As a politically active pro-lifer for thirty years, I've watched what is supposed to have worked and has not for us.

Abortion is one of the side effects of a society that values maximum individualism, actually extols selfishness and consumption as virtues. At the same time, there is a patina of strong religious belief that is uncomfortable with some of the consequences - such as abortion - but can't bring itself to look in the mirror and draw conclusions as to the root causes. And the cause is not bad law and therefore just forcing through laws will not address motivations at all.

Abortion is a terrible symptom - much like the secondary carcinomas that afflict patients with immune system disorders - but it is not the underlying disease.

Saying, as some Christians enamored of the Republican Party as their vehicle for social change do, that "we can change laws faster than we can change hearts" is a recipe for failure.

Passing unenforceable and widely unpopular laws, even a constitutional amendment, might make some people feel politically victorious, but Prohibition in such cases simply leads to widescale flaunting of the law and consequent overall corruption. We have been down the road before with alcohol and it did not work - it made things worse with long-reaching consequences that echo to this day in organized crime and public corruption traditions that didn't exist in that way before.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 12:20 PM

Dude, when you cite a Planned Parenthood study on abortion (or an NYT article about same), the honest thing to do is introduce it as such. You are dancing around the issue that abortion substantitially increased after Roe v. Wade.

I disagree that judicial precedent is unlikely to be overturned. If Hillary appoints the next to court nominees, then you are correct, but I am unmoved by the argument that, because Democrats will stalemate the issue, we ought to ignore the issue (and vote Democratic).

The next president will have a lot to do with whether abortion is legal in this country. Ginsburg and Stevens are waiting until the next election to leave the court. Sojourner's does this "we want real solutions" song and dance to distract from that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances.

Murder is illegal. It happens anyway, but no resonable person is saying we shouldn't crack down on the practice, and INSTEAD focus on reducing the poverty rate and other secondary causes. That would be ridiculous.

For those who not only value life, but find abortion to be an act of murder, all the tax credits in the world are not going to dissuade us form our conviction. You do not believe abortion to be murder, even though you "take the sanctitiy of life seriously" (speaking of damagoguery), and that is the real difference.

You are still left making the case that, for some reason, a human fetus does not deserve constitutional protection.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2007 12:40 PM

A well-written, pragmatic view on the abortion problem. Nice job.

Posted by: Cads | October 31, 2007 12:54 PM

There is a strong, individualistic libertarian (and also a country-club conservatism in service of wealthy elites) undercurrent in this nation.

This means that those who are also religious merge the two syncretically.

This means, definitely, that they are against abortion, yes. But they are at the same time vehement that that in no way imputes any responsibility to them or anyone else for the consequences, since it was not their own choice.

In other words, the ideology is that we have basic prohibitions against a number of wrong things, but no one has a right to make anyone else responsible for anything beyond that.

Basically, I would posit that we have a lot of people who have basic world views, ideologies and political philosophies, who then paste on whatever religious texts they can glean to support for these views to give them divine authority and avoid appearing as selfish as they really are.

In some cases, this is actually to suppress or salve Christian conscience that acts in opposition to these pre-existing personal philosophies, which is extremely unfortunate for Christian discipleship and spiritual growth.

However, the unforgiveable sin is the one against the Holy Spirit and we ignore that at the peril of being told at the end of a self-righteous life, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Posted by: N.N. Rod | October 31, 2007 1:10 PM

Also, as further proof I should have added that one of thier allies is Pax Christi, a Catholic Peace & Justice group that's pro-life. Pax was kicked out of some alliance for thier views on abortion at one point- can't remember which.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 31, 2007 1:22 PM

I myself have belonged to ESA for two decades, and its founder, Ron Sider, sits on the board of Sojourners.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 31, 2007 1:31 PM

Yeah the pundits tried to down him for a long time, too. But i think they finally figured out he was geniuine when he wrote a book about the abortion issue.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 31, 2007 1:56 PM

There is no compelling evidence to back up this assertion.

You can't offer any evidence to refute it.

Wallis is pro-choice. He heads Sojourners. The organization is not going to take a position at odds with the person who heads the organization, and indeed never has taken a different stand from Wallis on abortion.

That's the kind of slander Kevin Wayne just warned you about, because apparently in your view anyone who doesn't actively believe in criminalizing abortion is "pro-choice." And that just might not be accurate. Besides, even most people on the "other side" would like to see abortion eliminated.

If there has been something produced by Sojourners indicating that they are not pro-choice, then please direct me to it. It is not a sin to point out that which is inconvenient for a an organization to concede.

Others have mentioned a story in a back issue of the magazine. I generally haven't been a subscriber so I don't know about it myself.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 31, 2007 2:15 PM

Which neighbor? Wallis? Wallis is pro-choice.

Thus spaketh the ipse dixits of Kevin S!

He heads Sojourners.

Such a brilliant observation.

The organization is not going to take a position at odds with the person who heads the organization, and indeed never has taken a different stand from Wallis on abortion.

Ever heard of Richard Rohr? He's written for the magazine! Don't bother answering because I know you haven't heard of him. And it probably won't matter, anyway.

Simply sharing membership with an organization that is not pro-choice does not mean that an organization is not pro-choice.

And yet, if they did share membership with an avowed Pro-choice group, we know who would be trumpeting that all over the place as proof, don't we? ;-)

If there has been something produced by sojourners indicating that they are not pro-choice, then please direct me to it.

How long have you even been aware of Sojourners? Have you ever read any of their past articles? I guess I'll have to get to a library to see if I can locate some, unless anyone else happens to know what I'm referring to and can post the references here.

It is not a sin to point out that which is inconvenient for a an organization to concede.

It is a sin to lie, however. And to strenuously insist on that which you cannot prove.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 31, 2007 2:17 PM

If you are called to advocate with all your energy for an overturning Roe v Wade; do so with a love that outpaces your advocacy. If you are called to increase the wellness of young poor women--then blessings to you. If you are called to unite a Planned Parenthood physician with the demonstrators on the front sidewalk in order to increase the health of the clients and decrease the abortions; then go to it.
If you are called to comment on the world; then may your listening, meditations and words be pleasing in the sight of God; our rock and redeemer. The fact someone else does not live out the comprehensive answers may not be an indictment against them, but rather a call to you.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | October 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Thanks for that. And I might add here: when I see the US Pro-life movement tackle Abortion the way Pro-lifers in other countries have -through health care reform- I'll listen. Until then, they are the biggest hypocrites of all on this issue.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 31, 2007 2:29 PM

letjusticerolldown -- Sweet.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 31, 2007 3:13 PM

"You can't offer any evidence to refute it."

Other than that, by any calculations, there were hundreds of thousands fewer abortions prior to Roe v. Wade than after.

"That's the kind of slander Kevin Wayne just warned you about, because apparently in your view anyone who doesn't actively believe in criminalizing abortion is "pro-choice."

What does pro-choice mean, if not to refer to those the belief that abortion should be legal? That is certainly the standard definition, so I don't see how I am slanderous for not holding to however you define the term.

"Besides, even most people on the "other side" would like to see abortion eliminated.

That has nothing to do with whether it is slander to call someone pro-choice. I didn't say he doesn't want abortion eliminated. I said he believes it should be legal.

"Others have mentioned a story in a back issue of the magazine. I generally haven't been a subscriber so I don't know about it myself."

What story is that?

"That 100% of creation moves from physical life to spiritual life (as He designed it)"

And he designed for a number of conceptions not to come to term. That is not an argument for legal abortion, unless that fact that people die is an argument for legal murder.

"Thus spaketh the ipse dixits of Kevin S!"

Thus also spaketh Wallis in his own book.

"Ever heard of Richard Rohr? He's written for the magazine! Don't bother answering because I know you haven't heard of him. And it probably won't matter, anyway."

I have, and his existence doesn't mean that Sojo is not a pro-choice organization.

"And yet, if they did share membership with an avowed Pro-choice group, we know who would be trumpeting that all over the place as proof, don't we? ;-)"

Wouldn't need to. He has said himself that abortion should be legal.

"How long have you even been aware of Sojourners?"

About three years.

"It is a sin to lie, however. And to strenuously insist on that which you cannot prove."

Actually, the latter is not necessarily a sin, but if we define "pro-choice" as the belief that abortion should be legal, then I stand by my claim the Sojo is a pro-choice organization.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2007 3:27 PM

I would posit that many take a no-compromise position of defining anyone who deviates from their own position as "pro-choice," because then, as we all know since that is a politer euphemism for "pro-abortion" any position short of immediate passage of laws prohibiting abortion with comcomitant draconian punishments consistent with murder can be demonized.

So people who believe abortion in many cases is murder, but who don't believe it's a practical approach to force unpopular legislation of draconian statutes, can then be lumped in and demonized as heretics.

This whole approach of trying to put in unelected and unimpeachable Supreme Court justices is just the flip side of what the right accused the left of: being afraid to trust legislatures and therefore trying to pack the court with those who will give the decisions they want put beyond the will of the people.

If you want to get rid of abortion, there are going to have to be a whole lot of hearts won over by love and compassion first.

Unfortunately for popular perception, conservatives are known for mocking generosity (to other than their own favored advocacy groups) as bleeding heart liberalism. That's why "compassionate conservatism's" failure was so unfortunate, because the way that was not carried out confirmed the public's worst suspicions that it was simply window dressing and PR for the very real problem that nothing matters much to some people more than profit and that alone.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 3:45 PM

"I also believe that we should spend more energy advocating policies that might actually reduce the abortion rate and spend less time challenging a judicial precedent unlikely to be overturned."

great point, christopher.

Posted by: julia | October 31, 2007 4:40 PM

I love that Christians are finally getting the fact that pro-choice is MORE than JUST legislation... (well, aside maybe from Kevin S.)... there are MANY sinful factors that contribute to unwanted pregnancies. Until we deal with this issue OUTSIDE of the convenient vacuum of legislation... we will never actually see any real progress towards true change in this sad issue. The issue is not legal/illegal but rather how does a girl/woman (and the often forgotten "father" get into this situation (of an unwanted pregnancy)... we are ALL responsible... we have disconnected SEX from committment... we have disconnected people from their souls (ie: men often treating women like "bodies" and women letting themselves be valued as JUST "bodies")... etc.

I was adopted in 1971. Only a few years before Roe V. Wade. Would two years have changed my birth mother's choice? NO. My birth mother not only traveled to give birth to me (she was unmarried) but she also strongly advocated for me (put stipulations on who could adopt me)... She saw me as valuable and worth the time/effort... So how do we reconnect mothers to their unborn children? How do we get them to advocate on their behalf? Not through a law! But if the church actually lived incarnationally in this world... advocating for the poor, for women in crisis, for community over individualsim & for sexual purity (against pornography, etc) then I think we could see some heart/soul change...

Posted by: e-dubya | October 31, 2007 4:47 PM

I really wouldn't count on any militant "pro-lifers" to get involved with any cultural change that would really result in eliminating abortion -- after all, because of their ties to the authoritarian right they're just inclined to throw their weight around. Just like, until recently, the current occupant of the White House.

That said, for that reason the anti-abortion lobby has very little moral authority in this country but refuses to acknowledge that reality. I'm on a local pro-life e-mail list, and through it I learned that a local Christian film festival was showing "Amazing Grace," the upshot being that if we would demonstrate the carnage that is abortion people would turn against it. Historically, however (and the movie failed to point this out), William Wilberforce did a whole lot more than that to end slavery in Britain -- he also created "evangelical societies" to do the grunt work and create the cultural change he desired.

Here's something also that's rarely even mentioned, although one of the other posters alluded to it: Why don't we work together with those on the other side to find some common ground? There's more than we realize, and truth be told I think they also would like to see abortion disappear.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 31, 2007 5:02 PM

As someone who lives and works in such neighborhoods in Washington D.C., I can tell you that simply making something illegal does not keep it from happening if there is a serious demand for it

Neither does making drugs illegal , theft , murder, rape , and every activity that goes against God and society . The left has great ideas and a great understanding of the compassion needed to help people , but it always stops short to showing compassion to the true living victim of choice , the women having the abortion , and the victim with no voice , Gods creation the baby .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 31, 2007 5:10 PM

It's important to point out an inaccuracy in the second paragraph: "the abortion rate is highest among girls under the age of 15." Based on the 2003 date from the CDC (sited at the end of the article) girls under the age of 15 have the highest RATIO of abortions, not the highest RATE. Ratio is defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births in a particular demographic, while rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women. A very important distinction to be made, as this is how statistics can be abused. For women under the age of 15, the abortion rate was 1 per 1,000 women.

I don't believe this misquote was intentional on the part J. Christopher LaTondresse. I agree with the core of the article and felt obligated to point out the error. Truth is the key in any dialogue about abortion.

Posted by: Sarah Wright | October 31, 2007 5:21 PM

I'm going to go ahead and accuse the author of this article and of Jim Wallis and Sojo in general on bad faith with the abortion issue. They provide faulty evidence to back up their assertion that laws don't do anything (taken from Planned Parenthood, no less) and say that the only way to reduce abortion is to help the poor, which just happens to be their pet issue. I don't think they care much about the unborn, as is evidenced by their opposition to any legal protection for unborn children.

You remember what I just said about anti-abortionists not having any moral authority? That post is precisely what I'm talking about.

Ask yourself, what would you think of someone who said they were opposed to legal protections for black people but wanted to find ways to make slavery less necessary? Do you think they care?

Again, read what I just wrote about William Wilberforce, because to make that case you have to address cultural change. (And, ironically, the same people who oppose abortion today generally would have supported slavery back in the day -- because of their authoritarian attitude.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 31, 2007 5:33 PM

Mick - I think you are trying to directly link abortion to increase in child abuse, which just can't be substantiated. However, I do agree that child abuse has increased along with abortion rates. BOTH get to the heart of our society: one that has become more and more consumeristic & selfish. Child abuse IS illegal. That is a perfect example. Since child abuse has been illegal has abuse gone DOWN or gone up? Honestly, I don't know... I am just posing the scenario. I am certainly not saying to make child abuse legal. But I think they are a bit different. But I would say that programs to help people become better parents would probably help ultimately more than just a law. With child abuse there is (hopefully) prosection and punishment. Do you advocate punishment for women who will get illegal abortions after the laws become past? Who will fund this new task force of epic proportions? or are you making the connection that if we passed a law to make abortion illegal magically all of the child abuse cases would go away?

Posted by: e-dubya | October 31, 2007 5:49 PM

Amen Anonymous.

Posted by: CKC | October 31, 2007 6:06 PM

I don't think child abuse is one of the key values voter issues of the religious right. There are, after all, only TWO - as Focus on the Family likes to keep writing to me. They say there are many worthy causes, but these two - anti-abortion, anti-homosexual - are the two that they will continue to focus on for their values voter constituency and what they refer to as the culture war.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 6:36 PM

Mick - I think you are trying to directly link abortion to increase in child abuse, which just can't be substantiated

Part of me understands where your coming from , but it sounds a bit weird from my side of the viewpoint . Abortion is the ultimate child abuse . Your right also , parenting classes can help , but basically is it not more also . The aspect of child abuse has always been somewhat unreported , and awareness of the issue has caused the stats to be increased , But I would also say its because of more boyfriends but not fathers living in homes , more girlfriends and not Moms . Drug abuse and such are also factors . And yes it IS Constitutional . Even not many can actually explain why .

Kevin Said

Also, as further proof I should have added that one of thier allies is Pax Christi, a Catholic Peace & Justice group that's pro-life. Pax was kicked out of some alliance for thier views on abortion at one point- can't remember which.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne

Me

Some of Sojorners supporters Kevin are very much pro abortion also . Obviously Soujorners sees abortion as a problem , but that there are more important problems .

I guess of its an either or view , many people such as I do not separate that view , that poverty yes is something that is terrible , yes abortion is terrible , but we can't in our conscience say life is not as important . For one , its not in our ability or right to claim the ability to put life on a scale of 1 to 10 in imporatnce . God does not say to me , Mick , stealing is wrong , but if your poor its not as bad .

I hope you might be able to understand this .

Just wondering if your were King Kevin , in fact any who take this view that you are pro choice but other social issues are more important .

If you could decree Abortion illegal tomorrow , would you do it ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 31, 2007 7:27 PM

Another Nonymous wrote:

Much of this discussion is still missing the point. As I've tried to argue in the past, the reason many women are adamantly opposed to the pro-life movement is that they believe its real goal is not just to outlaw abortion, but to outlaw contraception as well, and generally to roll women's rights back to where they were in the 50s or earlier.

And the basis for this fear is...what exactly?

Well, the authoritative Catholic teaching is that contraception is immoral. But it's been a long time since I've heard a Catholic pro-lifer, even on the lunatic fringe, argue that contraception should be made illegal, and it's been even longer since conservative Protestants, evangelicals included, have raised any moral objections to contraception, let alone called for it to be outlawed.

I would argue that if this is what motivates the pro-choice movement, then they are motivated by a huge misunderstanding. Would anyone like to try and set them straight?

Wolverine

Posted by: | October 31, 2007 7:50 PM

"But it's been a long time since I've heard a Catholic pro-lifer, even on the lunatic fringe, argue that contraception should be made illegal, and it's been even longer since conservative Protestants, evangelicals included, have raised any moral objections to contraception, let alone called for it to be outlawed."

To paraphrase Mick, are you serious? What planet are you living on?

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 31, 2007 7:56 PM

Another nonymous wrote:

To paraphrase Mick, are you serious? What planet are you living on?

I take it that you question my depiction of the pro-life movement. And maybe you're right -- I don't claim omniscience.

Do you have any references to pro-lifers calling directly for legal prohibitions on contraception?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | October 31, 2007 8:12 PM

Wolverine -

This blog no longer lets you post hyperlinks, but there was a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine about a year ago that provided all the evidence you could possibly want. I realize many people regard the NYT as inherently suspect, but the last time we discussed this, others posted links to similar articles elsewhere. I'm afraid it's a fact that many evangelical leaders are increasingly condemning contraception, even if most of them are not (yet) calling for it to be illegal.

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 31, 2007 8:25 PM

"BTW: I just entered "farts cause immorality" at Google and got over 15,000 hits."

You mean they don't? :-)!

Trick or treat?

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 31, 2007 8:46 PM

Trent,
First, pro-lifers are not supporting penalizing mothers. They are supporting penalizing abortionists.

Second, look at my above remark in bold in re: to the effects of criminalization of abortion. For you to believe that laws accomplish nothing would be to also believe that the abortion rate was higher BEFORE legalization than after (the first year it was legalized, the rate was much lower than it is today).

Third, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are shorthand used by the mainstream media, all politicians, and almost everyone in the US. There are no other schools of thought within these groups. No one likes abortion, including almost every person who is pro-choice (as most are fond of saying).

It's Wallis who is being dishonest by calling himself pro-life. He isn't.

Posted by: jesse | October 31, 2007 8:53 PM

Mick,
Australia's Child Abuse numbers have also blossomed and we don't have RvW to blame it on. The supposed connection is tenuous at best.

Have divorces and single parent homes increased ?

Also , the number one reason for abortion is for convenience , not poverty .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 31, 2007 9:06 PM

"Okay, you can't give links, do you remember any names? How about the title of the NYT article? A few key words from a colorful quote that might turn up something in a Google search?"

"Contra-Contraception" by Russell Shorto. May 7, 2006.

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 31, 2007 9:12 PM

So... will it be legal for a woman to self-abort - say using a coat hanger?

Or for someone who's not a doctor to do it for them?

In other words, will non-doctor abortion be illegal?

If it's illegal, there has to be some kind of legal consequence does there not?

I'm just trying to find out if it will only be about criminalizing doctors, because they could simply find a legal workaround otherwise by not participating directly.

I don't think you can make a logical or practical case for not putting women in jail if they get abortions and it's illegal. I mean, they KNOW it is illegal, don't they, just like murder, theft or a number of other crimes?

It's a little like only arresting johns, or only arresting the girls, when combating prostitution - you have to address both sides.

I mean, conservatives are for locking up drug users, not just pushers - which is largely the reason the U.S. incarceration rate is so unbelievably high. If we extrapolate to abortion, we can expect that large numbers of women will enter the federal justice system as felons.

After all, it IS murder, right? And we know conservatives don't have any empathy for a woman who kills her children after birth, due to depression, so why would they before? After all, they actually care more about the pre-born than the born, so one would expect abortion would be seen as an even more egregious form of murder.

Now I am against abortion, too. But I have to admit I won't go out and assuredly go to prison to stop it by doing whatever it takes - which I would if it was exactly the same as murder and you know what? NEITHER WILL YOU. It's all posturing.

I've spent time on the picket lines yelling "baby killers!" with the best and worst of them. Starting thirty uears ago and you know what - it never made a damn bit of difference, except to polarize emotions and shut down any possible dialog or cooperation - even though I hated my "enemies" most self-righteously... and didn't know a thing about what they really thought or why they did.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 9:25 PM

Could you be in favor of abstinence teaching and readily available health care and contraception?

CKC would you be willing to step outof the comfort zone of being supported by the left and take a stand yourself ?
Why is not Comprehensive sex education taught under the premise that the participants will be in the confines of marriage ? Information would be learned that you speak of , most of us conservatives would have to shut up , I would still advocate for respecting the natural modesty of kids , because that is a tool of abstinence , having boys in one class and girls in the other .

But if the information was presented in the context of marriage , if the kids wanted to and as many do, deviate from the game plan , they would still have the information needed to be "safer" . You see that's why I believe your side is not being intellectually honest , because their is a calculated message of breaking the tradition of our family norms by how comprehensive sex education is taught . Its not the education , its the way the education is provided .

That make sense ?

Also this was on a state level Naral Web ,
I guess having people wear this in public promotes the debate NARAL supports . They are selling this slogan on t-shirts and bumperstickers also . Scientific accurate too I suppose

"Not every ejaculation needs a name"

I sometimes wonder why you guys spend so much time attacking and disagreeing with Evangelicals , your way in the majority , schools reflect your views , our HS has a health clinic that allows abortions without parental knowledge .
Nothing we can do about it , if RVW is overtunred , this state it would mean nothing , we voted to allow partical birth abortions by 60 percent . Abortion is here to stay in America .
Yea for your side .

But bumper stickers and the mentality on abortion that promote this type of mentality are never taken to task by Sojourners . Why not ?

Stopping Abortion is a loosing cause , I personally have found loosing causes are some of the most important causes to stand for , not politically smart , your side has the majority and the present culture and law behind you .
It also appears from some Soujouners mean political victory some equals God's Politics as true to Christ ? I have yet to understand that ,

But there is more then enough disgust and perversion promoting abortion , then the simple belief that it is God's creation that needs to be respected . Why do you feel the need to defend yourself promoting a simple choice for a woman against such a strange belief that life is a Gift from God and man has NO RIGHT to destroy it ?

.

.

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 31, 2007 9:29 PM

Mick -

Your assertion that there are two victims in this mess is what needs to change. There are countless victims in every abortion. I should know. I took responsibility for one. Yes, I am saying that I was a victim too. I had to think long and hard about what had happened and the consequences. And the only conclusion I could come up with, in a Judeo-Christian sense, is this:

God specifically selects these littlest beings, and they deliberately choose to go on these missions (and are rewarded for their sacrifice) for one reason: because god can think of no other way to get through the thick skulls of people like me about the sanctity of life.

I learned that lesson, and what happened still haunts me. That an innocent had to give itself up so that I might learn something that no law could tell me, that no preacher could understand, that no one could impart on me.

While I have come to see life as beginning BEFORE conception, I understand that abortion is a part of god's plan, and one that we need to stop trying to interfere with.

My solution: allow abortion, and stop trying to make it stigmatized. The Japanese taught me well how this can work (there, abortion is legal, NOT stigmatized, and private). Let the would-be parents privately grieve - and I think this is key - make sure both of the would-be parents understand about the sacrifice that the unborn has made for them.

Posted by: Christopher Mohr | October 31, 2007 10:02 PM

Jesse,
even kevin s. who'd probably agree with you on a whole range of things acknowledged that there were more than two positions. One can be both pro-choice and pro-life. Why do you have difficulty accepting that it might not be the black and white that the mainstream media paint it to be?

With regard to your claims about rising abortion rates due to legalisation, consider the following (from a 1999 international study):

"Legalization of abortion has the initial effect of increasing the number of reported abortions, as legal abortions replace illegal ones, and it probably also increases the total number of abortions as safe services become more widely available. Over the longer term, however, the extensive experience of the developed world and the more limited information from developing countries shows that abortion rates often decline.”
From: Recent trends in abortion rates worldwide, by Henshaw, Singh and Haas.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 31, 2007 10:05 PM

Just to throw a curveball to my coreligionists like Tom Tancredo, what should we do with illegal immigrant girls or women who get pregnant?

As Tom, who called for the arrest of those children of illegal immigrants who testified last week on Capitol Hill, always says, children all the time pay for the sins of their parents and that's no problem for him - the man who says the pivotal moment of his life was being born again and becoming a child of God through Jesus. (Of course, it turns out those children he demanded immediately be jailed, though they were summoned by Congress to testify, had current legal status.)

He wants no health services provided to illegals whatsoever and that would certainly include prenatal care or hospital delivery - caesarian, whatever.

I guess those women should just stop in the fields where they labor with no labor standards at less than minimum wage, if only for a moment, squat down and do what can be described as taking a big bowel movement, for all the Tancredo types could care about certain classes of unborn.

Dammit, if they're not aborted, they become citizen "anchor babies"!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 10:24 PM

Trent,
That article was based on estimates by researchers working for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The key words being "estimates" and "Planned Parenthood". My numbers, on the other hand, use actual figures rather than estimates and are immediately applicable to the US.

I will concede that there are two different types of pro-choice people. Ones that are pro-abortion (view abortion as good for population control--eg, Planned Parenthood) and those that are pro-choice. Every "personally opposed" pro-choicer (including Kerry in the last election) still rejects the label "pro-life" and embraces the "pro-choice" label (though Kerry supports tax payer funded abortions here and abroad, which would make him pro-abortion, I suppose). Anyways, most people who visit this site come with the impression that Wallis is pro-life on abortion (in the common use of the term: he supports legal protection of unborn children). I've seen several articles written about him wrongly claiming that he is prolife (the authors didn't realize he wasn't), even though his position is identical to Hillary, Kerry, etc., who everyone knows as "pro-choice." Wallis is clearly using the term to appeal to voters who are actually pro-life (legal protections). He is being dishonest in his use of the term.

Posted by: jesse | October 31, 2007 10:45 PM

Whatever his poll numbers, Tom T. is a self-described evangelical who's trying to be in the running for President. The disarray values voter kingmakers find themselves in that's allowed for Giuliani (pro-choice, for sure) and Romney (pro-choice, until now) to be front-runners just means that Republicans are conveniently jettisoning what they consider non-essential. Tom T. is able to push the agenda far more than those numbers reveal, because he's closer on the issues that resonate to the values voters than those front runners are, and to gain a margin of victory in the November race, the base must be energized, and Tom's pet causes could do it. Tom could end up as the veep nominee.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 31, 2007 11:18 PM

Do you have any evidence of your claim re convenience?

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent

Sure Trent go to the link I provided .

The average age of an aborted foetus in Austrailia is 8 weeks.

• 98% of abortions are for convenience (these reasons do not include medical purposes, rape or foetal deformities). But the mindset of choosing not to asdmit child abuse and abortion are the same thing baffles me , but I guess it is just the mind set difference we have . But I just never hear pro choicers stating we should legalize child abuse and just fight the cause s of it .

http://www.spinneypress.com.au/213_book_desc.html

Christopeher said
Mick -

Your assertion that there are two victims in this mess is what needs to change. There are countless victims in every abortion

Sorry for your Loss Christopher

Because recent statistics showed a 42% increase in reports of child abuse and neglect during the 10 years from 1992 to 2002, 29 child and family welfare organisations called for the Australian government to create a national strategy. Families Australia, backed by 28 other organisations, put together a six-point national plan and made a plea to the Prime Minister to get involved.

Volume 213, Issues in Society
There are approximately 100,000 abortions in Australia each year, while there are 250,000 live births each year. There are 2 aborted pregnancies for every 5 which result in a birth

I only wish pro-lifers would be financially responsible for those born to those who can't afford to have children. Then, I might be more likely to support their cause of making sure all unwanted children are born.

Posted by: Cads

I guess the same mentality says if you who want to provide social justice go ahead and pay for it yourself .

Most abortions are done for convenience . That is evident from the statistics given eeven by left leaning organizations . It is also evident from child abuse increases that abortions do not stop unwanted babies . Or at least people sure change their minds after a few problems arise . Your assertion that people's irresponsibility for their actions require others paying for the life of another human causing you to change your opinion does not require an answer .

Many churches support help for the poor unwanted babies of today , some from liberal denominations , some from those who Bibically are more traditional ,
Responsibility for our own actions has the final say on this issue , and how we define what that responibility is .

This was said

While I have come to see life as beginning BEFORE conception, I understand that abortion is a part of god's plan, and one that we need to stop trying to interfere with

Do the lefties here get embarrassed at these kind of statements ? Because making God a partner in abortion is just sad .

.

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 31, 2007 11:36 PM

Mother Teresa

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"
And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." (Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable,"

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 1997 - National Prayer Breakfast in Washington attended by the President and the First Lady. "What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Posted by: | October 31, 2007 11:51 PM

If you really cared about the unborn, you wouldn't harbor such animosity towards those who are doing so much on their behalf (e.g., making wild accusations tying them to slavery).

Yes Jesse I totally aggree . Its intellectually dishonest .

Do you believe that life begins at conception and that God made that life? If you say yes then how under any circumstances can you say abortion under any circumstances should be legal?

Doug

I know Doug , its like the one view the left and right who profess of Love of God and the Bible would agree on . Its sad . It could have united us , instead they sound like they are just supporting the plank of the democratic party and attacking those who are against it with character assaults and condemnation for not doing enough to stop the social reasons for abortion . You never hear anyone saying theft should be pro choice , or child abuse , somehow killing unborn babies has been accepted by a group that believes they support God's politics. If a liberal is aginst people stealing cars , should conservatives attack them and say I will respect your view when you start paying for the thiefs who can not afford cars . It secular logic , it limits your perception of the truth .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 1, 2007 12:01 AM

If only they would report the truth on what really happens in abortion mills across the country and around the world abortion would be outlawed tommorow. Sadly the truth in any matter is not something the drive-by media is interested in anymore if they ever were.

That's the very same argument a "pro-lifer" made to me a couple of weeks ago in comparing abortion to slavery (specifically the crusade of William Wilberforce, who eventually successfully had it banned in Britain). The trouble was that the movie "Amazing Grace" was inaccurate in some major ways, most specifically in that Wilberforce did some "grunt work" in forming groups on several fronts to combat it, working with people from all sides of the aisle and producing a groundswell of oppisition, that the movie never mentioned. "Pro-life" groups, especially in the 1980s when they were big, have never done this. Therefore, what you just said reeked of arrogance that, as I said before, assumed moral authority where there was none.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 12:16 AM

Kevin Wayne: "Stop the "guilt-by-association" fallacy!"

Kevin S: I'll remind you that you said this the next time someone here cites Fred Singer w/r/t environmental policy.

Kevin Wayne: Huh? What's that got to do with the price of eggs in Lower Slobovia? :-)) What are you smoking? Fred who?

Kevin Wayne: "Try these: "Abortion on demand" or "abortion as a form of Birth Control.""

Kevin S: While those who support the above are certainly pro-choice, not everyone who is pro-choice supports what you mention.

Kevin Wayne: Ummm... since when?

Kevin S: Pro-choice refers to those who believe abortion should be legal.

Kevin Wayne: Then by that definition, and by your own admission, you are Pro-choice. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you insist on that being the definition then you are in fact indicting yourself.

Kevin S: I have never heard a different definition to date.

Kevin Wayne: that's funny, I have never heard your definition!

From Answers.com:

pro-choice

"An ideological position which defends a woman's right to have an abortion on the grounds of her inviolable autonomy over matters concerning her own body. In the United States, where the issue has become most politicized, the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court 1973 grounded a woman's right to have an abortion in an inferred constitutional ‘right to privacy’."

The issue is her "autonomy over matters concerning her own body." That spells out to me "abortion on demand," not the supposed notion of whether it's legal or not. The focus is not on the fact of the legality of abortion. It can't be, or the pro-choicer's would accept the terms of legality those who want to limit it are proposing.

Kevin Wayne: "So in other words, you will hold to whatever term that suits you and you alone, so long as you can get out from under an accusation of sin."

Kevin S: No comment.

Kevin Wayne: No surprise, because you know it's criticism you are whithering under.

Kevin S: I just want to note that I have been declared sinful for suggesting that someone who favors legal abortion could be classified as pro-choice.

Kevin Wayne: Duly noted. And while were at it let's also add this- you insist on a peculiar definition of something for the purpose of objectifying others. A person like that is called a bigot.

Kevin Wayne: "I note here that even Christianity Today criticized the recent defeated anit-abortion law in South Dakota as going to far too soon, and not allowing for exceptions."

Kevin S: I would criticize it as well. Legislators should have made an exception for rape (it would have passed had such an exception existed) and the bill should have been rendered so as to go into effect if and when the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade.

Kevin Wayne: Then stop denigrating other's who agree with you!

Kevin Wayne: "That was all about abortion I saw, but there wasn't many back issues available."

Kevin S: So lets go with what has been produced over the last few years rather than basing our discussion on an article that might have existed in October 1986.

Kevin Wayne: "might have existed..." What a snot! Yep, you aren't even going to bother with it since it might make you revise your stance, so you will use an artificial time frame to discount it.

I need to ad here: You admitted you have only been aware of Sojouners about 3 years, and AFAICS, this tends to cast dispersions on your ability to comment & seriously interact with them as a whole. Case in point: this present discussion.

I would also like to note here that you in the past were called a bigot -by others, not myself- and you protested that you were being called that out of a need to score rhetorical points, without proof of the accusation. We now have proof: lock, stock & barrel!

And I will ask you again: Just what was your stance on the whole Vince Foster/Clinton Chronicles thing?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 1, 2007 1:36 AM

I apologize to Rick for whomever made that awful comment above. As much as I resent Rick's nasty GBABABABA (guilt by association by association by association....) generalizations about pro-lifers, conservatives, and other Christians, he's still my brother and I love him and pray for him the best.

Posted by: jesse | November 1, 2007 7:52 AM

Oh, and by the way, that insult above directed toward me isn't at all new -- it actually proves my point.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 8:21 AM

"Oh, and by the way, that insult above directed toward me isn't at all new -- it actually proves my point."

No it doesn't. There have been anonymous, fly by comments that have been equally nasty thrown in both directions. I'm sorry that this was directed at you, but you can find the same level of meaningless vitriol just about anywhere.

However, when you make statements like this:

"I categorically reject your accusation because, in my view, you have no idea what you're talking about. "

I tune you out, and so does anyone you might hope to pursuade.

"Kevin Wayne: Huh? What's that got to do with the price of eggs in Lower Slobovia? :-)) What are you smoking? Fred who?"

Perhaps you have not been following some of the environmental posts here.

"Kevin Wayne: Ummm... since when?"

The definition of pro-choice is the belief that women should have control over the entirety of their pregnancy, which includes the right to have an abortion, the right not to be forced into abortion, and complete access to contraceptives. That is the standard definition, and it is also Sojo's position.

"The issue is her "autonomy over matters concerning her own body." That spells out to me "abortion on demand," not the supposed notion of whether it's legal or not."

What you describe is a pejorative used by pro-lifers to describe said autonomy. I have not seen where Sojo supports any sort of waiting period, however, so they do support the idea that women have autonomy over their own pregnancy.

"Kevin Wayne: No surprise, because you know it's criticism you are whithering under."

You have been reduced to making the argument that it is slander to say that one who believes abortion should be legal is pro-choice. I cannot go any farther in unraveling your argument, so I offered no further comment.

I have previously said that for the purposes of discussion, I use pro-life to describe those who generally believe abortion should be illegal, and pro-choice to describe those who generally believe abortion should be legal. That is not a peculiar definition at all. Suffice to say, I do not consider it a sin to do so, and I am unrepentant.

""might have existed..." What a snot! Yep, you aren't even going to bother with it since it might make you revise your stance, so you will use an artificial time frame to discount it."

I