They said it.
Pro-Abortion activist Charles Hartshorne writes:
“The nervous system of a very premature baby has been compared by an expert to that of a pig. And we know, if we know anything about this matter, that it is the nervous system that counts where individuality is concerned.”
Charles Hartshorne “Concerning Abortion: An Attempt at a Rational View” Christian Century, vol. 98, no. 2, January 21, 1981
Above: Premature baby at 23 weeks. is he equivalent to a pig?
Share on FacebookIn a book on abortion, one mother writes:
“When I learned of my older daughter’s abortion… we hugged and she cried, and I said, “I wish you had told me. But now that I know I don’t love you any less. I probably love you more.”
Carole Dornblaser and Uta Landy, PhD The Abortion Guide: A Handbook for Women and Men (Rockville Center, New York: Playboy Paperbacks 1982) 69
The pro-choice book this appears in was published by the Playboy Foundation.
Share on FacebookPro-Abortion author Leslie Cannold interviewed pro-choice women, and reported that they believed:
“An abortion decision that did not reflect a woman’s “feelings” and “love” for her could-be child and other significant people in her life, and that was not motivated by care and protective concern for all those she loves, was just plain wrong.”
Leslie Cannold The Abortion Myth (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1998) xx
Below; Was this abortion motivated by “love” of the child?
This pro-abortion/pro-choice activist believes that if abortion is wrong, abstaining from sex is also wrong, because either way, a baby will not be born.
“If two healthy, fertile people, very much in love but ignorant of the ways of contraception, are sexually active for a year or more, the probability that a child will be conceived is quite high. It follows that if the two remain chaste for that period of time, the probability that a potential child has been lost is equally high.
One can condemn abortion or the prevention of implantation because each results in the sure loss of a potential child, therefore, only if one is prepared to condemn chastity for the same reason. …
If those who tolerate abortion are said to trample on the rights of the unborn, then those who praise chastity may with equal justification be said to trample on the rights of the unconceived.”
David Randall Luce. “Potential Personhood and the Rights of the Unconceived.” Conscience (newsletter of Catholics for a Free Choice), July/August 1986 [Volume VII, Number 4], pages 2 to 5.
This person is divorced from reality. In chastity, a baby is not conceived. No baby exists. In abortion, the baby exists, and this is done to him or her:
A pro-abortion/pro-choice activist explains why she supports abortion:
“Lately the anti-choice protesters have argued that, in destroying a fetus, a potentially great mind may be destroyed — killing an Einstein or a Beethoven.
On the other hand, we might be sparing the world a Hitler or a mass murderer; this is a good deal more probable, for unwanted children rarely have happy lives or the kind of nurturing that produces great achievers. …
If there’s one thing this world doesn’t need, it’s more people — especially unhappy, maladjusted, abused people who grow up to be child abusers, wife-beaters, and sometimes mass murderers.”
Victoria Branden. “The Abortion Merry-Go-Round.” Humanist in Canada, Autumn 1989, pages 14 to 15.
Below: Did this child deserve to die because he could have grown up to be a mass murderer?
Pro-choice Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee:
“The date at which a foetus might be viable has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose.
Someday an embryo might be reared in a test tube to full-term, but that changes nothing for a woman’s right not to be a mother.”
Polly Toynbee “On abortion, the media need to reflect what is happening in the real world” Guardian August 31, 2014
Toynbee apparently supports killing the baby even if the child could be raised in an artificial womb.Even if the mother didn’t have to carry the baby in her womb, this pro-choicer still thinks abortion should be available.
This implies that the purpose of an abortion is not to end a woman’s pregnancy, but to ensure that her baby dies. The right to “not be a mother” entails the right to kill the child, whether or not the child needs the mother’s body to survive.
Share on FacebookFrom a woman in California who was shown her ultrasound while she was considering an abortion:
“They let me listen to the heartbeat, then they showed me my baby moving inside me, then they asked me whether I wanted to terminate the pregnancy – how could they do that?”
Camille S. Williams “Feminism and Imaging the Unborn” Brad Stetson, ed. The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1996) 69
Some women might prefer not to face reality or know the facts about fetal development.
Share on FacebookThe pro-life site JivinJeoshaphat gives the following quote from an article in the Kansas City Star (article now off-line). It is a quote from a parent explaining abortion to her child:
“Recently, my parenting skills were tested with the question, “What is an abortion?” This question was difficult enough to answer, but the follow-up question of “why” was nearly impossible.”
Posted on November 29, 2010
Share on FacebookDaniel Callahan, who supports legalized abortion:
“I have been morally repelled by the reasons that I have heard some women give for having an abortion, reasons they would never employ, say, to kill a pet animal.”
Daniel Callahan “The Abortion Debate: Is Progress Possible?” in Sydney Callahan and Daniel Callahan, eds. Abortion: Understanding Differences (London: Plenum Press, 1984) 314
Share on FacebookGillian, who had an abortion:
“I was thinking about the baby too. I never considered adoption, but I thought definitely for the baby. I didn’t want it. How much more can you think about the baby [than that] it was going to have a miserable life because I didn’t want it?”
Leslie Cannold The Abortion Myth (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1998) 87
