The horror of abortion is one that is always unfathomable for me. From the sudden loss of innocent human life to the trauma that plagues affected mothers in the years following it, I believe abortion only destroys lives.
Last Sunday marked the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, a day when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had a right to decide the lives of countless unborn children. Just a year before the decision, the liberal Justice Brennan noted that our society was one that “strongly reaffirmed the sanctity of human life.”
It only took a year until he ate those words, thereby establishing a new leftist precedent. While several recent Supreme Court cases have dealt with the issue of abortion, none have truly overturned this critical decision — one that defined a new “norm” for American society.
Without even going into the messy areas of jurisdiction, it seems unreasonable that any governmental body should determine the point of human “viability.” If an elderly man reaches a point where he cannot provide for himself without assistance, does that mean he’s not alive? The only safe assumption we can make is that life begins at conception and the least we can do is give these babies the benefit of the doubt.
Undoubtedly, the improvements of prenatal technology have been able to offer enhanced images of the unborn in the earliest stages of pregnancy, clearly depicting human life in its most basic form, and disproving any claims against this argument. In fact, about 90 percent of women decide to go to term after looking at their baby in a modern ultrasound. In other words, the liberal counsel given by organizations like Planned Parenthood does nothing other than hide the ugly truth from their young, needy clients, as they turn abortion into a moneymaking industry.
Then again, Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who once argued that “birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race” (“Women, Morality, and Birth Control”). Isn’t it comforting to know that a government-subsidized organization has such an incredible legacy of helping the underprivileged?
Most of us rarely think of abortion as a big issue on college campuses. We don’t typically hear about it unless we know someone who has had to make this decision. However, approximately 45 percent of abortions nationwide are obtained by college-age women (“Arizona Right to Life”). And the rate in California is even higher. College-age women are more susceptible to the unique social pressures surrounding them, as well as the daunting thought of motherhood.
Amidst all of these pressures, many who seek abortions are never informed of the devastating psychological side effects of this procedure. From nightmares to hallucinations to even perceived visitations from their aborted child, it is far more than a “simple procedure.” And physically, an abortion can threaten a woman’s health.
Unsurprisingly, all of the current GOP candidates stand in favor of life. It is an issue that remains at the core of the conservative conscience, and one that sets the foundation for all other values. After all, the Declaration of Independence lists “life” as the first of our “inalienable rights.”
We can only expect this to become a critical topic as the chosen Republican nominee faces off against President Obama. Obama has remained pro-abortion and has vowed to veto any legislation that would prevent the federal funding of abortions through Obamacare. Clearly, Obama has been playing it safe in following his party line. Pro-life liberals are such a slim minority these days that they are ultimately silenced within the Democratic Party. Has leftist ideology replaced both morality and common sense among the donkeys?
It is no wonder that Cardinal Raymond Burke openly stated that the Democratic Party “risks transforming itself definitively into a party of death.”
Time and time again, I hear the complaints from people on both sides of the aisle that this issue has no place in federal politics. This is likely true since there is no mention of abortion in the U.S. Constitution. But Roe v. Wade inevitably transformed it into a federal issue, and now we must face the consequences.
As Americans, we are given a great deal of choice. However, the so-called “right to choose” an abortion should not override the right to human life, and the state should always seek to defend this inalienable right.
If our nation’s leaders don’t protect life at all stages, who will?
In a speech Obama gave on October 5th, 2004 he replied to critics by saying, “No one is pro-abortion.” He is making the point that no one, or at least very few, think of abortion as a means for ‘regular’ birth-control.
Then, in 2008, at a presidential candidate forum at Saddle Back Church he said: “I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways — in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground, and by the way, I have now inserted this in the Democratic Party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions …”
You find me a Conservative that is willing to use Federal and/or State money to pay for programs that use proven childhood development research and family psychology as a basis for teaching: safe sex, healthy relationship building, and financial planning and they will have all of my votes.
If we had a more capable and competent population, we wouldn’t have to worry about abortion being legal because the majority of people who would receive one would be doing so with just reason.
Brendan, let me understand you correctly. You say “The only safe assumption we can make is that life begins at conception” this is the premise on which your opinion piece hinges, your belief is that life starts at conception and therefor should be given the same rights as a person. In other words you argue that inception is the start of life and at that point any action a person takes to destroy that life is immoral.
This premise would also mean that the countless zygotes made in preparation of in vitro fertilization that are discarded each year would be the same as abortions since they are life. So we should also outlaw in vitro fertilization and deny couples the opportunity to have children of their own because the process will destroy some lives that would never have existed in the first place?
Brendan do you have children? Can you objectively say you understand the rights associated with parenthood and can make that decision. Because I can’t. I would think implementing legislation as you suggest would have impacts outside of abortions, but affect the lives and happiness of many other Americans.
The zygotes aren’t given life till they are implanted and take hold in the mothers body. To consider that as part as “conception” is ignorant because it hasn’t been given any life. Once they baby is in the mother’s body than it is given life. Yes people think hard and long about getting and abortion, but why didn’t they think long and hard about having unprotected sex? Once you make the decision to have sex and procreate you have a responsibility to your child. Brendan may not have childern, but he has been a child himself and can see the impact it abortion could have. All of us have parents and can easily put ourselves in their shoes. Choosing to have sex is an option, and knows the consequences going in. Abortion shouldn’t be a way to bail people out of the consequences. A innocent baby should not suffer because the parents don’t want it. There are things such as adoption and adults who wish to have kids and can’t for whatever reason. Their our other ways to offer a better life for a baby after they are born then killling it before it even has a chance at a great life.
I completely agree that an “innocent baby should not suffer because the parents don’t want it” that’s why I supported Obama’s health care program that would give health care to children, and Head Start for preschool of low income children, and school lunches. Since you love children’s lives so much I’m sure you support these programs as well, you and all the anti-abortionist who love children so much.
Jimi I’m going to assume you go to Cal Poly, so I agree you can put yourselves in your parents shoes, you know what it’s like to have a career, make a mortgage payment, save for retirement, and pay the college tuition for your children. You’ve made thousands of small and large sacrifices over the last 19 years for your son Jimi so he can have a good life and go to a good college. Yep sounds real easy to fit in those shoes.
Also good to know you approve of the morning after pill because “zygotes aren’t given life till they are implanted and take hold in the mothers body.” We should promote the use of these so there are less abortions.
Sarah, you have a non-argument here. It has been scientifically proven that life, in its purest sense, begins at inception. It is not a matter of belief.
1) What’s your source?
2) Doesn’t this depend on how you define life?
Matt, it has not been scientifically proven that life beings at conception. It is actually a hotly contested debate amoung scientists and people who study bio-ethics. A fertilized egg is not, and cannot be, viable (in mammals) until it has attached to the mother’s uterine wall, a process which takes several days to complete.
Sara you cannot DISPROVE that life is started as a Zygote…Correct? in which case your premise is that life does not begin with conception. if this is your position than let me ask you. when does it begin? Is it at birth?? then define the exact moment. The first breath? now according to your premise we should accept that just prior to (the gray area deemed) birth; it is perfectly fine to torture and mutilate the almost born? in other words do you believe in late term abortion? and if not why? could it be that you recognize life as beginning at some moment BEFORE birth. If so please DEFINE! You see as I see it, the burden of proof rests ENTIRELY on you for two reasons. Firstly because the position you hold is fundamentally DIRE to human life. in short it has profound consequences that go beyond simple talking points. Secondly because your premise of the exact moment of life is MORE tenuous. In short, scientifically, it can be proven with utmost exactness that life begins at THE moment of fertilization where the chain of events unfold on a seamless journey from embryo to a fully mature adult. You see Sara, when dealing with logic… the simpler, more elegant explanation, trumps all others.
Thank you Brendan for another thought provoking and excellent article. Keep it up. God Bless you.
My position is not “DIRE to human life.” if I don’t think a zygote is a life. Therefore the burden of proof is not on me. I am making the point if your going to argue a group of cells without differentiation = a life, then you have to argue 1 cell = a life. This is the simple solution. Additionally, if at “the moment of fertilization” the egg fails to implant in the uterine wall is there a loss of life?
Additionally, just because I think abortion should remain legal, does not mean I think it is moral or ethical. There are plenty of things in society that are legal but are not moral. I could call people on this message board bad names which is legal but not ethical. It boils down to what President Obama said in yesterday’s state of the union address “Government should do for people only what they cannot do better themselves, and no more.” he was quoting Lincoln. I don’t want the government legislating abortion. Abortion is an issue between the pregnant woman and her partner. Government can’t do a better job at regulating abortion than we can ourselves. The government does not know what goes on in a pregnant woman head, it is her choice. Roe v. Wade was removing the government from private medical practitioners who wanted to perform abortions. No one is forced to have an abolition. If you think something is immoral great, don’t do it, but don’t use the government force your beliefs on me.
I can’t help but notice you asked god to bless Brendan, which is fine and that is your right. I’m not going to assume your religious beliefs are where you derive your stance on abortion because I really don’t care. But I want to know why would I give two cents what you have to say when your bible states in 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Judging by how you can’t even spell my name right I assume you just a sexist man. Those two words just destroyed your credibility.
Sarah, in your reply to Joe you wrote, “Judging by how you can’t even spell my name right, I assume your just a sexist man” because he left the ‘H’ out of your name. So with this logic, your a feminist because you couldn’t spell JimI’s name right in your reply to him. Sounds pretty ridiculous huh?
You say the government can’t forse us to have an abortion. True. We’re not China (yet).. But government certainly can forse us to pay for it even if we are morally against it.. So big on ‘choice’ yet tax payer, have none, so the money goes towards this genocide of innocent life. Speaking of morals, you say “just because I think abortion should remain legal, does not mean that I think it is moral or ethical”.. So it is fine to maintain an immoral and unethical society? Should we not aspire to a better world where morals and what is just or ethical is respected?
I’m sorry to be the one to tell you SaraH, but your beliefs are mislead. In your opening sentence you take a subjective stance by saying “My position is not DIRE to human life, if I don’t think a zygote is a life”.. Wow.. so because YOU don’t feel it is worthy of humanity, its OK to kill? This mentality is dangerous and it sounds an awful lot like the law stating African-American slaves were 3/5ths human. A large group of people felt this way… did that make it true? No. The good thing is laws can be reversed; like this one with slavery and just like Roe vs. Wade.
On the topic of law, do you know what they (laws) are ment to do?.. They are ment to protect our rights.. Not give us rights because, as the Constitution states, these rights are God given inalienable. Do you believe in protecting the rights of a child?.. How about a premie born early? Now how can you tell me you don’t believe in protecting the rights of a baby just before he/she is born.. how about a week before he/she is born? We can go on.. At what point should the baby’s rights be protected? Yes we’re always talking about the mother’s rights. No mention of the father’s rights.. 50% of the child’s genetic make up is derived from the father. What if he wants to be a dad.. Where is his right to choose? There are thousands of dad’s out there who marched the streets of D.C. during for the Right To Life March, but we should continue to ignore them as we ignore the rights of the unborn child.
One can say “It is the women’s body; she could do what she wants to it”.. I agree! She can choose to cut off her hair or even remove a toe. She can do whatever she wants to HER body.. But the little baby is a separate body.. a separate individual. We can’t choose to get rid of individuals we don’t like or want. Its Illegal.. so should abortion be.
These truths are universal. They are not subjective, changing based on one’s personal feelings, and truth will always prevail. May God (with a capital ‘G’ not god as you wrote above) bless you Sarah, so that you may not believe lies and be open to the Truth.
By the way, I write this as my newborn baby sleeps on my lap. Being a mother or a father is not a choice, it is a tremendous gift. One may never understand until they become a parent. Don’t allow this culture of death to numb you and desensitize you to beauty… And that’s exactly what life is. Let love live.
Sarah, I love you. Can we be friends? And just a reminder that the last time Republicans cared about you, you were a fetus.
You break the issue down into breathtakingly simple terms, which I am sure makes the issue reassuringly easy to decide for yourself. Myself, I believe in more shades of grey. While you seem incredibly focused on the definition of “life” as mere physical existence, I think that a much more salient point in the issue of abortion involves the quality of life. Not only for the potential child, but for the mother.
Women choose to have an abortion for a variety of reasons, and rarely, if ever, without a great deal of thought. Pregnancy is not always an intentional, or even a willing, state. Women can become pregnant as the result of lack of sexual education, social coercion, rape, and incest. Women may be emotionally, financially, or even physically incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term. I personally have both heart and spine problems that would make any pregnancy possibly fatal. Is it “morality” to declare that my own life should be endangered? You speak of psychological and physiological side effects of abortion, but ignore the psychological and physiological side effects of an unwanted pregnancy. Women being forced to have children they are not prepared for can only end badly.
Finally, making abortion illegal is not a solution to the “problem” that you are trying to solve. Women have been having abortions long before Roe v. Wade, often with deadly results for both the woman and the child. Medieval women used caustic and occasionally poisonous plants. In the time before Roe v. Wade, women went to “back alley” abortion providers for unsanitary and unsafe abortions. Even today in countries such as Kenya and Nigeria where abortions are illegal, women continue to seek them, and continue to die as a result:
“Maternal mortality is excessively high in Nigeria, at 1,000 per 100,000 live births. An estimated 30-40 per cent of these deaths are caused by complications from unsafe induced abortions, directly attributable to use of faulty techniques by unskilled abortion providers…an estimated 200,000 Nigerian women die every year from the complications of ineptly performed illegal abortions.” (Osakue and Martin-Hilber 186)
If you would like to see American women suffer in the same way, please, simplistically overturn Roe v. Wade. If you would prefer to see the actual rate of abortions decrease, focus on solving issues of lack of sexual education, poverty, and unequal gender rights.
I am not “pro-abortion.” I am “pro” women having control of their bodies, of their ability to live, and their ability to provide for their children if and when they decide they are prepared to have them.
Well phrased. This is exactly how I feel.
Abortion being legal allows a woman the ability to choose for herself what the correct decision is. That seems to me to make the most sense.
Brendan,
Your last statement especially, shows that you have thought this subject through.
I have watched a documentary on the genocide of the African American race called “MAAFA 21”. Much evidence supports why the foundress of Planned Parenthood was a proven eugenicist, conspiring with the likes of Adolph Hitler to “clean up the human race”.
People in SLO may not be aware of how often abortuaries are placed in minority neighborhoods, because SLO has a lower percentage of ethinic-based minorities than other counties like LA. Have you seen BlackGenocide.org yet? Once your readers know of this conspiracy, will they willingly be complicit in such bigotry? How about knowing that allegedly imperfect lives are done away with too? Then there are those who may be perfect, but they’re too inconvenient.
Might you be saying that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a giant “bullying” organization, “removing” weak, defenseless, mostly minority, sometimes imperfect, always (tiny) human babies under the guise of “reproductive rights”? Choice?
I’ve thought it sad that these younger parents resort to such a drastic measure because they can’t go on living like they plan to if they actually birth their babies.
Which brings me to some of the above comments. To Stu: Isn’t it odd how all of the birth control in the world won’t work when a woman is fertile? Aren’t you even a little suspicious of programs called safe or safer sex? (oxymorons). Who stands to profit when these methods “fail” and (can’t say “surprise” here!). The Pill would work if a woman held it between her knees….
Just say no to all of the side effects, and know that you’re worth waiting for . . . and that the government should think so too.
@ Sarah-you were a zygote. Who would’ve guessed at one year of age you’d be who you are? Why are you defending thoughtless behavior? Why are so many couples infertile? STI’s, especially chlamydia, are so damaging, rendering couples sterile. Common sense would save a lot of harrowing experiences both for the parents and the babies. Regret can be a horrible existence.
Brendan, thanks for the calmly-presented position you took. There are so many reasons to say no to non-committed sex . . . and drugs . . . and speeding . . . . They’re deadly for someone . . . .
Celine
Have you tried sex? It’s fucking amazing! (pun intended)
What I especially enjoy doing is having sex, while on drugs, and while also speeding down the highway. It’s the best!
Obviously, you haven’t ever had sex, otherwise you would know that a woman can still have sex, even with her knees together (see Kama Sutra for reference).
My apologies to everyone for making light of such a serious topic.
It’s just really hard for me to take someone seriously when they’re so obviously trolling.
To say that birth control is ineffective when a woman is fertile is a blatantly ignorant statement. Just because you don’t necessarily agree with ‘non-committed sex’ doesn’t give you the green light to be willfully ignorant about preventative measures sexually active couples can be using. Also, as Willy Wonka pointed out below, Planned Parenthood does not make money from abortions and they, while receiving funding from the government, are not the government.
lolwut
“Planned Parenthood does nothing other than hide the ugly truth from their young, needy clients, as they turn abortion into a moneymaking industry.”
First of all, Planned Parenthood does not make money from abortion.
Secondly, are you kidding me about this?
The right to life of an unborn sperm+egg trumps the rights of a fully developed human being?
That’s it, I’m off to kill a couple million halves of this sperm+egg combo from hell with my left hand. I hope you feel bad about this genocide, as countless possible future babies go face their doom in the inside of my socks.
“Brendan Pringle is an English senior and Mustang Daily conservative columnist.”
Male and conservative, like THAT’s not biased
This article is a piece of shit and poorly organized with unverified, fallacious statements.
Brendan Pringle is also, if I’m not mistaken, the president of the republican club. And, he is working very hard to bring Ann Coulter to Cal Poly to speak. If this happens, it is imperative that she sees how most of the youth of this country feel about her ethics and her values.
That’ll be the day I wear a hazmat suit to class.
Lol seriously? Ann effing Coulter? Where can I sign up to give her a nice Cal Poly welcome?
Are you fuckin’ kiddin? LMAO!!!!!!
Dude, she’s a comedian, right?
Are you fuckin’ kiddin? LMAO!!!!!!
Dude, she’s a comedian, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo
This article is terrible. I cannot believe the mustang daily’s editor let him cite” perceived visitations from their aborted child,” as a reason to not have abortions. He is citing ghosts and nightmares. This is sad and pathetic; shame on you mustang daily.
In the beginning Planned Parenthoods goal was to reduce the number of abortions in our nation, but like so many other organizations they became greedy. They realized that they could make far more money on abortions then they could on any other services available at Planned Parenthood. They went from being pro women and actually helping women who needed it the most to preforming as many abortions as possible to increase their income. 51% of PP income in 2010 was from abortion. “The report also revealed that nearly half of this money had come from the government. Planned Parenthood received $487.4 million in government money in 2010, a huge jump from the $363.2 million reported last year.” (CHRISTINE DHANAGOM, life news.com)
Today if you walked into Planned Parenthood and asked for an ultrasound of your baby the only why you would be able to do so would be to also agree to an abortion! Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation by the US congress for helping and supporting human sex trafficking in the United States. How can an organization that supports human sex trafficking have the best interests of women and children in mind?
All of the pregnancy help centers in SLO county and others throughout the nation provide all of the same free services as planned parenthood along with clothes, dippers, and supplies for the mother and her child!
We need to be the voice to the voiceless! When your children’s children ask you: Why did all these innocent babies have to die? Why didn’t anyone do anything to stop it? Don’t you want to be able to tell them you were fighting for those babies and for the inalienable rights of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for some but for all?
Harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law.
There are laws against burglary, rape, and armed robbery, yet every one of these crimes continues to happen in our society. that these things still happen should not convince us to make them legal. Laws should discourage bad things from happening not conform to them simply because they happen.
Branden thank you for standing up for the most vulnerable of our society!! Keep up the good work!
people this stupid scare the shit out of me
In the beginning Planned Parenthoods goal was to reduce the number of abortions in our nation, but like so many other organizations they became greedy. They realized that they could make far more money on abortions then they could on any other services available at Planned Parenthood. They went from being pro women and actually helping women who needed it the most to preforming as many abortions as possible to increase their income. 51% of PP income in 2010 was from abortion. "The report also revealed that nearly half of this money had come from the government. Planned Parenthood received $487.4 million in government money in 2010, a huge jump from the $363.2 million reported last year." (CHRISTINE DHANAGOM, life news.com)
Today if you walked into Planned Parenthood and asked for an ultrasound of your baby the only why you would be able to do so would be to also agree to an abortion! Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation by the US congress for helping and supporting human sex trafficking in the United States. How can an organization that supports human sex trafficking have the best interests of women and children in mind?
All of the pregnancy help centers in SLO county and others throughout the nation provide all of the same free services as planned parenthood along with clothes, dippers, and supplies for the mother and her child!
We need to be the voice to the voiceless! When your children’s children ask you: Why did all these innocent babies have to die? Why didn’t anyone do anything to stop it? Don’t you want to be able to tell them you were fighting for those babies and for the inalienable rights of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for some but for all?
Harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law.
There are laws against burglary, rape, and armed robbery, yet every one of these crimes continues to happen in our society. that these things still happen should not convince us to make them legal. Laws should discourage bad things from happening not conform to them simply because they happen.
Branden thank you for standing up for the most vulnerable of our society!! Keep up the good work!
“Examining the Lasting Impact of Roe v. Wade” (January 25) is riddled with logical inconsistencies. For example:
It claims that Roe v. Wade gives the federal government the right to decide the lives of unborn children but doesn’t it actually take the power out of government hands and give it to the individuals considering abortion?
If “it seems unreasonable that any governmental body should determine the point of human ‘viability’” why does it matter if “the only safe assumption we can make is that life begins at conception”?
What does your ad hominem claim about Margaret Sanger do to advance the pro-life argument, which seems to be about when life begins? (And by the way, she was adamantly against abortion.)
An article like this is what happens when opinions are formed before facts are considered.
PS – It is revolting for you to marginalize all women seeking abortion as “young and needy” and only highlights your ignorance of this issue.
All of you pro-choice people have absolutely NO respect or dignity for life WHATSOEVER! It appears to me that those favoring abortion that have responded to this article have had the opportunity to experience life…unlike the misfortunate unborn. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL TO BE DISMEMBERED BODY PART BY BODY PART…ASSHOLES!!!!! Brendan, you should simply disgard the pro-chioce comments made here. These are ignorant people who truly lack respect for life and just felt like looking smart…but actually stupid…with their commentary. Well written Brendan, at least you’re the .5% of college students whom stand up for this presently controversial issue. Excellent work!!
Roe Vs. Wade and its associated opinions is one of those documents that everyone has an opinion about and practically no one reads. This is unfortunate, since reading them is instructive. If it were overturned tomorrow (along with the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood decision of of 1992 that largely superseded it) the net effect on women in the state of California would be zero. That is because not even the most conservative justices on the high court have even hinted at declaring that personhood begins at conception, a feat of judicial activism that would turn 900 years of the common law on its head and stagger even Antonin Scalia. What would happen is that regulating therapeutic abortion would revert to the states … and it has been legal in California since rookie governor Ronald Reagan (sainthood pending) signed the Beilenson Therapeutic Abortion Act into law in June of 1967.
I have no quibble with your assertion that life begins at conception, but life and personhood as a legal concept, that a fertilized embryo is entitled to the full protection of the law, are not the same thing … and I respectfully submit that even the most committed Christian conservatives do not act as if they are. At a bare minimum, a person is entitled to a name and respectful disposal of their remains, but in my experience, spontaneous abortions early in pregnancy (miscarriages) are far more likely to end up unnamed and either in the landfill or the sewer I have never heard of a single instance of anyone microscopically examining an unusually heavy menstrual flow on the slight but real chance it may contain an sloughed embryo, but wouldn’t your logic, and the essentially dignity that persons are entitled to require it?
Your position also suffers from the problem of enforcement. Merely making a behavior illegal is no guarantee that the behavior will be eliminated … the current law forbidding the use of cell phones while driving is an excellent example. How do you prevent a woman with the means to do so from getting on a plane to Vancouver and getting an abortion there, where there are no restrictions whatsoever? Do you make pregnancy something that every health provider or citizen has a mandate to report, like child abuse or STDs, and set up a Department of Procreation to monitor compliance? Do you restrict travel by pregnant women, or require a pregnancy test before international travel is allowed? So much for smaller and less intrusive government. But if you do not do something of the kind, the net result will be a law that only effects the poor … and much as if you wrote a statute that said texting was forbidden while driving in cars with a Blue Book value under $5000, you would be left with a law that richly deserved the contempt it was held in.
You do realize that you advocate for an extreme position? In fact, the only way one could be more extreme is to advocate that life begins at “Damn, Tiffany looks hot!” … to say the least, a minority view. I am not any crazier about the position stated by Wesley Clark in 2000, that life begins at birth … any more extreme would be condoning infanticide, a view held by an equally tiny minority … but that seems to be where the two major parties have their flags planted, which serves the Republic poorly. I think that the vast majority of Americans hold views between those two extremes, but most are in agreement that using the bludgeon of state power to prevent behavior you personally disapprove of is not the answer to the problem.
Best wishes,
Old Mole
P.S. Just for curiosity’s sake, have you changed your opinion about anything political in nearly four years at Cal Poly? If there is, I would be very interested in hearing what it was.
Sorry about that … somebody ought to fix this “security code incorrect” gadget.
Republicans claim they don’t want the government involved in their lives, but they’re cool with the government regulating the bodies of women in this country? Look honestly, I don’t think anyone (at least I hope not) is for abortion or thinks that it’s a good thing. I think it’s a very sad thing. But while I personally wouldn’t feel right having my girlfriend’s embryo/ fetus aborted, I don’t believe that our government has any right to ban abortions. It’s up to that woman and her partner to decide, although ultimately it’s up to the woman because it’s her body and she’s the one who would be carrying that baby for 9 months. It’s pretty simple to me. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t get one.
Very well written Brendan!
As a nursing major, I know there is life immediately upon fertilization. The zygote is automatically a male or female based on the chromosomes. I don’t know of a single non living thing that has a gender.
According to Lewis Wolpert, “It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation, which is truly the most important time in your life.” Gastrulation occurs so early on in pregnancy. Why would this step be so critical for a non living “sperm and egg”? (which Willy Wonka incorrectly stated. It is no longer a sperm and egg upon fertilization).
Very poorly written Katherine!
As an intelligent person, I know that the great “when does life begin?” question is not actually something that can be biologically answered or proven. Also, for your own medical knowledge, there is a very significant difference between “gender” and “sex.” Gender is socially constructed and different based on culture/traditions/individuals etc. Sex is based on biological parts.
Thank god (and this country) that I was able to safely and legally abort the cluster of cells that formed after I was raped 2 years ago.
It’s funny how the question of “When does life begin?” is so quick to be given a scientific answer by pro-life folks, but other mysterious questions, such as “Does God exist?” or “Are people homosexual by nature (science) or by choice?” aren’t given the same treatment
It’s also pretty funny how I can predict peoples’ stances on those issues based on their stance on abortion. That’s America for ya.
What makes you an intelligent person?
Katherine,
This can be a nuanced point, but it is worth considering the distinction between something merely “being alive” and that thing being a “person”. What you most likely believe to be true is that when the ovum is fertilized, it becomes a “person”, not that it is alive, though it certainly is in the sense that it was alive in the woman’s ovaries and the man’s testes. That the cell is alive is no more relevant to the discussion than that cancer cells are alive is relevant to the person undergoing chemotherapy. The question is whether or not that fertilized clump of cells is a person, and therefore deserving of the same treatment as you or I.
Philosophers and theologians have pondered this point for centuries, and there is no clear answer. In general, however, there are some bounds that have been placed on defining the word “person” and the rights that go with it, and those bounds place fetuses and zygotes squarely outside the realm of personhood. This is a conclusion that can be reached even within the context of Christian theology and the bible provides passages that can be interpreted as supporting this view as well.
If you can provide a rational reason for believing that personhood begins at conception, by all means, do so. But, if your argument is simply that abortion is wrong because the fetus is alive, I hope you’re a vegetarian.
Very well written Brendan!
As a nursing major, I know there is life immediately upon fertilization. The zygote is automatically a male or female based on the chromosomes. I don’t know of a single non living thing that has a gender.
According to Lewis Wolpert, "It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation, which is truly the most important time in your life." Gastrulation occurs so early on in pregnancy. Why would this step be so critical for a non living "sperm and egg"? (which Willy Wonka incorrectly stated. It is no longer a sperm and egg upon fertilization).
ALSO….
Ann Coulter??!! for what… $10,000?? And the Democrats are the ones who thoughtlessly waste money…….
Ahhh…Taylor you’re just the typical idioit college student…I’ll be sure to pray for you…for both God and I know you could truly use them. Use your time more wisely Taylor, than wasting it writing comments that make you sound stupid…really, it’s embarrasing…oh yeah, I forgot, you’re a typical college student. Great Job Brendan!!!
Katherine,
This can be a nuanced point, but it is worth considering the distinction between something merely "being alive" and that thing being a "person". What you most likely believe to be true is that when the ovum is fertilized, it becomes a "person", not that it is alive, though it certainly is in the sense that it was alive in the woman’s ovaries and the man’s testes. That the cell is alive is no more relevant to the discussion than that cancer cells are alive is relevant to the person undergoing chemotherapy. The question is whether or not that fertilized clump of cells is a person, and therefore deserving of the same treatment as you or I.
Philosophers and theologians have pondered this point for centuries, and there is no clear answer. In general, however, there are some bounds that have been placed on defining the word "person" and the rights that go with it, and those bounds place fetuses and zygotes squarely outside the realm of personhood. This is a conclusion that can be reached even within the context of Christian theology and the bible provides passages that can be interpreted as supporting this view as well.
If you can provide a rational reason for believing that personhood begins at conception, by all means, do so. But, if your argument is simply that abortion is wrong because the fetus is alive, I hope you’re a vegetarian.
The thing is, people are going to get abortions whether or not they are illegal. That’s the truth. That is why these laws are so important.
Instead of literally dying because of botched coat hanger abortions, people will get the healthcare that they deserve.
I find it interesting that you stated “the devastating side effects” of abortion are not talked about. What about the devastation of being forced to have a child that is out of rape? Our of incest? When the act of giving birth WILL kill the woman? Would you as a husband be willing to let your wife die because of a child? Would you want your future daughter to be forced to have a child because she was raped?
If you really want to support something that helps people not seek out abortions, support the Family Planning Act. It provides contraception and healthcare to low income people in this state. Which by extension also reduces abortion rates, because there are not accidental pregnancies, and if a woman is raped while on birth control, she most likely will not get pregnant.
It’s sad to me that people become so focused on being anti abortion that they also become anti womens lives in extension.
The thing is, “abortion” is a general term for SO MANY procedures.
There have been cases where a religious married couple was told that their baby developed without a brain. It was not a child, it was a brainless fetus. Carrying it to full term would cause an infection that would kill the wife. So they decided to have what is technically an “abortion” to remove the body of the fetus. They were then shunned from their church for it. I find stories like that to be sad and pathetic. So a woman is supposed to let a malformed fetus rot inside her and kill her instead of getting a medical procedure to remove it and save her life? A husband is supposed to stand by and watch his wife die from something that is preventable, and never be able to have a healthy baby with his wife? What a twisted logic that is.
Melissa… you should probably consider looking into the Catholic faith more. While we must be sympathetic for those whom have been raped (incest or not), under no circumstances IS ABORTION JUSTIFIED! And as for the potential risk of the female dying at birth, as stated in the Catholic religion, you may choose to save your life or the life of the child because either one is at risk of death. Lastly, you must understand that Brendan is writing as a political columnist and must stay within that of political boundaries rather than unpolitical elements. However, if I wrote the article, I would mention what I stated above.
http://ahaslo.org/media/articles/examining_abortion_part1/
Well put, Brendan. We believe that life begins at conception. Furthermore, your comment about giving the child the benefit of the doubt should resonate well with those who are less sure. We salute your boldness and your rhetoric.
For those who are facing the decision to keep a child or not, there are far better alternatives for you and your child than an abortion. I did research and learned of the side effects of abortion (some of which Brendan mentioned) including breast cancer, higher suicide rates, etc. It’s terrible. There are pregnancy support services / maternity homes out there to help you – far better than Planned Parenthood. Just know that we want whats best for you and we’re praying for you 🙂
God Bless!
No, you believe life begins at conception. As is your right. However, I’d rather not have that impact how I live my life.
As to your “research’…
http://women.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion
The article that they reference is “Abortion and mental health: Evaluating the evidence.” and the lead author is Brenda Major, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Vol 64(9), Dec, 2009. pp. 863-890,
I cannot tell you the number of times I have wished that my mother would have had an abortion. It would have saved us both so much trouble.
That being said, it was her choice, and hers alone to make. Just because abortion is legal doesn’t mean that or available doesn’t mean that you HAVE to have one nor are people going to shove that option down your throat. Freedom of choice, no?
I’m pregnant with your baby.
Are you ready to do this thing, or what?
Mr Pringle,
“Undoubtedly, the improvements of prenatal technology have been able to offer enhanced images of the unborn in the earliest stages of pregnancy, clearly depicting human life in its most basic form, and disproving any claims against this argument. In fact, about 90 percent of women decide to go to term after looking at their baby in a modern ultrasound.”
May one conclude from this statement that you are in favor of laws recently passed in Texas and other states, and pending in still others, that require vaginal ultrasound procedures for any woman seeking an abortion in the first trimester, when approximately 90% of abortions take place? If so, are you aware that in every state where such a law is passed or pending, vaginal penetration with a foreign object without consent is considered rape, and a major felony?
For such a fan of slippery slope arguments and strong objections to an intrusive government, it might be something of a stretch for you to be okay with state-sanctioned sexual assualt, even in the interest of saving “life”.
Best Wishes,
Mole
Great information, thanks. I would just to point out that even the Mayo clinic says that moderate exercise while pregnant can be good for you.