Is it any wonder that abortion supporters are resorting to intimidation and violence to protect their most unholy sacrament?
After all, what is abortion but legalized violence against the unborn? It is the state-sanctioned violent attack and killing of a human being in the womb. It is therefore the worst kind of violence because the institution entrusted with protecting innocent life is directly complicit in taking it. So it’s no wonder that its proponents feel perfectly fine with using violence themselves to protect it. Violence begets violence.
I do realize that some pro-life activists have also resorted to violence to end abortion, and their violence was to be utterly condemned as much as the current pro-abortion violence. In fact, you will not find any mainstream or even fringe pro-life group who applauds the actions of Eric Rudolph or the few other violent extremists in the movement (and their numbers are very few, infinitesimally few compared to the millions of peaceful pro-life activists).
In fact, the government mobilized whole-heartedly to track down and prosecute the perpetrators of anti-abortion violence. People on both sides of the political spectrum supported this effort unequivocally.
But now we have violent extremists committing acts of violence to protect abortion, to extend its practice, even though the abrogation of Roe v. Wade would not automatically result in its end (unfortunately).
And we have the government, or at least those in positions of power to both condemn and restrain the violence and intimidation doing almost nothing to stop it. Even though it is illegal to protest in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes, the DOJ and local police are doing nothing to stop it, even after a would-be assassin was caught right outside the home of Justice Bret Kavanaugh.
This should tell us something about abortion and its supporters. They claim to be engaged in a noble cause to defend women’s rights, to be protecting the good that is (or is purported to be) bodily autonomy. Generally, those engaged in the defense of a true good are inspired by equally good morality and principles.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was definitely in that camp and was also rightly celebrated for his embrace of non-violent protest, for he knew that a true good was not achieved through reckless violence.
Violence may, at times, be required to protect the good, but only when threatened by violence itself. Thus, it was right for our troops to defend democratic countries from the fierce aggression of Fascist powers in World War II, or when a police officer uses his weapon to protect the innocent from a would-be attacker.
But the violent pro-abortion activisits are fighting not against violence, but on behalf of it. They wage their war of intimidation and attacks to perpetuate the violence that is abortion. Contrast that with their pro-life foes, who can be found praying the Rosary in front of abortion mills while hysterical anti-life protestors physically threaten them and shriek vulgar epithets.
What’s wrong with this picture? Could abortion really be a true good if its most passionate proponents feel it is appropriate to break the law, initmidate the judiciary, fire-bomb pregnancy aid centers, and plot assassinations against our nation’s most esteemed jurists?
Those of you on the pro-choice side cannot simply wipe away this inconvenient truth. You must reconcile the fact that you support, even indirectly, a practice that regularly inspires the most vile and even violent forms of protest and action.
Anything that is truly a good would simply not give rise to such destructive and undignified behavior.
It is because abortion is not good but in fact a true, intrinisic evil that it inspires such behavior, behavior we seen from the Left on other hot topic issues of the day, which tells you also about the true nature of those ideologies (e.g., gender ideology).
Christ said that you can tell a tree by its fruit; a good tree produces good fruit, and bad one, bad fruit. I cannot see any other way to characterize the violence and intimidation of pro-abortion activists as bad fruit, which has invariably arisen from the bad tree of abortion itself.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.
Gee wiz, all this argument over something that didn’t happen???
The recent SCOTUS decision didn’t make abortion illegal! It only returns us to the pepper starting point the the previous SCOTUS ruling screwed up – finding a right out of thin air to serve their views instead of reading the constitution, absurd. The judiciary that reframes clear language should be impeached. There are ways to amend the law and the judiciary doesn’t have that power and is committing a high crime when they presume to legislate.
If Georgia ever legalized murder I’ll be inconvenienced but happy to move. You should do the same.
As far as I am concerned, after reading the hysteria here …
#1 anyone in this discussion who does not have or has never had a womb can just check out because the debate over abortion cannot and never will impact your physical body.
#2 anyone who has or at some point had a womb who is still here, saying “abortion is murder,” can just check out because that sentence doesn’t tell me anything about the issue except how you, personally feel about it, and I don’t care.
#3 anyone who has or had a womb, who is not using the “murder” argument, but is for whatever reason saying, “well it’s not illegal, just inconvenient,” can either just check out or immediately advertise yourself online as the person who will provide transportation between legal and illegal abortion states, along with the funding to put the women up while they are traveling and being cared for.
#4 anyone who as or had a womb, who is not using the “murder” argument, but is for whatever reason saying, “well it’s not illegal, just inconvenient,” and is now offering to provide transportation between legal and illegal abortion states, along with the funding to put the women up while they are traveling and being cared for, but is still in favor of the overturning of Roe v. Wade: I am now ready to hear your argument.
What, no one left? Great. That takes care of the bulk of the anti-abortion rhetoric above.
As for this …
“Just how violent is it to prevent a life from being taken? I’d love to know your answer.” I don’t know what you are asking. “How violent is it to prevent a life from being taken?” is not a valid question in this argument. If you are asking, “How violent is it to force a woman to carry to term and be delivered of an unwanted pregnancy?” It is very violent. That’s why I compared it to forcing men to donate a kidney — although the risks and recovery and loss of time and earning power are all much greater for the women forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy.
Think about enslaved women in pre-civil war America (or even in more modern Sudan): one of the most horrifying aspects of their enslavement was their being forced to bear the children of the enslavers who raped them. It was violence against a woman who was denied agency over her own body. So if you are asking, “How violent is it to force a woman to carry to term and be delivered of an unwanted pregnancy?” I will say again: it is violent, it is barbaric, it is the enslavement of women. And until you are faced with the possibility of it in your own body, you do not have a right to demand it of another human.
And a great thank you to Dawn Haddocks for carrying the bulk of this thread with aplomb and reason, and a big thanks to Suz for speaking up as well. Her logic is perfect on this one: if you think abortion is murder, don’t get an abortion. If you think an abortion is an acceptable way to deal with unwanted pregnancy, and you have an unwanted pregnancy, consider abortion. It ought to be a matter of choice in a democracy. Denying women the right to reproductive care is not in the spirit of American liberty. But precious little is these days.
My Dear Vsionaryjax–I share your anger and frustration.
To terminate a pregnancy is a heart-breaking decision. To make it more difficult and harrowing is a mis-guided act.
I stand with my sisters such as you.
So this is to summarize YOU Dawn Haddox in accordance with YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM and PHILOSOPHY FOR LIFE – in a ‘nutshell’.
“MURDER the innocent, unborn and defenseless baby because it’s JUST A FOETUS – not a living and breathing human being. But SET THE MURDERER and EVERY OTHER CRIMINAL FREE because they are poor, exploited, deprived and ‘BLACK’ as well!”
Did I miss or leave out anything ‘IMPORTANT’? Judgement Day will come for all of us – sooner or later. Make sure that YOU HAVE A BALM PACKED – for the ‘HOT TEMPERATURES’! 🤯 😳 🥵
You left a lot out, because to include it would destroy your narrative.
Woman have been given a great power by Nature, a Higher Power, God…whatever you believe, and with great power comes great responsibility, which seems to be of no concern today. Abortion should be the very last resort of a sometimes difficult situation. However, with the prevalence of education, condoms, birth control methods, abstinence…there should be very little reason for unwanted pregnancies. And when it does happen, this government had given the national green light to abortion as the first option with Roe vs Wade thus reducing a babies life to no more than an after thought of mangled up tissue that can be discarded in the trash. Teenage girls think nothing of doing this, often posting tik tok videos laughing about it.
This ruling does not make abortion illegal (though it should). It merely gives the states the power to make their own laws as defined in the Constitution. There will still be abortions in liberal states, and limited or no abortions in conservative states. Each his or her own ruling through the legislator branch of your own state government.
It seems to me the “It isn’t a child” argument really only applies when the pregnancy is unwanted. I’ve known more than a few pro-abortion advocates who lost a “wanted” pregnancy in the first trimester and they were very upset over the loss of something that “wasn’t a child”. When it was inconvenient for them, it wasn’t a child. When it became convenient for them, suddenly it was a child and they made sure everyone on social media mourned that loss with them.
Bingo.
Now – there is a visionary for you. SMH
Trey jumps right in on the most contentious topic! Got to love that. He says:
“Violence may, at times, be required to protect the good, but only when threatened by violence itself.”
But it feels like Trey is the only arbiter of when violence is in order. For instance, I don’t recall his condemning violence at the US Capitol on Jan 6 when his fellow conservatives committed sedition and attempted insurrection, attempted to overthrow the US government. But let a radical pro-abortion group commit a few acts of vandalism and call for more, and we have to declare it’s bad fruit from a bad tree?
And here’s the kicker. Jane’s Revenge and other extremist pro-abortion groups have more of an excuse to call for radical action now than the Jan 6 insurrectionists did.
Pro-abortion advocates are calling for violence now because the Supreme Court has indicated it is going to start calling for violence against women with the overturning of Roe v Wade. Forcing a woman or girl to carry to term an unwanted child is an act of violence, an act of enslavement, an attack on her body and her agency. Women are under attack. Is this one of the times violence may “be required to protect the good,” Trey? Do we have your permission to defend our bodies?
No? Well, what about this: If the Supreme Court decided they were going to force Trey and other men to, let’s say, donate their kidneys, would he feel that violence would be an appropriate reaction to such an attack on their bodies, freedom, and autonomy? Or would violence to protest such an attack be bad fruit from a bad tree?
Forcing women to carry an unwanted child. Maybe you should try asking the child how it feels about being violently killed in the womb when it didn’t want to be? Aren’t you promoting violence on an innocent unborn life?
It isn’t a “child”, it is a fetus and asking “how it feels about being violently killed in the womb when it didn’t want to be”, will produce no answers because it lacks cognitive development. Do you know any newborns, or infants that could answer that question, let alone a fetus?
The “Lack of cognitive development” in answering a question regarding being killed? That argument could be used in quizzing my in-laws.
Dawn claims what is growing inside of the womb is not a “child” in order to “dehumanize” the perception of the life inside, like it was some type of cancerous cell. It is just as much a human as you or I are. A child can be born or unborn, fetus simply is describes a more exact period in life.
American Heritage defines:
child
chīld
noun
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
3. An unborn infant; a fetus.
What Dawn really appears to be saying is when a child isn’t wanted it is a “fetus” when it is wanted it is a “child” or “baby”. I wonder if she ever asked the father or others significant in her life if they wanted to feel her “fetus” kick.
“Do you know any newborns, or infants that could answer that question, let alone a fetus? “ Are you trying to justify killing newborns and infants too now? Unfortunately, you fail to see the rhetorical question that TWT asked.
Think back to the Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
Let me frame TWT’s question a little differently in terms you might understand, and you can answer to yourself. “Do you think the world would be better, worse or indifferent even if only by a tiny amount if your mother had disposed of you in the medical waste facility? How would the world be different if she had?”
My spouse was from an illegitimate birth where the father was already married and lied to the mother about it. If this had been in the 80’s, we probably would have never met. Which is why I don’t feel abortion should be convenient, as it becomes too easy a choice for someone who’d rather be eating burgers and watching movies then raising twins. (Washington Post Story from 2 days ago).
Semantics. Did you happen to look up the definition of fetus? Go ahead and do that. It’s a fetus until it is no longer in the mother’s womb.
No matter what YOU decide to call it, a being, a fetus, a baby, a child, or a blob of cells, it cannot answer questions in the womb – it lacks cognitive development to do so.
You were the one claiming “It isn’t a “child”, it is a fetus…” As for lacking the cognitive ability to answer a question at any this stage of development should not give a person the right to destroy a life.
I think more to the point Dawn, what did you call your “fetus” when you were carrying it?
Did you ever talk to your “fetus” despite knowing it was not cognitively developed enough to understand? Did you share with it the dreams and aspirations you had for it in the future?
The only people I ever hear use the term fetus, are those that don’t want to be reminded it is a living being growing inside of you. It may not have the cognitive ability at that point, but it is “reasonable” to assume most would develop into a fully cognitive individual as time progresses.
I don’t oppose abortions, But I do oppose abortions being used as means of birth control. Abortions take a 1000 times more lives in this country as does guns.
I really don’t know why you find the word fetus so off-putting and in a negative light. When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a fetus. Like many words, it is Latin in origin and has been used for years. Again, call it what you like, but my initial response was more about t_w_t’s notion and I quote “Maybe you should try asking the child how it feels about being violently killed in the womb when it didn’t want to be?” which, let’s be honest, is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard when discussing abortions.
So if an unborn baby lacks cognitive development, what’s the difference between that form of life and an adult who’s in a coma? They have no cognitive function, they can’t live with machines supplying them life, and some of them cannot feel pain in a coma. They aren’t able to communicate, they cannot tell us what they want, so based on your reasoning and logic if asking a comatose adult produces no answers, then it’s okay to end their life also?
This is a continual theme for you people. Life isn’t black or white, yet you always resort to black or white scenarios in a feeble attempt to get your point across. Yes, it is okay to end the life of a comatose adult – in certain circumstances. Is there a reasonable expectation they will recover? Is it reasonable to believe they will always be in a vegetative state? Do they rely on tube feeding, ventilators or other life-saving machines to survive and removal of those machines will cause them to die?
Your original question lacks any reasonable logic. Tell me when anyone has asked a fetus, in the womb, a question and had it answer back other than kicking the mother’s abdominal wall? Get back to me on that.
Along those same lines TWT, as to cognitive ability, neither do newborns and infants. Should these same women be allowed to terminate those lives too, because they crimp her lifestyle, affect her mental health, or are a burden she must “carry?”.
She could always drop the child off at your house for you to raise. I mean, since you do everything right, it would be the perfect environment for an unwanted newborn.
I’d love to be able to raise a child from birth, as I missed my opportunity. Hundreds of people are in line waiting a chance to adopt a newborn or infant. Most newborns are placed through private agencies.
Fees can run between $10,000 and $25,000. Those with health issues are a bit harder to place, but for a healthy baby 62% are adopted in the the first month despite the heavy fees. Public adoptions can take 6-12 months before the prospective parent get the child and the mother can regain their rights to the child at a later time. A friend of mine had to go overseas as the wait was so long, their daughter is turning 21 soon and just about finished with college.
DH – Life IS black and white. I believe life is sacred. Period. Whether the baby was planned or not. Whether the baby is normal or has birth defects. Life is sacred. The difference is “we people” believe in a standard that’s universal and as old as time itself. Life matters. All life matters. You on the other see everything through a moral relativism lens – where you get to decide what’s right or wrong based on your subjective view. Following your logic, why would there be a difference in killing an unborn baby vs killing a 1 month old baby or killing a 30 year old.
t_w_t, yes, when you compare life or death, you’re right, it’s one or the other. When you look at life itself and what I mean by that – the period of living… that is never black and white. The woman, the potential mother, her life is never black or white nor is it for anyone while they are living. Do you really believe all life is sacred? It’s an idealistic view, but one that is much, much harder to actually follow. You’re taking a hard stand, again, without really thinking through the consequences of your statement. I think your view is more like “all life is sacred, except”… Except those that have wronged me or someone else. Except those that are not worthy. Except those that I deem as undesirable member’s of society. Yes, I’m making generalizations as to what you may or may not believe. I just want you to think – how far are you willing to support life? If all life is sacred, then why are you supporting weapons that kill? Do you support the death penalty? If all life is sacred, do you support keeping someone alive who would spend their lifetime in suffering? If life is sacred, would you kill someone that was threatening your own life? If life is sacred why would you support wars, homelessness, suffering, or healthcare only for some? These are hypothetical questions – I don’t know where you stand on those issues.
As I said before, induced abortion is not something that I think I could do, but, I’ve not been put in a situation that I even would have to consider it. It isn’t up to me or you, or the next person, or some politician – it’s up to the woman that is carrying the fetus. They have to make that decision. They have to make the hard decision when finding themselves pregnant with an unwanted fetus. They have to weigh their individual pros and cons. Some may make the decision to take it to term. They may make the sacrifice either to keep their infant or give it up for adoption. Other’s may not be able to deal with either situation and find that it’s best to abort. It isn’t up to me to decide.
Per Mrs. Haddox “if it cannot answer questions in the womb – it lacks cognitive development”….I extrapolate from her comment that you must have “cognitive development” to be worthy of life or in fact to be alive or human.
How little of a person must exist for them to then become a non-person?
This is a very difficult subject…people have to make their own judgements
So if it’s only a fetus…..let’s play some hypotheticals here. Let’s say you’re a pro-abortion woman and you’re pregnant. Let’s supposed you’re physcially assaulted, or in a car accident caused by another person, and your fetus that you desire to keep when it is born dies as a result of the assault or car accident. Does the perpetrator or the other driver receive any consequence for your fetus dying? Not for the assault or for causing the accident – but STRICTLY for causing the death of the unborn fetus…..any punishment for that?
It depends on the state in which you live in and the laws concerning it. It depends on the gestational age of the fetus. Some states put limits on viability. Could a wrongful death suit be brought by the pro-abortion woman? Sure. It depends on the individual and how they want to proceed. Just because she’s pro-abortion doesn’t mean she doesn’t want to keep the fetus. In the situation you describe, the perpetrator either through accident, negligence or willful action would be the reason for the death of the fetus – not the woman who’s carrying it. I realize where you’re attempting to go with this, but remember, it’s about the woman’s choice.
We the People will get to vote on the issue.
Only 11 states do not consider such a homicide, leaving 39 which do, 10 of them require prior viability. This leaves 29 that consider any stage of pregnancy a homicide.
Along the same line…. And speaking of a women’s right to choose….
“Forty-three US states have regulations around the practice, which range from prohibiting criminal prosecution of pregnant women who drink alcohol to mandating rehab for pregnant women who drink alcohol.” — qz.com 2017.
“It’s going to be very difficult,” Biden said. “I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it’s always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think what we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. There ought to be able to have a common ground and consensus as to do that.” — Joe Biden 2006 quote from CNN.COM
I have to agree with Biden on abortion being “rare and safe”. We do know what causes pregnancy, and we do know how to prevent it. We even know how to prevent it after the fact, an unwanted pregnancy is the result of negligence.
Hopefully, the good side of this is now there are more serious consequences for some, people will exercise more care, but there will always be New York, and their full term abortions that they rubbed the noses of the pro-lifers in their new law which they celebrated by lighting up the empire state building in pink.
the_wing_t I avoid discussing reproduction rights because convictions on both sides are heartfelt and absolute. Which I respect
Those who are convinced that life begins at conception would rarely consider terminating a pregnancy, for any reason. Thai is their choice, which I understand.
Those who believe we cannot know exactly when life begins (and thus abortion is a medical procedure) deserve that safe and legal option. Again, that is their choice, which I understand.
I maintain that every woman has the right to determine her beliefs and her decisions. Not mine. Not yours. Not Trey Hoffman’s. And not a padded partial court.
Having said that…what prompted me to comment was your hypothetical query about the difference between a woman and the fetus she lost due to a physical assault. “…any punishment for that”?
We are told about a similar, albeit bizarre, scenario included in the Old Testament “diverse laws”. Exodus 21:22-25
“If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…”
These archaic penalties indicate there is indeed a difference between a living being (the woman) and the fetus she loses.
My point is–the sought after “middle ground” on this contentious subject is CHOICE. You are free to believe as you want and make your own choice. Allow me to hold my own beliefs and make my own choices.
But neither of us have the right to impose our own morals on anyone else’s choice concerning medical treatment options.
How dare we?
Suz stated “I avoid discussing reproduction rights”. Since we’re not talking about preventing pregnancy, the subject of reproductive rights is moot, and misdirects what is actually being discussed. We’re talking about stopping a pregnancy prematurely and killing the conception which is very much alive, commonly called an abortion. Most frequently for the convenience of the mother.
“I maintain that every woman has the right to determine her beliefs and her decisions. Not mine. Not yours. Not Trey Hoffman’s. And not a padded partial court.” A woman is free to believe whatever she wants to believe. That is not in dispute. It is what the rest of the society believes that is what matters. Someone may believe that taking the life of another isn’t murder in various cases, but it is a consensus from society through their laws that judge if it is just.
As for the court, their job is to rule on what is written in the law, as written in the constitution. Their job is not to create laws, only interpret them. Roe vs Wade, attempted to create a right where one didn’t exist. Unlike the 2nd amendment where it is clearly defined as a right to keep and bear arms, that has been continually assaulted. The “padded court” didn’t create a law making abortion illegal. They didn’t try and define life (as was done in Roe vs Wade and everyone disagrees on). What they did was return it to the state and federal governments to enact their own legislation democratically.
So since the decision does not make abortion illegal, it only makes it more inconvenient for some. Since 75% of all abortions are done out of convenience, a woman now has to chose which is more inconvenient, having a child or having to travel to a stated that offers abortions. Perhaps they will take more care while exercising her reproductive rights and can avoid abortions, and possibly avoid STDs too.
“You are free to believe as you want and make your own choice. Allow me to hold my own beliefs and make my own choices.” You are still free to hold your own beliefs, you are free to seek an abortion if you so desire.
Unfortunately when you live within society, you must live within the confines of what others believe moral. You are free to live in communities where others share your same beliefs. New York is one such example that celebrates the right to kill full term babies on demand. Lighting up the Empire State Building in pink for me was disgusting and vile. Every state should have the right to set what they feel are meaningful restrictions on abortion. The left believes there should be none, as was evident with the bill they attempted to pass just recently. Instead of seeking a compromise that most would accept as a minimum standard for a state, they went all in with virtually no restrictions at all.
Mississippi passed a law that is similar to what most of Europe has for restrictions. The left unwilling to accept any restrictions brought this ultimately to the Supreme Court and to a head. The court decided that states should be able to democratically decide what is a life and thus murder, and what is just a medical procedure and establish guidelines as such.
I think with such a divisive topic, it is best to be left to the states to decide, and avoid federal legislation in either direction. Abortion is still legal in this country that has not changed.
ToSirWithLove–Thank you for pointing out my mis-use of the word “padded”; I was searching for the expression “a PACKED court” (which I believe is exactly what we have). The older I get, the more I seem to
struggle with vocabulary.
As for the rest of my comments, I stand by them.
VJ – “Forcing a woman or girl to carry to term an unwanted child is an act of violence, an act of enslavement, an attack on her body and her agency.”
Conception is preventable, very few women are forced to conceive. What we’re talking about is using abortion as birth control, when someone isn’t responsible enough to use adequate means of prevention. Simply knowing abortions are easily obtainable causes people to take excessive risks which results in the loss of a life for their negligence, to the tune of about a million lives a year. There are around 3.75 million births per year, which means more than 1 in 5 conceptions end in an abortion. If Roe vs Wade was to be overturned, abortions would still be legal. States like New York would still permit abortions right up to birth. It would however make it much more inconvenient depending on what state you lived in. It just might make people a little more careful.
Just more baseless claims, as women are not actually be forced to carry an unwanted child.
VJ – listen to what you’re saying. Preventing a human life from being killed is forcing violence? Really? Is preventing an abortion more violent or less violent than destroying a human life? More or less violent than a murder? Just how violent is it to prevent a life from being taken? I’d love to know your answer.