Diana,

There's a lot to chew on in here. Thank you for your post. As someone that doesn't feel comfortable subscribing to either title, pro-life or pro-choice, I am eager to have the dialog broadened. I'd be interested to discuss how people define the least of these. Is it just the fetus or do poor or desperate women count among the classification?>

Posted by: js | January 22, 2007 7:13 PM

I've read the Hauerwas article, but it has been a little while... I don't think the distinctive Xtn approach to the issue of abortion doesn't mean we can't reframe the politics of abortion issue in ways that non-Christians can appreciate.

For example, in my pragmatic prolife manifesto, I refram the issue as whether and when we should treat the human unborn as legally-protected persons and provide them legal rights analogous to what are given to newlyborn infants. Or, conversely, under what set of defined circumstances should we give women the right to elect an abortion.

I think this sort of reframing that does not contain within the question the posited answer to the question are part of the ministry of reconciliation. It insists that the issue shd not be black and white and that we can mediate working-rule answers that will provide due process for females, as we collectively meditate on the facts of the fetal developmental process and what makes us human beings.

Anyways, I hope you will help my idea to be debated and dialogued about at God's politics, as it deserves to get more attention.

dlw>

Posted by: dlw | January 22, 2007 7:45 PM

I am curious as to where you see Christians failing to grasp the link between sexuality and abortion. I am part of a church that works hard to find Christian adoptive parents for unwed mothers, and I do not think you can extricate sexual ethics from the abortion issue.

However, Christians are then judged as parochial for finding fault with sex outside of marriage. Our pastors are excoriated for talking about it in the pulpits. And if we should venture to codify our ethical principles into public policy? Well, that's just being belligerent.

The idea that Christians ought not view human life as sacred is very interesting, but it seems opportunistically applied here. How do you reconcile this with previously stated opposition to war or the death penalty?

Laslty, I am not sure that the argument is so stale as you make it out to be. The majority of people support laws that would prohibit a substantial number of abortions. They also support Roe v. Wade, which prohibits the enactment of any such law. These are dissonant positions, and while I agree that the shouting match has added to the confusion, I disagree that we should abandon the debate for that reason.>

Posted by: kevin s. | January 22, 2007 8:45 PM

Of course, one of the more interesting things about Roe v. Wade is that the "Roe" ( I forget her real name) has subsequently made statements that she wished she never had an abortion.>

Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | January 22, 2007 10:00 PM

I think it is good for Christians to link promiscuity and abortion. However, from the political and legal side of things, there really isn't much one can do to restrain promiscuity. So long as the sex is consensual, it is legal.

The real legal issue are under what defined circumstances can a woman elect an abortion.

These two approaches are not exclusive of each other and it is right for Christians to consider both, though the latter(the political one) needs to receive less emphasis and our activism on it needs to be measured carefully.

dlw>

Posted by: dlw | January 23, 2007 12:10 AM

Robstur,
I appreciate your comments. Your questions are good, and I agree with what you are saying. However, they also show the point the author is making. She is saying we need to get beyond the debate as usual, and get to the heart of the issue. For example, if R v W were overturned, it would only be a bandaid solution. The real solution is to get to the heart of the issue, and deal with that.

Blessings>

Posted by: Squeaky | January 23, 2007 1:08 AM

Bill,

If there was a pro-life (and by pro-life, I mean opposed to legal abortion) nominee for President who was otherwise liberal, I submit that they would win the presidency. And yet, you will never see it. Why is that? I mean, aren't Republicans to party that only cares about two issues?>

Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2007 1:53 AM

Do you think segregation should be rare but not prohibited by law?>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 4:36 AM

I consider myself evangelical and prolife, yet I read Ms. Bass's column wondering who she could be describing. Sexual promiscuity--male and female--is preached against by every evangelical church. It is emphasized. You also find evangelical and catholic churches donating millions of dollars to crisis pregnancy centers and homes for unwed mothers. One might have been able to characterize the prolife movement of old as somewhat paternalistic, but anyone who has been watching the movement knows that it has changed. They are dealing with root causes.

I also find it more than a little insulting how Ms. Bass belittles the efforts of those who attend prolife rallies. They are speaking out "for the least of these." They stand in the tradition of the abolitionists and civil rights leaders. Would Ms. Bass speak of abolitionists with the same condescension? If they weren't going about it in the right way, she would probably still speak highly of them and would even join them. She would be criticizing those who stood on the sidelines, instead. But I'm guessing she's never been to a prolife rally.

(But, of course, marching about a minimum wage increase is surely a worthy cause...)

Which just brings us to the real issue here. Bass, Wallis, and Sojo do not view abortion as a fundamental injustice on par with slavery. Many of us in the prolife movement do. There's your real debate. I'd like the writers on this blog to really address this, but I don't think they ever will.>

Posted by: jesse | January 23, 2007 4:54 AM

I hate to play the offended male card, but what about female promiscuity? I've only had sex with my wife, but I had more than one girl try to bed me during college. Is it fair to characterize the problem as male dominance and victimization of women? The feminist movement and sexual revolution made it socially acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous. I think that's more of the reason for the support of abortion than the pro-choice groups want to let on. These women (not all, obviously...probably not even a majority) want the freedom to sleep with who they want, when they want to, without the threat of consequences. I can't cite sources, but I've heard the argument. I'm saying it myself: this is hearsay. But that doesn't make it untrue.

It's unfair to place the blame on men for the promiscuity problem. Of course, rape is a different issue, but that's not what we're talking about. And I'm not saying that men don't "compel" women to be with them. But that's not the center of the issue. We need to deal with sexual ethics as a whole.

And, I'm going to agree with the other commenter who asked how you can reconcile the idea that Christians don't believe life is sacred with the positions on the war and on the death penalty.>

Posted by: Elmo | January 23, 2007 5:08 AM

Ummm--Elmo. First of all, women's arguments for what you are saying is that they should have the same freedom as men do, who can, by and large, sleep with whoever they want without consequences. I'm not saying that is right, and far from it, in fact.

Second of all, the women's movement had more to do with equal rights in pay and status than it did with sexuality. Yes, that was part of it, but more importantly was that women are seen as just as important as men.

And finally, I'm not male-bashing, but men need to realize how much of their sexuality plays a role here. You spoke of the women's movement--a big deal about the women's movement is that women cease being treated as objects by men. This has been women's role primarily throughout human history--they were not seen as anything of value, other than to satisfy men, and this is still the case in many parts of the world.

But more frightening to me, is that as far as the women's movement went to battle that, there have been many steps taken backwards by the styles that girls are wearing these days. I teach at a small university, and I can't believe young men can even concentrate with some of the things the young women are wearing! And part of the problem is fathers letting their daughters leave the house like that when they were as young as elementary school-aged. Why do girls and young women wear this stuff? Most would tell you that if they didn't, guys wouldn't be interested in them. Yes, it's very much driven by what guys want.

I know this is rambling, but I need to get to work now.

Thanks,

Lea>

Posted by: Squeaky | January 23, 2007 1:25 PM

Squeaky | 01.23.07 - 8:30 am |

This is one of the major flaws with movements or causes. They start out with lofty ideals and goals and then to garner more support - they take on more 'marginal issues' but then because they get their support they are obligated to support them.

The women s movement started with equal pay and chance for advancement in the work place. (something my Mother was able to achieve 3 years prior to the screaming of NOW) But now it is for rights of women to dress - act - behave as scumming as men have - not sure that is a lofty goal. I have one daughter and I am instilling in her that she can do anything that she wants to do - but - she has to prove herself just like anyone else. There is only one thing I have told her she doesn't need to do - and that is fulfill a statistic for some company to report to some gov't agency.

I have been raised and influenced by some of the most powerful women that I know of and not only of them were members of NOW or played the victim card in their desire to advance their career.

