Overheard at a local shopping mall:
Jan: “Marsha! How are you girl? I haven’t seen you in ages.”
Marsha: “Hey Jan, you’re looking great. How’ve you been?”
Jan: “Just peachy. Hey, guess what? I’m going to have a fetus!”
Marsha (excited): “That’s wonderful! Oh, I’m so happy for you. Isn’t it a blessing having parasites growing in us?”
Jan: “Yes, but I have to confess—I’m jealous. I wanted to have twins too.”
Marsha: “Oh, I only have one now. Greg didn’t get his promotion so we decided to selectively reduce one of them.”
Jan: “Aww . . . well, that’s a valid choice. I was hoping to have two fetuses because this one is going to be used to harvest donor tissue for Alice. It took us forever to find an IVF facility that would help us with a designer fetus”
Marsha: “I’m glad everything worked out. So when is it due?”
Jan: “My doctor says I’ll be delivering sometime in October.”
Marsha: “No, I mean when’s it due to become a human.”
Jan: “Oh, well, Bobby and I draw the line sometime within the first few weeks after birth.”
Marsha: “Hmm, Greg and I think it occurs in the third trimester but I can respect that. It’s a valid choice.”
Jan: “Hey, what happened to Cindy? I heard she was having complications with her pregnancy. Did she ever deliver her fetus?”
Marsha: “She did. Back in September. But the baby was born retarded so, you know, she did the right thing and took a trip to Holland.”
Jan: “That is so like Cindy. She has always been so compassionate.”
Marsha: “Oh, I know. She was really thinking about the child. I mean, what kind of quality of life would it have?”
Jan: “Exactly. It’s just a shame that she has to go all the way to Europe.”
Marsha: “Tell me about it. At least Cindy has the money to travel. Just think about the poor women that have to resort to back-alley euthanasia.”
Jan: “Oh, I completely lost track of the time. I gotta get going.”
Marsha: “Where’re you headed off too?”
Jan: “My local chapter of PETA is holding a protest to stop the clubbing of baby seals.”
Marsha (shocked): “Oh my goodness, I didn’t even know that horrible practice was still going on, that’s just. . . wait, we’re in California, where is the protest located?”
Jan: “Online. In World of Warcraft some of the characters bash baby seals with clubs. Activists from across the Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor are banding together to put a stop to the atrocious seal slaughter.”
Marsha: “Oh. Okay. I see.”
Jan: “All life is sacred, Marsha. Even virtual life. If we don’t stop it there who knows where the culture of death will lead.”
Marsha: “So true. Well, kisses. Give Bobby my love.”
Jan: “Bye dear, and don’t forget. September 14th. Margaret Sanger Day. Margaritas at my house—virgin margaritas, of course.” (pats belly)
August 3rd, 2010 | 8:11 am
Closer to the truth than we may want to admit.
August 3rd, 2010 | 8:34 am
Is it fair and honest, is it Christian, to characterize your opponents, by a conversation you yourself made up? Isn’t that a little … cloying? Rigged?
My own position would be that the fetus IS a human being …when it it born. So that nobody is ‘going to have’ a fetus; while they are pregnant they have a fetus…. One that however, when born, will indeed be a baby. A real human being at last.
So indeed, a pregnant woman is “going to have a baby.” Though during the pregnancy, she has only a fetus.
Traditionally by the way, the Catholic Church said the status of the embryo, its “soul” before birth, and baptism, was literally in “Limbo”; undetermined space, at best. How and why did recent Catholic conservatives, exchange that timeless truth for their own opinions, now pronounced holy?
August 3rd, 2010 | 8:40 am
Job well done, Joe. Fair, honest, utterly christian, and right on the mark. Though the World of Warcraft bit was a little off, I can totally see this conversation taking place in the tonier parts of SoCal and Manhattan in the next generation or so.
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:31 am
Brettongarcia Is it fair and honest, is it Christian, to characterize your opponents, by a conversation you yourself made up?
Yes.
My own position would be that the fetus IS a human being …when it it born.
You need to look up the word “human” and “being” in a dictionary. No educated person can deny that we become “human beings” at conception. What people deny, as you do, is that they are “persons.”
