News Alert
Top 20 High Schools In NJ: Monmouth County…

In Defense of the Pro-Life Platform

In defense of the Pro-Life Platform by debunking the notion that it is a "religious belief" and grounded in both science and philosophical rationale.

After having read Democratic Candidate for US Congress (NJ, 4th Dist.) Brian Froelich's blog piece on the Patch titled "" I felt it necessary to take the opportunity to address what I believe is his charge that the Pro Life Platform, most notably Pro-Life Republicans, is rooted in people wanting to impose their religious beliefs on others while denying the "rights" of women that may not hold the same beliefs.

It is without doubt that his piece and so many others in the mainstream media as well as elsewhere on The Patch are a result of the comments made a week or so ago by Republican Representative Todd Akin from Missouri where he stated that women "rarely" get pregnant if they are victims of "legitimate rape".  I will readily admit that Mr. Akin's inability to articulate a clear and concise Pro Life position compounded by his no less than idiotic substantiation that a woman's body can "shut down" during a rape to prevent pregnancy has made the Pro Life Platform an easy target for those to cry "religious zealots".

All too often the Pro-Life Platform is defined by its opposition, it is characterized by those on the Pro-Choice side of the aisle as against women's "rights" and wanting to impose its "religious views" on others.  Very rarely can any individual of any prominent public attention, be it a politician, an actor, or an activist citizen make a clear and concise case for being Pro Life, and to be honest, even if they could, I highly doubt they would get the media attention required to allow the articulate definition of the Platform to be conveyed to the masses.

Despite what Mr. Froelich has presented, the Pro-Life Platform is NOT a religious one.  It is NOT a religious view sought by zealots wishing to impose their "beliefs" on "non-believers".  I say this to you as a Roman Catholic.  I mention my faith specifically because I do not hold the Pro-Life position because I am Catholic, I defend it because I am Catholic.  You may be asking yourself "what's the difference?" and there really is a simple explanation as to what the difference is.  
If being Pro Life were a religious belief it would solely be argued on Biblical grounds by quoting scripture, the problem with that method is the Bible is silent on abortion, it does not come right out and say "thou shalt not abort".  So if the Pro-Life Platform is not a religious one, why is it mostly defended and espoused by people of faith?  This too is pretty simple, people of faith tend to believe in truth, moral truth to be exact, and it is their religious beliefs that move them to defend that truth.

I would highly doubt anyone reading this article would disagree with me that examples of moral truth are the fact that you should not kill a stranger because they cut you off while driving, you should not kill your neighbor because their dog pees on your grass, and you should not kill your child because he or she misbehaves in the supermarket.  These are without question, simple, moral, truths.  I highly doubt any community of faith would be so readily attacked defending the aforementioned moral truths as they are for defending the Pro-Life Platform.

So you may ask "if the Pro-Life Platform is not based on religion, what is it based on?" and to this there is also a simple answer.  Truth.  The truth that willingly killing an innocent human life is morally wrong.  With that being said, the crux of the debate is no more than this, what is the unborn?  If the unborn is simply a mass of cells not unlike those that shed from our skin or makeup our hair then there really isn't a debate at all is there?  Unfortunately science tells us otherwise.

The Scientific Community has for quite some time acknowledged that a new human life does indeed begin at conception, there can be no other scientific or rational explanation where and when it begins.  From the moment of conception, two entities that were once unique to their respective male and a female contributors become one to create an entity that is entirely unique unto itself with the blueprint and capacity to develop itself through the various stages of human life.  Every single one us us went through the same exact stages of development I speak of.  Putting science aside for a moment, is it even rational to say that while you were unborn, that which resided in your mother's womb wasn't indeed you just an an earlier stage of human development?

So with science firmly establishing a new human life begins at conception, those opposed to the Pro-Life Platform shift to the more philosophical argument that "even if the unborn are human, they're not a person yet".  The "personhood" argument boils down to assigning value on the unborn based on what they can do, whether they are "viable" or even "self aware".  It asserts that an unborn human life does not have intrinsic value, it must acquire that value once it can process deliberate thought and be "aware" of itself.  The problem here is that every personhood argument made against the unborn can equally be applied to born people at various stages of their post-birth development.

When an unborn child is born does it magically become "a person" because it made the 12 inch journey through its mother's birth canal?  In those twelve inches did the child somehow become "aware" of who he or she was, capable of deliberate and rational thought?  The answer is obviously no.  If that is the case does the child acquire personhood a few hours after birth, a few days, weeks, or months?  If it is one of those timeframes then why can we not, as Princeton Professor Pete Singer and author of Practical Ethics proclaims, abort that child for some time after birth.  I think every rational person would immediately discredit that notion as morally wrong.

If personhood is not acquired outside the womb then it must be at some point inside the womb while unborn, but when is that?  Is it when the brain develops?  When the heart starts to beat?  When facial features are recognizable?  Maybe it is when the unborn becomes "viable" as the Pro-Choice advocates like to proclaim.  The Pro-Choice Platform assigns "personhood" wherever and whenever it is convenient to support their position without any consistent application of the philosophical argument, only because they said so.

The Pro-Life Platform is simply this, the belief in the moral truth that it is wrong to willingly kill innocent human life, that human life begins at conception, human personhood is inherent by that life not because of some developed skill or acquired characteristic but because of the intrinsic value human life possesses.

Now I am fully aware that the next logical attack from the opposition is "do you hold that position under all circumstances?" and we all know what is meant by that question.  The question that is really being asked is if the Pro-Life Platform is against the "right to choose" even during cases of rape and risk to the mother's health.  These are the two bedrocks of the Pro-Choice stance once the notions of "right to privacy", "you can't tell me what to do with my body", or any of the other popular straw men that are used to defend the Pro-Choice position are rationally defeated.

In the case of "risk to a woman's health", one assumes that means to save the mother from imminent death if the pregnancy were to go to full term.  On the surface this is appalling to think someone or some group would deny a woman an abortion to save her life.  The reality is, a woman's health, as defined by Roe v. Wade can mean anything the woman wants it to be such as emotional distress, anxiety, or even financial hardship which are not justifiable reasons to condone the willful killing of the unborn.

The only foreseeable risk to a pregnant mother's life is that of an Ectopic Pregnancy where implantation occurs outside the uterus and it is very likely the mother could die from internal rupture if there were an attempt to bring the pregnancy to term.  It is in this case that the Pro-Life Platform recognizes a genuine risk to the mother's life, acknowledges it is a pregnancy the unborn child would not be able to survive, and stand firmly on the principle that it is morally justified to terminate the life of the unborn to save that of the mother.  I welcome any other examples of genuine risk to the mother's life.

As for the case of rape I want to first acknowledge that I am not going to address the semantics of "forceable rape" or "legitimate rape" because that discussion requires its own forum and for the purpose of this article rape is rape. Defined by the dictionary as "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse".  Without any doubt, rape is a heinous crime and not for one second should it not be acknowledged that it is NEVER the fault nor provoked by the woman who is undeniably the victim in every case.  Any man who chooses to rape a woman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and every resource made available to the woman to cope with the aftermath.

With the aforementioned in regard to rape in mind, if human life has intrinsic value from the moment of conception, why do the circumstances under which that conception took place serve in any way to devalue it?  How does adding a second victim to the aftermath of rape somehow heal the wounds of the first victim.  I fully understand that a few sentences on this aspect of the debate is not sufficient.  I fully understand that the written word is not sufficient enough to express the compassion and desire Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates have to help rape victims cope with the aftermath of their experience, but condonation of creating two victims out of one is not a practice Pro-Choice advocates are willing to accept.

In summary, the Pro-Life Platform is not a religious belief as Mr. Froelich lays claim to and not an attempt by a religious group to impose their views on those who don't hold them.  It is a platform that is held by both people of faith as well a people of no faith at all.  The only real difference between the two is that people of faith are more willing and feel more compelled to defend it therefore tend to be the loudest voice for those with no voice at all.

If you have managed to get to this point I want to sincerely thank you for your time and willingness to endure the entire piece.  I fully expect folks from both sides of the issue to engage in this topic and respectfully ask that if you choose to do so you proceed with substance and not rhetoric as I have made every attempt to do so here.

Thanks in advance for your comments,

Robert Way

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Steve September 25, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Here is what Ayn Rand wrote about abortion in "Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought," published in 1989: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
John Jay September 25, 2012 at 03:12 PM
Steve -- You're taking Paul Ryan out of context -- it's CLEARLY indicated that Ryan is talking about economics and individual liberty. Give us a Ryan quote that has a cause and effect when it come to Rand, Ryan and women's health.
Spooner September 25, 2012 at 03:42 PM
...yeah individual liberty, but not for pregnant woman. . .Ryan is a sexist when it comes to woman's freedoms. Don't listen to John Jay's bull! And the reason there's no Ayn Rand quote. . .is that she preached abortion rights. . .and Ryan and his neo-con religion can't handle that.
Steve September 25, 2012 at 03:56 PM
John, I am not taking Ryan out of context. As Tonto correctly pointed out, Ryan indeed believes that abortion should be absolutely prohibited. However, many folks -- ostensibly conservatives in most instances -- have suggested here that no clear-thinking moralist could possibly believe in abortion. And any that do must be empty-headed, amoral (or immoral), hypocritical liberals. However, far-right libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand believes in an absolute moral right of abortion. And, as quoted above, her morality, values, beliefs and reasoning ability are held up by Ryan to be the exemplary model for right-thinking "individualism" (i.e., "individual liberty," as John Jay calls it). Putting aside Ryan's dealing with the cognitive dissonance by his ability to compartmentalize -- i.e., Rand's morality is nothing if not supremely consistent, providing her the COMMON basis for her fundamental beliefs regarding BOTH economic capitalism and individual liberty (e.g., abortion rights) -- Ryan at least explicitly vouches for Rand's fundamental morality and reasoning ability, including the "under-grounding [sic] principles" provided by her "moral case."
John Jay September 25, 2012 at 04:45 PM
John F. Kennedy supported Wernher von Braun's efforts to put a man on the moon. Did that make Kennedy a Nazi supporter? Wernher von Braun was an SS-Sturmbannführer -- a major in the SS while he was the driving force behind the rocket base at Peenemünde. You know -- Peenemünde -- the rocket based where von Braun directed the V-2 rocket program that rained ruined upon London???
John Jay September 25, 2012 at 04:48 PM
The Left Wing never ceases to amaze me -- by the way, what is a "neo-con religion"? I never heard that one come up in the history of the Ecumenical Councils. Anyone? Anyone?
Steve September 25, 2012 at 05:07 PM
John, your Reply is a non-responsive non sequitur. Just one example: JFK didn't use von Braun for his political beliefs or morality, only his engineering acumen; Ryan used Rand precisely for her fundamental beliefs and morality. In any event, I know von Braun quite well. Immediately following WWII, he was quietly brought to this country, along with a number of other Nazi scientists, under "Operation Paperclip." In the early years of the program, he worked here in New Jersey, at the same place where I was employed some years later. I worked with a number of people who still remembered von Braun. My laboratory was not far from where he did his work.
Donna Griffin September 25, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Steve - Wouldn't the same hold true then for President Obama and Jeremiah Wright? You would have to agree then that he would have had to have used his spiritual leader for his "fundamental beliefs and morality." Ms. Rand, with all due respect, is merely an author and one would not have to draw from every publication but can rather pick and choose those writings that touch your spirit. To sit in a church for decades requires far more effort and a much greater attraction to content of the preacher.
wheres murrow? September 25, 2012 at 05:27 PM
Ryan the zealot co-sponsored the sanctity of human life bill. Was his signature on that taken out of context?
Steve September 25, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Donna, here are my answers, then I must move on to other things: 1. I take no position here regarding President Obama and Rev. Wright. Although, I will say, not having dwelled on the subject, I am now unaware of anything written or oral where -- unlike Paul Ryan regarding Ayn Rand -- the president explicitly adopted any of Wright's fundamental views on morality, especially as they may have related to individual rights. In any event, whatever is true regarding the president's relationship to Wright has no relevance to the statements made by Ryan adopting Rand's beliefs as the best "moral case" for "individualism." 2. Although Rand certainly made her living as an author, she was equally well known in her later days, as well as remembered, for her philosophy as a "thinker" (to use Ryan's articulation), especially by present-day libertarians and the American conservative movement. Certainly it was her personal philosophy and beliefs (or "moral case," as stated by Ryan) that was being urged by Ryan in the material I originally quoted above, not her "turning of a phrase" or plot development as a novelist.
Donna Griffin September 25, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Steve - I again am unclear as to your distinction between President Obama's personal relationship to Rev. Wright (or William Ayers for that matter) and his political philosophy. You surely do not draw a distinction between an overall individualist message as set forth in many of Ms. Rand's writings and Mr. Ryan's belief system. Pardon me for pointing out the hypocrisy in that logic pattern. Have a good day.
John Jay September 25, 2012 at 07:38 PM
Just my thoughts: Your rambling statements very strange. Am I correct in stating you feel: * The Second Amendment cannot exist if there are no abortion rights. There is no connection between the 2nd Amendment and the Berger court's ruling of Roe v. Wade. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting life and freedom against an attacker regardless if they are foreign or domestic. Abortion "rights" are being interpreted by the "Left" as being "abortion on demand" regardless of: * Age (public schools are handing out "morning after pills" to pre-teens") * Parental knowledge (Abortion for pre-teens to teens with no parental knowledge) * Consent of husband (A husband has no say in a wife's decision) * Selective-sex abortion (A woman can terminate a pregnancy based on the sex of the child). You have no legitimate stand to your claim. RE: "Just my thoughts 2:43 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 Pro life stance by a section of this society reeks of hypocricy when the same people openly supports Gun rights."
marylou September 25, 2012 at 08:17 PM
No John.NYC HIGH SCHOOLS are giving morning after pills to girls if they want them,but only of their parents don't opt out.High school girls are 14 and over. A pre-teen girl in high school would have to precocious.She would also have to be sexually mature to even need the morning after pill,let alone sexually active,In case you don't know,John,girls who don't get their periods,which usually happens at 12-or 13 for the 1st time,cannot become pregnant.If pre-teen girls are too young to become pregant,they don't need abortions,either.If it's the woman decision to have an abortion,it's also her say if she doesn't want 1 and her husband or sperm donor wants her tp have 1.Yes,she can choose to abort based on the sex of the child during the 1st trimester.But her husband or sperm donor cannot force her to.
marylou September 25, 2012 at 08:17 PM
"be" precocious...
Jennifer September 26, 2012 at 03:05 PM
Funny, John jay, I am the parent to my children and that is exactly what I am saying - my choice. I don't remember being pamphleted by planned parenthood whilst I was pregnant. Oh, wait - you mean the FATHERs should be able to choose. Oh, I get it. The woman's choice is before she gets pregnant, but afterward, it should be up to the guy.
Jennifer September 26, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Marylou and Steve give me hope that I am not again wasting my time posting this. @Joshua Huddy didn't want to give me the consideration of thinking for a second about my stories of pregnancy and health risks. Besides calling me a " born liar", he also called me a liberal and I think a socialist, which is so funny, because I have never considered voting democrat in a national election - until now. Because of this one issue. Because it is not really just one issue. It is a slippery slope, alright, but a slippery slope for the overall rights of women in this country. Marylou, you actually called @ Joshua " one of the good guys" because he postulated his devastation should he become victim of one of those " women of easy virtue" " tramping about the village" " engaging in recreational sex" and then aborting his own child for her " convenience". Yes, I have strung together a bunch of his quotes, but the fact was all of the misogynistic quotes contained not a single mention of the male contribution to pregnancy - until you called him out on the " got herself pregnant" quote.
Jennifer September 26, 2012 at 03:36 PM
So since my stories will not be believed - HIIPPA rules prevent me from naming names - if anyone wants a very concise summation of pregnancy Morbidity and mortality - 22% of all pregnancies result in hospitalization for complications prior to delivery - read this link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8178896. Leading causes of maternal death: pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage,pulmonary embolism. So when you are ready to risk all of that, and more , when you risk leaving your other children without a mother ( father), then maybe you can at least understand the thoughts that go through a woman's head when she is pregnant, whatever the ultimate outcome. And guess what? A woman doesn't always get to choose, either, Joshua, so you can stop being so angry about the power that these village tramps wield. No one I know chooses miscarriage, or stillbirth, or fetal defects, or their own death or infirmity. I would love to be able to jump on a trampoline again. And if you don't get THAT reference - that is exactly my point. You have NO idea what pregnancy wreaks, major and minor, upon the bodily integrity of a woman. Unfortunately, wanted pregnancies are no different in this regard.
Jane Doe September 26, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Just chiming in, & getting back to Mr Way's original post. It's a red herring. Few would deny that an individual life forms and begins growing at conception, regardless of their religious &/or moral stance. Few ever did. The question is and always has been what to do about it legally. Mr Way chides many as being "relativist", as though that were unsound thinking, or worse, a case of moral turpitude. Few endeavors are more inherently relativist than legislation, which must pick its way among scientific truth, prevailing morals, enforceability, socially desirable outcomes, etc, etc. So allow me to be relativistic. Abortion will happen regardless of the law. (1)Roe v Wade helped bring the activity out of the dangerous and dirty alleys to which its opponents would return it. (2)Finding an American baby to adopt became difficult primarily because single motherhood is now accepted socially. (3)Abortion is a difficult and momentous decision for most, and can easily result in infertility; it is hardly the birth control method of choice.
marylou September 26, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Joshua,I cannot answer for Jennifer,but I'll add my opinion.If a woman's doctor tells her that carrying a pregnancy to term will endanger her health,the decisions to abort should be her's alone.The same applies if she is carrying a sick or handicapped fetus.No man, and certainly not the gov't,should be able to force her to continue the pregnancy.On the other hand,if she decides to carry the pregnancy to term,that's her decision as well. A friend of the famil became pregnant at 27,before pregnant women under 35 were given amnio.She delivered a full term baby with Down Syndome.The child required much care and attention,so she left her job.The husband wanted out of the situation and left her alone.
John Jay September 26, 2012 at 04:34 PM
marylou's disinformation gets crushed again. Instead of engaging in personal attacks, marylou, perhaps you should take a reading comprehension class. With regards to the "morning after pill": Q: Did I speak of any specific school or geographic location? A: No. FYI marylou -- read what's going in England: * Pre-teens given morning after pill: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-314941/Girls-12-sold-morning-pill.html Now, regarding your FALSE claim about "opt-outs" in New York. IF a parent DOES NOT OPT-OUT, the school will give teens the pills WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE -- see Time Magazine's article: "So far, city officials said, parents have not resisted the program. Parents were notified of the program by letter, and were given the opportunity to opt out by signing a form. Children of parents who don’t opt out can then visit the school nurse and receive contraception, or get a pregnancy test and Plan B after having unprotected sex, without explicitly notifying their parents. About 1% to 2% of parents have opted out, according to the health department." (See: Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/25/new-york-city-schools-offer-plan-b-to-high-school-students/#ixzz27atx7AhM) RE: "marylou 4:17 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 No John.NYC HIGH SCHOOLS are giving morning after pills to girls if they want them,but only of their parents don't opt out."
Jennifer September 26, 2012 at 05:21 PM
I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. I provide information and am called a liar. I provide an objective source, and am met with willful refusal to consider " objective facts". I am no ones " useful idiot" and facts are not propaganda. The fact is, there is real danger in all pregnancies, and 100% of the risk is born by the pregnant woman. Therefore, in my opinion, to which I am entitled, she should have a choice in how much risk she is willing to take, and under what circumstances the risk becomes too much. As far as " abortion of convenience", I think it is a smaller proportion of abortions than some people think, but still, who exactly is going to sit in judgement on each woman's case and determine her motives? How long will that take? As has been stated many times, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, when there is a 20-25% chance that the pregnancy would be lost to miscarriage anyway. In my opinion, again, the earlier the better. And sorry, but you can't make me uncomfortable with the notion that rights attach to a human being sometime after it develops what could be called a body. At 8 weeks, the embryo technically becomes a fetus, but that is a scientific distinction,meaning that the rudiments of all organ systems are present. What it does not mean is that the fetus has skin, or bones, and that the " heart" will be in quotes because what kind of a heart is it? Not one that you could, say, transplant.
Monk September 26, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Legal abortion seems a lot like clean needle programs. You have to ask: In our effort to protect those who procure abortions or use drugs, aren't we just facilitating/institutionalizing the undesireable activity that we wish were rare or non-existent?
Dr. Spock September 26, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Also - the 22% is a ridiculous number. It is inflated. The 22% includes situations where a pregnant woman calls her doc and says doc I feel some pain or something minor. In these situations it is always better to be safe rather than sorry since we want to make sure that mother is around to care for her other children and wash her husbands clothes and cook and clean - the doc is always at the hospital delivering babies anyway so he tells the woman to come to the hospital to check her out for 2 seconds. In order to make sure she isn't charged $3,000 by the obama care insurance cabal the doctor has to mark something on a form that calls it "pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage or pulmonary embolism" or something ridiculous. Cleary 22% of all pregnant women (outside of crack ho's and welfare queens in the ghetto) do not have pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage or pulmonary embolisms.
Jennifer September 26, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Think about that, actually. A newborn might die - they do, you know -and his heart might save another newborn. A child's heart could save another child. Now try to imagine embryonic organ transplants, and the words that come to mind are impossible, ridiculous, or just plain old what's the point? There is not enough there in the embryo with a malfunctioning heart to tell if a heart alone would make it viable. Tere are no instruments small enough, and even if it were somehow possible to remove an embryonic heart from a miscarried embryo, well, we don't really know what was wrong with that embryo to cause it to miscarry, no way of knowing if the heart would become a normal heart, and no way of performing a transplant into another embryo without the heart ending up somewhere it shouldn't be, or disrupting the development of everything around it. In fact, the anesthesia alone would kill either embryo. So no, an embryo is not just a really really tiny person. It is the beginnings of a person. And to say " it has no voice" well, he'll, it has no vocal chords either. Or lungs, for that matter, so of course it has no voice. Remember hearing " life is not fair"? Well, it is true. Biology is also not fair. Sometimes the person who has a voice gets to speak. And as mad as that makes some people, it doesn't make me wrong. If your opinion differs, fine, but as they say, don't like abortion? Then don't get one.
marylou September 26, 2012 at 06:14 PM
If the parents don't wnt their daughters to take the pill,they can opt out. No,you didn't mention any specific location,and I assumed you were referring to NYC,because that's in the news and it's in the US.What they do in the UK is done of our business.Let me tell you about the birds and the bees.If a girl is 10,it's unlikely that she'd be able to become pregnant.Most girls haven't stated getting periods at that age.If a girl is getting her periods at 10,I think it would be much more dangerous for her to get pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term than it would be for her to take the morning after pill So,my dear John,if you had a duaghter ib public high school in NYC,and the letter came home about giving out the morning after pill,my guess is that you'd sned back you"opt out,asap.I think that all parents who fell strongly about this would do the same.Opt in or out,it's still the parents' choice.
Dr. Spock September 26, 2012 at 06:35 PM
I have no problem with abortion just admit it is killing a human. It is justified but it doesn't change the fact that you are killing someone.
mary54 September 26, 2012 at 07:44 PM
I think a major difference between Kennedy and Obama's positions versus Ryan is that they didn't loudly claim they were followers of Von Braun or Wright. Kennedy used Van Braun for his missle expertice, and Obama just happened to go to Wright's church. With Ryan so strongly buying into Rand's basic philosophy, he has to admit that her postion on abortion logically follows.
Monk September 26, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Elective abortion seems an absurdity, when the world is cued to mourn the loss of a Giant Panda cub. Or is mourning the cub's death an absurdity? Funny how little sense life makes when moral relativism reigns.
Jennifer September 27, 2012 at 01:06 AM
Dr Spock, I can't admit something with which I disagree. I do agree that abortion is a kind of killing, but I don't believe it is killing "someone", at least not in the first trimester. My position is, if you have no body, you ARE nobody. And I just don't think that that stage of development constitutes a body. It is like stopping the development of anything - you have to look at what is, not what would probably be. And, if you want to complain about the statistics I gave, you could at least look at the link. It is from a government site. I was surprised by the 22% figure, but I didn't make it up. As far as the rest of your comment, if you HAD visited the site ( sorry it is not a hotline, I guess I didn't do the copy/paste right) you would understand that morbidity refers to bad-things-happening, which is the 22%. you may think it is inflated or theorize why the number is so high, but remember, it is only the pregnant women hospitalized, so a man trivializing actual statistics on complications of pregnancy...well, easy for you to say. Also, for the doctors coding things - that refers to the OTHER 'M' of "M&M" -mortality. Maternal mortality rates. That is dead women. Statistics given separately for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and elective abortion. Then the overall maternal mortality rate, which continues until a couple of weeks post-delivery. Those are the deaths attributed to pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage, and pulmonary embolism. Cause of death.
Jennifer September 27, 2012 at 01:23 AM
Oh, and Marylou - I like your style and think we have similar views, so this is not a criticism, just information. The youngest child ever to have a medically documented pregnancy was 5 years old, in China, I think in the 1930's or thereabouts. There are photos. Girls are getting their periods earlier, and some situations can actually cause early menarche - living in a home with an adult male not biologically related to the female child, severe stress as in abuse or extreme poverty or homelessness, obesity, and then genetic tendency to early onset. There is still a wide range of onset, but doctors are seeing girls as young as 6 developing breasts, and getting periods at 8 or 9. The average is still more like 12, but there is a trend toward earlier onset. You know, people can google any of this. Pregnancy morbidity and mortality, average age of menarche, early puberty, early onset of menses, whatever. Then pick the site that sounds logical, like web MD r government statistics, just not yahoo answers.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something