Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 26, 2007
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Abortion and the politics of ultrasound
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


South Carolina appears close to becoming the first state in the country to require that women considering an abortion view an ultrasound image of their fetus before deciding to undergo the procedure.

The state House has passed the legislation 91-23, prospects that the Senate will pass it look good and Gov. Mark Sanford has stated his support for the initiative.

Opponents call it "intimidation" and "emotional blackmail" of women seeking to abort.

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, "The women of South Carolina are fully capable of asking their doctor for information they need to make private, personal medical decisions. Politicians don't belong in the examining room."

Seventeen states already have or are considering legislation that would ensure that ultrasound viewing is available to women considering abortion. But South Carolina would be the first to make the viewing mandatory.

Those advancing the legislation feel that the state must guarantee that women considering abortion have all available relevant information before making this life-changing decision. The powerful images that ultrasound makes possible are surely relevant. I support this view and support the legislation.

Anyone who follows me and my work knows that I am staunchly "pro-life." I aggressively support and work with the nationwide crisis-pregnancy-center movement that counsels women considering abortion, encourages them to have their children and helps them with their lives after they give birth.

From the vantage point of we who deeply care about the abortion debate, there isn't much in the way of shades of gray. It's black and white _ a clashing of fundamentally different worldviews. Which is why the emotions run so deep.

An increasing number of crisis-pregnancy centers now have ultrasound equipment that allows clients to see the child developing within them. Their experience shows that there is little question that this materially impacts the decision that women make. Centers report that anywhere from 62 percent up to 95 percent of women who had intended to abort changed their minds after seeing the images.

Assuming that these statistics are accurate, the question remains whether these young women changed their minds because their perceptions of the reality with which they were dealing changed, or because they were intimidated or emotionally blackmailed.

Intimidation or blackmail implies some kind of threat. What exactly might that threat be?

You might say that a young woman with a pregnancy she did not intend is emotionally vulnerable. I would agree with that.

It's exactly why statements from the NARAL universe that portray these young women ("fully capable of asking their doctor for information they need") as cool, sober and rational, calculating the equivalent of whether or not to have a wart removed, or to get a Botox injection, are so ludicrous.

As any woman can tell you, instincts and intuition are powerful. These women are stressed because they know that suddenly the decision they have to make is not casual. That it is deeply meaningful and gravely important. Chances are, if they had the tools at their disposal to make a proper decision, they would not be in the situation they are in to begin with.

In South Carolina, as in the nation as a whole, about half the abortions that are performed are on women under 24. Around 17 percent are on women under age 19.

What kind of sense can it possibly make to suggest that a young woman, who we don't think is old enough to vote or go into a liquor store and buy beer, has the resources on her own to understand the implications of aborting a child? Is there some absence of proportion here?

A woman in her 40s may not remember who taught her math in high school, but she'll never forget the abortion she had. Why?

Knowledge comes to us through different paths. We hear and read words. But visual images are something else. Why, when we realize something we had been indifferent to or unaware of, do we say our "eyes were opened"?

More eyes are opening in our country today and realizing that freedom is not tantamount to meaninglessness.

When these young women see fingers, toes and a beating heart, they understand the emerging life within them. This is a profound moment of personal growth. It's what causes their change and opens the door to their own rebirth and a life with new possibilities.

As in the words of the great hymn, "Amazing Grace": "Was blind, but now I see."

Sanford and the South Carolina legislature provide a model of leadership and human responsibility toward which the rest of the nation should take a long, careful and hard look.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Government Intervention

I am absolutely against abortion, for any reason.

But, I am more against the Government telling women they have to view their baby using ultrasound before they can abort them. If abortion is legal, then a consenting murderer is all you need.

Similarly, I am against the Government taking my property for development and calling it Eminent Domain and for public good. It is stealing.

We need less government, not more.

Constitutionally speaking...
The question of abortion should not be determined at the federal level, but the individual states.

Liberty

The SCOTUS says abortion and taking private
property are LEGAL. That does not make it
RIGHT. You say you are against abortion and
this ultrasound law may help prevent many.
Also this is a law for an individual state
and not the federal government. The ACLU and
PP will waste no time in taking it to SCOTUS.
In the meantime it could save many lives.

pineknot
"The SCOTUS says abortion and taking private
property are LEGAL. That does not make it
RIGHT."

Nor does it make it constitutional. Unfortunately we have a supreme court who is not following the founders' intent in their interpretation of the Constitution.

When a patient goes
to a doctor for any other surgical procedure they are given all kinds of information on the dangers and effects of that surgery. Why not on abortion also, which certainly has a dangerous effect, killing a child.
Shameless plug. I have a new article on my blog, Juliet Smith's Diary.
http://www.peppermintsplace.townhall.com

SimJimSucks
Your attempt at satire is ok. Not great and not really terrible but somewhat mediocre. Satire needs to stick to the rules of logic, even though it may start from a faulty premise. Where you really fall apart is the last paragraph - "As a very attractive woman . . ." Not with your attitude, you're not. I don't care a whit about your physical appearance or attributes, your attitude presents you as a sneering harpy in the presence of whom no thinking man could sustain the physical requirements for procreation.

My 2 cents
Life begins at conception.

I was involved with an abortion 24 years ago - She got pregnant and had an abortion and I didn't even know about it (her pregnancy and the abortion) because she was in another state. She told me about 4 months after the fact. IOW - by the time I found out it was all said and done. I must admit that I was relieved, something of which I am not proud.

But life begins at conception and if it's growing it's alive. Is that too simplistic? Not to me.

I am a practicng Catholic.

slimjimsucks
Are you for real? If, as Mr. Right believes, this is satire, then you seriously suck at satire. I'm 100% pro-life sweety and I definitely don't support a man's right to rape. Rapists don't rape with the intention of making a baby. And rapists aren't particularly concerned with the attractiveness of their victims. It takes a special kind of stupid to even make such statements. I'm normally quite patient and kind in my posts but I'm a little bit touchy on the subject of rape.

Star Parker is right on the money with this article. If opponents of this legislation refer to it as emotional blackmail and intimidation let them explain how this is so. There is so much more emotional blackmail and intimidation towards women by men who coerce or force them to have abortions they really don't want. In my opinion there is never a defense for abortion. PP

It's not all about you
A poster above wrote, "transforming a pregnant woman's body into property of the government."

1. The woman made the choice to allow her body to be transformed (by a pregnancy) when she had unprotected sex. After that, complaining is useless. Take control of your body before you have sex, or suffer the consequences, societally, morally, legislatively, and conscientiously.

2. When there is a pregnancy, the woman is no longer the only one who needs protection. The life within her deserves protection, too.

3. Abortions after rape or incest is a miniscule proportion of abortions. Protecting abortion on that basis is truly throwing the baby out with the bath water.

4. The obverse of the 50 percent of abortions are on women under 24, is the 50 percent of abortions are on women old enough to know better, and old enough to have access to all the birth control they need before they have sex.

5. The largest demographic of abortion supporters is young men.

6. Abortion supporters argue that if access to birth control were better, there wouldn't be the need for abortion. Huh? If you can find an abortionist after you get pregnant, why can't you manage to find birth control before having sex? Your neighborhood grocery store, chemist, Planned Parenthood, and doctor are all good sources.

7. Don't like the odds of preventing pregnancy with OTC methods? Double up. Condoms plus spermicidals work very well.


Can't have it both ways
Pappy. Absolutely against abortion, however, no government intervention? The government has been put in place to insure, peace, safety, and some semblence of enforcing some kind of "moral" laws. I'm sorry, but murder is against the law. However, since 1973, only some murders are less than others. Like Orwell's Animal Farm, some pigs are more equal than others. Only those murders that are behind closed doors, inside the birth canal, are less than others. The duly elected State legislature, and governor, wisely "see" the problem and distinctions from taking "property" to dicouraging the taking of INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.

Sim
I'm sorry for the violence that was perpetrated against you. However....there was an innocent human life that was generated, it did nothing wrong. What about the second violent act against another life. I realize the difficulty of carrying and delivering that life to be adopted, but when you look at abortion for what it is, it is what it is!

States Rights?
Since when did the States have the right to violate the Federal Constitution?

No one can be deprived of their life without due process of law.Due process of law means commiting a capital offense,and being tried by your peers and being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.What law did the child break?When was the childs trial?Why should the child get the death penalty?

Roe vs Wade was decided on privacy issues of the mother and not on issues of the childs life.That alone is unconstitutional,for the very simple reason that life begins at conception because it cannot logically begin at any other time.No,the child does not look like you and I because it doesn't have arms and legs.Neither does a person without without arms or legs look like us,but they are still under the protection of our Constitution.If this issue goes back to the States,lawsuits will be filed immediately for the same reasons and maybe this time the Supreme Court can read the constitution instead of their personal likes and dislikes.

The Constituion
It proscribes STATE action, not private action.

Obnviously Nam65-66 should have paid attention in class.

SimJimSucks
Supporting Roe v. Wade on the premise that overturning it would disallow abortions in instances of incest and rape is not really accurate. Before Roe v. Wade, (at least in some states) abortions could be done legally with a judge's order (I know women who had them - they had been raped and went before a judge to get the order to abort).

Laws varied from state to state. Overturning Roe would not automatically outlaw abortion nationwide, but would return the right to the states to make laws restricting or prohibiting abortion.

The idea that restricting abortion somehow makes a woman the property of the state doesn't make sense to me, either. There are laws restricting doctors from performing procedures on women that have been proven to cause harm - and I don't hear a major uproar saying that this makes women the "property of the state" even though that makes more sense than does the abortion argument. At least with abortion, there is another life to consider as well.

I worked as a counselor in a crisis pregnancy center for a while, and I talked to some women who were very disturbed over past abortions, some women who were looking for a way out of getting an abortion but were being pressured into it by someone else, and I talked to women who were determined to have an abortion and were looking for validation for that decision. Regardless, every woman I talked to recognized it for an extremely important and life-changing decision. I certainly don't see any harm in making sure that people have access to all the information when making it.

In this day and age
no responsible woman would ever get pregnant absent rape. That despicible crime would become very much lessened if we would stop trying to rationalize the perps crime with feel good pscho-babble about his childhood and execute the slime bag as we used to do in this country. We have abdicted our responsibilies as men to protect our women because of the femi-nazis who claim to speak for ALL women.

The responsibility lies with the woman, her "choice" is whether to sleep with the guy or not, if she exercises the choice and gets pregnent too bad, but to allow her to murder the child in vitro is sick and could only have been thought up by other people who have no sense of responsibility.

Most of the women in this discussion aren't real smart and have bought this idea of a "bunch of cells etc", make them see an ultrasound and things might change drastically and many little ones will be allowed to gain their right to the life they have.

Pro Choice/Against Capital Punishment
You liberals are so confused. That is the main problem with theology.
You want the right to KILL and UNBORN BABY, but you will not let the state GET RID OF A LOW-LIFE RAPIST with THE DEATH PENALTY.

Abortion should not be allowed, EXCEPT in the case of RAPE or INCEST of the LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS ON THE LINE.

