A Great idea on the abortion issue!

  • Thread starter Thread starter katherine2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth B.:
Was your intent to initiate an intelligent, reasonable debate? If so, I recommend less sarcasm.
Dear Elizabeth,

At some point in the furture, I’ll try to post something similiar but without the sarcasm. If the result is an intelligent, reasonable discussion, you will receive from (publicly or privately, your choice) a most humble acknowledgement that I should have followed your counsel. On the other hand, if the responses are typical of what we have seen here, I would like the opportunity to explore with you how exactly we get to the point of initiating an intelligent, reasonable discussion.

God bless you and thank you.

P.S. Celia, thank you for your contribution. Please stick around.
 
Lisa N:
Celia, first off I do agree that often the prolife side is equated with screaming meemies and that does not help win friends or influence people.
Lisa N
So, if this is an obsticle to saving lives, what are we doing about it? Should not every impediment to creating a culture of life be adddress and resolved rather than ignored, tolerated or denied?
 
40.png
Trelow:
She’s working to soften her image so that she can deceive otherwise good christians into voting for her in 2008.
I agree, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Hillary is just being a good politician, trying to win both sides. God help us if she is ever elected President.
 
I think we are not doing the many personal things that need to be done to end abortion, like fasting once a week and alms giving. I believe the enemy is doing more of this we are. This is a spiritual war, not just a war of words.
 
I believe that part of the reason it is difficult to work with Senator Clinton is because there is a fundamental difference in the way we view pregnancy. Katherine2 quoted the senator as saying, “The fact, is the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number or unwanted pregnancies in the first place.” I dispute this “fact”.

I think the best way to reduce abortions is to get rid of the notion of “unwanted pregnancies” in the first place. From a Catholic perspective, God’s hand is there at the creation of each and every zygote (aka baby). HE wants each child, each pregnancy. No matter what the circumstance of that child’s conception God can work good.

The Catholic Church teaches one theology of the body, but persons who support abortion believe in a different “theology” of the body. I do not know what Sen. Clinton has in mind for ways to reduce “unwanted pregnancies”, but I doubt that she plans to propose widespread teaching of NFP.

If she wishes to support abstinence until marriage and only within marriage, then I am happy. If she wishes to fund programs that provide our children with all types of birth control, then I am not.

Even if she is motivated by the purest of desires, I think working with her on this issue would be next to impossible. Yet all things are possible with God. Perhaps if we prayed for her marriage, she might be able to see the beautiful plan that God has for all marriages. If she saw that, I think we could work well together.
 
40.png
katherine2:
So, if this is an obsticle to saving lives, what are we doing about it? Should not every impediment to creating a culture of life be adddress and resolved rather than ignored, tolerated or denied?
I don’t know who we is, or maybe we are? However I support those organizations that focus on education, legislation rather than castigation.

Lisa N
 
Does anyone have the demographics about who is getting abortions? Age? Income? Education level?
It would be interesting.
 
Hillary is engaging in a little bit of “triangulation” like her husband was known to do. It’s all about image, not substance. All politicians do it. Their image is as carefully managed as a Broadway play. All this business about reaching out to pro-lifers is an effort to try to peel off a few more votes in the next election. Howard Dean was talking about being nicer to pro-lifers recently too, and he’s to the left of Hillary. Hillary has also been recently trying to massage her relations with the military. Look at her voting record on the whole Iraq business and you’ll be surprised at how “pro-war” she has actually been. Even our beloved president W. does image management. He sounds pro-life notes, but the only thing of consequence he’s done in that direction is de-fund the UN population fund. He trumpets a PBA ban, but this won’t provide legal protection to a single unborn baby. I could care less if it passes.

The ultimate solution is to change the culture so that, not only is abortion illegal, it will be unthinkable. This is already happening. Since the 1980’s there has been a gradual and inexorable slide of the country into the more pro-life direction. Partly, this may be because of ultrasound, but it almost certainly has to do with the “Roe effect” as James Taranto of the WSJ puts it. Simply stated, pro-abortion people are more likely to get abortions than pro-life people. And the children of pro-life people will have a tendency to be more pro-life than the population as a whole. Net effect: pro-life people are having more kids than pro-abortion people, and this translates into more support for the pro-life cause. David Broder in the NYT called it the “natalist movement”. Empirical evidence: Of the 5 states with the highest abortion rates, 4 out 5 voted for John Kerry (Nevada was the exception). The states with the highest population growth, and the highest birthrates, all went for George Bush. Kerry won all of the slow/no growth states. The pro-abortion people are killing themselves off. I, for one, would love for the Democrats to become more pro-life; I would even consider voting for them, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Another issue is the shortage of doctors willing to perform abortions. At my medical school, we had a very active chapter of Medical Students for Choice (funded by Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Federation et al.) that would encourage medical students to enter in the abortion business and would sponsor paid fellowships for students to spend a month or two at a clinic. Even the most ardent members of the group (most of whom did NOT go into OB-GYN) were hesitant about entering the field. Think about it. Would you go into a profession where half the population considers you a murderer, there are constantly protests at your place of work, and where you can’t tell people in polite conversation what you do for a living? I’m leaving aside the few extremists who have killed abortion doctors. Since the intial flood of doctors into the field in 1973, the supply of doctors has slowed to a trickle. The average age of an abortionist is now 10 years older than the average age of other doctors. Protesting in front of abortin clinics DOES have an effect.

For all these reasons, and for the election of GWB to a 2nd term NOW, PP, NAF are indeed scared. They still hold the upper hand, but they have been unable to figure out how to stop the trends that having been going away from them.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Hey, I got a great idea. Rather than – while continuing to pursue our goal of giving legal protection for the unborn – also working with people like Senator Clinton to reduce the number of abortions by means like education, support,etc let’s instead call her a bunch of names and say nasty things about her. I’ll bet I can get at least 20-30 posts on that!! :rolleyes:
This wins the “most pointless thread” award.
 
INRI,

What were the five states with the highest abortion rates?
 
40.png
katherine2:
Hey, I got a great idea. Rather than – while continuing to pursue our goal of giving legal protection for the unborn – also working with people like Senator Clinton to reduce the number of abortions by means like education, support,etc let’s instead call her a bunch of names and say nasty things about her. I’ll bet I can get at least 20-30 posts on that!! :rolleyes:
The problem with Sen. Clinton and her allies is that they consider abortificants like “Emergency Contraception” to be abortion reduction.

She is a big proponant of abortificants being made available “over the counter” as part of her abortion reduction.

Like Kerry, if she was really interested in make abortion “rare”, why do what they propose for cigarettes or firearms. Place a nice hefty tax on each abortion, say $300+. That would fund a whole lot of anti-abortion initivates, while making abortion all the more rare. That seems to be the Democratic way if dealing with such things.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Edwin, I would agree with this if it wasn’t for the fact that the pro-aborts are indoctrinating children though the public school system. As the NEA supports family planning, including “the right to reproductive freedom.”

And Planned Parenthood has gotten its claws into the public schools too.

And the laws of most states prohibit parental notification and allow teenage girls to have abortions without the knowledge and/or approval of their parents.

This “proposal” by Mrs. Clinton is a trojan horse, to get us to focus on something else. The pro-aborts are starting to run scared. We need to keep the pressure on.
I agree with you too. Trojan Horse is so applicable in this circumstance.We can not relent in any way,also we need to keep spreading the facts about abortion and the truth will ultimately prevail.God Bless
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
INRI,

What were the five states with the highest abortion rates?
I know that New York and California were two of them. I forgot the other two besides Nevada. But this article, from the Washington Post sheds some light on the situation. The writer works for a liberal think tank:

By Phillip Longman
Thursday, September 2, 2004; Page A23
What’s the difference between the protesters outside the Republican convention and the delegates inside? There are many, of course, but one will ultimately skew American politics and the culture wars in the Republicans’ favor, regardless of who has God or reason on her side. It’s the divide between who is having children and who isn’t.
Over the past decade, fertility rates among all major American ethnic groups have either remained low or fallen dramatically. Between 1990 and 2002 fertility declined 14 percent among Mexican Americans and 24 percent among Puerto Ricans. African Americans, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, now have a lower average fertility rate than whites, and they are no longer producing enough children to replace their population. But one big difference in fertility rates remains: Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts.

In Utah, for example, where 69 percent of all residents are registered members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, fertility rates are the highest in the nation. Utah annually produces 90 children for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. By comparison, Vermont – the only state to send a socialist to Congress and the first to embrace gay unions – produces only 49.
Fertility correlates strongly with religious conviction. In the United States, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

High fertility also correlates strongly with support for George W. Bush. Of the top 10 most fertile states, all but one voted for Bush in 2000. Among the 17 states that still produce enough children to replace their populations, all but two – Iowa and Minnesota – voted for Bush in the last election. Conversely, the least fertile states – a list that includes Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut – went overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Women living in Gore states on average have 12 percent fewer babies than women living in Bush states.

In most coastal cities and states, maternity wards have more and more empty cradles. Between 1990 and 2002, for example, the number of babies born in Los Angeles County dropped by 30 percent, while there was a 14 percent decline in infants in California as a whole. In the mid-Atlantic region and New England, the decline in the number of newborns ranged from 13 percent in Massachusetts to 37 percent in the District of Columbia. But there are 14 states, led by Nevada, Colorado and Idaho, in which the number of births increased substantially over this period. Of these 14 states, all but one voted for Bush in 2000.

In states where Bush won a popular majority in 2000, the average woman bears 2.11 children in her lifetime – which is enough to replace the population. In states where Gore won a majority of votes in 2000, the average woman bears 1.89 children, which is not enough to avoid population decline. Indeed, if the Gore states seceded from the Bush states and formed a new nation, it would have the same fertility rate, and the same rapidly aging population, as France – that bastion of “old Europe.”

If Gore’s America (and presumably John Kerry’s) is reproducing at a slower pace than Bush’s America, what does this imply for the future? Well, as the comedian Dick Cavett remarked, “If your parents never had children, chances are you won’t either.” When secular-minded Americans decide to have few if any children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide. Sure, some children who grow up in fundamentalist families will become secularists, and vice versa. But most people, particularly if they have children, wind up with pretty much the same religious and political orientations as their parents. If “Metros” don’t start having more children, America’s future is “Retro.”

The writer, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of “The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It.”
 
40.png
katherine2:
Hey, I got a great idea. Rather than – while continuing to pursue our goal of giving legal protection for the unborn – also working with people like Senator Clinton to reduce the number of abortions by means like education, support,etc let’s instead call her a bunch of names and say nasty things about her. I’ll bet I can get at least 20-30 posts on that!! :rolleyes:
Working with Hilary…with education…So she’s for abstinence education??? Really???

Support,etc?? Huh?? Don’t see her at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. But she sure hangs out with the Planned Parenthood crowd. What kind of support do you mean???

Reduce the number of abortions…while calling it a “great tragedy”. Well, Mrs Clinton, WHY is it a great tragedy??

Oh, I don’t know…BECAUSE IT"S WRONG!!!
 
40.png
gardenswithkids:
I believe that part of the reason it is difficult to work with Senator Clinton is because there is a fundamental difference in the way we view pregnancy. Katherine2 quoted the senator as saying, “The fact, is the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number or unwanted pregnancies in the first place.” I dispute this “fact”.

I think the best way to reduce abortions is to get rid of the notion of “unwanted pregnancies” in the first place. From a Catholic perspective, God’s hand is there at the creation of each and every zygote (aka baby). HE wants each child, each pregnancy. No matter what the circumstance of that child’s conception God can work good.

The Catholic Church teaches one theology of the body, but persons who support abortion believe in a different “theology” of the body. I do not know what Sen. Clinton has in mind for ways to reduce “unwanted pregnancies”, but I doubt that she plans to propose widespread teaching of NFP.

If she wishes to support abstinence until marriage and only within marriage, then I am happy. If she wishes to fund programs that provide our children with all types of birth control, then I am not.

Even if she is motivated by the purest of desires, I think working with her on this issue would be next to impossible. Yet all things are possible with God. Perhaps if we prayed for her marriage, she might be able to see the beautiful plan that God has for all marriages. If she saw that, I think we could work well together.
I am adressing the purple section only. I will tell you that I was pro-choice, but I too have seen that that is a mistake and I am now pro-life; however, there is such a thing as an un-wanted pregnancy and I will tell you what I mean. When there is an instance of rape in a family, and I am speaking of adult to minor or parent to child or brother to sister etc. I was lucky but my best friend was not. She was impregnated by her brother at age 10 (menses hit at age 9). I sould say that she was my best friend, after she began to show they moved and I haven’t heard from them since. I have a hard time thinking that God was a part of that pregnancy. Was it the baby’s fault…no…was it planned…no. If that was my daughter and I found out something like that happened, after I had the person arrested, I would pray that God would not make my daughter suffer that way. Sure some will say she should have it and give it up for adoption…or there would probably be a miscarriage anyway because of the likelihood of birth defects. But what about the effects of this on a 10yr old. What if the baby survives and is so severely brain damaged that it is not elligible for adoption assistance. What does the family do then?. I don’t have the answers as becomming pro-life has left my hands tied. I can imagine that even praying for a miscarriage is a sin so what would the course of action be in this unwanted pregnancy?. I am not being sarcastic…this is the one point that kept my pro-choice for so long and I imagine that many pro-choice people are that way for the same reason.
 
40.png
gardenswithkids:
I believe that part of the reason it is difficult to work with Senator Clinton is because there is a fundamental difference in the way we view pregnancy. Katherine2 quoted the senator as saying, “The fact, is the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number or unwanted pregnancies in the first place.” I dispute this “fact”.

I think the best way to reduce abortions is to get rid of the notion of “unwanted pregnancies” in the first place. From a Catholic perspective, God’s hand is there at the creation of each and every zygote (aka baby). HE wants each child, each pregnancy. No matter what the circumstance of that child’s conception God can work good.

The Catholic Church teaches one theology of the body, but persons who support abortion believe in a different “theology” of the body. I do not know what Sen. Clinton has in mind for ways to reduce “unwanted pregnancies”, but I doubt that she plans to propose widespread teaching of NFP.

If she wishes to support abstinence until marriage and only within marriage, then I am happy. If she wishes to fund programs that provide our children with all types of birth control, then I am not.

Even if she is motivated by the purest of desires, I think working with her on this issue would be next to impossible. Yet all things are possible with God. Perhaps if we prayed for her marriage, she might be able to see the beautiful plan that God has for all marriages. If she saw that, I think we could work well together.
I am adressing the purple section only. I will tell you that I was pro-choice, but I too have seen that that is a mistake and I am now pro-life; however, there is such a thing as an un-wanted pregnancy and I will tell you what I mean. When there is an instance of rape in a family, and I am speaking of adult to minor or parent to child or brother to sister etc. I was lucky but my best friend was not. She was impregnated by her brother at age 10 (menses hit at age 9). I sould say that she was my best friend, after she began to show they moved and I haven’t heard from them since. I have a hard time thinking that God was a part of that pregnancy. Was it the baby’s fault…no…was it planned…no. If that was my daughter and I found out something like that happened, after I had the person arrested, and I would pray that God would not make my daughter suffer that way. Sure some will say she should have it and give it up for adoption…or there would probably be a miscarriage anyway because of the likelihood of birth defects. But what about the effects of this on a 10yr old. What if the baby survives and is so severely brain damaged that it is not elligible for adoption assistance. What does the family do then?. I don’t have the answers as becomming pro-life has left my hands tied. I can imagine that even praying for a miscarriage is a sin so what would the course of action be in this unwanted pregnancy?. I am not being sarcastic…this is the one point that kept my pro-choice for so long and I imagine that many pro-choice people are that way for the same reason.
 
Laurel, I am so sad about what happened to your friend. No child should have to endure such trama inflicted on her. Abortion might seem like an easy solution, but it only compounds the problem. This procedure is not like extraction of the wisdom teeth; it is the killing and removal of her own child. Years of allowing abortion has shown us that women (and girls) do not forget their abortions. I will say a prayer for your friend.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Amen, my brother! Planned parethood and the rest of the pro-aborts are panicked beyond belief.God Bless
Ahh, for once we agree! 😃 I think after the dismal job of Kerry during the elections the Dems are coming back to mainstream American thought and values.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top