Pro-Abortion Blogger Makes Pro-Life Case
By , Published January 23rd, 2010

RH Reality Check (pro-abortion website funded by Ted Turner) blogger Thea Lim concluded in her post yesterday:

I support any life choice; except the one that tries to take other people’s choices away.

Now that’s destructive.

Funny, I would have no problem saying something very similar, yet we are on opposite sides of the abortion debate. If abortion simply removed a tumor or “tissue” and not a small human being then I would have no problem with it. I oppose abortion specifically because it takes away the choice and life of another human being. Ana Benderas explained this in a video recently:

My question for Thea Lim is how does abortion not fit her definition?

Does she believe that preborn humans are not living? (science says they are)

Does she believe that preborn human are not human? (science again also says they are)

Finally, as Lim says, choices that take way the choices of others are “destructive”. One just has to see what a human abortion looks like to understand that “destructive” is an accurate description:

http://abortionno.org (shows video an actual abortion)
http://herestheblood.com (shows an actual abortion)
Live Action on Facebook
  • KushielsMoon

    Do you realize that fetuses CANNOT choose? They are physically incapable of making choices? So how can you take away choice from someone/thing which doesn't have the ability to choose?

  • SAOrchid

    Yes, that is so…a fetus cannot "choose." But it is a living human being, to be protected, brought to term, when, as a fully functioning member of the human race, would choose to live…to learn…to love…to serve others. Can a person with Alzheimer's "choose"? Can a person in a car accident and unconscious "choose"? Can a person with mental illness and unaware of their surroundings "choose"? No, but we do not then terminate their lives or refuse to treat them and give them all comfort and care. Why, then, should the preborn human be treated differently?

  • ProChoiceGal

    Let's imagine, just for a moment, that we live in some fantasy world where embryos/fetuses can think rationally and can make choices.. Now, let's say that this fetus is deformed and, if the woman goes through the pregnancies, it will suffer and die shortly after birth. If this fetus were to choose abortion, would you allow it that choice? Considering the anti-choice stance on euthanasia, I'd imagine that the answer to that question would be a sound "no".

    If, in reality, you'd give the fetus no other option but to be born, is it really choice? Of course not.

    That's only one problem with the "the fetus should get to choose!" talking point. An unwanted pregnancy is a violation to many women. Saying that the fetus, the violator (and yes, you can be a violator without having any intent), should get the "choice" is like saying that a rapist should get the choice not to be killed when his or her victim is defending hirself against him/her. The rapist is the violator, so s/he does not get a choice.

    It's always hilarious when antis whip out this argument and try to pretend that they're for choice. Forcing women through pregnancies is anti-choice, no matter which way you look at it, and even if fetuses could make choices, you would not grant them any choice but to be born.

  • Micaela

    I wonder what JushielMoon thinks about new born babies. They CANNOT choose either. Should we also kill them at our own will?

  • ProChoiceGal

    Is it really necessary to explain the difference between fetuses and babies to you? A baby, while dependent on an adult in some ways (needs to be fed and taken care of), does not have to depend on a specific adult. It's not living inside of a woman, and it's not violating her bodily autonomy. Its dependence can be transferred to another person.

    PS- don't even try to tell me that the dependence of a fetus can be transferred to another person. Fetuses can't be given up for adoption. Babies can.

  • Ellen

    You speak of violators? Those unborn children are being violated and so are the women who have abortions. No one wins. Even the abortionist who is paid big bucks loses his or her self respect and even their status as a medical professional.

    The baby is cut up or burned with saline or prematurely delivered to be left to die and yet some of them linger, clinging to life. I think they are CHOOSING to live. The woman who refuses motherhood, that is, the essence of femininity, loses emotionally and physically and certainly spiritually. She may not regret it right away but she will eventually. She may even lose her own life if the procedure was botched and it can be. She runs a HUGE risk of breast cancer especially if it's her first pregnancy. Who knows what other physical ailments she may contract?

    Abortion is not just morally wrong, it goes against our nature as human beings. Deep within us all we have a common understanding of preserving and nurturing life. To deny this defies our very core. Some people do deny it but they are unhappy as a result and they are frequently clueless as to why this is so.

    I have noticed that those who argue for abortion are usually angry and sometimes rather crude. They have allowed the anger and the selfishness to blind them to their own humanity. Perhaps one day, if the rest of us pray and sacrifice enough, they will wake up to this grievous error. I pray it may be so.

  • ProChoiceGal

    "She may not regret it right away but she will eventually."

    Glad to know that you know every single woman in the world better than she knows herself.

    "She runs a HUGE risk of breast cancer especially if it’s her first pregnancy."

    This is a lie. There is no proof for this.

    "I have noticed that those who argue for abortion are usually angry and sometimes rather crude."

    I have noticed that those who argue for abortion are usually angry, hateful, spiteful, and misogynists.

    "The woman who refuses motherhood, that is, the essence of femininity, loses emotionally and physically and certainly spiritually."

    The essence of femininity? What about infertile or childfree women? Are they not "feminine" enough for you? Do they not meet your standards? It is not your place to decide what "feminine" is. It's not your place to decide who the real women are and who the "fake" women are. It's not your place to decide what risks a woman should take. It's not your place to decide how a woman feels. Seriously, I think you have some kind of superiority complex that you have to work out.

  • ProChoiceGal

    whoops. In that last comment, I meant to say "I have noticed that those who argue AGAINST abortion are usually angry, hateful, spiteful, and misogynists."

  • Megan

    Prochoicegal, your argument is also flawed. A rapist is a violator with malicious intent. An unborn child is an accidental violator. You can't compare the two. It's not an even match.

    I think the only thing we can do to change the mind of someone who believes abortion is sometimes the right choice is pray (hope) they have a change of heart. It's not an argument that can be won through logic. It's an issue of the heart. Life is of great value. Every breath each one of us takes might be our last. You never know how long you're going to have on the planet. Christian or not, we're all living, breathing humans with something to offer the world. Even those with chronic, debilitating mental disabilities bring joy to those around them and experience joy as best they can.

    I hope that if an unexpected pregnancy ever comes your way, prochoicegal, you will find the courage to do something very brave and selfless. Even if you're flat broke and have no support whatsoever, it is never wrong to offer life to a child.

  • lifer

    Question for ProChoiceGal concerning her dependency argument…that the care of a newborn can be transferred, while the care of the fetus requires a specific person. What is your postition on conjoined twins? Not minors (who;s paretns are making decisions on their behalf), but those who have attained the age of legal consent. Consider, for example, the twins share at least one vital organ. Realizing Twin B will die if seperated from Twin A, both agree to stay conjoined to ensure mutual survival. Now, say Twin A comes to a point in her life where she begins to feel inconvenienced by this arrangement. That she is actually being violated & resents having to be a "life support system" for Twin B. Would their lives be equally valuable in your eyes? Or would Twin A have a higher value given that Twin B is dependent? Should Twin A be granted the right to choose to be seperated from Twin B, even if it will result in the immediate & certain death of Twin B? Both are fully alive & fully human. For CHOICE to truly be utilized, they both must MUTUALLY agree to be seperated & Twin B agree to choose death…what would you call it if Twin A forced Twin B to be seperated or just did it while she was unconcious? You are making a function argument. You are using temporary dependency upon a specific person as a justification for denying rights, including the right to life. But a conjoined twin who depends on shared organs is also dependent…but not temporarily! Permanently. Why can one living human decide a fellow living human who happens to be in a position (not of their own choosing, but in the vast majority of cases, resulting from a deliberate, consentual act!) of temporary dependence, end the life of that fellow human being? But only in an abortion…legally, Twin A cannot "abort" Twin B. She is stuck, regardless of how she feels about the situation. Because to CHOICE seperation would deny Twin B the right to life…& legally, dependency is IRRELEVANT,

  • Isaxgrl

    prochoicegal said: Let’s imagine, just for a moment, that we live in some fantasy world where embryos/fetuses can think rationally and can make choices.. Now, let’s say that this fetus is deformed and, if the woman goes through the pregnancies, it will suffer and die shortly after birth. If this fetus were to choose abortion, would you allow it that choice? Considering the anti-choice stance on euthanasia, I’d imagine that the answer to that question would be a sound “no”.

    The problem here is that you seem to think a rational being (per your post-a deformed fetus) would choose to be torn apart limb from limb or burned to death with a super saline solution rather than be born and die surrounded by the love of those who recognize its inherent value as a living being and with medical attention and relief from pain. I can not imagine any fetus-deformed or otherwise– making such a choice. The basic belief of those who are against abortion is that all life: whether it is deformed or not, challenged physically or mentally or not –that simply being alive is sufficient reason to allow it to live. Children who are born with special needs (whether identified before or at birth as many are or at a later time –say 20 yrs old as schizophrenics often are) are just as worthy of love–and often the opportunity to love them is a gift to us as much as it is to them. Just because a person is born with special needs or at an inconvenient time in the life of the mother does not negate the fact that the child is still a blessing and deserving of love.

  • Lori

    The time for choice is before one engages in sexual intercourse. Birth control is not 100% effective, so when one has sex, one is accepting the fact that she/he may be creating a living human being. It is wrong to create a human life and then kill it because it is an inconvenience. That is morally wrong. Once again, the time for choice is before one has sexual intercourse.