First I have never had a woman come to me to talk about abortion. I have found those who have had abortions don't readily talk about it, even with a pastor. It always comes up as they deal with serious problems, depression, or just feeling like they finally need to open up to someone. My wife is always with me when I talk to women. Just seems ethical. I have talked to women who changed their mind. It is not difficult to find them, most are single parents, I don't know of any I have talked to that went to the clinic and then changed their minds. They were pressured (admittedly both directions) and then decided against it. Most of my comments though are directed towards the time I spend in the neighborhoods and hangouts. I do alot of this. Getting to know high school and college age kids especially. I don't bring up abortion, but when you are discussing problems and pressures these young adults face it often eventually gets to it. Also over 20 yrs. I have been asked by parents to talk to hundreds of young people who are in circumstances, having problems etc. Most I have talked to have never been in a church, unless it was for an sacrament or such the like, but not regular attendees. I have formed opinions based upon my own experiences out talking to people. One thing I notice as a pastor is lots of people get out and talk to people on occasion like right before an election (trying to get votes) or maybe to sell something or get some city ordinance passed. But few people are out there just helping and sticking with people. But that is what pastors are supposed to do. We are out there. I've visited far more people who don't attend church than do. As far as people in our church who come on Sundays. Well I hear alot more of their 'stories' because we are like a family. Mostly they were some of the ones I met in the neighborhoods. This is certainly biased on my part, but I don't remember finding too many average women in our community who support abortion who have gone through the experience. Most I have talked to on this subject have regret and certainly wouldn't make the kind of pro-choice arguments you get from men on the board here. I don't think pro-choice implies a lack of understanding. I am in a unique position to hear the stories. Most politicians and pro-choice supporters (and I am sure pro-life supporters) are not in my position. It is what it is. That is my opinion and my experience.
I am not a member of any pro-life group but some of the arguments to save owls, whales, octopus, wolves, and other species sound pretty good when you see the efforts made to ensure their reproductive capabilities are protected and honored. The save the wildlife people sure understand how horrible it is when evil people try to stop endangered animals from being able to reproduce. They are trying hard to pass legislation to save both the unborn animals and their mothers. We could all think of the unborn child with the same compassion and think about what would it take to have fewer of them mutilated in clinics. We are the only species I am aware of that avoids the responsibility of our own reproductive process by use of lethal force. link link2 link link4
I'm not saying they don't know how, but maybe if there was more ubiquitous access to contraception, we would see a drop in rates. I would suspect that we will also see a drop in rates as the Plan B pill hits the shelves. I am certain that if we committed the resources currently used to fight against each other to improve sex ed. (perhaps expanded to include information about abortion and the various problems that go with it) and provide more access to contraception, we would be able to positively affect abortion rates.
He basically called men Sluts and Child Support was the consequence I generally was trying to show him how ridiculous that was by reversing the statement we tend to say BS about men . . that when we replace it with a woman folx would think is rude and unruly Rocket River
Not really ones Life is greatly change in both cases maybe a a matter of degrees The point is. .. As long as you allow abortions . . you should allow the male equivalent .. which is . . being a dead beat dad to me . . . a Woman who gets an abortion is a Dead beat Mom except the kid doesn't even get a chance to live I don't beleive in Dead beats. . but i beleive in equality Rocket River
OK- Let's be clear. Most unwanted pregnancies caused by husband and wife in traditional marriages do not result in abortions. The majority of abortions involve single women and a very small % of married women who are pregnant by an outside partner. The unwanted part comes from either the mother, father or outside parties. To prevent unwanted pregnancy you have limited options since 'unwanted' itself can only be defined by the mother or father. So here are the options- 1. Reduce the occurance of pre- (and extra-)marital sex 2. Increase the correct (education/indoctrination) use of contraceptives 3. The fathers can step up and take responsibility thus going to the 'want' side at least as far as the father is concerned, for instance taking financial and social responsibility 4. The mother can step up and take responsibility to 'want' and carry to term. If there are other ways they escape me at the moment. Most of the focus and dollars to date have been given to the #2 option which includes contraceptives and education. Do we need more money and focus to know that the % of 'unwanted' pregnancies are steadily increasing? I do not believe planned parenthood, abortion clinics, abortions doctors, feminists, liberals, democrats, all the pro-choice groups combined, young girls, sex education or horny men are to blame for abortion and unwanted pregnancy in America. And probably no one on the BBS wants to know my opinion as to who really is at fault on this. There is another solution I did not list.
yes, yes, yes and yes. add in universal healthcare and education and the incentive to abort might go down. when you are poor, with few prospects in sight, abortion might look like the only option.
Don't some adopting couples actually pay for babies? and the pre-requisite healthcare? and the delivery expense? How cool would it be to have a job where you got to offer someone a lifetime of happiness for a few months work?
I can't speak for everyone that is pro-life, but I think we should both try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies AND outlaw abortion. I don't know what gave people the idea that it is an either/or proposition. There should be sex education at a point before kids start having sex (including education on how to give up the baby for adoption if you get pregnent and don't want to keep it), there should be free access to contraceptives, and there should be no access to abortion, unless the mothers LIFE is at significantly greater risk than an average pregnancy.
Why do those who support a woman's "right to choose" view women as such weak beings without free will? They made the choice just as the man did and they should live with the consequences of their actions, in my opinion. If a woman is able to escape her responsibility, the man should be able to as well. I wouldn't view either as moral but it would be an equal dereliction of responsibility.
If a woman smokes and gets cancer should we prevent treatment so she lives with the consequences of her actions? If someone stays out in the cold and gets the flu should we withhold antibiotics so they have to live with the consequences of their actions? I do appreciate that there are some differences but arguing that we should 'make them pay' for their actions seems to me to be a bit punitive and excessive when viewed outside the framework of other issues. Always this question will come down to the definition of life. Honestly. I would suggest that arguing other avenues is not particularly productive. Of course arguing the definition of life doesn't seem to be too productive either. But if a fetus is defined as a person then they should be forced to take care of their baby because it is a person, not because they need to be responsible for getting it on. If it is not defined as a person then forcing someone to make it become a person and take care of it would seem to be like the bizare and arbitrary punishments in my cancer and flu analogies.
I'm not sure I would equate a pregnancy with cancer or a flu (and from your post I don't believe you do either). I simply believe that if one engages in an action one should be prepared to deal with the consequences and not ask others to take that responsibility away from them.
Apples to oranges. A pregnancy isn't a disease to be cured (in the minds of all but a few zero-population-growth folks).
For the purpose of the analogy it doesn't make a difference. If someone loves to eat Twinkies and gets all chubby (alteration in body composition and hormones, not unlike pregnancy) do we force them not to go work out on the grounds that they are trying to avoid living with the results? Forcing someone to ‘live with the results of their actions’ if we define it as a non-person makes no sense. In that instance it is only marginally different from additional body mass from eating too much. In fact under that definition it would be like repairing a bad boob job or getting liposuction, both legal and common surgeries that don't have people up in arms. It is only valid if the fetus is defined as a human being, and then we don't make them parents because they did a dirty deed. We make them parents because there is a child at stake. If you are forcing them to keep the child as some sort of modern day "Scarlet Letter" I can't see how your position makes any more sense than it did in that book. Should we start branding criminals again? Maybe go with the proverbial Islamic 'cut off the hands of a thief' approach? (I know this isn't the universal Islamic punishment for theft. I'm just using it as an example.)
