Sunday, February 04, 2007

100% of Aborted Children are Denied a Choice

Dear Jen: If the figure you quote from the Internet is correct, and “77% of anti choice leaders are men," that statistic would be somewhat sobering to me. And, I would not have a good explanation for it; except for, perhaps, that percentage may simply be consistent with the ratio of men to women in ecclesiastical leadership, political office, corporate executive positions, etc.

But, whatever the case may be, please try to remember that the statistics game goes both ways. You see, 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter. So, when certain folks speak of favoring choice in connection to abortion, what they really mean is that they favor allowing a privileged 50% of those whose bodies are directly involved to have a choice as to whether or not the other 50% get to live. (If the occurrence of twins is taken into account, these percentages obviously get even worse.) And, quite frankly, Jen, these last statistics are more sobering to me than the ones you quote.

Which brings me to the issue of nomenclature: As a courtesy, I use the expression “Pro-Choice” to describe those who believe a woman should have the right to choose, under any circumstance, whether or not to terminate the life of her unborn child. Because of the contradiction referred to above, I could quibble with the appropriateness of such a title, but I refrain out of a desire to be respectful. I call people by the names they choose for themselves.

I find it interesting to note, however, that an increasing number of those who are Pro-Choice refuse to show those of us who are Pro-Life the same courtesy. They now apparently prefer to call us “Anti-Choice” as was done in the material quoted above.

I suppose that we who are Pro-Life could take our cue from the obvious talking-point strategy of these certain individuals who happen to be Pro-Choice, and begin referring to them as being Pro-Death, Anti-Life, Baby-Killers, etc., but I think that kind of behavior is wrong and counter productive.

I believe it is very important that each camp give the other the benefit of the doubt. There are sincere and decent people on both sides of this debate. Each group is apparently advocating for something that it considers to be the moral and ethical position. In my view, that would make them good people.

That does not mean that each side is necessarily right, or equally valid, it just means that there is a basis for reasoning with one another in a civil manner while attempting to share our respective points of view. If we conduct ourselves with true compassion toward one another, we just might get through to someone on the other side of the debate and find common ground. However difficult or idealistic that might sound, please consider how dreadful the results of the alternative approach can be.

Please hang in there with me, Jen. I really do want to work my way through this issue with an intelligent and articulate speaker for the other point of view. (You!) If we do this the right way, I believe that we would be providing a great service to our respective causes and to our country. At times, in our attempts to be frank, we may irritate some nerves, but I believe that we are both capable of correcting ourselves and keeping the conversation constructive. Further, because we are both fallible, I hope that other people will join in and share their wisdom with us. What do you say? Are you still on board?

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe
http://www.alienatedwannabe.blogspot.com



The preceeding is a comment I posted on February 4, 2007 to the blog Jen's Green Journal in response to the proprietor's article entitled: "77%" which quotes a statement she found on the Internet claiming that "77% of anti choice leaders are men and 100% of them will never be pregnant."

11 Comments:

At Sunday, February 04, 2007 7:44:00 AM, Blogger utahcitizen said...

I wonder if the voucher people who like to get their personal choices subsidized will now turn and help out other "pro-choice" people.

 
At Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:52:00 AM, Blogger Allie said...

Abortion shouldn't be about choice. There are lots of things I could choose to do to my body but don't, for various reasons. Abusing drugs for example. Shouldn't that be my choice? It's my body after all. It's also illegal...

I have known for a long time that choosing to have sex could result in pregnancy. It's not something that has ever come as a surprise.

Instead of trying to escape the consequences of our choices, we should take responsibility for them. If you don't want to risk becoming pregnant, don't have sex, or choose to use a condom or other birth control method.

Too many things have become about personal choice, when they should be about personal responsibility.

 
At Sunday, February 04, 2007 10:08:00 AM, Blogger Voice of Utah said...

(Actually, abusing drugs isn't illegal; possessing illegal drugs is.) But on a personal level, I agree with much of Allie's post. Because it's such a volatile issue, even within families, I prefer to let other people lead the charge on this issue. As long as combatants are civil like AW, the debate is in good hands. Unfortunately, both sides tend to get uncivil at times, but I think that's nothing new.

 
At Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:12:00 PM, Blogger Jennifer Killpack-Knutsen said...

Wow,

Your last two posts have been responses to stuff I've written on my blog.

I'm flattered :)

 
At Monday, February 05, 2007 12:26:00 PM, Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear UtahCitizen,

I think we both know the answer to your question. But, you do make a good point--the names we chose for our various movements can cause a lot of confusion if we are not careful.

Thanks for dropping in, and please come back again.

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

------------

Dear Allie,

I think you and I view this issue through the same eyes. I appreciate your comments. Please come by more often.

I think that in certain circles a woman like you has a lot more credibility on this issue than I do as a man. So, please keep sharing what you are sharing, my friend.

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

------------

Dear Voice of Utah,

I always appreciate you leaving messages here--at one time you were the only one who ever did. Thanks my friend!

By the way, please feel free to poke fun at my cartoon image on your site like you do other Republicans. I would love to see what kind of caption you come up with--maybe something like the following:

"I wonder...Would even MORE fiber help?"

Or, maybe:

"That Chris Buttars is one good looking man!"

Or, perhaps, this:

"Yes, I think the country is ready for the Romney-Dew ticket after all!"

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe friend!

------------

Dear Jen,

Yes, it is true. I tend to hang out more on your blog than my own! (What can I say? I have good taste!)

Someone who only visited my site might think that I don't write too much, but I actually am posting material all the time. It's just that I am more likely to do so at some of the better blogs from our community--like yours, Voice of Utah, SLCSPIN, the Senate Site, the various Tribune blogs, etc.

Let's face it, my blog is lame. I'd rather go to some place nice!

Please don't think that I am ignoring your religious inquiry. I am going to address it as soon as I have a moment.

Thanks for visiting, my friend, your presence helps to make my place a little better. Please come back often!

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

 
At Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:23:00 PM, Blogger Cameron said...

This website might prove helpful in the "religious inquiry". Is it only religion that teaches the baby is a human? Jen has argued that most abortions occur in the first trimester, so this pregnancy tracker website shows the development that occurs during this time. It's pretty amazing.

Gender is determined at conception. Human DNA is present at conception. I particularly like this qoute, "The genetic makeup (the characteristics that make this new individual different from anyone else in the world) is determined at the moment of fertilization."

During the first couple of weeks a heart and circulatory system are formed. The foundation of the nervous system is formed. By week five blood is pumping, all four chambers of the heart are functioning, and the brain and lungs appear. At week six there's a pancreas, nostrils, and intestines. At week seven teeth actually form beneath the gums. The baby continues to develop rapidly in the next couple of weeks, gaining bones, a tongue, joints, fingerprints, hair, fingernails, and will curve her fingers around an object placed in the palm of her hand.

Clearly the baby is more than just a "clump of cells." She is a human.

 
At Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:14:00 PM, Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Cameron,

Thank you very much for joining the discussion. I hope that you will continue to contribute your wisdom here. I think that you and I are on the same wave length. I haven't had time to answer Jen's religious questions yet, but I can give a hint as to how I view some of the issues she has raised:

(1) Science is what tells us that an embryo or fetus is alive. It is also what tells us that it is human life. There is no scientific debate there. It is simple biology. The issue of a soul does not factor into the equation.

(2) Ethics is what tells us whether or when we should protect human life. One's ethics can be informed by religion, but acting ethically is not dependent upon one having a religious orientation. People who have very different beliefs about religion can still subscribe to the same ethical standard.

(3) Most religions tend to focus more upon encouraging adherents to be ethical, than in teaching them when something called "ensoulment" occurs. My Church, for example, has not taken a position on that question. I am not even sure that concept applies to my theology. (In Mormonism a soul is not something that is added to a body, so much as the body and its spirit actually constitute the soul itself.)

What are your views on these issues, Cameron? I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

 
At Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:01:00 AM, Blogger Darrell said...

They never had the choice to be brought into the world either.

 
At Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:59:00 PM, Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Darrell,

Thank you for joining the discussion. If you are correct, and these unborn children had no choice in being brought into the world, then are you saying that would be grounds for denying them a choice as to whether or not they stay?

Because, if what you are saying is true for them, then it must be true for me and you also. Do I, therefore, have the right to send you out of this world?

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Alienated Wannabe

 
At Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:30:00 AM, Blogger Rob said...

Would you please resend your e-mail address?

Thanks.

 
At Monday, February 12, 2007 12:24:00 PM, Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Hi Rob,

I sent you an email with my address.

Thanks, bud,
Alienated Wannabe

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home