Erbe: Abortion is not a tragedy

I can't believe I wasted precious free time reading this column.

Abortion is always a tragedy, Bonnie - because an innocent life always dies as a result. The financial circumstances of the parents don't make it ok to end an innocent life.

There are alternatives to abortion - adoption being the best. But the abortion-on-demand crowd would rather make excuses for an abhorrent practice because they want to keep their pet issue alive.

The decision not to bring a fourth child into the world should have happened before they decided to have unprotected sex. The brutal murder of a baby after the fact is indeed a tragedy, no matter how you want to paint it. Was adoption not an option here? Or simply less convienent?
It's horrid to know people are so casual about human life.

Bonnie,

You do not realize that if the premise of those who oppose abortion, namely that abortion is the termination of a human life, then your whole argument of inconvenience is baseless and cruel.

For instance, if abortion is the ending of a human life, then your argument is the equivalent of saying, "You have the right to kill your child if he or she a.) causes economic hardship, b.) puts a "crimp in your style", c.) forces you to eat store-brand cereal, d.) takes away from quality family time, or e.) any combination of the above or whatever suits your little fancy.

And your grasp of history is astounding. There has been a stigma to abortion long before Norma McCorvey hit the scene. Maybe, you meant that YOU started paying attention to abortion at that moment... I'm trying to be generous.

Bonnie,

You do not realize that if the premise of those who oppose abortion, namely that abortion is the termination of a human life, then your whole argument of inconvenience is baseless and cruel.

For instance, if abortion is the ending of a human life, then your argument is the equivalent of saying, "You have the right to kill your child if he or she a.) causes economic hardship, b.) puts a "crimp in your style", c.) forces you to eat store-brand cereal, d.) takes away from quality family time, or e.) any combination of the above or whatever suits your little fancy.

And your grasp of history is astounding. There has been a stigma to abortion long before Norma McCorvey hit the scene. Maybe, you meant that YOU started paying attention to abortion at that moment... I'm trying to be generous.

Another benefit of aborting her fourth child is that, once the other kids realize their mother offed their brother or sister, they'll be sure to behave. Abortion = a great way to keep the surviving kids in line.

If you're going to be "fact-based and rational" why not also kill the youngest (already born child) for the benefit of the other two? Or the two youngest children for the sake of the first? Or all the children for the sake of the parents?

You said "Feeding and raising children is expensive. Tuition may be free at public schools but there are still books, transportation, food, clothes, medical care and activities that add up -- way up. One may assume this family of five is struggling just to maintain its basics: housing and food. Add one more child and those costs rise as income drops. It's no tragedy: it's a good decision. The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to become a contributor to society. It also reduces the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources to raise their children."

Why not apply that "fact-based" rationalism to the other children. After all if its of benefit to terminate one person, why not the others?

"Abortion was not viewed as a tragic event in the early days after the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion on a national scale."

Where did YOU live?? There may have been places in 1973 where abortion was not viewed as a tragic event, but for the remaining 99% of the country it was.

And where do you come off telling that pregnant woman "in flip flops and tears" that ending the life of her fourth child is not a tragedy? According to you it may not be but it was to her. The utilitarian argument that she would be financially better off without the child so an abortion is justified is frightening. Also, I would think that anyone who espouses moral relativism as your comments indicate would not be in the business of judging others and their situations.

Bonnie, I can hear you now arguing for killing another member of the family: "Why not kill off grandma while we're at it? Taking care of her is a financial burden in these economic times. And the costs will probably only increase as her health declines. Besides, if I didn't have to care for her I could spend more time on my three children, and raise them to be productive members of society."

Of course, making a rational, good decision for your family doesn't usually require murdering one of it's members. I'm sure that those children will have great self esteem, since they were so important to their parents that they were willing to sacrifice their brother or sister for their sake. Then again, maybe they will feel what they should feel after this atrocity: remorse and guilt.

What is the difference between grandma and an unborn child? Size? Location? Visibility?

A life is a life is a life. All have inherent incalcuable value. Perhaps this mother and father could have taught their children that. And if you didn't want another child, don't choose to do the activity that by its nature creates one.

She has 3 other children. Why not drop them off at a convent or monastery? I'm sure they can't afford them, either.

Are you seriously trying to justify the taking of a human life? Why not jack a few rounds into a .45 caliber handgun and off one or two more of the existing children. What's the difference? These are the kinds of obtuse arguments that make no sense.

wow. just wow.

I was going to add something but Rosy beat me to it.
The ends don't justify the means. Where does the "convenience killing" end?

How irresponsible for you to write an article with the sly tone of abortion making sense. How cleverly you painted this picture of a down trodden woman who had to make this choice because of the economic situation. Why didn't you delve into more depth about the choice this woman made in getting pregnant in the first place. She obviously made the decision to be impregnated 3-4 times , yes? She would not have to make the decision at all to kill the baby growing inside her if she was the least bit responsible about her birth control. Instead she has made the decision to use abortion as her birth control. How dare you make this out to be some kind of good economic choice. Why not do a flip side story of a woman's regretful feelings after she's had an abortion. Which a lot of woman are completely regretful and it haunts them for life. But no. That would be shedding light on something you want no light on right? It sickens me that my local paper has run this article...and they will be contacted with major criticism for doing so. It is heart breaking to me that another human being would actually say that stopping the life of an unborn person is not always tragic and makes a lot of sense. Where does this kind of thought and movement stop. What about this Miss Erbe. Sally is having a hard time in this economy paying for the care of her ailing elderly mother. Would it make sense in this hard time economy to go ahead and put her to sleep? It is just as sick a statement as you have written about here. Or maybe you don't think it's sick at all. Shame on you Miss Erbe for trying to sell this hideous holocaust of our time to your viewers and readers. It is pretty simple. You are either pro-life or Pro-death and it is crystal clear where you stand. Shame on you and God forgive you.

Choose Life
Lisa

Anytime innocent human life is taken, it's a tragedy. This woman should have given the child up for adoption if she couldn't afford it. Why does the child deserve death because the father lost a job?

"I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing." With that emphatic statement, Gilbert Keith Chesterton takes us all to task on the basic premise of our own existence: why us and not someone else? Do you have the arrogance or do I to say I deserve to live over another? Every mother who faces that decision and acts on the philosophies espoused above has just shown arrogance disguised as rational behavior. She has shown cowardice disguised as financial prudence. And of the father involved? His is the worst cowardice. The arguments for abortion (which many now look upon as just another form of "birth-control") almost always seem to hinge on not being able to provide the necessities, when more often is the case, it is not being to provide the luxuries all around. Should we feel sorry when two people who claim to love one another suddenly are confronted with the effects of what most in postmodern world call simple biology? If that is so, how smart are we not to know after what some would also call thousands of years of "evolution" that two people mating would likely produce offspring? If these two are unable to control themselves in this moment of crucial decision on what essentially for them amounts to mere pleasure, what is here to convince us that they will control their spending for pleasure rather than need so as to support the argument of the fiscal prudence of abortion? No, this argument has no water; it is all sieve to promote acceptance of a pattern of reckless and irreverent behavior at the expense of a human life that cannot defend itself. As Chesterton brings out so well: this is an argument of cowardice. It takes a word that sanitizes an ugly action so as to confuse as many as possible as to the real and perverted action it is: murder. "I despise Birth-Control first because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly word. It is also an entirely meaningless word; and is used so as to curry favour even with those who would at first recoil from its real meaning. The proceeding these quack doctors recommend does not control any birth. It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control. It cannot for instance, determine sex, or even make any selection in the style of the pseudo-science of Eugenics. Normal people can only act so as to produce birth; and these people can only act so as to prevent birth. But these people know perfectly well as I do that the very word Birth-Prevention would strike a chill into the public, the instant it was blazoned on headlines, or proclaimed on platforms, or scattered in advertisements like any other quack medicine. They dare not call it by its name, because its name is very bad advertising. Therefore they use a conventional and unmeaning word, which may make the quack medicine sound more innocuous." http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/chesterton_birthcontrol_oct08.asp