Wendy Davis’s Abortion

Wendy Davis became a household name about a year ago during her filibuster for abortion rights in the Texas State legislature. Even though her filibuster ultimately failed, she nevertheless became a pro-choice superstar and a Democratic candidate for governor. She has recently published a memoir in which she reveals that she herself has had two abortions. She had the second abortion during her 2nd trimester after finding out that the baby had a serious brain abnormality. In the book she describes the aftermath. MySA reports,

After getting several medical opinions and feeling the baby they had named Tate Elise “tremble violently, as if someone were applying an electric shock to her” in the womb, she said the decision was clear.

“She was suffering,” Davis wrote.

The unborn baby’s heart was “quieted” by her doctor, and their baby was gone. She was delivered by cesarean section in spring 1997, the memoir says.

Davis wrote that she and her then-husband, Jeff, spent time with Tate the next day and had her baptized. They cried, took photographs and said their good-byes, she wrote, and Tate’s lifeless body was taken away the following day.

“An indescribable blackness followed. It was a deep, dark despair and grief, a heavy wave that crushed me, that made me wonder if I would ever surface. … And when I finally did come through it, I emerged a different person. Changed. Forever changed,” Davis wrote.

56 Responses to Wendy Davis’s Abortion

  1. Ian Shaw September 8, 2014 at 8:27 am #

    i’m curious. What part of orthodox Christianity baptizes dead babies? Is that Catholics? Just asking.

    I guess from a thought perspective, it’s troublesome. You murdered your unborn child then decided to have her baptized. I guess I find it difficult to bring the two of those things together.

    • curtis sheidler September 8, 2014 at 11:37 am #

      Ian,

      If memory serves, the Greek Orthodox church does permit baptism on behalf of the dead; and since they’re also paedobaptistic, I would assume that would extend to the unborn as well.

      • Ian Shaw September 8, 2014 at 11:47 am #

        Appreciate the heads up Curtis.

    • oliver ivankovic September 10, 2014 at 8:50 am #

      Oliver Ivankovic
      Ian
      In Catholic church baptism is sacrament, one of seven and all are distributed to the living. Church does not have sacramental power over dead. Same thing applies for eastern Orthodox churches.

  2. Daryl Little September 8, 2014 at 8:30 am #

    So sad. Murdering your baby ought to change you forever. We weren’t made to do that to anyone, let alone our children.

  3. Robert Karl September 8, 2014 at 8:39 am #

    Why the prejudiced response about Catholics and Orthodoxs. Geez. Dead children do not get baptized by these faiths. I seriously doubt that this “baptism” occurred. This is a marketing ploy by the abortion killers–to put the baby “in peace” and it is ok by some unnamed religious entity.

    Catholics and Orthodox have been on the frontlines of the abortion battle. This is pure evil. What side you taking.

    • Ian Shaw September 8, 2014 at 9:29 am #

      Robert, I was merely only asking because I am unaware. Thought I do personally know some catho9lics that fter having miscarriages, still had their child baptized.

      I am aware of the Catholic stance on abortion and their unwavering support.

  4. buddyglass September 8, 2014 at 11:51 am #

    I hate it when the Democrats force me to vote for Republicans.

    • Ian Shaw September 8, 2014 at 1:18 pm #

      Well good afternoon to you too 🙂

      Jokes aside, glad to have ya.

      • buddyglass September 8, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

        I’ll typically vote GOP for one of four reasons:

        1. The GOP candidate is a shoe-in to win the general election. In this case I’ll participate in the GOP primary so my vote isn’t wasted.

        2. The Democrat is obviously shady in a way the Republican isn’t.

        3. The Democrat has made his/her pro-choice stance the primary focus for his/her campaign, as is the case with Davis.

        4. The GOP candidate is fairly moderate.

        Barring some insane scandal (of Clayton Williams magnitude) Abbot is a shoe-in anyway, so this is all academic.

  5. Brett Cody September 8, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

    I don’t know what is worse. Davis’ attempts to give ‘dignity’ to her murdered baby–as if it were her privilege to do so; or her exploitation of the murders as a way to justify more abortions.

  6. Chris Ryan September 8, 2014 at 7:07 pm #

    I don’t think any of us are qualified to judge Wendy Davis. First off she very much wanted this baby. Second off no one can cite even a single Scripture that says Life begins at conception. That is a wholly man made belief popularized by Ronald Reagan. Third, the SBC itself didn’t collectively oppose abortion until Reagan was elected and as early as 1971 its Resolutions said that abortion should be legal. And finally I seem to recall a scripture that says judge not lest ye be judged. If we’re wildly casting the term murderer around, I’m certain that Rick Perry’s and Greg Abbott’s opposition to expanding Medicaid is responsible for a thousand times more deaths. Deaths like that of my 8yo nephew who died for lack of access to medical care.

    • Roy Fuller September 8, 2014 at 9:23 pm #

      Thank you Chris. I wonder if there is any language which David might have used to describe her decision to abort and the impact which would not draw condemnation from those who disagree with her position on abortion?

    • David Powell September 8, 2014 at 11:56 pm #

      Psalm 139:13-16.

    • Esther O'Reilly September 9, 2014 at 1:44 am #

      Life begins at conception isn’t scripture, it’s science. Seriously—do we need to go back to third grade and review the birds and the bees for you?

      • Roy Fuller September 9, 2014 at 7:24 am #

        It is the smugness of attitudes like this which squash debate and demonize those with whom you disagree. I don’t know anyone who denies that a fertilized egg is life, so is the unfertilized egg, the sperm, and every cell in our bodies. The more relevant moral question is: is a fertilized egg a human person with the same status as more developed human? People will disagree on that question, but it strikes me as being more worthy of discussion.

        • Ian Shaw September 9, 2014 at 8:46 am #

          Roy, if you truly want to attempt to go down the road of, “is a fertilized egg human?” and “as much human as a human further developed?”, it’s not worth arguing. That’s beating a dead horse and not a valid argument.

          A pre-born child is morally no different from born humans, so any alleged justification to kill a pre-born could only be right if the justification also works for killing a toddler. Plain and simple.

          • Roy Fuller September 9, 2014 at 11:24 am #

            Not everyone dismisses these arguments as dead horses, but I acknowledge that some see them as settled. I personally find that shifting the focus away from “life begins at conception” – which is beyond dispute, helpful, in that life was there even before conception, and is not worth debating. The more interesting question, IMO, is when do we see the beginning of human personhood. What are the necessary elements of a human person? Does being a person require a brain, capable of at least rudimentary functions? I don’t expect that persons will agree on these questions, but I think a more productive discussion can be had around these issues, as they are relevant not only for the beginning of our existence as humans, but also the end. Again, from my perspective, one of the reasons that some arguments against abortion fail to gain traction, is their failure to recognize the complexity of both the biological processes, and the inability and unwillingness to follow the claim that a fertilized egg is different in kind from a developed human being. So, your claim that killing a toddler is the same as aborting an early term fetus does not hold true. One develops into the other along a continuum, and at some point change is significant enough to say that we have something which did not exist before. But to throw out claims like “life begins at conception” or quote biblical verses as if they are talking about abortion stifles debate, it does not promote it.

            • Ian Shaw September 10, 2014 at 8:55 am #

              Roy,
              History tells us again and again that the law will only separate personhood from humanity for horrible ends.
              In 1858, Viriginia Supreme Court: “In the eyes of the law… the slave is not a person.” In 1881, American Law Review: “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” In 1928, Supreme Court of Canada: “The meaning of ‘qualified persons’ does not include women.” In 1936, German Supreme Court: “The Reichgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” And in 1997, Supreme Court of Canada: “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”

              In every case, with the slave, the Indian, the woman, the Jew and the unborn child, science and common sense tells us that they are human. Only the law had the chilling audacity to strip these groups of personhood. If someone is a living human being, then they are a person. A separation between these two can only ever lead to evil.

          • Chris Ryan September 9, 2014 at 9:56 pm #

            The relevant theological question is does a fetus have a soul. And there’s no science book that can answer that. The Bible, also, is pretty vague on that. Which is why the SBC itself was undecided on this until after Reagan took office.

        • Esther O'Reilly September 9, 2014 at 6:01 pm #

          “…so is the unfertilized egg, the sperm, and every cell in our bodies.”

          Oh for crying out loud, can we please dispense with the “the egg is ‘life,’ the sperm is ‘life,'” garbage? Anyone with a little basic biology knows that a sperm is not “life” in the same way that the entirely separate physical entity created by union of sperm and egg is “life.”

          • Roy Fuller September 9, 2014 at 9:09 pm #

            I appreciate that you got my point. Simply calling a fertilized egg “life” as if that settles the argument means little. Rather than saying, “it’s life,” why not make the case that “it’s a human being?” The union of sperm and egg certainly begins a process that can result in a human person. Admittedly, once fertilization begins, the process of development is a continuum. Why is it, do you think, that so many persons see a vast difference in status between a fertilized egg, and a more developed fetus with a brain, heart, etc.? Perhaps because there is significant difference, even as one, under the right conditions, will develop into the other. Is having a functioning brain essential to human personhood? I am certainly not expecting to convince you of my position, but I return to my original point above, that smugness and condescension on your part will not win many to your position.

            • Esther O'Reilly September 10, 2014 at 8:47 am #

              Why are you pretending the burden of proof is on me? Do you realize how increasingly fringey your position is becoming? This great “difference” you’re describing isn’t a scientific evaluation, it’s a purely subjective emotional feeling people have. “It doesn’t LOOK like a baby/feel like a baby to me, hence gee I’m not really sure it’s a separate person.”

              I’m sorry, but my patience tends to wear very thin with your ilk. Still, I guess you deserve half credit for trying desperately to cling to the idea that it’s not really taking a life at certain stages so that you can avoid coming right out and saying it should be the woman’s choice regardless.

              • Roy Fuller September 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm #

                Discussion of “personhood” hardly seems “fringey” – since a number of “personhood” amendments to state constitutions have been promoted in recent years, in all cases by those seeking to limit abortion. Initially, these personhood amendments were put on state ballots, where they have all gone down in flames, in part because the citizens of those states understood the implications of giving fertilized eggs the same privileges enjoyed by citizens of the state.. Now, shifting tactics, state legislatures and attempting to get them passed. The difference I was referring two with regard to a fertilized egg and a fetus at a later stage of development, is the existence of a functioning brain, which is clearly absent in the fertilized egg, and which clearly exists at a later stage of development (this is not a subjective emotional feeling). Nor is this argument dependent upon what the embryo/fetus “looks” like. Most scientific opinion holds that primitive fetal brain functioning begins between the 6th and 10th week, with high functions beginning at later stages. One of the factors which informs my opinion about the relationship of our brain to our person is not what happens at the beginning of life, but rather what can happen to us to end our life. Imagine a person with a brain injury, and injury to the point which doctors would declare that person to be brain dead. Their body can be kept alive, but in many of these tragic cases, loved ones will realize that the person they love is gone, because their brain no longer functions. I am well-aware of the debates around such issues, and how some would never turn of life-sustaining technologies. But families do this every day, because, I believe, they realize that once the brain no longer functions at specific levels, that person has passed from this existence. So, if our clinical definition of death depends on a functioning brain, why cannot our understanding of the beginning of life also include some level of brain functions?

                • Paul Reed September 10, 2014 at 6:25 pm #

                  People associate brain functionality with personhood. If you had to, you would accept a heart transplant. Or an arm transplant. Or a new kidney, heart, liver, or lung. But you would never accept a new brain transplant, because it then wouldn’t be “you” anymore.

      • Paul Reed September 9, 2014 at 8:05 am #

        Esther O’Reilly is like, “this isn’t some Jesus/scripture mumbo-jumbo. This is science, this real deal!”. So Esther, when in conception does science say the “magic” happens? Conception is actually a long (hours), complicated process. A lot of things have to happen before the cell can be ready to define. And I guess for you, one instant there’s no person, and the next there is. I want to know when the magic moment is. Does a sperm merely have to touch the egg? Or do the chromosomes have to line up and you have to be completely ready for cell division? Which part of it is the defining feature of becoming a person?

        • Ian Shaw September 9, 2014 at 10:01 am #

          Sounds like you are trying to split hairs. Is a cupcake only a cupcake if and only if it is baked perfectly, not sticking to the toothpick in the center and not burnt around the edges. Is it a cupcake 5 minutes after the fun chemistry start?

          Or is it a cupcake, regardless of how long it’s been in the over?

          • Roy Fuller September 9, 2014 at 11:39 am #

            I like cupcakes. Is it a cupcake when the batter has been made? Is it a cupcake when the batter is placed in the pan? Is is a cupcake when the ingredients are placed next to each other on the table? Is it a cupcake if an essential ingredient is missing? Is is a cupcake if it is overcooked and inedible? What exactly are the essential properties of a cupcakeness? What does the bible say?

            • Ian Shaw September 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm #

              That’s my point. The best answer in this case is the simplest one and people tend to take things to ridiculous proportions to try and make their answer morally ok.

              • Paul Reed September 9, 2014 at 4:19 pm #

                Cupcakes aren’t a bad analogy, and Roy Fuller puts it much better than I did. When exactly does something become a cupcake? We can’t answer him by responding, “the ‘moment’ of baking”! A lot of things happen during baking, just as a lot of things happen during conception. You apparently believe the essential-defining characteristic of person-hood happens at some point in the conception. What is it? If the answer is so simple, enlighten us.

                • Ian Shaw September 10, 2014 at 8:37 am #

                  Whenever I here someone ask about personhood, it seems that they are seperating humanity from personhood. Which to me doesn’t make much sense as you are saying it’s human, but not a person. Or you’re saying it’s a human but only to a ‘nth’ degree of personhood.

                  An pre-born child is either a human or it’s not. If it’s human, it’s deserving of protectiosn like the rest of us. If it’s not, what then is it?

                  All pre-born children are complete. From the moment of fertilization, all the information that needs to be there is there. It simply needs time to grow. All pre-born children are unique. Scientific evidence of DNA proves that the pre-born child is genetically distinct from his or her mother. The pre-born child is not a part of the mother (like an appendix), but a unique entity inside his or her mother. Pre-born children are living. Biology tell us that the pre-born child is alive because it is growing, developing, and undergoing metabolism and responding to stimuli. And the pre-born child is human. The law of biogenesis states that living things reproduce after their own kind. So humans beget humans. Not parasites or blogs of cells, but humans—complete and unique living human beings.

                  Therefore a pre-born child is a complete and a unique living human being. And while some might say that “a pre-born child is different than those of us that have been born” (and thus don’t deserve the same protections), those differences are not morally relevant.

                  • Paul Reed September 10, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

                    You’ve got quite a list of things that someone needs to have in order to be considered a person: “distinct DNA, growing, developing, and undergoing metabolism and responding to stimuli.” You chastise “pro-choicers” who come up with a list of abilities and characteristics one must have in order to be human, and then you do the exact same thing yourself. Your list is completely arbitrary. What’s more, your list calls a lot of persons non-persons and vice-versa. Twins don’t have distinct DNA; nor do clones. And we might find a way to freeze people (we’ve already done that for embryos) — none of them “undergo metabolism”, and yet they are people. You also won’t answer me as to the exact moment when a person happens (when the sperm touches the egg?). Maybe I’ll get an answer at some point.

  7. Bob Wilson September 9, 2014 at 1:34 pm #

    I find this very difficult when severe fetal abnormalities are involved. Aside from how much the child might suffer, there are also economic realities that cannot be ignored in our culture where so many have no health insurance or paid sick days. How do we expect, for example, a waitress married to a truck driver to deal with a child who will need life long care and medical intervention? Many waitresses are fired if they have to take a child to the doctor or hospital too often. Truck drivers are away from home for long stretches.

    So many social conservatives will whip out their Ayn Rand hats when such questions are asked. Go to a charity! Not my problem.

    • Ian Shaw September 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm #

      The same could be said about an adult who has kidney failure and requires dialysis routinely. And their spouse doesn’t have great insurance to cover the expenses. The husband/wife was healthy during most of their adult life. Now what? What if someone becomes a quad/paraplegic and the round the clock care isn’t affordable?

      The potential rationalization of what you probably only want us to consider is astounding. And I agree, it is a difficult situation. But if a society can justify the killing/murder of someone out of convenience/hardship, what does that say about how far we have come as a culture? Morally, intellectually, you name it.

    • Paul Reed September 9, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

      Bob, Ian is correct here. She does not have a right to kill the baby. Nor does the government have a right to steal from others to help the baby. Murder is murder. It does not matter if the kid ends up dying of malnutrition, exposure to the elements, or something else we can’t predict. Nothing gives somebody the right to murder, even if it’s to alleviate suffering. If you think otherwise, then we have every right to kill all those African babies who end up dying of malnutrition and starvation. (And by the way, we could both ask what the mother is doing getting pregnant when she can’t support her kids.)

      • Bob Wilson September 9, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

        Paul,

        You are wearing both your pro-life hat and your Ayn Rand hat in the same post which proves my point. On the one hand, you wish to compel all women to bring their pregnancies to birth, no matter what. On the other hand, you tell them that after the birth, they and their children are on their own. In fact, very, very few families, even the ideal ones, can handle a severely handicapped child without “stealing”–that is getting government support, inadaquate though it certainly is.

        The fact is that in our society, health care is largely rationed by the ability to pay. (No, emergency rooms do not fill the gaps.) Lots of people including you have no problem with that. People should just work harder, be born with greater gifts, and not be unlucky enough to suffer one of life’s tragedys such as giving birth to a child with catastrophic medical needs.

        So don’t be surprised that so many women (and couples) do the math and abort the child. I can’t blame them.

        • James Stanton September 9, 2014 at 9:11 pm #

          Bob,

          I do you think you make some very good points here. Many ignore some of the relevant social factors that make abortion an option. Reducing poverty, improving education levels, and encouraging use of certain contraceptives could reduce abortion rates. I’m less interested in calling women murderers than in taking steps that might actually accomplish something.

          • Ian Shaw September 10, 2014 at 8:21 am #

            James, those factors are importatnt. But if history has shown us anything, as soon as you emplore people to take personal responsibility, the chant becomes, “get your laws off my body.”

          • buddyglass September 10, 2014 at 9:01 am #

            Honestly, I doubt healthcare costs are a big driver of abortion. Or, if they are, it’s somewhat irrational. Post-delivery the costs are nil since a mother can give a child up for adoption. There’s a potential opportunity cost during pregnancy of having to miss work; that can’t be discounted, but it doesn’t apply to all women. Prenatal healthcare shouldn’t be an issue because it can just be skipped. If you’re already considering termination then you needn’t be so concerned about providing optimal prenatal care.

            I suspect the main drivers are: 1. inconvenience and discomfort of carrying a baby to term, 2. fear of the physical pain of delivery and the potential lasting effects on the body, 3. embarrassment at everyone knowing the pregnancy was accidental (and/or fear of parents finding out the pregnancy happened), 4. fear of driving away the father.

            • Paul Reed September 10, 2014 at 2:05 pm #

              You’re all getting off-topic speculating why women have abortions. It doesn’t matter why women are having an abortion — it’s murder. No one has the right to murder. It doesn’t matter if she was raped, or if the pregnancy will cause her incredible amounts of distress, or even if the baby will die from malnutrition or for other reasons. Moreover, even if you could show that (even) more welfare for mothers and children would reduce the abortion rate, stealing is still wrong. Why is this concept so hard: If you don’t want a kid, don’t have sex.

              • Bob Wilson September 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

                No sex even if the parents are married? The original post is about a child with severe medical needs.

                • Paul Reed September 10, 2014 at 6:28 pm #

                  Exactly. If you’re not willing or able to provide for children and their potential illnesses, then don’t have sex. Pretty simple.

              • Bob Wilson September 10, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

                When pro lifers respond to proposals to help parents support children (guaranteed sick days, health insurance, whatever) with cries of “Stop stealing from me” and “Why did you have children if you won’t take responsibility for them”, the message is very clear—pro-lifers want to make the decision for others to give birth but take no responsibility for it. In other words, they say, let’s you and him fight. Sorry no sale–if we want an economically libertarian society, then we as individuals will make our own decisions, thank you very much.

                • buddyglass September 11, 2014 at 4:09 pm #

                  I’m no huge libertarian, but even I realize that libertarianism isn’t incompatible with the pro-life position.

                  • Paul Reed September 11, 2014 at 5:49 pm #

                    Compelling a woman to gestate and then go through child birth is pretty far from libertarianism . On the other hand, the alternative is allowing unborn children to die.

                    • buddyglass September 12, 2014 at 8:32 am #

                      “…pretty far from libertarianism.”

                      As is allowing a woman to indiscriminately violate the most essential right (life) of a child, no?

                      We can argue about whether or not its reasonable to treat a one-week-old fetus as a “child”, but that argument has no clear libertarian position. If one takes the view that fertilized embryo = child, then (from my perspective) it doesn’t seem to contradict libertarianism to then act to protect that child’s individual rights.

              • buddyglass September 11, 2014 at 4:03 pm #

                I’m not saying it matters w.r.t. the morality of the thing. It does matter if we’re trying to reduce the incentive to abort. For instance if women were primarily aborting because having a baby was hugely expensive and we could mitigate the expense then that might reduce the number of abortions. That’s what I was responding to.

    • Esther O'Reilly September 10, 2014 at 8:01 pm #

      Just spit it out Bob: You believe it is morally acceptable for a society to sanction child murder if the child has disabilities. Or does putting it that way make you uncomfortable?

      • Bob Wilson September 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm #

        No, not uncomfortable at all. I generally support abortion rights, murder in your lexicon.

        On the issue of an unborn child with severe abnormalities, if I were the
        parent, my decision to abort or not would depend in large part on the prognosis. I’m not a believer in needless suffering for the child or the family.

        But sticking to economic issue, I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t consider that, so I won’t lie. If I was facing a birth with stratospheric expenses due to lack of insurance or insurance suitable for a normal birth but not a catastrophic one; a child requiring long term institutional care or other intensive support care which I could not afford, I would very likely choose abortion (murder to you).

        It’s a harsh reality that economics often plays a decisive role in decisions of life and death. Contrary to what many believe, hospitals are not required to provide care to those who cannot pay even if denial of such care will certainly cause death in the near future. If you can’t pay, you will not get chemotherapy or surgery for ulcerative colitis. This is not murder; it’s just that we do not live in a society that prizes life above all. If you can’t pay, you or your child may die much sooner.

        So that’s my question to you. I understand you believe that all abortion is murder. But does society–yes, through taxation and regulation–owe anything to families unlucky enough to face such a crisis? Or should each family have to make do on its own and whatever charity is available?

        • Esther O'Reilly September 11, 2014 at 3:54 pm #

          So you believe it is morally acceptable to take a living, breathing, unobrn child and stick a pair of scissors into his head? Or suck his brains out? Or suck him out, piece by piece? Or if we’re a little more humane, maybe just stick a needle in his heart so it stops beating?

          • Paul Reed September 11, 2014 at 5:43 pm #

            Esther, I think you’re failing to understand his point. His point is wrong, but at least understand it. It sounds like you have difficulty understanding or voicing any argument that isn’t simple enough for a tweet or a bumper sticker.

            • Esther O'Reilly September 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm #

              I understand arguments very well, I assure you. I grew up in a double Ph.D. home. I have a degree in philosophy. I’m nearly finished with a degree in mathematics. The only thing I “have difficulty understanding” is why the question of whether it is moral to take an innocent human life should be remotely complicated or nuanced.

              • Paul Reed September 11, 2014 at 10:07 pm #

                I have to say I find that a little surprising. In any event, if abortion is so simple, let me ask you a question. What if a pregnancy is life-threatening for a woman? Should she be made to go through with the pregnancy, at cost to her own life? Or should she be allowed to terminate the pregnancy to save her life as the expense of the unborn child’s life? Or are you one of those pro-lifers who use double-speak to define an abortion in an ectopic pregnancy as not a real abortion?

  8. Bob Wilson September 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm #

    Ian,

    Yes, exactly. In other contexts, it’s a conservative notion that those who bear the cost of any decision should be the ones to make it.

    Pro life economic libertarians need to make up their minds, especially the ones who say that intentionally childless couples are selfish and in defiance of the divine edict to bring forth children. Since we live in a society that prizes mostly economic individualism, we cannot blame couples, families or individuals for giving large consideration to economic factors, just as businesses do.

    When pro lifers respond to proposals to help parents support children (guaranteed sick days, health insurance, whatever) with cries of “Stop stealing from me” and “Why did you have children if you won’t take responsibility for them”, the message is very clear—pro-lifers want to make the decision for others to give birth but take no responsibility for it. In other words, they say, let’s you and him fight. Sorry no sale–if we want an economically libertarian society, then we as individuals will make our own decisions, thank you very much.

    • Ian Shaw September 10, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

      I understand where you are coming from. And as a Christ follower, I also understand that I really should not and cannot hold other people to the same standards that I try my best to adhere to (though I fail mightily at times). I also can’t state that couples that intentionally decide not to have children for the own economic gain is wrong. Though it may still be selfish behavior.

      There are ways that people can be helped it they are in bad situations, whether through their own decisions or not. However, while I am opposed to abortion to the nth degree, using “economic reasonings” as to why one made the decision, is such a negative adjective, it does not exist in the english language. That reasoning takes any and all humanity away the person inside the mother and is a disturbing ideology to follow.

  9. Bob Wilson September 10, 2014 at 2:21 pm #

    I’m not without feeling for the pro-life side either. I wouldn’t have wanted Helen Keller aborted. I’m simply saying that pro-lifers need to accept the full consequences of their position. Unfortunately, the laws of economics are as immutable as any laws in the bible. Somebody has to pay for this. If we want a society that urges or even compels all pregnancies to birth, then society needs to help those parents that cannot shoulder the burden (sometimes lifelong) without a lot of help.

    And yes, as some have pointed out, that’s true for old age or other catastrophic illness. For example, many Alzheimer patients end up on medicaid because very few families can afford the years of care for such a devastating illness. But in our society, many go without adequate care because they cannot afford it.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes