Dialogue with an Abortion Supporter
Michael Forrest discusses abortion with an abortion rights supporter and an opponent of abortion rights.
Who would have taken care of those 45 million babies (that would have been born without abortion) - the vast majority of whom would have been born into poverty - our overwhelmed social services system or their drug addicted, welfare dependant parents?
1) This is a utilitarian argument with very profound implications: simply stated, it appears you are asserting that human life is only precious and defensible if it meets the subjective criteria of "quality of life" set out by self-appointed judges....who judge the worthiness of the lives of OTHERS. Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood) and the Nazi eugenicists taught and believed exactly the same thing. They each applied it to different groups of individuals. The Nazis applied it to Jews, Gypsies and even to a certain extent Catholics; Margaret Sanger applied it to blacks, the retarded, those with physical handicaps, and other minorities as well.
2) The assertion that the "vast majority" of these
45 million babies would have been born into poverty
with drug addicted, welfare dependent parents is
gratuitous. It is an exaggeration. For instance, on
average, approximately 65% of abortions are performed on white
women (CDC 1998). 47% of abortions are performed on
women over 25 years old. (CDC 1998). There are no
figures I am aware of to support the contention that the
"vast majority" of women who are having abortions
are poor, drug addicted and welfare dependent.....especially
after welfare reform a few years ago. If you have such
statistics, I would like to see and verify them.
3) By this argument, if the existence of life is not the
issue, but rather, economic and social considerations are the
issue, by what logical basis is one against the killing of
children AFTER they are born into such circumstances?
4) By statistics from the Alan Guttmacher institute (a
pro-abortion, polling/data division of Planned
Parenthood): approximately 94% of all abortions are for
matters of lifestyle convenience.....used like
contraception. A mere 6% of abortions have to do with
genuine health issues, life of the mother, rape or incest.
Practically every day there is another tragedy reported about how another poor kid died because he or she fell through the systems cracks or was killed by someone too overwhelmed to care for a kid while the parent worked. How many of those would have chosen to be born into poverty/welfare and worse?
1) This is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because some children would have suffered for lack of care that therefore it would be better that any of them.....let alone ALL 45 million of them are therefore better off DEAD. Jews know this better than anyone. Look at the Jews in Auschwitz, Buchenwald etc.. They could have killed themselves to alleviate their tremendous mental and physical anguish, but almost ALL of them clung to life with determined ferocity. WHY? Because life is precious, and there is always HOPE. They KNEW this. The world you seem to be painting, Rob, is a world without hope, a world without redemption. Everyone is doomed by their poor beginnings to humiliation, suffering, and despair.....and everyone who is born into wealth and health is apparently and inherently more valuable. I don't believe in that world.
2) I think this line of reasoning springs forth from a mistaken
view of suffering. Have you been taught the
Judeo-Christian understanding of redemptive and purgative
suffering in Catholic Religious Education? Probably
not......most religious ed. programs have stunk since
about 1965. One would suppose, from your line of reasoning,
that if everyone started developing cancer and
dying, the answer to this suffering would be to euthanize
everyone? That would be consistent with your position
above. They're going to suffer and eventually die,
right? They will be a great strain on the health care
system. But, no, of course you wouldn't do any such
thing. My guess is that you would likely push for
cures that would eventually SAVE as many as possible and
alleviate their suffering in the mean time to the greatest
extent. True? What is the difference here? I think
the only difference is that you view children who have
not been born yet as not human, and therefore without any rights
at all. It still comes down to: are they human
beings? Are they human life? And science and the Church
clearly teach that an unborn child is human from
conception. Don't believe me about the science
part? Here are some quotes below from leading
scientists. There is no real debate on this on a
scientific level....the argument from the "pro-choice"
side is political and philosophical. They value personal
autonomy over the right to life of the weakest among us. And
more and more pro-choicers are openly admitting that....such as
Patricia Ireland and the NOW gang.
Quotes from leading scientists:
Is it a human being?
"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.
When does the heart begin to beat?
At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.
When is the brain functioning?
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120
Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
How early do some organs form?
The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278
And function?
Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William's Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4
Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17
When does the developing baby first move?
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a 'total pattern response' because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26
Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. '91, pg. 16
When are all her body systems present?
By eight weeks (two months). Hooker & Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press, 1952
When do teeth form?
All 20 milk-teeth buds are present at six and a half weeks."Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 10
And include dental lamina at 8 weeks. Med. Embryology, Longman, 3rd Ed., 1975, p. 406
How about nine weeks?
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
When does he start to breathe?
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid with-in his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
"Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy decreases the frequency of fetal breathing by 20%. The 'well documented' higher incidence of prematurity, stillbirth, and slower development of reading skill may be related to this decrease." 80 F. Manning, "Meeting of Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons," Family Practice News, March 15, 1976
"In the 11th week of gestation fetal breathing is irregular and episodic. As gestation continues, the breathing movements become more vigorous and rapid." C. Dawes, "Fetal Breathing: Indication of Well Being," Family Practice News, Mar. 16, 1976, p. 6
Episodic spontaneous breathing movement have been observed in the healthy human fetus as early as ten weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April '89, p. 932
When can she swallow?
At 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233
What of detailed development, like fingernails and eyelashes?
Fingernails are present by 11 to 12 weeks; eyelashes by 16 weeks. Fingerprints are completely established during the fourth month of gestation. Hamiltonet al., Human Embryology, Fourth Ed., 1972, p. 567
At what point are all her body systems working?
By 11 weeks. "Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, Apr. 30, 1965, p. 13
How does the size of the baby increase in weight?
At 12 weeks (three months) she weighs about 30 gm (1.0 ounce); at 16 weeks about 170 gm (6 ounces); and at 20 weeks (four months), approximately 454 gm (one pound).
When is taste present?
"Taste buds are working between 13 and 15 weeks gestation" (11 to 13 weeks after conception). Mistretta & Bradley, Taste in Utero, 1977, p. 62 Bradley et al., "Dev. Taste Buds . . . ," J. Anat. 101 (4) 1967, p. 743-752
How about hearing?
"Auditory sense is present in the infant 24 weeks before birth [14 weeks after conception]. This involves brain functioning and memory patterns." M. Clemens, "5th International Congress Psychosomatic," OB & GYN, Rome: Medical Tribune, Mar. 22, 1978, p. 7
You and I know
that the people who get/need abortions shouldn't/couldn't be
parents anyway.
1) I don't know this to be true at all. There are a disturbing number of married women who get abortions under pressure from their husbands. There are a great number of women who live with men who get them......and they aren't drug addicts. 1.5 Million per year.
2) Again, it is a non-sequitur to say, "because so many are conceived in less than ideal situations, therefore the best solution would be to kill them."
Last thought - you guys are probably for the death penalty, aren't you?
1) Personally, I am somewhat ambivalent about it. I've heard reasonable arguments on both sides. However, regardless, your comparison is mixing up apples and oranges. Two scenarios:
a) an intruder breaks into my home
and in defending my family I kill him
b) a man comes to my door selling encyclopedias and I kill him
Would you have a problem with BOTH "a" and "b"? Why not? Both are killing aren't they? The point is, there is a moral, ethical, philosophical, and theological difference between the killing of the innocent and the killing of the guilty (if they truly ARE guilty....I agree we need to be very, very careful about this). Criminal law has recognized this difference since the days of Hammurabi. Judaism and Christianity have recognized this difference since the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not kill, is actually, literally, "Thou shalt not murder".....which delineates a difference between the guilty and the innocent.
The statistics illustrate that people who murder continue to pose a serious risk to the community even after serving time in prison. They also have a high propensity to harm or kill other people in jail. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that the pope has recently tried to limit the use of the death penalty for pastoral reasons, the Church has ALWAYS held that the death penalty is a lawful option for civil authorities. When one kills the innocent, they forfeit their own right to life. Again, though, I am not saying I am unequivocally FOR the death penalty.....only pointing out that it is NOT like support for abortion, which is always indefensible.
2) How can you reconcile being absolutely against even the
possibility of killing those who confess they are guilty of the
worst crime, while simultaneously supporting the absolute,
unconditional right to kill the clearly and obviously innocent
(the pre-born)? After all, following your previous line
of argument, most murderers live in terrible conditions and are a
strain on social programs and jails, aren't they? So why not
simply "off" them? It would be better for them and
for society, right?
being in the
adoption community I am quite convinced that MANY of
those aborted babies could have been given loving homes.
Good point. It is interesting that the number of abortions
each year is remarkably similar to the number of people looking
to adopt.
But yes, most
would have been born to poverty. Not sure if that is a valid
justification for abortion, though. Also, look at the stats.
Millions of abortions these days occur -- especially in the US
and other prime countries -- not from poor families where
babies will be living in poverty, or from incest or rape, but
because of inconvenience.
This is a statistical fact (abortion chosen for "convenience"). Good point.
The real issue
to me is "when does life begin?". Science can not
answer that question.
I think I understand what you mean, but your statement is not
completely accurate. Science can and does answer when human
life begins. Biologists and geneticists do not question that
human life begins at conception. The question that science
can not answer is when is the soul joined with the
body. That is a question of theology and faith.
But if someone believes life begins at conception, then those people have to believe abortion is murder. And that is an honest view for such people regardless if those babies will be living in poverty. Because to them it is the same a killing an infant because it is living in poverty. The right and wrong of this is not one sided. Have you ever looked into partial-birth-abortions? Did you ever see what these babies look like at this stage? You want to defend the women's right here to make a choice. When does the baby have a choice? By law in most states after birth. Based on what grounds? Sure is not Science.
Good points.
Mixed feelings for the death penalty -- not sure why that is relevant, though. Are you fully against it? Kind of ironic if you can not see why people can be against abortion.
Very good....combine with info I gave on the death penalty.....killing vs. murder. Is there a difference or not?
For the record
- I'm not "for abortions". I think it could be
said that people on both sides of the debate are against
abortions.
This position, i.e. "I'm personally against abortion but I don't think we should tell people they can't have them" is illogical, in my opinion. WHY is anyone against abortion, personally? If it's not a human life, if it's merely lifeless tissue....part of the mother's body, then why shouldn't she be able to just dispose of it like an appendix? Who would be against that? But if it is truly human life, and the science is perfectly clear that it is.....it surely isn't frog life.....then it makes sense to defend it, personally AND legally. Such a position (personally opposed, against telling others what to do) doesn't really make sense. Would any of us say, "Hey, personally, I'm opposed to child abuse. I think most everyone is. But I don't want to force my values on other people if they believe they need to abuse or kill their child?" Or do we say, "Personally, I'm opposed to killing the mentally ill and the handicapped. But I don't think I can tell another mother or father that they have to support and care for that child. It's not my place?" Why not? Because we have always understood that one person's right to existence trumps any other persons right to convenience and lifestyle......and we enforce that IN LAW. We do so precisely because the more powerful find ways to trample the basic rights of the less powerful and euphemistically consider it "social engineering" or "merciful"......because it doesn't work to their own personal detriment.
Rarely have I heard that anyone is "pro-abortion", but rather, they're pro-choice. I, presumably like most everyone else would rather that there was never the need for abortions.
We change the language to sanitize what we are doing. The Nazis called them "resettlement camps", etc. Oh, they were resettled, alright. Pro-choice? What does that mean? Are pro-choice people for school choice? Are they for choice in the right to enslave people? No, they are for the right to choose abortion....and that's it, period. Why not say so honestly? I believe the reason is fairly clear: abortion rights supporters know abortion is an awful thing on a visceral level, and even saying it openly is uncomfortable....and it undermines their argument....."I am for the right to kill one's unborn child at any time and for any reason." Pretty ugly, when you say it out loud, any way you slice it. But saying, "I am PRO-CHOICE!"..... now you are a freedom fighter. Very noble sounding. I prefer honesty in terminology. I'm perfectly comfortable with anti-abortion rights for people like me and pro-abortion rights for those on the other side. That's honest and accurate on both sides.
Additionally, "choice" is very misleading because a disturbing number of women report that they felt they were not choosing of their own volition at all but being forced into abortions by husbands, boyfriends or parents.
The question is where the line is drawn in terms of legislating what, when and how a woman can treat their bodies.
This is scientifically inaccurate. The unborn child is not a "part" of a woman's body. At the very moment of conception an unborn child has unique DNA that is not its mother's. An unborn child has her own blood type, independent of the mother. She has her own organs, and fingerprints very early on, before most all abortions are performed. The mother only provides nourishment to the child and a safe environment (unless the mother aborts, of course)......not all that different from a born child who breast-feeds. Such a child is also intimately dependent upon its mother.
Finally, at the end of life, how do we determine death from life? When the heart stops and/or when brain activity ceases, right? Why, then, is it so difficult to at least even use the same criteria for when life BEGINS? Heartbeat: 3-4 weeks after conception. Measurable brain waves: 6 weeks after conception. Almost ALL abortions happen after one or both of these obvious milestones.
By the way, you
know that legislating away a woman's right to terminate a
pregnancy won't stop such -
abortions will just go underground and the rich who really
want/need them will still be able to safely get them ($)
and the poor will be relegated to the old-fashioned back alley
unsanitary hanger treatment.
1) There were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Not exactly an epidemic.
2) Why do we legislate against any crime at all? As an attorney, you better than most know that making something illegal and enforcing punishment serves as a strong deterrent for most people. Additionally, many (not all, but many) people base their morality upon "what is legal". If something is legal, they may well do it. If it is not, they may well refuse to take the chance, even aside from the possibility of punishment. In the case of abortion, the statistics bear this out very well. The number of abortions after Roe v. Wade went from thousands a year to millions per year.
3 ) The idea of "safe abortions" is like saying "safe exposure to a nuclear bomb". It's an oxymoron. First of all, safe for whom? Certainly not the child. Second, the vast majority of studies indicate a slew of problems associated with abortion, from sterility to breast cancer (80% of the studies show anywhere from a 33% increase in rates of breast cancer to a 100% increase in rates of breast cancer....click on http://www.seanforrest.com/community/ContentDisp.asp?pid=130 to view the data). There are still many deaths from "safe abortions".....California is dealing with one of these abortionists who butcher women right now.....but they're having trouble removing him because the abortion rights movement is so strong.
4 ) Saying that anyone is "forced" to get an illegal abortion is like saying that if guns are heavily regulated or even outlawed people are "forced" to buy unsafe, unregulated guns illegally. Very few people are "forced" to do either. They make a voluntary choice.
I was just curious about the death penalty, which I stand squarely against under any circumstances (just for the record).
As I wrote above, I would really be interested in the logic behind this. Squarely against the death penalty in all circumstances, but unequivocally for the right to abortion at all times and under all circumstances.
Good response , Rob. I do disagree on your point about legislation. No, it will not stop all abortion . But I truly believe there will be a significant reduction (at least after a couple of generations since the damage has already been done). In my view, it is about what our kids are being taught about life.
Did you see
Bowling for Columbine? Ultra liberal guy made this documentary.
In it, he makes the argument that having a missile plant near the
high school in which once a week a missile is trucked right past
your school, is a reason why a kid can become a nut case and
shoot to kill his school mates. A bit of a stretch. But I do
believe he has a bit of a point. It could be a contributing
factor. Don't you think. In its own, it is a crazy idea to me.
But combined with other social issues, it could be the thing that
puts a troubled child over the edge.
Now, here is where I am sure this Michael Moore (or whatever his
name is) would probably disagree with me since I will use his
argument for a pro-life stance (he'd probably despise me for it).
And most liberals would not even consider the validity of my
argument. A pregnant teenager that is taught by society that this
thing growing in her is not life.She is taught that pro-life is a
bad term since there is no life within her. That abortion is
"terminating her pregnancy." Using Moore's argument, I
argue that the way our kids are taught is a contributing
factor to girls giving birth in a public bathroom
and throwing the baby in the garbage.>>
Well said.
That being said, I do agree to certain extent that legislation is not the answer. I always felt that God would much rather see a society in which abortion is legal but people chose not to rather that a society in which it were illegal but people still have them performed.
I understand what you are saying. But the unfortunate fact is, laws will be necessary until the second coming of Christ. As Martin Luther King said, "the law can't change a man's heart, but it can certainly help stop him from lynching me." The point is, the change of law tends to impact people's views of things. Who would argue for slavery now? But the law change preceded the change of many people's hearts and minds. Who would argue that blacks should be segregated (except some skin-heads)? But, again, a change in law preceded the change of many people's minds. The law is an agent of change, and in the mean time, it helps to alleviate wrongdoing. This is precisely why homosexual advocates are so rabid about legalizing same sex marriage.....they know it will impact society's view of them.
The problem is
what we are teaching our kids. The pro-lifers are going about
their battles wrong. But the legislation also prevents us from
teaching our kids the "other side" of abortion.
Seriously think about it. >>
Good points, Cam .
A last question for you, Rob : What do you think of laws that allow a person to be charged with manslaughter for causing the death of an unborn child, due to drunk driving, for instance? Is that right? Or should he only be charged if the woman decided she wanted keep the baby? Should she thank him if she was on her way to get an abortion because he saved her money? (only partially joking) The problem is, the definition of life has become subjective in the world of legal abortion: if I want the baby, it's a life. If I don't want the baby, it's not a human life. That's a dangerous precedent.....giving people the power to define life in an out of existence by whim. It is precisely this "logic" that led to the holocaust.....the Germans defined the Jews as "untermenschen" (sub-human) and therefore, okay to kill. These people were democratically elected, too.....included Hitler.
A few other pieces of information for your consideration:
From Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute:
Government policies promoting "healthy marriage" should include family planning counseling to help couples avoid unintended pregnancy, according to the article "Marriage Is No Immunity From Problems Planning Pregnancies" http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/gr060210.html by Cynthia Dailard. Large numbers of married women in the United States experience unintended pregnancies, abortions and unwanted births each year-stressful eventswith emotional and financial costs that may potentially undermine marital stability. The most recent data available show that: -- The typical American woman marries at age 25 and achieves her desired family size of two children by age 31. She then spends the next 20 years until menopause trying to avoid an unintended pregnancy. -- Nearly one million married women in this country experience an unintended pregnancy each year. -- Almost four in 10 unintended pregnancies to married women end in abortion. -- 17% of all abortions occur among married women (approximately 250,000 abortions). -- More than half (56%) of married women who had an abortion in 2000 were practicing contraception in the month they became pregnant
But poor women want this help (government funding of abortions).
Not as much as rich people. In 1984, the strongly pro-abortion
University of North Carolina polled its state to find that only
32% favored tax funding of abortion. An important finding was
that 43% of the college-educated favored such government
"assistance," while only 17% of those with less than a
high-school education concurred. Also, 36% of men favored
assistance, but only 28% of women. So, those who would receive
the "benefit" of tax-funded abortions wanted them the
least. One might conclude that the elitist social planners see
this as a way of reducing poverty — killing the unborn
children of the poor.
From a strictly economic standpoint, isn’t it cheaper to
abort than to have another person on welfare?
Planned Parenthood did one of the definitive studies on this
which showed that at the time of the study there were welfare
costs of $13,900 for each first birth to a teenager (married and
unmarried), and $8,400 for each first birth to her if she was 20
years or older. Compare this with the average of nearly $50,000
each will ultimately pay in taxes as an adult. M. Burt,
"Public Cost of Teen Childbearing," Family Planning
Perspective, vol. 18, no. 5, Sept. 1986
The average time a family stays on welfare in the U.S. is 27 months, not 18 years. When we peel away the outer layer of the rhetoric, what we find is a callous cost-benefit analysis of solving poverty by killing the unborn children of the poor.
This continues to happen. In 1982, Michigan for instance, only 14.7% of pregnancies of non-welfare mothers were aborted. This clearly suggests coercion when we realize that the minority classes who make up a large share of the welfare people are more against abortion than are the while middle and upper classes. Ibid
It isn’t the poor who want abortions. It’s the rich who want abortions for the poor
Contraception Fact:
"The Pill" works two ways: first, by preventing
fertilization and if that fails, second, by preventing
implantation AFTER a new human being has been created. In
these latter cases, women often mistakenly believe they've simply
had a heavy menstruation, when, in fact, they've undergone an
early chemical abortion.
Facts of Life:
From the moment of conception, an unborn child's DNA is as
complete as an adult's. At 3 weeks, an unborn child has a
heartbeat and her own blood supply. At 6 weeks she has
measurable brainwaves. Yet, in this country, she can be
killed by "choice" through all 9 months of pregnancy
for any reason or no reason whatever. 1 out of 4 unborn
children never see the light of day by
"choice". Since Roe v. Wade, over 45 million
unborn children have died by a choice not their own.
Michael Forrest
The Catholic Legate
September 27, 2005