The End of All Restrictions on Abortion?
by Motte Brown on 10/15/2008 at 2:39 PM
On his blog today, Dr. Albert Mohler addresses "fetus fatigue" as it relates to this year's presidential election. And he does so by acknowledging that some of reasons for it are understandable.
I can understand the fatigue. So little progress seems to have been made. So much ground has been lost. So many unborn babies have been aborted. The culture has turned increasingly hostile to this commitment, especially among the young. There is a sense that many want to get on with other issues.
There is fatigue and frustration with the Republican Party and with limited progress. There is frustration with mixed signals and missed opportunities. There is the acknowledgment that we have too often been told what we want to hear and then ignored.
Many of our commentators have voiced similar frustrations. And they've concluded that it doesn't really matter which party's in power when it comes to abortion, particularly the presidency. But they're wrong.
As Dr. Mohler points out, this election will almost certainly decide whether legislation called the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, which would cancel all current state, federal, and local regulations on abortions, including those concerning parental notification. The result would be a "radical increase in the numbers of abortions." A fact the abortion industry concedes.
Dr. Mohler ends with this:
The question comes down to this: How many lives are we willing to forfeit -- to write off as expendable -- in order to "move on" to other issues of concern? There is no way to avoid that question and remain morally serious. The voting booth is no place to hide.
1. Anonymous said the following at 3:51 PM on Oct 15:
This reminds me of a recent issue of my university's student paper, in which the issue of abortion was mentioned in an opinion article about one of the VP candidates. As expected, one commentator disagreed with the author's assertion that Roe v. Wade "is ultimately the only one necessary to understand the fundamental social issues that have plagued our nation in the latter half of this past century." Upon seeing this comment, I forced the issue by replying anonymously.
------------------------------
The following main points were mentioned in my reply:
* The author's assertion is not that far-fetched. To show this, I conducted a calculation on the "life expectancy of a fetus" is given, using the assumption that an abortion reduces the life expectancy from the national average from 78 to zero. (This simplification thus circumvents the philosophical debate on when life begins.)
Result: Down to 62.4 years after adjusting for "1 abortion per 4 live births."
* I then re-did the calculations using the abortion statistics for African Americans to show that abortion is arguably the worst promoter of institutional racism in the U.S.:
After taking into the account of life expectancy differences from public health studies (~7 years below the national average) AND abortion (472 per 1000 life births), the adjusted life expectancy for a Black fetus in the U.S. is just 48.2 years, which is the same as that of Somalia.
------------------------------
==> It has been 5 days since I posted my comment, and apparently the post isn't infuriating enough to receive an angry reply. Then again, in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have self-censored my post to exclude the inflammatory (but defensible) conclusion:
"So, thanks to the abortions legalized by Roe v. Wade, African Americans now live 38% less of a life than White Americans. Logically, this leads to the conclusion that Roe v. Wade is the worst Supreme Court decision in the history of our country, one that is far more racist than Plessy v. Ferguson or Korematsu v. United States. Bottom line: as long as minority populations are so severely hurt by the legality of abortion, the kind of racial reconciliation that politicians talk about can never take place. The solution to this problem is obvious."
2. Jethro said the following at 3:54 PM on Oct 15:
Is this a gentle prod to encourage people to vote a certain way?
3. Ashley said the following at 4:40 PM on Oct 15:
The problem is those who believe in a woman's/family's choice, and that it should not be government controlled - much like parenting or other decisions left solely to the family. The idea makes complete sense to leave government control out of it, and leave it up to the discretion of families. Not that I would ever consider it, but if you imagine putting yourself in a young woman's shoes, considering abortion (for whatever reason) would you really want the government dictating that you must do something? Even if I as that young woman, believed abortion was wrong, I would still maybe think that the government controlling my decision was disdainful.
HOWEVER, on the other side of the coin, the government maintains control in the case of child abuse. Though usually, abuse is within the family and most of the time the abusive parent or parents may not be incarcerated, extra-familial child abuse is usually prosecuted as a serious crime, and sometimes intra-familial abuse. Perhaps everyone that is anti-abortion (which I agree, abortion is wrong) should try to appeal in the way that it IS child abuse. You hear about people going around saying it is murder, well, maybe this needs to be explained more eloquently in a way that strongly states: "this is child abuse, and this is wrong". Point out the hypocrisy in a non-attacking way, and attempt to persuade.
And as for this and other issues, I want to point out where everyone is so often ignorant. Why do people get abortions in the first place? They get pregnant, usually out of wedlock. Why were they having sex out of wedlock? Probably to fill voids left by parents or others in their life. So where is the problem? It starts in families. We need to address families and parenting, if we want to fix or change any other issue. Start with the root, and it will trickle out. So when you focus on education, when you focus on educating parents to parent and giving families support and help they need, you raise better children - children that are educated and can make informed decisions. So, we need to focus there if we want to change anything else, since we are so influenced by our environment. Everything needs to be put in perspective and addressed as such.
4. DP said the following at 8:22 PM on Oct 15:
This election is over. Now what do we do for the next four years to help with this issue?
The book of James might have something to say about this...
5. Jeremy said the following at 8:29 PM on Oct 15:
The Freedom of Choice Act is Congressional legislation that is supported by a small minority in Congress. Who the president is has absolutely no effect on this legislation, because it will not make it through Congress. I think this perfectly illustrates the point that the presidential election is far less important than many other political events (in this case, Congressional elections).
