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.


Bryan Dubois

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal information. Discussion Guidelines

brutus smith

 bryan said, "Meow,  You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Those rights are given to you by your creator - not the government, your neighbor, or a piece of paper." Really? So why do we go around the world spreading Democracy? 


bryan said "The reason you probably don't get an answer on this is because it's a loony idea that I - and most people - have never heard."

Bryan Dubois

Brutus,  regarding the loony idea:  This is not the first time that people who oppose Christianity have mocked, lied, and disrespected Christian beliefs on the digital pages of the Sandusky Register.  It probably won't be the last.

So much for respecting other's beliefs, huh?


The loony idea is that Christians oppose abortion because the second coming of Jesus might be aborted.

Assuming that you believe in an all-powerful God who has an actual, specific plan for the world, it is not possible for humans to prevent the fulfilment of that plan.

Furthermore, assuming that you believe in the accuracy of the Christian scriptures, Jesus will not be reborn into this world as a baby.  He'll return "in glory," meaning in His divine form.  Thus, the idea that the second coming could be aborted is, for lack of a better term, loony.

Bryan Dubois

Stormy,  I had that same thought.  My question to Pundit would be, "You believe that human beings can prevent the second coming of Christ?"

Dorothy,  of course "thou shall not kill" applies to capital punishment. 

Regarding the war in Iraq:  It's heart wrenching to see any child suffer.  But once again, I don't have enough information to form an absolute opinion on a war halfway around the world.  Being a believer in a higher power, I know that anyone who leads us into an unjust war will answer for it.  

Rabbi,  good point.

Mime, did you catch the town hall meeting where the woman asked Obama if the state of American was her "new reality?"  Interesting to watch.  (I think I'll post it later.)

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

Speaking of the Declaration of Independence.........see if you can find which word the President of the United States leaves out when he attempts to recite the second sentence of this great document. Was it intentional? Simple human error? Maybe a teleprompter misfire? 

In any event here's the link:

Here's the second sentence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”


I just want to know when we will include fathers in the abortion debate.  As far as I know, it takes both a male and female to pro-create.  It is irresponsible and sexist to exclude the father of a child.

get real

I think in most cases fathers have no business in the abortion debate.  Yes it's true it takes both a male and female.  Please tell me what happens when the male walks out and the female is stuck taking care of the child?  Is the father going to pay for school....NO.   Is the father going to pay for daycare....NO.  Men can very easily say they are not the father.  Most mothers don't just have money laying around to prove that they are.  So until men go through child birth stay out of it.

dorothy gale

So tell me, Mr. Dubois, does "Thou shalt not kill" apply to the death penalty as well?  And what about all the innocent people (some of whom were children) killed in W.'s "War on Terror?"  As someone else stated in this thread, people like to toss around Biblical references when it suits their purpose and ignore or rationalize them when it doesn't.  For the record, I am not in favor of murder whether it is called abortion, justice, or war.


An available  cd from national geographic  shows the development of a person from the instant of

conception until birth. It is done with scope cameras into the uterus. There is no mention of any

religion. This cd proves that a tiny person is alive from the instant of conception!! Therefore an

abortion is the murder of a tiny PERSON!!!

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

 MrMary I believe this is the video you are talking about. Well done by National Geographic.


....and yep, babies in the womb suck their thumbs, yawn and open their eyes.

dorothy gale

I am not sure what more "information" you need to know that people KILL in a war.  So is killing a sin or isn't it?  If it's a sin then it seems that ALL who do so, even at the behest of their government, will have to "answer" for it.

Bryan Dubois

Is killing a sin?  Not necessarily.  Under some circumstances, it is not viewed as sinful.  Instances of self defense and combat, for example.  Killing is never favored, but sometimes necessary.

If you're curious about this, I'd suggest doing some research.   I'm no more of an expert on this than anyone else.  I do know that the Catholic Church (the religion that I practice) has said that in time of war, soldiers will not be held responsible for killing they must do while in service of their country during military operations.  War time leaders carry grave responsibilities when carrying out military operations.  Do some research.

On a personal level:  If I'm faced with a situation where the lives of my wife or kids are threatened, I don't believe that using physical force to protect them is a sin.

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

 Mime, did you catch the town hall meeting where the woman asked Obama if the state of American was her "new reality?"  Interesting to watch.  (I think I'll post it later.)

I did view the video of Velma Hart lamenting over the fact that she is tiring of defending Obama's policies after having voted for him....I thought she was very articulate and quick on her feet to politely criticize him. It would definitely make a good post for discussion.

By the way....having been a Christian for over 30 years + I have never ever heard of the notion that Christians oppose abortions because somehow it will prevent the advent of Christ's second coming. There simply is no Biblical basis to that idea. If anything the world awaits the birth of an anti-christ.

Bryan Dubois

Mime,  yep, that's the video.  Will post.

I think the idea of Christians opposing abortion because it would prevent the second coming of Christ is one of those false ideas planted to mock Christianity.  I could go through.......well heck, here's the other one that happened in this thread:

To which Stormy responded:

Of course, there was no response from Pastor Ron.  He's a drive-by commenter who mocks Christians by misrepresenting their beliefs.  The Christian God, the Jewish God, and the Muslim God are worshiped by these three religions as the same God.  I might add that all three religions promote social responsibility too.  For some reason, Christianity is the one that seems to be mocked most often though.  (Haven't seen Judaism or Islam mocked on the SR so far.)


Here is my problem with the whole debate: inconsistency.  If a person is a person at conception, then why are there no death certificates for miscarriages (there are for stillbriths, but not miscarriages)?  Why don't people have funerals for miscarriages (yes, a few do but that is not our cultural norm)?  Why do we allow embryos to be frozen in a clinic (shouldn't that be child abuse, just like if we put a newborn in a freezer)?  Why are women who smoke or use drugs not charged with child endangerment, as they would be if they allowed a toddler to smoke or use drugs?  If abortion is to be illegal on the grounds that it is killing a human being, then all the things that apply to newborn baby need to also apply to an unborn one.  They don't and never will, per the documents that our Founding Fathers created defining a "person".  So, either a human is a human from conception and has all the rights of a natural born person, which they cannot without a major amendment to the constitution, or we have to understand that although life begins at conception, that doesn't mean to some what it means to others in terms of their beliefs.

Oh, and by the way, whoever made the comment about the morning after pill and called  it RU 486, you need to educate yourself.  They are two different things.  The morning after pill is legally and medically emergecy contraception.  RU 486 is an abortifacient.

Bryan Dubois

Informed, since you seek consistency, I imagine that you agree with me that using the concept of privacy to defend abortion is illogical.  The right to privacy does not give you the right to kill.  Nor does it give you the right to ingest dangerous drugs like heroin, or cocaine, abuse other people in private, rob, assault, or steal.

Did you know that when the prosecutor in the Laci Peterson murder case announced that he was seeking to charge Scott Peterson for the death of their unborn child (he was eventually convicted on a 2nd degree murder charge for that crime) pro-abortion advocates got involved because they were concerned about the implications of a man being convicted for killing an unborn child.  Pro-abortion advocates rightly identified that as a problem because it would set a precedent that killing an unborn child is a crime.  It would create an inconsistency in the law - which would cause more debate about abortion.

Informed, if you want consistency in the law you'll have to work for it.  It's a tough issue, though I wouldn't let the lack of consistency stop you from standing up against abortion.

By the way:  I made that statement about RU 486.  As I understand it, the only way the "morning after pill" and RU 486 (used as an abortifacient) are different is the size of their dose.  Mifepristone in small doses is used as an emergency contraceptive - but given in a larger dose will cause an abortion.  If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

Chung Lee

Islam has not been mocked on the Register Blogs?  There are a couple of posters here that always refer to Islam as "The Religion of Hate".  Is that some sort of compliment.  Bryan is concerned about others misrepresenting the Bible....... maybe he should ask him What Would Jesus Do.  If he did actually follow the teachings of Christ......Chung Lee pretty sure he would not have his extreme positions.

Bryan Dubois

Chung, show me.   I back up what I say.  It's time you do the same.

Use the screen save function and post the comment where Islam is mocked.   I'm not saying it hasn't happened - I'm saying that I haven't seen it.  At the very least, post a hyperlink to the comment.

Show us.

And then perhaps you can be join in civil discussion.

By the way:  Why do you continue to mock Asians with the way you write?  You're American and you speak English, don't you?

Chung Lee

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines


Your whole account is a caricature of Asians, though. It's obvious you aren't really one, but find it cute to leverage stereotypes to try and add comic value to all your attack posts.

Brutus, you, and your GOP counterparts exist here solely to attack those who disagree, and to misrepresent opinions in a manner that'd make a politician proud. Good discussions consist of point, then counter point without making it personal. It's a shame we won't see those from you.

dorothy gale

The commandment states "Thou shalt not kill."  It doesn't include any exceptions.  It is very direct and to the point.  My point was, and remains, that people twist what the Bible says to fit their own agenda.  Killing is wrong, no matter who does it, no matter the reason, according to your Christian instruction manual.  All I'm saying is you use the Bible to defend your view that abortion is wrong, then use your religion to say that killing is okay if done in a war or in self-defense.  Sounds kinda contradictory, as do most religious views. 


Dorothy, the debate is more about apathy towards life than about killing. It does irk me to hear those comparing government actions for national defense with convenient baby killing, though. That boggles my mind.

Many seem to want to lecture why America and those bad, bad Christians are such horrid hypocrits! Sure. However, does that mean it should be ok to kill babies?

I could throw out endless strawmen arguments:

Are you opposed to the death penalty? If so, does that make you a hypocrit for being pro-choice?

Do you oppose whaling? Why would you care about something that clearly isn't human? There are plenty of whales and they feed countless people.

These are all nice debates, but utterly not relevant to the simple core truth those of us who follow the golden rule believe in, regardless of the pejoratives continually thrown at us due to beliefes and with no regard for logic or rationality that some people claim to represent.

Abortion to us is an atrocious act. As Mime indicated it is on a level with slavery in many of our minds. Why do none of the pro choice people want to actually discuss the act itself?

Bryan Dubois

Cross, nicely stated.

Dorothy, we don't leave in a vacuum.  The world is a complex place. 

Chung, your post was deleted for personal attacks?   Maybe you'd like to offer support for your statements instead of insulting anyone who disagrees with you?  Try again, this time re-read what you type before you post and ask yourself, "Is this civil?  Am I trying to offend someone?  Is there a point to what I'm trying to say?  Am I being fair?"

I can't control whether your posts get deleted.  If somebody at the Register feels that your posts are incendiary or hateful, they will get deleted. 

I'd say, try again.  Delete the hate.  Be civil.

Massengill Wins...

How dare people have abortions that deny conservatives the opportunity to hate these people once they are born.  Advocate to allow them to be born and then deny them assistance once they are born?  Such compassion!

Massengill Wins...

Oh Cross.... uh bombs kill babies too.  In a war of choice as in Iraq, thousands of babies have died and been made orphans.  The key word is CHOICE!

brutus smith

 So are you "quick to condemn others" Christians ready to condemn God in the same way for killing babies? 



Death of firstborn, Exodus 11:1 - 12:30.  Min, god of reproduction.  Isis, goddess who protected children.  Pharaoh, considered a god.1

The death of the first-born (Exodus 12:29) was not only a final blow to Pharaoh and all of Egypt demonstrating the powerlessness of Pharaoh and the truth of God's Word, but it was also used as a prophetic typology.  In the account of the death of the first-born, all who had the blood of a lamb placed on their door posts would escape the judgment of God on the households



I make points and offer my opinion. I don't make it about anything personal. At least I try not to. I am human, and err often. 

I also try not to tangent into the Iraq War, Exodus, or bashing Christians for not being liberal enough, either. :)

I don't stereotype or speak for others, so when you lump a billion people together, you probably will get divergent opinions.

If one would like to discuss those things, I'm fine, but really it needs to be a two way street. Just answer my simple question on if there should be any limits on abortion, if legislating a ban on late term abortion should be done, or what constitutes legal life, then I'd be happy to give my opinion on most any subject.

brutus smith

 cross, so when you point out our "faults" you are sticking to the topic and not attacking? Oh, OK.

brutus smith

 bryan, how much more info do you need about the Iraq war? Remember, 4421 American soldiers have died there.