The audacity of being an abortion survivor

Please read this whole article about Gianna Jessen, a woman who wasn’t supposed to exist and who Barack Obama thinks could have been legally and morally killed after surviving an abortion. 

By the way, I don’t mean she was the mother who survived an abortion, she was the baby.

After being burned alive for approximately 18 hours in the womb from the saline solution, Gianna was delivered alive in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic. Her medical records state, “born during saline abortion”…this is what caused her Cerebral Palsy.

From a recent Wall Street Journal article:

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a “survivor.”

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama’s candidacy, she paused, then said, “I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme.”

Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime “pro-choice” voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers’ abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or “reproductive justice,” is “one of the most fundamental rights we possess.” And he promises, “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

He is such a uniter.

This guy really, really likes abortion.  I’m amazed that he is considered a Christian.

Also see Barack Obama – pro-partial birth abortion, among other things


49 thoughts on “The audacity of being an abortion survivor”

  1. I linked to Alcorn at my blog, Neil.

    “Reproductive justice”? What is wrong with those who support this completely unqualified man? I mean it’s one thing for Obama to feel as he does, but it’s quite another for others to think he’s worth their vote! To my mind, his supporters are more guilty than he is because he can’t get anywhere without them. May God have mercy on all of them.


  2. If I were American, I’d vote for Obama – no question about that.

    I do wonder if anti-contraception advocates would call me a ‘vasectomy survivor’ because of the circumstances of my conception…


  3. I hate the term “reproductive justice” as applied to abortion. How about “developmental justice” to prohibit it?

    I’ve heard Miss Jensen’s story before. There are many babies who are left to die in supply closets or on the operating room table. We would not treat convicted murderers in such a fashion. Any monster who did this to a pet – such as smothering or letting puppies die simply because they were unwanted – would be run out of town. Yet doing this to human beings who have done nothing save have the audacity to be conceived to a woman who does not particularly care to be pregnant (or to the girlfriend of a guy who says, “Just get rid of that thing,”) is perfectly acceptable.


  4. I’m not thrilled with either candidate myself, but unless McCain decides to fall in with the Democrats (he has done so before), he has stood for life (that’s a big plus). There is so much that is extreme about Obama, where do we begin?


  5. Think about Michael Vick and the outrage over dogs, then compare the feelings toward the unborn in this land. Pretty telling as to the condition of hearts in the land. May God have mercy on us and turn the hard cold hearts to hearts of flesh.


  6. “I hate the term “reproductive justice” as applied to abortion.”

    Well, it is wildly inaccurate, but I suppose it is pithier than “the option to crush and dismember innocent human beings without anesthetic.”


  7. ROFL. Neil, you have a way with words.

    “Reproductive justice” makes perfect sense if you’re talking about birth control, access to (non-abortive) health care for the reproductive system, giving more control over the birthing process to women, etc. (One of the big issues now is access to midwives. A lot of European women give birth at home, but the U.S. is slow to catch on.) It would also encompass maternity leave, health care options for pregnant women, allocating financial obligations between both mother and father, etc.

    That’s justice. Dismembering the unborn has little to do with justice and even less to do with reproduction. It’s actually anti-reproduction.


  8. All the abortion euphemisms are irritating, but I think “reproductive justice” is perhaps the worst of them all. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to think it is more just when an innocent person isn’t murdered.



    It’s May 9, 2005. Yesterday was Mother’s Day. My birthday is going to be today. I just know it is. Mama took me to the doctor’s office the other day and I heard the doctor say he’d do the procedure on Monday, May 9th. I didn’t hear him say his name, sometimes it’s kind of muffled here in the womb. I did hear Mama say that the name of the place we were was called the “Women’s Clinic.” It must be a nice place because they take care of women and their babies. I wonder why the doctor called it “the procedure,” though. I thought it was called “being born.”

    My angel came and visited me yesterday. He said that it wouldn’t be long before I would be leaving here. He said that after the procedure, I would be going to the most beautiful place that anybody could ever imagine. He said that I would be surrounded by total love and indescribable happiness. I didn’t know that the world was really that beautiful. I’ve been able to hear and understand things for awhile now and some of the things I’ve heard make me think the world is not all that nice of a place.

    I sure will be glad to get out of here. Mama takes drugs and drinks something called alcohol. It makes me feel sick. When I get big enough to talk, I’m gonna tell her that Jesus doesn’t like it when she takes drugs. She must not know that he died on the cross for her and he gets very sad when she does things like that. It makes me sad too. At night, when Mama is “partying” I hear a lot of men’s voices. I wonder if one of them is my Daddy. They’re not very nice. They do things to Mama that I don’t understand.

    I’m skinny. I think I should be fatter. Mama doesn’t eat much. She says that when she’s high, she just doesn’t have any appetite. When I get out of here, I’m going to eat at my Father’s Table. I’m going to eat so much that I’ll be full for a week! I don’t know who he is, but my angel does. He’s the one that told me that. My angel holds my hand. Sometimes, like yesterday, his eyes are sad. Why? How can he be sad? I’m about to start on a wonderful adventure! I want to grow up and help people. Someday, maybe I’ll be a doctor too!

    Mama’s getting in the car now. I guess we’re going to the Women’s Clinic so I can be born. I’m so excited! I wonder what she looks like. Can she possibly love me as much as I love her? I can’t wait to put my arms around you Mama, and lay my head on your shoulder. I’m looking forward so much to having you teach me to brush my hair. To read the Bible, bake cookies and cherry pies. I’m gonna get you to show me how to put on make up and we can both wear yellow dresses with big brightly colored bows. I bet I’m gonna look like you, Mama. Maybe people will think I’m your sister instead of your daughter. Won’t that be funny?

    Be careful driving Mama! Are you wearing your seat belt? I don’t want anything to happen to you, especially on my birthday. I love you, Mama! I’ll be coming out to meet you soon! I’m gonna take such good care of you Mama. I won’t let anybody hurt you like I hear them doing from here inside you. Me and my angel will protect you. I’ve got so much to tell you! When I can talk, I’m gonna tell you about Jesus! He loves you, Mama! He loves you so much! He loves you even more than I do. That’s hard for me to understand, but that’s what my angel tells me.

    Well, we’re here. Mama’s parking the car. Why don’t we get out, Mama? You’re just sitting there behind the wheel feeling kind of low. It’s my birthday, Mama! What are you going to name me? Did you bring my car seat? Where’s our relatives? Where’s Ma-maw and Pa-paw? Where’s daddy? Who is daddy? Does he love me too?

    Here we go! We’re out of the car, and we’re walking up the steps to the Women’s Clinic.

    Wait a minute, Mama! All of a sudden, I’m scared. I don’t know why, but I’m scared! Get back in the car, Mama! Get back in the car! We’ve got to get out of here! I feel angels! Bad angels. Not like my angel. These are demon angels, Mama. I think they want to hurt us. Please Mama! Get back in the car. Quick! We can go someplace else. Take us to a church. Jesus will be there. He lives there. He’ll help us Mama. He loves us.

    Mama, No! Don’t let them take you into the procedure room! Let’s leave, let’s go home. I love you, Mama. Why are we lying on this table? Where are your clothes? What’s that man doing? Why is he putting on gloves? Is he the doctor? He’s supposed to take care of us. I can see his soul. I’m scared of it, Mama! It’s laughing at us and he smells like fire and burning flesh. He doesn’t love us, Mama. Please help me.

    What’s that noise? What’s that metal thing he has in his hand? Make him go away, Mama, Make him leave us alone! Where’s my angel? Help! Mama! Help! Oh Mama, he jabbed me with that metal thing, it hurts, help me, Mama, help———————–


  10. I don’t consider Obama a Christian. Just because he calls himself one doesn’t make it so. Neither do I consider Reverend Wright a Christian. Just because he calls himself one doesn’t make it so either! Christians do not use God’s name in vain as Rev. Wright does, and real Christians would not sit in the pews and not blink an eye while listening to that nutcase for 20 years. Such people are “false christians” any way you slice it.

    Excellent post, Neil. We need to keep fighting this man until we drop, if necessary. Even the thought of him in the White House and creating an Obamanation is an abomination!


  11. These 17 pregnant whores from Gloucester are just sluts…what’s the big deal? Didn’t your high school have sluts who’d screw anybody? That’s what abortion is for, to prevent these kids from having the burden of babies…the public better grow up and realize that kids control their own lives now. Kids can get pregnant and get an abortion (or have a baby) without parental consent. That’s just the way it is now, so , “tough it!” Kids today know their rights, and no adult is going to get in their way!!! It’s the law, jerkoff.

