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: Anonymous | 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: Anonymous | 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'm not going to bother with it because you and i have no idea what it said about abortion. Instead, I will go with what we know that Sojourners has said about the issue.

"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!"

So, I am now a bigot for saying that one who believes abortion should be legal would be considered pro-choice. You are on the verge of hysterics.

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

I don't recall you asking me the first time. I think it was a suicide made into something it wasn't by conspiracy theorists. We have seen the same thing with the left-wing blogosphere with Bush.

Now, let's get to the real issue. Who wrote the insulting comment to Rick Nowlin. I think Mrs. Peacock did it with the candle-holder in the foyer.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2007 10:50 AM

I still think that Dale Carnegie summed it up best back in 1931, when he said that "there are the reasons people tell you they do things, and then there are the real reasons they do them and the real reasons are not the moral ones they tell you." You ignore this at your peril.

There really is a retrograde urge in men to dominate women. Some men never consciously admit this and therefore act it out unconsciously and while telling themselves their actions are expressions of righteousness. There really is an urge to make women bear the burden of pregnancy as a punishment or an expression of dominance.

That is because of the brokenness of sin that we need to be delivered from.

Of course abortion is wrong, very wrong.

But we need to understand WHY it has come about, from whence it springs.

But nevertheless we need to know ourselves and our own vulnerabilities, and be sure to correct them, before trying to confront evil. Otherwise we are trying to fight from the losing position of self-righteousness.

Just as we need to realize that religion has also provided a motivation for abortion, now that we have a safe technical means that did not exist before modern times.

Religion demonized both the pregnant girl who conceived out of wedlock as well as the child. There are religious proscriptions against illegitimate children - "The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord, unto the tenth generation." Women could be stoned to death for fornication outside marriage - how's that for abortion?

The Spanish word for pregnancy is "embarrassada" - a clear linguistic and cultural indication of how that severely fanatical and inquisitional religious society regarded pregnancy as sin and shame.

Is it any wonder that the contribution of funadamental religion has been to produce strong feelings of guilt, shame and creating pariahs of women who become pregnant? And that their children were subject to legal, social and religious discrimination as bastards, doomed to poverty?

Is it any wonder in such a self-righteous judgmental society the product of religion, that
once abortion became technically safe and easy, that women would see it as a way out of all that?

For shame.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 11:28 AM

Here's the thing about Sojourners and their supposed "pro-life" position.

Just about every other group or politician I'm aware of that calls itself "pro-life" has a line where they are willing to support a prohibition on some sort of abortion. Not all of them are hard-core supporters of an across-the-board ban. But at the least they will support parental notification and a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Even Bill Clinton, who tried to split differences ("safe, legal, and rare") every which way on this did not try to describe himself as pro-life.

Now as far as I know -- and I am open to being corrected on this -- Sojourners does not support any legal sanction on any abortion. They may support certain welfare programs or ministries on the basis that they might lower the abortion rate, but on the question of whether or not abortion should be legal or when I am not aware of any difference between Sojourners and NARAL or Planned Parenthood.

Now this may not be bad faith -- it's not like their actual position is all that difficult to ferret out -- but it certainly is disingenuous, and they have no right to complain when Jesse, Kevin S and the rest of us point out the gap between their rhetoric and their actual policies.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 1, 2007 12:08 PM

All I hear is broad generalizations from you. They get us nowhere. The pro-life movement has changed a lot since the 80's. The movement is concerned with attacking the causes of abortion AND working for legal change. Both the abolitionist and civil rights movements were working for cultural AND legal change, as well.

But they did not always focus on the cause itself -- they sought to win people to their side through their own personal reformation of character and refused to play the same game that the other side did. Had Martin Luther King Jr. acted like the "pro-life" movement in general we would not have a holiday in his memory.

And you'll have a hard time convincing me that the "pro-life" movement, very strong where I live, has truly changed. Recently we had a sitution where the local NPR station, which is located at a local Catholic university, was forced to refund a donation from Planned Parenthood for advertising purposes -- and the e-mail I received from one of the activists was fairly gloating. Weeks before that, this same activist made a nasty phone call to one of the local eateries for hosting a fund-raiser for the same organization, and he complained that the attendant hung up on him. (I told him I would have done the same thing were I in his shoes.)

I hope you see where I'm going with this. These folks are fighting the wrong battle with the wrong weapons and defeat is certain. Focusing only on abortion sounds nice and noble -- but it's a failure in the long run.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 12:12 PM

Dear Mr. Wolverine (who I can't help but think for whom sheep's clothing is ill-fitting) ...

Do you really think that because you pronounce that I am for "abortion on demand" that you can negate all the truths I've stated and you can thereby dismiss them? I am sure they are uncomfortable - for thinking about them seriously might mean you'd have to get off the pedestal of self-righteousness you've placed yourself on, from which you enjoy fighting your Holy Wars of one sort or another, against infidels of one sort or another, both foreign and domestic.

I am hardly for "abortion on demand."

I myself am "illegitimate," not just a putative bastard as you consider me I'm sure, but a biological one.

But I know you are one of those who believe that "laws can be changed faster than hearts."

You haven't realized yet that not just those you oppose, but you too, stand guilty if judged. Nothing will be won unless hearts are changed, our own included.

Before you go on any more crusades, if you really expect them to have the effect you want, follow the advice of Sun Tszu to make sure you know both yourself and your enemy, else your defeat is sure.

From your posts, well-intentioned as some of them might be, I know that you do not really know either of those very well.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 12:26 PM

...and, Mr. Wolverine, I did not exempt myself from the same failures of male psychology in regards to attitudes and actions towards females that I pointed out at all. In fact, because I recognize them in myself - not that I want to, I'd rather be self-righteous it's true - I can see them in others.

It takes one to know one, I guess.

Just like the Hollywood guy in Bollywood getting involved in the street rescues of girls involved in sex slavery, he realizes his own brokenness. If he didn't their cause would be lost.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 12:34 PM

Prior to chiding me for describing me as a supporter of "abortion on demand", NM Rod wrote:

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.

Which struck me as a definite pro-choice argument, although, as I said before, I am open to being corrected. It's possible you would support more limited action (like a ban on partial birth abortion or parental notification laws) that would take you out of the abortion-on-demand position while opposing an across the board ban that might in fact prove difficult to enforce. If that's the case, you have my apologies, but I hope you can understand the reason for my confusion.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 1, 2007 1:08 PM

Rick,
I bet you did not know that abortion was intended for one purpose. Know what that was? I bet you don't or else you would not be defending it. It was intended to wipe out the black race. Yes you heard me right the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who wanted to get rid of the so called inferior race. Don't believe me look it up. I can not remember the founders name of the top of my head but I believe it is Margaret Sanger. Google the name and you will find out all about her racist views. And you thought conservatives were racist. I am telling you You need to read the book The Marketing Of Evil. If you think your views are so right then this book will be no threat to you. If your views are wrong though this book very well change your life.

Posted by: Doug | November 1, 2007 2:23 PM

Well, I'm not going to support a "pro-choice" candidate if it really is a euphemism for not seeing abortion as an important issue and not caring to try to stop it at all. In other words, it's not about law but hearts - and what if those hearts are hard? They are likely to be as inhumane whether it comes to health care, war or immigration as they are in regards to abortion.

So many of these "pro-choice" candidates have no problem with seeing the solution to other problems as being violence. They see nothing wrong with treating immigrants as cheap and exploitable labor, not human beings like themselves. They are as much a problem from a Christian point of view regardless of their party.

I do think that the allies of social conservatives, the economic conservatives, are content with the current standoff because it serves the status quo - power for them and no change in the abortion equation, which keeps taxes low.

Like social conservatives, they were opposed to communism, but not by reason of its atheism or inhumane treatment of people, but rather because their own elite standing was threatened. I think that common cause has been what has blinded a lot of Christians to the real agenda of economic conservatives, which is elitist.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 2:30 PM

"Contraceptives is a rather novel addition. I don't think it comes up unless you are Roman Catholic."

It has been a part of the platform since the term existed. Remember that Griswold formed the basis for Roe v. Wade.

"Ditto. And you better be offering up some quotes."

He says that he does not want to "criminalize the choices of women backed into difficult and dangerous corners." In other words, he wants those choices to be illegal. In other words, he is for women's ability to have that choice. in other words, he is pro-choice.

"Except that nobody else uses (your definition).

Webster's defines it as follows:

Pro-choice: favoring the legalization of abortion.

From answers.com

Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

From Wikipedia

"People who are pro-choice believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion and, equally, that women should be protected from forced abortions."

From Encarta

Pro-choice: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion.

I would need a subscription to get to the OED, but if they have a different definition, let me know.

"Ever deal with NARAL? According to them, believing in any restrictions at all is a travesty. Nope, it's a whole lot more than simple belief in the legality of abortion."

I've dealt with NARAL. NARAL is not the only component of the pro-choice movement, and even many of my pro-choice friends think they are bonkers.

"And since you agree that it was a sham that was backed by untold thousands of Christian Conservatives, you can understand the crux of my gripe here."

Sure, conspiracy theorists have no place in politics. I put them in the same bloc as those who consistently compare people to Hitler. They lack the nuance to engage political discussion. Of course, today we can find no end of conspiracy theories on Democratic Underground and Dailykos.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2007 4:08 PM

Doug said:

I bet you did not know that abortion was intended for one purpose. Know what that was? I bet you don't or else you would not be defending it. It was intended to wipe out the black race. Yes you heard me right the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist who wanted to get rid of the so called inferior race. Don't believe me look it up. I can not remember the founders name of the top of my head but I believe it is Margaret Sanger. Google the name and you will find out all about her racist views. And you thought conservatives were racist. I am telling you You need to read the book The Marketing Of Evil. If you think your views are so right then this book will be no threat to you. If your views are wrong though this book very well change your life.

Me:
You do realize there were a lot of white people and a lot of people in general that have been trying to whipe out the black race. You do realize our government sponsored such destruction for over 200 years? You do realize that in your attempt to gain Rick's awareness of your facts you opened yourself up to scrutiny? You do realize that the majority of women that have abortions are white? Right?

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

p

Posted by: payshun | November 1, 2007 4:51 PM

As a woman I find it obscene that the discussion is so set on where life begins that the authors fail to realize the fact that it's the woman's choice on whether or not she has a child or aborts a bunch of cells not yours. You have your morals and values but you do not have the right to force everyone else to live by them. Forcing a woman to have a child that she does not want is disgusting and a form of torture. A child growing up knowing/feeling that they are unwanted is abusive and creates a whole bunch of new problems that we as a society are not ready to handle.

If you want to fix something, fix the adoption/foster housing program. Make sex education be not only mandatory but all encompassing so that the problem of an oops pregnancy becomes less and less of an issue. Make sure free public clinics are available to the women and men that need them. Making the choice of having an abortion is not an easy one and can make the woman feel alienated and judged. Support her with your love and understanding.

Posted by: elise w | November 1, 2007 5:51 PM

Elise,

Whether or not you find it "obscene", the question of when precisely life begins is the question that matters the most in the abortion debate.

What's undeniable is that in an abortion, something is destroyed. That "something" is either (a) human life or (b) in the process of becoming a human life but not quite a human life yet.

If it is (b) then abortion is not necessarily a big deal. But if it is (a) then abortion is the destruction of human life.

This much is pretty much undeniable: there was a fetus once. In time it developed into the woman that you are today. If that fetus had been aborted, you would not be alive today. Do you deny any of this?

Unlike most conservatives, I'm not convinced that human life begins precisely at conception, so I am more open to allowing early-term abortions than most Christian Conservatives -- I honestly haven't made up my mind about those. But as a fetus develops it becomes harder and harder to deny that what we are dealing with is human life, which is why I am quite firmly in favor of prohibiting later-term abortions.

And while I have my doubts, the notion that life begins at conception is not one that can be dismissed casually. Whatever one believes about the beginnings of life -- and this is something we have to try to figure out, not something we get to decide arbitrarily to fit our preferences -- after that point is reached there are very few things that can justify the destruction of human life.

I don't deny it's a hardship for women; that's part of the reason I'm open to allowing early-term abortions. (And just so we're clear NO I DON'T THINK WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN LENGTHY PRISON TERMS.) But the state's first duty is to protect the lives of persons in its jurisdiction, and that means that the state ought not tolerate the destruction of innocent human life for purely personal reasons.

Bottom line: I'm not sure the pro-life movement has all the answers, but at least they understand the question.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 1, 2007 6:34 PM

Jesse, my eye just happened to catch this comment of yours:

3) They always emphasize the role of increasing social welfare programs in other posts, and I believe they use abortion as another opportunity to shore up support for these programs (despite any convincing data that these programs lead to decreases in abortions, I might add);

Every single time I dialog with Christians outside of the US, I hear two things: How great their Social Welfare is, and how it is a great way of reducing abortions. One example is a friend from Holland, who told me that some services were cut back recently, and as a result, abortion is up! His words were "the right wing a*hole who calls himself a Christian didn't get my vote!" A girl who immigrated from Canada to Ireland recently told me the same thing. Lots of girls pushing baby carriages around is a common sight. I should add that in Ireland abortion is actually- from what I understand- far more illegal than what most everyone in the US is proposing. BUT- you can bet they provide for them 100% as a counter-fact!

So I'm sorry but I can't accept your argument that this proves anything is wrong with Sojouners. In fact, to me it's actually proof they have farmore integrity on the issue than many here want to give them credit for.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 1, 2007 9:12 PM

Kevin Wayne,
I don't deny the link between poverty and abortion. For one, I think the weight of the evidence indicates that producing jobs helps decrease poverty, while social welfare does nothing--if anything it increases dependence and hurts the poor more in the long run.

I think there are third variables--unplanned pregnancy and male abandonment--that are contributing to both poverty and abortion. The relationship between poverty and abortion is not so clear cut.

The truth of the matter is that if poverty were the only cause of abortion, you would see higher rates of illegitimacy among the middle and upper classes. After all, they have money to carry a child to term, right? However, the opposite is the case. The poor have very high rates of illegitimacy in the US. In Europe, the illegitimacy rates are much lower, despite the fact that they have bigger social welfare programs.

The effects of social welfare on abortion is not so clear cut. Social welfare programs can increase illegitimacy, unplanned pregnancies, and male abandonment, thus increasing abortions in the long-term.

I should add that if social welfare were helping reduce abortions, then we should have seen a sharp increase in abortions when welfare reform was passed in 1996. Instead, we have continued to see a decline in abortion rates.

Abortion isn't just about money. It's more about male irresponsibility and convenience (it gets in the way of her career or life dreams) than whether a woman has the money to provide for a child.

I should add, however, that churches can and should always be doing more to provide for unwed mothers. However, they can't replace having a responsible father around. They can't get rid of the inconvenience of carrying a child to term. They can't nurture and raise her.

Posted by: jesse | November 1, 2007 10:16 PM

Abortion isn't just about money. It's more about male irresponsibility and convenience (it gets in the way of her career or life dreams) than whether a woman has the money to provide for a child.

It's far more complicated than even that. I learned a few months ago that a woman friend -- the one I bought the ESA membership for and who is involved in crisis pregnancy work -- had had at least one abortion (and deeply regrets it, obviously). But I learned a few things about her years ago, and I understand that because of her background she may have been vulnerable. To this day I treat her like a queen; I've given her flowers several times.

That's the key to ending abortion, keeping folks out of the sack in the first place, and that has to do with learning how to have healthy relationships with the other gender. It's not really about "morality" as much as respect -- I mean, if some guy tried to treat your sister like a slut his name is seconds to live, right? That's what needs to happen.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 1, 2007 11:01 PM

Trent,
I don't deny that social services can have some impact on the abortion rate. I just think that finances are one of many reasons why women have abortions and if the wrong welfare incentives are put in place, this could actually increase male abandonment (and abortion rates) in the long-term. Also, given the strong relationship between illegitimacy and poverty, it will be important not to put programs in place that reward illegitimacy. Efforts to help pregnant women but not reward illegitimacy is a delicate balance, I'm sure.

Finances are very rarely the only reason for an abortion. Having a child takes a lot more than money. It takes support from the father, sacrifice of time, a dramatic altering of lifestyle, and sometimes dropping out of school or work.

Many women, of course, have abortions because they know what having a baby can do to their bodies. If they're single, especially, they think it could hurt their long-term chances of getting a mate.

A good book on this subject is Real Choices by Frederica Matthews Greene. Even though she's pro-life, Naomi Wolfe (pro-choice) provides a blurb in praise of this book, which is about finding common ground to reduce abortion rates.

Posted by: jesse | November 2, 2007 7:57 AM

Rick wrote:

That's the key to ending abortion, keeping folks out of the sack in the first place, and that has to do with learning how to have healthy relationships with the other gender. It's not really about "morality" as much as respect -- I mean, if some guy tried to treat your sister like a slut his name is seconds to live, right? That's what needs to happen.

News flash: people are going to have sex. Trying to deny something that is completely natural causes people to have dilemas and issues regarding safety, respect, and sex. It is such a catch 22 that we are living in such a sexually prominent society but we are still so conflicted about teaching safe sex to our kids.

I had an abortion and I don't regret it at all. My boyfriend and I have always practiced safe sex (still do) and as much as we were careful one got away. Being in grad school and not having a secure financial backing we decided that having an abortion was the best choice to make for our situation. I want kids, I want a family, I just don't want them right now. I still have a doctorate program to get through and licensing requirements. Parenting takes a lot of time, energy, emotional maturity, financial maturity, responsiveness, understanding,and respect. I will be a much better parent 5 years down the road then I will right now. Being pro-choice not only means being a feminist but also means being pro-family.

and Hali, sex education is all encompassing in my definition. Not only about safe sex but about child development, parenting techniques, adolescent development, and social learning theory. Kids are a responsibility (much like cars are). IF we are going to require drivers ed classes we should require parenting/sex ed classes as well.

Posted by: elise | November 2, 2007 12:44 PM

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a pro-life Catholic, was denied the opportunity to speak at the 1992 and 1996 Democratic conventions. It didn’t matter that Casey was progressive on economic and foreign policy questions and an outspoken supporter of women’s rights; he didn’t have the right position on abortion.

This, however, is categorically false. In fact, Bob Casey -- whom I voted for twice and now regret doing so -- was denied the opportunity to speak at the conventions because he would not endorse Bill Clinton. Period. In fact, I distinctly remember that in 1991 he was running around the state running Clinton down at every opportunity; at one point he said, "Pick a winner." And that turned out to be a harbinger of things to come; in 1994, when his hand-picked successor to the late Sen. H. John Heinz, Harris Wofford, waffled on the issue of abortion Casey pulled his endorsement. That's basically why we had to deal with Rick Santorum.

Trying to deny something that is completely natural causes people to have dilemas and issues regarding safety, respect, and sex. It is such a catch 22 that we are living in such a sexually prominent society but we are still so conflicted about teaching safe sex to our kids.

That doesn't fly with me. The respect factor still applies; if you really love someone you won't do anything to hurt him or her.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 2, 2007 1:16 PM

Kevin,

Care to give me a link or should I spend the rest of the day going through every Wallis & Co site that google brings up.

~Thanks.

Posted by: elise | November 2, 2007 3:29 PM

That's the line from the party, that he was denied the opportunity because he had not yet (not that he would not) endorse Clinton. What else are they going to say? However, he told the NY Times that he supported Clinton.

Coming from you, I'd have to check that. Because that came from Paul Begala and James Carville, who ran Casey's campaign in 1990 and who were directly involved in putting together the speakers' list for the convention. (Running the Casey campaign was how they got Clinton's attention in the first place.) And also, in fact, other "pro-life" Democrats -- then Sen. John Breaux from Louisiana -- did speak.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 2, 2007 5:27 PM

I have had a terminated pregnancy and i am an adopted mom. Adoption is the middle of the road. Adoption is not the same as the foster system, which i agree is terribly flawed. the media needs to be responsible about adoption and quit only telling stories that suggest that the birth parents can change their minds. If i had a dollar for every person who asked me that questions when we adopted, college would be coverd! If done correct and with love the process is Gods loving solution.
AND as far as unplanned pregnancy ask any ob/gyn, and they can tell you honestly most (upwards to 70% of) pregnancies are a suprise. If open private adoptions were understood better, more people would feel they could make that choice on both sides of the fence. Change the laws to make lobbiest for the Adoption Agencies change so that the private field can share the same rights. Adoption Agencies are big business and often they are the ones who make the mistakes.
Don't condem a woman for not being ready to parent, condem a man for getting a 15 year old pregnant in the first place!
My soap box issue!!!!!
mylife@40

Posted by: Mylife @40 | November 2, 2007 7:48 PM

Illegal abortions only mean that women will be getting them anyway but in an unsafe environment where her health and life are in danger and a foster care system doesn't guarantee someone a better life.
I have friends who went thru the foster care system and one was continually sexually abused and the other one was neglected. Her foster family only cared about getting their paycheck and spending it on their own children.
If we want to cut down on abortions than we need to make young men more responsible for their actions and stop putting all the hate and blame on young girls who don't know any better and a failed "abstinence" program and the sex ed that failed me.
I wasn't taught by my school or my parents about safe sex, condoms, venereal diseases what to do in case of an unplanned pregnancy, my options or anything.
The only reason I'm not an unwed mother with two venereal diseases is because of my best friend and Dr. Ruth.
My unwed sister of three children is the only one to have informed me as to how barbaric, torturous and humiliating it is to give birth at all. It seems like nothing more than a blood ritual to me.
Considering that abortion is legal I'm amazed that there are so many single mom's out there who didn't finish school and now won't get a chance to.
How about them? What about their rights? Their lives? Geting little or no support from the baby's daddy, quitting school, working 2 jobs and in the absence of a parent to rely on, having a stranger at day care that you can barely afford having to raise your baby for you, as you'll now have little or no time to do it yourself.
All school kids should watch a video of a woman giving birth and be given a five page list of venereal diseases and the affects it has on you, your partner and your unborn child.
And young men should be taught the proper way to put on a condom and ladies need to be informed that if you move wrong after being given an epidural you can end up paralyzed from the waist down.
Everyone should be taught that you can get a venereal disease the first time you have sex and ladies should be informed of severe depression due to severe hormone shifts after a pregnancy.
If anyone had actually bothered to talk to the youngsters or even women and men in their 20's you would be shocked as to how little they know.
I myself only learned things second hand because no parent or teacher had the decency to teach me the things they should've taught me when I was a kid.

Posted by: cymone simmons | November 3, 2007 4:43 PM

I'm sorry, where did I do this?

When we had the discussion re Bob Jones.

I would also liek you to retract your comment that I use a peculiar definition of the term "pro-choice" given that my definition is precisely that same as that in Webster's dictionary. Or are we now going to discount the value of dictionaries as it relates to finding definitions?

No dice. My comment still stands that when most individuals use the term, they mean more than just the legality of the thing. Dictionaries are usually out of date, when comapred to the use of terms by the general populace anyway. And most of your other references actually backed up my point- that there's a lot more to the issue of being "pro-choice" than you will allow.

And the abortion rate isn't any higher now, so there goes that argument

I never said there was an argument to be made. I said we are too close to the fact to see the effects of the economy & poverty on abortion.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 3, 2007 6:34 PM

It comes down to this: Do we rely on mere legislation to reduce the rate of something most of us abhor? (It hasn't stopped murders or rapes or any other violent crime.) Or do we intervene in the lives of the very people who are suffering what seems a necessity? That's the choice. I for one would rather support something that has a real chance of succeeding.

Posted by: John Rasmussen | November 4, 2007 12:05 PM

Oops, i posted to quickly.
to conclude, i think that the true intervention starts with offering real honest sex ed to everyone. bring the faith community out of the dark ages with its abstenance theology=just don't tell them, and then they won't know how. WRONG!!!
Include them in open ended dialogue about abortion, and fertility rights, and see how profoundly they absorb the info. We underestimate the youth in this country.
And as far as a mature woman getting a terminated pregnancy. Quit demonizing birth parents (i.e. "oh i could never give up a child of mine!") and see them for what they usually are the most selfless people on the planet.
Forcing women to have children they are unprepared to parent can definatively lead to foster care. And foster care is hell for most and i challenge any one who thinks a child is better off experiencing child abuse and foster care abuse, to become a foster parent, adopt an older child and take them into your home, and see the pain they suffer. Then tell me its a bigger crime to terminate a pregnancy and letting them miss out on that life all together. God takes care of those souls, we fail miserably.

Posted by: mylife@40 | November 4, 2007 5:24 PM

there are so many factors involved with having the American Dream of a family and a safe home, a good job, I honor anyone who is going to bring another life here. Its just hard for me to understand when there are so many economic issues.
Alot of folks really cant afford to much, and how are we going to give these children a good life in a world full of Greed. When Gas prices go up everyday, EVERY item we need to buy to live Goes UP! Food, clothes ect....
when will the greed machine stop in this country?
Poor overstressed overworked people dont make the best parents, But god bless them they Try there very best. But hope for a good future goes dim sometimes and people loose hope in our American system, and some people hurt themselves and other people. People who live in a nice house and a good town live in a very nice bubble. Poor people live in a hell on earth where everyday is survival. Drugs Crime are everyday things.
These women are cought up in a survive situation.
I was told " there is enough abundance in this world for ALL of us" I Beleive this and pray this will be true someday. So we can all live in a world that wont be so hard to have a safe home and food on the table, just simple stuff. So we can raise children in a happy safe environment.

Posted by: dee | November 6, 2007 7:21 PM