Equating Abortion to Infanticide is Twisted

My rebuttal to an offensive blog posted last week on Patch.

I have several friends whom have had abortions. Some of them have deep regret and sadness daily due to their decision. Some of them choose not to think about it. And some realize it was the best choice to make at that time and have moved on. But none of them consider it a casual occurrence. None of them think it was an easy choice. And certainly none of them could or should be looked upon as murderers.

Last week, Patch blogger J.B. Schmidt Schmidt equated abortion to infanticide and attempted to make comparisons saying that having an abortion is in many ways no different than killing a one-year-old child. I found his words not only disturbing and offensive, but also complete and utter nonsense. The extremism seems nothing more than either a need for attention or desperation for readers.

I am sure regular readers will have no big surprise reaction to my being pro-choice. But perhaps it is important to realize my reasons, my logic and my limits.

The author of said blog stated that there is a practice already in place in Europe where infants/newborns are being killed as post-birth abortions and contends that we should fear (fear, what a foreign concept for argumentative conservatives, eh?) that this practice is headed overseas right to our shores. Honestly? Are we really supposed to accept this as fact and just all form into a mob of mass hysteria? Please.

Some people say that abortion should only be legal in cases of incest or rape. But I ask you – if you truly believe that abortion is murder, then why is it ok to “kill” some “babies” and not others? Are the souls of the babies conceived out of rape somehow less valid?

Scientists for many years have been trying to determine when a fetus can feel pain and when the development of consciousness occurs. To this day, there is no consensus. Many professionals agree that pain is not realized until 29 weeks of gestation. Others believe it is much sooner at 20 weeks. And when a consciousness becomes present is something that just cannot be tested or proven at this time.

As humans we have our body vessels, our ego and our consciousness. At least, this is how I see it. Our bodies eventually develop in ways which can respond to stimuli, feel pain, feel pleasure, communicate and such. Our egos have emotion, react to others, and propel us into action. And our consciousness is what makes us who we are. I believe it is in existence before we are born and after we die. It is our energy. At what point does the consciousness enter the body? I do not know.

There are world renowned psychics who believe that miscarriages and abortions are chosen by the consciousness as part of a karmic plan. The soul chooses that path with the purpose to further their own growth in the spirit world as well as assist in delivering lessons to the parents. They believe it is all part of a life contract we write before we come to this life.

What it boils down to is the question of when does a fetus become a person. And this is, at this time, a matter of opinion and nothing more. However, what can't be disputed is that a human woman of child bearing age is indeed a person. That is why the rights of the woman must take precedence. And it is her opinion, and her opinion only, about the personhood of the fetus that truly matters. Not the government, the church or any activist group.

It is my belief that when a fetus is viable outside of the womb, when a fetus can indeed feel pain – this is when I feel it is much too late to have an abortion. It is at this stage when I would not defend the action. And honestly, I have a hard time with any abortion after the first month or two. But this is only my own personal belief. And I cannot push my opinion onto others by way of law or condemnation.

I feel it is also inconsistent that right-to-lifers are also usually against euthanasia. If humans have a right to life, would they not also have a right to death? We know that born humans can indeed feel pain and make choices (in most cases). Would they not have the right to make a choice to stop the pain?

And then there is the matter of the death penalty. By supporting corporal punishment, we are imposing our beliefs about which souls have more right to life than others. We are choosing who should live or die by ego-made beliefs.

It is estimated that 55 to 65 percent of all conceptions are spontaneously expelled. Typically the woman didn’t even know she was pregnant. An additional 10 to 15 percent are miscarried later in the pregnancy. There are no death certificates assigned to these fetuses. Would this be considered unintentional homicide? Of course not.

“I am pro-choice. Very, very pro-choice. But I don’t think I could ever make that decision for myself again, unless it was an extreme situation. But do I still regret it now? Not at all,” shares Angela who made the difficult decision to have an abortion at age 19, “I had regret right after, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. I cried uncontrollably for two straight days. I think it was necessary for me to really process the scope of it all. I had a hard decision to make and when it was done I processed the sadness I felt. I accept that pain as a part of life, as a part of my experiences growing wiser.”

Another woman shared with me about her decision to have an abortion decades ago, “It still haunts me today and I will never forgive myself.”

Women do not have abortions as though they are shopping for shoes. It is a gut wrenching choice they live with in some capacity for the rest of their lives. It is never forgotten – by many of the fathers either. It is a horrible choice to have to make. Minimizing that decision is insulting and heartless. And equating it to murdering a born child is simply sick and twisted. 

Bren March 10, 2012 at 01:42 AM
Mr. Hoffa, that stigma absolutely still exists. In the case of the 15 year old I mentioned above, she had to switch out of her regular school schedule into the off-site parent program because she couldn't take being harassed and called vile names by classmates. Her parents had to deal with the words "Whore" being spray-painted onto the house. She had to leave her church. Her mother originally wanted her to give the baby up. When visitors came, the girl was made to hide in the basement to conceal her pregnancy. Yes, if society could be a little more forgiving, then there would probably be fewer abortions and more women willing to carry a baby to term for adoption. I will see if any type of survey has been done about this--I haven't heard of any. What you describe is the ideal situation--why don't we all just be responsible for our own behavior? But it just doesn't work that way. One has only to walk through the many rooms at Domestic Animal Control and look at all of the lost/abandoned cats, kittens, puppies, and dogs who are waiting for their humans to come and get them, and so many never do. No, people don't always do what's right by the animals and/or people in their lives. So what's to do? Invest taxpayer dollars to make sure that innocent children don't go hungry and help women (and men in this situation too) find some stability, or leave them to fend for themselves and maybe starve.
Lyle Ruble March 10, 2012 at 02:51 AM
@JRH...Why is it when it comes to a topic like this, you leave your logical mind behind. In the first place the "Freudian psycho-babble" has moved far beyond armchair analysis. Psychologists fully understand that human beings are each unique and that nature and nurture affect the being and the rise of personality. What Tim is referring to is biological as well as sociological. The latest evidence has revealed that women are attracted to the bad boy or Alpha male during ovulation period, which incidentally is the best time for conception. There are two forces at work; strong sexual attraction and the need for security. Some of this is primal instincts and others are learned preferences. Since abstinence is the only guarantee to prevent an unwanted and unnecessary pregnancy, it is the best option. However, the majority of people choose not to remain abstinent. Therefore, full access to birth control and contraception is the very best alternative to full abstinence. As far as pregnancy termination is concerned, since it is the female's body it is her domain and her decision. The zygote/fetus is literally her until birth. She has the sole sovereignty over her own body. That part of her, which has yet unproven potential, does not and should not be assigned rights given to non symbiotic humans that have reached full potential and acknowledged personhood.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 03:21 AM
@Bren - I don't mind helping those with legitimate need, but the fact of the matter is that under the safety net system, the problem has only gotten worse - not better. And despite what you may claim, the stigma has been decreasing by leaps and bounds in the last half century. Also, doesn't such a stigma act as an effective deterrent? What would the increase in casual / irresponsible sexual activity be if such a stigma were completely eliminated from our culture / society? The repeat offenders seem to pose the biggest problem for us. Perhaps we should start mandating sterilization for accepting government assistance after the first child, as that would eliminate the repeat offenders and act as an effective deterrent, right? However, there again, I don't want to have to pay for the sterilization!
mau March 10, 2012 at 03:27 AM
@JRH, teachers in Wisconsin insisted on coverage for Viagra in their health care coverage. And I am not going to say especially the ones who were caught with porno on their school computers :-( I'm bad.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 03:42 AM
@Lyle - An interesting response indeed, but I'd postulate that I'm using logic to defend my positions, as opposed to leaving it behind. I was being facetious in my comment regarding "Freudian psycho-babble," but also sincere in that I don't completely buy into psychological analysis or its societal merits. Women being attracted to an Alpha male type based on the qualifiers you mention would denote some sort of inherent primal instinct, while discounting much of the nurture side of the equation, would it not? I'm reminded of Claire Danes' "My So Called Life" (TV Series 1994-1995) as effectively illustrating both sides of the equation here. I also know from personal experience that such theory has both merit and failure in actual practice - after all, I'm no Alpha male, not by a long shot! I'm all for full access to birth control and find it to be readily and easily available, at a highly competitive cost in today's market. What I'm against is having the collective good paying for it because it punishes those of us who personally responsible on our own accord, doesn't it? Also sexual relations aren't a necessity, they're a luxury!
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 03:43 AM
You're argument about female domination over a fetus premised upon a symbiotic relationship seems quite hysterical given the crux of your social democratic political stance, doesn't it? One could very easily use the same rational to conclude that those receiving some form of government assistance aren't worthy of their personal rights of autonomy, correct? But isn't that the kind of thinking that gave us things such as the MK-Ultra experiments? Do you really want to go back to that kind of crap?
mau March 10, 2012 at 03:51 AM
@James and Lyle, are you two talking about getting knocked up? I never realized it was so complicated.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 03:54 AM
@mau - Needless to say, the teachers that pushed for this are quite simply morons!!! If they wanted Viagra covered, then either the individual teachers or their union should have ponied up the extra premium for such - but definitely not the taxpayers!!! Case closed, court is adjourned, and Judge Hoffa has left the building - peace!
Heather Asiyanbi (Editor) March 10, 2012 at 03:58 AM
@mau! I just read your comment and snorted water out my nose! That's the funniest thing I've read today! Thanks for making my night!
mau March 10, 2012 at 04:01 AM
@Heather, we need some humor on these blogs.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 04:10 AM
@mau - Don't blame me - Lyle's the one who was supposedly reading the book and constantly claiming that he knows what he's doing! Although personally, I would have preferred if he would have started with the traditional flowers and chocolates ;-)
Lyle Ruble March 10, 2012 at 04:26 AM
@JRH...I like your response, thanks for bringing rationality back to the discussion. There is one thing I would challenge, sex is not a luxury. In our culture it is given to be not necessary, but in Judaism it is considered a commandment from G-d. Therefore having sex is just following one of His commandments. :=) Moving on: You and other conservatives keep referring to personal responsibility and I happen to agree in personal responsibility, but of course I am an elitist and I think you need a fully functioning brain and the capability of reasonable cognition. So if we are talking now about personal responsibility; let's talk about limited families. Before I launch, I will admit to hypocrisy, I have been married twice and the two women claim that I am the sire of two children from each relationship. that being said, I am a strong proponent of Zero Population Growth (ZPG). I find it completely irresponsible to have more children that just replacing ones self. Many have countered that it is OK as long as they can be afforded. However, additional children places burdens on the common good. For example, a large family will gain a tax advantage by being able to claim deductions for each dependent; thus; reducing revenues that are needed to support a larger population. Personal responsibility should be extended to family size.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 04:44 AM
@Lyle - Hmmm… good thing I'm not Jewish then, as I'd be a rather poor one at best! Although, that may be changing soon ;-) Being a Gentile, you'd probably expect me to prefer the Poconos, however, I actually prefer to vacation in the Catskills as often as my schedule allows - I love the Borscht Belt!!! In this country, we're actually expected to experience population decreases over the next half century, aren't we? I would argue that a ZPG stance would be a more prevalent global concern as opposed to a local one. And let's not forgot that I advocate for a complete redo of both the federal and state income tax codes!
J. B. Schmidt March 10, 2012 at 04:48 AM
@Lyle I don't know much about carrying capacity of the earth for population and personally don't feel it very important. However, doesn't zero growth equate to about 2.5 or 3 kids per family? That is about where the US is and above the current production in Europe. I understand that it is probably below the what some third world countries are producing. Are we then supposed to kill our own to allow the third world societies to produce more? That seems counter productive to social advancement since our society is more likely to produce offspring equipped to introduce ideas regarding saving the planet. Therefore, truly responsible citizens of the US would overproduce with an emphasis on mandatory reduction in third world countries. As a father of 5, I am in favor of a flat tax and hence would lose me deductions and that would not impact my family size.
Lyle Ruble March 10, 2012 at 05:07 AM
@J.B. Schmidt...The maximum global carrying capacity is estimated to be not more than 9.0 billion. Sustainable carrying capacity is somewhere around 3.5 billion. It is important in this nation and the ideal number of gross children should be around 1.5 to 2.0 children per household to maintain the current 311 million. One of the issues is that certain ethnic groups are under producing and not reaching replacement levels. At present Hispanics lead in population growth, part from having large families and the other is in immigration. Other high reproductive groups are the LDS (Mormons) and the Amish. Under replacement are generally Asians and Jews. Globally and nationally the overburden of population has a number of consequences. Larger populations require more bureaucracies and larger government. Larger populations put greater strain on natural resources; water, food and energy. Larger populations are vulnerable to large pandemics and starvation. Larger populations create higher population densities, which create social competition and political instability. In short, the larger the population's disadvantages far outweighs any possible benefits.
mau March 10, 2012 at 05:09 AM
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.....Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
mau March 10, 2012 at 05:16 AM
Ted Turner has five children, says everyone else should have only one by editor on December 8, 2010 http://www.ihatethemedia.com/ted-turner-has-five-children-says-everyone-else-should-have-only-one
mau March 10, 2012 at 05:20 AM
I seem to recall that several years ago, at one of the global environmental summits, he recommending that fetus be used for fertilizer.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 05:26 AM
@mau - Anyone that would marry Jane Fonda has to be certifiable!
Lyle Ruble March 10, 2012 at 05:31 AM
@mau...To avoid future totalitarian impositions, then it is absolutely an imperative that we voluntarily limit reproduction. The Chinese have had the one child policy in place for quite some time. Forced abortions are part of the program. It has not been overly successful and they have found that in the new emerging middle class they are automatically are limiting their replacement reproduction. I would hate to see forced abortion and forced sterilization. But if we don't responsibly deal with the problem, it is inevitable we will face such draconian measures.
James R Hoffa March 10, 2012 at 05:48 AM
Here's a video that should help to explain the inner workings of Hoffa's mental processes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaZpHSnjprI
Bren March 10, 2012 at 05:51 AM
As I said, the stigma is still exists. What 15 year old hasn't made a stupid mistake? This is one that will stay with the girl, and the father, forever. She would have been destitute without her parents' begrudging support. We'll have to disagree on this one I suppose. To my way of thinking, it's common sense not to do something unless you can handle the repercussions. In the case of a married woman or one in a relationship, finding out that the relationship is ending because of pregnancy is a terrible and unexpected shock. There are so many stories of relationships destroyed because of a pregnancy. And no, I don't think the stigma is a deterrent for bad behavior, it leads in many instances to abortion.
Heather Rayne Geyer March 10, 2012 at 04:18 PM
All this inflammatory language meant to shock people about sucking brains and limbs. Just as an FYI - many (if not most) terminations these days are done using a pill. The woman swallows a pill and has what is usually described as a very heavy period for a few days. I am sure that doesn't make a difference to most of you, but I thought it should be mentioned. People feel how they feel and I do not intend to change that. This piece was my response to the topic. And now it is time for me to bow out...attempting to have a nice, drama-free weekend. Hope you enjoy yours!
mau March 10, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Lyle, I just can't quite grasp, considering your heritage, that you of all people would condone this potential solution. In your world would all races be compelled to be a part of this solution, or would only whites be forced. As it is now, there are certain segmants of society who feel compelled to pop out babies on a regular basis with no thought of the outcome. For whatever reason, my paternal line has a history back to Europe, of having smaller sized families. Most were farmers and trades people. In the US my paternal line is actually dieing away because it went further yet in reducing family sizes or having no children at all. This was not the case with my maternal line. And in fact they were quite prolific breeders in marriage or not. There are many babies born out of wedlock in that line. Makes it tough to trace the lineage.
Lyle Ruble March 10, 2012 at 09:53 PM
@mau...Let me be perfectly clear, I am not advocating forced abortions, forced sterilizations, or any other forced population control measures. What I am advocating is voluntary personal responsibility to limit family size and ease population burden. If people don't do it, then either nature will take its course and create huge corrections or some future generation will gain power and become like the Chinese and implement forced population control. People have to see the bigger picture and stop worrying about minor issues. Communal sovereignty will always trump individual sovereignty in the long run.
G Thomson March 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Although I applaud the sentiment that men should have a say, I would like to ask a question. Let us assume a woman become pregnant and after much soul searching decides she can not keep the baby (perhaps health or other issues?) The 'sperm donor' objects and wants the child. Big problem. So, my thoughts: Will he financially assist the woman through the pregnancy? She must bear the burden, and if they are not married, then her income etc, will be drastically reduced while she is pregnant. After birth, Will he take custody of the infant and raise it? Seems only fair, if she does not want the child. If the man insists he wants it, will he accept full responsibility for raising it etc? If the answer is no, the shut up. Women have been forced into that situation by church and state for Milena. If he wants the baby then he needs to adopt it and be fully responsible for it. Otherwise, no responsibility, no say.
G Thomson March 10, 2012 at 11:14 PM
I don't know about actual statistics but I can speak from anecdotal experience. Over the last 50 years I have known more then 50 single parent families. Of those, I recall _two_ that were father only families. The reason I remembered them was because they were so unusual. Of those two, one father was a widower, and the second's wife was a junkie whom he divorced. So, using my own experiences as a probable average, I'd say the evidence points pretty conclusively to the fact that women are more likely to have to raise children alone. I'd also like to point out that national welfare statistics point to single parent families as being led by the mother.
mau March 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM
We have gotten so far away from letting Mother Nature take it's course and survival of the fittest, that I don't know that we can put the genie back in the bottle. What health care systems need to take a look at is expanded Hospice Care. The system in Marshfield Wisconsin is a prime example of a very good system. Their hospice system is not an immediate death sentence. You go through and in/out of various aspects of it, depending on your needs at the time. I don't believe there are any like it in the Milwaukee area. http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/residents/?page=palliative http://ministryhealth.org/MinistryHomeCare/MakeaDonat1/DonationsM.nws
mau March 12, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Now Hanoi Jane wants Limbaugh fired.
mau March 12, 2012 at 07:10 PM
@JRH, MK-Ultra or Manchurian Candidate http://gma.yahoo.com/soldier-held-afghan-massacre-had-brain-injury-marital-061722796--abc-news.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something