The Point: The Triage Trap

Don’t get lost in the weeds. For the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

While discussing abortion, have you ever heard an anecdotal argument like: “Well, if you had to choose between saving a high-schooler and an unborn fetus from a burning building, which would you pick?” The strategy is to get pro-lifers to admit that unborn children are less valuable than those who are born.

But don’t fall for it. This is a triage argument—it’s a problem of choosing whom to save when you can’t save both. But except in very rare cases, abortion is not triage. Almost always it’s a simple question of whether to intentionally kill a human being who’s considered inconvenient. If neither the life of the mother nor the unborn child is in danger, then stay out of the proverbial weeds. Only one question matters in this debate: What is the unborn?

If human, then the debate isn’t complicated at all. Intentionally killing them is always wrong. And don’t be a jerk about it. Be gracious. But don’t let the pro-choice side drag you off-track. This is one issue where we can’t afford to get stuck in the weeds.

Resources

The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
  • Scott Klusendorf | Crossway Books | March 2009

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • gladys1071

    The triage is a legitimate question, i think most pro-lifers would choose the high schooler, they just don’t want to admit it, that is why this article is encouraging not to answer it because most pro-lifers KNOW that the high schooler is of greater value than a frozen embryo.

    • fred2

      How about rescue both?

      • gladys1071

        How about answering the question and choosing? do not change the question.

        • Steve

          Because you don’t have to choose. Why make a hypothetical out of a real situation?

          • gladys1071

            so you are saying, you don’t want to answer the question (even if it is hypothetical)? Are you afraid to answer the question?

      • gladys1071

        why so afraid to answer the question, you can only choose one, the high schooler or the embryo, ? which is more valuable to you ?

      • Phoenix1977

        Because you can’t. That’s the essence of the question and the essence of triage in the first place.

  • jason taylor

    Um no. The reason is that High Schooler looks and acts more like them. Most pro-lifers would likewise choose someone dressed like a Westerner over someone dressed like a Somalian. And to some degree they are right because fraternal love is a legitimate if limited addition to simple charity. That does not make Westerners objectively worth more then Somalians.

    • gladys1071

      i agree with what you say, but any sane pro-lifer would still choose the high schooler over the frozen embryo, why? because the high schooler is a thinking feeling sentient person, an embryo is not.

      • fred2

        An embryo is a thinking, feeling person. This is why expecting parents post sonogram photos of their preborn children.

        • gladys1071

          an embryo is NOT a thinking feeling person, not yet, not until it is born. An embryo is the equivalent of a vegetable, it is NOT aware of anything or even of its existence. Parents posting sonogram photos does not make it anymore than it is an embryo.

          • fred2

            Tell that to my oldest son. In the womb, he made his love of McDonald’s pretty clear when the restaurant’s name was mentioned. No joke.

          • gladys1071

            You still have not answered the question, and your experience does NOT negate that a woman still has a right to end of pregnancy.

          • Ann Morgan

            Really? Exactly how does a fetus that can’t eat even a shake have a ‘love’ of McDonalds? Or any other restaurant.

            You need to bone up on science. Read about a horse called ‘Clever Hans’. If your wife’s fetus was reacting to the mention of ‘McDonalds’, what was going on, was that your WIFE was reacting to McDonalds in some way, and her her hormones or blood pressure or something changed, that caused the fetus to react.

            Do you have a double blind experiment where your wife is wearing earplugs, and someone says the word ‘McDonalds’, along with other words, and a sonogram showing that the fetus’s reaction -if any- to the mention of ‘McDonalds’ vs other words, or no words, is different when your WIFE couldn’t here it?

            Or are you just engaging in fetal daydreaming?

  • Phoenix1977

    “This is a triage argument—it’s a problem of choosing whom to save when you can’t save both. But except in very rare cases, abortion is not triage. Almost always it’s a simple question of whether to intentionally kill a human being who’s considered inconvenient.”
    You don’t know that. For a lot of people having another child is a (financial) burden they simply cannot meet. And adoption is not always an option for people since getting a fetus through a pregnancy in a healthy way costs money as well.
    Buit money is, in my opinion, the worst argument in favor of abortion. Fact is you know nothing of the person you say is being selfish for chosing abortion or their situations. The triage might also have to do with someone’s mental state or social situation.
    But the most important argument: someone else’s choice to have an abortion or not is none of your or my business. Abortion is still a legal right under the law in the US (and increasingly more countries) for which a woman does not have to justify herself in the first place.

    • Steve

      You say, “But the most important argument: someone else’s choice to have an abortion or not is none of your or my business.” That is where the argument lies. If it is a human life then, yes, it is our business, just as protecting the life of an infant or any other person who has already been born. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Slavery was legal at one time. Infanticide in the Roman Empire was legal at one time. Segregation was legal at one time.
      Arguing from “what is legal” is not relevant to what is right.
      If taking the life of another innocent person is wrong then no amount of feelings or financial considerations or inconveniences are enough to outweigh that wrong.
      The slaveowners lost considerable amounts of money when slavery became illegal and they lost their “free” labor. So it was inconvenient for them and cost them money and we couldn’t possibly know what their situation was. Therefore, should we have allowed slavery?
      According to your arguments slavery should have continued because it was legal and antislavery people had no right to determine what slaveowners could do.
      Let me ask you this Phoenix: is there any point in a pregnancy when abortion is wrong? Just before delivery? Immediately after delivery? What if the mother determines at 9 months that the
      baby is too much of a burden? What then?

      • Phoenix1977

        “That is where the argument lies. If it is a human life then, yes, it is our business, just as protecting the life of an infant or any other person who has already been born.”
        No, it’s not. Just as it’s none of my business what you do with your life as long as you obey the law. And your argument goes wrong as well, since a fetus is, legally, not a person and therefor is not protected by the law or even has human rights. And it remains that way until immediately after birth. So that basically answers your last couple of questions as well.
        All your other examples have one thing in common with each other while they have the same aspect not in common with a fetus: they all concern individuals and, therefor, legal persons. A fetus is not a seperate entity as in it cannot survive outside the womb and can therefor not be seen apart from the woman carrying it. It is, in essence, part of her body and therefor it’s up to her what will happen with it. And that’s also why (former) slaves, minorities and infants ARE protected under the law and fetuses are not.

      • gladys1071

        Steve, you cannot force a woman to stay pregnant and gestate for 9 months. Protecting an embryo/fetus means that you want to legally force women to stay pregnant against their will, that is the same as being a slave owner, you are taking a woman’s right to her body and that is more than a mere inconvenience that is involuntary servitude to gestate for 9 months.

  • AtTheCrossroads

    A much more equivalent scenario should be offered in response to the “burning building”. If a high school student and an unborn baby are in a perfectly sound building, but are inconvenient to you and your life aspirations, which of them is it OK to kill?

    • gladys1071

      pregnancy and childbirth is a lot more than an incovenience, stop minimizing the trauma of childbirth and pregnancy complications and life changing event that is.

    • Ann Morgan

      An equivalent scenario would be: There is a 16 year old anencephalic in a building. They will die if you don’t pay so much money that it will destroy 3 generations of your family. Exactly why does the anencephalic have so much value that it is worth destroying 3 generations of your family, merely because it has ‘human DNA’?

      • AtTheCrossroads

        I’ve known two dear friends whose babies had anencephaly. They carried them to full term so as not to be the cause of their death. According to Wikipedia, “infants with this disorder do not survive longer than a few hours or possibly days after their birth.” Not sure how you can imagine a 16 year old anencephalic, nor that someone would have to “pay so much money that it will destroy 3 generations”. You seem to be using another impossible scenario to somehow justify what really happens in abortion. Ann, abortion is always the taking of innocent human life . . . and this is always wrong in the eyes of God . . . but forgiveness is always available for those who will agree with God (this is what “confess” means in I John 1:9) Hope and healing begins with repentance. I’m praying for you.

        • gladys1071

          abortion is justified if a woman refuses to be gestate a pregnancy. Do you believe in forcing a woman to gestate an unwanted pregnancy?

          You seem to be ignoring the most important issue a woman’s right to refuse to be an incubator.

          Do you think women just lose their rights because of pregnancy?

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Do you think a very small human being loses her right to live just because she is dependent on someone else?

            Women lose no rights they had before pregnancy by becoming pregnant. Neither should they gain the right to end the life of any innocent human being after becoming pregnant.

          • gladys1071

            Do you think a very small human being loses her right to live just because she is dependent on someone else?

            Yes, because you cannot compel a woman to gestate against her will and subject to her to all of the bodily changes, health risks, which include childbirth. Pregnancy is in imposition for 9 months on a woman where she will be limited to what she can eat, drink, probably even work (depending on the pregnancy), the financial costs of doctor visits, the cost of childbirth. All of those risks should be undertaken by CHOICE, not because of a birth control failure, one night stand, or simply for being stupid and having unprotected sex. Women should not lose their rights because of having sex.

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Good Tuesday Gladys! I think we’re making some progress past the exchange of rhetoric that often bogs down these discussions, so my sincere thanks to you for your honesty and for sticking with it.

            To my question of whether a very small human being loses her right to live just because she is dependent on someone else, you answered “Yes . . . ” and went on to explain why. As a Christian, you really need to stop and think about your “Yes”. What are we saying when we use any conditions to justify the killing of an innocent human being?

            You go on to give a list of impositions a pregnant mother must accept to carry a baby. Which of those would you say are more valuable than the mother’s life? Why would they be more valuable than the life of her baby?

            You go on to admit that all of those impositions are a result of “a birth control failure, one night stand, or simply for being stupid and having unprotected sex.” If I injure my child when I accidentally lose control of my car, don’t I have a responsibility to care for her even though it was not intentional? Isn’t that part of being a responsible human being?

            You conclude with, “Women should not lose their rights because of having sex.” As I said, I don’t believe they lose any rights they had before becoming pregnant, but they (and the father!) do gain the responsibility that sometimes results. The innocent child should not get the death penalty because her parents didn’t plan on the responsibility that sometimes accompanies sexual intercourse.

            Please pray for clarity on this critical issue, Gladys. I’m convinced God will answer a sincere prayer for wisdom.

          • gladys1071

            i appreciate your civility in your response. I respectfully disagree with your response, if a woman is forced to gestate against her will, yes she does lose rights. I agree that people should use birth control responsibly and i would be the first to tell people to avoid getting pregnant by using birth control and or to abstain to avoid pregnancy. Having said that, it still does NOT negate a woman’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy, no matter how it happened. Being irresponsible does NOT mean women lose their rights to their body.

            You asked which impositions are more valuable than the baby, i say it is up to the woman to decide, for it is HER life and HER body that has to do the gestating, and her RIGHTS supercede.

            I don’t consider being a Christian and putting the woman’s rights first in pregnancy in anyway a contradiction of my faith. If you ever read of the Jewish faith, they don’t even consider the fetus/embryo a person until it halfway thru the birth canal. Think about why that is? why the Jewish faith (which Christianity came from) places more VALUE on the woman?

            I have thought about this issue a lot, i just come up with a different conclusion than the pro-life narrative that wants to compel every pregnant woman to give birth REGARDLESS of her circumstances, to be that is not compassionate or Christian like at all.

            You may disagree with me, but that is fine, we are both believers in Christ and see things differently.

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Good Wednesday Gladys. Any Jewish person that takes the Bible as the inspired word of God, as genuine Christians must, will find no justification for abortion-on-demand in its pages. On the contrary, she will find consistent evidence that God highly values all human life at every stage, and confers the rights and dignity of human-hood to babies in the womb.

            Do a blueletterbible.com search on the word “womb” if you don’t believe me . . . or just look up these few verses (Judges 13:7; Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 20:17).

            For God-fearing Jews, the most powerful verse on the value of unborn children is Exodus 21:22. Here is a link to an article that thoroughly and objectively explains this passage: https://www.str.org/articles/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion#.WUFanVUrJhE

            For Christians like you and me, there may be no more powerful verse in the Bible than Luke 1:15, where Zacharias is told by an angel that his son (John the Baptist), “will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” Only humans can be filled with the Holy Spirit.

            If, as Christians, we learn that we are seeing things differently than the Bible sees them, we must by faith adjust our vision.

          • gladys1071

            thank you for NOT answering my question about a woman’s rights, but i figured as much.

            By the way Exodus 21:22 makes the opposite case. It states the loss of an embryo/fetus the person responsible ONLY has to pay a fine. So according to the old Testatment an embryo/fetus was LESS valuable than a newborn, and Less valuable than the woman.

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Hey sorry Gladys . . . no reason to be so cross. We had a visit with the caseworker for our foster kids so can’t be on all the time. :o)

            So since you still seem confused after all I have said. I’ll say again, I believe it should be illegal for anyone to intentionally kill an unborn child. I know you want to rephrase this as the emotion-packed “forcing a woman to gestate against her will”. I prefer “calling those who conceive a child to the basic human decency of allowing their child to live”. However you want to frame it, yes, I’m still against giving legal support for killing an innocent baby. (period)

            And Glady’s, kindly take the time to read the link I provided. It will clear this up for you. Based on sound principles of Biblical interpretation, Exodus 21.22 says that if the baby is delivered early but not killed, a monetary penalty is in order; but if she is harmed, the standard life-for-life, eye-for-eye penalties apply. So in fact, this passage values the life of a premature baby equally with that of the man who will lose his life if the baby dies. Note that in this case Jewish law is protecting an unborn child even from an unintentional, negligent act. How much more so will He hold accountable those who willfully end the life He is “knitting together” in her mother’s womb. God have mercy on us for allowing this killing to continue in the name of convenience.

            This will probably not be my last post, because I really do care for your soul. :o)

          • gladys1071

            Ok thank you for answering. I respectfully disagree with legally compelling women to gestate , but that is fine , thank you for the discussion.

          • gladys1071

            Again you STILL have not answered my question, do you believe in forcing a woman to gestate against her will, by force of law?

            Do you believe in imposing that on women that do NOT share the Christian faith?

            Would you compel or force a loved on of yours to gestate an unwanted pregnancy (like a sister, daughter)?

            This will be my last post because you continually evade my question.

          • Ann Morgan

            They keep playing games with the phrase ‘right to life’, and pretending to be stupid and to not understand that the ‘right to life’ is NEGATIVE in nature. Which means, not that you have a ‘right to life as an absolute, predetermined outcome at all costs’, but rather, that other people may not rightfully steal or damage your own organs or property that you need in order to ‘live’. However, if for some reason, your own organs and/or property are not adequate to the task of keeping you alive, it does NOT give you a right to the organs and property of others, so that you may ‘live’. Nor does managing to grab onto someone else’s organs or property mean that you can’t be actively dispossessed of them.

          • gladys1071

            i agree with you, tell it to the people here that want to compel women to gestate for 9 months and do not care about her rights.

          • Ann Morgan

            Another good book(s) for you are the Infinity Hold series, by Barry Longyear. It’s about a group of criminals whose sentences are commuted to permanent exile on the planet Tartaros (which is a highly sucky place) and they have to come up with their own system of laws in order to survive.

        • gladys1071

          That is great your friends chose that so what? It proves nothing other couples may chose diffrently, you have no right to judge or dictate in such private matters,

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Good Monday Gladys. Hope you enjoyed your weekend. Back in April when I was standing in front of the local Planned Parenthood with a sign reading “Pray to End Abortion” we were joined by some ladies who had their own signs reading “Pray to End Judgement”. As we talked with and got to know some of them, it was enlightening to also look at some of what they were saying about us on FaceBook, etc. They were calling us all kinds of names (though I never saw the term “forced birther”) and often using vulgarities to describe us . . . apparently this was their approach to ending judgement. The irony of showing up to counter-protest something that they judged to be judgmental while calling for an end to judgement clearly escaped them. The fact is, we all believe that some ideas need to be “judged” as either right or wrong. Our kind treatment of them and others, even in the face of vulgarities hurled at us and our children, showed who was willing to debate ideas . . . and who was more interested in judging (condemning) those who held them.

          • gladys1071

            I have no issue with people being pro-life, what i have an issue is with trying to change laws to enforce that view on others that may not share it. I have friends that are pro-life and they know I am pro-choice and we get along, and they themselves would not have an abortion, but they don’t believe in outlawing it either. They respect that others would make a different choice then them.

  • Ann Morgan

    Actually, you are altering the scenario here, as a new form of weasel. The usual scenario is, choosing either one high schooler, or ONE HUNDRED frozen zygotes.

    If you believe that a zygote has the same worth as a thinking, feeling person, then you would have to choose the 100 zygotes.

    **If human, then the debate isn’t complicated at all. Intentionally killing them is always wrong. **

    You are asserting the very thing you need to prove, which is that killing MINDLESS CELLS is wrong, merely because you can slap the word ‘human’ onto them. Words do not create value.

    • gladys1071

      Ann,

      I will answer the question that nobody wants to answer or don’t have the courage to. I would CHOOSE the high schooler over 100 frozen embryos everytime.

      • Ann Morgan

        So would I. But you and I can answer the question because we are actually HONEST about how much value we place (or don’t place) on the mindless zef, rather than engaging in fetal sobs that we don’t believe ourselves, as window dressing for ugly motivations.

    • AtTheCrossroads

      Ann & Gladys, my daughter just gave birth to my first grandchild. Her name is Marilyn, she is beautiful, and if you believe the Bible (I’m not assuming, but hoping) she is a gift of God . . . not an unwanted burden (Psalm 127). She is also adopted. Yep, long before we were all doting over her; while some were still calling her zygote, embryo, etc.; my kids knew she was a human being deserving a chance at life just like you both were given. So they gave her that chance by implanting her in my daughter’s womb.

      If you’ll stop shouting with your capital letters long enough to think through the reality of abortion, here is what you’ll discover to be true. According to the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry’s own figures, at least 95% of abortions are to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy. In all of these cases it’s never, “Have the abortion or this teenager dies”, it’s “what’s more important, the life of this unique individual growing inside of you or the inconvenience you will experience by giving him/her a chance to live?” That’s the question. And that’s the Point.

      • gladys1071

        again you are minimizing pregnancy and childbirth, it is NOT a mere inconvenience, and forcing women to gestate against their will is not compassionate. Women have rights and have a right to refuse gestation. Just because a woman becomes pregnant does NOT mean she has to STAY pregnant, what part of that do you not understand?

        • AtTheCrossroads

          Hi Gladys . . . let me see if I can explain. If you replace the words “gestate” or “gestation” with “care for babies”, your comment would read:
          “again you are minimizing caring for a baby, it is not a mere inconvenience, and forcing women to care for babies against their will is not compassionate. Women have rights and have a right to refuse to care for their babies. Just because a woman becomes a mother does not mean she has to stay a mother . . .” The Point is that to be logically consistent with your thinking, you would have to grant the mother of a newborn at least the freedom to let her baby girl starve, if not to inject her with saline to “safely” end her life. In a civilized and decent society, laws exist to protect fundamental rights (like life), over secondary rights (like not to be troubled by carrying a baby for nine months). By God’s design, all human life begins at conception and is initially incubated inside the womb of a mother. I dare say most women embrace this as a beautiful design and wonderful gift to both the child and her mother. But even if you don’t, it is still how human life begins . . . and once begun it is worth protecting.

          • gladys1071

            No you don’t get to change words like care from gestation. Gestation occurs inside the body. A newborn’s care can be given by another person not only the mother. Gestation can only occur in one body and is not transferable. So no ‘care” is NOT the same as gestation.

            You calling motherhood a gift is a matter of opinion.

            So again you are forgetting that to PROTECT the embro to / fetus you have to by default force the woman to GESTATE.

            Are you for forcing a woman to gestate against her will?

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Gladys, by changing the words I’m encouraging you to face the uncomfortable fact that nothing magical happens via a trip down the birth canal. So if it’s OK to kill a fully dependent unborn baby, why not a fully dependent infant? Just because it becomes possible at birth for the baby to be cared-for by someone else, are you forcing a mother to go to the trouble of finding someone to do so? Why can’t she kill the infant to avoid the trouble? Why would this bother you?

            I hope and pray it does bother you, so that you’ll reconsider your support of killing unborn babies. You’re right that me calling motherhood a gift is a matter of opinion. But if you believe in the Bible, you must admit it is more than a matter of opinion, “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord” (Psalm 127).

          • gladys1071

            actually you are wrong, something does happen when it exits the birth canal, its called “being born”, that is when rights are aquired and you get a birth certificate is issued, their are no conception certificates issued, their are no funerals for embryos, but their is for newborns that should tell you something.

            I just don’t believe in forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will and i value HER life more than the unborn, that is my position and the law supports my position.

            You never answered my question, do you believe in forcing women to gestate for 9 months against her will?

          • Ann Morgan

            Gladys, when you have a chance, order a book called ‘The Lady or the Tiger’ by Raymond Smullyan from your local library. It’s a book of logic problems, and there is a particular chapter you should read. It features a detective, ‘Inspector Craig’, who lives in Transylvania. The country of Transylvania is inhabited by both humans and vampires, some of whom are sane, some of whom are insane.

            Where the logic problems come in, is that ‘humans’ – whether sane or insane, are always ‘good’ and will always tell what they BELIEVE to be the truth. Vampires, on the other hand, are always ‘evil’ and will always deliberately LIE, and say the opposite of what they believe to be the truth.

            Now, where it gets complicated is the fact that both humans and vampires can be either sane, or insane. Sane people will always be completely accurate in their beliefs. Insane people will always be completely deluded in their beliefs.

            For a simple example of how this works, lets say you ask an inhabitant of the land: “Is the sky blue”?

            A sane human will correctly believe the sky is blue, and truthfully answer ‘Yes’.

            An insane human will incorrectly believe the sky is NOT blue, but will tell the truth – from their own point of view – and answer ‘No’.

            A sane vampire will correctly believe the sky is blue, but will lie, and say ‘No’.

            And an insane vampire will incorrectly believe the sky is NOT blue, but then will lie, and say ‘Yes’ anyways.

            You might think that you will always get the same answer to any question from a sane vampire and an insane human, but that isn’t always the case. For instance, if you ask anyone in the land: “Are you insane”, a human will always answer ‘No’ – regardless of whether they are sane or insane, and a vampire will always answer ‘yes’. And as a corrolary, if you ask anyone whether they are a vampire, the answer will be ‘no’ if they are sane, and ‘yes’ if they are insane, regardless of whether they are a human or a vampire.

            Reading this chapter of the book is useful for analysing statements made by the forced birthers and exposing the fact that they don’t believe their own claims.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Ann, I am going to tell you one more time: I consider “forced birthers” name-calling and I will not have it. Any further comments including that term will be deleted without a warning.

          • Ann Morgan

            So, we are back to tone policing as a substitute for refuting. Tell me, why are you so threatened by a book about logic? Is there something about logic that you don’t like? Does training in logic make it easier to expose lies? What does that say about your being frightened of logic?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            It has zero to do with logic. It has everything to do with the term I just mentioned. As I believe I told you before, I would also delete a comment using the term “baby killers,” so my tone policing, as you call it, applies equally to both sides. But it will apply. If you can’t live with that, you are welcome to post anywhere else on the Internet.

          • AtTheCrossroads

            Hi again Gladys. Lot’s of questions and lots of capital letters, you’ve got to stop yelling or you’ll never hear.

            Seems like you’re struggling to find your own position on abortion. “A woman should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at 1st trimester when that embryo is not fully developed, not sentient, and cannot live outside the uterus.” . . . or is it, “something does happen when it exits the birth canal, its called “being born”, that is when rights are aquired”. So if rights are not acquired until a baby is born, why would you force a woman to gestate if she is past the first trimester?

            Gladys, the reason the abortion issue is so confusing that you can’t even agree with yourself boils down to one question. “Is it ever OK to kill a defenseless and innocent human being just because allowing them to go on living is considered a burden to someone else.” Even the most staunch Pro-Choicer has a conscience that cries out “no”, even while her mind is fighting to justify a “yes”. For your own sake, you should pray that conscience wins out. No doubt all of us have someone in our lives that may consider us a burden.

            As Christians, we’re called to bear one another’s burdens, and to defend the vulnerable . . . not to defend self-interest at the cost of human life. Please give up defending the indefensible. I’m certain you will find it refreshing to your soul, no matter what you’ve done. I really am praying for you.

          • gladys1071

            killing an infant, and aborting a 5-6 week embryo the size of an appleseed are NOT the same, not even close. A woman should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at 1st trimester when that embryo is not fully developed, not sentient, and cannot live outside the uterus. Why would YOU elevate the rights of embryo that cannot live outside the body over a thinking feeling pregnant WOMAN? i find that very disturbing, their is no way that i would value an embyo MORE than the pregnant woman.

          • Ann Morgan

            I would also point out, that an infant is NOT entitled to ‘care’ against someone’s consent.

            The difference between caring for an infant, and gestation, is that there are numerous people capable of caring for an infant, so the odds that someone will be WILLING to do so go way up.

            But even if there was, for some reason, only one person in the world capable of caring for a particular infant, that doesn’t create a ‘right’ for the infant to have that person enslaved on their behalf.

            To understand this, take the case of Bill Haast (recently deceased). Haast self-injected with increasing amounts and varieties of snake venom for over 50 years. He had so many anti-bodies against so many types of snake venom in his blood, that transfusions from his blood actually saved the lives of several snake bite victims.

            Now, an ordinary car accident victim, who requires a transfusion, can probably get blood from any of billions of different people. The odds that at least some of them will donate blood are pretty good.

            A snake bite victim is in a different situation. In his case, Bill Haast’s blood and ONLY Bill Haast’s blood, could save his life. Now, Haast was a very nice and generous person and always agreed to donate his blood, but what if he didn’t want to? Should he be strapped down and forced to donate, because he was the only possible donor in this case?

            I say, no. And this also applies to the car accident victim, if 7 billion people in the world do not want to donate blood, then the car accident victim is SOL.

      • gladys1071

        It is not for you to decide whether or not I or any woman should be obligated to gestate an unwanted pregnancy, not your decision to make, it is the pregnant person’s decision, the reasons for why someone has an abortion are irrelevant. For some people being pregnant for 9 months can be a hardship, you don’t know everyone’s situation.