I just began reading Gregg Jackson's Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, a book that presents hard facts (cited too) directly contradicting leftist claims, going from A-Z. This book is good. Naturally, A is for Abortion, so I thought I would share some points for YAFers that were particularly convincing.
Claim by the Left: "Legalized abortion reduces the abuse of unwanted children"
Response: Child abuse has actually increased since abortion became legal.
He references a study from the University of Southern California where they asked the parents of abused children whether they had planned and wanted this child. 91% of the abused children were considered by the parents as "wanted" at the time of pregnancy. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of child abuse cases are NOT caused by parents being forced to raise "unwanted" children, and they "would have been better off being aborted" like the left likes to claim. The facts are there. Ask me for the references if you want, or just buy the book. :)
Claim by the Left: "It's not fair to bring unwanted children into the world."
Response: It's not fair to stick surgical scissors in a baby's skull, suck out her brains with a vacuum, dismember her and throw her away in a garbage can either.
I think that point is good enough on its own. Jackson then iterates, "And since when does an individual's unalienable right to live depend upon somebody else 'wanting' them?" And emphasizing the USC research, child abuse is NOT connected AT ALL with whether the child was wanted or not.
Also, if you take Bio 172 here at U of M, a section of the course is devoted to fertilization and conception. They emphasize that at the time that the male and female haploid cells join to form the zygote, the genetic material in that living cell is completely different than the mothers.
The only common thing among cells in a living organism is their genetic material, DNA. Therefore, the claim that a woman has a right to do with her "body" what she wants is true (scientifically her body is the conglomeration of cells all sharing the same DNA), however the little zygote fetus is NOT her body, its DNA is completely separate than her own. It's science.
Therefore, the mother is not just killing cells in her own body, but murdering a human being. It is just ignorance if you believe otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Gregg Jackson is from Michigan, is a huge U. of Michigan fan and speaks on college campuses nationwide. You can go to www.greggjackson.com to find out more information on how to bring Gregg to the University of Michigan.
Interesting comments. Allow me to respond to your blog.
First of all, I’m a conservative but don’t consider myself to be either “pro-choice” or “pro-life”. This is a fuzzy topic for me. My ideas about the legalization of abortion often change a lot as I mentally deliberate on the issue. I think the topic is complex and I often feel that both sides try to make it simpler than it really is.
Let me begin by addressing a few points that you made:
Claim by the Left: "Legalized abortion reduces the abuse of unwanted children"
Response: Child abuse has actually increased since abortion became legal.
If those statistics are indeed correct, I would agree with you that there is no correlation between abortions and abused children. However, be careful in statistics. The response “Child abuse has actually increased since abortion became legal” almost seems to imply that abortion has caused an increase in child abuse – that is misleading and cannot be determined without further evidence. I’m not saying that this is what you meant, but I’m pointing that out so that someone does not make that faulty correlation. I think in your whole blog, this is the strongest point you made.
Here’s another point:
Claim by the Left: "It's not fair to bring unwanted children into the world."
Response: It's not fair to stick surgical scissors in a baby's skull, suck out her brains with a vacuum, dismember her and throw her away in a garbage can either.
This is an interesting point because it throws the idea of morality in the mix. We can define morality as a whole to have two subgroups. One is “relative morality” and the other is “absolute morality”. “Relative morality” implies the kind of notion of right or wrong that differs between people (or groups of people), while “absolute morality” is a constant notion of right or wrong viewed by all people.
Let’s try to answer the question “Is killing wrong?” Some may say, “Yes, it is, killing is never justifiable”. Others may say, “Killing between two armies during war is okay, but any other kind of killing is wrong”. Furthermore, others may say, “In war, killing anybody associated with the opposing country, whether they are soldiers or civilians, is okay, but any other kind of killing is wrong.” Others may say, “Killing criminals who kill someone else or killing soldiers of the opposing country in war is okay, but any other kind of killing is wrong.” My point here is that people have their own ideas of what is right and wrong. They are justified in their own ways. The morality here is “relative”.
The concept of “absolute morality” is more difficult and controversial - some may even say that it doesn’t exist. I don’t know the answer.
That is not to say that we as country should not adopt a “code of ethics”. In fact, we have. There is a common code of ethics that all engineers learn in an ABET accredited school and that is, “Just because you can build it doesn’t mean that you should.” Furthermore, we punish those who commit crimes like murder, theft, treason, etc. Our own Declaration of Independence provides us with a code when it states, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
However, when referring to abortion, it’s harder to determine when you are, in fact, tramping on the “unalienable right to life”. To further the point, allow me to pose the following question. This question may seem at first unrelated, but allow me to build up this idea.
Suppose we look at the subject of recreational sex. Is it okay to have sex for pleasure, and not for purposes of procreation? One could view that using a condom or taking birth control pills for this purpose is wrong. After all, you are preventing the sperm and the egg to fertilize, therefore terminating the process of life that this very act is supposed to start. If we assume the existence of God, did God really want us to ever use sex for our own gratification? On the one hand, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then He must have known that we would have eventually used devices, like condoms, for such purposes. However, it seems to me that God would have created the pleasures of sex as way to encourage procreation, which in itself encourages survival of a species. By using contraceptives, are we not terminating the process that is supposed to start the very process of life? Are we not terminating this for our own gratification? Is this wrong? Should we make it illegal?
Personally, I don’t think so, but it’s an interesting idea because it brings out the notion that safe recreational sex, whether you are married to your partner or not, may be immoral. We may be able to look at safe recreational sex as an act that terminates the process that starts life. This is not a widely held belief by Americans. So, I ask you this: do we, as a society, only impose our morals in areas that are convenient to our cause, but neglect it in other areas? I think, in some ways, the answer is yes, but this could also be debated.
Now, suppose the sperm fertilizes the egg. It still takes three weeks before the brain, heart, and spinal cord of the embryo develops (The details of fetal development can be found at http://health.allrefer.com/health/fetal-development-info.html) During the first three weeks, would terminating the pregnancy be an act of killing or a termination of the process that starts life (similar to the example I expressed in the previous paragraph)? After all, we’re still at the very beginning stages of development, so early in the development process that even the embryo’s vital organs have not formed. Would it be unreasonable to allow these three weeks as a grace period to allow for an abortion for those who do not wish to be parents?
You could argue that life has begun in the first three weeks, so yes, you may say that it is killing, and that would be a valid idea. However, others may have the view that life begins after the formation of the major organs, and I think this is also a valid idea. As a realist, I would be apt to the idea of allowing abortions for the first three weeks and then making it illegal to have an abortion afterwards, unless the mother’s life is at risk. However, for reasons that I will explain later on, there are additional considerations we must make in addressing laws that make abortions illegal.
Your last point addresses that that zygote’s DNA is separate than that of the mother’s…therefore, it is not part of the mother’s “body”. This is one way of looking at the argument, but there is another way you could look at it.
During the period of time that the fetus is in the womb, the mother’s body is the “carrier” of the fetus. The mother is essentially the fetus’ “world”. As the owner of the world, for that period of time, the mother is like a “god”. What she puts in her body affects the fetus. If she does drugs during pregnancy, this will have a negative effect on the fetus. If she eats healthy and keeps stress at the minimum, this will have a direct positive effect on the fetus. Therefore, even if the DNA is not the same, it still does not take away from the fact that the mother “owns” the fetus’ “world”, and therefore, should be able to make decisions as to what she wants in the “world”. That is, unless we adopt laws that prevent the mother from making these decisions.
I leave you with the following question for my last point: Is abortion something the government should control? After all, there may be complications in pregnancy that arise that affects the mother’s life. I don’t think I’m in the minority when I make the claim that in this situation, the government should not be the judge of who lives and who doesn’t. However, let’s think about this realistically. In theory, we may make a distinction between those circumstances, but in the real world, the implementation of these distinctions may be complicated. Suppose we allow for abortions only if the doctor writes off that there is, indeed, a situation where the mother’s life is in danger. Those doctors who are sympathetic may very well perform abortions, even in situations where the mother’s life is not at risk, and then write off that the mother’s life was at risk. That’s not to say that if our society determines this practice is immoral, that we should not have a law against it. However, my point is that it may become a “meaningless” law – in that, in principle, it is established for purposes of formalization, but is not enforced rigorously (For example, here at the University of Michigan, I would claim that laws against the usage of marijuana or underage drinking are not rigorously enforced by DPS – they know it’s happening on campus, but they have more important “crimes” to tackle).
So, we can further this discussion and ask ourselves the question, how much do we want the government to impede on our freedom of making our own choices? As a conservative, do you make abortion an exception to the fight for limited government? And when does life begin? Is it when sperm meets egg? Is it after the first three weeks of fertilization? Maybe is it after birth? I don’t know the answer.
My point in writing this lengthy response is to show the complexity of the issue. Neither you nor those who are “pro-choice” are ignorant. This is a personal issue and there’s a lot of relativity involved in finding the solution.
I welcome your thoughts to this response.
Cheers :)
I am not pro-life. I am anti-abortion, but I very much support the death penalty.
Jackson is a neo-con but on abortion you really can't go wrong as long as you respectthe importance of life.
Post a Comment