I've been thinking.... abortion isn't the problem

[vern_humphrey]

Abortion can never be stopped. It’s been going on for thousands of years.

Heck, there are even herbal abortificients.

The question is: whether or not abortion is legal and as a result, whether the government can finance it.

Having legalized, government-funded abortion AND an economy based on population growth is just plain crazy.

Rape can never be stopped. It’s been going on for thousands of years.

The same argument can be advanced against every crime. Yet clearly, laws and law enforcement do have a beneficial effect.

The idea of allowing the victims of coerced abortions to sue, and making a 4D sonogram part of the informed consent process, in my opinion, offers the best chance of dramatically reducing abortion – let the victims sue the abortionists out of existance.

 

[urban-hermit]

Right off the top of my head:

I’ll leave you if you don’t.
Your school money will be cut off if you don’t
I’ll beat you if you don’t
You can’t live here any more if you don’t
Your child may have…
We will find a reason to fire you if you don’t

That’s not forcing her to do anything.

FORCED:
1 : compelled by force or necessity : involuntary
2 : done or produced with effort, exertion, or pressure

mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forced

 

[seekerz]

You aren’t taking “a scientific approach.” You’re using a red herring to attack someone who has worked long and hard to prevent abortion.

Now, if you want to take a scientific approach – go and do a study!!

When did I ever attack anyone? What I’ve done to end abortion is no less of value than what you have done; I just don’t feel the need to be self-righteous about it.

Estebob did generalize his observations to the 1.2 million women who have abortions. Why is that important, again because if we’re not correct about what the reality on the ground is, noble efforts may be in vain.

I know many young people who see abortion as a fact of life and who have to be taught that it is an outrageous act resulting in a baby’s death. I can get all worked up about it and still never get through to them until I appreciate that. On the other hand, there are truly those who are repelled by it and are pressured by others. The approach to the two groups is different and if that is understood, efforts are likely to bear more fruit, that’s all.

What I can’t understand about some posters here is why the persecution complex? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Incidentally, you eventually got to the point I was trying to make Vern: good studies are needed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When did I ever attack anyone? What I’ve done to end abortion is no less of value than what you have done; I just don’t feel the need to be self-righteous about it.

Well, tell us just what it is you’ve done.

Estebob did generalize his observations to the 1.2 million women who have abortions. Why is that important, again because if we’re not correct about what the reality on the ground is, noble efforts may be in vain.

Who’s “we?”

I know many young people who see abortion as a fact of life and who have to be taught that it is an outrageous act resulting in a baby’s death. I can get all worked up about it and still never get through to them until I appreciate that. On the other hand, there are truly those who are repelled by it and are pressured by others. The approach to the two groups is different and if that is understood, efforts are likely to bear more fruit, that’s all.

What I can’t understand about some posters here is why the persecution complex? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Incidentally, you eventually got to the point I was trying to make Vern: good studies are needed.

And when will you embark on one?

I’ll give you a few starting points:
www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/ForcedAbortions.pdf
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

 

[seekerz]

Well, tell us just what it is you’ve done.

Who’s “we?”

And when will you embark on one?

I’ll give you a few starting points:
www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/ForcedAbortions.pdf
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

Have I asked you for proof of your ‘pro-lifeness’? Maybe you want a copy of my baptismal certificate also?

There’s not much you could tell me about abortion that I haven’t seen, experienced, read or otherwise learned, except that is, the one thing you seem totally uninterested in answering: how can we effectively reach out to the perpetrators? Jesus wasn’t shy about reaching out to tax-collectors and sinners…

A proper study would have to be undertaken by some Catholic organization or institution with the required resources. If you already know of one done on the issue we’re discussing, I’d be happy to hear about it.

Incidentally, I already subscribe to the LifeSite newsletter and am involved in directing women to the Unfair Choice website, but enough about me. What about being pro-life enables you to detect across the vast expanse of cyber-space those who are not?

 

[katy]

Father Pavone of Priests for Life has done work with abortion providers. I don’t have time to find it, but it should be on his website.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Have I asked you for proof of your ‘pro-lifeness’? Maybe you want a copy of my baptismal certificate also?

There’s not much you could tell me about abortion that I haven’t seen, experienced, read or otherwise learned, except that is, the one thing you seem totally uninterested in answering: how can we effectively reach out to the perpetrators? Jesus wasn’t shy about reaching out to tax-collectors and sinners.

And yet you limit your participation to telling the rest of us what we should not do… You don’t lay out an alternate course of action, nor tell us how it should be implemented.

A proper study would have to be undertaken by some Catholic organization or institution with the required resources. If you already know of one done on the issue we’re discussing, I’d be happy to hear about it.

And you’re just the man to head that study up. And I already gave you a couple of sites you can investigate for starters.

Incidentally, I already subscribe to the LifeSite newsletter and am involved in directing women to the Unfair Choice website, but enough about me. What about being pro-life enables you to detect across the vast expanse of cyber-space those who are not?

When I see people telling us what not to do, but adding no positive (name removed by moderator)ut, I tend to think they don’t have any positive (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[urban-hermit]

When did I ever attack anyone? What I’ve done to end abortion is no less of value than what you have done; I just don’t feel the need to be self-righteous about it.

I think the reason why you’re having a credibility problem, seekers, is that you really do come across as a bit self-righteous.

You put a sort of studied disappointment into your assessments of what others are doing, rather than being specific about what you have done that has been effective, thus robbing us of the joy of rejoicing with you on your many pro-Life successes.

Estebob did generalize his observations to the 1.2 million women who have abortions. Why is that important, again because if we’re not correct about what the reality on the ground is, noble efforts may be in vain.

If you want to be part of the pro-Life movement, maybe you should worry about your own noble efforts being in vain.

Also, please go and find the post where Estesbob supposedly made this generalization and show it to me please. Posters like you often win more credibility when they are able to be more specific and not make nebulous charges.

I know many young people who see abortion as a fact of life and who have to be taught that it is an outrageous act resulting in a baby’s death. I can get all worked up about it and still never get through to them until I appreciate that. On the other hand, there are truly those who are repelled by it and are pressured by others. The approach to the two groups is different and if that is understood, efforts are likely to bear more fruit, that’s all.

What I can’t understand about some posters here is why the persecution complex? A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Again, I, for one, am not at all sure you are “in the house.” Sorry - I’m just being honest - it smells like baloney.

 

[whatevergirl]

It’s a symptom. Probably the most horrible one, with euthanasia being horrible 1.a, but it is a symptom of a larger problem.

It’s the same problem that creates the sexual objectification of women, companies paying poverty-level wages to employees, and offshoring any job that can be done more cheaply be a third-world worker getting pennies per hour.

Human beings in our culture have become objects. Production units.

A person’s sole value is determined by the amount of money they are capable of earning, or in their ability to provide a service that can be measured in a monetary value. We have become production units, not considered to have any inherent value or dignity.

An unborn baby or a disabled person is simply a financial liability, to be done away with or kept depending on whether the person responsible for their care considers it expedient.

It is an attitude so deeply ingrained in our culture, I don’t know if there’s anything that can be done to mend it. I even see this attitude in Christians (usually fundamentalist Protestants, especially Calvinists), many of them pro-life. If a person isn’t able to making a living, they are told “work harder, you’re poor because you’re lazy, God commands you to work.” It incredibly demeaning, especially to the working poor, who often perform back-breaking labor in exchange for pathetic wages.

Any thoughts?

WOW. I absolutely wholeheartedly agree. Fabulous insight! You have hit the nail on the head. I thought the same thing during the Terri Schiavo situation.

I just wonder WHEN this thought process started, because it wasn’t always this way.

 

[mark_a]

The same argument can be advanced against every crime. Yet clearly, laws and law enforcement do have a beneficial effect.

Agreed. That’s the point I was making with:

The question is: whether or not abortion is legal and as a result, whether the government can finance it.

 

[urban-hermit]

Pardon me but you seem to have no idea what I’m talking about.