WE SHOULD TAKE CONVICTED RAPIST AND CUT OFF THE PARTS THAT THEY USED TO RAPE THE INNOCENT WOMAN WITH, OR JUST EXCECUTE THEM AND HAVE A BETTER SOCIETY. OUR SOCIETY IS NOT BETTER BY EXECUTING BABIES BEFORE THEY ARE BORN!

Abortion is Murder
It is thus illigal in any state. There is simply no debate as the facts can not change. Abortion IS murder. Everyone involved shares the blame for that murder. The doctor, the nurses, the politicans, the groups that support it, and especially the woman who made the decision to murder her own child.

Abortion
If abortion is legal then here is my suggestion. If a man gets a woman pregnant and does not wish to support that child then he should be willing to pay for the abortion. In that case if the woman wishes to keep the baby then she can raise in on her own with no claim of assistance from the father. There will be no more talk about deadbeat dads. He fulfilled his responsibility by offering to pay to terminate the pregnancy. In those cases of rape, or incest the pregnancy will be terminated however the guilty party if located will be "fixed" so he can never perpetuate that act again. Looks like a good compromise to me!

Abortion and Ultrasound
As member of the medical profession, showing a patient the image of the object of surgical removal is simply a matter of informed consent. It is a medical and legal obligation to ensure that every patient is fully informed - except at an abortion clinic. As a volunteer at a PSC, I have enountered too many post-abortion clients who were disturbed to learn - from me - that the "tissue mass" they aborted had a beating heart. Some were not offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound that is required prior to every abortion procedure, and some were discouraged or prevented from viewing it. In my opinion, withholding that information is malpractice, and is grounds for a lawsuit.

Aren't we a nutty people?
Isn't it interesting how many people in this country of ours choose (no pun intended) to ingnore God in this whole abortion debacle. How many who call themselves "christian" support, protect and encourage the deadly sin (yes, murder is a deadly sin) of abortion. Just keep in mind people, there is still such a thing as accountablity for the sins individuals choose (there's that word again) to commit and waller in!!!

America....get it RIGHT!!


Rapist
If you let abortion be subject to rape, then more women will scream rape and many men will be locked up. Abortion is still murder and the child is innocent.

My gosh cutting off a rapists parts! Imagin if you had a bad falling out with your girlfriend and she decides to get even with you and accuse you of rape! Or the poor Duke lacross players!

As Democrats say..
"It's for the children" (that is, abortion).

Afraid of an ultra-sound ?
If a fetus is not a human etc, then why would anyone be afraid to see the ultrasound of what is growing in their body ? Could it be that the abortionists are afraid to let a woman see the beating heart of a child they are about to kill ?

The Hypocrisy of the Abortionists

.....Star ...

.....The reason the abortionists are fighting a law that would require women seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound first is obvious ...they are not about a woman's choice ...unless the choice is abortion ...they are about abortion only ...

.....When the State of Tennessee wanted to issue license plates displaying a smiling infant with the message "Chose Life" ...Planned Parenthood joined with the ACLU to block the sale ...

.....Funds raised from the sale of these plates would have benefited "Tennessee New Life Resources" ...an organization that promotes adoption awareness and assistance ...

.....the only choice the abortionists support is more abortions .....COLOSSUS

Fred nailed it
If you were going to have an operation similar to that and weren't given relevant, available information, it would be grounds for a malpractice suit if after the fact you discovered information that would have changed your decision.

Pappy, The state gov't has every right to govern medical practitioneers and has since the founding of the country. There is nothing wrong with ensuring that a person have the info that could be withheld from them by a doctor to manipulate them into a decision.

Matthew, Your comment was utterly ridiculous. No one is proposing the maiming of women except perhaps the abortionists who do so with significant frequency.

I am pro-choice. A woman can choose to exercise her freedom to have sex... so long as she accepts the incumbent responsibility to include bearing a child. The desire to evade responsibility for freely made choices is not a sufficient foundation for the "creation" of a right to abort.

BTW, I thought all those "pro-choice" groups were all for making abortion "safe, legal, and rare"?

Abortion as contraceptive
I don't like abortion and believe it should be against the law except in the case of rape, incest, or when absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother. For this variation in my beliefs I will someday have to answer to God and I'm not looking forward to that time.

Way too many girls and women get abortions as a contraceptive. Woops, gee, I forgot to take my pill and now I'm pregnant. I'll just go to the doctor and have it "taken care of". "Taken care of", an interesting way of saying I'll have the baby killed.

My wife had an abortion years before I met her. If someone had informed her just how developed the baby was she never would have considered it. Adoption, not abortion would have been her choice. If we are not going to outlaw the killing of unborn babies then we must at least provide accurate information to the mother.

Too many abortion activists have focused on the cause and forgotten there are people, born and unborn, in the equation.

Rape and Incest
It is always these two that come up. And they are not relevant. The question is whether the fetus is a mass of tissues like a tumor or if it is a baby. That is the only issue.

Consider, if it is a baby, how does killing a 5 year old sound if it was the product of rape or incest? If it is not a baby, what does it matter if it was rape, incest, or loving sex?

Rape and incest arguments are simply emotional smokescreens put up by pro abortion lobby.

Well, you know
A picture can be very powerful when trying to convince someone. Remember how the lefties wanted to show pictures of American casualties in flag draped coffins? And do you notice how we rarely ever get to see pictures of people blown to bits no matter whose side they were on and who did the killing. See, killing a baby is easy if it suits your needs. It’s only when it suits someone else that it becomes a problem.

Not to be gross but...
but maybe make it a choice for the mother-to-be (or not)

1. view the ultrasound before the procedure, OR
2. view the remains before they are placed in the little casket and buried. (Yes, i think the casket should be part of the procedure. It's not a tumor that has been removed. It's not a gallbladder or a apendix.)

I'd say most would prefer to choose the first.

What I find interesting is most people who are pro-abortion are not and have never been parents to actual live-birth children.

I also find it interesting that most people i know who are pro-abortion are decidedly anti-capital punishment, and were definitely supportive of the recent court decision that removed capital punishment from the list of possible punishments for minors committing murder.

I have found that the root of the issue is that the argument is always about when life actually begins. There is no point after which an egg and a sperm can be said to suddenly be human, and prior to that point not human. Nor is there a point after conception that canbe pinpointed as when life 'starts' because at conception the growth DOES begin.

Much like counting to infinity, oops, i can add another one on top....

you can say,well, if on day 65 it is human, what about day 64? just subtract another day....wait...what makes that day special? well,maybe day 63 then.


SimJim
is really antiteenmommas. NO ONE else repeatedly talks about "demon seed" and "demon spawn" as continuously as you do. I asked if you had been raped and you denied it on another thread. You also said that you are a lesbian--almost always a sign of previous rape.
Abortion is murder. Black and white issue. The reason our country is deteriorating so quickly. God's mercy is long lasting but not eternal. Take a look at just one tiny aspect of PP's profits--not including the billions they make on the "pill" also a smokescreen for their profits:

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – America’s largest abortion provider brought in close to $900 million last year, and achieved its second largest profit ever, according to the organization’s 2004-2005 annual report.

The massive organization reported a record income of $882 million dollars and a profit of $63 million, reported PipeLineNews on Monday. Profits have nearly doubled since 2003, when the 2002-2003 annual report indicated a profit of over $36 million dollars.

Planned Parenthood aborted more babies last year than in any previous year, ending the lives of more than 255,015 children by surgical abortion. That number doesn’t include the vast number of deaths caused by the sale of chemical abortion drugs, the morning after pill and abortifacient contraceptives, a major source of Planned Parenthood’s income.

The abortion chain operates more than 800 centers across the U.S. A report obtained by American Life League’s STOPP International in January revealed the organization operates 173 surgical abortion centers, 57 medical abortion facilities and 595 locations that distribute products causing early chemical abortions.

Despite continuing to promote itself as an adoption referral service, the organization also set a new record in the ratio of abortions to adoption referrals it carried out in the past year, at 180 abortions per 1 referral for adoption.

Planned Parenthood received a record amount of money in federal funding this year, with a total of $272.7 million dollars in government grants and contracts.

“Planned Parenthood must assume that elected officials can't read a simple annual report," said American Life League vice president Jim Sedlak. "While Planned Parenthood is begging for increased government funding, it's also admitting that it racked up record operating profits in its most recent fiscal year."

“Since 1987, Planned Parenthood has now received a total of $3.9 billion in taxpayers’ money,” said Mr. Sedlak.

"It is absolutely incredible that, in these days of natural disasters and homeland security threats, our federal, state and local governments would fund this controversial organization to the tune of nearly $4 billion," he continued. "Why is our government so quick to finance such ruthless attacks on our own innocent children?"

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Planned Parenthood Alone Responsible for Nearly 250,000 US Abortions Last Year
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/dec/04121506.html

Planned Parenthood Kills Record Number of Babies; Brings in Over $36 Million Profit in 2002-2003
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/dec/03121103.html

Planned Parenthood Abortion Business Has over 800 Centers Across U.S.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06010602.html








SimJim
If you truly were raped, then my heart goes out to you, and like many on this site, I am STRONGLY in favor of rapists being sterilized. As a matter of fact, it would seem logical that if a rapist commits that horrible act, the state would legislate laws denying them ANY rights to the child.

Your argument however is ridden with logical fallacies however. Please give me a chance to elaborate:

>"You support transforming a pregnant woman's body into property of the government, whereby she loses her rights as an individual and simply becomes a forced participant in creating the next generation, even if it is against her wishes."<

Pro-Life proponents in no way advocate turning a woman's body over to the state and denying her rights. First of all it is important to realize WHAT is the highest value to be regarded in the issue of abortion: Freedom of choice or life? A human's right to kill another human is a SECONDARY issue. Are rights not important? Certainly they are, but what is the greater value we are discussing here? What are rights without life? Which value is therefore to be regarded higher? Rights do NOT exist without life to benefit from them.

>"if you are 'pro-life', you support the right of a man to rape a woman and force her to have his baby if he gets her pregnant."<

1) Pro-life advocates do NOT support a man to rape a woman. Secondly, NO person has the right to rape, therefore it could never be "supported". Furthermore, a man who rapes a woman forfeits his rights and is incarcerated when found guilty.

2) The driving factor behind a rapist is NOT to produce offspring. The very horrible act itself stems from power and immediate sexual gratification. Rapists have no long term plan. Think it out logically, SimJim...if you're argument were indeed the case, do you think any offspring would want to have ANYTHING to do with their rapist, criminal father? The rapist does not act out the crime for familial planning.

3) Abortions from rape consist of a very small percentage of abortion reasons. The large majority of abortions (this is statistical) occur from healthy young women who just do not want to deal with the inconvenience of having a baby. To legislate abortion due simply on the grounds of rapists is to have the tail wag the dog. It is subscribing the death penalty to unborn children because there are rapists out there who insist on breaking the law. Is that the proper solution, SimJim? No, crack down on rapists HARD. Cut their bits off, second time offenders, death penalty in my view, but killing an innocent because of guilty is two wrongs that in no way make a right.

>"If you have a semi-attractive daughter or sister or pre-menopause mother, you should think about her welfare in the pro-life brave new world of raping-for-pregnancy"<

Since it is established that rapists do no rape for pregnancy I will also add that 'attractive' daughters/women is a relative term. Women of ALL shapes, sizes, colors, etc. are victims of rape.

>"If the rapist knows she CAN'T abort the demon spawn, he is even more likely to rape without a condom so as to create as many babies as possible with non-consenting women."<

This comment alarms me most of all because it is inferring that the baby is "demon spawn" just because the rapist is a demon. The baby is a human agent unto itself. Besides DNA, it has nothing to with the rapist father and is innocent.

JimSim, I don't know if you've ever had an abortion and so I will not assume anything. But now that abortion has been legalized for several decades, we are starting to see the regret and social impact abortion has on mothers. So many of them must now deal with that decision for the REST of their lives. A nine month birth of a rapists child is horrible and humiliating, BUT adoption can help put away this tragedy into the past. Abortion is permanent. It is a past that will haunt forever because there is no going back. Imagine a poor mother raped who for nine months endures the pain and anguish of having the baby...puts it up for adoption and moves on with life. Imagine that baby growing up to be a prosecutor of rapists, or an advocate for female victims!

Those who oppose ultrasounds....
really don't want to see abortions rare.

Democrat political platforms, boast of desiring to have abortions rare, but keeping choice an option. But if democrats oppose ultrasounds, they don't really want to see abortion rare. Certainly Planned Parenthood would be opposed to this, I mean, where would their income come from.

If a reduction in abortion rates comes from the mother seeing their developing infant, this is a good thing towards making rare. No?

Matthew
"you'd be in favor of cutting off women's feet to prevent them from walking to the abortion clinic. After all, a human life, vs. a human mutilation, no contest, right?"

You comment is completely non sequitor. Your attack on Parker is uncalled for. More than anything, you just sound p*ssed off because you can't debate her points on an intellectual basis.

Buud
You are exactly right. Critics of this new bill in S. Carolina oppose it because it shows the mother the human impact side of her choice. "Fetus" is a scientific term to dehumanize the baby in the womb making an abortion more emotionally pallatable. After all when was the last time you heard someone say, "I'm having a fetus!" I find it interesting that a mother who wants a child says, "I'm having a baby". It's all emotional rhetoric for Pro-Choicers...they don't want the mother to feel any emotion about her choices.

Yea for the Ultrasound Business
IS THIS TO SHAME WOMAN INTO CHANGING THEIR MIND?

Look they will just go to Florida or North Carolina or where ever they need to.

This is a powder keg of emotion. I agree with Sen. Clinton, its an unfortunate choice. I am all for birth control (I'm a christian not catholic), education and counseling pre, post abortion, but ultrasound?

BUT HERE IS THE REALITY:

-Roe v Wade will NEVER be overturned. Even if it was, "pro life" (hypocrites) will be sneaking out of the country to get an abortion vacation. (YOU CAN'T legislate MORALS AND RELIGION at least in America, the land of the Free.)

-Woman who get abortions mentally and emotionally check out, there is no bonding, but many later who do have kids think about it and mostly regret it. Some woman don't care and go on never to think about it. A ultrasound will mean nothing to them.

-People will always have SEX and there will be unwanted pregnancy.

-Pro life people, I expect should should have at least 6 kids, theirs and the unwanted Crack-Babies they adapted.

Practically speaking, what does this new law prove or attempt to do? Woman are not stupid. What does a 3 or 4 week old fetus look like? NOTHING. I think at 6 weeks may be yolk sac and some leg buds. I don't think it looks like much until 9 weeks when there is a heart beat. Most abortions are in about 9-14 week period I think.

When does life began? Debate away, it is still a choice, but it should be an educated one. Is the ultrasound an education tool or a shame tool?

Life moment sperm/ovum meet, implanted in uterus and mothers blood flows into embryo, 9 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks (viability).

Now 4 months or 6 months? That is pretty gruesome I have to admit. I don't know how any person, pro-choice, pro abortion group can not say that a 6 month old fetus is a person. In fact at 24 months they can survive as a premature baby.

I am man and never impregnate a woman so its not something I have had to deal with. I do think its a horrible choice BUT also feel the government should stay out of peoples bed rooms and bodies. With that said 2-1/2, weeks should be the latest, may be 12 weeks, but that makes me sad thinking about it. I would not want to be the people making that choice, so I live my life accordingly. BUT AS A MAN WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY, ITS ALL A WOMANS GAME. Woman can choose to keep or not. Men have no say so.

"As a very attractive woman"

So, ah, what are you wearing?

Baby or Fetus?
A few years ago I had a heated argument at dinner with the wife of a colleague. The basis of the argument was that I believe that life growing in the uterus of the woman is a baby, a real life human being equally deserving of our government's protection as any other citizen. She believed it to simply be a "fetus". This was an obvious subterfuge to avoid the guilt of knowing that abortion ends the life of a real, completely innocent human being. I admit to being torn when the pregnancy is a result of a rape or of incest but I do not believe that our nation's laws should be formed to provide only for the exception and not the norm.

abortions
SHOULD be driven to the backalleys again. THat is where ALL hellish crimes belong. PP won't even let out the statistics of how many women die while getting a "safe" abortion. Not to mention all of the later drug overdoses and suicide attributed to an earlier abortion and the emotional ETERNAL trauma that goes with it. You will never ever forget the flesh of your flesh....
There IS post abortive counseling readily available in the phone books and online (it is there for ALL). Our society, however, perpetuates the notion that you will be better off in the long run and refuses to acknowledge the FOREVER pain of a post abortive woman. We kill and then we kill some more....evil breeds evil.

slimjimsucks
sometimes we mistakenly believe that rage and hatred keep us strong, that they keep us from falling apart but it's not true. I'm praying for you today so that you can find peace. And forgiveness. I know it's hard to believe but that's the only way you can have your life back. That man took a huge part of your life. Don't let him take your soul, too. PP

jetpilot's irrational post
"IS THIS TO SHAME WOMAN INTO CHANGING THEIR MIND?...

So people shouldn't be fully informed about invasive procedures into their bodies because they might be "shamed" into making a different choice?

"This is a powder keg of emotion."

No. It is a classic battle between those who advocate reason, liberty, and human rights and those who "emotionally" oppose one or all.

The faulty logic you use is a classic example when compared back to the sound reasoning several have posted for this law and for protecting life.

"I agree with Sen. Clinton, its an unfortunate choice. I am all for birth control (I'm a christian not catholic), education and counseling pre, post abortion, but ultrasound?"

It is malpractice to purposefully withhold information relevant to a decision about a medical procedure. Especially one that can do irreparable physical or emotional harm.

"BUT HERE IS THE REALITY:

-Roe v Wade will NEVER be overturned."

Without respect to abortion's legality, Roe v Wade is horrible law and classic judicial legislating. It will eventually be overturned simply because it is an illegal overstep by the court.

"Even if it was, "pro life" (hypocrites) will be sneaking out of the country to get an abortion vacation."

Proof please. That is pretty "emotional" of you to paint all pro-lifers as hypocrites because you think some "might" sneak out to get an abortion.

"(YOU CAN'T legislate MORALS AND RELIGION at least in America, the land of the Free.)"

This isn't a matter of legislating morality anymore than laws against rape or murder are.

This is the worst of your irrational arguments. The issue at stake is this: Does the free exercise of a legitimate free choice by a woman that results in an undesired consequence give her a "right" to kill someone else to avoid the responsibility that goes with her choice?

The simple, logical, rational, TRUE answer is: NO.

"-Woman who get abortions mentally and emotionally check out, there is no bonding, but many later who do have kids think about it and mostly regret it. Some woman don't care and go on never to think about it. A ultrasound will mean nothing to them."

If this were true then the statistics given in the article wouldn't be true. Since they are, your argument flies in the face of truth. Further, studies show that post-abortive women have all sorts of associated emotional and physical problems.

Women are not being given the info to make an informed choice. The abortion industry for all its REAL HYPOCRISY isn't about informing women and reducing abortions. They want the pregnant women who come into their clinics to abort (witness the 180:1 ratio).

"-People will always have SEX and there will be unwanted pregnancy."

People will always get angry and there will be murder/rape... so do you think we should legalize those?

People WILL always have sex. Helping them avoid the consequences simply makes them much more irresponsible and callous about it.

Since the sexual revolution "liberated" women through downplaying marriage, promoting career mindedness, abortion, liberated sexuality, etc... the women who have most adopted those philosophies have incurred more and more risk. Risk of disease, abuse, abandonment, poverty, abuse of their children, failure of their children socially/economically...

In every respect, abortion is contributing to the harm of women.

"-Pro life people, I expect should should have at least 6 kids, theirs and the unwanted Crack-Babies they adapted."

More of your logic? Why? Will they somehow start to abuse their freedoms? Do you really think a move to make people more responsible for their own choices and the consequences will produce a worse society?

No. If anyone should be forced to assume responsibility for these kids it should be those liberals who purposefully deconstructed the social mores that served the nation well for about 400 years.


Some thoughtws
A woman who's been raped can take a morning-after pill to prevent implantation of a blastocyst that may or may not have been created. If it's a few days too late for that, a D&C will accomplish the same thing without putting the victim through the necessity of making a choice to continue or to terminate a pregnancy that may have resulted. Still later, a court order, as mentioned above, can enable her to obtain an abortion.

On abortion: It's unquestionably the taking of a human life. A blastocyst, and later a fetus, exhibits the properties of life: growth, development and cellular reproduction. That life has the chromosomes of human being--not a chicken, not a cockroach. An abortion kills a human life.

I do understand that under periods of great emotional stress--and an unplanned pregnacy is certainly a source of emotional stress--the choices do not appear to be between good and bad but between bad and worse.

I think ultrasound is appropriate if only to help the expectant mother better define what's bad and what's worse.

Feast of the Immaculate conception
For all those (Chistians not Catholics out there) we catholics are celebrating the feast of the Immaculate conception our Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ, who we believe started His journey with us at the moment of His conception. I nine months we'll celebrate with the rest of our brethren His Birth. You may know this one it's on Dec. 25th.

More on jetpilot's illogical rant
"Practically speaking, what does this new law prove or attempt to do? Woman are not stupid."

No. They are very ill-informed and in some cases misinformed purposefully by the likes of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

"What does a 3 or 4 week old fetus look like? NOTHING."

You need to educate yourself. You can see the heart beating about this time as well as the form of the head and spine.

"I think at 6 weeks may be yolk sac and some leg buds. I don't think it looks like much until 9 weeks when there is a heart beat."

There are resources on the web where you can easily educate yourself beyond this misconception.

There is quite a bit more than a "yolk sac and leg buds before that time. The baby will have had brain waves by then as well. By 10 weeks if not before, they'll be moving themselves about.

The first heartbeat occurs between 3 and 4 weeks after conception. By the 5th or 6th week, it is clearly detectable on an ultrasound.

"Most abortions are in about 9-14 week period I think."

That would mean they are killing a human being with a beating heart, a primitive but functional brain, and usually arms and legs capable of self-locomotion within the womb.

"When does life began? Debate away, it is still a choice, but it should be an educated one. Is the ultrasound an education tool or a shame tool?"

This seems to be you saying "I'm going to ignore this "debate" since I can't win it". There is little debate about when life begins. The debate is only about when it should be protected.

Medical science can discern no point after conception at which they can say this life just began. IMO, D&C's should be available to rape or incest victims up to two weeks after the assault if they file a criminal complaint. The zygote should be taken and dna fingerprinted so the culprit can be prosecuted.

Rape should be a capital crime subject to the death penalty on the second conviction. Recidivism in rape is around 90% if I remember correctly. The vast majority of rapes are committed by men already convicted of rape. After the second conviction, it is a near certainty that they will rape again if set free. They don't generally rehabilitate.

"Life moment sperm/ovum meet, implanted in uterus and mothers blood flows into embryo, 9 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks (viability)."

If you are a reasonable person, why not let medical science establish the point of life's beginning? What are liberals afraid of?

"Now 4 months or 6 months? That is pretty gruesome I have to admit. I don't know how any person, pro-choice, pro abortion group can not say that a 6 month old fetus is a person. In fact at 24 months they can survive as a premature baby."

The Dems and liberals have long opposed bans on partial birth abortion. Those procedures can be performed within only a few weeks of birth. The most disturbing of the procedures involves giving the baby an anesthetic, inducing a breach delivery, stopping the delivery with all but the head outside, then inserting a suctioning device into the child's head and removing the brain.

Bill Clinton vetoed a ban on this procedure. There were enough liberals to sustain his veto. It was passed by Bush and the Republicans only to be tied up in court by various liberal groups and judges.

So yes... you do "know" them... and probably vote for or support them including the junior Senator from NY.

"I do think its a horrible choice BUT also feel the government should stay out of peoples bed rooms and bodies."

Abortions don't take place in the bedroom. That's where a responsible, free person makes a choice that carries consequences however.

Further, the same rationale could be used to justify murder or rape. Can a man kill his wife in his "bedroom" because she's become inconvenient to him? Why not? Isn't that a privacy issue? You say "No. He's violating someone else's rights".

"BUT AS A MAN WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY, ITS ALL A WOMANS GAME. Woman can choose to keep or not. Men have no say so."

That's worse than ridiculous. For the last time, IT ISN'T AN ISSUE OF WHAT THE WOMAN CAN DO WITH HER BODY. IT IS AN ISSUE OF WHAT SHE CAN DO WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY WHO SHE FINDS AN INCONVIENT CONSEQUENCE OF HER RECKLESS CHOICES.

Your comment is the equivalent of saying that a woman has no say so in the crimes of a mass murderer who happened to be a man.

I doubt it
I doubt your sipmlistic statement on "When she later found herself on a plane seated next to a priest, he told her she would go to hell for that." Your adhomum attack on the Church is uninformed to say the least. The Church has never comdenmed anyone to hell, it even leaves open the possibility that just before someone like yourself dies, they may come to repentance and through the mistical nature of our Savoirs divine mercy may find forgivness. He may have said something to the effect that now after talking with him and not confessing her sin and repenting of it that she was hence in a probable state of mortal sin and risked the eternal consequences that that implies, but it isn't reasonable to take a third parties emotional battle with the truth as sound doctrine for an attack on the only church that has been consistent on the right to life issue.

Bytheocean
"Also this writer talks about white and black and no gray. These people are subject to the same impulses of the Taliban in terms of no limits in invading people's privacy and right to make decisions."

That is ridiculous. Protecting the life of an innocent human being shares absolutely NOTHING in common with the abuses of the Taliban.

Further, a woman has a right to make decisions including the right to make a decision to have irresponsible sex. A person does NOT have the right to kill someone else to avoid the consequences of their irresponsible abuse of freedom.

"First they'll outlaw abortion, then they'll outlaw birth control, following the dictates of a celibate male called the pope which oddly enough means the father."

Are you serious? First, only about 20% of Americans are Catholic and a significant number of them are "pro-choice" for all practical purposes. Many aren't "practicing".

Second, there is no logical link whatsoever between outlawing the killing of a living being and preventing conception through birth control. There is simply no parallel there.

Last, as a Baptist, I reject the pope in full. He has no more authority over my church than our mail man... and probably less.

Bytheoceaqn
Perhaps to be certain that all those babies are actually afflicted with those problems, we should let them be born, confirm it, then kill them.

If you oppose this idea, please compare and contrast with the reasoning used to justify abortion to show they aren't the same thing for all practical purposes.

Sjt18
As a former Baptist I would sugest that you ask where the Bible actually came from, try reading Polycarp, Ireneus, or any of the early Church fathers. Tradition and the primacy of Rome gave us the canon of scripture. Look it up!

this works both way
>available relevant information before making this life-changing decision.

If women wre given relevant information about sex before they get pregant, maybe they wouldnt want abortions after the fact

seawolf
>and execute the slime bag as we used to do in this country
Im sure you thought this thru, but have you considered:

If you execute someone for rape, then they have a strong motivation to murder their victim, since this is usally the only witness.

stj18
>There are resources on the web where you can easily educate yourself beyond this misconception.

And I suggest you vist one..here:

http://www.babycenter.com/general/1498208.html

4 weeks is not a fetus, but an embryo, without a heartbeat...because the heart hasnt been developed yet.

But lets say that inspite of your misleading information, an embryo has a soul. If it is an innocent life, then the soul goes to heaven, without having to take the chance of leading a sinful life. Its a garanteed free ticket to paradise. If thats true, logically, then every mother would want an abortion, would they?

John M
"Sjt18
As a former Baptist I would sugest that you ask where the Bible actually came from, try reading Polycarp, Ireneus, or any of the early Church fathers. Tradition and the primacy of Rome gave us the canon of scripture. Look it up!"

As someone who has studied the issue to include Roman co-opting of early church fathers that had no conception of what the Catholic church became after Constantine... I can say with a great deal of certainty that "Rome" did NOT give us the canon. Rome's selective use of the early church fathers to justify their control is fairly plain.

naked pagan
They're counting from the last menstrual period. Not conception. IOW's, subtract 2 or 3 weeks from the week numbers they give and you get time from conception. A baby's heart begins to beat between the 5th and 6th week after the last period... or between the 3rd and 4th week after conception.

"But lets say that inspite of your misleading information, an embryo has a soul."

Notably, my info wasn't misleading whatsoever. It is a misunderstanding by folks like you about the method of counting weeks from the emergence of the egg rather than from conception.

"If it is an innocent life, then the soul goes to heaven, without having to take the chance of leading a sinful life. Its a garanteed free ticket to paradise. If thats true, logically, then every mother would want an abortion, would they?"

Are you trying to justify the immediate killing of all children under the age of 5? No. The child still has a "right" to live its life.

Further, we could use similar logic to justify killing you, couldn't we? Statistically, one is more likely to come to faith in Christ if their influences are Christians. Silencing skeptics would improve the odds, no?

NO. God is the arbitor of life and death except in those judicial cases in which he has ordained and empowered human gov't to discipline those who commit heinous crime.

Neither you nor I have a right to presuppose someone else's choices.

pagan again
"If women wre given relevant information about sex before they get pregant, maybe they wouldnt want abortions after the fact"

I would say that abortions performed on women who were unaware that sex creates a risk of pregnancy is fairly low, wouldn't you? And yes, people can choose to not have sex altogether. It is a conscious, moral choice.

sjt18
An example please of Romes selective use and co-opting? Perhaps the fact that Origen became a hereitc later in life and joined a sect, that using his early orthodox writtings and clearly seeing the co-opting of Origen by individuals with secular motives is one? So it took over 1500 years for this to be discovered and now after only 20k-30k differnt denominations outside the Church you claim authority as to the valid where abouts of the Cannon of scripture? It would be a truly humbling fait to not be your own Pope. How much more faith does it take to admit that you can't be the interpreter of scripture and still maintain unity in one true church? God bless you for your belief in Christ, but come on.

Here we go again
Pagan your remark was totally ridicuous. Do you really believe women aren't smart enough to know what sex is and what it can lead to? Or that any grocery store pharmacy stocks b/c right out where anyone can purchase it? Where DO you get this idea of yours that "if women were given the relevant information about sex before they get pregnant, maybe they wouldn't want abortions after the fact"? Good Lord it's out there all right unless you live in a cave! Too many people really do believe that "this once won't get us pregnant" IN SPITE OF knowing the risk. Teenagers are especially notorious for believing they are simply not subject to the consequences of the decisions they make. That's precisely why it's so expensive to get auto insurance for them.


Abortion is the only medical procedure for which there is no real regulation. In other words, medically speaking your pet is safer in the vet's hands than you (and certainly the baby) are in an abortion mill. It is the only procedure for which informed consent is not allowed. Why NOT an ultrasound? Why are PP and their ilk so threatened by this? If the woman is that determined, she'll go ahead no matter what. If she's unsure, PP ought to respect her enough to give her the entire truth about the baby inside her, pictures and all. Clearly PP has no respect for women beyond the $$ they bring to the table or there wouldn't be this manufactured outrage.

If you're not pregnant, it's not a baby.


John M....sjt18
John M
Well she is my friend and she told me that. She is still a practicing Catholic. I am not a liar. You just deal with reality by dismissing it. At the time I wondered whether she had given him the whole story. I am not a Catholic.

sjt18
You don't have to wait for a baby to be born. You can know a genetic problem by testing. For some problems if you test a male and a female you can know the odds before they have even conceived. Or are you dismissing western medicine?

There is a slippery slope on both sides of the hill, the left and the right.

To think that you can outlaw abortion and it won't affect birth control is naive. Ireland does not allow either. Women were being arrested for importing birth control pills from Europe not very long ago at all.





John
Neither Polycarp nor Irenaeus espoused the beliefs held by the modern RCC. Even their writings are "interpretted" by the "church" in a fashion convenient to fitting them into the vain, wholly unbiblical notion of papal succession.

The primitive NT church established by the first century Christians (chiefly Paul and various associates) were locally organized and answered to Christ. The Apostle held special authority for the establishment of the church and completion of the NT but there is no sound, biblical case for their authority being passed on. In fact, the biblical evidence contradicts such a notion.

Rather than engage in a rehash of referenced material, here is a link to an article that answers one part of your challenge. The site has many such articles, well referenced, showing what I asserted.

http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html

Small Steps
Don't get me talking about abortion and a woman's right to choose! I go NUTS when I think of this country condoning MURDER and GENOCIDE as a means of birth control!...and has done so for 40 years! (A generation of baby's....GONE) I'm sorry, but it's a black and white issue with me! There is no gray area here (except when saving the woman's life in childbirth). That's why when I see an article like this one, it gives me encouragement that we're still fighting the good fight, and maybe, someday, we can overturn the obscene and sinful law that never should have been enacted in the first place!

John M
You said about a priest talking to a woman who had a fallopian tube taken out "He may have said something to the effect that now after talking with him and not confessing her sin and repenting of it that she was hence in a probable state of mortal sin and risked the eternal consequences that that implies,"

So what you are saying is that she should repent for not having hemorrhaged to death to save a fetus that had no chance of survival having implanted in a fallopian tube and not a uterus.

So instead of a happy mother and wife, a happy husband and two happy children we would have had a widow, the wife would be dead, the fetus would be dead and the two children would not have been born. And that you are saying is what your God would have wanted. Well my God is more loving than that and more sensible too. She had nothing for which she had to repent by taking steps to save her life. And she did mourn the unfortunate result of what she thought was a pregnancy.

Why don't you look up ectopic pregnancies. It is your kind of reaction that makes religious people appear to be fanatics.













bto
Why are you evading? Why not wait until the child is born, determine if its condition is treatable, then kill it if it isn't? Tests are predictive but they aren't 100% accurate... or are you dismissing western medicical fact?

"sjt18
You don't have to wait for a baby to be born. You can know a genetic problem by testing. For some problems if you test a male and a female you can know the odds before they have even conceived. Or are you dismissing western medicine?"

"There is a slippery slope on both sides of the hill, the left and the right."

There is no slippery slope or left/right on this issue. We are either discussing a human life and therefore a person worthy of civil rights protection or we aren't. If you say we aren't, you need to provide a better reason than just a flippant, arbitrary "I say so".

"To think that you can outlaw abortion and it won't affect birth control is naive."

No it isn't. Birth control was legal in the US for decades. Legislatures long saw the difference between preventing pregnancy and killing an unborn child.

"Ireland does not allow either. Women were being arrested for importing birth control pills from Europe not very long ago at all."

Ireland has been dominated by the RCC for a very long time and the official policy of Rome was against birth control. The US didn't even have a significant Catholic minority until the immigrations from eastern and southern Europe during the late 19th and early 20th century. Americanized Catholics for the most part have adopted the non-sectarian views of our founders.

I suspect that you wouldn't even have a majority of American Catholics in support of outlawing birth control much less a majority of the rest of us.

ibretired
If the issue is presented as a purely moral one, I would oppose making abortion illegal even though I believe it to be grotesquely immoral.

With regard to legality, it must ONLY be considered on the terms of human rights and justice. The living child has a right to continue maturing to birth, life, and death. Any and all rationalizations used to justify abortion apply equally well to justifying murder after birth.

Murder btw isn't outlawed because it is immoral even though it is. It is illegal because it violates another person's right to live... just like abortion.

Should have said
Birth control was legal in the US for decades prior to Roe v Wade...

Bytheocean
Please don't make the mistake of confusing or conflating my views with John's.

Scripture doesn't speak concerning birth control. It does speak concerning the personhood of the unborn child.

Neither the Pope nor the Roman church speaks for all Christians.

FTR, the same "chair" that now says some of the things John is saying here used to say it was the Roman Church's calling to kill dissenters who believed like me... en masse or as individuals.

John M
today is actually the feast of the annunciation, when the angel Gabriel came to Mary to let her know that she was going to become the mother of Jesus. The immaculate conception has nothing to do with Mary's pregnancy but with her being born without original sin.

Although the Catholic Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to save the mother’s life. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion. An ectopic pregnancy cannot be brought to full term and will not result in a live birth.

The church opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest as well as in cases where the baby is known to have disabilities. PP


BTO/sjt18
sjt18-FR.W Most "Only Catholics have any right to quote Scripture at all. For in the early
centuries there were many works called Gospels of James, of Thomas, of
Peter etc. along with the Gospels we know. How can anyone know which are
part of the Bible? Luther said that if a book preaches justification by
faith strongly, it is inspired. That was folly, for he did not prove that
is the standard. And also, he could write such a book, and so could I, and
it would not be inspired. Calvin thought the Spirit tells each one
interiorly - much too subjective, room for mere imagination, and no proof
that is done anyway.

The only way to know is if you can prove that there is a group, a Church,
commissioned by Jesus Himself to teach, and promised His protection: "He
who hears you hears me." (Luke 10.16) " Sounds harch but it's true.
BTO- If the abortion was an unintended consequence of other treatment then it wasn't intentional and the responcibility is not on the mother, however sjt18 hit on it when he talks about basically your presumtion that the child wouldn't make it and the mother would die. You can see the future hey? My nephew lived for five years with spinalbiphida and brought a level of joy and love into the family that can't be expressed in words, so the doctors can be wrong. As to being a fanatic, I thank you for noticing that as a Christian fanatic I use reason and words to profess the truth and haven't sought or preached on the erradication of those who don't believe, but seek to engage directly in dialog.
Oh, sjt18 thanks for the link, I'll chech it out as soon as I finish reading the post synodal exortation by Pope Benedict XVI.

Patsyp
Sorry my miss statement, I got my feasts mixed up, your right. Mother Teresa said that the quickest way to becoming humble is by being humiliated. Thank you for pointing it out.

SJT18
LOVED your no nonsense reply to JetPilot. Stand up and take a bow. I planned on replying myself, but you did a fine job.

JetPilot:
"Look they will just go to Florida or North Carolina or where ever they need to."

So because a mother seeking an abortion will go to another state, S. Carolina should just throw in the towel? This is the same argument as to why we should legalize: drugs (because they'll just go to Mexico/Canada) illegal immigrants (because they're going to come anyway) and the list goes on and on. We shouldn't make laws because people are just going to break or circumvent them anyway? No logic in this argument.

"YOU CAN'T legislate MORALS AND RELIGION at least in America, the land of the Free."

Governments can pass laws against theft, arson, murder, embezzlement, fraud, perjury etc. And they have done this for as long as there have been governments. This is because morality is emphatically not a "private matter," but a societal concern. Society has always, and must always set and enforce standards for moral and ethical behavior, or we have chaos, anarchy, and subjugation of the weak and helpless (in this case, unborn babies). Consider the fact that, if morality were truly a "private matter," each of us could subscribe to his own version of same.

"-Woman who get abortions mentally and emotionally check out, there is no bonding, but many later who do have kids think about it and mostly regret it."

This is a very harsh generalization assuming ALL women check out emotionally. Additionally, I would disagree with this assertion adamently. As much as abortionists would LIKE them to check out emotionally (i.e. a "fetus" rather than a "baby") women simply cannot get past the fact that they are killing a living human. As I've mentioned earlier, now that abortion has been legalized for several decades, we are starting to see the regret and social impact abortion has on mothers. So many of them must now deal with that decision for the REST of their lives. Adoption can help put away an unwanted baby into the past, but abortion is permanent. It is a past that will haunt forever because there is no going back. We are seeing this in society now with women who CHOSe Abortions...they are bleeding emotionally and often change their stance on Life/Choice. This is WHY Roe v. Wade can be overturned. The advocates who once supported it are now regretting the long term consequences...even Norma McCorvey (Roe) herself who is now PRO LIFE!

"-People will always have SEX and there will be unwanted pregnancy."

Therefore we should kill babies???

"What does a 3 or 4 week old fetus look like? NOTHING. I think at 6 weeks may be yolk sac and some leg buds. I don't think it looks like much until 9 weeks..."

Therefore it's okay to kill it? So now we are assigning human equality and the right to live according to size and shape? Look out dwarves and people missing limbs! Serious fallacy of logic here.

"When does life began?"

Irrelevant. The joining of an egg and sperm cell creates the POTENTIAL of a human. Not either by itself, but the joining thereof. If we're going to debate this, then why are liberals so hellbent on passing laws imprisoning people for destroying endangered sea turtle eggs? See the irrationality here? How ironic by the way.

"I do think its a horrible choice BUT also feel the government should stay out of peoples bed rooms and bodies."

Good point, JetPilot...the responsible CHOICE is in the bedrom. Government is out there. But the consequences from irresponsible choices in the bedroom must NOT be rewarded with another irresponsible choice...especially when it deals with another human being now.

"BUT AS A MAN WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY, ITS ALL A WOMANS GAME. Woman can choose to keep or not. Men have no say so."

Wrong again. Men have every right to be as responsible as women in the bedroom. Wasn't it mentioned that one of the largest advocate demographics of abortion is younger men? Hmmm. Wonder why. What about the father who WANTS to have a baby but the mother decided against? Likewise, if a mother does decide to have the baby, the father is responsible for child support. Bottom line, there are many reasons why men should be very involved in this issue.

John the amazing...
"sjt18-FR.W Most "Only Catholics have any right to quote Scripture at all."

Based on what? The say so of men? Paul wasn't Catholic. John wasn't. Peter wasn't.... neither were any of the early church fathers as you conceive the word "catholic". Catholic means the universal body of Christ... a spiritual kingdom of the redeemed that has not monarchal ecclesiastical hierarchy. The scriptures speak plainly that the redeemed are the body and Christ is the head.

"For in the early centuries there were many works called Gospels of James, of Thomas, of
Peter etc. along with the Gospels we know. How can anyone know which are part of the Bible?"

And again, the men who met and agree to what the canon of scripture was (the recognized the canon, they didn't create it) were not "catholic" in the sense you understand it.

Reference the site I gave you for a discussion about the FACT that the term "pope" did not exclusively refer to the Roman bishop until centuries after the canon was decided. Further, the dispersed bishops were seen as equal leaders of local congregations. Even reputable Catholic historians are cited by the site affirming this truth.

"Luther said that if a book preaches justification by
faith strongly, it is inspired. That was folly, for he did not prove that
is the standard."

The means used to recognize the canon were preserved. Among others they included, apostolic authority, uniqueness, agreement with other scriptures, and broad acceptance by the various INDEPENDENT local church bodies.

Luther only went part of the way out of Rome and he didn't reach the right conclusions on everything he diverged on.

"And also, he could write such a book, and so could I, and
it would not be inspired."

You as a Catholic however wouldn't since if you believe RCC dogma you don't believe in justification by faith as Paul, Augustine, and later the reformers taught.

"Calvin thought the Spirit tells each one
interiorly - much too subjective, room for mere imagination, and no proof
that is done anyway."

No proof to you, you mean? Actually, Spirit led faith is part of accepting the scriptures though I don't even think you've portrayed Calvin accurately. I doubt very seriously that he prescribed this as the only basis for determining the canon.

"The only way to know is if you can prove that there is a group, a Church,
commissioned by Jesus Himself to teach, and promised His protection: "He
who hears you hears me." (Luke 10.16) " Sounds harch but it's true."

Then certainly let us qualify that church. It would not be one with the blood of saints on its hands, it would not be one that intentionally kept lay people away from reading the scriptures for centuries, it would not be one that made up extra-bibical and even unbiblical doctrines,... It would not be the Roman Catholic Church.

However, your assertion isn't even true. Spirit led bishops/elders from across the dispersed churches met, discussed, and agreed upon what the canon was... they didn't wait on the Roman Catholic church to be formed before doing so.

FTR, the Bible teaches and Baptists believe in the priesthood of the believer. The believer doesn't depend on any "church" of men in men's wisdom. He depends just as the primitive Christians did on the teachings of the Apostles and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Any effort to insert a human organization or priest into that equation is antichrist.

Naked Pagan...
There are important holes in your reasoning when you say "If you execute someone for rape, then they have a strong motivation to murder their victim, since this is usally the only witness."

This is not a reason to be soft on rapists! The same logic you're using is that if we go soft on serial killers, they might not kill their victims. Therefore we should only take their car keys away???? We punish rapists because they rape. Rapists already selected to commit a horrendous crime, the punishment is not going to deter them once they've stepped across that line already!


Sjt18
If you can't see that the canon of scripture came from church Tradition,(this wasn't writen down) and that tradition itself is Extra Biblical then then you can't see likewise that to have the Bible it took tradition and that same tradition is passed on through the Apostolic laying on of hands from one bishop to the next until present day. Your Spirit lead indwelling is great but it , as I asked earlier, only gives rise to a million interprtations and ultimatly discord. This can't be what Christ wanted (20k-30k new Popes since Luther), If one just looks at the "blood of the saints" for example we can see that Dioclecian offered to the Christians to live among them and practice their belief if only they would stop the Eucharist. They refused, because without the true substancial presence of Christ in the Church there could be no church. Everything would become subjective and relative. Um kinda like our society today uh? It oesn't strike you that Luther could be wrong on somethings so instead of returning to the Catholic church the next splinter group took this new found truth and made it the lager truth thus pushing out other truths so as to splinter in turn some years later until finnaly we arrive at the truth. Who is to say as Potcius Pilote did "What is truth"? You, or two thousand years of Apostolic Tradition and the primacy of one that has a difinitive say on and claim to the "keys of heaven" that Christ promised us?

John M
You are ignorant. No fetus that has implanted in a fallopian tube can survive. It grows because it is programmed to do so. It grows and grows until it ruptures the fallopian tube killing the mother and killing the fetus through loss of blood. That is unless modern medicine intervenes either by diagnosing it before the hemmorhage or post hemmorhage at which point it is a medical emergency. The procedure uses the term abortion as part of a more complicated term. The fallopian tube is a perfectly good tube. It is being taken out because it has something growing in it. A woman only has two. I have known several women who have had ectopic pregnancies. One woman had two ectopic pregnancies thereby rendering her incapable of getting pregnant.
No one can unimplant a fetus from a fallopian tube and reinplant it in the uterus. It survives from the blood vessels that it grows and that sustain it. You can't cut those blood vessels and stick it into the uterus. This is the problem with non medical people making decisions for others. You can't wait for it to be born because that doesn't happen. What about the defense of self defense?

And if a couple finds out that they are both carriers of Tay Sachs and having watched one child die you are perfectly happy to tell them to keep having children and watching their children die, or have no natural children of their own. How very compassionate of you.

















John M and sjt18
John M: You Rock!!!! Thank you for spelling out the magnificence of the One True Church so well!!
sjt18: A book by Karl Keating entitled, "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" would be an EXCELLENT resource for you to consider in your search. And, trust me, you ARE still searching....

BTW
By the way, usually ectopic pregnancies are the result of the female having had a ruptured appendix and not knowing it because of a high pain threshold. The appendicitis can take place at any time before the female is married and trying to get pregnant. I am just heading you off in case you will say that loose living resulted in infections that messed the tubes up.

I guess I missed it...
Because surely someone would have been honest enough to say, "the whole point of the required ultrasound viewing is to influence the patient's decision using guilt. It is the sort of shameless emotional ruse the Right so often condemns the Libs for using."

I guess I missed it, because surely someone would have been honest enough to say the words... wouldn't they?


A Compromise: Post a NARAL warning
Perhaps a compromise could be reached. Viewing the sonogram would be required; however, on the video monitor and the printout of the sonogram, could be posted the following warning: "NARAL and feminist witches everywhere urge you not to believe what your lying eyes are seeing."

Abortion is a federal issue...
For a long time I agreed with the assertion that abortion was a state issue, but after re-reading the Declaration of Independence and pondering the following statement, I find that Life is a right;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Please take special notice that Life is listed first as the 3 unalienable Rights. This Right was so self-evident at the time that the Founding Fathers didn't make it part of the Bill of Rights. They couldn't have imagined the world that we live in, where woman are more concerned with their personal convenience then the lives of the child living within their body.

Recently Dem John Edwards said that Jesus would be appauled at the selfishness and greed of the world today. He is right! Jesus would be appauled at the selfishness of woman to kill their unborn children.

Reply to John M
You have been pumping up the RCC quite a bit. Do you believe that the Pope is infalliable? What part of scripture supports this assertion? What part of scripture supports confessing my sins to a priest? Or that Mary is a god? etc, etc.

And if the RCC is the true church, they you support their mass murder during the inquisition? What part of the Bible teaches that it is okay for the Church to support killing people that refuse to accept the Church?

What part of the Bible requires RCC clergy to be celebate? When did that change? You do know that their were Popes that had children? In fact, their were father/son Popes.

Life and Technology

The unborn is human LIFE at any stage of development in utero. Inside the human mother's womb is an actual developing human being; the unborn has a heartbeat before the mother even knows she is pregnant. At five weeks, when the abortion pill RU-486 is most effective, the doctor can detect that heartbeat.

The unborn is not brain dead. At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG; the human brain is one of the last regions to mature and does not finish developing until a person is at least in their 20s.

By week six, the unborn baby's appearance is beginning to look like a newborn's; the brain is continuing to grow; the nostrils are formed, and the nose is into its proper place.

We have recently heard the story about the "21-week-old miracle baby" and have seen her pictures; babies are aborted at this stage and referred to as a non-viable blob. I read that last year alone, nearly 12,000 abortions were committed in America against babies this age and older.

At every stage in the womb, they exhibit proof of life; and whether the law considers that human legal or not, abortion is the destruction of a human and the taking of its life.

The highest percentage of abortions occurs because women don't want the responsibility. It is the woman's body, but it is not her LIFE that she is taking; because of the latest technology, she has the opportunity to view that life before she makes her decision.
-----------

Jesus said: "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Matthew 18:14 (KJV)

Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic CHurch IS the one true church. The sacraments are an outward sign, instituted by CHrist, to give grace. Yes. There were immoral popes and immoral deeds. No, the "infallible" statements were never wrong--nor were they frequent. Hardly any at all as a matter of fact. THe Roman Catholic CHurch is a pilgrim church. Always growing and learning--yet adhering to the Bible AND tradition (something that non-Catholics cannot seem to relate to). As I mentioned earlier, an excellent resource which can address ALL of the flagrant misconceptions (no pun intended) about the pope, The Blessed Virgin, the saints, the martyrs, indulgences, purgatory, etc. is a book by Karl Keating entitled: Catholicism and Fundamentalism -- The Attack on Romanism by "Bible Christians." It is an historical book dealing with so many issues that non-catholics criticize because of lack of knowledge. In all my years (53) of being a Roman Catholic I have NEVER heard a priest put down another religion during a homily--only non-catholic churches indoctrinate their parishioners with nonsense about the Catholic faith--the one, true church of CHrist. The ONLY church that stands adamantly on the truth of Christ--never wavering from eternal truths. I love it!!!! It rocks!!!
It's tough love for sure. Especially regarding birth control and the forgiveness of sins--but there is no other church that stands firm against the gates of hell (which is America's thinking on so many things). As a matter of fact, EVEN the gates of hell have not been able to bring it down--even though sect after sect of every other imaginable religion keep cropping up. It is so cool to read about the many converts to Catholicism--the Jewish converts, the atheists, the agnostics, the physicists, the nuclear scientists. Until you have thoroughly investigated this faith on your own--by reading credible apologists and theologians--you can't possibly know the joys of the many graces bestowed on this "Rock."
"You are Peter and upon this Rock, I will build my church." That would be us.....

sjt18
I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts and am in total agreement with you concerning abortion. You're absolutely correct in pointing out that Scriptures don't speak about birth control. Neither positively nor negatively. However there are plenty of verses about children being always and only gifts from God such as this from Psalm 127:3-5. "Children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of the warrior are the children born in one's youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full..." And there are plenty of verses calling for believers to surrender to the will of the Father. Why would a believer say to God "I'll surrender to your will in my life in all things except this. I'll be in charge of this aspect of my life since I know better than you about when and if I want your gift of children in my life." That in a nutshell is the underlying reason for the teaching on birth control. It's all about faith and surrender and acceptance of the Father's will in our lives. People often use birth control for the same reasons that others choose abortion. Selfishness, convenience, control. I'm not saying that using birth control is the moral equivalent to having an abortion. I'm just saying that the reasons can be the same.

Jander, catholics definitely do not believe that Mary is a god. Not even remotely. But, this thread is not a thread for apologetics so I'm not going to respond to or explain catholic teaching on these other points that you make but there are definitely Biblical arguments for each. Except, of course, the inquisition. That was certainly a shameful event in the history of the church. And nobody defends it.

Have a good night. PP



Star Parker

BTW-Good job on this column, keep it up !

stj18
>They're counting from the last menstrual period. Not conception

Your misleading by equivocating. If you are going to discuss medical concepts, you need to use standard medical terminology. If your just going to make stuff up as you feel like it, then you are not going to be understood.

>Are you trying to justify the immediate killing of all children under the age of 5?

No. This is the logical conclusion from your line of thinking.

You are intenionally being decietful and mudding the waters

stj18
>I would say that abortions performed on women who were unaware that sex creates a risk of pregnancy is fairly low, wouldn't you?

No, I would not. I would say a lack of knowlege of a persons reproductive health would increase the chance of an unwanted pregancy.

To make an informed decision, people have to have accurate knowlege, not propaganda

SC May Be On to Something

For consistency's sake, how about we make the South Carolina Statute a federal law, and we also require that our commanders-in-chief must view pictures of all the young children in every village, town, and city that we bomb?

Some thoughts:
Some of us pro-lifers are also in favor of womens' rights when they are legitimate. There are feminist pro-lifers too.

It isn't much fun having to argue against conservatives and false "feminists" who ignore the authentic women's sufferage history. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Blackwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were all pro-lifers of their time. Yes, abortion was a problem even then. In the current era, there are Feminists for Life and Susan B. Anthony List. Many thanks to conservatives who acknowledge this and avoid femi-nazi slanders against all women's rights supporters.

We expect young men to give up control of their bodies to fight in the military because we know they protect our nation. They can lose their freedom, their limbs, their lives for this.

Why can't we expect a woman to go through pregnancy to protect one citizen? I am a woman of childbearing age, and I believe equality must include sacrifice.

We are no longer in the nineteenth century when women gave birth at great peril, getting pregnant every year, having cildren until their bodies couldn't take it anymore. Female chauvinists (commonly referred to as "feminists") should stop acting like we are!

N.C. should not pass this law without also requiring a counselor from a crisis pregnancy center to be present to let the woman (especially in a rape case) know that she is not alone. Pro-lifers are here to help her and the child through this traumatic time.

Life, NOT Humanity, Begins at Conception

Certainly the fertilized egg is alive, it has life, since it is not inert or dead. But human??

I would have more respect more this knee-jerk assumption of the pro-life movement (and apparently of most readers of this column, if you all lived that belief consistently. More than half or these unicellular human beings of yours do not implant in the uterine wall, and die in the trash can or the waste removal systems. Why are we not insisting that all sexually active women be confined for the duration of their menses, which should be carefully parsed for single-celled human beings who should all be given a proper burial if expensive and heroic measures to save their lives are unsuccessful?

For that matter, when a woman suffers a miscarriage why isn't it the norm to have a funeral, a period of morning, and a burial? According to the "life begins at conception" school of thought here was a life that began, flourished a few months, and then was tragically cut short. Why do we not behave the same way as when a young child tragically dies?

It's easy to proclaim that "humanity begins at conception" (which is what you all mean when you sloppily say that 'life begins at conception') when you're all telling some unfortunate woman what she has to do with her own body. That's no skin off your own noses. But if you don't live your own lives by those laws, you are hypocrites.

Certainly the newborn is a human being, and to kill it would be murder. The ancient Hebrew tradition declared the child fully human when it's head and shoulders emerged from the womb. That seems harsh to me, I think the child was just as human the day before it was born. I agree that a woman's right to control her own body does not give her the right to commit murder, and at some point (and that point comes before birth) the developing fetus is a human being and it's abortion would be murder.

I don't know when that point in time occurs, but the Abortion debate will not progress beyond sloganeering and name-calling until we realize that this is a conflict between two valid, legitimate, and fundamentally vital rights: That of a Human Being to live, and that of a Woman to control her own body.

In my opinion our legal system has to make some kind of rough estimate as to when a developing fetus must be considered to be a human being, and among the factors informing that decision should be an appreciation of the way people traditionally view and behave towards unimplanted zygotes and miscarried fetuses.

For the reasons I describe above I find it obviously ridiculous to consider the just-fertilized embryo to be a fully realized human being. (Doesn't this single cell grow into both the fetus and the placenta??) If a woman wants an Abortion she should do it ASAP and unencumbered by waiting periods. If the decision is put off for too long, then it really would be murder.

I41say, PatsyP, Others

You all claim the Bible obviously shows teh unborn to be human beings, but you quote irrelevant verses. 'I41say' gives Mathew 18:14, but Mathew 18:2 shows that Jeses say speaking of living children like the one he called over and put his arm around. Patsyp gives Psalms 127:3-5, which say nothing about unborn fetuses, just children who'll care for you in old age.

Doesn't the contrast between Exodus 21:12 and Exodus 21:22-25 make it obvious that the murder of a human being by violence (punishable by death) is fundamentally and completely different than violently injuring a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage (incurring a monetary fine set by her husband)?? Indeed, verses 22-25 show that the miscarriage is less grievious than injuring the woman's body.

Sorry About The Typos

It's too late at night.

Uncle Max "My 2 Cents"
How easy it is for so many of us to take a hard stand against sins of the younger generation.

As time goes on we are no longer subject to the same temptations. Due to our "hard-earned" wisdom, we now have the right to preach morals to those who follow.

So what if WE broke the rules. We know better now.

You say you are a practicing Catholic. What were you practicing 24 years ago? LOL

You gotta respect
You gotta respect people who speak rationally and make sense.

Flaming Liberal Multiculturalist: That's the conclusion I reached in Biomedical Ethics 25 years ago. Lacking a truly moral solution the only thing to do is go with the practical solution.

I also agree with SimJimSucks: "Pro-lifers should adamantly support EC."

Flaming Liberal Multiculturalist
My reference to Psalm 127 wasn't concerning the human-ness of unborn children but rather a response to a specific point about birth control made by another poster. In that context it wasn't irrelevant at all. The verses you site from Exodus are about accidental miscarriage and not about purposefully killing an unborn child so those verses could be considered irrelevant to the discussion of abortion as well.

Sim
Your current lifestyle and your horrible past have left you completely in the hands of the devil. You view life through your own myopic vision. Broaden your horizons. Read more. Especially about the lives of the saints and while you're at it, read about how the teacher/student sex ratio is 95 percent higher than any priest/child ratio. Quit believing the mainstream media. Do research. Live a little--start enjoying life instead of continuing through it with such an awful chip on your shoulder. The past is done. THe future is yours to change. To enjoy even!! I tried addressing you before on these issues, but you're tied down. There's really nothing I can do but offer for you to seek counseling. Good luck. I will continue to pray for you.

pagan, are you serious?
"stj18
>I would say that abortions performed on women who were unaware that sex creates a risk of pregnancy is fairly low, wouldn't you?

No, I would not. I would say a lack of knowlege of a persons reproductive health would increase the chance of an unwanted pregancy.

To make an informed decision, people have to have accurate knowlege, not propaganda"

Your telling me that there are a mass of women or even girls who are engaging in sex a la "Blue Lagoon" without knowing that they're running the risk of pregnancy?

That is absolutely inane.

Here is some information for you just in case. Please pass it on to anyone you know that is truly as ignorant as your post suggests:

HAVING SEX COMES WITH RISKS THAT INCLUDE PREGNANCY, DISEASE, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.

I think I know what you are trying to say. You are trying to say they aren't responsible for their own failures unless we assume that they're animals without control of their passions and arm them with knowledge of various birth control methods. Unless we arm them with the illusion that they can evade all the consequences if they can simply prevent some pregnancies and diseases.

That simply isn't true though. They are morally culpable beings that KNOW the choice they are making has potential consequences that they don't want. The fact that they may not have a moral set strong enough to prevent them from rationalizing away the risk doesn't mean that they then get a "super-right" to kill someone else to avoid the consequences of their foolish decision.

Medical science is just beginning to understand the chemistry involved in sex. It isn't a detached action like social liberals like to think. It generates biological responses that are intended to produce bonding between a monogamous couple. When used perversely, sex has direct and detrimental effects on a persons physical and emotional well-being.

The Bible once again predicted what medical science would find by about 2000 years.

This all comes down to a basic, fundamental issue of rights and responsibilities (aka freedom, liberty). A person may follow their own conscience and make good or bad decisions.
They can harm or destroy themselves informed or not without our approval. A person may not demand that someone else bear the consequences for them regardless of whether they were wise enough to gain wisdom before acting or not.

I am not saying that we as individuals and especially Christians shouldn't reach out as individuals and voluntary groups to rescue those who've made bad decisions. We should and also share with them the truth about their mistakes. We should do all we can to warn them before hand according to the dictates of our own conscience and perception of truth. We should not however have gov't sponsorship or facilitation of bad, immoral choices much less the evasion of the consequences of those choices.

FTR, around 1960, the illegitimacy rate amongst blacks was rightly seen by Moynahan as a threat to their ever achieving success as a community. It was then around 30% and considered epidemic. Amongst whites it was less than 5%.

The national illegitimacy rate today after the sexual revolution, widespread info concerning birth control, and abortion is approaching 40% (Don't even try to say that they knew more about birth control in the 50's than today other than abstinance. Nor were there numerous back alley abortions). This is simply unsustainable. We will either see a third Great Awakening or else we will decay from within as a nation.

The plight of inner city blacks may be predictive of our whole society if we don't change our attitudes concerning morality and specifically sexual morality.

truetolife
" and the Truth will set you free". Your posts are a breath of fresh air. If people would take an honest look at the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church the would rush to the Banquet Table of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. Didn't Jesus say: "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you shall not have life within you"? God bless you, True...... You are truly being a servant in helping "the lost sheep" return to the Shepherd and His Church.

What is the difference between a protestant and a dissenting Catholic?
Answer - Integrity

patsyp: Re Exodus 21:12,22-25
patsyp:
"The verses you site from Exodus are about accidental miscarriage and not about purposefully killing an unborn child so those verses could be considered irrelevant to the discussion of abortion as well."

I know of no other place in the Bible where the issue of the unnatural termination of pregnancy via human action is so directly addressed. If you declare them to be irrelevant, you must declare the Bible to be mute regarding this issue. As I read them, 22-25 strongly indicate that the loss of a womans ongoing pregnancy is a lesser matter, incurring lesser penalties, than the loss of that same woman's eye, hand, or foot.

Difference?
"What is the difference between a protestant and a dissenting Catholic?
Answer - Integrity"

Thank God I am neither.

I am a Baptist. Like the term "Christian" used first at Antioch, the term Baptist or Anabaptist was first used as a derision or else accusation by Catholics and Protestants alike.

Baptists defer to scripture to give us the pure, primitive doctrines and faith. These do not include the Marian doctrines of Rome, prayers to saints, baptismal regeneration, purgatory, works salvation, salvation by ritual/sacrament, salvation as a commodity dispensed by an earthly church, the Pope, ex cathedra, apostolic succession, and numerous other false, unbiblical beliefs.

The basic fundamental starting point is soteriology. The one contrived by the traditions and dogmas of Rome simply isn't the same one taught by Christ and His Apostles. It is particularly anti-paulene.

In a nutshell, Paul wrote:

For by grace (unmerited favor fem. in Greek) are ye saved (redeemed from condemnation neuter in Greek) through faith (belief fem in Gr) and that (neuter pointing to "saved") not of yourselves (not a human device, effort, ritual, act, etc) it is the gift of God. Not of WORKS(not baptism, sacrament, confession, pennance, offering, etc) lest ANY MAN (to include Pope or priest) should boast (take credit from God).

There is simply no room in Paul's doctrine for salvation to be dependent on church offices and sacraments that weren't even in existence until several hundred years later.

The most basic doctrine is that of biblical salvation and the most primitive form of it is that taught by Baptists and likeminded others to include some protestants like Presbyterians and even old style Wesleyan Methodists.

The Bible is not mute
concerning the personhood of the unborn.

Further, the legal reason to outlaw abortion is simply that a human being that can only be categorized as "alive" by any scientific rationale is in danger of being killed because someone doesn't like the consequences of a freely made moral choice.

Reply to PatsyP
Catholics don't consider Mary a God? Really? Why do some Catholics worship her? Why do some Catholics see her image on the side of buildings? Why do Catholics have little huts on the side of the road with a statue of Mary and many candles all around the statue? Is this not idol worship?

Acts 10: 25-26:

25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.
26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

Why would you treat a dead saint or a living Pope any different?

The Roman
As nothing happens by chance, you were instrumental (through God's will) in helping me with something I've been struggling with. Thank you! You're right. If only people understood the truth.....but Jesus stands at the door of EVERY heart and knocks. It MUST BE opened from within. That whole pesky "free will" thing!!

sjt18: Bible & Unborn Personhood

sjt18:
"The Bible is not mute concerning the personhood of the unborn."

I don't believe it is, either. I just believe that the Exodus verses I cited above are relevant to that issue, contrary to PatsyP's claim that they are not. Are there writings in the Bible even more directly relevant?

sjt18:
"Further, the legal reason to outlaw abortion is simply that a human being that can only be categorized as "alive" by any scientific rationale is in danger of being killed because someone doesn't like the consequences of a freely made moral choice."

I'm not sure I understand the above statement, but I disagree with my best guesses as to it's meaning. In my earlier post I explained why I believe that the just-fertilized embryo is clearly NOT a person & I showed how most people (including pro-lifers) behave as if the newly-fertilized embryo is not a person. Certainly these 'scientific rationales' argue that the newly-fertilized embryo is not a person.

The rest of your statement seems like a circular argument to me. I think you're saying that abortion is murder because you are avoiding the consequences of a freely made moral choice (to have sex) by committing murder.

offering $500 for a woman....
NOT to abort her baby!!! Go Texas!!!! Don't mess with them!!!!
PP of course is totally disingenuous about believing that they want abortions to be "rare." They are up in arms (baby arms) about this new legislation being proposed to pay women to place their babies for adoption rather than aborting them. Wait for the mass hysteria.....the devil will be all over this one.....

pro-abortion semantics
It would also be very helpful if the term "unborn baby" was consistently used in this debate, rather than the word "fetus." Regardless of the stage of the unborn child's development, he/she is a human being. The pro-abortion lobby uses the term "fetus" to dehumanize the unborn child.

but you refuse to listen
to truth such as:

There are some who claim that the morning-after pill is not abortifacient because pregnancy only starts when an embryo implants in the womb. That is playing with words. A leading textbook on embryology says: "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilisation (conception)." 22 The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary defines conception as: "The start of pregnancy, when a male germ cell (sperm) fertilises a female germ cell (ovum) in the fallopian tube." 23

When we are dealing with the morning-after pill we are clearly dealing with chemically induced abortion.

The Church cannot remain silent on this issue, given the serious nature of what is being proposed. In presenting the facts set out in this letter we are not seeking to impose our views on others. Rather we want to place before those willing to listen the truth about how the morning-after pill works, and the impact it can have on the health and wellbeing of women. These matters should be a cause for concern well beyond the Catholic Church.


You're too hung up on your own situation. I understand that you've been violated--that is no reason to continue to violate yourself. Which is what you're doing.

As far as pedophiles--DUH. Can you understand this?? THAT IS BAD. In ANY population of people. SIN IS BAD. In ALL of us. Do you believe that you also are a sinner??

reference
the above info is from the Catholic Conference of Bishops. Truly wholesome reading. And world changing (for the better) when we endorse those things which are of God.

FLM
Hopefully you're still looking.

I'm not sure what you aren't getting but my argument is for certain not circular regarding responsibility.

A woman is free to have sex. But that freedom comes with known responsibilities. She does not have the right to evade those responsibilities by killing the unborn child who was innocent of her bad choice. That is pretty plain, simple, and reasonable, right? If not, please explain how her reckless abuse of freedom should afford her an additional right to kill an innocent victim to avoid unwanted consequences.

As for the origin of life, at least you are discussing it reasonably. Medically speaking you cannot point to a place where human metabolism (life) begins after the point of conception. It is a interdependent chain of processes. OTOH, from a legal standpoint, we already have declared that life involves certain things. A person with a heartbeat, brainwaves, and prospects for living normally is certainly considered a legal "life". An unborn has these things within a few weeks of conception.

Whether it happens to be my particular opinion or one more liberal or conservative, I think our nation needs a national, legislated, perhaps even constitutional standard for the point at which we grant rights and protection to the unborn. Maybe it should be conception. Maybe it should be the first heartbeat or brainwave. It certainly shouldn't be any point up to birth... but this is a debate that should be had rather than decided by judicial fiat.

tol
The unfortunate thing about the all or nothing demands is that we aren't making progress and millions are dying in the interim.

If we could outlaw today all abortions except for those that take place before implantation, lives would be saved. It is a worthwhile, incremental step. Further, the Pope or RCC declaring something to be so doesn't make it so or make most Americans believe it (maybe not even most Catholics). If most people can be made to understand that a 3-4 week old baby has a measurable heartbeat and meets the legal qualifications for life under any other circumstance... then we should capitalize on that first rather than demanding all or nothing.

not that more warnings are needed, but..
it is still good to remember our final destiny and give in to the moral decay of our culture of death.

Theophilus of Antioch stated:



"Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire" (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

'None', it's not Just Semantics

None:
"It would also be very helpful if the term "unborn baby" was consistently used in this debate, rather than the word "fetus." Regardless of the stage of the unborn child's development, he/she is a human being."

Err, no. Please see my 1st post in this thread. It's clear (to me, anyway), that the fetus is not a human being at the instant of conception, and the way we all (and by 'all' I include the most ardent pro-lifers) treat this fetus and one, two, three and four months of gestation is very differently than we treat a human being, except in that unique instance when some of us condemn a woman for seeking an abortion.

So--the fetus is not a human being.....
is it the beginning of "something?" The middle of "something?" the end of "something?" I think we should abort all puppies and kittens--they're irresponsible and all the strays are inconvenient to me. I think we should abort whale babies and leave the waters more available for cruise ships and things that please me. I really detest bats--they should be eliminated. I don't like mosquitoes--they should be wiped out. The food chain is emotionally distressing to me--it needs to be aborted. I believe in Planned Pethood. They are a wonderful organization. I think we should give millions of taxpayer dollars to them to control the irresponsible bunnies who have neither the means nor the intention to take care of their offspring. After all, it's just a mass of cells. It only has the potential to become an animal. I don't really like animals--they're inconvenient to me. I don't like having to make room for them when I'm walking on the sidewalk. It's my body and I shouldn't have to make room for something that is inconvenient for me. I think that children are forced to care for them when they're too young. They have their whole lives ahead of them and it is irresponsible to expect them to care for something that is helpless. Animals are too much work--they cry and whine and you have to be able to afford to feed them. If you don't like animal abuse--don't do it. Also, if you don't agree with me you're stupid and mean-spirited.

sjt18: Regarding Circularity

I should say first of all that, while I concede that there is a relationship between the two, I am far more concerned with the civil and criminal laws governing abortion in this world than I am with our religious or moral sensibilities towards the issue (though in earlier posts I did demonstrate that the Bible does not equate abortion with murder).

sjt18:
"A woman is free to have sex. But that freedom comes with known responsibilities. She does not have the right to evade those responsibilities by killing the unborn child who was innocent of her bad choices."

If, by this statement, you mean to show that Abortion is Murder (that is, the unjustified killing of a human being) then your argument is obviously circular, as you are assuming in it's statements that the fetus is an "unborn child" which I take to be a synonym for "human being". Or are you saying that abortion is a bad thing for some other reason?

sjt18:
"That is pretty plain, simple, and reasonable, right? If not, please explain how her reckless abuse of freedom should afford her an additional right to kill an innocent victim to avoid unwanted consequences."

sjt18, in the above statement you seem to be imagining a promiscuous woman (too stupid or horny to care about contraception) running about and spreading her legs beneath any willing man until she finds herself pregnant, and who now wants to get rid of the inconvenience so she can get back to running around and spreading her legs.

Is the rape victim guilty of a "reckless abuse of freedom"? How about the married couple whose contraception has failed and who are barely feeding their children, have they "recklessly abused their freedom"? What if that couple is not married? What of the woman who is dumped and abandoned by her lover of several years, once HE is faced with some consequences of his choices, has she "recklessly abused her freedom"? You'll find them all in line at Planned Parenthood, right there with Ms. Can't-keep-her-legs-closed.

I have to say that different religions and different moral sensibilities make differing amounts of sense to me, but I don't begrudge you your religion or your moral viewpoint, even if Ms. Can't-keep-her-legs-closed is the beginning and end of your model for your view of Abortion.

However, I am very particular about what religious and moral positions get codified into U.S. Federal and State law. I have a BIG PROBLEM with outlawing Abortion because many promiscuous women want one. Frankly, promiscuity is not illegal in most states. I don't even think Adultery is illegal in most states, however much some people may frown upon it. MURDER is illegal, and if Abortion is Murder then it should be outlawed.

We've defined Murder already, Abortion is Murder if the fetus is a Human Being.

sjt18:
"I think our nation needs a national, legislated, perhaps even constitutional standard for the point at which we grant rights and protection to the unborn."

This is something that we agree on. Frankly, this is something that most EVERYBODY agrees on, though different people would draw the line at different spots. But there are some extreme areas where even pro-choice activists agree with you. It's a very rare pro-choice activist who would, for example, support a woman who calls for an abortion after a couple hours of labor.

What I argue in my earlier post ("Life, NOT Humanity, Begins at Conception" above) is that our decision about where to draw that line should be determined (more than anything else) by the way we regard and treat the fetus when we aren't debating Abortion.

We toss tampons and sanitary napkins in the toilet or garbage can, and for sexually active women (absent contraception) the odds are 50-50 that there's a fertilized embryo in there. The woman who miscarries at four or even five months may be sad about it, but in almost all cases she and her loved ones behave very differently than they would if their toddler died beneath the wheels of an automobile.

Please understand that I do not denigrate or wish to change these attitudes towards un-implanted zygotes or miscarried fetuses. I think they are right and common-sense appropriate, and they are the way we have behaved since, well, since we were people in the 1st place (actually even longer than that!). I think this is how our Maker made us to behave (yes, I DO believe in God).

But when people who live their lives this way (and that's almost all of us) get to talking about Abortion, and then get up upon their moral high horses and say "OF COURSE life begins at the instant of conception" I tend to lose my respect for them (or at least, I try to educate them first).

Frankly, I have more respect for Ms. Can't-keep-her-legs-closed. Not only is she alot more fun, she's not a hypocrite.



You are so wrong FLM
If a woman knows a fertilized egg has been flushed out of her body, she should mourn it just as she would a 10 year old child. She should take the egg to the genetics lab and see if they can use the DNA to predict what the child would have looked like. She should name her dead child, and mourn for a period of one year before taking part in any of the joys of life.

Now with women who miscarry after being pregnant for several weeks, they should be prosecuted for killing their unborn child. People go to jail all the time for accidentally killing people in car accidents etc. Why shouldn't the mother be jailed for failing to provide optimal womb conditions for her growing baby? Maybe she drank or smoked too much. Maybe she fell down the stairs. Regardless of why she lost the baby, she adn she alone is responsible and should have to face the consequences- go to the genetics lab to get a sketch of the the child's physical features so that the jury can see the face of the child this thoughtless mother killed.

There can be no mercy or understanding when it comes to women who fail to give birth to babies after getting pregnant. For that matter, we should also jail women who fail to get pregnant after daily tries with their husbands if more than three years have passed. Obviously, these women are resorting to black magic to prevent pregnancies, which is totally disrespecting the hard work the husband puts in every day. For the husband's sake, wives should be forced to bear children who will carry on the husband's name and glory into the next generation. What else could women possibly be good for?

ttl & HoneyPie

truetolife, I don't know what to tell you; maybe you should be a vegetarian. (I am.)

Hi HoneyPie,
That was pretty funny! I feel relieved, just like when I'm doing 70 on the Interstate & somebody passes me doing 90. It's not me they'll be looking at!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.