Enter your email to comment.
We won't send you any marketing or solicitation emails.
4 weeks ago
One proabortion person I was talking with said after the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade that a pregnant 10 year old in some state had to go to another state in order to have an abortion. Sorry I don't remember the state. Do you know the fact in that case?
11 months ago
I don't have time to wade through all your material to find the answer to my questions.
So if the fetal right to life outweighs those of a women's right to choose whether or not to be encumbered for nine months because the fetus is a human being, then when is the Pro-Life political machine going to include penalties in its legislation that really reflect how society traditionally protects human life? More specifically, all the recent anti-abortion legislation of various red, mostly southern states doesn't have penalties for women that would get an otherwise illegal abortion anyway. The only penalties are for abortionists.
Speaking strictly in terms of culpability of the woman a dog in those Pro-Life states has greater legal protection for its life in those Pro-Life states because on killing the dog the woman would take at least SOME KIND of trip through the justice system even if it is only a fine. But if she chooses to have her unborn baby killed the state's justice system just turns its back. Is this really the way human life is traditionally protected?
2 years ago
I heard someone on the Morning Aire show on Relevant Radio this AM speaking of taking the prolife education into the schools, including showing ultasounds , was it someone from your organization?
2 years ago
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
No, that wasn't anyone from ERI, but we were featured on the Morning Air Show on Relevant Radio yesterday morning (6/28)! You can listen to the recording of yesterday's interview with me, Emily Albrecht, at
2 years ago
7 years ago
I just finished listening to your bit on "and then you can kill the baby" bills and it got me to thinking about the big, big bugaboo I'm having with standard prolife legislative approaches. They feed into the abortion-rights paradigm that the battle is between waged by politicians and busybodies against women and their doctors. Every informed consent law, waiting period law, ultrasound law, etc., feeds into that paradigm. And I know from listening to National Abortion Federation tapes that the clinics themselves use the paradigm to steer women away from the informed-consent provisions. "Antichoice bullies have pushed through a law requiring us to offer you misleading and unscientific material designed to try to shame you and to make this situation as stressful as possible. Do you want to view this material?" Who is going to say "Yes"?
Way back in the day, David Reardon and Feminists for Life drafted a model of a Women's Right to Redress bill. The basic idea was putting the power in the hands of the woman. The woma wouldn't even need to show actual injury -- mere "buyer's regret" would siffice. If she had known X at the time, she would not have had the abortion. Regret alone would be enough for a wrongful death suit. It would then be contingent then upon the abortionist to show in court by preponderance of evidence that the woman had been fully informed of all of her other options as well as the full nature of the fetus targeted for abortion and that she had specifically chosen abortion, rejecting those other options, and articulating why. (Roe and/or Doe actually contains language that could be used as an underpinning.
Imagine the abortion lobby trying to argue AGAINST taking power away from businesses and putting it in the women's hands!
The original Reardon bill was, I think, cumbersome and put too much responsibility on the state, but the underlying idea is sheer genius and I really wish the prolife movement would start talking about the idea. This is one where I think a HUUUUUGGGGGEEEE number of prochoice people would be demanding serious answers. A Right to Redress law boils down to the idea that the practitioner should have a lot of 'splainin' to do if he or she decides to withhold information from a woman. Who could oppose that? Seriously?
7 years ago
Abortion is a question about philosophy, reason, and evidence. The question is about how people interact with each other in a peaceful society.
The basic philosophical rules that I follow are:
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): Initiating force against others is immoral, but the proportional response to force is justified (self-defense). Force is violence, the threat of violence, corruption, fraud, intimidation, coercion. Be ready to apologize and redeem yourself when you violate the NAP (accidents, misunderstandings, and miscalculations happen).
Honor your promises and contracts with others. Keep your word as best you can, and if you cannot keep your word, then try as best you can to redeem yourself with the other party. People are fallible, so try to repair your faults to others as best you can.
Truth must be universal or else it is merely an unjustified opinion. Always seek to refute a claim by applying sound reason to the impartial analysis of independently verifiable evidence. Claims that survive the analysis are held as tentatively true until new evidence is discovered to refute the claim. This is the basis of the scientific method, which is the best way yet that humans have found for learning how reality operates (i.e., truth).
These principles are not based on any religious ideology. I am an atheist, because claims of supernatural beings or magic cannot be substantiated by truth, reason, and evidence.
Raising children must conform to those rules. No spanking, yelling, or other kind of violation of the NAP. Use negotiations, reasoning and critical thinking. Teach by example. Accept your personal and social responsibility to raise children to be honorable members of society.
Evolution through natural selection has settled the question of how to create people. People are created at conception. To claim that a person is only eligible for protection after receiving a certificate of personhood from a government agent (licensed doctor) is to claim a distinction without a difference (logical fallacy).
Women have a personal and social responsibility to respect and protect their unborn children. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then don't get pregnant. Contraception is widely available and accessible. What about pregnancy from rape? There is no difference to the unborn child whether the child is alive by mutual consent of the parents or by force. Killing the unborn child violates the NAP, unless it is in self-defense of the life of the mother. Preventing elective abortion is not initiating force against the mother. It is preventing the initiation of lethal force against the unborn child. Law enforcement prevents crime, as well as punishes criminals according to due process.
Mothers are also the victims of abortions, because they have been deluded and deceived into the false belief that the unborn child is not a legitimate person. Since Roe v. Wade, over 56 million unborn children have been slaughtered by abortionists. How many Nobel Prize winners has the world lost? How many cures for cancer, aids, ebola, and hunger has the world lost due to the tragic deaths of so many unborn? How many artists, philosophers, and entrepreneurs has the world lost due to the deliberate, methodical destruction of innocent human life?
If you cannot support your stance with universal principles (truth), reason, and evidence, then your position is indefensible. If you want to argue with me, then bring your best truth, reason, evidence, and an open mind. I was pro-choice until I applied my principles, then I became anti-abortion. I became enlightened. I invite you to come out of the dark ages of violence against children.
7 years ago
I'm surprised Josh didn't address the "You might have aborted a great scientist!" argument with you! The clever prochoicer will point out that you also might have aborted a serial killer! "You would have aborted Beethoven!" can be countered with "You could have aborted Hitler!" Our argument needs to be that everybody deserves a chance to make the best of his/her life, and that all lives are of equal value, be that person a severely mentally and physically disabled middle-aged refugee or a scientist who is developing a cure for cancer or yes, even Ted Bundy. (Though I would argue that to value Ted's life equally to any other life would require us to fry him; he had already escaped twice to kill again so he had to be removed from the earth or we'd be valuing his life MORE than the lives of those he would surely victimize if he ever got the chance.)
Josh addresses this in terms of intrinsic value (This is a human being.) versus extrinsic value (This person would be the next Mozart.).
It's the matter of intrinsic value that makes me oppose the use of victim impact statements in deciding the punishment for murder. It's just as wrong to murder a friendless, mentally ill, drug-addled hobo whose family has long since cast him off as it is to murder a kindly grandma who baked cookies for orphans and put a dozen foster children through college. The harm done to loved ones should be treated as a separate crime. That allows justice for those harmed in addition to the murder victim without codifying the idea that some murders deserve more punishment than others because of how many people loved the victim. The victim's movalue should not rest on how many people loved and/or depended upon him/her. Draft laws that penalize depriving somebody of the love and companionship of that loved one, and the theft of financial and/or practical support. The guy who kills Homeless Joe should get the same punishment for the MURDER as the guy who kills Granny Goodheart. But the person who killed Granny also deprived orphans of love and cookies, and the grandchildren of love and companionship, and children in need of foster care of an education. Punish separately for the theft.