Traditionally by the way, the Catholic Church said the status of the embryo, its “soul” before birth, and baptism, was literally in “Limbo”; undetermined space, at best.
How can something that is neither a human being nor a human person have a soul?
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:44 am
Brilliant, Joe! Absolutely brilliant.
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:46 am
[...] satire can be a most effective polemical tool. That is why Joe Carter’s satirical conversation between two women talking about having a fetus is a must-read. Here’s [...]
August 3rd, 2010 | 10:34 am
“Is it fair and honest, is it Christian, to characterize your opponents, by a conversation you yourself made up?”
Could you point out what specifically might be unfair or dishonest about making up a conversation between two people that consists entirely of things that people say either in so many words, or by the necessary implication of what they do say? Especially since he is not attributing that conversation to any specific, real people?
August 3rd, 2010 | 10:54 am
Sorry, Joe. Brettongarcia is right. But no need for fancy words like “cloying”–this post just comes off as childish to me. It saddens me to say I like First Things less and less lately.
August 3rd, 2010 | 11:16 am
Travis Sorry, Joe. Brettongarcia is right.
You mean the guy who implied it was unfair, dishonest, and unChristian, to characterize my opponents by a conversation I made up before backing up almost every claim that I made? That guy?
But no need for fancy words like “cloying”–this post just comes off as childish to me.
If it is childish for me to be pro-child then so be it. I will never make any apologies for pointing out the absurdities of the pro-abortion advocates.
If it makes you or anyone else uncomfortable that I follows Jesus’ rhetorical approach, then I’m sorry. But I’m not going to put on some fake airs of collegiality to engage people that thinking killing human beings from conception to two years old is perfectly moral.
August 3rd, 2010 | 12:28 pm
I think the criticism is misdirection. This is satire; many great writers have used the format to lampoon their opponents and indirectly make their point. So concentrate on the issue approached by the piece, rather than question a style of writing that has been in use for hundreds of years.
The questions are thought-provoking; is this language natural for a human being to use? Is it accurate? Does the debate over life and being a person contribute to understanding or does it confuse the issue?
August 3rd, 2010 | 1:44 pm
If people don’t get this text, I feel sorry for them. Actually, no. I feel sorry for their fetuses.
August 3rd, 2010 | 2:46 pm
Brilliant.
August 3rd, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Excellent! Well done!
If you read the Planned Parenthood site, they discuss sex education by age and say that little girls of five should be taught that a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to. Oh, and they should also be taught at that age that masturbation is good and feels good, too…just be sure to do it in private.
Your “made up” conversation seems to be right on the mark, IMO.
August 3rd, 2010 | 5:37 pm
Brilliant. Unfortunately, our society isn’t so honest with itself, and while in a perfect world, this conversation could take place without observers disgust, unfortunately I think people will take this as “bad, the way things are” rather than “good, the way things should be”
August 3rd, 2010 | 5:53 pm
Joe, I accept your point of view that embryo/fetus is a person. I don’t know if I agree… I’m still in the undecided category. But your over-dramatized, exaggerated and childish presentation of your opponent’s views renders your argument invalid in my eyes. I believe you went too far. Your post is entertaining at best.
August 3rd, 2010 | 6:04 pm
Mary Ellen, here is the 5-7 information from the planned parenthood site (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/parents/human-sexuality-what-children-need-know-when-they-need-know-it-4421.htm)
Please can you point out which of the quotes “say that little girls of five should be taught that a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to. Oh, and they should also be taught at that age that masturbation is good and feels good, too”
What Do Children Need to Know by Ages 5–7?
In addition to earlier information and skills, children ages 5–7 need to know
that all living things reproduce
how plants and animals grow and reproduce, what they need, and how we care for them
that all people, including our parents and grandparents, are sexual
that we all live through a life cycle that has a beginning and an end and includes sexuality at all ages
that people experience sexual pleasure in a number of different ways
that everyone has sexual thoughts and fantasies and that having them is normal
that families are structured in different ways
the roles and responsibilities of different members of their families
how to live outside of stereotyped gender roles — for example, that women can be good leaders and men can be good at taking care of children
that sexual identity includes sexual orientation
that we must all take an active role in protecting our health
that health care providers support our health and well-being
the basic facts about HIV/AIDS
that a friend is someone we enjoy being with, someone who shares, listens, encourages, and helps us think through our problems
how to develop, maintain, and end friendships
how to recognize and protect themselves from potential sexual abuse and its dangers — for example, sexual predators may seem kind, giving, and loving. They may be friends or family members.
August 3rd, 2010 | 6:18 pm
I answer it for you, its not there. There is mention of masturbation in the 8-12 section, but do you think a parent is going to seriously talk to a 8 year old about masturbation, even if a website told them too?
I get the impression you believe Planned Parenthood is some perverted organization bent on making abortion commonplace and vapid. If you actually READ the website’s content, you will see they are level headed educators that want young women to have a healthy sexual understanding, not to be repressed so badly they make bad, uneducated choices which leave them in even more trouble.
August 3rd, 2010 | 7:08 pm
Interesting piece of satire but seems a little off with the seals getting clubbed. Such a contrast between misplaced morals was a little lost for me considering the gravity of those that support euthanasia.
While I respect the stance that you take on the issue, I would be curious to see if you could write a satirical piece involving characters that are pro-life with any success. I’m guessing no, b/c if you could I think this piece would be a lot better.
Keep on working and exercising that brain, your lucky to have one.
August 3rd, 2010 | 7:20 pm
This conversation ruled.
August 3rd, 2010 | 7:37 pm
“Could you point out what specifically might be unfair or dishonest about making up a conversation between two people that consists entirely of things that people say either in so many words, or by the necessary implication of what they do say?”
Yes, I can: no one would actually have this conversation. It’s the very definition of a straw man argument.
For example: your “designer baby” line links to the wikipedia page that shows, while it’s seen in science fiction movies, no one is actually performing such procedures.
It’s far too cheap and easy to characterize your opponent’s positions with straw man arguments., like this one about two Christians:
Jan: Did you see the news about the wedding party that was accidentally bombed in Afghanistan?
Marsha: I know. But it serves them right for being Muslims instead of Christians.
Jan: Well, technically Muslims do believe Jesus was a Messenger of God, so we have far more in common than most people think.
Marsha: Yes, but they’re BROWN people.
Jan: Oh, I forgot!
They both laugh. And… SCENE.
Doesn’t feel too good to have your beliefs reduced to parody, does it? One might say it’s UN-CHRISTIAN.
August 3rd, 2010 | 7:54 pm
Strawman much?
August 3rd, 2010 | 8:43 pm
That was hardly clever, and you just told us how little you understand pro-choice arguments.
August 3rd, 2010 | 8:46 pm
You know what’s pretty unchristian? Marsha and Greg being together at all. Or Jan and Bobby.You know. Because they were SIBLINGS. Did no one watch this show?
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:24 pm
Daniel Interesting piece of satire but seems a little off with the seals getting clubbed. Such a contrast between misplaced morals was a little lost for me considering the gravity of those that support euthanasia.
You’re right. That was the one part that I was unsure about since the “people who value animal life while supporting abortion” is a bit of a cliché.
While I respect the stance that you take on the issue, I would be curious to see if you could write a satirical piece involving characters that are pro-life with any success. I’m guessing no, b/c if you could I think this piece would be a lot better.
A similar piece about pro-lifers? Probably not since pro-lifers don’t resort to euphemism in the same way that the pro-abortion camp does. I think I could write a similar piece about torture advocates, though.
Erick Yes, I can: no one would actually have this conversation. It’s the very definition of a straw man argument.
By your definition, all satire is made of straw. I think you missed the point. Normally, I would assume that was my fault, that the point was too subtle. But in this case, I think the people who claim this is a “strawman” piece don’t seem to understand what was intended.
The reason that no one can have this conversation is because supporters of abortion rights do not say what they really believe. Indeed, the reason I chose to frame the conversation between two pregnant women is because it reveals the inconsistency between what people claim and the way they talk.
