AJ - Izzy

Canada

How to write all of me in less than 10 seconds?

Hmm, let me think... how about DREAMER?

Yup. That works.

Message to Readers

Please, whatever you'd like to share, BE RESPECTFUL. I don't mind you sharing your opinion, but this piece is not to argue or cause anger, I just want to learn and experience others' opinions and thoughts on this as well. Thank you

Understanding My Views...

July 5, 2019

FREE WRITING

19
    Yup, that's right. I am pro-life, and I want to share my opinion. I have read many pro-choice views on WtW and I'm glad others are willing to share their thoughts, I'm glad that people are pushing what they believe in. I have commented on a few, then I realized that I want to make it official. So here is it, my full view, the pro-life view. If you want to ignore this, go ahead. If you read on and disagree or are confused, please comment or ask questions. If you agree you may also do this. Honestly, this is for me to understand your views and also for me to help you guys understand. I've realized there is so many misunderstood about my views, and I hope this sets it right. Thank you for coming, honestly. I appreciate it :)

  The biggest argument that you are probably going to hear is, "It is a fetus, not a baby" or "An unborn baby is not human". Maybe in the past, this was a good argument because nothing could prove the humanity of an unborn child, but now we have science and truth. The unborn is an individual, living, human being... by definition: 
    Individual: The unborn are distinct from the mother, father, and other living things. They have their own unique and complete genetic footprint. 
    Living: Characterized by metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. 
    Human: They carry human DNA with a genetic signature. 
    Individual Being: They are a self-contained, self-integrating, living entity with their own nature. 
    In other words, they have every single thing needed, from conception, to proceed through the full series of human development and to inherit human nature. All they need is proper nutrition and care, like any other born human. 

    Now that we know unborn children ARE humans, think of this. Yes, I am religious. I do have religious views and, even though some people say that I can't argue with religion because not everyone has the same beliefs, hear me out. This is my belief in this topic: Every life has value. That's my religious belief. Do you believe in the value of every human life? If not, then what defines value? Age, intelligence maybe, perhaps physicality? No one can deny that this is plain wrong, to rate all human life. Haven't we made that mistake before, with women and Indians and Jews that were "less valuable" because of their skills or looks? Unborn ARE humans, they ARE persons, therefore why should they be less valuable than the rest of us? Sure, they look different, act different, can't support themselves yet. But they are human, they have value. And yet we continue to make the same mistake that has cost humanity so much in the past, that one mistake that has caused war and terrible welfare and death. We continue to decide the value of humans based on mortal things. Take a look at these reviews of laws made in the past, what do you see? 

"In the eyes of the law... the slave is not a person."
- Virginia Supreme Court Decision, 1858

"An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution."
- American Law Review, 1881

"The statutory word "person" did not in these circumstances include women."
- British Voting Rights Case, 1909

"The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews... as 'persons' in the legal sense."
- German Supreme Court Decision, 1939

"The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights."
- Child and Family Services Case, 1997

    Looking at all these laws, decisions, cases, we see that they are exactly the same. Germans said Jews were not persons, what do you think? I think they are. British said women are not persons, but they are, correct? Law said unborn are not persons, even if they are humans. Everything is wrong with this, and yet sometimes the most important lessons take the longest to learn. Please, listen, and learn. It's time we stopped making the same mistake and learned from our wrongs, right? Many fight for the value of people, whether it be woman and voting, or Indians and human rights, or babies and life. What's the difference, looks, maybe abilities? Looks shouldn't be a factor, neither should abilities or stability. All have life, all have value, so why choose this specific one child to kill because they are "less valuable?"

    I mean, what other reasons are there to kill unborn children? 

    Another thought is that "women should have the decision to do what they wish with their bodies." This is true, of course, but at the same time completely wrong for THIS specific topic. Why? The thing is, the baby is NOT a part of the woman's body. Everyone should have a choice over their own body, but abortion is robbing that choice from the child, who is not a part of the woman's body and therefore should have their own choice over their own body. Obviously, unborn do not have the ability to make that choice, but then again does that mean they have less value and shouldn't have a chance at life? 

  The only argument I am making here is that the baby should have a chance at life, just like every single person on here did, just like I did, just like everyone you love did. Killing the child is robbing them of having a life, and against popular belief, it is murder. Maybe it feels different, maybe your reasons are different, but the baby is human and killing them is not right! I am not saying that women should be allowed to suffer, or that the baby is more important than the women, or that whatever happened was supposed to happen because it isn't. When someone is hurt like that, it's terrible. It's one of those things that you can't undo and you can only provide as much support as you can. But whether you think it or not, losing someone even if they aren't born yet, and especially if they are a baby that has your DNA, will cause more trauma; many women know this from experience. I don't have personal experience or anything like that, but I do suffer. In fact, everyone suffers. Why cause more suffering, to an unborn and to the women, when you can instead support them, help them through their struggles, and bring another beautiful and unique life into the world?

  I'm not just saying writing this because of my faith, I was just really sad to see how different the view on both pro-life and pro-choice is, and sometimes messages are not as clear. I do have experience in this topic, I have done my research and know both the facts and the experience well enough to believe and emphasize my point. However, I can still learn, and I want to learn. I want to know what you guys think, and why you think it just like I shared mine today. 

    If you read this far, congrats. I'm actually surprised (no offense of course) many of you on here will choose to ignore this and please, I encourage people to ask questions, even challenge what I'm saying. I only ask that if you are, please BE RESPECTFUL, I have nothing against anyone and I believe that everyone should have a strong and individual opinion. I don't hate anyone, if you someone does have an abortion it's wrong to just turn your back on them. Everyone should have a chance at life and support, at all points in life. Thank you for coming this far, and I hope to hear from all of you. 

-Izzy

    




 

Print

See History
2

Login or Signup to provide a comment.

56 Comments
  • AJ - Izzy

    Thank you to all who commented! I'm glad that everyone is informed on the subject, even if not everyone agrees on the same thing.


    4 months ago
  • Juliana

    @Kenny, I mostly understand your comparison with the car, except I think you take it too far. The risk of pregnancy is not that great, and it is definitely not the equivalent of driving around recklessly. I am not going to condemn abortions that happen because the mother’s life is in serious danger. Personally, I would rather die, but I am not going to expect everyone else to. In the rest of your comment, you mentioned that the child’s mind is not fully developed and that they aren’t aware of life and death. That doesn’t mean the child is not an alive human being. (A newborn isn’t aware of those things either.) I don’t care how developed someone’s brain is; a person is a person.


    5 months ago
  • Catlover

    A very interesting read. Good argument.


    5 months ago
  • Lottie McCallum

    I found this really interesting, I am a Catholic- so my religion tells me that I am pro-life, but I am not. I am not homophobic and I believe that everyone should be themselves as that is what God wants us to do. That being said- some people have a different situation. Many people argue that is what God wants, and perhaps that is rue, however some people aren't ready. Perhaps they are very young, perhaps they can't support a child or aren't in the right mental space. While that is no reason to kill a living being, you are destroying two lives in a sense, I have no clue what I would do if I was in uni or very young, without a lot of money and stressed and suddenly became pregnant. Perhaps then I would change my views on abortion- but I truly believe that it is not based on one instance. Everyone's life and experiences are different, everyone's views and desicions are different depending on their environment. This is why i am pro-choice, because I'm not anti-abortion or pro-abortion, it depends on you. On the pregnant woman (and the father) only.


    5 months ago
  • V-Rose

    @Kenny, if we keep saying that abortion isn't bad as long as you do it in the first trimester, soon we'll be saying the second. A New Mexico Bill almost went through the senate to allow abortions up until the day of birth.


    5 months ago
  • Kenny

    Also, @Izzy consciousness is heatedly debated in the scientific community. Generally, we place it at about 24 weeks, and even then the capacity for conscious as we know it is negligible for a variety of reasons. Keeping in mind that the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester when only the most rudimentary connections have been made, we can't expect a baby to be conscious of its own self. Memories aren't formed until only a few weeks before the birth, by which point, any abortion that takes place is either due to almost certain fatality of mother, child, or both, or because of spontaneous miscarriage, or because the fetus itself isn't at all viable. In such cases, the parent has already picked out the wallpaper for the nursery, and built a crib. Any abortion that happens then is never their choice or fault, and acting like it is may will be detrimental to the person's already emotionally compromised state.


    5 months ago
  • Kenny

    @v-rose uteruses aren't scarred by abortion. And doctors don't scrape children out with knives. The majority of abortions happen in the first trimester when the child is barely more than a clump of cells. The clump is removed from the uterine wall using suction, and the uterus definitely isn't scraped in the process. Complications only arise in three percent of abortions performed, and even fewer will actually result in permanent infertility. If you have any sources that state that infertility is a likely effect of abortions, you're welcome to share them.

    @juliana of course, pregnancy is always risky. but people who don't want to abort choose to continue despite the risk, however, this choice is taken away from people who don't want children, for whatever reason. We make a choice to get into the car knowing there's a risk of crashing, but taking away rights to abortion is equivalent to me stuffing you in the trunk and driving about recklessly. In both cases, there's risk but the difference is whether the choice was given or not. And of course, foetuses can't make the choice, they aren't conscious of their own self and they don't know life or death. Their minds simply aren't developed enough.

    My point here is, I guess, that you can be pro-life for you and your body, but you can't presume to make that choice for me and take away my autonomy.

    Again, Izzy, you framed your argument beautifully, but I side with one of the commenters on the point that compared aborted babies to historically oppressed groups, as they are completely different both in cause and result.


    5 months ago
  • N.

    @V-Rose, I totally support what you're saying; women who make the choice to keep their pregnancies should absolutely be supported, but I don't always see the pro-life campaigns pushing that (not to mention birth control and safe sex ed in general). And in the case of the story I was told based on a firsthand account, it wasn't because she was denied help. She was, in fact, offered help and counseling. It was because she was incredibly unstable (mentally) and couldn't cope with having to carry her rapist's child. Pregnancy is an unforgiving and unrelenting reminder when through rape. My point is, if she had been given access to an abortion, the immediate issues could be better worked through and she could have taken steps towards recovery and mental stability. But instead she's locked away and a family of five is dead. It's upsetting and in my opinion, should not have had to happen.
    @AJ - Izzy: I take your point, but I think you may have misunderstood mine. When I say the baby will affect the woman's body, I mean her body will be stretched and contorted, she will experience frequent symptoms throughout the nine months and afterwards. Hormones will affect her mental and emotional stability, which can trigger poor decisions that could potentially risk the lives of the mother and the child. The woman will then have to go through childbirth, something often described as one of the most painful things a human could endure. So I would argue that while the baby's body is a separate entity, it still has a very profound effect on the mother's body. Thus, her body, her decision.
    And, as someone who recently watched their mother deal with a serious illness while handling their own personal issues, I think my mental state would have been different if I myself had been raped and forced to carry a pregnancy. I was upset, I was angry, but it was not to the point where I was ready to endanger myself and fellow walking and talking peers. I can't say the same for the latter. It's not really a fair comparison.
    Thanks for listening and reaching out :) I apologize for hurt feelings, I know it's a hard subject.


    5 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @Norah, thank you for sharing! You gave some really good arguments (and I'm glad!), I just want to explain my view of things for some of them. I may see things differently (seeing as I live in Canada where there is no abortion law) but I don't think that your logic on the abortion ban makes sense at all. If I got it correctly, you're saying that because abortion bans cause more abortion, we should lose the ban? That's like saying that just because the ban on drugs (which also hurts people) is causing more drug use, the ban should be lifted. It doesn't matter if there is a ban or not, the act itself still hurts not one, but two people; the woman and the child, in the case of abortion. If there is a danger that someone could get hurt or lives could be lost, then a law that prevents it is the best action you can possibly take. If you don't like abortion, why is unbanning it better than keeping it? The taking off of the ban will probably result in more abortions because people now think that it's okay (because the law said it was). Unfortunately, you can't control how many people feel that abortion is right for them, law or not law. Taking away the law would just give people the false idea that it's okay for them and that nothing is wrong with taking a life (though they may not think of it that way). Another point, I actually believe that using past mistakes like the Holocaust and discrimination are surprisingly and a little scary how similar it is to abortion. The argument for pro-choice is sometimes that the unborn is not a person so it's okay to kill them. This exact same argument was what caused the death and unbalance of many people of the past, so what is different this time? Unborns are living and breathing and moving, and, even though you may not think it or know it, killing unborns does affect millions; the millions that now have no chance at life, no future to build on, no people to love and happiness to enjoy, nothing. Finally, you said that is the sense we know today, unborns are not persons. A long time ago, women were not persons. A long time ago, Native Americans were not persons. They could feel pain, they could live and breathe. The embryo begins to develop since conception and their nerves and brain are the first things to develop. Meaning, every single thing they touch, feel, hear, see, all of those are stored inside of them, as memories. They may not remember them if they are born and given a chance at life, but killing a baby who can actually remember is brutal. Just as killing "born" people because of their differences is brutal. Does that make sense?


    5 months ago
  • Norah

    I respect your thoughtful handling of this subject. I’m pro-choice, but of course I don’t like abortion, and wish it were never necessary for women/ppl with a uterus to have to get them to retain their bodily autonomy in this world. I think it should be everyone’s goal to make sure abortion rates are as low as possible. The thing about that, though, is that “voting pro-choice” is often the thing that makes abortion rates skyrocket. Conservative candidates who want to ban abortion often also have conservative ideas about sex-education, birth control, and other things that teach people how not to get pregnant. They often are more conservative about these things because things like education and contraceptives give women more control over their body. And this is what this is all about--control. Control over women and their lives.

    You have a solid argument, but there are many many consequences to banning abortion. The main consequence is that women will continue to get abortions, but many more will die as a result. In El Salvador, abortion was banned completely in 1998, but their abortion rate has in fact gotten higher since this happened.

    “Perhaps the most surprising thing about banning abortion is what doesn’t happen when abortion becomes a crime. Abortion does not go away. Indeed, the rates of abortion in countries with the most restrictive abortion laws are higher.”

    It is important to know your moral stance on a subject, but it is even more important to know the real-life implications of an abortion ban. In the end pro-choice and pro-life people want the same thing, for there to be less abortion. Banning abortion statistically leads to more abortions, more women dying, more doctors becoming involved in law enforcement, and more women being convicted on abortion-related crimes that they are innocent of because of miscarriage.

    Another problem I have with your argument is comparing a fetus to individuals targeted in genocides. There was similar language in the Alabama “heartbeat bill” that literally knocked the breath out of me. I know your argument was about person-hood, and how the person-hood of other groups have been questioned in the past. However, it doesn’t sit well for me to see abortion compared to discrimination, genocide, and the Holocaust. I know that in your eyes abortion is murder, so I understand where some parallels were drawn, but I am asking you to not compare them as a person of Jewish descent. The genocide of the Native Americans, African Americans, Jews and other groups were events that forever shaped the communities they affected. They were important because they affected living, breathing, walking (or quote-on-quote born) people, and devastated whole populations.

    This is the definition of person-hood, by the way. A fetus cannot do all of these things.

    “Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain; Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)”

    It is my belief that if abortion is banned, birth control will be next, something I need to be a functioning person while I’m on my period, otherwise I have debilitating cramps, vomiting, and a slew of other unpleasant things. I know that is not your intention in having your beliefs, but it may be the result of action taken to advance them. That’s really my point: logistically if you don’t like abortion, voting liberal and pro-choice is the best way to make that happen in the real world. Banning it actually puts us back a step. If you really are pro-life you should focus on sex-ed legislation. That’s just my two cents.

    I appreciate the way you are open to dialogue and discussion surrounding this topic.

    Link to the El Salvador Article, a fascinating read:
    https://www.guernicamag.com/consequences-el-salvadors-abortion-ban/


    5 months ago
  • parachutes_the_idiot

    My my, this has gotten heated. All I’m gonna say is, the piece is well written.


    5 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @N. yes, the women does carry and support the unborn before they're born, otherwise, they would not survive. That doesn't mean that the child is the woman's BODY, though. The argument is that the woman should be able to make decisions about their own body, but the unborn is not their body, it is its' own and someone else should not be able to make the decision of whether they can live or not. You said that the baby affects the woman, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Don't we all? Now, if someone you loved got hurt, would you feel exceptionally strong emotions and perhaps be a little mentally unstable for some time? Everyone around us affects us in different ways, and we affect and support others even when there isn't a baby inside of us. Even when there is an individual human who is supported by us and affects us from the inside, it doesn't justify any right to take their life.


    5 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill, what do you mean by "what if a woman doesn't want to risk a pregnancy?" Abortion happens after pregnancy happens; whether it be their choice or not, they already risked it. If you meant that what if a woman doesn't want to risk anything further in the pregnancy or a baby, that still doesn't change that the unborn should and deserves to live. Both should be protected (woman and child) at all costs, but even the risk shouldn't decide that one person gets to live while the other doesn't.


    5 months ago
  • V-Rose

    The thing is, @N., the reason she crashed that vehicle was because she wasn't able to get help. She was denied an abortion but there were other people who would have helped her through a pregnancy. You say she did because she wasn't allowed an abortion but it's really because she thought she was completely denied help. What I'm saying is that, yeah pregnancy seems scary but so does growing up and we don't kill ourselves when that happens. But parents and friends are their to help when you grow up and people will be there to help of a woman gets pregnant. If all we do is try to deal with a problem ourselves and it doesn't work out or maybe causes hurt and pain then soon there won't be anyone left in the world with someone because we'll all be dealing with things alone. Please, any of you who read this, Pro-Choice or otherwise, please help the pregnant women not just let them get an abortion because it's the only choice they see. Give them a choice, and maybe we can save some babies and some mothers at the same time.


    5 months ago
  • N.

    Hey, this is well-written and well-thought out- thanks for sharing your opinion :)
    To start, I'm pro-choice, but I understand a lot of the pro-life arguments. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I see why people would believe in the cause. It's a touchy, painful subject. I think it's a choice that no human should ever have to make, but there are unfortunate circumstances in our world that bring about the choice.
    I didn't really understand your comments about how the baby isn't a part of the woman's body. It's true, they're two separate beings, but the woman still has to physically carry and support the baby for nine months while undergoing all of the physical, mental, and emotional side effects of pregnancy. Do you not consider that part of the woman?
    Also, I had a small story. So my dad works for a hospital (he manages the air-lifting crews and operations). A few years back, there was a woman who was raped and ended up pregnant. Obviously because of this, she was experiencing extreme mental trauma. However, she was denied an abortion. Because she couldn't get an abortion, she took matters into her own hands and crashed her car on an interstate. She didn't die, but a family of five that she crashed into did. It's a hard philosophical question, but wouldn't those five people who already had complex lives and family and friends have a bit more worth than the fetus without brain activity? Why should they have had to die? How was it fair for them?


    5 months ago
  • Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill

    BUT WHAT IF THE WOMAN DOESN'T EWANT TO RISK A PREGNANCY? (Not angry, just realized caps lock was turned on) :P


    5 months ago
  • Kess

    I'm pro-choice for my own reasons, but kudos to you for sharing and explaining your opinion!! Abortion is often an awkward and provoking subject to talk or write about, and I really wish that people could sit down and talk about it respectfully. Then we might be able to find a middle ground and understanding of each other's views. Thank you for sharing!


    5 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @.audrey michelle, thanks for sharing. I would be all for women being able to make choices for their own bodies, but the truth is the unborn is not a part of the woman's body, therefore they shouldn't have the choice to kill them. Obviously, a baby cannot make that decision, but that does not mean anyone else can make it for them. And to answer to rape, even conceived in rape, the baby still deserves to have life. As I mentioned below, rape creates not one person in need of help, but two; the woman and the child.


    5 months ago
  • .audrey michelle.

    this is deep shit to talk ab and i support u sharing ur opinion

    my opinion on abortion is that i dont like it but i support it. what if someone got raped and got pregnant? than they should have an abortion. its their body and i feel they should be able to do what they want w it. there was this one person who announced something on facebook and my mom saw it. she said that she can have sex as many times as she wanted and abortion was her birth control. thats evil to say that! i dont like ppl who say that w abortion.

    but again... ur body ur choice

    thanks 4 sharing


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    I am the oldest sister of five kids and we do not have a big house at all. We fight a lot and yeah, we have a bit of difficulty in our lives but if we could, we would adopt everyone we could. I don't think my home is bad. I have an aunt who wants more kids but cannot have one. Is her home supposed to be considered a bad home for kids just because some homes might not be as good? @ruzahk, tell me would a foster kid like it in your home? Maybe instead of trying to find reasons why we should abort the child you should find a way to make homes better for the children that need a better home.


    6 months ago
  • Another Dreamer

    Im only skimming but this is all right... I think


    6 months ago
  • Another Dreamer

    'I mean, what other reasons are there to kill unborn children?' Idk, but child care nearly killed my unborn-at-the-time sister! >:(


    6 months ago
  • Juliana

    @ruzahk, it should also be noted that we can never claim it better for someone to not be born rather than them to be born but to suffer. That was a weird sentence, sorry. What I mean is that how do WE know that a child is going to have a difficult life and that that difficulty is not worth the child’s life? We don’t. And neither can we make that call. I can’t say “this child is going to suffer tremendously and therefore should just never be born.” From a personal viewpoint of just life in general, I believe it doesn’t matter what happens around you because you can always control yourself. You can have a horrible childhood and still choose to love people. So I don’t think it’s fair for us to claim someone’s past or upbringing will decide their future.


    6 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @ruzahk, thank you for sharing that idea. I don't think, however, that classifying an unborn as human but not as a person is right at all! I pointed it out in my piece above, that in the past other people (such as women, Jews, Native Americans, etc) were classified as "not persons" by law, and now we know that it was a very wrong thing to do. Even so, saying that the unborn is human but not a person does not justify murder. Murder is killing the intentional killing of another human, not another person. What if this issue had been brought up in the past, when women didn't have rights or weren't "persons"? Would it have been okay to kill the women if they endangered someone else unintentionally? No, not at all. Also, you said it's sometimes worse to adopt than to abort. You justified it by saying that the child will live a difficult life in foster care and their preferences will be thwarted, but does that still justify murder? And not all children who are foster live incredibly difficult lives, a lot of them find families that love them; why take the life from an innocent baby for difficulties they might have in the future?


    6 months ago
  • ruzahk

    I read a book recently by ethical philosopher Peter Singer who proposes a somewhat uncomfortable but still logical explanation for why the life of the fetus has less importance that the lives of adults!

    He basically proposes a principle under which a being's right to life is derived from preferences, such as the preference to continue living. A fetus doesn't have this particular preference so it can't really be considered as a full-fledged person in the way that an adult or even young human could be, or even in the way that some animals could be. It's human, but it can't really be considered a person. That doesn't mean it is NEVER wrong to kill it, but it does mean the interests of persons in living healthy and fulfilling lives do outweigh it's right to life in many cases, although not all.

    I think this principle also explains why it's sometimes worse to give a child up for adoption than to kill a fetus pre-emptively. If a child will live a difficult life in the foster care system, their preferences which they will grow to hold as persons may be thwarted. This causes suffering and violates autonomy and personhood. Killing a fetus, which cannot be classified as a person, doesn't actually violate the preferences of a rational being, a PERSON, who seeks to live a happy life. Therefore if we can prevent suffering to persons by pre-emptively killing HUMANS, the interests of the persons outweigh the interests of those which we cannot consider to be persons.

    This is only under a certain principle of course and I haven't fully explained it. I just thought it was an interesting line in the argument that directly tackles pro-life objections without getting sidetracked on pragmatic statements or women's rights. It explains pro-choice intuitions.


    6 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @V-Rose, thank you for sharing that story! I love how you included the King Solomon story, I've always admired that one :)
    I also think that you've brought up a really good point! If simply giving up a child for adoption is a terrible thing for a mother to do, why is killing the child okay and better than adoption?


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    Please read it to the end.


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    I found this story on Facebook and hope it will support my point.
    A girl was setting on the bench crying at the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Ft Collins before it was officially opened. After I called out to her for about 15 minutes she suddenly got up and came over and talked with us. I want to share how this went down for the benefit of many of you who do sidewalk and Crisis Pregnancy Center counseling. I believe the Holy Spirit gave me this story from the Bible and it is quite powerful and has been useful quite a few times to help girls choose life. Perhaps you should consider using it if in this situation. I shared with her many standard pleas for adoption while she sat on the bench. How adoptive parents will cover medical expenses and more, how she could reach her potential and responsibility as a mother by giving her child up to a loving and financially stable family that are unable to have a child on their own, how other mothers I know who have done both abortion AND adoption are filled with regret over their aborted children and filled with joy over the children they adopted out etc etc. She suddenly came over to us and said she has three children, one, two and three years old and her boyfriend is going to prison for three to five years and it would be impossible to have another baby she couldnt afford. Then she said "No way could I do adoption!" I then shared a personal story how several years ago I was reading about how counsellors at pregnancy centers would try to encourage girls to give their children up for adoption and the girls would say "What kind of a mother would I be to put my child up for adoption?" And would then go to the clinic and have an abortion. I said "Sweetheart, as I read those words a story in the Bible started flashing and flashing and I couldnt turn it off until I found and reread the story. I goes like this. Two women had babies at the same time. One of the women rolled over in her sleep and smothered her baby and then switched babies, It was for king Solomon to apply his wisdom to determine the real mother. He said "Each woman says it is HER child who is the living child! Bring me a sword, divide the living child in two! Give half to one and half to the other! But the woman who was the real mother spoke to the King for her heart yearned with compassion for her son and said "O my Lord, Give HER the living child and by no means harm him! But the other woman said "Let him be neither mine nor hers but divide him!" I said sweetheart, The first woman represents the woman who loves her baby so much that she would give him away, even knowing it will break her heart than allow any harm to come to him. The woman who would say "What kind of mother would I be to put my child up for adoption and would then have an abortion is represented by the woman who would say "Let him be neither mine nor yours but divide him!" At that point she said she was not going to abort and would look into adoption. Maybe you can use this story some time or pass it on to other counselors to use to promote adoption.

    Fast forward several years. The pro life community here pitched in and paid for this mother to go through Police Academy. She decided to parent her baby and was self sufficient til last Christmas when she was in between jobs. The pro-life community pitched in again and covered all of her bills for several months til she got to working again.

    I just shake my head everytime I hear people say that pro lifers don't care anything about children or mothers after they give birth.


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    The question is trying to say that you have a choice: you could kill me and probably live but if we both try to survive there is still the 1% chance that we would both live. The question is Would you take that chance?


    6 months ago
  • weirdo

    @V-Rose ok, but what about rape? that's not a choice at all. also, like @|r|A|i|N| said. that question doesn't make much sense and it's straying away from the topic. could you clarify?


    6 months ago
  • r|A|i|N

    @v-rose kind of confused about your question? is it that one of us could die with the 99% chance and the other wouldn't, so that i can choose to kill you for a 100% chance and spare myself? or do we both have the 99% chance in dying and that in killing you for a 100% chance i'm sparing myself the 99% chance? if we both have a 99% chance of dying, i would rather kill you, because it means that i can spare one of two people. the other way around, i wouldn't kill you because i'm not absolutely certain that you'll die. but i'm a bit confused about the phrasing of your question. and how does it relate to abortion?


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    Thank you @AJ-Izzy. I also have something to say to all Pro-Choicers. If you and I were in a room and there was a 99% chance of one of us dying, would you kill me or take the chance that we both live? This could be for anyone. A friend, a family member, anyone.


    6 months ago
  • Quille

    AJ - Izzy! Two thumbs up! I'm sorry for jumping into the convo like this, but you're right :)
    Also, I have returned :)


    6 months ago
  • AJ - Izzy

    @Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill, to be honest, when you're talking about rape and pregnancy against someone's will, it does bring up something different. However, even a child conceived by rape deserves to live. Any child conceived in any manner deserves to live. Rape is a horrible thing that no one should ever have to go through with something like that, and I do know that anyone who does should be supported and loved, but the problem that rape has with this discussion (and my point) is that rape and pregnancy from it doesn't just cause one person in need of help, but two; the women and the child. Does that make sense?


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    @wiedo, you make a choice and that choice can cause you to get pregnant. There are risks and if you want to take one risk, you have to take the other.


    6 months ago
  • weirdo

    @V-Rose ...you can accidentally get pregnant. Condoms break. Birth control sometimes doesn't succeed.


    6 months ago
  • Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill

    Disregarding all other parts of this conversation, what about rape victims?


    6 months ago
  • Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill

    You can't accidentally get pregnant?


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    @ user not found, I agree with helping women. You can't get accidentally pregnant and the best we can do is help them and the child regardless of which 'side' we are on.


    6 months ago
  • r|A|i|N

    i can see that a lot of people are getting very passionate about their points of view, and i'll admit i was a bit afraid to comment again, lest the debate turn into an argument. i want to say upfront that i completely understand and respect everyone's viewpoints, and i hope that we can maintain an environment of comprehension rather than anger while debating.
    my goal is not to change anybody's mind––that would be nearly impossible––but rather to help people of the opposing viewpoint respect my own opinion. a lot of people feel very strongly about abortion, and i want people to understand that i'm a human too, and i believe in goodness and morality even if i don't agree with your exact ideals.
    okay. all that out of the way, here's my opinion:
    i prefer to look at abortion not through the lens of "fetuses aren't humans; it's okay to kill them", because, i admit, it sounds barbaric; but rather through the ideal of "women are humans; it's not okay to enslave them". if, due to a mishap, a woman finds herself pregnant, and the laws reflect a pro-life opinion, then she is completely forced into having a child––suffering pregnancy, which can often be intense and painful; going into labor, which is a deeply emotional and physically exerting process; and then dealing with the child after birth. if there are health concerns, the burden is even heavier. all of this because she is not allowed to eliminate the clump of cells inside of her, and is therefore forced against her will to go through pregnancy. the law follows pro-choice ideals because it does not permit slavery. forcing women to have children is the equivalent of enslaving them.
    additionally, just to add to the whole "what if" thing, often there are extreme birth defects present in the fetus and it is almost certainly already going to die in the womb. if not, its presence outside would be limited.
    anyway, if anyone read this far, i really appreciate it. izzy, thank you for writing this piece and allowing me to state my opinion. if anyone responds, i'll probably check this piece from time to time so i can comment back :)


    6 months ago
  • pencils.and.paper.roses

    I absolutely agree with everything you've said. Very good points and extremely well-written!

    @user not found Holy cow, that's a fantastic point! I never thought of that.


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    Pro-Life is not just about babies, but that's because the point. Why is the woman given a choice but the child is not. There is also the fact that many women find themselves unable to have children and they are unable to adopt because of the prices and paperwork. Why kill the child that someone else might want? Did you know, when the baby is scraped out from inside the mother, the mother often cannot ever conceive again because they (the doctors) scratched the uterus? That is scarring. They can't have a kid now. We are not allowed to kill or even touch the eggs of endangered species but we can kill a human child without punishment!? @wierdo, 'what if' questions are the questions that get us places.


    6 months ago
  • user not found

    I one hundred percent agree with the points you've made but there is one thing I think should be mentioned that hasn't been said yet. Many of the arguably wrong things happening in this world didn't start as a problem. Social media for example, simply started as a place were people could share their opinions and projects. Now it is one of the most well known causes of mental illnesses. Those who don't view abortion as a problem might want to stop to not only view it as what it is but what it may become. In the future we may look back and see that abortion was the beginning of a horrible problem. Killing an unborn child may eventually lead to more murders of born ones. Whether legal or not it could become more common for babies to be killed simply because they were born unhealthy or disfigured. I understand it would be hard for a woman to give birth to a child when they're not ready to take care of them. But that's why there are organizations to help young mothers with financial or emotional support. So rather than spend time and effort fighting against pro-life people could spend their time and effort helping these organizations so that pregnant women are encouraged to have their children, instead of being caught in the confusion of everybody's opinions.


    6 months ago
  • Juliana

    I want to rewrite my response. If you want to get the root of the confusion with abortion, the deciding factor for whether it is wrong, it is whether or not the child is alive. If the child is alive, it is murder and I don't think ya'll would try to justify killing innocent children. If the child is not alive, then abortion is like the same as birth control. (I know some people are against birth control, but that's a completely different conversation.) We could talk about all the other details, but at the end of the day, the details just distract us from the real problem. If you look at all of the arguments from both sides, pro-choice has it's argument on the basis that the child is not alive and pro-life vice versa. The confusing thing is that even doctors and nurses consider the child to be alive. This question has already been answered, but people won't accept it.

    @weirdo, so you're saying the difference is that the 3 year old is a human being and the child in the womb is not. Whereas I would say they are both human beings. Also, to answer your comment about the name pro-life: I know you don't believe that the child is a human being, but just imagine that he or she is. If the child is a human being, all of those abortions would turn into murders, right? Our name is about saving those lives. But don't misunderstand us, we don't think that pro-choice people are pro-murder. I'm not going to say pro-life is the perfect name and I'm sorry it makes you feel like we're demonizing you. I can confidently say that's not my aim (or tactic) and not the aim of a lot of people. Some people might use it that way, but not all. Most of us are really just focused on saving those lives, not making the other side look bad. I don't see you as wanting to murder children because I realize that you don't think it's murder. In order for me to convince you that the child is alive, I would have to write a book with all of my supporting sources, which I don't have time to do. I just wanted to answer your comment about the name.


    6 months ago
  • weirdo

    Also, one thing that I really wanna say:
    Pro-life is a stupid name for your side of the argument. I think there are very few people who are anti-life. I'm pro-life. I'm pro-life because I value life. I'm not some demon who thinks that life is trivial and doesn't matter. I just believe that woman should have a right to chose when it comes to something that affects their lives SO much. When it comes to something that could emotional scar them. The naming of pro-life is a tactic to demonize people who are pro-choice. I know that it's not gonna change. I just think it's something to acknowledge. I don't judge anyone for using it. I just think that it's something to point out


    6 months ago
  • weirdo

    @V-Rose ...that rarely happens. There are many reasons that women get abortions. We need to stop asking "what if" questions and concentrate on what actually happens.
    Also, it would impossible to objectively answer that question. We're all bias because we're all living out our lives right now. The question is "Is it truly moral". And, even then it will be hard to answer because we all have different and biases definitions of morality


    6 months ago
  • weirdo

    This is very nicely worded and although I don't agree with you I see your point and respect it


    6 months ago
  • weirdo

    @Juliana the difference is that, depending on the time the baby is aborted, they are not fully developed. A fetus early in the development process does not have a functioning brain, cannot feel of think anything and is not truly considered alive. They may be human, but they are not truly a human being (the difference between being human and being a human being is that a human being can actually feel things) therefore meaning it is not truly murdered. "At common law, murder was defined as killing another HUMAN BEING with malice aforethought." (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder) Although this may see trivial, laws are worded in a specific way for a specific reason. That's actually the reason why the killing of someone who is braid dead is not considered murder. No brain activity= not a human being= not murder


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    @Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill The mother still has a chance to live while if you kill the child, the child never had a chance. A New Mexico mother had an abortion and shortly after died. She was infected with bacteria during the procedure and no one bothered to figure out what happened. She died because of an abortion. Another thing to think about is how they do abortions. They tear the child apart!!!!


    6 months ago
  • Poppy.M

    Though I am pro-choice, I found your piece very interesting and well articulated. I think it's really important that we talk about these issues even though they cause a lot of disagreement. Abortion is not a decision women make lightly, and there so many different situations to be taken into account like sexual harassment, age, health and wellbeing of the mother etc. Childbirth is no easy, painless thing, and will have a huge effect on a woman's life, so I don't think it is fair to take a decision away from a woman when the decision has such a big impact on them and their lives. This is just my opinion, and I really did like your piece, so thank you :)


    6 months ago
  • Juliana

    Your tone is very respectful and genuine, and your argument is very strong. People accuse Christians of making abortion into a religious issue, but it doesn’t have to be viewed that way. My own biology professor (who I don’t think is a Christian) talked about how a child is alive starting at conception. So if the child is alive, isn’t it murder? And don’t we all agree that murder is illegal? I understand if a woman is not ready to raise a child or if it wasn’t her fault, but that doesn’t justify murder.

    As a side note to something in one of the comments: there is always a risk with every pregnancy. So are we just not supposed to have children? Also, there is a MUCH greater risk of dying from a car crash than from a pregnancy, but we all do it anyway. I may have misunderstood their comment, and I’m sorry if I did, but saying that pregnancy is risky doesn’t justify murder. Also, they said “to take away her reproductive and bodily agency is equivalent to regarding them as birthgivers first, and people second.” This actually doesn’t make sense, which I’m not saying with an attitude. The government takes away my free will when they say I can’t muder, but we don’t question that. Maybe that’s not the best example, but my point still stands that your reproductive rights don’t give you rights to muder.

    Lastly, I have a question for pro choice supporters: what is the difference between a mother having an abortion and a mother who kills her 3 year old because she doesn’t have money and she’s unable to raise the child? If they’re both humans, what’s the difference?


    6 months ago
  • Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill

    And @V-Rose, what if the mother has a 99% chance of death if the child isn't aborted. Does either life matter more?


    6 months ago
  • Blotted Ink with a Broken Quill

    I prefer to come at this angle from, rather than a right/wrong evil/good mindset, or if the women is "killing" a child (or unborn fetus), as if only thinking that a women has a right to decide if she can support childbirth.
    What about a sexual harassment victim? Should they have to bear their child at fourteen? (I'm curious to what other people think to this statement.)


    6 months ago
  • V-Rose

    What if a child who a woman wanted to abort could live. What if there was a chance!? Here's a question: what if you had a 98 to 99.9 percent chance of dying in the whom? Would you rather have been killed in the mad excuse of abortion!? If you 'pro-choice' people can answer that, then maybe I'll give you some credit. Just reacting to the comments below. VOTE PRO-LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    6 months ago
  • r|A|i|N

    abortion is a tricky point of argument in that you’ve presented your case beautifully, with an answer to almost every response i could give you, and i still disagree with you. but i did love this piece—well-backed and very intelligent. it’s clear you know what you’re talking about.


    6 months ago
  • Kenny

    As someone who's pro choice, I think you certainly got your point across. While your arguments are valid, and I do agree with them, the fact remains that while it isn't the woman's own body that she chooses what to do with, pregnancy is dangerous to our health in many ways, especially when the fetus itself isn't viable. Wouldn't it then be better to have it aborted, rather than force a woman through a potentially dangerous pregnancy just to give birth to a baby who might well have passed before it even took its first breath? Even in non-threatening cases, babies are hard to take care of, and not everyone can juggle motherhood and work, especially single mothers. There are always circumstances that we can't be aware of that inform a woman's choice, and to take away her reproductive and bodily agency is equivalent to regarding them as birth-givers first, and people second. This is, of course, just my opinion, but I appreciate that you chose to share your views.


    6 months ago