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.
Abortion combines the two favorite activities of Liberals into one activity:
f****** and killing
There is no way they will ever choose to abandon their favorite legal pastime.
It’s why they call themselves “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion”. Why else would they give themselves the name?
Liberals believe that if they don’t get their hands bloody, they have no guilt.
I had a convo with a lib about taxes.
The lib in question would not admit that taxes were taken from the payer through the threat of force.
They’ll never admit what they support - they have the layer of abstraction of the government to keep their hands clean.
“There is no way they will ever choose to abandon their favorite legal pastime.”
Which is why it is so ludicris to pretend that abortions can be minimized by paying the “moms” more money to not abort. And the liberals know that. It is just a feel-good sop to conservatives.
“Morality is about imposing standards on others and exempting yourself (because my situation, of course, is different).”
yes - I’ve really noticed that last part.
These are sneaky workers who expect everyone else to abide by the rules, but they get to find loopholes.
Or they grin and act cute when they’re caught.
If they get called on the carpet they roll their eyes and wonder what the big deal is.
I’ve noticed a certain New York congressman that perfectly illustrates that principle. Dem, of course. And he’s untouchable, apparently.
When my kids try any of that, I tell them they’re acting like liberals and will grow up to be worthless dregs on society. Then I assign extra chores and P.T. and cut off their computer usage and lose their mp3 players :-).
Sentences I don’t accept include, “I wasn’t doing anything,” and “It’s not my fault!”
You’re shocked that the Raleigh paper supports spending more taxpayer money on the types of programs that got us where we are now?
Are you thinking of a guy who just got (yet another) legal pass for his bizarre behavior?
” I tell them theyre acting like liberals and will grow up to be worthless dregs on society.”
I love it.
I think I’d like to borrow that.
Help yourself :-). The extra work helps drive the lesson home, especially if it’s something major like toilet-training a brother!
I wasn’t thinking about the former governor but of Congressman Rangel with his rent-controlled apartments, tax evasion, and abuse of parking privileges, to name just a few. But the treatment of Spitzer fits the mold of those who eventually get exonerated on questionable grounds. He is probably now a hero again to the liberals. This contrasts a lot with Cunningham or Stevens or other conservatives who get convicted, not that I am justifying their behavior, it just is stunning what a double standard there is here in the media and the justice system.
I was thinking of Hinchey!
I know - there’s so many good examples.
We need a Hall of Infamy: Dems who got off because they were Dems.
A very LARGE HALL.
That’s one heckuva big project.
True. Best to get started: Big statues to Robert Byrd, Eliot Spitzer, Hinchey (don’t know him), Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Marc Rich, Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Raum Emanuel, Senator Kennedy (heck, the whole clan), Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, . . . (My brain isn’t in gear yet so I am having trouble coming up with the names: the impeached Forida judge now in congress, the Fannie/9/11 commission/security council woman, the Tennessee congressman, etc.)
wow -my brain is a bit fatigued post-turkey feast here.
I have been a bit fixated on the spectacle of the fannie freddie crooks having the gall to hold hearings where they get to interrogate everybody but themselves.
We’ve gotta have a special place in the hall for the most outlandish.
Ahhh....Hinchey. To know him is to love him.
Slapped a gun dealer in the head before the election.
We had a good candidate running against hime - but to no avail.
A while ago he was caught packing a gun in his luggage in an airport (pre-9/11).
He’s a Pelosi/Reid kissup. Part of the “use it or lose it” gang.
Were you thinking of Jamie Gorelick?
For the good of decent folks everywhere, that woman should be kept in a straightjacket in padded cell for life.
Yeah, Jamie. My mind is a blank today and we didn’t even celebrate T-day today. For us it’s tomorrow while everyone else is shopping. I’ve been e-shopping all day today instead of tryptophan napping.
Mayor Marion Barry.
Sandy Berger, Anita Hill
Al Gore (illegal fundraising w/ White House phones)
Was it Harold Ford? Anyway, the Tennessee Ford with the frozen money.
Wasn’t Ron Brown crooked too?
Yes, Brown was implicated in some scandals but his untimely death put an end to any real investigation IIRC. Let’s include Biden and his clan, they seem as involved in nepotism as the Kennedys, most of the Dems in Chicago, Ray Nagin, the Dems involved with Abrams, the S&L Dems, the former head of Fannie Mae, the entire ACORN organization which will probable entirely escape investigation.
I’d like to put a statue of Nagin out in front of the Hall - and I want it to have tears streaming down his face.
This may be part of the reason there is so little respect for law these days. When leaders can break the law with impunity because of who they are, why should the “little people” respect the rule of law?
I’ve kinda been wondering - myself - why should I pay my mortgage this month?
Or my credit card bill?
Because you are at heart an honest person who doesn’t need man’s laws to tell you what is right or wrong. It is written on your heart and in your conscience and because, in the words of an old poem, you believe “I have to live with myself and so, I want to be fit for myself to know.” “I don’t want to stand at the setting sun and hate myself for the things I’ve done.” “I want to be able as days go by, always to look myself straight in the eye.” (Can’t remember the order of those lines.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.