Adam Hamilton's New Book

[Texas Lynn]

Just got it: Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White. Not bad at all.

He's a pastor of a megachurch which is a UMC Congregation in the Kansas City area and I will check out his other works.

Lots of logrolling blurbs from the well-known Biblerati of the Evangelical Religious Left: Jim Wallis, Brian MacLaren, Bill Hybels, etc.

Essentially Hamilton's thesis is one of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis Maxist model regarding the culture war: he begins with the Falwell-Spong debate and says "like most Christians I'm somewhere in the middle between these guys."

Might be something to it. Anyhow, it was touted in Newsweek no less which is the fluff arm of the Washington Post which has sure got to have MacLaren, Wallis, et al envious.

The Newsweek piece focused on the search for common ground on abortion. One thing I noticed when I got the book yesterday-I think Hamilton underestimates the resistance to compromise by the Right, especially on this issue, because he naively assumes fetus rights is their prime goal rather than control of women. and yet compromise after compromise has been offered whereby abortions after the 1st trimester are banned if there's wide birth control distribution and realistic sex education and the right shoots it down every time. You would think if they truly believed a fetus was a person and such a program would save even one they would do anything for it. The fact they won't strongly indicates that is the publicly proclaimed goal only but not the true goal. Hamilton's inability to see that may be his greatest flaw.

But all in all it's pretty good.

[dayhiker]

Hi Lynn,
Thanks for the cooment/review of the book.

I read some writtings that were by post modern Christians that said the Farwell Sporg debate is mordern and hitted that isn't the interrest of post morderns. In my study of history it seem views really come to be accept by the majority without force being used to put down one view for a long enough period of time that the contravercy is forgoten. But usually controverses either just go away or people get tired of the pain the fight is causing so issue gets ignored in some way.

Interesting thought about the right's wanting to control women.

thanks
dayhiker

[Texas Lynn]

I'm mostly against megachurches but for a megachurch preacher this guy sounds pretty good.

You know, on culture war issues the right speaks of compromisers as "Luke warm" or, if they went to a mail order Bible college, "Laodocean". I think it's an unfair slur. We're supposed to have passion for the Lord, not for political correctness. In this Hamilton is kind of like Tony Campolo, perhaps.

[Speculative]

Thanks for the heads-up, Texas Lynn. My TBR tower's pretty stacked right now (as always) but Hamilton's definitely on my 'to read' list right now. :)

[jamiel]

Hey there! :wave:

Thanks for the mention. I've never heard of him before but I'll try to check him out. He (and his book) sound pretty cool. I didn't know any Methodists had Megachurches . . . It just might be I haven't looked very hard, but it seems difficult (for me) to find any especially prominent (nationally known) Methodists.


Lots of logrolling blurbs from the well-known Biblerati of the Evangelical Religious Left


I've never seen the term Biblerati before. I like that! LOL. ^_^ :thumbsup:

he begins with the Falwell-Spong debate and says "like most Christians I'm somewhere in the middle between these guys."

ITA. http://home.att.net/~molock/yes.gif I'm certainly there. I really don't (and can't) believe most Christians are at either end in this . . . Yet, one might never know that when you're looking at it from a distance.

The Newsweek piece focused on the search for common ground on abortion. One thing I noticed when I got the book yesterday-I think Hamilton underestimates the resistance to compromise by the Right, especially on this issue, because he naively assumes fetus rights is their prime goal rather than control of women. and yet compromise after compromise has been offered whereby abortions after the 1st trimester are banned if there's wide birth control distribution and realistic sex education and the right shoots it down every time. You would think if they truly believed a fetus was a person and such a program would save even one they would do anything for it. The fact they won't strongly indicates that is the publicly proclaimed goal only but not the true goal. Hamilton's inability to see that may be his greatest flaw.

Thank you for posting this! ITA again. This is exactly how I feel about the issue. I don't believe they are serious for the reasons here mentioned and yes, I have thought about it as an effort to control women. Sad but true. I also agree that this kind of extremism doesn't lend itself to compromise unfortunately.

My TBR tower (actually, towers) is pretty tall too (as always)! ;)

Thanks again! :wave:


God Bless. :)

[MoeSzyslak]

He's a pastor of a megachurch which is a UMC Congregation in the Kansas City area



I didn't know any Methodists had Megachurches .


I live in the KC area. I thought I was in a pretty big UMC church. 1200 registered families. (3000-4000 people??) 5 Sunday services. Funny thing is, he is not my Pastor. So there must be another large UMC church somewhere here.

I guess us Kansas Citians love being Methodists!

[GraceSeeker]

The Newsweek piece focused on the search for common ground on abortion. One thing I noticed when I got the book yesterday-I think Hamilton underestimates the resistance to compromise by the Right, especially on this issue, because he naively assumes fetus rights is their prime goal rather than control of women. and yet compromise after compromise has been offered whereby abortions after the 1st trimester are banned if there's wide birth control distribution and realistic sex education and the right shoots it down every time. You would think if they truly believed a fetus was a person and such a program would save even one they would do anything for it. The fact they won't strongly indicates that is the publicly proclaimed goal only but not the true goal. Hamilton's inability to see that may be his greatest flaw.

But all in all it's pretty good.

Well, speaking as one of those who would be on the right with regard to abortion (not necessarily everything else), Hamilton is right. I couldn't care less what a woman does to her own body, when it really is her own body she is talking about. But it isn't, and I feel very strongly about what she does to someone else's. In this case the body that we are really talking about belongs to the baby --who I believe is a human being deserving of every protection available under the law; this means that it should be the individual's choice, not someone else's (this includes mom), if his/her life is to be ended. Of course, excluding abortions after the 1st trimester wouldn't be enough for me, as that leaves completely unprotected legally the first three months of one's life.

Did you know that if one was to include abortions in the death rates, that there would be more deaths in the United States as a result of abortion each year for the last 30 than from all forms of heart disease, heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer, lung cancer, all other cancers, epheseyum and other lung diseases, AIDS, and all other forms of homicide combined?

Did you know as many Americans are dying being ripped from their mother's womb each day, as were killed in the 9/11 attacks?

More people will day this year as a result of the individual choices of people who simply are electing to have an abortion as a means of birthcontrol (I've excluded those performed for medical reasons) than the total of the highest suggested figures for combatants and civilians on all sides in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 7 years.

If you can figure out how to spare these children's lives, I will give you whatever else you want in terms of women's health issues, aid to families, birth control distribution, sex education and pretty much anything else that might be on your political wishlist. Now, I think that would be a pretty good compromise for you if you are really interested in compromise.

[Texas Lynn]

I've never seen the term Biblerati before. I like that! LOL. ^_^ :thumbsup:

I just made it up but I suspect it's been done before and some staffer for Christianity Today or somesuch claims to have created it first.

[Texas Lynn]

I live in the KC area. I thought I was in a pretty big UMC church. 1200 registered families. (3000-4000 people??) 5 Sunday services. Funny thing is, he is not my Pastor. So there must be another large UMC church somewhere here.

I guess us Kansas Citians love being Methodists!

It's Church of the Resurrection, 13720 Roe Ave., Leawood KS. They also have a 'campus" in Olathe.

www.cor.org (http://www.cor.org)

I know a guy from Topeka who calls Olathe "Crazy Town" because it's a hotbed of religious extremists.

[Speculative]

If you can figure out how to spare these children's lives, I will give you whatever else you want in terms of women's health issues, aid to families, birth control distribution, sex education and pretty much anything else that might be on your political wishlist. Now, I think that would be a pretty good compromise for you if you are really interested in compromise.
I'm right there with you. I call myself a "demand-side anti-abortionist". I'd like to see abortions drastically reduced by eliminating the need for them in the ways you just listed.

I also agree with you that pro-lifers aren't motivated by a desire to control women's bodies. Although there are SOME people that have this desire (and manifest it in a variety of ways--not just by adopting a pro-life stance) almost all of the pro-lifers I've met IRL are motivated by a sincere concern for fetal life.

[Texas Lynn]

Well, speaking as one of those who would be on the right with regard to abortion (not necessarily everything else), Hamilton is right. I couldn't care less what a woman does to her own body, when it really is her own body she is talking about. But it isn't, and I feel very strongly about what she does to someone else's. In this case the body that we are really talking about belongs to the baby --who I believe is a human being deserving of every protection available under the law; this means that it should be the individual's choice, not someone else's (this includes mom), if his/her life is to be ended. Of course, excluding abortions after the 1st trimester wouldn't be enough for me, as that leaves completely unprotected legally the first three months of one's life.

Did you know that if one was to include abortions in the death rates, that there would be more deaths in the United States as a result of abortion each year for the last 30 than from all forms of heart disease, heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer, lung cancer, all other cancers, epheseyum and other lung diseases, AIDS, and all other forms of homicide combined?

Did you know as many Americans are dying being ripped from their mother's womb each day, as were killed in the 9/11 attacks?

More people will day this year as a result of the individual choices of people who simply are electing to have an abortion as a means of birthcontrol (I've excluded those performed for medical reasons) than the total of the highest suggested figures for combatants and civilians on all sides in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 7 years.

That's interesting but I have to tell you the "fetus is a person" argument just does not resonate with most people and sincere people who belive that are being manipulated by cynical politicians.

If you can figure out how to spare these children's lives, I will give you whatever else you want in terms of women's health issues, aid to families, birth control distribution, sex education and pretty much anything else that might be on your political wishlist. Now, I think that would be a pretty good compromise for you if you are really interested in compromise.

That sounds good and I sure wish the leaders of the Religious Right thought that way because we could finish off this culture war right now and move on if we could do that. But they're more interested in protecting right-wing pharmacists who want the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions among other side issues.

If you're sincere about that, I'd make several suggestions:

1. Tell leaders of every group you belong to about your willingness to compromise on this stuff, loudly and often, and consider joining other groups and getting into leadership to push such compromises.

2. Consider how criminalizing abortion is a panacea your side is pushing that won't solve the problem and in many ways will do more harm than good. Do not vote on the basis of a candidate's position on the legality of abortion. Recognize stopping abortion involves teaching respect, empowering women, advancing women economically to the point that no woman would have "I can't afford it" as a reason for aborting.

3. Do not use the sneering term 'convenience" (most often pronounced "conveeeeeeeeeeeeenyence!") to refer to why women obtain abortions and rebuke others who do and use other terms to denigrate these women.
4. Support birth control distribution in great measure. Support requiring health plans to pay for contraceptives.

5. Do not stigmatize single mothers and women who become pregnant without a spouse and strenuously rebuke those who do.

6. Vigorously oppose clinic attacks, stalking of doctors and clinic staff, and other terrorism targeting reproductive health providers. Do not support terrorist groups like Operation Rescue.

[GraceSeeker]

That's interesting but I have to tell you the "fetus is a person" argument just does not resonate with most people and sincere people who belive that are being manipulated by cynical politicians.


Tell you a story that happened to me when I was 15. I was pretty liberal in all of my opinions back then. The Vietnam War was still under way and being a youth, was pretty accostumed to being engaged in all sorts of protests for all sorts of rights. I would have agreed with you about abortion back then.

Anyway, I was attending our denomination's General Conference and of course the issue of abortion came before it asking for some type of statement in our Social Creed. One member of our delegation was a doctor, Dr. Gerald Downey. He was opposed to abortion and to make his point distributed to all of the rest of the members of our conference's delegation pictures of an aborted child with the simple comment, "This is what we are being asked to consider." Well, everyone was appalled by it. How dare he subject us to such a horrific picture. We asserted we didn't need to see a picture to understand the tragedy of abortion. And as a matter of fact, because we were so offended by what we saw Dr. Downey actually lost any chance to gain a more sympathetic hearing. It wasn't till years later that my views gradually changed.

But today I think back to that moment and wonder why we reacted as we did?

In a world where, even then, we were used to watching death portrayed in the violence of TV news reports about war and all sorts of other atrocities. Reports that I believe have had significant influence in shaping public opinion against some of the conflicts we have gotten into as a nation. Certainly it was the visual images of graphic violence that helped turn the corned in the protests led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. So, why did we object to seeing this single picture of an aborted baby, as if we had been personally assaulted?

I wonder if part of our revulsion, just as you said "the 'fetus is a person' argument just does not resonate with most people", is that we simply don't want to have to deal with the reality that, in the immortal words of Horton the Elephant, "a person's a person, no matter how small"? For, if we truly believed that it would require us to give up some of our longest and most dearly-held convictions as having been wrong from the very beginning. I know that it was only after I was willing to accept the value of other human lives besides my own, that I was willing to consider the rights of the unborn as being of equal value to mine and thus deserving equal protection under the law. Hence, as I fought to end war, capital punishment, and a host of other things that I saw as injustices in the world, I also needed to being willing to fight for this one group, the unborn, who has the least voice and power of anyone in our society.

[Texas Lynn]

Tell you a story that happened to me when I was 15. I was pretty liberal in all of my opinions back then. The Vietnam War was still under way and being a youth, was pretty accostumed to being engaged in all sorts of protests for all sorts of rights. I would have agreed with you about abortion back then.

Anyway, I was attending our denomination's General Conference and of course the issue of abortion came before it asking for some type of statement in our Social Creed. One member of our delegation was a doctor, Dr. Gerald Downey. He was opposed to abortion and to make his point distributed to all of the rest of the members of our conference's delegation pictures of an aborted child with the simple comment, "This is what we are being asked to consider." Well, everyone was appalled by it. How dare he subject us to such a horrific picture. We asserted we didn't need to see a picture to understand the tragedy of abortion. And as a matter of fact, because we were so offended by what we saw Dr. Downey actually lost any chance to gain a more sympathetic hearing. It wasn't till years later that my views gradually changed.

But today I think back to that moment and wonder why we reacted as we did?

In a world where, even then, we were used to watching death portrayed in the violence of TV news reports about war and all sorts of other atrocities. Reports that I believe have had significant influence in shaping public opinion against some of the conflicts we have gotten into as a nation. Certainly it was the visual images of graphic violence that helped turn the corned in the protests led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. So, why did we object to seeing this single picture of an aborted baby, as if we had been personally assaulted?

I wonder if part of our revulsion, just as you said "the 'fetus is a person' argument just does not resonate with most people", is that we simply don't want to have to deal with the reality that, in the immortal words of Horton the Elephant, "a person's a person, no matter how small"? For, if we truly believed that it would require us to give up some of our longest and most dearly-held convictions as having been wrong from the very beginning. I know that it was only after I was willing to accept the value of other human lives besides my own, that I was willing to consider the rights of the unborn as being of equal value to mine and thus deserving equal protection under the law. Hence, as I fought to end war, capital punishment, and a host of other things that I saw as injustices in the world, I also needed to being willing to fight for this one group, the unborn, who has the least voice and power of anyone in our society.

I have no problem with opposing abortion; what I have a problem with is seeking to criminalize it.

I don't think you are right at all about the reason the argument does not resonate with people. It does not resonate with people because it suggests a new concept in jurisprudence, one which in millions of years of human history has never been the prevailing legal viewpoint.

[jamiel]

I think it's important too to look back at what things were like when abortion was illegal.

You had the legally criminal element involved (which is an exploitation on top of everything else here) and really too, it's a public health issue (back-alley abortions). "If" (being realistic) abortions will continue to happen (only to a greater or lesser degree) shouldn't these abortions be performed in a clinic?

Also, something in me tells me that even when an exception is made for rape of life-of-the-mother -- how can these exceptions excuse the taking of a life of an unborn child (as pro-lifers say a fetus is, esp. those who say life begins at conception)?

Why not let the mother die? Don't have an abortion and let her child have a chance to live. Why not have a woman who has been raped give birth to that child? You mean to tell me the rape of a woman is worse than the killing of her child?? That's the reasoning I feel is being made by pro-lifers. The problem is (in my mind) already you have made two exceptions on the issue of abortion. If you make these two, then that starts to question the whole "pro-life" stance . . . And who does have the right to decide this kind of issue in the first place?

I'm pro-choice, but I absolutely realize what a thorny issue this is. It isn't so simple as it might seem at first glance -- and not everybody realizes this.

Also, no woman/girl realistically wants to have an abortion. So isn't the solution finding ways to reduce having yourself in that situation in the first place? Let's concentrate on that. Yes, abstinence, but again, realistically that's just not going to happen for everybody. This is a sinful, imperfect world. Abstinence, sex education (and kids had sex before sex ed. so hopefully they'll be less likely to if informed), the use of contraceptives, etc. . . . ALL of these I feel must be used in conjuction to prevent unintended pregnancies -- which I REALLY feel is the issue here (along with the greater public health issue of where and how these procedures are done).


I wonder if part of our revulsion, just as you said "the 'fetus is a person' argument just does not resonate with most people", is that we simply don't want to have to deal with the reality that,


That's not the issue with me. I think perhaps some pro-lifers underestimate that pro-choice people do in fact "get it" and still remain pro-choice, which doesn't mean they support mandatory abortions. Abortion isn't easy, pretty, or the "answer", but sometimes (even in rapes and when the life of the mother is threatened) it's necessary.

Just a suggestion, but also if those on the religious right showed just as much passion for women's health issues in general (or just women's issues, period!) as they do for abortion, then their reasonings or arguments against abortion would carry more weight than they do (I think esp. with pro-choice people on the left).

Then how about the mother after she gives birth to this child she didn't abort? I don't know the stats, but not every mother after birth goes through with giving her child up for adoption. Are you going to support political policies that are going to help her raise this child? How really serious are you (I'm meaning a collective "you" here) about stopping abortions (which I believe is what the vast majority of us honestly do want?)

It's the tactics in a sense here that are being disputed with other issues influencing the decision to abort. This is why this issue is so stuck. The whole thing is not even being framed in a constructive way for a serious solution (as much as there can be one). That's where I see the problem is -- not "it's a life", which at some point does occur, depending upon opinion.

Things to consider.



God Bless. :)

[GraceSeeker]

I don't think you are right at all about the reason the argument does not resonate with people. It does not resonate with people because it suggests a new concept in jurisprudence, one which in millions of years of human history has never been the prevailing legal viewpoint.

Given to a little hyperbole are we?:D That is considering the code of Hamurabi, at just a few thousand years, is one of the oldest pieces of jurisprudence known.

The other point I would make is that I don't think that all of the ethics practiced throughout human history are ones that I want to live by. If we did, slavery would still be condoned as would the abandonment of unwanted infants to the elements. I disagree with both of those practices and indeed think that we have a moral obligation to outlaw them, even if it is a new concept in jurisprudence, one which in millions of years of human history has never been (until just recently) the prevailing legal viewpoint.

[GraceSeeker]

Jamiel, you have given me many things to consider, most of which I have frequently done so in the past, and some of which I have already spoken to in this thread.


I think it's important too to look back at what things were like when abortion was illegal.

You had the legally criminal element involved (which is an exploitation on top of everything else here) and really too, it's a public health issue (back-alley abortions). "If" (being realistic) abortions will continue to happen (only to a greater or lesser degree) shouldn't these abortions be performed in a clinic?

You suggest looking back. I'm just enough older than you that I can actually remember back. And I agree that the argument sounds good on the surface. Some of the manners in which women tried to end their pregnancies were horried. I even know personally of one case in which a young college co-ed actually used a coathanger on herself, did terrible damage and was found bleeding to death in her college dorm bathroom. It was a tragedy. But legalizing abortions would not have helped her, because this was after Roe v. Wade and abortions were both legal and available to her.

So, surely it would have been better for her to have gone to the available clinic? Yes, in the sense that only one instead of two lives would have been lost. But if it is about a numbers game, then the present permissive attitude toward abortions is costing far more innocent lives than were ever even put at risk before.

You may not like my characterization of it, but what the argument for clinics being better than back alleys boils down to is the equivalent of saying: "Since I want to kill someone isn't it better that I do it in a way that is less threatening to me?". We don't accept that argument in any other context, just for abortion. And I don't know why it suddenly becomes reasonable in that context. A wrong act is still a wrong act; doing it under sterile conditions does not make it a right act.




Also, something in me tells me that even when an exception is made for rape of life-of-the-mother -- how can these exceptions excuse the taking of a life of an unborn child (as pro-lifers say a fetus is, esp. those who say life begins at conception)?

Why not let the mother die? Don't have an abortion and let her child have a chance to live. Why not have a woman who has been raped give birth to that child? You mean to tell me the rape of a woman is worse than the killing of her child?? That's the reasoning I feel is being made by pro-lifers. The problem is (in my mind) already you have made two exceptions on the issue of abortion. If you make these two, then that starts to question the whole "pro-life" stance . . . And who does have the right to decide this kind of issue in the first place?


You make some good points here. I will not attempt to speak for all persons who are against abortion. There are some who, I agree, seem to follow exactly the line of reasoning that you have projected here. I am not one of them. My own view is similiar to the questions you raise. How can we say that a human life should be taken just because of some other terrible event? My daughter has frequently argued with me that she would not want to carry around the child of her rapist and have that reminder of that event in her life every day for 9 months. It is hard for me to get around that type of arguement, for I conceed such pain would be in the extreme. Why should she be punished with the mental reminder of another person's assault on her body? But I still don't see how even that justifies the taking of a child's life.

If I were to project why some people who are prolife are willing to allow for abortion in the case of rape, that which I seem to hear falls into two different positions. The first is simple political expediency. That is they don't think that they can get the blank policy they truly want and feel like something is better than nothing, so they surrender this issue hoping to win their point for the majority of cases. The other is that many do who hear my daughter's reasoning and are convinced by it.

The issue of the life of the mother seems to me to be a different case. In these situations we have an individual (the mother) who needs to defend herself from attack from another individual (the child) and thus it seems, to me at least, to fall under the category of self-defense.



Also, no woman/girl realistically wants to have an abortion. So isn't the solution finding ways to reduce having yourself in that situation in the first place? Let's concentrate on that. Yes, abstinence, but again, realistically that's just not going to happen for everybody. This is a sinful, imperfect world. Abstinence, sex education (and kids had sex before sex ed. so hopefully they'll be less likely to if informed), the use of contraceptives, etc. . . . ALL of these I feel must be used in conjuction to prevent unintended pregnancies -- which I REALLY feel is the issue here (along with the greater public health issue of where and how these procedures are done). I don't dispute that you can't imagine a woman/girl wanting to have an abortion. And I don't dispute the need to employ the steps you outlined to prevent unintended pregnancies. What I dispute is that preventing unintended pregnancies is REALLY the issue. The reason I say this is once again born out of experience. You see, I know of case after case of young women who, having all the information needed to prevent unintended pregnancies, elect not to take those steps. They have their reasons -- they don't like what it does to their body to be on the pill, they feel uncomfortable with some of the other devices and technique availabe either to them or their partner, they prefer the sponteneity of the moment. But a surprising number of young women have put it to me as simply as, they aren't concerned about getting pregnant, because "if I do it is simple enough to get rid of it." Indeed I know of several women who have elected to use abortion (2 and 3 times) as their preferred method of birthcontrol. And that attitude is where I feel the issue REALLY is.

To me that is a disdain for human life. They, on the other hand don't give it a second thought (they certainly don't seem to express the guilt that some who argue against abortion project on women), because in their mind they aren't talking about human life but just an inconvenience, and a minor one at that.



That's not the issue with me. I think perhaps some pro-lifers underestimate that pro-choice people do in fact "get it" and still remain pro-choice, which doesn't mean they support mandatory abortions. Abortion isn't easy, pretty, or the "answer", but sometimes (even in rapes and when the life of the mother is threatened) it's necessary. I confess I don't get it. What is it that you are saying you get? Are you saying that you do get that what is aborted in an abortion is indeed a human life and you still remain pro-choice? You say that abortion isn't the answer and yet you are quite willing to leave it available as an answer; I also don't get that.



Just a suggestion, but also if those on the religious right showed just as much passion for women's health issues in general (or just women's issues, period!) as they do for abortion, then their reasonings or arguments against abortion would carry more weight than they do (I think esp. with pro-choice people on the left).

Then how about the mother after she gives birth to this child she didn't abort? I don't know the stats, but not every mother after birth goes through with giving her child up for adoption. Are you going to support political policies that are going to help her raise this child? How really serious are you (I'm meaning a collective "you" here) about stopping abortions (which I believe is what the vast majority of us honestly do want?)
Of course I can't answer for the collective, but I have already answered this for myself above. And I can tell you that many, many others I know agree with me on this point. We do believe that those who want to see an end to abortions have to make things easier for those women who feel compelled to make such a choice to choose otherwise. And we need to do that not just to stop abortions, but because tending for those in need is our collective responsibility to one another. The church, especially, has responsibilities in this regard.

[Texas Lynn]

Given to a little hyperbole are we?:D That is considering the code of Hamurabi, at just a few thousand years, is one of the oldest pieces of jurisprudence known.

Righto-and there's nothing in Hamurabi prohibiting abortion. The ancient matriarchical societies which preceded the first cities practiced abortion for millions of years before that, we just don't have their written records, but folkways are clear: abortion is nothing new.

The other point I would make is that I don't think that all of the ethics practiced throughout human history are ones that I want to live by. If we did, slavery would still be condoned as would the abandonment of unwanted infants to the elements. I disagree with both of those practices and indeed think that we have a moral obligation to outlaw them, even if it is a new concept in jurisprudence, one which in millions of years of human history has never been (until just recently) the prevailing legal viewpoint.

Okay, but when proposing a new thing, reasons for it are necessary to persuade others. In this task the anti-abortion groups have failed miserably. Instead they just stamp their feet.

[Texas Lynn]

... legalizing abortions would not have helped her, because this was after Roe v. Wade and abortions were both legal and available to her.

You're using the false revisionist version of history the anti-abortion groups put out. Abortions were legal for all but the entirety of human history prior to Roe and Roe did not appear out of the blue. For over twenty years prior to Roe a major movement was afoot pressing for the end of criminalization of abortion led by the finest legal minds of the era. Several states had already ended abortion restrictions including California under Ronald Reagan as Governor. Reagan only later changed to an anti-abortion position out of political expediency. His wife blew his cover when she shouted "I don't give a d about abortion!"

the present permissive attitude toward abortions is costing far more innocent lives than were ever even put at risk before.

there is no support for this argument. Throughout human history whether abortion has been legal or not 1/5 to 1/3 of all pregnancies have ended in abortion. Criminalization of it does not reduce it one iota. The resarch on that is clear, but dismissed by anti-abortion forces because they are bound and determined to have the government claim title over women's bodies.

the argument for clinics being better than back alleys boils down to is the equivalent of saying: "Since I want to kill someone isn't it better that I do it in a way that is less threatening to me?".

Which is merely a way of restating one's disdain for the woman in such a situation and a smug assertion one knows better and because you believe you are better than that woman you feel a carte blanche to use the power of government force to impel her to your will.

I know of several women who have elected to use abortion (2 and 3 times) as their preferred method of birthcontrol. And that attitude is where I feel the issue REALLY is.

How can one "know" such things as facts without being a part of the women who are said to do such things? Even if said directly by them it's hardly evidentiary and the arrogance of such judgment is most unfortunate. The reasons women choose abortion are not the business of you or anybody else.

[PaladinGirl]

Thanks for the book review Texas Lynn. I will have to try and check out that book sometime.

[GraceSeeker]

Righto-and there's nothing in Hamurabi prohibiting abortion. The ancient matriarchical societies which preceded the first cities practiced abortion for millions of years before that, we just don't have their written records, but folkways are clear: abortion is nothing new.

I seriously doubt your estimation of "millions of years". Given that recorded human history is only about 10-12 thousand years old, I don't think that you can back up your statement.

You've probably heard of "Lucy". She is considered an example of one of the earliest known species of hominoid (not a modern human in the slightest) and estimates put her at only 2.5-3 million years old. In terms of behaviors, she would have had much more in common with apes than with modern humans. To my knowledge there is no known evidence of apes, monkeys or any other primate trying to either perform or induce an abortion, let alone carrying them out.

Homo sapiens are only believed to have been around about 200,000 years. That's well short of the time period you are trying to claim that people have been practicing abortions. If you are trying to make a case for abortion based on its historic practice, you might begin by getting your history right.



Okay, but when proposing a new thing, reasons for it are necessary to persuade others. In this task the anti-abortion groups have failed miserably. Instead they just stamp their feet.

You are right that those who oppose abortion have failed to persuade others --or at least enough others. If we had, then I would assume that you wouldn't see abortion practiced. As to just the stamping of feet, I disagree with your characterization, or do you think that this is all I have done?

But, in case that is all you have heard, please, allow me to attempt to articulate to you at least some of the reason that I am agaisnt abortion. It is based primarily on my belief that all human life is sacred and the an unborn child is every bit as much a human being as an adult human being. (You really haven't had much to say in opposition to that; you've simply said that it "doesn't resonate". Is that not your own form of foot-stamping?) With regard to the origin of my view, I see it as being primarily biblical. I see this view in the Psalmist's comments that we are fearfully and wonderfully made and that:

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

(Psalm 139)


And I see it in the reaction of John the Baptist to Jesus when both are still enutero (Luke 1: 41 & 44). And, according to my understanding of the larger passage of Luke 1, Jesus would have been less than 3 months old (maybe only days old) at this point in time, so how can one say that a fetus in the first trimester isn't really a person?


I don't expect this to make a difference to those who don't acknowledge the validity of the Bible or its teachings as being useful for either instruction or reproof, but I do. And if you are a United Methodist, it is likely that you took vows similar to that effect when you joined the church.

[Texas Lynn]

I seriously doubt your estimation of "millions of years". Given that recorded human history is only about 10-12 thousand years old, I don't think that you can back up your statement.

You can't prove abortion was illegal back then so the null hypothesis is that it was legal.

To my knowledge there is no known evidence of apes, monkeys or any other primate trying to either perform or induce an abortion, let alone carrying them out.

Probably due to the fact their societies don't experience scarcities like we do due to our adoption of systemized dominance (feudalism, capitalism, pseudo-communism, etc.).

You are right that those who oppose abortion have failed to persuade others --or at least enough others. If we had, then I would assume that you wouldn't see abortion practiced.

Actually if women had resources you wouldn't. Since they don't abortion occurs.

As to just the stamping of feet, I disagree with your characterization, or do you think that this is all I have done?

Unfortunately your movement has done much to harm women and society in general.

(You really haven't had much to say in opposition to that; you've simply said that it "doesn't resonate". Is that not your own form of foot-stamping?)


If you can't convince the people you blame the messenger.

. And if you are a United Methodist, it is likely that you took vows similar to that effect when you joined the church.

You might have done that in 1938 but the UMC did not do that in 1988. We have moved beyond fundamentalism.

[GraceSeeker]

Texas Lynn, do you really want to stand by your statement that abortions have been the prevailing legal viewpoint for millions of years? You sure you don't want to revise that to something like there is no record of attempts to outlaw abortions by any society prior to the end of the 20th century?

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn, do you really want to stand by your statement that abortions have been the prevailing legal viewpoint for millions of years? You sure you don't want to revise that to something like there is no record of attempts to outlaw abortions by any society prior to the end of the 20th century?

Abortion was outlawed in Nazi Germany and under the communist regime of the Ceaucesceu family in Romania.

[GraceSeeker]

Abortion was outlawed in Nazi Germany and under the communist regime of the Ceaucesceu family in Romania. You're avoiding my question: "Do you really want to stand by your statement that abortions have been the prevailing legal viewpoint for millions of years?"

[Texas Lynn]

You're avoiding my question: "Do you really want to stand by your statement that abortions have been the prevailing legal viewpoint for millions of years?"

I said legal abortion, not just abortion as you said. If it's not illegal it's legal. Sure. It's confirmed by literature most notably Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Dr. Kristin Luker.

[GraceSeeker]

I said legal abortion, not just abortion as you said. Actually you didn't. I refer you to your own post, the one that I am questioning: The ancient matriarchical societies which preceded the first cities practiced abortion [no adjective "legal"] for millions of years before that...

If it's not illegal it's legal.Is it legal for a dog to take another dog's bone? It's certainly not illega, so it must therefore, by your way of thinking, be legal. I suggest that the whole concept of law with regads to dogs is ludicrous. And given that people as a species have not even been in existence for millions of years, then your statement about the abortion having been legaly practiced for millions of years is just as ludicrous.


Sure. It's confirmed by literature most notably Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Dr. Kristin Luker. If that is what she really said, rather than a mischaracterization of it, then she is just wrong.

She is wrong on two points:
(1) that a creature that doesn't even recognize the existance of law can have a concept of things being legal any more than they can of them being illegal is nonsensical;
(2) it is completely untrue to say that anyone practiced abortion for millions of years as no matriacrchial nor any other society nor any human beings were present on this earth to practice abortions over the time period you are claiming they have been praciticed.

To therefore lay claim to such practice is a distortion of the truth. You might as well claim that these ancient matriarchical societies which preceded the first cities practiced abortion for billions of years before that; it would be just as factually correct.

To refer to an argument from history as justification for a moral behavior is common, but it bears little weight with me. Morality might be, to some degree informed by what people have and have not done in the past, but it certainly is not determined by past deeds; for many of them are simply wrong to my way of thinking and no amount of identifying their presence or supposed legality makes them right nor does it justify them today. Among things that have historically been practiced and widely practiced by many different societies include: slavery, domestic violence, rape, murder, the right of kings and rulers to treat their subjects any way they saw fit, and an ethic that "might makes right".

[Texas Lynn]

Is it legal for a dog to take another dog's bone? It's certainly not illega, so it must therefore, by your way of thinking, be legal. I suggest that the whole concept of law with regads to dogs is ludicrous. And given that people as a species have not even been in existence for millions of years, then your statement about the abortion having been legaly practiced for millions of years is just as ludicrous.


If that is what she really said, rather than a mischaracterization of it, then she is just wrong.

She is wrong on two points:
(1) that a creature that doesn't even recognize the existance of law can have a concept of things being legal any more than they can of them being illegal is nonsensical;
(2) it is completely untrue to say that anyone practiced abortion for millions of years as no matriacrchial nor any other society nor any human beings were present on this earth to practice abortions over the time period you are claiming they have been praciticed.

To therefore lay claim to such practice is a distortion of the truth. You might as well claim that these ancient matriarchical societies which preceded the first cities practiced abortion for billions of years before that; it would be just as factually correct.

To refer to an argument from history as justification for a moral behavior is common, but it bears little weight with me. Morality might be, to some degree informed by what people have and have not done in the past, but it certainly is not determined by past deeds; for many of them are simply wrong to my way of thinking and no amount of identifying their presence or supposed legality makes them right nor does it justify them today. Among things that have historically been practiced and widely practiced by many different societies include: slavery, domestic violence, rape, murder, the right of kings and rulers to treat their subjects any way they saw fit, and an ethic that "might makes right".

So what we have here is parsing and distortion. But nevertheless to claim abortion should be criminalized because a minority believes a fetus is a person would be an entirely new thing and there's no reason to change to pacify a gaggle of extremists the huge majority of which care nothing about post-birth children and only make the argument because they desire to subjugate women.

[GraceSeeker]

So what we have here is parsing and distortion. Indeed we do have a problem with parsing and distortion. When you say things that are not true and then base your argument on them, it becomes hard to find credibility in such an argument.

But nevertheless to claim abortion should be criminalized because a minority believes a fetus is a person would be an entirely new thing Again this too is a distortion. I do not believe it is an entirely new thing. It might be something that is relatively new in the field of jurisprudence, but so are many other things that most find extremely valid. If the creation of new law was not a valid concern for people to be engaged in, there would be no purpose for legislatures to exist. So, the real question is not how long have certain actions or behaviors occurred and whether or not they were legal, illegal, recognized, condoned, or condemned in the past, but how should we view them today and what, if any, legal standing should they have?

You have said:reasons for it are necessary to persuade others. In this task the anti-abortion groups have failed miserably. Instead they just stamp their feet. I don't believe I have been stamping my feet. I have provided for you those reasons that persuade me. Whether your find them persuasive, I highly doubt, for in this discussion it seems to me that you are thus for more committed to your holding to a position than to considering why others might differ from you. This may be an unfair assessment of you, but it how you have come across to me. You have said that I have to tell you the "fetus is a person" argument just does not resonate with most people and sincere people who belive that are being manipulated by cynical politicians. But you have not helped any of us who do sincerely believe this (represented by Speculative and myself in this thread) to understand why/how it is that this does not resonate with you. Rather you inform us that you see us manipulated by cynical politians. Does that not cut both ways?


And then you said, and there's no reason to change to pacify a gaggle of extremists the huge majority of which care nothing about post-birth children and only make the argument because they desire to subjugate women.

Well, at least you recognize that there might be some who do in fact care about post-birth children. However, I suspect it is actually the majority who do, and that extremists are few and far between. However, I suspect that by now you also have decided that I am an extremists for you have already labelled some of comments as merely "restating one's disdain for the woman in such a situation and a smug assertion one knows better and because you believe you are better than that woman you feel a carte blanche to use the power of government force to impel her to your will." Interesting that you should know how I feel so well. But the reality is that you don't live inside my skin and you don't know either what I think or feel. It appears you do not even listen well to what I actually say. But you do project well. Do you project this venom that you spout onto all who disagree with you. Would you project onto my wife the mysoginist views you associate with me simply because she also feels the opposite of you with regard to abortion? Indeed, it is she who has helped to shape my views, for remember, I once shared yours.

In general, I find it foolish to try to legislate morality. And if this was only about a woman's choice as to what to do with her own life, her own body, then we would not even be having this discussion. But you err in thinking that that is all this is about. When an abortion occurs, at the end of it, we have the termination of another's life and the woman returns to a life that looks pretty much the same as before. That is why the argument continues to be framed as it is. You see this about people trying to restrict a women's choice. It is not, for framing it that way is the biggest distortion of all. It is about trying to preserve the life of the one person in this whole scenario who is given no choice at all.

[Texas Lynn]

If the creation of new law was not a valid concern for people to be engaged in, there would be no purpose for legislatures to exist.


Of course. But what you are advocating is unsupportable by anything except your emotionalism.

you have not helped any of us who do sincerely believe this (represented by Speculative and myself in this thread) to understand why/how it is that this does not resonate with you.

It depends on your degree of commitment to your unfortunate position on this issue, of course. If you wish to be "helped" I can show you how your side has been cynically manipulated. Ask yourself: for 30 years the Republican Party has put in its' platform that they want to outlaw abortion and so forth but they haven't done it. Why is that? They've controlled the Presidency for 20 of those 30 years, Congress for 12, the Courts for about all of it, and still it's a no-go. Why? did Nancy Reagan telegraph the insiders' real intent when she screamed "I don't give a d about abortion?" You've been played.

There are many other, better ways to seek to reduce abortion besides criminalizing it. But your side is stuck on that panacea which won't reduce abortions one iota but will harm women.

Would you project onto my wife the mysoginist views you associate with me simply because she also feels the opposite of you with regard to abortion?

I don't know what you know about oppression; read Paolo Friere. But it is absolutely true some of the most racist anti-Black people are African-American (Uncle Ruckus is the comic strip Boondocks is a great example there); some of the most homophobic are queer as a $9 bill; and some of the most virulently anti-woman are women.

When an abortion occurs, at the end of it, we have the termination of another's life

So you say but all you offer to support it is emotionalism.

The best answer to your sentiments is this: if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. I don't, and I didn't, twice when I was pregnant. But in a free society that needs to remain my choice, not that of self-righteous busybodies with government power like China's neighborhood councils which enforce their one-child policy.

nd the woman returns to a life that looks pretty much the same as before.

This is an example of particularly virulent anti-woman sentiment which contradicts the argument your faction makes that women who abort live in interminable guilt afterward. Some do, but primarily due to the nastiness of people in your faction, the terrorists who attack clinics and those who spout woman-hating views from pulpits and political platforms.

You see this about people trying to restrict a women's choice. It is not

It's not? Then you are opposed to criminalizing abortion? for unless you are you contradicted yourself.

It is about trying to preserve the life of the one person in this whole scenario who is given no choice at all.

A "person" governments have never recongnized as existing, and indeed, which only exist in the imagination. I had imaginary friends named Paul and Janie as a child. I guess I should be suing my 8th grade teachers for killing them by your (lack of) logic.

[GraceSeeker]

A "person" governments have never recongnized as existing, and indeed, which only exist in the imagination. I had imaginary friends named Paul and Janie as a child. I guess I should be suing my 8th grade teachers for killing them by your (lack of) logic. And if you could show that they weren't imaginary but real, I would support you in that. Unborn children are real. That isn't emotionalism; that is fact. I've told you why I believe that to be the case; you not given one iota of support to the concept that they are not.


You have implied above that the position of those who are anti-abortion is similar in nature to the governments of China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. In my view, the arguments that you have offered for your pro-choice position sound similar to those offered with regard to pre-Civil War views on slavery that didn't recognize the legal status of black Americans either. What's your point, that even though the law is wrong it is still the law and one shouldn't change it no matter the moral decadence of that very law?

[Texas Lynn]

Unborn children are real.

A fetus is a real fetus; it is not a child. To say it is is to say something fictitious.

I've told you why I believe that to be the case


All you offered was emotionalism.

You have implied above that the position of those who are anti-abortion is similar in nature to the governments of China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.

If the advocate criminalizing it and since those societies did (however it was Romania, not the USSR) it is accurate. I'm anti-abortion; I'm just also against criminalizing it.

In my view, the arguments that you have offered for your pro-choice position sound similar to those offered with regard to pre-Civil War views on slavery that didn't recognize the legal status of black Americans either.

Considering how segregationists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson back criminalizing abortion that is not accurate.

What's your point, that even though the law is wrong it is still the law and one shouldn't change it no matter the moral decadence of that very law?

The law is right; to criminalize abortion would be an immoral act.

[GraceSeeker]

I find it interesting that you consider my comments, wherein I did offer some rationale for my views, to be emotional, but you aren't able to see that to be true of yourself even as you claim that what I have put forth doesn't "resonate" with you -- a giveaway to views based on what one does (or, in your case, doesn't) feel.

[Texas Lynn]

I find it interesting that you consider my comments, wherein I did offer some rationale for my views, to be emotional, but you aren't able to see that to be true of yourself even as you claim that what I have put forth doesn't "resonate" with you -- a giveaway to views based on what one does (or, in your case, doesn't) feel.

I guess you are right-for a view to not 'resonate' is an act of feeling. However, there's the other thing, too: thinking. When one looks at a position not supported by rationality it doesn't pass that test either.

[GraceSeeker]

I guess you are right-for a view to not 'resonate' is an act of feeling. However, there's the other thing, too: thinking. When one looks at a position not supported by rationality it doesn't pass that test either.



Well, exactly what is your "thinking"? It appears that it is an apriori belief that a fetus is not a child. The reasons for that have never been explained.

Btw, I did provide some thinking for my views that an unborn child is indeed worthy of protection, and that those who in the past have not provided that have made a mistake in not doing so. You don't find them convincing, I understand that; but I suspect that it is because you simply reject the concept out of hand, not because I didn't provide any rational thought. If you don't remember those thoughts I can articulate them again for you.

[Texas Lynn]

Do you believe an egg is a chicken?

[Texas Lynn]

Do you believe an egg is a chicken?

[GraceSeeker]

I believe that cracking open a fertilized chicken egg is killing a baby chick. Except for when we were trying to add to the flock, we always tried to make sure that the rooster didn't have contact with hens so that we didn't get fertilized eggs. And when we let the rooster in with the hens, when didn't collect those eggs, but let them hatch for precisely that reason.


I notice how you still aren't willing/able (which is it) to provide your own thinking on why a fetus is not a child. If you can't/won't do that, then how about answering when it is that, in your thinking, a fetus does become a child? And, in line with your previous comments to me, please be sure to give reasons and not emotions.

[Texas Lynn]

Why should jurisprudence change at this point? The concept of birth as when personhood occurs has stood the test of time. If it makes some who don't have women's best interests at heart unhappy, so it goes.

[GraceSeeker]

The concept of birth as when personhood occurs has stood the test of time.

This is by no means as time tested as you might think.

For instance, when did Jesus become a person? How does one reconcile your understanding that personhood occurs at the moment of birth with a Biblical passages such as Luke 1:41-4441When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Scripture records these "fetuses" as being real persons.

Jeremiah affirms that, at least as regards him (I think similar things apply to all persons), God can say:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

I don't think such statements could be made with regard to non-persons.

[Joykins]

For those actually interested in a history (including animal studies) of human and primate (and other animal, actually) motherhood, abortion, and the raising of infants, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's _Mother Nature_ is really good. Very informative. I know it made me question some of my basic assumptions about some of these reproductive issues.

For example, primates may not abort, but a some great ape males are infanticidal; they kill a female's infants to bring her into estrus and mate with her. In humans, an infant is much more likely to be killed by his or her stepfather (or mother's boyfriend) than his or her biological father. What happens in the womb may be a very small part of a larger picture it would probably do us all well to consider.

[Texas Lynn]

This is by no means as time tested as you might think.

For instance, when did Jesus become a person? How does one reconcile your understanding that personhood occurs at the moment of birth with a Biblical passages such as Luke 1:41-44 Scripture records these "fetuses" as being real persons.

Jeremiah affirms that, at least as regards him (I think similar things apply to all persons), God can say:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

I don't think such statements could be made with regard to non-persons.

And yet, nobody was prosecuted for terminating a fetus. You've confused poetry with a legal precedent. To someone who wants to be pregnant the fetus is "my baby". To someone with an unwanted pregnancy, it's "that thing inside me". Criminalizing abortion does no good and does much harm. It has no effect on abortion rates. It simply allows the smug to feel more smug and to harm women they regard as less than they are.

[Texas Lynn]

For those actually interested in a history (including animal studies) of human and primate (and other animal, actually) motherhood, abortion, and the raising of infants, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's _Mother Nature_ is really good. Very informative. I know it made me question some of my basic assumptions about some of these reproductive issues.

For example, primates may not abort, but a some great ape males are infanticidal; they kill a female's infants to bring her into estrus and mate with her. In humans, an infant is much more likely to be killed by his or her stepfather (or mother's boyfriend) than his or her biological father. What happens in the womb may be a very small part of a larger picture it would probably do us all well to consider.

If the anti-abortion movement were truly a "pro-life" movement (and that is not indicated by its actions) it would be in a stasis where in two different ways it would be "unable to see the forest for the trees":

1. By focusing on criminalizing abortion it ignores other ways to seek to reduce abortion. The primary cause of abortion is economics; if a single woman has resources to care for a child she will not likely have an abortion. Empowering women prevents it more than any law against it could hope to. Of course, that is precisely what many of the loudest voices against abortion are against.

2. By focusing on abortion it ignores other ways to be "pro-life" as in preventing poverty and uplifting the poor; again, this is not indicated to be consistent with the movement's goals. Their alliances with plutocracy and militarism confirm this.

Many solitary voices here and elsewhere say "I'm for birth control but against abortion" but the organized anti-abortion groups are opposed to both. There is a pending bill in Congress to extend birth control coverage all but universally and yet they oppose it though birth control prevents abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" they'd support it.

[GraceSeeker]

If the anti-abortion movement were truly a "pro-life" movement (and that is not indicated by its actions) it would be in a stasis where in two different ways it would be "unable to see the forest for the trees":

1. By focusing on criminalizing abortion it ignores other ways to seek to reduce abortion. The primary cause of abortion is economics; if a single woman has resources to care for a child she will not likely have an abortion. Empowering women prevents it more than any law against it could hope to. Of course, that is precisely what many of the loudest voices against abortion are against.

2. By focusing on abortion it ignores other ways to be "pro-life" as in preventing poverty and uplifting the poor; again, this is not indicated to be consistent with the movement's goals. Their alliances with plutocracy and militarism confirm this.

Many solitary voices here and elsewhere say "I'm for birth control but against abortion" but the organized anti-abortion groups are opposed to both. There is a pending bill in Congress to extend birth control coverage all but universally and yet they oppose it though birth control prevents abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" they'd support it.


You misrepresent the pro-life movement, for both of these things you have enumerated I spoke in favor of from the very beginning and other voices confirmed what I said. I think you also do an injustice to your own cause by misconstruing who is actually having the majority of abortions in this country. It is not poor young single women in desperate situations without the means to care for themselves or their baby who are the most frequent seekers of abortions. By focusing on this stereotype you are yourself denigrading the majority of women who are simply choosing to have an abortion as their preferred method of birth control. If you truly think it is OK to make that choice, then own the real reason that people choose it -- personal convenience and self-interest.

[GraceSeeker]

And yet, nobody was prosecuted for terminating a fetus. Are you returning to your argument that if it is part of historical jurisprudence it must be acceptable today. Be careful, because throughout most of human history people weren't prosecuted for infanticide either.

You've confused poetry with a legal precedent. Interesting view with regard to the narrative of scripture.

To someone who wants to be pregnant the fetus is "my baby". To someone with an unwanted pregnancy, it's "that thing inside me". More on this particular concept later, but for the present it is enough to point out that I think this is another one of your emotional arguments. Perhaps it is because you have so many of them yourself that you keep projecting them onto others.

Criminalizing abortion does no good and does much harm. I would rather eliminate the need for the law than have the law, but I disagree that having a law does any more harm than holding people accountable for any other action.

It has no effect on abortion rates. I don't think this is true either. In places where abortion is criminalized, people may still seek abortions at the same rate, but finding access to them it decreased. This results in less abortions, which can be seen by the historical increase in the number of aboritons occuring in a society when such restrictions are removed.

It simply allows the smug to feel more smug and to harm women they regard as less than they are. I don't know of a single person who wants to eliminate abortions that regards women as anything less than a child of God, created in his image, and worthy of love, respect, and as much compassion as it is possible to offer. Too bad that those who so want to offer women a choice don't feel the same way toward the baby they conspire with her to have killed.

[Texas Lynn]

You misrepresent the pro-life movement, for both of these things you have enumerated I spoke in favor of from the very beginning and other voices confirmed what I said.

So some have said, but it does not explain why the organized anti-abortion groups continue to oppose compromise and birth control. You can't support these groups and then claim "Me No Alamo".

I think you also do an injustice to your own cause by misconstruing who is actually having the majority of abortions in this country. It is not poor young single women in desperate situations without the means to care for themselves or their baby who are the most frequent seekers of abortions. By focusing on this stereotype you are yourself denigrading the majority of women who are simply choosing to have an abortion as their preferred method of birth control. If you truly think it is OK to make that choice, then own the real reason that people choose it -- personal convenience and self-interest.

What I find unfortunate is the judgmentalism in these statements of "who" has abortions and "why". Simply put, it's none of your doggone business who the women are or why they have them. The use of the sneering term "convenience" is especially unfortunate.

[Texas Lynn]

Are you returning to your argument that if it is part of historical jurisprudence it must be acceptable today. Be careful, because throughout most of human history people weren't prosecuted for infanticide either.

Righto, and we changed that. No reason to go overboard. The anti-abortion extremists are just like the animal rights extremists except some bomb clinics and others bomb labs.

Interesting view with regard to the narrative of scripture.

The prevailing view till the advent of fundamentalism in the late 19th century.

More on this particular concept later, but for the present it is enough to point out that I think this is another one of your emotional arguments. Perhaps it is because you have so many of them yourself that you keep projecting them onto others.

Nothing emotional about telling you if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, and otherwise mind your own business. The government has no business regulating medical procedures of this sort any more than any other procedure. That's pure logic.

I would rather eliminate the need for the law than have the law, but I disagree that having a law does any more harm than holding people accountable for any other action.

They are not accountable to YOU.

I don't think this is true either. In places where abortion is criminalized, people may still seek abortions at the same rate, but finding access to them it decreased. This results in less abortions, which can be seen by the historical increase in the number of aboritons occuring in a society when such restrictions are removed.

Research indicates this is false. Legal abortion wasn't tracked until it was legal. There was an upward spoke after legalization in various jurisdictions or so we thought, until it was revealed in the brief time abortion was criminalized in america it was really at the discretion of the doctor and many more were performed than were originally thought to have been. Throughout history 1/5 to 1/3 of all pregnancies have resulted in abortion, with increases and decreases parallel to the economic cycle.

I don't know of a single person who wants to eliminate abortions that regards women as anything less than a child of God, created in his image, and worthy of love, respect, and as much compassion as it is possible to offer.

And yet in your previous post you chose to sneer at them for acting out of "convenience". Some love. Some respect. Some compassion.

Too bad that those who so want to offer women a choice don't feel the same way toward the baby they conspire with her to have killed.

Do you really want to go there? How do you feel toward the starving infants of the slums of Cairo (not just Cairo, Egypt, but Cairo, Illinois as well)? Why focus on children not born yet when there are so many already born in dire straits? Why denigrate desperate women as acting from "convenience"? Why indeed?

[GraceSeeker]

Why denigrate desperate women as acting from "convenience"? Why indeed? This isn't my term. This is what women themselves have told me. That they didn't worry about whether they got pregnant or not, if they did they could just get an abortion. It was more convenient (I assume they meant easier) to do that than to keep trying to worry about birth control.

Why do you object to a word that women themselves to describe why they prefer one form of birth control (abortion) over another (counterceptives and barrier methods)? They saw the option of abortion as making it easier to live the active sexual lifestyle they desired because it completely removed the fear of getting pregnant that remained with any other method of birth control.

I'm not saying this is all women, and I probably shouldn't say it is a majority based on antedoctal evidence only. But it is common, common among people that have full access to other options and simply don't prefer them, and I believe you will find it more common than the stories of people in desperate situations.

For that reason, while I support providing health care, economic aid, job training, and all of that, I don't think it will cut the number of abortions as you suggest. It wouldn't have one whit of an impact on these women I'm talking about. They, as you said, simply see the baby as something to get rid of and nothing more. And for whatever reason they preceive abortions as being, in their words, "more convenient" than preventing a pregnancy in the first place.

[Texas Lynn]

This isn't my term. This is what women themselves have told me. That they didn't worry about whether they got pregnant or not, if they did they could just get an abortion. It was more convenient (I assume they meant easier) to do that than to keep trying to worry about birth control.

Why do you object to a word that women themselves to describe why they prefer one form of birth control (abortion) over another (counterceptives and barrier methods)? They saw the option of abortion as making it easier to live the active sexual lifestyle they desired because it completely removed the fear of getting pregnant that remained with any other method of birth control.

I'm not saying this is all women, and I probably shouldn't say it is a majority based on antedoctal evidence only. But it is common, common among people that have full access to other options and simply don't prefer them, and I believe you will find it more common than the stories of people in desperate situations.

For that reason, while I support providing health care, economic aid, job training, and all of that, I don't think it will cut the number of abortions as you suggest. It wouldn't have one whit of an impact on these women I'm talking about. They, as you said, simply see the baby as something to get rid of and nothing more. And for whatever reason they preceive abortions as being, in their words, "more convenient" than preventing a pregnancy in the first place.

I think I understand the sort of thing you are talking about but I'm wondering just in what capacity you are talking to "these women" at all. Do they just seek you out? Do they just strike up conversations in supermarket lines and at the DMV or such?

I work in the child abuse and neglect investigation and treatment field and the sort you've described seems to go along with what was stereotypically called "welfare mothers" 40 years ago but now "social services clients" would be more correct, though they often aren't referred to as a group.

I think you know what I mean: women who are sexually active outside marriages and have several children of different fathers, histories of bipolar or borderline personality disorders, chemical abuse, and a stint as a Wal-Mart checker would be the high point of their employment history, if that. To some men there's little differences between these women and prostitutes except prostitutes tend to be more practical.

To some extent these patterns are generational. Due to my experience with such women I was not opposed to welfare reform as some were. But the patriarchy by and large has not served these women well. Some say the best way to prevent teen pregnancy is to get girls interested in careers but it is the religious right which vigorously opposes that.

What though is served by preventing these women from obtaining abortion? Certainly not them? Not the "child" who grows up like the boy in Elvis Presley's song "In The Ghetto". It's more of the typical official response of TPTB to these marginal people, which roughly amounts to "whip them till they bleed and then fine them for bleeding".

Abortion is triage. While not an optimum social condition it is superior to slavery and the prison.

Some oppose abortion because of an illusion of eternal middle class sunshine; others due to a disdain of marginal women. It's better to keep it legal and safe than use its prohibition as another weapon with which to oppress people.

[GraceSeeker]

For example, primates may not abort, but a some great ape males are infanticidal; they kill a female's infants to bring her into estrus and mate with her. In humans, an infant is much more likely to be killed by his or her stepfather (or mother's boyfriend) than his or her biological father. What happens in the womb may be a very small part of a larger picture it would probably do us all well to consider.

OK, Joykins, in what way do suggest that we consider it? Is there something in this animal behavior that you are suggesting we adopt as acceptable in human society?

[Texas Lynn]

OK, Joykins, in what way do suggest that we consider it? Is there something in this animal behavior that you are suggesting we adopt as acceptable in human society?

It is certainly not congruent to call oneself "pro-life" and limit one's "pro-life" activities to opposing legal abortion while aligning oneself with politicians in favor of plutocracy and militarism.

[Joykins]

OK, Joykins, in what way do suggest that we consider it? Is there something in this animal behavior that you are suggesting we adopt as acceptable in human society?

No.

I am suggesting we see the abortion issue as part of a continuum that stretches from acceptable birth control to completely unacceptable abuse, neglect, and homicide. The problems seem to come in that people disagree on which end of the continuum it falls.

[Texas Lynn]

No.

I am suggesting we see the abortion issue as part of a continuum that stretches from acceptable birth control to completely unacceptable abuse, neglect, and homicide. The problems seem to come in that people disagree on which end of the continuum it falls.

Joykins: I oppose abortion in principle but find the criminalization of it be bad policy which is being pursued for bad reasons.

I believe those who favor this policy are primarily of two types: the manipulators and the naive. The former would include the leaders of the Catholic hierarchy and the (largely Protestant) Religious Right and their political allies. The latter would include those who imagine it would do some good. Woman hatred in rhetoric is disseminated by the former to manipulate the latter.

It is obvious that throughout human history abortion has in general been considered acceptable though regrettable. The naive are unaware of this and experience congnitive dissonance when informed of it. I have certainly seen this on message boards when rank and file religious righters deamnd to know a source for such information often while overcome with indignation.

[Joykins]

It is obvious that throughout human history abortion has in general been considered acceptable though regrettable. The naive are unaware of this and experience congnitive dissonance when informed of it. I have certainly seen this on message boards when rank and file religious righters deamnd to know a source for such information often while overcome with indignation.

My study says there were times and places where it was and times and places where it wasn't considered acceptable. Some forms of abortion are very dangerous to the woman as well as the fetus, particularly the primitive and herbal ones (the Hippocratic oath forbids it on that account). Birth control is always preferable if possible.

[GraceSeeker]

No.

I am suggesting we see the abortion issue as part of a continuum that stretches from acceptable birth control to completely unacceptable abuse, neglect, and homicide. The problems seem to come in that people disagree on which end of the continuum it falls.


OK. Gottcha. And I think I would concur that this is largely where the conflict is.

Texas Lynn, as for your concept of being against it by not criminalizing it. What other things that actually result in one person doing harm to another person do we try to stop the practice of simply by persuasion?

I'm don't believe in homosexual marriages either, but as that really is about two people and their own bodies I don't care to make any laws and would even support a law to grant civil unions. But this isn't the same.

Though you refuse to acknowledge it; abortion is not just about what a woman does with her own body for abortion does take a human life and until we recognize that (something that you point out we have been woe to do in many societies and throughout much of history), I don't think we will ever begin to deal with it constructively.

[Joykins]

I oppose criminalizing abortion because I do not see it as a problem with a good law enforcement solution.

[Texas Lynn]

My study says there were times and places where it was and times and places where it wasn't considered acceptable. Some forms of abortion are very dangerous to the woman as well as the fetus, particularly the primitive and herbal ones (the Hippocratic oath forbids it on that account). Birth control is always preferable if possible.

Abortion was not criminalized except for about 100 years from 1860-1960 approximately, and that was not because of a concept a fetus was a person but to protect women from unsafe providers. But during that time doctors performed many abortions at their discretion.

[Texas Lynn]

Texas Lynn, as for your concept of being against it by not criminalizing it. What other things that actually result in one person doing harm to another person do we try to stop the practice of simply by persuasion?

To name one major item in that regard: sale of cigarettes and alcohol.

Though you refuse to acknowledge it; abortion is not just about what a woman does with her own body for abortion does take a human life and until we recognize that (something that you point out we have been woe to do in many societies and throughout much of history), I don't think we will ever begin to deal with it constructively.

The way to do that is through supporting the woman to care for a child, not through coercion which doesn't work and fosters disrespect for all involved.

Futurists have long believed the contradiction in which a few are born with seemingly unlimited resources but most must survive by hook and crook cannot remain tenable. If survival is recognized as something not to be guaranteed only to those few with privileges abortion rates will plummet.