6. BDB said the following at 9:37 PM on Oct 15:
Yep. Starting to look that way.
7. Adam said the following at 7:26 AM on Oct 16:
Hey Motte,
While I disagree with Albert Mohler's views on marriage and children, he is right on here. I am concerned that, in this election, people are facing a crisis, and they are willing to give up their freedoms in order to get economic security. Abortion is a major issue, yea, fundamental issue. I would rather live in a great depression than to have a president who believes murdering children is ok, and legalization of the perverse action of homosexuality is ok.
Times of trouble are usually when people give up their freedoms. It is a sad thing to see, but this is one of the main reasons the German people put Adolf Hitler in office. He promised them the same kind of security, and they bit. Now, I am not saying that one candidate would be as bad as Hitler, but what Mohler is pointing out is that we must be careful to consider these kinds of issues when we vote for candidates, and not selfishly expect the government to be our benefactor that gives us financial security.
In fact, I think that a great depression would do this country some good. It would be a major challange to their materialism, and it would really challange the selfish, self centered culture in which we live to look outside of itself for security. Now, government has a legitimate role to play, most certainly. However, ultimately we need to trust that faithfulness to God and his ability to "supply all our needs according to his riches in glory" [Philippians 4:19] is what is most important. That is the way to avoid overlooking this issue in this election.
God Bless,
Adam
8. obewan said the following at 9:55 AM on Oct 16:
">>legislation called the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law, which would cancel all current state, federal, and local regulations on abortions, including those concerning parental notification.<<"
------------------------------------
I agree that sounds terrible, but not to be contrary, I would remind people that there is only one party with a platform to end all abortions, and it is not one of the major two.
The lesser of two evils choice says "let the states decide". In my opinion, that is only one step removed from "remove all resitrictions", since "liberal" states would be free to do just that. Hence, my frustration, and temptation to cast a third party vote in protest. Now the question becomes, which party am I removing a vote FROM? It is a matter of debate.
9. B. Minich said the following at 11:48 AM on Oct 16:
Holly (#7),
I can appreciate the frustration. However, there are appreciable difference between the political parties on this issue, and I would say that the Republicans have been the best major pro-life party. I don't understand calling it all a wash to vote for the Democrats - it just isn't true.
Now, that being said, I'm probably voting third party anyway, espicially since I live in a state that was never in doubt in the Presidential race. A good old fashioned protest vote never hurt, right?
10. BDB said the following at 12:08 PM on Oct 16:
obewan (#6) wrote:
>>since "liberal" states would be free to do just that. <<
You're using the future tense-the liberal states have already done that. Past tense.
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, liberal states will keep abortion legal. The situation will only change if the people are persuaded that it is wrong.
11. obewan said the following at 12:41 PM on Oct 16:
">>Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, liberal states will keep abortion legal. The situation will only change if the people are persuaded that it is wrong.<<"
--------------------------------
BDB: I think that was a better way of putting the point I was trying to make. I would see endless court battles over the issue.
I suppose we should still fight the good fight though.
12. BDB said the following at 12:57 PM on Oct 16:
Holly (#7) wrote:
>>If you truly believe that THIS time, THIS time they'll do something about it, you're like a small child wishing for a pony from Santa Claus.<<
Well, I'm not a single-issue voter. But I do see judges constantly doing anti-Christian things. The California Supreme Court recently magically finding a constitutional right for gay marriage is the most recent example. And this even though the liberal legislature already passed the civil unions legislation. Proposition 8 on the ballot is now simply a matter of whether they get to call it "marriage." All the rights are there either way.
That's why it matters. Judges matter. I do think that certain candidates woefully underestimated how concerned people are about health care, and that may cost them the election. Making sure that good judges get a hearing matters.
13. Sammy said the following at 1:02 PM on Oct 16:
Why don't the government get out of people lives and let people make their own descision. If a woman want to have an abortion let her have it her problem, if a person wants to wear fur and be a vegetarian, their problem. Why do people keep trying to make others conform to thier rules or belief. People are individuals and should be free to make their own descision whether or not there is a consequence. Have all the abortions you want, I will do it too if I have to and don't try to tell me all the stuff about right to life. Some of these same eggs that were not aborted mature to become to become criminals who didn't deserve to live. Free world, free minds, free choice.
14. Shue said the following at 1:06 PM on Oct 16:
Abortion is not wrong, it's my choice if I want to.
15. Adam said the following at 1:31 PM on Oct 16:
Well, it looks like my previous post tripped on the political line... let's try a different angle!
A few years ago I was a student at an awesome Bible College in Portland, Or. Someone showed up one day with a box of Krispy Kreme donuts. There was a huge clamor for them. I was duly impressed. There wasn't a Krispy Kreme store for literally hundreds of miles, and I had never tried one before. It was fantastic.
About a year later, Krispy Kreme decided to open up a couple stores in Portland. There were a couple hundred cars parked outside many hours before they even opened! The demand was unbelievable! Even a few days later, you still had to wait twenty or thirty minutes just to get a donut.
If you decided to go into one of the stores today, there might be 2 or 3 people in front of you. Wait times are pretty much non-existent. What used to be clamored for many people are tired of.
The point is, when something is scarce it is often very much wanted. If a book is about to be banned from library, the popularity of it shoots up - regardless of the topic.
When I look at abortion, something like the Freedom of Choice act probably would increase abortion - at first. Then it would drop off substantially. Is there evidence that this might be the case? Some.
In Europe, the abortion rate is among the lowest in the world. Abortion is open and legal with few restrictions there.
In parts of Africa and Latin America, the abortion rates are about 3 times higher despite abortion restrictions.
Now, the relationship between abortion rates and restrictions might be due to another cause, such as socio-economic factors. But there does seem to be a link between greater restriction and greater demand for abortion. The FOCA may increase abortions, but I haven't seen any hard numbers that it wouldn't temporarily cause a spike, and then a huge dip in abortions... just like with Krispy Kremes.
Regardless, I find myself quite disillusioned this election. Yes, I do have fetus fatigue. Where was the "freedom of life act" when the supposedly pro-life party was in power? Is the FOCA just a political farce from the other side to scare people into electing them? Then, once they are in, the status quo continues? Is it a bet worth taking? Only time will tell.
16. KeepinItReal said the following at 1:35 PM on Oct 16:
"Some of these same eggs that were not aborted mature to become to become criminals who didn't deserve to live."
That's one of the most AMAZING lines of reasoning I've read on Boundless in a while. Thanks for the laugh!!
Now go back to school and get some sort of an education.
"Abortion is not wrong, it's my choice if I want to."
Ha ha you sound like an Internet Troll to me. Go lurk on some other forum. Sorry, I just can't imagine such ignorance being slipped through the cracks of Boundless. Oh wait. It has. Too late.
17. RB said the following at 1:42 PM on Oct 16:
To Ashley, Sammy and Shue -
The government legislates against many things, murder being among them. If you believe that abortion is murder (and I do) then we should hope (and vote accordingly) that our government bans this procedure entirely and punishes those who don't comply.
To people who aren't sure whether or not life begins at conception - what else would the embryo be if not the beginning of human life?? A washcloth?
So if you are ENDING a human life, that would be murder. And last time I checked most people agree that murder is wrong.
18. J. Tucker said the following at 2:08 PM on Oct 16:
Sammy(#12):
I'm taking your bait. But where to start... I'll do the emotional response first, and then get to the logical and rational debate.
First off, everyone, and I do mean everyone, "deserves" to live from the moment of conception, because we are all beautifully and wonderfully made. The value that you put on human life with your statements is disgustingly low.
Second, by your same argument, some of those "eggs" mature to grow up to be wonderful, loving, caring, intelligent people. Further, EVERY baby has the possibiliy of becoming a bad person, not just the ones that are considered for abortion. In that same vein, EVERY baby has the possibility of becoming a good person. How much human capital has our country lost because someone who would have grown to be a brilliant thinker was drowned in saline? How many beautiful singers or dancers were carved up inside their mothers?
Your arguments assume that a person's actions do not affect others. But this is completely wrong. Abortion deeply impacts society on many levels. That is why we do not leave the decision of whether to end a life to a single person.
19. KariE said the following at 2:42 PM on Oct 16:
Anti-abortion laws wouldn't be the government dictating that you "must do something", it would be the government dicatating that you "can't do something". Dictating what we can't do is usually a very good thing!
Can't cheat, can't steal, can't rape, can't abuse children,can't drink and drive, can't shoot/stab people, can't do illegal drugs, can't bomb buildings, can't kill people because of their religion, can't torture animals, can't use extortion, ....etc.
So far, I've been very pleased with this country's "no-no" list.
I would venture to say that some 99% of women HAVE complete and utter control over getting pregnant: it's called "don't have sex until you are good and ready to carry and birth a child".
Also this logic from an earlier comment used another way: "Imagine putting yourself in a young woman's shoes, a young woman who is considering murdering her mother... or killing her 3-year-old daughter....or burning down her ex-husband's house(for whatever reason), would you really want the government dicatating that you must do something?" YES PLEASE, says the general populus!
20. BDB said the following at 2:46 PM on Oct 16:
>>So if you are ENDING a human life, that would be murder. And last time I checked most people agree that murder is wrong.<<
Heck, there are lots of animal-rights activists who don't want any sentient life killed randomly. Sentient life experiences pain. Abortion kills sentient life that is genetically human.
21. D. Aaron Wells said the following at 2:49 PM on Oct 16:
I would like to point out something. There are so many issues on which it needs to be said to the government, "GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!"... This issue is NOT one of them. If you even suspect that this unborn baby is a human being, a human life, then the government is in place EXPRESSLY to protect its right to life. Any degree of manslaughter is tried as a FEDERAL offense. It is not a states issue; it is not a personal choice issue. You have no personal choice when it comes to any other stage of another human life. You cannot simply kill them because they are invading your privacy.
So do NOT tell me that you have that kind of liberty over someone's life. You don't.
22. Sarah P. said the following at 3:05 PM on Oct 16:
Sammy (#12), the problem is that often the choices some individuals make will gravely impact others' "free choices." The government is supposed to exist to protect people's life and liberty. If people are completely free to do whatever they want, why should I not kill you? I have no intention of killing anyone, but under your argument I should certainly be able to do so.
If there really is free choice, then nobody can possibly know at the time of conception how their children will turn out. Those kids deserve the right to grow up and be punished for their own choices, if they make bad ones, not to be killed because of their parents' choices.
23. AJ said the following at 3:10 PM on Oct 16:
To Sammy (#12): I believe in small government. I don’t like government interference in my life. But one of the legitimate purposes of government is to protect life. Outlawing abortion is a perfectly legitimate action for the government to take. It is not regulating your choices but protecting human lives.
To Holly (#7): Though I, too, wish the Republicans had done more to limit or outlaw abortion while they seemed to hold all 3 branches of gov’t, many limitations on abortion will be ruled unconstitutional until the Supreme Court is able to overturn or significantly change the holding of Roe v Wade. And the Court can’t do that until a case comes before it that raises a relevant issue, and the case arises while a maj of the justices are pro-life. I do agree with you that if we believe that abortion takes a human life, it is ridiculous to leave the issue to the states. No other class of people is left at the mercy of the states to determine if they are persons or not. But I also believe overturning Roe v Wade and returning the issue to the state is one step toward incrementally outlawing abortion. Better than nothing, in other words.
The next president will have an impact on abortion.
If anyone wants to feel inspired to continue fighting this fight, watch the movie Amazing Grace.
24. Texas Craig said the following at 3:11 PM on Oct 16:
RB (#14):
You state "To people who aren't sure whether or not life begins at conception - what else would the embryo be if not the beginning of human life?? A washcloth?"
Let me answer your question with a question. I bought some pumpkin seeds for my daughter. They will grow into pumpkins. Does that make the seeds pumpkins before they have been planted and grown? What about when I plant them? Are they pumkins then, now that they are in the ground? At what point do I have a pumpkin?
Now, obviously, human life is much more serious than a pumpkin and I do not mean to denigrate the seriousness of abortion. But the question of when it is a person presents the fundamental crux of the problem. That is a complex issue and cannot be boiled down to pithy statements.
Just as you might say that the baby is a person as soon as the egg has been fertilized, someone else could say the sperm and egg themselves are the real building blocks of life and deserve protection as human life as well, even before fertilization.
These are not easy issues and will not be summarized by dismissive statements.
25. A.M.C. said the following at 3:44 PM on Oct 16:
Re: Ashley (#3)
So where is the problem? It starts in families. We need to address families and parenting, if we want to fix or change any other issue. Start with the root, and it will trickle out. So when you focus on education, when you focus on educating parents to parent and giving families support and help they need, you raise better children - children that are educated and can make informed decisions.
Spot on. I'll go out on a limb and say this:
Why does Focus on the Family care about its 501(c)(3) status so much? After all, the idea of "fixing the family" as the solution of our country's ills would make a great platform for a real political party.
26. Eliza said the following at 3:47 PM on Oct 16:
I'm pretty sure murder is tried in state courts.
27. Ashley said the following at 4:36 PM on Oct 16:
RB:
My personal opinion is not necessarily to "vote accordingly" , because in this case there is a lot more at stake as well.
My point was that those who do believe abortion is wrong should present it as similar to child abuse, prove that it IS a form of child abuse. Although, the laws against child abuse aren't strictly enforced either, so it probably would be difficult to enforce this.
It starts with education. Educate parents to be better parents.... so that they raise healthy, stable kids who can make informed decisions. Reform schools and the education system so that kids get a better education more globally appropriate in today's world. All these things would make much more of a difference than just instituting a law.
28. Nikki said the following at 4:49 PM on Oct 16:
Don't forget that while abortion may stay legal with either party, i have absolutley no doubt that how much of the taxpayers' money is spent toward this end will greatly differ (and has with the past admiistrations). So while some may be offended by the government attempting to protect life, I am appalled that the government would dictate that my tax dollars should be spent funding abortion, which I find morally reprehensible.
29. BDB said the following at 4:51 PM on Oct 16:
D Aaron Wells (#18) wrote:
>>Any degree of manslaughter is tried as a FEDERAL offense. It is not a states issue;<<
As of 2006, about
88% of all prisoners were held in State prison, not Federal prison. This includes the vast majority of all manslaughter or murder cases, which are tried in state courts.
The crimes that often end up in Federal court are drug cases due to federal drug laws and kidnapping when someone crosses state lines.
30. Leah said the following at 6:05 PM on Oct 16:
Sammy said Why don't the government get out of people lives and let people make their own descision.
Oh, great idea. We'll just let terrorists kill thousands of people, let drunk drivers destroy other people's property and lives, let thieves take your brand new car or computer, let frauds cheat people out of millions of dollars, let our nation kill thousands of kids who don't have a say in the matter.
Coz we should have free choice, yeah?
31. DJS said the following at 7:26 PM on Oct 16:
What America truly needs is a William Wilburforce. A respected man who is willing to put his life and reputation on the line for what he feels is right. I think that the Bible makes it clear that abortion is murder, and the Bible also makes it clear that the government is to stop such acts.
Plus, check out this factcheck.org">http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html">factcheck.org article about the lack of protection for fetuses that were born alive as a result of failed abortion.
32. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:31 PM on Oct 16:
I wish people could live in the real world, instead of an ideological vacuum.
Abortion does not go away when it is illegal, it just goes underground. Back alley abortions are not a myth.
My father is a physician and in family practice...although he is personally pro-life and chooses not perform to abortions, he recognizes the need for a safe and legal way for women to obtain them. Why? Well my family is originally from Nigeria where abortion is illegal in almost all cases. My father has had to piece together women--some dead, some alive whose bodies were ravaged by illegal abortions. So while he's pro-life, he knows what the reality is.
Another reality: The typical woman who has an abortion is not the single pregnant teen the media makes it out to be. Those girls haven't taken care of babies before and don't realize how difficult it is, or how hard giving up a child for adoption would be. Women who have abortions usually already have several children. ECONOMICS is the number one reason given by women who choose to have abortions. If this was all about selfish lifestyles, the richest women would be having the most abortions, but that is definitely not the case.
33. David said the following at 8:00 PM on Oct 16:
To Holly #7
You're oversimplifing the degree of Republican dominance of the Federal government. With regard to the Supreme Court:
If the Democrat-run Senate of 1987 and judiciary chairman hadn't trashed Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, in all likelihood Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roe was only upheld 5-4 in that case, with Bork's replacement nominee, Anthony Kennedy, changing his vote at the last minute to affirm it.
Roe also would have been overturned had the politicization of judicial nominations made Bush 41 eager to avoid a confirmation fight (again with a Democratic Senate) to replace Justice Brennan in 1990. He was hoodwinked by liberal Republican Senator Warren Rudman that the almost paper-trail-less Souter was a conservative who would be easy to confirm, considering that Bork's extensive writings had been used against him by the Democrats. The Souter pick is understandably reviled by conservatives, especially pro-lifers, since Souter soon found his place in the liberal wing of the court. Had an originalist vote been present rather than Souter's, again Roe would have been struck down in 1992.
As far as control of Congress is concerned, people forget what narrow margins the Senate has been controlled by. From 1995-2000, Clinton blocked any abortion restrictions. For most of 2001-2002, with Bush in office, the Republicans did not have the Senate because of the defection of Jim Jeffords. They got it back starting in 2003, but until losing it again in the 2006 election, their slim majorities were dependent on pro-choice Republicans like Specter, Snowe, and Collins.
In 2003, we did see the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Bush's appointment of Justice Alito tipped the scales enough for a 5-4 upholding of the law in 2007.
If the next president were able to replace a liberal justice with a conservative one, that would tip the scales against Roe and put abortion back in the political process where it belongs. While this isn't ideal, at least it gives pro-lifers a chance, where judicial fiat has not.
I'm disappointed more hasn't been accomplished in the fight for life, but giving up now would mean that the Orwellian "Freedom of Choice" Act would sweep away all the achievements of the pro-life movement in one stroke- the Hyde Amendment banning federal taxpayer funding of abortion, parental notification, etc.
This year's Democratic platform couldn't even bring itself to say that abortion should be "rare" in addition to "safe and legal," the rare formulation having been added by Clinton to try to finesse the issue.
34. Jethro said the following at 12:24 AM on Oct 17:
Hold on, I thought mentioning candidates by name was a no-no? Even eluding to candidates is supposedly forbidden isn't is? I've seen a bit of it on here...
35. Leah said the following at 1:20 AM on Oct 17:
Ashley (3)- Could I suggest that a "void" created by parents or family is probably NOT the primary reason people are having sex out of wedlock. To put it plainly- sex out of wedlock is the norm these days. It's pretty much expected. It's not a last-ditch attempt to fill a void, it's normal behaviour. That's the most unfortunate aspect.
36. Motte said the following at 9:42 AM on Oct 17:
Jethro:
Thanks for being our extra set eyes. I believe I've edited out all the references to specific candidates.
37. RB said the following at 10:07 AM on Oct 17:
Texas Craig -
I think your pumpkin example illustrated my point perfectly. I wasn't intending to make a pithy comment at all. Just as a pumpkin seed is the beginning of a pumpkin, an embryo is the beginning of human life. Yep! Human life, not a pumpkin or a washcloth or any other object but a person.
What I find confusing is how how anyone could think it is anything else but the beginning of a person. Anyone who has taken a look at the human product of an abortion would be hard pressed to say that "mass of tissue" as some like to call it - is anything other than a person.
What else would it be if NOT a person? That was my point.
38. BDB said the following at 11:10 AM on Oct 17:
A.M.C. wrote:
>>After all, the idea of "fixing the family" as the solution of our country's ills would make a great platform for a real political party.<<
Hmmm..Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer thought that too...both lost badly.
I really do think that politics and ministry need to be handled by separate organizations. Not just because there are different tax laws for each. There's a lot of people who need to hear the truth when it comes to saving their marriage who are not in the mood to talk about politics.
39. Jewelz said the following at 1:21 PM on Oct 17:
This is a great statement by a saline abortion survivor!
"Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...
The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.
There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.
All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life."
-Gianna Jessen
You can read more of her story by going to google. Type in "MCCL" (Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life) Under Life Issues go to "abortion" then go to "saline instillation abortions" then "a survivors story"
40. Texas Craig said the following at 4:30 PM on Oct 17:
RB:
I appreciate you clarifying. I think the distinction is in the meaning associated with "person." A human embryo is clearly human tissue and, thus, it is "human" in that sense. Moreover, if allowed to grow, it will likely become a full-blown "person." But, to me, a "person" is the being to which God has given a soul. Because I cannot know that time with any degree of certainty, I err on the side of caution (and, thus, am pro-life). But, from a measuring standpoint, I can see how someone who is looking at a 1-week-old blob of tissue might conclude that it is not a person yet and God has not infused a soul into it. There are a whole range of scientific tests that people can use to try to create some measuring stick (sensory abilities, physical development, etc.). The U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade took the position that "personhood" was dependent upon "viability" outside the womb. I disagree, but I understand the difficulty in knowing.
41. Ashley said the following at 4:44 PM on Oct 17:
I think A.M.C. and pass the ammunition made some ample points above that are worth looking at. I try to remind people in my own circles to do the research first and there is of course so much research to be done on ANY issue.
Leah, I have to say I disagree with you. Yes it IS a norm, but why is it a norm? What caused it? The changing of a societal climate. Research has shown that girls become sexually active at an earlier age with absent fathers, and considering how many families have absent fathers now, it is no surprise.
Also, not everyone acts out in the same way from familial problems or voids of parents. Some children are raised without fathers and may act out in other ways, the the reality is, something always happens, whether its "obvious" acting out or more subliminal. If you look at today's society, and at youth culture, from elementary through college, you can see a hurting generation. They are a product of various changes in the family over time and how our culture prioritizes things. The facts are that kids don't do things because the media says so, it plays a part, but it is NOT the primary influence, contrary to what is popularly believed. The family is the primary influence.
So this brings me back, why is it a norm? What made it a norm? Why are they doing what they are doing? They don't just do it to do it, even though they might think that. It fills something in anyone, man or woman, for whatever reason, it acts as a temporary fix for whatever is wrong and also, esp for women, to feel wanted and needed and cared about, even if its merely "casual." But the only way they wouldn't be doing it to fill a void, if not done in a healthy marriage, would be empty sex.
I have spent the past 5 or 6 years working in the lives of youth, directly, submerged in their culture and seeing things not a lot of people see. It would shock a lot of people I think to hear about what I've seen and what these kids are feeling, but they are hurting, and lonely, and looking for caring adults. The only ones that I have seen that are actually doing ok, are the ones that have caring, supportive families who love them. It starts in the family.
42. rich said the following at 10:40 PM on Oct 17:
David, 33
Them's some mighty fine points there....can you cite a source for me (re: the sup. court appointment battles, senate majority battles, etc)? I know I could track all that down myself somehow, but a lot of time isn't something I possess.
43. D. Aaron Wells said the following at 1:24 PM on Oct 18:
BDB #29:
Read the comment.
I said the taking of human life is a federal OFFENSE (i.e., made illegal by federal legislation), not that such cases are tried in federal court. I understand that states have the right try manslaughter, etc., in most cases, and carry out the appropriate punishment as they see fit, but the mandate for such legal action comes from the federal government.
See Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Yet, for some reason, the government in its extensive definitions of various crimes against humans, has refused to extend those definitions to include the youngest of us. It is incredibly inconsistent to say that abortion is a state issue if you believe that the "fetus" is a human.
What is your point, anyway? Do you disagree with the point I am making or are you just trying to seem like a jerk by taking attention away from what I was really saying?
44. D. Aaron Wells said the following at 1:32 PM on Oct 18:
pass the ammunition #32:
You need to cite some sources for the information about the demographics of abortion in your last paragraph.
And I'll say it again:
If you believe this is a human life we are talking about, then killing an unborn child SHOULD be dangerous. To cushion the consequences of evil actions is to make them all the more accessible and appealing. You know that. Your statement is irresponsible.
45. Karen said the following at 2:08 PM on Oct 18:
Many of you might enjoy reading "The Unaborted Socrates," it can be found on Amazon. It has some outstanding arguments (from "Socrates" point of view) against abortion. One of these is that immediately after conception, when the egg starts multiplying, it develops its OWN DNA...not its mother's or its father's; its OWN; which means it is a distinct and separate person at that point. The rest of the book was also outstanding.
I would also like to point out to the people who want to do a "protest vote" that you will basically be voting pro-choice at that point, since any vote NOT for the pro-life party is one less vote that might have helped them win. Shame on you.
46. Chris said the following at 6:54 PM on Oct 19:
AMC writes:
Spot on. I'll go out on a limb and say this:
Why does Focus on the Family care about its 501(c)(3) status so much? After all, the idea of "fixing the family" as the solution of our country's ills would make a great platform for a real political party.
Just what, exactly, would fixing the family involve? Conservatives are pretty adamant about keeping the government out of the free market, private organizations, the church, etc. How would fixing the family be any different?
47. Leah said the following at 8:34 PM on Oct 19:
Texas Craig- your pumpkin analogy is faulty. Your daughter's seeds will not grow into pumpkins. It will grow into a plant which will bear pumpkins.
The question it would become, then, at what point do you have a plant, not a pumpkin. My answer would be as soon as it sprouts.
Your pumpkin analogy, if used correctly, would be the same as asking at what point is a mother carrying fingernails or hair inside her. The "seed" (egg) becomes a "plant" (baby) which then grows "pumpkins" (hair, fingernails, etc).
48. Naomi said the following at 8:04 AM on Oct 20:
I'm not American, but I don't understand why some of you here think abortion is not that much of a serious issue in choosing a candidate for your elections.
I seriously also don't understand why some of you would vote for a candidate who would say NO to a war in Iraq but allow partial-birth abortions and have very little foreign policy.
Abortion is NOT less evil than war. They are equally evil.
49. Sean said the following at 2:15 PM on Oct 20:
Ashley (#3, etc.):
I've found your series of comments interesting. You have mentioned that the best way of arguing against abortion is to present it as child abuse. However, the current argument against abortion is that it is murder. Now, both are strictly prohibited by law, but murder is a greater offense than child abuse. So how can arguing that abortion is child abuse change the way that people view the subject? Arguing that abortion is simply child abuse will weaken the overall argument.
50. Texas Craig said the following at 3:19 PM on Oct 20:
Leah (#47): You are right, it is faulty. I wrote it quickly and should have stopped to think about it more carefully. A better analogy would have been to use a tree.
Now, the question would be when do you have a tree? You can define it generally and call it a plant and say it exists when it sprouts. You could define it more strictly as only a "tree" and say it doesn't exist until it actually rises up from the ground. It is the definitional selection that creates the problem.
Is a fertilized embryo a person? If so, then we also need to be vigilent in opposing the storing or destruction of frozen embryos.
If we classify it as only the fertilized egg that deserves protection, then where do we get that distinction biblically? God knew us before we were born and can certainly also know exactly which egg and which sperm will come together to create us, so do both the specific sperm and the specific egg deserve protection? (thus, all sperm and all eggs would be protected as well)
To me, the issue is when do we get infused with a soul, because that is when I think we have a "person" that is worthy of human dignity and protection. Only God knows that, but I cannot say biblically it happens at conception, because I do not see that laid out in scripture. But, I recognize from scripture it happens sometime before we are born. So, again, to err on the side of caution, I feel it best to not have any abortions.
51. Allison said the following at 3:32 PM on Oct 20:
I agree that abortion is wrong, but why don't the Republicans spend more time/money/effort on sex education in schools? Instead of banning abortions, wouldn't it make more sense to prevent the need for them in the first place? Otherwise we'll just end up with teens raising children on Welfare, or their parents raising the baby. Or we'll have an huge influx of children into our foster care system and the adoption system, which are already burdened. And what about children who are born to drug addicts? Do you think our current system can handle the increase of cases of social workers? Are Republicans ready to foot the bill to pay for all of this?
If not, then we need to start incorporating accurate sex ed into classrooms and have condoms available to teens. While abortion is murder, not everyone is a Christian so not everyone is going to believe it's necessary to wait until marriage. For those teens, don't you think it's important that they have access to the information they need to keep themselves safe and secure so they don't have to become another teen pregnancy statistic *or* abortion statistic. Neither of those are good options. *Prevention* - not blind avoidance of the issue - is the only way to really help this issue. I wish more conservatives would realize that they are part of the problem.
52. Jonathan said the following at 4:44 PM on Oct 20:
Re: Pumpkin seed analogy.
In general, seeds are comprised of material from the parent plant (the exterior portions of the seed) and a brand new, completely distinct plant in embryonic form. The embryo absorbs nutrients from the rest of the seed until it has grown sufficiently to get nutrients elsewhere (usually the soil).
The embryo is, however, already fully a plant. It is not a potential plant. It never acquires any new or greater sense of "plantness" except in our own minds, where plants have visible, above-ground stalks and leaves.
The same is true of the fetus. There is absolutely no biological reason to differentiate a human embryo and a fully grown adult.
53. brx said the following at 10:58 PM on Oct 21:
Wow... as I read many of these comments I realize that 10~15 years ago, I thought and believed a lot of the same things. Now I see that I was so ignorant and unwise, not seeing how much every issue is intertwined. As God warns Cain, sin desires to have us and control us. It has control, such that we as a society would claim a right to destroy a potential because it might interfere with some moments of sensual pleasure. Such things must come, but woe to the ones through whom they come.
Wisdom increases sorrows. Yet, wisdom is still more valuable than riches.
54. InquiringPerson said the following at 8:23 AM on Oct 22:
I agree with Jeremy (#5) that FOCA would not make it through Congress so the President would never have a chance to sign it. Who is in Congress probably has more bearing on these types of things than who is in the White House.
55. HRH said the following at 10:21 AM on Oct 22:
Center for Disease Control statistics reveal that prosperity directly affects the abortion rate far more significantly than rhetoric pledging to outlaw abortion—
In the closing weeks of this election, abortion is among the crucial issues for voters, but promoting a culture of life is necessarily interconnected with a family wage, universal health care and, yes, better parenting and education of our youth.
recognizes abortion for what it is: a tragic moral choice often confronted by a woman in adverse economic and social circumstances (without spouse, without steady income, without employment prospects, and a particularly stigmatic and cumbersome adoption procedure).We need a president who proposes to reduce the incidence of abortion by helping pregnant women overcome the ill effects of poverty that block a choice of life. A range of new studies–using U.S. rather than Swedish data–affirm this approach.
56. Brian K said the following at 11:33 AM on Oct 22:
Texas Craig:
Seed=egg!=plant!=life, germinated seed=plant(=)embryo=life (baby). As you say, He knew us before He knit us in our mothers' wombs. Why is that not enough? It is up to Him to decide that, not for us. To turn the question around, at what point does God call the soul back? Is it when someone's a vegetable? Is it when someone is in advanced stages of dimentia? Human life is dignity imparted by God. Abortion is the denial of that dignity.
Comparing to war, I'll stick with this site’s http://www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000958.html”>synopsis.
Also, you are correct about fertilized eggs as well. There are policies that are coming up that involve the purposeful creation and destruction of fertilized eggs to consider as well.
57. Leah said the following at 8:05 PM on Oct 22:
Ashley- oh, I completely agree that the current generation of children has gaping holes where something is missing; a father, mother, love, etc. I also totally agree that this causes them to act out in different ways, whether it be misbehaving in class, vandalism, drugs, alcohol, bullying, etc. My point was simply that I don't believe this to be the main reason for sex out of marriage. I'm sure that it's some people's reasons for having sex before marriage, but I believe that if you were to poll the community of people who have had sex before marriage, it would not be the most common reason. That's just what I've been lead to believe from my observation, at any rate.
58. brx said the following at 11:39 PM on Oct 22:
Allison (#1),
Planned Parenthood's own studies (as well as the testimonies of former PP employees) reveal that their sex education curriculum for schools actually leads to a HIGHER over-all rate of sexual activity AND resulting teen pregnancy in those schools. It's counter-intuitive at first thought but what's going on is the message is being proliferated that being sexually active as a teen - while unmarried - is a right and socially and morally acceptable.
Here's the really nasty part... No form of contraception is 100% effective, EVEN when used properly. After the sex education messages, it's known that a certain percentage of students will then soon become sexually active (a significantly higher percentage than when the taught message is 'complete abstinence before marriage'). Contraception failure rates are also known and with the increased sexual activity, these combine to actually produce MORE teen pregnancies rather than less. The really SICK part is -- PP wants it that way and therefore pushes to get it's 'services' into schools because it's good for their business.
We just can't compromise with Lust. While one might think they've gotten away free with it a few times, it just doesn't work statistically en mass. And God knows it -- and He gives understanding, without finding fault, to anyone who asks of Him.
Give compassion to the ones who fall in the snare of Lust, not contraceptives and encouragement to indulge in it.
Grace & peace
59. Jonathan G said the following at 10:50 AM on Oct 23:
Interesting personal sidenote to your post BRX (#8 on this page). My wife is pregnant with our first child, which is an awesome thing. However, it's pertinent to this discussion as we had decided to use birth control for the first couple years in order to pay down student loans and get our marriage feet underneath us. Guess what? Surprise!!! I also know 4 married friends who have had similar experiences...one was even a honeymoon baby :-). Just goes to show that birth control definitely is not foolproof.
60. Jewell said the following at 7:59 AM on Oct 24:
According to my Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, not political or religious periodical, here is the definition of life: "...biologically, the life of a system begins at the moment of conception and ends at death; however, for legal and other reasons the definition of when life begins and death occurs has been subject to a variety of interpretations."
In my pediatric textbook, a scientist took "aborted fetuses" that were still viable (alive) and conducted experiments on them until they were dead, but they were immersed in saline and never took a breath of air, so by many politicians definition weren't really alive... so I guess that's okay? Will we expect to see aborted babies in our biology classrooms along side the fetal pigs and frogs soon?
My question is how is it that any politician can make a decision on something that he obviously has no training in and therefor no knowledge of. (the term "Willful ignorance" comes to mind) Science tells us when life begins; it's black and white to me. Science tells us what God has been telling us for 6 thousand years. Read "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. We could save a lot of time and energy if we just trust Him from the beginning.
61. Leah said the following at 11:05 PM on Oct 25:
Allison - oh my goodness. You're not serious about this whole "give condoms to teens so they don't get pregnant" are you?? Because that ENCOURAGES them to have sex. There have been SO many studies which prove that. Giving them a condom says "it's ok to have sex, just try not to get pregnant". (Last I checked, the bible forbids sex outside of marriage, not babies).
Consider there are 100 kids and you teach them the whole "safe sex" spiel. 60 of them go out armed with condoms and have sex. 5 end up pregnant because the condom broke, wasn't put on properly, whatever.
Now consider there are 100 kids and you teach them they shouldn't be having sex yet. That they could get pregnant or catch an STI, even if they use condoms. That it causes massive emotional trauma to break up with someone you've had sex with. Now, perhaps 20 of them might go out and have sex. They're not stupid- they know they can buy condoms from a supermarket or vending machine. 1 might get pregnant.
Now, I'm not saying these are accurate stats. But I believe they reflect what really happens. Teach abstinence, and more teens will abstain than those who are taught safe sex. Teach safe sex, and more will go and have sex and be at risk of something "going wrong" and then getting pregnant or catching an STI.
Teaching safe sex and handing out condoms never, ever, EVER will effectively get rid of drug addict pregnancies or more burdens on the adoption system like abstinence would.
62. David said the following at 11:11 AM on Oct 29:
This article, "Pro-life laws work" by Michael New, demonstrates that the work of the pro-life movement in the past decades has made a big difference. Of course, if the Freedom of Choice Act is enacted by the Democrats next year, all this progress will be swept away...
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.24_New_Michael%20J._Pro-Life%20Politicians%20Have%20Made%20a%20Difference,%20Pro-Life%20Laws%20Work_.xml