I am not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. I think
abortion is a very serious decision to be put in the
position of having to make. However, I think it is
one which should be left to the woman. One in which
the government should have no say. Beyond that, it
hurts and angers me to a great degree (obviously)
when people mischaracterize the women who, for their
various reasons, choose to have an abortion. You said
that you watched some of the response vids, so i
assume you saw DynamiteRuby's. Ruby tells us a little
about what an abortion entails, the pain involved and
the risks of the procedure. I would like to add to that
the fact that many times the woman carries an immense
burden of guilt with her after having an abortion,
sometimes for the rest of her life. My step-sister
also had an abortion, and both she and my mother have
felt terrible for having to do what they did in this
regard. However, it was as necessary in the case of
my sister as it was in my mother's case. My sister and
my brother-in-law had two children; one about 12 years
ago and the other about 10 years ago. Both of them
were diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy which is
actually the condition that QDragon1337 has. However,
in the case of their babies, the SMA was a much more
quick-acting version which proved fatal each
time within less than 2 years. My sister was devastated...
She stayed with my brother-in-law, but they didn't plan
to have anymore children. The SMA gene is recessive,
requiring both parents to be carriers in order to pass
it on. The chance of it happening for each pregnancy
is 50/50. The chance does not drop based on the number
of children. They could have had 10 kids and their
11th pregnancy would still have had a 50/50 chance of
developing SMA. A couple years after the death of her
second child, my sister became pregnant again, but it
was by accident this time. If I remember correctly,
the condom broke. My sister decided to try to carry
the baby to term, but it was diagnosed with SMA during
her second or third office visit. The doctors
determined that the SMA was acting even more quickly
in this third pregnancy, that my sister's baby would
be born paralyzed and would most likely live for less
than three months after birth. At her next office
visit, by which time the fetus was about 8 weeks along,
my sister's doctor discovered that there were further
problems which I don't recall. Whatever the problems,
they led the doctor to tell her that mis-carriage was
imminent if she carried on, and that an abortion was
the best course of action for all considered.
Evidently, there was a serious threat to my sister's
life if she carried on, so she and my brother-in-law
decided to have the fetus aborted. It is upsetting
to think of even now, especially when I remember Brian
saying that my sister's decision makes her a murderer
and that I, since I supported her decision, am also
to be considered a murderer.
You see, there really is no way to come to a definitive
conclusion regarding the morality of abortion. There
are so many conditions that go into making such a
decision that it is impossible to categorize across
the board. As I said, I am not pro-abortion, but I am
pro-choice, largely based on my experience in the
subject. The closest I can come to an across the board
statement on abortion is this: I don't like it, but I
understand that it is sometimes necessary. Regardless
of how I feel about it, and even if I hadn't had the
experiences I have with my family, the government has
no business getting involved, and neither do people
who are outside the woman-doctor-family circle in any
specific case. I am a strong and passionate advocate
of free speech and I believe Brian has the right to
say the things he says. However, when a person tells
me that members of my family are murderers; that I am
a murderer by supporting them; for their having done
what was necessary to protect their physical and
psychological health, I have something to say about
it. And I always will.
In my opinion, it has already been figured out. Roe
vs. Wade figured it out for us, long before I was
discussing the issue. Our government should never
be involved in the making of medical decisions.
Abortion is a woman's choice. If she wants her partner
or family members in on the decision, that is her
decision. Abortion is never always right or always
wrong. It is an issue that must be taken case by case.
If we are not involved, by the decision of the woman
having the abortion, or if we are not ourselves that
woman, it is none of our business. Period. We don't
try to decide for people whether they should have
brain surgery or organ transplants, and in a very real
way this is no different. I am not a doctor. Therefore
I know definitively that I have no business weighing
in on deciding in favor of or against having a medical
procedure. And that's what abortion is... It's a
medical procedure.
You tell us that from the perspective of the pro-lifers,
they are not arguing for control over a woman's body.
That may be, but from the perspective of reality, that
is exactly what they are arguing for. A fetus is a
fetus. It is a baby once it exits the womb, not before.
During development, a fetus can cause all manner of
problems. Usually these can be corrected, but not
always. Sometimes what I described above happens.
Sometimes things like what happened to my mother happen.
Sometimes a fetus dies inside the woman's body and it
has to be removed. Sometimes a fetus developes outside
the uterus, causing pain and bleeding, threatening
the woman's life. There are too many "what ifs"
regarding abortion and, in spite of how well
intentioned a given pro-lifer may be, there is no way
to truthfully and across the board say that abortion
is wrong, is immoral or is murder. Even if a huge set
of criteria were listed in which it was okay by gov't
standards to have an abortion, another piece of the
puzzle would present itself, once again making the
procedure necessary outside of said criteria. It is
for these reasons that no one besides the woman, her
doctor and anyone else she chooses to bring in should
ever have any say about abortion or any other medical
procedure, least of all the government. Besides,
it is intellectually dishonest to deny that religion
plays a huge role in this debate, and religion had
no place in government, in the OR or in a woman's
personal decision making with regard to her body.
A baby's life begins when it is born. Prior to that,
it is a part of the body of the woman who is carrying
it. I see where you are coming from in saying that
the pro-lifers are arguing in favor of life and not
against a woman's choice, although I disagree. That
may be how these things started off, but their well-
intentioned argument, had they won it, would by now
have led to tens of thousands of deaths. By that
I mean tens of thousands of living, breathing, self-
reliant women. Even if I were to agree with what you
are saying, which I do not, I think we should all be
able to agree that when it comes to life, the truly
living should take top priority. To me, this means
that when a fetus threatens a woman's life, or is
the product of an act of hate such as rape and its
existence bears a strong threat on the psychological
health of the woman and itself if it is carried to
term and born, the woman must receive the highest
consideration rather than the fetus. In many cases,
not aborting would lead to the death of both woman
and fetus and I think it's pretty clear that the
pro-lifers are not taking that fact into consideration.
This, like many other areas of life in which religion
tampers, is a case of the ignorant waging a sometimes
well-intentioned war against those who actually have
the information. Unless they are truly cruel people,
the lifers could not say and do the things they say
and do if they were educated more fully on the
problem.
It is not absurd to suggest that he supports rape.
Brian says, and I quote "Every life that God creates
is precious and no man has the right to take that
away." He then tells us what Pastor David says
regarding seeing the need for abortion in certain
cases and goes on to say "Pastor David, what cases?
Child out of wedlock? Rape? Incest? ... Does that
justify it? You think God creates a life and then
leaves it up to man to decide whether or not to take
his creation away from him? You're a pastor!" Then
Brian shakes his head and continues again with
"Abortion is wrong, abortion is murder. Plain and
simple. For you to take the life of another human
being is murder. And to be silent about it is condoning
it and you stand guilty. And there is no case where
abortion is okay. You don't have the right to take
the life of something that God created. So you can
put that in your pipe and smoke it." It is neither
absurd nor intellectually dishonest to conclude that
Brian not only condones rape but suggests that, in the
case of a resulting pregnancy, God is working through
the rapist to create something "precious". I don't
mean to be rude, but did you even watch Brian's video
before posting this response to me? If so, I would
recommend that you watch it again. What I just said
isn't a quote mine either. You can sit there as I did,
with my mouth gaping open in horror, as Brian says
these things.
What he said in his video not only suggests that he
supports rape but that he thinks there are cases in
which the leader of his chosen celestial dictatorship
uses a rapist to further his precious creation!
What you have taken from what Brian said is not the
whole picture, and I think you know that. I'm not
sure why you feel compelled to defend him. If you watch
his video with an eye for detail, whether or not he
intended to do so, he clearly states what Sarahon
and I have accused him of. And no, it is not up
for debate. You are welcome to TRY to argue it, but
what was said is quite clear. I have watched his
video more than a dozen times, so I'm pretty sure I
got all of what he was saying. I also want to make
it clear that I am not trying to help the discussion.
I am not trying to engage Brian in a discussion.
I am trying to call him out for being the disgusting
thoughtless and heartless man that he is. My video
was an opinion piece, not a rebuttal. It had nothing
to do with winning an argument. What I am doing here,
with you now, is my attempting to win an argument.
I am responding to specific points you are making
and offering you a chance to counter-rebut. This is
obviously quite different from what I did regarding
Brian. I went for an emotional response because he
struck a chord with his single-minded hatred. You say
that people who want to support abortion rights go
immediately to the visceral emotional response. I
feel compelled to remind you that it was a pro-LIFER
who first gave the closed-door answer that abortion
is wrong across the board. If you are going to blame
me for being one-sided in this matter by saying
abortion is the choice of the woman and whomever she
chooses to bring in alone, I will accept that, but you
need to place blame where it is due. And it's not just
due me, my friend.
No I DID NOT say I thought no loving god would create
something like that and allow it to live. What I said
was that no loving god would create something like that
and EXPECT IT TO BE ALLOWED to live. By that I meant
that, in spite of what the pro-lifers may say, God
really shouldn't be surprised when a rape fetus is
aborted at least in part to preserve the psychological
well-being of the raped woman. You completely
mis-characterized me there, buddy. The fact that there
is no god not withstanding, my rationale for saying
what I said is that I don't think a loving god should
expect such a fetus to be carried to term. I don't
speak to what your god wants or allows because that
would put me in the position of playing god. If your
god did exist, I certainly wouldn't want to be in his
position nor would I presume to make statements about
his wants and desires. I was merely expressing that I
don't think it would be reasonable for a god to be
surprised by the subsequent abortion of a fetus
created through one of the most violent and deplorable
acts of which man is capable.
As to my next statement, about the child born to a
raped woman being ridiculed by society and its family,
I agree that such would not necessarily follow. I
should have preceeded that statement with "I would
expect that..." or "It wouldn't surprise me if...".
Something like that. I engaged in presumption there
and I am not disputing what you said about that
statement. You are absolutely right.
To conclude, I would like to remind you that the
responsed you saw, many of which you characterize
as being irrational diotribes of finger pointing,
name calling and ad hominem attacks, were made by us
when we were quite upset. I don't apologize for what
I said, but you must understand that my slap in the
face to Brian was made primarily out of emotion, not
out of well-reasoned intellectualism. And no,
that is not typically my style. However, I think it
was perfectly appropriate in this case. If it hurt
your feelings, I am sorry because that was not my
intention. I do not and will not apologize to Brian
however.