Reader D_M_M: A cry from an unborn child

Jenny had a good crack at at me:

You are not a woman, and therefore you have no right whatsoever to comment on how women treat their wombs. Having an abortion is a less than desirable situation, but the option needs to be there, especially in a world where rape and sexual abuse exists. I don’t know who the hell you think you are, but how dare you try and take that option away from women, as well as preaching about “murder” on your blog and twitter account. You are a disgrace. I’m absolutely thrilled and relieved you are leaving, and hope you will now quietly fade into obilivan so we never have to listen to your outdated and offensive ramblings again.

D_M_M’s response was even better than anything I could have written. How can you argue with this logic:

You are not an unborn child, and therefore you have no right whatsoever to comment on how I should be treated. Being aborted is a less than desirable situation, it involves pain, sometimes even the violent removal of my fully formed limbs while I am still alive, and finally, it ends in my death. As such I don’t think abortion should be an option, especially in a world where the basic rights of a helpless innocent child should be protected. I don’t know who the hell you think you are, but how dare you try and take away my life, as well as preaching about “choice” on this blog and twitter account. You are a disgrace. I’m absolutely thrilled and relieved that there are still some people out there who will protect my rights and life, and hope you will now quietly fade into oblivion so that us poor helpless children never have to listen to your outdated and offensive ramblings again.

Unborn child

Your thoughts?

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

1 Comment

  1. Never a better moment than to recall the old saying ‘Silence is deafening’.
    Thanks D_M_M for a very simple and logical rebuttal to Jenny who, it seems, treats the whole question of abortion as relating to the womb of a woman, as if there was no child inside.
    The right to choice:
    This is the most common argument for abortion – that “it is my body and I have a right to choose”. This is wrong on two levels – it is not the mother’s body that is being destroyed and she does not have a right to kill her child. Abortion does not kill the mother – it kills her child. That child is – from the moment of conception – a genetically distinct human being who is not “part” of her. The child is utterly dependent upon her and is living inside her body, but that does not give her the right to actively kill the child. This is a very important point – an abortion is an active choice to destroy a life, not simply a medical procedure with consequences for the mother and no-one else. No human being has a right to choose to murder another innocent human being, especially one which depends on her for literally everything. This is a shocking betrayal of trust.
    Abortion will go on in “back alleys”:
    Some proponents of abortion claim that making abortion illegal will not wipe it out – it will continue in underground clinics and without regulation and so forth. They argue, therefore, that the best way to deal with abortion is to keep it legal so that the women who have abortions can be assured of medical attention and regulation.
    It is true that there are abortions when abortion is illegal – but that does not mean that we should keep it legal. People will always commit rape – does this mean that we should legalize it and provide clean rooms for people to rape their victims in? Should we give free guns and knives to those who want to murder and rob?
    By making abortion illegal many abortions will be discouraged. If abortion is kept legal there will be many more abortions. Abortion was illegal for the vast majority of human history – it has never before been seen as a human right. It is only seen as vital at this time because of the increased use of contraception and rise in sexual promiscuity; abortion is being used as a form of birth control by the majority of those having abortions.
    The solution to the number of women having unwanted pregnancies is not to give them access to abortions but rather to prevent them becoming pregnant in the first place. The only reliable way of doing this is through chastity – the increase in contraceptive use and abortions directly parallels the rise in unwanted pregnancies.
    A fetus isn’t a person
    There are many forms of this argument – all of them spurious. Some people say that the fetus is “just a lump of cells” and is therefore not a person, or that because the child is unable to take care of itself, reason, or interact with people it is not a person. All of these arguments are flawed.
    The phrase “just a clump of cells” is meaningless – at what point does a human being cease to be a “clump of cells”? We are all “clumps of cells” – just larger than we were when we were in our mothers’ wombs! The fetus is a genetically distinct human person – even as a single cell, that fetus is alive and is a person with the complete genetic information of the adult. The only thing that is required to allow that fetus to grow into an adult human is time and nutrition.
    If a fetus is not a person, when does it become a person? And what is added to the fetus to make it into a person? What else could the offspring off two humans be but a human person?
    The argument that because a child is incapable of certain things – living without its mother, or reason – is also ludicrous. There are many people who are rightly and correctly called “persons” who can’t do these things; infants, the handicapped, the very old, the injured. Is a person who is mentally retarded not a person because he cannot reason and interact? Newly born infants cannot survive without their parents – in fact, much older infants cannot survive without their parents. Does this mean they are not people too?
    All of these arguments attempt to establish a definition of “person” which is at odds with the traditional view (namely, a person is made in the image and likeness of God) and which does not make consistent logical sense. All of these arguments simply seek to justify the selfish murder of children for no reason other than convenience by attempting to deny personhood to those who have it.
    Another form of this argument is the view that late term abortions are not permissible but early ones are. This is a flawed argument simply because where is the line drawn? On what basis is the distinction made? What is the difference between (for example) a twelve-week and a twenty-week fetus which means one can be destroyed and murdered and the other cannot? There is no distinction except age – an entirely arbitrary choice. Is it right to murder someone who is 59 but not 60, for example?

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest