Abortion

[cemiller]

I am wondering, what are your thoughts on the best way to take on abortion?

The way I see it there are 2 ways to fight the Pro-life battle.

1. We can fight to pass laws to restrict/prohibit abortion services. That will obviously have a huge impact on the number of pre-born children that are aborted every month. There are many good organizations that are taking on this side of the fight daily. Debating and informing those that will listen can go a long way to help increase the political pressure needed to further this goal.
2. We can use different methods to reduce the demand for abortion services. Again the debating and spreading of truthful and accurate information on what abortion really is can go a long way towards this goal as well, since a woman that doesn’t believe in abortion won’t be getting one. The other thing that we can do is to show the women themselves that they have help and support if they need it.

You can fight the law and you can reduce demand, but both of these goals are intertwined. To have the political power to pass the laws you HAVE to be able reduce the demand. This decreases the amount of money, support, and political power the abortion industry has and allows the pro-life legislators to promote the laws with less resistance. It will also embolden them to push more legislation when they see the support is getting weaker for the abortion industry in general. Reducing the demand for abortion will also decrease the initial shock that the adoption system would most likely see if laws were passed today to make abortion illegal.

Obviously women facing unplanned pregnancies are the ones that are having abortions. How many of these women feel like they really don’t have a choice? How many of them feel scared and alone, and see abortion as the only way to continue on with a normal life? I don’t pretend to know that exact number, but from the stories I’ve seen there are quite a few of them. We need to reach out to these women and let them know that there are services and programs designed to help them. We have to let them know that there is support, not just from the government, but from non-profit organizations as well. We have to let them know that they are NOT alone. We must empower these women to make the right “choice” not only for themselves, but for their unborn children.

To do my part of the fight I have started Pregnant Help Now to bring all of the resources I could find into one, easy to navigate, spot. It is my hope that this will make it easier for women who are desperately searching for help and a better choice, to find the support that they need. I truly believe that by providing this information, we really can have a good shot at saving a child’s life. If you feel the same way, please share this site with your friends and family, or anyone that you know that could use the information.

If anyone is interested you can find us @
www.pregnanthelpnow.com

or on Facebook @
facebook.com/pages/Pregnant-Help-Now/302127866515351

Or Follow us on Twitter @PregHelpNow

What else can be done to further the fight???

 

[Brendan]

Why not both 1 and 2, is there any reason why they are mutually exclusive?

It’s sort of like rape. We can both make it illegal AND take steps to reduce instances from happening.

on the number of pre-born children

BTW, in English grammar, the prefix ‘pre’ in front of a verb indicates an action that has already happened, not one that will be happening.

For example, preshrunk cloth is cloth that has already be shrunk, not cloth that has yet to be shrunk.

A ‘preowned’ car is one that has already been owned.

Prepackaged food is food that has already been put into a package.

A preborn child is one that has already been born.

The correct prefix is ‘un’. unshrunk cloth is cloth that has not yet been shrunk.

Likewise an unborn child is one that has not been born yet.

 

[cemiller]

Why not both 1 and 2, is there any reason why they are mutually exclusive?

It’s sort of like rape. We can both make it illegal AND take steps to reduce instances from happening.

BTW, in English grammar, the prefix ‘pre’ in front of a verb indicates an action that has already happened, not one that will be happening.

For example, preshrunk cloth is cloth that has already be shrunk, not cloth that has yet to be shrunk.

A ‘preowned’ car is one that has already been owned.

Prepackaged food is food that has already been put into a package.

A preborn child is one that has already been born.

The correct prefix is ‘un’. unshrunk cloth is cloth that has not yet been shrunk.

Likewise an unborn child is one that has not been born yet.

No, I wasn’t suggesting that they SHOULD be separate, it’s just the 2 different boadly definied approaches that I see the pro-life movement broken into. You have legislation and you have the demand. Both should be tackled at the same time, and they are both reliant on the other. In theory if you got the demand to 0, then there wouldn’t even be a need for laws. We can also see that when certain laws are passed they can be followed with a decrease in the demand (like the sonogram laws)

As far as the English lesson goes, I’m just using terms that others coined here, but that is an interesting thought… I would say that merriam-webster defines “pre” as a suffix that is used to describe something (1) : earlier than : prior to : before (2) : preparatory or prerequisite to

It would be the same with a pregame, premenstrual, and words like that. They use the same type of meaning as preborn, i.e. before birth.

 

[Myqyl]

I’ve hoped that science may lend a hand. Perhaps one day we can have “survivable abortions” where the child is removed from the mother’s womb and can grow to term in an artificial womb. The woman can “choose” and the baby can live.

Clearly this would open a whole new can of worms if not a six-pack of worms, but babies wouldn’t need to die. It would be very hard for the most secular among us to justify killing an unborn child with this as an option. Of course all of us in the anti-abortion movement would then need to step up and become radically pro-adoption.

As survivable pre-mature births are occurring at earlier and earlier stages, it seems more and more conceivable (no pun intended) that this could someday be a viable solution.

Just a thought

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I am wondering, what are your thoughts on the best way to take on abortion?

Here is a video you must watch to perfectly understand what can be done about abortion in this country. Its not merely about changing laws–abortion is illegal in Brazil yet they have more abortions there than in the U.S.
Sit back and watch this video. Msgr. Reilly explains what it’s all about.

 

[Brendan]

)

As far as the English lesson goes, I’m just using terms that others coined here, but that is an interesting thought… I would say that merriam-webster defines “pre” as a suffix that is used to describe something (1) : earlier than : prior to : before (2) : preparatory or prerequisite to

It would be the same with a pregame, premenstrual, and words like that. They use the same type of meaning as preborn, i.e. before birth.

That is true when the suffix prefaces a noun’).

It differs when used in front of a verb ( think of any ‘pre’ example you can thing where a verb is used, and you will see what I mean)

 

[StevenFrancis]

I am wondering, what are your thoughts on the best way to take on abortion?

The way I see it there are 2 ways to fight the Pro-life battle.

1. We can fight to pass laws to restrict/prohibit abortion services. That will obviously have a huge impact on the number of pre-born children that are aborted every month. There are many good organizations that are taking on this side of the fight daily. Debating and informing those that will listen can go a long way to help increase the political pressure needed to further this goal.
2. We can use different methods to reduce the demand for abortion services. Again the debating and spreading of truthful and accurate information on what abortion really is can go a long way towards this goal as well, since a woman that doesn’t believe in abortion won’t be getting one. The other thing that we can do is to show the women themselves that they have help and support if they need it.

You can fight the law and you can reduce demand, but both of these goals are intertwined. To have the political power to pass the laws you HAVE to be able reduce the demand. This decreases the amount of money, support, and political power the abortion industry has and allows the pro-life legislators to promote the laws with less resistance. It will also embolden them to push more legislation when they see the support is getting weaker for the abortion industry in general. Reducing the demand for abortion will also decrease the initial shock that the adoption system would most likely see if laws were passed today to make abortion illegal.

Obviously women facing unplanned pregnancies are the ones that are having abortions. How many of these women feel like they really don’t have a choice? How many of them feel scared and alone, and see abortion as the only way to continue on with a normal life? I don’t pretend to know that exact number, but from the stories I’ve seen there are quite a few of them. We need to reach out to these women and let them know that there are services and programs designed to help them. We have to let them know that there is support, not just from the government, but from non-profit organizations as well. We have to let them know that they are NOT alone. We must empower these women to make the right “choice” not only for themselves, but for their unborn children.

To do my part of the fight I have started Pregnant Help Now to bring all of the resources I could find into one, easy to navigate, spot. It is my hope that this will make it easier for women who are desperately searching for help and a better choice, to find the support that they need. I truly believe that by providing this information, we really can have a good shot at saving a child’s life. If you feel the same way, please share this site with your friends and family, or anyone that you know that could use the information.

If anyone is interested you can find us @
www.pregnanthelpnow.com

or on Facebook @
facebook.com/pages/Pregnant-Help-Now/302127866515351

Or Follow us on Twitter @PregHelpNow

What else can be done to further the fight???

I am perplexed that this is still an issue. To end this once and for all, it seems the pro-life community must prepare a law suit against (?) Either the United States, or a A state within the U.S. wherein the plaintiff charges that a human life begins at conception. Our case should be well written, and should include tons of medical and scientific testimony to this fact. The idea is that case must be complex enough, and not solvable in the lower courts, and must get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will have to rule that a human life is formed during conception when an egg penetrated by a sperm in implanted in the uterus of a woman. If they state in a decision that a human life is begun in this fashion, then our entire world changes overnight. No legal abortion could any longer exist, because to abort a baby would be an act of murder, under the law of the land. Whenever a woman had an abortion, her, the complicit male (father), the doctor, nurse, anesthaesiologist etc., would all be arrested, and brought up on charges of conspiracy to murder.
It would take away the problem of euthenasia. It would end in-vitro fertilization, it would end embryonic stem cell lines. It would end all immoral and unethical treatment of the unborn.

We just need to define, and codify that life begins at conception, and that those carrying human life, are culpable and responsible for that life. And are to do their best to see to it’s life, health, education, development and freedom.

See, the laws are already on the books. It’s already against the law to murder. We just don’t enforce it when people murder their babies while still inside the womb. It’s a matter of definition. Human life must be defined, since we’ve become such morons because of brain mushing political action lobbies of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Murder isn’t a civil right!! It never has been. The Government has been complicit at every level of participating in the murder of over 50,000,000 citizens. It’s some hard stuff to deal with, but it’s real. Truth is what truth is. It isn’t a baby in some circumstances, and not a baby in others. A human life is a human life.

So easy, but it seems to be the hardest thing we have ever had to deal with. It’s the worst holocaust of mankind, and it’s world wide. If the U.S. would do this, we would be the first Western nation to understand what life is, and not hide anymore from the horrors being committed, but instead be a light to the world on protecting the life, liberty and pursuit of happyness provided for in the Declaration of Independence.

Just my 2 cents. I’ll listen now.

God bless,

Steven

 

[cemiller]

I’ve hoped that science may lend a hand. Perhaps one day we can have “survivable abortions” where the child is removed from the mother’s womb and can grow to term in an artificial womb. The woman can “choose” and the baby can live.

Clearly this would open a whole new can of worms if not a six-pack of worms, but babies wouldn’t need to die. It would be very hard for the most secular among us to justify killing an unborn child with this as an option. Of course all of us in the anti-abortion movement would then need to step up and become radically pro-adoption.

As survivable pre-mature births are occurring at earlier and earlier stages, it seems more and more conceivable (no pun intended) that this could someday be a viable solution.

Just a thought

I’ve been wondering this as well. I have many discussions with pro-abortion people and many of them keep hammering viability, and I have to wonder what’s going to happen to their argument as science progresses and allows for things like this to happen.

 

[cemiller]

I am perplexed that this is still an issue. To end this once and for all, it seems the pro-life community must prepare a law suit against (?) Either the United States, or a A state within the U.S. wherein the plaintiff charges that a human life begins at conception. Our case should be well written, and should include tons of medical and scientific testimony to this fact. The idea is that case must be complex enough, and not solvable in the lower courts, and must get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will have to rule that a human life is formed during conception when an egg penetrated by a sperm in implanted in the uterus of a woman. If they state in a decision that a human life is begun in this fashion, then our entire world changes overnight. No legal abortion could any longer exist, because to abort a baby would be an act of murder, under the law of the land. Whenever a woman had an abortion, her, the complicit male (father), the doctor, nurse, anesthaesiologist etc., would all be arrested, and brought up on charges of conspiracy to murder.
It would take away the problem of euthenasia. It would end in-vitro fertilization, it would end embryonic stem cell lines. It would end all immoral and unethical treatment of the unborn.

We just need to define, and codify that life begins at conception, and that those carrying human life, are culpable and responsible for that life. And are to do their best to see to it’s life, health, education, development and freedom.

See, the laws are already on the books. It’s already against the law to murder. We just don’t enforce it when people murder their babies while still inside the womb. It’s a matter of definition. Human life must be defined, since we’ve become such morons because of brain mushing political action lobbies of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Murder isn’t a civil right!! It never has been. The Government has been complicit at every level of participating in the murder of over 50,000,000 citizens. It’s some hard stuff to deal with, but it’s real. Truth is what truth is. It isn’t a baby in some circumstances, and not a baby in others. A human life is a human life.

So easy, but it seems to be the hardest thing we have ever had to deal with. It’s the worst holocaust of mankind, and it’s world wide. If the U.S. would do this, we would be the first Western nation to understand what life is, and not hide anymore from the horrors being committed, but instead be a light to the world on protecting the life, liberty and pursuit of happyness provided for in the Declaration of Independence.

Just my 2 cents. I’ll listen now.

God bless,

Steven

I would love to agree, but unfortunately many don’t see it this way. A lawsuit would be a wonderful thing to press forward though The problem is that if you made abortion illegal today, many women would just go get illegal abortions done. I’m not saying that if we get the chance to pass the laws that we shouldn’t, but I would say that even when it’s made illegal we still have to push to lower the demand. That’s why I’m a fan of attacking the problem from every angle that we can think of.

 

[Rence]

I’ve been wondering this as well. I have many discussions with pro-abortion people and many of them keep hammering viability, and I have to wonder what’s going to happen to their argument as science progresses and allows for things like this to happen.

Pro-abortion people won’t have to argue about it. The Church will. For the same reasons they don’t allow adoption of frozen embryos leftover from IVF. The Church doesn’t allow tampering with the unborn in any way. The Church doesn’t even allow IVF for implanting the same exact number of embryos as was made (the unitive property isn’t present with IVF, nor with embryo transfer). So aborting them and transferring them to another uterus or an artificial uterus would be forbidden by the Church.

And consider that if this could be done, it would open up a whole new market for those marketing and using IVF to get pregnant. Remember that the Church is practically alone on the issue of IVF being sinful, so this probably would make things worse from a Catholic standpoint.

Lastly, the the pro-life people still wouldn’t have a leg to stand on with regards to women’s decisions over their reproduction. Just like (today) you can’t force a woman to remain pregnant when she wants an abortion, there are ethical and moral issues involved in trying to force her to transfer her unwanted embryo to another (artificial or natural) uterus.

The answer to the problem of abortion is eliminating a woman’s perceived need for one, starting with good old fashioned morals. Starting with good old fashioned morals, everything else will fall into place. There really is no economic reason for abortion because the State will pay for it if the woman can’t. And the State will pay for the raising of her resulting children up to the age of 18 if she can’t. So start with finding ways to change the way people view themselves and morals one by one in your daily life.

 

[Rence]

I would love to agree, but unfortunately many don’t see it this way. A lawsuit would be a wonderful thing to press forward though The problem is that if you made abortion illegal today, many women would just go get illegal abortions done. I’m not saying that if we get the chance to pass the laws that we shouldn’t, but I would say that even when it’s made illegal we still have to push to lower the demand. That’s why I’m a fan of attacking the problem from every angle that we can think of.

Right. The horse has been out of the barn for way too long. People aren’t going to give up what they value and what has been easily accessible. They will fight for it. You have to change their minds and the way they think.

 

[cemiller]

Pro-abortion people won’t have to argue about it. The Church will. For the same reasons they don’t allow adoption of frozen embryos leftover from IVF. The Church doesn’t allow tampering with the unborn in any way. The Church doesn’t even allow IVF for implanting the same exact number of embryos as was made (the unitive property isn’t present with IVF, nor with embryo transfer). So aborting them and transferring them to another uterus or an artificial uterus would be forbidden by the Church.

And consider that if this could be done, it would open up a whole new market for those marketing and using IVF to get pregnant. Remember that the Church is practically alone on the issue of IVF being sinful, so this probably would make things worse from a Catholic standpoint.

Lastly, the the pro-life people still wouldn’t have a leg to stand on with regards to women’s decisions over their reproduction. Just like (today) you can’t force a woman to remain pregnant when she wants an abortion, there are ethical and moral issues involved in trying to force her to transfer her unwanted embryo to another (artificial or natural) uterus.

The answer to the problem of abortion is eliminating a woman’s perceived need for one, starting with good old fashioned morals. Starting with good old fashioned morals, everything else will fall into place. There really is no economic reason for abortion because the State will pay for it if the woman can’t. And the State will pay for the raising of her resulting children up to the age of 18 if she can’t. So start with finding ways to change the way people view themselves and morals one by one in your daily life.

There is that… lol I don’t know what the Church would say about that. On one hand the child was conceived in the correct fashion, but on the other he/she would have to be transferred to an artificial womb. But at the same time if the artifical womb were like other forms of life support, then there is no moral obligation to not use it.

The elimination of the percieved need for one is the angle that I’m trying to shoot for with my website, and I agree completely with you there By letting women know that they have help, support, and other options I think we can really put a dent in the percieved need or demand for abortion services.

Need for morals is a must in EVERY aspect of life these days… So many people think that morals are relative and they can think and do whatever they want without thought or care about anyone else… In a perfect world laws would be meaningless, since everyone would be guided by a well formed conscience, unfortunately we live in this world and laws are necessary

 

[StevenFrancis]

I would love to agree, but unfortunately many don’t see it this way. A lawsuit would be a wonderful thing to press forward though The problem is that if you made abortion illegal today, many women would just go get illegal abortions done. I’m not saying that if we get the chance to pass the laws that we shouldn’t, but I would say that even when it’s made illegal we still have to push to lower the demand. That’s why I’m a fan of attacking the problem from every angle that we can think of.

I agree with you on this, of course. I was trying really to point out how sad it is that we ARE going to have to face the fact of human life through the law. Yes, I realize that some women will still have abortions, but this misses the point entirely. By continuing the ruse that a life is only a life sometimes, or when convenient, we are allowing murder. This isn’t Catholic. This isn’t religious. I’m not even talking about making “abortion” illegal. I’m talking about defining, in law, the fact that a human life occurs at conception, and ends at natural death. I believe there is enough data that this doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, a religious issue anymore. And if we simply define the beginning of life then all the rest of the laws are already written. There doesn’t need to be new laws. We would simply enforce the laws already on the books in all 50 states, and U.S. Federal laws on murder.

But having said this…yes, I hope on the other end that we are always praying and working at this thing from every possible angle until people remember that they’re people too. That they were embryos. Someone didn’t murder them. We don’t even have corporate memory of this as a culture.

Heck, even Horton knew this in Dr. Suess books. “A person is a person. No matter how small”.

May God bless,

Steven

 

[cemiller]

I agree with you on this, of course. I was trying really to point out how sad it is that we ARE going to have to face the fact of human life through the law. Yes, I realize that some women will still have abortions, but this misses the point entirely. By continuing the ruse that a life is only a life sometimes, or when convenient, we are allowing murder. This isn’t Catholic. This isn’t religious. I’m not even talking about making “abortion” illegal. I’m talking about defining, in law, the fact that a human life occurs at conception, and ends at natural death. I believe there is enough data that this doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, a religious issue anymore. And if we simply define the beginning of life then all the rest of the laws are already written. There doesn’t need to be new laws. We would simply enforce the laws already on the books in all 50 states, and U.S. Federal laws on murder.

But having said this…yes, I hope on the other end that we are always praying and working at this thing from every possible angle until people remember that they’re people too. That they were embryos. Someone didn’t murder them. We don’t even have corporate memory of this as a culture.

Heck, even Horton knew this in Dr. Suess books. “A person is a person. No matter how small”.

May God bless,

Steven

Ah, gotcha. I agree 100%. If we can get the definition put into place it will definitely be covered by existing laws. The problem right now is that the abortion industry still has a huge amount of political power. I really think that’s where point 2 of my original post comes into play. If we reduce the demand today, then that drains the resources from the industry, and will weaken their political power base and make it easier to pass the definition laws/amendment that you’re talking about. The real question is what are the different ways to accoplish that goal? I think that offering support and help to pregnant women is a great start to this. There are a lot of programs out there that help, and that’s part of the reason I started my website. Other than that I think that spreading information is another good way, and places like lifesite news are really good at that. But what else could be done to weaken the demand for abortion?

 

[JudieKay]

Having recently looked at a “family planning” website and being disturbed to see a supposedly Catholic organization providing guidance for women on how to not be guilty of sin by aborting a child, I realized we need to encourage our faith leaders to be very much more vocal about the issue regularly in church.

 

[cemiller]

Having recently looked at a “family planning” website and being disturbed to see a supposedly Catholic organization providing guidance for women on how to not be guilty of sin by aborting a child, I realized we need to encourage our faith leaders to be very much more vocal about the issue regularly in church.

I handn’t thought about it, but I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of abortion in my Parish… Maybe we should be encouraging the lay men and women to remind the local Priests more often