Abortion...

[Son of Adam]

Hey just thought I'd tell everyone some really good news.
A white lady who is pregnat with triples who have a black father, and the lady doesn't want them aproched some friends of my dad (who have 5 children already, one adopted) to see if they would adopt the babies, as soon as their born. They said yes! :D

That's wonderful news. If only more people would choose to put their unwanted babies up for adoption. There are many people out there just waiting to become parents who cannot the natural way for whatever reason. And adoption is the best avenue for them to go. I am so happy for everyone concerned, but more so for those precious unborn babies.

[Aslan son of the Emperor]

That's wonderful news. If only more people would choose to put their unwanted babies up for adoption. There are many people out there just waiting to become parents who cannot the natural way for whatever reason. And adoption is the best avenue for them to go. I am so happy for everyone concerned, but more so for those precious unborn babies.


They are plenty of people out there who can't have kids for different medical reasons, who really want kids and would be willing to adopt kids. If you don't want your child I can guarantee you there is someone out there that does. My friend got a girl pregnant and thye decided to have an abortion, from what he hass told me it is the biggest regret of his life.

[~Lava~]

Hey guys, I have heard some wonderful news from Priests for Life recently. It seems that Abortion activists have a more pressing concern on their hands than whether or not Roe V. Wade will be repealed. Apparently, they are having conciderable problems finding Doctors who are willing to perform the Abortions.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Hey guys, I have heard some wonderful news from Priests for Life recently. It seems that Abortion activists have a more pressing concern on their hands than whether or not Roe V. Wade will be repealed. Apparently, they are having conciderable problems finding Doctors who are willing to perform the Abortions.

Pardon my celebration. YEAH!!!!!!!!!!:D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Apparently abortionists are the pariahs of the medical field, and are shunned even among doctors who agree with the procedure. In our town we had an abortionist open up a branch "office" for a couple of years, but he eventually shut down. We later learned that his whole mini-network of abortuaries failed because of bad business practices.

We should be praying for these people. Many of them are deceived by the rhetoric of the abortion industry, and rationalize away their activities. There have been some dramatic turnaround stories among abortionists, most notably Dr. Bernard Nathanson.

[Lady Theresa]

The good news is that the numbers of abortions and abortionists are down since the 1990's. According to a thing I just watched the abortion industry is having a hard time finding doctors to preform abortion procedures!! This is really good news!:D Granted the battle is not won, but it also speculated that the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling might be reversed.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Let me celebrate even more. This is good good news. Adoption, not abortion.:D

[Lady Theresa]

I just realized that I just posted the same thing as my sister only in different words. I was going to say something else but I forgot what it was. I do know that abortion is a horrible thing, I've seen several tapes about abortion that made me sick to my stomach, but I am glad I saw them. I would rather learn the truth while I am still young and try to make a difference than to never know what is happening in our country!!:D

[~Lava~]

He He I beat you to it LT.:D
Anyways...
Yes, they are the pariahs of the Medical industry, that is why they are having such a hard time finding new doctors. I hope the trend continues.

[inkspot]

My cousins are in China with their new baby girl! She is adorable! She was abandoned, which is pretty bad! But she lived, and now she will be coming home with her new parents soon. Everyone who doesn't want their baby should surely give her up for adoption. There are good families waiting for such a blessing. :)

[Aslan son of the Emperor]

My cousins are in China with their new baby girl! She is adorable! She was abandoned, which is pretty bad! But she lived, and now she will be coming home with her new parents soon. Everyone who doesn't want their baby should surely give her up for adoption. There are good families waiting for such a blessing. :)

Thats awesome. I have family friend who has, with her husband, adopted a couple of children from China.

No life should be wasted. There will always be people out there willing to adopt children from people who either don't want them or can't support them. Just because you made a mistake in your mind doesn't mean you should take a childs life.

[Elendil]

Hey guys, I have heard some wonderful news from Priests for Life recently. It seems that Abortion activists have a more pressing concern on their hands than whether or not Roe V. Wade will be repealed. Apparently, they are having conciderable problems finding Doctors who are willing to perform the Abortions.

*dancing* GO DOCS!!! :D

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Pray that it happens. Go docs. Go Reps, and for the right thing too.

[Elendil]

My friends mother's friend had an abortion. :( :( :( :( poor little baby was sick.

[inkspot]

I was writing a package for a client today, and part of the documentation I was given was an article about ultrasound imaging and abortion.

In a study of 500 women who definitely were seeking an abortion, onlly 10% chose abortion after they had seen ultrasound images of their babies. 60% rejected abortion right away after seeing the pictures. 30% miscarried (apparently women who seek an abortion on average are at higher risk for miscarriage because they do high-risk behaviors or have had a previous abortion). And only 50 went through with the abortion procedure which all 500 had definitely wanted before the ultrasound.

So, if a woman sees her baby in the womb, she is much more unlikely to want to kill the baby. It is the abortionist's assurance that she has only a fetus, a fetal tissue or a "product of conception" which makes it easier for her to "terminate the pregnancy," but when she sees the baby as a baby, it is much more difficult to abort.

Right now in the USA, the House of Representatives is investigating HR 223, the "Informed Consent" bill. It would make grants available for crisis pregnancy centers (and other non-profit pregnancy care centers) to get ultrasound machines on the condition they would do an ultrasound if a patient requests it, show the images to the mom, and explain to her about the baby's development and what would happen to the baby during an abortion (as far as pain and suffering) -- along with presenting abortion alternatives.

This would have the power to stop as many as 60% of the abortions, just letting the woman see her baby, if the study I read about today holds true for all women seeking abortions.

So, HR 223 is a good thing. It would help crisis pregnancy centers to have ultrasound equipment and be able to show mothers-to-be their babies. And if abortion clinics took advantage of the grants to get ultrasound machines, they would be required by law to give an ultrasound to any patient who requested one, and also show her the pictures and explain to her what would happen to her baby during an abortion.

(Planned Parenthood says it gives ultrasounds to half its patients, and only 5% refuse the abortion -- but it may be because the staff never shows the ultrasound images to the mom! They just use the pictures to determine how far along she is, and never let her see them.)

[Elendil]

I was writing a package for a client today, and part of the documentation I was given was an article about ultrasound imaging and abortion.

In a study of 500 women who definitely were seeking an abortion, onlly 10% chose abortion after they had seen ultrasound images of their babies. 60% rejected abortion right away after seeing the pictures. 30% miscarried (apparently women who seek an abortion on average are at higher risk for miscarriage because they do high-risk behaviors or have had a previous abortion). And only 50 went through with the abortion procedure which all 500 had definitely wanted before the ultrasound.

So, if a woman sees her baby in the womb, she is much more unlikely to want to kill the baby. It is the abortionist's assurance that she has only a fetus, a fetal tissue or a "product of conception" which makes it easier for her to "terminate the pregnancy," but when she sees the baby as a baby, it is much more difficult to abort.

Right now in the USA, the House of Representatives is investigating HR 223, the "Informed Consent" bill. It would make grants available for crisis pregnancy centers (and other non-profit pregnancy care centers) to get ultrasound machines on the condition they would do an ultrasound if a patient requests it, show the images to the mom, and explain to her about the baby's development and what would happen to the baby during an abortion (as far as pain and suffering) -- along with presenting abortion alternatives.

This would have the power to stop as many as 60% of the abortions, just letting the woman see her baby, if the study I read about today holds true for all women seeking abortions.

So, HR 223 is a good thing. It would help crisis pregnancy centers to have ultrasound equipment and be able to show mothers-to-be their babies. And if abortion clinics took advantage of the grants to get ultrasound machines, they would be required by law to give an ultrasound to any patient who requested one, and also show her the pictures and explain to her what would happen to her baby during an abortion.

(Planned Parenthood says it gives ultrasounds to half its patients, and only 5% refuse the abortion -- but it may be because the staff never shows the ultrasound images to the mom! They just use the pictures to determine how far along she is, and never let her see them.)

A client...What's your job Inky?

[inkspot]

A client...What's your job Inky?

I write for a development firm which helps Christian ministries grow. So I work with a lot of missionaries/ministries.

[Elendil]

I write for a development firm which helps Christian ministries grow. So I work with a lot of missionaries/ministries.

My dad has done LOADS of missionary work. I've been with him a few times too. It's really good.

[inkspot]

My dad has done LOADS of missionary work. I've been with him a few times too. It's really good.

Everyone should go. Usually churches will plan at least one trip a year some place where their people can serve and share the gospel. It's truly a life-changing thing. Me old mum is headed to South Africa this April to help out in an AIDS orphanage and do some ministry in schools. I wish I were going with her!

Now back to our topic ...
I understand Republican candidate for president of the USA Mitt Romney is a Mormon who was always pro-life until he started running for president, and now he is pro-abortion. They say he is trying to attract the "moderate" people to vote for him, but I think he is probably alienating the people who might have considered him, and he will not gain any votes by changing his position.

I wonder what his justification is for changing his mind, if he once believed it was wrong to kill pre-born babies?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, I've heard the opposite - that he was pro-abortion when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, but now has reversed his stand and is firmly pro-life. Needless to say, we pro-lifers are suspicious, but it has happened before (Ronald Reagan). We'll see if his walk matches his talk.

[~Lava~]

I heard what PotW did with regards to him. I still have to see what is going on with him, if he is suspicious, he ain't getting my vote in the primarys no matter how he says he is pro-life.

[inkspot]

I heard what PotW did with regards to him. I still have to see what is going on with him, if he is suspicious, he ain't getting my vote in the primarys no matter how he says he is pro-life.

Oh, I got it backward. My apologies to Mr. Romney. He used to be pro-abortion, but now he has seen the error of his ways. That's better than the reverse.
:)

[~Lava~]

The one who did the reverse was Al Gore. He was Pro-life till he got to Washington and now look at him.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Same with (ready for this?) ... Jesse Jackson. I saw a quote of his that was one of the most eloquent condemnations of abortion I've ever heard. He identified it as part of a plan of genocide against blacks (true), and said that blacks of all people should be pro-life, given their history of being oppressed.

Too bad he sold his soul for a bowl of political power.

[inkspot]

Same with (ready for this?) ... Jesse Jackson. I saw a quote of his that was one of the most eloquent condemnations of abortion I've ever heard. He identified it as part of a plan of genocide against blacks (true), and said that blacks of all people should be pro-life, given their history of being oppressed.

Too bad he sold his soul for a bowl of political power.

I never knew he had been pro-life at one time. How sad that he would change!

[Rock4Life]

I was writing a package for a client today, and part of the documentation I was given was an article about ultrasound imaging and abortion.

In a study of 500 women who definitely were seeking an abortion, onlly 10% chose abortion after they had seen ultrasound images of their babies. 60% rejected abortion right away after seeing the pictures. 30% miscarried (apparently women who seek an abortion on average are at higher risk for miscarriage because they do high-risk behaviors or have had a previous abortion). And only 50 went through with the abortion procedure which all 500 had definitely wanted before the ultrasound.

So, if a woman sees her baby in the womb, she is much more unlikely to want to kill the baby. It is the abortionist's assurance that she has only a fetus, a fetal tissue or a "product of conception" which makes it easier for her to "terminate the pregnancy," but when she sees the baby as a baby, it is much more difficult to abort.

Right now in the USA, the House of Representatives is investigating HR 223, the "Informed Consent" bill. It would make grants available for crisis pregnancy centers (and other non-profit pregnancy care centers) to get ultrasound machines on the condition they would do an ultrasound if a patient requests it, show the images to the mom, and explain to her about the baby's development and what would happen to the baby during an abortion (as far as pain and suffering) -- along with presenting abortion alternatives.

This would have the power to stop as many as 60% of the abortions, just letting the woman see her baby, if the study I read about today holds true for all women seeking abortions.

So, HR 223 is a good thing. It would help crisis pregnancy centers to have ultrasound equipment and be able to show mothers-to-be their babies. And if abortion clinics took advantage of the grants to get ultrasound machines, they would be required by law to give an ultrasound to any patient who requested one, and also show her the pictures and explain to her what would happen to her baby during an abortion.

(Planned Parenthood says it gives ultrasounds to half its patients, and only 5% refuse the abortion -- but it may be because the staff never shows the ultrasound images to the mom! They just use the pictures to determine how far along she is, and never let her see them.)

Do you have web link or something to this article? I will be writing my pro-life speech this weekend and this article fits very well to my thesis...

[inkspot]

Do you have web link or something to this article? I will be writing my pro-life speech this weekend and this article fits very well to my thesis...
Try this:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL02/rand.html
And this:
http://www.unborn.com/window/ultrasound.htm

And this:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070114/25130_S.C._Legislation_Would_Require_Ultrasound_Be fore_Abortion.htm

If those don't work for you, I can email you the resource I was given, but I think you will find most of it at these sites.

[Rock4Life]

thank you soo much!!! this is wonderful!

[inkspot]

thank you soo much!!! this is wonderful!
Great. Hope your speech goes well!
:)

[AlexPro-Logic]

Try this:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL02/rand.html
And this:
http://www.unborn.com/window/ultrasound.htm

And this:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070114/25130_S.C._Legislation_Would_Require_Ultrasound_Be fore_Abortion.htm

If those don't work for you, I can email you the resource I was given, but I think you will find most of it at these sites.

Can I point out that all of those studies are INCREDIBLY misleading. Heres why: "Of 371 new clients visiting the A Woman's Concern (AWC) pregnancy care center"

The important bit is bolded. That Centre is a STRONGLY christian HEAVILY anti-abortion organisation that has the sole function of offering alternatives to abortion. Women DONT GO THERE unless they are really unsure of their decision to abort!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, it's not true that only women who are tending against abortion will go to crisis pregnancy centers. We have one here in town, and the majority of women who come through their doors intend to have an abortion.

Women who don't intend to have an abortion typically don't call any center at all - they just get on with their pregnancy. The mere fact that a woman is at a center usually indicates she's strongly considering an abortion. That's why they're called crisis pregnancy centers.

[AlexPro-Logic]

Why would you go to a christian centre whose sole function is to prevent abortion unless you were not committed to abortion?

It skews the whole result whether you like it or not.

[Neevil]

PotW is right... my mom used to be a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center, and most of the people who came there were desperate women who didn't know what to do. They thought an abortion was their only option.

Also, it seems to me that if a Christian woman got pregnant, it would be with her husband and that probably wouldn't be a crisis. So why would a Christian woman nee to go to a crisis pregnancy center to begin with?

[AlexPro-Logic]

Look, you can claim anacdotally that Abortion fanatics go to christian anti-abortion centres all the time, but no serious logical person is going to accept the statistics on abortion of a group whose WHOLE function is to prevent abortion as indicitive of ANYTHING except that they are fairly good at convincing people abortion is evil.

The statistics you get from a secular family planning clinic (where both abortion and other options are presented neutrally) would be 100x more interesting.

Claiming that those statistics show that "most people wouldnt choose to have an abortion if they were shown a sonogram (or whatever)" is just patently false. At best, your statistics show that Fundamentalist Christian groups are very effective at persuading people who are ALREADY open to their arguments not to have an abortion.
An atheist wouldnt GO to one of those centres.

[AlexPro-Logic]

PotW is right... my mom used to be a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center, and most of the people who came there were desperate women who didn't know what to do. They thought an abortion was their only option.

Also, it seems to me that if a Christian woman got pregnant, it would be with her husband and that probably wouldn't be a crisis. So why would a Christian woman nee to go to a crisis pregnancy center to begin with?

"Pregnancy Crisis Centres" arnt for crisises in pregnancy. They just call themselves that because "Abortion is Evil centre" doesnt have the same ring to it.

How do I know this? Because when my wife and I had a partial miscarriage 3 years ago, we phoned near enough every one of those centres within 100miles, and 9/10 told us "we dont deal with miscarriages, only alternatives to abortion". The last 10th said "God doesnt mind, consult with your doctor".

Prior to that I was open to their teachings, since then, i've done more research and its obvious they care about NOTHING but preventing abortion by any means neccessary..

[inkspot]

Alex, welcome to the discussion. I am so sorry you were mistreated at the hands of Christian organizations. If there is one thing I have found, it is that we believers can be our own worst enemies. We have a tendency to get so focused on our agenda, we forget that our true calling is to express the Christ life on this earth. Someone should have been Jesus to you, and they were apparently all too busy with their pro-life business. I sincerely apologize, on their behalf, and I want to say also how sorry I am for your misfortune. What a sad, sad, thing to happen. I hope that you found the help you needed in your own church or minister?

I will stand by my statistics. What I found when originally writing the piece were quotes such as this:
Shari Richard, a pioneer in helping these centers use ultrasound, reports that she has done more than 500 sonograms on abortion-minded women. She reports that 60 percent of her patients choose not to have an abortion after seeing their baby on ultrasound.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/focusmagazine/sohl/A000000099.cfm#
These were "abortion-minded" women. They wanted to and planned to have an abortion.

And this:
These same centers reported that an average of 28 percent (and a median of 20 percent) of clients faced with a positive pregnancy test initially are abortion-minded.
However, our survey results indicated that 79 percent of these clients (and a median of 90 percent ) decide to carry their babies to term after viewing an ultrasound.
http://search.family.org/query.cfm?qt=ultrasound&style=family&Search=Go
the remarkable thing is that 62% of the 198 clients who definitely intended to abort changed their minds after seeing the ultrasound
Not only were these last "abortion-minded," but they "definitely intended to abort."

So, it is not the case that these statistics only apply to women who were intending to keep their babies, anyway. These are women who initially indicated they wanted to abort, or at least were giving serious consideration to abortion.

The only point of it all was: once a mum and dad see a picture of their baby, they are far less llikely to want to abort. This is true, according to the stats, even for those who were fully intending to abort. The Planned Parenthood stats are the ones which are a bit skewed; they say among patients who have an ultrasound there, most go ahead and abort -- but they don't tell you, they never show the pictures to the mum! The doctor does the ultrasound and evaluates the baby's progress, but the mum never sees the photos. So, their stats are the more misleading, actually.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The statistics you get from a secular family planning clinic (where both abortion and other options are presented neutrally) would be 100x more interesting.

Boy, where do you get this idea? Ask women who go to Planned Parenthood clinics or other abortion facilities - no option other than abortion is ever discussed. In fact, I remember talking to a woman who was actually having problems with her pregnancy (premature bleeding), and not knowing any better she called up the local abortion clinic because their ad said "Problem Pregnancies". When they found out she wanted to keep the baby, they said they couldn't help her. They could only help when the pregnancy was the problem.

[inkspot]

I must agree with PoTW. Abortion is the option at Planned Parenthood. I don't know about any other, secular crisis pregnancy centers. And from my research earlier I know that at abortion clinics they don't want mum-to-be to see the ultrasound images.
"Seeing a blown up moving image of the embryo she is carrying can be distressing to a woman who is about to undergo an abortion. The screen should be turned away from the patient. Staff members also may be affected by the sonographic images and may need some opportunities for venting their feelings and reconfirming their priorities."
http://www.unborn.com/window/ultrasound.htm
So, there aren't really any other stats on how viewing ultrasound images affects abortion-minded women from within a Planned Parenthood type setting; they don't even want the women to see the photos at all!

[AlexPro-Logic]

Boy, where do you get this idea? Ask women who go to Planned Parenthood clinics or other abortion facilities - no option other than abortion is ever discussed. In fact, I remember talking to a woman who was actually having problems with her pregnancy (premature bleeding), and not knowing any better she called up the local abortion clinic because their ad said "Problem Pregnancies". When they found out she wanted to keep the baby, they said they couldn't help her. They could only help when the pregnancy was the problem.


This is just not true. A single glance at their website shows they offer services ranging from STI education through to adoption.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

Why would anyone have a vested interest in MAKING women abort their children? They dont have a religious agenda to pursue. Pro-Choice is about choosing, not being told to abort.

The problem with your statistics is the assessment of which mothers "definately planned to abort" (and why would someone who is definately going to abort go to an anti-abortion clinic who considers their choice evil/murder??) is done by the heavily biassed religious people with a HUGE vested interest in the statistics going there way.

As it happens, despite nowhere near trusting the statistics, I do in fact believe that many women would / do change their mind about having an abortion when shown a sonogram. I am also against showing women who wish to have an abortion that sonogram. If you look (try hard to anyway) at the issue from an abortion-neutral perspective, then showing the mother a sonogram is simply a method for pressuring her into feeling guilty about abortion. It doesnt have ANY affect on whats in here best interests, and if she decides to nevertheless go ahead with the abortion despite that, it will doubtless increase the trauma of the whole issue.

From a pro-choice perspective, it wouldnt matter if 99% of women changed their mind and decided not to abort, because that remaining 1% would be enough to justify the law.


Anyway, I would like to move the debate on from a specific set of statistics. Can we all agree that religion should not dictate law, and that law therefore should provide the option of abortion to those who make an informed decision to have it?

[Parthian King]

Dear God in Heaven, Ink! What a ghastly quote!

This, my friends, is what the Bible calls "searing the conscience." This "doctor" knows full well that she is advocating the slaughter of human beings, and she not only suggests strategies for dealing with "patients" (i.e., women who are victimized by the lies she tells, not to mention the soon-to-be-dead infants), but also for dealing with abortion clinic staff! And what "prioroites" does she refer to? Well, obviously that money, "personal freedom," and the perpetuity of abortion as a practice outweight the value of human life.

[Parthian King]

Sorry to double post, but this:

Why would anyone have a vested interest in MAKING women abort their children? They dont have a religious agenda to pursue. Pro-Choice is about choosing, not being told to abort.

...deserves a response. Well, I'm sorry, but what you say is "just not true." What kind of a question is this? Abortion is a multibillion dollar industry! This is like asking why Hugh Hefner's daughter would run Playboy for any other reason than women's lib, since being a woman she has no prurient interest in what her company sells!

It is the almighty dollar that runs the abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood makes a killing (pun intended) on what it does--and let's not talk of non-profits, please. Such organizations make a great deal of money--they just need to make sure at the end of each fiscal year they haven't (in accounting terms) posted a profit. There are a myriad of ways to do that (high salaries being just one).

I'll let more able minds handle the other loose ends presented by this post...

[AlexPro-Logic]

Sorry to double post, but this:



...deserves a response. Well, I'm sorry, but what you say is "just not true." What kind of a question is this? Abortion is a multibillion dollar industry! This is like asking why Hugh Hefner's daughter would run Playboy for any other reason than women's lib, since being a woman she has no prurient interest in what her company sells!

It is the almighty dollar that runs the abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood makes a killing (pun intended) on what it does--and let's not talk of non-profits, please. Such organizations make a great deal of money--they just need to make sure at the end of each fiscal year they haven't (in accounting terms) posted a profit. There are a myriad of ways to do that (high salaries being just one).

I'll let more able minds handle the other loose ends presented by this post...


I find your views warped by your agenda and totally abhorrent. Do you have any proof or even evidence of what you are saying?

At least in the UK, Abortion is free and comes from government run authorities which simply dont have an agenda (the NHS!). The abortion rate is higher over here too!

[AlexPro-Logic]

Dear God in Heaven, Ink! What a ghastly quote!

This, my friends, is what the Bible calls "searing the conscience." This "doctor" knows full well that she is advocating the slaughter of human beings, and she not only suggests strategies for dealing with "patients" (i.e., women who are victimized by the lies she tells, not to mention the soon-to-be-dead infants), but also for dealing with abortion clinic staff! And what "prioroites" does she refer to? Well, obviously that money, "personal freedom," and the perpetuity of abortion as a practice outweight the value of human life.

I fully agree with Dr Dorfmann's view expressed in that quote. showing a woman the sonogram without her express request is SIMPLY a method of pressurising her into not getting an abortion through the use of guilt.

Anyway, all of these arguments would make a lot more sense if we first discussed the moral context of abortion. I do not think its murder, and I can logically justify that view.

[Parthian King]

Good heavens, speak of calling good evila nd evil good! You agree that a woman should be kept ignorant of the living thing that is inside her own body? So much for women's rights!

You are like all others that come spouting such swill: You accuse those with any faith whatsoever of being warped by an "agenda," all the while acting as if you stand upon a lofty perch free of any presuppositions whatsoever. You mind-bending agenda is readily apparent to anyone with a 1st grade reading level.

Get this, and get it straight: Abortionists are just as "religious" as the Christians who oppose their bloody trade. They worship their own vanity, their libertinism, and their money. Abortion is a business, and that is a societal and fiscal fact. You say I have no "proof" for sustaining such a claim, when the financial statements of any such place is proof enough. If this is your brand of "logic," I imagine next we will hear of how the earth is flat because when you look out your window it sure seems that way.

God bless us and save us!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Mister, as someone who has worked with several post-abortive women and have learned from reformed pro-abortionists, I can assure you that abortion is a highly profitable and heavily marketed industry, certainly in the U.S. (It also happens to be one of the least regulated.)

Now, I'm awfully sorry that you had a bad experience with your wife when you miscarried, but that does not make the crisis pregnancy centers you called in any way at fault. They have a specific mission, and weren't equipped to help you with what you were facing. A podiatrist wouldn't have helped, either. Even our CPC in our town, which is a licensed medical center, would have only been able to examine the extent of the miscarriage with their ultrasound machine; treatment would have had to be in the hands of an ob/gyn.

I'm trying to follow your logic with respect to the ultrasound: how is providing information to a person "pressuring" her? After all, if the unborn baby is just a "blob of snot" (as clinic workers told one abortion victim who has posted in this thread), then what's the harm in seeing it?

[inkspot]

This is just not true. A single glance at their website shows they offer services ranging from STI education through to adoption.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
They do provide STD education, that is true, and they are in favor of condoms in a big way; I was referring only to what they counsel if you go there with a crisis pregnancy: their #1 thing they offer is an abortion. And PK is right, it is dollars driving the business. The body parts of aborted babies are sold for research, the more near term the higher the price, and of course, the "fresher" the better -- sometimes the buyer's agents are right there at the clinic to take the remains immediately.

I do in fact believe that many women would / do change their mind about having an abortion when shown a sonogram. I am also against showing women who wish to have an abortion that sonogram. If you look (try hard to anyway) at the issue from an abortion-neutral perspective, then showing the mother a sonogram is simply a method for pressuring her into feeling guilty about abortion. It doesnt have ANY affect on whats in here best interests, and if she decides to nevertheless go ahead with the abortion despite that, it will doubtless increase the trauma of the whole issue.
Interesting you should say this! It turns out, the trauma of an abortion visits the mum whether she sees a sonogram or not, and this trauma is never properly addressed by Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics (as you would read in this thread, in the posts of a member named LifeMaiden).

Also from the UK:
In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.
-- Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122

And Canada:
A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group.
-- Badgley, et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services).

And Finland:
Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. The identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.
-- Gissler, Hemminki & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4

I am guessing no one "traumatized" these women by showing them an ultrasound image of the baby before their abortion, especially in some place like Finland where there is very little faith in public thought and policy, and yet, they were traumatized ... by something ...

Anyway, I would like to move the debate on from a specific set of statistics.
oops! sorry! again with the stats! but at least they give you a view of the way abortion can traumatize a woman. :o

Can we all agree that religion should not dictate law, and that law therefore should provide the option of abortion to those who make an informed decision to have it?
We can agree to this as long as you agree that with religion not dictating the law, the law should therefore provide the option of murder to me when someone is in my way in traffic. After all, they are inconveniencing me, and I should be able to kill them! it is only people like you, who insist it would somehow be morally wrong for me to kill them, that make it against the law. Everyone knows you cannot legislate morality, and your stand against murder is just you imposing your morality on me ... :p

Religion has nothing to do with it, Alex. The point is: if life begins at conception, then the child in the womb is a human being with rights which deserve protection. Killing him for being in the way is not an option in a civilized society. I guess that leaves ours out! :(

[AlexPro-Logic]

They do provide STD education, that is true, and they are in favor of condoms in a big way; I was referring only to what they counsel if you go there with a crisis pregnancy: their #1 thing they offer is an abortion. And PK is right, it is dollars driving the business. The body parts of aborted babies are sold for research, the more near term the higher the price, and of course, the "fresher" the better -- sometimes the buyer's agents are right there at the clinic to take the remains immediately.


Interesting you should say this! It turns out, the trauma of an abortion visits the mum whether she sees a sonogram or not, and this trauma is never properly addressed by Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics (as you would read in this thread, in the posts of a member named LifeMaiden).

Also from the UK:


And Canada:


And Finland:


I am guessing no one "traumatized" these women by showing them an ultrasound image of the baby before their abortion, especially in some place like Finland where there is very little faith in public thought and policy, and yet, they were traumatized ... by something ...


oops! sorry! again with the stats! but at least they give you a view of the way abortion can traumatize a woman. :o


We can agree to this as long as you agree that with religion not dictating the law, the law should therefore provide the option of murder to me when someone is in my way in traffic. After all, they are inconveniencing me, and I should be able to kill them! it is only people like you, who insist it would somehow be morally wrong for me to kill them, that make it against the law. Everyone knows you cannot legislate morality, and your stand against murder is just you imposing your morality on me ... :p

Religion has nothing to do with it, Alex. The point is: if life begins at conception, then the child in the womb is a human being with rights which deserve protection. Killing him for being in the way is not an option in a civilized society. I guess that leaves ours out! :(

Murder is killing a human person under a variety of other conditions, a fetus, especially before 20 weeks in, is NOT a person.

A Fetus does not and should not have the same rights as a child or person, because it isnt a child, its a fetus.

[Emily_Cullen]

Abortion is wrong and if someone who is young gets pregnant I say give the baby up for adoption NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION

[AlexPro-Logic]

Abortion is wrong and if someone who is young gets pregnant I say give the baby up for adoption NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION NO ABORTION

Your honour, with intelligent arguments like this against me, I give up!

Abortion is legal because the law values the rights of the mother more than the prospective rights of something that isnt a person yet.

[AlexPro-Logic]

The average cost of an abortion in the US in 2000 was $372.20.

Lets stop with the "Its all for the money" [profanity: mod edit] now please. A tooth-capping costs more. The cost of a CAT-Scan is more. The cost of pregnancy care is 10 TIMES more.

Theres little to no financial incentive for any clinic to reccomend abortion over birth, the cost of its birth-related services would be FAR greater. A Specialist Physicians HOURLY rate is greater!

If you are going to persist with this inane lie, back it up with cold hard facts: how much money PROFIT is made from abortions alone.

[Parthian King]

Now, if anyone else cares atempts to express their obviously weak intellect through the use of profanity, they will similarly be banned. Not only is the use of filthy words a sign of an inability to express oneself adequately using reason, it also happens to be a violation of forum rules.

I will, again, defer to others to answer the statistical nonsense being spouted in the posts of this briefly present but now former junior member.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Murder is killing a human person under a variety of other conditions, a fetus, especially before 20 weeks in, is NOT a person.

A Fetus does not and should not have the same rights as a child or person, because it isnt a child, its a fetus.

ooh, this makes me mad.

apparently, you are not a Christian who knows science very well. Or else you've been taught by secular people.

A Fetus is a person at conception; it's living, it's breathing.....

If a fetus isn't a child until several weeks or months before birth, how in the heck can the baby be born with a fully capable body system consisting of organs, lungs, etc... if it's not a person until several weeks before birth?!

for your 411, a fetus develops only a few weeks after conception, where it actually begins to look like a human. (note: I can't remember how long after conception the organs and other things form.) but the organs and everything else are developing in the nine months of pregnancy.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can dispute that very scientific fact unless they're ignorant of the facts.

I rest my case. (for now at least)

[Lila]

ooh, this makes me mad.

apparently, you are not a Christian who knows science very well. Or else you've been taught by secular people.

A Fetus is a person at conception; it's living, it's breathing.....

If a fetus isn't a child until several weeks or months before birth, how in the heck can the baby be born with a fully capable body system consisting of organs, lungs, etc... if it's not a person until several weeks before birth?!

for your 411, a fetus develops only a few weeks after conception, where it actually begins to look like a human. (note: I can't remember how long after conception the organs and other things form.) but the organs and everything else are developing in the nine months of pregnancy.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can dispute that very scientific fact unless they're ignorant of the facts.

I rest my case. (for now at least)

*claps* Amen!!

[Lady Theresa]

Murder is killing a human person under a variety of other conditions, a fetus, especially before 20 weeks in, is NOT a person.

A Fetus does not and should not have the same rights as a child or person, because it isnt a child, its a fetus.

I find that disgusting!!!! Who has read Horton Hears a Who by Doctor Suess? "A Person's a person no matter how small!" can be found in its pages. Maybe you should read it!!!!!!! And if a baby is not a peson how can it feel pain a 9 weeks. And how come when my mom was pregnate with my little sister I could listen to her HEARTBEAT with a stethoscope. Maybe you should learn your facts. Like since when is it legal to pull a human being apart, or intentionally burn them, or slice them into pieces, or wait till they are almost out of the womb and then stab the back of their neck and suck out their brains? Abortionists practice all of these proceedures every day. Have you ever heard of Gianna Jessen? Her biological mom aborted her through a saline abortion which burns a child inside and out. 19 hours after she had saline injected into her womb Gianna was born. She has cerebral palsy and has an amazing voice.

And how come, when people have cleaned up abortion clinics have found arms, legs, hands, crushed skulls, and more? The waste from having an abortion!!! And what about the baby who is now living at home after being born at 22 weeks after conception? You know her mom had to lie about her age to get the doctors to save her. Not a person, what would have happened if your mom had decided you weren't a person? Well you wouldn't be alive to post such disgusting rot!!!

[inkspot]

LOL. Sorry, Alex (if you are still reading)! This is a family-friendly forum, and I guess you should have read the rules before you joined -- or someone like me should have explained them when I sensed you were getting bothered about all this!

Back to the point: is no way you can say a pre-born baby is not a person unless you are going to arbitrarily decide that humanity begins once an infant is completely outside the womb after nine months gestation ... but little peoples do survive when they are born early, so they present a kind of dilemma to that definition. And there's no difference really, between a baby the day before he's born and the day after except he's outside, so how can you say that just that being "outside" makes him human, while "inside" he's not?

It's a treacherous path to follow, and there's no scientific way to decide when a baby is human unless you say life begins at conception. So, sorry that made you mad, and that you were banned for profanity. But we do have so many kids here, and you have to be careful. :(

[Shadow Hawk]

I think the question instead of "Is abortion right?" it should be what is the worth/value of life?

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I have a question Alex, does the fetus have the potiential of becoming a child? If so, then you have stopped it and killed the child. I am triplet by the way, so don't call me intolerant.

[inkspot]

I have a question Alex, does the fetus have the potiential of becoming a child? If so, then you have stopped it and killed the child. I am triplet by the way, so don't call me intolerant.
Alex was, unfortunately, banned for using profanity, so he won't be able to answer.

He felt a fetus was not a human, but my post above makes clear that kind of thinking is treacherous because it is difficult then to decide at what point the child becomes human. It would have to an arbitrary decision unless you allow that your humanity begins at the point of conception.

[SweetWaters]

GAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH...

must... not... run... away... and... cry...

*runs away and cries*

Sorry, guys. I've always been like that. Well, that is, as long as I've known about... you know what...

Let me tell you my story. Ever since I can remember, I have always loved small, precious things. As a kid I used to apologize to ants if I stepped on them and pick up worms off the sidewalk so the sun wouldn't fry them to death. I mostly loved babies, though. I was eight when my youngest sister was born, and I remember reading books about new siblings in which they would say things like "somebody's nose is out of joint..." and I never understood them. Who on earth wouldn't want a new baby? Just think, a whole new life! I think the day on which my sister was born was the day I began to believe in God.

You can probably imagine how excited I was when I discovered a science book that actually had photographs of babies inside their mothers' wombs. Although I had tried to imagine what unborn children might look like, I had never come close to reality. You can count the fingers on a seven-week-old unborn baby's hand. I could never get enough of those pictures.

One day, when I was digging through my mother's desk in search of an envelope to send a letter in, I came across an old bumper sticker that had never been used. It read, "I VOTE PRO-LIFE." Naturally curious, I had to ask my mother what it meant.

She told me.

It was just about the end of the world. I couldn't believe anyone could be so cruel. I wanted to find the people who dared to touch these innocent human lives and scream at them.

But now that I have learned a lot more about abortion and what makes people do it, though I don't think it one bit less horrible, I realize that the only way we can fight this monster is through the love of Christ and a lot of fervent prayer. Legislation is a long way off, but meanwhile, there are a lot of LifeMaidens out there whose lives can be touched individually here and now. I also think that we shouldn't overlook the abortion doctors and political lobbyists who are working to keep abortion legal. Remember:

Originally posted by Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute you.

[Copperfox]

SweetWaters, you are the first OTHER person I've encountered who admits to taking the trouble to rescue earthworms stranded on pavement. I've done the same for many years.

Along with the love of Jesus, TRUTH is useful against abortion. I refer to truth which reveals the true character of abortion providers. For instance, many abortion providers will help to conceal the crime of an adult man having sex with an underage girl, SO THAT they can go on making money off the abortions that these evil men push the girls into having. When this is understood, it becomes harder for the baby-killers to pretend that they are kindly offering a helpful service to the girls.

[Doffen]

I'd like the girls in our countries to go to the clinic to get the child removed then at home with a blunt object.. I'm sorry... But I'm totally against removing abortion... The consequenses of doing it is just so so so much worse.

[Hermit of Archenland]

Along with the love of Jesus, TRUTH is useful against abortion. I refer to truth which reveals the true character of abortion providers. For instance, many abortion providers will help to conceal the crime of an adult man having sex with an underage girl, SO THAT they can go on making money off the abortions that these evil men push the girls into having. When this is understood, it becomes harder for the baby-killers to pretend that they are kindly offering a helpful service to the girls.

Copperfox, as a brother in Christ I must gently rebuke you here. In the cases you mentioned, some abortionists may be out for their own profit, but I think many of them really believe they are acting in the underage girl's best interests by not exposing her to the trauma of appearing in a trial for statutory rape. Hard as it is to imagine, some abortionists really do believe what they are doing is right and that they are helping young women in a difficult situation. We may consider them mistaken and morally wrong (I certainly do) but we should at least have the generosity to believe them genuinely mistaken. Castigating abortionists as criminals or agents of Satan does not advance the pro life case one iota

[Copperfox]

What I have described is well attested. I didn't bother adding that there have been at least a couple of cases of THE ABORTION PROVIDERS THEMSELVES sexually assaulting female patients, as well as other cases of young women being left dangerously hemorrhaging after an abortion--that's a LEGAL abortion. It's easy to shoot the messenger, but I'm telling the truth. If abortionists cared about the pregnant women, they would not be fighting tooth and nail to PREVENT women from knowing about things like the evidence that having abortions may increase the likelihood of breast cancer.

Thirty years ago, I might have bought the "sincerely mistaken" plea. But by now, there is SO much easily-available knowledge about pre-birth development, that it is inescapably clear that abortionists ARE LYING ON PURPOSE when they stubbornly keep on repeating their falsehoods about "just a blob of tissue." If they cared about the women, they would care enough to give those women accurate information.

[Hermit of Archenland]

What I have described is well attested. I didn't bother adding that there have been at least a couple of cases of THE ABORTION PROVIDERS THEMSELVES sexually assaulting female patients, as well as other cases of young women being left dangerously hemorrhaging after an abortion--that's a LEGAL abortion. It's easy to shoot the messenger, but I'm telling the truth. If abortionists cared about the pregnant women, they would not be fighting tooth and nail to PREVENT women from knowing about things like the evidence that having abortions may increase the likelihood of breast cancer.

Thirty years ago, I might have bought the "sincerely mistaken" plea. But by now, there is SO much easily-available knowledge about pre-birth development, that it is inescapably clear that abortionists ARE LYING ON PURPOSE when they stubbornly keep on repeating their falsehoods about "just a blob of tissue." If they cared about the women, they would care enough to give those women accurate information.

It's really not as simple as that. People who have spent their professional lives performing abortions and support it for reasons that seem to them quite noble (such as giving women control over their lives after centuries of restriction) will probably not be able to examine such new evidence impartially. They will find glib reasons to discount it while convincing themselves they are behaving entirely rationally. They will in fact deceive themselves, something we are all inclined to do at times.

As for your other points, such abuses occur in all branches of medicine, and indeed in all professions. Many clergymen of all denominations have sexually abused the children of parishioners. There have been cases of nurses in care homes so neglecting their elderly patients that they have developed life threatening bed sores. It's easy to quote extreme examples of unprofessional conduct in any occupation but that does not mean the people in that occupation are inherently evil.

What I find disturbing is the tone of hatred in your posts and those of some others. I hate what abortionists do, but I don't hate the people themselves. I consider them mistaken and misguided, as much victims of the distorted values of secular society as the women who come to them.

[Copperfox]

What I find disturbing is the tone of hatred in your posts and those of some others. I hate what abortionists do, but I don't hate the people themselves.

Cheer up, I'm closer to your position than you think I am. Even while Jesus was calling the Pharisees snakes, He was still desiring their salvation. If I could control things, every abortionist would come to repentance and salvation painlessly, without having to experience any hard chastisement at all, and I would feel no Jonah-like resentment for their "getting off easy," if only they DID repent. But precisely in hating what they DO, there must be truthfulness about what it IS that they do. The pendulum has swung too far to the side of going easy on everyone, telling them that all that matters is their self-esteem. Somebody needs to call things what they are...because the unrepentant pro-deathers are not stopping with abortion. They also want POST-birth infanticide. Next come the elderly...and the retarded...and the Jews.

I'm not joking about the Jews, either. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Murderhood, was an admirer of Hitler, and wanted abortion to be used to reduce the number of nonwhite and "lower-class" people in the world. I love it when a person like her gets converted, but as long as they remain in darkness, the light is needed, sometimes even a painfully bright light.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think you're reading in things that aren't there, HofA. Understanding that abortionists profit from heinous evil of the most despicable sort, that does not make them irredeemable - no pro-lifer I know or have seen post in this thread thinks so. In fact, one of the most outspoken and aggressive pro-life organization I know - Priests for Life - also sponsors a support and recovery ministry to people who have worked in the abortion industry and have repented of it. It's called the Society of Centurions (http://priestsforlife.org/columns/column98-8-31centurions.htm), and it's the only ministry of its type that I know. Ex-abortionists also make wonderful pro-life workers, as Carol Everett and Bernard Nathanson witness.

[Copperfox]

If mentioning the Society of Centurions, it should not go unmentioned that Douglas Gresham, stepson of Mr. Lewis, is involved in it! (Not as a converted abortionist himself, of course.)

[Hermit of Archenland]

I would not dispute that there are some abortionists who are just in it for financial gain. But many on this forum seem to think that all or most abortionists KNOW what they are doing is murder, KNOW that they are endangering the physical and mental health of women and continue to do it just to make money. That's a pretty big asserion to swallow, and the people making it had better be careful never to mention individual names, or they are liable to be facing prosecution

Life is not always black and white and moral issues are not always so clear cut as we might like to think. As I stated before, when you are commited to something, often for motives that are in isolation noble or worthwhile it is very easy to deceive yourself into beleiving what you are doing is right.

I find myself in a strange position here, actually defending abortionists. That's the last thing I want to do , but for the sake of fairness I feel I must.
In an emotive issue like this it's always tempting to demonise the opposition, but that is never really wise. It is unlikely to win over those who are undecided and will only antagonise the "Pro choice" camp and make them less receptive to reasoned argument. And there is always a slight risk it might encourage someone unbalanced to resort to violence.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, there is good indication that abortionists know exactly what they are doing, but deliberately choose to turn a blind eye to what they are doing for financial gain (not that any of the rest of us ever do that, of course.) The witness to this is the declining number of doctors willing to perform abortions. The pool of abortionists is shrinking and growing older, because new doctors are refusing to step over that line. And, of course, there's the witness of the most ancient of medical vows, the Hippocratic Oath. In it's oldest and purest form, it contains the line, "I will not give a woman a pessary to produce an abortion." Even back then the doctors recognized what they were doing, it's just that some of them did it anyway (hence the need for the vow).

I appreciate your point, HofA, but I think it's poking a hole in nothing but air. I don't know a single pro-lifer on this forum or anywhere else who, if given an opportunity, wouldn't plead with an abortion provider to cease for the good of his own soul. I've been to pro-life liturgies and sponsored pro-life prayer services where one of the prayer topics has been for the conversion of abortionists. I've seen pro-lifers in tears pleading for God to pour his grace of repentance on those promoting abortion, that they might not come before the throne of God with that bloodguilt on their hands. I understand your fears about "demonizing", but I think they're empty in this situation. Real pro-lifers have compassion on everyone in the abortion situation.

[SweetWaters]

I'm staring at the screen, wondering... Is there such a thing as a "People-who-pick-up-worms-off-the-pavement" Club? I never met anyone else who did that, either. ;)

But to get back to the topic, I do agree that truth is one of the most important points, if not the most important point, of our argument. But I also think that the simple truth about the humanity of the unborn will go miles further than the "shocking truth" about the inhumanity of the born. Accusations such as these, however true they may be, however much we need to pray about them and call out to God for mercy, are only bound to make pro-abortionists angry. I suppose that some of you, being men, don't realize how deeply ingrained the mother-instinct is in the hearts of us women, even those of us who have never had a child. I think that every pregnant woman, in her heart of hearts, know that her "pregnancy" is really a real person. If you don't believe me, just look at post #320 of this thread. Regarding my own experience, I think pictures such as the ones I was shown as a child speak a lot louder than words. I think PrinceOfTheWest had posted some on here earlier, but I can't seem to find them.

By the way, did you all hear that a few years ago they actually developed this kind of ultrasound in which you could see the baby's face? When they used it, they could see the kids smiling away like anything, esp. when the parents talked to them. So much for "not fully human..."

[Neevil]

I'm staring at the screen, wondering... Is there such a thing as a "People-who-pick-up-worms-off-the-pavement" Club? I never met anyone else who did that, either. ;)

But to get back to the topic, I do agree that truth is one of the most important points, if not the most important point, of our argument. But I also think that the simple truth about the humanity of the unborn will go miles further than the "shocking truth" about the inhumanity of the born. Accusations such as these, however true they may be, however much we need to pray about them and call out to God for mercy, are only bound to make pro-abortionists angry. I suppose that some of you, being men, don't realize how deeply ingrained the mother-instinct is in the hearts of us women, even those of us who have never had a child. I think that every pregnant woman, in her heart of hearts, know that her "pregnancy" is really a real person. If you don't believe me, just look at post #320 of this thread. Regarding my own experience, I think pictures such as the ones I was shown as a child speak a lot louder than words. I think PrinceOfTheWest had posted some on here earlier, but I can't seem to find them.

By the way, did you all hear that a few years ago they actually developed this kind of ultrasound in which you could see the baby's face? When they used it, they could see the kids smiling away like anything, esp. when the parents talked to them. So much for "not fully human..."
Yes, pictures are powerfull. I saw pictures of aborted babies a couple months ago, and they were horrible. They were on a website, but I'm not going to post the link here because they were too graphic and aweful. It was clear that they were babies, and not just a blob of tissue. It makes me shudder thinking about it.

There is plenty of available information to convince someone that an unborn baby is a baby. Now I'm sure there are abortionists who make up good reasons for doing what they're doing. However, I think that by doing that they are only decieving themselves. Deep down I think they know what they're doing is wrong, but that knowledge and guilt has been toned down and hidden away. No one wants to admit they are wrong. I know in my own life when God convicts me of a particular sin I try to defend myself and come up with good reasons for that sin. But it's still a sin. I try to cover it up, but I know it really is wrong. Maybe some abortionists have convinced themselves that what they're doing is justifiable, but it's still wrong. And it's wrong of them to try and pretend otherwise.

[Shadow Hawk]

As I said before the question to ask people is no longer is abortion right. now the question is "what is the value or worth of life"?

[Copperfox]

That is indeed the question. And people find all sorts of ways to distort it--as when hard-leftist pro-abortionists (who themselves KNOW that unborn babies have been proven to be human) hold candlelight vigils on behalf of unrepentant guilty murderers on Death Row, proclaiming that the murderer's life is MORE valuable than that of his victim, and that innocent babies are LESS deserving of protection than evil criminal predators are.

[Doffen]

So Copperfox... please... tell me. If Abortion indeed was banned... What would've happened? Would everyone be happy? What would people do who really wanted to take a abortion do?

[Shadow Hawk]

It is not about abortion. it is about the value of life. life is a gift, a privilege, like so many things it cannot be bought, rewound, paused, fastwarded, or even brought back. think about this. In proverbs 41 or somewhere in there it talks about the value of a virtuous woman which her value is about that of rubies.

[Doffen]

Instead of puzzling around with nice words and philosophic words, think about the REALITY of this. What would've happened? Please.. tell me. I think I know very well what would've happened. It has happened before.. and will happen again, and will drag women further down then you could imagine.

[Parthian King]

Instead of puzzling around with nice words and philosophic words, think about the REALITY of this. What would've happened? Please.. tell me. I think I know very well what would've happened. It has happened before.. and will happen again, and will drag women further down then you could imagine.

Doffen, you're going to have to be a little clearer. At present you are fairly begging the question: To a large degree the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not abortion indeed lifts and liberates women, or further enslaves them. To are applying your presupposition to the substance of your argument and thereby go in circles.

As for "happiness," would you care to define it? Would you care to explain how it matters in this life and death equation at all? Would you care to explain something to me: Where does your assumption that getting an abortion is a foregone conclusion come from? Do you realize how absurd it is to make way for every desire and whim that people in a civilized society might have?

[inkspot]

So Copperfox... please... tell me. If Abortion indeed was banned... What would've happened? Would everyone be happy? What would people do who really wanted to take a abortion do?
This question is irrelevant unless you are saying that with abortion legal, everyone is happy? Clearly this is not the case. People are not happy, and babies are being murdered, and it is legal.
'd like the girls in our countries to go to the clinic to get the child removed then at home with a blunt object.. I'm sorry... But I'm totally against removing abortion... The consequenses of doing it is just so so so much worse.
You say the consequences of banning abortion would be much worse than having legal abortions, because some women would then seek unsafe illegal abortions, correct?

But let's compare the consequences:

With legal abortion, just in the USA, about one million babies are murdered every year.

With abortion banned, making it criminal to have one, let's say 10% of abortion minded women are still willing to break the law and murder their babies: that's 100,000 murdered babies, compared to one million, and let's say 10% of those illegal abortions result in the mother's death as well, so 110,000 dead people instead of a million.

The consequences are horrible, but they are much better than the consequences of legal abortion -- and if those 10% of desperate women would just obey the law, do what is natural, and have the live baby, the consequences would be much reduced as there would be a live mom and live baby. Foremost in the pro-lifers mind is PRO LIFE, that is, the saving of as many lives as possible. In this case, banning abortion would save nearly 900,000 lives. That seems like a fair consequence of banning abortion.

Your argument that what is immoral ought to be legal for the sake of the woman who will do anything to murder her baby is not logical. You might as well say murder ought to be legal because if you outlaw it, desperate people are just going to kill people anyway, and they might get killed in the process.

[Shadow Hawk]

everyone on earth will never be happy. Think about this if you did, let's say mowed your neighbor's yard at no cost to him, don't you think other people will say why don't you do that for us? you on the other hand had a reason, like it made your yard look bad or something like that. even though you had a reason not everyone was happy with it.

Like i've said life is irreplaceable. each person's life is unique in some way. I'm not try to tear down or degard women. it is just that in the case of abortion someone else is choosing wether someone else deserves to live any longer.

[Copperfox]

Legalizing evil not only does not make evil good; it doesn't even make evil harmless.

There have been all sorts of arguments offered for legalizing prostitution, including the claim that the presence of legally-approved prostitutes would spare many other women from assault and abuse. But look at Germany, where prostitution IS legal. Despite it being legal, authorities recently discovered that many hundreds of women from Eastern Europe had been FORCIBLY KIDNAPPED and brought to Germany to serve as enslaved prostitutes--controlled by such measures as stealing their passports and making them think they themselves would be arrested if complaining to the police. Legalizing prostitution DID NOT eliminate abuse of women--just as legalizing addictive narcotics will not change the fact that addicts ruin their own lives.

As for abortion, I have already indicated that legalizing it has not eliminated cases of life-threatening hemorrhage in "safe, legal" abortions. Nor has it addressed the evidence that the hormone disruption from intentional abortion increases the woman's risk of breast cancer.

Anyone can score extremely cheap feminist brownie points by saying, "I support a woman's right to CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE;" but in the current state of medical knowledge, most pregnant women have to be KEPT IGNORANT of the scientific facts to induce them to choose abortion. (What kind of "choice" is a choice arrived at by someone who has been purposely deceived?) I know this from my experience in Japan--where abortion is not only legal, but any doctor who refuses to kill an unborn baby can lose his license. When I was stationed there, our pro-life group spoke to a Japanese doctor who felt awful about what he was required to do (and that was a time when pro-lifers were in fact very gentle and compassionate even to an abortionist); they offered to buy an ultrasound scanner for him. He gladly accepted the offer; and later, he reported to us that most of the pregnant Japanese women who came to his office, as soon as the ultrasound proved that what they were carrying WAS A BABY, rejected all thought of having an abortion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I made a post to this effect earlier, but a system glitch must have lost it, so I'll try again.

Consider this, Doffen. In our country, when slavery was being debated, supporters of slavery predicted that if slavery were abolished, the results would be catastrophic. They predicted widespread poverty, social upheaveal, racial tension, economic turmoil, and political chaos. And you know what? They were right. Every one of those things happened, and we're living with the repercussions to this day.

So here's the question: were the pro-slavers correct? Would it have been better to keep slavery and avoid all these dire consequences? Or was it better to abolish slavery because that reality was worse than any consequences?

The parallel is this: some such as yourself argue that abortion should continue because what might happen if it were banned is just too "dire". But that begs the question of whether it is right or wrong, and what it does to women. If it is morally wrong, like slavery is morally wrong, then it should be banned, regardless of consequence, simply because it's the right thing to do.

Now, I've a word of comfort for you. All those dire things that you think you know would happen if abortion were banned, because you think it has happened before? They didn't happen. All those horror stories about back alley abortionists, and clothes hangers, and tens of thousands of women dying every year from illegal abortions - they're all lies. They didn't happen. They were made up by pro-abortion forces to gin up popular support for abortion. They were imaginary numbers, pulled out of thin air. We know this because one of those proponents, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, came clean in public and told the story in his book Aborting America. It was all fictional. In fact, in one year (I forget which one) they claimed that a certain number of women had died in the U.S. from illegal abortions. If anyone had bothered to check the mortality statistics, they would have seen that there weren't that many deaths of women of childbearing age from all causes. But nobody checked the facts, because the media was pushing abortion.

So be of good cheer on that regard. The real answer, of course, is much more involved. It means controlling ourselves. Reserving sexual intercourse for marriage, where a family is ready and willing to have a baby. It means committing to one another. It means a lot of things, but it's got to start by not killing each other.

[Hermit of Archenland]

As for abortion, I have already indicated that legalizing it has not eliminated cases of life-threatening hemorrhage in "safe, legal" abortions. Nor has it addressed the evidence that the hormone disruption from intentional abortion increases the woman's risk of breast cancer.



The claimed link between abortion and breast cancer is very controvertial and the evidence for it dubious at best. You would be on much firmer ground stressing the long term mental health problems that abortion can cause.

Reading the last few posts I have to agree that banning abortion except for life threatening medical reasons would do much more good than harm. I do feel a little uneasy at the idea of imposing my moral views on others who do not share them. I dissaprove of sexual relations before marriage but would be uncomfortable at the idea of imposing my morality on others by making such behaviour illegal. In the case of abortion though I believe it is justified as it is human life that is at stake. If ancient civilisations like the Aztecs still existed we would not permit them to perform human sacrifice in western countries even though it would be permissible in their own moral code.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

HofA, you've been swallowing the media swill without looking in the cup. Check out http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ for the full story, including details about the coverup.

[Hermit of Archenland]

Um.. inkspot, I think you need to reread my post a bit more carefully!

[inkspot]

Um.. inkspot, I think you need to reread my post a bit more carefully!
LOL, sorry!
:o

[Parthian King]

I do feel a little uneasy at the idea of imposing my moral views on others who do not share them. I dissaprove of sexual relations before marriage but would be uncomfortable at the idea of imposing my morality on others by making such behaviour illegal. In the case of abortion though I believe it is justified as it is human life that is at stake.

What about taking something that you have neither made or purchased (commonly and narrowly called "theft" in the intolerant language of the Old West)? Do you think it is improper to "impose your morality on others" concerning that? Or saying something false at a trial to benefit someone you love, even though it costs another person their freedom? After all, one person is as good as another, and you don't want to "impose your morality" about "lying" (such a ugly, absolutist word, don't you think?) on the whole society. Or copying answers from a crib sheet while taking a final examination ("cheating")--do you think it goes too far that such people be expelled, when in the end they are only cheating themselves out of an education?

The fact is, no man is an island. Every decision everyone makes affects everyone else. The fact that people commit sexual immorality (all the while saying it is "up to them") very much harms others. On a macro scale (which is the reality we are dealing with now), it cheapens marriage terribly, postponing it at first then finally rendering it entirely unnecessary. Children become less important still, and are aborted or avoided entirely as a result. Ask the ghost towns in rural Italy, or the government officials of Austria, Spain, and France about their plummeting growth rates, tax incentives, and desperate attempts to entice immigrants (in spite of the complications they bring)--as them if what you call a "private issue" is really so private after all. If societies would exalt marriage, and reject sexual activity outside of marriage, instead settling down and channeling their sexual energies into responsible activities, the map of the "civilized West" would look very different, very soon. That which you have chosen as your off the cuff example proves the opposite point...it is the very stuff of the rising and falling of civilizations.

[Copperfox]

I am reminded of when Jesus said "..and he who does not gather with Me, scatters." Instead of "gathering" the energies of the human race to live in accordance with God's healthy pattern, promoters of abortion and promiscuity are "scattering" those energies.

[Hermit of Archenland]

Being unwilling to to impose legal punishment for an activity is not the same as condoning it. Perhaps some of the people on this forum would like to return to Mosaic law and have women stoned to death for adultery. As we see in John 7 it is of course the women who always bear the brunt of such draconian punishment, even though men are theoretically liable to the same treatment.

And PotW, I do NOT swallow "media swill." I regard the media as highly unrealiable as a source of information, especially on scientific issues. I prefer to go to the horses mouth by reading the original research papers myself when possible. Having done so I remain, as a scientist, unconvinced of a causal link between induced abortion and breast cancer. If such a link is clearly established I would gladly welcome it as another weapon in the fight to persuade women not to kill their own children. But such persuasion should be based on TRUTH, not propaganda, rumour or unverified hypothesis.

[SweetWaters]

Well, Hermit, I suppose this means you think that thieves shouldn't be punished? After all, wouldn't that be imposing your own moral code on them? Maybe they honestly think theft is okay.

[Hermit of Archenland]

Well, Hermit, I suppose this means you think that thieves shouldn't be punished? After all, wouldn't that be imposing your own moral code on them? Maybe they honestly think theft is okay.

The difference is that the overwhelming majority of people of all faiths or none at all regards such behaviour as immoral. Also if theft were allowed the economic fabric of society would rapidly break down. When there is no moral consensus on an issue or there is no risk of severe immediate harm to society we have to be very carefull about trying to impose our moral standards on others through judicial punishment.

The fact is we live in an increasingly multcultural world and with such a wide variety of moral perspectives we have no choice but to seek a consensus when it comes to implementing ethical principles in law. There are extreme Islamists who would not only impose Shariah law on western countries but also ban the celebration of Christian festivals as happens in Saudi Arabia. If I cherish my own freedom, particularly my freedom to worship, I must also cherish the freedom of others even if exercised in ways I disapprove of.

Abortion is a special case because one feedom, that of a woman to control her own body, must take second place to the ultimate freedom of the child to continue it's life.

[Neevil]

Abortion is a special case because one feedom, that of a woman to control her own body, must take second place to the ultimate freedom of the child to continue it's life.
The woman does have control over her own body. She can choose not to get pregnant in the first place.

[inkspot]

The difference is that the overwhelming majority of people of all faiths or none at all regards such behaviour as immoral.
As most regard murder as immoral. Yet you are saying a law against the murder of a specific class of people should be suspended, on the grounds that these people are inconvenient and defenseless. If you allow that. what happens when more people begin regarding the handicapped as similarly inconvenient and defenseless? Or small children already born? Where is the line?
Also if theft were allowed the economic fabric of society would rapidly break down. When there is no moral consensus on an issue or there is no risk of severe immediate harm to society we have to be very carefull about trying to impose our moral standards on others through judicial punishment.
Again, there is a moral consensus that murder is wrong, and do you suppose there is no "immediate harm to society" caused by the approval of slaughtering babies? Great scott, what greater harm could there be to a society that developing a generation which believes they have the power to judge which lives are worth saving and which can easily be terminated for convenience's sake?

The fact is we live in an increasingly multcultural world and with such a wide variety of moral perspectives we have no choice but to seek a consensus when it comes to implementing ethical principles in law. There are extreme Islamists who would not only impose Shariah law on western countries but also ban the celebration of Christian festivals as happens in Saudi Arabia. If I cherish my own freedom, particularly my freedom to worship, I must also cherish the freedom of others even if exercised in ways I disapprove of.
Do you call the slaughter of unborn babies a "freedom exercised" in a way you disapprove of? It is a disgrace and a stain on the people who allow it. It has always been regarded as sinful and condemned by most faiths, up until this generation. It not only destroys innocent babies, but destroys the souls of those who kill the babies, and destroys the minds and sometimes bodies of the women who undergo it. How is this a "freedom" cherished by any segment of society, no matter how multi-cultural?

Abortion is a special case because one feedom, that of a woman to control her own body, must take second place to the ultimate freedom of the child to continue it's life.
Why? Why is the woman's right to do what she will more important than the child's right to life? If you had a newborn baby, you would not say he should die so his mother would not have to tend him. How is abortion different?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Mother Theresa once said, "Once you accept that a mother can kill her own child, what other violence can you deny?"

Once we have accepted abortion and called it normal, how can we deny this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261588,00.html)?

[LadyArya]

when my oldest sister ( who is now 18) was in my moms stomach, the nurse was sorta encourging my mom to get an abortion. i think abortion is murder

[-Daughter of Eve-]

I think it's murder too.The baby is a living thing.Already,even being so small,it has started to become individual,a little person.Ok,many (especially young)girls and women get pregnant by accident because they didn't protect themselves enough.But that's a responsibility they have to take.If they HAD been protecting themselves,they wouldn't have needed abortion at all.
So yeah, I think abortion is murder.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

what we think and say will have little affect to the world if we do not act.

Someone said that and I've forgotten who.:p

[LadyArya]

cool quote

[Parthian King]

Hermit, my post was to point out the slippery slope you have decided to tread. As is commonly the case, the answer to it was a hyperbolic ad hominen, in this case consisting of a jab about "stoning women."

The fact is, law of every kind is "imposing one's moral code on another." Do I think it practical to jail people for fornication? Of course not--not anymore than I think we should stone adulterers. But your hyperbole obscures some legal realities that are taking place in the U.S. right now. The fact is, American law (varying from state to state) does in fact punish adultery. In Virginia, for example, if someone cheats on their spouse they are obligated to pay a serious indemnity in the divorce proceedings. Alimony settlements (rapidly becoming a thing of the past) have always been strongly mitigated one way or another by the fidelity issue. As for fornication and the voluntary barrenness that is so endemic in today's society, the fact is that married people get specific legal advantages in multiple societal arenas, not least of which are tax breaks for each child they have. Now, nearly all of these provisions are under attack in one way or another by anti-family forces that want to level the playing field and totally redefine what "family" means. Which side would you align yourself with? Are you in favor of those laws--social, legal, and financial--that exalt and encourage marriage? Or do you take the tack that when it comes to civil law, we "shouldn't impose our morality on others"?

My point is that the dichotomy you set up (stone people for adultery, or don't address the matter as all except in the "sacred" realm of declaring that you as a Christian don't condone it) doesn't allow for a reasonable middle ground--the middle ground, in fact, that Western civilization is built on. And by forcing the issue through a presentation of these extremes and not grasping the nuanced complexities of the issue, you unwittingly fall into the jargon of those who would have any number of beings (necessary since Holland is now pushing the issue of institutionalized "marriage" to animals) be considered as legitimate a domestic arrangement as a man and a woman.

Now, if you follow me here, you'll see how abortion laws follow close behind. You are laudably opposed to abortion. But as you knit this end of the scarf, your position on other matters unravels it at the other end.

[Hermit of Archenland]

As most regard murder as immoral. Yet you are saying a law against the murder of a specific class of people should be suspended, on the grounds that these people are inconvenient and defenseless. If you allow that. what happens when more people begin regarding the handicapped as similarly inconvenient and defenseless? Or small children already born? Where is the line?

Again, there is a moral consensus that murder is wrong, and do you suppose there is no "immediate harm to society" caused by the approval of slaughtering babies? Great scott, what greater harm could there be to a society that developing a generation which believes they have the power to judge which lives are worth saving and which can easily be terminated for convenience's sake?


Do you call the slaughter of unborn babies a "freedom exercised" in a way you disapprove of? It is a disgrace and a stain on the people who allow it. It has always been regarded as sinful and condemned by most faiths, up until this generation. It not only destroys innocent babies, but destroys the souls of those who kill the babies, and destroys the minds and sometimes bodies of the women who undergo it. How is this a "freedom" cherished by any segment of society, no matter how multi-cultural?


Why? Why is the woman's right to do what she will more important than the child's right to life? If you had a newborn baby, you would not say he should die so his mother would not have to tend him. How is abortion different?

Oh dear, I'm afraid I am at fault here for not making myself clear, as well as for wandering off topic a bit.

You are quoting from a response to criticisms of a previous post, in which I expressed support for campaigning for more restrictive abortion laws, despite some discomfort at one section of society trying to impose its moral standards on another. I stated that I felt this justified in the case of abortion as it was innocent life that was at stake. I then gave sexual immorality as example in which it would not be justified. Much as I dissapprove of premarital sex I could not in conscience support it being made a criminal offense. Other examples would be gambling and smoking.

Personal freedom is a very precious thing, and I am reluctant to set a precedent where one group of people feel free to try and impose their moral viewpoint on others who do not share it. In the case of abortion the risk is justified only because of the overwhelming need to protect innocent life

[Hermit of Archenland]

PK I have ot take issue with you. Law is not imposing "ones" will on others but imposing the collective moral consensus of society on it's individual members. The dilemma comes when you actually have no consensus on a specific issue. How morally justified am I in trying to restrict someone's freedom based on a moral code they dissagree with, given how outraged I would be if someone tried to restrict my freedom, say my freedom to worship? Over the last few posts I have made clear the position I have come to on this, after a lot of thought and struggle. If you prefer to ignore the real moral issue I was discussing and just focus on the narrow question of the need to protect family life that's up to you.

This whole issue is off topic anyway so I think we'd better just drop it

[Parthian King]

PK I have ot take issue with you. Law is not imposing "ones" will on others but imposing the collective moral consensus of society on it's individual members. The dilemma comes when you actually have no consensus on a specific issue. How morally justified am I in trying to restrict someone's freedom based on a moral code they dissagree with, given how outraged I would be if someone tried to restrict my freedom, say my freedom to worship? Over the last few posts I have made clear the position I have come to on this, after a lot of thought and struggle. If you prefer to ignore the real moral issue I was discussing and just focus on the narrow question of the need to protect family life that's up to you.

This whole issue is off topic anyway so I think we'd better just drop it

"One's" is rhetorical shorthand for "that of a given person or persons"; it may refer to a society in the sense I usedit, and that is what I meant. Go tell a pro-choicer that there is a broad moral consensus that some restrictions should be placed on abortions, and you'll soon hear about how "you should keep your hands off of my body." It's all semantics.

Actually, it is very much on topic--especially when you declare that what is morally acceptable is determined by societal consensus. In 1933 Germany, the consensus regarding Jewish people took a certain turn--first regarding minor issues, then gradually escalating to the ultimate issue (their lives). Christians were notable in the ancient world because they decried the very principles you adhere to: Entirely against societal convention and consensus, they refused to expose or abort children. They also told everyone else that all their gods were false (that they were, in fact, demons), that they had better turn from them and repent, or they would be eternally lost. I am persoanlly glad that someone took the time and the risk to "impose their view of morality" upon me and instruct me I the way of Christ, else I would certainly still be as Hell-bound as I was then.

Now, I focused on the sexuality as an issue because you yourself raised it. But in my initial response to you you will note I raised other issues as well (theft, bearing false witness, etc.), to make a significant point: If you base your morality on the sliding scale of "consensus (in a world that the Christian Scriptures explicitly state is in the hands of the Evil One), and if you further adopt the position that one person's morality (or the many's, for that matter) cannot rightfully be "imposed" upon another, then you get a society where there are no moral absolutes whatsoever--not only in the civil arena, but in the ecclesiastical one as well.

My question is, where does one draw the line? And along with that, how does one draw the line (i.e., how do you determine where it goes)? Because it seems to me that, according the the standards you are setting, it is all rather by fiat that you are coming to the conclusion that abortion is wrong while there is general consensus in this society that it should be allowed (else it wouldn't be).

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I agree with PK that this vein of discussion is on topic, since it cuts to the very heart of what the basis for law is. It's important to keep in mind that our modern legal framework, particularly since the late 1800s, is very perverted in its idea that laws are strictly a human creation. Most cultures throughout history have understood their laws to be reflections of universal precepts that were part of the fabric of the universe - so much so that even gods of myth could be held accountable for violating them (thus tacitly acknowledging that the Law was greater than the gods.) In Judeo-Christian heritage, we understand that God has given moral laws for our own good, and that human laws should reflect those laws and not violate them.

The idea that a law should not be used to "impose morality" reflects a faulty understanding of both law and morality. Moral law does not exist because God wants to be The Big Boss and tell everyone what to do (He is The Big Boss, and needs prove it to nobody.) Moral law exists for our good. When we obey it, we prosper. When we violate it, we damage ourselves and others.

This was one reason for a dispute between C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. In Mere Christianity, Lewis proposed almost offhandedly that the State might recognize two types of marriage: a civil marriage that was simply a legally binding contract, and a Christian marriage that was a sacramental covenant. (He actually went on to live out this idea by civilly marrying Joy Davidman for the purpose of helping her with regard to immigration law, and only later marrying her in a sacramental ceremony.) But Tolkien sharply disagreed, saying that the very nature of marriage was defined by God, and not up to men to redefine or water down. This illustrates two views of what law is and where it comes from, and I've got to say I think Tolkien was in the right of it there.

It's also interesting to note that the only area where most people are hesitant to "impose their morality" is with respect to sexual behaviour. All manner of people would love to impose their morality on me with respect to how I raise my children, where I send them to school, what I teach them, how I spend my money, what car I drive, etc. Somehow it's only bedroom behaviour that is exempt from this omnipresent nanny state intrusion.

[inkspot]

Sorry, HoA, I see where I went wrong. You are for laws against abortion, but against other laws which impose your morality on anyone else?

[~Lava~]

Though it may seem like I am beating (or even rebeating) a dead dog on the issue of consensus, I will add to what PK said on the matter by showing where scientific consensus has not always been right.

1. Before columbus and Magellan, the general consensus of people was that the world was flat and if one sailed to far one could sail off of it.

2. For a long time scientists had a consensus which made it as far as Scientific Law that if left be for a time, food would spontaneously generate maggots.

Consensus should not be what a ruling body bases laws off of, because a consensus can be flawed and numbers can be skewed.

[Copperfox]

Early scientists also used to believe that there was a mysterious substance called phlogiston, which was responsible for all combustion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

1. Before columbus and Magellan, the general consensus of people was that the world was flat and if one sailed to far one could sail off of it.
<digression>
Without disputing your main point, which is valid, and endeavoring not to get too far off topic, I have to jump in to correct this point. This perception is a common post-Enlightenment legend that is not true. Medieval and Renaissance cosmology understood that the Earth was round. The Hellenistic Greek astronomer Eratosthenes did a calculation of its circumference in the 3rd century B.C., which was surprisingly accurate given the tools he had.
</digression>

[~Lava~]

I know that, but that was not widely accepted till Columbus and Magellan. I am not saying that it was view that educated people held but because such people were few and far between in those days it was the general consensus.

Anyhow, back to abortion laws and how they came to be.

[Hermit of Archenland]

As everyone thinks this is a valid issue I will continue for now.

PotW it's all very well saying your morality is right and endorsed by God so it's OK to impose it on others. The problem is that other people may have exactly the same idea and what they wish to impose may not be so palatable. It may include banning Christian services and the execution of people converting to Christianity from other religions.

If I wish my freedom , including my religous freedom to be respected I am morally obliged to respect the freedom of others. In a multicultural society with a vast array of religous and secular belief systems, law based on consensus is the only option. And when I say consensus I mean consensus. The problem with Nazi Germany is that it did not operate on consensus at all. It illustrates exactly what I am talking about, a majority imposing a rigid belief system on a dissenting minority.

Also I do not only include sexual behaviour; I only used that example because it seemed most germane ot the original issue of abortion. I've already mentioned gambling. I'm also very concerned about environmental degradation, but I would not support banning cars or imposing restrictions on their use. Actually it's the conservative right who are the real hypocrites on these issues. On most issues they are very vocal in their support for personal liberty, sometimes even proposing the legalisation of narcotics, but when it comes to sexual morality they're ultra restrictive.

That does not mean I think we should just walk away from people who fornicate, gamble or damage the environment and say it's their choice. Every effort should be made to encourage them to change their behaviour. But it should be through persuasion, not legal enforcement

[~Lava~]

Darn you libertarians, jk, jk :D :D :D :D

The fact of the matter is that everybody concidered the right of the unborn child to live was implied under the unalienable right to life stated in the Declaration of Independence until the 1970's when judges of the Supreme Court decided in a case called Roe versus Wade that abortions were legal.
Even those who do not mind Abortion in and of itself ought to be appalled by the gross violation of separation of powers that the Court performed when it "legislated from the bench". Since then, the Courts have seen fit to usurp more power from the other to branches.

[Copperfox]

Well said, Lady Jean. It's also the irresponsible, self-adoring federal courts which have given us increased eminent-domain abuses, robbing more people of their homes for illegitimate reasons.

[SweetWaters]

This is just the kind of thing that makes me want to bury my head in my hands and cry. So, because there's not a general consensus in society, it's okay to crush innocent little kids' bones and vacuum them to death? That's what you're saying?

PrinceOfTheWest, where are those pictures? I really want to re-post them, but I can't find them anywhere.

[inkspot]

This is just the kind of thing that makes me want to bury my head in my hands and cry. So, because there's not a general consensus in society, it's okay to crush innocent little kids' bones and vacuum them to death? That's what you're saying?

No, that is not what she is saying, I thought so to, but: HoA does support a ban on abortions. She just mentioned, as an aside, that the reason others don't agree is that they do not feel abortion to be wrong, and that there is some reason to go carefully here because other people may try to impose their own morality on us.

Unfortunately, this leaves her in a position of saying she supports a ban on abortion purely arbitrarily -- she cannot say that it is fair, or the right thing to do, because others don't agree, but it is what she would like. If I understand the position.

But HoA, how is there to be any rule of law at all, if all laws must respect all faiths or all lack of faith?

[Parthian King]

My problem with HoA's position is the whole "consensus" thing. The fact is, societal consensus across history stands in opposition to what is right and pure much more than it stands with it. The trial scene at Vanity Fair in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is but an illustration of something the author perceived not only from his own experience but from Scripture itself: Human society is fallen, sinful, and in the final analysis evil. (And incidentally, I challenge anyone to do a bit more research on the matter if they feel that Hitler did not institute his sweeping social reforms with the consensus of the German people at the time--because he certainly did have their approval and enjoyed broad popularity in the late 1930s and even into the first years of the war.) It is not from a consensus among God-rejecters that we take our moral stand, but from the revelation of God in Scripture. The stance that the Church of Jesus Christ is to take--always and everywhere--is a prophetic one. I find it rather chilling that we would even consider conformity to a generation that the Apostle Paul calls "crooked and perverse" as a yardstick or barometer for how we should deal with moral issues--either on a personal or societal level.

Abortion is wrong because it is...not because society has so decided. If we don't take that stance for that eason, it is merely a matter of time before we begin to erode.


_________________________________
*"Prophetic" in the OT sense of confronting wickness in society with the truth of God, and correspondingly demanding repentance, warning of disaster, adn promising restoration if obedience is forthcoming.

[Sunrise]

I agree that societal consensus is not how we should make laws. But I understand HoA's position.

After all, there is a large contingency of people out there who would dearly love to impose their moral code on us - one that would involve my shrouding myself from head to toe and never leaving the house without a male relative, for starters. And they would use, as their justification, the very same argument we do for our moral code: "It's God's rules, not ours."

So where do we draw the line in this country, so clearly NOT a theocracy? How do we define the basis for our laws for those who do not agree about the source ? :confused:

The consensus argument is sort of irrevelant to abortion, since poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans do not favor it. Although I guess consensus and majority are not the same thing...

...don't mind me, I'm rambling now...:p

[PrinceOfTheWest]

One thing not to forget when discussing "imposing beliefs": all the parties being imposed upon. The pro-slavery forces resented people trying to "impose their beliefs" that blacks were human and therefore should not be bought or sold. The Nazis resented people trying to impose their beliefs that Slavs, Jews, and Poles were human and should not be exterminated. And those who scream so loudly about having pro-lifers "impose their beliefs" on them do not hesitate a moment to impose their beliefs on the children they slaughter.

Questions of life and death have more rigorous criteria applied than questions of dress and other social behaviour. Life should always get the most consideration possible.

[~Lava~]

Yes, very true PotW.

[SweetWaters]

No, that is not what she is saying, I thought so to, but: HoA does support a ban on abortions. She just mentioned, as an aside, that the reason others don't agree is that they do not feel abortion to be wrong, and that there is some reason to go carefully here because other people may try to impose their own morality on us.

Oh, sorry, my bad. I guess I ought to read people's posts more carefully.

[inkspot]

Oh, sorry, my bad. I guess I ought to read people's posts more carefully.
No, I thought the same thing -- easy mistake. But in fact she had said that she disagreed with abortion and felt a ban would be correct. She was just musing about the other thing, the other laws.

[Elendil]

Just on the subject of babies...my cousin just had twins, and they are only 24 weeks. Please pray for them!

[inkspot]

Will do.

(You should put this in the Stone Table instead of here -- since they are happy live babies rather than poor aborted ones. :( )

[SkandarLover892]

okay, so i was sitting at lunch the other day with my friend justice. we were talking about how many kids we'd like to have when we marry. i said maybe five. she said that she's not getting married, that she doesn't want to go through the pain of childbirth (poor padme) lol. so i went a little far and asked what if she gets raped and becomes pregnant? she said she'd get an abortion. i couldn't tell her that it's an unGodly decision...she's Jewish! help!

[Parthian King]

This is, in fact, in the same ballpark as the abortion thread we've had going. Please refer to that thread for answers to this post. Thanks.

iLock.

[inkspot]

okay, so i was sitting at lunch the other day with my friend justice. we were talking about how many kids we'd like to have when we marry. i said maybe five. she said that she's not getting married, that she doesn't want to go through the pain of childbirth (poor padme) lol. so i went a little far and asked what if she gets raped and becomes pregnant? she said she'd get an abortion. i couldn't tell her that it's an unGodly decision...she's Jewish! help!
You can still tell her it's an ungodly decision, but even if you do not want to get into "religion" per se, you can tell her that it is killing a child, and whether she is religious or not, killing babies is probably not something she thinks is morally right.

Jewish people believe taking a life without sufficient cause is wrong -- and the only sufficient cause is to save another life. You can also tell her to research the effects of abortion on the mother before she decides on that course, because the research has shown after an abortion, women have a lot of physical and mental after-effects to deal with.

[~Lava~]

I would try to use the approach of logic before resorting to God in this case because logic puts you on a level playing field, if you still feel called to bring God into the equation, I would first research the precepts of Mosaic Law And the Jewish religion in general before trying to attempt it, that would also level the playing field.

[LadyAnneOfNarnia]

I just don't understand how doctors take an oath the preserve life and yet they kill babies all the time. That's a little backwards, wouldn't you say?

[inkspot]

I just don't understand how doctors take an oath the preserve life and yet they kill babies all the time. That's a little backwards, wouldn't you say?
Indeed. But recently more and more doctors are refusing to do the procedure, thank goodness.

[LadyAnneOfNarnia]

That's good! It means all our prayers are slowly being answered!

[Tazzy]

Wow. I was gonna make a thread about this, but I guess I don't need to :D

Anyway, I am against abortion as well. The only time I think it is acceptable is when the mother's life is in danger, and it is the only option for her to survive. Otherwise I think it is wrong.

When do you think a baby is considered to be alive inside the womb? Is it straight after fertilisation, or is it after a few weeks?

[Copperfox]

"Alive" and "viable" are two different things. The unborn baby is already ALIVE the moment the parents' chromosomes unite and cell division begins, whereas he or she is not VIABLE until he or she is able to survive outside the mother's body. The state of dependency is used by pro-abortionists as an excuse to consider the unborn baby "not REALLY alive."

[Tazzy]

"Alive" and "viable" are two different things. The unborn baby is already ALIVE the moment the parents' chromosomes unite and cell division begins, whereas he or she is not VIABLE until he or she is able to survive outside the mother's body. The state of dependency is used by pro-abortionists as an excuse to consider the unborn baby "not REALLY alive."

Thanks! I could use that in my GCSE R.E exam. Viable.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

When do you think a baby is considered to be alive inside the womb? Is it straight after fertilisation, or is it after a few weeks?
The youngest child to survive outside the womb was delivered at 20 weeks gestation (40 is full-term). Abortions are routinely performed through 24 weeks, and can legally be performed through an entire pregnancy in the U.S.

"Viability" becomes a more difficult topic the longer you look at it. What does "viable" mean? Able to survive without any external assistance at all? By that definition, a full-term newborn isn't "viable", for she could not survive without direct and constant care by adults. Able to do basic bodily functions like breathe and eat without assistance? By that definition many handicapped newborns don't qualify as "viable".

Scientifically, the definition of when a child is alive inside the mother's body is fertilization, for that is when a new, genetically distinct human is formed. Perhaps she's only a few cells big, but hey - we were all once that size. Since that stage, none of us have transformed, mutated, or morphed into something other than what we started as. We were human then, we're human now - all we've done is grow up.

[inkspot]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion!!!

[Twilightdryadhobbit]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion!!!

Yahooo! I'm so happy about this! We have to thank God a lot for it. I think I'll go change into my pro-life T-shirt. :D :D :D :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Progress, we hope! But be prepared for the disinformation campaign to follow: the pro-aborts and their media allies carping about legislators dictating to medical professionals, women's lives being put at risk, etc., etc. This is to try to obscure two main points:


According to on-record testimony of the American Medical Association, this procedure is never necessary for the woman's health. Even in the extremely rare case that an abortion would need to be performed at this stage of gestation, there are other techniques.

The brutal reality of the procedure itself. There are a series of drawings here (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm) that describe the procedure (be warned: strong stomach needed). The pro-aborts try to obfuscate that by talking about "late-term abortions" without giving specifics. Well - there are the specifics. Do we want this performed in our nation? The Congress said no, the President said no, and now - thankfully - the Supreme Court has said no.

[Into the Wardrobe]

Thanks POTW! I'd seen pics like that before...it never ceases to amaze me that humans can be that brutal. What kind of doctor could sleep at night having performed such a thing? It's disgusting. To hold another person like that and perform such an act of brutality...sorry, I can't wrap the mind around it.

I'm glad that the government turned it down. I don't want that disgusting behavior in my country!

[Solya]

Oh... how could anyone allow that to be done to this wonderful child that's growing inside of them? And, more importantly, how does someone who performs this awful deed justify himself in the eyes of himself and in the eyes of God? I still can't wrap my head around it, even though I live in a country which has accepted (nearly typed "embraced") abortions. :rolleyes:

[Son of Adam]

I am sure we will hear from the proponents of all abortions, especially those who have celebrity or political status, but the first victory for those of us who are pro-life is one that is long in coming and we need to praise God for the victory and continue to pray for the Supreme Court in their decision making in other areas as well.

[TimmyofOz]

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion!!!

That was very good news. It seem like it has been a long time sence we have had such good news. Let's give God the glory. :)

[Copperfox]

WHILE giving God the glory, let us not forget what BOTH Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama intend to do if either of them gets into the White House--open season on unborn babies for stem-cell research, even though they both KNOW that stem-cell benefits can be obtained using ADULT stem cells whose collection does not kill anyone.

[Tazzy]

Thanks POTW! I'd seen pics like that before...it never ceases to amaze me that humans can be that brutal. What kind of doctor could sleep at night having performed such a thing? It's disgusting.

In my Humanities lesson, we had to watch a video about abortion, and there were lot's of inages of dead fetus's and I was so disgusted. I had to go out the room, because I couldn't bear to watch the actual operation of a woman getting it done, who was so huge she looked about 6 months pregnant! It was horrible.

[inkspot]

Gah, what kind of school do you go to? I cannot imagine a public school in the USA showing such a film. It's rather scary if you think about it, like showing kids a murder on tape!

[Into the Wardrobe]

True. I think a lot of them are showing things like that so that the students really know what is going on. The majority of them are so desensitized to that kind of gore these days most would handle it ok. It would make some of them think about what they're gonna do before ever going for such a procedure. I'm not by any means saying that showing these in class would be a good thing. I hope the ones who do see it will understand what the consequences of their actions would be if they chose that route. I have friends and family members who have had abortions before and not one of them escapes the overwhelming amount of regret later.

[Princess_Iliana]

True. I think a lot of them are showing things like that so that the students really know what is going on. The majority of them are so desensitized to that kind of gore these days most would handle it ok. It would make some of them think about what they're gonna do before ever going for such a procedure. I'm not by any means saying that showing these in class would be a good thing. I hope the ones who do see it will understand what the consequences of their actions would be if they chose that route. I have friends and family members who have had abortions before and not one of them escapes the overwhelming amount of regret later.

I agree, it is a good idea to teach it in highschools, even if it makes me lose my appetite!

[.::xLucyx::.]

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may not correspond to what was recently said, I'm just sharing my views on abortion.

Abortion is murder. If the mother is too young, she can put her baby up for adoption, since she has no business getting pregnant that young anyway. Abortion is murder and should be seen as a crime. If the baby was an "accident," what she did to get the baby was not, and she shouldnt be doing that if shes not married. Put the baby up for adoption.

[Tazzy]

Gah, what kind of school do you go to? I cannot imagine a public school in the USA showing such a film. It's rather scary if you think about it, like showing kids a murder on tape!

I know. And I was the only one who was upset about it. Everyone else were eager to watch it, so the teacher let me run out the room as quick as I could. My friend came out looking shaken... so glad I didn't watch it!

Like intothewardrobe had said, it did change almost everyone's opinion against abortion after they knew what actually happened.

[Into the Wardrobe]

I have to say Tazzy, I'm glad you're not that desensitized to seeing that kind of carnage and that it still impacts you. I hope you don't lose that. Basic photos like POTW put a link to should be enough to deter kids from taking that route. Fear of what will happen to them is a powerful thing. I think most of us agree with xXMusicXx that abortion is murder, but people do strange things when terrified of parents and the future. That does NOT make it ok by any means. I hope that videos or pictures like that will help kids count the cost before getting into trouble in the first place. However, for those who make the mistake of getting an abortion, all we can do is help them heal and learn from their mistake. We've been given grace and love in the midst of our mistakes and need to pass on the same to others. None of us are perfect. They will deal with the guilt and remorse when it really hits them for the rest of their lives...that's more than any punnishment we can bestow I think. We should condemn the act of aborting babies of course, but it is good to be mindful of how the Lord would want us to treat others when responding to people who have gone through with it.

[Loremaster]

As Mr. Music said above, I also have not read the majority of this thread. It is a pretty basic topic, one I'm always happy to express my opinion of.


ABORTION IS MEAN!!
You will not silence my message.
You will not mock my God.
You will stop killing my generation.


It's not just mean, it's murder. I have a friend who recently had a baby. She was sixteen when she got pregnant. Yes, she is too young to be a parent, although she choose to keep her child.

If she'd been a little less selfish (frankly it was her selfishness that got her pregnant in the first place), then she would have given her baby up for adoption.

The point there was that there are options as to what to do with an 'unwanted child'. You can give it up for adoption. You can let your parents raise it, if they're willing. You can raise it yourself. Abortion is the cheap way out, and it scars you for LIFE.

Not healthy, not moral, not right. If you are physically able to get pregnant, you are physically able to give birth. After that, the choice of what this child's future holds is yours.

In that regard, I am 'pro-choice'. The choice to choose your child's future. But I am 'pro-life'. I actually wrote a song that had a verse about an unborn child.


That part is:

V 3
I'm that baby you're not sure you want,
You're debating whether I should even be.
I'm unplanned and I'd be a pain
There's just no way that you could keep me.
But I don't want to be that way
I just want to be my own person in my own way

Chorus 3
I wanna be a somebody
Somebody people remember
I don't wanna be thought of
as that babe that never was
I want my life to have a love story
Happy ending and all
I wanna make a difference
and be able to be called
a somebody.



If anyone wants the other two verses and chorus, drop me a PM and I'll send it to you. :)

Sam

[Copperfox]

I have a T-shirt with that "You will not--" message. Once I wore it at a gym; and some pouting feminist, who didn't have the nerve to speak to me about it, complained to the management, and got them to tell me I couldn't wear it in there anymore. As usual, it's the so-called liberals who want freedom of expression ONLY for their own side.

[~Sunnyromance~]

I have one ponti about abortion. My friend Erla has a disabled sister. Once in my old shcool during icelandic class we started to discuss disabilties. A certain girl said that if she knew she had a disabled child she would go through abortion. My friend Erla was so mad at hurt because of this for even though her sister is disabled she´s such a pretty and nice child.
Also we had an disabled girl visiting us to shcool one day and she said that she was proud to be diasbled cause then she was diffrent from the rest and made the world seem more colorufl. I so agreed with her. She said she thought it was sad that people go thorugh abortion when they know that their child is disabled.
I´m against abortion when unless in certain situations and I mean you never know what the mother might be going through so I try not to judge beforehand. But abortion cause the child is disabled is WRONG in my opinion.

[.::xLucyx::.]

As Mr. Music said above,

haha, as you can see, I'm a girl named Lucy haha not Mr. Music

I totally agree with everything you said, and that "You will..." thing is soo awesome. I want the rest of that song (I'll drop you a PM;))

a T-shirt with that "You will not--" message. Once I wore it at a gym; and some pouting feminist, who didn't have the nerve to speak to me about it, complained to the management, and got them to tell me I couldn't wear it in there anymore. As usual, it's the so-called liberals who want freedom of expression ONLY for their own side.

ugh, feminists....lol

good for you for wearing that shirt!!

[inkspot]

I´m against abortion when unless in certain situations and I mean you never know what the mother might be going through so I try not to judge beforehand. But abortion cause the child is disabled is WRONG in my opinion.

Owly, it is good that you try not to judge beforehand, but the idea that something the mother "is going through" is worth the life of the child, whether disabled or no, is a fallacy. If my existence were somehow forcing you to "go through" something you didn't particularly like, would you be right in ending my life? Of course not. We would call that murder. So it is with an unintended pregnancy: the baby's existence may cause the mother to "go through" a lot of stress and even pain, but this is natural stress and pain common to pregnant women, and should not be considered as something so heinous it would be better to kill some one that "go through" it.

If there is an actual threat to the mother's life, if there can be only one survivor of the delivery for some medical reason, then most pro-lifers would say it is better to save one of the folks involved rather than let both die -- in this case, the life of the mother is saved. But unless such a threat exists, then allowing one to kill the other for convenience is, indeed, a terrible thing, no matter what else the mother may be "going through."

[inkspot]

Sorry to double post. We were excited the other day because the Supreme Court in the USA upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. Today I am writing some jobs for a client about new legislation which was introduced after that decision by Barbara Boxer and Hilary Clinton, among others, called the Freedom of Choice Act. I think it is designed to protect Roe v. Wade. Has anyone heard of it? And if so, does it have the possibility to revive partial birth abortion? I cannot understand the text of the bill itself very well.

[Elven Prince]

Acwellen, I agree with you. I don't think it is right. You should just try to avoid the situation completely.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Ah, our old friend the FOCA. This was a bill that was introduced in the early 1990's just after Bill Clinton was elected president and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. The idea was to encode the "right" to an abortion in statute law, instead of just letting it be maintained by judicial fiat. It failed then for the same reason it will fail now: the majority of Americans are pro-life, and don't want unrestricted abortion on demand as the law of their land. The fierce pro-abortion stand of American society is only maintained by a combination of media deceit as to the extent of the problem and an activist judiciary who is determined they know better than the unwashed masses who actually vote for their representatives.

My guess is that even if the bill has been introduced, it's more a sop to the pro-abort supporters of those senators than it is intended to go anywhere. FOCA per se didn't last very long - it quickly "died" as an independent bill because the principles were subsumed into the Universal Health Care initiative (aka "Hillarycare") that the Clintons tried to push during their first two years in office. Since that bit of legislation was partly credited with causing the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, it's doubtful that anyone is going to give FOCA a serious push now.

There's another reason the bill would fail: America's population is more pro-life now than it was then.

[inkspot]

Oh, thank you, Roger. I did not realize it was a revival of an earlier bill. This is good news, then, if it does not have a real chance of being passed. Cool. Thank you.

[Lady Theresa]

I thought you guys might like to see this, it is a really neat music video! It is called I Want to Live, it is by the Right Brothers and it is on YouTube, but my computer won't let me put the link here so you'll have to look it up.:D

[~Sunnyromance~]

Yo Theresa You returned ^.^ I thought you were gone.
The vidoe made me cry. It just made me cry so much *sniffles* I just can´t say a thing. Al the little children around me. I couldn´t be without them and this made me think about them and how much I love them *sniffles more*

[Lady Theresa]

:D Yep I'm back, but life has been so crazy around here it is just now settling down but it will be hectic next week. I know what you mean about the video, I cried so much. I am very outspoken about pro-life issues, I can't bear the thoughts of what abortion actually does to an unborn child. It is absolutely horrific. I guess it makes me feel that much luckier to be alive because some people in my family wanted my parents to abort me cause they already had four children and these people didn't feel like my parents would have enough love for a fifth child. Of course my parents said no way, and they went on to have my little sister plus four miscarriages. When I hear songs like that or the amazing stories about abortion survivors or people who regret their abortions I am grateful cause my parents could have aborted me (not that they would have) but they didn't, and I feel that God is going to use my life as a testimony to His love and His Mercy, and His forgiveness. I guess I am saying that I am just happy to be alive.:D

[Copperfox]

Many years ago, on Long Island (New York), an Irish-American lady named Gladys Havens married an Italian-American architect named Erman Scudellari, who had a part in building the Empire State Building. When Gladys had her first pregnancy, doctors feared she might not survive it, and wanted, if not to abort her baby outright, at least to give saving Gladys priority over saving the baby. But Gladys resolutely told them to save her baby above all. She and her firstborn son both survived, and she went on to bear four more children successfully. One of these, Gladys and Erman's only daughter, was Mary Scudellari...who was later to become a nurse, a pro-life activist, my first wife, and the adoptive mother of our adopted daughter. Now dwelling in Heaven, my Mary has left a pro-life legacy worthy of her courageous mother.

[Elendil]

Many years ago, on Long Island (New York), an Irish-American lady named Gladys Havens married an Italian-American architect named Erman Scudellari, who had a part in building the Empire State Building. When Gladys had her first pregnancy, doctors feared she might not survive it, and wanted, if not to abort her baby outright, at least to give saving Gladys priority over saving the baby. But Gladys resolutely told them to save her baby above all. She and her firstborn son both survived, and she went on to bear four more children successfully. One of these, Gladys and Erman's only daughter, was Mary Scudellari...who was later to become a nurse, a pro-life activist, my first wife, and the adoptive mother of our adopted daughter. Now dwelling in Heaven, my Mary has left a pro-life legacy worthy of her courageous mother.

Wow. :D

Some of the doctors wanted my mum to abort my youngest brother (this being her 11 birth.) She said NO WAY! :D Good on ya mum!

[Lady Theresa]

Many years ago, on Long Island (New York), an Irish-American lady named Gladys Havens married an Italian-American architect named Erman Scudellari, who had a part in building the Empire State Building. When Gladys had her first pregnancy, doctors feared she might not survive it, and wanted, if not to abort her baby outright, at least to give saving Gladys priority over saving the baby. But Gladys resolutely told them to save her baby above all. She and her firstborn son both survived, and she went on to bear four more children successfully. One of these, Gladys and Erman's only daughter, was Mary Scudellari...who was later to become a nurse, a pro-life activist, my first wife, and the adoptive mother of our adopted daughter. Now dwelling in Heaven, my Mary has left a pro-life legacy worthy of her courageous mother.

I agree wow. That is an amazing story!!!:D Every day I thank God that He has given me a voice so that I can speak out against the evils of abortion, infanticide, etc., I think that many of us take it for granted that we can talk, walk, see, hear, touch, smell, etc., but I know of this one woman whose mother tired to abort her through the use of a saline abortion, several hours later in the middle of the night she was born. She has cerebral palsy(sp?) and yet she praises God for it, she has an amazing voice, and despite her cerebral palsy she has run in two marathons and is training for another. You may have heard of her, her name is Gianna Jessen. How many of us take our gifts and our lives for granted? That is why the song I posted touched me so much!! It gives you something to think about doesn't it?

[~Sunnyromance~]

Many years ago, on Long Island (New York), an Irish-American lady named Gladys Havens married an Italian-American architect named Erman Scudellari, who had a part in building the Empire State Building. When Gladys had her first pregnancy, doctors feared she might not survive it, and wanted, if not to abort her baby outright, at least to give saving Gladys priority over saving the baby. But Gladys resolutely told them to save her baby above all. She and her firstborn son both survived, and she went on to bear four more children successfully. One of these, Gladys and Erman's only daughter, was Mary Scudellari...who was later to become a nurse, a pro-life activist, my first wife, and the adoptive mother of our adopted daughter. Now dwelling in Heaven, my Mary has left a pro-life legacy worthy of her courageous mother.

An amazing story. Just amazing.
Theresa-This vidoe is still in my mind. I cried so much when I saw it but I loved it so much.

[Lady Theresa]

I am so not used to being called Theresa, but I am trying to get used to it. Theresa is my middle name. But back to the subject I know what you mean, there are a couple of others on YouTube that can make me cry, but some of the stuff is pro-choice on YouTube. I loved the video so much I sent it to myself so that I will never lose the ability to find it, and then I sent it to all of my friends, and all of the people in our local pro-life group!!:D

[SweetWaters]

Some of the doctors wanted my mum to abort my youngest brother (this being her 11 birth.) She said NO WAY! :D Good on ya mum!

I agree! You give her a smile for me when you read this! I sometimes wonder if all that stuff about having too many kids has much basis in reality... After all, in the days when abortion and birth control were frowned upon by decent folks, there were women who had twenty kids and more, and lived to tell about it. I suppose it might be a strain if you weren't in very good health.

[Lady Theresa]

I agree! You give her a smile for me when you read this! I sometimes wonder if all that stuff about having too many kids has much basis in reality... After all, in the days when abortion and birth control were frowned upon by decent folks, there were women who had twenty kids and more, and lived to tell about it. I suppose it might be a strain if you weren't in very good health.

Totally, there were 7 kids in my moms family, 8 kids in my grandmothers family, and 11 kids in my great grandfather's family. I am sure there were family members who had more, but it has been a while since I've done that sort of thing.

[~Sunnyromance~]

I come from a big family. Grandpa had nine siblings, two of his sieters had nine children and his sister-daughter also had nine children. Mom has five siblings (four of them remain) ´so I got heaps of relatives and I woudln´t want it any other way. I on the other hand have three siblings and i love it :p

[~Lava~]

well as Lady Theresa has probably said already, we come from a family of six and I cannot imagine life without any of my siblings even though there are quite a few times where I wish certain of my siblings would move out of the house, taking all of their stuff and opinions with them (and I do not mean either of the two on this forum; I mean the other three). I still would not have had half of the fun I had in childhood had they not been there (and I probably would have had a safer one too).

[Lady Theresa]

Diddo, especially the part about getting into trouble. lol Seriously though, I don't know what I would do without a big family. I really miss my little sisters and brothers too, and it wierd because you wouldn't think that you would miss someone you have never met so much, but I do. I even dream about them sometimes. I think it must be worse for those who have aborted their children, because they also have to live with the guilt that they killed their child and that is why their child is not there with them. It must cause them tremendous pain to have the emptiness of the loss of a child in addition to the guilt and the responsibility that comes with the abortion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The guilt can be terrible, especially for women who suffer subsequent infertility. Sometimes the abortion can damage a woman's system so she can't conceive again. I can't imagine what it would be like to be unable to have children later in life, knowing that I'd killed the only one I could have.

Another little detail that people like the March of Dimes conveniently overlook - because abortion techniques are unnaturally intrusive into the womb, they have a strong possibility of damaging the mother's organs, which can lead to her having difficulty carrying future babies to term. How interesting that the U.S. is now in its second generation of legalized abortion, and what is one of the big medical problems? Premature birth.

[Lady Theresa]

Abortion can also cause a woman to have severe bleeding and sometimes even death. It also causes depression in both the mother and the father. Some of the method of abortion also leave pieces of the unborn child (excuse the graphic nature of that comment) in the mother's womb causing infection and other severe health problems. The morning after pill also causes a change in the lining of the uterus that increases the chances that when you do try to get pregnant the umbilical cord has a harder time attaching to the walls of the uterus. I hope and pray that God will allow us to get a bill that would ban all abortion, but if he doesn't I pray that he will allow our legislaters to pass a bill mandating that abortion clinics let the mother know what abortion will do to the child and also mandate that they allow the mother to see the image of her unborn child before she decides to kill the child. I hope that if the first bill doesn't go through right away that the second one will. I also hope that God will allow these women to see the truth.

[~Sunnyromance~]

I was talking to my friend yesterday about abortion. He told me that he´s not against cause sometimes the mother´s just can´t take care of the baby and that there are lot´s of people who are incapable of being parents.
He has a twenty-one year old sister. She had a child when she was seventeen but she didn´t discover she was pregnant until she was 22 weeks or so pregnant. My friend says she probably would have had an abortion if she had discovered earlier. Today she has a four year old beautiful boy that my friend loves dearly and thinks is wonderful.
That´s one of the miracles that can happen.
But I respect my friends opinion. I think abortion is a very hard subject and often we don´t know what the mothers are going through so we can´t jusy say like: "Oh you´r bad and mean" when they are suffering horribly because of their decision. And in some cases abortion is neccesary f.x. when the mother´s live is in danger or the child is very very badly disabled.

[Lady Theresa]

I can respect your opinion but I don't quite agree with you. Even (no let me say especially) a severely disabled baby has a right to live. For the short time that they are on earth they are the most innocent, the most pure beings on earth. They have no sin except of course original sin ands if they are baptized they don't even have that. We have no right to say who deserves to live or die. Even if a light is small it can still shine brightly. If you extinguish a human life, no matter what the reason it is you who is left with the guilt with the depression. It doesn't matter what the situation is we can't and shouldn't decide who should live or die, every life is precious and you should except God's will not choose to do your own. Mother Theresa said, "It is poverty to say that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." I think that the only form of birth control that should be practice is that of abstinence before marriage, and if your not ready for a child, abstinence during marriage.

[Elendil]

I can respect your opinion but I don't quite agree with you. Even (no let me say especially) a severely disabled baby has a right to live. For the short time that they are on earth they are the most innocent, the most pure beings on earth. They have no sin except of course original sin ands if they are baptized they don't even have that. We have no right to say who deserves to live or die. Even if a light is small it can still shine brightly. If you extinguish a human life, no matter what the reason it is you who is left with the guilt with the depression. It doesn't matter what the situation is we can't and shouldn't decide who should live or die, every life is precious and you should except God's will not choose to do your own. Mother Theresa said, "It is poverty to say that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." I think that the only form of birth control that should be practice is that of abstinence before marriage, and if your not ready for a child, abstinence during marriage.

Sorry I disagree. There is no such thing as an 'alright' abortion. My brother has two children and he's not married.

[Lady Theresa]

I don't know what you are talking about. I was saying that the only form of birth control that should ever be used is abstinence (in other words abstaining from pre-marital sexual activity which would in turn not bring about children). I believe that a person should remain chaste until marriage which would therefore reduce the rate of unwed mothers and fathers as well as the rate of children born out of wedlock and also the rate (I believe) of abortion. I was not saying that abortion is ok, I was saying that there is a way to avoid having children out of wedlock, by controling the urges to do something that should only exist when it is performed by a married couple. This btw would also reduce the number of people infected with STD's and other problems!!

[inkspot]

I was talking to my friend yesterday about abortion. He told me that he´s not against cause sometimes the mother´s just can´t take care of the baby and that there are lot´s of people who are incapable of being parents.
He has a twenty-one year old sister. She had a child when she was seventeen but she didn´t discover she was pregnant until she was 22 weeks or so pregnant. My friend says she probably would have had an abortion if she had discovered earlier. Today she has a four year old beautiful boy that my friend loves dearly and thinks is wonderful.
That´s one of the miracles that can happen.
But I respect my friends opinion. I think abortion is a very hard subject and often we don´t know what the mothers are going through so we can´t jusy say like: "Oh you´r bad and mean" when they are suffering horribly because of their decision. And in some cases abortion is neccesary f.x. when the mother´s live is in danger or the child is very very badly disabled.
No one is saying that a woman is bad or mean for considering an abortion. No one is interested in judging her at all. The problem with her considering killing the baby she's expecting simply because she is not old enough or rich enough or caring enough or ready to have a baby is that none of those things is an excuse for killing another person.

If you believe the life inside the expectant mom is a human being (and what else could it be) then you must allow that the baby has the same rights as any other human being. Why would she have no rights simply because she is still in the womb? Premature babies are often born, living outside the womb long before they should naturally, and no one says they have no rights and should be killed. Yet they are no different from other babies at their developmental stage who are still within the womb. Why should the ones within the womb be denied the right to life?

Abortion is not about whether the woman is ready and able to be a parent. It is about whether a human being has a right to live. If you say the baby has no right to live because the mum is not ready to be parent, then you are giving permission to every bad parent to go ahead and kill their baby, because clearly they are not ready to be parents. That's just silly.

If a woman, for some reason, cannot care for her baby, there is a better thing to do than killing the baby; adoption saves the baby's life and spares the mum from having to raise a baby she is not ready for.

[SweetWaters]

I count the mother as a victim as well as the baby, for she has undoubtably been deceived if she goes through with the abortion, and she will have to live the rest of her life in the knowledge that she made the decision for her child to be killed (which definitely isn't a good feeling, considering some of the posts made by LifeMaiden earlier on in this thread). Owlfeather, perhaps it would help us understand your viewpoint better if you told us whether you think it is okay to end the life of a severely disabled person who is an adult.

[~Sunnyromance~]

I dont think that´s alright Grace (SweetWaters) but I agree on my friend´s point. If you know that the child your carrying is that badly disabled that it won´t be able to live well I belive abortion is the right choice.
Plase don´t misunderstand me. I truly love children and I´m against abortion in many cases. But I try to judge each case individually and in some cases I believe abortion is the right choice.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I heard an interesting case the other day, which is apparently much more common than is thought. A couple who'd longed for a baby for years found themselves pregnant, to their great joy. But several months into the pregnancy, the doctor brought grave news: the ultrasounds were indicating that the baby had a severe cleft lip and palate. By itself this wouldn't have been so bad, but at this stage of development, these symptoms almost inevitably went along with severe brain damage and developmental disabilities - sometimes fatal ones.

Needless to say, the parents were devastated, but resisted the doctor's suggestion that they abort the child. They held on and prayed, even when subsequent ultrasounds indicated that the condition was every bit as severe as feared, if not worse.

When the mother went into labor, they were braced for the worst: anything from a severely handicapped child to a stillbirth. But when the baby came out - no problems at all! No hare lip, cleft palate, brain deformities - nothing. Perfectly normal and healthy baby.

This actually happened and I could provide the name and contact information of the couple involved. The moral of the story is that even the most "certain" diagnoses can be wrong. The doctor was taking ultrasound pictures up through the last month before birth, and every one was telling him that the baby was severely handicapped. I've also heard of such incidents with genetic testing - the samples drawn from the amniotic fluid "certainly" indicated a Down's Syndrome child.

So here's the question: would you want to take a chance on killing a perfectly healthy child? Even when the diagnosis was "certain"?

[inkspot]

I dont think that´s alright Grace (SweetWaters) but I agree on my friend´s point. If you know that the child your carrying is that badly disabled that it won´t be able to live well I belive abortion is the right choice.
Plase don´t misunderstand me. I truly love children and I´m against abortion in many cases. But I try to judge each case individually and in some cases I believe abortion is the right choice.
In which cases do you support killing handicapped children? If I understand you correctly, you are saying a mother has an obligation to kill a child if she believes the child will not be healthy. So, what is the degree to which you will carry this?

[.::xLucyx::.]

Alright I'm gonna try posting here again...

I know a couple who had a baby that was severly premature. He is pretty healthy now, (and probably going to marry my little sister when they grow up haha) but like, i agree with whoever it was that said a baby still has rights even though it's still in the womb. and when you say that handicapped babies should be aborted, it's the same as saying we should kill anyone who's handicapped whether they're in the womb or not because it's "too hard" to take care of them. I think everyone here already knows how strongly I feel about this.

Abortion is NEVER alright. I don't care what the mother is "going through", she has no right to say that her life is more important than the baby's life inside of her. That's God's call. Again, if she's too young to take care of a baby why the heck is she pregnant anyway? She tries to cover up a sin with another sin. I'll quote a song from the band DC Talk

"Human rights have made the wrongs OK."

They think abortion is just giving human rights ot the mother, without even thinking about the baby's human rights, because no matter what they say, they do NOT and cannot see that baby as a human if they abort it.

[Lady Theresa]

Amen.

As to talking about handicapped children, I work at a therapy barn for a couple of hours every week. These children that I work with are often times mentally and physically handicapped, and yes sometimes they are a handful, but there is no way to describe the powerful feelings of love and pride when that child succeeds at something new. Their smiles always melt your heart, and they seem to improve every week. You can tell when they succeed thay are happy too because they are all smiles, just grinning from ear to ear. It is amazing. :D And no one should considerer extinguishing that beautiful life. I cannot imagine my life without my riders, they are all so different and yet all so very special!! Just because they are handicapped doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose, a mission, from God to accomplish on this earth. In the second grade my best friend was a girl who could not walk without canes or a walker, she was also mentally ahndicapped, but she is one of the best friends I have ever had.:D

[~Sunnyromance~]

Dear Inkspot. This point comes straight form my friend who has an disabled sister. She said herself and I agree with her: "If you know that your child is that badly disabled that it´ll never be able to live a good life, the I believe abortion is the right choice". Sometimes chidlren are that badly handicapped that there´s nothing they can do. My friend babysitted a boy like that and it tore her heart. That´s my opinion. But once and again: I love children and I don´t think disabled children should be aborted UNLESS the their disabilties are that bad that they won´t be able to do anything at all or enjoy life.
That´s my opinion.
But otherwise sorry if I´m hurting anyone here. It was never my intentention. If you think ym messages are hurting then please let me know.

[inkspot]

Dear Inkspot. This point comes straight form my friend who has an disabled sister. She said herself and I agree with her: "If you know that your child is that badly disabled that it´ll never be able to live a good life, the I believe abortion is the right choice". Sometimes chidlren are that badly handicapped that there´s nothing they can do. My friend babysitted a boy like that and it tore her heart. That´s my opinion. But once and again: I love children and I don´t think disabled children should be aborted UNLESS the their disabilties are that bad that they won´t be able to do anything at all or enjoy life.
That´s my opinion.
But otherwise sorry if I´m hurting anyone here. It was never my intentention. If you think ym messages are hurting then please let me know.
So you are saying you do favor the killing of handicapped children when you have determined that they cannot enjoy life. It's strange but there are millions of non-handicapped people who do not enjoy life at all ... are you in favor of also killing them? Is it the enjoyment of life which makes it worth living? And to what degree do you have to be not enjoying life in order to qualify for extermination?

You can see, can you not, that once you decide there is a life not worth living that you have put yourself in the position of God, to decide who lives and who dies, and also put yourself in danger of being one of those chosen for extermination? If someone else has a right to decide your life is not worth living, then you could be killed, and that person who has the right to decide would be your judge.

Again, if she's too young to take care of a baby why the heck is she pregnant anyway? She tries to cover up a sin with another sin.
Sometimes bad things happen, even a chaste girl can be raped, or treated so poorly that she momentarily feels it's worth her virtue just to feel that someone loves her. It's a sin, of course, but not one that anyone who has ever been in the situation would judge harshly -- and in the case of rape, not one that you can judge the victim for, at all. I agree with you that there is no sense in covering one sin with another; but I do want to say that we cannot out of hand condemn every young person who is pregnant as if we are somehow "better" than she. Alll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, according to Scripture.

[.::xLucyx::.]

Sometimes bad things happen, even a chaste girl can be raped, or treated so poorly that she momentarily feels it's worth her virtue just to feel that someone loves her. It's a sin, of course, but not one that anyone who has ever been in the situation would judge harshly -- and in the case of rape, not one that you can judge the victim for, at all. I agree with you that there is no sense in covering one sin with another; but I do want to say that we cannot out of hand condemn every young person who is pregnant as if we are somehow "better" than she. Alll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, according to Scripture.

I understand that, but in that case, abortion is STILL not the right choice. You put your baby up for adoption. I know it's hard and I know that it would be hard to make the right decision, and I am not belittleing the hardship of that situation at all. I'm not saying it would be easy to do the right thing, I'm just saying that it's right. Because I know that it's hard but I'm just saying that abortion is not the right choice. I can see that abortion would look really tempting to someone in that situation, but all I'm saying is I believe it is not the right thing to do.

So you are saying you do favor the killing of handicapped children when you have determined that they cannot enjoy life. It's strange but there are millions of non-handicapped people who do not enjoy life at all ... are you in favor of also killing them? Is it the enjoyment of life which makes it worth living? And to what degree do you have to be not enjoying life in order to qualify for extermination?

You can see, can you not, that once you decide there is a life not worth living that you have put yourself in the position of God, to decide who lives and who dies, and also put yourself in danger of being one of those chosen for extermination? If someone else has a right to decide your life is not worth living, then you could be killed, and that person who has the right to decide would be your judge.

Amen, amen. Brilliantly put, inkspot.

there are millions of non-handicapped people who do not enjoy life at all ... are you in favor of also killing them? Is it the enjoyment of life which makes it worth living? And to what degree do you have to be not enjoying life in order to qualify for extermination?


Amen again. I have observed that handicapped people of my acquaintance seem to enjoy life more than non-handicapped ones that I know. Again, you are playing God to decide whether or not that person can or will enjoy life or not. And furthermore, life's purpose is not to enjoy it.

[~Sunnyromance~]

I´ve decied aftyer reading this threda that my opinion in abortion is too narrow-minded and that I base it on way to few things. Therefore I´ve decided to review my opinion in abortion. I ´m not trying to play God or anyhting. It´s my opinion that I´m expressing but I expect it to change after I´vbe thought the matter totally through.
I´m sorry if I hurt anyone in this threda or if I was acting rude.
Love Anna

[Lady Theresa]

It is/was your opinion and I try to respect everyone's opinion even if I don't agree with it. Drawing from my own experience, (and I have worked with several severly mentally and physically handicapped children), handicapped children are bright, beautiful, and extremely smart bundles of joy (most of the time). At the therapy barn where I work people ride horses to help with mental or physical problems. One of the things that never ceases to amaze me is haw quickly most of them learn, and how much they retain from their once weekly one hour session. They are normally quick to learn, and they continue to grow and improve every week. I have learned so much from them, and I am just a volunteer. I don't know why anyone would take take the life of one of these sweet and beautiful baby.

[inkspot]

Owly, no one (that I am aware of) was hurt by your opinions or offended. It's just the nature of this discussion to ask people to look where their opinions will logically lead. This is difficult sometimes because we express what makes perfect sense in a limited way, but then when we follow the same lead out into a broader area, the results aren't at all what we had foreseen ...

[.::xLucyx::.]

I love you guys:D

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I love you guys:D

So, we all agree that all the kids get to live even if they're a pain in the neck to me.:p

[.::xLucyx::.]

So, we all agree that all the kids get to live even if they're a pain in the neck to me.:p
HAHA omg that struck me so funny.

haha you're so great lol well i gtg cya

[inkspot]

So, we all agree that all the kids get to live even if they're a pain in the neck to me.:p
LOL - that was pretty amusing.
And factual, yes, all children should get to live.
:)

[.::xLucyx::.]

LOL - that was pretty amusing.
And factual, yes, all children should get to live.
:)

hurray for living children!!!!!

[~Sunnyromance~]

Hey kid´s are not a pain in the neck. Oh fine they sometimes are. Like when they crawl on top of you or when they cry hysterically in the cinema :rolleyes: But otherwise they are the best :D

[.::xLucyx::.]

Hey kid´s are not a pain in the neck. Oh fine they sometimes are. Like when they crawl on top of you or when they cry hysterically in the cinema :rolleyes: But otherwise they are the best :D

haha yea exactly you bet

children are great as long as they're not my little sister:rolleyes: lol

[Lady Theresa]

So, we all agree that all the kids get to live even if they're a pain in the neck to me.:p

All I have to say is it takes one to know one!! lol (I am just kidding) Sure kids can be annoying sometimes, but hey its their job. I know some adults who are pretty annoying too, and too many teenagers to count!! All that matters is that they are here to be that pain in the neck, cause if they are a pain in the neck it at least means they are alive!!:D

[.::xLucyx::.]

All I have to say is it takes one to know one!! lol (I am just kidding) Sure kids can be annoying sometimes, but hey its their job. I know some adults who are pretty annoying too, and too many teenagers to count!! All that matters is that they are here to be that pain in the neck, cause if they are a pain in the neck it at least means they are alive!!:D

WELL SAID!!!!!!

[~Lava~]

furthering LT's discussion on the handicapped children at STAR, I know that one of the girls I worked with cried because her disability got bad enough that they had to put a pin in her back which means that she could no longer ride at STAR. I think that the ones with the worst disabilities are the ones who have effected my life the most, working with people with some of the disceases or handicaps that most mothers are encouraged to abort, has really strengthened my already deep rooted conviction that, no matter what, a child ought to be allowed to live.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

We were having a class discussion about abortion in my government class and a question came up : Is it right for the government to interfere in a woman's choice to abort a baby?


What are your thoughts on this?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Here's an old proverb to remember: "He who frames the question wins the debate". Asking the question like that is favoring a particular answer.

Take two questions back to your class debate. Here's the first one:

"Under what conditions does a mother have the right to end her child's life?"

Here's the second one:

"Is it right for the government to interfere in a man's choice to own his own slaves?"

(That last one was a hot question about 150 years ago.)

[lieke]

We were having a class discussion about abortion in my government class and a question came up : Is it right for the government to interfere in a woman's choice to abort a baby?


What are your thoughts on this?

Uh well, if you want to use this in class you can use PotW's answer best i think, but for my personal opinion:

YES! I mean, the government is the one to keep the law, right? If i want to, let's say, steal a car, then the government will stop me. Why? Because the car isn't mine, and i don't have the right to take it away.

Unfortunately, abortion is legal (to some extent) here, made legal some years ago, and even though we now have a party in the cabinet (administration?) that wants to turn that back, it is very very hard to turn something like that back, if not impossible:(

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

Here's an old proverb to remember: "He who frames the question wins the debate". Asking the question like that is favoring a particular answer.

Take two questions back to your class debate. Here's the first one:

"Under what conditions does a mother have the right to end her child's life?"

Here's the second one:

"Is it right for the government to interfere in a man's choice to own his own slaves?"

(That last one was a hot question about 150 years ago.)


Oh boy POTW do I love you!

Can I have your permission to ask the first question tomorrow when we continue the debate?

During the debate a few people said that an embryo is not alive because it merely contains cells.

What I said was that the embryo is very much alive because cells contain life in them, and if you kill those cells that form the embryo,then you are killing the baby. Also, I brought up an example: If a man kills a woman who is about 3 weeks pregnant, then he is going to be tried for 2 murders, instead of one, which proves that that three week old embryo was a baby.

Going back to what those few people said, do you think that the embryo should be considered alive or do you think that the embryo has to reach a certain state to be considered 'life'.

[Celebrion Seregon]

hmm....this board is great, this thread has been shut down on 2 other forums i'm on.

the difficult thing about the stem cell thing is that it COULD be a potential cure to certain things.

a guy in my school just was paralyzed from his waste down, he'll be lucky if he has full use of his arms, the stem cell could help him walk again.

but i see NO reason for abortion to be legal. it is murder.

however I've heard the you can take some fluid around the baby and use the fluid to get the same cells.....if that doesn't hurt the baby or mother i don't see a problem with that....anyone know anything else on that?

[inkspot]

Going back to what those few people said, do you think that the embryo should be considered alive or do you think that the embryo has to reach a certain state to be considered 'life'.
Of course an embryo is alive. Premature babies live and become "real people." That's where people come from. human embryos. I doubt your friends have a definition for when the baby is considered "alive," because there is no real change between a baby in the womb one day and delivered the next day, except that outside the womb he is no longer tethered by the umbilicus ...

[Elendil]

I had to do a study on abortion for school...:( and all the ways they do it....:( IT'S TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad:

[Celebrion Seregon]

bah! Humbug!
i HATE when school make you do stuff like that..in science class this week so far we've had to watch 2 videos, one of someone dieing . like video of his heart stopping and his poor dog and his grand kids, it was AWFUL and then today we had to watch these masked boobies killing their siblings..my parents and i were NOT happy!

i mean SHEESH. they
A: shouldn't be allowed to do abortions
B: shouldn't be able to MAKE you research it, i mean some pics could really upset people!

[Elendil]

The didn't MAKE me...I could have said no, but I didn't. :( But it makes me soooooooooooo mad!:mad: I mean in the later part of the pregnacy the mother can have a C-serion (sp) and they take the ALIVE baby out and just let it die from neglect! If that baby was wanted they would work around the clock to save it!

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

lol. I never learned how they do it.....:p Horrifying in thought. :p

Oh, Grace, I changed my mind....:p I'm going to let the Liberals kill off their babies, and when they're aren't any more liberals, we pass laws banning abortion......sadly, I think that's what's going to happen. ><

[Elendil]

:eek: BEN! You're soooooooooo cruel! (The Libs in Australia are the good ONES!)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

hmm....this board is great, this thread has been shut down on 2 other forums i'm on.

the difficult thing about the stem cell thing is that it COULD be a potential cure to certain things.

a guy in my school just was paralyzed from his waste down, he'll be lucky if he has full use of his arms, the stem cell could help him walk again.

but i see NO reason for abortion to be legal. it is murder.

however I've heard the you can take some fluid around the baby and use the fluid to get the same cells.....if that doesn't hurt the baby or mother i don't see a problem with that....anyone know anything else on that?

Yes. Stem cells from amniotic fluid are a perfectly moral choice, and hold great promise. Nothing has yet come out of the clone-and-kill embryonic stem cell research, and nothing will.

I think there's a thread on this topic somewhere? I'll see if I can find it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Oh boy POTW do I love you!

Can I have your permission to ask the first question tomorrow when we continue the debate?of course you do - that's why I provided them.

During the debate a few people said that an embryo is not alive because it merely contains cells. A question worth asking here is how many cells make a person? If personhood is determined by cell count, then is someone who's lost a leg less of a person than someone who hasn't?

Going back to what those few people said, do you think that the embryo should be considered alive or do you think that the embryo has to reach a certain state to be considered 'life'."When does this mass of cells become human?" is a metaphysical question. There was a time that some people thought that if a particular mass of cells was wrapped in a black skin and had been purchased at the market, it wasn't human. The U.S. Supreme Court said so in the Dred Scott decision in 1957.

If we go by science, which is the only thing public policy should be based on in this matter, then a four-celled cellular mass with a distinct DNA pattern is a human - just a very small one. If someone says, "That's just a potential human", ask "when does it become a 'full' human, with rights?"

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

I used some of the things that POTW said above, so thanks for the information, it was very helpful. :)

Update on what happened during the debate:

They basically said that I was a narrow-minded conservative who doesn't care about women's rights. (which isn't true)

They said that a woman should be able to have an abortion regardless of what her husband says. (I looked at them like this-:eek:)

They said that a legless person is a person because it is out of the womb. (:rolleyes:)

Basically, they just wanted to act smart and they knew nothing about the lifetime scars that abortion can bring to some women who made the choice to end their baby's life.

[Wild Rose]

Abortion is something I agianst. Because if it were not for my birthmom making the decision not to do it, than I would not be alive. I think that is unfair that the baby gets a death certificate, but not a birth certificate. How is this natrually possiable, how can someone one die with out being born?

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

:eek: BEN! You're soooooooooo cruel! (The Libs in Australia are the good ONES!)

I know...how nice are they?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

They basically said that I was a narrow-minded conservative who doesn't care about women's rights. (which isn't true)Explain that you're very much for women's rights. Abortion kills far more women than men. This is especially true in Asian countries where boys are more highly regarded that girls, but is also true in the west.

They said that a legless person is a person because it is out of the womb.So, that's their criteria for personhood? Being out of the womb? So if someone were to assault an expectant woman who was 38 weeks along and cause the child to die, that wouldn't be murder? Even though the woman wanted the baby?

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Just a little something to remember, MRs Roe, from that famed Supreme Court Case Roe Vs. Wade which made abortion legal, has changed her stance from the pro-abortion to the Pro-life.

[Wild Rose]

Don't remind me of that. I am sooo mad about that...

[Elendil]

Just a little something to remember, MRs Roe, from that famed Supreme Court Case Roe Vs. Wade which made abortion legal, has changed her stance from the pro-abortion to the Pro-life.

hmmmm is that good?

[Wild Rose]

No. no it isn't.

[Elendil]

Why not???

[Wild Rose]

She changed it due to the fact that she was in court, and in that very Case Abortion became legal.

[Elendil]

Oh, in that case it's not.

[Catherine]

Well I don't think there is a thread like this, and I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I want to have an abortion discution.

I'm saying, truthfully that there is not ONE good reason to have an abortion. Even if there was (and there's NOT) it would still be murder.

Sometimes people abort if the doctor says the baby has brain damage. I know some people who's doctor told them that. They WOULDN"T have an abortion, and there was nothing wrong with their son at all. I've heard of that happening atlot.

I agree, abortion is the very same thing as murder. I hate when u hear about teeange single mothers who have abortions, it's their fault for getting themselves into that and they shouldn't go and murder someone else cause they made a mistake.

[Elendil]

Exacalty. Abortion stinks.

[inkspot]

I agree abortion stinks. I think we as a society have done a poor job of informing young women as to what happens in the process, and what is at risk. We can think it is "their own fault" for getting in a fix and expecting a baby they do not want, but surely they would think twice about abortion if they had been properly informed about what it is.

If you look way back in this thread, Michelle (LifeMaiden) told us what happened to her at the clinic -- the drs and nurses told her the baby was just like a "ball of snot" or something; she was never allowed to think of the little one as a child. So, if we raise a generation of girls who think that a baby is not a baby until out of the womb, then no wonder they go ahead and have an abortion.

[Elendil]

I know! *sniff*

[inkspot]

The National Right to Life Committe, Political Action Committe in the USA, has endorsed Republican candidate Fred Thompson for President. I like this because I like Fred and agree with him that abortion is wrong, and I am glad he is willing to stand up and say so. Fred is an old codger with two young children, which I also admire. And he is the actor who played Arthur Branch on one of my favorite TV shows, Law & Order.

[Elendil]

And since I wouldn't have a clue who's who, I'll just agree with you. :)

[inkspot]

And since I wouldn't have a clue who's who, I'll just agree with you. :)
Oh, thank you! Please feel free to go over to the "Please Agree with Me" thread in Duffers and agree with me some more.

Now, back on topic ... There is a practice I forget the name of, where fertility drs fertilize some eggs in the lab, then implant the healthiest one in the infertile mum in hopes she will conceive. What do we think of the rest of the fertilized eggs that don't get implanted ... are they people, and by their not being implanted, are they aborted?

This is a tricky question.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It's called in vitro fertilization. The problem with it is that it creates just such dilemmas. Understanding what we do about reproduction, we know now (as they didn't in, say, the Middle Ages) that a distinct, genetically unique human exists from the moment of conception. Not all the parts are there yet, but they will be, given time and the right circumstances. This means that, scientifically, a human exists even before being implanted in the mother's womb.

In vitro fertilization is already morally troublesome for a variety of reasons. First, it interferes with the God-designed intimacy of husband and wife. Secondly, for a fertilization "pass", several eggs are fertilized (read: humans are created). The healthiest looking are placed in the womb, the remainder are either thrown away or frozen for later. The reason several are used is because typically only a few of them actually implant in the uterine wall and start growing. If more than expected start growing, then a "selective reduction" is performed (i.e. the unwanted babies are aborted).

These are some of the reasons my Church condemns in vitro fertilization as morally unacceptable. They are reviled for this, and examples are provided of infertile couples who've had babies they "could never have had" (which, of course, nobody really knows). But this is to say the ends justify the means, and is akin to justifying chattel slavery because some of the victims end up better fed and clothed than they would have been otherwise.

[inkspot]

This is what I was wondering ...

[inked]

Pro life at the UN! Who would have thought it possible...? And with Islamic states taking front line?

Right-to-life debate unexpectedly erupts at UN

New York, Nov. 16, 2007 (C-fam.org/CWNews.com) - Perhaps for the first time ever, a debate about protecting the unborn child from abortion erupted in the UN Third Committee of the General Assembly on November 15, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) reports.

Led by mostly Muslim states, ...

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54827

[Shadow Hawk]

Sad thing though at the UN......... they hardly ever do anything.

[inked]

Yes. Darfur comes to mind, among others.

But there have been concerted attempts to get the UN to endorse abortion as unalienable right. This has not been successful thus far.

I just found it interesting that the matter comes up in a seemingly unrelated discussion by secular standards and demonstrates the inter-connectedness of right-to-life viewpoints from the most amazing directions.

[Miss.SunFlower]

Maybe i didn't express myself right. When I say too young I mean, if she gives birth, it will probably ruin her life...say 13 - 16 years. An accident, as in, the didn't want to get pregnant but did. :rolleyes:

understood, a close friend of mines birth mom was like that. That's when you put the kid up for adoption. that way you know the kids safe, and there's no murder or anything the mother would be guilty for later.

you know that leads to another point. You have to think; how does the mother feel after an abortion, I mean she just had her kid killed. Wouldn't she feel awfull about the choice she had made. IF (and I'm 13) by some accident I got pregnent, I don't think I could live with the guilt of having my child killed. Even if it was an accident.

I hate when people say it's the mom's choice. The kids a CHILD not a CHOICE. he/she may have been an accident (you must be tired of me using that word) but not a choice.

bottom line: Abortion is NOT the answer. Adoption and Abstaining (refusing to...you know) is.

[inkspot]

Yah, some studies have shown that the mom who survives an abortion is at greater risk for depression, suicide, having another abortion and other tragic stuff. There is not enough attention paid to these sad facts after the abortion.

[onlymystory]

I can speak for one of my good friends and my aunt on the aftereffects of an abortion. My friend wanted to keep her baby but she went to visit her dad and stepmom over thanksgiving last year when she was 3 months pregnant. Her stepmom told her if she didn't get the abortion she would leave her dad and her dad told her he would cut her out of her life. She still held strong but then they canceled her plane flight home, practically kidnapped her and dragged her down to the abortion clinic and still against her will (although she says she was so numb at that point that she doesn't really remember what happened) and her baby was killed. She is currently one of the most active pro-life people I know and a strong Christian but I also know that none of us are letting her be alone this week because of how raw and vulnerable she is.
My aunt on the other hand had an abortion at 16. She got pregnant and it was a complete convience abortion. About 15 years later, she and my uncle went to the doctor because they had adopted two kids and they wanted to know why she wasn't getting pregnant. My aunt had never told him about the abortion. The doctor told my uncle (without knowing that he didn't know) that the reason my aunt couldn't have kids was because of the abortion. My uncle filed for divorce the next day. My aunt has struggled with drug addiction for years because of trying to escape the memories and the images in her head. She has to have 24-7 care during the days around the anniversary each year because she has attempted suicide so many times because of her abortion. That one decision has destroyed her life.

And finally, I'm going to post a bunch of info stuff that my friend gave me so I apologize for the technical jargon but I promise its helpful. Oh, and check out Abort73.com. It's a great cause for anyone who is against abortion.

[Miss.SunFlower]

...................woah....:( that's so sad....

[Gamegoofs2]

that's really a sad story!

[Lila]

...................woah....:( that's so sad....

that's really a sad story!

I agree. I am totally pro-life... but I'm not saying that I think that people who get an abortion are "evil" or anything. One of my best friends is not pro-life, but she thinks that women should be given a decision. I can definitely understand why she believes that. I'm babbling now... :rolleyes:

[<Turkish Delight>]

I can speak for one of my good friends and my aunt on the aftereffects of an abortion. My friend wanted to keep her baby but she went to visit her dad and stepmom over thanksgiving last year when she was 3 months pregnant. Her stepmom told her if she didn't get the abortion she would leave her dad and her dad told her he would cut her out of her life. She still held strong but then they canceled her plane flight home, practically kidnapped her and dragged her down to the abortion clinic and still against her will (although she says she was so numb at that point that she doesn't really remember what happened) and her baby was killed. She is currently one of the most active pro-life people I know and a strong Christian but I also know that none of us are letting her be alone this week because of how raw and vulnerable she is.
My aunt on the other hand had an abortion at 16. She got pregnant and it was a complete convience abortion. About 15 years later, she and my uncle went to the doctor because they had adopted two kids and they wanted to know why she wasn't getting pregnant. My aunt had never told him about the abortion. The doctor told my uncle (without knowing that he didn't know) that the reason my aunt couldn't have kids was because of the abortion. My uncle filed for divorce the next day. My aunt has struggled with drug addiction for years because of trying to escape the memories and the images in her head. She has to have 24-7 care during the days around the anniversary each year because she has attempted suicide so many times because of her abortion. That one decision has destroyed her life.

And finally, I'm going to post a bunch of info stuff that my friend gave me so I apologize for the technical jargon but I promise its helpful. Oh, and check out Abort73.com. It's a great cause for anyone who is against abortion.

That is so sad. :( I hate abortion.. it is such an awful thing. It usually hurts women very badly afterward.

[Wild Rose]

Wow.....That's sad.

I'm pro life because my birthmom didn't listen to her peers about it. She let me live. And that's the whole reason I'm pro-life is because of her small decision to let me live.

[Lila]

Wow.....That's sad.

I'm pro life because my birthmom didn't listen to her peers about it. She let me live. And that's the whole reason I'm pro-life is because of her small decision to let me live.

That's inspiring. :)

[Shadow Hawk]

One of my brothers had heart problems before he was born........ The doctor had told our mom that she should abort one of us "To insure that the other two live".


Even now she stills tells us that she could have never made that decision.

[Rock4Life]

At my high school, senior year we are required to write and give a pro-life speech..I didn't realize how much of my class wouldn't be there if it weren't for the strong faith and values of their parents..many of my class mates gave personal stories of how doctors predicted "complications" with their mother's pregnancy when having them or their siblings...really puts things into perspective when listening to them...

[Elendil]

One of my brothers had heart problems before he was born........ The doctor had told our mom that she should abort one of us "To insure that the other two live".


Even now she stills tells us that she could have never made that decision.

the doc said my brother would have down syndrome, & wanted my mum to abort. He doesn't. :D

[Copperfox]

I have a friend named Skip, who as a newborn baby had such physical defects that some thought he would have been "better off" aborted. But Skip not only lived on, he grew up to be a kung-fu instructor.

[jesusfreak]

There are so many inspiring stories on this thread. I wish I had one of my own, but I don't... so... Well, God bless all of you who were blessed with life. = ) God is working through you and will make your life me something. Even if it doesn't feel like it right know. He is using your life. = )

If only we could show this thread to all the Pro-choice people... man... what a difference... all these testimonies... i just hope one person's point of view was changed by this. = )

[Nightfire]

I'm pro-life. It's not fair to kill a child who hasn't ever felt love, joy, and even though it's sad, pain. A child should never be deprived the priveleges of living, especially one who doesn't even know what it feels like.

[onlymystory]

Alright, here's that big technical stuff I promised. It will take a couple posts.

Abortion is always wrong


(thanks Kelly, this is really good)
PART ONE: ARGUMENTS CONCERNING LIFE, HUMANITY, AND PERSONHOOD
1. "It is uncertain when human life begins; that's a religious question that cannot be answered by science."

1a. If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

1b. Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

1c. Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception.

1d. Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.

1e. The possibility of human cloning does nothing to discredit the fact that all humans conceived in the conventional manner began their lives at conception.


2. "The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman's body, like her tonsils or appendix. You can't seriously believe a frozen embryo is an actual person."

2a. A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn's genetic code differs from his mother's.

2b. The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals.

2c. The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth.

2d. Being inside something is not the same as being part of something.

2e. Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence.

2f. There is substantial scientific reason to believe frozen embryos are persons, and should be granted the same rights as older, larger and less vulnerable persons.


3. "The unborn is an embryo or a fetus-just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception-not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child."

3a. Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

3b. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.

3c. From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple but very complex.

3d. Prior to the first trimester, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have.

3e. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves.

3f. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance.

3g. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is-a human being.

3h. No matter how much better it sounds, "terminating a pregnancy" is still terminating a life.


4. "The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one; it's like a blueprint not a house, an acorn not an oak tree."

4a. The ovum and sperm are each a product of another's body; unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity.

4b. The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life but of an actual life.

4c. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning.

4d. Comparing preborns and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading.

4e. Even if the analogy were valid, scientifically speaking an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person.


5. "The unborn isn't a person, with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal, and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals?"

5a. Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

5b. Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence.

5c. The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

5d. It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies.

5e. If the unborn's value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals.

5f. Even if someone believes people are no better than animals, why would they abhor the killing of young animals, while advocating the killing of young children?

5g. It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

5h. Arguments against the personhood of the unborn are shrouded in rationalization and denial.


6. "A fetus isn't a person until implantation or until quickening or viability or when it first breathes."

6a. Implantation is a gauge of personhood only if location, nutrition, and interfacing with others makes us human.

6b. Quickening is a gauge of personhood only if someone's reality or value is dependent upon being noticed by another.

6c. Viability is an arbitrary concept. Why not associate personhood with heartbeat, brain waves, or something else?

6d. The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually babies may be viable from the point of conception.

6e. In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others.

6f. A child's "breathing," her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth.

6g. Someone's helplessness or dependency should motivate us to protect her, not to destroy her.


7. "Obviously life begins at birth. That's why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and why we don't have funerals following miscarriages."

a. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.

7b. Some people do have funerals after a miscarriage.

7c. Funerals are an expression of our subjective attachment to those who have died, not a measurement of their true worth.

7d. There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.


8. "No one can really know that human life begins before birth."

8a. Children know that human life begins before birth.

8b. Pregnant women know that human life begins before birth.

8c. Doctors know that human life begins before birth.

8d. Abortionists know that human life begins before birth.

8e. Feminists know that human life begins before birth.

8f. Society knows that human life begins before birth.

8g. The media know that human life begins before birth.

8h. Prochoice advocates know that human life begins before birth.

8i. If we can't know that human life begins before birth, how can we know whether it begins at birth or later?

[onlymystory]

PART TWO: ARGUMENTS CONCERNING RIGHTS AND FAIRNESS

9. "Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life support system for someone else."

9a. Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

9b. The right to live doesn't increase with age and size, otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

9c. The comparison between baby's rights and mother's rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother's lifestyle, as opposed to the baby's life.

9d. It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.


10. "Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman's choice by prohibiting abortion."

10a. Any civilized society restricts the individual's freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

10b. "Freedom to choose" is too vague for meaningful discussion; we must always ask, "Freedom to choose what?"

10c. People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake.

10d. The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

10e. Everyone is prochoice when it comes to the choices prior to pregnancy and after birth.

10f. Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose.


11. "Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right."

11a. Abortion assures that 650,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies.

11b. Not all things done with a person's body are right, nor should they all be legally protected.

11c. Prolifers consistently affirm true reproductive rights.

11d. Even prochoicers must acknowledge that the "right to control one's body" argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being.

11e. Too often "the right to control my life" becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage.

11f. Control over the body can be exercised to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

11g. It is demeaning to a woman's body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and "out of control" condition.


12. "Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. It's no one else's business. Everyone has a constitutional right to privacy."

12a. The Constitution does not contain a right to privacy.

12b. Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights.

12c. The encouragement or assistance of a doctor does not change the nature, consequences, or morality of abortion.

12d. The father of the child is also responsible for the child and should have a part in this decision.

12e. The father will often face serious grief and guilt as a result of abortion. Since his life will be significantly affected, shouldn't he have something to say about it?


13. "It's unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy or the pain of giving up a child for adoption."

13a. Pregnancy is not a sin. Society should not condemn and pressure an unmarried mother into abortion, but should help and support her.

13b. The poor choice of premarital sex is never compensated for by the far worse choice of killing an innocent human being.

13c. One person's unfair or embarrassing circumstances do not justify violating the rights of another person.

13d. Adoption is a fine alternative that avoids the burden of child raising, while saving a life and making a family happy; it is tragic that adoption is so infrequently chosen as an alternative to abortion.

13e. The reason that adoption may be painful is the same reason that abortion is wrong-a human life is involved.


14. "Abortion rights are fundamental for the advancement of women. They are essential to having equal rights with men."

14a. Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

14b. Some active feminists still vigorously oppose abortion.

14c. Women's rights are not inherently linked to the right to abortion.

14d. The basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to women.

14e. Many of the assumptions that connect women's welfare with abortion, the Pill and free sex have proven faulty.

14f. Some of the abortion-rights strategies assume female incompetence and subject women to ignorance and exploitation.

14g. Abortion has become the most effective means of sexism ever devised, ridding the world of multitudes of unwanted females.


15. "The circumstances of many women leave them no choice but to have an abortion."

15a. Saying they have no choice is not being prochoice, but pro-abortion.

15b. Those who are truly prochoice must present a woman with a number of possible choices, rather than just selling the choice of abortion.

15c. "Abortion or misery" is a false portrayal of the options; it keeps women from pursuing-and society from providing-positive alternatives.


16. "I'm personally against abortion, but I'm still prochoice. It's a legal alternative and we don't have the right to keep it from anyone. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but we shouldn't try to impose it on others."

16a. To be prochoice about abortion is to be proabortion.

16b. The only good reason for being personally against abortion is a reason that demands we be against other people choosing to have abortions.

16c. What is legal is not always right.

16d. How can we tell people they are perfectly free to believe abortion is the killing of children, but they are not free to act as if what they believe is really true?