FORMAN: History shows the fault of 'pro-choice'
By Robert E. Forman, Special to the Rocky
Published October 15, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.
When it comes to the abortion issue, Sen. Barack Obama is pro-choice. But considering his background and heritage, I would have expected him to put more careful thought into that position.
You see, 150 years ago this country would soon be headed to a horrifying Civil War, brought on, in part, because of the slavery issue. There were those who were unapologetically “pro-choice” when it came to the issue of slavery, when those who were “pro-choice” then were “pro-choice” of the continuance of a grievous wrong.
Is it “right” to compare the pro-choice position on slavery with the pro-choice position on abortion? If we consider the similarities in their respective train of thoughts, the answer is “yes.”
Slave owners and those who were in the slave trade were unapologetically pro-choice when it came to slaves and slavery. They felt that “if you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave” — but leave the “right” for those who do desire to own slaves to be able to own slaves. That’s very similar to the “if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one” — but leave the “right” for those who do want an abortion to be able get an abortion.
Slave owners and slave traders did not look upon the “African blacks” as being at all equal to the white race. Slave owners felt that blacks were sub-human, less-than-human, a sub-species of “evolved” African gorillas and chimps who were lower on the evolutionary scale; blacks became “non-human property” that was fair game to be exploited, used, abused, and disposed of at the “choice” of the “white human master.” Likewise, pro-abortionists never think of an unborn human child as being a human child; the unborn human child is sub-human, less-than-human, and non-human “property” that is fair game to be abused and disposed of by the “master/mistress.” And it gets worse.
Virtually every 19th and early 20th century evolutionary “scientist” (such as Darwin) and teacher (such as Scopes) — and even the 19th and 20th century leaders of the abortion movement — was white and European/American.
Virtually every white slave owner, virtually every white supremacist organization, even Hitler and the Nazis, and even some white pro-choicers rallied around Darwin and his bogus theory to justify what they considered their “pro-choice right” to exploit, use, abuse, discard and “weed out” those from our society that they considered to be “evolutionary and socially less-desirable.” Sometimes their tactics took violent paths. At times, as with the early abortion movement, the evolutionary and socially lower class “less-desirables” (the minorities, the poor, and especially the poorer minorities) were simply encouraged to have more abortions.
Abortion is the new slavery — and both are grievous wrongs that should not happen in any kind of “civil” society. They both treat living human lives as if they are less-than-human, non-human, and mere “property” that belongs to some master or mistress that can be used, abused, or discarded like yesterday’s trash based on the “choice” of the master or mistress.
The “if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one” line used today is just as asinine as the “if you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave” mentality of 150 years ago. There are some things that are just plain grievous wrongs.
Slavery is one. Abortion is another.
Robert E. Forman is a resident of Lakewood.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 15, 2008
3:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
So ends another lesson in the worship of fertilized ova.
October 15, 2008
3:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
It will never end, they can't accept the fact there's a law making it legal. where are these people when it comes to caring for the ones born out of wedlock and in poverty? They'll give 10% to the church but won't give a dime to help the kids that are hungry. he compares slavery to abortion, not even close in my opinion. How about the illegals? Same difference, only they are free to violate the laws, work for sub standard wages. Go out and give your time and money to the African American community, where 70% of the babies are born out of wedlock, fix that then complain about abortion.
October 15, 2008
6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
roger44: You do realize, don't you, that there used to be Supreme Court decisions making slavery legal? And making it illegal to help a slave escape? And denying little black boys and girls the right to attend the same schools as little white boys and girls? There were laws, so everyone should have just said that slavery was good?
As for the rest of your post, it rambles, changes the subject, and makes straw assumptions, thereby making it unworthy of further response.
October 15, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Mr. Forman calls Darwins Theory "bogus".
Get real. First of all he needs to look up the deffinition of a "theory." Something becomes a theory only after it is tested repeatedly and comes out with the same result time and time again. The fossil record although incomplete at this point shows more than enough eveidence to prove evolution. suppose Mr. Foreman thinks humans walked with dinosaurs. Maybe he is a Palin supporter.
October 15, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
dianahsieh writes:
Slavery was wrong because black men and women were human persons, with the same capacity for reason -- and so the same rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- as everyone else. That's NOT true of zygotes, embryos, or fetuses.
The fact that something is human and alive does not make it a person. Every cell in our body is both human and alive, yet we don't worry about giving blood for testing or scraping off a few skin cells in a fall. A fertilized egg is distinctive because, in addition to being alive and human, it might develop into a born baby given the right conditions. What supporters of Amendment 48 cannot show, however, is that a potential baby has the moral status of an actual baby. The difference between them is enormous.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person. That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person -- and individual. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
Consequently, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is exercising her own rights over her own body -- likely in pursuit of her own health, well-being, and happiness. Any restrictions on abortion -- including the horrid Amendment 48 -- would violate those rights.
For more, see:
http://ColoradoVoteNo48.com
For a detailed analysis of Amendment 48, download and read the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh:
"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/...
Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in Colorado. Please vote NO on 48!
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
October 15, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I love how he puts scientist in quotation marks in the article. That alone should be good enough perspective on his point of view.
October 15, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
I'd be curious to know if Forman supports or opposes Amendment 47, the Right to Work Amendment. His view appears to be from the right, which would indicate that he would likely support 47, so by his logic he would be supporting choice, as would most folks from the right. I think to say abortion is the new slavery is asinine, but to be fair I guess analyzed unemotionally, choice is choice regardless of what the issue. That being said, if he's a 47 supporter, he would definitely favor free choice.
October 15, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
is the rocky not getting enough intelligent letters these days?
this kind of crap doesn't belong in the paper.
October 15, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
blacksho89, the descendants of slaves are better off than they would have been if left in Africa. Listen to Bill Cosby....I will vote no on the amendment, it's a woman's choice.
October 15, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I have always liked Bill Clinton's take on abortion: that it should be rare safe and legal. We can make it rare through ready access to family planning, birth control and parental guidance. I am of the opinion that abortion shouldn't be used for birth control when other forms exist and their use is encouraged. Abortion should be safe because we don't want to go back to the days of hack abortions that killed and left sterile so many young women. Abortion should be legal because there do exist situations involving the health, both physical and mental of the mother. Add to that the lack of sense in carrying a non-viable fetus to full term.
We should also more aggressively promote adoption alternatives as well as use of "the morning after pill" which, by itself could eliminate many abortions. I know that many in the pro-life crowd dislike the morning after pill but I believe it to be a tool that can make a huge difference in the lives of young people who simply aren't ready to be parents.
I, too, intend to vote no on the amendment.
October 15, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Not to stir up the issue more than it already is, but there is also the issue of potential fathers having no rights when they would like to raise and take custody of the kid and the mother wants to terminate the kid instead. That is the law too.
October 15, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
roger44 writes:
blacksho89, the descendants of slaves are better off than they would have been if left in Africa
To which the only intelligent response is: !?!
Actually, your idiocy leaves me speechless. You are trying to justify slavery? Roger, you are probably the best FRIEND the personhood amendment has! Every statement you make proves the points the original poster is making!
October 15, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Planned Parenthood is a direct descendant of the eugenics craze that a certain German Dictator based his own final solution upon.
America's International Business Machines created for this party, a punchcard system to track offending persons of inferior genetic stock and their elimination. This punchcard system is thought of as the very first computer.
The moral comparison of abortion to slavery is specious at best. The War Between the States was for Lincoln's imperative that the Union remain, where the Confederates had the right to secede. Slavery was periphery to the reasons for war. While blacks were recognized as sub-human until the LBJ civil rights laws, the unborn are thought of as human. It is the anti abortion activists that project the idea on pro-choice activists.
The simple tactic of defining already possessed rights of the unborn into law is the weak spot to apply pressure. The poorly written amendment up this year does not belong in our state constitution.
As a antiabortion yet prochoice man, I recognize the right to life of unborn persons, and refuse to tell a woman what to do with her body, and her life. Personhood is now defined by a DOB and a name. To define it as a Date of Conception and to name zygotes opens a can of worms that will devolve our state into petty investigations for murder over miscarriages, and birth control methods.
Ugly compromise leaves everyone angry, and the demarcation line of fetal rights should be established at the point of consciousness, when the nervous system supports sensory input and intelligence. Before that no rights should be defined, after that point, the potential mother must go to abortion court to defend her rights over the fetus', the unborn is to be defended by the state, or volunteers from the right to life claque.
Nobody but lawyers will like it, but both sides will get partial victory.
October 15, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
Ling, what is the law?
October 15, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
dianahsieh- That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person -- and individual.
A newborn infant "lives his own life"? That's a joke. A newborn is just as "dependent" on a caregiver as a fetus is on its mother, so if you base your decision on "dependency", you must endorse infanticide.
October 15, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Angelonthesidelines: said:
"As a antiabortion yet prochoice man, I recognize the right to life of unborn persons, and refuse to tell a woman what to do with her body,..."
Dude, take a stand for one side or the other, would ya?
October 15, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Blackie,
See the ugly compromise.
October 15, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
WestyJ,
The infant has a DOB and a name, this is personhood.
October 15, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
WestminsterJ, if a pregnant woman dies, so does the fetus. This can not necessarily be said of a newborn infant. That was their point.
October 15, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Angel- Our society could easily agree to give fetuses a name and a date of conception. You can't base "personhood" on such superficial criteria.
October 15, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Bagel- Actually, a fetus could be delivered alive from a recently dead mother, depending on circumstances, and, without intervention, the death of its mother would mean the death, after a time, of a newborn.
Of course there is a difference between a fetus and a born baby. The point is that the line isn't as sharp as pro-choicers like to maintain.
What pro-choicers simply can't come to grips with is that God, or Nature, or whatever you prefer, has chosen that new humans come into the world in the body of another. It is ludicrous to regard a fetus as simply "a part of a woman's body"; this is simply an abuse of Anglo-American notions of autonomy, the same notions that political "conservatives" use to argue against welfare, socilaized health care, etc. The truth is that a woman and her fetus are the most basic example of community. The pro-choice position attempts to destroy this fundamental community.
October 15, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
So, lets say a newly married couple honeymoons in Mexico. They (of course) consummate their nuptials and while in Mexico they conceive a child. They then return to Colorado to start their life together. Have they brought an illegal alien back, an undocumented zygote, a fertilized egg with no pass port. Can they be then brought to justice for harboring an illegal. Little did they know that sex on their honeymoon could make them felons. Married gay couples would be the only ones not in danger of committing such a crime, if only Colorado allowed same sex marriage. What a tangled web we are weaving here.
October 15, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Cel- I didn't say a fetus has to be regarded as a "person" for all purposes. I really don't think the debate should be framed as one of when someone becomes a "person". I'm arguing a broader issue than Amendment 59 (or whichever amendment it is). After all, an infant doesn't have some rights that adult citizens have, driving, voting, etc. There can be a progressive conferring of rights and responsibilities as human beings mature. The question is whether a fetus deserves legal protection of its life. Remember, causing the death or injury of a fetus is a crime in many states, over and above the crime against the woman.
October 15, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
"Our society could easily agree to give fetuses a name and a date of conception."
It could, but that would be flat-out insane.
"I didn't say a fetus has to be regarded as a "person" for all purposes."
Just for the purpose of giving it a name and a pre-birthday?
You're so confused you can't even argue with yourself.
NO ON 48!
October 15, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
So is rape a crime in many states. Are you advocating that a woman be made to carry that crime to term. Who's rights are you advocating violating? The fetus who is dependent on the mother and who may or may not yet be an individual person with constitutional rights, or the mother who is promised the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
October 15, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
A fetus being delivered from a dead mother is only viable in extremely late stage pregnancy, which is not really the issue.
Can't come to grips that life begins in the body of another? I don't see where you get this. I fully accept that a unique human life begins at the moment of conception. What I do not accept is that the value of this life necessitates special protections.
October 15, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
hunterman- I don't argue with myself. You're so confused, you can't even come up with an intelligent insult. Numbnuts.
October 15, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverJoe writes:
Another lame arguement from the right. This guy is not pro life, he is pro birth. What happens to a child after they have been born is not his problem or concern. The social programs this guy probably resists with all his will are the types of safety nets society needs if you really want to make a dent in abortion. Step up to the plate Mr. Forman and commit to responsibility for all the wards of the state you will create or the programs needed to help those women who find themselves in this tough decision. Step up to the late and adopt a child and write about the moral detachment you have for other children, not your own. Step up to the plate and support repreductive education so the ignorance you propogate through restrictions in education funding stop leading to more unplanned pregnancies. Step up and walk the walk. Be like Jesus and sacrifice your own comfort and life style to help those you look down upon and resent by supporting them and their child. But that is not your goal, is it? Pro birth or pro life? What are you?
October 15, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Cel- I don't accept that a mother's right to life, liberty and happiness entails a right to kill her fetus. I think it's rather tragic that we pit a mother's welfare against that of her fetus.
October 15, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I can understand (if not agree with) the right to liberty and happiness not overriding the righ to to life ot a fetus, but how can you argue that a mother's right to life would not entail her the right to kill her fetus?
October 15, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Bagel- Protecting a human life against deliberate killing is a "special" protection? Where do you get that definition of "special"?
When, in your view, does a "unique human life", which you admitted a fetus is, merit protection?
October 15, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Simple, when any of these three criteria are met:
1.) Can it feel pain?
2.) Does it have higher brain function?
3.) Has it already been born?
Not that #3 is an end-all argument for me (I support the death penalty, assisted suicide for terminally ill people, and removal of life support for those with no hope of recovery).
October 15, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Clarification: #2 in my list is far and away the most important consideration (to me at least). Plants are known to withdraw from noxious stimuli, which could be considered a pain reaction. That doesn't mean I think it's immoral to end their life.
October 15, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
whitecat writes:
Wow, that has to be just about the dumbest argument ever. Abortion = slavery? Darwin's "bogus" theory? (I suppose the theory of gravity is "bogus" too.)
Ignorance abounds.
So how is forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term NOT slavery? You're proposing that her body, and every organ in it, be used to preserve another "life" (I'm using your definition of life, not mine) that you consider more important than hers. You're making HER less than human and refusing her the control of her own body to the detriment of her health.
Make abortion illegal and you've set legal precedent for forcing people to allow their bodies to be used to preserve another's life - by forced donations of bone marrow, blood, and organs.
Let's say I'm dying from diseased kidneys. Yours are both healthy and you're a perfect match. If you refuse to give me a kidney, you're saying my life is worth less than yours, that I am less than human. That is a grievous wrong. Hand it over.
The anti-choicers always fail to take their arguments to the only logical conclusion: A government that can outlaw abortion and mandate forced pregnancy can also mandate abortion and outlaw pregnancy. No government should have power over either one. That is why it's called "choice."
October 15, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
Numbnuts. Now there's a comeback. I maintain you are stupid, as clearly shown in my previous post. NO ON 48!
October 15, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
Westy, Yes I agree, it is tragic. But so isn't war and the death of our soldiers. tragic, but it is what technology has given us. Just out of curiosity, how much time and money do you donate to the children "in the system"? Do you have any adopted children or do you foster any? Tragic indeed. But what is also tragic is forcing an unwanted pregnancy on someone. People die every day of illnesses and that is truly tragic, when a family has had to watch a mother or father waste away from cancer or something else, but just as tragic is the disease that afflicts "throw-away children", tragic is the disease that is poverty that those children and mothers so often have to live in, and tragic is the neglected child that a mother would be forced to carry to term.
October 15, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
gatengreen writes:
Whether it be genocide or abortion, it is the killing of the unwanted.
Think about that before you vote.
October 15, 2008
6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
With their primal bloodthirsty desire to cannibalize the young of others, the leftists on this thread really do make a good case for Darwin's "theory"...
