U.S. News' Bonnie Erbe Argues Abortion is a 'Good Decision' in a Recession

Photo of Colleen Raezler.
  • Bookmark and Share

Bonnie ErbeGet an abortion.

In her April 1 blog post, Bonnie Erbe, contributing editor to U.S. News and World Report and host of PBS' "To the Contrary," gave that advice to pregnant moms who are wondering how to raise a child on a strained budget.

It wasn't a tasteless April Fool's Day joke. She's serious.

Erbe keyed her argument around the situation of an unwed, pregnant mother of three who walked an hour to a medical center to abort her wanted pregnancy after her boyfriend lost his job. This mother was featured in a March 25 Associated Press article about the increased demand for contraception and abortions in these uncertain economic times. She called the mother's choice "a good decision."

In Erbe's world, it is "sad" the woman had to walk to the center because she didn't have the bus fare, "terrible that her boyfriend lost his job," and "heart-wrenching that she fell to tears in the doctor's office." As for the abortion itself, she wrote:

But in the long run, can we not agree that an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy? It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 ...

The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to contribute to society. It also lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources (food stamps, TANF) to raise their children.

Considering the source, this shouldn't be shocking. Remember, Erbe is also the person who back in 1995 compared partial-birth abortion to the "production of veal." She stated on the November 3, 1995, PBS "To the Contrary:"

But aren't most medical procedures, when you describe them in detail, pretty disgusting? Isn't, for example, the production of veal, when you describe it in detail, and how people eat meat, when they crunch down on the flesh of living beings, formerly living beings with their teeth. Isn't that pretty gruesome, too?

Erbe failed to mention the other resources, outside of government assistance, available to women who find themselves pregnant and in a precarious financial situation. Crisis pregnancy centers across the nation can provide mothers assistance in the form of baby clothes, diapers and formula for their newborns. Adoption services are also available through a number of organizations such as Bethany Christian Services if a mother decides she cannot parent her child.

But to note that would mean Erbe would have to acknowledge that conservatives do care about life, which she charged they don't in a March 29, 1997, Washington Times column:

The right wing has lied repeatedly in an effort to move public opinion on this issue....Lie No.1: Conservatives care about life. The renowned quipmeister, Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, once said, 'Conservatives' interest in life begins at conception and ends at birth.' Truer words were never spoken. If they did care about taking care of babies and protecting the helpless, they would not be so driven to cut government programs that help the poor, nor so concerned about paying a few dollars less of their own money in taxes.

Caring for a child on an already stretched budget is difficult but it is not as impossible as Erbe makes it out to be. But that's not really what's at issue in Erbe's post. The recession is simply one more way to promote her belief that abortion is nothing but a "choice."

—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Peter Singer, call your

Peter Singer, call your office!!

Excerpt:

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based
on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother
against the preferences of the fetus. ....[   ]  Since a capacity to experience suffering or
satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a
fetus, at least up to around 18 weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to
suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to
hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is
nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion,
therefore abortion is morally permissible.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

The obvious response to Singer

Singer's arguments are easily refuted.

Let's consider: Does a person have rights only when he understands them?

No. A person has rights automatically. Understanding is irrelevant, and therefore, the ability to understand them is equally irrelevant.

Case in point: the Miranda decision. The suspect has the right to remain silent, whether the arresting officer reads him his rights or not. Indeed, the whole idea of the Miranda decision can't be that the suspect only acquires the right to remain silent when the officer informs him of it. (If that was true, the officer would simply never inform a suspect of his rights, and would then be free to violate them.)

The fact that the fetus doesn't have any awareness (or preferences) is, therefore, irrelevant. You can't condition human rights on an ability to be aware of your rights. That would mean that a morally evil but clever person would simply prevent you from knowing what your rights were.

Erbe's "arguments" are also easily refuted...

In fact, owing to their lack of reason, I hesitate to even call them "arguments" but rather mere "asseverations" based on emotionalism.

"The fact that the fetus doesn't have any awareness (or preferences) is, therefore, irrelevant."

Correct again.  My spouse often informs me that "you were 'sawing wood' again last night."  I am usually surprised (and embarrassed) by this, as I never seem to have any recollection of it.  Even when I am stirred from a "sawing episode," I usually testify against it ("I was not sawing").  The fact is, I am utterly unaware of my own existence, especially during the periods of non-REM sleep.  According to this bimbo (sorry, but I have very low respect for anyone who advocates the convenience-killing of human beings in utero as a good to be earnestly pursued), my spouse should just "choose" to "terminate" me, as one is not a "person" when one lacks self-awareness.

I'll just quote

I'll just quote myself:

{

The primary argument in abortion is at what point does a bundle of
organic matter suddenly become a human being. Frankly, the whole argument
is idiotic. Babies develop over months, and people are constantly
trying to set an arbitrary point in that process as the instant the
entity suddenly becomes a human being. The exact moment in time when
the heart, lungs, or brain become functional is completely irrelevant,
and denying a child humanity just because it hasn’t reached that point
is an atrocity. That kind of thought process is the same as denying
someone humanity because their brain is not devoloped enough to support
speech or even (get ready for it) because their skin is a different
color. Yes, I’m equating abortion mentality to racism. However, there
is a unique diference between killing an unborn child and killing a
black or a mute: Given time, the baby would devolop whatever biological attribute
is deemed necessary to be human. Not only do abortionists kill unborn
children because of an uncontrollable biological difference, that
difference is only temporary.

Imagine a woman visiting her son in the hospital after he had broken
a leg. As she walks in the room, she pulls out a knife and stabs the
boy to death. The police ask her why she would do such a thing, and she
replies that her son was a liability to her, and her family had always
held the belief that someone who can’t walk isn’t really human. When
the astonished officer points out that he would have been able to walk
in a couple months when the cast came off, her only response is, “He
didn’t have two usable legs right then, so he wasn’t really a human
being. It’s not murder; I was just getting rid of baggage.”

}

www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi

I think Singer should go to

I think Singer should go to the maternity ward and watch a newborn boy be circumsized, then care for said infant after the fact before saying they don't suffer.  Also, he should see how a well-fed newborn acts after feeding.  If that's not "satisfaction", I don't know what is.

When I was 5 months pregnant with our first child, my husband lost his job.  Unlike most moochers, he worked for a non-profit that didn't pay into unemployment so we had none.  In Erbe's world, I should have gone down to Planned Parenthood and killed my son because his life would suck (or something).

I'm now pregnant with #2.  My husband's company was just bought out, budgets are tight, and it's possible he might lose his job by the end of the year.  Should I head to the clinic now or wait until July and have a PBA, Ms. Erbe?  Enlighten me!

These people are awful.  Evil.  Jesus cannot return fast enough to separate the sheep from the goats.

 

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

And...

Why didn't Erbe also insist the mother should kill the three older children, as well?  Accepting her premises--jobless boyfriend, lack of money, crime/poverty/etc statistics on children raised by never-wed mothers--those children have the same dismal future as their aborted sibling.  How dare she condemn those children to a miserable existance instead of improving their lives by snuffing them out? 

 

(Not to give them any ideas, I just like bashing them with their own arguments.)

I'd like to hear from the

I'd like to hear from the child how he/she feels about being aborted during a recession for "the greater good".

Besides recessions (even with the Dems in charge) don't last forever...but a human does. 

 

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

  Oh yeah!!?  Well I had a

  Oh yeah!!?  Well I had a grandson born this morning and two families are thilled and happy.  Let the liberals kill their own and live in their emotionally dark and lifeless caves but as for me and my families we are going to live and celebrate life.

Mid America

  Congratulations!!!  I have  a grandson due the fourth of July!  I couldn't be more excited!  How  wonderful for you!  We plan to continue populating the earth as long as we can. (After all, we are an EXCELLENT gene pool!)

   Thank you.  It's been

   Thank you.  It's been a wonderful birth and mother and new son are doing fantastic.  I'm leaving right now to go get my first look.  Grandma and I had to wait till daddy and now Big Sister (2 1/2) gets introduced to her new little brother.

Congratulations!!!

I have another grand-daughter due in June.  Hooray for kids!

The leftists can go ahead and do this terrible thing ( I wish they wouldn't, but it is in their nature) but I think that the Laws of Nature will kick in and our breed will far out last theirs.  Spiritually, too.

Seven kids, two grand kids (third coming soon) and many more to come.  All healthy, all happy, all paid for by we who had them.  

Good times, bad times, the human races marches on. 

"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H

 "I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!"

→ New scam

FOX is reporting military wives are volunteering to be surrogate mothers while their husbands are deployed.  This with the consent of the husband overseas.

Military insurance takes care of the pre-natal and the surrogate makes about twice the money her husband does overseas.

Certainly is creative.


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Erbe orders at her favorite restaurant

Waiter: "And for you, Mam?"

Erbe: "I'll try the braised placenta with the fetal brain chutney." 

→ Erbe

Would you like our special Chapotle sauce on the chutney?


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Erbe orders at Micky-Ds drive thru

Sorry, but I can't help myself. 

Cashier: "Welcome to McDonalds.  May I take your order?"

Erbe: "I'll have the Abortion to go, please."

Cashier: "Would you like fries or a Coke with that?"

Erbe: "How dare you place undue burden on my choice."

Reading this turned my

Reading this turned my stomach. To think that anyone could view a child as a "thing" to be gotten rid of in such a callous way is truly appalling. If you consider her argument, then we're all expendable in the right situation.

Why not use her method for everyone who is a drain on society? Anyone in prison, on welfare or any kind of public assistance, the elderly and mentally handicapped... etc..etc.... if we get rid of all these problematic nuisances we'll have tons of funding available for who really deserve it. 

 As for the mother.... she already has children, so she SHOULD know about birth control. I have sympathy for the child she murdered, but none for her. She and the father are completly to blame for the killing and they should feel badly.

I don't know how any of them can sleep at night.

 

 

Oh, haven't you heard???

 http://blog.beliefnet.com/viamedia/2009/03/abortion-is-a-blessing.html

 

Abortion is a BLESSING. People have lost their d*mn minds. And morals.

 

All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden?  P.J. O' Rourke

The Three Survivng Children.

Wonder how the three surviving children will feel about this later in life when they learn of this. Will they ask their mother if she considered killing them too at one point before they were born? Will they ask their mother if there were any other brothers/sisters killed?

It would be interesting to do a poll of adults who know that their mother had potential brothers and sisters of theirs killed, asking their opinion of abortion.

Good point. I don't know

Good point.

I don't know how a child could not look at this and not wonder if they, too, are expendable if finances become too tight.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

what a sick and twisted woman

Three children. Single income.  NO public assistance.  Not a food stamp - not a reduced school lunch.  All successful, happy, healthy and wonderful.

Ms Erbe can bite me.

Hoorah!!!

I would say she could bite me, too....

But the treatment for rabies bites is really unpleasant.

"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H

 "I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!"

Missed opportunity

Ms. Erbe's mother missed a great opportunity to improve the world when SHE decided to carry this "person" to full term.  THAT's what we need to figure out a retroactive solution for.  

as for me...I'm still clingin and prayin... 

How bout a retroactive

How bout a retroactive abortion on this piece of trash excuse for a human being.  Now THAT'S a fact-based, rational decision.

I find it decidedly unfair that my wife and I are having trouble having a baby and can't afford to adopt when hundreds of unwed mothers can get pregnant by looking at a guy and aborting the child at will.  But hey, that's life.  For those of us that survive liberal policy that is.

 

obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.

But in the long run, can we

But in the long run, can we not agree that an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy? It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well.

Well gosh, why not 'get rid' of one of those other three children in order to benefit the other two and society as well? Not necessarily execution, but maybe selling one of them to a family that wants a child. That would be a 'fact-based' decision, I guess. Of course taking simple steps to avoid a pregnancy would be too, but I guess that's just me.

I'll admit I'm not perfect, but I did get married before fathering children, and still believe that decision was to the benefit of my children and society.

Dingbat

Erbe is a dingbat. Missing from this story, and the original on which it is based which I have read, is how far along in the pregnancy the mother was. Critical piece of information.

But re Erbe's thought process, if you abort the fourth child so that the first three can have a better life, how big a step from that is it to recommend killing the youngest two children so that the remaining two can have a better life?

Quandary

Here is a question for the leftists:

You have a woman on death row for killing three children, who is terminally ill, who is raped by a guard and becomes pregnant while in a coma and has no living will.

Who lives, who dies?  Should the guard have "parental rights?" Who pays the bills for any or all of it?

I know the answer.  I know it is a distasteful comment.  I know the common sense approach.

My point is that the leftists have NO idea what commonsense, morals or The Laws of Nature are.

One can always hope that they can continue to breed themselves out of the gene pool. They and their constituents can't function now, as it is, without help. Someday it will come time to pay the piper and they will be 2 bucks short of a dime.

Leftist Extinction....except now the dinosaurs eat sprouts, wear Birkenstocks, drive hybrids and live in elite little neighborhoods in "nuclear-free" zones.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

Where would we be if our ancestors considered us "inconvenient?" We can't borrow money from our kids and survive, any more than we can borrow (steal) life from them and survive. 

"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H

 "I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...every time!"

And liberals call

And liberals call conservatives selfish.  Nothing is more selfish than choosing yourself over your child, let alone over the life of your child.  Erbe is just a gross, creepy person.  

 

 

The solutions are so SIMPLE they'll never get it...

Here's the low-down.

Liberals HATE christianity and are doing everything they can do destroy it by mocking it and making it's followers look foolish compared to 'hollywood'.  But the facts are these:

If prayer and scripture reading were allowed in public schools, the ills they complain about would reduce drastically.

If teachers were allowed to teach kids that pre-marital sex is wrong, there would be less pre-marital sex.

If there were less pre-marital sex, there would not be the rash of 'unwanted' pregnancies.

If there were less unwanted pregnancies, there would be less abortions.

If there were less abortions, it would be a boon for everyone.

Instead - what have we got?

Liberals banned prayer and God from school, opening the door for the teachers to counter any morality their horrible parents might be imposing on them.

Liberal teachers are telling underage kids that it's OK for them to have sex out of wedlock.

Liberal teachers are giving underage kids condoms that obviously aren't working, otherwise they wouldn't all be getting pregnant.

Liberal teachers are nodding and winking while our immature teens are engaging in sexual behavior that they aren't ready to cope with, and getting pregnant.

Liberal teachers are encouraging these unprepared and tragically pregnant teens to get abortions so they can feed the embryos through a shredder, then bathe in the juice, hoping that this will grant them immortality.

Can anyone look at the flotsam of this miserable tide of immorality and say that it's for 'the greater good'?

 

 

Thank you for noting the

Thank you for noting the difference between liberal teachers and good teachers.  I appreciate it.

 

"Liberal teachers are nodding and winking while our immature teens are
engaging in sexual behavior that they aren't ready to cope with, and
getting pregnant."

Or the liberal teachers are engaging in sexual behavior with the teens.

 

 

obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.

and if the teacher is male---off to jail! If the teacher

is female---wink, wink ... lucky boy!  It is DISGUSTING how the two cases are treated so differently! 