    Of course, Sharia Law in Iran (favorite country of Whoopi Goldberg and Rosi O’Donnell) would handle the highschool pregnant slut in Gloucester differently. They’d be stoned to death. Amina Lawal Kurami (born 1973) is a Nigerian woman. In March 2002, an Islamic Sharia court (in Funtua, Nigeria in the northern state of Katsina) sentenced her to death by stoning for adultery for conceiving a child out of wedlock. The father of the child was not prosecuted for lack of evidence.


  12. I’m appalled! I had heard that he was pro-choice, but was unable to find it on his website until tonight. This guy claims to be a Christian? Bahahaha, that is the biggest crock i’ve heard in a while. I’m a Christian, and have plenty of friends who are also. I know that all of them would be sickened, as am I at the thought of murdering a child who has done nothing but be conceived. If abortion were illegal I would have a sibling, one who had the same mother and father, not a half-brother/sister like my other 5 siblings. I definitely don’t want him as president.


  13. Charlene, that very much depends on the particular definition of a person to which one subscribes. For instance I do not think that a foetus is a person, because I think a person needs to be capable of self-awareness and valuing their own life.


  14. Hi Joshua,

    You are probably aware of this, but your argument is entirely philosophical and not scientific.

    Scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. Any other view is anti-science –

    I address the philosophical personhood argument and its flaws here –

    Perhaps you can share where you do draw the line at being able to kill human beings who haven’t attained “person” status. You seem to think it depends on the defintion to which one subscribes. So do we take an average of what everyone thinks and make that law? Or do we take the most conservative route (conception), or Peter Singer’s route (i.e., 30 days or more after birth), or ???


  15. Scientifically, life has never stopped since is started billions of years ago. Sperm are alive, ova are alive and so any resulting conceptus is also alive. To say that the fertilized egg marks the start of a life is scientifically misleading.

    We should aim for an analysis of all the options and to choose the one that is the most logical and consistent. I will look at your views on the personhood argument and respond to them there.


  16. I don’t see how that is misleading. A fertilized egg marks the start of the life of a new human being. I find that to be much more logical and consistent than some extremely subjective discussion of personhood.

    Again, we seem to agree that we need to draw a line somewhere. I obviously draw it at conception. I think it is a helpful discussion starter to know precisely where you draw the line. After all, on one side your claim is that abortion or infanticide is morally benign or even a positive, whereas on the other side it is capital murder.

    I ask that because some people act like they are kinda against abortion but won’t even support a partial-birth abortion ban.

    I may not able to respond again until later tonight . . . gotta do some actual work now.


  17. Fertilisation is just another event in the life of a human being. Before fertilisation, there was a specific ovum and a specific spermatozoon that are together the “potential conceptus”. And are conception, if that human being is an identical twin, maybe the fertilized egg would later split into two individuals. Or, less commonly, maybe two fertilized eggs would merge into a chimera. Or maybe that person was cloned (though doesn’t appear to have happened yet, nothing seems to suggest it is impossible), in which case no fertilisation event occurred to create the embryo that would later become a person. You see, the history leading up to a person’s existence has many events, of which fertilisation is just another.

    And for interest’s sake, for human beings I draw the line at 27 months post conceptus (i.e. ~18 months post partum). That is when science suggests that an infant is able to consider itself as a separate person – i.e. when the capacity of self-awareness usually arises.


  18. Those events would be in the exceptional category, which would still support conception as a logical rule to use. Or at a minimum it would support a very early limit.

    I sincerely appreciate your candor in stating that we should be able to legally destroy human beings up to ~18 months of age. That speaks volumes about your worldview and inability to grasp this issue.

    The self-awareness concept as a criterion for protection from destruction is unscientific and is an arbitrary, man-made concept designed to justify murder.

    The “~” speaks volumes as well. That’s kind of a fuzzy line for distinguishing between a morally neutral medical procedure and murder.

    Theobromophile can clarify, but there are clear legal distinctions for when human beings can have life support withdrawn and abortion / infanticide fail on both counts.

    If you want to use the “potential” argument, then have a potential abortion.


  19. “And for interest’s sake, for human beings I draw the line at 27 months post conceptus (i.e. ~18 months post partum). That is when science suggests that an infant is able to consider itself as a separate person – i.e. when the capacity of self-awareness usually arises.”

    I take it you have not been around too many toddlers. I thought monsters were make believe, but apparently not.


  20. “And for interest’s sake, for human beings I draw the line at 27 months post conceptus (i.e. ~18 months post partum). That is when science suggests that an infant is able to consider itself as a separate person – i.e. when the capacity of self-awareness usually arises.”

    Just out of curiosity, who may kill the child? Are only the parents allowed to (i.e. they get tired of paying daycare bills or buying formula), or anyone whenever they are inconvenienced (i.e. your kid steps on my toe).


  21. Chance – great question. Those with no rights of their own ought to be fair game.

    We can go another route with all this: until about 1.5 years, children have the self-awareness and intellect of a labrador. (Trust me. 🙂 ) We do have a lot of laws about the humane treatment of animals – how and when they may be killed, for example, and basic requirements of care.

    Should we apply those laws to the unborn and the young, they would still receive much more protection than they are given under our current legal regime. In fact, abortion would be largely illegal – we never allow people to kill animals for convenience, or because they don’t particularly feel like providing appropriate food and shelter.


  22. Re: removing life support.

    Obviously, the laws vary by state, and there are also medical ethics (which are not always followed), but I can give you a quick overview of life support etc.

    You can only remove life support when there is no hope, or no reasonable hope, of recovery. You could not, for example, remove an oxygen mask from a person under anaesthesia, simply because he currently has no awareness of his surroundings and does not place any value on his life.

    You also could not (or should not) remove life support from those who have a very good prognosis. The exception to that is for those who have a preexisting DNR. Medical power of attorney, DNR, etc. are only valid when the person whose treatment is at issue signed those orders without duress, while sane, while comprehending the ramifications of the orders, etc. Therefore, you could not “pull the plug” on an unborn child, so to speak, by citing its own ability to refuse medical treatment. You would need clear and convincing evidence that the child in question would have no desire to live under those circumstances, it if could be made aware of its situation.

    There are a great many people in the United States who are in a persistent vegetative state, who are unable to comprehend their surroundings, or who are in comas. We could solve the organ donor crisis by killing them and harvesting their organs, but we don’t, because it’s immoral to kill others, even if doing so will save your own life. The PVS patient did not ask to be in that situation, nor did the foetus ask to be conceived in a mother that did not want it.


  23. “And for interest’s sake, for human beings I draw the line at 27 months post conceptus (i.e. ~18 months post partum). That is when science suggests that an infant is able to consider itself as a separate person – i.e. when the capacity of self-awareness usually arises.”

    Wow. I don’t know how to respond to that.


  24. To answer Chance’s question, I think that (in almost all situations) only the parents can request that their child be killed (I don’t think they should be able to do it themselves, because I would insist it be done painlessly and quickly). As theobromophile said, you can’t kill somebody’s Labrador whenever you want – only the owner is able to request it be put down.

    I’d also agree that infanticide should be illegal, and adoption the preferred option, if requested merely for convenience. Abortion would still be legal, because the right to control one’s own body covers abortion, but not infanticide. (Theobromophile, pets are not parasites of their owner’s body, but if they were I’m sure convenience would be an acceptable reason for their removal)

    Comatose and vegetative humans are a little more complicated, in comparison to neonates, because their precise condition differs substantially from patient to patient. We need to be very careful to distinguish between a person who is only “locked-in” to their body, unable to move but able to value their life, and a human being without the capacity to even think or comprehend their own life, let alone have a will to live.


  25. “Theobromophile, pets are not parasites of their owner’s body, but if they were I’m sure convenience would be an acceptable reason for their removal”

    Human beings are not parasites. Are you familiar with how they came into being? Actions have consequences. Destroying a human being because you don’t like the consequences of your actions is immoral.

    Don’t want to take the chance of having kids? Don’t have sex.


  26. Don’t want to have tapeworm? Don’t eat uncooked pork or beef (or better yet, don’t eat meat at all). But if you do get tapeworm, because your cooking didn’t kill all the parasites or you ate uncooked meat, should you be allowed to remove it? YES, because it is your body, you are the one who gets to decide what lives on or in it – provided the parasite doesn’t have any opinions of its own on the matter.

    Don’t want to have a child? Don’t have unprotected sex (or don’t have sex at all). If you do get pregnant, because your contraception didn’t work or you had unprotected sex…see where I’m going here?


  27. That’s a terrific analogy for anyone who can’t understand the difference between a tapeworm and a human being.

    The “it’s your body” argument ignores that another human body is about to be destroyed. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, it assumes what is should be proving: That another human life isn’t at stake.


  28. No, I fully acknowledge this. My issue is that I do not think all human life is intrinsically valuable and cannot be destroyed. You need to prove that.

    Also, I have talked to pro-choicers who rely on the bodily autonomy argument. I asked one about what he would do if he woke one morning to find a woman had linked herself to his kidneys, and needed to remain connected or else she would die (her own kidneys had failed). He replied that it was acceptable for him to remove her connection from his body, even if that kills her, because it is his body and she didn’t have his consent to parasitise it. I disagree with him, seeing as the woman would be a person who values her own life. Anyway, just thought you would like to know that even if a human life is at stake, we still don’t see anything wrong with abortion (for whatever reason).


  29. Again, thanks for putting the logical conclusions of the abortion movement on display. Of course, even pro-abortionists will recoil in disgust at your proposition, but it is illuminating that you are indeed consistent with your disdain for human life and the arbitrary guidelines you make up.

    I was going to cut you off because this is getting tiresome (and still may, so don’t type too many comments at once), but this is like pure gold to show the pro-abortionists how their foolish “personhood” reasoning proves way more than they want it to.

    In your example, the pro-choicer was correct (even though he’s wrong about abortion). Your kidney example reminded me of the famous but flawed violinist argument used to rally pro-aborts –


  30. Ha! But I have a few good excuses:

    1. I forgot.
    2. It’s my first day of blogging.
    3. I thought your blog was gone for good.

    I made it up to you, though. I added it to the pro-life section of my blogroll. How’s that for redemption?!

    Seriously, it is a masterful series. Everyone should go read it. I’ll wait here.


  31. I asked one about what he would do if he woke one morning to find a woman had linked herself to his kidneys, and needed to remain connected or else she would die (her own kidneys had failed).

    The only time in our legal system in which there is an affirmative duty to act is when the person against whom the action is sought is the one who created the necessity for his actions. The classic example is when Person A pushes Person B in front of a moving car. Person A then has a legal obligation (actionable both criminally and in tort) to help Person B out of the way of the oncoming car.

    The other classic situation in which such a need arises is when someone attempts a rescue and leaves the person in a worse situation than he was before. If person B is stuck in the ocean, clinging to a flotation device, and Person A, during the rescue, takes the cushion so that Person B can better climb out of the water, Person A has a continuing legal duty to help Person B reach safety.

    A final thought: before the advent of infant formula, infants were fed by their mother’s breasts. A woman could not leave her child to starve, arguing that she was unwilling to continue to use her body to nurture it. Regardless of whether or not a wet nurse could be found to sustain that infant, she was ethically and legally responsible to breast-feed it until it reached an age where it could survive without her body.

    The world we live in – that of a pre-artificial womb, if you will – is no different.


  32. I should add, in case it was not obvious: as the mother created not just the dependency, but the child who is dependent upon her, she is estopped from seeking relief of the dependency in a manner that is harmful to the child.


  33. “Don’t want to have tapeworm? …Don’t want to have a child?”

    We don’t have your sophisticated sense of moral reasoning, so the whole equation of a tapeworm to a baby is totally lost on the crowd here.

    Seriously, you made me angry when I first read your comment that it is morally permissible to kill a young toddler, but I now find it incredibly hard to take you seriously.


  34. I can’t argue for the violinist argument, because I actually think that you are obliged to keep the violinist alive (and yes, theobromophile, I do think organ donation should be mandatory and, if necessary to save lives, forced). Many persons are depending on others for survival, and that dependency does not remove their personhood. However, that dependency is a sufficient reason for abortion given that the embryo is not a person, but not sufficient for infanticide (even those the neonate is also not a person, in my view) because the neonate is not exclusively dependant on the mother for life. (I’d argue that an artificial womb + adoption is preferable to a late-term abortion too).

    And to Chance, there are a certain set of similarities between a tapeworm and an embryo (when most abortions occur). Neither of them are able to do those things that set humans apart from most other animals – including self-awareness. They are both just a set of cells, one of which has human DNA and the other has the DNA of a Taenia species (and if you think that is relevant, consider a tumour, each of which has a unique set of human DNA). If a human embryo had a certain similarity with you or I, the ability to consider itself and value its own life, then I’d actually argue that abortion is murder. But seeing as neither an embryo nor a tapewom have any ability to prefer life over death, I can’t see how either would be able to be wronged by being killed.

    I’m quite aware that it may be lost on the crowd here, but I’m hoping I can explain it well enough, Neil willing.


  35. More moral claims (“obliged,” “mandatory,” etc.) from someone who can’t see the intrinsic worth of humans. Indeed. Again, work on your consistency, please.

    Saying tapeworms and the unborn human are each “just a set of cells” is absurd. The unborn human being is just that: A human being at a given stage of development.


  36. So, I’m a pre-dead corpse. A dead body at a given stage of development (the live stage). Doesn’t justify treating me like a corpse.

    You should treat embryos according to their characteristics and abilities, not according to what species/gender/race they belong to nor what they could become, but what they are.


  37. Well, if organ donation should be mandatory, why do you have both your kidneys? Why do you not give blood every 8 weeks? You can give up part of your liver and the rest will regenerate. Likewise, you can give a lung and bone marrow.

    The “embryo” is a human being. It is just another stage of development. Interestingly, “foetus” means “little one.” By the time a child is at about 8 or 10 weeks gestation, you can see that it is fully formed, with all major organs.

    I’ve noticed that pro-aborts always pick arbitrary lines that somehow justify their position, but never provide moral reasoning behind those arbitrary lines.


  38. I know I’m late, but I remember seeing this woman as a teenager on some daytime talk show. Impressive testimony… God is indeed worthy of praise.

    As to Obama… I don’t like to bandy this word about much when describing people, but Obama is the closest thing to “Evil” I’ve seen in a very long long time.


  39. “Doesn’t justify treating me like a corpse.”

    But you are dead inside based on your sad justifications. And believe me, Joshua. There’s nothing lost on this crowd regarding your weak arguments, such as:

    “…consider a tumor, each of which has a unique set of human DNA.”

    First, I’m sure the tumor has the same, not unique, set of DNA as the host body, and secondly, a tumor will decidedly not develop into anything but a bigger tumor. An embryo develops into the next stage of personhood.


  40. I think I should probably leave this discussion. I realise that I probably won’t change anyone’s minds, just as you haven’t changed mine (I’ll probably only make the pro-choice side seem even more crazy). I can only hope that you’ve all given this topic some thought, and not just rejected my viewpoints in some ‘knee-jerk’ emotional reaction (which, if the racism and sexism of the past have taught us, are not very useful for moral guidance).

    I shall stick to just things that can be factual, rather than getting into philosophical arguments. Which reminds me: Marshall Art, tumours have very different DNA than their host, and probably different chromosome numbers too (it is, after all, those mutations to the genome that cause the cancer in the first place).


  41. “I’ll probably only make the pro-choice side seem even more crazy.”

    Since you’ve advocated the ability for parents to murder children up to 18 mos. of age, I’d say you could remove the “probably” from that statement.

    But again, I must give you points and acknowledge that you are taking the pro-abortion “personhood” argument to its logical conclusion. You are much more consistent than most pro-choicers in that sense.

    “I can only hope that you’ve all given this topic some thought”

    Yep. Lots of facts and logic here.

    “I shall stick to just things that can be factual, rather than getting into philosophical arguments”

    I’d start with the facts that the unborn are living human beings, and abortion kills them. There isn’t a problem with with using philosophical reasoning (that is welcomed here), but it helps to distinguish philosophy vs. science when talking about abortion, and one should be consistent with their philosophical arguments. If one wants to dismiss the intrinsic value of human beings then they should expect their intrinsic arguments to be dismissed as well.


  42. If one caused the violinist’s need, then is morally obliged to sustain the violinist.
    Thomson supporters constantly confuse causing body use and CAUSING THE NEED for body use. They are not the same.
    If the mother is not responsible for the child’s need for her body, then the father is not responsible for his/her need for money. period.
    Looking at other animals shows that sex is pleasurable primarily to get us to engage in sex to reproduce. So, sex is not just casually linked to reproduction, it is naturally ordered towards it.
    Sure, parents are not normally morally obligated to donate organs to their children, but that is only because they could never have reasonably foreseen that organ donation would be required to keep the children alive. It is not part of the normal sustenance obligation.
    David Boonin knows this. He inconsistently agreed that a woman would be obligated to breastfeed her child if no alternative existed. He appeals to burden level distinction, but still blurs his body use/labor distinction.
    If the parents know they have genes for a genetic disorder that will cause the need for organ donation and choose to have children anyway, then they would be morally obliged to donate organs to affected children.


  43. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. I became a Baha’i in 1970. Most of my fudamental beliefs have not changed including my views on abortion. Baha’u’llah makes it perfectly clear that from the moment of conception, there is a soul. Whatever stage the fetus is in, it is a human being created by God. I wonder if we are fulfilling the “end times” prophecy in the Old Testament about child sacrifces!


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