Abortion and the Negation of Love
Apr 13, 2011
Joe Carter
Those of us in the pro-life movement often claim that we live in a “culture of death.” But most of us don't believe it. Not really. We may use the phrase as a rhetorical tool, but deep in our hearts we think that our family, friends, and neighbors wouldn't knowingly kill another human being. 
We convince ourselves that they simply don't realize what they're doing. If only they could see—and honestly look at—the ultrasound pictures of an unborn child. If only we could convince them that what they consider a “clump of cells” is a person. If only they knew it was a human life they were destroying. If they only knew, they wouldn’t—they couldn’t—continue to support abortion.
But they do know. And the abortions continue. Not because we live in a culture of death but because we live in a culture of me.
The recent debate over defunding Planned Parenthood reminded me of a 2003 article in Glamour magazine about a group of abortion clinics that called themselves the November Gang. The clinics would encourage women to express their feelings about their abortions by writing them down on a pink, heart-shaped sheet of paper:
• "Women: This is your life and your body. What you think is right . . . is! No matter what anyone else has to say about it. Look around you . . . many people sat in that same chair. Be strong. And if you think this is a “sin,” remember, God forgives!"
• "For my little angel: Although I say goodbye to you today, you will always be in my mind, heart, and soul. Please understand that this wasn't your time because you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment. My own creation, you are and forever will be beautiful and pure. I smile when I think of you, even if I cry. You have given me reason to be strong and wise and responsible. You will always be my baby. I will see you in heaven, sweetheart. I LOVE YOU! Always and unconditionally, Your Mommy."
• "I didn't let your dad know about you, simply because I'm ashamed. In my heart I will miss you but physically I don't have the means to take care of you and your older sister. I will never label you a mistake, because God obviously thought you should have been here, even though I beg to differ."
Notice that all three examples mention God. God forgives. The baby is better off with God. However, the last one best sums up this attitude behind the Culture of Me: God thought you should be born, but I beg to differ.
Unfortunately, the repercussions aren't as easy to dismiss as God's will. Claire Keyes, the executive director of Allegheny County Reproductive Health Center, shared some of the questions women asked her before going through the procedure:
“First and foremost, the question is ‘Will I ever be free of guilt?’” Keyes says. “That’s followed by ‘Will I ever go to hell?’ ‘Will God take one of my other children from me?’ ‘What gives me the right to decide which of my children lives and which dies?’
Keyes, who at the time had been with the abortion industry for 25 years, said she didn’t know how to answer (nor do the answers seem to matter to her). But in the late 1980s she had an epiphany:
“We in the movement, those of us in the clinics at the beginning, were so caught up in the early euphoria about winning a right to an abortion, we weren’t listening to what the patients were saying. They weren’t talking about abortion in the same way we were. They weren’t talking about the constitution or women's rights. And many of them weren't talking about a bunch of cells, either. They might call it ‘my baby,’ even though they were firm about going through with the procedure. Many of them expressed relief, but many also talked about sadness and loss. And we weren’t paying attention.”
Note that when she says “we weren’t paying attention” she isn't referring to the fact that there may be something immoral about helping women kill what they would refer to as “my baby.” No, what Keyes said the movement wasn't paying attention to was the fact that women were having painful feelings about what they were doing.
Pangs of conscience are, of course, a natural reaction to the taking of an innocent life. But while the Culture of Me can accept an unborn child being ripped from the womb, having hurt feelings about such actions is unacceptable.
The end of the Glamour article closes with a feature called, “Women tell the true story of my abortion.” Unsurprisingly, the women represented are more concerned about their own anguish than they are regretful about their decision to kill another human:
• “I don’t want this to affect the rest of my life.” — Carla, 23
• “There's a great quote from the essayist Katha Pollitt that comforts me. She said, ‘A woman has about 30 years of potential fertile sex. That’s a long time to go without a slipup.’” — Lisa, 32
• “When I finally confessed my abortion—after 25 years—I dreaded what kind of penance the priest would give me. He said, ‘I want you to say one Our Father and one Hail Mary. Then I want you to go home and make a list of the good things you’ve also done in all those years. Until you see the past wasn’t all bad, you can't move into the future.’ I did, and it made all the difference in the world.” — Frances, 45
• “There was never a doubt in my mind about [having the abortion]. . . .I was financially, emotionally, and psychologically incapable of dealing with motherhood, not to mention that I smoked a pack a day and my idea of breakfast was a KitKat.” — Donna, 38
But the most revealing confession came from thirty-five-year-old Micaela:
"This may sound strange, but I felt I knew the being I was carrying. I felt he was my son. I even called him Ernesto. And Ernesto was my reminder that my life was significant and that having an abortion was putting my life first. I know it was really about me, about promising myself that now I get to be super thoughtful about my life, super intentional—and that's what the last five years since the abortion have been about."
While rereading these quotes I was reminded of the words of Josef Pieper. In his book Faith, Hope, Love, the Thomist philosopher examines the various meanings and connections between the concepts we use to describe “love.” What, he asks, is the “recurrent identity underlying the countless forms of love?”
“My tentative answer to this question runs as follows: In every conceivable case love signifies much the same as approval. This is first of all to be taken in the literal sense of the word's root: loving someone or something means finding him or its probes, the Latin word for ‘good.’ It is a way of turning to him or it and saying, “It's good that you exist; it's good that you are in the world!”
The opposite of love is the frame of mind that declares, “It's good that you not exist; it’s good that you are not in the world!” No matter what words they chose to scribble on a pink paper heart, this was the true message being spoken to the lost unborn children.
These women were informed that abortion was a reasonable choice. What no one told them was that what they were choosing was the negation of love.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Glamour, Are You Ready to Really Understand Abortion? [PDF]
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Hearts full of hurt: Abortion clinic messages reflect new counseling philosophy
Comments:
4.13.2011 | 3:48am
Soodonim says:
I think if anything this article actually demonstrates that this is not the "culture of me." It's a deeply conflicted and spiritually ambiguous culture. The women's mention of God is indicative of someone attempting to process an event on a spiritual level. These are not casual "negations of love," but difficult decisions made. If it was a culture of me there would be no guilt, no remorse, no desire to see this as a spiritual event and no confession afterwards. Nothing would be written on those "heart-shaped sheets of paper."
The advice of the priest I think is incredibly wise; to write down all the good that has been done in the years hence, years that might have been compromised with the addition of a child the parents were unable to raise. The child's existence might very well have negated a great deal of love. These women clearly view something as being preserved because of the abortion, not negated.
I also think its intellectually irresponsible for this article to be "inspired" by the arguments concerning the defunding of planned parenthood, which primarily provides other services to women who would not be able to get them otherwise. The inspiration is a thinly veiled political maneuver and its disappointing to see such a thing done here.
Also this...
"This is why abortion remains the ultimate issue. Its acceptability is the nadir of our modern society, the lies told to support it distort every aspect of our culture. It is the ultimate depravity"
...is truly asinine. I find it hard to believe that the "ultimate issue" is one not mentioned in the Bible. This represents a preferential blindness to things that matter more.
The advice of the priest I think is incredibly wise; to write down all the good that has been done in the years hence, years that might have been compromised with the addition of a child the parents were unable to raise. The child's existence might very well have negated a great deal of love. These women clearly view something as being preserved because of the abortion, not negated.
I also think its intellectually irresponsible for this article to be "inspired" by the arguments concerning the defunding of planned parenthood, which primarily provides other services to women who would not be able to get them otherwise. The inspiration is a thinly veiled political maneuver and its disappointing to see such a thing done here.
Also this...
"This is why abortion remains the ultimate issue. Its acceptability is the nadir of our modern society, the lies told to support it distort every aspect of our culture. It is the ultimate depravity"
...is truly asinine. I find it hard to believe that the "ultimate issue" is one not mentioned in the Bible. This represents a preferential blindness to things that matter more.
4.13.2011 | 8:39am
jason taylor says:
"The advice of the priest I think is incredibly wise; to write down all the good that has been done in the years hence, years that might have been compromised with the addition of a child the parents were unable to raise. The child's existence might very well have negated a great deal of love. These women clearly view something as being preserved because of the abortion, not negated."
The priest was being foolish. The lady should do penance by doing child care during morning service taking care of other people's children. It would be torturous but sometimes true repentance is torturous and that might well be a better way to bring it about then saying ritual prayers. As for writing down all the good things she has done in the past, most of us remember those rather to well for our own good anyway, and almost always overestimate them.
The priest was being foolish. The lady should do penance by doing child care during morning service taking care of other people's children. It would be torturous but sometimes true repentance is torturous and that might well be a better way to bring it about then saying ritual prayers. As for writing down all the good things she has done in the past, most of us remember those rather to well for our own good anyway, and almost always overestimate them.
4.13.2011 | 8:47am
Steve Billingsley says:
Soodonim,
Wow! Denial is not just a river in Egypt is it? If it wasn't so completely tragic, I would almost be impressed by the level of self-deception required to write such a comment. The Scripture talks about "searing of the conscience" and it is a truly frightening thing to behold.
I hope that at some point the blinders will be removed and the truth will strike home.
Wow! Denial is not just a river in Egypt is it? If it wasn't so completely tragic, I would almost be impressed by the level of self-deception required to write such a comment. The Scripture talks about "searing of the conscience" and it is a truly frightening thing to behold.
I hope that at some point the blinders will be removed and the truth will strike home.
4.13.2011 | 8:56am
Mick Lee says:
No one talks about it; but a lot of women and girls are sitting in abortion waiting rooms because their parents, boyfriends or husband TOLD and BULLIED them to be there.
Where is all this concern for "choice" when this happens?
Where is all this concern for "choice" when this happens?
4.13.2011 | 9:15am
Ars Artium says:
Most people do not really believe that we can know the future, not, that is, if we allow ourselves to carefully think about the matter. Still it is certainly not uncommon that we act as if we did possess this power. We do this most especially in time of great stress and uncertainty.
A birth is a monumental, life-changing event in every way, for all concerned. The difficulties can seem overwhelming; the joys remote, too difficult to predict with certainty. Mothers therefore require and must have assistance, every possible help, in sustaining their irreplaceable protection of their children.
The love for their unborn children that the mothers expressed, a love so fundamental that the Bible does indeed use it as the ultimate standard of trust, ("can a mother forget the child of her womb?") is actually offered by those considering abortion as a reason for choosing the death of the child. It all seems so reasonable, as evil often does, at least until too late we see how truly horrible it is.
But in the case of abortion, as the priest taught, the penitent mother must never despair and think that this evil act defines an entire life. She can, especially after confession and repentance, accept God's forgiveness and "sin no more". She can instead do good, much good, as Dr. Bernard Nathanson did and redeem her life from destruction.
A birth is a monumental, life-changing event in every way, for all concerned. The difficulties can seem overwhelming; the joys remote, too difficult to predict with certainty. Mothers therefore require and must have assistance, every possible help, in sustaining their irreplaceable protection of their children.
The love for their unborn children that the mothers expressed, a love so fundamental that the Bible does indeed use it as the ultimate standard of trust, ("can a mother forget the child of her womb?") is actually offered by those considering abortion as a reason for choosing the death of the child. It all seems so reasonable, as evil often does, at least until too late we see how truly horrible it is.
But in the case of abortion, as the priest taught, the penitent mother must never despair and think that this evil act defines an entire life. She can, especially after confession and repentance, accept God's forgiveness and "sin no more". She can instead do good, much good, as Dr. Bernard Nathanson did and redeem her life from destruction.
4.13.2011 | 9:53am
Mark says:
Soodonim says: "planned parenthood, which primarily provides other services to women who would not be able to get them otherwise."
Yeah, and Hitler made all those great Volkswagons.
Yeah, and Hitler made all those great Volkswagons.
4.13.2011 | 10:14am
Ann says:
Abortion may be an issue of "the culture of me" but by in large women who are unexpectedly pregnant aren't carrying signs proclaiming, "my body, my choice." They're scared out of their wits. How many of these women listed fear of incompetence as a mom, or lack of preparation, or financial fears as a reason for their abortion?
Have we ever considered that our entry into the pro-life movement could be helping these women, rather than disputation in the political arena? There are hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers across this nation that don't perform abortions or offer referals for them. What they do is offer help, they reach out to the woman who is saying "I can't do it, the baby must go" and help her to reach the conclusion "It will be hard, but I will raise this child." They may offer free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, maternity clothing, financial assistance for housing, pre-natal care, baby equipment, baby clothing (for as long as two years some places), diapers and wipes, formula assistance, parenting classes, adoption referals the list goes on.
Not all centers offer services but all centers reach out to their sisters in need and offer them the hope they need to bring forth the life they carry. Offering that hope and support is really a pro-life thing to do.
Have we ever considered that our entry into the pro-life movement could be helping these women, rather than disputation in the political arena? There are hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers across this nation that don't perform abortions or offer referals for them. What they do is offer help, they reach out to the woman who is saying "I can't do it, the baby must go" and help her to reach the conclusion "It will be hard, but I will raise this child." They may offer free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, maternity clothing, financial assistance for housing, pre-natal care, baby equipment, baby clothing (for as long as two years some places), diapers and wipes, formula assistance, parenting classes, adoption referals the list goes on.
Not all centers offer services but all centers reach out to their sisters in need and offer them the hope they need to bring forth the life they carry. Offering that hope and support is really a pro-life thing to do.
4.13.2011 | 10:20am
David Nickol says:
The problem with the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood was that if it had happened and was found constitutional (which it may not have been), there was nothing to prevent all the Title X funds that had to be diverted from Planned Parenthood from going to other organizations that also provided abortions. If the "money is fungible" argument works against Planned Parenthood, then it also works against any other abortion provider who could also perform the services the government wants to buy with Title X funds. It is a mystery to me why there has been no attempt by pro-lifers to initiate a domestic equivalent of the Mexico City Policy, requiring no government funding of family planning through organizations that provide or promote abortion. Why not?
4.13.2011 | 10:50am
Marion says:
There is a culture of death and it resides in the so-called right to life movement that is so regally oblivious to the thousands (millions?) of women who have lost their lives to illegal, back-alley, coat hanger and Drano abortions and would like to bring those days back again.
It is also a culture of misogyny and it is sad to see First Things campaigning for it.
You enable extremists who murder and maim doctors and nurses who perform abortions and then you dare to lecture others about life? Shame on you!
It is also a culture of misogyny and it is sad to see First Things campaigning for it.
You enable extremists who murder and maim doctors and nurses who perform abortions and then you dare to lecture others about life? Shame on you!
4.13.2011 | 10:55am
David Nickol says:
If only they knew it was a human life they were destroying. If they only knew, they wouldn’t—they couldn’t—continue to support abortion.
But they do know.
This is one of the most alienating arguments from the pro-life movement, and while individuals may be consistent, the movement as a whole is not.
First, it is supremely arrogant to claim not only to be right, but to be so obviously right that those who disagree with you are only deceitfully pretending to in order to continue their murderous ways. The equivalent pro-choice position would be that nobody really believes an embryo is a person, and the real motivation behind the pro-life movement is men keeping control over women. (I don't make that claim myself, although I am sure the overwhelming majority of commenters in this thread will be men.)
Second, there is the perennial argument about whether, if abortion is criminalized, women should be subject to legal penalties. Of all the "anti-aborts" that I have ever been in discussions with, the overwhelming majority take the position that women who have abortions don't realize what they are doing, have been fooled by the culture and by the "abortion industry" into believing abortion is not taking a human life, and must be treated with compassion because so many times an unwanted pregnancy puts them in a tight spot and they feel the only way out is abortion.
Everyone reveres Mother Teresa, but she said,
I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child—a direct killing of the innocent child—murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
But the pro-life movement as a whole will make just about any rationalization to avoid calling a woman who has an abortion a murderer and treating her as such. Many resources in the pro-life movement are devoted to "post-abortion healing." How many programs to conservative Christians have to help heal other murderers?
Since I do not consider myself part of the "pro-life" movement as it currently defines itself, I have no problem calling for sympathy and help for women who have abortions. But my attitude is not that abortion is murder and anyone who claims to believe it is not is lying. It seems to me there is a real schizophrenia in the pro-life movement in that everyone who claims to believe abortion is not murder is a liar . . . except the women who have abortions (including close to half, in any given year, who have had at least one abortion previously). They can't be held responsible. I know this is brought up again and again, but it remains a real stumbling block for many of us who don't see eye-to-eye with the pro-life movement.
But they do know.
This is one of the most alienating arguments from the pro-life movement, and while individuals may be consistent, the movement as a whole is not.
First, it is supremely arrogant to claim not only to be right, but to be so obviously right that those who disagree with you are only deceitfully pretending to in order to continue their murderous ways. The equivalent pro-choice position would be that nobody really believes an embryo is a person, and the real motivation behind the pro-life movement is men keeping control over women. (I don't make that claim myself, although I am sure the overwhelming majority of commenters in this thread will be men.)
Second, there is the perennial argument about whether, if abortion is criminalized, women should be subject to legal penalties. Of all the "anti-aborts" that I have ever been in discussions with, the overwhelming majority take the position that women who have abortions don't realize what they are doing, have been fooled by the culture and by the "abortion industry" into believing abortion is not taking a human life, and must be treated with compassion because so many times an unwanted pregnancy puts them in a tight spot and they feel the only way out is abortion.
Everyone reveres Mother Teresa, but she said,
I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child—a direct killing of the innocent child—murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
But the pro-life movement as a whole will make just about any rationalization to avoid calling a woman who has an abortion a murderer and treating her as such. Many resources in the pro-life movement are devoted to "post-abortion healing." How many programs to conservative Christians have to help heal other murderers?
Since I do not consider myself part of the "pro-life" movement as it currently defines itself, I have no problem calling for sympathy and help for women who have abortions. But my attitude is not that abortion is murder and anyone who claims to believe it is not is lying. It seems to me there is a real schizophrenia in the pro-life movement in that everyone who claims to believe abortion is not murder is a liar . . . except the women who have abortions (including close to half, in any given year, who have had at least one abortion previously). They can't be held responsible. I know this is brought up again and again, but it remains a real stumbling block for many of us who don't see eye-to-eye with the pro-life movement.
4.13.2011 | 11:27am
Marion says:
@David Nikol - This Jewish feminist thinks that the real motivation of the so-called pro-life movement IS male control over women. The extremists in this movement who kill abortion doctors are the REAL murderers in this debate.
Moreover, everyone does NOT revere Mother Teresa. She practiced medicine without a license, took money from dictators, and denied effective reproductive health care to women who came to her clinics looking for modern, safe birth control methods and were given the ineffective so-called rhythm method only.
Moreover, everyone does NOT revere Mother Teresa. She practiced medicine without a license, took money from dictators, and denied effective reproductive health care to women who came to her clinics looking for modern, safe birth control methods and were given the ineffective so-called rhythm method only.
4.13.2011 | 11:45am
John Hinshaw says:
I understand now, Marion, Tiller, not Mother Teresa is a saint. Culture of death indeed.
4.13.2011 | 12:37pm
Chuck says:
This reminds of a bit of dialogue I heard when I was in college a couple of years before Roe.
"But don't you think that abortion is taking a human life?"
"Of course it is. But have you ever known me to object to that?"
"But don't you think that abortion is taking a human life?"
"Of course it is. But have you ever known me to object to that?"
4.13.2011 | 12:41pm
David Nickol says:
John Hinshaw,
The implication of the thread would seem to me that the pro-life movement is supposed to be about love, not sarcasm.
The implication of the thread would seem to me that the pro-life movement is supposed to be about love, not sarcasm.
4.13.2011 | 12:42pm
JP Prichard says:
http://www.facebook.com/AbortionAbandonmentCoercionandViolence
"Documenting the lack of choice and abuse of women inherent in abortion-on-demand."
"Documenting the lack of choice and abuse of women inherent in abortion-on-demand."
4.13.2011 | 12:46pm
Billy Bean says:
Soodonim says,"I find it hard to believe that the 'ultimate issue' is one not mentioned in the Bible. This represents a preferential blindness to things that matter more." I could see that point. I mean, with abominations like child pornography and nuclear weapons -- oh, wait. Those aren't mentioned in the Bible either. Never mind.
4.13.2011 | 12:47pm
TimC says:
Mr. Nickol,
You ask, "How many programs to conservative Christians have to help heal other murderers?" It is hard to resist responding that "Google is your friend," but I'll assume that despite your apparent familiarity with the pro-life cause you remain unfamiliar with the rest of the Christian milieu. In fact, conservative Christians practice extensive outreach to murderers. Prison Fellowship is the most obvious example of these, but there are many other such ministries which operate on a regional or smaller scale.
As to your unhappiness that pro-lifers do not label mothers who obtain abortions "murderers," you must realize that, contrary to the rhetoric one often hears from those who oppose them, pro-lifers are not simply using abortion as a platform to get into power and then subject others to their morality. Instead, we truly care about both mother and child (and father!) Our hope is for both mother and child to be welcomed into a culture which rejoices in all human life. If this could be achieved by labeling those mothers as "murderers," we might consider doing so. But for me, and I think I fairly represent many of those on the pro-life side, this does not appear likely to have the desired effect. This is particularly true when one realizes how many abortions are obtained under emotional or physical coercion. Put another way, we care about the people, not the politics.
You ask, "How many programs to conservative Christians have to help heal other murderers?" It is hard to resist responding that "Google is your friend," but I'll assume that despite your apparent familiarity with the pro-life cause you remain unfamiliar with the rest of the Christian milieu. In fact, conservative Christians practice extensive outreach to murderers. Prison Fellowship is the most obvious example of these, but there are many other such ministries which operate on a regional or smaller scale.
As to your unhappiness that pro-lifers do not label mothers who obtain abortions "murderers," you must realize that, contrary to the rhetoric one often hears from those who oppose them, pro-lifers are not simply using abortion as a platform to get into power and then subject others to their morality. Instead, we truly care about both mother and child (and father!) Our hope is for both mother and child to be welcomed into a culture which rejoices in all human life. If this could be achieved by labeling those mothers as "murderers," we might consider doing so. But for me, and I think I fairly represent many of those on the pro-life side, this does not appear likely to have the desired effect. This is particularly true when one realizes how many abortions are obtained under emotional or physical coercion. Put another way, we care about the people, not the politics.
4.13.2011 | 12:52pm
Rob G says:
"This Jewish feminist thinks that the real motivation of the so-called pro-life movement IS male control over women."
Utter hogwash. Besides the millions of pro-life women in the movement (what are they all? Idiots? Brainwashed?), it's readily apparent that abortion is joined at the hip to the "sexual revolution," the biggest beneficiaries of which by far are predatory males. For them contemporary life is a veritable nirvana of sex without consequences and responsibility. Who's controlling who?
Utter hogwash. Besides the millions of pro-life women in the movement (what are they all? Idiots? Brainwashed?), it's readily apparent that abortion is joined at the hip to the "sexual revolution," the biggest beneficiaries of which by far are predatory males. For them contemporary life is a veritable nirvana of sex without consequences and responsibility. Who's controlling who?
4.13.2011 | 12:55pm
Steve says:
A "culture of me" is equal to a "culture of death". They are really two different ways of describing the same state of being. The elevation of the self as the ultimate good is the definition, essentially, of hell. Willful and radical self-separation from all others, including God (the ultimate Other), is that which the Christian tradition calls "hell". A soul is radically ALONE in hell. Self-separation is therefore self-death. "Culture of me" is equal to a "culture of death".
Satan, the Father of Lies, continues to look at our society, sees the fruits of his labor, and smiles...
Satan, the Father of Lies, continues to look at our society, sees the fruits of his labor, and smiles...
4.13.2011 | 12:56pm
Richard says:
It is heartening to see a commentary like this from a pro-life writer and on a conservative site. I agree with this author although I would add a few comments. The right to life movement is ill served by two main items, which I ascribe largely to the bishops. First, there are no moral distinctions made about individual cases. So, for example, when the bishop of Phoenix excommunicates a nun and drops the Catholic affiliation from a fine hospital, reasonable people review the detail and are alarmed by the judgmental and misogynist actions of a single detached prelate. Secondly, the bishops or many of them actively involve themselves in the very venal world of politics and encourage their communicants to do likewise to somehow force or cajole the system to behave as they would wish. I view this as a relatively new phenomenon, at least in regard to the level of participation in the political/legal system of the US, and one looked upon unfavorably by the bulk of the population just as most people don't or didn't approve of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
And I also want to expand on the notion of the "culture of me." There is a lot of talk in conservative circles about the morally corrupt '60's, relativism and such. All of the basic concern is warranted but there seems to be a reluctance to call a spade a spade about where this culture of me and all this relativism came from. This is probably because it is the Republican Party that is the basic anti-abortion political party. And the Republican Party is in bed with rich people, big corporations and such. Clearly, then, Republicans cannot really point to the root of the problem which is in general terms, simple - prosperity.
And I also want to expand on the notion of the "culture of me." There is a lot of talk in conservative circles about the morally corrupt '60's, relativism and such. All of the basic concern is warranted but there seems to be a reluctance to call a spade a spade about where this culture of me and all this relativism came from. This is probably because it is the Republican Party that is the basic anti-abortion political party. And the Republican Party is in bed with rich people, big corporations and such. Clearly, then, Republicans cannot really point to the root of the problem which is in general terms, simple - prosperity.
4.13.2011 | 1:10pm
Marion says:
@John Hinshaw:
As a Jewish feminist, I do not believe in the concept of saints.
However, I do believe that Dr. George Tiller was a tzaddik; a good, righteous, and courageous doctor who devoted his life to helping women. I am humbled by his example and I honor his memory.
As for a culture of death, it was manifested by the so-called "right to life" hypocrite who murdered him and by the extremist cowards in Operation Rescue who harrassed Dr. Tiller and his patients.
As a Jewish feminist, I do not believe in the concept of saints.
However, I do believe that Dr. George Tiller was a tzaddik; a good, righteous, and courageous doctor who devoted his life to helping women. I am humbled by his example and I honor his memory.
As for a culture of death, it was manifested by the so-called "right to life" hypocrite who murdered him and by the extremist cowards in Operation Rescue who harrassed Dr. Tiller and his patients.
4.13.2011 | 1:13pm
Gail F says:
Marion: Exactly what "thousands if not millions" of women are you referring to? Are you seriously claiming that MILLIONS of women died from back-alley abortions? Where? They just disappeared without anyone noticing? Please. The truth is that, before abortion was legal, most abortions were performed in hospitals illegally, and were not performed with coat hangers or whatever nasty implements you care to mention. Saying a lie over and over again does not make it true -- abortion was RARE and performed in hospitals.
Soodonim: Abortion is not a big issue in the Bible because it was possible but difficult to do at the time, unlike now -- when abortion is the most common elective surgery in the United States. Infanticide isn't condemned in the Bible either and it was quite common. I think you'll find a clear prohibition against murder, however.
Soodonim: Abortion is not a big issue in the Bible because it was possible but difficult to do at the time, unlike now -- when abortion is the most common elective surgery in the United States. Infanticide isn't condemned in the Bible either and it was quite common. I think you'll find a clear prohibition against murder, however.
4.13.2011 | 1:14pm
Fred says:
Yeah, you're right Marion. You know what else? Bank robbers often get shot in the course of robbing banks. Let's legalize bank robbery! In fact, let's give bank robbers shiny new cars. We don't want them to be discomfited by a clunky old getaway car breaking down, now do we? While we're at it, why don't we give them nice, clean guns. God forbid they get hurt by any backfiring or jamming weapons. Because we all know that no action, however evil, should ever have any consequences.
4.13.2011 | 1:21pm
michael Curriep says:
Mr. Nickols, you are undoubtably right that there is confusion and contradiction in the pro-life movement regarding whether abortion is murder and if it is murder why don't they support penalties etc.
I would like to propose several reasons for this inconsistancy.
The first is that there is no cultural wide support for doing so and it is legal, which came first is debatable. This leads to a politically tainted compromise mixed up with a legitimate compassion for women who are seen as wounded. There is a mishmash of reasons for them being seen this way. There are any number of ,particularly, young women who have been pressured into abortion by parents, boyfriends, peers. I know of one case where a girls mother told her that she was too young to be a grandmother and would not support her if she had the baby. Which leads to a the issue of lack of support to have the baby which is like the pressure reason but adds the fear that the girl will not be able to support the child.
I suspect that abortion being seen as murder with attendant penalties would only happen if a time were to come when cultural attitudes and laws changed that found abortion unacceptable and illegal. In the unlikely event of this happening attitudes as to how these woman were seen would change.
Finally I have to admit, even though I am a adamantly opposed to abortion at any stage, that there is a difference of degree between abortion and classic murder, except in cases of late term abortion. In abortion there is a kind of considered ignorance as to what one is doing abetted by the whole question of is it a human person, the position of many supporters of abortion but not all.This widely disseminated confusion has gone some distance in planting the idea of ignorance as the reason. In murder this ambiguity disappears and while there are degrees of culpability there is no question by anyone that a human person has been killed. The difference of degree that I mentioned above is that abortion, with one exception, would become a term of criminality, a subset of murder much like voluntary manslaughter etc. for now. In time when we shed our cultural, legal, psychological, emotional and moral blinders and became aware of just what it is we have been doing and have done it would become murder clear and simple.
I would like to propose several reasons for this inconsistancy.
The first is that there is no cultural wide support for doing so and it is legal, which came first is debatable. This leads to a politically tainted compromise mixed up with a legitimate compassion for women who are seen as wounded. There is a mishmash of reasons for them being seen this way. There are any number of ,particularly, young women who have been pressured into abortion by parents, boyfriends, peers. I know of one case where a girls mother told her that she was too young to be a grandmother and would not support her if she had the baby. Which leads to a the issue of lack of support to have the baby which is like the pressure reason but adds the fear that the girl will not be able to support the child.
I suspect that abortion being seen as murder with attendant penalties would only happen if a time were to come when cultural attitudes and laws changed that found abortion unacceptable and illegal. In the unlikely event of this happening attitudes as to how these woman were seen would change.
Finally I have to admit, even though I am a adamantly opposed to abortion at any stage, that there is a difference of degree between abortion and classic murder, except in cases of late term abortion. In abortion there is a kind of considered ignorance as to what one is doing abetted by the whole question of is it a human person, the position of many supporters of abortion but not all.This widely disseminated confusion has gone some distance in planting the idea of ignorance as the reason. In murder this ambiguity disappears and while there are degrees of culpability there is no question by anyone that a human person has been killed. The difference of degree that I mentioned above is that abortion, with one exception, would become a term of criminality, a subset of murder much like voluntary manslaughter etc. for now. In time when we shed our cultural, legal, psychological, emotional and moral blinders and became aware of just what it is we have been doing and have done it would become murder clear and simple.
4.13.2011 | 1:29pm
BettyBlue says:
David Nickol: men are more pro-choice than women, don't kid yourself: who does it suit the most? Your point about people realizing fetuses are human might be elucidated by thinking of slavery, an analogous situation. Slaveowners knew slaves were human, but thought they were inferior, weaker humans. Slaveowners' culpability may have been diminished by the racist culture of the time, as abortionists' and abortion campaigners'--as well as abortion-seeking women's--culpability may be diminished at the moment. But I'm confident that history will vindicate the pro-lifers as surely as it vindicated abolitionists.
Marion, the rhythm method is an outdated term. Modern natural family planning, which is what Mother Teresa recommended, can be very effective. (See http://nfpsite.aldred.org/effect.php for a list of major studies, including one in India.) It is a method that couples can use autonomously without reference to population controllers or others. As a feminist, you are presumably concerned about the use of abortion for sex selection in many Asian societies. Of course, female infanticide has always been with us, too. I think you'll find that the same people who work to end all infanticide, female infanticide, and sex-selection abortions are, shock horror, your hated pro-lifers. I do take strong exception to your shrill comments about 'pro-lifers' killing abortion doctors--not in my name, sister.
Marion, the rhythm method is an outdated term. Modern natural family planning, which is what Mother Teresa recommended, can be very effective. (See http://nfpsite.aldred.org/effect.php for a list of major studies, including one in India.) It is a method that couples can use autonomously without reference to population controllers or others. As a feminist, you are presumably concerned about the use of abortion for sex selection in many Asian societies. Of course, female infanticide has always been with us, too. I think you'll find that the same people who work to end all infanticide, female infanticide, and sex-selection abortions are, shock horror, your hated pro-lifers. I do take strong exception to your shrill comments about 'pro-lifers' killing abortion doctors--not in my name, sister.
4.13.2011 | 1:56pm
Steve says:
Marion, who speaks for those (unborn children) who cannot speak for themselves?
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you." (Jer 1:5)
These are the words of the Living God to Jeremiah. Did the Lord know a "clump of cells" or "part of his mother's body"? No, the Lord knew Jeremiah himself, as a unique human person. He was truly a human person before God completed his formation in the womb. The Lord creates the person at the moment of conception.
As a Jew, I trust that you will not ignore these unambiguous words from Holy Scripture. The Lord knew Jeremiah long before his birth. (And Jeremiah was a true tzaddik, a word that is based on the Hebrew word for "truth". He spoke the truth, even when he didn't want to, and because of this, he was thoroughly rejected and persecuted by the "culture of me" of his day. Thus is the fate of Truth and Love in this broken world, where "truth" is whatever someone wants it to be.)
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you." (Jer 1:5)
These are the words of the Living God to Jeremiah. Did the Lord know a "clump of cells" or "part of his mother's body"? No, the Lord knew Jeremiah himself, as a unique human person. He was truly a human person before God completed his formation in the womb. The Lord creates the person at the moment of conception.
As a Jew, I trust that you will not ignore these unambiguous words from Holy Scripture. The Lord knew Jeremiah long before his birth. (And Jeremiah was a true tzaddik, a word that is based on the Hebrew word for "truth". He spoke the truth, even when he didn't want to, and because of this, he was thoroughly rejected and persecuted by the "culture of me" of his day. Thus is the fate of Truth and Love in this broken world, where "truth" is whatever someone wants it to be.)
4.13.2011 | 2:18pm
Soodonim says:
"Wow! Denial is not just a river in Egypt is it? If it wasn't so completely tragic, I would almost be impressed by the level of self-deception required to write such a comment. The Scripture talks about "searing of the conscience" and it is a truly frightening thing to behold."
A vacuous statement. I could say the same to you and it would be equally true and equally meaningless. A post like this is nothing more than masturbatory self-congratulation.
"I could see that point. I mean, with abominations like child pornography and nuclear weapons -- oh, wait. Those aren't mentioned in the Bible either. Never mind."
You'd be hard pressed to make a biblical case for not having sex with children under the age of 18. It was typical behavior in ancient times. Jesus has multiply attested to views on violence, which are easily applicable to nuclear weapons which are simply violence on a larger scale. Abortion is categorically separate. There is nothing there which might require us to consider an unborn child a human being in the same sense as a born one. Abortion hinges on a definition of life and the value we ascribe to it. The bible can tell us much about he value aspect, but little about when such value is to be ascribed. The certainty with which pro-life activists speak of this issue is a thinly veiled defense mechanism against the genuine lack of such an answer in the Bible.
A vacuous statement. I could say the same to you and it would be equally true and equally meaningless. A post like this is nothing more than masturbatory self-congratulation.
"I could see that point. I mean, with abominations like child pornography and nuclear weapons -- oh, wait. Those aren't mentioned in the Bible either. Never mind."
You'd be hard pressed to make a biblical case for not having sex with children under the age of 18. It was typical behavior in ancient times. Jesus has multiply attested to views on violence, which are easily applicable to nuclear weapons which are simply violence on a larger scale. Abortion is categorically separate. There is nothing there which might require us to consider an unborn child a human being in the same sense as a born one. Abortion hinges on a definition of life and the value we ascribe to it. The bible can tell us much about he value aspect, but little about when such value is to be ascribed. The certainty with which pro-life activists speak of this issue is a thinly veiled defense mechanism against the genuine lack of such an answer in the Bible.
4.13.2011 | 2:33pm
David Nickol says:
TimC,
Point taken about Prison Fellowship and other prison ministries. I should be a little more careful in attributing attitudes of many *politically* conservative Americans (who tend to favor the death penalty and oppose "coddling" criminals, or even trying to rehabilitate them) with *religiously* conservative Americans. I do believe there is a significant overlap, however.
I am not "unhappy" the pro-lifers to not label women who have abortions as murderers. I am pleased at the compassion shown to women who have abortions. However, I do find it extremely inconsistent. The Catholic Church excommunicates a woman who has an abortion, and (interestingly) the abortionist is excommunicated as an *accomplice*. Yet most Catholic pro-lifers would be willing (if abortion is criminalized) to forgive the woman in advance and prosecute the abortionists. As I read the quote from Mother Teresa, she is asking how we can expect *anyone* (and why not abortionists here?) not to kill when mothers murder their own children.
As for many women being pressured into abortion by circumstances or by husbands, boyfriends, parents, and so on, many people who commit murder (and other crimes) do so because they are in a tight spot and see crime as the only way out. But in general, we prosecute anyone who commits a crime, no matter what pressure they may have been under. We may consider difficult circumstances to be mitigating factors, but that is after the person is tried and found guilty.
I don't see any way around this for pro-lifers. Most of those that I have been in discussions with consider abortion to be murder. They make the point that morally there is no difference between killing a baby four months before it is born and four months after it is born. We don't hesitate to prosecute women who have babies and kill them immediately after birth. I commend you for your compassion for women who are contemplating abortions or have had abortions, but if abortion is criminalized and women are not held accountable in *some* way, it will be the only situation I can think of in which you can pay a criminal to commit a crime and not be accountable. It is often argued that civil law functions not just to keep public order but to teach. I believe Joe Carter commended Arizona for recently passing a law outlawing abortion for sex selection while acknowledging that it was largely or entirely symbolic. What will our laws teach if abortion is criminalized and women are not in some way legally accountable? It is difficult to believe the message won't be that performing an abortion is condemned but having one is acceptable.
Point taken about Prison Fellowship and other prison ministries. I should be a little more careful in attributing attitudes of many *politically* conservative Americans (who tend to favor the death penalty and oppose "coddling" criminals, or even trying to rehabilitate them) with *religiously* conservative Americans. I do believe there is a significant overlap, however.
I am not "unhappy" the pro-lifers to not label women who have abortions as murderers. I am pleased at the compassion shown to women who have abortions. However, I do find it extremely inconsistent. The Catholic Church excommunicates a woman who has an abortion, and (interestingly) the abortionist is excommunicated as an *accomplice*. Yet most Catholic pro-lifers would be willing (if abortion is criminalized) to forgive the woman in advance and prosecute the abortionists. As I read the quote from Mother Teresa, she is asking how we can expect *anyone* (and why not abortionists here?) not to kill when mothers murder their own children.
As for many women being pressured into abortion by circumstances or by husbands, boyfriends, parents, and so on, many people who commit murder (and other crimes) do so because they are in a tight spot and see crime as the only way out. But in general, we prosecute anyone who commits a crime, no matter what pressure they may have been under. We may consider difficult circumstances to be mitigating factors, but that is after the person is tried and found guilty.
I don't see any way around this for pro-lifers. Most of those that I have been in discussions with consider abortion to be murder. They make the point that morally there is no difference between killing a baby four months before it is born and four months after it is born. We don't hesitate to prosecute women who have babies and kill them immediately after birth. I commend you for your compassion for women who are contemplating abortions or have had abortions, but if abortion is criminalized and women are not held accountable in *some* way, it will be the only situation I can think of in which you can pay a criminal to commit a crime and not be accountable. It is often argued that civil law functions not just to keep public order but to teach. I believe Joe Carter commended Arizona for recently passing a law outlawing abortion for sex selection while acknowledging that it was largely or entirely symbolic. What will our laws teach if abortion is criminalized and women are not in some way legally accountable? It is difficult to believe the message won't be that performing an abortion is condemned but having one is acceptable.
4.13.2011 | 3:24pm
Wendell says:
It may be that when people are deliberately encouraged to address thoughts about/to their embryo, their reply gives the impression that they regard them as human. But such thoughts are 1) in effect, prompted. And 2) informal. The fact is, 3) most Protestant denominations do not insist that the embryo is in fact, a human person.
Similarly, 4) when women considering abortion, are told they must first be forced to submit to an ultrasound, and listen to a description of their embryo - with a "bearting heart" and so forth - in ongoing legislation in Texas? All that is a deliberate attempt, to personify the embryo. To convince the woman that the embryo is a human person. As if a frog does not also have a beating heart.
Similarly, 4) when women considering abortion, are told they must first be forced to submit to an ultrasound, and listen to a description of their embryo - with a "bearting heart" and so forth - in ongoing legislation in Texas? All that is a deliberate attempt, to personify the embryo. To convince the woman that the embryo is a human person. As if a frog does not also have a beating heart.
4.13.2011 | 3:33pm
Theophilus says:
The term "culture of death" is today usually applied, seemingly only recently, to a liberal culture that allows abortion primarily. But it is a strange term for Catholics to be using ... in a negative way. Since elements of the Church often presented death in an almost positive way. Indeed, St. Paul said "to die is gain."
Some say that St. Paul meant "to die is gain," 1) metaphorically: "dying" to or cutting ourselves off from, the low passions of the flesh. Though in fuller context, Paul seems to have considered that even literally, physically dying (in prison in his case) might be a positive thing. 2) Since - as many thought dualistically - physically dying, might free our souls to leave this evil "world." Dying might allow our spirit to join God, in Heaven. Indeed, many elements of Christianity - ascetic branches - in fact, considered the "mortification of the flesh" - and even physical death - to be good.
So that in effect, there has always been a deeply respected "culture of death" in monastic life. While the current attempt to suggest that it is an evil deviation found only in liberal culture, is simply wrong.
Read your Bibles.
Some say that St. Paul meant "to die is gain," 1) metaphorically: "dying" to or cutting ourselves off from, the low passions of the flesh. Though in fuller context, Paul seems to have considered that even literally, physically dying (in prison in his case) might be a positive thing. 2) Since - as many thought dualistically - physically dying, might free our souls to leave this evil "world." Dying might allow our spirit to join God, in Heaven. Indeed, many elements of Christianity - ascetic branches - in fact, considered the "mortification of the flesh" - and even physical death - to be good.
So that in effect, there has always been a deeply respected "culture of death" in monastic life. While the current attempt to suggest that it is an evil deviation found only in liberal culture, is simply wrong.
Read your Bibles.
4.13.2011 | 3:48pm
Wanderdust says:
Wendell, I know that you MUST have a beating heart. You must have a mind that thinks and reasons. Don't you? Are you a frog or a human being? Do you remember every detail of your childhood? When did you start being a human being? Do you remember? Did you create Yourself? Why do you exist? What will happen when you die? Do you have eternity in your heart? Do you still live with the fear of death and mortality? Does Your life matter? If so, why? Do you exist just to serve Yourself? Once you can wholeheartedly answer these questions, you will see why all life matters.
4.13.2011 | 4:00pm
Jocon307 says:
Wow Marion, you are pretty hopeless. George Tiller was an unrepentant baby killer. You go ahead an honor his memory - I suggest a little shrine with a blood drenched baby doll, that should capture the spirit quite nicely.
4.13.2011 | 4:05pm
Spencer says:
Why in all of this discussion has adoption not been mentioned? There are many, many folks out there waiting many many years to adopt a newborn. Neither the pro-life or pro-choice folks in this thread mention this as a viable and positive option. Is this just fallout from the Culture of Me?
4.13.2011 | 4:21pm
Erin Kelly says:
In the end, all must choose to say either one of two phrases: "THY will be done" or "MY will be done" -- and done not just in heaven, but here on earth as well.
4.13.2011 | 4:29pm
pentamom says:
"The problem with the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood was that if it had happened and was found constitutional (which it may not have been),"
How could it possibly be unconstitutional for the government to choose *not* to spend money in a certain way? Equal protection doesn't pertain -- failure to be subsidized is not civil harm.
How could it possibly be unconstitutional for the government to choose *not* to spend money in a certain way? Equal protection doesn't pertain -- failure to be subsidized is not civil harm.
4.13.2011 | 5:12pm
TimC says:
Mr. Nickol,
I appreciate your response, but I must disagree with your conclusion. Not everything that is immoral must be made illegal. To re-iterate my initial point, pro-lifers are more concerned with eliminating (or, at least, sharply reducing) the deaths of children due to abortion than about enacting some political program. Consequently, if given the choice between legalized abortion but none performed and abortion outlawed but still widely occurring, I think most of us would quickly take the first option. (We would, of course, continue to work to outlaw abortion because the law is also a teacher, as you point out.) Therefore, we seek to find the most effective means of eliminating abortions. Given the state of public opinion, the need for enforceable and effective law, and the reasonable sense that the circumstances of the mothers are far more demanding of compassion than those of the abortionists, the most prudent and efficient way to eliminate abortions is to lay the hammer of secular law on those who are performing the abortions rather than those who are procuring them.
This is not inconsistent with either the practice of the Catholic Church or the quote from Mother Theresa. The mother and the abortionist are both committing an evil. But secular law need not necessarily follow moral law. I am a bit surprised that you are suggesting it should.
Likewise, drug-dealing is generally punished more strongly than using drugs, even though one could argue that it is taking the drugs that more materially affects society. Or if you wish, this is not unlike the situation with illegal immigration. Regardless of the view that one might take toward illegal immigrants themselves, it is manifestly obvious in this case that making something illegal does not eliminate it. Arresting and deporting every illegal immigrant is impractical, I think most people would agree. But by consistently prosecuting those who hire and otherwise provide support to illegal immigrants, one can discourage and decrease that immigration. (Please note that I am not wishing to open a debate here on the merits of doing or not doing this!)
I appreciate your response, but I must disagree with your conclusion. Not everything that is immoral must be made illegal. To re-iterate my initial point, pro-lifers are more concerned with eliminating (or, at least, sharply reducing) the deaths of children due to abortion than about enacting some political program. Consequently, if given the choice between legalized abortion but none performed and abortion outlawed but still widely occurring, I think most of us would quickly take the first option. (We would, of course, continue to work to outlaw abortion because the law is also a teacher, as you point out.) Therefore, we seek to find the most effective means of eliminating abortions. Given the state of public opinion, the need for enforceable and effective law, and the reasonable sense that the circumstances of the mothers are far more demanding of compassion than those of the abortionists, the most prudent and efficient way to eliminate abortions is to lay the hammer of secular law on those who are performing the abortions rather than those who are procuring them.
This is not inconsistent with either the practice of the Catholic Church or the quote from Mother Theresa. The mother and the abortionist are both committing an evil. But secular law need not necessarily follow moral law. I am a bit surprised that you are suggesting it should.
Likewise, drug-dealing is generally punished more strongly than using drugs, even though one could argue that it is taking the drugs that more materially affects society. Or if you wish, this is not unlike the situation with illegal immigration. Regardless of the view that one might take toward illegal immigrants themselves, it is manifestly obvious in this case that making something illegal does not eliminate it. Arresting and deporting every illegal immigrant is impractical, I think most people would agree. But by consistently prosecuting those who hire and otherwise provide support to illegal immigrants, one can discourage and decrease that immigration. (Please note that I am not wishing to open a debate here on the merits of doing or not doing this!)
4.13.2011 | 7:09pm
Janet says:
@ Soodonim "Abortion hinges on a definition of life and the value we ascribe to it. "
I agree. I can't help but think God's decision to create a life would be predicated upon His value of that life. Who are we, mere creatures, to decide He was wrong?
I agree. I can't help but think God's decision to create a life would be predicated upon His value of that life. Who are we, mere creatures, to decide He was wrong?
4.13.2011 | 7:30pm
Brian English says:
" To convince the woman that the embryo is a human person. As if a frog does not also have a beating heart. "
When did you become a human person?
When did you become a human person?
4.13.2011 | 7:56pm
andrew says:
one common thread among the quotations in joe's post is the primacy of selfishness and feelings over truth and principles.
just "super thoughtful."
as dostoevski wrote, to compare us human beings to beasts is to insult the beasts.
just "super thoughtful."
as dostoevski wrote, to compare us human beings to beasts is to insult the beasts.
4.13.2011 | 8:19pm
Wanderdust says:
2 women just suffered botched abortions at Planned Parenthood in Milwaukee today 4/13/11.
Abortion is a destructive procedure-- not only to a tiny human being but his or her mother as well. I know many who lost their fertility through it. We now can see the grimaces of pain on the infants being torn apart in the sanctuary of their mother's wombs. There are no excuses for this. Yes, God forgives, but don't do it. So many people desperate for a baby-- why do you think so many of your friends are having to adopt from overseas which is very expensive. Because of abortion in our country and the lack of children to adopt.
Two botched abortion victims rushed to hospital from Milwaukee facility on same day
www.lifesitenews.com
Both the US Senate and House are set to vote Thursday on a bill to strip funding from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Let it be so.
Abortion is a destructive procedure-- not only to a tiny human being but his or her mother as well. I know many who lost their fertility through it. We now can see the grimaces of pain on the infants being torn apart in the sanctuary of their mother's wombs. There are no excuses for this. Yes, God forgives, but don't do it. So many people desperate for a baby-- why do you think so many of your friends are having to adopt from overseas which is very expensive. Because of abortion in our country and the lack of children to adopt.
Two botched abortion victims rushed to hospital from Milwaukee facility on same day
www.lifesitenews.com
Both the US Senate and House are set to vote Thursday on a bill to strip funding from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Let it be so.
4.13.2011 | 8:34pm
Don Roberto says:
Well said, Joe. What we're seeing a despicable epidemic of self love/worship. Abortion is human sacrifice to the god Narcissus. (If memory serves, God was so angered by the ancient Canaanites(?) who practiced child sacrifice that he ordered the Israelites to put every one of them to the sword.) In the old Star Trek there was an episode involving an anti-Federation, where Kirk was bad. He had a machine that would make his enemies—those who stood in the way of his ambition—disappear. Abortion is like that machine.
†
†
4.13.2011 | 8:48pm
Mike Toreno says:
I think the problem isn't just abortion; it is more general. It is the idea that women are entitled to make their own choices about sex and reproduction. One terrible consequence of legalized abortion is that unmarried women who didn't want abortions felt entitled to keep their babies. After abortion was legalized, homes for unwed mothers pretty much shut down. Women either had abortions, or decided to selfishly keep their babies. In either case, a needy couple was denied.
4.13.2011 | 9:00pm
David Nickol says:
TimC,
I agree with much of what you say. Not everything that is moral must be made illegal. Given public opinion, the most prudent choice for those who want to criminalize abortion is to go after abortionists. Secular law need not follow moral law. You didn't say this, but just because Catholic canon law makes the woman the offender and the abortionist the accomplice does not mean civil law should do the same. A number of social problems are dealt with by making the supplier (drug dealer, prostitute) the main culprit and going easy on the consumer.
I am criticizing the position of some pro-lifers that if abortion is criminalized, the abortionists must be punished and those who procure abortions should not be for the reason that the abortionists *know* they are murderers and those who procure abortions (1) don't understand the gravity of what they are doing, having been fooled by the culture and the abortion industry and (2) are often pressured into having an abortion by circumstances or by parents, boyfriends, husbands, and so on. What I am criticizing, then, is not pragmatic decisions about what kind of civil laws would work best and would have the most likely chance of being accepted by the public. I am criticizing the position that women who procure abortions should be off the hook legally because they are not morally responsible for their actions.
Take this statement made by a fairly major player in the pro-life movement:
----------
"The reason that jailing women is not on the agenda of the pro-life movement is because we understand that women are often, not always, but often victims themselves, pressured into committing abortion by husbands, boyfriends, work, parents, school. . . . . I would say that the woman undergoing abortion is not unlike the Jewish woman who has been coerced into helping the [Nazi] jailer-killers. She is cooperating in the killing but her cooperation is mitigated by circumstance.
----------
Time and again pro-lifers (at least the ones I get into discussions with) insist, like Mother Teresa, that abortion is murder. Abortion is the moral equivalent of killing an adult. But when someone kills an adult, we do not shrink from prosecuting that person because she was pressured into committing murder by her husband or boyfriend or parents, or because she might have had to give up her job or drop out of school. Someone truly coerced into committing a murder might be let off the hook (although almost certainly there would be a trial). But someone pressured because of work or school? This is murder they are talking about. If someone committed murder in order not to lose her job, or in order to keep from dropping out of school, would we think of her as a victim? Or even if someone committed murder because she was working *and* going to night school *and* her parents *and* boyfriend pressured her to commit murder so she could continue in her job and in her schooling, would we say she was not culpable enough to require a trial?
What I object to (and what I think is patronizing and insulting to women) is that pro-lifers say they are objectively guilty of a grave evil but they cannot be held legally responsible for procuring abortions because they are not *morally* responsible for procuring abortions.
Also, what often mystifies me is that those who argue that women are often in such tight spots that they resort to abortion and should be considered victims also want to make sure that those women can't *get* an abortion. They argue that women often pretty much have no choice but to get an abortion, but they want to make sure women *can't*. So what happens with the pressure? What happens with the job or the schooling? What happens with the boyfriend or the parents? There are over a million abortions a year. For those who believe women are so pressured that they are not morally culpable, what is to relive the pressure if abortion is not available? Are they prepared to solve the problems of a million-plus women who are in very bad circumstances but now can't get an abortion?
I don't think abortion is murder, and I don't think it should be criminalized, but I would be happy to see my taxes go up for programs that would give alternatives to women who are considering abortion. Speaking just of politicians, it seems to me that those who are politically conservative and anti-abortion are often among the last who would propose raising taxes to give pregnant women alternatives to abortions. And they would also generally be among the last to listen to pleas for mercy for someone who was complicit in a murder no matter how sad that person's circumstances were.
I agree with much of what you say. Not everything that is moral must be made illegal. Given public opinion, the most prudent choice for those who want to criminalize abortion is to go after abortionists. Secular law need not follow moral law. You didn't say this, but just because Catholic canon law makes the woman the offender and the abortionist the accomplice does not mean civil law should do the same. A number of social problems are dealt with by making the supplier (drug dealer, prostitute) the main culprit and going easy on the consumer.
I am criticizing the position of some pro-lifers that if abortion is criminalized, the abortionists must be punished and those who procure abortions should not be for the reason that the abortionists *know* they are murderers and those who procure abortions (1) don't understand the gravity of what they are doing, having been fooled by the culture and the abortion industry and (2) are often pressured into having an abortion by circumstances or by parents, boyfriends, husbands, and so on. What I am criticizing, then, is not pragmatic decisions about what kind of civil laws would work best and would have the most likely chance of being accepted by the public. I am criticizing the position that women who procure abortions should be off the hook legally because they are not morally responsible for their actions.
Take this statement made by a fairly major player in the pro-life movement:
----------
"The reason that jailing women is not on the agenda of the pro-life movement is because we understand that women are often, not always, but often victims themselves, pressured into committing abortion by husbands, boyfriends, work, parents, school. . . . . I would say that the woman undergoing abortion is not unlike the Jewish woman who has been coerced into helping the [Nazi] jailer-killers. She is cooperating in the killing but her cooperation is mitigated by circumstance.
----------
Time and again pro-lifers (at least the ones I get into discussions with) insist, like Mother Teresa, that abortion is murder. Abortion is the moral equivalent of killing an adult. But when someone kills an adult, we do not shrink from prosecuting that person because she was pressured into committing murder by her husband or boyfriend or parents, or because she might have had to give up her job or drop out of school. Someone truly coerced into committing a murder might be let off the hook (although almost certainly there would be a trial). But someone pressured because of work or school? This is murder they are talking about. If someone committed murder in order not to lose her job, or in order to keep from dropping out of school, would we think of her as a victim? Or even if someone committed murder because she was working *and* going to night school *and* her parents *and* boyfriend pressured her to commit murder so she could continue in her job and in her schooling, would we say she was not culpable enough to require a trial?
What I object to (and what I think is patronizing and insulting to women) is that pro-lifers say they are objectively guilty of a grave evil but they cannot be held legally responsible for procuring abortions because they are not *morally* responsible for procuring abortions.
Also, what often mystifies me is that those who argue that women are often in such tight spots that they resort to abortion and should be considered victims also want to make sure that those women can't *get* an abortion. They argue that women often pretty much have no choice but to get an abortion, but they want to make sure women *can't*. So what happens with the pressure? What happens with the job or the schooling? What happens with the boyfriend or the parents? There are over a million abortions a year. For those who believe women are so pressured that they are not morally culpable, what is to relive the pressure if abortion is not available? Are they prepared to solve the problems of a million-plus women who are in very bad circumstances but now can't get an abortion?
I don't think abortion is murder, and I don't think it should be criminalized, but I would be happy to see my taxes go up for programs that would give alternatives to women who are considering abortion. Speaking just of politicians, it seems to me that those who are politically conservative and anti-abortion are often among the last who would propose raising taxes to give pregnant women alternatives to abortions. And they would also generally be among the last to listen to pleas for mercy for someone who was complicit in a murder no matter how sad that person's circumstances were.
4.13.2011 | 10:12pm
Dave says:
All women deserve to exercise choice over their own reproductive function. Nothing more. Nothing less.
4.14.2011 | 12:19am
Don Roberto says:
Yes, Dave, and you deserve to choose whether to worship Truth or your own (apparent) self interest. Actually, all women have one of two choices: (1) whether to fornicate, or, absent that, (2) whether to attempt to remedy one dreadful sin with an even worse crime.
†
†
4.14.2011 | 8:11am
Em says:
I don't think it's a culture of selfishness; it is a culture of self-actualization, where everyone feels that he or she deserves a shot at becoming whatever he or she can be--and for women, that includes getting a shot at being a film director, or an engineer, or a research scientist. If I remember correctly, this "pursuit of happiness" is a feature of our Constitution. The fact is that the advent of birth control gave women the opportunity to live lives not dominated by their own rampant fertility. Abortion is one of the methods of birth control.
I think that the opportunity to choose the time of their reproduction is not one that the majority of women in this country are prepared to give up at this point in history. If pro-lifers really care about women and children, they will and would put more supports in place to help women have children and raise them; instead, they ask women to bear those children and get no support whatsoever from society. Instead, they vilify poor women. If they are conservative, they fight unions that might make it easier for poor women to make a living (because fundamentally, face it, men are very often not reliable or adequate providers) for themselves and their babies). Instead, they talk about criminalizing women for terminating a pregnancy but never talk about criminalizing Nature when a miscarriage happens. Instead, they ask women to face the lifelong, arduous, sometimes horrific consequences of pregnancy and childrearing without support as if moral rectitude excuses all lack of compassion.
I think that the opportunity to choose the time of their reproduction is not one that the majority of women in this country are prepared to give up at this point in history. If pro-lifers really care about women and children, they will and would put more supports in place to help women have children and raise them; instead, they ask women to bear those children and get no support whatsoever from society. Instead, they vilify poor women. If they are conservative, they fight unions that might make it easier for poor women to make a living (because fundamentally, face it, men are very often not reliable or adequate providers) for themselves and their babies). Instead, they talk about criminalizing women for terminating a pregnancy but never talk about criminalizing Nature when a miscarriage happens. Instead, they ask women to face the lifelong, arduous, sometimes horrific consequences of pregnancy and childrearing without support as if moral rectitude excuses all lack of compassion.
4.14.2011 | 9:20am
Wanderdust says:
Condoms are extremely effective at preventing pregnancy. If men used a condom every time they did not wish to have a child, and if women (if they unwisely chose to fornicate as several people put it) insisted on every man using one, this would not even be a discussion.
Not that sex out of marriage does not have its own terrible consequences. AIDS and STDs and unwanted pregnancy may be a part of it, besides the horrible emotional heartache and sinning against your own body, guilt, etc of choosing not to follow God's wonderful plan for sex. But STILL, people who say women need a reproductive choice are wrong. We women and men have many choices.
Either don't do it (God's choice and the best option. You are sharing your soul with each person you sleep with), or use a condom or at least be on birth control for goodness sake. If you really can't afford those (yeah right), don't have sex if you don't want kids. There is never a reason for letting yourself, or if you are a man, for getting a woman pregnant. What a ridiculous argument that women should have a choice. We do!
Not that sex out of marriage does not have its own terrible consequences. AIDS and STDs and unwanted pregnancy may be a part of it, besides the horrible emotional heartache and sinning against your own body, guilt, etc of choosing not to follow God's wonderful plan for sex. But STILL, people who say women need a reproductive choice are wrong. We women and men have many choices.
Either don't do it (God's choice and the best option. You are sharing your soul with each person you sleep with), or use a condom or at least be on birth control for goodness sake. If you really can't afford those (yeah right), don't have sex if you don't want kids. There is never a reason for letting yourself, or if you are a man, for getting a woman pregnant. What a ridiculous argument that women should have a choice. We do!
4.14.2011 | 11:51am
Heloise says:
@ Wanderdust--There is no guarantee in contraception. I read an interview with a former Planned Parenthood employee (who you would think should know what she's doing, if she's dolling out advice to others) who became pregnant THREE TIMES over a short number of years while using both hormonal birth control and condoms. Women are frequently convinced not to consider realistic results of realistic usage and young girls and boys are told condoms are 99.9% effective, which only applies in highly controlled lab environments.
Despite all the assurances we've been given that contraception cuts down on abortion, people become sexually active earlier when they think there are fewer consequences. This is simple logic based on human behavior. Unfortunately, these "fewer consequences" backfire when it turns out we're in the .1%+ "failure" rate.
Not to mention, of course, that the entire concept of "safe sex" or "protected sex" subverts sex into a purely recreational activity, ignoring the other clear and profound consequences beyond the strictly physical.
Also, how can anyone trust the information and reseources given by an organization that profits from abortions? It is the primary source of income at the clinic level for PP, since the other services are usually funded from elsewhere. On the topic of these services, they are a great way to pull women into PP, while in fact shouldn't we be spending this money on improving access to proper medical care and real medical facilities? Why do we condemn Mother Teresa for providing hospice care without a license, but not PP volunteers with only on-site training in their treatment of women?
Despite all the assurances we've been given that contraception cuts down on abortion, people become sexually active earlier when they think there are fewer consequences. This is simple logic based on human behavior. Unfortunately, these "fewer consequences" backfire when it turns out we're in the .1%+ "failure" rate.
Not to mention, of course, that the entire concept of "safe sex" or "protected sex" subverts sex into a purely recreational activity, ignoring the other clear and profound consequences beyond the strictly physical.
Also, how can anyone trust the information and reseources given by an organization that profits from abortions? It is the primary source of income at the clinic level for PP, since the other services are usually funded from elsewhere. On the topic of these services, they are a great way to pull women into PP, while in fact shouldn't we be spending this money on improving access to proper medical care and real medical facilities? Why do we condemn Mother Teresa for providing hospice care without a license, but not PP volunteers with only on-site training in their treatment of women?
4.14.2011 | 1:37pm
Wanderdust says:
Heloise, I agree with all you said, although I do feel there can be a place for birth control methods w/ a husband and wife.
If the sperm is prevented from penetrating the egg, there can be no child.
And I think God gave sex to a married couple for enjoyment and bonding, not just procreation or else every encounter would result in a baby or many babies. God did also make sex feel good, to unite a husband and wife together in love and fellowship. This good love can lead to new life. Pleasure is not bad although even everything good has its place. A fire in a proper fireplace giving light and warmth, not a raging brushfire destroying everything.
Yes, no birth control is 100 percent effective, and giving it to unmarried teenagers is ridiculously hypocritical. But I personally do not feel God is against birth control for husbands and wives. It may be one of those things that we each have to make up in their own mind, and if you think it is wrong, then it is wrong for you. Romans 14:5, 23 "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind... But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
Men lose sperm in their sleep, and not all sperm result in a baby. On the other hand, I wish condoms weren't so effective for me as I would like us to have another child, but I also want to leave it up to my husband. :) So I wouldn't mind if birth control did not exist. Anyway, that is very ironic about that happening to that former planned parenthood director! God is always in control no matter what.
If the sperm is prevented from penetrating the egg, there can be no child.
And I think God gave sex to a married couple for enjoyment and bonding, not just procreation or else every encounter would result in a baby or many babies. God did also make sex feel good, to unite a husband and wife together in love and fellowship. This good love can lead to new life. Pleasure is not bad although even everything good has its place. A fire in a proper fireplace giving light and warmth, not a raging brushfire destroying everything.
Yes, no birth control is 100 percent effective, and giving it to unmarried teenagers is ridiculously hypocritical. But I personally do not feel God is against birth control for husbands and wives. It may be one of those things that we each have to make up in their own mind, and if you think it is wrong, then it is wrong for you. Romans 14:5, 23 "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind... But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."
Men lose sperm in their sleep, and not all sperm result in a baby. On the other hand, I wish condoms weren't so effective for me as I would like us to have another child, but I also want to leave it up to my husband. :) So I wouldn't mind if birth control did not exist. Anyway, that is very ironic about that happening to that former planned parenthood director! God is always in control no matter what.
4.14.2011 | 4:38pm
TimC says:
Mr. Nickol,
You say, "What I object to (and what I think is patronizing and insulting to women) is that pro-lifers say they are objectively guilty of a grave evil but they cannot be held legally responsible for procuring abortions because they are not *morally* responsible for procuring abortions." And yet if we changed the topic from abortion to something like "illegally downloading songs" or "people who choose to remain as illegal immigrants" would there not be circumstances in which you would be willing to accept that the translation of objective guilt into moral responsibility is tempered by a lack of moral clarity?
Consider that the law, the ivory towers, and a significant minority of those around us believe that abortion is not an objective evil. I cannot agree that it is patronizing or insulting to suggest that these circumstances extenuate the level of moral responsibility of a person procuring an abortion. Is there anyone among us who has not been pressured by expedience to accept the offer of moral ambiguity? If, on the other hand, there was a clear and unequivocal consensus in our society that abortion was murder, I, at least, would be willing to entertain a harsher punishment for all involved in an abortion. However, we are a long long way from that day.
What of those who, as Mr. Carter shows above and as countless post-abortion recovery groups testify, at some point realize the seriousness of what they have done? Even in these circumstances, pro-lifers, at least those of the Christian stripe, have good authority for believing that "mercy triumphs over judgment." The same Lord who condemned murder and adultery also spared Cain and said "Go and sin no more."
You say, "What I object to (and what I think is patronizing and insulting to women) is that pro-lifers say they are objectively guilty of a grave evil but they cannot be held legally responsible for procuring abortions because they are not *morally* responsible for procuring abortions." And yet if we changed the topic from abortion to something like "illegally downloading songs" or "people who choose to remain as illegal immigrants" would there not be circumstances in which you would be willing to accept that the translation of objective guilt into moral responsibility is tempered by a lack of moral clarity?
Consider that the law, the ivory towers, and a significant minority of those around us believe that abortion is not an objective evil. I cannot agree that it is patronizing or insulting to suggest that these circumstances extenuate the level of moral responsibility of a person procuring an abortion. Is there anyone among us who has not been pressured by expedience to accept the offer of moral ambiguity? If, on the other hand, there was a clear and unequivocal consensus in our society that abortion was murder, I, at least, would be willing to entertain a harsher punishment for all involved in an abortion. However, we are a long long way from that day.
What of those who, as Mr. Carter shows above and as countless post-abortion recovery groups testify, at some point realize the seriousness of what they have done? Even in these circumstances, pro-lifers, at least those of the Christian stripe, have good authority for believing that "mercy triumphs over judgment." The same Lord who condemned murder and adultery also spared Cain and said "Go and sin no more."
4.14.2011 | 4:56pm
Billy Bean says:
Soodonim: And I thought you would surely respond by noting that the Bible doesn't mention nuclear weapons and child porn because they hadn't been invented in biblical times. I would have had a harder time with that one! But it still would have left my point untouched: Do you really want to hold that the seriousness of a moral violation can be determined by the frequency with which it is expressly mentioned in Scripture? If "Thou shalt not murder" is begging the question, where will you find specific Scriptural prohibitions against dealing heroin or dog fighting for sport, or viewing (prepubescent, if you insist) pornography, or dumping medical waste into rivers, or any number of other evils? If you are a Christian, you must know that this is not how Christians weigh moral issues. If you are not a Christian, why are you appealing to the Bible as an authority?
4.14.2011 | 6:03pm
Michael says:
TimC,
“If, on the other hand, there was a clear and unequivocal consensus in our society that abortion was murder, I, at least, would be willing to entertain a harsher punishment for all involved in an abortion. However, we are a long long way from that day”
Abortion was only illegal in the US for a short time, roughly 1880-1973. During those years, women were brought to trial, and juries generally acquitted them. Although they believed that abortion was murder, they felt it was a different kind of murder, one that warranted a different approach.
“If, on the other hand, there was a clear and unequivocal consensus in our society that abortion was murder, I, at least, would be willing to entertain a harsher punishment for all involved in an abortion. However, we are a long long way from that day”
Abortion was only illegal in the US for a short time, roughly 1880-1973. During those years, women were brought to trial, and juries generally acquitted them. Although they believed that abortion was murder, they felt it was a different kind of murder, one that warranted a different approach.
4.15.2011 | 1:11am
Aimee says:
"Abortion is not a big issue in the Bible because it was possible but difficult to do at the time, unlike now -- when abortion is the most common elective surgery in the United States. Infanticide isn't condemned in the Bible either and it was quite common. I think you'll find a clear prohibition against murder, however."
Yes, and
it's important to remember that abortion IS specifically addressed in the Didache, where we have the very earliest of Christian teaching set forth. It's clear that it was a n issue in encounters early Christians were having with newcomers and outsiders, and there's absolutely nothing vague about it.
Yes, and
it's important to remember that abortion IS specifically addressed in the Didache, where we have the very earliest of Christian teaching set forth. It's clear that it was a n issue in encounters early Christians were having with newcomers and outsiders, and there's absolutely nothing vague about it.
4.15.2011 | 8:33am
jmgregory says:
This article rightly seems to say that loving your baby means, at the very least, not killing her. What then, of our enemies?
4.15.2011 | 1:06pm
Wanderdust says:
What? Hello? I am Protestant (non-denominational) and have attended to Lutheran (very like Catholic services), Baptist, and a number of others-- I think my church is now called 'non-denominational'-- well, it's an Assembly of God church. But anyway, in none of these is abortion not considered murder.
While I am very proud of the Catholic church for being a forerunner in the fight against abortion, it is by no means true that other Christian churches think abortion is acceptable. Many of us are also giving to Right to Life, marching, protesting in quiet love, housing pregnant teenagers.
The Bible says God knew us when He was forming us in the womb, that He knit us together in the secret place. If God is doing a sacred work in there, who are we to think we can destroy that life? In fact, most (ALL) of us are murderers because Jesus made it even more difficult. Jesus said if you even think a hateful thought towards someone else you are guilty of committing murder. That's why we all need grace and the sacrifice of Christ, and none of us can boast.
But as you said, we are saved not to continue in our sins, but to live the life of holiness and love that Christ died to give us.
Protestants do not think abortion or any other form of murder, whether thought, said or done, is pleasing to God.
Miscarriage is so painful because mothers know that was a human life in there and they are mourning for a death.
I am glad I am a woman and had the enormous privilege of carrying the life of another (both my children) inside me. I thank God for that awesome gift everyday. But while I believe we must fight for the rights of those who are being led to slaughter and cannot speak up for themselves, I at the same time can feel compassion for my fellow sinners who have also done and thought despicable things.
While I am very proud of the Catholic church for being a forerunner in the fight against abortion, it is by no means true that other Christian churches think abortion is acceptable. Many of us are also giving to Right to Life, marching, protesting in quiet love, housing pregnant teenagers.
The Bible says God knew us when He was forming us in the womb, that He knit us together in the secret place. If God is doing a sacred work in there, who are we to think we can destroy that life? In fact, most (ALL) of us are murderers because Jesus made it even more difficult. Jesus said if you even think a hateful thought towards someone else you are guilty of committing murder. That's why we all need grace and the sacrifice of Christ, and none of us can boast.
But as you said, we are saved not to continue in our sins, but to live the life of holiness and love that Christ died to give us.
Protestants do not think abortion or any other form of murder, whether thought, said or done, is pleasing to God.
Miscarriage is so painful because mothers know that was a human life in there and they are mourning for a death.
I am glad I am a woman and had the enormous privilege of carrying the life of another (both my children) inside me. I thank God for that awesome gift everyday. But while I believe we must fight for the rights of those who are being led to slaughter and cannot speak up for themselves, I at the same time can feel compassion for my fellow sinners who have also done and thought despicable things.
4.15.2011 | 1:14pm
Wanderdust says:
Henry James, Do you know the moment God puts a human soul inside? Did it happen to you after you came out of your mother's womb, or after you turned 1 year old? My daughter can't speak but a few words, but since her infancy I know she has understood an enormous amount, maybe thinking like a child, but thinking all the same. I am a mother of two and I know my kids are not necessarily geniuses-- ALL babies are listening, understanding and have mental capacities far beyond what most people realize. I don't know the exact moment a person's personality comes into them and when they start thinking, when we can measure brain waves. But I do know that my children, from the day they were born and very probably before (since they could recognize my mother's and husband's and friend's voices), have been thinking and processing. Ask any mother and she will tell you the same.
4.15.2011 | 2:01pm
Wanderdust says:
The Bible considers the unborn a child:
OT law: A man is to be fined if he makes a woman give birth prematurely, but killed if either the woman or her unborn child are seriously injured or die as a result, life for life.
Exodus 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
See http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.
This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that “comes forth” is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.
Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ‘Let the earth BRING FORTH (yasa) living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”
This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....”
The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that “there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.”[9]
OT law: A man is to be fined if he makes a woman give birth prematurely, but killed if either the woman or her unborn child are seriously injured or die as a result, life for life.
Exodus 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
See http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
Nothing about the word yasa implies the death of the child. The context may give us this information, as in Numbers 12:12, but the word itself does not.
This leads us to our next question: What in the context justifies our assumption that the child that “comes forth” is dead? The answer is, nothing does. There is no indication anywhere in the verse that a fine is assessed for a miscarriage and a more severe penalty is assessed for harming the mother.
Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ‘Let the earth BRING FORTH (yasa) living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”
This becomes immediately clear when the Hebrew words are translated in their normal, conventional way:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life....”
The text seems to require a fine for the premature birth, but injury to either of the parties involved incurs a more severe punishment.[8] Millard Erickson notes that “there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis [life for life] to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies.”[9]
4.15.2011 | 4:46pm
TimC says:
Michael,
"Abortion was only illegal in the US for a short time, roughly 1880-1973. During those years, women were brought to trial, and juries generally acquitted them. Although they believed that abortion was murder, they felt it was a different kind of murder, one that warranted a different approach. "
This may be true, just as the death of a Negro would have been considered quite different from the death of a European in many places around the world not too long ago. But it proves nothing about the future. Furthermore, advances in the scientific understanding of human development and widespread familiarity with ultrasonic imaging have changed the game dramatically.
"Abortion was only illegal in the US for a short time, roughly 1880-1973. During those years, women were brought to trial, and juries generally acquitted them. Although they believed that abortion was murder, they felt it was a different kind of murder, one that warranted a different approach. "
This may be true, just as the death of a Negro would have been considered quite different from the death of a European in many places around the world not too long ago. But it proves nothing about the future. Furthermore, advances in the scientific understanding of human development and widespread familiarity with ultrasonic imaging have changed the game dramatically.
4.16.2011 | 8:25pm
Catherine says:
I am edified by many of these comments, because they help me to understand where others are in this debate. My goal is to find a way to help others to realize how immoral and unloving abortion truly is.
But I also come at this from a personal perspective of being a post-abortive mother. I make no excuse for my sin, nor do I condone in any way what I did thirty-nine years ago. At that time, there were no well-publicized crisis pregnancy centers, no supportive pro-life doctors (my own Catholic doctor referred me to an abortion hospital in New York), no family support, no friends to offer me other options. But there was a boyfriend who turned on me and made threats that shut me down as a functioning human being. Feeling completely abandoned in such an environment lacking in love, I stopped thinking rationally and became an automaton.
For many years I lived in my own self-imposed prison: mentally, psychologically, physically and spiritually.....until I turned earnestly toward God and began to accept forgiveness. I am a prodigal daughter who continues to walk with Our Lord and to make serious atonement for the greatest sin there could be: a mother consenting to the death of her own child. There isn't a day that goes by that I am not haunted by that thought and all the guilt that goes with it, and yet with His grace, mercy and strength, I can return that mercy and love to others who are being wounded by the sin of abortion.
I work with Silent No More Awareness, and I hear from women (and men) who are among the "walking wounded." Their stories are horrifying. We don't expect anyone's sympathy; we simply want to be able to function and be healed.
I was especially touched by the author's last comment that we need to show women in a crisis pregnancy that to choose abortion is the negation of love. There was no love when I consented to my horrible decision years ago. But I offer it today to others in the hope that the lives and souls of babies and mothers will be saved.
www.SilentNoMoreAwareness.org
But I also come at this from a personal perspective of being a post-abortive mother. I make no excuse for my sin, nor do I condone in any way what I did thirty-nine years ago. At that time, there were no well-publicized crisis pregnancy centers, no supportive pro-life doctors (my own Catholic doctor referred me to an abortion hospital in New York), no family support, no friends to offer me other options. But there was a boyfriend who turned on me and made threats that shut me down as a functioning human being. Feeling completely abandoned in such an environment lacking in love, I stopped thinking rationally and became an automaton.
For many years I lived in my own self-imposed prison: mentally, psychologically, physically and spiritually.....until I turned earnestly toward God and began to accept forgiveness. I am a prodigal daughter who continues to walk with Our Lord and to make serious atonement for the greatest sin there could be: a mother consenting to the death of her own child. There isn't a day that goes by that I am not haunted by that thought and all the guilt that goes with it, and yet with His grace, mercy and strength, I can return that mercy and love to others who are being wounded by the sin of abortion.
I work with Silent No More Awareness, and I hear from women (and men) who are among the "walking wounded." Their stories are horrifying. We don't expect anyone's sympathy; we simply want to be able to function and be healed.
I was especially touched by the author's last comment that we need to show women in a crisis pregnancy that to choose abortion is the negation of love. There was no love when I consented to my horrible decision years ago. But I offer it today to others in the hope that the lives and souls of babies and mothers will be saved.
www.SilentNoMoreAwareness.org
5.2.2011 | 2:11pm
Sibling says:
To Catherine: My mom had one of my siblings aborted. This was before I was born. She also had a still-born child some years after the abortion and before she had me. My mom always thought that the still-born child was her punishment for the abortion. Of course, it was not. She regretted the abortion all her life. She was a good mother and her children, grandchildren, daughters-in-law and son-in-law loved her. I don't know why my Mom and Dad made that decision. I wish she had the baby.
5.14.2011 | 11:09am
Yetta Anxiety says:
Either don't do it (God's choice and the best option. You are sharing your soul with each person you sleep with), or use a condom or at least be on birth control for goodness sake. If you really can't afford those (yeah right), don't have sex if you don't want kids. There is never a reason for letting yourself, or if you are a man, for getting a woman pregnant. What a ridiculous argument that women should have a choice. We do! "I could see that point. I mean, with abominations like child pornography and nuclear weapons -- oh, wait. Those aren't mentioned in the Bible either. Never mind."
6.21.2011 | 12:34pm
Agent Wiesemann says:
The advice of the priest I think is incredibly wise; to write down all the good that has been done in the years hence, years that might have been compromised with the addition of a child the parents were unable to raise. The child's existence might very well have negated a great deal of love. These women clearly view something as being preserved because of the abortion, not negated. I think the problem isn't just abortion; it is more general. It is the idea that women are entitled to make their own choices about sex and reproduction. One terrible consequence of legalized abortion is that unmarried women who didn't want abortions felt entitled to keep their babies. After abortion was legalized, homes for unwed mothers pretty much shut down. Women either had abortions, or decided to selfishly keep their babies. In either case, a needy couple was denied.
12.6.2011 | 1:04pm
AKO says:
@Wanderlust
"Condoms are extremely effective at preventing pregnancy. If men used a condom every time they did not wish to have a child, and if women (if they unwisely chose to fornicate as several people put it) insisted on every man using one, this would not even be a discussion."
Regardless to what others say in this thread, I agree with your statement. Although condoms are not 100% affective, they are much better than the alternative. People who have sex should know what they are getting into and weigh the risks.
"Condoms are extremely effective at preventing pregnancy. If men used a condom every time they did not wish to have a child, and if women (if they unwisely chose to fornicate as several people put it) insisted on every man using one, this would not even be a discussion."
Regardless to what others say in this thread, I agree with your statement. Although condoms are not 100% affective, they are much better than the alternative. People who have sex should know what they are getting into and weigh the risks.
How messed up in your head do you have to be to write the messages that you've quoted here? This is cognitive dissonance at its most disturbing.
I loved you and named you, but I killed you even though God didn't want me to, I know best, even though I'm quite obviously extremely confused, and thus I'm empowered!
Give me a break! But this is how much the modern, supposedly "liberated" women have allowed themselves to be manipulated.
Because for all this talk of liberation women haven't really been empowered by abortion and the zip-less you-know-what, they've been abused by it.
I've known women who have been told by their own mothers to have abortions, by their own husbands. Those people are urging death for their own children and grandchildren.
Yeah, it is the culture of "me", but it's not just the aborting mothers who have given in to it.
This is why abortion remains the ultimate issue. Its acceptability is the nadir of our modern society, the lies told to support it distort every aspect of our culture. It is the ultimate depravity and until it is rejected out-of-hand by women ourselves we'll never be truly empowered or liberated at all, in any way.