Merle Hoffman is a Particularly Candid Butcher of Babies.

_{Barry Arrington

April 22, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Hoffman has been in the abortion industry since 1971 and is the cofounder of the National Abortion Federation. She has a new book out, Intimate Wars: The Life and Times of the Woman Who Brought Abortion from the Back Alley to the Boardroom. In it she writes, “the anti-choice movement claimed that if women knew what abortion really was, if only the providers had told them the truth, they would never have killed their babies. . . . But women did know the truth, just as I knew it, deep down, when I allowed myself to recognize it. Mothers saw the sonogram pictures, knew that sound bites assuring them that abortion was no different from any other benign outpatient surgery were false—knew that, as the antis say, ‘abortion stops a beating heart.’” But, according to Hoffman, these women were making a “decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart.”

Hoffman says, “I wasn’t immune to the physicality of abortion . . . but I quickly came to realize that those who deliver abortion services have not only the power to give women control over their bodies and lives but also the power—and the responsibility—of taking life in order to do that . . . acknowledgment of that truth is the foundation for all the political and personal work necessary to maintain women’s reproductive freedom.”

Dostoevsky wrote: “‘But,’ I asked, ‘how will man be after that? Without God and the future life? It means everything is permitted now, one can do anything?’ ‘Didn’t you know?’ he said. And he laughed. ‘Everything is permitted to the intelligent man,’ he said.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (1880), English translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990), 589.

Hoffman is Dostoevskey’s observation personified. When a person ceases to believe in a transcendent lawgiver and the law He has given, she is free to replace it with anything. Hoffman replaces “thou shalt not murder” with “it’s OK to murder innocent babies as long as your politics are right.” And in her godless world who is to say she is wrong or that such a thing as “wrong” even exists as a concept that means anything more than “I personally disagree”?

Comments

Next somebody comes and says that the Ten Commandments are a form of tyranny. Isn't that strange that something that is designed to help our happiness can be viewed as tyranny? It is like someone who thinks that a warning sign placed by an electrical mains outlet puts a limitation to their freedom. Whatever we say, the human body is against abortion. In a majority of cases both medical and psychological consequences of abortion are devastating. Abortion leads to deep unhappiness in the lives of those women who have decided to do it for whatever reason (even if giving birth would have endangered their own lives), because women are designed to be mothers.Eugene S_{April 25, 2012
April
04
Apr
25
25
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Thank you Robert Byers for that clarification. The last time Barry Arrington started a thread on this topic, I made the same point, and stated my position on the subject, which in summary is that 1) a human being is a human body occupied by a soul, 2) in my worldview it is not possible for a soul to join with a body until there is a sufficiently developed brain, and 3) this happens some time during the third trimester. Therefore, an abortion before the third trimester cannot be murder, since there is no human being present in the womb. It took several comments back and forth, but Barry's response was basically to call me a baby killer, disgusting, and "pure evil". He then closed comments, ensuring that he would have the last word and that I would have no chance to respond. If I had been able to respond, I would have said the following: To call a fertilized egg (a zygote) a "baby" is preposterous on its face. A zygote has no sense organs; it cannot hear, see, smell, touch, or taste. It has no arms or legs; it cannot move on its own. It has no mouth or vocal chords; it cannot talk. And most importantly, it has no brain; it can neither think nor feel. There is no way that a zygote, which is a single cell, can legitimately be called a "baby" or a human being. And since murder is by definition killing a human being, aborting a zygote (with a morning after pill, for example) cannot be murder. Nine months later, when the baby is born, it has become a human being, granted. So somewhere during the process of gestation, a human being comes into existence. But at what point? That is the crucial question, and I submit, one that is up to the conscience and beliefs of each human being faced with the choice of having or performing an abortion to answer. To decide arbitrarily that it is at the moment of conception because this is the easiest and most convenient point at which to posit the event (a human being coming into existence) even though a zygote has none of the attributes of a human being other than a full complement of human DNA is one possible solution. However, to then codify this quite arbitrary choice, so that women are forced to undergo the physical pain and inconvenience, major disruption to their lives, economic hardship, emotional distress, and risk of death that carrying a pregnancy to term entails is plain and simple tyranny. I am neither for nor against abortion, but I am for freedom and against tyranny. This is why I am pro-choice.Bruce David_{April 24, 2012
April
04
Apr
24
24
2012
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

Important thread but this Hoffman is just plain wrong. Abortion exists and is supported because of a disbelief in the fetus being a human being. The women having abortions are not convinced the fetus is a kid and thats why they are mostly done in the first few months. They are not consenting to murder. in fact in the pro-life cause conversion from pro-choice to pro-life is always a change of mind about the fetus and never a change of morals. This Hoffman is no more right or honest saying everybody or lots of people understand abortion kills a kid then anything else she says about abortion. Why get credibility now? Bad and dumb is she. If the fetus being a human being was understood then there would be no constitutional law denying the fetus is or can be established as a human being ! No and naw. Gibberish. Abortion is not a conflict of moral values but a contention of intellectual opinions on whether a fetus is a human being like a new born baby who is considered so to be.Robert Byers_{April 23, 2012
April
04
Apr
23
23
2012
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Wow! Scary stuff! No shame at all. Excellent point about her being a personification of what Dostoevsky was saying. I take great issue with this statement: "I quickly came to realize that those who deliver abortion services have not only the power to give women control over their bodies and lives but also the power—and the responsibility—of taking life in order to do that . . . acknowledgment of that truth is the foundation for all the political and personal work necessary to maintain women’s reproductive freedom.” It is true that they have this power, but the only person who truly has the power to give and take life is the Creator and He has made it clear to us that taking life is not a right of humans. So, they have to usurp this authority from the Creator to do this and there are all kinds of consequences to society, not the least of which is free sex that harms both sexes and destroys many families. Sex is meant to be pleasurable, but that is not the first and primary reason for sex. It is for procreation, for unity and intimacy. To divorce sex from a loving committed relationship and pursue it for pleasure alone will not bring true happiness in the end. Just the opposite. Sex is more meaningful within the bonds of marriage where a couple is committed to each other, knows each other well, and trusts each other. Divorcing sex from responsibility and relationship will bring only trouble to a society. Reproductive freedom is a myth for both sexes. Sex is meant to come with responsibility!tjguy_{April 22, 2012
April
04
Apr
22
22
2012
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

I'm unclear as to what Hoffman means when she states that abortion providers have the "power to give women control over their bodies." Didn't they have control over their bodies when they had the unprotected sex that resulted in the subsequent pregnancy that they now want to terminate?Barb_{April 22, 2012
April
04
Apr
22
22
2012
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply