panelarrow

A Baby is a “life worth sacrificing”

| 19 Comments

Finally, an honest feminist admits she supports the culture of death….

Is an unborn baby “a life worth sacrificing?” The question is horrifying, but the argument was all too real. In a recent article, Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon.com conceded what the pro-life movement has contended all along — that from the moment of conception the unborn child is undeniably a human life. And yet, Williams argues that this unborn human life must be terminated if a woman desires an abortion. The child is a life, but, in her grotesque view, “a life worth sacrificing.”

“When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.”

In premeditated candor Mary Elizabeth Williams declares that the unborn child is a human life, but not a human life worthy of respect or protection. As Williams insists, “I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life.” Read the whole article by Dr. Albert Mohler here.

19 Comments

  1. So, if I understand her reasoning. She knows it is a baby in the womb and yet she says her right to an abortion..to kill the baby is more important than allowing that baby boy or baby girl to live. And she says she’s a Liberal. And writes to justify her position. Crazy.

    We try, spend lots of money to convict parents who abuse children, little baby boys and little baby girls to death.

    Yet ,we do nothing to parents who want to abort living humans in the womb. How long will this madness go on. Lord Jesus come quickly. Let not ours sins be piled up to heaven. Save us from ourselves.

  2. No matter how the pro death folks attempt to clinically talk about the unborn in terms of non human termonology , they cannot escape God’s imprint of his Law in their heart. Eventually they are forced to conclude that was a human being they had killed for usually selfish reasons. Their conscience will not allow them to get off that easily

    • Christians keep claiming things of this nature that the conscience will force them to regret their abortions, but research shows this simply is not the case. Studies show that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest *before*, rather than after, an abortion.

      Granted there are exceptions to this but they tend to be much fewer in number.

      • You give only half the truth Mark: “Researchers investigating post-abortion reactions report only one positive emotion: relief. This emotion is understandable, especially in light of the fact that the majority of aborting women report feeling under intense pressure to “get it over with.”

        Temporary feelings of relief are frequently followed by a period psychiatrists identify as emotional “paralysis,” or post-abortion “numbness.” Like shell-shocked soldiers, these aborted women are unable to express or even feel their own emotions. Their focus is primarily on having survived the ordeal and they are at least temporarily out of touch with their feelings.

        Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55 percent expressed guilt, 44 percent complained of nervous disorders, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision, and 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.
        In one study of 500 aborted women, researchers found that 50 percent expressed negative feelings, and up to 10 percent were classified as having developed “serious psychiatric complications.”

        Read the rest: http://iowartl.org/get-the-facts/abortion/post-abortion-syndrome/

      • I don’t have a dog in this fight, but correlation does not equal causation, Steve.

        And that’s not even getting into the problems with some of the controls (or lack thereof) in some of these studies.

      • Let’s see here. You cite the Iowa Right to Life center as a source who cited the “Elliot Institute” who call themselves a “Ministry”.

        Sounds like a perfectly non-biased source!

        Now. on the other hand I cited Psychological Responses Following Abortion. Reproductive Choice and Abortion: A Resource Packet. Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association, 1990.

        You also seem to imply that women are getting pressured into having abortions.
        The real truth is only about 1% give that reason as the “most important” one in making their decision. Conversely, some women who do not want to continue their pregnancies are pressured to do so by family members, friends, or fear of social stigma.

        – Torres A, Forrest JD. Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives 1988; 20(4): 169-176.

        So, you cited a group with a clearly marked dog in this hunt…. I cite a far more neutral group, the APA. The Guttmacher Institute is the second source. “The Guttmacher Institute advances sexual and reproductive health through an interrelated program of social science research, policy analysis and public education, designed to generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate, promote sound policy and program development, and, ultimately, inform individual decision-making.”

        So, Guttmacher is a think tank with no dog in the hunt designed to spread information to make solid decisions with.

        Guess which ones I trust far more…. I’ll give you a hint. It’s not the “ministry”,

      • Mr. Hunter;

        Greetings to you. This is from Wikipedia regarding Mr. Guttmacher:

        Alan Frank Guttmacher, MD (1898-1974) was an American obstetrician/gynecologist. He served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society.[1] Dr. Guttmacher founded the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians, now known as the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, as a forum for physicians to discuss the birth control pill and other advances in the field. He founded the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964. He was a member of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. The Guttmacher Institute is named after him.

        in 1973 Guttmacher was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II.[2]

      • So everything the Guttmacher Institute does is invalid because of who it is name for? A person whom it seems never had any direct control over the institute?

        Ad hominem much?

        According to their site:
        “The Institute’s overarching goal is to ensure the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health for all people worldwide.”

        What do you have against reproductive health?

        “In 2009, Guttmacher was designated an official Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health by the World Health Organization and its regional office, the Pan American Health Organization.”

        That’s a prestigious honor.

        Nice try, but your ad hominem is just that.

      • Mr. Hunter;

        Greetings to you again;

        You said this in a previous post:

        “So, Guttmacher is a think tank with no dog in the hunt designed to spread information to make solid decisions with.”

        In response, I posted information regarding Mr. Guttmacher’s history in the pro-abortion movement.

        In short, Mr. Hunter…there is no neutral in this debate. They have a ‘dog’ in this hunt so to speak. Perhaps this additional information will be beneficial. Again, from Wikipedia on the Institute itself:

        “The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Center was renamed in memory of Alan Frank Guttmacher, an Ob/Gyn and former president of Planned Parenthood, and the Guttmacher Institute became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1977.[3]”

        Again, to clarify my point: there is no neutral in this debate. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that, Mr. Hunter. Have a pleasant weekend!

      • This is all irrelevant; abortion isn’t going to be made illegal again.

        Although people might lie, numbers don’t.

      • My last post on this story:

        Nohm;

        Greetings to you. In response to your comments, I actually agree with you. I sincerely doubt that abortion will ever be illegal again….at least in my lifetime. However (and I struggle with the most efficient way to word this) while it may be legal and available, we (those in the pro-life movement) can still work towards changing individual hearts and minds on this issue. Legal and available, but utilized one less time on Tuesday than it was on Monday. Legal and available, but with a lot of free time on their hands 🙂

        I sincerely hope you have a pleasant week!

      • Hi S.S.,

        You wrote:

        However (and I struggle with the most efficient way to word this) while it may be legal and available, we (those in the pro-life movement) can still work towards changing individual hearts and minds on this issue. Legal and available, but utilized one less time on Tuesday than it was on Monday. Legal and available, but with a lot of free time on their hands

        1. I think you worded it very effectively.

        2. I have no argument with what you wrote here.

  3. I trust God, rather than man. Man makes mistakes. God does not. Trust is something that makes sense in my world. Where does trust come from in the nonbelievers world. Trust is abstract; you can’t buy trust, can’t touch it.

    Just like logic, you have to assume logic to be true, before using it.

    Logic makes sense in my world because God is logical. He gave us minds so we can reason and interact with his creation.

    Arguments against the killing of babies in the womb is the right position.
    Because, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…Love your neighbor as yourself.” This makes sense in my world.

  4. The hypocrisy is insane. There is no “Right” to commit murder.

    I think we may have some more ammunition with the legal system when we use the “Law” of “Survival of the Fittest” to prove that Science does not agree with killing the unborn in the womb. The first rule of Mr. Darwin’s Law (and this one is pretty much evident, despite the lack of evidence to prove some of his other theories such as one species becoming another) says that a “Species must do everything to survive.” This means producing gobs of offspring – and definitely not killing them.

    Taking Mike Faye’s class on Astronomy has taught me that we ought to use Science more often in our arguments with these people, because in reality, Science is on God’s side!

    • First of all, Steve is very much anti-biology, and he’s definitely not going to approve of an evolution slant to his anti-abortion campaign.

      Second, this is not how natural selection works. Abortion is a policy, not a genetic trait that is selected for or against. Also, adaptation is a part of evolution, and we’d probably outlaw abortion if the population got to a critical point on the brink of extinction. Not likely.

    • Scott, with all due respect, you should probably understand what evolution is (or even what it just claims to be) before you fight against it.

      What you wrote above is far off from the claims of the theory, even if the entire theory was made up.

    • Can you please source, rule 1 of Darwin’s Law, where it says “Species must do everything to survive.” I’m pretty sure that’s not an actual law. Garrett said it pretty well its survival of the fittest, meaning that a species that adapts to survive and reproduce within its own ecosystem is ‘fit’. It doesn’t have to be strong, smart, or powerful, it just has to reach equilibrium with its environment. One of the ways to not achieve that goal is to multiply past the carrying capacity of an environment or ruin an environment so that it can no longer sustain life within. (Sadly two things that the human species is currently doing).

      Also, as someone who works with scientists, I don’t often hear them talking a lot about how God furthers their research. I’ve actually heard more jokes aimed towards the fundamentalists, evangies, and the social conservatives, than I have them talking about God. But by all means Scott, please elaborate on how you will use Science to prove God or that science backs up your spiritual beliefs in some way, I look forward to your response with baited breath.

  5. I am certainly against abortion. But something I find it equally horrifying to the liberal’s views is that Christians think Abraham passed God’s test by attempting to sacrifice his son rather than failed the test. The same Christians who will preach abortion is a sin, will trumpet Abraham as the greatest hero of the faith for attempting to abort Isaac after he was born. Its crazy and illogical. Abraham should have thought “hmmm…a voice telling me to kill my son; isn’t it more likely to be the Devil than God? Let’s not listen.” My own interpretation is that the angel is being SARCASTIC when he says “Know I know…” and so on as if Abraham passed the test that he so obviously failed.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.