The Morality of Choosing Abortion


The religious pundits have claimed the moral high ground, claiming that God and History have decreed it immoral to have an abortion.  This is a fiction (though I cannot claim that I know what God thinks, and don’t think they should either).

Supporters of abortion lose nothing if they accede that abortion belongs in some category of the concept of “killing.”  It is sad, feels cruel sometimes, and can upset some people for the rest of their lives.  It’s not a trivial action.

But we kill things all the time. A friend had twins in the ICU, and a few weeks into their treatment, with the twins hanging on for dear life, the insurance company send my friend a notice that coverage had been terminated.  That’s killing.  So is cutting off health care for the ill and vulnerable. So is war, and in a juxtaposition which would challenge any professor of logic, the Christian pundits who claim abortion is murder are often supporters of capital punishment and of our current wars, which are polishing off civilians, including babies, at a diminishing though appalling clip.

Buddhist monks often sweep the path in front of them as they walk, lest they kill any form of life, including insects. Our attitudes regarding the killing of other forms of life on our Earth are careless indeed.

Even deeply religious people are entitled to have their disagreements with current feelings about morality.  In the past, Catholic leaders did not consider embryos in the first semester to be “human.” St. Augustine called of the “unformed” embryos that “…the law of homicide would not apply, for …it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body.”  St. Albertus Magnus noted that a fresh abortion or miscarriage was “animated,” but was “not human.”  The Southern Baptist Convention changed its own position much more recently. In the seventies they voted to support abortion under certain circumstances, and in 2010 said that life begins at conception and God made life, therefore abortion is not permitted.

We are allowing the Christian Right to blanket us with their own interpretation of morality, which has changed over the years, and in any case should apply only to their own believers.

But even deeper than that, an individual may feel that abortion is immoral because it is a form of killing, but may feel even deeper that it is immoral and irresponsible to bring into the world a child she cannot care for. That this is the case is evident in the number of women of every faith that have abortions.

We have morals, and we have responsibilities. The choice not to bear a child can be a deeply moral one.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • kjshea

    Well done, yes, I agree that abortion is killing–as all the other methods of killing listed in the article. There are four ways to control population growth–famine, war, disease, and preventing birth through contraception and abortions.  Which one do you think is the most humane?   A woman can choose to have an abortion simply as a means of family planning when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy, contraception sometimes fail. 

    The choice does not have to be a deeply moral one to be justified.

  • freetobe

    nearing menopause. I did not know I was even pregnant i can tell you that the embryo in no way even resembles anything living much less human! I first though I had passed a large tumor. I had all the labor pains etc along with it passing. it grossed me out to later find out what had happened. Sorry but I am sure it did not feel a thing.

    I cannot get all teary eyed over a blob. Maybe these nutwings can but I sure can’t.

    Things die everyday I hate it I am a vegan because i can’t stand killing anything that feels has a central nervous system but this blob could have felt nothing!! OK nothing!!!

  • jeroldhubbard

    I have been in food production for many years. You cannot bring a human being into this world, and expect it to live a significant life without the cost of sheding blood, lots of it or something else dying, in order for that baby to mature and live what we consider a normal life span! If avoiding death is what one is trying to accomplish in preventing all abortions……..you have just made one big blunder!

    Also, there are other costs upon the environmental infrastructure that few consider, for instance, fresh water. I just heard a news commentator suggest a new way to brush one’s teeth, that might save up to a 1,000 gallons of water per year. BUT, that pales in relation to how much fresh water it requires to furnish the food per year for that person. A scale one could use to figure the cost on fresh water is that with the modern beef production, it requires over 2,000 gallons just to produce one eatable pound of meat, (this is low as it does not take into consideration transportation, and storage), one can readily see that bringing a new human life into this world, comes with a HIGH COST upon the infrastructure that extends well beyond his life or the present generation.

    In the US, over 80% of fresh water use per person comes in the food they consume.

  • lucyl

     

    I’m a little lost as to how this article proves the morality of abortion.  Merely saying that “we kill all the time” doesn’t prove the morality of killing.  Replace the term “killing” with “owning slaves” or “abusing children” and you’ll see my point.  An appeal to the masses or tradition is hardly a valid justification, especially on something so serious as the taking of human life.

    As for the final point about a mother not being able to care for her child, ending the life of her child is far worse.  The assumed pain and hardships the child will face are potential (and in our nation there are many ways an underprivileged mother can receive help in raising a child), but with abortion, pain and death for the child are inevitable. 

    Also, inability to care for a human being does not justify ending the life of a born child, so why should it justify ending the life of a pre-born child?

     

  • plume-assassine

    I disagree with several points in this article (namely, I do not believe that abortion is “killing” in the sense that it ends the life of a sentient human being; rather, it can only be considered “killing” in the sense of removing an insentient organism from its source of sustenance, like removing a plant from the ground.)

    But I also have a few bones to pick with your comment.

    As for the final point about a mother not being able to care for her child, ending the life of her child is far worse.

    This is hyperbole. We are not talking about infanticide here. 

    but with abortion, pain and death for the child are inevitable. 

    An embryo/fetus does not experience pain, and in fact is neurologically incapable of experiencing pain. Furthermore, it cannot in any sense be considered a child or a person, as it is incapable of living outside the body of a woman, lacks the capacity for sentience, and is not even guaranteed to develop and be born alive/healthy (even without elective abortion in the picture at all).

     

    Since you insist on framing abortion as “infanticide” or implying that it is “ending the life of a child” (AKA: MURDER), then please tell me what should be done to the millions of American women each year who have abortions? Do you believe that they ought to be tried for murder and imprisoned, as they are guilty of knowingly seeking a doctor to “end the life” of a “child”? (I ask these questions of every “pro life” commenter on this site and most avoid the questions entirely.)

     

    The morality of abortion has nothing to do with killing. It has to do with bodily integrity and the ability to decide when/whether you will have children; these are basic human rights.

  • ack

    (and in our nation there are many ways an underprivileged mother can receive help in raising a child),

     

    Have you ever tried to access any of that assistance? It’s perpetually being reduced, both in the amount of assistance and the length of time it can be accessed. Currently, there is a lifetime cap of 60 months for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. A single woman with 2 children receives $347 per month. Childcare assistance is disappearing, making it difficult, if not impossible, for women with infants and small children to work. Furthermore, all those “pro-life” Republicans tried to elimate WIC. It stands for Women, Infants, and Children, and provides assistance for nutritious food.

     

    People always think that there’s an abundance of help for women who don’t want to continue their pregnancies because of financial constraints, and they just shouldn’t be so selfish. They usually think that because they’ve never really looked into what that process involves. I encourage you to explore the information available from organizations that advocate for social service funding in your state. The situation is dire, and in most states, it is only going to get worse.

     

    Also, inability to care for a human being does not justify ending the life of a born child, so why should it justify ending the life of a pre-born child?

     

    Because born children can be turned over to the state. A pregnant woman who cannot care for a child, and therefore does not want to continue a pregnancy and go through childbirth, cannot hand the fetus off to someone else to gestate. And she shouldn’t be forced to continue the process if she doesn’t want to; pregancy and childbirth aren’t minor inconveniences. They’re grueling, painful processes that involve significant physical and emotional risks.

     

  • crowepps

    Pain and death for EVERYONE are inevitable.

  • queenyasmeen

    Just about everyone here has got it right as far as I’m concerned, but this comment in particular nails it (and I feel the same way about the commenter who wrote about water and food supply).  I’m constantly amazed by conservatives who want to slash and burn every last penny of social support in the name of a “balanced budget” (when in fact social services funding is severely dwarfed by military spending, and military spending in the last eleven years has focused mainly on privatizing military operations to fatten corporate cronies of our previous president rather than supporting actual troops, but I digress).  Yet these same conservatives can’t stop telling women what to do with their own bodies, and want to cloak it under “concern for life,” crowing that abortion isn’t necessary because there are always social services.  Real assistance to women would consist of birth control and abortion upon demand, without apology.  It would also include easily accessible, affordable prenatal care, health care for women and actual, breathing children, and public education of the highest quality up through the university level so that women bearing children can feel confident that those kids have a promising future. 

     

    “But who’s going to pay for all this?” ask conservatives.  And again I refer them to the fiscal and physical cruelty of forced reproduction.  If we really care about life, we’re going to be far more cautious and thoughtful about bringing living creatures into this world.

  • crowepps

     “If we really care about life, we’re going to be far more cautious and thoughtful about bringing living creatures into this world.”

    Quoted for Truth.

    I can imagine anything more abusive to a newborn than to assign it the ‘job’ of being Mommy’s Consequence For Sex, her little Natural Punishment whose suffering makes her sorry she had sex.  Anyone who would do that must hate children.

  • eskhemo

    Are you sure you are an expert in fetal development to say that? Can you please site medical journals to back up your claims on fetal pain?

  • prochoiceferret

    Can you please site medical journals to back up your claims on fetal pain?

     

    She might have, if there existed any reputable studies whatsoever to corroborate fetal pain perception before the third trimester.

  • plume-assassine

    First of all, she was not talking about a fetus. Obviously, she is talking about a miscarriage in an early stage of pregnancy. Embryos do not have any neurological development necessary for pain or perception.

     

    If you want to know about fetal awareness in later pregnancy, here’s where you can start:

    http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php

    http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

  • freetobe

    He was the one that aborted it. I guess He was not concerned with any pain that a blob might feel and who the hell are you to tell me that what I saw before my eyes was nothing but a blob?

    You people are just something else i think you are all insane. i fight for animal lives and rights everyday and hardly ever come across militants like you. Granted some are but not nearly the number i see on the so called pro-life crowd. You all need to get to a shrink and fast i think those cults you have been attgending are making you really mentally ill and in turn polluting the planet!

    Itr almost sounds like you are threatening me i do not like a threat in any form I will fight back!

  • lucyl

     

    An embryo/fetus does not experience pain, and in fact is neurologically incapable of experiencing pain. 

    Children in the womb absolutely feel pain. Have you ever seen the video “The Silent Scream”? If not, I encourage you to find it on youtube and you can witness a baby pulling away from the abortion tools during an actual abortion procedure. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson left the industry after witnessing a similar instance during an ultrasound guided abortion. If examples aren’t enough, a child has the systems in place to feel pain at 8-weeks. As I am not a doctor, it’s probably better for me to provide a link that talks about fetal pain…

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#Medical%20Example%20of%20Pain

    But keep in mind, pain isn’t even the issue — ending the life of a human being is wrong whether he/she feels pain or not.

    So now I’ll address the reasons you believe an unborn baby is not a person in order… (and if we insist on saying “embryo/fetus” — at least acknowledge that this is a human embryo/fetus, a developing human being)

    it is incapable of living outside the body of a woman

    The fact that a child can not survive outside of it’s natural habitat proves it’s not a person? The child is completely viable — in the womb! Additionally, capability does not determine humanity. The elderly, handicapped, etc. often are incapable of living without assistance, but that doesn’t make them less than human.

    lacks the capacity for sentience

    Have you ever seen the ultrasounds of babies kicking happily in the womb? But regardless, emotions grow over time. A 2-day old baby perceives less than a 2-month old… The severely retarded also have less capacity for sentience, does that make them un-human?

    and is not even guaranteed to develop and be born alive/healthy

    A person must be guaranteed to live a long, healthy life in order to be deemed a person? I believe the exact opposite! Humans die. Humans face sickness. The fact that a child may not be healthy, or may die in the womb prove his/her humanity! And again, apply this logic to a born person. We don’t know how long a two-year-old will live, nor we do we know what sicknesses they may face. That doesn’t justify guaranteeing their death, and doesn’t make us deem them less than a person. 

    Call it what you like, but in the womb of a pregnant woman is child, a developing human being. Abortion ends that life, and I see no justification for that action.

    please tell me what should be done to the millions of American women each year who have abortions? Do you believe that they ought to be tried for murder and imprisoned, as they are guilty of knowingly seeking a doctor to “end the life” of a “child”? 

    Oh, absolutely not! Women, like their children, are victims of abortion, and I’ve met many women who regret their abortions years and decades later. Especially in a world circulating so many false messages about the humanity of an unborn child, I can totally see how people get swept into abortion… I in no way seek to condemn the acts of the past, even for those who don’t regret abortion! I just hope to end abortion in the future.

    I hope to have time to address everything else later, but to summarize my response to the rest of the responses:

    As I’ve now established that a baby does feel pain and is definitely human (…what else could it be?), I don’t believe we can justify ending it’s life. And I agree, you should have “the ability to decide when/whether you will have children”… but once a woman is pregnant, she has children! Even if a mother doesn’t believe she can take care of the child, that has no bearing whatsoever on his/her right to live.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Children in the womb absolutely feel pain. Have you ever seen the video “The Silent Scream”? If not, I encourage you to find it on youtube and you can witness a baby pulling away from the abortion tools during an actual abortion procedure.

     

    Time travel absolutely exists. Have you ever seen the movie “Back to the Future”? If not, I encourage you to find it on Bittorrent and you can witness people traveling back through time in an actual DeLorean.

     

    If examples aren’t enough, a child has the systems in place to feel pain at 8-weeks. As I am not a doctor,

     

    Yes, that much is obvious.

     

    But keep in mind, pain isn’t even the issue –

     

    It sure seems to be an issue for you!

     

    ending the life of a human being is wrong whether he/she feels pain or not.

     

    Did you know that our country, the U.S., deliberately ends the lives of some human beings? They even have a name for the category of people who are awaiting this fate: “death row.” Now, what are you going to do about that?

     

    The fact that a child can not survive outside of it’s natural habitat proves it’s not a person? The child is completely viable — in the womb!

     

    And yet, funnily enough, that doesn’t give it the right to stay there if the owner of said womb doesn’t want it there!

     

    Additionally, capability does not determine humanity. The elderly, handicapped, etc. often are incapable of living without assistance, but that doesn’t make them less than human.

     

    No, and neither does it give the elderly, handicapped, etc. the right to use a woman’s body against her consent.

     

    Have you ever seen the ultrasounds of babies kicking happily in the womb? But regardless, emotions grow over time. A 2-day old baby perceives less than a 2-month old… The severely retarded also have less capacity for sentience, does that make them un-human?

     

    No, but we’re talking about a brain that isn’t even fully developed (or partially developed at the point when most abortions are performed). Are you going to argue that these incomplete brains are capable of the very high-level function that is sentience?

     

    A person must be guaranteed to live a long, healthy life in order to be deemed a person? I believe the exact opposite! Humans die. Humans face sickness. The fact that a child may not be healthy, or may die in the womb prove his/her humanity!

     

    I once knew a puppy that got sick. I guess it had more humanity than I gave it credit for!

     

    And again, apply this logic to a born person. We don’t know how long a two-year-old will live, nor we do we know what sicknesses they may face. That doesn’t justify guaranteeing their death, and doesn’t make us deem them less than a person.

     

    Yes, the logic is very different when you’re talking about born persons who do not need to intrude on someone else’s body in order to live. See, you’re learning!

     

    Call it what you like, but in the womb of a pregnant woman is child, a developing human being. Abortion ends that life, and I see no justification for that action.

     

    Well, of course you don’t, because you don’t see the pregnant woman’s body as being the property of that woman (thereby giving her the right to control what happens inside it). It’s kind of like how a rapist sees no justification for a woman not wanting to have sex with him.

     

    Oh, absolutely not! Women, like their children, are victims of abortion, and I’ve met many women who regret their abortions years and decades later. Especially in a world circulating so many false messages about the humanity of an unborn child, I can totally see how people get swept into abortion… I in no way seek to condemn the acts of the past, even for those who don’t regret abortion! I just hope to end abortion in the future.

     

    It’s nice to see that you don’t believe that abortion is murder. But do you support subsidized availability of contraception, and comprehensive sex ed? It would be interesting to see just how much you hope to “end” abortion in the future.

     

    As I’ve now established that a baby does feel pain

     

    No, actually, you haven’t.

     

    and is definitely human (…what else could it be?)

     

    Funny, no one here has been arguing that it isn’t of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. What else, indeed.

     

    I don’t believe we can justify ending it’s life.

     

    “We” don’t justify anything. Having an abortion or not is the decision of the woman who is pregnant, and hers alone. The justification is between her, her physician, and (if applicable) God. Unless one of us is the self-same woman, none of us have a say in that.

     

    And I agree, you should have “the ability to decide when/whether you will have children”… but once a woman is pregnant, she has children!

     

    Tell that to someone who’s had a miscarriage.

     

    Even if a mother doesn’t believe she can take care of the child, that has no bearing whatsoever on his/her right to live.

     

    Nor does it affect the woman’s absolute right to her own body, and her right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Thanks for playing!

  • crowepps

    “The Silent Scream” was discredited shortly after it was made.  It won’t convince anybody who isn’t a sentimentalist already inclined to believe, soaking in the hyperemotional voice over with their critical facility turned off.

     

    If you actually think for a second, you’ll realize that seeing “a baby pulling away from the abortion tools” before it has been touched cannot be an avoidance of ‘pain’ because in a first contact, never having been touched and hurt by anything in the past, there would be no way the fetus would be aware ‘pain’ even existed.  Kids who do know what pain is still burn their fingers because they don’t know what ‘hot’ means until they touch something hot and learn.  Even if a fetus were capable of feeling pain, it wouldn’t avoid an instrument it had never encountered before in fear of pain it had never felt before.

  • plume-assassine

    Children in the womb absolutely feel pain … a child has the systems in place to feel pain at 8-weeks.

    This is simply not true. The link that you use for a reference is a biased propaganda web site and is not related to any medical or scientific organization that specializes in reproductive health or neurobiology.

    Here is the objective, scientific research which shows that a human embryo/fetus does not have any neurological capacity for pain or perception.

    http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php

    http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

    And since you seem like the type of person to ignore links to fact-based scientific research, then I will copy & paste some of the information for you:

    In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such that noxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.

     

    Furthermore, the “Silent Scream” is also a propaganda video (not based on science) and what it is demonstrating is an involuntary reaction to external stimuli. No perception or higher brain function is necessary to produce this reaction.

    The fact that a child can not survive outside of it’s natural habitat proves it’s not a person?

    Excuse me, but a woman is not a “natural habitat.” You can not reduce a woman’s body to a utilitarian “location.” Furthermore, a woman’s uterus is not federally-protected public property.

    The child is completely viable — in the womb!

    I don’t think you understand the definition of “viability.” By its very definition, it is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb, which does not occur until 28 weeks. Before that time period, it is medically inaccurate to call the embryo/fetus “viable.”

     The elderly, handicapped, etc. often are incapable of living without assistance, but that doesn’t make them less than human.

    Elderly and handicapped people do not occupy the organs of other human beings or use other people’s bodies for biological sustenance like an embryo does! There are some handicapped people who depend on machines to function in daily life, and I don’t think I need to remind you that a woman is not a machine whose sole purpose is to provide sustenance.

    NO person or developing organism has the right to use my body against my will for sustenance (or for sex).

    That’s bodily autonomy. This is why we do not force people to donate their organs to people who need them, even if people will die as a result of a refusal to donate.

    Have you ever seen the ultrasounds of babies kicking happily in the womb?

    Once again, this is not evidence of consciousness or perception. This is an involuntary reaction to stimuli. Even anencephalic babies (born without a brain) can “happily” kick their legs. All that is needed is the brainstem.

    The severely retarded also have less capacity for sentience, does that make them un-human?

    Actually, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying when I refer to the “neurological capacity for sentience.” This means that there is a NEURAL SYSTEM in place that will allow perception and higher brain functioning: embryos and fetuses LACK this entire system before 24 weeks (and after it is developed, it is suppressed until birth); whereas mentally disabled people HAVE this system fully developed, but their cognitive performance does not match their age. Think of it like a computer: you have to have the hardware (forebrain & cortical connections) in order to run the software (mind, consciousness). Embryos have not developed the hardware (forebrain & cortical connections), therefore they do not run the software (have consciousness or perception). Mentally disabled people, on the other hand, have both the hardware and the software.

    (I hope I have worded this in accessible terms.)

    A person must be guaranteed to live a long, healthy life in order to be deemed a person?

    Actually, that’s not what I was saying. Think of it this way: most chemical pregnancies (before a woman even knows she is pregnant) end in miscarriage. She has her period like usual and doesn’t even know that a pregnancy ended. What she lost was not a person to mourn, but a failed embryo. How do you expect someone to even know or care about this loss if all it appears to be is another period? Furthermore, even when a woman DOES know she is pregnant, she is not expected to obtain a “conception certificate.” Haven’t you considered the fact that we as a society grant birth certificates for a VERY good reason? Because BIRTH is the entrance into personhood. Because many pregnancies fail and spontaneously abort before the blastocyst could ever develop into an infant, a person. There is no point in forcing all women to hold full-service funerals every time they fail to conceive or fail to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Oh, absolutely not! Women, like their children, are victims of abortion, and I’ve met many women who regret their abortions years and decades later.

