Who will save the children?
By Richard Carr
Last week, President Obama brought schoolchildren to Washington, D.C., to emphasis the need for gun control.
With the events of Sandy Hook still fresh in our minds, the president stated that if there was anything we could do that would save one child, we had an obligation to do that.
Carr is semi-retired and lives in Vinton.
January 25, 2013 - 6:17 AM
I, for whatever reason, think it interesting to compare this article with the one written yesterday by Ms. Whitlock. The part I find most interesting are the numbers.
Mr. Carr says there have been a total of 55 million abortions (2000/day) while Ms. Whitlock’s numbers say 50 million abortion to the tune of 3000/day.
Besides the number discrepancy, note how the worst possible number has to be presented and if a little exaggeration enters the argument, well…what does that matter?
It reminds me of the attempts to paint the former Soviet Russia and Communism in the worst possible light. First attempts were just Stalinist Russia and the murder of 20 million of their citizens. Then someone realized China had a Communist government so we got to add another 20 million or some such. So the arguments expanded from the Soviet Union to Communism in general and so on.
I see the same thing happening here. First it’s 40 million abortions (which is what I’d heard for some time) and then it suddenly went to 50 million abortions. And only a day later we’ve had another 5 million abortions.
This is indicative of a one sided argument if that wasn’t already apparent.
I realize the anti-choicers feel strongly about this subject but it would be nice if we could have a rational policy discussion about these things. Of course, that means both sides would have to be open to changing their minds including the anti-choicers.
As a bit of an aside, I wonder….we come down on Authoritarian regimes like the former Soviet Union because they murdered 20 million of their own people. So we hold up our ideal of individual rights and in so doing, we end up with 40 million abortions. It makes me wonder which is more moral. Does it matter that 40-55 million women get to choose death for someone else or if it comes from a single individual at the top? Can we “spread the blame”?
I’m not sure what you’re saying Scott. Forty to fifty million dead should be condemned, period, whether Russians and Chinese at the hands of the state, or babies at the hands of abortion mills
@2 89Hoo, thanks for responding. I guess what I’m trying to say is if we were to have outlawed abortion completely, then presumably another 40-55 million Americans would now be alive. But to take away that choice, in some sense, puts us into the Authoritarian camp, same as Soviet Russia.
It seems we can prevent abortion but only by giving up our individualism or we can avoid authoritarianism but end up with individual decisions that we again don’t like.
It seems ironic to me that in an attempt to be compassionate about abortion, we end up being uncompassionate (word??) in other areas.
@1 Scott M., I don’t think anyone disputes that between 1.2 and 1.5 million (the 1.2 figure is the more recent one, thank goodness) abortions have been performed in this country since Roe v. Wade. Multiplied by 40 years that equals “some” 50 million abortions. Also, 1.2 million divided by 365 equals 3,287 abortions a day (though I realize abortions are probably not performed every day of the week). I elected to go with conservative numbers. The truth is, the abortion toll is probably much higher as not all states report their abortion numbers and drug-induced abortions are likely not reported either.
Your final paragraph is interesting. I’m glad to see you making that connection.
Mr. Carr, thank you for your commentary today. You made some excellent points, particularly with regard to changing the “moral fabric” of the country.
Are you folks saying that a fertilized egg less than three months old is a baby? How about a three to five or six month old fetus? Is that a baby? Can it survive outside of the womb? Your abortion numbers and comparisons to war dead seem flawed to me.
Hell, Blue John, a newborn cannot survive without its mother. Are you advocating killing newborns? What’s your upper limit? Nine? Ten?
A couple of links kind of related to this topic.
Here’s a good post about defining what it means to be human in the abortion debate.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/25/science-doesnt-say-that/
…Science does not have such unambiguous answers as you claim; human-ness is an emergent property of a gradual process of development, and no one is going to ever be able to say, “Here, right here, is the magic instant in which an embryo becomes fully human.” That’s because “human” as used in law and sociology and philosophy and even theology is something complex and very, very hard to define, so looking for a mathematically precise and sharp boundary in the vagueness of complexity is a contradiction in terms.
….A blastocyst, a hollow ball of cells with an inner mass that will become the embryo proper, has exactly the same genes as a five year old person or an octagenerian. But it doesn’t have limbs or eyes or brain, it doesn’t think or feel, it doesn’t dance or learn. It is…a hollow ball of cells. It’s got cilia and might spin in place. That’s about it. It’s human only the most trivial, reductionist sense……
And this little gem as it relates to Authoritarianism. It’s not strictly related to abortion but that desire to force people to conform is alive and well here in the USA. My advice for those who want to outlaw abortion is that they should think long and hard about how much choice they want to remove from society.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/arizona-republicans-propose-bill-that-would-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/
A group of Arizona politicians — all Republicans, of course — have proposed a law (House Bill 2467) requiring public high school students to recite the following oath in order to graduate:…..
Although I like the picture accompanying the article, perhaps they should have used a picture from this web site.
http://forgottenhistoryblog.com/the-official-american-flag-salute-used-to-be-a-hitler-salute/
@7,
You have to ask a Repug. for the answer to your question. They are the ones that lose interest after birth. By the way, a newborn can certainly survive without it’s mother, where are you from, Arizona?
Interesting links Scott M., thanks!
Hitler was pro-infanticide, too, Scott, so be careful of whom you accuse.
Thanks 89Hoo. I shall try to be careful. I’m sorry it’s devolved to these little tit-for-tat rejoinders and corrections but I have to point out Hitler was “pro-infanticide” only for some people. My understanding is he outlawed abortion for the Aryans and even tried to make having children a civic duty.
Sounded a bit like those involved with the Quiver Full movement.
Blue John, I’ll take your word for it…I don’t pay a lot of attention to Republicans.
Scott, I’m not sure it’s much of a defense to say that one kills less discriminately than Hitler. Besides, given the eugenicist roots of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, I’m not even sure that’s true.
@12 89Hoo, sorry my friend, we seem to have slipped off into the weeds somewhere because I’m not sure where Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger got involved in this.
13 – biggest abortion provider in the country, Scott. Surely you knew that. And Sanger’s eugenicist roots match Hitler’s racism (though you may not have known that).
Planned Parenthood and Roe v. Wade…objectifying women for forty years. Yay.
Sorry Hoo, I think you’ve slipped off into the weeds.
Whatever, Scott. You brought up the Nazis.
89Hoo, I don’t think I did. Please double check me.
Post number 8, Scott. But this is silly…can we agree that forty to fifty million dead is a tragedy no matter how it’s presented?
@18,
How can one discuss the issue without knowing at what stage of fetal development the abortions were performed?
@18 89Hoo, sorry I misunderstood. I was trying to point out the similarities between the bill introduced in Arizona requiring a loyalty oath to graduate high school with the Nazis. It seems you were trying to link Nazism with abortion and there was I got confused.
You say, “..can we agree that forty to fifty million dead is a tragedy no matter how it’s presented?” I will agree the deaths of 40-50 million people is a tragedy but I wouldn’t go so far as saying 40-50 million abortions are.
After all, not having those abortions COULD have meant the “wasted” adulthood of tens of millions of women. I happen to believe giving women the option is a greater good than restricting abortion.
I realize this is in poor taste so turn away now if you’re easily offended:
—————————-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/22/justin-bieber-mother-anti-abortion?INTCMP=SRCH
Justin Bieber’s mom is coming out with an anti-abortion. She using some of her own personal story as motivation for making the film.
I don’t know if that’s an argument For or Against keeping abortion legal.
Scott, I just happen to think life is the most important inalienable right we have.
I know 89Hoo. I’m just trying to be practical. I also value the quality of that life too.