Abortion or Miscarriage—Is there a Difference?

If a woman has a miscarriage, it is widely considered a normal/natural rejection due to implication from the mother or fetus. In some circles “gods timing” or his wisdom is an unreasonable reason for the inefficiency of human fertility. Of the nine most common causes of miscarriage, eight are a direct result of uterine imbalance or other health issues of the mother or father. One, genetic or chromosomal abnormalities is due to the fetus itself.

When a woman chooses to have an abortion, her mind, inseparable from her body is rejecting a fetus in the interest of mental and physical health. Abortion rates for health reasons could easily hit 25% of all pregnancy to fall in line with other spontaneous abortion. How can you separate the psychological needs from the physical?

If one doesn’t want the fetus, it is only an extension of her physical rejection and cannot be differentiated. Here are the most common reactions to pregnancy;

•Feeling scared and anxious

•Shock

•A sense of “why wasn’t I more careful”, “How did that happen”, “I thought I’d be ok”.

•Feelings of being alone and isolated.

•Feelings of confusion and guilt.

•A sense of panic, lack of control and feelings of crisis.

•Disappointment and sadness.

•Surprise, happiness, shock and delight. An unplanned pregnancy can also be joyful.

•Inadequacy

•Relief

Mental health affects physical well being and physical well being affects the mental. Who should be the judge of what one can tolerate in the name of social acceptance?

When considering the confluence of mind and body and what is best and wholly natural for the individual woman concerning abortion, terminating pregnancy by choice is as natural as miscarriage, with personal reactions to miscarriage, abortion, and pregnancy being nearly identical.

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap.

192 thoughts on “Abortion or Miscarriage—Is there a Difference?”

  1. Just remember. Babies are the most innocent. As we know, they had no say in becoming alive, but they are precious and deserve every opportunity to live as those of us discussing topics. They deserve every opportunity to pursue happiness as we have in our lives.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The practice of insulting, bullying, and name calling is very old and well-known. As a kid, I grew up facing racism and bullying. Interesting that old ways are the new ways. The good thing is those who use the same tried techniques know what is going on and can tell honest opinions from those who don’t understand real discussions.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. There was no intent of bullying or insulting. Sorry about that. Your best case scenario is for everyone here to believe you. That compounds the problem, first of all by who you believe. It is uncomfortable to hold beliefs that others don’t agree with (hence the grouping) You believe what you think is an original line of thought, but we’ve seen time and again the shear-will it takes to concoct a story of religion that can satisfy the believer so ignoring the contradictions becomes palatable. Reasoning your way into faith is like covering Hanford with a tarp and then claiming the garbage is gone.
      It is by desire to believe that you have carefully reasoned sense into belief. This is a group that strongly “believes” nothing. So, belief as an argument is too subjective to take seriously. It is merely a belief, which contrary to the scripture is not “evidence of things not seen”, but only a lack of evidence that allows faith to exist in any form. With evidence there is no faith. No need for it.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Dolphin, I’m sorry you grew up facing racism and bullying. That helps explain one of the reasons why you sought refuge in your belief system. Minorities in the U.S. are the most religious — minorities who have experienced the most racism and mistreatment, specifically, blacks and Latinos. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/23/black-americans-are-more-likely-than-overall-public-to-be-christian-protestant/

      My comment to you, asking you if your god had a penis, was meant to bring awareness of your conditioning. Also, one of your comments exuded a fear of facing your own finality, a need for certainty, and meaning.

      Life has no meaning. You bring meaning to life. Your own meaning. But people who seek meaning through faith in someone else’s belief system are copy-catting what others deemed to be meaning (through cultural indoctrination), and those others copy-catted those before them (through cultural indoctrination) and so on. That’s not “out-of-box” thinking. You’re a god-of-the-gaps follower. Are you a Christian? I don’t recall you noting that in your blog.

      I’ve read through your blog, and you appear to be a caring and thoughtful person. I apologize if my previous comment/question came across as offensive to you. That wasn’t my intent. I’ve already explained my intent.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I have a dear friend who recently emailed me and, because our opinions are so different she thought we should end our friendship. Here is my reply to her, and to you—
        You worry too much. ❤️ We have different ideas but that is all. You see the biggest problem with groups, is they embrace you because of belief, and abandon you over unbelief. It’s an absolutely crazy, tribal, and evolutionary holdover—I do not subscribe to that bad behavior. I just love the interesting, thoughtful, courageous and beautiful person that you are. Btw Dolphin, your comments are very thoughtful and considered, at least by me, and I know others too. My apologies if I came across abrasive.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Some people attempt to shock others. It’s their way to step in between them and their faith. I get it. Some people have become so dehumanized and been themselves stopped from believing by bullies and such, that they’ve taken on their identities, then must spread the way in order to justify their own “new” system. It’s a very old standby.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There is nothing more bullyish and dehumanizing than to tell others, including children, that their god will send them to eternal hell for not worshiping “him”. Yahweh, the one that Jesus said everyone must worship, was the original bully of Judeo-Christianity, where authoritarian religion takes advantage of people’s death anxiety.

          Now it’s possible that you may not believe in hellfire, but rather an awareness of eternal separation and isolation from this god of yours, or simply final death because they didn’t believe in Jesus and Yahweh. Either way, it’s promoting and condoning cruelty. It’s dehumanizing them. You would know this if you’ve done any psychological and neurological research.

          If you are a follower of such a god, knowing about the horrific crimes against humanity in the bible, then it can easily be assumed you justify such anti-social behavior, and if you do, then what does that say about you?

          Asking if your god has a penis was a valid question. You assume your god has a gender. That’s just one example of religious conditioning and bamboozlement.

          Liked by 4 people

        2. Seriously you’ve got to be kidding. ”then must spread the way in order to justify their own “new” system” Sounds like the historical Christian playbook. Everywhere they planted their flag was bullying and destruction. How can any good hearted person attach to that religion is beyond reason. Stepping between a believer and faith…it’s a belief. It is not in anyway a reality

          Liked by 1 person

            1. That hand wave is the perfect faith response—Refute with no facts. Christianity’s love affair with torture and abasement is no secret. It’s what faith does to people with religious license. The world is safer because of less religiosity, not more.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. My bad. I forgot that belief is the gold standard that supplants knowledge. It’s merely a belief. There is no substance involved so no amount of reasoning or actual evidence matters. Who was it that said “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”? That would be my position here. That’s all

              Liked by 1 person

  3. I’ll start with this. I am religious, but I will take a moment, and give you my pro-life argument, minus the religious aspect. You may take it or leave it, as you see fit:

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally is not a “moment”) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” -“Human Embryology and Teratology” 3rd ed., O’Rahilly and Müller, published in 1990

    “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual…” -“The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”, 10th ed., Moore and Persaud, published in 2015

    “The formation, maturation, and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.” -“Human Embryology”, 3rd ed., Dr. Bradley Patten, published in 1968

    Three Embryology text books, one which pre-dates Roe v. Wade, all make the same statement, that the moment of conception marks the beginning of each of us as an individual human being. These are the text books used to train Doctors, and have zero religious influence. In other words, we can clearly demonstrate scientifically that life begins at conception.

    Now, if you’re all about human rights, consider that science had already determined prior to Roe v. Wade that life begins at conception, a fact that the Supreme Court chose to ignore for whatever reason. As such, each zygote/embryo/fetus is in fact a human being, deserving of equal rights and protections under the law. Where is their due process? Why is it that they can be denied legal protection that you or I would otherwise enjoy?

    Now, let’s consider this aspect next:

    Ethics (both quotes are from pro-choice sources)

    “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being;” -“Practical Ethics”, by Peter Singer

    “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” -“A Defense of Abortion”, by David Boonin

    Law

    Here is the legal definition of murder, according to dictionary.law.com, “the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.” (Note that this is how First Degree murder is defined)

    So, an unborn child is in fact a human being, according to science, and the two pro-choice sources listed. Murder is, according to the definition provided, the unjustified taking of a human life. How is abortion NOT murder?

    Body autonomy is a brilliant concept, one I support fully, but what gives us the right to create a double standard by only applying it to the mother, and not the child? Where is it that we must draw that line? From conception, they are separate and genetically distinct, meaning that their body is their own. How can any of us claim to support human rights and body autonomy if we are willing to be inconsistent where the weakest and most defenseless members of our species are concerned?

    If you choose to read this, I thank you. If not, well, I tried.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I urge you to read the comment by Scottie dated 9/15/2018.

      Your reasoning and your “references” mean nothing to a woman who, for whatever reason, is faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. While I imagine that the arguments presented in said comment are rather profound, I think I’ll pass. I was once pro-choice like you. Then I decided to think for myself and found the position illogical, irrational, and impossible to defend given the fact that the arguments against the pro-choice position are numerous and come from the realms of science, religion, philosophy, and law.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. So, an unborn child is in fact a human being

      1 U.S. Code: § 8 “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant.

      (a)
      In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.)

      A human being can die, and the definition of death is not in dispute. Death is the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem functions. That’s it. That’s death, and a 2002 survey published in the journal Neurology comparing worldwide standards and regulations of death found brain death to be the universal legal and medical measure accepted across the globe. In the developing foetus, the brain’s major physical substrates—those structures essential for consciousness—are not complete until week 28, after which the process to full bilateral synchronisation begins.

      So, prior to that clear threshold, could you tell me how you can “kill” something that cannot “die”?

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I’ll answer your question with a question of my own, because I firmly believe that the law is wrong here. Hypothetically speaking, if they were to find microbial colonies existing on Mars tomorrow, what would the headlines read the day after?

        Like

        1. You can believe unicorns live in your shoes for all I care. The law is the law and it is based on the science. Neither support your position, and for very good reason.

          Now, please address the question: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

          Liked by 3 people

          1. If you actually research, and see the pictures, you would realize very quickly that a child in formation happens quite quickly after conception. Once conception happens, barring an interruption or miscarriage, a baby will be born, depending on the mother and father to see it to birth. This is true science. I’ve done the research. You haven’t from the rhetoric you’ve been taught to use. I hope you do the research I did, for then you would understand.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I hope you do the research I did, for then you would understand.

              Now THAT is funny! I daresay John Z has done research on this topic that you don’t even know exists.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. That same common sense that dictates you believe in an invisible being that no one can comprehend, but somehow have a close personal relationship with? That common sense? The same sense that demands you use your judgement to then abandon your judgement? If you have used common sense in your comments, why the “research and appeal to authority”? Are these your ideas or submitting to authority, which is what Christians do wholesale. Only through unbelief will you ever speak your own mind. Really.

              Liked by 3 people

            3. Okay, jim. I didn’t arrive at the belief in God from blindness. As a kid, I became aware of my own existence, then realized that I didn’t put myself on Earth, I didn’t create myself, and two parents having children didn’t explain the person I am (When I close my eyes, I’m more aware of my self. Where did that come from?). Then, when I looked around and saw all the amazing things, that told me more. Then, researching, I came understand that the most basic life forms never could have spontaneously formed. Scientists know this. They’ve discovered that cells never come together even with all the chemicals necessary. Never. And they cannot. Any attempt to self-create causes the cell to destroy itself because scientific principles dictate. But I also see parents and their children, that the father/son, father/daughter relationship is special. I could explain much more, but this is more for readers and anyone truly looking to understand. I also understand that there is something called understanding, and that I did not give this to myself. This and much more told me I was created and am loved. Thanks for the discussions.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Every superstitious belief has been supplanted by real, actual scientific empirical evidence but creation. That too is very close on the horizon. What then? Just because you can’t explain it yet doesn’t make it a god. Really premature in your conclusions. Was it you that stated you’re patient? Ha! Just as the mountains and the volcanos and the floods have been demonstrated to be explainable natural phenomena, so too will this. And it’s not far off.
              I have a question; Why do you believe this world is an artificial construct. That is what you’re saying. It’s not a natural world at all, but synthetic. Why would a god do that? Why would he need us to worship him or face destruction?

              Liked by 1 person

            5. So to conclude, dolphinwrite, the explanation, “An invisible being waved a magic wand and – poof! – life was created!” Makes better sense to you?

              Liked by 3 people

            6. It’s not hard to believe anything. That’s a problem when your impatience to have an answer by believing others thy don’t “know” anything at all, puts you in a position to make a scientific claim with no explanation. Just picture this; theists are now rushing to the Big Bang in hoards and claiming god did it, and it could be no other way. Problem is the Big Bang theory only appeals to religiosos to possibly explain how a god did it. Convenient.
              I think you fail to grasp the absolute massive amount of time that the earth and universe have been around. The creation as you see it—humans would be millions of years old, and the “children of god” created in his image are quite different than they are today. The earth was much stranger we are finding, than ever dreamed of in the past. Man has evolved and left a short imprint in which we have very little continuum to evaluate.
              Does a god sit idly by in the heavens for billions of years waiting for just the right moment to put two adults into a garden? Of course not. Is it possible that he sits in yonder heavens monitoring Johnny’s masturbation practices subtracting from his treasures in heaven, all the while he manages 90billion light years of space and tinkers in Susi’s pregnancy problems?
              It may sound crazy to you, but logic tells us there was never nothing. The need for a creator is ridiculous on just that one piece of logic. We can’t even imagine our own life span. Imagine the changes and development of the genome over 500 million years—or 4 billion. But god just keeps on pumping new spirits into the stratosphere so he can judge them, punish then, and reward a few personal friends with a sterile, sexless, choir-filled haven that’s going to last for billions of trillions of years, because I was a good boy for 20 minutes on earth in the lords time, while Chang Hui gets an eternal burn because he a was born a pagan 14th century BCE Mongolia. Believe in god? Not after one thinks about it for a minute. I could write a friggin book here, but just because we lack understanding for the moment, doesn’t make god any more real. Every other scientific discipline has supplanted religious claims and superstition. Every single one! This will be no different, and we’re much closer than you think to solving this puzzle.

              Liked by 3 people

            7. Actually, it’s not hard to believe in creation. I realized that early on in life. Regarding what happens after we finished living on this Earth, none of us have experienced that so we don’t know what will happen. Just as none of us have experienced how we came here in the first place. At some point in your life, you became aware that you exist, but have no memory how that happened. However, being born and realizing that my consciousness, my awareness, and the wanting to know the meaning of life and what the after life holds is something only humans do and is a strong indication that life is more than being born, eating, going to school, working, retiring, and dying. I’ll add one more thing, and this is more for readers. No atheist can argue with this. An atheist is one who knows there is a god because he/she is claiming to be god. How else could an atheist deny because only a god could know everything to know there is no god? That realization led me to realize there must be someone who knows everything. He created me.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. All of your statements are beliefs. They have no merit. Your logic is flawed Dolphin. I don’t claim to know anything but the fact that all you’re doing is guessing. You didn’t address anything but basically sharing testimony (belief) that has not explained anything. Why? Why is belief important at all? You want me to use your logic? Prove to me in any shape or form there was ever nothing.
              I do not claim to know anything, nor do I fret about it very much. I read a variety of topics and come to my very own conclusions. I have not read an atheist book, nor do I watch videos but once in a while on TED. I have come to my own ideas through observation like this post. All faith statements are complete rubbish that do not match any reality. It’s all spectral evidence based between hormonal interpolation and the flaws if human neurology. That is a fact. If you desire any credibility you should prove my statements false, not duck and run behind mere belief statements that change from person to person. That ain’t a god. It is the foibles of human curiosity and questions. It is not a stretch at all to imagine god as an imagination. We humans imagine a lot every day, and this is no different.
              The important thing is to understand that all metaphysical projections are from the imaginations and complex wiring.

              Liked by 2 people

            9. It isn’t that it is ”harder” pers se, as much as it’s the fact that there is no evidence of any kind that would suggest we are anything other than the result of eons of biological trial and error. There’s an entire corpus of archeological evidence which supports evolution, whereas there is simply no evidence of any kind that would support the notion that we were “created” by any intelligent diety.

              Liked by 4 people

        2. In our society, we grant bodily autonomy to all members of society. What this means is that you have no rights to my body and vice versa. We extend these rights to corpses. If I am not a registered organ donor, doctors cannot harvest organs from my body even if they would save the lives of multiple patients. Because my express permission was not given during my life, no one has the right to my organs after my death.
We can take this further. If my daughter is stricken with a disease and the only way for her to survive is for me to give her a kidney, I cannot be forced to do so. It may well be morally superior for me to do so and for my kids I would be willing to do so, but this is not a legal requirement. If my child needed to be connected to me via machine for six months to stay alive, I would again be under no legal obligation to undergo that procedure. While I may feel a moral (or other) obligation to undergo this procedure, I am in no legal way required to do so.
What this means is that a woman who is pregnant must consent to allow the fetus to use her body, and consent can be withdrawn at any time. If you deny this and thus force women to remain pregnant, you are literally—not figuratively, giving more bodily autonomy rights to a corpse than you are to a living woman.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. And yet, we deny said rights to genetically distinct, human beings based on their level of development, where they live, and on the possibility that they might either have a rough life, or turn out to be horrible human beings…

            Like

            1. How many unwanted kids do you want? How many of those with nothing live with you? And it’s pretty clear there is only potential for life, not a person. The laws err in the side of caution. I cannot legislate your brand of split morality. Forced birthers with no regard after the birth.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Now that I finally have time to sit and carefully review all that you’ve said, I thank you for your patience. Given all that’s going on with my family right now, it is very possible I could have chosen a better time to go running down this rabbit hole. That being said, babies are being murdered and I’m obligated to speak up, no matter what’s going on.

        With regards to 1 U.S. Code:

        I think you might have misunderstood my point, and I’ll take the blame for that. I probably wasn’t clear enough in my point, so allow me to elaborate. My point is that the science of Embryology, that is the discipline that focuses primarily on the growth and development of the human baby, has maintained that 1) life begins at conception, 2) that conception marks the beginning of us and unique individuals, and 3) that the zygote/embryo/fetus is separate and genetically distinct.

        Given those three points, it isn’t a stretch to conclude that an unborn child is in fact a human being in the earliest stages of development. Anything that causes that development to cease constitutes death, whether it is by natural means or otherwise.

        Now, when you take that information, and hold it up next to the definition of murder that I provided initially, you find a bit of a problem. If an unborn child is in fact a human being, and Embryologists assert that they are, then abortion actually meets the criteria set forth in the definition I provided. This means that it technically qualifies as murder.

        Let’s bring it back to the law you provided as an example. You are correct, in that the law clearly does not define unborn children as a “person”, “human being”, or “individual”. Given the data presented, coming from actual scientists, this law would be wrong, given that it is asserting something contrary to science. This is an example of bad law, and people like me won’t rest until it is fixed. This is an instance (one of many) in which science and the Bible are in complete agreement (A topic for another time).

        Death is the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem functions? Interesting, so tell me, how do we kill single-celled organisms? I get that they are referring to the measure of death in a human being, however, the difference here is that a zygote, if left to it’s own devices, will develop into an embryo, which will develop into a fetus, which will eventually be born and likely grow into an adult human being. At no point in this does that individual cease to be human. No part of that allows for that zygote to do anything other than develop or die. Nor does any of that imply that a zygote will develop into something non-human.

        The survey you’re making reference to is measuring how people worldwide measure life and death. How they measure it. In other words, where they draw the line between the two. That’s akin to measuring how many people like chocolate ice cream vs vanilla. It’s great for figuring out which flavor is more popular, but the last I knew, scientific facts are not determined by consensus. When I was taught the scientific method, I promise you there wasn’t a step that involved people taking a vote on the result of a given experiment.

        Now, you’ve made the argument that it’s ok to carry out an abortion before the 28th week because they lack the ability to be conscious. My mother-in-law is the legal guardian of one of my brothers-in-law because he has a combination of Down’s syndrome and autism that has rendered him so low-functioning that he is completely incapable of making decisions for himself.

        He is essentially unable to make anything resembling a conscious decision, which means that he legally meets the criteria you’ve set forth in your argument. Tell me, would it be justifiable for her to take a pistol and put a round through his head? According to the law in our state, he isn’t legally a person, so it should be fine, right?

        Like

        1. I think you might have misunderstood my point, and I’ll take the blame for that.

          Your point was quite clear. You stated “an unborn child is in fact a human being.” You also went on to say science and law support this position. Both do not, and it seems you knew you were lying.

          1) life begins at conception

          No, it doesn’t.

          At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. The egg and the sperm are already parts of the living system; a system that began 3.8 billion years ago. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.

          2) that conception marks the beginning of us and unique individuals

          What you’re talking about is potential, much like a chassis has the potential to become a car if its worker bees follow the plan and construction continues. A chassis, though, is not a car. Similarly, DNA (the genome) is just the plan. It is no more a human being than an architect’s sketch is a functioning building.

          3) that the zygote/embryo/fetus is separate and genetically distinct

          Again, the genome is not a human being. And the foetus has the same metabolic rate (the speed of life) as the mother, which is that of a mammal her size. It’s a part of a bigger whole, rather than an individual. A mammal the size of a foetus has a metabolic rate equal to that of, say, a possum. At birth a switch is thrown and the baby’s metabolic rate goes through the roof (becoming that of a mammal its same size). In this sense, babies literally transition from being an organ to being an individual in mere hours.

          Given those three points, it isn’t a stretch to conclude that an unborn child is in fact a human being in the earliest stages of development.

          It’s not just a stretch, it’s simply factually wrong, and science proves that. Following the science, law proves you wrong, too.

          how do we kill single-celled organisms

          A single celled organism is not a human being, and the definition of human death is not in dispute… and here it is:

          In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.”

          This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.”

          Further still updated in 1995 (to present), “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death’

          This is mirrored in US law:

          U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

          It is also mirrored in Australian law:

          The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation define death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person; or b) Irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person.

          He is essentially unable to make anything resembling a conscious decision

          A ridiculous example. A foetus and an adult human being are not equivalent. Although brain damaged, he’s conscious, and he was born. His brain controls respiration and regulates his physical body.

          Now, you have not addressed the question. Please do.

          If you wish to use language like “kill” and “murder” then explain to me how you can “kill” something that cannot “die”?

          Liked by 2 people

      1. Patience is a virtue. As I am rather busy today, dealing with family matters far more important than you (no offense), you fall into the category of “I’ll get to you when I have a moment”. Please, do be patient and try to remember that you are not in fact the center of my universe. Thank you.

        Like

            1. It is those that encourage birth at any cost and then do nothing for the child after it is born. Those that will disregard the poverty, mental health problems, and upcoming misery, starvation and street life for that precious child of god.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Hmm…interesting point. In some ways a valid one, but not as valid as you think. Once upon a time the Church, following Scriptural commands to care for the sick and needy, saw to it that the poor had food, clothing, and even medical care.

              Yet, in modern times, it would appear that the Church has abdicated that responsibility to the government. Is that the case, or is there more than meets the eye?

              It isn’t just that the majority of charitable organizations are run by one church or another, or that most food pantries belong to religious organizations that makes me doubt the validity of that statement. It also has to do with the fact that we are doing a lot more than you think. Many Christians are going a step further, and helping the poor in tremendous ways.

              For example, consider an evangelical Christian group out of Kansas City, MO known as “The Urban Farming Guys”. Here is a link to one of their videos on YouTube:

              They have created an outreach program that provides people with the ability to feed themselves, continuing education for underprivileged families, and job training programs that allow people to find and keep good paying jobs. They have been so successful, the neighborhood they’re operating in has seen a drastic drop in crime rates, which I think you and I can agree is a very good thing.

              It isn’t that those of us on the pro-life side are somehow uncaring of children once their born, in fact quite the opposite. For example, my wife and I intend to adopt as many children as we can financially take. We have ten kids between us, and have no intention of stopping there.

              Where we differ is that we believe that all people are guaranteed equal opportunity, but that no one is guaranteed equal outcome. You and I have an equal chance at success or failure, but neither of us is guaranteed equal results. It comes down to how we use that opportunity.

              To address your point about poverty, the Brookings Institute has conducted a study on how to avoid being permanently poor in this country. They narrowed it down to three main steps one can take:

              1. Acquire at least a high school diploma.
              2. Find and keep a full-time job.
              3. Wait until the age of 21 to get married and have children.

              While they acknowledge that there are a variety of other things a person can do toward that end, they have found that the vast majority of people who do, at a minimum, those three things will land squarely in the middle class, with only a tiny portion ending up at or below the line.

              I swear there’s something in here about judging books by their covers…

              Like

            3. Somehow the link I tried to provide didn’t show up. Here it is again:

              If it fails to show up this time, look up Urban Farming Guys Farmin’ in the Hood.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Cool. Odd thing for it to disappear like that. Gotta love technology. Reply if you like, I’m off to bed. I’m spending tomorrow traveling, so I may not get to respond much, but I will respond where and when I can.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. As a Soldier with 13 years of service, this does tickle the funny bone just a little. 😂😂😂 By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not the thin-skinned variety of Christian.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. It’s evident, TEP336. If women can’t choose for themselves, it means that everyone else gets to choose for them. Do you really believe that’s a better system – forcing women to have babies?

              Liked by 2 people

          1. Yes, I chose to start this thread. Are you telling me that you don’t have the patience to deal with someone who has a life outside of these threads? What about you? Nothing better to do on a Monday?

            Like

    3. @TEP336: I’m one of those who chose to read your long comment.

      I think your references are rather biased, a kind of cherry picking .

      Therefore I recommend you, and others, to read this article (from Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood .

      And this one (also from Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate .

      In those articles the arguments and reasonings from both sides – Pro-life and Pro-choice – of the barricades are analyzed and discussed in more detail.

      Here’s a quote (from article #2 above) that, in my view, summarizes well why it’s so important to differentiate between the zygote ( = the fertilized ovum) as a living being (with a potential to one day become a human person/individual) and the maturing embryo and fetus as a “full-fledged” human person (with a unique human personhood):

      Although the two main sides of the abortion debate tend to agree that a human fetus is biologically and genetically human (that is, of the human species), they often differ in their view on whether or not a human fetus is, in any of various ways, a person.

      Pro-life supporters argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent human person[57] or because a fetus is a potential life that will, in most cases, develop into a fully functional human being.[58] They believe that a fetus is a person upon conception.

      Others reject this position by drawing a distinction between human being and human person, arguing that while the fetus is innocent and biologically human, it is not a person with a right to life.[59]

      In support of this distinction, some propose a list of criteria as markers of personhood.

      For example, Mary Ann Warren suggests consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness.[60]

      According to Warren, a being need not exhibit all of these criteria to qualify as a person with a right to life, but if a being exhibits none of them (or perhaps only one), then it is certainly not a person.

      Warren concludes that as the fetus satisfies only one criterion, consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain),[61] the fetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.

      Other philosophers apply similar criteria, concluding that a fetus lacks a right to life because it lacks brain waves or higher brain function,[62] self-consciousness,[63] rationality,[64] and autonomy.[65]

      These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life,[66] but tend to propose various developed psychological or physiological features not found in fetuses.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. I would expect no less if that is your choice. I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the idea of the post, and what would determine how far autonomy should go.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I understand how people’s views can vary. I also understand that once conception has occurred, barring a miscarriage, a baby is on the way. Life is always in development, from the beginning until the day we return to the Earth.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Abortion is caused voluntarily by a mother who does not wish to have a child in various forms while a miscarriage is a natural expulsion due to various causes without the mother’s wish or know it

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’ve never know a man or woman that has gone through with an abortion not to be deeply scarred by it and emotionally devastated eventually, too, actually. As with miscarriages. It takes a heavy toll on them knowing they murdered their own growing child. I wrote a song lyric on my website on here, EverythingBrendenMartel.Com, about a miscarriage, the other day.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. While I appreciate your opinion, that’s where your argument fails. It’s an opinion based on emotion and upbringing. The argument here is basically, where do we draw the line between the woman and her mind, her physical and emotional well being? How is a miscarriage any different from an abortion when you considered The Whole creature?
          Btw, prolife does not take into consideration what happens after the baby is born. Just get it born! 150million a year born into squalor and 11 million to an early death. Abortion is much more humane than that! 29 died in the time it took me to write this.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. Oh, and Brenden. I know many women – yes, WOMEN; you know, the ones who actually HAVE miscarriages and abortions – who’ve been very happy they’ve had abortions. They’ve realized it was the best decision under their circumstances. They have zero regrets, in fact.
      Also, as far as miscarriages are concerned, two younger women in my own family have had them. Neither of the women feel they MURDERED their children. Wtf is wrong with you to say such a thing?

      Liked by 4 people

      1. This is another of the scare tactics that come from the pulpits that is not true. Just like leaving religion, the warnings are dispare and hopeless, purposeless life. So far from true it is ridiculous.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. What I find fascinating is how OTHER people can tell me how I feel about things that happen in MY life!

          It must have something to do with their “direct line” to that mute and invisible entity that resides somewhere up in the ether. Think so?

          Liked by 4 people

          1. It’s the LOVE they feel for you. They LOVE you SO much through the power of JEEEEEEESSSSUUUSSS, that they just KNOW what’s best for you and exactly how you REALLY feel about all things. Christians. What a grand group of folks!! I LOVES ’em.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. That’s not the topic of the post. Is it possible for a believer to engage in a discussion without dodging the topic to suit their agenda? I am curious what your opinion is on my previous statement to you. I am game to redress my thinking as many others here are too, but that would require some actual fact, or at least some evidence to support your statement. Do you have a personal abortion experience you are aware of, or just hearsay from the right wing pulpits?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Several friends have had abortions and never got over the loss of their babies. They thought at the time it was the right thing to do, but later greatly regretted it. And, every life deserves a chance. Some of the greatest men and women in the world throughout history were almost aborted by their mothers, because “it wasn’t the right time or situations” in their lives. I do believe in Gods, plural, as I am a Black Taoist, but that doesn’t change anything. Even if I was an atheist like you, I would believe it is murder, just as I believe a soldier killing in war to be a murderer…fighting for “freedom”, or whatever.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Well I respect that. The law disagrees with you, the medical establishment disagrees with you, and biology more or less disagrees as well. A brain dead man is legally dead, and before bilateral synchronization of the brain, the organism is not considered living either. Personally I would avoid it, but I’m not everyone, nor am I a woman. My corpse without an organ donor card has more rights than a woman has over her own body. Something is not right with that.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Interestingly from what little I know of Taoism, it does not not emphasize rigid rituals and social order. Not sure if your opinion is Taoist, martial art, or just you. Where does your perspective align? Just curious

              Like

    2. Brenden, studies do not support your “personal” observation with regard to women. Those who had mental health issues after an abortion also had mental health issues a year before the abortion. I have yet to meet a woman who was “deeply scared by it and emotionally devastated”. What is likely deeply scaring and emotionally devastating, and there are studies that show the link) is the stigmatization and shame heaped upon women for having an abortion, not to mention the isolation caused by puritan attitudes.

      “Internalized shame and stigma-related isolation predict worse health for women who get an abortion.

      https://www.psypost.org/2018/03/internalized-shame-stigma-related-isolation-predict-worse-health-women-get-abortion-50858

      “Having an abortion does not increase a woman’s risk for depression, according to a new study of nearly 400,000 women. Previous research has found abortion does not harm women’s mental health, yet studies claiming that it does have been used to justify state policies that restrict access to abortion in the US. This study’s findings suggest those policies are misguided.

      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2681170

      “Women who were denied an abortion initially reported more symptoms of anxiety and lower self-esteem when compared with women who received the wanted procedure, findings that researchers suggest do not support policies restricting women’s access to abortion on the basis that the procedure harms their mental health, according to an article published online by JAMA Psychiatry.
      These findings suggest that the effect of being denied an abortion may be more detrimental to women’s psychological well-being than allowing women to obtain their wanted procedures,”

      https://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/women-denied-abortion-initially-report-more-negative-psychological-outcomes/

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I didn’t say anything about mental health issues. I talked about distress from the hurt that they killed their baby. Anyone could observe how badly these women and girls feel about it in the abortion clinics by watching documentaries documenting the process of getting an abortion, actually. Science is continually wrong anyway, that is why it changes daily. Someday we will look upon paying to murder your child as barbaric and evil, as we have with a lot of previously accepted scientific procedures, medicines and beliefs. Simple as that! Science is disproven daily.

        Like

        1. Hello Brenden. I do not want to get into a debate with you on abortion as you and I disagree on even what is fact and what is just a “feeling is true”. However on science you misstated that “Science is disproven daily”. You should have written “Science is improved on daily”! Scientist are in the business of improving our understanding of reality. If you can show something other than what is already known, they not only accept it, they build on it. Science is building on what is correct that came before. The older stuff that was correct as well as could be, is improved as new techniques come along. Better understanding leads to new and better understandings. Stuff that is shown incorrect gets thrown away. That is the major difference between religion and science. Religion must cling to the past and it’s errors as it can not change or it has to admit it was wrong. Science improves by getting rid of what is incorrect and adding in the newer understandings. Hugs

          Liked by 3 people

            1. Hello Brenden. You miss the point. Not sure if you do so deliberately or in ignorance. Yes some things in science is proven wrong or in error due to better understanding , better math, or better equipment. Surely you understand we can not hold Newton to the understanding of solar body movement mechanics we have today? That makes no sense. As we grow we learn, as we learn we add to our knowledge. I fail to see why you dispute this? Hugs

              Like

          1. No, science is constantly proven wrong (disproven). Because, a scientific fact isn’t a fact if it isn’t true and needs to be “improved upon”. That is just common sense, man!

            Like

            1. Hello Brenden. I see you misunderstand the way science works. Here is an example. When you were a baby did you suddenly stand up, run out of the house and do a marathon? No you went through steps. You trained your back muscles to hold you upright in a sitting position. You built on that to learn to crawl. You built on that to learn to stand with support. You build on that to learn to stagger. You built on that to learn to walk. Lets not even go into your potty training. You get the point. Science build on it self just as a baby learning to walk. If the baby couldn’t walk as soon as it sat up would we call it wrong? Defective? Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

            2. It is disproven. I understand how science works, I have an IQ of 139! You don’t understand that you simply are wrong. But, science is the most popular religion of the day and far be it from me to take someone’s religion from them. Please understand though, the scientists are constantly wrong and they constantly get paid off to make corrupt products and studies, too.

              Like

            3. I have an IQ of 139! Whoopie!

              scientists are constantly wrong … Just like any other human being, they make mistakes. But once the mistake is discovered, they continue to rework the formula/procedure/process until the results are solid. Which is more than can be said about religion.

              Liked by 2 people

            4. Science is actually the grandchild of religion, if you knew anything. It is a religion in and of itself. Religions change with the times too, they used to preach slavery was right in the USA when it was popualar as an example and some churches are accepting gays now, too. They are one in the same. Out of religion came philosophy and out of philosophy came science. I don’t know what will be next, but it will be wrong too, lol. Lmfao!

              Like

            5. The grandchild of science is actually natural philosophy. For centuries natural philosophy was burdened by the overtone of religion. Natural philosophers had to hide or encrypt their findings to not offend the oppressive churches. It was a matter of life and death. Religion of every kind has had to hedge its existence because it cannot stand on its own merits.

              Liked by 2 people

            6. Wow, Brenden, for someone who claims to be so smart, you are so wrong. Reminds me of another person who kept claiming to be “Like a stable genius”. You show your ignorance and bias by saying science is a religion. Science is a method of discovery and learning. It has not truths, not as you wish to claim. I would suggest you look up the scientific method but I fear your mind is a closed system unable to process new information. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            7. I learned the scientific method back in grade school dude. What you don’t seem to know is that science is the grandchild of religion. Out of religion came philosophy and out of philosophy science. They are one and the same, both are wrong and whatever comes next will be wrong, too.

              Like

            8. Hello Brenden. No you are again incorrect. Science and philosophy are both interesting avenues of discovery but they are very different in approach. I do not even understand how you get the idea “that science is the grandchild of religion.” because that is really reversed. Religion happened because our ancestors couldn’t figure out why things around them happened. Imagination caused them to assign this to powerful forces they couldn’t control. At this point they had no idea of either philosophy nor the scientific method. Hugs

              Liked by 3 people

            9. You are to stupid to converse with. You don’t know basic things, like where science came from, or that it constantly is disproven. I bow out of this conversation, sir.

              Like

            10. All who do not believe in the True Word of God are “stupid”. There is but one Truth. One God. And one Holy Book that is above all “science: The Quran.

              “This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

              Liked by 2 people

            11. Hello Inspired. My head now wrapped in ice I will respond. I tried to look up your verses you linked too. Oh shit, excuses me … OK I reached the toilet in time. Thought I was going to have to divert to the sink, but then that would need an impact statement from the Illuminati. 🤣😂😀😁😋😋😍 Hugs

              Liked by 3 people

            12. I work for the Illuminati. If you send me your resume, I’ll see what I can do about getting you a job. Ya gotta not be “stupid”, though. They abhor “stupid” people. Now, “dumb” people are OK. If they weren’t half of us who work for ’em wouldn’t have jobs. So, to remind you: “Stupid” = bad; “Dumb” = OK. Got it?

              Liked by 2 people

            13. Hello Brenden. One thing I don’t understand is why you keep repeating “It is disproven”. What is disproved? Again science is a method, not a single hypnosis, law, or theory. Hugs

              Like

            14. An IQ measures and aptitude for learning. It doesn’t make one smart. This is the type of appeal to authority that surfaces when the caller has nothing valid to say. You have made several statements against science but I know of many with even higher IQ than you that disagrees with you. Your argument is basically crap

              Liked by 3 people

            15. Science actually makes improvements. Not really disproven but improves on new evidence. Religion stays locked in the past with unfulfilled promises.

              Liked by 2 people

        2. What part of science has been wrong but not then improved upon? Being proven wrong is different than improving upon. Religion however has never been proven at all ever, and you embrace that? Weird

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Really. To hell with the kid after it’s born. I asked dolphinwrites how many unwanted kids he was caring for…None. But get them born at any cost.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. These people aren’t interested in the actual issue, and certainly not the science. It’s political. Interestingly, there is a religious org whose pro-choice: Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC):

              “Our values cherish women’s free will to make decisions to control their own bodies and lives. This freedom is a gift from God…”

              Liked by 1 person

  6. This has been a good discussion, and I thank you, Jim, for hosting it. However, there is one possible solution to the problem I would like to discuss, and that is teaching children in the 12 to 15 year old range not only about sex, but how to have sex.
    One of the biggest problems around sex is that we basically learn it on our own by a trial and error basis. If one person is experienced and the other is not, the beginner learns what the teacher knows, but where did the teacher get his or her knowledge? Probably not from someone who was an expert! And if it is the first time for both participants, or however many people are involved, many of us know how that goes.
    What I am trying to say is that “hands on” experience, which can teach people about the sexual experience itself, can also be a great opportunity to teach about the realities of what sex can cause to bring about: pregnancies (especially unwanted ones), diseases, mental problems, and physical problems. Giving kids the sexual experience under controlled circumstances will create a healthier sexual culture in our society.
    Religions try to teach us sex is just for procreation, but everyone knows, this is absolutely untrue. Sex can be good just for fun, it can build intimacy, it allows participants to explore each other’s bodies and feelings. It behooves us to give our children a solid sexual foundation, instead of teaching them it is a bad thing, however bad some people believe it to be.
    I cannot say this for a fact, but I think teaching children how to perform sexually, and all the surrounding lessons, will have a huge effect on the sexual climate, meaning less abuse, less rape and sexual assaults, etc. And, BTW, this includes all types of gender relationships, depending on what any given child believes he or she wants to know, without prejudice.
    The aim of any society is to build a safe place for its citizens to live and grow. I think my idea would go a long way to changing our society, and removing some of its worst aspects.
    Obviously this is not a complete blueprint for what I am suggesting, it is really just an outline. But I am hoping it is at least a start, because so far nobody has been willing to listen to me, though I have been touting it for many years…

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Lol. I think that openness is a double edge sword in this facade society, moving to a more relaxed attitude about sexuality does not equate to promiscuity (for lack of a better term) but all things open and all things taught for their appropriate time and place. As the explorers noted, there was less promiscuity among the mostly naked natives than there was in his puritan upbringing. In areas women are topless and breasts aren’t considered a sexual taboo, “it ain’t no big deal”. But the hands on training comment sounds rather catholic to me.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Further to these thoughts, when thinking about what happened to some of your readers, and others, I think that building confidence in sexual matters would also bring about less child sexual abuse, for it seems many child-abusers have little confidence in their own sexual abilities. But that would only be one part of child sexual abuse. There are obviously those abusers who need to dominate, or like my own father, people who just plain need to be mean. (I was not sexually abused to my knowledge, but I suffered mental and physical abuse every day from the time I was about 3 to my teens). What to do about such people I cannot say, as yet, but all in all I think stopping sexual repression is one of the biggest needs facing our culture today.

          Liked by 3 people

        2. Promuscuity is one of the words I would love to see disappear from our language, along with slut, whore, etc. Those words are all judgmental, people judging others. If a person is having sex for fun, that is up to them. Like abortion, it is a personal choice. As long as the chooser is practising safe sex and not trying to harm others, their choices are up to them. Others should have no say. Period.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. Reminds me of when I grew up. I could drink from the earliest age, it was not a special hidden thing. I even got my own wines and booze stuff at Christmas. While that may sound risky, it was the neighborhood kids who sneaked down to the river be hind our homes and drank until they passed out. One weekend home alone as normal, the kids next door dragged their severely drunk friend to my door begging me to help. I had my licence so I took the girl to her home where her equally drunk friends took her inside. I am glad drinking was not a problem I had , as these straight honorable kids did. Of course none of them knew of what I was going through. We were friends at school but not at home even though they lived just across the street. I was not allowed to have friends. Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

      2. No thanks, Carmen. I would leave that to specially trained teachers.
        I know you did not mean your comment seriously (at least I hope you didn’t), but I’m betting many adults alive today would have appreciated more knowledge and skill in sexual areas. Sex may come naturally, but expertise is not always achieved.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Well, I think experience is the best teacher but 14 and 15 year olds? A bit young, in my opinion. Being sexually active introduces much responsibility, as well, and I’m just not sure that young adults realize the serious side to it.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I think it would be a mistake to go that far with it. The pendulum doesn’t have to swing into such risky areas mixing adults and children, but honesty, teaching (not training) and openness about the repercussions and responsibilities of sex is the needed focus.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. That’s the idea behind comprehensive sex education here where I live, Jim. The students start early (in Elementary School) learning the basics, then in Junior High the program includes topics such as birth control, health issues, and relationship information. What used to be called, “Health” is now PDR – Physical Development and Relationships. The issue of consent has been a major focus in the last few years because of a few high-profile cases.

              Liked by 2 people

          2. By that age these days, most kids have already experienced sex in one way or another, whether we think they are ready for it or not. What we wish cannot be allowed to take precedence over reality. IMO, it is best to start before they do. But those are some of the things that need working out. I am open to suggestions, but really I will never be involved in this or anything like it. I am just the idea man, others would be the planners.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. Hi Jim,
    Would you believe me if I told you that your post is the first I’ve ever read on this topic that didn’t descend into a bitter argument? It’s refreshing to read through a thread (featuring mainly male commenters) that reflects genuine, sensible discourse on an emotional topic. I credit the people who contributed – people I’ve come to expect intelligent, honest, logical, thoughtful commentary from. What a group! 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I know. I’ve fallen into such a bunch of reasonable, outstanding people here. Many of which contributed to my deconversion a few years ago. I used to peruse their blogs and comment as a Christian. Lol. Pure reason can win the day. Thanks Carmen. I am happy you are included in the best of all WP has to offer. I am truly blessed to be a part of it.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. It’s time we shift more responsibility to men and their bodies when it comes to this issue. If a man impregnates a woman and it is unwanted, that man should be required by law to be chemically castrated for one year and spend no fewer than 3 months in prison. If he does this a second time, he needs to spend up to 3 years in prison and be given a mandatory vasectomy. If he attempts at any time to reverse the vasectomy, he is to be physically castrated and imprisoned for not less than 5 years. I absolutely assure you, if THIS were the law of the land, unwanted pregnancies would drop by 90 plus percent. My motto is, “Blame the man and make HIS body responsible for unwanted pregnancies. It’s the MAN’S fault!” For some reason, I’ve got a strange feeling this, or blaming the men involved in ANY way, will NEVER happen, but it should. When another man attempts to talk to me about abortion rights, I immediately switch it to this topic because two men, by themselves, have absolutely no business deciding what women they can or can not do with their own bodies. Blame the men. Invade their bodies and decide for them what they can can not do sexually, and, I assure you, other songs will certainly be sung about a woman’s right to choose.

    Liked by 4 people

            1. I was actually raised in a strict household where the only time sex was ever discussed it was as an evil. I was sheltered, uneducated about any need of protection, and at 18 I met a girl that was experienced and I was absolutely clueless. I raised the boy and he’s doing well in life, but it certainly could’ve been different had I not been a resourceful type. I’m a living example of how abstinence works. I was actually born the same way as well.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Oh, I totally understand. That type of thing, due to the deliberate act of not talking freely and comfortably about sex, must happen ALL the time. Christians are such hypocrites on the subject. Many grow up so repressed sexually, with bodies SCREAMING to have sex, that it must be the cause of all sorts of health issues, including severe psychological ones from having to deal with all the unnecessary shame and guilt for having sexual urges. My comment is, unlike most comments I make, overblown hyperbole. The point is, if it were men and their bodies we were discussing, abortion simply wouldn’t be an issue.

              Liked by 3 people

            3. I totally get your approach. We all present a unique perspective and tongue in cheek irony is one of them. I KNOW abstinence is a generational failure but, here we are, still cow towing to the idiots who run our society in secret deceptions at every level.

              Liked by 2 people

  9. First, Jim… it takes some big courage to post about or actively discuss the question or issue of birth-control and abortion as a MALE. Kudos to you for taking this on. 😉

    Personally, I have learned the hard way that as a man — typically part of the historical problem(?) rather than the solution for this — that socially, especially regarding resources and support for an unplanned conception, a woman has and does endure SO MANY PARAMOUNT (stressful?) decisions when first pregnant if not married. That social-legal stress is dumped upon her primarily (and ironically) by millenia of patriarchal and religious mechanisms; mechanisms that go back to at least the 16th – 19th century during the Age of Discovery in Europe. As several here have commented, it is NEVER a simple, cut-n-dry decision, especially when hormones are raging and then you have so many males that rape women unprotected, or in relationships take advantage of situations to abuse the woman. The circumstances are endless, the factors are endlessly complex from case to case for both the woman and the male abuser.

    From my series on Agnotology, particularly the section about “Abortifacients and the Making of More Ignorance” in too many ways in our sociopolitical and religious past women have essentially been regarded by MEN as “breeders,” meant to bolster the wealth and resources of male nations. This is fortunately changing and long, LONG overdue, but we men bare so so much responsibility for this… abuse of women and not being a positive solution. 😦

    Did you know that very simple solutions right after or the day after (consensual or unwanted) sex that a woman has ALWAYS had immediate birth-control available, even after sex, BUT…

    It is as easy as sipping a cup of Pride of Barbados herbal tea and washing herself with the same herb/flower in a morning bath. Doing this shortly after intercourse, according to secret ancient medicine in the Caribbean islands, prevents conception safely and comfortably. In fact, a woman could do this repeatedly two or three days after intercourse accomplishing more assured results. Why has this profound medical knowledge NOT been circulated around the world, especially in European civilizations? That is literally the million-dollar question.

    From my Games of Unknowledging series. 🙂 Excellent post Jim! 👍

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Mother had 9 miscarriages. She haemorrhaged after I was born, because apparently I opened old scar tissue she had from a girlhood injury, & was never able to carry again beyond the 3rd month. Moron women are supposed to have lots of babies.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Hello Jim. I agree with both Ben and Rawgod. My starting point on this debate is body autonomy. I am a grown adult man with my mental facilitates intact. I wouldn’t want anyone making decisions on my body, and what I will do with my body for not only 9 months of something growing in me changing my body in ways I may not like, but for another possible 18 years after the birth. Men do not get laws made on their bodies, their reproductive rights, their freedom to decided what medical procedure to have or not have. Yet somehow men feel they have the right to deny the same freedom and rights to females? Males telling females to endure what they as males do not have to endure. Men telling females that the female must suffer for the actions both indulged in. No responsibility for males, females have to assume all of it. I can not stand that attitude. For me it comes down to females are not second class citizens, they have all the rights in life that males do. That means they alone have the right to decided what to do with their bodies. I do not get a say, nor does anyone else. I can tell you if males had to assume the responsibility of sexual activity and were the ones that maybe forced to carry a baby to term, all medications terminating pregnancy would be stocked in every grocery store and given out over the counter at drug stores. If male bodies went through what female bodes do, men would insist on no restrictions on terminating the pregnancy. People tend to forget that pregnancy is dangerous for the female. It can be deadly even in a country like ours. I would like to share the following I just looked up.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, c. 4 million women who give birth in the US annually, over 50,000 a year, experience “dangerous and even life-threatening complications.”

    In the course of our reporting, another disturbing statistic emerged: For every American woman who dies from childbirth, 70 nearly die. That adds up to more than 50,000 women who suffer “severe maternal morbidity” from childbirth each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.May 10, 2018

    Between 700 and 1,200 women die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth every year in the US. Fifty times that number—about 50,000 in all—narrowly escape death, while another 100,000 women a year fall gravely ill during or following a pregnancy.Oct 29, 2017

    Jim, after reading these , there is no way I can tell a woman what to do with her body in any medical circumstance, much less a pregnancy. Hugs

    Liked by 6 people

  12. This is an interesting (and enormously complex) topic. I look forward to reading answers. Is there a difference? I think so. The question in the graphic is broad. I tolerated other people’s kids today who made me think pro birth control, no abortion necessary. Social acceptance? Well, I let them live.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. It’s actually around 70% of all successful pregnancies abort.

    From the U.S. National Library of Medicine:

    “Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%.”

    50+20 =

    Liked by 5 people

    1. So what do you think of my reasoning, stats aside and all the conflict and religion and “morality” (not in reality) thrown at this, is the psychological health enough to consider as fair play, as well as the other successful arguments?

      Liked by 4 people

  14. As you know Jim, I now have 4 children. But that’s 4 out of 7 pregnancies. Our first was lost due to cervical insufficiency at 5 months and the other 2 were miscarriages within the first 12 weeks. When I was a Christian, I was absolutely against abortion as it was tantamount to murder. That’s what is common knowledge in Christian circles. I still don’t like it but where I’ve changed is my place in the decision. Is any of it my business? If it’s not my life, it’s not my opinion that matters, is it? If a my wife and I don’t like abortion, which we don’t, we won’t have one. Simple as that. We don’t drink either, but if someone else does, it’s none of our business. I won’t be out picketing bars. Projecting personal values onto others is wrong and I certainly wouldn’t want someone doing it to me.

    It’s still tough for me to see people so quick to turn to abortion as a means of birth control after the fact when other options are available beforehand, but I think a lot of my strong opinions are due to my own personal loss. I can admit that. I’m more sensitive because we lost pregnancies that were wanted. I think that in my mind, if my wife and I want successful pregnancies then everyone else should too. I see that that isn’t a fair assumption. I don’t think I’ll ever say I like the idea of of abortion but I can say that (outside of my house) it’s none of my business. What I’m going through is an evolution of emotions and it takes time to process the changes. I’m now at the point where I can just accept that people are different and we all have our lives to live. I still have opinions, as we all do, but I know that personal opinions are not always shared by everyone. We need to let people make their own lives and try to be happy in their own way.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. I think that’s a fair outlook. I am not pro abortion either, but I also am realistic. These are my observations. Pregnancy can equal tragedy to many and the feelings of entrapment and being overwhelmed with limited resources and impending, unending difficulty.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. Ben, you said, “It’s still tough for me to see people so quick to turn to abortion.” This, IMO, is a fallacy. I don’t believe ANY woman “quickly” turns to abortion. It’s more often a deeply emotional decision … even when the mother knows from the very beginning she isn’t going to keep the baby.

      Women know there’s a new life growing inside them. But sometimes the wants/needs of their life circumstances outweigh their feelings about the fetus.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Quickly was a bad word choice. Some people (some, not all) choose abortion after realizing they are pregnant, not having taken any steps to prevent it in the first place. It’s the lack of precaution and prevention that is most disturbing to me. Not all methods are foolproof of course, but some people don’t take any precaution beforehand and use abortion as their after-the-fact method of birth control. Maybe it’s the best option for them but I think more than pro abortion and anti abortion talk, we need more prevention talk. Some people don’t always have that luxury of course, so every situation is different. That was what I was trying to get across. People don’t practice safe sex and abortion, as a result, is their only option. Abortions, like a D&C ( which my wife had several years back after a loss) is both traumatic and also a procedure which can cause harm to the woman.

        I don’t always think my words through and see how they come across when I type them. I am advocating education and prevention, not bashing women who get abortions. Even one abortion can do damage that can possibly prevent pregnancies in the future so I was really speaking to the people who don’t think things through before having sex. All abortions are deeply personal decisions and can cause many years of depression and other emotional distress. That’s why I think more people need to think their protection methods more before rather than deal with a life-altering abortion later. Education. That’s what needs more discussion. Again, some do the right thing and still face abortion due to unforeseen circumstances. But some don’t. That’s all.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Hello Ben. So you would agree that the push for abstinence only sex education programs are a failure that leads to unwanted pregnancies? So I would ask you because you have more experiences with the church groups that push this than I do, how do we combat this push to not teach kids about their bodies and urges and not have unwanted pregnancies that require more terminations. The studies show comprehensive sex education cuts deeply into that unwanted pregnancies. Yet the push back from religious groups to block sexual education in schools is fierce. How do we change that? For the sake of the kids growing up and the chances of pregnancies in uneducated kids, how do we as a country get past the religious groups preventing teaching kids about condoms and sexual educations. Thanks. Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

            1. I agree. What I am asking , and others than Ben could educate me, is how do we combat the abstinence only crowd? We know it doesn’t work. We know states that have only abstinence programs have more teen pregnancies and repeat teen pregnancies . Aron Ra from Texas is always talking about this. What I am asking is from those who once may have supported these programs due to religion is how do we get that changed and understood. Clearly the religious people pushing these programs have not listened to the facts so far, so how do we get it changed? Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Keep pressing, posting, supporting and voicing education and birth control as the smart choice. I can’t think of many more ways to fight, and many states in the Bible Belt have taken huge strides backwards very recently. It may be more important to educate than ever before with the new Supreme Court on the horizon.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Yes I agree Jim. I just hoped there would be some secret way we could push that would get the fundamentalist religious to suddenly see the error of their ways. I guess it will never be that easy. I admit I am tired. I have too many irons in too many fires and I am tired of always arguing. I just hoped maybe we had a better way here. Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

          1. Great question. I don’t know the answer though. Abstinence is not realistic. Churches know this. Catholics thought celibacy was a good idea too and we all know the results from that.

            All we can really do is focus on education. Show facts and leave the religious arguments out of it. Sex is physical and emotional, not theological. I’m still in the process of deprogramming from my religious upbringing so I am dealing with waves of new emotions and new understanding. I will not preach abstinence to my kids, but rather responsibility. I’ll be honest with them and not sugar-coat anything. I think we need to start proper education at home and we could avoid a lot of these arguments between religious and irreligious people about natural human activities and urges.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. I agree with you Ben except for one thing. Many parents and guardians can not face talking with a child about sexual issues and many are misinformed themselves. Plus many kids are being abused sexually at home who get a totally wrong idea of sexual relationships. ( I know about that )
              But what I really wanted to know is how to push back against religious organizations that block any kind of real sexual education. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Scottie: You’re absolutely right, of course. We know for a fact that there are two things and only two things that drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions: 1, comprehensive sex education, and 2, easy access to birth control. We also know for a fact that abstinence only sex education doesn’t work. But the religious right tries to deny access to the two things that do work and only promotes the one thing that we know doesn’t work. I really, really wish I knew the answer to your question about how we can change things. They continue to refuse to accept facts and tired old arguments to promote their beliefs despite the fact the evidence all refutes their claims. How can you get through to people who continue to deny any evidence that contradicts their personal beliefs?

            There are a lot of days when the only reason I don’t bang my head against the wall is because sheetrock is expensive to replace.

            Liked by 4 people

            1. It would be like turning a ardent trump supporter into an Obama lover. Ain’t gonna happen….sadly

              Liked by 3 people

        2. Ben, I agree. “Pre-thinking” is definitely the better option. BUT … young people with raging hormones … well, need I say more? Sure, some of them are “experienced” and do think ahead, but again … it really depends on the individuals (guys AND gals) and their circumstances.

          I guess my biggest complaint goes along with rawgod. Too many individuals are quick to condemn abortion but do NOTHING to help women who don’t have the resources to care for an unwanted child.

          It’s a sticky situation any way you look at it.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Condemnation solves nothing. Judging solves nothing. Education is a start, but it doesn’t prevent every pregnancy from occuring. Compassion should be automatic regardless. Sadly it isn’t.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. Ben the thing is the judging and the condemnation normally starts on the religious side. I am not attacking you, but asking you to remember what your thoughts on the subject were when you were at the peak of your religious indoctrination. You have a great perspective, you can see both sides. The saddest part of this is kids and pregnant woman are the ones who will suffer if we can not figure this out and change it. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            2. At the peak of my religious indoctrination, I was a typical Christian with predictable Christian opinions. Abortion = murder. Premarital sex is a sin. People who participate in either of those things need Jesus. If they had the spirit in them, they wouldn’t live so recklessly. Birth control? Abstinence is God’s plan, of course. Anything else is preventing a life from being created (a life that God knew about since before time began) and that would be like playing God himself. That’s what was drilled into my head and I believed it. However, I never personally knew any of these reckless, sinful people so I didn’t really know what they thought and what their actual views were. I assumed the worst based on my Christian education. Just like when people (who shall remain nameless) assume people become atheists because they are either mad at God or don’t want to leave their life of sin. Condemnation and judging are absolutely a staple of the faith. They say it’s out of love that they judge, but we know better.

              To try to answer one of your previous questions, to push back against religious organizations that preach abstinence and purity over birth control, I would do my best to expose their hypocrisy. Show the statistics of divorce, abortion and premarital sex that goes on in “Christian” homes. Show the utter failure of church leaders who tout their morality while indulging in depravity behind the scenes. Show the success rate of birth control vs not using any. I really don’t have any other suggestions. It’s not something I ever had to think about before. But now with a teenage son of my own, sexual education is at the forefront of my mind.

              I will just have to be honest with my kids. My wife and I lived together for 2 years before we were married and abstinence lasted only about 3 months into our relationship (not bad really, for two teenage kids). I was a Christian then, though I didn’t feel I was really doing anything wrong. But when taught about the sin of premarital sex and living together before marriage while in church later on, I felt a little shame. I justified it by saying, “hey, we got married eventually so it was okay.” And that’s the Christian way of life. Preach against something, but then justify it when you do it yourself. It just shows how human we all are, regardless of religion. The difference is that the irreligious can admit they are human. The religious tend to think they are above human urges and “indecency.”

              One last thing, and I think I’ve mentioned this before on an abortion post, is that before we condemn those who get abortions and say, “think of the children”, we need to address more pressing issues. One huge issue is the adoption process. Countless children live in orphanages or temporary foster homes because our adoption system is broken. We preach that we should save all the children from being aborted and offer adoption as an alternative. “Just give your kids up for adoption instead of killing it.” Then what? We charge tens of thousands of dollars to essentially buy a child. Many people can afford to raise a child, but don’t have that kind of money saved up to adopt one. I can support my 4 kids, but there’s no way I could have adopted 1, let alone 4. No way. Loving families are denied helping needy children because of money. It’s sickening really. Let’s find homes for the hurting children that are here now before worrying about bringing more into the world. How about that fight instead of treating women like monsters?

              Liked by 3 people

            3. Thank you that was very personal and may have been hard to write. You bring up topics that are very important. I can see by your answer you do understand the issue , and the reason I asked. Thank you. Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

            4. By the way. I was a bought child. My grandfather on my adoptive mothers side paid a large sum to have me given to her. from my biological father. The story I was told was she was my mother, they had an relationship while she was married to another man. I was told I was adopted. After both of the mother and father died, I found the documents where I was basically bought. I met my biological father and he claimed he had kids and was poor so he gave me to them for the money. I paid the price for a lot of adults wanting to work out their sexual issues. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            5. I have a friend who is from Saipan originally. She was adopted (bought) buy a missionary and his family. I would just say adopted, but knowing her full story, she was bought…and for a purpose. Her new family kept paying money to her biological family after bringing her home. They took her home, it turns out, to be groomed into a sex slave. Her adoptive father abused her for years, all while teaching her about Jesus and how doing that was okay because he promised to leave his wife and marry her instead. She was tricked into trusting him and thought nothing was wrong for years and years. Then when she was a teenager she finally stood up for herself and told her mom about things and how she was really hurt by it all. What did her family do? They told her she was a temptation to her father and it was all her fault. Then they told her to move out and deal with her sin. This is how religion is in the real world. It is abuse and cover-up over and over again. When faced with their own “sin”, Christians deflect and place the blame on someone else.

              Adoption can be tough. My sister was adopted before I was born and had a lot of emotional issues later in life dealing with her current family versus finding her biological parents. The feeling of rejection oftentimes overrides the love of a good family who takes in children who need a home.

              Liked by 3 people

            6. I have a old family friend/ex in-law that disowned the 13 year old girl for the same reason. When she came forward the whole family stood behind the asshole and shunned her. I dont/ refuse to talk to them any more. It’s pretty common (the secrets) of religion. Pious hypocrisy.

              Liked by 4 people

            7. It’s disgusting. The church my friend’s family belonged to shamed her niece fairly recently for wanting to go to a school dance. They basically told her she was wrong for being interested in boys as a teenager and called her out in front of the whole church. Another time, they did it again for her listening to secular music and being told she was a bad influence on the younger kids there. She began having suicidal thoughts because of it. Her dad pulled her from the church out of fear for her life. Her mom (who is like the cult members you see in movies) told her she needed more time at the church to “heal.” A suicidal child is being told that the place that caused those thoughts was the only place that could help. Religion IS NOT harmless.

              Liked by 3 people

            8. Ben…Reading this brings me to tears. Yes for the girl, the harm she suffered, but also because I was her. I was sexually and physically abused. I was not one of them. The siblings knew they could do to me what they wanted and I would not be able to do anything to stop them. They were fed on anger, the anger of the parents. The adoptive father took a dislike to me as a toddler and from then on I was free game. As long as we maintained an illusion for the out side world it was all good for them. Hidden the abuse was. In the first grade the school charged my adoptive parents with abuse. The adoptive parents moved three towns in six months and nothing was ever followed up. I will never forget the exam I had to go through in front of the principal and a few teachers, crying I promised I wouldn’t tell.
              I am tired. Night. Be well. Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

            9. Ben it is not your fault and you do NOT have any responsibility for anything. It is OK. I choose to be part of the conversion and to include my past. I did so only to show my view point and if it had validity.

              I wont lie. I had a period of very great distress. I went to other rooms, I did things you may not understand. I shouted, I raged, and I wanted to pretend it all went away. I poured my self two big shot glasses of peppermint schnapps. But in the end, I have to face the fact I either am the person I am or not. I chose to be me.

              Ben it is important to me that you know I do not blame you. I do not hold anyone accountable for my childhood other than those that were involved.

              I do like to have conversions between believers in religion and those who do not.

              I really like to discuss current events and politics, as you know.

              Ben, I had a time of weakness where my past overwhelmed me. Please do not think of me only in those terms. Let me be a whole person you engage in regardless of my childhood. Till the nest time we talk.
              Hugs.

              Liked by 2 people

            10. I am sorry you had to go through that. I cannot stand hearing stories of child abuse, especially by those who are supposed to love and protect them. My friend is remarried now because her ex-husband ignored all of her issues dealing with her abusive past. He sided with her family and made her feel as if it was all in her head just like her family did. She was all alone, so messed up in her mind that she became suicidal, thinking she had no other way out of her nightmare. She left her husband after 10 years, remarried and is now happy, but very, very damaged. Her ex-husband still sends abusive texts and emails, calling her a slut and worse. He thinks she just left him for another man when in reality she left because he was part of the problem and he doesn’t understand that. No one should deal with abuse on their own while being told it was their fault or being told they made it all up.

              Take care Scottie.

              Liked by 4 people

          2. Agreed. Teenagers do not always think ahead. My first time was unprotected. It wasn’t even a thought that crossed my mind back then, at least not until later and then we used protection. I thought that if she got pregnant, I was fully prepared to raise a child…or at least I told myself that. The truth is that I was 18 and my girlfriend, now wife, was only 17. It’s rare, but some in our species do mate for life. 🙂 But seriously, how prepared for family life are any teenage kids?

            Like I just told Scottie, we need to focus more resources on helping the kids here and now and not attack people preventing more from coming into this world. One doesn’t have to like abortion to see that kids are hurting and yet we turn our backs on them. Women who face abortion are facing emotional turmoil the likes of which I cannot personally imagine. We certainly have the means to end child suffering and end abuse and condemnation of women. The question is, will we do it?

            Liked by 3 people

            1. The Christian/western value is to hide reality from kids and let their friends teach them. They think they’re protecting them but they WILL learn about it and in reality sex becomes the great taboo (not professor) and we all know how prohibition and other restrictive programs have worked. One explorer whose name eludes me was shocked that the natives were nearly naked and there wasn’t the level of promiscuity that he saw in his home, Christian town. Our sexuality has been high jacked to its roots by Puritanism and it hasn’t helped in 1000 years.

              Liked by 4 people

      2. Something that bothers me is the society, run by Christianity essentially setting the economic playing field and boundaries for a thousand years of colonial capitalism that make it nearly impossible for people to thrive in many, many circumstances. But, they are expected to have babies like no tomorrow with no help, no safety net, extreme difficulty even to support yourself starting out. If for no other reason I support the right to have abortion to stick in the face of this Christian system they’ve forced upon humanity.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. More babies equals more adults to tithe to the church. That is all they really care about. More members equals more money. Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

  15. Hey, Jim,
    What I dislike about the anti-abortion crowd is they only care until a fetus becomes a born baby, then whatever happens to it has no meaning to them. It can starve, grow up to be a murderer, or, yes, even a great person. But do they care, no. As long as they assert their right to decide what happens inside someone else’s body, they think they have done their christian duty, and brought a new potential believer into this world. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.
    I would love to rub their noses in the used diapers of every baby who they have “saved” from pre-extinction. Maybe then they might take a look at the life such a baby has to live. But that will never happen–their job stops the moment the baby is born. Hallelujah!

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I posted some of this comment below rawgod, but connects to your thoughts here “Something that bothers me is the society, run by Christianity essentially setting the economic playing field and boundaries for a thousand years of colonial capitalism that make it nearly impossible for people to thrive in many, many circumstances. But, they are expected to have babies like no tomorrow with no help, no safety net, extreme difficulty and hopelessness even to support yourself starting out.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Do the laws in the USA still require a woman made pregnant thtough rape or incest to carry the fetus to term. I’m pretty sure this is still true in Canada, as the baby is considered evidence. Incredible chauvanistic thinking. No one needs an extra 9 months of living with the crime, not to talk about the years of child-rearing if the baby is not put up for adoption. This shows no concern at all for the victim. Women will never be seen as truly equal until all archaic laws like this are stripped from the books everywhere they presently exist.

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: