A Pro-life Discussion on The View with Video

Via Amy Wellborn:

The View

I don't watch it, but yesterday there was a battle royale over the proposed plan to sell the morning-after pill over the counter.
You can watch it here - apparently Elizabeth Hassleback defended the pro-life position, Joyce Behar was obnoxious and Barbara Walters lectured her.

A summary here.

My Opinion:

I don't watch the View either, but it seems that they cut off Elizabeth when she was just getting started on explaining her opinion on the Morning After Pill. She didn't even get a chance to explain how it is dangerous to the mother (How it can cause strokes, blood clots, heart attacks, and infertility.) and how there's nothing to stop those 18 or older from giving it to minors when it sold over the counter. I thought that they were all pretty close minded with the exception of Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the only one in the group who was willing to acknowledge the truth -- that by taking the morning after pill you are destroying the life of a human being.

I am going to add that I have personally been in Elizabeth's position before -- the only pro-lifer in a group of pro-death advocates -- and it takes courage to stand up for your beliefs when those around you are calling you an extremist and are ganging up on you. I think that's why she backed down a little, referring to the facts as her opinion. It was good, however, to see someone with morals on TV for a change.

Comments

  1. Hooray for Elizabeth for standing up to those selfish women! I wonder if Barbara Walters would have called for calm on April 25 a few years ago when the pro-aborts organized that ridiculous "March to Save Women's Lives" in Washington, DC. My daughter was there praying SILENTLY along the sidelines while the marchers shouted profanities at her. Obviously, the call for "reason" and "calm" only applies to those of us who passionately recognize that a fertilized egg is a human life. As for Ms. Behar, she only proved our point with her example that the morning after pill is going to be taken as back up to a "mistake", not for those extremely rare cases of incest or rape, as Barbara Walters was trying to say. If someone has been raped, wouldn't she report it and then be seen by a doctor, who would then administer the drug (and it is NOT medicine, Elizabeth!) If we are talking about incest, which is typically committed on minors, then how would that girl go about obtaining this drug? It seems to me that the rapist who commits the crime would be the logical person (or an enabler in the family)to obtain the drug and administer it to the young victim. Does anyone believe the crime of incest would then cease to occur? Please! I know I am rambling. Forgive me. One last thought - We have been told that the drug only works if taken within the first 72 hours after having had sex. If taken beyond that time, harm can come to the fetus as a result of being exposed to this high dosage of hormones. We have no way of knowing how this drug is going to be misused. And the truth is that the pro-aborts don't care! This is just their way of taking abortion underground because they have seen the photos of hacked up babies, and they know abortion is WRONG. The nightmare continues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When will pro-aborts realize that "women's right to choose" is not a logical argument for anything?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous,

    You bring up a lot of good points. Most pro-aborts can be as outrageous and obnoxious as they desire, but when pro-lifers simply attempt to defend their position verbally or do nothing other than pray silently, as your daughter did, the pro-aborts attack them. I have had it happen quite a few times to me. They are frightened by us because we represent the truth and that is scary to them.

    The family member committing incest was the first thought that came to my mind and then the older man purchasing these for the minor he is taking advantage of was second. There is bound to be much abuse if these are sold over the counter. These pills will only make it easier for the abuser to continue his deviant and violent behavior.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    God bless you,
    Jean

    ReplyDelete
  4. George,

    I have heard that tired argument for years and am sick of it -- it makes no sense whatever.

    When they say that, I usually respond in this way:

    The preborn is not a part of the woman's body. Once fertilization occurs, a new, unique, individual human being is created. The baby that is created as a result of fertilization is a human being. Genetically he is complete. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

    While the preborn child resides within his mother, he is truly an individual, possessing his own body, metabolism, genetic makeup and unique destiny.

    The preborn is not the woman's property. This concept is an explicit sanction of filial slavery. Parents are legal guardians of children, never legal owners.

    Human beings may never be considered the property of another. All are "created equal," and possess an inherent dignity because they are a part of the human family.

    Prohibiting abortion cannot be equated with "forced motherhood" or feminine servility. Once a woman has conceived a child, a new, unique individual human being has been created. Thus, the woman is already a mother; the separate life within her is her child. "Forced motherhood," rather than an apt description of anti-abortion law, is more appropriately a description of rape with the intent to impregnate. Prohibiting abortion does not force conception or motherhood, it protects the human being already conceived.

    Even if the woman's body was our only concern, there are still legal limits on human behavior-social constraints on individuals for the common good. An individual's rights usually end where another's rights begin. Killing someone is the greatest violation of another's rights.

    Yet even beyond this, people are governed by social constraints for the common good. Thus, drug use and other destructive behavior is prohibited even though the user is acting upon his or her own body. Likewise, prostitution is prohibited, even though the prostitute has individual autonomy over his or her body in other circumstances. Further, people are obliged to pay taxes, support public schools etc.-all for the common good. People wishing to remain free members of society have to accept just constraints upon their personal freedom. Without just constraints, anarchy and anomie will result.

    Thanks for your comment!

    God bless you,
    Jean

    ReplyDelete
  5. God Bless Elizabeth, I feel bad for her being the lone good person in a den of wolves.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated and are published at the blogger's discretion.

Blog Archive

Show more

Popular posts from this blog

St. Raymond Nonnatus, Patron of Expectant Mothers, Midwives, and Newborn Babies

The Spirituality and Miracles of St. Clare of Assisi

St. Josaphat, Patron Saint of the Ukraine