For example, when they justify abortion they always refer to the unborn human being as a “fetus.” But how many of them have ever congratulated a loved one by saying, “It’s wonderful that you’re having a fetus!” When its wanted, it’s a “baby”; when it’s unwanted it’s a “fetus.” That’s absurd.
For example: your “designer baby” line links to the wikipedia page that shows, while it’s seen in science fiction movies, no one is actually performing such procedures.
I linked to the Wikipedia page because most people are unfamiliar with the term “designer fetus.” But it’s not something out of science-fiction. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is already being used to week out embryos that do not meet the criteria of the parents. (See here.) Currently, the method is purely negative—you discard the ones that don’t meet the quality assurance standards. But in the near future, we’ll be able to positively select the traits we want in a child (i.e., no predisposition to alcoholism, homosexuality, etc.).
It’s far too cheap and easy to characterize your opponent’s positions with straw man arguments.
A straw man argument is one in which the opponent’s position is misrepresented. That is why I took great pains to link to people who actually support those positions. Just because you do not support all of them does not make it a straw man.
like this one about two Christians:
Again, the difference between your example and my article is that I linked to people who actually support those positions.
Doesn’t feel too good to have your beliefs reduced to parody, does it? One might say it’s UN-CHRISTIAN.
Parody is “Un-Christian?” That would have come as a shock to Jesus who used sarcasm and parody quite often to mock people’s beliefs.
Chris P. Because they were SIBLINGS. Did no one watch this show?
But they were only step-siblings, so it’s not so bad. ; )
August 3rd, 2010 | 11:03 pm
I thought this piece was thought- provoking and very well written. As a young woman working full- time in the pro-life movement it’s very easy to get frustrated with the hypocrisy of the pro- abortion side- as demonstrated above. Satire is the greatest tool to demonstrate the idiocy of an argument, which is why pro-”choicers” don’t like it- you make them look like fools. I especially liked the ending- it’s the best part.
August 4th, 2010 | 2:36 am
I have heard conversations close enough to this it was scary. True to the perspective of the ones leading the movement, even if it’s more hardcore than the masses. Excellent, ignor the
August 4th, 2010 | 4:19 am
No, I didn’t miss the point. It has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, so it’s not that hard to figure out. You’re against euphemisms so let me be blunt: it makes you look like an idiot. It’s neither parody nor satire (you don’t seem to realize there’s a difference) nor does it any way make a convincing argument.
People who are pro-choice don’t speak like this, aren’t so cavalier about the idea of an abortion, and don’t take it lightly. You seem to think this is funny, but it’s not. It’s a horrible decision to make.
Do you want a realistic conversation? Write about a thirteen year old girl raped by her father, who has to chose between an abortion and giving birth to an incest baby. Write about a woman drugged and date raped by her date, who has to chose between an abortion and carrying a fetus borne of hate of violence. Write about a woman who has a medical emergency and can either save the life of her baby or her own life.
Or could it be you’re representing the most absurd cases of the pro-choice argument because you can only make straw man arguments?
PS
Could you please post examples of Jesus using sarcasm and parody?
August 4th, 2010 | 8:38 am
So sad that so many are unfamiliar with the literary techniques of both satire and parody. Perhaps an episode of “Jeeves and Wooster”, while light, would instruct them in the technique.
August 4th, 2010 | 9:36 am
Re: Brettongarcia, “Traditionally by the way, the Catholic Church said the status of the embryo, its “soul” before birth, and baptism, was literally in “Limbo”; undetermined space, at best. How and why did recent Catholic conservatives, exchange that timeless truth for their own opinions, now pronounced holy?”
It’s commonly misunderstood that the Church holds only the soul to have value, but in fact the Church recognizes that every human life is created in the image and likeness of God, both body and soul united, one human being. Every person is loved by God and is called to union with God, and thereby we are all called to communion with one another.
In the case of aborted children, killed in blood, they are considered martyrs, and in the case of miscarriages or children who have not received the grace of baptism, we trust in God’s great and infinite mercy, though we will not know for certain until after our own death whether someone is eternally united or separated from God.