October 15, 2008
7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Marshdale writes:
Mr. Forman calls Darwins Theory "bogus".
Get real. First of all he needs to look up the deffinition of a "theory." Something becomes a theory only after it is tested repeatedly and comes out with the same result time and time again."
Umm, no that would be a scientific law such as I=V/R... The last time I looked theory was still theoretical, which can run the gammut of wearing tinfoil hats to keep the aliens from reading your thoughts to E=MC²...
What most of you lefty sheep don't seem to get is that Darwinism is the official RELIGION of Marxism... When your religion tells you that you are barely above animals, instinct becomes more important than morality so abortion becomes an act of mere convenience rather than taking moral responsibility for your actions... As they say, when people want to treat animals as human they also want to treat humans as animals...
October 15, 2008
9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Hazardous, perhaps you can explain to all us dumb scientists why the General Theory of Relativity is more accurate than Newton's Law of Gravity.
Once again, people try to poke holes in things they do not understand.
October 15, 2008
10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Perhaps Bagel, with his/her/it's superior intellect can explain the inaccuracies of F = ma...
October 15, 2008
10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
Our society recognizes a person to be legally dead when brain function ceases. Why not recognize somebody to be legally alive when brain function begins? This occurs (based on heart beat and response to outside stimulus) between 5-10 weeks post-conception. Thus, for a child beyond this time, an abortion should be limited to safety of the mother or in cases where quality of life of the child (based on genetic anomalies) is compromised - and in both cases, the choice would be left to the mother.
This would eliminate the controversy of 'morning after' contraception and stem cell research, while preserving a developing human life. And while I agree the solution is not perfect (not satisfying pro-life or pro-choice extremists), it would probably satisfy that vast majority of the populace, who don't cling to either extreme.
October 16, 2008
1:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Derge writes:
I'm not incline to retyping. Below was my analysis on Amend. 48:
Here's my analysis of 48
* It does not criminalize abortion.
* It allows charges to criminals who harm a pregnant woman. At this time the laws are ambivalent to whether a person is charged with an additional count. Example: Drunk driver hits, kills a pregnant woman. Child dies. Woman doesn't. No manslaughter charges can be filed.
* It allows the father a choice. Right now, if a man doesn't want the child, he has no say. If he does, he has no say. Yet after birth society expects the father complete responsibility.
* Abortion should be allowed for rape/incest/mother's heath. Statistically these occurances are non-existent.
Abortion has been abused: 2/3rds are white women, occuring between 15-24. Majority in middle-high income brackets.
Spare me the 'poor minority who cannot take care of her children' rhetoric. These are white suburbans females who believe fixing a 'mistake' is taking an unborn life.
Given medical care, a fetus can survive outside the womb after 4.5 months.
Besides, many surveyed felt 'rushed' into abortion. 2/3rds again encouraged by parents or social workers.
THAT is sickening.
"When do we draw a line to women killing babies simply because they don't feel like having the baby? "
Then hunterman writes:
When it's your own body.
Any more stupid questions?"
How is that stupid? Might as well kill toddlers also. It's the womans choice, right? By golly, choice is so important, we should just kill about anything we want, now shall we?
If the choice is -only- the mothers, then the father shouldn't be held fully responsible to any outcomes if he wants an abortion and she doesn't. Remember; it's the woman's choice, but the man's wallet.
October 16, 2008
7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Hazardous, at non-relativistic speeds Newton's law of resultant force is perfectly fine to use. It is only at speeds approaching that of light that it breaks down and special relativity must be considered.
But of course you didn't really care, you were just trying to dodge the fact that you don't understand what weight a scientific theory holds.
October 19, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
Bagel,
If you're a scientist, I fear for the state of science education in our nation.
You seem to misunderstand the terms Theory and Law. Theories are scientifically unproven. Laws have the weight of proof. While evolution might have sound scientific bases, it has neither been observed nor reproduced. Gravity, on the other hand, has observable and reproducible effects.
I would pose that it is you who does not understand the weight a scientific theory really holds. To paraphrase the old adage: Theorize in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which fills up first.