Good luck with your family dreams ;-)  A friend and I were just talking about this tonight.  When we were having babies at EARLY ages, it seems like there were no problems...her daughter is now 38 and having #1 baby.  I was 39 and had #1 grandchild ;-)  Not saying either way is better, just 'splaining the differences ;-) 

It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams

Good Decision for whom?

Certainly not the aborted one!  When one of my 6 children was about 11 she overheard a discussion of abortion on TV and asked me to explain it to her.  Given her tender years, I tried to make it as euphemistic as possible and something along the lines that sometimes a pregnancy is “inconvenient”  and the mother decides to end it.  Children are often more aware than their parents think and she pursued the line asking if she had been “inconvenient” and I answered that truthfully yes she was, but that her mother and I would never consider abortion.  I asked her what she thought about that and her answer many years later is quite clear in my mind.  “I am glad you didn’t kill me!”  Any ambivalence I had about the issue vaporized.

As a staunch pro-choicer,

As a staunch pro-choicer, even I must admit this is about as dumb an argument as one can make.  I also question whether her story is even true.  While I can't say I'm offended by her comments (stupid people don't offend me), I have to say it's a rather unbelievable argument in favor of abortion.  God, even Planned Parenthood can help (and I'm not talking about their abortion services - they do offer health care services and counseling as well)!

"As a staunch pro-choicer",

"As a staunch pro-choicer", I assume you've given the subject considerable thought.  That being the case, would you mind going here and explaining what parts of my position are incorrect and why?  I'm serious, you should know.  If you have an actual refutation for any part of the process by which I arrived at my opposition for all abortion, I want to hear it.

www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi

Fair enough

We can always disagree about abortion, with respect. But we have to keep it rational, and I agree with you that Erbe's argument is pretty poor. I appreciate your honesty, and frankly, it makes me more willing to listen to you. Keep contributing!

I'll have to disagree with some of that, KC.

I'll assert that it's not possible to respect a viewpoint--or an individual who holds it, if I may be so bold--when the viewpoint insists that there are times when it's a good "choice" to kill a developing child.

The pro-abortion arguments are never rational, because they have to be positioned against biological facts.  Never mind the moral, ethical and spiritual dimensions, they can't get past the biology of the matter.

Now, I appreciate it when pro-abortion folks discuss the topic without resorting to name-calling and the like, but that's another issue entirely. 

With regard to the original article, Erbe embraces evil.  As does the "ethicist" Pete Singer, who was mentioned in an earlier response.  Their attitudes are unfortunate, and I hope they abandon them at some point in the future, but the word that best encapsulates the notion that there are times when killing a developing child is a good idea is "evil."

And evil should never be accommodated. 

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Well, let's consider that for a little bit

Evil should never be accommodated, true. But a person can mount an argument about abortion without being evil. They may be wrong, and their error can lead to immorality, but that's a distinction that needs to be respected.

  • You're arguing that no one can be rational if they promote the killing of a child. They will counter-argue that there is no real "child" being killed.
  • You answer that by saying that the biological facts are incontrovertible. They will counter-argue that biology alone can't answer the question.
  • The abortionist crowd argues that "legal personhood" is a concept that doesn't depend exclusively on biology. (Round and round we go.)

I deny (as I suspect you do) that personhood depends on something other than biology. But that's an argument about legal personhood, not biology itself.

I disagree with the arguments about legal personhood, but I don't think they're irrational. I think they're wrong, and I can mount a solid argument against them, but that doesn't mean they're irrational. Just because someone disagrees with me doesn't prove they're irrational.

Hmm.

If someone advocates the killing of a defenseless individual, that advocacy is evil.  If someone engages in such advocacy in a measured manner, it makes dialogue easier--but the advocacy cannot be considered more admirable because of the manner in which it is presented.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

No

It isn't the manner, it's the matter.

Most abortion proponents argue that the fetus isn't a person. You may disagree with them about that, as I do, but you'd have to present rational arguments over why a fetus is a legal person. And that discussion, on both sides, is about the definition of a legal person. Now, just because I disagree with their arguments about legal personhood doesn't mean that I think they're irrational.

So, let me throw a loaded question back at you. (I know it's loaded, but I hope it will reveal a crucial point.)

Do you think everyone who disagrees with you on moral issues is, simply because they disagree with you, immoral? Or irrational? Or both?

KC

Been watching this dialogue, and don't mean to butt in, butt....

"Pro-choice" ideology is arguably irrational -- when one examines it closely and objectively, it does not have a leg to stand on.  Logic and reason are on the pro-life side.  Of course, that's not to say that those who hold to it don't follow an inner logic of sorts, but I've come to believe that it is one that is undoubtably clouded by emotion.  If it were not an emotional issue (i.e., sex and personal responsibility), there wouldn't be any argument.  That's also not to say that one cannot dialogue rationally with someone who is pro-choice, although I find it a rarity (the poster above being an acception).  Emotionalism, arguably a bigger influence on people than logic, is unfortunately on the pro-choice side.

May I....

butt in now too? ;-)

lotr, I would contend that emotionalism is the province of BOTH  sides of the issue. For the simple fact that the issue involves children, murder and freedom. Since humans are wired to "care" for children greatly and we seem to be wired (most of us anyway) to abhor murder and we live in the "freest country on Earth", any issue involving them is inherently ladened with emotionality. 

From an observational perspective, I find it interesting to note how the different emotive ploys, think freedom, i.e. freedom to choose and right of life, i.e. the right to live are employed and the conflict that results.  Which has the greatest emotive effect, etc, etc. 

Ok, that was my 2 cents, thanks for lettin me disturb y'alls discussion. ;-)

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

Why the hesitation?

Hell, jump in!

Hillbilly

I wrote a long-winded reply, but it got accidentally deleted when I hit the wrong key -- one thing I hate about NB is that the page always refreshes whenever you leave it -- wish they would do something about that.

What you say is true -- it is an emotional issue from both sides of the coin.  But my point was that on the pro-life side it begins as a factual knowledge, which then leads to an emotional response.  Just like the atrocities of the Holocaust, the facts of what happens in an abortion clinic evokes disgust and horror.  Problem is, the facts are usually kept hidden, as the killing is committed in utero.  Pro-life ideology begins with facts, and the arguments in favor of it are air-tight.  Religion enters the picture only insomuch as it enters the picture with any moral issue.  As Pope John Paul II once said (paraphrased), faith cannot be contrary to reason.

This is not the case for the pro-choice mindset.  They don't begin with the biological facts of natural mammalian gestation, and of course they don't: That would only lead to the wrong conclusion.    The arguments are rationalizations to justify the ends, which is ultimately sexual license free of personal responsibility.  The ends are the starting point -- here the tail wags the dog, and because their position is fundamentally inverted, they even project this upon the pro-life side ("you just want to keep women barefooted and pregnant!").  That is why there is no statistical difference between men and women on the issue.

Have no fear

It's a blog, for God's sake. There's no such thing as butting in. It's a public forum in the first place!

You realize, of course, that "they" feel the same way about us. They think we're the irrational emotionalists. They think we're slaves to traditional morality. They think we're hostages of the Religious Right. But that's to be expected, since every "side" feels that the other side has fled reason.

I think that the pro-abortion side is wrong. But while many of them offer inane arguments that can be tossed aside, not all of them are so easily dismissed. Sometimes they have serious intellectual challenges. For me, that means that we have to get better, and make our arguments sharper. To be honest, human lives are at stake - we can't afford to be sloppy about it. We should not underestimate the other side. If they have rational arguments, we should accept it - but then clarify our arguments to defeat them.

KC

Yes, I do realize that actually, and I totally understood where you were coming from.  You'll note that I did not disagree -- I was just trying to clarify (1) they are (objectively) wrong, and (2) they typically come from an emotional angle.

