Discussion: Abortion is a Protection for Women or a Holocaust?

Is abortion a fundamental right now? What are the American public’s views on this issue? How will the American public respond if the rollback of Roe v. Wade is finalized? Is the American public wedded to the “protections” under Roe v. Wade or are they ambivalent? Why does any of this matter? I discuss these matters with a few on the opposite side of the issue.

First, let’s examine where the American public stands on this issue. A Pew Research Center poll from last week divided us in this way:


This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-12.png

We can say the American people fall into three distinct groups, excluding the 2% who didn’t answer.

  • 25%: Abortions should have no limits or very few limits.
  • 36%: Abortions should be legal with limits such as no abortions after 20 weeks or no abortions after viability (around 25 weeks or later).
  • 37%: Abortions should be illegal in all or most instances.

Alternatively, we could also lump the two groups in the middle and say that a majority of Americans (63%) favor abortion with restrictions:

  • 25%: Abortions should have no limits or very few limits.
  • 63%: Abortions should be legal with limits.
  • 10%: Abortions should be illegal in virtually all instances.

The majority is clearly in the middle; they see abortion as a necessary evil with a few or perhaps multiple restrictions needed. Maybe they find the practice distasteful and wouldn’t engage in it themselves, but they will allow that others should have some (not unlimited) choice in the matter. These folks don’t countenance late term abortions nor could they contemplate killing a baby after birth (like the Californians in this video pro-abortion-crowd-is-out-of-control), but they think the Catholic Church and folks like me go too far to end it altogether and folks like AOC, Chuck Schumer, and my critics are wrong to have no limits whatsoever.

The Planned Parenthood v Casey ruling in 1992 actually sets “viability” as the outer limit for abortions. Abortions in the third trimester are illegal per this 1992 ruling.


Several states have extended that standard in allowing abortions into the third trimester and some even up to nine months. Furthermore, laws against late term abortions are often overlooked and poorly enforced (read about Kermit Gosnell). The CDC estimates there are thousands of third term abortions in the U.S. every year, but this number is likely much higher as doctors lie about a women’s status to avoid openly running afoul of the law.


I worry about those at the extreme pro-choice end. They demand abortion be a fundamental right and increasingly refuse to acknowledge that it ends the life of another. It is a woman’s health issue. It is my body, my choice. These folks ignore the life, the rights, and the body of the child. The current Supreme Court decision makes many in that group apoplectic. Even supposedly mild mannered politicians are looking the other way at fire-bombing of a Wisconsin anti-abortion clinic and protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. They will say they are against violence but then say: well the issue matters so much, can you blame folks for going to such extremes? One journalist even declared on national TV to “make sweet love” to thank the Supreme Court leaker. Yes, let’s thank the leaker for breaking the law and breaking with traditional norms. Give this one-minute clip a listen and ask yourself what is wrong here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305839099112#sp=show-clips

The limbo status of the decision is not good and risks that undue influence will be applied to justices to change it. Imagine this tactic were used with every court decision, say it was used during the trials of people charged with crimes in your neighborhood. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is perhaps the lone Democrat in the wilderness, speaking up abut this problem:


Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., broke ranks with party leaders on Thursday when he unequivocally condemned the individual who leaked a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion, calling for prosecution to the “full extent of the law.”

“I completely condemn the leak and whoever leaked it should be prosecuted,” he asserted.

“I’ve seen the theories… and this is kind of, I think, the cheapening of America where rules, morals, are being undermined on a constant basis,” he said. “And I think maybe the thing Americans are saying, they are sick and tired of it, whether it’s coming from either end of the political agenda.”

How Will the Public Respond?

Those of us who think abortion is evil are pleased with significant limits to abortion being enacted in many states. We want a complete rollback, but the court is doing its job by returning this decision to the will of the people. This is not radical. They are withdrawing the court from the decision, something most Americans do not fully understand yet. The court realizes they don’t have the authority to end abortion themselves (unlike the 1973 court which made the decision to allow it for us all), so they will allow those states to decide. Pro-lifers will continue to support the Republican party who has finally taken serious action to change the status quo.

Those in the middle, the largest contingent, will not care enough to change their votes for the upcoming election. They already believe some restrictions are needed, so a few more limitations in some states will likely not bother most of them. Some may believe restrictions go too far, but this isn’t the issue that gets them worked up. We are all impacted by higher prices and a looming recession, and for most, that’s the more impactful matter at the moment. Unless it impacts them personally in the next six months, the court ruling is a non-issue for this group.

A quarter of the electorate will be very upset about the decision. They will support whatever it takes to win (perhaps look the other way at bombings of an anti-abortion clinic in Wisconsin, protests at Supreme Justices homes, and violations of norms at the Supreme Court). However, these folks votes are already locked in for Democrats and won’t change their votes.

Therefore, overall, this issue is not likely to have a big impact on the upcoming election. Votes are not moving from one side to the other and new waves of voters are not likely to be motivated by the issue at this moment.

This debate shouldn’t be about winning the next election, in any case. That’s always been our side’s failure. Folks might want to focus on state legislators who can have an actual impact on this decision in the next couple years or, better yet, focus on changing the views of their neighbors (who need to know the truth of abortion).

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer held a vote on the issue to get his base riled up, but the measure was defeated. The U.S. Congress shouldn’t get involved in any case. If Congress could change the law today to allow abortion nationwide, the next Congress would change it back as soon as they had the chance. We would be caught in a continual back-and-forth as we are with issues like the Southern border and oil and gas drilling. The Supreme Court decision brings us to a better and less volatile political situation, the one we should have had for the last fifty years in any case.

It is Protection

I received a complaint after my post regarding California legislation in which I quoted the following:


Under this proposed new legislation, mothers would not be held criminally responsible for actively or neglectfully killing their hours-old to weeks-old infants. And depending on how a court defines the word “perinatal,” that timeframe could be expanded up to a year or more. This bill would also protect anyone who aids or assists the mother in exercising her “right” to kill and, furthermore, allows her to sue any law enforcement department which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing the baby.

My critic responded as follows:

This is misrepresentation of the bill. You say it  “protects anyone who aids or assists the mother in exercising her “right”  to kill…..”  implying that women will be free to kill their children up to a year after they are born.  It does not do that – among other things, it protects a mother from being criminally charged/prosecuted when a pregnancy ends in a death that the mother was not responsible for –  such as a still born child. 

This misrepresentation is a common tactic to discredit something that one does not like by creating  “fear” that something terrible will happen if you do not act to stop it. 

I find bizarre this notion that current abortion rights and rights to be afforded to women in the California bill are considered “protections” for woman. Some, like the head of the WHO, claim abortion itself actually saves lives: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/access-to-safe-abortion-saves-lives-who-chief-says-11651677457

Yes, abortions save lives except for 100% of the children who die during the procedure, and except for the mothers who have unsafe abortions in assembly lines purporting to be doctor’s offices (again see the Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s story). Do folks actually believe the things they say or do they latch on to what others say? I think my critics are sincere, but people who should know better repeat one liners, platitudes, and talking points that are not backed up with solid evidence and make no sense to a thinking person. A child has no rights or protections under Roe v Wade, and this is a fundamental good that must defended at all costs? We shouldn’t be safe if you don’t have the right to end the life of a child?

California Governor Gavin Newsome said if abortion were an issue for males, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But isn’t it an issue for males? I was reliably told the last few years that periods and pregnancy and all the rest are no longer strictly the purview of females. How can that new “truth” have ended so soon for California and the other liberal bastions?

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin should get credit for honesty. She says abortion is an economic issue. The government not only tries to convince us we are saving lives and protecting women with abortions, but now they use the argument that having a family and taking care of an extra kid is bad for your own economic future. In other words, for the good of the economy, abort your child. I would acknowledge that raising a child is a huge sacrifice and may diminish your own economic interest, but is it a morally justifiable argument?


Placing career ahead of family is the justification many celebrities have used to ease their own consciences and publicly preach to us all (Never Again).

More from my Critic:

My critic’s comments are in blue and mine are in black.

Your logic on this is flawed and weak. It takes a one-sided / simplistic view of a very complicated issue and applies a no compromise approach that touches on bigotry. Let me share what I mean:

  • the argument for banning abortion defies the separation of church and state  (a foundation of our constitution) – your argument is a conservative religious/church (Christian) point of view that you feel should be forced on others; many Christian sects do not take such a hard line on abortion; many accept that it is an individual’s choice; some allow for certain exceptions (rape/incest/life of the mother in danger); in addition many non-Christian religions take differing approaches as well; there is no consensus on this issue from the world’s leading religions; many countries allow abortion while we are the outliers on this issue. I do not mean to say that because the rest of the world is doing it that we should; but only to point out that there is not a consensus on abortion. 

“Separation of church and state” is not a phrase in the Constitution.  It is a notion expressed by Thomas Jefferson when he was president.  It was never part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or any other official U.S. document, contrary to popular belief.   

I think abortion is a moral issue certainly, but it is also a rational argument that can be separated from religion.  It has been opposed by the major religions and all types of cultures, religious or non-religious.  I speak from a religious point of view because my faith guides my thinking. 

  • It also is alright, in this case for this to be forced on people; even though you argue that in other cases that government should not tell people what to do  – like mask / vaccine mandates – it seems that is not an issue when your position is being mandated – hypocrisy.  

Yes, we can force people to our will at times.  We send people to jail for crimes that we all agree should be punished.  I think abortion should not be a crime, but I also think it is a horrible act and we should not as a culture condone or encourage it.  Why can’t you at least give us credit for trying to protect a child’s life?  Why do you focus only on the life of the mother?  We care about both the life of the mother and the child.  The pro-choice folks rarely acknowledge the life of a child.  Why is that?  

And why is it only a woman’s issue?  What about the father of the child?  Why do pro-choice folks cut out the father from the discussion?  If the child were born, certainly you would want the father to support the child and provide for it.  Yet, the father’s objections to abortion should carry no weight?  Why is that?  You say I am insensitive.  Are you being insensitive to the lives, the hopes and the beliefs of the child and the father? 

But in reality how much “forcing” is going on here?  People have the freedom to have sex or not.  They have the freedom to take contraceptives or not (I won’t get into that debate at this time).  They have the freedom to wait until marriage to have children or not.   They want the additional “freedom” to have one last contraceptive measure (abortion) so they can continue promiscuous behavior with seemingly no consequences.  However, there is a cost and a consequence to such behavior.   You criticize me for pointing out the costs and the consequences, yet at some point, our culture must assume its responsibility. Our very civilization depends on responsibility to care of family and teach the next generation right and wrong. We are losing that pillar of society by placing our own twisted view of freedom and our own pleasure ahead of all else. Speak to public school teachers you know and ask them how well the parents are doing with regard to self-sacrifice and raising their families.

  • the argument says a women should not be able to decide for herself on an issue that is personal to her and her family; it is a women’s health issue – male chauvinistic.

No, it is not a woman’s health issue.  It would be a woman’s health issue if it were about removing a faulty appendix or gall bladder.  Abortion takes the life of another.   You don’t like this to be a religious issue, but there are atheists and who believe in justice who could make equally effective arguments by removing God from my argument below:

The ultimate judgment, the one clearly reserved for God alone, is the decision of who lives or dies. This is what the pro-choice people miss completely. A child aborted receives the ultimate judgement, a judgment we, even the child’s mother– especially the child’s mother–have no right to impose. I think this is what Jesus means when He says “Judge not”. Do not determine another’s ultimate fate. Do not send another to their judgment until God calls them in his due time.

I tie the argument back to God and Jesus’s words “judge not” because it is a common counter argument from those who oppose the Christian view of the matter.  We are not hypocrites for judging another’s actions.  As I said in my post: As humans we judge each other’s actions. We are expected to keep each other accountable. Otherwise, we cannot maintain a civilized society.

