1. Gloria G.

    Excellent article. And thank you for posting this, (it’s hard having relatives who not only support abortion institutions, but have worked in them). So sad, they think it’s their right to end a life or to support entities that provide such horrific procedure.

  2. Anonymous

    Seth, I’ve read a fair number of your articles, and they are often ridiculous, preposterous, and rhetorically dizzying, but I usually keep my mouth shut. I couldn’t even get past your seventh ‘point’ in this one since your arguments are so invalid. I don’t know where you got the number of abortions since roe v wade, but it sounds unreasonably high. If it is that high, I’m glad since I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the world is fast approaching a critical mass in terms of overpopulation, let alone the scarcity of jobs and resources here in America. Another 50 mil certainly wouldn’t do us much good, even if they are the great scientists or political leaders your cartoon references.(who ironically enough would be using techniques unfavorable to god, like scientific advances and government entirely out of the influence of religion) In your third point, the hypothetical court that after ruling in favor of the victim, apparently instead of court fees, demands the woman’s first born is absurd logic. Well, not according to the old testament I guess. Your fourth, much like your second point offer little information, so I won’t waste my time discussing it. In 5+6, you attack the person asking the question and then come up with another outrageous situation where someone kills your family and you take it out on an unsuspecting passerby. I believe rapists deserve a far greater punishment than a few years prison sentence, maybe even the death penalty, but the justice system is another topic entirely. Comparing a fetus, the fetus of a deranged sexual predator, to an innocent person down the street is illogical, and even irresponsible to direct your readers/fanbase to such conclusions. And when it comes to adoptions, again, do we really want to allow an infant/child of someone who has proven to the rest of humanity that they can’t be trusted with their own freedom, not to steal the freedom and privacy of another human being, to be thrust upon an unsuspecting couple? And maybe only 40k adoptions take place because only 40k are found fit to adopt a child. Anyone can have a baby, but not everyone should be allowed to. Also, part of the issue is the tons of paperwork required and bureaucratic nonsense that goes hand in hand with all that. Maybe the child services should team up with adoption services and give inner city children a chance at a better life with those poor, poor upper/upper middle/middle class white, republican, god-fearing, wholesome couples who have ( for some reason, maybe part of gods plan) been found barren. But they don’t strike me as the type that would feel comfortable raising an African American child, or anyone else who wouldn’t fit in at the turf club.

    Not trying to attack you or anything, Seth, this is your website and all, and it was my choice to come and read your material. But its on the internet for everyone to see, and often clogging up my newsfeed, and just like people like to gawk at trainwrecks, and pay to see the freak show, I find myself here shaking my head at my computer screen from time to time.

    Anyway, if I was still in the dorms, I would look forward to the late night debates in the lobby about this kind of stuff. But this will have to suffice. let me know via fb when/if you respond to this.

    Hugs and kisses,

    • Hey Oscar,

      Thank you for your feedback. As I always say, I appreciate all forms of feedback, and my whole goal of this post is to raise awareness and generate discussion, which it is doing, so thank you!

      It may be to your surprise, but the 50,000,000 statistic is 100% correct. Do a Google search, and there will be thousands of varying sources that all give evidence to this fact. The world-wide number is much higher. Annually, it is estimated that 42,000,000 babies are aborted each year.

      To your next point, the overpopulation argument is a myth.

      Overpopulation is not a problem in the United States. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. fertility rate is 2.1 children per couple, precisely at “replacement” level—the number of births needed to keep population steady. In other words, the U.S. population is stagnating.

      Most European and Asian nations are well below the replacement rate. These nations will soon face a shortage of people of working age, with too few workers to support the elderly in their retirement. Even in developing nations, fertility rates have begun to steadily decline.

      There is more than enough space on earth for the world’s population. In fact, every person in the world could comfortably live within the landmass of the state of Texas. The real problem is resource consumption, as developed nations consume resources at an alarming rate. While one solution to this problem might be to limit the number of people allowed to live on earth, a better solution would be to responsibly limit our consumption of the earth’s resources.

      Sources: CIA World Factbook.2008. Rank Order-Total Fertility Rate. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html.

      Mosher, Steven. Did you know? http://lifeissues.net/writers/mos/pri_01texas.html.

      Population Research Institute. FAQ’s. http://pop.org/main.cfm?EID=802.

      United Nations Population Division. 2005, February 25. Press Release Pop/918. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/pop918.doc.htm.

      To my point that you said was absurd, where I illustrated a victim going on and taking it out on someone else, we will have to simply agree to disagree. The child does nothing wrong, and yet it is given the death penalty. I personally thought it was a very valid comparison, as did many others who read this and shared it. I also do not see how my argument is illogical with you saying that the child in the womb does not have the same rights as the mother. It is quite interesting that we tend to reject the rights of the child in some cases, and then give them in others. For example, if the child is not a child/person, why is it that when a murder kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with double homicide? He is tried for both the life of the mother and the child. However, you of course are free to have your own opinion!

      On your point about why there are so few adoptions, I completely agree with you! (on the end of all the legal loopholes and paperwork). I do believe the system needs to be reformed in order to make it easier for parents to adopt. I think we agree on this point!

      Please know that I was not attacking you at all either! I really do appreciate the discussion, and I do miss all of the fun times that we had in the dorms. That was one of the highlights of my college experience! I hope you are doing well!


  3. I very much appreciated the article you wrote and the reply left by your buddy Oscar.

    Open dialogue about this issue is the only way results will come about and I thank you for taking the time to write out your viewpoint.

    I was able to visit children in a Chinese orphanage who were abandoned because of their disabilities and I came back drastically changed about how I value all humans, whether they are ‘desired’ by the world or not….

    You can read it, and many other testimonies right here: http://tumblr.com/ZKE_Ny6nkyTm

  4. I have nothing against pro-life, but I have a few things against parts of this argument.

    The third and sixth main points are absolutely absurd and would never occur and is also very different from what is being done during an abortion. Killing a ten-year-old or an adult who is fully conscious of its being and is loved by many and has an individual personality that is known by others versus a zygote (earliest stages of a the developmental process where there is no self-conscious thoughts, though there may be a heart beat, which can be considered a baby, fine by me), but it does not have a personality, brain to think with, and is not known and loved by those around.

    “Because saying this word, shows that you know it is in fact a baby, and not a fetus.” A fetus is a baby, just at a certain point in the developmental stages so by calling it a fetus, they are calling it a baby as well. I’m not arguing against your point with “zygote” though, just “fetus”.

    The seventh main point has flaws in that it is not very simple to adopt a child. There are many criteria that must be met. AND if so many couples are looking to adopt a child, why don’t they? There are plenty of children who grow up in foster homes never to be adopted. Why were they not brought up? Many couples who are looking for children only want infants. Those who are not adopted early are left to grow up in foster homes.

    In response to the eighth main point, abortion was legalized so that women would stop dying from getting abortions elsewhere or trying to abort the child themselves. It was created as a health safety law.

    The main argument with pro-life is “When does the multiplying cells becoming a person?”

    Also, the aborted fetuses and zygotes should not be put to full waste and should be used for stem cell research. (Which is a whole argument all by itself but I’m sure you’ll use the argument that boils down to my last question of “When does the multiplying cells becoming a person?”)

    I did not read anything about the religious portion, because to me the Bible is not worth arguing about.

    • I would have to disagree with you on your point that the child is not loved by those around. I know very many people who love that child very deeply before it is born. I know that all situations are not this ideal, but I’ve seen many where the mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, brother, sister, and so on all care very much for that child, even before it is born. The fact you say others do not love it yet.

      To your next point, it was not legalized as a health safety law. It was legalized with the pretense that it is a woman’s ‘right.’ Feel free to refer to the actual legislation and transcripts from Roe v. Wade to see this point.

      And, coming from someone who is indeed pro-life, the argument on our side does not have anything to do with ‘when do the cells become a person.’ The person is created as soon as the sperm meets the egg. Life begins at conception.

      And if you still insist that this child has no rights, as it is not yet a person, then why is it, that in a case where a killer murders a pregnant woman, he is charged with a double homicide, because he also ended the life of the child?

      And lastly, I agree with you we should not ‘argue’ about the Bible. But I love debate and discussion. Why do you rule the discussion of it out so quickly?

Comments are closed.