BLOG: Abortion Is A Dirty Word

Bryan Dubois
Sep 16, 2010

The mere mention of the word is controversial - even though supporting the right to abortion is a tenet of the modern day Democratic party.

Debate any abortion supporter and they'll object to your use of the phrase 'pro-abortion' to describe their position. They'll claim that using the phrase in unfair and inaccurate because nobody wants abortions.  Nobody likes abortion.  The existence of such a grisly, barbaric act exists to the dismay of all, you see.  Democrats simply believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

So if you oppose abortion, don't bother demonizing those who don't.  All people recognize the inhuman nature of terminating a child's life because of the inconvenience the child may introduce into the parent's life.  Yes, the majority of abortions in this country fall under this category.

So don't bother.  You couldn't possibly demonize a concept that most people feel uncomfortable talking about already.  What you should do is continue pointing out the reality of abortion.  Abortion can only exist if supporters don't have to face the reality of abortion. 

For example:  How many supporters of abortion would be willing to describe to you - during a debate - the detailed procedure of a D & X abortion?  (aka dilation & extraction, partial-birth abortion).  If any of them even know the details of the procedure, I'd bet money that they'd decline to explain it to you. 

Common sense says, I'm not going to explain the procedure because I'd sound like a monster for supporting it.  Can we just describe it as a 'medical procedure?'

Opposers should concede that the act is a "medical procedure" by responding with a poster of an aborted child with the Hippocratic oath posted beneath it.

"...never do harm to anyone."

Let common sense do the arguing.

You might as well agree with them that abortion is wrong and that nobody likes it - and then simply point out that on such a divisive issue there are two groups of people: 

Those who disagree with abortion because it's inhuman and wrong, and those who disagree with abortion because it's inhuman and wrong - but are quite willing to tolerate it.


Kinda related:

What's in a name?

The makers of high fructose corn syrup have abandoned the idea of doing a name-saving campaign. 

Once a word has become so reviled, you can't even mention it without turning people off.



Ok to clarify: anytime a child is in utero up until birth, you are ok with aborting it? It's whatever the mother wants? You feel we have no business trying to stop partial birth abortion?

The problem here is what you term 'the womans body', a lot of consider to be 'life'.

Supporting it to us is as foundation of our society, and it's right to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

There's a reason life comes before liberty in my mind. I'm all for full reproductive rights.. until science tells me the child is thinking and can feel pain. Then that is where we differ, my friend. People can throw around whatever tangents they like, but to me the killing of a thinking feeling baby is a travesty. That's not to say there are not other bad things happening, but the ends does not justify the means to me.


brutus smith

 cross, you keep posting your anti Gov things. Answer my question.


A woman has no right to decide to have an abortion just as any other human does not have the right to kill someone else.

Women have the choice not to have sex or use appropriate contraception. Their "pro-choice" ends there. That growing human attached to their uterine wall has to be protected by the law just as our lives are.

Pro-choice ends at conception.


I'm against any government operation, law, or work I deem immoral and anti ethical, Brutus. That's exactly what late term and second trimester abortion is to me.

Now, answer my question. Do you support late term abortion? Do you support any limits on abortion, or is it solely the province of the woman to decide when to abort when a child is in utero?


brutus smith

 lucius, another anti Constitution right wing nut. Why do you hate our Constitution? If you want to live in a theocracy, go to Iran.


I don't expect you to understand the nuances of human embryology, but life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. You do not have the right to kill anyone and neither do I. So why should a pregnant woman have the right to kill her baby?

Liberals are so fast to try and protect those individuals who "can't" protect themselves so why wouldn't you want to protect this innocent and helpless baby?

You lack knowledge on this subject and it shows.

brutus smith

 For all those who equate abortion with murder, are you ready to sentence the woman to death? How about life in prison?


Brutus: Ohio law defines aggravated murder as: "No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another . . .".  O.R.C. 2903.01.  Sounds like abortion to me. 

The penalty for a violation of O.R.C. 2903.01 can be up to life imprisonment, depending on certain factors.  So, yes, Brutus, I am prepared to sentence the woman who commits Aggravated Murder (abortion) to life in prison. 


 "I don't expect you to understand the nuances of human embryology, but birth begins at conception." 

This is a hilarious statement. So birth begin at conception, Dr Luscious?


Thanks Pudnit. I have since corrected my statement. I apologize for my error.


And still -no one answers my questions.

Why is that?






I'm late to this party but I think I can sum it up succinctly, at least if you're a Christian of any denomination.  A little document (or stone tablet, if you will) called the Ten Commandments instructs us, among other things, that: 

Thou Shall Not Kill. 

How do you square that with the killing of unborn children?

Bryan Dubois


I think nobody is answering your question because it would require a book.

I'm against abortion because I value life.  I believe that our society should respect life and that our public policy should reflect that. 

What do you think of a society that says it's okay to kill babies?

brutus smith

buff, I missed the part in the Constitution that defined life as you see it. I just remember that Roe vs. Wade thingy in the Supreme Court. 


I am just flabbergasted by the people who think that a woman who has an abortion does it "for convenience" they haven't even considered other options or the emotional repercussions that come from their decision. Absolutely astounded. I certainly hope that none of you find your daughters, sisters, loved ones being referred to as "soulless murderers". Stop and listen to what you sound like when you spew such hate.......please.

Bryan Dubois

Eh, if abortions are not performed in the name of convenience, why are they performed?

Research shows the reasons as follows:

In other words:  they fully understand the responsibility of parenthood, but would rather not take on the responsibility.  The child will be an inconvenience, so they have the child aborted.

(Not only is abortion a dirty word, but the reasons for it will be denied by supporters because abortion is such a dirty concept.)


If these women fully understand the responsibility of parenthood and choose abortion,  shouldn't they also fully understand how to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place and choose that option?

Legalized abortion allows women (and men) to be irresponsible without any consequences. 

Raoul Duke

If you have kids, then I ask you--how could you kill your own child? I just don't understand. But I'm willing to let other people make that decision for themselves. Let's just hope it never gets to the point where government is allowed to force you to have an abortion...that, we would ALL need to fight against.

brutus smith

bryan says,

"What do you think of a society that says it's okay to kill babies?"


I think they are more concerned why a society would drop bombs on innocent civilians for their oil.

Bryan Dubois

brutus, your oil issue is only a theory.  You cannot prove that the United States "drops bombs on innocent civilians for their oil."  This is a theory that reflects your leftist world view.  Even if your theory were true, this theory is difficult - if not impossible - to prove.  It's kinda like "proving" public corruption with theories based on circumstantial evidence.  You cannot prove something with theories.

You believe it's okay to kill babies, but it's not okay to disagree with your unproven theory that the US kills innocent civilians for oil.

What passes for "logic" by the left is truly confusing. 


brutus smith

bryan, you made a statement about what people would think of a society, and I answered that they are  more concerned about what we do externally than what we do internally. Why then are we dropping bombs on innocent civilians?

Bryan Dubois


Your question assumes that I believe we're dropping bombs on innocent civilians.

There is a pattern of unfair statements/questions in your commentary and I think it's pointless to converse with you.

brutus smith

 bryan, you need an adult to review your writings before you post.

brutus smith

 buff, how many women do you know of that want to get pregnant just to have an abortion? No consequences? Really? 


My point is that if women don't want to get pregnant, there are things they can do to prevent it; abstinence being the best method. 

If the efforts to prevent pregnancy, i.e. abstinence, fail, then why not adoption?

Bryan Dubois

Good question.

Why abortion? 

Why not carry the baby to term, and offer the baby up to the millions of parents looking to adopt?

brutus smith

 buff, our "Christian society" is not exactly easy on unwed mothers. 


They made the conscious choice to become unwed mothers in the first place.  If they don't want to be unwed mothers, they could:

1.  Get married.

2. Quit sleeping around.

3.  Start using contraception.

4. Offer the unwanted child up for adoption. 

Sounds like an awful lot of choices to me.  But then again, by having an unwanted pregnancy, these women have already demonstrated the ability to use poor judgment.


 Bryan is afraid to respond. He won't even offer up one of his platitudes about how answering logically cogent questions is beneath him. Bryan prefers to save his sophomoric bon mots for the easily dismissed comments he can cherry pick. Let the children play.

Here, let me fix your logical construction, "The child will be an inconvenience, so they have the fetus aborted." 

See how that works?


1. All the jurisprudence surrounding abortion is tied to the right to privacy found mainly in the 4th amendment, and to a lesser extent in the 9th and 14th. Thus, legally anyhow, abortion is a personal/privacy issue. I don't see any analogy with drug prohibition, but I'll let you flesh that out. 

2. A fetus is not a person until at the very least the 22nd week of pregnancy, it is at this point when it attains viability, i.e. it can live outside the womb with medical care. This is well within the general agreed upon time period when most abortion happens, the first trimester. If you want you may persist in your dogma that all abortions are the same, that there is no distinction by time and reason, but most people not writing for high school newspapers are able to understand the difference. Are you opposed to birth control? Do you believe life begins at penetration?

3. I don't have a scale of morals for medical procedures. Neither do doctors. Which is more morally valid lancing a boil or freezing a wart? Abortion can be to save the life of the mother, still opposed? This is the reason for your personal goblin, the extremely rare late term abortion, to save a life. And yes the life of the living breathing mother is more valuable than the fetus.

4. Women do take precedence in this debate for obvious reasons.

5. Do you seek to legally ban abortion Brian? Or is this just about moral condemnation? If so I can live with that, but don't impose your moral worldview on other peoples wombs. 

6. Glad to see you backed away from your 'abortion sound bad' position. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Are you one of those people out to stop the new pills that can terminate a pregnancy early on with no medical procedure at all?

7. Do you think people who kill abortion providers are morally justified? Is that not the logical conclusion of your beliefs? 

8. The frequency of abortions is at an all time low, yet most people, outside of the south, who need or want one can get one safely and legally. It seems like a settled issue. Which gets back to the Chimera woman, people want fix the economy and talk progress, not jabber about something most people have made peace with. Except for the occasional blogger and single issue activists I guess.

9. Oh, and just curious, but does the anti-abortion movement all get back to the belief that someone might abort the second coming of Jesus? Isn't that where it all starts out? Can't ever get an answer on this.


Bryan Dubois

Pundit,  shall we settle on using the term "human being?"

After all, in your own words, the fetus becomes a person during week 22 of gestation.

In all my experiences sitting in on ultrasounds I've never heard an ultrasound tech refer to our children as "fetuses."  They referred to them as "your baby."

The abortion defenders use the term fetus to de-personalize/de-humanize the baby.  It's easier to kill a fetus than a baby.   Of course, you know this - and that's why you're nitpicking the terminology I used.  As I said, the reality of abortion troubles most people - you included.  That's why it's tough to acknowledge that a human being is being snuffed out during an abortion.

To me, an unborn child is a beautiful thing - full of wonder, beauty and potential.  To you, an unborn baby is just a "fetus" - easily forgotten, easily terminated.  Just a mass of tissue to be discarded in a medical procedure.