Freedom of Speech? Yeah, right!

I was trying not to let this get me riled up, but I couldn't take it anymore.

I was perusing a distasteful blog the other day, abortiongang.org, to get some sense of what the "other side" of the abortion issue thinks (i.e., the pro-abortionists), when I spotted a post that left a more-sour-than-usual taste in my mouth. It is titled Hey A--holes: Stop Using the Holocaust as a Metaphor for Abortion. My first thought was: "Thanks, Abortion Gang, you just did what you accuse us emotional, Christian pro-lifers of doing". (Now they'll really convince me of the truth of their stance, right? Just after calling me an a--hole?) Then I started reading the actual thing.

Boy, is it insipid. And ludicrous.

I got so fed up with the cockeyed arguments that I decided to post a rather lengthy comment, attempting to refute all the assertions and claims the author made in her post. (May I add that, from what I can see of who makes up the "Abortion Gang", they're all women. It's so opposite of being sexist that it's sexist.)

When I posted the comment, and saw that it was awaiting moderation, I was suspicious that my comment would be deleted. Forgive me for being obviously biased, but that's what I thought. But then I told myself, "No, of course they won't delete my comment. They'll enjoy arguing a pro-lifer's stance. After all, it's not like I was cynical or illogical in my comment." So I waited for my comment to appear, checking back rather routinely because I was eager to see if they had answered my argument.

Would you believe it, my comment got deleted.

I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt; I really did. But I guess they didn't want any opposing arguments on their website in case some doubting Thomas (or Thomasina) who was questioning the morality of abortion would happen upon it and be converted. After all, why should life be hard to figure out? Why should we question things?

Again giving the Gang the benefit of the doubt (although I was quite skeptical), I assumed that something had gone wrong with the computer or the Internet and again posted the comment.

Needless to say, my comment was once more deleted.

It takes two to tango. I don't know if this post will in any way reach the Gang, but I want to show anybody who reads this the absurdity of the Gang's post, and also my reply, since I was prevented from publishing my thoughts elsewhere.

Obviously the Abortion Gang don't believe in free speech. That should be a no-brainer, I suppose, since they quite blatantly disregard the right to life.

It's as if a candidate in a Presidential debate duct-taped the mouth of the other candidate in order to make himself look smart. It's unethical, unconstitutional, and unsuccessful.

This is directly from abortiongang.org. All boldings are my addition, for the sake of pointing out the ridiculous.

"Abortion is not like the Jews and the Nazis, and it’s not like genocide, and it’s not like slavery. Abortion is not like any of those things. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but apparently, it’s not. Here are some very basic, seemingly obvious reasons why abortion is not like the Holocaust, genocide, or slavery:

1) Whether you think the fetus is a person with a soul or a collection of tissues, the vast majority of abortions occur at a time when the fetus could not survive outside the womb. In the case of the holocaust and genocide, those being killed were human beings surviving without physical dependence on another person’s body.

2) Those killed in the Holocaust, and in various world-wide genocides, were fully developed human beings with histories, families, and relationships. Abortion does not end relationships in this way, it prevents them from occurring.

3) Slavery! Abortion is not like slavery. Slavery is the ownership and exploitation of a person’s life. Abortion is preventing a life that does not yet exist from becoming one that does."

And here is my reply:

You are right, in one sense, by saying that the Holocaust is overused as a comparison to abortion. Kind of like how people use Hitler as a comparison to pretty much any criminal nowadays. But allow me to answer your three objections, point by point:
1) "Whether you think the fetus is a person with a soul or a collection of tissues, the vast majority of abortions occur at a time when the fetus could not survive outside the womb." By making this statement, you are basically saying that, 1: whether or not the fetus is a real, human being makes no difference; and 2: the fetus couldn't possibly survive on its own and thus taking its life is not such a big deal. So suppose the fetus is a real, human being? When you accept this as a possible scientific fact (which I believe it logically is, but that's an argument for another time), does it not make you pause, even for one moment, to consider that 50 million human beings have been killed since the legalization of abortion? And supposing that the fetus is a human being, does the question of whether or not it can survive on its own bear any weight here? A newborn baby or a 2 year old toddler cannot survive on his own, so by your reasoning, if an infant gets to be too much trouble for a mother, she is justified in killing that infant because she cannot handle a child at the moment. Of course, if you believe that a fetus is merely a bunch of cells (which you apparently do), then this argument will not bear much weight. But supposing that the fetus is not a human being; what is it then? By the time a fetus is 7 weeks old (around the time most abortions are performed, I believe), it already has a heartbeat. Does this not qualify it as a living creature, if not a human being?
2) "Those killed in the Holocaust, and in various world-wide genocides, were fully developed human beings with histories, families, and relationships. Abortion does not end relationships in this way, it prevents them from occurring." I find this argument to be the most inconsequential of them all. The words "fully developed human beings" imply that you regard unborn fetuses as "under-developed human beings", which they are, scientifically. Would you then consider "under-developed" and "not fully-developed" (or “inferiorly developed”) to be the same thing? If so, your argument justifies the killing of developmentally disabled people, because their brains and nervous systems aren't as "fully-developed" as the average person; at least, they are developed to a different degree, or to a different level. Many people would no doubt label mentally handicapped people as "inferiorly developed", because they can’t do everything the average person can do, and because they often cannot take care of themselves properly. Many people would say "Why not put disabled people out of their misery? After all, they have a low quality of life. That's unfair." I consider this one of the most inhumane statements I have heard people say. Handicapped people do not have an inferior quality of life, but a different quality of life. Although they seem “stupid” on the outside, oftentimes they are incredibly smart, many times smarter than the average person. They bring many unlooked-for joys and happy surprises to their families, their friends, and their caretakers. Anybody who has spent time with mentally handicapped people would agree with me.
3) "Abortion is not like slavery. Slavery is the ownership and exploitation of a person’s life. Abortion is preventing a life that does not yet exist from becoming one that does." With regards to slavery, abortion is more like slavery than you would suppose. An unborn fetus is, biologically and scientifically (and some would say spiritually) a human being. At the very least, a fetus is a potential human being. (And at what point, anyway, can we say that human life begins? Logically, it must begin at conception. Any other time during the pregnancy just has no scientific evidence to back its validity.) So if a fetus is a human being (or a potential human being with potential rights), why are the rights of that human being disregarded? The mother has the right to choose whether to keep her baby or not, and I do realize that it is always, always a hard choice. But never does a human being have the right to kill another innocent human being. A child is not the property of the mother – a child is the RESPONSIBILITY of the mother. There is a huge difference. Sort of like the difference between a slave and a hired servant.
With regards to “preventing a life that does not yet exist” – whenever a pro-lifer tries to refute a statement like this, inevitably a pro-abortionist will bring up Hitler or Osama bin Laden as an example of a life that, through abortion or some such killing, could have been prevented from causing so much pain and suffering. All I can say in response is: we don't know, and never can know, who a human being will become. If Hitler hadn't done it, maybe someone even worse would have taken over a susceptible, war-ridden Germany and gone even farther than he had with evils committed. If Osama bin Laden hadn't existed, perhaps some other terrorist would have organized an attack against the United States; perhaps it would have been a more horrible, more tragic attack. We just don't know. On the other hand, if all the children who were born in bad or hard circumstances had been aborted, we wouldn't have Muhammad, Beethoven, Buck Brannaman, Helen Keller, or John Lennon, to name a few. Who knows how many other potentially great or influential men and women have been legally aborted since 1973.
By the way, I object very strongly to being called an a--hole.

--

I am so convinced of the truth and logical arguments of these pro-abortionists' stance. Aren't you?

Forgive me if I come across as being oober-cynical, but I am understandably peeved.

-Clare