I think the Obamanites are wrong to look for compromise. It would better to work to secure the pro-choice position on the courts first and then ultimately work to criminalize pro-life.

I am not sure how “pro-choicers” can cede ground on abstinence. Comprehensive sexuality education, which the choicers favor, promotes the physical and psychological benefits of abstinence. It just doesn’t stop there, as the anti-choicers would prefer. Seems like it is they who must give ground.

Just curious. How many babies slaughtered in what ought to be the safety and sanctity of their mother’s wombs should we pro-lifers find an acceptable compromise?
It is a lie to suggest that in not compromising, we are the ones who cause so many abortions. The medical staff who slaughter these babies are to blame. To the extent that the mothers know what it is they are truly doing, they too bear the blame for making the decision.
Charles, there are 50+ million dead babies since Roe v Wade and you want to criminalize pro-life? Are you kidding, or that far gone?

I won’t address this to any one particular individual, but surely several posters here at Beliefnet fall directly into this group.
Given that your side has achieved nothing, zip, absolutamente nada, nihilum, Null, Zero…in your fight over the last decades, maybe it is time to stop assuming we are the bad guys and you are the sole keepers of light and to actually sit down at the table with us and see just what can be done to reduce the number of abortions.
After several Republican administrations which all promised to pack the Supreme Court and repeal Roe vs. Wade, you are now closer to losing the next generation (at least) on the Court than winning a majority. Without exception, all your Republican legislators and all your Republican presidents have done was to take your votes and then fold their hands in their laps, try hard not to smirk and assure you they were ‘working on it’. Time to stop sailing your barge down the river de-nial: They have played you.
You are not going to get anywhere the next four to eight (and if you are crazy enough to nominate Caribu Barbie, certainly 12 years) with your hateful, spiteful characterization of all pro-choice people as baby murderers. Hmm, actually I should probably put some money into her PAC…
After decades of conflating abortion and gay rights into one big wedge, gays and transgendered people are finally beginning to receive human status in the US, and an entire of group of people who are basically neutral to not necessarily opposed to you on reducing abortion (like me!) are bound and determined to fight you to the death. Even the Republican party did the numbers and concluded that, had the Republican party carried even half the gay vote, McCain would have won. Gays and transgendered are often Christians (like me) and, although we don’t quite understand what heterosexuals see in becoming parents when they are still children themselves, we certainly do have a biological urge to protect and cherish children (see our over representation in the medical and teaching fields).
After decades of polarization, ‘our way or no way’ demands, bombing abortion clinics, murdering doctors and making life for women a living hell, what have you achieved of your goals?
Nothing. Except for Scalia, you haven’t even been able to put one truly brilliant mind into a position of authority.
So maybe, just maybe, it might be worth it to quietly sit down and treat with us.
For all these years, you have portrayed everyone who is pro-choice as being pro-murder. This is a big mistake. I am pro-choice, and have used family monies to promote the actual adoption of several children. So has my brother, who is adamantly anti-choice. We work together on this area (only area we work together, but something is better than nothing.)
Sit down with us. Work with us. We want to minimize abortion. Why can reducing the number of abortions not be a basis? You have a realistic chance of seeing more babies brought to term by joining with us than by continuing to attack us. It strikes me as more than a bit strange for someone who is constantly yelling ‘murderer!’ to be unwilling to even attempt an achievable solution, preferring instead to stand by the sidelines, railing and ranting whilst achieving nothing.

==…maybe it is time to stop assuming we are the bad guys and you are the sole keepers of light…==
(Mat 5:14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
(Mat 5:15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
(Mat 5:16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
==… and to actually sit down at the table with us and see just what can be done to reduce the number of abortions.==
You mean, for a ping-pong game?
==After several Republican administrations which all promised to pack the Supreme Court and repeal Roe vs. Wade, you are now closer to losing the next generation (at least) on the Court than winning a majority.==
We’re happy to let the state legislatures decide and define “personhood,” as North Dakota and Montana are about to do.
==Without exception, all your Republican legislators and all your Republican presidents have done was to take your votes and then fold their hands in their laps, try hard not to smirk and assure you they were ‘working on it’. Time to stop sailing your barge down the river de-nial: They have played you.==
One way to deal with that is to let state legislatures do the work, as North Dakota and Montana are doing.
==You are not going to get anywhere the next four to eight (and if you are crazy enough to nominate Caribu Barbie, certainly 12 years) with your hateful, spiteful characterization of all pro-choice people as baby murderers.==
Well, YOU people say that separation is “birth” and that birth is “personhood.” So does Public Law 107-207 say that birth is “separation.” So, embryos for research are persons, and you don’t mind their dying.
You people don’t like Palin cuz she’s right and correct.
==After decades of conflating abortion and gay rights into one big wedge, gays and transgendered people are finally beginning to receive human status in the US…==
They never lost it.
==.. and an entire of group of people who are basically neutral to not necessarily opposed to you on reducing abortion (like me!) are bound and determined to fight you to the death.==
So much big talk.
== Even the Republican party did the numbers and concluded that, had the Republican party carried even half the gay vote, McCain would have won.==
Not worth the compromise of values.
== Gays and transgendered are often Christians (like me)…==
Those who claim to be homosexual cannot be Christian cuz they don’t love God through Christ enough to stop what God/Jesus condemns.
== …and, although we don’t quite understand what heterosexuals see in becoming parents when they are still children themselves…==
So, YOU think that insults are the way to draw us to discussion. We see.
==… we certainly do have a biological urge to protect and cherish children (see our over representation in the medical and teaching fields).==
After all, there’s an agenda to push.
==After decades of polarization…==
Like you people insulting Christians outta one side of your mouths and expressing a desire outta the other.
==… ‘our way or no way’ demands…==
Then, stop demanding your way, or no way.
==… bombing abortion clinics…==
It doesn’t happen often enough to put the onus on our movement. They are individual acts, not the acts of Pro-Life. In fact, those bombings could’ve been set ups by the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd.
==… murdering doctors…==
Doesn’t happen often enough for you to be able to blame us. These few murders are the work of individuals operating outside the Pro-Life movement.
==…and making life for women a living hell…==
The vast majority of women are happy.
==… what have you achieved of your goals?==
For starters, North Dakota and Montana are finalizing a definition of “personhood.”
==Nothing.==
As I say, “something.”
== Except for Scalia, you haven’t even been able to put one truly brilliant mind into a position of authority.==
Except the folks in North Dakota and Montana.
==So maybe, just maybe, it might be worth it to quietly sit down and treat with us.==
And listen to the kinda insults you throw at us???? Not a chance.
==For all these years, you have portrayed everyone who is pro-choice as being pro-murder.==
As explained above….
== This is a big mistake.==
Much like the insults coming from YOU people.
== I am pro-choice…==
You mean, “pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice.”
==Sit down with us.==
And listen to insults from you people???? Ha!
== Work with us.==
You go first.
== We want to minimize abortion.==
Then act like it and talk like it. Apologize for your insults.
== Why can reducing the number of abortions not be a basis?==
We already established that basis long before you people thought of it.
== You have a realistic chance of seeing more babies brought to term by joining with us than by continuing to attack us.==
First, you people stop attacking us.
== It strikes me as more than a bit strange for someone who is constantly yelling ‘murderer!’…==
Well, YOU people are on the side of murder of persons for research. What else would you want us to yell?
==… to be unwilling to even attempt an achievable solution…==
Translation: “A solution that doesn’t compromise our agenda.”

==Just curious. How many babies slaughtered in what ought to be the safety and sanctity of their mother’s wombs should we pro-lifers find an acceptable compromise?==
GREAT POINT!
==It is a lie to suggest that in not compromising, we are the ones who cause so many abortions. The medical staff who slaughter these babies are to blame. To the extent that the mothers know what it is they are truly doing, they too bear the blame for making the decision.==
These women are accomplices.
==Charles, there are 50+ million dead babies since Roe v Wade and you want to criminalize pro-life?==
That’s the idea, f’sure. They wanna do what the Nazis did: warp the language, then life.

==We want to minimize abortion. ==
What consistent use of propaganda to make it seem as though YOU people are the good guys and that we’re the bad guys! YOU PEOPLE wanna “minimuze” abortions. SINCE WHEN?

quod erat demonstrandum…
Increasingly, I come to the conclusion that the conservative Christians have no desire to actually reduce the number of abortions, they prefer it this way.
They have the joy of maintaining their absolute position of not giving an inch, demanding that we enslave women again.
When we refuse, they take a perverse delight in seeing abortions as murder and find a deep satisfaction in maintaining their everything or nothing position.
Me, I’d rather search for solutions to help girls not get into unexpected pregnancy and the resultant mess to begin with. Solutions such as education. Solutions such as freely available contraception. Solutions such as non-punitive, strongly supportive programs to encourage adoption. Solutions such as creating a culture of empowering girls to make decisions over their own bodies.
The majority of women affected by the refusal of the conservative Christians to even consider working with us are still in junior high or beginning high school. They are girls, children and the most vulnerable in our society.
Oh, and yes, definitely we need to raise the consciousness of boys, too. Based on my experience of teenage boys, I suspect that is a job even Sisyphos would have turned down in favor of his rock…

The evidence is that there’s more readiness to compromise among pro-life Catholics than among pro-life evangelicals. The explanation may have to do with Catholics having a more robust tradition of moral theology, wherein prudential decisions have real spiritual weight, as opposed to signalling moral compromise.

When I read the comments of the ‘pro-lifers’ here and elsewhere on Beliefnet.com, I am appalled by their cavalier attitude towards bombing of abortion clinics and murder of doctors and nurses.
When I am told – and this happens at least once a week – that I am not a Christian, because homosexuals can not be Christians, I am deeply distressed. Not because their words cause me to doubt my Saviour in Christ, but because such a depth of hatred is, in and of itself, frightening.
Certainly, Mr. Silk, you are right in your observation that Catholics are often more willing to pursue any means to achieve their goals than are American fundamentalist-evangelical-conservative Christians.
What troubles me is the absolute inflexibility of both this Pope and the American conservative Christians to treat with us at all. Even in naming these groups – all united by their rigid refusal to accept homosexuals as Christians, united by their rejection of equal rights for women, united by their support for attacking abortion clinics and personal…even here, they engage in semantic games without end to explain that their count of angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin is the only valid count, because they count from out to in and not from in to out…
It is the nature of liberal Christians to seek consensus and to promote general understanding. It is the nature of conservative Christians to oppress all who disagree with them. How on earth shall we ever achieve anything with such people?
I won’t repeat what I wrote above, but it remains valid – after many decades of packing the Supreme Court, maintaining absolute power and refusing to budge an inch, the conservative Christians have gained nothing. Nothing, except to convince people such as myself that any hope of working together is a false one.

==Increasingly, I come to the conclusion that the conservative Christians have no desire to actually reduce the number of abortions…==
Translation #1: “Since they haven’t agreed with me, it must mean that they are unwilling.”
Translation #2: “If I put the onus on them, it will excuse me from sitting down with them. I need to make myself look good.”
==… they prefer it this way.==
Translation: “I must assign blame to them so that I can feel better about rejecting them.”
==They have the joy of maintaining their absolute position of not giving an inch…==
Translation: “Even though we enjoy our absolute position of not giving an inch, we won’t mention that.”
==… demanding that we enslave women again.==
Oh, for God’s sake!
==When we refuse, they take a perverse delight in seeing abortions as murder…==
After all, personhood begins at conception.
==… and find a deep satisfaction in maintaining their everything or nothing position.==
What they won’t tell you: “Our position is everything, or nothing, too.”
==Me, I’d rather search for solutions to help girls not get into unexpected pregnancy and the resultant mess to begin with.==
The solution is simple: Don’t do it!
== Solutions such as education.==
Yes, education in how to say, “NO!”
==Solutions such as freely available contraception.==
Contraception, including how to say, “NO!”
== Solutions such as non-punitive…==
What punishment you suggest for a person who commits murder?
==… strongly supportive programs to encourage adoption.==
Oh, goody, we need more programs.
== Solutions such as creating a culture of empowering girls to make decisions over their own bodies.==
Everyone has the Right to decide over their own body. Except in cases where the decision leads to the death of another person, except in cases of self-defense.
==The majority of women affected by the refusal of the conservative Christians to even consider working with us…==
Of course, you want to put the onus on us as a cover for your absolute refusal to give an inch.
==…we need to raise the consciousness of boys, too.==
Translation: “We need to let boys know, early on, that they have no and will have no say-so over their own property, that the only contribution women need from them is their surrender.”

A general question to the conservative Christians out there. Do you all agree with Mr. Incredible?
Does he speak for you?
If not, why don’t you speak up?
Certainly, gay Christians are justified in assuming the principle ‘Qui tacet, consentire videtur’ not only seems to govern but is the case.

==When I am told… that I am not a Christian, because homosexuals can not be Christians…==
(Joh 14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.
(Joh 14:23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
(Joh 14:24) He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
==… I am deeply distressed.==
As you should be.
== Not because their words cause me to doubt my Saviour in Christ, but because such a depth of hatred…==
Propagandistic assumption.
==… is, in and of itself, frightening.==
Of course, those who claim to be homosexual, their supporters and activists need to portray the Word of God as hateful in order to relieve themselves of any responsibility. In fact, they must justify doing the irresponsible. The easiest way to try to do that is to say that those who oppose them are “hateful.”

==A general question to the conservative Christians out there. Do you all agree with Mr. Incredible?==
Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t. I don’t ask for a show of hands before I announce my views.
==Does he speak for you?==
Irrelevant.
I’m not an elected official.
I haven’t run for any office.
I’m not campaigning.
Christ tells us — that is, those of us who are born again — not to be concerned about pleasing men, adhering to men’s traditions.
==If not, why don’t you speak up?==
So, ignoring the isn’t working?
==… gay Christians…==
OXYMORON ALERT! — OXYMORON ALERT! — OXYMORON ALERT!
==… are justified in assuming the principle ‘Qui tacet, consentire videtur’ not only seems to govern but is the case.==
ALERT TO THE PRESUMPTUOUS! — ALERT TO THE PRESUMPTUOUS! — ALERT TO THE PRESUMPTUOUS!

So, ignoring the isn’t working?—> So, ignoring me isn’t working?

“Just curious. How many babies slaughtered in what ought to be the safety and sanctity of their mother’s wombs should we pro-lifers find an acceptable compromise?”
Let’s rephrase that, Gerard. Are you willing to allow 50% of the unborn children face abortion simply because you cannot save all of them? When you stand before God and tell him how sorry you were that you could not save all of these precious unborn humans, what will you say when he asks you why you did not try to save those you could?
You look at the issue of compromise as allowing 2 million of the 4 million aborted children to die. I look at it as allowing 2 million of them to live.
If we have learned anything from the past 30+ years of (generally) GOP inaction on the pro-life issue it’s that what we have been doing does not work. It’s time to change tactics.
If it is within my power to reach a point where half, a quarter, even a tenth of those children are not aborted, my conscience cannot allow me to pass up that opportunity. Yes, we keep working to save all of them! But to say to the Lord we will take all or none (which is what the conservative pro-life movement is indeed saying)…I cannot see how that glorifies the Lord or protects unborn life.

RJohnson, you’re not “supposed” to compromise, so far as I’m concerned. My object was only to indicate where I thought compromise was possible, and I ended up not very optimistic that it would come about. You strengthen my lack of optimism.

RJohnson and Mark Silk,
Good evening to both of you. RJohnson, your position is seductive to an ardent pro-lifer such as myself. At the same time, the territory you stake out is untenable. Allow me to explain.
When I am judged, I will not answer for the blood of innocents. Their blood is on the hands of the medical professionals who murdered them and drew their sustenance from such barbarism. To the extent that the mothers were aware of what it is they were doing, they bear culpability. Those who made the Court decisions, wrote the Laws and protected this institution with the power of their office share in the bloodshed, as do those who taught in favor of it all.
To compromise is to become ‘Abortion Lite-A third less lethal than regular abortion”. No thanks.
It would be impossible to call oneself pro-life under those circumstances. By countenancing any abortion, one would be only less pro-death than others.
Perhaps you have seen the Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster film, Judgment at Nuremberg. The movie is about the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi Judges. Burt Lancaster plays the role of Dr. Ernst Janning, a wold-renowned German Jurist who eventually goes along with the Nazis and sentences an innocent man to death in a show trial, as well as others to sterilizations. He is sentenced to life imprisonment by Spencer Tracy’s character, American Judge Haywood.
In the end, Janning wants to rehabilitate his image in Haywood’s eyes. The dialogue says it all.
Dr. Janning: “Judge Haywood… the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people… I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it, You must believe it!”
Judge Haywood: “Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death that you knew to be innocent.”
I understand your point. I believe that it becomes untenable when we accept a certain number of deaths. Having thrown away the principle and embraced pragmatism, we lose recourse to the principle in the future.
God Bless!

Gerard,
You make a cogent point and I certainly am interested in hearing RJohnson and Mr. Silk have to reply.
Given my firmly held position that I have no standing to tell a woman what to do with her body, I truly hope this will not sound as if I am heaping insult upon insult. My experience has been that there is not much room for disagreement or varying perspectives in this discussion without provoking rage from many.
So here goes, hopefully, something:
I donate time to my local animal shelter here in Europe. Not much time, as I have little to spare, but what I can. Why? Given that I could pay for people to do the trivial work I do, and no doubt do it far better than I ever could, it may seem pointless.
To me, it is not. To the animals whom I take walking or bathe and clean, it is not (good old 97 pound weakling notwithstanding, it helps to have someone built like me around when a St. Bernard needs a bath).
I hope the value of my contributions stands despite the fact that I enjoy it. And that is, I think, is a simile for the problem we face in the abortion debate.
Certainly, I comprehend your position. However, you do not have the means to stop abortion. Even if I were to decide I had standing, there has yet to be a time when men were able to do more than reduce the easy availability of abortion. Short of what the National Socialists attempted, an Überwachungsstaat, no one can. Even they couldn’t, even Bush #43 wasn’t able to, even Richard Nixon failed…as did Stalin and, today, the Chinese government.
You will fail. I will remain convinced that I can not force my will upon anyone.
What to do, what to do…well, let’s see. The twisted, hateful logic of some here that it is trivial when doctors are murdered and clinics bombed certainly has not furthered the cause of reducing abortion. Change through political activism has failed, indeed the anti-abortion platform is further away from success today than at any time in the last 36 years. Reducing education to abstinence based programs has failed, utterly in the US and now that we have concrete proof that it went hand in hand with genocide in Uganda, has produced
Your civilized, loving and concern for the soul of all involved position seems to me to be the only one which has a future.
So let’s stop and think.
You are not going to make any further progress in state imposed roadblocks to abortion, rather you are going to lose ground. Sadly, the probability that Obama will be choosing not one but several Justices approaches 1. At best, your side may retain Scalia…but he is the only intellectual fruit you have borne in nearly forty years of battle. (Pre-first-cup-of-coffee here, the metaphors, she are mixed!)
Can you see your way to setting aside the perfect as the enemy of the good and look towards a discussion with us on how to minimize abortion in a world in which I have no standing other than my heartfelt desire to see it reduced…and you have no power to impose your will?
I personally knew many Dutch, Germans and Italians (jawohl, da fehlt ein Land, nicht wahr?) who could not stop the horror of those 12 years. But they, personally, did save some few. Some, I only know of, because they were martyrs to their cause. Others, I knew as still broken but victorious heroes. They all had one thing in common, in the face of certain defeat, at least they tried.

…genocide in Uganda, has produced…
An outrage and rejection in the rest of the Western world.
This gotcha system has to be the worst on any blog in the Universe.
Surely, at a time when good programmers are desperate for work it should be possible to institute a decent system. The Denver Post, for example, has one dating back to the last century which is brilliant.

There seem to me two basic arguments on the pro-life side for opposing “common ground” approaches: 1) they make the likelihood of banning abortion more remote; and 2)they involve an intolerable moral compromise on an individual’s part. The first involves a political calculation of the pros and cons, about which reasonable people can disagree. The second, though it may follow from the first, may not; and in the latter case, is inarguable.

I certainly can understand argument number two, there are many “here I stand, I can not otherwise’ fixed points in my life.
In the case of those who oppose all abortions, while I can understand that any compromise is intolerable, surely this position gives rise to other conflicts? Or do such people avoid such by simply saying it is not their job to prevent evil, merely to condemn it?
Since the areas in which I am inflexible all tend to revolve around granting human rights, not restricting the, obviously I am having enormous trouble comprehending the basic position.

Hi Panthera,
“Since the areas in which I am inflexible all tend to revolve around granting human rights, not restricting the, obviously I am having enormous trouble comprehending the basic position.”
Why is it so difficult for people to see that the pre-born human has the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as does the post-partum human? By definition, inalienable means God-given and not subject to human revocation. To suggest that we pick (arbitrarily) a point in the developmental continuum at which to confer personhood status (bestowal of rights), is a repudiation of the Founders’ understanding that those rights were and are inalienable.
Recognition of the pre-term human’s inalienable right to life necessarily means that government may not grant the right of the mother to do what she will to the baby under the right to do with her body what she will. We all know this, which is why we contort ourselves and the law in defining away the manifestly obvious in order to attain what it is we desire. It’s alternatively called Rationalization and Justification.
If by compromise I understand that a proposed piece of legislation does not give me the whole pie, but a slice (such as banning partial birth abortions but not earlier abortions), then fine, I’ll take it. Then I begin working to chip away a little more at Roe v Wade.
If by compromise I am given restrictions on some abortions, but must accept others as a final deal, then, no, I cannot.
And, in all of this compromise, what of the old chestnut about women resorting to back-alley abortions unless they are kept safe and legal? Are those who are pro-choice finally willing to throw some women under the bus? Or, is the compromise one where Catholics are asked to sign on board with contraception programs without any restrictions on abortions? In that case, we give up everything and gain nothing. Contraceptives fail. Here’s a link to the CDC data:
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/Contraception.htm
One need simply multiply the number of sex acts by the failure rate of the contraceptive method to see how many unplanned pregnancies would result. Having facilitated other’s rejection of the procreative dimension of sex (and in the process tearing at the unitive dimension) we will have found ourselves to be utterly bereft of any moral voice in trying to save the life of the unplanned, unwanted baby.
So let’s se what we are being asked to do in order to compromise:
1. Abandon our clear understanding of human sex and sexuality in God’s plan and beautifully articulated in Humanae Vitae. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
2. Throw away our understanding of Papal Infallibility and the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in areas of faith and morals by trashing Pope Paul Vi’s Encyclical, Humanae Vitae.
3. Turn a blind eye to the continued murder of millions for no guarantee at all in the outlawing of certain procedures, or abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy. (The ‘life and health’ of the mother would always be the wedge to keep the door wide open.)
4. Allow ourselves to be maneuvered into a position where we no onger may lay claim to any moral ground in matters of human sexuality or life issues.
And all for half-promises arising from a tissue of lies.
I’ll stick to universal moral truth as revealed and handed down faithfully, for my sake and for the sake of those with no other voice to speak on their behalf.
BTW, what kind of work do you do at the animal shelter? What a great contribution. Sure, others could be paid for what you do, but there is the unique dimension of love that volunteers bring. The animals know it too.
God Bless!

==Why is it so difficult for people to see that the pre-born human has the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as does the post-partum human?==
Cuz agenda is more important.

==Why is it so difficult for people to see that the pre-born human has the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as does the post-partum human?==
Cuz they don’t agree with Jefferson who said, in the Declaration of Independence, that we all are “created” with the Right to Life. They say that personhood starts at birth, and, thus, the Right to Life. They don’t realize that they are at odds with the speculative notion they try to perpetrate on the world that everything started with one cell, virtually the same kind of one cell that begins life in the womb. In other words, they believe that all life began with one cell and, by accident, developed into us; but they say they don’t believe that human life begins with one cell in the womb. Can YOU say, “inconsistent”?

Hi Gerard,
Well, mainly – since I never know when I shall have to fly over to the ‘States, as has happened four times since October 2008, I walk the big ‘uns and help when there is a large animal who needs nails trimmed or a shampoo, etc.
Since the woman who does most of the large dog work is 4 foot nothing, I know that size is irrelevant, it is that ‘respect’ alpha thing-y which we gay men aren’t supposed to have according to so many stereotypes…but I got it. Nomen est omen?
Anyway, I do it as much for me as for anyone else. I like animals and they like me. Funny how that is.
I encourage everyone to volunteer time helping at the local animal shelter. We are appointed stewards of this earth by God and it is both a joy and a privilege to spend time with those animals who need our help. And no, I don’t mean that in the ‘come into my parlor and see my stamp collection so I can shove you down the slippery slope of rescinding Humanae Vitae’ sense, having spent the day mixing metaphors…
You explain the problem for Catholics with a healthy conscience very well. Certainly, any working together with us must, ultimately, leave you with less than you feel is morally required. I can respect that and think it opens the door to our seeing just what can be done.
For instance. I firmly believe that the more inadvertent pregnancies we can prevent through education, the better. There was an excellent article to this just last week in TIME, see the link.
We won’t agree on condoms, birth control or sex outside of marriage (and isn’t funny that the people most under attack from the conservative Christians are gays like me who live in monogamous relationships?) but that is one where I do think, if you can not support it, you do no evil by getting out of the way of it.
We both know that the discussions on failures of condoms to protect against STDs is a red herring, their usefulness far outweighs their minimal failure rate.
My one and only concern, is seeing teen-age pregnancy rates come down and Aids fought. Abstinence only programs have failed, abjectly.
What would be your suggestions for reducing these two problems?
By the by, Gerard, you wouldn’t have had Jesuit training, would you now?

==Abstinence only programs have failed…==
Cuz willingness for success has failed. Dualmindedness.

“Perhaps you have seen the Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster film, Judgment at Nuremberg. The movie is about the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi Judges. Burt Lancaster plays the role of Dr. Ernst Janning, a wold-renowned German Jurist who eventually goes along with the Nazis and sentences an innocent man to death in a show trial, as well as others to sterilizations. He is sentenced to life imprisonment by Spencer Tracy’s character, American Judge Haywood.”
Yes, I recall seeing that a number of years ago. I also saw the wonderful movie “Schindler’s List” in which the main character saves over 1000 Polish Jews. Unfortunately he was not able to save all of those who crossed his path, but he was able to save a good number. I suspect those 1000+ people were quite happy that Schindler chose to save those he could rather than try to save all and, in the end, lose all or most.
You say, “When I am judged, I will not answer for the blood of innocents.” No, but I believe you and I will be judged for doing as much as is within our power to save even a portion of them. If we choose to allow all to die when we have it within our means to save some, I fear that Our Lord will deal every bit as harshly with us as He will with those directly responsible for their deaths.
But such is the divide we have between us.

“Why is it so difficult for people to see that the pre-born human has the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as does the post-partum human?”
Good question. Almost as good as the one asked on this blog a while back. Why is it that so many advocates of the right to life for unborn children seem comfortable with terminating that right once the child is born?

==Why is it that so many advocates of the right to life for unborn children seem comfortable with terminating that right once the child is born?==
It’s the difference between innocence and guilt, as a matter of process that is due.

Good question, RJohnson.
We all know that the death penalty is being performed on innocent people. Many studies have shown an error rate of 10% or higher. Given the claims of many conservative Christians that birth control doesn’t work because of failure rates below one-tenth of one percent, this may seem like a contradiction. It isn’t.
I suspect the difference is very easily explained.
For these conservative Christians, it isn’t really about saving the lives of the un-born, it is about forcing women into submission. They are happy to see the innocent put to death through a faulty, biased justice system, shrugging their shoulders and saying, ‘let God sort them out’.
But the thought that a woman have dominion over her own body, nope, that is unthinkable. So they lie and pretend it is really the fetus they care about. Were they to actually care, they would not have gutted every pre-school program for the poor they could destroy.

==Why is it that so many advocates of the right to life for unborn children seem comfortable with terminating that right once the child is born?==
It’s the difference between innocent/not guilty and guilty.

==For these conservative Christians, it isn’t really about saving the lives of the un-born…==
Yes, it is.
==… it is about forcing women into submission.==
That’s the PR, anyway.
== They are happy to see the innocent put to death…==
We’re doing the best we can to avoid that.
==But the thought that a woman have dominion over her own body, nope, that is unthinkable.==
She has dominion over HER body, not the other body in her womb which belongs to another.
== So they lie…==
Heckling.
==… and pretend it is really the fetus they care about.==
We’re not the ones pretending.
== Were they to actually care, they would not have gutted every pre-school program for the poor they could destroy.
More Lib garbage.

The great difficulty seems to be avoidance of the first elements in the discussion. How do human females get pregnant? [Storks play no roles].
Assumed in many of these postings is that sexual intercourse is a basic and inescapable necessity of life. {Thank you, Dr. Freud]. But it is not, is it?
What is being defended by the pro-abortionists is sexual freedom, licence and licentiousness, freedom to do whatever one wants, freedom to ignore any consequences. I have an acquaintance, who when his girl friend got pregnant, had his lawyer write her a letter that he would have nothing to do with the child, as she could have it aborted. What price feminine freedom now?
And then the practices go down the lines into adolescence and earlier. Pro-abortionists desire to have no reproach to their practices. Where are the principles which will allow us to draw a line to prevent, e.g., pregnancies at age 9?
There is a common term – unwanted pregnancies. This is not even recognized in law. Who wills the act, wills the consequences.

==How do human females get pregnant? [Storks play no roles]. ==
Sure, it takes a male, BUT she has the last, clear chance to avoid a problem.
==Assumed in many of these postings is that sexual intercourse is a basic and inescapable necessity of life. {Thank you, Dr. Freud]. But it is not, is it? ==
It is not, though many here say that it’s gonna happen, no mater what, as though they are German shepherds. Their position means choice. That means responsibility. That means consequences. To some of these posters, that all means that those who wanna stop all this are wrong cuz, after all, they wanna do what they wanna do.
==What is being defended by the pro-abortionists is sexual freedom, licence and licentiousness, freedom to do whatever one wants, freedom to ignore any consequences.==
You got it!
== Pro-abortionists desire to have no reproach to their practices.==
One poster here, though, says that the sides oughta sit down and talk about their differences [read: We should sit there and listen to their propaganda and insults].
== Where are the principles which will allow us to draw a line to prevent, e.g., pregnancies at age 9? ==
The Principles are included in God’s love, and He tells us about it all in His Word. However, these people want nobody to interfere with their fun until the consequences come and, then, families and communities gotta stop what they’re doin’ and help them just cuz these people couldn’t stop themselves. Chimps can’t stop themselves, either.
==There is a common term – unwanted pregnancies. This is not even recognized in law. Who wills the act, wills the consequences.==
The act is willed by those who act on impulses. The consequences are no matter to them until consequences happen, and, then, they can’t handle them, and they want everybody else to stop their lives to help them when we told them beforehand not to do it.
You do the act, you bear the consequences. What better lesson to that person and to others who won’t listen.

Gabriel Austin,
I won’t pretend to understand how heterosexuals think. But I do know that every attempt by conservative Christians over the last years to put an end to sex education, limit contraception and eliminate abortion has failed to lower the incidence of teen-age pregnancy.
Those countries which do, however provide comprehensive support to children have lower rates of pregnancy and abortion. That support is not only sex education and contraception, but adequate nutrition, safe schools, a chance to develop self-respect, especially for girls. Why your side considers those last three an abomination is beyond me. As I said, I don’t understand how heterosexuals think.
Why not sit down with us and look at all the things being tried. Surely, it is better to work together to find solutions than to continue to attack us and see the abortion/teen-age pregnancy rate continue to rise?

Panthera, I was thinking more about the terrible underfunding of post-natal and well-baby care programs for poor women. It’s amazing to listen to pro-life politicians fight tooth and nail for the right-to-life of the child up to the moment of birth, and then virtually in the next breath speak strongly against funding programs that help that child stay alive after being born.
Far too many pro-life people are pro-life up to the moment it costs them something. Then they are quite content to allow children to die.

RJohnson,
So sad, so true. Their ‘concern’ is purely limited to oppressing women, else they would not treat the weakest in society as they do.
The hypocrisy of the conservative Christians is endless.

==Their ‘concern’ is purely limited to oppressing women…==
That’s what the Lib PR sheet says, anyway.