It’s hard to miss the big news story of the week. Britain’s Prince William and Catherine Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, are expecting a baby. The news broke sooner than the royal family were probably intending. The Duchess is experiencing severe morning sickness which forced her to be hospitalized.

I know there’s a great deal of excitement in the air regarding this pregnancy. I fear, however, cooler heads need to prevail. There seem to be reasonable issues on the table here making an abortion a good option for the royal family. Here are just three examples why William and Kate should terminate the pregnancy:

First, the royal couple have not even been married for two years yet. They have their whole life in front of them. There will be plenty of time to settle down and start a family. Right now, however, is not a good time. They need to first travel the world and enjoy their youth.

Second, Kate is very early in her pregnancy. Yes, the news is saying she is pregnant with a “baby.” Does anyone know who the uneducated backwoods hick is feeding such silliness to the news agencies? Anyone with even a high-school education should know Kate simply has a blob of cells inside her starting as a zygote forming into a fetus. Kate is simply experiencing a parasite feeding off of her body. No wonder she’s sick. If Kate terminated the pregnancy right now she would be well in her rights since the parasite is so early in development. If it were removed right now it could not survive outside the womb, no harm, no foul.

Third, someone has to think about Kate’s health. Our planet has advanced so far in support of women’s health. It’s a shame for us all to sit back and allow ourselves to be thrown back into the dark ages as Kate suffers. I’m thankful to be far enough removed from the situation to be able to think clearly on this point. Kate is obviously suffering due to this parasite. Kate is an intelligent, professional woman with the entire world in front of her. Why should we allow her to suffer? Perhaps William is a selfish jerk? He doesn’t seem like it, but do you really ever know somebody? Someone needs to make sure William is not forcing her to have the baby against her will. Kate, if you’re reading this, think about yourself.

Should William and Kate get an abortion? If the same reasoning used throughout the developed civilized world is used in William & Kate’s situation the answer very well could be: yes. They should get an abortion.

I think this situation, however, has revealed something inside the heart of all people. The entire world would rightfully place our hands over our mouths and gasp if William and Kate decided to terminate the pregnancy. If their explanation was, “Well, it was just not the right time. We’ve only been married for a year and a half. Kate was suffering with morning sickness. We’ll start a family some day, but not today.”

William and Kate are going to press on through the pregnancy because this child is special. This child is destined for royalty. Any current pain will be long forgotten over a lifetime of joy with this child. Sure, things aren’t pretty today but they won’t stay that way. Psalm 30:5 speaks into this concept when it says, “Weeping may last for the night, but joy comes with the morning.

Christians believe something explicitly which the world is currently applying implicitly to William & Kate’s fetus.

Christians believe every child is special. Not just because they are being born into a royal family, but because every human is made in the image of God (imago dei). Every child is considered a “baby” as soon as the egg and sperm meet together. No one on the BBC is saying, “Hold on, let’s wait to call this thing a baby until late in the third trimester.” They aren’t talking this way because this is a special child. For some reason, however, abortion is understandable and makes sense for someone who is not part of a royal family. Is this fair?

Does it make sense to gasp at the abortion of a royal family baby while applauding the progressive state which allows for unwed teenage girls to take care of their mistakes? Or to champion woman rights when a middle-aged woman terminates the life of a much younger tiny girl because of “family planning.” I’m glad the non-royal, unwed teenage moms of Barack Obama, Steve Jobs and Jesus did not “take care” of their fetus.

The Bible teaches that people who have put their trust in Jesus are forever adopted into God’s family. Christians believe every little child, regardless of socio-economic status, is born into a world with God holding out his hand of salvation…desiring to adopt this person into the family of the King of Kings. The most royal of all families!

Furthermore, regarding morning sickness, we all know that will not last forever. I have watched my wife suffer through morning sickness three times. My wife would say it was all worth it because of the amazing joy we now have from our three children. We would be disappointed if Kate gets an abortion because we all know life changes. Situations that seem beyond hope usually end up getting better.

The teenage girl who sees no hope in her situation is unable to see her life in ten years. She’s unable to even consider the possibility of giving the baby to parents desperate for a child. She thinks abortion is the only way. Our society applauds her short-sightedness.

I plead with you who are pro-choice AND excited about William & Kate’s baby. Please be intellectually honest. Please apply the same human rights to the first-trimester child of royalty as you do the first-trimester child of a nobody.

Author Note: I give credit to Denny Burk for the idea of this post. I saw a title of a post he recently wrote giving me the idea for this post. I purposefully, however, have not read his post because I didn’t want to be influenced by his ideas. Now I will head over to see what he wrote.


    68 replies to "Should William & Kate Get an Abortion?"

    • adrian

      What are you guys on? This article is sickening, inappropriate and just plain out of order. UNSUBSCRIBE

    • Tim Kimberley

      Adrian,

      I please ask you to read the entire post. If you have read the whole post and still feel it is sickening and inappropriate then I would ask for the opportunity to dialogue about my ideas in this post and why I felt it appropriate to communicate.

      -Tim

    • Leslie Jebaraj

      Excellent post!

    • Yeah this was a bit over the top! Now an article/post about William and Kate’s sex life, now there we are okay! We buy mag’s/papers about such! 😉

    • Satire!!!

