I was curious about what they would have to say, whether they agreed with me or not.  As I opened my email this morning, I saw only one person commented on my remarks.  The rest of them offered every kind of false generalization and inaccuracy imaginable about those that are opposed to abortion.  I felt the need to correct their wrong views, inform their uninformed, prejudiced minds, and set the record straight. 
(Unfortunately, I forgot to address one of the main concerns of pro-aborts: allowing abortions in cases of incest and rape.  Rape and incest rarely result in pregnancies, because of the trauma of the act.  The end statistical result of this is that less than 2% of the 1.1 million abortions each year are due to incest or rape.  That means that more than 98% of the abortions are due to other motives.)
Below is the text of my response.  I know at times I resorted to some generalizations of my own, but I feel that my own personal experiences, as well as the scientific research and theological/religious literature I have read, provides more than adequate reasoning to make up for any lapses in proper debate technique.

Absolutely amazing – the number of generalizations and intellectual vacuity in the comments is absolutely amazing.  Enjoy my responses… they’re sure to be a hit!

Bonnie: it’s the poor women who will suffer.

It’s the poor women who already suffer.  "My people perish for want of knowledge!" (Hosea 4:6)  How many times have poor women been B-S’ed into believing that an abortion will solve their problems?  How often do these same women end up having physical, emotional, and mental trauma after an abortion?  But no one cares about them *after* the abortion.  Planned Parenthood just wants their money to take their baby, so they can sell the parts to Merck and other embryonic stem cell "researchers".

Bonnie: Many of these same anti abortion activists would completely do an about face if it was their daughter and she was underage or raped. 

Nice generalization.  Care to back that up with any hard facts?

How about this generalization: most pro-choicers are anti-Christians and Catholic bashers that think that everyone is as hypocritical as they are.  They refuse to believe that there are actually people out there that stick by their beliefs.

Pia Savage: Legal abortiions (sic) are usually performed after some type of counseling…

Really?  What kind of counseling is this?  The kind where they convince those with concerns that it’s not really a child, even though it has distinct DNA and it’s own heartbeat (by the time most women find out they’re pregnant, the fetus is already developed enough that there is a heart and brainwaves)?  If this is good counseling, then why do they always oppose legislation that requires a sonogram to be shown to the mother?  Why do abortion clinics always oppose any crisis pregnancy or abortion alternative centers to be built anywhere nearby?  My guess is they fear competition by the truth.

Pia Savage: I’m not even going to go near the unsanitary conditions, etc that can be found at coat hanger abortionists

How about the cases of disease, unsanitary conditions, unqualified "doctors" and "nurses", and waivers of medical practices at legal abortion clinics across the country?  This doesn’t even touch on the number of deaths attributed to "safe, legal" abortions.  Abortion clinics treat their victims patients in a rotating door fashion – come in, get your insides cut up, sit for 30 minutes, and get out because we’ve got more babies to kill.  You can’t get your broken finger mended without at least a 2 hour stay in a hospital bed, but you can get your uterus sliced (by someone who may or may not be a registered nurse) and you’re out the door inside of an hour.  (I know this, because I have seen the women come and go from a clinic in Orlando while I’m saying 3 decades of a rosary, which takes no longer than an hour to say.)

LiberPaul and Liberal Army Wife: (comments saying that pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty)

This is not at all the case.  This is the Republican party platform, but it is not the position of true, rank-and-file pro-life people.  The Catholic Church is neither Republican nor Democrat – it is pro-life, and this means all life: unborn, convicted, elderly, and all in between!  I wrote about this when the execution of Tookie Williams came up in the news.

Hattie: I also know a few anti-choice Democrats. These anti choicers who consider themselves to be social liberals are young and very much influenced by church propaganda. They tend not to have a lot of formal education and may be struggling financially.

Really? Patricia Heaton is stuggling financially?  I thought she made quite a bit of money from "Everybody Loves Raymond".  I’m guessing that you had never heard of the growing "Feminists for Life" movement – hardly sounds like a group that would be bullied by their boyfriends’ into not using birth control.

Hattie: Conservative men, although they consider women secondary in political life as in all aspects of life, had better not forget that women have the vote.

Another patently wrong generalization.  I am a conservative man, and I do not consider women secondary in political life, or any other aspect of life.  How can I?  I have a mother, 6 sisters, a wife, and a daughter.  I love every one of them, and I would defend the legitimate rights of any of them to the death.  This does *not* mean, however, that I would defend nonsense rights.  If my sisters were given the right to shoplift, I would not support that.  If my wife were given the right to beat my daughter, I would not support that.  If my mother were given the right to kill any of us, I would not (and abortion is just that, so I do not) support that.  This is not misogyny – this is reality.  "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." (G. K. Chesterton)

Harry: No one, right or left, is for abortion, that has never been an issue. The central issue is who decides maternity, the individual woman or the State.

Really?  No one is for abortion?  Then who is NARAL?  Who is Planned Parenthood?

The issue is not who decides maternity – that’s a basic definition.  Maternity is defined as being a mother.  The issue is life – when does human life begin? 

If it is believed that life begins at birth, well when is birth feasible?  There have been pre-mature babies born at 5 months that weigh less than a pound.  This defeats the whole "2nd or 3rd trimester" argument as well.

If it is believed that life begins when that life can sustain itself, then the next question is "define sustain".  Babies can hardly feed themselves, keep themselves safe and warm, etc. before at least 3 years old.  If we make "self-sustaining" the rule, does that mean it’s right to kill a 2 year old baby for the same reason?  Of course not!

If it is believed that life begins when there’s a hearbeat or brain waves, again, 90+ % of women find out their pregnant after the baby has a heartbeat and brain waves.

If it is believe that human life begins when the fetus resembles a human, then define "human".  I say a distinct human life is one that has distinct human DNA.  (Sperm and egg don’t fit this definition, because they only have one half of the DNA strands.)  That means that life is at conception.

Harry: Once pregnant, through any means, her life is subordinant to the fetus and by extension the man that put it there.

Well this is a mixed-bag.  Once someone has a baby, both mother and father are (supposed to be) subordinate to that child – that’s what being a parent (and a loving adult, not a spoiled child) means:  delayed gratification; putting your wants and desires second to another’s!  If this were not the case, then why are paternity suits and alimony and child-care all provisions in the law?  Obviously, the law is written that both parents have an obligation to the child.  I will admit that in practice, this is much less the case (what with deadbeat dads and all), and this should be addressed much more seriously than it has been. That does not mean, however, that the solution to deadbeat dads is to kill the kid!  That’s like saying that the solution to rapists is to kill the woman.  Total nonsense! 

Yes, parents should be subordinate to the child.  However, this does not mean that the man owns the woman.  It means that when people have a child, it is really the child who owns them – they are the child’s parents.

Jet and Cooper: “Mother’s (sic) have a hard time seeing a daughter’s horizons shrunk while some other mother’s son keeps moving on.”

Fathers have a hard time seeing their precious daughters horizons shrunk to "you got pregnant – kill it!"  This seems to be the preferred choice of pro-"choice" people.  If this were not the case, you’d see more pro-choicers opening pregnancy counseling centers,

Fathers also have a hard time seeing their daughters inundated with a message that their bodies are to be used for sex, but not procreation.  "Honey, you go have as much sex as you want – but take this pill, make him wear this condom, only give him oral sex, and if you get pregnant anyway, kill it!"  Yeah – that’s a great message for fathers to teach their daughters.

How about teaching sons and daughters that their bodies are a mere casing for thier eternal souls?  How about teaching them that sex should be saved for marriage, where the privacy of the act becomes a special gift for the one they love – the only gift that they can truly give only one person?  How about teaching children that they are worth more than someone else’s source of pleasure, which can be bartered for popularity?  How about teaching them that a child is a gift, not just a crying burdensome ball of tissue that can be discarded like a Kleenex?

Oh, but does this mean that freedom comes with responsibility?  Does this mean that, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."  (G. K. Chesterton)  Does this mean we actually have to be responsible parents who actually teach our children morals, instead of just letting them learn it on the playground or from teachers?

Imagine that…

This entry was posted in abortion. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s