Because every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, they are an image of the greatest good, of God’s glory. The loss of their life, most especially when taken intentionally, is a loss to the whole of humanity. The mother and family lose, of course, but the whole world mourns the loss of this image of God’s glory here on earth. We greatly underestimate the gift God gives us through new life.
August 4th, 2010 | 9:44 am
Erik-what about abortion makes it such a horrible decision? If you answer yourself with a truthful answer to this question, then maybe you’ll start to see why it’s so easy to use satire about pro-abortionists.
Why don’t you try reading the Bible to see the examples of Jesus using sarcasm and parody. He spoke in parables all the time too.
If abortion clinics would actually report the cases of incest and abuse… I’m pretty certain those women wouldn’t choose abortion. There are not many women out there individually choosing to use abortion to cover up a crime. They’re being pushed/ coerced into the abortion. If you seriously are concerned about the women in the situations you described… tell it to Planned Parenthood to obey the laws!
August 4th, 2010 | 10:06 am
Erik It’s neither parody nor satire (you don’t seem to realize there’s a difference) . . .
Parody – any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
. . . nor does it any way make a convincing argument.
I wasn’t making an argument, I was making fun of pro-abortion advocates.
People who are pro-choice don’t speak like this. . .
Um, yes, that’s the point!. Instead of saying what they really think, they resort to euphemism to cover for the horrific practice they are condoning.
. . . aren’t so cavalier about the idea of an abortion, and don’t take it lightly.
Some don’t, some do. Be careful making such blanket statements.
Also, if a fetus is neither a human being nor a human person, then why don’t they take it lightly. There is no moral significance to removing a gall bladder. Why should there be one for removing a fetus?
Do you want a realistic conversation?
You say you want a realistic conversation and then you provide examples from that account for less that one percent of all abortions performed in America. Let’s look at some of the more “realistic” statistics:
-According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, half of the woman how get an abortion have had at least one previous abortion.
-Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control.
The simple fact is that most abortions are a form of birth control.
Or could it be you’re representing the most absurd cases of the pro-choice argument because you can only make straw man arguments?
How is it that even after I explained it to you, you still don’t understand what a “straw man argument” is?
Could you please post examples of Jesus using sarcasm and parody?
Let’s first define the terms so that there is no confusion (as with the “strawman” stuff).
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Satire – the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Parody – an imitation or a version of something that falls far short of the real thing; produce a humorously exaggerated imitation of (a writer, artist, or genre).
Although there are many types of satire, the most common are Horatian and Juvenalian. Horatian satire playfully criticizes some social vice through gentle, mild, and light-hearted humor. Juvenalian is more contemptuous and abrasive and addresses social evil through scorn, outrage, and savage ridicule.
Jesus’ use of satire was primarily Horation. I think my piece was too, but even if you disagree, it doesn’t really matter. We’re debating whether it is “un-Christian” to use satire at all.
Rather than hijack this thread with a long list of Biblical quotes, I’ll simply provide references and let you look them up. Of course if you need to have them explained to you, I’d be glad to do so.
Here are some examples just from the book of Matthew: 7:1-6; 8:22; 15:14; 16:16-18; 19:23-24; 23:5-6, 23-28.
August 4th, 2010 | 10:16 am
The Didache, a first century treatise of the beliefs of the Christian faith, contains this paragraph:
And this is the second commandment of the teaching: you shall not kill; …. you shall not procure an abortion, nor practice infanticide; …
This seems fairly clear to me that the Church’s position was that the unborn child shall not be killed. The state of the child’s soul is left to philosophers to ponder.
August 4th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Excellent. Well done. I wonder though if most Christians will even recognize everything you allude to.
August 4th, 2010 | 4:05 pm
VERY well done.
August 4th, 2010 | 4:10 pm
I’m Christian but this is ridiculous absurd and downright stupid. This makes you just as bad as the people in your dialog. this is why the liberal left thinks were crazy cause of people like you.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
Excellent! I forwarded it to hundreds.
August 4th, 2010 | 5:32 pm
You have quite a condescending tone, which is odd because you seem rather uneducated. You refer to your piece as both parody and satire, then when I point there is actually a difference you go out of your way copy and paste the definitions of each. Yes, I know the difference. You’re the one who used both. But I’m glad you finally took the time to educate yourself on the matter.
I also used the term “straw man”, so there’s obviously no reason for you to define it to me. Just because you claim it’s not a straw man argument, doesn’t make it so. Yes, I’m sure pro-choice people are flying in droves to the Netherlands to euthanize our retarded babies under a law that only applies to residents of Netherlands. Yup, totally not a straw man argument. Just as all Christians agree with the hate speech of the “God Hates Fags” Christians picketing outside the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is why the Christian right seems to insane to the rest of the world. You act like you have all the answers, that you have all the knowledge of exactly how we’re supposed to be behave, and anyone who doesn’t see it your way is stupid and must be condescended to.
You want to be condescending, to make fun people who are pro-choice. Fine, mission accomplished. Personally, I would’ve thought the more Christian thing would’ve been to reach out and try to find common ground and see how we can work together to spread knowledge of and access to birth control so we have to have the debate about abortion less and less. But I’m not a Christian, I’m just trying to be a good person. What are you trying to do?
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Gandhi
August 4th, 2010 | 6:54 pm
There is nothing Christian about being “pro-life” or “anti-choice”. Nothing. Christ said nothing about when a fetus gets a soul; it is preposterous to claim the moral high ground on this issue.
We true Christians care foremost about loving and helping our fellow man. Those of you who base your lives around abortion and judging others are merely tools of the Republican party that has somehow convinced you individualism and corporate profits are Christian. If I weren’t a Christian, I’m not sure I could ever forgive those of you who so distort the loving guidance of Christ.
August 4th, 2010 | 7:23 pm
Good work Joe. Respect for the value of human life is really and truly becoming a lost concept. I am sad to say that this sort of conversation is hauntingly familiar. Seldom do I hear positive comments about children, especially babies. Often they’re regarded as a burden or “too expensive”, “not in our plan”, instead of as a precious gift from God. We are so much the poorer for this kind of mentality.
August 4th, 2010 | 9:34 pm
I think “Preacher” was writing parody. Or was it satire?? Can he be serious??
August 4th, 2010 | 11:32 pm
Erik,
If you think Joe has been condescending, you’d best realize that you, yourself, come across to me as being..condescending! Essentially, you seem to declare that human reason is the final arbiter of everything; we who do not follow that mold need to be “educated” out of our ignorance.
Problem is, most of those “rationalists”, “humanists”, “progressives”, or whomever I’ve ever met..are now and will continue to be, stubbornly, intentionally, invincibly..ignorant!
I think it fair to warn you too: Christians and other Pro-Lifers have made repeated efforts to “reach out” to others in compassion and truth.
Where do you think “compromise” efforts to better provide birth control came from?
Speaking of which, I will not be joining you in promoting more “birth control” measures. I might have done so at one time, but have seen how these are used as excuses for people to abuse and use each other sexually all the more. Sorry, but I’m not going that route again.
If you want to discuss worthwhile education, such as that including chastity, we can start from there. Anything else? We’re wasting our time and may as well go back to what we’d been doing.
Preacher:
It’s not possible to be both Catholic/Christian AND Pro-Choice. I know many disagree, but I’ve known many who reject Christ’s teaching.
I CAN forgive your intolerance of Truth, but I can NOT promote throwing out what I believe to satisfy your view of Christ’s love.
God Bless.
August 5th, 2010 | 12:10 am
Joe,
I’m Catholic, and I thought that was a pretty good piece of writing. I laughed several times, because the “deathscorts” at the abortion clinics do have the same vernacular. Keep up the good work.
August 5th, 2010 | 12:17 am
Erik:”Do you want a realistic conversation? Write about a thirteen year old girl raped by her father, who has to chose between an abortion and giving birth to an incest baby. Write about a woman drugged and date raped by her date, who has to chose between an abortion and carrying a fetus borne of hate of violence. Write about a woman who has a medical emergency and can either save the life of her baby or her own life.”
Erik: “Yes, I’m sure pro-choice people are flying in droves to the Netherlands to euthanize our retarded babies under a law that only applies to residents of Netherlands.”
Erik again: ““I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Gandhi”
Real-life conversations here:
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html and over at the Elliot Institute. Lila Rose is the one going around showing how the abortion clinics cover up rape and incest. A 13 y/o raped by her father is usually brought in by her father to the abortion clinic because if the baby was born, the baby points the finger at the pervert. Incestuous perps use abortion frequently to cover up their crimes, and we need to take care of the women who have had abortions and help carry their burden, finding healing and forgiveness.
See above link on the issue of babies conceived by rape. As for the life of mother vs. life of child, there is no true occurence of this, but the principle of double effect is applied in cases of ectopic pregnancies, and the ethics of life vs. life has been extensively written about in many venues.
People do not have to go to the Netherlands because using prenatal testing here in the US, we can and do eliminate 90% of Down’s fetuses with abortion. In the Netherlands, that isn’t good enough, they need a longer hunting season.
In fact, I would assume the baby seal hunters face some danger, not like the sissies who hunt human babies. I can imagine an old lithgraph on a 1913 Winchester calendar of a man in a parka and snowshoes, running from a proverbial polar bear with a load of dead baby seals on his back. Imagine a NARAL calendar, retro lithgraph style, from 2011 of a man lounging in his library, smoking a cigar, surrounded by taxidermy of his human conquests. Who does he brag to and how? “I got this one from a 16 year old hottie and this one has obvious spina bifida.” An abortionists safari would seem quite lonely.
If a fetus has Down’s, by the way, then it can only be a homo sapiens fetus, and if a fetus is a member of homo sapiens, then some of us assume the fetus is inherently a person. That is not necessarily a religious argument, but it seems the religionists, as they are called, hold on to such Hellenistic logic through a few centuries. Anyway, Erik, thank you for quoting a pro-lifer, M. Gandhi, at the end of your post.
August 5th, 2010 | 6:53 am
Joe, I do love, to a fault, your piece but even more than this I love your loving, patient kind hearted response to your detractors. For despite the fact that in each of their posts, they intangible material to support their claim but where at times mostly insulting, you still responded to the little fragments of their posts that could be reasoned with.
I do not know much of about the mechanics of literature and so can’t argue about how literary correct you are or are not, but this i do know, i found it to be profoundly funny and scary at the same time. Funny, well i need not explain further for the text itself speaks in this regards. Scary, well i believe that your piece is prophetic in nature, because in the not too distant past i saw an interview of a woman who had a live abortion just to, in her own words, demystify the abortion process. That is to say that she killed a baby just to prove a point. Nobody arrested or charged her. So if such level of blatant disregard of a baby’s life is attainable in this day, how much longer from now would the above conversation become common place. This impending reality, captured in your words, scares the living daylight out of me…
… and what is funny to me are those of your detractors who claim not to be Christians but but give suggestions on how Christians should act(rollover and play dead) with such authority, could shameless hypocrisy take a more daring form/stance? Well that is for God to judge.
So I say to you, Joe, well done.
August 5th, 2010 | 7:19 am
To ERICK: Unfortunately most decisions about having an abortion do NOT arise out of dramatic circumstances such as the ones you cited like rape, incest, and so forth –
Most decisions for abortion are made because of the inconvenience or timing of the pregnancy – often because the woman is single, working and does not see the feasibility of raising a child on her own…this is a fact, Erick…so raising the specter of rape, while it does occur, is a lousy argument for the pro-abortion stance…Actually I don’t think there is a good argument for taking innocent human life but go figure – lots of folks think its okay or they wouldn’t do it…
I agree it can be a wrenching decision no matter what the circumstance but that still doesn’t make it morally acceptable…and the angry defensiveness with which pro-abortion supporters answer their opponents tells me that they don’t think it is morally acceptable either even though they continue to support it…
August 5th, 2010 | 9:38 am
Good satire is polarizing. Looks like successful satire to me.
August 5th, 2010 | 1:43 pm
Apparently this is hitting a little to close to home for some people, like Brettongarcia. Well done Joe. Whether they want to admit this or not, this is the type of conversation they truly do advocate.
August 5th, 2010 | 6:00 pm
How much do you want to bet that Joe will never in his life have an abortion?
August 5th, 2010 | 11:17 pm
and clubbing baby seals has what to do with abortions? nothing. this is nothing but semantical pandering.
August 7th, 2010 | 6:12 pm
BIG BIG
if you took the time to read planned parenthood page instead of just trying to find fault with Mary Ellen you would see that she did not make anything up:
What Do Children Need to Know by Age Five? By age five, children need to know
that love should make people feel good, safe, and wanted
that people’s bodies are different sizes, shapes, and colors
how the bodies of girls and women are different from the bodies of boys and men
that people’s bodies belong to themselves
the correct names for all body parts, including sex and reproductive organs
how to talk about their sexual parts without feeling naughty
>>that it’s normal to touch one’s sex organs for pleasure
to seek privacy when touching one’s sex organs for pleasure that a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to <<
how to talk with trusted adults about sexual issues, questions, and concerns
how to say, "No," to unwanted touch
August 9th, 2010 | 8:02 am
to Melinda MT:
> Actually I don’t think there is a good argument for taking innocent human life but go figure – lots of folks think its okay or they wouldn’t do it…
I actually think giving life is a VERY big responsibility. Not to be taken lightly by any mean. Having second thoughts about it is normal. But feeling that it is not the right decision and resolving in stopping the pregnancy can be the only choice in some circumstances. The examples you have given are some of them.
In the end, it is the would be parent choice and no one else’s. What right can anybody have on a person telling him he should be a parent against his choice? That would be oppression and manipulation…
August 9th, 2010 | 9:42 am
Joe, Thanks for cleverly illustrating the pro-choice supporters verbal engineering foolishness. Erik does a great job too in making your case. I find it amusing that the left repeatedly plays dumb when they don’t like a point. They will immediately say no fair yet they won’t start their own publication they hide behind those of differing opinions. Perhaps Erik if you started a Pro Abortion Review you might see how unpopular your position is and how unreasonable. You wouldn’t have wide circulation, advertisers and open supporters.
August 9th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
“Do you want a realistic conversation? Write about a thirteen year old girl raped by her father, who has to chose between an abortion and giving birth to an incest baby. Write about a woman drugged and date raped by her date, who has to chose between an abortion and carrying a fetus borne of hate of violence. ” Eric, if you would like some real conversations by real women who had to make exactly that kind of choice, read “Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault.” It comes out very clearly that having the baby was a triumph over a horrible experience and that abortion only compounded the problem.
August 13th, 2010 | 8:11 am
[...] She’s Growing a Fetus – An interesting ‘dialog’ between pro-choice women. [...]
August 16th, 2010 | 10:57 pm
To Brettongarcia and anyone else who thinks a baby/human being is not one until it is born. So, at 2 mo in utero a baby has a heartbeat and arms and legs. I will also put in that the 2 mo is aged from the date of the woman’s last period and is not actual conception age. It is more like 6 weeks. Anyway, back to my point. What do you consider a human being. A heartbeat to me resounds loudly to being a person or a living thing. It may not take in oxygen the way we do outside of the womb but it does feed off the oxygen from the mother. So this “fetus” has a heart and a heartbeat, needs oxygen to live, and during the pregnancy kicks, sucks its thumb, blinks, poops, pees(which means its digesting nutrients), has a brain, sleeps and probably dreams, responds to outside stimuli like shouting, music, or touching, and yet it is not a human being. Maybe none of us are human then. Maybe we’re all just a bunch of cockroaches. No, A baby is a baby is a baby!
I believe that pro-choicers know this to be true, but to fit their desires to live life the way they want to they redefine a baby to be a fetus. This is so sad. I know a couple of people who have had an abortion and they both regret it so much.
August 20th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
Interesting piece; interesting comments. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of human reproduction is aware that at no time from conception until death is the being that has been conceived ever anything other than human.
“Personhood”? Irrelevant really. Regardless of stage, size, age, sentience or none, born or unborn, a human being is a human being.
No one deserves the power to decide who is fit to live and who is not.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact