Author’s Note: The following column is based on a real life conversation. Posted on 07/03/2013 5:00:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
Author’s Note: The following column is based on a real life conversation.
Teenager: Dr. Adams, may I have a few minutes to speak with you?
Me: Sure. What is your name? (Gives name).
Teen: I enjoyed listening to your talk on abortion just a few minutes ago. Your points were solid. But I have just one problem. It’s with the rape exception. Can you honestly tell me that you could look a rape victim in the eye and tell her that she could not have an abortion – that she must take the rapist’s baby to term?
Me: (pulls out phone). Yes. Give me the number of any pregnant rape victim you know and I will call her right now and talk to her. I can’t look her in the eye but I will talk to her.
Teen: (Laughing nervously). I don’t know any pregnant rape victims.
Me: Well, before I put my phone up, can I ask a favor of you?
Teen: Sure.
Me: I have a friend who was conceived in rape. Do you mind if I call her and give you the phone so you could explain why it would be permissible for her be killed just because she was conceived in rape? Her mother is still alive, by the way. I’m sure that her continued existence reminds her mother of the rape. My friend’s name is Laura.
Teen: No, I won’t do that. She shouldn’t be killed, now. That isn’t my position.
Me: Oh, I see. You think that there is some difference between the adult she is now and the embryo she once was that would have justified killing her at that earlier stage of development.
Teen: I see what you are doing. This is the SLED thing, isn’t it?
Me: Yes it is. Size, level of development, environment (whether she is inside or outside of the womb), and degree of dependency. These are the four differences people generally rely upon when they say you can kill the unborn but not the born. Which one is it?
Teen: Well, none of them, I guess. I see your point.
Me: Good. Now, let’s talk about who benefits when the child conceived in rape is aborted.
Teen: Ok.
Me: Would I, or any of the close friends of Laura, have benefited from her death at the hands of the hands of the abortion doctor? I mean, would it not have been a tragedy had her friends never known her?
Teen: Well, yes, I suppose it would have been a tragedy.
Me: Well, how about Laura? Would she have benefited from the abortion?
Teen: No, of course not.
Me: Ok, then who benefits?
Teen: Well, the rape victim benefits. Obviously.
Me: But is it really obvious?
Teen: I think it is.
Me: You know, if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex and has a crisis pregnancy it is a toss up as to whether she will have the abortion. But if she’s raped and becomes pregnant then the chances she’ll abort are much lower.
Teen: How much lower?
Me: The odds are about three to one that she won’t abort. It may seem counterintuitive but it really isn’t difficult to understand upon further consideration. She’s just been the victim of a violent crime. She identifies with the evil of violence and is reluctant to inflict it on another human being. So she usually decides to suffer evil rather than inflict it.
Teen: I’ll have to think about that one.
Me: Good. It will give me time to ask you another question.
Teen: Okay.
Me: You believe that the woman impregnated by a rapist will suffer great stress bringing the baby to term. You obviously believe that the abortion will reduce that stress. But your argument turns on the assertion that the stress saved by the abortion will actually outweigh any guilt she might experience over the memory of the abortion for the duration of her life. Is that a fair characterization of your reasoning?
Teen: Yes, that’s fair enough.
Me: Well, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you point me to some evidence?
Teen: No, I was just speculating.
Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.
Teen: Well maybe I just have some maturing to do as I think about this issue.
Me: I’m not sure it’s really a thinking problem.
Teen: What do you mean?
Me: You have a steady girlfriend, don’t you?
Teen: Yes, I do.
Me: Are you sleeping with her?
Teen: What? I’m not answering that question.
Me: Well, you don’t have to answer it. You just did. You’re sleeping with her.
Teen: Ok … what does that have to do with the discussion?
Me: Well, everything.
Teen: Please explain.
Me: Every time I am in a discussion of abortion that turns to the so called rape exception, there are two common denominators. First, it is always a guy. Second, he’s always sexually active. If he is sleeping with a lot of women he really supports unrestricted abortion. So he just feigns concern for the rape victim in order to preserve unrestricted abortion so he can have unrestricted sex. Then there are guys like you who are just sleeping with a girlfriend and want to preserve a tiny crack in the wall — a safety valve just in case you get into trouble. The idea of an absolute ban on abortion makes you nervous because you are taking risks you know you ought not to be taking.
Teen: I guess everything you are saying makes sense. Maybe I just need to grow up.
Me: No, not really. You pulled me aside and started this conversation because your conscience was bothering you. You weren’t really worried about the rape issue. You were worried about your own circumstances. That’s why it took courage to initiate the conversation. You knew I wasn’t going say things you wanted to hear. You were mature at the beginning of this conversation and you are even more mature now.
Teen: Thanks.
Me: Now it is time to stop treating you girlfriend like she’s already your wife. It will clear your mind and help you make better decisions on a whole range of moral issues. Remember that it is always better to decide what you believe and let your beliefs guide your behavior. When it’s the other way around, you become lost and you eventually lose your moral compass altogether. You eventually become a law unto yourself.
Teen: Well, how do I explain this to my girlfriend?
Me: Well, that should be easy. Tell her you are not yet ready to be a parent. Tell her that if she became pregnant it would be your child, too. Make sure you look her in the eye and firmly tell her that you could never allow her to abort your child. In other words, start living your life according to rules instead of clinging to exceptions.
Yes, that’s the easiest way to circumvent the argument politically. Just say “Well, I don’t like to deal in hypotheticals. When someone proposes a law banning all abortions except for rape and incest, then I’ll gladly give you my opinion on that law.”
Re: There should be no exceptions, the baby did nothing wrong, why should little him or her be the one to die? Kill the rapist if you need to kill anyone, for the baby did nothing wrong.
Agree. Is it ever just to punish the child of a rapist instead of the rapist? In the case of a child conceived by the criminal act of rape, why should the child receive the death penalty? He or she is an innocent victim.
Time to deconstruct the ravings of this author’s article premises.
Firstly, the ProfessorPerson is advocating motherhood without a committed, reliable two parent family to support the child to be.
Secondly, PerfessorPerson avoids the issue of who pays for the child. By advocating for single parent child raising, he either condemns the mother and child to a probable life of of everything or he expects to have Big Gubment AgencyPersons provide for the bastard and its mother from money earned by others who may not agree with his views.
AdacementedPerson clearly is unaware of an idea, central to a historic American thought once widely accepted by intellects far greater than his, that to force a man to support through the power of government that which he opposed was tyranny.
Folks loosely called “Founders” held that thought. Do the same for a moment, please.
Note that a chiuld who becomes a “welfare client” costs US TAXPAYERS umpteen hundred kilobucks - our money, not money provided by the anti-abortion faction or the academented faction.
Secondly, may I suggest rremembering the warning that factions carry the power to destroy the Republic?
Let the mother to be make the decision without any government intervention using money from the taxpayers.
Then, and only then, can the intrusive 800 pound AgencyApeman position be countered.
Until the anti-abortion groups realize they are arguing against their own money, taken from then by teh pro-abortion government, they are undertaking a fool’s errand.
Keep the government inside the carefully crafted bounds of the Constitution!
My apologies to all - my fickle fingers of fumble struch again.
“Secondly, PerfessorPerson avoids the issue of who pays for the child. By advocating for single parent child raising, he either condemns the mother and child to a probable life of of everything or he expects to have Big Gubment AgencyPersons provide”
should have had a ‘less’ inserted between ‘of of’ to read:
“Secondly, PerfessorPerson avoids the issue of who pays for the child. By advocating for single parent child raising, he either condemns the mother and child to a probable life of less of everything or he expects to have Big Gubment AgencyPersons provide ...”
Bad, BAD fingers!
Wow, this was so valuable. I’m going to just memorize this. I do some volunteer work near an abortion mill at times, and I live in a very liberal area. These arguments are so simple and logical, they could be immensely helpful, especially with the mistaken “compassion” of the misguided young who haven’t thought things out.
Ummm...but aren’t our tax dollars being used to fund abortion now?
Mutterings about who pays money for what are a distraction and the province of lawyers.
A woman or a man should not be allowed to kill off a baby, for any reason, saving that such baby will kill the woman by complication if brought to term, and the woman so chooses.
Life is not about money or comfort. The blessings of life, and liberty, and all the other God given rights are inherent in man, irrespective, because all men are created equal.
Besides, unrestricted access to abortion has produced more, not less, single parent households.
I guess you missed this part of ProfessorPersons dialogue:
Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.
Excellent article.
It’s not your fingers that are “bad”.
Very well said
Excellent reply to the poster
I guess he doesn’t like it that Dr Adams is very much pro life
The ongoing American legalized slaughter of the unborn has long since eclipsed Hitler's slaughter of the untermenchen, Stalin's slaughter of the kulaks, and Mao's slaughter of "intellectuals".
You're aware of that, right?
This is one of the best articles by Mike Adams that I have ever read. I feel like I am watching him talk to the young college student, very compassionately.
Thanks for posting his stuff every week.
Evidently not, I’m sorry to say.
For every argument by analogy, there is usually an equally compelling analogy from the other side. Analogous arguments get nowhere because both sides can sit there and make counter analogies all day long. Case in point, abortion in the case of rape is an analogy from the pro-murder-children-in-the-womb crowd.
Pro-life should be about the “willful disregard” for human life by using abortion as a method of birth control. “Culling” has its own set of arguments.
Start aborting babies because they have the so-called “gay gene” and let the hilarity from the left ensue.
No, it would undermine any moral position you had as you become a willful murderer.
Pro-life should be about the “willful disregard” for human life by using abortion as a method of birth control. “Culling” has its own set of arguments.
And that itself has an emotional aspect. (I didn't advocate ONLY appeal to emotion. I said that most effective discussion [read: argument] has appeal to ethos, logos and pathos.)
For every argument by analogy, there is usually an equally compelling analogy from the other side. Analogous arguments get nowhere because both sides can sit there and make counter analogies all day long. Case in point, abortion in the case of rape is an analogy from the pro-murder-children-in-the-womb crowd.
I didn't give any argument by analogy. Moreover, only a fool would say that argument by analogy is useless.
If you have ever watched a woman carry and deliver a child, note the “deliver a child”, how an you want to force a woman to undergo that if she:
1. Does not want to carry and deliver the child she was forced to conceive.
2. Does not have a husband ready and willing to be a supportive and caring father for the child, not to mention a husband to her.
I am well aware of the toll of abortion being used as a substitute for birth control.
That was not what I was addressing.
Allowing government into the decision of whether or not a woman carries a child or not is a mistake.
Allowing government the power to tax those who are opposed to abortion in order to raise funds to pay for abortion is a tyranny which the Founders fought against and thought they had won. “A republic, if you can keep it”, said Franklin.
When Big Gubment is no longer allowed to tax all to support the Dr. Gosnell’s of America and their abortion mills, then America, teh Constitution, and many babies will be safer.
Some things are not to be managed by government. Leave abortion to the woman, AND STOP TAXING ME TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS _ YA LISTENING IN, AGENCYPERSONS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.