1. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?

This one is hard to answer. Not because of difficulty but because it is such silly propaganda. It has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It is simply an attempt to ridicule people that see things differently.

2. Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?

They are giving them back their lives. For many women and girls, a baby will destroy their life (statistics overwhelmingly support this). If they carry it to term, their educational future is bleak. They will make less money. They are more likely to be homeless. The list of awful consequences of an unwanted child is endless. Abortion doctors support a woman's choice to avoid these consequences for both her and the potential, unwanted child.

3. Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother's body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?

The assertion that it's part of the mother is simple, indelible fact. Try, for example, to take the baby to a movie without the mother. Can't be done. The fact of different genetics and immune systems apply to a freshly eaten oyster, too. It's not proof of anything, nor does it say anything about what is a part of what.

But, ok, the argument is trying to assert personhood by noting that there are aspects of the fetus that make it an individual. Nobody doubts that, if left intact for long enough, the fetus will turn into a person. Anti-choice people say that it turns into a person really, really soon. Pro-choice people say it's not until much later.

So, the question comes down to whether the fetus is a "life" that cannot be taken. Catholicism says that it cannot. Other people have religions that say it can. Catholicism says that the sacred soul is in place on day one. Others say it doesn't have a soul until it smiles at its mother. Genetics and immune systems don't really have anything to do with that.

4. Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman's right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody's right to privacy exceed another's right to live?

In many cases, a person's rights do exceed another's right to live. Look at any battlefield. Look at death row. We make the allowance for self-defense.
More importantly though, rights are granted to people. A woman is definitely a person. It requires no subtle reasoning or resort to religious preference. She can go into a room with another person and do whatever she wants.

The Supreme Court understands that allowing the police to look into every room to make sure of what that woman does with her own body is an invasion of a fundamental right. Imagine, if you will, that the police got the idea that they should be able to listen in a confessional and you will see that the right to privacy is not trivial.

5. If what they say is true and the issue isn't really abortion but a woman's right to control her own body, why doesn't your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren't laws against those most restrictive to a woman's right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body as laws against abortion are?

For many, the agenda does include those things, however, few pro-choice people have some absolute prohibition on restrictions about what one can do, with a body, to a body or near a body. For the most part, the restrictions that are acceptable are ones that have consequences to other people, people whose existence does not rely on subtle judgements about when life begins or invisible conversations with one god or another.

Further, those restrictions are subject to trade-offs, as are most things. Abortion is, in the view of many people, a very important and necessary service with immense benefits to the women that need them, benefits that outweigh the damage to a fetus they do not believe is a human being. Those that wish to prohibit drugs and prostitution judge the damage to outway the benefits.

6. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?

The mother. She's also the one that pays the bill. Same as when she has heart bypass or any other medical procedure on stuff inside her body.

7. Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?

Because the definition of "totally informed" is defined to meet the prejudices of the anti-choice partisans and includes many irrelevant details intended to cause the woman pain and confusion. If she believes that the 'soul' doesn't enter the body until a later date, then the autonomic reactions of a fetus are not relevant. Further, the 'facts' are implied to have meanings that are inaccurate. We had the same problem with Terry Schaivo.

8. If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?

Because it is not the same as other outpatient surgery. No incisions are done. No general anesthesia. Many, many differences make the application of the same standards a waste and would increase the costs to make them prohibitive.

9. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a "legal right" to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).

Better yet, let's look at a real situation. In 1850, it was normal and obvious that a six month premature baby would be allowed to die. It was the moral thing to do. Nobody thought that it was right to make the family suffer through the deprivation that caring for an infant that was so unlikely to survive was sane, let alone moral. What's different about today that makes this baby so much more precious? Scientific advance.

Today we have people who keep frozen eggs and sperm at great expense and other people don't care at all about the life potential of their sperm and eggs. They let eggs die monthly, masturbate their sperm out of existence and otherwise deny the fact that those unique genetic entities could be made to live, even though they could be collected and fertilized ,i.in vitro and turned into a child. Should we revise our morality to prohibit this disrespect for life?

If your God says yes, good for you. The God of many others thinks that moral principles have a certain immutability. Those people think that moral principles that need to be discarded as conditions change are not really moral. Some prefer principles that address fundamental issues deeply enough to cover situations in previously unknown contexts.

Here's morality that need not change: Let a woman, the one person that knows everything about her life and potential as a mother, consult her own conscience and do what she feels is best for her and her potential child. It is not moral for outsiders to force her to capitulate to their moral calculations.

10. If it is true that "men cannot talk about abortion" because it's a "women's issue," how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?

Nobody says men cannot talk about abortion. Most pro-choice people agree that a woman's body is her domain and no man can make decisions about that. Talking is allowed.

More importantly, though, this question demonstrates the fundamental lack of moral seriousness of the anti-choice movement. It has nothing to do with the issue of abortion. It is a silly attempt to make fun of women that have a serious life problem. One that most women take very seriously and can have huge consequences to their lives. That this question needs to be included to make a long enough list shows how little there really is to the anti-choice viewpoint. In the end it comes down to, "My religion says abortions are bad so nobody can have one."

Here is my real bottom line, though. I have never, ever heard an argument against abortion, as illustrated above, that doesn't come down to the idea that God considers life to be precious. Personally, I think that's a fine thing for God to think and for followers to believe. It is not fine, however, for said believers to insist that others believe, or act, the same way. Their hearts may go out to the little babies that are lost and that's a shame, but their sadness doesn't give them the right to assert their moral vision on other people with the force of law. My God tells me that it is an awful sin to bring a child into this world that will not be loved by its mother and who will not have the resources to enjoy a fulfilling life.

You say your God outranks my God. You would have police use their guns to force me to abandon the instructions given to me by my God. Until the American Consitution came along and said that it is wrong for the police to be recruited to enforce anyone's religious dictates, these issues were settled by finding out which God produced the most vicious soldiers.

I admit that, for most of the modern age, it turns out that the Christians were, in fact, the most vicious ones and so, brought many other peoples to heel. I know that modern Christians regret this. The anti-choice movement is encouraging a transition back to those bad old days. It is causing otherwise decent, Christian people to think they have the right to enforce their religious values on people outside their religion. This is un-American. It is dangerous and will eventually cause schism and violence in America. Worse, though, it is wrong to insert oneself into another person's moral calculation in this way.

One thing most religions agree on is, Do not do unto others that which is hateful to yourself. Imagine if the pro-choice people tried to pass a law forcing a Christian to abort defective babies, thus trying to force that Christian to follow the other's moral code. It would be the epitome of "hateful to yourself." It would also be a moral violation.

# Comments (View)

This is Rich

Ground Zero Mosque