    In that case, you have just admitted that you do not think abortion is the same as “killing” or the “ending of a life” or “murder.” Because, after all, women are NOT like children (as you want to believe): we are morally independent adults who KNOWINGLY with full-intent seek abortion if we so choose. If you think that abortion is comparable to “infanticide” or “murder,” then you would at the very least assume that an adult woman is at least half responsible for her own abortion by knowingly seeking out a doctor for this procedure. Therefore she is at least partially responsible for “the taking of a life” in your eyes. And in this country, we try and imprison murderers. But you don’t believe this because: 1. you think women are moral children with naive minds, who are being “victimized” and 2. in the back of your mind, you don’t really believe that abortion is killing. It’s all hyperbole meant to shame women. After all, here’s the final test for you: would you be so forgiving of women if you knew that 1 in 3 American women were killing their 3-year-old children… or are they just helpless victims? I highly doubt it. Abortion is not the same thing as taking the life of a child and you know it.

    So, PLEASE: in the future,  refrain from framing abortion as “the taking of a life of a child” or “killing,” because now we know that you don’t really believe what you are saying!

    And I agree, you should have “the ability to decide when/whether you will have children”… but once a woman is pregnant, she has children! Even if a mother doesn’t believe she can take care of the child, that has no bearing whatsoever on his/her right to live.

    Whether you like it or not, the ability to decide when/whether a person will have children INCLUDES abortion, and this will never go away. No government or individual entity can stop abortion, it only drives the practice underground and makes it dangerous. It is scientifically inaccurate to say that a woman “already has children” when she is pregnant. In fact, it makes no sense, given how we recognize actual children in our society as biologically-independent, sentient beings, who have birth certificates and can be claimed on tax forms.

    By the way, let me repeat that the imaginary/perceived personhood of an embryo has no bearing on its “right to life” — Because NO person or developing organism has the right to use my organs (against my will) for sustenance. A non-sentient organism does not have rights which override a sentient person’s right of “bodily integrity.”

     

  • saltyc

    that’s what the “pro-life” movement is. A bunch of miserable frowners down on sex who want everyone to be as miserable as they are. What good does it do to pretend to have answers to unknowables such as when does an individual begin (obviously not at conception or you’d waste as much breath on countless other procedures involving fertilization) whst does an embryo sense or how much burden does a woman have to bear to be good, or how many children must a woman have to justify penis in vagina, or how much guilt can you foist on strangers just trying to direct their own lives. You people are being fooled by the devil. You can tell by the lies you tell, by the ignorance in your minds, by the pleasure with which you inflict misery and guilt on others, but above all, by the staggering amount of judgment that drips from every action you take and every word you utter.

  • saltyc

    this is obvious if you take all of their social policies together. Slashing services and forcing birth make sense, together with union-busting, cuts to education, etc. Sometimes they even come out and say so in so many words, that there is a derth of cheap labor and one reason is too many women can choose whether or not to have children. Relying on women’s will to produce children by choice is not a tenable position for tyrants.

  • saltyc

    I have nothing against people who are neurotic or unhappy or obsessive, many of us are that way. It’s just when a movement is actively promoting neurosis and unhappiness and monomania with no self-consciousness or compassion, it has to be stopped.

  • ack

    I rarely rate posts, but this garnered a 5.

  • plume-assassine

    Thanks, ack. I have a tendency to be long-winded, but it makes me happy to know that someone appreciates it. haha :)

  • ahunt

    Well Done Kids!

     

    As I’ve now established that a baby does feel pain and is definitely human (…what else could it be?), I don’t believe we can justify ending it’s life. And I agree, you should have “the ability to decide when/whether you will have children”… but once a woman is pregnant, she has children! Even if a mother doesn’t believe she can take care of the child, that has no bearing whatsoever on his/her right to live.

     

     

    Wonderful. So you also must believe that married women are under no obligation to have PIV sex with their husbands unless they are willing to be pregnant? After all, biology is fickle and no method of contraception is perfect.

  • arekushieru

    “a baby pulling away from the abortion tools” before it has been touched cannot be an avoidance of ‘pain’ because in a first contact, never having been touched and hurt by anything in the past, there would be no way the fetus would be aware ‘pain’ even existed.” Quoted for posterity.

    After all, it has been argued even beyond that, that it’s a progressive learning experience.  A baby who has had minimal encounters with pain, before, is not likely to respond to pain the same way as someone else who has had more experiences with it.  LucyL seems to recognize this, then completely ignores it, when she knows it will only hinder her argument.  Ugh.