abortion bumper sticker

[bookworm]

He said the reasoning was like the Holocaust, which it is. Eliminate ‘inferior’ people.

[Kairi]

He said the reasoning was like the Holocaust, which it is. Eliminate ‘inferior’ people.

I was responding to Jesus' Princess, not The Once-ler. She said it was "happening all over," not that the reasoning was similar. I can read. Now, if she meant that it is happening all over the place, i.e., the reasoning, then I apologize. But if she meant that it is happening all over again, i.e., the Holocaust, I stand by my original comment.

And even if she was talking about the reasoning, it's still Godwinning. There need to be better arguments on the anti-choice side that don't involve Hitler, or the Holocaust.

[~JCGJ~]

He said the reasoning was like the Holocaust, which it is. Eliminate ‘inferior’ people.

I was responding to Jesus' Princess, not The Once-ler. She said it was "happening all over," not that the reasoning was similar. I can read. Now, if she meant that it is happening all over the place, i.e., the reasoning, then I apologize. But if she meant that it is happening all over again, i.e., the Holocaust, I stand by my original comment.

And even if she was talking about the reasoning, it's still Godwinning. There need to be better arguments on the anti-choice side that don't involve Hitler, or the Holocaust.

I believe she was saying that abortion because of disabilities is happening all over, and, in turn, the "Hitler Reasoning" is happening all over.

She didn't say it's happening all over again.

She simply said it's happening all over, which, it is.

[Kairi]

He said the reasoning was like the Holocaust, which it is. Eliminate ‘inferior’ people.

I was responding to Jesus' Princess, not The Once-ler. She said it was "happening all over," not that the reasoning was similar. I can read. Now, if she meant that it is happening all over the place, i.e., the reasoning, then I apologize. But if she meant that it is happening all over again, i.e., the Holocaust, I stand by my original comment.

And even if she was talking about the reasoning, it's still Godwinning. There need to be better arguments on the anti-choice side that don't involve Hitler, or the Holocaust.

I believe she was saying that abortion because of disabilities is happening all over, and, in turn, the "Hitler Reasoning" is happening all over.

She didn't say it's happening all over again.

She simply said it's happening all over, which, it is.

Okay. I still don't think we should be invoking Hitler, but I apologize for chewing her out for saying the Holocaust was happening again.

But, uh, I'm pretty sure that abortion because of disabilities isn't happening all over, and I'd really like to see a cited statistic on that. I've seen high statistics for Down Syndrome, but I'm not sure that's the case for others. And Down Syndrome babies only account for one of every 691 babies in the US, which likely causes the disproportionate statistics. And you have to remember, some abortions because of disabilities are because the child doesn't have a chance of living after birth anyway (doctors are sometimes wrong, though), or because the life of the mother is at stake.

[Kait]

Abortions because of genetic disorders is not always a bad thing like you guys seem to be making it out to be.

I have known mothers who have had twins with certain disorders where essentially, the twins were killing each other. They had the choice of aborting one twin in order to save the life of the other or to do nothing and lose the lives of both.

I have known moms with life-endangering pregnancies, where the baby would not survive if born and the chance of the mother dying increased as the pregnancy went on. They have chosen to abort because they had other children that depended on them and they just couldn't risk dying for the sake of not aborting a baby that would have died anyway.

I've also known moms with babies that have not developed major organs such as their brains or their kidneys. They have also chosen to abort rather than carry to term a baby that would not live outside the womb. Often carrying to term in such cases can greatly compound the emotional and psychological damage.


So abortion isn't always done with "Hitler reasoning" when it comes to defects and if you are going to make that claim, statistics would be nice.

[Sherlock]

Kait, I was specifically pointing out the situation where babies with non-life threatening, manageable disabilities (e.g. Down's Syndrome) are aborted for no other reason than that they have that particular disorder. As you'll notice in my posts, I made no issues of life-threatening situations or emergencies, as I believe that is another topic entirely. I'm talking about parents whom, but for the particular disability, (or, in many cases, but for the recommendation of the doctor) would carry the child to term. For an extreme example, it's interesting to consider the fact that, in the UK, something like 26 abortions were performed due to concerns over cleft lip/palate, an extremely treatable condition. It's that level of absurdity that bears mention and certainly puts our society's priorities in a rather negative light.

Put another way, my moral hackles aren't raised nearly as high in a life-threatening scenario as they are when a doctor recommends an abortion of an otherwise healthy child just because they are perceived as abnormal. The fact that the latter scenario far outnumbers the former is, I think, the issue that we really need to have a look at and ask what values, exactly, we are trying to promote as a society? Are we trying to raise our children in a culture that truly values people of all abilities, or are we just giving lip service to inclusivity, while our actions show that we consider the disabled to be of less value than "normal" people? The statistics don't lie - we have a problem in this area, and I think it's time we quit masking this preference under the guise of compassion. There's nothing at all compassionate about advising parents to abort a child that you would otherwise encourage them to bring to term if they were "normal" especially when the diagnosis in no way guarantees that the child will have less quality of life as a consequence of the disorder.

From MSNBC:

Skotko also found that among siblings ages 12 and older, 97 percent expressed feelings of pride about their brother or sister with Down syndrome and 88 percent were convinced they were better people because of their sibling with Down syndrome. A third study evaluating how adults with Down syndrome felt about themselves reports 99 percent responded they were happy with their lives, 97 percent liked who they are, and 96 percent liked how they looked.

Again, as a society. we need to look at the facts and stop masking our preference for "normal" children as compassion when, in fact, it has very little to do with that. That same argument would never fly if we replaced the disability with, say, a particular race or ethnicity but we seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to gender and disability. This is certainly not fair, and shows that we still have a long way to go before we are truly a society that accepts and values everyone as equal.

[thegr8stever]

My feeling about abortion are against it yet the people who do it have reason to some degree i mean we have to live with our choices and those people chose to have sexual relations and they should live with the natural pregnancy but if the girl is say 15 that is ALOT of pressure on her you really cant blame her if she chooses to abort

[Termite]

but if the girl is say 15 that is ALOT of pressure on her you really cant blame her if she chooses to abort

Yes... yes you can. There are consequences to EVERY decision, good or bad. If a 15 year old chooses to sleep with her boyfriend, she is FULLY responsible for her child... that's why there's such a thing as adoption.

If people don't want to chance a baby, they should've have sex. If they want to protect themselves and hope it works, that's their choice. They're still accountable for what happens next. Abortion has become an easy way out of responsibility for this immature 15 year old child who has stupidly given her body away to someone who won't be around for a lifetime.

EDIT: I know people are going to bring up rape, so here we go. It is more understandable that in the rare chance a girl conceived through rape that she would abort, but as I said before my high school history class and stand by, the baby should live no matter what. I can't blame the ones who would abort, however, even if I think it wrong.

[church]

..."now if the child had Down Syndrome, or something like that, then this would be perfectly acceptable, but if it's a "normal" child, then this is such a crime.. etc.."

It may just be me, but this kind of sounds like Adolf Hitler's reasoning for the Holocaust...

Yeah... That's kind of what I thought, but the sad truth is, it's happening all over.

...yeah, no. I know you believe abortion is a terrible thing, and I agree that aborting a child just because they have Down Syndrome is tragic and stupid, but this is NOT the Holocaust. Don't Godwin your argument.

Ok, a lot of people posted since I got on the thread, but I'm going to go ahead and say it anyway.

That really is Hitler's reasoning for starting the holocaust. They are less of a person because they have trait x y or z. Therefore, they should be killed. The idea to kill someone because of a mental defect is what Hitler did. Literally, he killed people with mental defects because they had them. This is the same thing.

-- Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:29 pm --

EDIT: I know people are going to bring up rape, so here we go. It is more understandable that in the rare chance a girl conceived through rape that she would abort, but as I said before my high school history class and stand by, the baby should live no matter what. I can't blame the ones who would abort, however, even if I think it wrong.

If you believe abortion is murder, then rape does not justify abortion in any way. If person x was raped, does that give x the right to kill someone? I don't think so. We are basically saying that because something bad happened to you, you are allowed to kill someone to make your life more convenient. And no, I am not making rape out to be anything less than the worst thing that could happen to someone. I think rape is a worse crime than murder. But being the victim of something terrible does not give you the right to do something terrible yourself.

[Termite]

.....you obviously didn't read my post right. Try again.

[church]

No, I know you were saying it's still wrong, but a lot of people don't think it is. And people use the rape to justify the murder or at least say it's less bad.

