The Black Sphere has moved! You should be automatically redirected in 5 seconds. If not, visit and update your bookmarks.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Abortion for Dummies

Part III of a three-part series:

So the debate around abortion centers around when is a developing embryo considered a human. But I say that the real debate is,

"When do want to rationalize the murder of a human?"

And in the tradition of The Black Sphere, I will prove my point beyond argument from the other side.

To begin the debate, a few definitions are in order.

A – Pro-Choice - People who believe that abortion is birth control, and should be wielded as recklessly as a woman decides, because it's her body.

B - Pro-life - People who believe that under no circumstances should a woman have an abortion, and that once a woman conceives life, she is bound to protect both lives.

C - Pro-life-Pro-Choice - People who believe that what a woman choose to do with her body is impossible to legislate, however they believe that a woman should not choose abortion.

C(i) – Subgroup I - Under any circumstances

C(ii) – Subgroup II – Except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, grave illness of the child, and so on.

This is an area where Conservatives can be split, though I suspect at our core we mostly agree with "C" or one of its variant forms that I have described.

Now for everybody except Pro-Choice, euphemism for Abortionists, which is what I will call them, there is little debate about when life begins. So I am writing this mostly to Abortionists, as a definitive and irrefutable explanation of when life begins.

So I ask you this question? Of the roughly 6.5 billion people alive today and the 6 billion who have died, is there any one of them who skipped the first trimester or even the first week of development? How about the first day or conception altogether? Let me save you some time, the answer is, "No".

So what this means is that there is not a single person alive or dead who could have had their first trimester disrupted and survived. So this is definitive logic that we are human at conception. I will pay $10K to any of you who can debate me successfully on this point. You know what, why not make it $100K?

So I go back to my original treatise that, this is less of a debate on when we are human, and moreso on when we can rationalize killing a human. I think this is a much more lively debate.

Abortionists argue that it is ok to kill a human in the first trimester. They say that we look like tadpoles or seahorses during this time. Maybe that sounds like a reasonable rationalization for killing a human? After all, it doesn't look human!

Kervorkianists might say that it's ok to kill people in their waning years of life, for no other reason than septuagenarians are just too difficult to deal with. Or as Obama said about new born babies who escaped abortion, "Why should she be burdened with it?"

Essentially what Abortionists are telling us is that they will take the easy way out. "In sickness and in health" for wedding vows will be 'changed' (get it?) to "In health only, because if you get sick, I will abort your ailing butt". Kick you to the curb. Throw you under the bus!

Isn't it refreshing to think that there is a group of people out there who view human life at whatever stage as a matter of convenience for them?

The wrap:

It is irrefutable that we all started the same. We were human at conception, not in the second or third trimester, or any other derivative therein. All this discussion is really about is: "When is it ok to kill a human and not have to feel guilty about it?" I dare you to prove me wrong.  

Google 'abortion images' and tell me what you see.  It's not tadpoles and seahorses, that I guarantee you.

That's my rant!

©2008 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere All Rights Reserved



Matt said...

Usually, I am a pro-choice person. I hate the government stepping in and controlling every part of people's lives. However, abortion is murder. Therefore, it isn't about freedom or liberty - that is why I am pro-life. You either support murder or you don't. There is no gray area.

Anonymous said...

Howard Kempf
at 7:46am November 30

Good Stuff Kevin. For all those hard and fast pro-choicers they should look up the writings and words of Margret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood. "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) She was also a devoted white supremist and believed that Blacks, immigents and indigents were "weeds, reckess breeders spawning human beings who should have never been born." The "disenfranchised" that so fervently support the Democrate/Liberal agenda should look and see how many of them have been killed by this icon of the Democratic/Liberal establishment.

Anonymous said...

As a committed Type B (pro-life all the way), I agree with your conclusion. However, in the interest of making your arguments more effective, I would like to point what I see as a flaw in the argument that, if we are human now, we must have been human at conception.

A car that exits the factory in Detroit is clearly a car. However, if we trace its development backward in time, we'll progressively see it less and less as a car. Even if we claim that it was a car when there was only a frame on the assembly line, we can go back further until the constituent parts were not, by any definition, a car.

This kind of faulty reasoning is applied by those who believe in the theory of evolution: the claim is that successively more complex organisms require a connection between each. That may be the case but is not necessarily so.

Your argument suggests that the newly-conceived baby is human but does not definitively prove it.

Again, I couldn't agree with you more. Great blog - I'm glad I found it yesterday!

The Black Sphere said...

Jerry, to you I say see my earlier blog on Proof of God. I think you will see that we agree.

Anonymous said...

Joy Waymire
Today at 9:17am

I just read your blog on abortion. Unfortunately, we have blurred the line between children of God & children of fornication. Until this line is restored, the issue of abortion will be debated over & over. We have fallen trap to physical pleasure, lust over the true relationship that was intended by Our Creator. This is the most complex issue to try to explain, to restore the lines. The double-edged sword has come into play, to restore the divsions in everything.

He is also tired of hearing people divide themselves by race. A divided nation will never stand strong. I have never seen people for who they are by their outside appearance, only by their heart. Until people start looking beyond physical appearances, we will always be divided.

I have not rated your site as yet, for I would like to read a few more blogs before I do. You have great writing skills, but are caught in the webs of time. Ask and you will receive His True Understanding of His Words & Ways. Can I explain any of this? Now way indeed, just IS! If your Faith is strong, I can teach you His Ture Words & Ways.

I look forward to communicating with you further, to assist you in comprehending. Have a Great Day!

Anonymous said...

Terri Huset Flament

Today at 1:31pm

Boy I really like your site and the Babies, Puppies and Hypocrites, Oh, My. Story was great I totally agree! On this facebook I often wonder how many of these animal lovers are pro abortion? It makes me sick how we protect animals but partial birth abortions are OK? and even worse obama voted against the born alive act. How did he win??
Right now Im watching the O'Reilly interview with Obama and he is having a hard time awsering questions. He is such a liar can't anyone see it!!?

Anonymous said...

From: Chris Muller
Date: November 30, 2008

I have always pointed out the preamble to the Constitution in my defense of the unborn. It states, " the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." According to posterity means "succeeding or future generations collectively." Therefore, an unborn child, as a future American (posterity), has the Constitutional rights granted to all of us who are already born and it is un-American and un-Constitutional to deny that future American the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we all cherish.

The Black Sphere said...

Like I said, we can argue about "when", but the discussion is around when it is killing sanctioned. For me, it's really that simple. If it eases some people's minds to kill in 1st trimester, then sobeit. My only issues is KNOW that you have just rationalized murder. Then it is between you and your God, or in the case of many Liberals, between them and them!

Anonymous said...

Great argument, but the one thing that still nags at me is the whole issue that Abortionists raise is the "woman's right to control her own body." At that level alone, I can't argue with choice. I don't care if a woman covers herself with tattoos, pierces every inch of herself and prostitutes herself illegally in the streets, while consuming unhealthy amounts of illegal drugs. Or if she chooses a healthy lifestyle. This whole argument totally sidesteps the fact that the real issue is that once pregnant, there are two hearts, not one and that indeed we are talking about what a woman does with the second body under her temporary control. I wish pro-lifers would aggressively address this very argument which holds no weight at all. How many pro-abortion people would vote for 16 year olds to be legal prostitutes? None, I would think. So in that case, they want men in black judicial robes to control that. But these same people want 16 year old girls to have sex and be allowed to consent to abortions without parental involvement or awareness.

Lillith2008 said...

....most Planned Parenthood facilities are in the poor urban neighborhoods. Seems like a plan to me.

frmrDJ said...

The argument is simple; it is the absence of God and moral values that has lead us to where we are today. Those who are familiar with the Humanist Manifesto, would know the many prominent signers that include the founders of Planned Parenthood and many other prominent figures. I've seen and heard the stories of the born alive infants (call them what you will) who are cast aside. I've also heard the testimonies of nurses and care-workers that speak of the infanticide practiced by abortionists. Where in some states the abortionist is permitted to take the life of the infants that survive the abortion through strangulation and suffocation (I suppose this is more humane than allowing them to die ‘naturally’ on a shelf). It's pretty sickening, when you hear the 1st hand account from Jill Stanek, an RN at the Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., in 1999 when she discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room. Who herself was so overwhelmed by this baby dying alone that she held it until it passed because she did not want it to die alone. Or the 1st hand account of an abortion survivor named Gianna Jessen who was burned alive with a saline solution while in the womb as part of the abortion procedure. This is the reality of 'choice'. It may be easier to call a pre-born baby a zygote, or whatever helps you sleep at night; the fact is that it has a heartbeat. It is human, it is alive.

Lovers of Liberty said...

Actually, I believe most people who consider themselves conservative would go with Description B. The Constitution does prescribe that no one's life be taken without due process.

The Black Sphere said...

Lots of great comments on this. As I said in the blog, I wanted to just raise the real question of when do you sanction death. The fact is we know when life began!

Anonymous said...

Your argument is essentially:

if killing a person is murder and people developed from embryos
then, an embryo = a person
therefore, killing an embryo is murder

Your direct quote was "Of the roughly 6.5 billion people alive today and the 6 billion who have died, is there any one of them who skipped the first trimester or even the first week of development? "

Are there any humans alive or dead today who skipped their develop from a sperm/egg?

if killing a person is murder and people developed from sperm/eggs
then, a sperm/egg = a person
therefore, killing a sperm/egg is murder

The male body replenishes sperm roughly every half an hour. If you aren't having sex every 30min, therefore at least trying not to kill these sperm then you are letting them die, which is argued equal to murder and you are contradicting yourself. Even better, the female body destroys an egg every month if it is not used. Did God design a murder machine and call it "woman"? Or do you believe that a woman is immoral if she allows to get her period? Your argument suggests that you do not believe in birth control in any form as they typically cause the killing of sperm and eggs, which, according to your "definitive logic" is murder.

You are right, it is irrefutable that we started the same but has nothing to do with what classifies murder. I could go further and compare killing a bug is equal to killing a human using your logic since we both developed from atoms(irrefutable that humans and bugs started the same, atoms), but I think you've got the basic counter-argument.

Anonymous said...

From: Chip Robison
Date: December 25, 2008

Great blog Kevin! I don't know how I missed this story, brief, blunt, & dead on! Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Michael Baier (Minneapolis / St. Paul, MN)

this is the truth but unfortunately it doesn't work when debating liberals, at least not the ones i've debated. so many of them truely believe that the fetus is not a person, not a human being, until birth. i have tried to debate on the fact that people are human from conception, but the liberals tend to be far too stubborn to listen to the facts and logic no matter how clearly they are told.

Anonymous said...

Reier R. Ringstad (Fargo, ND)

I totally agree with you Michael you can point out the most obvious things in ANY issue and they will still shut you out it truly is the party of having no "tolerance" for another persons views

Anonymous said...

l English (John Carroll)

ya know, if nasa found the smallest cell off on a far distant planet, everyone would say "hey theres life on that planet!" if nasa ever finds such a cell on Mars people will say the same thing. But when a woman has something growing inside her an embryo, a fetus, a baby, all of sudden that growing being is not a life. its a hindrance. its a hindrance that prevents what should be mature, grown, educated adults from living their consequence-free lifestyle. give me a break and step up to the plate. learn to deal with ur problems instead of trying to find an easy way out, a way out that involves the massacre of the unborn.

Anonymous said...

Brent Fenske

The only way to defeat ABORTION is socially NOT legally. If we educate people that it IS murder and let it become "socially unacceptable" then we can stop it. Because if no one has the need for abortion, or finds it a viable option, then it won't matter whether the act is legal or illeagal; thus rendering Roe VS Wade moot.

Anonymous said...

Bob Kyffin (Denver, CO)

On point one, I completely disagree. Abortion is a moral evil, and it's a matter of unalienable rights -- both just like slavery. Georgia, or S. Carolina could not today make slavery legal again, under any circumstances, because freedom is a constitutionally protected right. So is life (first and foremost). Abortion is NOT a states-rights issue, because you cannot be a person in one state, and not a person in the next state. Establishing the Right to Life can be, and should be, argued at the state level, but also at the national level, where it eventually must reside, and where it will ultimately be a non-negotiable right, just like freedom from slavery. When we argue abortion is a states-rights issue, to be decided by the individual states, we are making a parallel case as with slavery (as if slavery could be decided by the individual states) -- we minimize abortion as a matter of policy to be debated, and avoid discussing it as a violation of a person's MOST fundamental right.

Anonymous said...

Dena Espenscheid (Sioux Falls, SD)

Watch the 8th Circuit over the next few years. There is a case in South Dakota that is going to trial. The court, en banc, already overturned a injunction against this particular law, finding that the abortionists did not produce enough proof that their rights were being tread upon.

The law that is going to trial is an informed consent law. Basically it says that before a woman can consent for abortion the doctor must give her certain scientific and legal facts. Among the facts written into the law are that 1. life begins at conception (Planned Parenthood is yet to produce a scientist who can dispute this scientifically proven finding). 2. That abortion terminates the parental rights to the child (the wrong here is much like the wording given to birth parents when signing papers to release their child for adoption). And 3. Abortion carries a risk of physically and emotional side effects including depression, suicide and suicide ideation, infection, etc.

The number of abortions in South Dakota since this law went into effect and Planned Parenthood was forced to abide by it had plummeted. When the courts uphold the law, because it is based on scientifically-accurate and legally-sound, it can be replicated in states across the nation.

When abortion numbers drop, it will be socially unacceptable again. This will make passing the Right to Life Amendment possible.

Anonymous said...

Quoting another poster:
"Your direct quote was "Of the roughly 6.5 billion people alive today and the 6 billion who have died, is there any one of them who skipped the first trimester or even the first week of development? "

Are there any humans alive or dead today who skipped their develop from a sperm/egg?

if killing a person is murder and people developed from sperm/eggs
then, a sperm/egg = a person
therefore, killing a sperm/egg is murder"

Me -- this simply, if not willfully, stupid.

A fertilized egg/single-cell embryo/zygote has its own unique, complete human genetic identity, distinct from either of its parents ('gamete donors' for the politically correct). It is literally something new under the sun, in the universe for that matter.

An egg or sperm is merely a subset of the parent's genes, a fragment of that one particular human.

If you cannot see that purely science-based distinction you are truly blind.

The Black Sphere said...

@Anon - The point to this blog is that NOBODY has skipped conception! THAT'S when life begins!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Although miscarriages are unfortunately technically called "spontaneous abortions" most people who experience a miscarriage grieve them. I speak as a father of 3 beautiful girls who has lost 2 other babies to miscarriage. We considered all of them blessings from the time of their conception. I don't know what inspires your question, but I have heard from pro-choicers that it shouldn't matter whether it's a miscarriage that naturally occurs (as my wife's 2 did) or if it occurs at the request of the mother in an elective abortion.

Any ethicist worth reading or listening to would say that of course it matters. Miscarriages are natural tragedies, elective abortions are against nature and selfish.