It's also true that there are some serious intellectual challenges (and I've gotten into them), probably the most serious being the issue of "legal personhood," which unfortunately is not an exact terminology, and is thus vague by definition.  But I still believe that, were it divorced from the emotional issues of sexual license and personal responsibility, this would not be an issue at all, as "person" would be defined as "human being."

I appreciate all the contributions, as does KC.

And I agree that there are emotional components to every facet of this issue.

However, the pro-abortion stance, in all its permutations, has only emotion to work with.  There are no rational arguments, no logical motivations supporting the advocacy of abortion in any circumstance.  

KC, you are correct in the need to hone pro-life arguments, and in the need to have facility in using them.  But just as it is unwise to underestimate the opposition on a given issue, it can be counterproductive to overestimate them.  

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Agreed

To amplify your point, many on the pro-abortion side present the issue as a "mess," a "mystery," or something impossible to figure out. Obama says that the question of when human life begins is above his pay grade. Harry Blackmun, in the original Roe v. Wade opinion, waved off the question. The whole pro-abortion argument depends on avoiding the question of when a fetus deserves rights, because if the fetus deserves rights at conception, the game is over and they've lost.

My own belief is that we have a winning argument there. And I don't mean that just in the sense of the public relations aspect, I mean that this is where the argument really is. I think we ought to latch onto that argument like a bulldog, and refuse to be distracted. The logic of that argument will survive any attack.

In short: the pro-abortion argument is that the fetus may be human and alive, but that alone doesn't qualify it to be a legal person. Only legal persons have rights.

We deny that it needs any other quality than being human and alive. So the obvious question to the abortionists is: what else do you think the fetus needs?

And that's where their attempts at answers, in my opinion, always fall short. That's where we need to focus - highlight that question for all to see, and everyone will see that they have no good answer.

Marvelous insights.

The key is remembering that our disagreement must be on the issue, and not with the individual.  "That's wrong, and here's why" always works better than "You're full of beans, and here's why" type remarks.

At the end of the day, those who push the pro-abortion position have no rhetorical, logical, ethical, moral, or spiritual fall-back position.  Abortion is always wrong, and demonstrating why isn't a terribly difficult task for those who take the time to prepare.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

It a brave new Obama world

It a brave new Obama world and death is king. Finally, the left has a real champion in the White House, Obama, the angel of death. While the left have been for killing their babies for years, now it is national policy to be in favor of killing your children. After all, everyone knows how the plight of women is today. And those darn kids have made it so much worse. Why should we have to be sooo inconvenienced with caring for them.
Erbe is sympathetic that the woman had to walk to the execution of her child, but not the execution itself. Any woman that can't afford to have children has a sure fire way not to get pregnant: keep those legs together, baby! This really isn't deep stuff.
It is laughable that Erbe's 'authority' on Conservatives is a gay pimp. Frank disdains life and God's creation of male-female marriage. Is he really the best source she could have used to castigate Conservatives? At least it makes the article end on a laughable note.
TSF Protests!

I agree with Erbe, to a degree

I agree with Erbe, to a degree.

i.e, We shouldn't Care if libs want to abort their babies or not. In fact, the fewer libs they bring into the world, the better - if only used as a political bluff.

Throw the same trash right back at  Erbe and her ilk, and you'll see if they "Change" their opinion about abortion or not.

Also, Zero, ZERO U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to be used to provide those abortions For Them, if that's the way they want it!  

Nobody on our side ever Has thrown the same back at Erbe and her ilk though, but for a couple of exceptions. That's the problem!

We're "above that". We're "Better than that".

They mock, They ridicule, They belittle our beliefs. Despicable and Vile attacks related to what is and isn't "a baby" are Not beyond their parameters of "good taste", yet we've let them go unanswered, uncontested, for Years!

Too Many Years.   

