Skip to comments.Abortion realities
Posted on 11/24/2008 5:55:34 AM PST by NCDragon
A number of anti-abortion activists across the country have looked fully in the face of a Barack Obama presidency and foreseen that, with this ardently pro-choice president in place, chances that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade in the next four years will be nil.
They prudently have decided to put their energies toward making abortion a less-attractive choice by strengthening the social programs that would help more pregnant women choose life for the unborn.
Other activists have said that this nod to practicality is selling out, that it undermines the progress the pro-life movement has made.
No one is asking anyone to lay down deeply held moral convictions, but as Douglas W. Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and a Catholic who opposes abortion, asked, "If one strategy has failed and failed over decades, and you have empirical information that tells how you can honor life and encourage women to make that choice by meeting real needs that are existing and tangible, why not do that?"
More than 1.2 million abortions are performed each year in the United States. Any effort from any law-abiding front to reduce that number should be praised.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
There’s nothing new in this. All liberals give lip service to the notion that abortion is terrible and ought to be minimized, without, of course, forcing women to have the babies. Their proposed solution, however, is to give the women more money so they will be tempted to have the babies rather than abort them. If abortion were truly a matter in most cases of women on the edge of financial disaster opting to abort, I might support more programs for them. But women have been at that point before and, instead of abortion, had chosen adoption.
The choice for abortion is much more a moral one than a financial one. It is a demand that sex be as consequence-free for women as (it appears to them to be) for men. It is a demand for perpetual self-indulgence and irresponsibility. A few more dollars in the welfare check won’t change that.
Bill Ayers strategy seems to have worked well for the left. Perhaps it only requires a longer frame of view and a willingness to take the steps to make it happen.
Libs always take a long-term view and are happy with incremental steps. Our side wants it all or nothing. We consider it a virtue to lose.
YOU PRO-ABORTS WILL FIND IT GRATIFYING.
Time to stop sugar-coating this subject. This shot was taken by a pro-life activist behind an abortuary. But those arent human babies. The One has told us so.
This “make abortion unnecessary” talk is a smokescreen. The agenda of the Planned Parenthood types is actually the removal of all legal obstacles to abortion at any time and for any reason, coupled with government funding so the taxpayer supports this evil. Meanwhile, they “make abortion unnecessary” with their so-called comprehensive sex education that encourages irresponsible, no-consequence behavior and provides maps to the nearest abortion mill. It’s no wonder the liberal media can’t get enough of this garbage.
Will Catholics who voted for Obama continue to stand in line at the Mass to accept the Holy Eucharist?
Most rank and file pro-abort people are more interested in keeping abortion “guilt free” (as you referred to the desire for consequence free sexual behavior).
Everyone knows, in their core being, that killing the unborn in murder, but they don’t want to be reminded that that’s what they’ve done and what they advocate.
This is why they vehemently oppose any value placed on the unborn - embryos, etc. Any value on the unborn equates to guilt for killing the human that is given value.
Absotively, posilutely. This goes to the real core of the issue, which is moral. So long as they can maintain this legal fiction that a fetus is not human, they can argue pros and cons of a woman’s right to have an abortion. As soon as you face, honestly, the truth, the issue moves from legal to moral. Part of the problem, though, is that the wholesale move away from religion and absolute truths is that society requires a moral arbiter and so it replaces religious truth with legal “truth”. When abortion was considered morally wrong, the proponents of legalizing abortion argued (most probably disingenuously) that abortions would be few because of the moral underpinnings and that legalizing it would assist those most desperately in need of abortions for special reasons. Along the way, religion lost its influence on the vast majority of the young and so now morality is conflated or confused with legality and too many people refuse to look beyond the law to determine morality. While many, in their heart of hearts would admit they are committing murder, I believe a lot of our people these days see nothing wrong with abortion.
As I believe the Bible is the truth in all things it addresses,
I do believe that everyone has “the Law” written on their hearts and do indeed know that abortion is murder of an innocent human being.
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. The way their minds judge them gives witness to that fact. Sometimes their thoughts find them guilty. At other times their thoughts find them not guilty.
They just don’t want their “thoughts” and “minds” to judge them, so they want any reminders of their guilt removed from the public.
We all do things that we may regret and “suffer consequences” that we can do nothing about. Pro-abortionists think the choice happens after the conception, not so. The choice comes well before the conception.
Pro-abortionists make the women out to be victims and the men the perpetrators. What about people who are in car accidents that were in no way their fault? They suffer TRUE consequences that they have no control over. Sometimes the person who caused the accident come away with no consequences what so ever.
I would have to say I am pro-choice before the conception. After the conception you should only have 2 choices. Keep the child or adopt the child out.
I believe we should re-direct the discussion of abortion. If we can address the guilt of those that have already been involved in infanticide, we can get them in a state of mind of repentance and absolution instead of justification.
“God forgives you, even if you can’t forgive yourself - take it to the Cross.”
You are right there. I believe in the Light of Christ, which informs all people everywhere of basic morality. So, my statement that people don’t feel it is wrong was wrong. They do know it is a terrible choice.
“They do know it is a terrible choice”
And that is why their first reaction is paint pro-lifers as whacko jesus freaks who hate teenagers and rape victims.
If they can make someone else out to be the villain, then they feel better about killing babies.
Oh, so now we are going make “abortion a less-attractive choice by strengthening the social programs”.
Why not stop calling it abortion or pro-choice. It is MURDER, plain and simple. Sugar coating the greatest crime in the history of this planet is NOT the answer.
This is nothing less than class warfare, at its worst. If you want to play nice with people who are in fsvor of sucking the brains out of the unborn, you are as guilty as they are.
“I would have to say I am pro-choice before the conception. After the conception you should only have 2 choices. Keep the child or adopt the child out.”
Agreed. Here’s my analogy. I have the right to do with my body what I wish when it is only me that faces the consequences. If I were to visit a friend with a baby and picked up that baby, I have temporarily forfeited the right to simply drop my arms and let the baby fall. I have both a moral and legal obligation to get that baby to a place of safety before I again have complete sovereignty over my body. To me, pregnancy is the same thing. Having created a new life, I have a moral obligation to get that baby to a place of safety if it can be done without taking my own life.
Ironically, the more serious the consequences of our choices, the less that choice would be made. Taking away consequences makes the choice more palatable and common. To many people, societal condemnation reeks of puritanism or worse, but it has its purpose in discouraging the harmful activity in the first place. “Tolerating” (since tolerance now is raised to the level of acceptance) immorality, homosexuality, casual marriage, cheating, graft, dishonesty, and so much else has led to exponential growth in those societal cancers. Speaking truth to power and imposing consequences leads to heartache for some but probably prevents heartache for ten for every one that experiences it.
Like most liberals, they hide behind “sob stories” to bring about a right for everyone. “It’s for the children”, “It’s for the rape or incest victim”, “It’s for the noble homeless”. Once the right is ensconced, they know everyone who can will take advantage of the benefit and thereby become more dependent on government to not only hand them benefits but continue to define morality in a comfortable way.
In the meantime, they redefine morality themselves. It is no longer about fidelity to God or to others but about treating animals and the earth right. It’s about not hurting the feelings of evil or lazy people, about not discomforting mass murderers in the death chamber, about not condemning leeches on society. Morality is about imposing standards on others and exempting yourself (”because my situation, of course, is different”).
I believe we should re-direct the discussion of abortion. If we can address the guilt of those that have already been involved in infanticide,,,
That is hate speach sir! Please report directly to the nearest re-education center where you will phone bank for Planned Parenthood.