Focus on the Family=Terrorism [Archive]

Groce

27th July 2006, 08:36 AM

karen freeinchristman

27th July 2006, 09:07 AM

-For most women who have had abortions, the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation
-Up to 98 percent of the women who have abortions have no regrets and would make the same choice again in similar circumstances
-Women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects. In fact, as a group, they have higher self-esteem, greater feelings of worth and capableness, and fewer feelings of failure than do women who have had no abortions or who have had repeat abortions
-The positive relationship of abortion to well-being may be due in part to abortion’s role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources

I have serious reservations about these assertions made by Planned Parenthood.

SeenAndUnseen

27th July 2006, 12:09 PM

I have serious reservations about these assertions made by Planned Parenthood.

So do I. :crossrc:

Finella

27th July 2006, 12:13 PM

You sure go for the heated topics, eh Groce? :)

I am strongly pro-choice. But I do acknowledge that abortion does have lasting psychological effects on the woman who has one. I think PP does not effectively recognize this. And if they did, it would not necessarily be detrimental to their argument that abortion should remain legal -- lots of legal things have severe psychological effects. Additonally, part of the reason why abortion has such a strong negative effect on a woman is the huge amount of pressure and guilt that pro-life groups heap upon these women.

As I've shared before, a dear friend chose to terminate her pregnancy because of a severe medical problem with the baby. She is strongly pro-choice, but also acknowledges that she was carrying a baby. She also acknowledges that this has had a lasting, traumatic effect on her. She does not regret her decision one bit, but it was still a very difficult decision to make. What she does regret is that the child was not more healthy, but she had no control over that.

Yet she cannot help but personalize the attacks pro-life groups make on pro-choice persons. The abortion wars only pour salt on an already sensitive wound. I only wish that people could come together and see that both sides of the issue really do have much of the same interests -- healthy babies, healthy women, and a society that supports both without judgement or question.

Ravenonthecross

28th July 2006, 12:56 AM

I can only pray that one day we can fix the problems that lead to abortions, :prayer: and stop the need for abortion as its root. I can only hope, God willing.

Eikon

28th July 2006, 12:59 AM

Wow, saw the title of this thread and about had a coronary!! :D

tel0004

28th July 2006, 01:27 AM

Wow, saw the title of this thread and about had a coronary!! :D

Me to. I was ready to send planned parenthood an email, but they dont have a link. Heres what I would have wrote

"Thank you for your information on James Dobson's focus on the family ministry. I did not know that he had a magazine for college students. I will have to subscribe to this. Thanks again for the info"

And you guys say nothing good comes out of planned parenthood. :)

Groce

28th July 2006, 02:57 AM

You sure go for the heated topics, eh Groce? :)

No, just the ones that matter.

Finella

28th July 2006, 10:56 AM

I can only pray that one day we can fix the problems that lead to abortions, :prayer: and stop the need for abortion as its root. I can only hope, God willing.

I think this is where both sides of the abortion wars need to go if any resolution is to happen. We can find solutions to help women choose to not have an abortion, or to prevent unplanned pregnancy in the first place. But often ideologies get in the way of that basic coopertation toward a common goal.

I'll be praying with you.

Groce

28th July 2006, 11:08 AM

prevent unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

Well the simple answer is not to have sex, unless you are willing to take responsibility for a child. Thats one reason sex is reserved for marriage. If you are not ready to have a child then you should not have sex, because even the best contraception fails some times. My wife and I use it but if we were to conceive even under contraception then we would keep the child. A child is God's will, who am I to take a life that God gave. (but saying that and considering my job is ironic since I am trained to kill people).

Finella

28th July 2006, 11:18 AM

Well the simple answer is not to have sex, unless you are willing to take responsibility for a child. Thats one reason sex is reserved for marriage. If you are not ready to have a child then you should not have sex, because even the best contraception fails some times. My wife and I use it but if we were to conceive even under contraception then we would keep the child. A child is God's will, who am I to take a life that God gave. (but saying that and considering my job is ironic since I am trained to kill people).

Okay, well, we'll not get into that last sentence, there.

The problem is, not everyone who is or is not a Christian has the same views on birth control as you. I don't think it's helpful to argue abstinence for everyone in this country without educating people about birth control. We know humans like sex. It's unrealistic to expect all people to adhere to such a practice when it's not in our nature. So I don't understand why pro-life people aren't willing to work with the pro-choice people to educate the public about birth control and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Groce

28th July 2006, 11:28 AM

Okay, well, we'll not get into that last sentence, there.

Well my job is to find (recon) bad guys so that other soldiers can kill them for the Army. And also to clean and maintain out dated equipment and do all the other things that your recruiter neglects tells you about.
a shooting scout is a dead scout

No Swansong

28th July 2006, 11:52 AM

Okay, well, we'll not get into that last sentence, there.

The problem is, not everyone who is or is not a Christian has the same views on birth control as you. I don't think it's helpful to argue abstinence for everyone in this country without educating people about birth control. We know humans like sex. It's unrealistic to expect all people to adhere to such a practice when it's not in our nature. So I don't understand why pro-life people aren't willing to work with the pro-choice people to educate the public about birth control and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I have heard the call for Sex education on many threads and quite honestly I don't get it. (I had sex ed in 5th grade. I already knew but some in the class might not have)
In the public schools that we live in it starts in 4th grade. I read a survey once that was conducted of 6th grade students and not one didn't know that intercourse is the means by which pregnancy normally happens, only 2% believed the old myth that you can't get pregnant on the first time, and none believed any of the other old myths such as jumping up and down etc. I disagree, at least in this country, that most unwanted pregnancies occur because of a lack of sex ed. Poor decisions, lack of parental oversight, drug use, peer pressure and others maybe.

No Swansong

28th July 2006, 11:54 AM

Well my job is to find (recon) bad guys so that other soldiers can kill them for the Army. And also to clean and maintain out dated equipment and do all the other things that your recruiter neglects tells you about.
a shooting scout is a dead scout

Raisin, Raisin don't be blue. My recruiter (insert word) me too!

I for one am glad you and others who do you job exist. (It's unfortunate that you have to though)

Finella

28th July 2006, 12:19 PM

I have heard the call for Sex education on many threads and quite honestly I don't get it. (I had sex ed in 5th grade. I already knew but some in the class might not have)
In the public schools that we live in it starts in 4th grade. I read a survey once that was conducted of 6th grade students and not one didn't know that intercourse is the means by which pregnancy normally happens, only 2% believed the old myth that you can't get pregnant on the first time, and none believed any of the other old myths such as jumping up and down etc. I disagree, at least in this country, that most unwanted pregnancies occur because of a lack of sex ed. Poor decisions, lack of parental oversight, drug use, peer pressure and others maybe.

I'm not saying sex ed in and of itself is the solution to the problem. What I was saying was that Groce seemed to be saying that abstience was the ultimate solution. Clearly it's not. As you say, kids know how babies come about. They're not choosing abstinence, either, and abstinence-only education certainly doesn't help matters here.

I agree with you that the other issues you speak of are extremely important. I know people who willingly skimped on their birth control while in high school because they wanted a baby, not fully understanding what they were getting into. But they wanted unconditional love from something because they weren't getting it from their families.

On the other hand, there's women who engage in sex because of being starved for affection otherwise, and because of pressure from their boyfriends forgo protection. Social circumstances (boyfriend, friends, family pressure) and financial circumstances (having to support a child alone) make it hard to choose to keep the child.

It's hard enough to be married and have a child and make enough money to support a kid, I can't imagine having to go it alone. This country doesn't subsidize daycare, women often have to go back to work two months (or sooner) after giving birth... the whole situation makes it very difficult to have a kid. It's a massive problem, and it seems that so much energy is being wasted by either side of the abortion debate when, instead, it could be channeled into making workplaces more family-friendly, supporting young people so they make good choices about their bodies and their health, and making the world a healthier, safer place for kids.

Finella

28th July 2006, 12:22 PM

Well my job is to find (recon) bad guys so that other soldiers can kill them for the Army. And also to clean and maintain out dated equipment and do all the other things that your recruiter neglects tells you about.
a shooting scout is a dead scout

As I said, I wasn't going to go there. It seems you feel comfortable with your job.

karen freeinchristman

28th July 2006, 12:30 PM

The problems we see in terms of unplanned teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies all are due to our fallen nature. I think what Finella said
I agree with you that the other issues you speak of are extremely important. I know people who willingly skimped on their birth control while in high school because they wanted a baby, not fully understanding what they were getting into. But they wanted unconditional love from something because they weren't getting it from their families.

On the other hand, there's women who engage in sex because of being starved for affection otherwise, and because of pressure from their boyfriends forgo protection. Social circumstances (boyfriend, friends, family pressure) and financial circumstances (having to support a child alone) make it hard to choose to keep the child.
is sad but true.

Colabomb

28th July 2006, 01:01 PM

Colabomb

28th July 2006, 01:08 PM

Just about All people understand where babies come from. All people know what Condoms and pills are for. People have the education they need, yet abortion on demand still exists on a large scale.

I am for knowledge. But I am not for knowledge replacing responsibility.

(Edit, all people in this country.)

Finella

28th July 2006, 01:33 PM

Colabomb

28th July 2006, 03:35 PM

I hear what you're saying Cola, but sex is an extremely easy act to do, which can be done by people for reasons that overwhelm good decision-making capabilities. And the outcome may not matter to a person committing the act. Rape, for instance. Do you think a woman who is raped should be responsible for the child she was forced to carry against her will?
Should two wrongs make a right?

Should the Child pay for the Rapists' sin?

Also, there are other options, such as adoption.

In ohio where I live, we have a law that states a mother can leave a child (under a certain age) at a fire department or police station no questions asked.

Colabomb

28th July 2006, 03:37 PM

Now, I will say this.

I do believe that there are times where an abortion is a necessary evil. But these instances are so rare that that there is no excuse for the numbers we see now.

Abortions should be so rare, that a doctor has to fill out a report defending why he had to perform the operation.

Aymn27

28th July 2006, 03:44 PM

A mother to one of the young men who was in my youth group gave a testimony once to the group. She was date-raped in High School and chose to have the baby instead of abort. She was planning on giving her (the baby) up for adoption, but said with much prayer and counseling decided that she was going to keep her. It was an awesome testimony to forgiveness and how God can make even the most deplorable sins into blessings.

Finella

31st July 2006, 07:38 AM

Should two wrongs make a right?

Should the Child pay for the Rapists' sin?

Also, there are other options, such as adoption.

In ohio where I live, we have a law that states a mother can leave a child (under a certain age) at a fire department or police station no questions asked.

I'm only going after your point that the mom should accept the "consequences" of the actions of sex. Even if she never had free will to engage in the sex act that caused her to be pregnant in the first place. I know there are options such as adoption, but pregnancy is such an all-encompassing state of being that you are still asking a lot of the mom, who has already been through a traumatic event, to have to endure an experience that could prove to be more traumatic. Amyn's story about how one woman was able to transform this experience into a beautiful one is wonderful, but that does not mean that all women who are raped into pregnancy can and should be able to transform the experience in such a way. You simply cannot legislate or moralize women into such a personal transformational act that they were forced into having to face. While abortion is traumatic, too, I can see how it would be less traumatic to have an abortion than to have to carry a pregnancy that was started through a rape. Such trauma can be too much for a person and could lead to all kinds of mental health issues. This is another case of the mom's health being at risk, and only the woman herself knows what she can and cannot handle.

It's not a matter of two wrongs making a right, it's trying to make the best out of a horrible, difficult situation. Which I think can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.

No Swansong

31st July 2006, 08:40 AM

I'm only going after your point that the mom should accept the "consequences" of the actions of sex. Even if she never had free will to engage in the sex act that caused her to be pregnant in the first place. I know there are options such as adoption, but pregnancy is such an all-encompassing state of being that you are still asking a lot of the mom, who has already been through a traumatic event, to have to endure an experience that could prove to be more traumatic. Amyn's story about how one woman was able to transform this experience into a beautiful one is wonderful, but that does not mean that all women who are raped into pregnancy can and should be able to transform the experience in such a way. You simply cannot legislate or moralize women into such a personal transformational act that they were forced into having to face. While abortion is traumatic, too, I can see how it would be less traumatic to have an abortion than to have to carry a pregnancy that was started through a rape. Such trauma can be too much for a person and could lead to all kinds of mental health issues. This is another case of the mom's health being at risk, and only the woman herself knows what she can and cannot handle.

It's not a matter of two wrongs making a right, it's trying to make the best out of a horrible, difficult situation. Which I think can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Opinions vary Finella but I read your entire post and while you are certainly concerned about the life of the mother what about the life that will be ended by the abortion? I guess I have to ask if it is ok for cases of rape and other things why is it not ok for birth control?

Finella

31st July 2006, 09:36 AM

I think Cola makes a good point that people need to be responsible for their actions. If a woman and a man freely engage in unprotected sex, this is an entirely different situation than when a woman is raped. In rape, the woman never had the opportunity to prevent getting pregnant.

It can be argued that women can be manipulated into having unprotected sex by their boyfriends or by social situations (as I mentioned earlier in the thread), and therefore they are forced in a different kind of way to have children against their will. I think, to mitigate against this, we need to have supports in place to help women (and men, because men are manipuated into having kids, too!) make smart choices about their bodies and having kids. It's no good having children born into a family with a parent who is ill-prepared for such a situation. I'm not saying this justifies abortion, but there are some horrid family dynamics that children get born into -- abusive situations, neglect, etc. -- and again, the children were completely innocent and brought into these lives of trauma and pain. I can understand why a woman would choose to have an abortion under such circumstances, knowing that the life they would give his/her child is not the life they want for that child. Giving a child up for adoption is hard to do, too, because as I said before it still asks a lot of the woman to go through pregnancy to then give up the baby, and being pregnant alone in these situations can be socially, physically, and mentally painful.

It's these circumstances that I think the pro-life and pro-choice people can come together and give support to women and men in these very difficult and vulnerable times in their lives.

Colabomb

31st July 2006, 09:59 AM

I understand the Rape is not a woman's fault. I believe it is tragic that women are forced into such situations.

However, I personally believe that it is a case of what is overall better. And I believe that ending a life is worse than the warping of one.

Finella

31st July 2006, 10:09 AM

No Swansong

31st July 2006, 10:09 AM

Aymn27

31st July 2006, 10:52 AM

I wish I could agree, Cola, but I've seen some people living in horrible pain because of neglect. Psychic pain that's unimaginable. Schizophrenia, paranoia, uncontrollable emotions and never feeling safe being just some of the problems that can occur. I don't know if I'd dare say it's better to not live at all than to live in that pain, but I can understand wanting to spare someone that pain, given the option.

I do believe it's preventable pain, though, but it requires more from society than it is giving right now. Far more.
My wife and I were houseparents to abused, neglected, troubled girls for almost three years. In that time I lived with over 60 teenage girls who had disorders and problems ranging from bi-polar/borderline schizo to having trouble understanding how God could forgive one who was prostituting themselves (starting at age 10 I might add). Not one of them - NOT ONE - ever said she wished her mother would have aborted her than live the screwed up life that they were living.

And I would ask you - as I asked someone who worked there that said they would have been better off had their mother aborted them - which one would you have chosen to "terminate" - the 14 yr old who had been prostituting since she was 10? the girl who was homeless with her crack mom (she would dig food out of the trash at the state park to feed to her younger brother) and I could go on with stories of parental rape, abuse, etc... but you see the "choice" isn't so easy when it has a name and face attached to it.

Maybe I can round up some photos and share some of their life stories with you and you could decide which ones the world could live without.

Finella

31st July 2006, 11:07 AM

My wife and I were houseparents to abused, neglected, troubled girls for almost three years. In that time I lived with over 60 teenage girls who had disorders and problems ranging from bi-polar/borderline schizo to having trouble understanding how God could forgive one who was prostituting themselves (starting at age 10 I might add). Not one of them - NOT ONE - ever said she wished her mother would have aborted her than live the screwed up life that they were living.

And I would ask you - as I asked someone who worked there that said they would have been better off had their mother aborted them - which one would you have chosen to "terminate" - the 14 yr old who had been prostituting since she was 10? the girl who was homeless with her crack mom (she would dig food out of the trash at the state park to feed to her younger brother) and I could go on with stories of parental rape, abuse, etc... but you see the "choice" isn't so easy when it has a name and face attached to it.

Maybe I can round up some photos and share some of their life stories with you and you could decide which ones the world could live without.

I know very well these stories, too, Amyn. I've worked with psychiatric, homeless patients who grew up in very similar conditions but who did not have the benefit of loving families like yours to help them. They continued to live on the streets, continued to be abused the whored out by their dealers, continued to be beaten and frozen on snowy nights. The fact is not everyone gets the help they need. And they may wind up killing others in a paranoid rage, or having children of their own that wind up getting left in trash pile to die or even aborted.

I applaud your work, and this is what I am calling for -- more of it. But until then, when there's no guarantee that a child will get the help s/he needs, I can understand wanting to spare the pain neglect can bring. I'm not saying it's right, I am saying we need to change that. Now. Squabbling over whether it's right or not to abort a baby isn't the issue, the issue is whether we're making the world a safe place to birth babies into. Right now many pregnant women don't feel it's safe to bring their babies into the world. Can't we change that?

Inside Edge

31st July 2006, 11:45 AM

I must say, I find Finella's arguments on this issue to be the most impressive I've read to date. Although my wife and I are very pro-choice amongst ourselves, we're hesitant to force another woman to go through pregnancy and birth based on our own experience(s).

I have to say, though, that Finella's argument, as good as it is, is pretty morbid: if I'm reading it right, the state of affairs is such that it's not a matter of whether abortion is ever right or wrong, but that the world is in such a state that giving birth, in some cases, may be just as bad or worse?

It's certainly something to think about. I think back in particular to the 10 or so stories I've read in my time of babies left in dumpsters or thrown into rivers and what have you. I can't equate something like that with an early term abortion, and I can't imagine how that situation is better than an early term abortion.

And yet, neither (in my mind) is right. I'm starting to see her point: the world is a really messed up place, and with things like this, maybe to reach some ultimate "right" is to first find and implement a way to deal with and minimize the "wrong."

Finella

31st July 2006, 12:44 PM

Inside Edge, yes, I think you do read my argument right. I think we need to address the reasons why women choose to have abortions in the first place: what are the conditions that cause them to go through with that? Because outlawing it won't stop women from having abortions. If the socioeconomic pressures continue as they are, then no law and no church will save innocent babies' lives.

This is an opportunity for people to work together to make a society where women are supported in having children should they choose to have them, where children are born into safe, healthy environments, and they will continue to be supported until they are adults. Our patchwork system of services now lets far too many people and children fall through the cracks, and if they do get help it can be substandard (NJ's DYFS agency's problems come to mind).

I wish the politicians and churches would come together and come up with a plan that would help our country do this. It would be far more effective than legislating whether or not abortions can happen, and it would have more far-reaching implications for our society in general. It really would be "pro-life".

Colabomb

31st July 2006, 04:23 PM

karen freeinchristman

31st July 2006, 04:28 PM

The Children matter just as much (no not more) than the women who have them.
:scratch: why do they matter more?

No Swansong

31st July 2006, 04:37 PM

:scratch: why do they matter more?

I think you misread Karen he said "Not More".

Finella

31st July 2006, 04:38 PM

I agree that women are to be supported.

But I disagree that we can write off the children of mothers who choose not to have them.

The Children matter just as much (no not more) than the women who have them.

Actually, scripture disagrees with you there. Exodus 21:22 describes how anyone who causes a miscarriage is to pay a fine to the injured family, but this is distinctly different than the taking of a born child's or an adult's life, where the "eye for an eye" rule is applied.

Colabomb

31st July 2006, 05:00 PM

:scratch: why do they matter more?
I said not more.

NiteClerk

31st July 2006, 05:19 PM

"In an earlier post, I highlighted Planned Parenthood’s use of the term “terrorists” to describe mainstream pro-life groups and individuals such as Focus on the Family and Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito. In addition to sliming their ideological foes with words usually reserved for killers of innocents in the name of ideology (which is ironic), the writers at Planned Parenthood further reveal their lack of concern for words’ meanings by calling the emotional response women have to abortion “positive.” "

Read the whole thing here:
http://www.gopunditgo.com/2006/07/26/planned-parenthood-calls-emotional-response-to-abortion-positive/

From PP's website:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/eye-on-extremism.xml

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-040901-anti-choice-profiles.xml

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/webzine/eyeonextremism/eoe-extremist-biographies.xml
Thanks for the links. Especially the pro-life profiles. Those are helpful and it's nice of PP to list the groups and their beliefs. :)

Inside Edge

31st July 2006, 05:23 PM

But I disagree that we can write off the children of mothers who choose not to have them.
So then, would you reason that a baby being left in a dumpster or thrown into a river is the lesser of two evils, as opposed to an abortion?

I'm just trying to see where the right/wrong is generally applicable. If you consider those two things the same, than so be it, that sort of makes sense to me.

Because nothing of what Finella has mentioned has anything to do with "who matters more." It's more outside the box than that. If two ultimate scenarios both suck - and worse, if they both suck equally - then instead of just forcing a blanket morality on society regardless of the consquences, perhaps the "right" thing to do is to change the focus from the end result of the scenarios and try to support and fix the causes of said scenario in an effort to prevent it.

I'm seeing her point more and more (light bulbs going off all over the place)...

Colabomb

31st July 2006, 05:30 PM

So then, would you reason that a baby being left in a dumpster or thrown into a river is the lesser of two evils, as opposed to an abortion?

I'm just trying to see where the right/wrong is generally applicable. If you consider those two things the same, than so be it, that sort of makes sense to me.

Because nothing of what Finella has mentioned has anything to do with "who matters more." It's more outside the box than that. If two ultimate scenarios both suck - and worse, if they both suck equally - then instead of just forcing a blanket morality on society regardless of the consquences, perhaps the "right" thing to do is to change the focus from the end result of the scenarios and try to support and fix the causes of said scenario in an effort to prevent it.

I'm seeing her point more and more (light bulbs going off all over the place)...
it would be better for the mother to act responsibly, by dropping them off at a Firehouse, a Police station (for those states with those laws) or Children's services.

You act like there are only two options.

karen freeinchristman

31st July 2006, 05:35 PM

I said not more.
sorry, my bad.

karen freeinchristman

31st July 2006, 05:37 PM

You act like there are only two options.

I think that a pregnant woman who is in a state of desperation isn't always capable of thinking rationally about her options.

Colabomb

31st July 2006, 06:18 PM

I think that a pregnant woman who is in a state of desperation isn't always capable of thinking rationally about her options.
Neither is a jealous lover who shoots their spouse.

They have an option, divorce, that they did not consider. But we still call this a crime.

Finella

31st July 2006, 09:14 PM

it would be better for the mother to act responsibly, by dropping them off at a Firehouse, a Police station (for those states with those laws) or Children's services.

You act like there are only two options.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Yes, there are more than two options. But as Karen pointed out, people in these situations aren't always able to think and act clearly. Not only that, but they may simply be too scared to ask for help that could very well be out there. Have you ever seen an abusive relationship? Have you ever seen full-blown paranoid schizophrenia?

My point is, we as a group of human beings can affect change here. It's not saying that abortion is okay by making the world a better place to have and raise a baby -- it's simply making it easier for women who could otherwise have a healthy baby to choose to not abort, either by postponing conceiving or by carrying their already established pregnancies to term. Why is this such a difficult concept?

Finella

31st July 2006, 09:17 PM

Oh, and Cola, as I said before, if the currently available supports you mentioned (Children's services, the authorities taking in unwanted babies) were working adequately, women wouldn't be choosing abortion. But they are regardless. The system is broke. We must fix it, and abolishing abortion doesn't fix the cause of the problem.

Inside Edge

31st July 2006, 09:31 PM

You act like there are only two options.
There are only two options - to abort or not to do so, that is the issue at hand, and what is being discussed are precisely what I'm getting at - a myriad of possibilities after birth. Some good, some bad. Some just as bad as abortion.

My point is, we as a group of human beings can affect change here. It's not saying that abortion is okay by making the world a better place to have and raise a baby -- it's simply making it easier for women who could otherwise have a healthy baby to choose to not abort, either by postponing conceiving or by carrying their already established pregnancies to term. Why is this such a difficult concept?
Because it involves adjusting one's preconstructed understanding of blanket morality. What you're talking about means dealing with the issue in a non-reactive sort of way. Outlawing abortion wholesale as if that is the answer, or even the first step, is an easy-out that fits in nicely within right-and-wrong structure.

I think what you're explaining feels too close to "getting blinded in a gray area" to people, and that causes fear and recoil.

Maybe you've only succeeded in manipulating the argument (and if so, well done!); however, it seems to me that your agle on this is far more wholistic and right. Abortion may be abhorrent and wrong, but it exists and maybe even a life or two are saved because of it. Carrying the child to term, regardless of circumstance, may right, but lives are often lost in that process. We've got one heck of a problem on our hands, and it's not being addressed by simply outlawing abortion.

So again, I think you're quite right. Instead of trying to hammer the unfortunate scenario to fit the morality code of a given society, the more right thing to do is to fix the other wrongs in society which ultimately lead to the "unfortunate scenario" in question.

I'm rather convinced now, in large part to Finella's defense here, that "helping" this issue (i.e. reducing/eliminating abortions) is about how we can achieve the most good - and I don't see how outlawing abortion even comes close. In fact, I bet it only exacerbates the problem.

Aymn27

31st July 2006, 09:58 PM

There are only two options - to abort or not to do so, that is the issue at hand, and what is being discussed are precisely what I'm getting at - a myriad of possibilities after birth. Some good, some bad. Some just as bad as abortion.True, the two options are to terminate a pregnancy by taking a life, or carrying the pregnancy to term and giving life. In either case, the mother keeps her life. In the case of abortion - one person is dead, which leaves absolutely NO options after that choice is made. In the other case - the one of life - the mother can keep the child or choose from various secenarios like open adoption to leaving it at a fire station. In any case, there are two undamaged lives - both still in existence. I can think of no situations - be it deformity, abuse, or a poor standard of living that constitutes something "just as bad as abortion". My choice, in every situation if it were given to me, would be to live. I think that is a basic human trait given the miraculous stories of survival when humans are at the loosing end of odds, yet continue to fight for life.

Because it involves adjusting one's preconstructed understanding of blanket morality. What you're talking about means dealing with the issue in a non-reactive sort of way. Outlawing abortion wholesale as if that is the answer, or even the first step, is an easy-out that fits in nicely within right-and-wrong structure.

I think what you're explaining feels too close to "getting blinded in a gray area" to people, and that causes fear and recoil.
Actually I don't, nor have I ever, thought of it as a "gray" area. Murder, except for reasons of self-defense, is ALWAYS wrong. In this situation there are two persons involved, the mother and the child. Neither's life "means more" than the others - but neither means less either. The child is an individual and therefore has God-given rights - the first of which is the right to life. The mother's rights are to live also - and if the pregnancy is in danger of ending her life - then abortion is an acceptable alternative. I think that is an understanding across the board. However, here "right" to live her life as she wishes does not grant her a greater right than the child's right to exist as he/she was created by the Creator. My right to vote or have freedom of speech or drive or whatever does NOT suprecede another person's right to live. If you take another person's life it is murder (except in self-defense) - plain and simple. A "blanket" law outlawing abortion is equal to and of the same quality as a blanket law that outlaws murder.

Maybe you've only succeeded in manipulating the argument (and if so, well done!); however, it seems to me that your agle on this is far more wholistic and right. Abortion may be abhorrent and wrong, but it exists and maybe even a life or two are saved because of it. Carrying the child to term, regardless of circumstance, may right, but lives are often lost in that process. We've got one heck of a problem on our hands, and it's not being addressed by simply outlawing abortion.Rape and child molestation are abhorrent and wrong - should we allow those because a "life or two are saved because of it". And if we're looking for the "greater good" millions of abortions as compared to saving "one or two" or even a thousan lives is not justified by any means.

So again, I think you're quite right. Instead of trying to hammer the unfortunate scenario to fit the morality code of a given society, the more right thing to do is to fix the other wrongs in society which ultimately lead to the "unfortunate scenario" in questionThis is a major problem with "liberal" thought and theology. While we can work to improve the world - the world is in a fallen state - there's no "fixing" it.

No Swansong

1st August 2006, 06:46 AM

Oh, and Cola, as I said before, if the currently available supports you mentioned (Children's services, the authorities taking in unwanted babies) were working adequately, women wouldn't be choosing abortion.

I know Finella I said I wasn't going to comment any further but I had to address this. Your comment here is entirely false. Many abortions I would even venture to guess most abortions are performed as a method of birth control They are performed because having a baby is unwanted and inconvenient. There are relatively few abortions performed due to cases such as rape and incest which are the rallying cries of the liberals. Current studies show this number to be less than 4% at the most and many believe that the number is probably lower than .1%. Women are chosing abortion for myriad reasons but not having other post-birth options is not one of them.

But they are regardless. The system is broke. We must fix it, and abolishing abortion doesn't fix the cause of the problem.

Finella

1st August 2006, 07:38 AM

I know Finella I said I wasn't going to comment any further but I had to address this. Your comment here is entirely false. Many abortions I would even venture to guess most abortions are performed as a method of birth control They are performed because having a baby is unwanted and inconvenient. There are relatively few abortions performed due to cases such as rape and incest which are the rallying cries of the liberals. Current studies show this number to be less than 4% at the most and many believe that the number is probably lower than .1%. Women are chosing abortion for myriad reasons but not having other post-birth options is not one of them.
I am not saying all (or even most) abortions are the result of incest and rape. Please reread the post you quoted and my other posts.

Again, I state: what is the cause of the problem? What makes having a baby inconvenient? What makes a baby unwanted? I seriously doubt a woman goes into unprotected sex thinking, "if I get pregnant, it's okay, I'll have an abortion." Abortions are painful, physically and emotionally. It's far easier to use real birth control. Something is preventing people from 1) making wise choices about sex, and 2) accepting this life they have made and being willing to bring it into the world. Surely we agree on these points?

Giving a child up for adoption is not a guaranteed way of giving a child a good life. Stories of state services placing children in homes where they starve or are abused are rampant in the media -- whether true or not on the large scale, it does cause mistrust of the system. Workplaces make it difficult to be pregnant and take leave and return to the job when one is ready to work, not being rushed back into work. Good quality daycare is expensive, to the point that often it costs as much as the wages one would bring in from working. The social stigma of having a child out of wedlock is still very negative, and depending on the family one is raised in, the discovery of such a child could lead to physical and emotional harm from the woman's family. I have seen examples in my own experience of all of the above problems. They exist.

These are just some of the barriers that lead women to choose to abort their otherwise healthy pregnancies. What would happen if we worked to eliminate or reduce these? It may not get rid of all abortions, but is it not worth it to save 100 babies? 1000? As it is now, with both sides of the abortion debate raging at each other, I don't think many (if any) such lives are being saved.

Finella

1st August 2006, 07:44 AM

This is a major problem with "liberal" thought and theology. While we can work to improve the world - the world is in a fallen state - there's no "fixing" it.

What kind of thinking is that? Are we not called by our faith to help others? Why engage in this debate at all if you don't think you can effect change in the world by stopping abortion? You are trying to fix the world as much as anyone else is.

Inside Edge

1st August 2006, 11:05 AM

Aymn, I won't even bother responding to most your post, because your commentary on my posts is way off on a tangent - it barely even addresses what I said (at least the intending meaning of it)...I obviously haven't been as clear as I thought.

No Swansong

1st August 2006, 02:20 PM

I am not saying all (or even most) abortions are the result of incest and rape. Please reread the post you quoted and my other posts.

Again, I state: what is the cause of the problem? What makes having a baby inconvenient? What makes a baby unwanted? I seriously doubt a woman goes into unprotected sex thinking, "if I get pregnant, it's okay, I'll have an abortion." Abortions are painful, physically and emotionally. It's far easier to use real birth control. Something is preventing people from 1) making wise choices about sex, and 2) accepting this life they have made and being willing to bring it into the world. Surely we agree on these points?

Giving a child up for adoption is not a guaranteed way of giving a child a good life. Stories of state services placing children in homes where they starve or are abused are rampant in the media -- whether true or not on the large scale, it does cause mistrust of the system. Workplaces make it difficult to be pregnant and take leave and return to the job when one is ready to work, not being rushed back into work. Good quality daycare is expensive, to the point that often it costs as much as the wages one would bring in from working. The social stigma of having a child out of wedlock is still very negative, and depending on the family one is raised in, the discovery of such a child could lead to physical and emotional harm from the woman's family. I have seen examples in my own experience of all of the above problems. They exist.

These are just some of the barriers that lead women to choose to abort their otherwise healthy pregnancies. What would happen if we worked to eliminate or reduce these? It may not get rid of all abortions, but is it not worth it to save 100 babies? 1000? As it is now, with both sides of the abortion debate raging at each other, I don't think many (if any) such lives are being saved.

If you will look again Finella I believe that you will find that I was refuting your comment to Cola.

Oh, and Cola, as I said before, if the currently available supports you mentioned (Children's services, the authorities taking in unwanted babies) were working adequately, women wouldn't be choosing abortion.

Of course I believe that the reasons for abortions are myriad but here you imply that if these supports that Cola mentioned worked then women wouldn't be having abortions. This simply isn't true as it does not address the reasons that women have abortions as you rightly point out.

Besides as I pointed out earlier most abortions are for birth control whether considered in advance or not. This type of abortion in my opinion is the result of irresponsibility AND other reasons, and should not in my opinion be legal. And I strongly disagree that women do not consider abortion an option before they get pregnant. I haven't met a single woman who had not considered whether she would pursue this option or not if an unwanted pregnancy occured.

But even more importantly you have not addressed what to me is the underlieing issue here. What makes the comfort, convenience, and yes even health of a pregnant woman more important than the human life that is being extinguished? What rightfully makes this woman the final arbitor of the value of the life she is ending? When it comes right down to it a human life is being sacrificed. Is it being justly sacrificed?

Finella

1st August 2006, 02:35 PM

If you will look again Finella I believe that you will find that I was refuting your comment to Cola.

Of course I believe that the reasons for abortions are myriad but here you imply that if these supports that Cola mentioned worked then women wouldn't be having abortions. This simply isn't true as it does not address the reasons that women have abortions as you rightly point out.
If I understood Cola correctly, he was stating that women had adequate supports to carry their unwanted children to term so that they would not be aborted. My argument being that these supports are inadequate, otherwise women would be choosing them and not having abortions. If we have misunderstood each other, then perhaps Cola can clarify what he meant.

Besides as I pointed out earlier most abortions are for birth control whether considered in advance or not. This type of abortion in my opinion is the result of irresponsibility AND other reasons, and should not in my opinion be legal. And I strongly disagree that women do not consider abortion an option before they get pregnant. I haven't met a single woman who had not considered whether she would pursue this option or not if an unwanted pregnancy occured. Of course women consider this an option, but my argument is that women don't consider it a primary method of birth control. Sadly, yes, abortion may be a back-up, if-all-else-fails method, but not the primary method. The physical, emotional, and financial cost is too high.

But even more importantly you have not addressed what to me is the underlieing issue here. What makes the comfort, convenience, and yes even health of a pregnant woman more important than the human life that is being extinguished? What rightfully makes this woman the final arbitor of the value of the life she is ending? When it comes right down to it a human life is being sacrificed. Is it being justly sacrificed? The fact is, the power over the relationship between a woman and her baby is in the woman's favor. The baby is dependent upon its mother. Simple nature. Without the woman allowing herself to be pregnant, the baby dies. This is the way God has created the relationship. I'm not saying that morally the woman has more rights than the unborn child, I'm saying that the nature of pregnancy gives the mother the power to keep or lose the pregnancy. Until the child is viable outside of the womb, nothing else can care for it.

I'm not getting into the moral issues of abortion because that isn't the point I'm making. Whether I agree with you or not that abortion is murder, the fact remains that murder of born persons does not stop murder. Murder still happens. Likewise I know that if abortion is outlawed, abortion will still happen. My mother even had one while they were still illegal -- at my father's urging. Outlawing abortion, whether morally right or not-- does not solve the abortion problem.

Is it not better to have abortion legal, controlled, safe, and rare, while also providing support for the women and babies who need it, so that women will be less likely to choose abortion? The alternative, making it illegal, criminalizes women who are already vulnerable and will now only further believe that the world is an unsafe place to live in.

SteelDisciple

1st August 2006, 02:39 PM

"In an earlier post, I highlighted Planned Parenthood’s use of the term “terrorists” to describe mainstream pro-life groups and individuals such as Focus on the Family and Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito. In addition to sliming their ideological foes with words usually reserved for killers of innocents in the name of ideology (which is ironic), the writers at Planned Parenthood further reveal their lack of concern for words’ meanings by calling the emotional response women have to abortion “positive.” "

Read the whole thing here:
http://www.gopunditgo.com/2006/07/26/planned-parenthood-calls-emotional-response-to-abortion-positive/

From PP's website:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/eye-on-extremism.xml

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-040901-anti-choice-profiles.xml

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/webzine/eyeonextremism/eoe-extremist-biographies.xml
I am strongly Pro-Life...as I don't believe in murder and for some odd reason think that all life God creates is precious. Silly me.

This kind of slander is not uncommon. Take a look at the issues of homosexuality...anyone who doesn't agree with the political groups FOR homosexuality label people "homophobic" It's a term which was created for the primary purpose of FORCING people to agree with them or be labeled crazy.

It's not uncommon..it's something that's been going on for centuries. It's sad that some fall for the slander against such places as Focus on the Family...

SteelDisciple

1st August 2006, 02:43 PM

If I understood Cola correctly, he was stating that women had adequate supports to carry their unwanted children to term so that they would not be aborted. My argument being that these supports are inadequate, otherwise women would be choosing them and not having abortions. If we have misunderstood each other, then perhaps Cola can clarify what he meant.

Of course women consider this an option, but my argument is that women don't consider it a primary method of birth control. Sadly, yes, abortion may be a back-up, if-all-else-fails method, but not the primary method. The physical, emotional, and financial cost is too high.

The fact is, the power over the relationship between a woman and her baby is in the woman's favor. The baby is dependent upon its mother. Simple nature. Without the woman allowing herself to be pregnant, the baby dies. This is the way God has created the relationship. I'm not saying that morally the woman has more rights than the unborn child, I'm saying that the nature of pregnancy gives the mother the power to keep or lose the pregnancy. Until the child is viable outside of the womb, nothing else can care for it.

I'm not getting into the moral issues of abortion because that isn't the point I'm making. Whether I agree with you or not that abortion is murder, the fact remains that murder of born persons does not stop murder. Murder still happens. Likewise I know that if abortion is outlawed, abortion will still happen. My mother even had one while they were still illegal -- at my father's urging. Outlawing abortion, whether morally right or not-- does not solve the abortion problem.

Is it not better to have abortion legal, controlled, safe, and rare, while also providing support for the women and babies who need it, so that women will be less likely to choose abortion? The alternative, making it illegal, criminalizes women who are already vulnerable and will now only further believe that the world is an unsafe place to live in.

There is one fatal flaw with that theory...you said the Mother has the power while the baby is still in the womb. But that woman is also a creation UNDER the power of God. Pregnancy is a gift by God...from God through means which He created. By killing an unborn, someone who WOULD have a future (of which that person, by aborting just sacrificed that persons future) no longer will...and so rejected God by not allowing Him another of His children to worship Him.

With abortion not legal...it would mean A LOT less people getting abortions (except for the depravely desperate) . Keeping it legal would make things easier and thus make it a more popular choice. (disposal people anyone?)

Finella

1st August 2006, 02:58 PM

There is one fatal flaw with that theory...you said the Mother has the power while the baby is still in the womb. But that woman is also a creation UNDER the power of God. Pregnancy is a gift by God...from God through means which He created. By killing an unborn, someone who WOULD have a future (of which that person, by aborting just sacrificed that persons future) no longer will...and so rejected God by not allowing Him another of His children to worship Him.

With abortion not legal...it would mean A LOT less people getting abortions (except for the depravely desperate) . Keeping it legal would make things easier and thus make it a more popular choice. (disposal people anyone?)

I'm simply stating the facts, not whether it is right or wrong. My mother, a good person and a Christian all her life, had an illegal abortion while married to my father. Legitimately conceived between them. She wasn't stopped by the law, and I doubt many others would be, either. The scary thought is how many women would die from such procedures carried out by rogue doctors should abortion be outlawed again.

Not everyone sees abortion as murder, therefore if abortion is outlawed the nation won't simply think, "Abortion is murder! I shouldnt' do this!" I think far more lives will be saved if we address the social and economic issues that lead to abortion. Maybe eventually this would lead to abortion being an unheard-of practice, but legislating something does not make people believe the same thing you do.

No Swansong

1st August 2006, 03:00 PM

If I understood Cola correctly, he was stating that women had adequate supports to carry their unwanted children to term so that they would not be aborted. My argument being that these supports are inadequate, otherwise women would be choosing them and not having abortions. If we have misunderstood each other, then perhaps Cola can clarify what he meant.

Of course women consider this an option, but my argument is that women don't consider it a primary method of birth control. Sadly, yes, abortion may be a back-up, if-all-else-fails method, but not the primary method. The physical, emotional, and financial cost is too high.

The fact is, the power over the relationship between a woman and her baby is in the woman's favor. The baby is dependent upon its mother. Simple nature. Without the woman allowing herself to be pregnant, the baby dies. This is the way God has created the relationship. I'm not saying that morally the woman has more rights than the unborn child, I'm saying that the nature of pregnancy gives the mother the power to keep or lose the pregnancy. Until the child is viable outside of the womb, nothing else can care for it.

I'm not getting into the moral issues of abortion because that isn't the point I'm making. Whether I agree with you or not that abortion is murder, the fact remains that murder of born persons does not stop murder. Murder still happens. Likewise I know that if abortion is outlawed, abortion will still happen. My mother even had one while they were still illegal -- at my father's urging. Outlawing abortion, whether morally right or not-- does not solve the abortion problem.

Is it not better to have abortion legal, controlled, safe, and rare, while also providing support for the women and babies who need it, so that women will be less likely to choose abortion? The alternative, making it illegal, criminalizes women who are already vulnerable and will now only further believe that the world is an unsafe place to live in.

You know I had a 5 paragraph response typed and ready to go and I just decided not to. I do not want to get into yet another abortion debate. It is already falling into the same old rhetoric. For every point you make I have a refutation, for every point I make I am sure you do too.
The point is abortion is not becoming rare it is more frequent every year. You can argue that it is socio-economic I can argue that it is irresponsibility.

What it comes down to, at least to me, is that two human lives are entering that office. One is not coming out because the other was more powerful and could end the inconvenient consequence of their irresponsible behavior. Should this woman receive love, comfort and mercy? yes. Will I approve of her CHOICE? never. Her comfort or convenience is never is more important than the life she is ending.

Finella

1st August 2006, 03:56 PM

You know I had a 5 paragraph response typed and ready to go and I just decided not to. I do not want to get into yet another abortion debate. It is already falling into the same old rhetoric. For every point you make I have a refutation, for every point I make I am sure you do too.
The point is abortion is not becoming rare it is more frequent every year. You can argue that it is socio-economic I can argue that it is irresponsibility.

What it comes down to, at least to me, is that two human lives are entering that office. One is not coming out because the other was more powerful and could end the inconvenient consequence of their irresponsible behavior. Should this woman receive love, comfort and mercy? yes. Will I approve of her CHOICE? never. Her comfort or convenience is never is more important than the life she is ending.

It is a difficult and painful debate. I guess my point is that I share with you in the grief of the loss of these persons. I lost a sibling 35 years ago, and my mother lost a child against her will. I want all unnecessary deaths to stop, too. I don't think we're that far apart on this issue -- we want the same end result. But the rhetoric has led us to believe that we cannot cooperate on this issue, even if our end goal is the same. I challenge that -- I really do.

Even if you call it "irresponsibility" and I call it "socieoeconomic issues," I think we can still see some common sources for these problems. What causes people to not take responsibility? Is it an American-culture, "Take a pill" cure-all kind of attitude? The easy way out of problems? Is it that we can't face the painful choices we make in our lives? I'm sure that's part of it. But I think you can also agree that the socioeconomic problems are part of the big problem, too. There's no one cause, but many complex and interrelated causes.

Can't we work together to eliminate the causes of this tragedy?

Inside Edge

1st August 2006, 04:19 PM

Is it not better to have abortion legal, controlled, safe, and rare, while also providing support for the women and babies who need it, so that women will be less likely to choose abortion? The alternative, making it illegal, criminalizes women who are already vulnerable and will now only further believe that the world is an unsafe place to live in.
There'll be marginal decrease, but as you pointed out, the ones that continue to happen will be severe, unsafe, and even more detrimental. Prohibition has rarely "worked" on most "problems."
With abortion not legal...it would mean A LOT less people getting abortions (except for the depravely desperate) . Keeping it legal would make things easier and thus make it a more popular choice. (disposal people anyone?)
Not in my studies of history. Less people perhaps; but not a "LOT" less. I think far less people would opt for abortion under a controlled, supportive system as opposed to a blanketed-criminal one.
I don't think we're that far apart on this issue -- we want the same end result. But the rhetoric has led us to believe that we cannot cooperate on this issue, even if our end goal is the same.
Very true. You've stated a million and one time in this discussion alone that the goal is a reduction (preferably elimination) of abortions, and you're really just suggesting a different method of attack on the problem - one that doesn't start with legislating abortion as illegal.

Rhetoric is one thing fogging the issue, the other is entrenchment. If you consider abortion equal to murder, then look at the law and see that murder is illegal, then the logic is simple: abortion should be illegal too.

My understanding, thus far, is that accepting or being a part of an unenforced 'abortion-is-illegal' solution makes people feel like they have backed down, like morality and righteousness are not being applied. That is unacceptable, and therefore working on anything that doesn't begin with making abortion illegal is unacceptable, too.

Criminalizing an act we (in society) consider immoral or unjust is our default, tried-and-true way of living. Attempting to deal with a problem that has serious moral implications any other way, it appears to me, become very difficult for most people.

Sometimes it's lonely out on the edge, Finella. :)

Finella

1st August 2006, 04:30 PM

Sometimes it's lonely out on the edge, Finella. :)

:sigh: Yep. :) It sure is. This isn't the first time I've proposed this argument on CF (and I've done it in other areas). It never seems to go anywhere. For both sides this approach compromises their stances too much. Both sides might have to concede just a little to the other side. Thus self-righteousness is winning over innocent lives. It's simply sad.

I'll keep making the point, though. I'm glad you are finding the idea a good one. Thanks for the support.

No Swansong

1st August 2006, 04:46 PM

It is a difficult and painful debate. I guess my point is that I share with you in the grief of the loss of these persons. I lost a sibling 35 years ago, and my mother lost a child against her will. I want all unnecessary deaths to stop, too. I don't think we're that far apart on this issue -- we want the same end result. But the rhetoric has led us to believe that we cannot cooperate on this issue, even if our end goal is the same. I challenge that -- I really do.

Even if you call it "irresponsibility" and I call it "socieoeconomic issues," I think we can still see some common sources for these problems. What causes people to not take responsibility? Is it an American-culture, "Take a pill" cure-all kind of attitude? The easy way out of problems? Is it that we can't face the painful choices we make in our lives? I'm sure that's part of it. But I think you can also agree that the socioeconomic problems are part of the big problem, too. There's no one cause, but many complex and interrelated causes.

Can't we work together to eliminate the causes of this tragedy?

You and I may be able to but I have read much by the Pro-Choice groups and I am convinced that it is not their goal to end abortion at all. You may be the exception, but every pro-choice advocate I have ever met takes the stance that it is a womans rights issue, not a life and death issue. And God forbid if we infringe upon their perceived right.
Until those who promote this agenda recognize that a human life is being ended and that this is a tragedy, which I doubt will happen, individuals may be able to agree and work together but not groups. This I am sure you will agree is a tragedy.

Finella

1st August 2006, 05:00 PM

You and I may be able to but I have read much by the Pro-Choice groups and I am convinced that it is not their goal to end abortion at all. You may be the exception, but every pro-choice advocate I have ever met takes the stance that it is a womans rights issue, not a life and death issue. And God forbid if we infringe upon their perceived right.
Until those who promote this agenda recognize that a human life is being ended and that this is a tragedy, which I doubt will happen, individuals may be able to agree and work together but not groups. This I am sure you will agree is a tragedy.

I agree with you -- as I said earlier in the thread, most pro-choice people do not at all recognize the tragedy of abortion to a person. My pro-choice friends do, however. I think there is an opportunity here for people to work together. Cooperation has to start somewhere, with people saying, "Yes. I am willing to work with you." If a group of individuals start something, it's amazing what can happen. Just look at Christianity. ;)

Colabomb

1st August 2006, 05:47 PM

If I understood Cola correctly, he was stating that women had adequate supports to carry their unwanted children to term so that they would not be aborted. My argument being that these supports are inadequate, otherwise women would be choosing them and not having abortions. If we have misunderstood each other, then perhaps Cola can clarify what he meant.

Of course women consider this an option, but my argument is that women don't consider it a primary method of birth control. Sadly, yes, abortion may be a back-up, if-all-else-fails method, but not the primary method. The physical, emotional, and financial cost is too high.

The fact is, the power over the relationship between a woman and her baby is in the woman's favor. The baby is dependent upon its mother. Simple nature. Without the woman allowing herself to be pregnant, the baby dies. This is the way God has created the relationship. I'm not saying that morally the woman has more rights than the unborn child, I'm saying that the nature of pregnancy gives the mother the power to keep or lose the pregnancy. Until the child is viable outside of the womb, nothing else can care for it.

I'm not getting into the moral issues of abortion because that isn't the point I'm making. Whether I agree with you or not that abortion is murder, the fact remains that murder of born persons does not stop murder. Murder still happens. Likewise I know that if abortion is outlawed, abortion will still happen. My mother even had one while they were still illegal -- at my father's urging. Outlawing abortion, whether morally right or not-- does not solve the abortion problem.

Is it not better to have abortion legal, controlled, safe, and rare, while also providing support for the women and babies who need it, so that women will be less likely to choose abortion? The alternative, making it illegal, criminalizes women who are already vulnerable and will now only further believe that the world is an unsafe place to live in.
Yes, you understood me, there are options for women, but I agree that they could be stronger.

However, just because the system fails does not mean we should allow another atrocity to occur.

It is like saying that because the sytem fails the poor we should allow everyone to steal.

Both the weakness of the System, and the killing of the Child are wrong. I say we should fix both. It is not an Either or Situation.

Inside Edge

1st August 2006, 05:51 PM

Until those who promote this agenda recognize that a human life is being ended and that this is a tragedy, which I doubt will happen, individuals may be able to agree and work together but not groups.
Maybe so, but things have to start with individuals. What Finella has made me realize, is that her ideas should allow both camps to operate without actually having to release their moral judgements on an issue - they just have to ease off on a few demands that they have (by and large) attached to their moral point of view, as if they were mutually inclusive.

Pro-Choicers don't have to change their point of view that abortion is not murder. All they have to do is realize that a lot of people do think so, and to operate with a little understanding. In this scenario, a woman would retain the choice/right, but they would also be supportive of various other efforts to make that choice a distant one. I've never met a pro-choice person that would say "abortion is a totally benign medical procedure for a women and she should be able to make that choice at the drop of a hat." I think if a lot of the rank-and-file pro-lifers stopped demanding, unconditionally, that their perceived right be taken away wholesale, they'd be a lot less militant (and sometimes ridiculous).

Inside Edge

1st August 2006, 05:57 PM

It is like saying that because Divorce is often difficult to get through with all your stuff, spousal murder should be allowed.
Did you just compare a divorce (ending a relationship) to carrying an unwanted child (and possibly forced) to term, giving birth, and then giving it up?

Good God, have mercy. Go get married. Get your wife pregnant. Observe closely, and then come back and tell me that splitting up is anything analogous.

Better yet, tell her. Especially around week 37.

Colabomb

1st August 2006, 06:44 PM

Did you just compare a divorce (ending a relationship) to carrying an unwanted child (and possibly forced) to term, giving birth, and then giving it up?

Good God, have mercy. Go get married. Get your wife pregnant. Observe closely, and then come back and tell me that splitting up is anything analogous.

Better yet, tell her. Especially around week 37.
Okay, bad analogies don't kill my argument.

No Swansong

1st August 2006, 06:56 PM

Maybe so, but things have to start with individuals. What Finella has made me realize, is that her ideas should allow both camps to operate without actually having to release their moral judgements on an issue - they just have to ease off on a few demands that they have (by and large) attached to their moral point of view, as if they were mutually inclusive.

Pro-Choicers don't have to change their point of view that abortion is not murder. All they have to do is realize that a lot of people do think so, and to operate with a little understanding. In this scenario, a woman would retain the choice/right, but they would also be supportive of various other efforts to make that choice a distant one. I've never met a pro-choice person that would say "abortion is a totally benign medical procedure for a women and she should be able to make that choice at the drop of a hat." I think if a lot of the rank-and-file pro-lifers stopped demanding, unconditionally, that their perceived right be taken away wholesale, they'd be a lot less militant (and sometimes ridiculous).

I have met several who believe that any female (I don't consider pre-teens and young teens women) should be able to make the abortion decision at the drop of a hat. However the point isn't that they view the procedure as benign. The problem indeed is that they consider abortion on demand a right. I haven't met one personally (and I have met scores) who particularly care if the abortion rate decreases or not. I simply deny the assertion that this is their goal. I am sure, as in the case of Finella, that some few individuals do have this as their goal but they are few and far between.
I entirely disagree with your last sentence. Additionally I do not want pro-lifers to stop demanding an end to abortion, should that happen then it is unlikely that abortions will ever decrease or end.

I did exactly what I did not want to do, I entered the debate. Please consider this my exit.

Finella

1st August 2006, 07:00 PM

Yes, you understood me, there are options for women, but I agree that they could be stronger.

However, just because the system fails does not mean we should allow another atrocity to occur.

It is like saying that because the sytem fails the poor we should allow everyone to steal.

Both the weakness of the System, and the killing of the Child are wrong. I say we should fix both. It is not an Either or Situation.

I am glad we agree on something.

Two things. First, again, criminalizing something doesn't stop stealing any more than it stops murder. And society as a whole agrees that murder and stealing are wrong. Society as a whole is not in agreement that abortion is murder in the way that you and other people see it. Therefore legislating against abortion is not going to stop it, as I keep saying.

Second, the weakness of the system is imperitive here. And I see this happening in other areas besides abortion. Criminalizing things that people are compelled to do to cope with problems (drugs, for instance) doesn't really address the cause. It's time we got more sophisticated and really looked at the heart of the matter and saw the whole situation for what it is. Kinda like what we're asking women who are considering abortion to do.

While you may be saying it's not an either/or situation, I'm finding it very hard to sell this argument to people who want to simply outlaw abortion. They don't want to address the costs of such a move -- whether its imprisoning the millions of women who have abortions, or caring for the millions of babies who would theoretically be born and saved from abortion (though, as I said, I believe abortions would still happen at a similar rate anyway). It's mind-boggling to me.

I rant, sorry. :(

Colabomb

1st August 2006, 07:06 PM

To clarify, here are my thoughts.

1) Abortion is the death of a human being, as much a human being as myself.

2) Abortion is sometimes necessary in dire Medical emergencies.

3) Those emergencies are rare.

4) You can restrict Abortion without Illegalizing it. It is quite easy to restrict abortions to medical emergencies while taking it away from irresponsible parents.

5) Abortion as birth control, whether primary, or secondary, is murder for the sake of convenience, and Comperable to shooting a three year old because you can't handle him/her.

6) We tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies constantly. IE, the use of drugs, both legal and illegal, and suicide.

7) We can and should strengthen the system for Child welfare. But we can and should restrict abortion at the same time. Just because the system does not work everytime, does not mean we should allow innocent children to be killed just because we don't have it right, right now.

I am willing to work with Pro-abortion advocates to decrease abortions. Unfortunately, we have differing ideologies about how to do so that are often not reconcilable, so i may or may not have the option of doing so.

Finella

1st August 2006, 07:09 PM

I have met several who believe that any female (I don't consider pre-teens and young teens women) should be able to make the abortion decision at the drop of a hat. However the point isn't that they view the procedure as benign. The problem indeed is that they consider abortion on demand a right. I haven't met one personally (and I have met scores) who particularly care if the abortion rate decreases or not. I simply deny the assertion that this is their goal. I am sure, as in the case of Finella, that some few individuals do have this as their goal but they are few and far between.
I entirely disagree with your last sentence. Additionally I do not want pro-lifers to stop demanding an end to abortion, should that happen then it is unlikely that abortions will ever decrease or end.

I did exactly what I did not want to do, I entered the debate. Please consider this my exit.

I am sorry you are leaving the debate, you bring good points which need to be addressed.

While I want to decrease abortion and I hope to never ever have to consider it for myself, I do consider it my right to be able to end a pregnancy that resides in my body. We disagree here, and I understand that. I know that such a decision would tear me apart and be the most difficult thing I would ever do in my life. I know I would only do it if I felt it was in my child's and my own best interests, as well as my family's. I would have to live with myself for such a decision for the rest of my life and beyond. Please understand that women who assert this right carry it with the same respect I am describing to you. It is not always done lightly and as cavalierly as you describe. It is because of this respect for life people have that I think we can come together.

I understand that, with views on abortion such as yours, conceding a total ban on abortion is impossible. But such a stance leaves us at a standstill, or at best leaves the pro-choice people in charge of creating a solution to the problem. It's up to all of us.

Colabomb

1st August 2006, 07:11 PM

I am glad we agree on something.

Two things. First, again, criminalizing something doesn't stop stealing any more than it stops murder. And society as a whole agrees that murder and stealing are wrong. Society as a whole is not in agreement that abortion is murder in the way that you and other people see it. Therefore legislating against abortion is not going to stop it, as I keep saying.

Second, the weakness of the system is imperitive here. And I see this happening in other areas besides abortion. Criminalizing things that people are compelled to do to cope with problems (drugs, for instance) doesn't really address the cause. It's time we got more sophisticated and really looked at the heart of the matter and saw the whole situation for what it is. Kinda like what we're asking women who are considering abortion to do.

While you may be saying it's not an either/or situation, I'm finding it very hard to sell this argument to people who want to simply outlaw abortion. They don't want to address the costs of such a move -- whether its imprisoning the millions of women who have abortions, or caring for the millions of babies who would theoretically be born and saved from abortion (though, as I said, I believe abortions would still happen at a similar rate anyway). It's mind-boggling to me.

I rant, sorry. :(
I agree that abortions would still happen. But I disagree completely that they would continue at the same rate.

Many people decide not to steal because they fear the legal consequences of doing so. Theft happens, but not as much as it would were it legal.

Finella

1st August 2006, 07:21 PM

To clarify, here are my thoughts.

1) Abortion is the death of a human being, as much a human being as myself.

Not everyone, including scripture, agrees. Hence the debate.

2) Abortion is sometimes necessary in dire Medical emergencies.
Yes.

3) Those emergencies are rare. Again, yes.

4) You can restrict Abortion without Illegalizing it. It is quite easy to restrict abortions to medical emergencies while taking it away from irresponsible parents.
Maybe. But as I said, this can force people to seek abortions from other sources. Women have been concocting abortificants for millennia. Such practices are unsafe and can kill the mother as well as the child. If a woman is forced to carry a child to term in an unsafe living or social environment, her mental and/or physical health (as well as that of the baby's) can be compromised. Much more support is needed.

5) Abortion as birth control, whether primary, or secondary, is murder for the sake of convenience, and Comperable to shooting a three year old because you can't handle him/her. Again, see my response to point #1. I disagree -- murdering a 3-year-old is far more severe a crime than having an abortion in the first trimester.

6) We tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies constantly. IE, the use of drugs, both legal and illegal, and suicide. Again, this doesn't stop people from doing these things. I've worked with drug addicts and psychiatric patients. People are very creative. And if you think jail stops their drug use, you are naive.

And suicide? What kind of law stops suicide?

7) We can and should strengthen the system for Child welfare. But we can and should restrict abortion at the same time. Just because the system does not work everytime, does not mean we should allow innocent children to be killed just because we don't have it right, right now. People keep misunderstanding me on this point. I will try again.

Just because the system is broken doesn't mean abortion is okay. But it does not help women choose to not have an abortion. As long as we have legal abortion, and if we want to reduce abortions by helping women who are concerned that their children will not be adequately cared for should they give them up for adoption, then you need to fix the child welfare system.

I am willing to work with Pro-abortion advocates to decrease abortions. Unfortunately, we have differing ideologies about how to do so that are often not reconcilable, so i may or may not have the option of doing so. Then perhaps you can choose to address the areas you can agree to work together on with other pro-life people and someone who is pro-choice. We don't have to agree on every point, but that we agree on the end goal is the most significant thing. (And may I request that you please stop calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion" -- they are hardly the same thing. I am not "pro-abortion.")

Finella

1st August 2006, 07:24 PM

I agree that abortions would still happen. But I disagree completely that they would continue at the same rate.

Many people decide not to steal because they fear the legal consequences of doing so. Theft happens, but not as much as it would were it legal.

Again. Because everyone agrees that stealing is bad.

Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. I'm not saying everyone is right or wrong on this, I am stating a fact.

When you have consensus on a "bad" action, then people are less likely to do it. When you don't have consensus, then more people are likely to do it.

Inside Edge

1st August 2006, 08:19 PM

There's a difference between living in a world where abortion is illegal, and living in a world where everyone believes/thinks abortion is illegal (or should be).

It would be great if we all agreed that it was tantamount to murder in most cases, and thus no one ever undertook it except in some very rare situations. However, this is not the case, and will not be the case simply by forcing legislation against the will of a significant portion of the population.

So, that being the case, are our/your energies best used in blindly and militantly fighting for legislative measures, or actually working to reduce abortions by other means and changing the minds of of people first.

It strikes me that if that can be accomplished, making it part of the criminal code will be moot or a no-brainer. And if that can never be accomplished, then at least efforts in the meantime have actually helped the pro-life cause and the problem.

It's obvious to me that standing around shouting "make it illegal" and "it's a women's right" will not accomplish anything. In the meantime, the actual problem just gets worse.

Fleurette

1st August 2006, 08:22 PM

Personally, I'm against abortion. This view may change if/when I marry, or if circumstances change, but I've seen how it still hurts my mother that she miscarried a little boy before she had me. I cannot imagine intentionally doing that to any child of mine that God had given me, a part of my own flesh. I appreciate that some of you may find this uninformed and insensitive, and I apologise - it is not my intention to give offence, but I know that many will take it, because of my youth.

However, I'm pro-choice generally, because I don't believe that banning it would be anything other than counterproductive. I don't wish to see the life of the mother taken along with the child because they tried aborting with a knitting needle, couldn't afford a proper abortion. Nor do I want to see young, vulnerable teenage girls facing the prospect of being criminalised for accidently conceiving a kid. And I suppose I believe that ultimately, what a person does is their choice, and that the law shouldn't dictate anymore than is necessary for the wellbeing of society.

Fleurette

1st August 2006, 08:26 PM

Arrgh, I see you've already said everything I just did. Sorry, typical newbie mistake :o: Just ignore :)

Cromwe11

2nd August 2006, 12:25 AM

There's a difference between living in a world where abortion is illegal, and living in a world where everyone believes/thinks abortion is illegal (or should be).

you are right.. there is a difference. People will break the law even if it is the law. The argument, however, that "people will do it anyway" is possibly one of the dumbest arguments ever why something should not be a law.

If people listened to this kind of argument, instead of doing what was right, we'd still have slavery in the US.

The abortion issue is very simple, it resolves on one question and one question only. Is the unborn child a living human being?
If it is then it has all the rights of any other human being, if it isn't, it has no human rights.

If it is, then to kill it without justification (Which would be the same for taking any other human life) is murder .<--- note the period

If you can justify murdering people in order to spare them the harships of life, or to spare society their burdensome existance.. I sadly wouldn't be all that surprised as that is what we are fast coming to.

Aymn27

2nd August 2006, 12:27 AM

Again. Because everyone agrees that stealing is bad.

Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. I'm not saying everyone is right or wrong on this, I am stating a fact.

When you have consensus on a "bad" action, then people are less likely to do it. When you don't have consensus, then more people are likely to do it.
Not every one agrees that stealing is bad - that is silly to say. There are more people who steal than who have abortions. What people "feel" is right or wrong is irrelevant. Nazi's "felt" that the Jews were subhuman - a vast majority of Germans "felt" the same way.

As a Christian we believe that the commandments were given to us by Yahweh as a means of measuring what is right and wrong. This is summed up in the golden rule of "do onto others as you would have them do unto you". What does that say about abortion and being Christian?

People are selfish, fallen creatures that are wretched sinners who will lie, steal, cheat, kill, etc etc to get their way. Abortion is murder. Period. It is the aggressive taking of the life of an individual by another individual. It matters not the reason. It is murder. There is no gray area. It doesn't matter what Hillary Clinton, Kofi Anon or Mr. Green Jeans thinks about it. It doesn't matter if Cola and myself are the only two people left on earth who believes that it is murder and 6 billion don't think the same. God does not look to polls for determining His law.

Praise be Jesus Christ for the forgiveness and mercy he offers to those who have aborted their child if they repent of their sins and turn to him. Our God is the God of Life, the Creator God - not the lord of death.

May He pour out his mercy upon us all for our sins.

Inside Edge

2nd August 2006, 12:43 AM

As a Christian we believe that the commandments were given to us by Yahweh as a means of measuring what is right and wrong. This is summed up in the golden rule of "do onto others as you would have them do unto you". What does that say about abortion and being Christian?
Now this is the most concise argument for deeming abortion wrong.

Unfortunately, Finella's argument has fallen once again, on deaf ears. It isn't about whether it's right or wrong, it's about how best to solve or minimize the problem.

Finella, may I offer you a brick wall, instead?

Cromwe11

2nd August 2006, 09:28 AM

No Swansong

2nd August 2006, 10:59 AM

Now this is the most concise argument for deeming abortion wrong.

Unfortunately, Finella's argument has fallen once again, on deaf ears. It isn't about whether it's right or wrong, it's about how best to solve or minimize the problem.

Finella, may I offer you a brick wall, instead?

Lord have mercy!

Abortion above every other consideration is a matter of right or wrong. Any taking of human life should always be a matter of right or wrong. Murder is a matter of right or wrong, capital punishment is a matter of right or wrong, euthanasia is a matter of right or wrong,. Manslaughter voluntary or involuntary is a matter of right or wrong, I could go on.
Concerning the brick wall. You seem to confuse disagreement with not understanding. I realize perfectly well that Finella is not defending abortion (or at least she is trying hard not to, for which I admire her) I also realize that she is advocating the working together of both sides to eliminate the reasons that women and girls chose to have abortions. I do not agree that this can happen for a number of reasons but primarily there are two.

Where I disagree is that the pro-choice groups will ever join into that cause. They have the attitude that restrictions on abortion whether legislated or not are an attack upon their "rights". There are many examples of this, such as the huge debate a number of years ago in Ohio over a proposed requirement that a woman wait 24 hours after seeing a physician before the procedure be performed. This of course would not have applied to emergency life saving procedures. Every pro-choice group in the state opposed the requirement strenuously. Not most, not almost all, but every single one, because it limited access to their right of abortion on demand. I simply do not believe that these groups have any interest whatsoever in decreasing the number of abortions, most of them pay some sort of lip service to this idea but if you see where they spend their money you find their priorities.

The second primary reason is that you will not eliminate the reasons that women chose abortion. The most proposed argument is socio-economic. Understand there will alway be the Poor. Jesus recognized this 2000 years ago and it is just as clear today as then. Most of the other reasons also will probably never be solved. There will always be peer pressure, there will always be poor self-esteem, and there will always be women and men who make bad decisions about promiscuity and unprotected sex. There has been 30 years of education and yet there are more abortions every year.

So you have a combination of groups who cannot work together because they truly do not have the same ultimate goal, (to end abortion) and you have a set of circumstances that will not change being used as reasons for abortion. (I still believe it is a lack of responsibility) Considering these, in combination, it is not likely that these groups are ever going to work together.

Lord forgive me for getting into this again.

Inside Edge

2nd August 2006, 11:18 AM

You're still missing something, and it's already been explained.

The argument is (or can be) independent of whether it "should" be legal. No one is asking anyone else to stop thinking or believing it is illegal or wrong. It's different from stealing because there is not a significant consensus on the issue. As such, unwavering and militant demands that it be made legal and unwavering replies of "no way" don't do anything to solve or help the problem. In fact, the problem just keeps getting worse.

To me, it's even more important to take this approach if you feel abortion should be illegal. What good does it do (what good has it done) for me to argue and preach at/with some pro-choice advocat? None. In fact, the very problem that I think should be fixed or "made illegal" just keeps getting worse, despite any efforts or exhortations of my moral code. If 1000 abortions are saved because the focus of efforts were shifted, and only 100 are saved under the current efforts, which one should we be pouring our efforts into?

Inside Edge

2nd August 2006, 11:27 AM

Where I disagree is that the pro-choice groups will ever join into that cause.
So then, let's assume they won't go for it, so don't even try? Seems like either a defeatist attitude, or an excuse to hold a hard line.

There was a lot of realism in your last post - much of it paiting a picture that abortion will never actually be made illegal, nor will most people be convinced it should.

Again, I think Finella's ideas are far more effective, and do the most good, based on this reality. They don't require that anyone give up their opinion on the matter, but they do require that we work around certain things until attitudes change.

ContraMundum

2nd August 2006, 11:38 AM

I can only pray that one day we can fix the problems that lead to abortions, :prayer: and stop the need for abortion as its root. I can only hope, God willing.

Ah....another voice of reason- that's been my position since the start- eliminate the "need" and you'll eliminate the desire and abortions will be obsolete and considered horribly anti-social.

I'd like to just outlaw them totally, but you have to have a real, genuine political strategy if you live in the real world.

No Swansong

2nd August 2006, 11:43 AM

You're still missing something, and it's already been explained.

No I haven't missed your point nor have I missed Finella's. Your continual assertion doesn't make it so.

The argument is (or can be) independent of whether it "should" be legal.

This is my first point of disagreement I do not believe that it can be independent of the question of legality.

No one is asking anyone else to stop thinking or believing it is illegal or wrong.

Is that not precisely what you do when you argued earlier that it is not a matter of right or wrong? Your assertion that it is not a matter of right or wrong begs an argument. You have to understand that those of us who do not support legalized abortion as it is today do so because it cannot be separated from right or wrong.
But more important to your point is that these groups will not work together because they do not have the same goal. The pro-choice groups have proven many times that they have no interest in decreasing the occurrence of abortion.

It's different from stealing because there is not a significant consensus on the issue.

Ask the pro-choice groups why they do not favor a national referendum on the issue. Then ask pro-life groups why they do favor one. It has been shown in a number of ways that the majority of Americans do believe abortion for birth control to be wrong. And indeed it is in almost every case a case of birth control.

As such, unwavering and militant demands that it be made legal and unwavering replies of "no way" don't do anything to solve or help the problem. In fact, the problem just keeps getting worse.

Agreed it is getting worse after almost 30 years of the rallying cry about making it rare. As long as it is legal it will not become rare for the same reasons I have pointed out previously.

To me, it's even more important to take this approach if you feel abortion should be illegal. What good does it do (what good has it done) for me to argue and preach at/with some pro-choice advocat? None.

And it never will. And I am stating once again the two sides will not work together because they do not have the same goal. It is similar to asking death penalty opponents and death penalty proponents to work together to assure that the death penalty is applied rarely. The goals are different and diametrically opposed.

In fact, the very problem that I think should be fixed or "made illegal" just keeps getting worse, despite any efforts or exhortations of my moral code. If 1000 abortions are saved because the focus of efforts were shifted, and only 100 are saved under the current efforts, which one should we be pouring our efforts into?

Again you are assuming that both sides have the same goal of ending abortion. This is not true. The vast majority of money spent by pro-choice groups is on legal fees and lobbying. They have no interest in stopping or in my opinion of even slowing down abortion. There may be individuals but not groups. You find me a group that spends more money on prevention than they do on fighting to keep it legal and subsidizing it then I would consider joining in their efforts. But you won't find one. I certainly didn't.

And I state once more for the record. The most important aspect of this is that it is indeed a matter of right and wrong. On that there can be no compromise.

Finella

2nd August 2006, 11:59 AM

Ah....another voice of reason- that's been my position since the start- eliminate the "need" and you'll eliminate the desire and abortions will be obsolete and considered horribly anti-social.

I'd like to just outlaw them totally, but you have to have a real, genuine political strategy if you live in the real world.

Wow. We agree on something, Contra! :eek:

I can't explain it anymore. But I do notice something in our disagreement here, I'll say it, and then take a break. This is exhausting and I've otherwise said enough.

My take on this problem is a grass-roots one, not one that starts from on-high with law and morality. This is why I keep saying that whether abortion is wrong or not does not matter, we are addressing people's choices and behavior. Not the why, but the what. We cannot legislate people's way of thinking. But we can effect behavior by changing the environment in which these choices and behaviors occur.

Now, I'm not a behavioral therapist (Lord, have mercy) but there are times and places when it is an appropriate way to address problems. I think this is one of those places and times, because there is no consistent moral argument for or against abortion across the many belief systems of this country. Stealing, murder of born persons, etc., these are commonly and consistently held as being wrong. And yes, even when legislated as being illegal, people still commit these crimes. But the legistlation doesn't alone reduce their incidence, it's also the common belief that it is wrong to do these things.

So we need another way to attack the problem. I am offering one, that is all. Label me as you will, but my goal is to reduce abortions while helping people make healthy choices with support of other people who love them. Join me or not, it's up to you. I think this could be an amazing collaboration if we tried.

Cromwe11

2nd August 2006, 12:11 PM

Inside Edge

2nd August 2006, 01:06 PM

Is that not precisely what you do when you argued earlier that it is not a matter of right or wrong? Your assertion that it is not a matter of right or wrong begs an argument. You have to understand that those of us who do not support legalized abortion as it is today do so because it cannot be separated from right or wrong.

You keep stating that you understand me perfectly, but then comments like this betray a complete misunderstanding.

I never once said that "abortion" is not a matter of right or wrong. What I think is not a matter of right and wrong is accepting the current state of affairs and choosing the most effective way of achieving the goal.

So you are convinced that the pro-choice movement would not help one bit, should the pro-choice camp put the criminalization issue on the backburner, and therefore efforts along those lines aren't worth a try. Fine, I get that.

You say that the majority would vote to criminalize abortion, but I'm rather skeptical. I don't live in the U.S. anymore, but based on my experience I would doubt that. (I know it wouldn't fly here in Canada).

And why is it the pro-choice group have to spend so much time and energy fighting to keep it legal? My guess is that they have to do that because there's a constant, legal and political battle to fight.

So I don't see a lot of good being done by this entrenchment mentality. I suppose you could suggest that pro-choice groups would, in the absence of the legal fight, spend their money on education and social reform encouraging abortion - but I really, really doubt it. I don't think most pro-choice groups care whether a women chooses to have an abortion or not: they care that the choice exists.

Again, I can't help but conclude (for myself, anyway), that more good can be done away from the politcal and legal fight. The advantage we (as pro-life) have is that even with a "pro-choice" society, we still have the choice to choose life and educate, support, and effect change in that direction.

No Swansong

2nd August 2006, 01:18 PM

Wow. We agree on something, Contra! :eek:

I can't explain it anymore. But I do notice something in our disagreement here, I'll say it, and then take a break. This is exhausting and I've otherwise said enough.

My take on this problem is a grass-roots one, not one that starts from on-high with law and morality. This is why I keep saying that whether abortion is wrong or not does not matter, we are addressing people's choices and behavior. Not the why, but the what.

And behavior is determined by what? What we perceive to be right or wrong.

We cannot legislate people's way of thinking. But we can effect behavior by changing the environment in which these choices and behaviors occur.

And what part of the environment do you have a proposal to change? Poverty? Peer pressure? Self-esteem? How do you intend to eliminate these? My obvious point is that you won't, you stated earlier that if a woman had the appropriate support then she would not chose abortion. This is illogical. In every state there is a health care program for pregnant low income women, in every state there are programs which assist a woman in the adoption procedure during the pregnancy and long after delivery. These are available across the country and yet women still chose abortion. What support would prevent the abortion?
Education isn't the key, I have already demonstrated that practically every female knows how children are conceived and how to prevent pregnancy before the first time she engages in sexual intercourse.
I have known several women who have had abortions, I have also known a couple of physicians who make their living providing abortions, they all have agreed that the vast majority of abortions occur as a method of birth control; to end an unwanted or inconvenient pregnancy.
How do you propose we address the issue of self-esteem? Lack or love? and the many other issues.
I am not sure just what environmental changes you feel will make abortions rare.

Now, I'm not a behavioral therapist (Lord, have mercy) but there are times and places when it is an appropriate way to address problems. I think this is one of those places and times, because there is no consistent moral argument for or against abortion across the many belief systems of this country. Stealing, murder of born persons, etc., these are commonly and consistently held as being wrong. And yes, even when legislated as being illegal, people still commit these crimes. But the legistlation doesn't alone reduce their incidence, it's also the common belief that it is wrong to do these things.

Actually as I pointed out earlier pro-choice groups oppose a national referendum on the issue of abortion as a means of birth control, pro-life groups favor one. Why do you think this is so? It is true that most American's feel that abortion as a method of birth control is wrong.

So we need another way to attack the problem. I am offering one, that is all. Label me as you will, but my goal is to reduce abortions while helping people make healthy choices with support of other people who love them. Join me or not, it's up to you. I think this could be an amazing collaboration if we tried.

I cannot , will not, as a Christian support anything that promotes abortion. Even if the goal is to reduce abortions any agenda that seeks to keep abortion for birth control legal is a promotion of abortion.

It is indeed time to end this I am beginning to become argumentative and forming opinions of persons in this discussion that I do not want to have.