” A child is the greatest gift God can bestow on either a parent or a nation.”

“To whisk a child off to an abortionist to help her avoid the consequences of her actions is in no way compassionate or caring.” (emphasis mine)

I call a logical phallacy. A=/=non-A. Something cannot be the greatest gift from God whilist simultaneously being a punishment for someone’s alleged “stupidity.”

On a similar note, a year ago I went to a baby shower for a 17 year-old friend of mine from high school who got pregnant (I was 18 at the time). Even though my friend and her boyfriend were Christian, they both wanted an abortion. But of course their parents wouldn’t let them have one, and from what I understand their parents basically gave them this same argument. I was crying during the shower because I was so pissed off that someone would punish their teenager for having sex by forcing them to experience something so drastically life-altering as bringing another human being into the world, especially against their will.

Personally, I wouldn’t punish my teenager for having sex or having an unplanned pregnancy, but if a person were so inclined, wouldn’t a simple, “If you want an abortion, I’ll take you to get one, and we’ll pick up a nuva ring while we’re there, but when we get home you’re grounded for a week and I’ll be taking possession of your car keys for a month,” suffice? I mean, Jesus o.0

You can’t convince me that, say, Randall Terry would be thrilled at the idea of letting women slough off a pregnancy for a machine to do the gestating and go off on their merry way.

Right, I’m sure he wouldn’t be thrilled. But the question is whether he would nevertheless prefer that a woman undergo the machine gestation rather than an abortion. If he would, then punishment is not his only aim. And, if he would strongly prefer the machine gestation, then punishment is not his primary aim (though it might still be a consideration). Now I might be misinterpreting what I know of the pro-life movement, but (as I said) it seems just clear that they (even including the leadership) would strongly prefer that the woman undergo the machine gestation procedure. So “punishment” is not their primary aim. It seems that the commenters here are saying that I am misinterpreting the pro-life movement when I suggest that they would strongly prefer the new procedure (despite not being thrilled with it). I’m not sure how to tell who’s right about that without doing a survey or something.

But here’s what I really love: If you believe that abortion is akin to infanticide, shouldn’t you be GLAD that the women who want abortions are having them? Because by anti-choicer logic, those women want to kill babies. Do they really think that women who want to kill babies should…have babies?

I know what you mean here, but having a baby requires significant life changes, not just lifestyle changes. Using the word “lifestyle” changes just gives opportunities to the “abortion-for-trivial-reasons” mob to take you out of context.

This made me think, and it occured to me that there is little distinction to be made between “control” and “punishment.” Women who refuse to submit to unjustified, inexcusable and misogynist efforts to control their lives are to be subsequently punished for the failure to submit…via the systematic removal of choices. Access to birth control, abortion, information, etc.

“We don’t have that kind of technology so whatever.”
(ignoring the question)

“Why can’t they just put the child up for adoption? It’s the same thing.”
(distorting the question)

“They should have to give birth because it’s a consequence of their actions.”
(baby as punishment, or at least childbirth/pregnancy as punishment)

“….”
(ignoring the question)

Not ONCE has a pro-lifer said they would support it. I just don’t get it.