  • on your defense of not compromising on this issue – it is offensive: likening acceptance of abortion to being a Nazi – that is disgusting and shows your insensitivity  (although you feign that you care). The comparison is a bit like Putin calling the Ukranian’s Nazi’s to justify his invasion of the country – it is a shameful comparison. 

I do not liken acceptance of choice to being a Nazi. Here is what I said:

  • Compromise is sometimes a good thing, but there should be no compromising when it comes to the life of a child or the horrible nature of abortion. Would you seek compromise with Dr. Mengele and his evil boss or would you simply attempt to destroy their points of view on modern medicine and experimentation? Would Jesus allow that everyone, including the Nazis, ought to at least have their points of view considered and their standard be given as much weight as our own American ideals? This is moral relativism run amok. We wouldn’t seek compromise with the Nazis and we shouldn’t compromise with pro-choice advocates either, no matter how good their intentions, how much they care about others, or how nice they themselves are.

I use the argument that we should not compromise in every instance.  We, neither you nor me, nor virtually anyone else reading this, would compromise with the Nazis.  Therefore, all compromise is not good.   That is my main point.  I am not attacking pro-choice folks; I give you credit for having good intentions and caring about others, for goodness sake, not something I would concede to the Nazis.   I am also attacking the idea of moral relativism.  I seek to attack the ideas you believe in, not you yourself.  I do not lump in pro-choice people with the Nazis.  Re-read it carefully. 

Another point is that not all views are equally or morally good.  Some views, some cultures, are superior to others.  We should not put certain ideas or cultures on an equal playing field with those which are clearly superior.  American ideals are superior to Nazi ideals and both should not be given equal weight.  Abortion is not an idea that is worthy of compromise.  Like I said everyone has certain views that are beyond compromise.   Again, the point is that compromise is sometimes good, but not always good.

I don’t know why you say I feign caring.  You disagree with my ideas, but you can’t discern my motivations.  Attack my ideas not me as a person.  I give you credit for being sincere in your beliefs.  Give me credit for being sincere in mine.  We disagree but we can still both have good intentions.

  • you may believe abortion is murder (that is your choice); however a majority of people in this country do not think so…. murder is universally accepted to be wrong …not only is it morally wrong it is illegal as well. 

You do not believe abortion is murder?   I do.  However, I think we are both in the minority (see more of the breakdown in the Pew Research poll presented earlier).

There must be a compromise on this issue. In my opinion if we do not, we will tear the country apart. Compromise is what has sustained our democracy; without it we would not be the great nation that we are.  We are great because of our constitution, legal and political systems…… all are threatened now. In the current hyper-political environment it is hard to see a compromise being reached. Where are the great politicians that have carried us through turbulent times in the past??

Compromise has been tried among the various groups for fifty years; it has failed.  Our political leaders on both sides have failed;  both used this issue to garner votes.  I hope those dreadful tactics will someday end.

The Constitution is not threatened.  The matter of “choice” is returned to the states if this decision holds.  I would prefer abortion were no more, but in reality what is more democratic: having the citizens of each state decide whether or not abortion is the law or having it decided by nine justices?  California and New York will have abortions and consider it good for tourism.  Texas and Florida may outlaw it altogether.  Other states will have something in between.  Certainly, you have to agree that is better to have the people of each state decide than to leave such consequential decisions to the will of five of nine justices?  This decision will be a restoration of democracy and constitutional principles, not an end to them.    

I ask you: why are so many on the Left losing their minds over the right to abort a child? https://www.theblaze.com/news/whoopi-goldberg-unborn-right.  Why is this the matter that is going to make or break us a nation?  Why is this the matter that is going to determine the fate of democracy itself?  There are so many other issues that matter.  The president recently, in a candid moment, admitted that a child, not a fetus, not a clump of cells, is being aborted:

“The idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard,” President Biden said.

Yes, Mr. President it IS a child, and that is the whole problem for us.   It is the judgment of the child, the ultimate judgment forced upon that child by other human beings, often including the one that should love and protect that child more than any other, that we cannot accept.

Here is an alternate inspiring story to the craziness found on The View and among our political leaders. Kathy Barnette is running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania against the better know Dr. Oz. She has a fascinating, real-life inspiring story. Her story is testament to the importance of this issue.

The differences between the two sides of this issue could not be more stark.

Closing Argument

Again, I am labeled during this discussion: I am a male chauvinist; I am insensitive and I feign caring; I am a hypocrite, and possibly a bigot too. In all my discussions/debates my motivations and my ability to reason are questioned. I think my opponents are sincere, but they are also confused and caught up in a very, very warped ideology. I separate the people from the issues, a negotiating tactic.  I do not attack or condemn pro-choice people themselves.  I believe they (or at the least the ones I come in contact with, not our politicians) care as much about others as we in the pro-life movement do.  

I explain why the pro-life position remains consistent with God’s commands.   I use the pro-choice apologists’ own words to show they have no convincing argument.   There isn’t anything redeeming in the pro-choice ideas, and we should easily win a real debate. How can one justify a fundamental right for me to kill my own child? Is it actually convincing to say Democracy ends if we don’t uphold this so-called “right”, a right of child sacrifice? This is the slippery slope that we lead to taking away all of our freedoms? I am afraid the real problem is that not enough people care about the issue as much those on either end of the spectrum. Everyone should take on a side, I believe.

Those of us who oppose the Green New Deal also like the environment.  We want clean water, clean air, safe places to live, and all the rest.   Go figure.  The same logic applies to those caught up in abortion, transgenderism, and all the rest.  We care about the people impacted and want to help them too, just not in the same way the Left does.   I keep trying to convince others and change views because I know no other way, and because I believe we must.

This article below defines the abortion insanity well.   This also demonstrates why the Babylon Bee was banned from Twitter.


WASHINGTON, D.C.—Just days after making an accurate, fact-based claim that MAGA was “the most extreme political organization in recent American history,” President Joe Biden fell back into his habit of making false assertions about his past, this time claiming he had once had an abortion.

“Back in the, around the, in the 1970s when I was a, you know, a young, single black woman, I had to make a choice between keeping or killing, or killing or keeping the where was I, the dead child, or you know putting food on the table,” claimed the real President behind a fake lectern in a fake press room with fake windows on the set of a fake White House. 

Biden continued, “Back then I was trucking cross-country while fighting street gangs and marching with Rodney King to protest the Klondike Bar Klan, I had no choice but to murder my unborn child. Molasses.”

Fact-checkers labeled the President’s claims as mostly true, then pulled bottles of hard liquor from their desk drawers and drank until the warmth of inebriation gave them fleeting respite from the gaping, hollow void that ceaselessly harrowed their souls.

Biden has promised to fight hard until every woman has the right to “flapjack the waffle iron on a frumdiggle torcraprezsure” just like he did.

Remember, the court’s ruling is a return to democracy; it takes the actual decision out of the hands of nine justices and returns it to the people of each state where your voices will now actually matter. This is the essence of democracy.

For more of my thoughts on this topic: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/life/

Praise be to Jesus Christ, now and forever.

41 thoughts on “Discussion: Abortion is a Protection for Women or a Holocaust?

  1. Pro or con? The Jan. 6/21 attack on Congress was an Act of Treason and each person involved in it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    Pro or con? Ex-President Donald Trump confessed publicly to having abused women sexually? He be should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?
    Pro or con? A pregnancy caused by rape or sexual abuse should be prevented from being aborted?


    1. Those who commit criminal acts should be prosecuted. Those who are falsely accused should not be. This is true no matter the individual. Too often a different standard exists for celebrities and politicians. They should be held to the same standard as the rest of us, but justice often fails in these instances. I’m not sure how these examples are related to the topic of abortion, but if proven via due process, yes they should all be punished appropriately. The court of public opinion does not replace a court of law, however.

      Let me ask you: a child should be aborted, a life should be ended, because a dad is a deadbeat who raped or abused the mother? Would you punish a child for the sins of the father? The father is guilty of a crime, but the child is innocent. Why punish the child and add to the harm done in this situation? How does ending the life of the child rectify the wrong done months earlier? I think it only adds to the misery. Did you listen to the story of Kathy Barnette, a child of a rape victim which I included in my post? She is grateful for the opportunity provided her by her mother and grandmother. https://standupgirlfoundation.org/my-story-kathy-barnette/


      1. It takes birth to change a fetus into a child. Nature aborts fetuses all the time. But that is besides the point. You are willing to ruin the life of a woman just because some man’s sperm scored a hif on an ovum? You are willing to risk having the fetus turn into a child that will have a horrible life because all you care about is a birth, and not what happens to either the woman or the child after the birth? I don’t call that Pro-Life, I call it it Pro-I-Don’t-Care. You say you think everyone should be treated the same, yet you say you will vote Republican when half the Republicans are criminals? You bore me.


      2. Why do you say the “life of a woman is ruined” by a child? Most parents do not view a child as ruining their lives. Children and family give our lives purpose. We sacrifice for our children because we live and care for someone other than ourselves. Who says we don’t care about the woman or the child after birth? I care about women and children who I interact with daily. I also care about the lives of more than 60 million children who were never able to live their lives the last fifty years. What a loss for our nation. What good could those lives have accomplished? Those who abort their children often do it because their own lives and careers are more important than the lives of another (their words, not mine). We need to change the value our culture places on life. We have diminished it to such a point that people recognize its importance for some but do not recognize its value for all. That’s the most essential point of my argument. Remember all of us involved in this discussion have one thing in common: our parents chose to bring us into this world. Pass on that value given to you to others.

        Why do you keep interjecting politics into this discussion? You imply I support anything Donald Trump or Republicans do. If you read all of the current post, you would see I am critical of Republicans on the abortion issue as well. They have used it to garner votes for years while doing little to advance the agenda. I wouldn’t vote for half the Republicans out there either. We have an awful crop of politicians currently. It becomes rather difficult to vote when all your choices are bad. I am not a Trump sycophant, but I do give him credit for being the most pro-life president in a long time and being the one politician most responsible for bringing us to the brink of the end of Roe v. Wade.

        It is interesting too that you want to label me. I am one who really doesn’t care, you say. Every time I get into a discussion on cultural issues, I am labeled as someone with questionable values or little sense. Maybe we should just focus on the issue not the personalities involved in the discussion?


      3. The women who have their lives ruined are the ones forced to carry a baby to term when they don’t want to become mothers, or are not ready to become mothers, or are incapable of being mothers. That takes nine months out of their lives, just because of an accident, and sets a child up for being taken away by social services that can go very wrong, or becoming single mothers who resent their children. Children need a loving home. I know all about that!

        I am not talking about abortions for women who want their babies unless there are medical issues involved. If anti-abortionists cared as much for living mothers as they do for unborn fetuses this world would be a much better place. But very few do. Once the balies are born they disappear, and stop caring. That may not be you specifically, but it is you in general.

        To say Trump is Pro-Life is to ignore the fact he is a liar. He knew to pretend he is anti-abortion would give him a large base with religionists, and they are the biggest part of the electorate. He is using you to gain power. He cares not one twit about babies. Look how he mistreafed Mexican babies. But anti-abortionists won’t look at who he really is, a horrible human who hates, uses, and abuses women.


      4. Did you see Senator Tim Scott’s response to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s defense of abortion: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tim-scott-delivers-stunning-rebuke-janet-yellen-black-abortion-comments-im-thankful-here?

        Janet Yellen made an economic defense of abortion. Your life will be better if you abort the child because it takes time, energy, patience, persistence, and most importantly (from Yellen’s view) money. You don’t need all that trouble. Enjoy your life while you can. Secretary Yellen was following much the same logic as you. Senator Scott’s response was concise and excellent. Who are you Ms. Yellen to make such decisions for me and my family? Are you the “expert” who can fix all of our lives?

        Yellen delivers her message with a smile and her view is supported by many respectable and well educated people. A child is reduced to a dollar and cents argument. How compassionate is that? You realize you are arguing for the right for you and I to end the life of another? What gives us that right? In any other context, such an action would be considered murder.

        In a prior post, I discussed a comment from actress Busy Phillips. What she says in a minute-and-a-half is pure evil. She makes it clear that it was absolutely necessary for a child to die so that she could enjoy the comforts that she has today. She is angry at those who would have denied her this right, those who might have prevented her from living this life she now enjoys. This economic argument is a common view among celebrities who have spoken out regarding their own abortions.


        Phillips was a teenager when this happened and we all understand the difficulty pregnancy causes for young mothers. But she was not 15 when she made these remarks. Furthermore, the numbers show that abortion is simply a matter of convenience for most women; this is not primarily about young teenagers in over their heads.

        The data shows that, (a) about 35% of all American women of child-bearing age will have had at least one abortion by age 45 (b) approximately half of all abortions are repeat abortions, (c) repeat abortions are on the rise, and (d) only a tiny fraction of abortions are done for the so-called “hard cases” such as rape, incest, life-of-the-mother, or fetal anomalies.

        source: https://lifedynamics.com/what-is-abortion/abortion-as-birth-control/

        FACT: One of the most surprising facts about abortion is that almost 60% of women obtaining an abortion have already given birth to one or more children! Only 40.3% abort their first child.

        FACT: Sixty percent of women getting an abortion are in their 20s. That breaks down to about 33% of all abortions to women who are just 20-24, and about another 25% of abortions to women 25-29.

        In addition, a significant percentage, almost 15% of abortions are among married couples. That’s more than 150,000 per year for American couples that should have the means, the resources, and the know-how to raise a child.

        My point is that we should value human life, life in all stages. When our culture is willing to throw away life at its start, it will care less about life in the other stages. If we value life from conception, we will value life more throughout. You may not agree, but that seems like simple logic to me. End abortion and we promote the value of life throughout our culture.

        With regards to Trump and his pro-life stance. He campaigned on being pro-life. He said he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and he followed through on it. He was the first president to speak at the “March for Life”. Several others said they would also, but never followed through. Many of us dislike some of Trump’s words and actions, but he is somewhat unique among politicians in that he actually kept his promises. How is that for speaking truthfully?


      5. Economic affects are just as real as a pregnancy. You cannot fismiss them out of hand. I presume you are going to tell me every fetus is God’s crestion. Not evrryone believes that anymore. Pregbsncy is an acvident of nature. Women do not get pregnant evty time they hay sex. Some oeople want to, good gor them. But sex is not only for procreation. It is omportant to mental health, and to loving relationships. Accidents happen. Fixing the body of a car is the natural next step. Fixing the result of a sexual accident is no diffrent.


      6. Whether you belief that pregnancy is an act of God or an accident of nature, you cannot deny it is a life. Aquinas believed that life began with the “quickening”, but he did not have access to ultrasounds, so didn’t realize it began sooner. We know today that a baby’s heart begins at three weeks, before most women even know they are pregnant. I cannot fathom an abortion because it is an end to a life, or from your perspective, a potential life. I am baffled how someone as articulate and informed as you and my other critics can believe it is okay to end that life. If today I said that my marriage was an accident or a mistake would that give me the right to kill my wife? Maybe I don’t have the economic resources to go through a lengthy divorce proceeding, so my choices are more limited than another’s. Would that justify my killing her? These are silly arguments, but are the same ones used for aborting the life of a child.

        Ancient cultures, including the chosen people, the Jews, sacrificed their children to Molech. Native American tribes such as the Mayans and Incans did this as well. This practice has been prohibited in the Old Testament. Abraham was the ultimate example of this as he was directed not to sacrifice his child but a ram instead. Ancient cultures needed to be taught this lesson in a rather simplistic manner. Ours should know better. Ours should learn from our traditions. Nevertheless, our technologically advanced and ever-so-progressive culture has descended into the pagan practices of thousands of years ago. This is what happens when all our traditional norms are destroyed.



      7. Don’t have much energy to argue, but your birthday says life begins at biirth. Everyone in the world does and has always agreed with that. Too many things can happen before an egg is hatched, or until a baby is born, right up to and including right after birth. Until then, life is only a potential. It is not sure thing. And it matters if the mother dies in childbirth because of the pregnancy, which still happens way more often than it should. Trading an actual life for a potential l8fe is not acceptable in my mind.


      1. Let’s enforce the law that exists. I found this from a law site:


        The protesters may argue that they are exercising their First Amendment rights in a manner that falls short of harassment. The problem, however, is that federal law appears to prohibit their action.

        The “Picketing or Parading” law states that anyone “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty,” cannot picket near a judge’s residence. A conviction on this charge could come with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both.

        As I said earlier: Imagine this tactic were used with every court decision, say it was used during the trials of people charged with crimes in your neighborhood.


      2. What happened to the protesters at all the abortion clinics and homes of cllinic workers over the years? The protesters at the homes of Supreme Court justices are equal in every way. Or have you forgotten all the nasty things done by anti-abortion protesters? You should be ashamed to even ask the question! Protesters are protesters, what they are protesting does not matter! Unless they brealk the law!
        As for the leaker of the proposed opinion, YOU do not even know their motivation, nobody does except them. They could just as easily have been wanting the world to know Roe v Wade was ending as they could have been wanting to warn the world a great injustice was about to take place. All things being equal, I hope the whistleblower is never csught, and their motivation never discovered.
        I love that you use the words “should happen.” You have already condemned both the protesters and the leaker, and believe they must be punished. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You are in favour of protecting people protesting for what you see as wrong, but you want to punish others for protesting what they see as wrong. Whoever you are, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT ONLY ONE WAY!


      3. You are correct: we do not know the motivation of the leaker. I also have not opined on the leaker’s motivation. Once revealed, the leaker has an opportunity to present their side of the story. I will listen to what the leaker has to say (if there is an opportunity).

        However, leaking a draft Supreme Court draft decision has never happened in our nation’s history. This is a critical norm that has been violated. This release will make it more difficult for justices to complete their work. It will add a factor to their deliberations that should not be there. This is the problem.

        You are also correct that what you are protesting does not matter unless protestors break the law. Protests at a justice’s homes is against the law. So, I think we are in agreement on this issue.

        Protesting has occurred at the Supreme Court and other locations. Protestors can also write to their representatives, send letters to the editor, voice opinions in a blog, etc. That’s all fine. You have your opinions and I have mine. I have no problem with that. However, protesting at justices homes creates a unique set of problems that we don’t need. Imagine someone in your town is on trial and the public protested at the homes of the jurors, the lawyers, and the judge. This could alter the decisions court officials make out of fear for their own or their family member’s lives. Such protests should be held at public places, like the courthouse, county commissioners’ offices, etc.


      4. Yet anti-abortionists protested at the homes of coct9rs and nurses. IF IT 8S ILLIGAL TO PROTEST AT THE HOMES OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, which I doubt is an actual law, then it should be illegal to protest at anyone’s home, don’t you agree! Justices have no more right to privacy that anyone else. All or nothing. Anti-abortionists set the standard!


      5. We agree again. I don’t want anyone protesting at my home and I am sure you do not either. Private citizens should not be intimidated in this way. I provided a link earlier that discussed that protesting outside justices homes is indeed against the law. Our system of government promises equal protection under the law for all. It doesn’t always happen, but it is a worthy goal.


      6. But you still are not seeing the big picture. Protesting at private homes was started by anti-abortionists, and NOTHING happened to them! Cease and desist orders did nothing. Coming within certain distances of a house still meant they were in close approximation to other people’s houses, but that did not stop them. If they don’t see a problem with breaking a law, why should anyone else. SC Justices are not immune. They are equal to abortion doctors, they are trying to change things that certain people see as wrong. The side does not matter.


      7. I agree with you. It is wrong for pro-life or pro-choice folks. I don’t know who started it. That’s a difficult thread to unwind. Which side started the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys? Does it matter? It should end no matter who started it or what they are protesting. More wrongs don’t make it right. We should have our rights protected by our government, no matter our side on this issue or any other issue. We have the right to protest if done peacefully and within reasonable boundaries. If you allow such protests today, tomorrow it could be your home. You should stand up for the rights of those you don’t agree with today, so your own rights will be protected in the future.


      8. Now, on to another topic, if I may? What are your feelings on gun control? I am asking because you say you are Pro-Life, but I am not sure what you mean by that.


      9. Sure. It is a topic I haven’t had a chance to write about, but you may encourage me to get to it sooner.

        As you may have guessed I am pro-second amendment. It is the one protection that stands between our citizens and the tyranny of our government. It is also a protection that stands between us and a foreign invasion of our country. Why do you think Ukraine has been able to resist Russian occupation to this point? The freedom of its citizens to own guns has contributed to that outcome. This result was celebrated by many on the Left who do not realize how this same principle applies to our own situation.

        “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson


      10. You have a very sick idea of what government is, if you do not mind me saying. You believe in a law that makes it illegal to protest at the homes of Supreme Court justices. But you tell me you believe government = tyranny. To use some old phrases, YOU SPEAK WITH A FORKED TONGUE while YOU SPEAK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH.
        You cannot cherry-pick what laws you want to observe, and which ones you do not. You either believe in law and order, or you do not. And those laws apply to everyone equally! Every natonality! Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, AND Atheists, etc. Black, white red, yellow, and brown. Male and female. Gay, straight, homosexual, bi-sexual, non-sexual. Young, old, or middle-aged. Everyone who has ever been born!

        If you believe the Ukrainians are fighting an army with weapons they privately owned, you have your eyes closed. They are conscripted soldiers using weapons provided to them by a central government agency, not guns and rifles they had sitting at home. Think about it! They have been holding out for two months already. Even you do not have that kind of firepower at home. You would have been out of bullets in just a few hours of being attacked. Their forces are also being directed by a central command. Private citizens are NOT A MILITIA, and they would as likely be shooting at each other as shooting at an organized eneny. If it were not so dangerous I would love to see ordinary citizens trying to defend the USA against a real enemy. You would be wiped out before you ever got organized. You are living in a world of fantasy, one that you like to think could hold off a coordinated attack.
        You make me laugh!
        I am sorry, I am trying to hold a serious conversation with you, but you need a reality check. Whoever told you Ukrainians are ragtag civilians using home weapons is delerious.


      11. Yes, law and order is good. Where did I propose following only certain laws and ignoring others? I missed that part.

        The first amendment guarantees: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Protesting at homes of fellow citizens doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me, especially if those people are part of law enforcement. There is a law prohibiting it, not one that was written specifically to protect justices overturning Roe v. Wade, so I don’t see how it is such a big problem for you. All other forms of protest, ones that do not specifically threaten an individual are allowed. There do need to be some limits on freedom of speech. I think most people agree with that. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in 2020 asked regarding BLM riots: “where does it say protests should be peaceful?” It says so in the First Amendment, from the 1790s.

        I said the Ukrainians respect for gun rights has “contributed” to their ability to push back against Russia. I realize there is much more to their resistance, especially the material support from the U.S. and NATO. But their government recognized the importance of an armed citizenry. https://thehill.com/policy/international/595953-zelensky-urges-ukrainians-to-take-up-arms-as-fighting-in-kyiv-escalates/

        The first thing an autocratic government does is to disarm its citizenry. An armed citizenry is a threat to the government. Our founders allowed for an armed citizenry as a counter-balance to autocratic government.

        Jefferson is the one I quoted who warned of government tyranny. He was not the only one who warned of it. We have seen government tyranny up close the last few years. Now we have Disinformation Bureau headed by a woman who is not at all serious (another post topic). This is eerily close to the “Ministry of Truth” which Orwell described in “1984”.

        I’m sure by now this will not satisfy you, but I find the conversation interesting nonetheless. I may be wrong about some things, but I am being sincere and not speaking with a forked tongue.

        Liked by 1 person

      12. Zelenskyy called for armed support AFTER THE FIGHTING HAD ALREADY STARTED, and once the war is over the citizens will willingly give up their arms. This is not a permanent thing. While Canada does allow its citizens to own arms, it does not allow them to carry without cause. They cetainly do not allow concealed carry. Britain and most Europeean nations do not allow ordinary citizens to own guns. I cannot talk about Middle East or Asian countries but I highly doubt they allow an “armed citizenry.” Which, by the way, is not what tne Founding Fathers said. The second amendment allowed for an “armed Militia.” A militia is a organized group of citizens that acts as an army in times of need. There is no need for a armed Militia, and has not been since 1814. Even during the Civil War citizens did not fight against armies. Armies fought each other, not ordinary citizens!
        Where you got this idea the government is the enemy I have no idea. You are the government. You vote for who is to govern you. While I agree that the people who are elected to govern are often untrustworthy and often downright criminal, I doubt you and I can who the criminals are. Are they fighting for everday citizens, to help them have a good, safe, happy life? They are probably not out to hurt anyone. But are they out to help only certain groups within the citizenry? Particularly the wealthy. Then they are probably corrupt. And are they going against the wishes of the majority of the people, as they would be doing if Roe v Wade is repealed, then they are definitely not fighting for all the people. Roe v Wade does not affect anyone but a pregnant woman who is questioning whether she can give a good life to a baby. Only she knows what is going on in her life, and it is her responsibilty to make the best choice possible for everyone for everyone concerned!


      13. Too many topics to cover here. Will cover gun control in another post.

        I think the majority of political leaders are not looking out for the people; they are not even concerned for helping the wealthy–unless it is the wealthy who can fund their next campaign. The majority of our political representatives are out for themselves. Retaining their own power and position becomes the primary goal once elected. This is true of representatives in both parties.

        There is still a sizeable chunk who are in it for public service, but that slice of the pie has been shrinking throughout my lifetime. Further, the longer they stay in power, the more likely they are to be corrupted by the system. Limited service is best. Serve for a few years and then go back to your regular job.
        Term limits would be one of the best reforms to government since forever. President Biden has been in elected office virtually his entire career. He is the acme, the pinnacle, the peak, of corruption. Today, political positions come with too much power and power corrupts. The more absolute that power, the more absolute the corruption (Lord Acton). As government increases in size, scope, and power, the corruption of government itself along with its officials is corrupted further. This is exactly why conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) advocate for smaller, limited government.

        Back to Roe v Wade. Some of your points are incorrect:

        1. The majority of the American people wish Roe v. Wade stands as is. Not true. I explain this in my post. The majority are in the middle; they believe in some, but not unlimited choice. Depending on how the question is phrased they will characterize themselves as sometimes pro-life and sometimes pro-choice. What the Senate voted on this week is for unlimited access to abortion. They couldn’t even get a majority of Senators, much less a filibuster proof majority.

        If you have the time, listen to what random, ordinary Americans believe about abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl9Vrbe6l2Y (from Steven Crowder)

        2. Roe v. Wade does not affect anyone but a pregnant woman. Also not true. What about the father? What about the child who doesn’t have an opportunity to live? What about the damage to our culture? This decision affects many more than the pregnant woman. That’s the pro-life argument.

        3. I will agree it is her responsibility to make the best choice possible for everyone concerned. However, you contradict your own point that she is the only one affected. She is not.

        More choices, especially more bad choices, does not lead to better outcomes. Women who choose abortion are not making the best choice for everyone concerned. Their “choice” is greatly harmful to our culture. I know you don’t agree, but it is a principled stand.


      14. My apologies. I am an old man suffering from many medical isdues. I am under the weather today. I will have to pick this conversation up at snother time. But know, I believe with all my heart, a woman’s body is autonomous. No one, absolutely no one, can tell her what she can do with it. FOR ANY REASON!


      15. Understood. I have no doubt you and my other critics are sincere. We should all be trying to reach a common understanding of the truth. I hope you feel better soon.

        Food for thought: what does “autonomous” mean? Is a pregnant woman truly autonomous?


      16. Please allow me to add, I appreciate that without women there would be no human race. Women are the mothers of all. But that does not mean women are “Only Mothers!” Women have lives too, and motherhood is secondary as birthers of children! Until a woman is ready to become a mother, mentally, spiritually, and financially, there is no reason to force them to become mothers!
        Once upon a time there was no or little choice. A woman got pregnant, and if the fetus survived fo birth, that was it. Women were not considered persons, they were treated as cows.
        That time is gone. Thankfully. Women are now persons, and losing Roe v Wade will turn them back into cows. Maybe you want to be a cow, I have no idea. But most women do not!
        I do not think you realize how important RvW is to womanhood as a whole. Women had to fight to become persons, to be able to take their place in the world of men — economy, politics, careers, etc. For the first 2 million years of humanity women were cows. Is that what you really want? Women have always been persons, But men held them down and refused to let them participate in real life. It has only been in the last 100 years, ONE HUNDRED YEARS OUT OF OVER 2 MILLION YEARS, that women have been free to be active in life. Men used them, they beat them, they raped them, and they treated them like cows! Do you really want to go back to that life? Because taking away RvW IS THE FIRST STEP IN THAT JOURNEY!
        I am a man. I do not want women to be cows. I want women to be persons. I want women to be partners in life. I know there are a lot of men who do not want this. They want women to be subservient, to be mothers, and childraisers and sex objects. They do not want women to be people. And you are going yo lose personhood if you force women to become cows again! HAVING CHOICE MAKES YOU A PERSON! Please, do not be a party to giving this away. Do not make the women who fought for personhood into failures. You may think RvW is about having babies, IT IS NOT. It is about MEN TAKING BACK POWER! And any woman who fights to repeal RvW is a traitor to her gender.
        Do you really want to be a traitor to your gender? I certainly hope not!
        No, i am not feeling good this morning, and my mind is a little addled, but something you said opened my eyes to a larger Truth. Women are people! Do not give that away!


      17. You are very passionate and seem genuine, but I think we are so far apart in thinking that there is no bridging this gap.