    • Mike O

      I don’t know if it’s appropriate to post youtube videos here, so I will 🙂

      This is a video of Kenny Chesney’s song, “There Goes My Life.”

      My wife and I have never had an abortion, but this song speaks such hope to those who are considering it …

    • Chris

      I believe Adrian may be referring to the overt and extreme political correctness in the article… Which is how the secular moral relativists approach issues…

      For example: you said you would be disappointed if Kate gets an abortion because we all know life changes.

      I would say we would be disappointed if she gets an abortion because a baby made in the image of God is getting slaughtered and that is a sin.

    • Tim Kimberley

      To those who have had an abortion let me be as clear as possible. This post is in no way written with you in mind. Let me say that again, this post is not for you.

      What I want to say to you is this: The blood of Jesus covers over all sins. My sins are no better than yours. There is forgiveness, restoration and redemption through Christ. If you have had an abortion I pray you would experience forgiveness and peace through Jesus. I also pray, however, that you’d use your experience to help other women avoid abortions and heal from past abortions.

      If you would like to talk to someone please click “contact us” in the top-right corner of the webpage.

      -Tim

    • adrian

      The Bible is PRO-LIFE from conception not just birth, apart from this bein exploit active PRO-CHOICE Political Propoganda.

    • Eliot

      Adrian, perhaps you missed the point of this article. The first part of it is satire. Tim is obviously pro-life and is making a pro-life point through the use of satire.

      Tim, whenever you write this way, you should be aware that there are many who do not seem able to grasp satire. I personally like it very much but there always seem to be many who miss the point entirely.

    • Carrie

      Adrian, if you think this blog is “Pro-Choice Political Propaganda” then you have 1. not read it or 2. did read it and simply failed to understand what was said.

      Firstly, Tim begins as devil’s advocate using the arguments so many of the Pro-Choice people use.

      Secondly, he makes it very clear why that Pro-Choice position is wrong.

      Thirdly, he stated his biblical case for why life is sacred and precious.

      Fourthly, he offered up but one of the many reasons a teen age girl has hope in the midst of an unwanted pregnancy.

      These are the very clear points made in the post and none of them even remotely hint at “pro-choice propaganda. ”

      That adrian, was a wrongly placed accusation and you should humbly apologize to the author. However judging from your last reply, I don’t foresee that happening.

    • Matt

      I am pro-life all the way, but the tone of this post is not helpful. Sarcasm (especially on the internet?) is inappropriate in this context, and it betrays the high standards of P&P. You could have made the same point without being a smart-a**. I say this respectfully and for your reflection. I’m a fan of this blog.

    • Martin

      Tim – Great article!! Keep up the good work.

    • C Michael Patton

      Great stuff. Sometimes we need to color outside the lines to make point. Especially when you are talking about this issue! And we do have a little more progressive audience than others.

    • blackhaw

      I like the post. Sometimes satire is appropriate. I think it shows the immoral conclusions that are the results of some of the pro-choice arguments. It is also displaying how these arguments really are not even used except in polemics against pro-lifers. the Pro-choice argument seems clear. In the end the mother ALONE decides if the fetus growing inside her is a baby or a parasite or a blob of cells that can be discarded. I think that view is wrong head and immoral but it seems to be the real crux to the pro-choice argument. all these other arguments are a smoke screen. Many pro-lifers would state that God makes the choice in most if not all situations. It is not a choice any person whether the mother or not should be allowed to make. I think that makes more sense.

      But this article uses satire in a proper way to expose illogical and just plain stupid thinking. Its shock value helps some pay attention and read the whole article instead of passing it by. I know I would not have read it without the title. I really like the article.

    • Solid Color Style

      The embryo, the fetus, is not a zygote. It probably was one, but it didn’t stay a zygote very long. Please update your article for scientific precision.

      • C Michael Patton

        It is satire. Not sure if scientific precision is helpful. It will take away from the way you are making your point.

    • Tim Kimberley

      Solid Color Style,

      Fair enough…I made some adjustments to the article and changed zygote to fetus when it referred to longer than the very beginning of conception.

      thanks,
      Tim

    • teleologist

      They should have an abortion because they have a right to do it, but more importantly as royals they should set an example for the rest of the world to control the population like some of our atheist friends would like to engineer. (satire if there is any doubt)

    • Gary Simmons

      The satire was appropriate, IMO. Good post.

      However: it is true that some people fail to grasp satire/sarcasm. I remember I left Theologica a few years back over that, in fact. I made a point that subtly made fun of seminary education (my own background) and called nursing “labor” (by which I meant “hard work”, not “blue collar”/”unskilled”). Someone with inferiority issues about not having a seminary education took it rather wrong.

      Which is a lesson to us all: sarcasm is saying the exact opposite of what you mean. Make sure you are ready to own up to the consequences of someone taking you as meaning exactly what you say. Because it will happen. Murphy’s law.

    • Much of the OT Prophets has satire in it! Indeed biblical satire is a certain symbolic reality. Indeed in the Book of Ezekiel for example there many genres converge in the Text.

    • teleologist

      And don’t forget Elijah with the prophets of Baal.

    • Courtney G

      Tim,
      I get the “satire” of this post. But much of the power it could have had is lost in semantics. The words “Pro-Choice” and “Pro -Life” are non-sensical and hold very little weight with most people these days. If you are currently alive and breathing, you are “Pro-Life”. If you like to make your own decisions about things that happen, you are also “Pro-Choice”. Neither of these have anything to do with the prolific, and systematic killing of babies that are still in their mothers womb. If you really feel passionate about addressing the tragedy of abortion in the world and our society as a whole, call it what it is, genocide or baby killing. I applaud you for brining up the issue of abortion to your readers but be sure you check the facts before you write a post that is not intended for those who have actually had and abortion, since 1 in 3 women in Oklahoma will have an abortion by age 45 with 73% of those claiming religious affiliations. So I will assume, many of your readers have experienced abortion but have not told anyone and most likely never will due the the shame, fear and guilt that they feel, especially if they’ve recently given their life to JESUS. Again, I applaud you brining up such a desperate and atrocious practice in our society and one that most churches won’t touch with a ten foot pole. But there will not be any real shift or dramatic reduction in abortions until the women who have experienced this horror feel confident, forgiven and loved and will come forward to tell the truth about this god less act. Our job is to continue to remind these women that nothing can keep them from the love of their LORD JESUS. Thank you for all you do at and through Credo House.

    • David Campton

      I’m no stranger to the use of satire myself, and have got it badly wrong in the past, but I think this post is monumentally crass. Kate and William are not just characters in a royal soap opera, they are real people in a real time of personal crisis (made worse through the crass acts of australian DJs). To capitalise on this crisis to make a relatively ill-thought through argument regarding abortion is appalling. The arguments you posit in favour of abortion are all “straw men” and where they are used to justify abortions should be challenged (in a sensitive, pastoral encounter – rather than through the safe distance of a blog or even a broadcast or a pulpit. What was not addressed here is that many of those who choose abortions do not have the level of medical support or financial stability that Kate and William do… That is not an excuse for abortion but a reason to improve medical support for the poor… Also, do not belittle the level of psychological disturbance that severe emenesis can cause… as a chaplain to a hospital (that does not provide abortion on demand) I have had to deal with a number of cases of women who have been so sick that they have attempted suicide… or bought abortifacient drugs off the internet and nearly died through their use. For such women the knowledge that the sickness will pass is not enough… The old joke was that with sea sickness you first were so sick you feared you were going to die, and then became so sick that you feared you wouldn’t. That feeling is no joke with such extreme pregnancy related sickness and has implications for parents (both parents) bonding with children. Again this is not an argument for abortion but for much better healthcare. But it is also an argument for much more sensitivity when discussing such issues.

    • teleologist

      @Campton

      this post is monumentally crass. Kate and William are not just characters in a royal soap opera

      If the reason you think this post is crass is because K&W was taken advantage of then I would have to disagree. Unless I’ve missed something the object of ridicule are not the Royals but rather those who favored abortion. As to the rest of your comments I’ll leave it for others to take them on if they so choose.

    • Lily

      Tim,
      I’m sorry, but I believe the approach to this issue was absurd. Because if people really are pro-choice, they would respect Will and Kate’s decision to abort, regardless of their royal titles. It’s NO one’s business what they do with their family. And the reasons you listed satirically don’t even apply to them because they said they were planning a family, therefore this pregnancy was not unplanned (and celebrated, since they chose to announce it to the world). Nor does morning sickness pose any real threat to Kate’s life. If it did, then I would hope no one would judge them if they made the decision to save her.
      You’re not going to appeal to anyone who is pro-choice with this argument. It’s actually insulting their intellect, assuming that they’d only value Kate’s child because its a future monarch. That’s pretty shallow. If they did get an abortion, the people who would judge and oppose her decision are the people who are already pro-life. And the people who would respect her decision are people who are already pro-choice.

      I also want to speak to insensitivity with this article. When people discuss abortion, I’d love to see it done with respect for the other side, and DEEP understanding that this issue is nearly an impossible one. BOTH sides believe they are advocating for who they consider to be the victim. People who are pro-life are not woman-haters- they wish to protect the unborn. And those who are pro-choice are not baby-hating, genocidal monsters- they are simply advocating for a woman who is facing an incredibly difficult situation. Sarcasm doesn’t really have a place in the abortion debate. Sensitivity does.

      Lastly, the bible does not explicitly say ANYTHING about abortion. Zero. Your god DID however, command parents to stone their children to death if they were disobedient. So before we assume what this deity would think about abortion, an honest look at his regard for innocent life should be considered. He’s destroyed…

      • C Michael Patton

        Lily, I think that your response will be ineffective. It is not even satire, but pure emotional verbage that will doubtfully contribute anything to this debate.

        However, satire may go a long way in saying the same thing in a different way for some people. It’s an emotional topic and needs some new directions every once in a while.

    • Amen Michael! Lily just made it from her personal supposition, but really from her own liberal presupposition, towards the doctrine of God! Indeed, “pure emotional verbage”!

    • Francis

      I know almost everyone commented here so far are pro-life so far, but Lily has a point: if people really are pro-choice, they would respect Will and Kate’s decision to abort, regardless of their royal titles.

      Pro-choice doesn’t automatically lead to abortions — the decision is left to the mother, and in this particular case the mother decides to keep the baby. Pro-life on the other hand, almost always automatically lead to keeping the fetus/baby (after checking all the qualifiers).

      Now I realize that this article is satire, but frankly, it’s a satire by a pro-lifer for pro-lifers, who probably don’t even understand what pro-choice stands for.

    • blackhaw

      Francis,

      “Pro-choice doesn’t automatically lead to abortions — the decision is left to the mother . .. ”

      This is actually what I said pro-choice is all about. I am a pro-lifer. BTW, I do think that view is pretty scary. The woman often gets to decide if a human being is killed or not. And the state supports it. That is scary.

      I think you misunderstood the post like it seems many did. I see most of the post as satirizing some of the very popular arguments that pro-choicers make in defense of abortion. No one is arguing for the couple to have an abortion and I think the article actually works because the family is a royal family and that no one (including the mother) wants to abort the baby.

      But anyways I think many of the posts are just very emotionally driven and seem to not really engage the actual article that was written or the other posts afterward.

    • teleologist

      Just saw this tweet from Tullian Tchividjian, don’t know if it actually came from the Seinfeld show or not, but it does encapsulate the atheist mindset.

      Therapist: “I thought you didn’t believe in God.”
      George Costanza: “I do for the bad things.”

      For more on the atheist death cult mindset check out names like Pianka, Mims and PZ Myers.

    • […] is the question my friend Michael Patton of The Credo House asks in this post on his […]

    • @Tel., Indeed this world and life, is really death, or just dead, spiritually. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Ps. 14:1) Note this place of the atheist/fool is more of moral perversity, and not just mere ignorance or weakness of reason. Indeed “folly”!

    • Airien

      Kate should abort so she can keep her career going. Pushing papers around an office (or whatever she does) will bring far more personal fulfillment than raising a child or having her grandchildren gather around her in her old age.

      Why do you hate women?

      Also, I’m not sure how exactly but this post is racist.

    • teleologist

      @Fr R, Amen and (Romans 1:21) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    • Lily

      Dear Fr. Robert,

      I’m not sure if you realize that your posts come off unloving, (also the person who posted before) . Especially where you wrote “atheist/fool,” and when you heartily agreed with the person who said that what I wrote was emotional verbiage. My tone isn’t critical- it’s more of a plea. I used to be a Christian and one of the things I loved about Jesus (and still do) is how kind he was toward unbelievers, and how quickly he came down on those who weren’t. I have a lot of awesome Christian friends who I love dearly, but when I get spoken to the way you just did, it really disheartens me about the church. I encourage you to consider this, as yours is an evangelistic religion, and being addressed as you have is why a lot of us run from the church.
      I made a valid point which deserved some consideration rather than ridicule. Thank you.
      Check out http://www.rereform.com/theexchange/ for a conversation between a Christian and an ex-Christian that is respectful, thoughtful, and honest.

    • Lily

      Theologist,
      You too. PLEASE, realize how hurtful it is to post things like what you just did. The Bible also says ALL wisdom is foolish in the eyes of God. And warns against judging the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a giant plank in yours. Continuing to call non-believers “fools” is just mean, and, from what I understand of God, unacceptable. This won’t win anyone over.

    • teleologist

      @Lily

      I’m not sure if you realize that your posts come off unloving…Especially where you wrote “atheist/fool,”…when I get spoken to the way you just did, it really disheartens me about the church…and being addressed as you have is why a lot of us run from the church…warns against judging the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a giant plank in yours.

      I have never known an atheist or so called ex-Christian like yourself who is slow to criticize or be unkind toward Christians. I know you won’t like reading this and probably write this off as unloving so you don’t have to consider it, but facts do matter don’t you think? But if you are willing to listen let me lay it out for you. It is hypocritical of you to judge Christians as unkind because we criticize those whom we believe are committing egregious acts of evil when you are doing the same thing by criticizing Christians for criticizing. As a former so called Christians you should know how sincere we feel about these issues. We are not criticizing the atheists out of malice or personal vendetta but because we view what you are doing is an offense to human beings and God. You may disagree with our values but there should be no disagreement on our intent. If you disagree with us fine but do not for a second think that you are more loving or superior by giving yourself the right to criticize Christians but deny Christians the moral grounds to criticize you. This is fact one.

      Fact #2, let me remind you how you started your criticism of Christians.

      Your god DID however, command parents to stone their children to death if they were disobedient. So before we assume what this deity would think about abortion, an honest look at his regard for innocent life should be considered. He’s destroyed…

      Let me ask you, how would you like it if someone starts a conversation with you by unjustly attacking the person that you love the most in life? I think…

    • teleologist

      Let me ask you, how would you like it if someone starts a conversation with you by unjustly attacking the person that you love the most in life? I think we responded quite kindly to you considering what you have done. Frankly I am not going to waste my time to correct your mischaracterization and jaundice view of Scripture. One because I doubt it will do any good, two if you were really interested in understanding what the Scripture said there are mountains of books readily available that would explain all these tired attacks on the Bible. But let me just address your protest against our use of the word fool. I am sorry that you take offense at this but the fact remains that I think you and all those who reject God is a fool. What is a fool? A fool is someone who lacks wisdom or intelligence to choose what is best. A fool is someone who deliberately stick their hand in the fire. A fool is someone who deliberately choose suffering and death rather than joy and life. The fool in the Biblical sense are those who think they are the master of their own destiny and the sole judge of what is right and wrong, instead of acknowledging and giving glory to the Creator who created them. Again I don’t expect you to agree with this but that is our definition of a fool. Again it is not an invective but a statement of fact as far as we are concerned. No one that you’ve mentioned have been mean to you and I serious doubt the reason you or an atheist have “run from the church” is because someone was mean to you. You’ve rejected God long before that and this is just an excuse for you to put all Christians down. Why do I think this? Consider the reverse if an atheist was mean to you would that be the sole cause for you to run from atheism, I doubt it. So if you want to have a conversation about substance fine but don’t try to silence criticisms by berating our motives.

    • @Lily: I have nothing to apologize for, and certainly not the quote from Pslam 14: 1! if you were offended, good! The Word of God often is meant to “offend” our senses and sin nature!

      As to agreeing with Michael, well as we can see, you are as I have said, attacking the “Doctrine of God”, as the Word of God itself! Btw, you might want to read Matthew chapters 22 & 23. In 22 Jesus answers the Herodians, and the Sadducees, and then answers the Pharisees. And in chapter 23 Jesus marks and denounces the Pharisees, themselves. And in both chapters, we can see the real religion of “Israel”, at the time of Jesus.

      WE are all of us “religious” beings, whether we realize it or not! For we all simply have to worship something or someone, and if not God, or a god, then we will worship ourselves! Simply, were sinners, and just sinful beings, even as Christians, but true Christians live in the tension of the already but not yet! Forgiven, and redeemed, but not yet removed fully, from “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” But, if you have once followed Christ and have now turned back, read Hebrews 6: 1-8, etc.

    • And I too agree with Tel’s words!

    • Lily

      I see. Since you don’t know me, you don’t know my heart/motives/character, I am surprised about all the assumptions you’re making. I’m guessing you didn’t follow my link to the book I’m writing, which is a loving exchange between myself and a believer ( http://www.rereform.com/theexchange/ ). I have a lot of Christian friends. They are wonderful. They welcome my questions and concerns instead of dismissing them or getting defensive. A really good friend was just telling me about Habakuk, where he was yelling at god, asking him a lot of tough questions, and god welcomed them. So did Jesus. He reached out the “poor in spirit.”
      You really have zero self-reflection over your words? I would encourage you to absorb the character of Jesus more. I think he would be sad about your attitude toward me. Thanks.

    • Lily

      Also, spelling out the definition of fool was not necessary. All wisdom is foolishness in God’s eyes. Even yours. Why point the finger, then?
      I’m not faulting you for having strong convictions. At all. I think the abortion debate is really challenging, as I’ve said, and both sides are just trying to protect the person they consider to be the victim. I get it. I don’t like abortion, either. I was merely pointing out that the WAY in which those convictions were initially (and continue to be) expressed were not promoting reflection, and rather, were alienating to anyone not agreeing with you. Is it possible to have the same convictions, same discussions, same exchanges, but without putting down the individual? I didn’t come in attacking YOU, but questioning THE BIBLE. Which is not only valid, but I think, a good thing. One SHOULD question such claims. And as believers, you should welcome the opportunity with loving hearts.

    • @Lily: This is a blog, we cannot possibily “know” each other, but only debate and dialogue the blog subject, and biblical issues, etc. But since you are no longer a Christian and now an atheist, you put “yourself” in a position of unbelief, simply! And the Bible is itself always the Holy Scripture for us Christans!

      Note, I have not really commented here straight-up on this subject of abortion, itself. But it is certainly evil!

    • teleologist

      Michael could you check you comments filter I probably have a couple of duplicate comments stuck in there.

    • krista

      As I started to read this article, I was very upset and thought how could anyone call a baby a parasite? Then as I read on my anger went away. Good job at pulling the reader in! I believe that life begins at conception! Psalm139:13-14

    • Nick AK

      I for one appreciate satire. I am against abortion and teach against it to the youth in my church exclaiming the murder that it is. With that said, I am a murderer, (no satire) I talked my girlfriend into an abortion when I was in high school. Now working with youth, I have the privaledge of interacting with kids everyday that are the same age as my aborted child would have been. I know this is a touchy subject but we must be honest about the whole thing. I now had 2 kids and a beautiful wife to share life with but the truth on my past and the pain it brings can help other to avoid the same selfish mistakes. I’m not really trying to make a point on this one, keep it up Tim, just roll with it.

    • teleologist

      @Lily, Do you know how hypocritical you are being? Time and time again you chastise me for doing exactly what you are doing. You accuse me of not knowing your heart, but you presume to know mine? You accuse me of making assumptions but you do the same. You accuse me of having zero self-reflection but you do? You claim to be merely pointing out how my convictions came out but not how your own convictions came out. You accuse me of putting down individual but you have done nothing but put me down personally. You probably don’t even realize it but I suggest you get off your self-righteous high horse if you want to have a civil substantive conversation. I don’t mind if your criticisms are more insensitive and harsher than mine but please don’t be hypocritical about it. One last thing you deny that you came attacking but just asking questions. Let’s be honest, you know that is not true go back and read the last paragraph of you original comment.

    • David

      Sadly, Matt, this is not sarcasm. The first half of this article was like I was reading something serious from Buzzfeed. It’s how the world thinks.

    • Another Amen from me, Tel! I responded to her original comment, myself, and we both know what that was. My question for her would be, do you believe in evil, and if so just what is it? Merely a human thing, or is evil a paranormal and spiritual reality?

    • Melody

      I think we all know that science doesn’t really play into the pro-choice argument. If it did then the request for informed decisions being required would not be met with such emotional uproar from the pro-choice side. For example the requirement of ultra-sounds before an abortion brings screaming declarations of invasive procedure by the pro-choice side. The right to change your mind after viewing an ultra-sound to NOT have an abortion is unacceptable. That is because the decision to destroy the life inside of us is built on lies coming from the father of lies who does not value human life but hates it.

    • Francis

      blackhaw,

      I am by no means pro-choice, although I do empathize with some of their arguments. (I can actually empathize with a lot of those arguments put up by atheists despite not agreeing with them… which makes me a poor choice in a debate.)

      What troubles me isn’t that this post satirizes popular arguments by pro-choicers — because it didn’t really address anything, apart from making a bad joke. Specifically, examples #1&3 are potential reasons behind individual decisions to terminate pregnancy, not arguments for pro-choice. In other words, a pro-choicer may disagree with these reasons, yet still support abortion as a legal (and moral) option for women. Because ultimately it’s an “individual rights” issue to them, and whether these rights are abused or not is some other issue altogether.

      So in the end, I see that this article argues for pro-lifer (it certainly generated a lot of Amen’s), but fail to see how it argues against pro-choicers.

    • Carl Peterson

      Francis,

      I agree with much of your assesment of the pro-choice position but this article dos address some of the arguments pro-choice proponents might use to argue for the individual (really the woman’s) right to choose. The arguments give ethical reasoning behind allowing individuals to have the right to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. Not all pro-choicers will agree with the reasons satired in the piece above but they are reasons given by more than just a small minority of women for the right to choose.

      For example I might argue that a woman should not have that righ because she should not have the right to kill a human being without just cause. I hav heard women and sympathetic men use those types of arguments to justify why the woman is justified or has just cause to make a decision to end to life of the fetus.

      So while the reasons above are of individuals the reasons are still given to justify the right to choose. Again not all pro-choicers woul agree with these reasons or arguing for the pro-choice argument in this way but I think that a good number of pro-choice supporters do argue for a woman’s choice in this way.

      I do agree that ultimately the article is for those who believe in the pro-life argument and not pro-choicers.

      Thanks for the reply.

      Carl

    • teleologist

      Although this post started out as satire but now turned more serious someone can stop me if you want. But I am curious by this statement.

      @Francis, abortion as a legal (and moral) option for women. Because ultimately it’s an “individual rights”

      Could you explain the moral basis for abortion? Is this morality based on “individual rights”? Is every “right” moral?

    • Margaret W

      I personally think you wrote this to just cause trouble for Will & Kate. If I was in her shoes, this article would upset me terrible. I would wonder why someone thinks I should KILL my baby. All because their marriage has only been for 18 months. Apparently all those years they dated and LIVED TOGETHER dosn’t contribute to the 18 month’s of marriage. Who ever wrote this must be a real piece of work, and off his rocker. I really hope Will’s and Kate just blows this off and laughs. With Gods help they will have a beautiful baby. So who cares at that moment that their baby will be on the throne someday. Because at that moment they have their baby no one elses, to love and care for. I only hope Will’s is as good of a parent as his Mum was. I’m sure Diana is looking down on her sons and is very proud of them because they have turned out to be wonderful men. So come on give Will’s and Kate a chance here and just leave them alone, Please.

    • Smartypants

      This is some straight up asshattery. There are more logical fallacies than I care to count. For one, I think you overestimate the number of Americans who have peed their pants because a pair of newlyweds across the pond are knocked up. Second, if they’d decided to abort, do you really think the pregnancy would have made the news at all? Geez. Also, I would trust that she and her doctors had made a conscientious decision that was in preservation of her physical or mental health. The reasons women have abortions are NOT our business. And the most glaring fallacy of logic of all–how DARE you compare a pregnant teenager to one of the most privileged women on the planet? Even if the teenage girl chooses adoption, there’s no chance in hell she has a fraction of the resources and support Ms. Middleton has at her beck and call. You’re missing the most basic point of being pro-choice–the right to CHOOSE whether or not to be a parent. Children should be had by people who want them and are mentally, physically, and materially prepared to care for them. Wills and Kate want the kid, so good for them. They’ve made their choice. Everyone should have the right to choose for themselves also. You’ve made a purely emotional argument that simply will not sway anyone who is pro-choice, as that viewpoint is nearly always informed by logic.

