I had a difficult time finding just the right words for a title that would draw you to this article. As of this moment I still haven't found them, but I pray you will read further.
I am pro-life, but even more, I am absolutely anti-abortion. I can usually fight with the best of them, dragging out statistics, horror stories, science and every other tool available to convince pro-borts that their stance is not only wrong and inhuman but anti-human as well.
I've read of young women recounting the horror of their abortion, I've seen the horrendous pictures, I've heard of and from those saved from abortion and I've become teary and more determined in my anti-abortion stance.
This article stopped me in my tracks. The vivid contrasts made me weep.
If you are anti-abortion, save this article, read it again and then again to steel your reserves and wear it as armor against the onslaught of abortion.
If you are pro-abortion, I cannot imagine how you will possibly read the entire thing then face yourself in the mirror.
Mr Moore, we thank you.
Like a slave, is an unborn child not a brother?
By Charles Moore
12:01am BST 27/10/2007
*Be sure to read the 'Comments' following the article
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at October 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Email This1) Ayn Rand was adamantly pro-choice. That's neither here nor there in a debate, unless you analyze her reasons for being so. I think that's worth noting in that you've chosen a handle (RagnarDanneskold) from her novel Atlas Shrugged. If you differ with her positions enough, you ought to do them the justice of choosing another name.
2) While I am not pro-abortion, I cannot in good conscience imagine a world completely devoid of limiting pregnancy is some way. Personally, I would and do choose a world of pre-conception limitation or contraception. However, I doubt that you'd be able to convince a majority of the population that there won't be some method of terminating a pregnancy available, at least in the very early stage or even moments as in the case of RU-486 or mifepristone.
This is not so much a philosophical argument as a practical one. And I think it is even practical for the pro-life crowd in that for example, I'd much rather see someone who is determined to make an abortive choice do so when there are only a few cells dividing to create a life, than when there is a mostly formed fetus that for all practical purposes is then a functioning life, and it many cases could easily exist outside the womb.
3) Ayn Rand viewed this argument as the difference between the actual and the potential. She observed that there is a point, where before which a fertilized egg is still not in anyway human, other than as a potential. Not recognizable yet, even under a microscope. I know that is terribly upsetting to those who view a fertilized egg as the beginning of life, and containing a human soul, etc. But the reality is that we live in a world where it's not going to be fully possible to put the abortion genie back in the bottle.
My belief, is that those of us who are saddened and sickened by the concept of killing an unborn child, realize that in setting some early line, even a very early line for an abortion that is very close to conception, we might help people realize that at that point, they are simply better off preventing conception in the first place.
And more importantly, it might be a much easier pill to swallow (pardon the multiple puns) for the average hedonistic progressive that doesn't really give the morality of abortion a thought one way or the other. By giving them something to appease their screams for "choice" it might be the beginnings of a vehicle for changing the culture such that abortion is viewed as the horror presented by the Charles Moore article.
Until then, I see the argument merely see-sawing back and forth between the extremes without any real resolution. And unfortunately, that means a lot more of the gruesome death.
The moniker of Ragnar Danneskjold reflects two things: one of my favorite CHARACTERS of all I've encountered in my reading (I suppose I could have chosen Augustus McCrae {Lonesome Dove}, Professor McGonagall,{Harry Potter} or Bobby Smith {Standing in The Rainbow}) AND my desire for anonymity and privacy.
I do not believe will ever see Roe overturned and if we do, we will not see the end of legal abortion, but rather the changing face of it state by state.
Laws don't change peoples hearts, they only make them more inventive to circumvent the laws.
My hope, and the goal I work toward, is that we will change, convince and raise a generation who finds the thought of abortion as repugnant as burning people at the stake, lynching or crucifying them.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 29, 2007 08:32 AMThe think the right to life folks should be pushing for full disclosure in the abortion clinics. I doubt abortion will ever be banned, but you would think, if prior to an abortion, the mother would be required to review some of the sonograms and whatever, including the fetus ability to feel pain at an early age, and were given all the options, there would be fewer abortion.
Even Bill Clinton says the goal is for fewer abortions. Even Rudy brags about the decreased abortion rates in New York under his administration.
I liked reading Ayn Rand myself, but like a true follower, I never became part of the crowd or society that became her cult. In my mind, it is about the individual.
Posted by: swatter on October 29, 2007 09:05 AMFormer President Clinton said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."
The bit about rare suggests that there is something wrong with abortion, that it is to be avoided. ... and yet he and his ilk DEFEND it, CAMPAIGN on it and PROFIT from it.
Yet Clinton and his ilk refuse to answer just why abortion should remain rare. If abortion is a moral good under any circumstances (as abortion-on-demand advocates declare), why should it remain rare? And if keeping abortion rare is a rational goal, why should state governments be barred from taking steps to discourage abortion?
The pro-"choice" crowd has never wanted abortion to be rare. Were abortion rare, women considering abortions would feel subtle societal pressure to preserve the life growing within them. Such societal pressure would create a "coercive" environment for women, inhibiting their ability to choose. For abortion to thrive, it must be common.
Sadly, the credo of the the pro-"choice" movement: is safe, legal, as often as possible.
My thought, is that as we can't put the abortion genie fully back in the bottle as I say above, we'd be far better encouraging abstinence for those who are not emotionally ready for sex. Then contraception for those who are. And finally, RU-486, or other immediate post conception for those who fail to prevent conception. In other words, is there a decent and respectful way to terminate a pregnancy immediately in the first week or so? This is a very important moral question for those who believe in individual rights and a secular representative republic, but who also have a full and clear, and maybe even faithful understanding of the value of human life.
To me this seems like a good, realistic line to draw, and a good way to set cultural policy such that we don't engage in gruesome destruction of humans just shy of being born, and the resulting limitations of replacing of population, like we see today in Europe, etc.
I also agree the Roe v. Wade probably won't be overturned. I think it is more of a cultural and philosophical issue. I think Ayn Rand was right in that this is not a state issue, it is an individual issue. However, any moral and rational person should be appropriately offended by the gruesome nature of a pregnancy that is terminated at any later point.
I realize that this still doesn't fully address the faith related issues of those who see even the first moments of life as precious and absolute. However, since we live under a secular government, it will not and should never be the basis for any determination of individual rights. And I think this is how most good moral people would apply Ayn Rand's ideas. Abortion should not exist for the express purpose of killing on a whim.
And this makes sense and is consistent with other social morality, that also has a faith based morality. For example, it should not ever be allowed for government to go into a bedroom and regulate sex, regardless of how some might hold religious views of certain sexual practices.
It's a very fine line, but this line should be culturally and technologically moved as close as possible to conception. And I think this is really what many politicians have tried to say as well when they say that abortion should be legal but rare. It would be better for all if we clarified this in much more hardened cultural rules, and moved the line culturally as close as possible to conception, and even before conception if at all possible.
The current culture though, of morally absent hedonism, is really the whole problem. Very few of those steeped in today's hedonistic, progressive, TV culture will even give any morality a thought. And all of the sources for cultural lessons are almost fully exploring the hedonistic side, without ever exploring the intricate moral questions. This is an extreme danger. And it is the danger that a free people live under every day. Freedom is an awesome responsibility from all angles. It requires a detailed intellect and a detailed morality to be properly maintained. As such, a detailed moral culture should be one of our first priorities. Because a decline in personal morality will be met with strong attempts for control by both the church and state. The church from a preventative angle, and the state with a subsidization angle. It's either that we take personal responsibility and remain individual, or that we submit to the collective control that will fill the vacuum of irresponsibility.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 29, 2007 01:31 PMAnd good quote on the "rare" and your interpretation.
Posted by: swatter on October 29, 2007 02:22 PM