        I have a couple of mathematics degrees, so I try to organize thoughts logically. What I get from your comments are that before Roe v. Wade, women were treated as cows (mothers and sex objects only, not full-fledged citizens). Roe v. Wade has freed them and made a monumental difference for all women, whether of child-bearing age or not, so that now, 50 years later, women are treated better than ever before. Rolling back of Roe v. Wade will mean that women return to their prior subservient status. I don’t agree with this basic premise.

        I am not saying that women have been treated well by men throughout history. We all at times treat each other badly, whether we be men or women. Many women today are still treated as sex objects despite Roe v. Wade, the right to vote, the end of petticoats, and all the rest. In fact, Roe v. Wade may have exacerbated that problem. To use the cow analogy: men can have the milk now without paying for it. Way back when, if you got a woman pregnant, he inherited a big responsibility and there were many folks who made sure he assumed it. Men were more careful about where they put their seed because there was a massive consequence. Sleeping around has become less impactful because the consequences have been removed. Roe v. Wade has allowed even riskier behavior than before. That’s a big problem in my view. The blame is not all on the men either. In the vast majority of cases, it takes two to tango.

        Women in the U.S., I think, are treated as well as women ever have been throughout history; certainly, they are treated much better than women are in most other countries. For instance, we do not require them to cover their bodies head to toe whenever in public, as some still do. Do you think that if abortion were allowed in countries, women there would suddenly have an explosion of rights and freedoms? I doubt it.

        You say the freedom and respect women have today is due to Roe v. Wade. I don’t see the freedom to deprive a child of its life as the thing that frees women. That’s a horrible act that often enslaves them in guilt and may even possibly rob them of the ability to have another child (when the time is more convenient).
        That’s not the case for all as many swear by their decisions, but it is an unintended and unexpected consequence for many others.

        I also focus on the concept of self-sacrifice and I point out repeatedly that this is not just about the woman. There are others (father, child, other family, and our society at large) impacted. We are diminishing the value of life at every stage when we diminish it between conception and birth. This has monumental consequences in my view. However, none of these notions seem to carry much weight with the pro-choice folks I speak with. But these things matter, matter very much, and it is why we are also passionate on the topic. You and I are so far apart in our thinking, there’s no sense in beating this dead horse further. We just don’t agree and never will.

        I end with an excerpt from my post. A friend about women being forced to have a baby and I responded with this:

        But in reality how much “forcing” is going on here?  People have the freedom to have sex or not.  They have the freedom to take contraceptives or not (I won’t get into that debate at this time).  They have the freedom to wait until marriage to have children or not.   They want the additional “freedom” to have one last contraceptive measure (abortion) so they can continue promiscuous behavior with seemingly no consequences.  However, there is a cost and a consequence to such behavior. You criticize me for pointing out the costs and the consequences, yet at some point, our culture must assume its responsibility. Our very civilization depends on responsibility to care of family and teach the next generation right and wrong. We are losing that pillar of society by placing our own twisted view of freedom and our own pleasure ahead of all else. Speak to public school teachers you know and ask them how well the parents are doing with regard to self-sacrifice and raising their families.


      18. I said no such things about Roe v Wade. What I said was repealing RvW is the First Step to returming women to the role of cows. You misi terpret almost everything I say, and therefore you do not realize the consequences.


      19. Yes. I am sorry for missing your comment that it is the first step. That was clearly my oversight. My argument is still the same, however. I don’t see how this rollback begins the process of returning women to a lower caste status. I do not see how the choice to be able to abort a child makes one a person. Do you have an idea what the next steps are to come or is that more of a general warning?


      20. As I said, this is aall about White male Evangelicals taking back the power they have lost over the years. No, I cannot give you the exact next steps There are a group who want to take life back centuries to a time when women were chattel. They will do it in small steps


      21. “But while the court is protecting the access of wealthy donors to the democratic system, Weiner noted, it has shown no interest in protecting an individual’s right to vote. Weiner characterizes FEC v. Cruz as “another step in an extraordinary transformation, wherein First Amendment doctrines traditionally used to protect dissenting and marginalized voices now primarily get deployed to defend…the already powerful.””


      22. The news is already fu.l of these c.ips that add up to an all-out attack on minority rights while protecting the wealthy and their political control


      23. Hi, Seenk-the-truth,
        Have not heard from you for awhile. Found this on the internet today. It is a quote fron billionaire Peter Thiel, who is funding a number of Republican candidates in the 2022 mid-terms.
        Thiel and his fellow billionaires in the anti-democracy movement don’t want to conserve much of anything — at least not anything that occurred after the 1920s, including Social Security, civil rights, and even women’s right to vote. As Thiel wrote:

        The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.


      24. Been focusing on family, my regular job, and my next post (on COVID). Will respond to the articles you reference over the weekend. I have also written about Transgender issues: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/trans/, Elections: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/elections, systemic racism https://seek-the-truth.com/category/systemic, and more on Life: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/Life. There should be more there for you to comment on.


      25. I never heard of Theil. I know nothing about him.

        If you remove “the extension of the franchise to women” there is nothing remotely problematic here. He thinks politics were better in 1920s. Ok. So what? I don’t have an opinion on that concern myself, but he is entitled to that opinion. I would say the increase in welfare beneficiaries is not good. We don’t want more people in need or reliant on the government. I suppose he is also implying it is not such a good trend, but I’m not entirely sure of his point without reading more. I have no idea why the term “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron, but maybe he explains it later.

        What is his point is about enfranchising women? Maybe he is just saying women are less libertarian than men. His intent is not clear from this snippet. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion he wants to disenfranchise women. Does he support that notion later in the article? I know of no public figures or movements who advocate for disenfranchising women. It is not a serious consideration in any case.


  2. Sick idea of what govt is? What’s that supposed to mean ? Govt main goal is to protect its citizens from invasion, allow its citizens to pursue life liberty and happiness and stay the hell out the way and not injectvrefucuisiosvpolicies that don’t work.
    Govt should be very small without hundreds of agencies that add no value


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: