Joining The Conversation

Two semesters ago I took Introduction to Literature; one of the textbooks we used was called Joining the Conversation. That meant reading what has been written about each topic we chose to write about, and then writing with the idea of adding something to the “conversation” that had not already been said; in other words, adding our unique viewpoint to the ongoing conversation about our topic. I am joining the conversation about a topic that has been widely discussed and argued by both sides. A lot of people had voiced their opinions on this topic, and it is one of the hot button issues of my generation. This is the most difficult blog I have had to write so far, but it is one I feel needed to be written.

My topic is abortion. Anyone willing to be honest will agree with me that abortion is wrong. Those who call themselves pro-choice have successfully moved the debate away from whether the act of abortion itself is right or wrong; now the debate is about a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body; but this is not the removal of an appendix, or one’s tonsils that we are talking about here, if it were, then they would have a case; but we are not talking about a body part, we are talking about a living human being, a baby who is its own person, not merely an extension of its mother. So that is my first point, let’s bring the abortion debate back to the ground it belongs on; the question is, is it right or wrong to take the life of an unborn child? Did it become right when it became legal? Why is it wrong to have the death penalty? Is it really wrong to put a convicted criminal to death, but right to put an innocent child to death for the weakest of reasons?

My next point; who profits from abortions? The answer is, a lot of people; abortion is big business, and from what I can see, it is a growing industry. If abortions were legally free, and abortion providers were no longer making money off this procedure, would they still fight as hard to keep it going? I think not.
My third point is the most powerful, and will convince all but the most hardened. A picture is worth a thousand words. These speak volumes. Most of these photos came from http://www.amightywind.com

This is a picture of aborted babies stuffed into a garbage bag.

This is a picture of a mother in China who was a victim of a forced abortion, performed by the state. Her murdered child is lying next to her. Sure, this picture could have been faked, but please ask yourself why anyone would fake a picture like this? Anyone who has morals has to agree that abortion is wrong, and a person with morals is not then going to turn around and lie.

Write to me and tell me how this is right.

Or how about this one, can you justify this. I believe this are real pictures, the truth of abortion portrayed in this picture is worse than anything a person could make up.

There are not enough words in the world to describe how awful this is.

Advertisements
Categories: Christianity, Christianity, History, Life, News, Perspectives | Tags: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Post navigation

11 thoughts on “Joining The Conversation

  1. Hey, nice fetus porn. Anyhow…

    now the debate is about a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body;

    And that is what it should be about. It is her body and thus her decision to as to what goes on inside it. That should not be a difficult concept, yet it is.

    but this is not the removal of an appendix, or one’s tonsils that we are talking about here, if it were, then they would have a case; but we are not talking about a body part, we are talking about a living human being, a baby who is its own person, not merely an extension of its mother.

    Conflating terms never helps your case. Babies are what we get after a special event – its called birth. Blastocyst, fetus are some of the terms that describe the phases of embryological development. A fetus is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree. If we thought like you do, I thing omelettes would be fairly lowly regarded as *gasp* were eating baby chickens!!!!

    is it right or wrong to take the life of an unborn child?

    The life of the mother takes precedence over any life that may be developing inside her using her organs and her body for existence. As it is her body, she has the choice to do what she pleases with it.

    My next point; who profits from abortions?

    Women “profit” from abortions as they are the ultimate arbitrators of their reproductive futures.

    A picture is worth a thousand words.

    A thousand words based on argument from emotion is a fallacy. A lot of fallacy, mind you, at 1000 words per picture, but a fallacy none the less.

    • The pictures I posted presented the truth of abortion, if seeing those pictures caused an emotional response, then that in itself is proof that the act is wrong, people do not normally feel guilt about doing the right thing.

      “Porn” is photographs or video of people having sex, designed to sexually arouse the viewer, I am surprised to hear that the pictures I posted had the same effect.

      I have not “conflated” my facts with fiction, no one has proven that life does not begin at conception, until it is proven, it is merely a theory and claiming that it is fact is a fallacy.

      As for the cost, I found an abortion clinic on the web: http://eastsidegynecology.com/?gclid=CPD7h6bGybMCFQSf4AodbRIAHQ
      I called the phone number on their website: 212-308-4988 I spoke with Natasha, and this is what she told me:

      She asked me the date of my last period, I told her it was towards the end of October, which it was, and she quickly figured that to be around seven weeks. The price of the procedure, she said, is determined by how far along the woman is in her pregnancy. I am not pregnant, and she never came out and asked if I was pregnant, so I did not lie, because I never claimed to be pregnant. Could it be by design that she was careful not to use the word pregnant? Could that be because the word pregnant is understood to mean that you have a life growing inside you?

      Back to the pricing, Natasha that they could bill my insurance, but if I did not have insurance, the procedure would cost $535 total:
      $475 for the procedure itself
      $10 for the lab fee
      $50 for the Rogan shot, because I have a rare blood type

      You are welcome to verify this information if you like, Natasha said she will be there until 4 p.m., most days, you can verify my facts by calling the above phone number

      I looked up some statistics on the abortion rate in the U.S.:
      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
      The data goes back a few years, but still gives an idea of how much money is being made from this procedure:
      According to this website, in 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed
      If I take out the fee for having a rare blood type, the cost for the procedure would be around $485
      I am not sure how to calculate .2 of one million, so for the math, let’s call it an even million, that will still get us in the ballpark:
      $485 x 1 million = $485,000,000. Looks to me like the abortion industry is the only one profiting, not the women who have to live with this on their conscience for the rest of their lives.

      People that cannot back up their claims with facts tend to resort to emotionalism and mudslinging. Please check out the facts for yourself, and not just jump on the bandwagon, which by the way is another fallacy.

      • if seeing those pictures caused an emotional response, then that in itself is proof that the act is wrong,

        But are they representative of every abortion? Are they from a medical text book or some other source that does not have a horse in this particular race. You mention backing up what you say with fact – well the quality of ones sources is an important part of that equation. Grabbing fetus-porn from a pro-life site might not be the most reliable source of what abortion looks like.

        Furthermore, I speculate on the veracity of the photo’s in question in this day and age of photoshop and other means of digital manipulation. What is missing, more importantly, is the woman – was her life saved because of the procedure? Was it an ectopic pregnancy that was threatening her life? We don’t know as the pictures in question are devoid of context.

        Open heart surgery, or a colectomy are also procedures that if photographed would cause an emotional response, thus by your argument would that also be proof that they are wrong? Arguing that the emotional response is proof in itself of the rightness or wrongness of an action is not a reliable test.

        I am surprised to hear that the pictures I posted had the same effect.

        Fetus-porn is a colloquial term for the images people of the anti-choice persuasion often use in an attempt to amplify their argument. Google those images, they are not unique and belong to small subset of internet exchange them and point to them and say – Look at horrible this is, women therefore should not have bodily autonomy because of it. It never has, and never will be a good argument.

        no one has proven that life does not begin at conception,

        Life can begin whenever you would like it to. Heck, make it when people have that gleam in their eye and the feelings in the pants start to influence the decisions made in the head. It is not relevant to what I am arguing.

        This is what I’m arguing – What goes on in a woman’s body is solely her decision. Her bodily autonomy takes precedence over any life that may be developing inside her body, period. It is really that easy.

        the procedure would cost $535 total

        Are you suspicious about your dentist as well?

        Average dental expenses increased from $438 ($527 adjusted for inflation) in 1996 to $620 in
        2004. (118).

        Those Dentists – where does all the money go? Should we ‘follow the money’ on these shady characters too?

        People that cannot back up their claims with facts tend to resort to emotionalism and mudslinging.

        You don’t say…

        Perhaps I shouldn’t use graphic photos to try and sway people’s arguments….wait…that wasn’t me. Or maybe I shouldn’t call a fetus a baby to evoke the feelings associated with babies with something that it is not. I did not do that either.

        Hmm… I’m going to have to agree with you that people indeed should not resort to emotionalism and mudslinging.

    • “The life of the mother takes precedence over any life that may be developing inside her using her organs and her body for existence.”
      Are you admitting that the baby in her womb is alive?

  2. Pingback: Abortion « camgal

  3. Are you admitting that the baby in her womb is alive?

    Err..yes. Although I do object to the nomenclature that is used. A fetus is not a baby, that’s why we have the various terms to describe the various stages of development.

    • Just some things to think about:
      http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/fetus

      Webster’s 1913 Dictionary:
      Fe´tus Pronunciation: fē´tŭs
      n. 1. The young or embryo of a vertebrate animal in the womb, or in the egg; often restricted to the later stages in the development of viviparous and oviparous animals. showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal, embryo being applied to the earlier stages.

      WordNet Dictionary
      Noun 1. fetus – an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

      Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
      Blas´tu`la
      n. 1. (Biol.) That stage in the development of the ovum in which the outer cells of the morula become more defined and form the blastoderm.

      WordNet Dictionary
      Noun 1. blastula – early stage of an embryo produced by cleavage of an ovum; a liquid-filled sphere whose wall is composed of a single layer of cells; during this stage (about eight days after fertilization) implantation in the wall of the uterus occurs

      Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
      Fer`ti`li`za´tion
      n. 1. The act or process of rendering fertile.
      2. (Biol.) The act of fecundating or impregnating animal or vegetable germs; esp., the process by which in flowers the pollen renders the ovule fertile, or an analogous process in flowerless plants; fecundation; impregnation.Close fertilization
      (Bot.) the fertilization of pistils by pollen derived from the stamens of the same blossom.
      Cross fertilization
      fertilization by pollen from some other blossom. See under Cross, a.

      WordNet Dictionary
      Noun 1. fertilization – creation by the physical union of male and female gametes; of sperm and ova in an animal or pollen and ovule in a plant

      Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
      Em´bry`o
      n. 1. (Biol.) The first rudiments of an organism, whether animal or plantIn embryo
      in an incipient or undeveloped state; in conception, but not yet executed.
      – Swift.
      a. 1. Pertaining to an embryo; rudimentary; undeveloped; as, an embryo bud.

      WordNet Dictionary
      Noun 1. embryo – (botany) a minute rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium
      2. embryo – an animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life
      Synonyms: conceptus, fertilized egg
      Several of these definitions use words like created and impregnated, which refers to the beginning of life. These terms refer to the baby inside the womb. I hear the pro-abortion group use the term embryo the most often. Why is that? Could it be because the definition of embryo, which uses words like undeveloped, rudimentary, and lower forms make it easier to think of the baby as something that is not yet a living being in its own right, but merely part of its mother? “In conception but not yet executed.” Let’s keep it that way.

      Now let’s define murder:
      Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
      Mur´der Pronunciation: mûr´dẽrd
      n. 1. The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied; intentional and unlawful homicide.
      The killing of their children had, in the account of God, the guilt of murder, as the offering them to idols had the guilt of idolatry.
      – Locke.
      Slaughter grows murder when it goes too far.
      – Dryden.
      v. t. 1. To kill with premediated malice; to kill (a human being) willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully. See Murder, n.
      [imp. & p. p. Murdered (mûr”dẽrd); p. pr. & vb. n. Murdering.]
      2. To destroy; to put an end to.
      [Canst thou] murder thy breath in middle of a word?
      – Shak.
      3. To mutilate, spoil, or deform, as if with malice or cruelty; to mangle; as, to murder the king’s English.

      WordNet Dictionary
      Noun 1. murder – unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
      Synonyms: slaying, execution
      Verb 1. murder – kill intentionally and with premeditation; “The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered”
      Synonyms: bump off, slay, polish off, dispatch, remove, hit
      2. murder – alter so as to make unrecognizable; “The tourists murdered the French language”
      Synonyms: mutilate, mangle

      I find the second WordNet definition very interesting: “alter so as to make unrecognizable” fetus, blastula, and embryo; call it anything but a baby, so it is easy to take its life without guilt.

      Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
      A`bort´ Pronunciation: å`bôrt´
      v. i. 1.
      1. To miscarry; to bring forth young prematurely.
      2. (Biol.) To become checked in normal development, so as either to remain rudimentary or shrink away wholly; to become sterile.
      3. to stop, cease, or fail prior to normal completion.
      v. t. 1. to cause (an action or process) to stop at an early stage, or before normal completion; as, to abort a rocket flight.
      n. 1. An untimely birth.
      2. An aborted offspring.

      WordNet Dictionary
      Verb 1. abort – terminate before completion; “abort the mission”; “abort the process running on my computer”
      2. abort – terminate a pregnancy by undergoing an abortion

      Dictionary of Computing
      (programming) abort – To terminate a program or process abnormally and usually suddenly, with or without diagnostic information. “My program aborted”, “I aborted the transmission”. The noun form in computing is “abort”, not “abortion”, e.g. “We’ve had three aborts over the last two days”.

      Believe it or not, my goal is not to make people mad, but to get people to look at the facts, and think for themselves, not just believe what they are told.

      • Webster’s 1913 Dictionary:

        Women were not allowed the vote in the US till 1920. Perhaps choosing a current source would be better to further your argument.

        Believe it or not, my goal is not to make people mad, but to get people to look at the facts, and think for themselves, not just believe what they are told.

        So then how does this square with the idea that, someone other than the woman that is pregnant, has a right to mandate what goes on in her body?

      • I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond. As for the date of the dictionary, it was near the top of the Google results, but I don’t think the date matters, the definitions I used have not changed. To answer your question: “So then how does this square with the idea that someone other than the woman that is pregnant has a right to mandate what goes on in her body”

        Since the unborn children cannot speak for themselves, they need someone to speak for them. I am not advocating oppressing women, that is not what this is about, and it is not what true christianity is about. Yes, I am a christian, and before I was saved I was pro-choice too; believe me I understand where you are coming from. The argument that is a women’s right to choose sounds right at first, but I will ask again, what about that innocent baby? Someone needs to defend the rights of that unborn child.

        Getting back to Christianity for a moment; those men that murdered those abortion doctors a few years back were not Christian, regardless of what they called themselves. A christian, by very definition is “Christ One” or one who is like Christ. The term was originally deregatory, it was what the Romans called the followers of Christ in the first century. Be that as it may, it’s true. A true christian is, or will try to be Christ-like. Those men that killed that abortion doctor, it may have been more than one, I don’t remember all of the details, were not christian, regardless of whatever they claimed to be; true followers of Christ are not murderers.

  4. Google results, but I don’t think the date matters,

    The date does matter, as the etymology of words is important because words’ meanings change over time. I would suggest referring to the OED as guide.

    Since the unborn children cannot speak for themselves,

    Fuzzy language alert. A fetus is no more a child than an acorn is an oaktree. This is an important distinction because if you continue with the reasoning you get this.

    what about that innocent baby?

    You see there is this life giving apparatus that the baby is attached to that, in theory, is fully human and thus endowed with rights. Which rights of hers would you like to take away to protect the “innocent baby”?

    Getting back to Christianity for a moment […]

    I suggest that you don’t. Bringing up destructive mythology will most definitely not help your argumentation. If you would like to go there, you should probably start with justifying the genocide your loving ooga-booga brings down on humanity and ‘his’ enemies that periodically happens in the bible.

    Furthermore, some 29,000 children under the age of five will die today. A good portion of their deaths are from easily preventable causes and this is not much of a frakking problem for you or your ‘just, loving god’. Handwaving about magical-plans and free will also fail here: 21 children died unnecessarily under your sky-daddies watch. So please, please, don’t mention christianity as any sort of moral basis/solution to this problem because categorically, it is not.

    Your solution, taking away the rights of women, has religious foundations because most religions perpetuate the patriarchy and thus the subordination of women.

    true followers[…]

    Believe me when I say that you do not want to go there.

    • No-one has the right to murder another human being. And trying to change the meaning of words does not mean that murder suddenly stops being murder simply because someone decides to call it something else.

      “Furthermore, some 29,000 children under the age of five will die today http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html . A good portion of their deaths are from easily preventable causes and this is not much of a frakking problem for you or your ‘just, loving god’. Handwaving about magical-plans and free will also fail here: 21 children died unnecessarily under your sky-daddies watch. So please, please, don’t mention christianity as any sort of moral basis/solution to this problem because categorically, it is not.”

      So it is not okay when they die outside of the womb, but it is okay to kill them when they are inside the womb? UNICEF, according the their website, is an organization that upholds children’s rights, how does that square with abortion?

      Why do some atheists get so angry at a God whom they say they don’t even believe in?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: