A little late to the party, but pro-life here. It is a *hard* issue, and I do feel for situations where the pregnancy was caused by rape, but I don't believe that arguing based on the exceptions is valid. I believe that there are two questions that generally decide what group you fall into: 1. When does life begin (which was mentioned before) 2. Do you believe that you have a soul? The first question should obviously determine when you believe that abortion is acceptable. The second question, if answered yes, makes all discussion moot. Having a soul is what separates humans from animals. Since you can't determine when a baby gets a soul,(although most would argue it's at conception), then you cannot say that abortion is ever ok. Naturally, if you answered no to the second question, then it is irrelevent to you. In that case, I have a follow-up question: should we be held responsible for our actions? Most unwanted children are the direct result of irresponsible behaviour. I believe that it is apalling that for some people, abortion is nothing more than an undo button.
Yep - I thought they were in favor of it to? Watch the special on MTV today at 3pm if you get a chance.
Ah, looking at the world through <b>dimsie</b>-colored glasses. I didn't know that there was a militia ("all those") of pro-Lifers going around killing abortionists. I thought it was a few outlaws. Yes, abortions are down because the truth about them is being revealed. Since when does taking away one choice make someone "anti-choice." As far as I can tell, we have a lot of choices taken away from us every day-- and only a few of those actually save another life. Ironically, abortion is <b>not</b> one of them <b>yet</b>. There are also fewer providers because many of the med students refuse to learn and certainly to perform the procedure. Of course PP is pro sex-ed/birth control. No one enjoys abortions, but nor does everyone stand up and say "No" to them either out of awe of the sanctity of an innocent life undeserving of victimhood.
I understand what you're saying from a Judeo-Christian perspective. But I too believe we have souls. (I also believe animals have souls.) I'm also pro-choice. So I guess, for me, that belief doesn't make all discussion moot.
Can you explain that? Is your commitment to a meatless diet compelled by both health concerns and empathy for the animals? If not, would it be okay to abort calves and eat them? I daresay you would consider me a brute-- even if I just aborted them and didn't do the eating.
Well, that would be consistent and I think we can safely predict her answer. The angle I'm looking for is the existence of the soul in the unborn child. I'm curious to know where she stands on that.
I wouldn't consider you anything -- I've made my own choices as to how I best want to live my life according to my personal beliefs. Just as, I suspect, you've made your own choices according to your own beliefs. I don't judge people for what they eat, because I don't know who they are or what their life situation is -- so how can I possibly judge? The same, for me, is true of abortion. I hold life sacred (I won't even kill insects 99% of the time) and wouldn't consider an abortion for myself. However, I'm not blind to the fact that we live in an imperfect world -- sex-education isn't always available, reliable birth control can be expensive to obtain and rape/incest are still occuring at an alarming rate. Therefore, I don't feel it's my place to judge those who seek to have abortions. I don't live in their lives and I can't understand their situations. I don't think screaming at women is the best way to stop abortions. We have to get to the root cause. Offer early and comprehensive sex-education, make birth control ultra cheap and easy to get, increase women's pay to match men's so girls have an incentive to stay in school and be successful, and offer a better adoption system for those mothers that do carry their babies to term. I think a society that cares well for all of its adult citizens is also the best society for babies, both born and yet-to-be born.
Amen, so to speak. If we really have two separate camps on the issue, maybe they can be somewhat united in the ideal goal of having zero abortions. While one camp may prefer to legislate this, the other wants to achieve it via steps like those above. By the way, speaking of souls and animals, I guess I'm speaking as a heathen science nerd here, but I really don't get the separation that so many people like to make. Animals have shown self-consciousness, language, a whole range of emotions (see Coco the research gorilla, who cried for hours, grieved for days after her pet kitten was run over by a car). If one believes strongly in heaven, I understand from a religious perspective having only humans allowed, but biologically this line we draw seems arbitrary to me.
I'm only poking my nose into other people's business because they are killing little unborn children. In other circumstances and to some people, that is heroic. It's very commonplace actually. You still didn't answer my question about the soul? Are you pro-Choice for economic reasons while choosing to ignore the biological facts of life? That's what it sounds like. My principal interest is in saving lives not judging people. Why do you think I spend a moment's time or energy on judging people? As I've said before, I once married a woman who had had two abortions-- acts which she very much regretted I might add. I would rather have married her with two beautiful chldren than two heartaches... if you know what I mean. IF you think it renders my arguments feeble, think again. It is a failure at distracting from my central message. Unborn chldren have rights too and a right to life is fundamental. I've not screamed at anyone. All your suggestions are great and valid, but that doesn't mean we have to allow the killing of unborn children until all those conditions are met does it?
Giddyup -- No offense, but I'm really not intersted in debating abortion with you. I think we all know where you stand on the issue -- you've made your beliefs very clear. That's great. But your rigid stance also makes honest discussion very difficult. So you've said your piece and I've said mine. Let's just leave it at that.
Nice post Mrs. JB. Does anyone think that if the consequences for creating life were clear, legislated, and a standard part of sex-ed classes that it might make kids think about what they are doing a little more? Edited for additional content: Now that I stop to think about it, isn't part of our problem (perhaps a large part), the lack of a perfect solution for birth control? Abstinence works very well, but it's obviously not THE solution for our society. Perhaps pro-life advocates should be spending their time and energy focusing on how to prevent lives from being created. That would mean: 1. Funding birth-control research. The companies who provide the current products have no driving motivation to make them that much better - they make money on them right now. 2. Working with education programs. 3. Creating a world/society where young teenage mothers would have a decent support structure. After writing #s 2 and 3, I realized that they are close to Mrs. JB's points, but they still stand as options for what people who feel that they need to do something about abortion could take. I guess it's just that when some people see something wrong, they feel the need to fight that wrong, rather than rectifying the situation that creates the problem.
This is what makes the abortion debate a never ending issue. Both sides are very set in their ways. Pro lifers will seemingly never convince enough Pro choicers to change their mind and vice versa. Both sides have their arguments and both sides can generally see the reasons the others argue their case even if they disagree with those reasons. So, the question becomes: What would it take for a vast number of either side to change their minds and give the nation (world) an overwhelming consensus on the issue? Unfortunately, the answer is probably "nothing forseeable". I suppose if God suddenly appeared before the masses and gave His views, opinions would change in a heartbeat, but other than that, Pro choicers may change their minds once they have a child, and Pro lifers may change their minds if they are close to one who is raped or a mother whose life is endangered by her pregnancy. Lil Pun An interesting question to pursue in your research is why the Supreme Court allows states to make their own laws regarding the death penalty, but does not allow the states to make their own laws regarding abortion. (I do understand that some states have laws regarding abortions per se, but in general abortion is legal in all states at some point in the mother's pregnancy).
One of the driving groups behind Pro life is the Catholic Church. Any type of birth control is against the precepts of the Catholic Faith. The only 'acceptable' method of birth control is "Natural Family Planning" which is a variant of the "Rhythm method". It may have other names, but, in short, you can generally tell when a woman is fertile based on certain bodily characteristics that occur throughout the month. Practicing birth control using this method is actually better than the pill. Education is a must. In my opinion "Natural Family Planning" should be taught in high school. It certainly can be taught from an "agnostic" point of view as more of a biology class instead of a faith based class. It is an excellent tutor for men and women both to understand the workings of the woman's body. Generally, all women who have attended this type of class come out saying "so that's what that means....". A support structure should exist for all mothers. We have one at our church both pre and post natal. In Minnesota, you can also drop a newborn off at a hospital (within a few days of birth), "no questions asked". The child will then be placed for adoption.
I agree it is a terribly divisive issue that brings into play all of the big hot-button issues (religion, politics, gender equity, etc...). No wonder we all get so firmly entrenched in our own positions. To answer your question: Personally, my pro-choice stance would soften considerably if I felt that women were better supported in our country. As I mentioned earlier, I think much better sex-ed, birth control, etc... can lead to a decrease in the number of unplanned pregnancies. However, for those women who do become pregnant unintentionally, I would like to see far greater resources available to these women if they carry the babies to term. I'm troubled by the fact that many conservative pro-life advocates are the same people who turn out to vote down every school bond, health care, head start, school lunch and welfare issue on the ballot of it will in any way increase their taxes. Often the same people who implore women to not have abortions will complain that there are too many single "welfare moms" leeching off the system. What kind of message does this send to a mother-to-be wrestling with the issue of abortion? Does the pro-life love of children expire once the baby is out of the womb? If these issues were seriously and thoughtfully addressed, I would definitely have to re-think my current opinion.
Making abortion illegal would only be the first step. Creating public policy wrt miscarriage would have to be one of the followup steps. I can not see a tenable public policy wrt miscarriage, especially for "at fault" miscarriages (like taking the morning-after pill or engaging in other high risk activities). The state would be obligated to minimally pursue mothers who caused their miscarriage by their own actions (since it is premediated murder and no different than the mother going to an abortion clinic). I can not see how the state would even know when these killings occurred (without a massive invasion of privacy which would be acceptable by none.) Shying away from answering this question would show a casual disregard for the consequences of making abortions illegal.
At faut miscarriages would just be considered abortions. The sale of the morning after pill would be made illegal and a simplew drug test would be administered to the mother of a miscarried baby to check for it in her system. I only meant that there would be no law wrt naturally occuring miscarriages. I don't see the massive invasion of privacy unless you would consider peeing in a cup one. If so my privacy was massively invaded by both of my last two employers.
How would the state determine the women who needed testing? BTW, presence of the morning after pill in a woman's blood is not in and of itself evidence that an abortion was recently performed (only attempted).