[Termite]

People will use any means to justify what they want; that's human nature for ya. On the flip side, what do we as Christians say or do when we come into contact with the 15 year old who was raped and then had an abortion?

[Sherlock]

If people don't want to chance a baby, they should've have sex. If they want to protect themselves and hope it works, that's their choice. They're still accountable for what happens next. Abortion has become an easy way out of responsibility for this immature 15 year old child who has stupidly given her body away to someone who won't be around for a lifetime.

The problem with you reasoning is that you are fortunate enough to have been brought up in a family or environment that instilled these principles in you at a young enough age. A lot of kids are not as lucky, they are influenced by parents, peer pressure, poor family environments and general lack of education. A vast number of 15 year old kids do not think there is anything wrong at all with sleeping with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Some have been educated on STD/STIs and maybe they take some precautions, but "accidents" still happen and teen pregnancies and unplanned pregnancies still happen.

So, coming from THAT perspective, I'm not sure the right approach is to tell a 15 year old kid in this situation that the responsibility/accountability is their problem when they were probably never raised to understand why they shouldn't be having sex that young in the first place. Chances are, they're already freaked out and are going to be in a very vulnerable position - in that case, what they really need is mentorship and support, not condemnation. Personally, I suspect very few abortions are performed because the woman consciously decides to kill her baby - typically, it is a decision made out of fear, or the feeling of it being a "last resort." Christians need to take that perspective into account, because arguments along the lines of "well, you got yourself into this" aren't going to be helpful at all.

Until women/girls in that position feel that there is really a viable alternative to abortion, they will continue to believe they have no other choice. It's the job of the pro-life community to make those alternatives available, judgement-free and accessible.

[Guess Who!]

Sherlock, that's a great post. And even in places where abortion is illegal, it is still very, very common because of the exact reasons you specify, or other similar ones. I'm pro choice, personally, but that's just it, I am pro *choice* and so in cases where keeping a pregnancy is not a viable alternative due to any number of practical constraints, I see a really big problem and would support pretty much all the stuff you would in order to give those women a real choice.

I do feel, though, that there is a BIG undercurrent of "you got yourself into this mess, s*!&" from some people which really turns me off from most movement pro-lifeism. I'm perfectly ok with pro-life people who reduce abortion by reducing rape, by reducing poverty, by reducing domestic violence, by reducing sexist norms around the world encouraging views of women as nothing more than walking incubators, reducing misinformation, reducing poor education, reducing life-threatening complications through research*, etc. etc. etc.

I can NOT support anyone who will sit on their little huffy hill of sanctity and look down their noses at the evilness of anyone who might pick their way through difficult life choices as best they can. (and go read your holy book and decide whether your Jesus would, either.)

*on this note, I found it fascinating that what used to be a common justification of abortion around 1900 in the US, when it was illegal, were cases of extreme morning sickness. At the time, this could and did cause life-threatening complications and so was exempted from the legal ban. NOW, it is an easily treatable condition. So. Currently, there are other cases in which pregnancy really is life threatening, and which thus I COMPLETELY SUPPORT the right of a woman to be able to end a pregnancy which threatens her life. But as a long term solution? This isn't really pro-choice, because it doesn't really give a woman a *choice* to continue the pregnancy and life... which is kind of a poor choice. So ultimately I DO hope those complications become historical footnotes, too, and not because we become ok with letting women die, either.

And you know what? I don't accept rape as inevitable EITHER. And once again, that's another case where... there isn't a *real* choice. Sure, I support letting the woman involved make the best situation she can possibly make out of such a bad situation but I really truly believe we can end this stuff. We can teach our little girls and boys to respect other people's boundaries, to realize they are allowed to set their own boundaries and have that supported, to recognize when other people in their social circle are being disrespectful and ignoring when someone says to stop, even in non-sexual settings, etc. and either avoid them or teach them to be better. We can have the justice system take it seriously so it isn't one of the least reported crimes ever, and when reported, has one of the lowest conviction rates. Rape is NOT inevitable, this should NOT be a problem for the abortion argument forever.

[church]

Despite the flamining I'm about to get, I have to disagree with you on:

though, that there is a BIG undercurrent of "you got yourself into this mess, s*!&" from some people which really turns me off from most movement pro-lifeism.

Except in cases of rape, it was a choice to have sex. Babies, along with other things, are the natural consequences of that choice. They *are* responsible for it. It the same thing for any other decision. If someone drinks a lot, getting drunk is the natural consequence. If someone rides a bike without a helmet and bangs their head, I will hold them responsible for their head injury. If you make any decision, you are responsible for the consequences of it.


You have a very stong view on the rights to choose. Do you think that the father of the baby has any right to decide if the baby lives or dies?

[Sherlock]

Humility, humility, humility. It's so hard but one thing I've learned repeatedly is that every single one of us is capable of making big mistakes. Being a Christian is not an insurance policy against making mistakes. There but for the Grace of God will go I, you, or any of us here. Who knows where we may be tomorrow, next week or even a year from now?

Do we really think ourselves better than others just because we have not made the same mistakes that others have? We do a grave disservice to the title of Christian and are hypocrites of the worst order if we cannot offer compassion, help and support to those who also find themselves in trouble. Like Mary Magdalene, we are all sinners who, recognizing our own severe failings, choose throw ourselves at the feet of Christ and beg for mercy and forgiveness. We are all the same. Our sins are the same and our need for mercy and forgiveness is the same. Every mistake we make is a consequence of a choice we made and we know that, the 15 year old pregnant girl who has gotten kicked out of her home knows that, Mary Magdalene knew that, the man or woman in AA knows that. It is our difficult task to look at these people as the same as us, whom have also made decisions and choices in life, many that they maybe now regret. They are no less deserving of compassion or support than you or I, they have sinned no worse in the eyes of God and should be treated no differently. That is the challenge for us to recognize, before we start comparing our righteousness to others.

[Kait]

^ *LIKE*

[church]

I have the feeling Sherlock's post was aimed at me. Which means I didn't explain my thoughts on it very well. I believe there is a difference in holding someone responsible and blaming someone. I have a unusual position that makes me acutely aware of sublties between blame and responsibility. But I do believe most people have an awareness of it even if they never explore it.

First I want to defend my position. I hold people responsible for their actions. Is that wrong? If you said yes, then ask yourself this, Is it right to not hold people responsible for their actions? People rarely get to choose their circumstances, but they can always choose how they react to them.

I also believe that Jesus very much held people responsible for their actions. I challenge anyone to find a time when he did not. I think people mistake forgiveness and grace as not holding people responsible for actions. But if they are not held responsible then why would we need forgiveness and grace to begin with? I've heard grace explained like this:

I go to court for a speeding ticket. The judge tells me, "Church, I find you guilty of going 80 in a 35 zone. The fine is $300. Let me pay that for you."

In the same way we are held responsible for our sins, but for grace, Jesus paid the price of our sins for us. It does not make us less responsible, but it removes our blame. We still have consequences for our sins. Since the topic is sex related I will go with that. For promiscous sex their are possible consequences of emotional damage, pyschological damage, relationship damage, STDs, and babies. But we are not blamed for them. Likewise, I hold people responsible for their actions, the consequences of those actions are theirs, but I try not to blame them. I will certainly admit I don't always manage it.

[Sherlock]

Then, church, it seems like the argument is mostly one of semantics because, if holding someone responsible does not effect the way you treat the person in the particular situation, then we are really discussing purely moral distinctions which, while interesting, don't really play into real-world scenarios.

For my part, I am interested more in real-world reactions. Namely, how do we address these issues, how can we go about changing things, and what is the proper response? For example, do we treat a 15 year old rape victim differently (in terms of services offered, support given, etc) than a 15 year old who is pregnant as a result of consensual activity?

Basically, my point here is that we can discuss the distinctions until we are blue in the face, but it really has no effect on what we *do*. I am interested in how we should respond. For example, you explained your belief in responsibility for actions, how does this belief affect your response in a practical sense? Would your designation of responsibility, for example, have an effect in the scenario I mentioned above?

[church]

I might be misunderstanding your question, because it would seem obvious that a rape victim is going to get a different treatment than anyone. Rape is incredibly damaging to a person's mind regardless whether there is physical damage or not. It can take a person years to heal from that if they ever do. There would have to be a huge amount of additional treatment for that over someone who is pregnant from consensual activity.