    • MarvinTheMartian

      “You’re missing the most basic point of being pro-choice–the right to CHOOSE whether or not to be a parent….You’ve made a purely emotional argument that simply will not sway anyone who is pro-choice, as that viewpoint is nearly always informed by logic.

      I submit that if someone isn’t ready or doesn’t want to be parent, then perhaps they shouldn’t be engaged in a lifestyle that leads to unwanted pregnancies (i.e. having lots of sex, protected or otherwise). But that kind of logic is a little too restrictive for you isn’t it.

      The pro-choice “logic” you espouse here amounts to nothing more than a desire for consequence-free sex at the expense of unborn human life. Disgusting, selfish, and evil at it’s core.

    • Francis

      @ teleologist, I’m glad that you got the point.

      The way to convert a pro-choicer isn’t satirizing a view that he/she may fundamentally disagree with. It’s certainly not misrepresenting his/her view in such a way that goes against the fundamentals of the pro-choice stance.

      The only way to do it, is by convincing them the immorality of certain “individual rights”. And since most of pro-choicers aren’t even Christians to begin with, it’s even better if you can convince them without having to resort to the Bible.

      If you, on the opposite end of this debate, can’t get into their head and talk their language, then you’ll forever be congratulating yourself for your righteousness without ever making a difference on this issue.

    • Tim Kimberley

      The foundation of this article is built on the idea that people would be shocked and saddened if the royal heir was aborted. I then built the article from there trying to show every fetus is a royal heir.

      If any of those who have had a strong disagreement with my article were sitting in my living room and we were having a civilized, respectful conversation I think the area we would end up disagreeing is I would say, “We would be shocked and saddened if the royal heir is aborted.” You would say, “No I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t feel anything…it’s none of my business.” This, I believe, is where our main disagreement would reside.

      I would go on trying to convince you the most loving thing, not condemning or hateful thing, but the most loving thing I can do is to care about this child being born into the world. You would try to convince me that the most loving thing we can do is stay out of their business.

      Do you think this is a fair analysis of the differences being expressed in the comments?

      – Tim

    • Smartypants

      @ MarvinTheMartian

      Funny how your make so many assumptions. Here’s a news flash for you–not everyone who doesn’t want to be a parent is a godless whore. Some people genuinely have no desire to be parents and/or have their own set of unique circumstances that lead them to conclude that parenthood is not a good life choice. I’ve been married for 9 years, and my husband and I agreed years ago that we do not want children (and should not have children primarily for the good of the hypothetical children) and would take necessary precautions. We both have bipolar disorder, he’s on the autism spectrum, and I have multiple chronic illnesses (with medications that would likely have already harmed a fetus by the time a pregnancy was discovered). Genetically speaking, that’s a hell of a lot to saddle a child with, and our capacity to care for a child is significantly diminished. We do not have the mental, physical, or material resources to support a child. So I’m not supposed to have protected sex with my husband by your logic. LOL I can’t even. How are we supposed to have a healthy, emotionally fulfilling marriage by your logic? Should we martyr ourselves to singledom and/or celibacy because O NOES, WE SHOULD NOT MAKE A BABY? Were I to become pregnant, I have no idea what I’d do. I really don’t. Nobody every *wants* to have an abortion. That’s a bridge we’ll cross when we come to it, should we come to it. Having options is necessary. Your logic is far too simplistic to encompass the full reality of human experience, and you’re straight up rude for calling me evil because the conclusions my experience have led me to are not the same as yours. This is the biggest problem with anti-choice rhetoric. It’s disingenuous, ableist, and utterly lacks compassion.

    • MarvinTheMartian

      @ Smartypants

      Of course I made assumptions. Assumptions made based on the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur not from the rather unique circumstances of your own life, but rather under circumstances rooted in what can be boiled down to what is considered convenient for the mother (i.e. just not ready to be a parent, can’t afford a child right now, or whatever excuse is ginned up to justify it). In a word, selfishness.

      But let me see if I understand you correctly. You have a very unique set of circumstances which leads you to believe that if you ever got pregnant, it would be better to abort the pregnancy rather than choose life and the potential difficulties that could arise from said circumstances. Using your very unique situation (experience) as a case study and justification for your beliefs, you then extrapolate and conclude that abortion on demand under any circumstance is therefore the “logical” position to hold. Does that about sum it up?

      If so, then there really is nothing logical about that. In fact, I would argue that is the kind of “purely emotional argument” that you decried initially. And you will have to forgive me if I lack compassion for an unrepentant position that supports the genocide of the unborn sacrificed at the altar of “convenience”. I reserve my compassion for those who have had abortions and then grieve for the life they took and for the unborn who have had their lives snuffed out because mom wasn’t ready to be a mom.

      Abortion as it exists and operates today is what is; rooted in selfishness, it results in a disgusting procedure that kills an unborn human life. The rest of the debate is smoke filled coffeehouse crap meant to cloud the issue. In a word it is evil and I won’t sugar coat that to protect your delicate sensibilities.

    • Julie

      This is my first visit to this website and I enjoyed this post “sarcasm” and all. This is just how the prochoicer’s convince young women to abort their babies. And this article was not in the least racist at all. I don’t think the negative responders read the whole article….they certainly didn’t seem to understand it for what it was, that is for sure.

    • Joan

      I would simply like to make the point that in our current world, there orphanages filled with unwanted, unloved and UN-parented babies and children. There are children going hungry in this world, and being abused by their parents. So before everyone gets on the “abortion is murder” bandwagon, I think your points would be better received if you fixed the current situation. I ask, how many of you have adopted a child? How many of you are feeding someone elses child that is going hungry? How many of you are mentoring a child who has no parents? and the Padre does not get to weigh in as due to his status as a priest he is not part of the real world and taking care of physical needs of the children produces on this planet are not within his job description.

    • Joan

      @Fr. Robert: As I do not believe in the traditional “devil” I believe evil comes from layers of fear. In my work with sending home wayward and misguided spirits, one could easily assume that they are evil, but when I look deeper into their souls, I see layers and layers of fear, and when those layers are removed with connection to the God Force, hate and evil dissipate, and want of peace fills them. I believe man is inherently good, but lives in a state of fear, perpetrated upon him from society norms and unfortunately religions. If you tell someone they are inherently evil, they will act thus. If you tell someone that are the image of God, and therefore the holiness and pureness of God is one with them, that they are God, I believe that they will act accordingly, and their goodness will always come to the surface. Are there negative spirits? Yes, and they cry out for help and relief, but their negativity is just the hard shell they have put around themselves to protect themselves from the fear that dwells within. Exorcisms are real, I have conducted them, and seen first hand what is behind the so called “evil spirit”. I often ask myself why are people so afraid of decisions, thoughts and laws that merely govern the human side of our existence, when it has nothing to do with the reality of our spirits.

    • patricia

      I’m cognizant of the meaning and use of sarcasm to make a point, esp in the world of politics. The point made about the sadness and perverse evil of the way folks think nowadays is valid. I just found the way it was made tasteless and crass as well.

      Perhaps that will make sense if you consider the use of the word honor. I’m not suggesting that we should worship folks who have royal position, but scripture makes it clear that we are to give honor to whom honor is due. To reduce the royal couple to a vehicle or political football to make a point is to use them, without their permission. No one likes to be used.

      Frankly, we have no more business discussing the Duchess’s pregnancy as if it was our business then we have in discussing she and her husband’s intimate life. There is a lack of propriety in this situation, a concept all but lost to our generation. I can only imagine how Kate would feel reading this discussion. When I was pregnant, a friend of mine, who was treating one of her horses with something, commented to me rather bluntly that if she gave me a shot of this stuff ” you’d abort within minutes”. Her casual discussion of something as gross as child murder horrified me. You can hide from the miracle of life and the sacred tenderness of it fairly well but pregnancy makes that hard to do.

      Considering the person you are speaking about, and how they would feel if they heard you, is what is right. Would you say this in front of Kate? Probably not. Somehow, though, people seem to have the idea that as long as the point made is valid or serves some higher purpose, its okay to be crass, rude or insensitive and as long as its “truth” we can be as blunt or sarcastic as we wish. And also that somehow the normal rules are suspended when we are on the internet or on paper. I doubt God respects such rationalizations just because we do. There are times when we have permisson to speak truth if it offends someone, such as declaring that one is a sinner on the way to hell and even then our motive has to be love for the lost. As much as I agree with the intended point and valid observations being made here, I found this article rather gross and felt that the lack of honor and respect towards the royal couple negated much of the value. That being said, I appreciate the many articles of fine content on this site and realize that any writer , esp those who want to use their skills to reach people with truth, isn’t going to always produce perfect writing.

    • Tina

      Ok, so I’m a little late to the discussion here. But, I’d like to throw my two cents in.

      First of all, by making this an issue, you’re putting morality above the hearts of people who hurt the most. You’re turning it into an us vs. them thing and that’s hurtful. This is not a problem of legality or morality, but the problem of seeing children as a burden and not a gift, the problem of shaming (young) women when they decide to take responsibilities for their mistakes, even the problem of misogyny. (Yes, the abortion debate smacks of misogyny, because it stereotypes and objectifies women – on both sides.)

      On some level, every woman I know who has “taken care of” their pregnancy, has done so with regret. Either regret of the original actions that brought them to that point, or regret of the result of the actual procedure itself. Yet, on “our” side of the debate we continue to condemn them for an action that they are already guilty about, only instructing them about how they should feel and think. We don’t offer empathy, or care, or help, only “shoulds.” Yes, there are women (men, too are guilty of this, maybe even more so, since they are more detached) who think very little about terminating their pregnancy, but for most, it’s not an easy decision.

      Yes, I agree that life does begin at conception, and that we should respect that with our laws, but making this a black and white political issue using a fluffy news story is not the way to change our culture. Jesus stood up for the prostitute who poured perfume on his feet. Are we standing up for those young girls, before they’re even pregnant?

      Also regarding Kate’s morning sickness: my friend shared her diagnosis and LOST WEIGHT through her first and part of her second trimester. It’s actually a dangerous condition and can be life threatening. It wasn’t just “morning sickness.”

    • […] MODEST PROPOSAL – From the Parchment & Pen Blog: Should William & Kate Get an Abortion? You know, they haven’t been married very long, its only a zygote, and so […]

    • Mary

      God is in control

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.