 

Sorry, but you lower yourself to their amorality if you think...

...you shouldn't care if the liberals/leftists abort their babies.

Maybe you don't. But I suspect you really do.

I can't and I cannot imagine anyone who is pro-life being so.

Even so, I understand, or think I may understand, your agita with the liberals/leftists.

Same here with me.

In fact, you wonder what would be if Erbe's mother and father decided to abort her. Or if the parents of Barack Hussein Obama, or whatever his real name and nationality might be, also decided to abort him in his mother's womb.

But, still, the innocent unborn remain that, regardless of whoever's womb in which they may be blessed or cursed to find themselves.

As for the liberals'/leftists' mocking and belitting and ridicule?

You bet, that sticks in my craw.

But if we do that, we do lower ourselves into the morally relativistic, morally agnostic cesspool in which they live. Yes, my flesh screams to do that, but I just don't now if it'll work.

But we should not let them continue to go unanswered. I totally agree with you.

That'll mean getting out of lots of comfort zones and engaging them with the same zeal with which they hate life.

And getting in their faces?

And politely and maybe even not-so-politely, or at least politically correctly, exposing them for the death merchants and haters of life and, yes, bullies they can be.

They're afraid to fight terrorists, but wage war against humanity's most defenseless.

That's beyond reproach.

That's monstrous, IMO.

BTW: I did apppreciate your comment. Could feel that P&V. Truly, I share that.

I didn't know breast cancer

I didn't know breast cancer was such an great thing to get in a recession!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Your suspicions are

Your suspicions are absolutely correct, CKA.

I Do Care. Of Course I care. I can clearly see that You do as well.

Whatsmore, my agita with liberals/leftists like Erbe is only multiplied by her speaking of unborn children in simple economic issue terms and alike, as she did in her piece.       

I'm also not prone to taking the road of the lowest common denominator to "score a victory" in Any debate.

However, when their immoral to ammoral pro-choice mouthpiece mercenaries like to believe that they've scored one victory after another, it becomes all the More difficult for me Not to accept such an open invitation to debate them on this issue on Any level.

Down in the mud, Anywhere, as it were. Particularly after reading an article like this one

http://www.creativem...

I don't have any children, as I'm not married. Yet. I may be soon, but not quite yet. No kids before marriage. A silly little rule of thumb that my parents thought I should probably try to follow. So I did. Good Idea.

That said, I probably could've had a couple of 20-somethings by now. So I do think of my friends sending their kids to said universities and having garbage like that shoveled into their heads on a daily basis, all in the name of "expanding their intellectual horizons".

The first thing that strikes me, is if That is acceptable Now, then WTH is "pushing the envelope" gonna be in a dozen or more years from now?

And by no means am I advocating her being censored, much less her being fired. That's what They do! But her being on a roster of censured  profs (that stuck in our craw) certainly would be a start.

A roster like that could be used for parents coming into a university to look at the Pros & Cons of the place, and decide if it's a roach motel of liberalism or not.

No Thanks, I'm sending My kid elsewhere.    

Lastly, Thank You for your appreciation, CKA. I appreciate and share your dedication to this matter as well.

Take Care.

 

St. Basil, the Great, First

St. Basil, the Great, First Canonical Letter to Amphilochius, 374 A.D.:

"A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder." 188:1
"Those also who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves,
as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus." 188:8

If all the pro-aborts had

If all the pro-aborts had been aborted there wouldn't be any pro-aborts..... ironic, ain't it?

Avoid Abortion

Here's a novel idea....how about "choosing" not to have sex outside of marriage? How about "choosing" to have children with someone who is willing to make a commitment of being a husband, father, and provider? How about "choosing" to think more of yourself than to let someone use you for sex because you are starved for "love" ?  How about taking responsibility for your actions......?

And when all else fails...

...adoption ain't a bad option, either.

Breeding

Too bad abortion doesn't result in sterilization, in most cases.