Have a great day...
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 23, 2007 1:41 PM

Rick,
That might be true of an extremely small number of people in the prolife movement, but it's too bad you can't look inside our hearts to see whether we really want Roe v. Wade overturned or only care about "controlling" people.>

Posted by: jesse | January 23, 2007 2:30 PM

Good thoughts and comments.

I am not sure that we could overturn R-v-W at this time in our history. I would like to end 3rd trimester abortions and yes - even second tri. I know that abortion should be a last resort action and I believe that we as Christians that value life will better serve mankind if we would work with young women and girls to change their hearts about the unborn. We also need to work with young men about responsibility and keeping it in their pants.

If you missed O'Rielly with Geraldo a few nights ago...what a crock. Geraldo basically said that women teachers having sex with underage boys was more of a 'right of passage' than rape or sexual abuse. But he has a different standard with girls; I believe that he is the father of two girls.

I have taught my sons that there is a time and a place for everything. They are becoming young adult men. I also informed them that if they were to father a child - I would hold them responsible for that child s upbringing and care. (I'm locking my daughter up till she is 25 - just kidding)

Have a great day...
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 23, 2007 2:40 PM

OK - say whatever you want to say about the following...

I have said this before and I will keep saying it...

I believe one way that we can shut down the majority of 'unwanted' pregnancies is to stop Federal Unwriting of Illegitimacy. We know that children born to young single parents are at risk of living in poverty, struggling in their education and most likely produce another child with out two parents etc. The wheel just keeps turning and turning and turning.

My employer did not raise my hourly rate after child two and three. I will agree to pay for one, the second you make your personal economy work for two just like the rest of us.

If they can not get extra money for extra children - I think the pregnancy rate will drop in the US.
(we might have a spike in the abortion rate but we can deal with that separately)

Be Blessed...
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 23, 2007 3:01 PM

"If you missed O'Reilly with Geraldo a few nights ago...what a crock. Geraldo basically said that women teachers having sex with underage boys was more of a 'rite of passage' than rape or sexual abuse."

Hate to burst your bubble, but he's bascially right. There still is a double standard out there when it comes to sexuality; boys are supposed to want and get it and girls aren't.

Remember Mary Kay LeTourneau? People want to vilify her for having that affair years ago with her student, now her husband (not that it was right), but consider these facts: 1) He approached her; and 2) Her then-husband was stepping out on her and she was lonely.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2007 3:35 PM

Rick Nowlin | 01.23.07 - 10:33 am |

Ok it is the state and not the feds. But education stats make the argument that young (student) mothers are at risk of not completing their education and so are their children. They get more money from the state for having more children. That is what we need to stop is paying people to have children so that they want more children so that they have more money.

That a single female wants to have children and she is focused on a career, children - etc. I have one of those in my community that has adopted her children from China.

We need to stop adding to our poverty problem by stopping the funding of having children so that you get more money.

This is not 'the' solution but 'part' of the solution.

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 23, 2007 3:58 PM

"I know that there is a double standard -- the crazy thing was that Geraldo was supporting it. He was basically OK with female teachers having sex with 15 year old boys. But not supporting 15 year old girls having sex with mature men."

Not having seen the show I don't know if what you said was accurate, but if it is you're absolutely right.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2007 4:13 PM

"Women dress provocatively because they feel they can get the attention of men that way -- in many cases because their fathers didn't give them enough."

This is correct, and it is very sad. However, this is a sinful response to the problem. When we use this as a justification for legal abortion (I'm not saying you are), we are validating the behavior. There is a difference between "understandable" and "God honoring".

"I don't think that the conservative contingent REALLY wants to overturn Roe v. Wade because it raises a lot of money and passion for the cause as it stands today."

The conservative contingent ABSOLUTELY wants to do this. You could argue that some members of the Republican party are averse to losing a potential cash cow, but I think this is an extension of the notion that cultural conservatives only care about one or two issues, which is demonstrably false.

Further, true Conservatives want a judiciary that practices a conservative judicial philosophy, which has broader ramifications than the question of abortion.

"Ideologically, abortion has become a "conservative" issue, which can mean only that it's one of control."

I don't buy this. If women are pregnant, they are having sex, and I don't think Christians are threatened by pregnancy. In fact, we might encourage secret abortions so we don't have to deal with the reality of pregnancy (I am aware the Christians have done precisely this in the past, but for different reasons).

I think Christians are opposed to it because we are instilled by the holy spirit with a desire to combat what I perceive to be the ultimate injustice, he literal acceptance of murder.>

Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2007 5:10 PM

I was hoping some people, if not Dr Bass, would take the time to read and respond to my pragmatic prolife manifesto idea I linked to earlier...

or just google the "pragmatic prolife manifesto"

dlw>

Posted by: dlw | January 23, 2007 5:22 PM

"Further, true Conservatives want a judiciary that practices a conservative judicial philosophy, which has broader ramifications than the question of abortion."

In my view, a conservative judicial philosophy has to do with maintaining authority for its own sake.

"I don't buy this. If women are pregnant, they are having sex, and I don't think Christians are threatened by pregnancy. In fact, we might encourage secret abortions so we don't have to deal with the reality of pregnancy (I am aware the Christians have done precisely this in the past, but for different reasons)."

I mentioned that one out of every six abortions happens to an evangelical women, so it is happening secretly. Indeed, back in the late 1980s when Operation Rescue was hot, one local pro-choice activist threatened to "out" folks on the other side who she claimed had had abortions.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2007 5:37 PM

I'm sick of the terms pro-life and pro-choice. No one I know, on either side of the aisle, is anti-life so really it is an oxymoron. Our society has always been paternalistic. There have always been, by a majority, men in robes telling us what to do and how to live our lives. I am a single mom by choice for 2 reasons only. Number one the "father" ( and I use that term loosely)has not seen his son since he was 9 months old, and my son is now 11 yrs old, those reasons being he was abusive and is an alcoholic. Yeah I could have stayed with him for 11 miserable years and been beaten for all those years. I chose to kick him out so my son would't grow up in a horrible home and be subjected to being beaten also.

One more thing I'm tired of is the double standard for men and women. If a man is promiscuous he is a stud and to be envied bye some. If a woman is promiscuous she is a slut and to be derided by some. Until we get past this double standard we will get no where on the abortion debate.>

Posted by: Kathy | January 23, 2007 6:09 PM

Kathy | 01.23.07 - 1:14 pm |

Not everyone buys into the double standard. The church that I attend hold both sexes to a higher standard.

The one inequality that I see (and I am sure that there are more) is that if the male wants the child and the female does not - she can abort against his wishes. If the opposite is true - the man wants her to have an abortion and see wants to keep the child - she can keep it against his wishes and make him pay for the next 18+ years. I am not saying that I think this is right or support this - just an observation of mine.

Have a blessed day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 23, 2007 6:27 PM

It doesn't seem that most of the commenters understand Hauerwas' point about sexuality. He argues that sex is not simply a personal sin (the direction these posts run). Rather, male sexuality is an issue of systemic power used to control, belittle, depersonalize, and demean women and children. Sex isn't just holding individuals to a higher standard. Sex is about relationships of power that have developed in particular ways related to economics, politics, and social structures over a long period of time in Western cultures that maintain male oppression over "the least of these." (Other cultures do this as well--in different ways and often around different issues.)

That's the point he was making--and it is that issue that the church has failed to address. (Just look at how many churches still refuse to ordain women; look at the myriad of ways that we--yes, even Christians--do violence to children and their personhood.) Male promicuity, according to Hauerwas, sustains the injustice and disordered relationships as part of a systematic practice of sinful communal behavior.

Sure, churches urge Christians to behave themselves sexually. But his argument isn't about individual sexual choices, what is commonly called "personal morality." It is about reflecting with theological insight on those power relations that sin against the vision of God's reign of shalom. From that perspective, Christian sexuality should radically undermine sexuality-as-contol and transform it into an intimate expression of servanthood, mutuality, responsibility, healing, unity, and discipleship. From the intimacy of human love, serving as both a loci and a sacrament of God's love, larger patterns of society might be transformed into God's dream for humankind.

From this ethical angle, abortion is part of that continuing pattern of systemic injustice. A sad, tragic breaking of personhood, where women are pitted against their children in a disordered world.>

Posted by: Diana Butler Bass, Ph.D. | January 23, 2007 7:02 PM

"Is it? Or are churches becoming disturbingly tolerant of the practice in keeping with the times? Either way, I don't see a fear of women's sexuality playing into this. If anything, there might be an issue of shame related to sex outside of marriage."

I don't see churches as being more tolerant but powerless. It's one thing to "follow the rules" and quite another to give people the tools to do so; simply staying out of the sack while you're still lusting after another person represents little more than semantics. (Jesus said that, of course.)

What's really needed is a healthy respect for the other gender that goes beyond sex. Parents, or in their absence married couples in the church (optimally both, of course), should model a Biblical manner of male-female intimacy that would show that "a roll in the hay" is a cheap substitute. We also should not judge potential partners primarily on looks (men) or status (women) but on truly Biblical character.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2007 7:49 PM

"It doesn't seem that most of the commenters understand Hauerwas' point about sexuality"

I understand it, but I don't think it is necessarily valid, nor is it relevant to the discussion of whether abortion ought to be legal.

"Rather, male sexuality is an issue of systemic power used to control, belittle, depersonalize, and demean women and children."

Did you mean "male promiscuity"? Surely you are not contending that man's God-given sexuality controls and demeans women and children.

"Sex isn't just holding individuals to a higher standard. "

No, it is about mutual love and respect. But confining sex to marriage is a higher standard. In the context of a healthy marriage, the demeaning aspects of sex are removed. Questions of sin and higher standards are utterly necessary to this equation.

"Sex is about relationships of power that have developed in particular ways related to economics, politics, and social structures"

And I would argue that the church wants to make it into something else entirely. Numerous books have been written about God and sex that deal with the women's desire to be loved, and the way men abuse that desire. This is nothing new for most successful churches.

"That's the point he was making--and it is that issue that the church has failed to address. (Just look at how many churches still refuse to ordain women;"

Come now. You know perfectly well the reasons why churches do not ordain women. You may disagree with them, but they have nothing to do with a desire to subjogate women. I am not going to get into this debate, but suffice to say I do not think the ordination of women (or lack thereof) contributes to your narrative.

" Male promicuity, according to Hauerwas, sustains the injustice and disordered relationships as part of a systematic practice of sinful communal behavior. "

Absolutely. So does female promiscuity. Women have desires that men exploit, no doubt, but it is sin to ask man to fulfill what God ought to fulfill. Again, and I am aware that there are counterexamples, I see churches contending with this issue regularly.

"Sure, churches urge Christians to behave themselves sexually. But his argument isn't about individual sexual choices"

Behave themselves? Aren't you being a tad unfair in your characterization? This argument isn't about sexual choices, but the choice between sex and God to fulfill the longing of our soul. At this level, it is all about personal decisions and choices.

"Christian sexuality should radically undermine sexuality-as-contol and transform it into an intimate expression of servanthood, mutuality, responsibility, healing, unity, and discipleship."

But how can it do this without speaking against promiscuity? If promiscuity is, by definition, about control, and even contributing to the subjogation of the "least of these", what is wrong with telling people to "behave themselves"?

"From this ethical angle, abortion is part of that continuing pattern of systemic injustice. A sad, tragic breaking of personhood, where women are pitted against their children in a disordered world."

I agree that it is tragic. My inference, however, is that you see an abortion resulting from only one narrative, rather than a series of narratives. Of course, the one you have chosen is the most sympathetic to the would-be mother.

While this narrative is helpful to understanding the issue, I am not sure what bearing it has on whether our society has an obligation to protect the unborn child.

There are a number of narratives that lead to a number of criminal conclusions (murder is an obvious example). However, our civility must lead us to conclude that these narratives do not trump our societal obligations.

I agree that the church must speak to the issue of sex and power, and I would argue that it does. But I don't see where we can prophetically ignore the responsibility of the government to protect the "least of these".>

Posted by: keivn s. | January 23, 2007 8:05 PM

kevin s.

I would probably have more credibility if I could spell my own name right, eh?

It's OK Kvein - I'll still respect you in the morning. (tee hee)

Have a great one.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 23, 2007 11:51 PM

And by "attitudes towards sex" I mean whether or not someone believes sex should be saved for marriage. This is a very potent predictor of abortion attitudes.>

Posted by: jesse | January 24, 2007 12:13 AM

disbelief in God-check

postmodernism- Not sure what you're implying, I find most christians are the biggest post-modernists with the way they selectively choose which scientific facts they want to accept with regards to whatever biblical interpretation they are idolizing at the moment- check or uncheck not sure

radical individualism- other than continuing to choose to live in this country and thereby implicitly accepting it's laws, I don't see why I should be beholden to any other community mores, that's what America is founded on afterall, so I guess check

Position on abortion: Would prefer they don't happen, but should not be illegal for first trimester, increasing restrcitions for second, and only in life threatening cases for third. Sure it may be arbitrary timetables, but many of our laws have arbitrary ages, drinking, tobacco, driving, voting, running for President, etc.

I think the pro-life movement should focus more on services and programs for at-risk mothers rather than sloganeering. They should try to increase adoption services, but laughably, the catholic church is threatening closing its adoption services down in europe thanks an anti-discrimination law on sexual orientation. They'd just hate to have homosexuality recognized, even though it's the children in foster care that suffer. Such bigoted attitutdes doen't serve anyone. They should leap for joy at sex-ed programs as they show the consequences of poor decision making with regards to sexuality, but instead they'd rather sweep it under the rug and pretend kids and young adults aren't going to do it.>

Posted by: Aaron | January 24, 2007 2:54 PM

Aaron | 01.24.07 - 9:59 am |

Position on abortion:

Positions are very important to me. You have to be able to communicate your ideas - convictions as well as being able to understand the position(s) of the other person.

There are many OBGYN's on record that with modern tech. they do not have to make the decision of 'mother vs. baby' they can save both.

It seems that the pro-abortion side is loosing some of their arguments for abortion of demand and are grasping for anything that supports their ideals. R-v-W was poor/bad interpretation from the S-C.

Just me and have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 24, 2007 4:26 PM

"And listened to Dan Rather and company with fabricated evidence."

Robstur -- At least Rather is out of a job. O'Reilly is still on the air BECAUSE of his lies.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2007 8:10 PM

"If he lied about something like Rather did -- there would be a line a mile long to file suit against him."

That's never going to happen because he's virtually suit-proof -- he'll get gobs of right-wing money, probably Murdoch's, to defend him and bankrupt anyone who even tries to file. That's the only reason most conservative publications, all of which also have blatantly lied in print, also don't get hauled into court for libel.

"You may not agree with his assessment or take on an issue(s) - but at least he will invite those that disagree with him to come on air and talk. Refreshing in my book."

Tell that to one of my former colleagues who refused even to let him defend himself when he was on the show -- and then he hung up on him to boot.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2007 10:05 PM

Robstur -- There was a typo in my post, so let me tell you what happened.

Another colleague of mine, still with us, wrote an article that O'Reilly completely distorted on the air. He invited that colleague on the show, but knowing how O'Reilly operates he declined. So his then-boss went on instead, and it was he whom O'Reilly abused and eventually hung up on.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2007 10:42 PM

Aron: "Position on abortion: Would prefer they don't happen, but should not be illegal for first trimester, increasing restrcitions for second, and only in life threatening cases for third. Sure it may be arbitrary timetables, but many of our laws have arbitrary ages, drinking, tobacco, driving, voting, running for President, etc."

The choice of whether/when to terminate a human being most certainly carries considerably more ethical weight than deciding whether/when to drive an automobile or ingest alcohol. If it is unclear to society at what point on the life continuum a human may be terminated (and in the absence of guidance by a higher external authority), this doubt behooves us to err conservatively and protect life no matter its point on the continuum.

Aron: "I think the pro-life movement should focus more on services and programs for at-risk mothers rather than sloganeering."

This statement is an (I will assume uniformed) insult to the myriad programs run by those of the pro-life movement to help women with an unwanted pregnancy. But I would like to turn it on its head: What are those who are "pro-choice" actually doing to make sure it is indeed truly a choice? Other than slogans and pushing abortion, what alternative options/programs/shelters/financial services do they provide that a woman may choose among? I am ignorant, so please enlighten me.

Doug>

Posted by: Doug | January 25, 2007 8:13 AM

Aaron | 01.25.07 - 8:06 am |

The Pro-Life organization that our church supports has seen an increase of over 55% in dealing with post abortive mothers. These are women that had an abortion at the local abortion clinic and told that all is fine. Months and sometimes years later they are dealing with depression etc. If abortion is a 'victimless' act - why are so many women dealing with some type of syndrome after having an abortion? Oh - and the majority of these women are not 'church going' individuals so the 'guilt factor' is not ours.

As for sloganeering, why has the pro-abortion supporters changed their name or 'softened' their image over the past decade+? Pro-Abortion to Pro-Choice and now NARRL. I believe that they are more concerned about 'image and sloganeering' than the Por-Life people.

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 1:28 PM

Rick Nowlin | 01.25.07 - 8:58 am |

I believe that we are all 'pro-choice' - just depends which side of the fence you are on. Pro-Abortion was their title for those that fought for the right to have an abortion. Not the people that did not agree with abortion.

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 3:08 PM

Rick Nowlin | 01.25.07 - 10:24 am |

We have several laws on the books that make the 'choice' for any number of people or groups etc.

Tell you what - I will give up the idea that we will not overturn R-v-W and set back from the issue on 1st trimester abortions. Will the other side step back from the issue and make it so that there are no 3rd trimester abortions? In this day and age - the only reason for a 3rd tri abortion is preference. Many OBGYN's have gone on record that they can save both the mother and the baby with the tech that we have.

Good start?

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 3:47 PM

Rick Nowlin | 01.25.07 - 12:57 pm |

Why is this a bogus proposition? I never stated that most of the abortions are in the last tri. Yes there are six states - but it is amazing the number of people that rush there to have their done. I believe that abortion is immoral - but I don't need to impose that on everyone. I am just saying that if I as a pro-life person am willing to make concessions on 1st tri. Are there anyone who are pro-abortion that might be willing to make concession on 3rd tri? Are we to be looking for middle ground...?

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 6:34 PM

Rick Nowlin | 01.25.07 - 1:52 pm |

Few - OK but I have yet to meet someone with deformities - CP - physical challenges of any type that have expressed they wish their mother had aborted them. Sure - they want to have a normal body like others. To run - swim - climb like their friends. But they are happy to be alive and enjoy life to a level that I is a pleasure to witness. I wish those of us that are not handicapped would enjoy more and complain less.

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 7:15 PM

Wow. This is good. I hadn't thought about the male sexiality ethics angle. It has always puzzled me that men say their opinion about abortion doesn't matter because they don't have a womb, or something along those lines. I have wondered well, aren't you lucky that you don't have to think about whether this is right or wrong. How convenient. You can have your cake and not worry about the morality of what to do with the end product, which is sometimes a baby.>

Posted by: Carol Crossed | January 27, 2007 10:32 PM

Aron: "(I will assume uniformed)

Then there's no need to further dialogue with you."

I said "uninformed" to give you the benefit of the doubt. The alternative interpretations of your remarks is that you *knowingly* insulted the work of churches and other pro-life groups to help women in need, or perhaps don't want to know so you can stick to your untenable position.

If I'm wrong, show me where so I can rethink/clarify my position. Otherwise, perhaps you need to reevaluate yours.

Then there's no need to further dialogue with you."
>

Posted by: Aaron | January 30, 2007 9:26 PM