Well, I think I do understand what you are talking about.
But let us examine the specific points which you feel I do not understand…

One of the problems with some pro-life people is that they have tunnel vision. Sorry but it’s true. Abortion is murder end of story - don’t even try to discuss any issues around it: we won’t hear you, we won’t reason, we’ll accuse you of being pro-choice…

It’s true - there are lots of people who think it is a waste of time to endlessly examine the motives behind murdering an innocent defenseless human being.

And that oblique, unnecessarily (and counter-productively) complex analyses of an essentially straightforward human rights issue which even the simplest of minds can intuitively grasp is just spinning your wheels.

Sorry but it’s true.

Now that we’ve both defined where we’re coming from, let’s continue…

I am not talking about wire hanger abortions. I am talking about the fact (whether closed minds choose to accept it or not) that there is no one procedure called abortion in the medical world. There are procedures used to bring about abortion, which also have other legal (moral) uses.

First off, I am aware there are a variety of ways to kill an unborn child. You seem to be using “legal” as a synonym for “moral”. That could be problematic and confusing for this discussion.

The next thing is that you might not understand the Catholic view on “abortion”, by which is meant direct abortion, as opposed to indirect abortion.

This is a key point for this discussion thread.

It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Such operations - such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death - are considered indirect abortions.

They are justified under a concept called the “principle of double effect.” Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintented effect of an operation independently justified by the critical necessity of saving the mother’s life.

SOURCE: American Life League, pamphlet:
“Abortion NOT Even When the Pregnancy Threatens the Life of the Mother?”

As you can see, INTENT is of primary importance. If one intends to get rid of the child, then that is unequivocably wrong.

Furthermore, from the same pamphlet:

In 1967, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher said:

Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.

40 years later, there continue to be fewer and fewer instances where it is not possible to save both baby and mother.

For the sake of all the innocent lives at stake, get familiar with the real issues that countries with restricted abortion face and head them off now - go convert the persons who seek and perform them. It’s as simple as the great commission: go make disciples of all men…(incidentally that was the idea at the start of the thread: the problem isn’t abortion, the problem is godlessness)

As far as this exhortation to me to go to a third world country, … I’m sorry but that seems a bit arrogant to suggest, doesn’t it? I’m going to assume you mean well, but I think I can do more good here in the country where I speak the language. But since you brought this up, I will send another check to the saintly and savvy people at Human Life International as soon as I finish typing this. Or, I might just contribute through their website. Either way, I’ll be doing it in part on your behalf.

PS: Another organization I support is MaterCare International. They are so great - check them out! I heard about them on EWTN (Listen Download), so I know they are good.

 

[ribozyme]

Human beings in our culture have become objects. Production units.

A person’s sole value is determined by the amount of money they are capable of earning, or in their ability to provide a service that can be measured in a monetary value. We have become production units, not considered to have any inherent value or dignity.

An unborn baby or a disabled person is simply a financial liability, to be done away with or kept depending on whether the person responsible for their care considers it expedient.

It is an attitude so deeply ingrained in our culture, I don’t know if there’s anything that can be done to mend it. I even see this attitude in Christians (usually fundamentalist Protestants, especially Calvinists), many of them pro-life. If a person isn’t able to making a living, they are told “work harder, you’re poor because you’re lazy, God commands you to work.” It incredibly demeaning, especially to the working poor, who often perform back-breaking labor in exchange for pathetic wages.

Any thoughts?

I don’t idolize money, I idolize knowledge!!!

 

[seekerz]

Well, I think I do understand what you are talking about.
But let us examine the specific points which you feel I do not understand…

It’s true - there are lots of people who think it is a waste of time to endlessly examine the motives behind murdering an innocent defenseless human being.

And that oblique, unnecessarily (and counter-productively) complex analyses of an essentially straightforward human rights issue which even the simplest of minds can intuitively grasp is just spinning your wheels.

Sorry but it’s true.

I’m not talking about examining motives but medical issues that complicate the abortion picture. I was simply trying to explain why it may not be as simple as we think to end abortion using laws. That’s all. Feel free to accept or reject my opinion but if there are facts surrounding abortion* that you don’t know or choose to ignore* you’ll never be able to do anything about them. I’m not saying nothing can be done, I’m saying nothing will be done if we choose to play ostrich.

Now that we’ve both defined where we’re coming from, let’s continue…

First off, I am aware there are a variety of ways to kill an unborn child. You seem to be using “legal” as a synonym for “moral”. That could be problematic and confusing for this discussion.

I am a baptized Catholic who studies my cathechism - I know the difference between legal and moral. It may not have come across clearly but I was trying to show that the other uses for the procedures are both legal and moral. I.e. some of the same procedures used to commit abortion can also be needed to treat other genuine medical conditions that have nothing to do with pregnancy, so obviously it would be impossible to ban the actual procedure otherwise some people would have to be denied medical care.

The next thing is that you might not understand the Catholic view on “abortion”, by which is meant direct abortion, as opposed to indirect abortion.

Been there, done that and quite an education it’s been. My only practical question here is, who would determine the intent of the doctor (or for that matter of the patient) in a situation where abortion were illegal?

This is a key point for this discussion thread.

As you can see, INTENT is of primary importance. If one intends to get rid of the child, then that is unequivocably wrong.

Furthermore, from the same pamphlet:

40 years later, there continue to be fewer and fewer instances where it is not possible to save both baby and mother.

As far as this exhortation to me to go to a third world country, … I’m sorry but that seems a bit arrogant to suggest, doesn’t it? I’m going to assume you mean well, but I think I can do more good here in the country where I speak the language. But since you brought this up, I will send another check to the saintly and savvy people at Human Life International as soon as I finish typing this. Or, I might just contribute through their website. Either way, I’ll be doing it in part on your behalf.

Why would it be arrogant to suggest learning from the experience of others? You have me totally puzzled here.

PS: Another organization I support is MaterCare International. They are so great - check them out! I heard about them on EWTN (Listen Download), so I know they are good.

By the way, did you call a good (Catholic) doctor familiar with the field, as suggested?

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is what serial killers do – they don’t think their victims have any inherent worth, and see themselves and their desires as the ultimate good.

But we don’t make excuses for serial killers – we hunt them down and take them out of circulation, permanently.

Are you suggesting that this is what should be done to women who have abortions?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So the problem would be with getting a sample that’s truly representative of the whole,

no, the problem is getting honest communication from that sample

not anything intrinsically wrong with the application of statistics to the study of the abortion issue.

My own feeling is that the emotional response to abortion is a valid and human reaction,

i agree so how do you correctly translate the emotional responses to meaningful statistics, tougher done than said

but to be effective in any intelligent debate we can’t just throw science out of the window. We have to understand it and use it.

Just as it’s wrong to divorce science from morality, it’s counterproductive to divorce morality from scientific fact and rational thought.

I am not sure what you are saying in this last segment, however my contention is irrational thought and abortion are hand in hand. Any statistician who collects irrational thought and uses such to report meaningful statistics is either very smart or very mislead

 

[puzzleannie]

OP is bang on right with his analysis of the source of the problem, but Mother Teresa is right about the solution. We need to change hearts and that can be done only by prayer, fasting and active Christian witness, not by political action. Political action is a tactic in a larger war, not an end in itself .

as to the red herring about how would we punish women who get abortions, we would punish the abortionist who has hurt two victims, the dead child and the mother.

 

[seekerz]

OP is bang on right with his analysis of the source of the problem, but Mother Teresa is right about the solution. We need to change hearts and that can be done only by prayer, fasting and active Christian witness, not by political action. Political action is a tactic in a larger war, not an end in itself .

Amen, sister. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you suggesting that this is what should be done to women who have abortions?

I suggest we do that with abortionists – they are the serial killers. Women who have abortions should be treated exactly as we would treat a woman who killer her already-born child. And husbands, parents, boy-friends and others who pressure women into abortions should be treated similarly.

 

[fix]

Provided you can enforce it. That’s the measure of a good law.

What is not enforceable? And why is that the main criterion for protecting innocent life?

 

[seekerz]

What is not enforceable? And why is that the main criterion for protecting innocent life?

The main criterion for protecting innocent life is the recognition of God’s supreme creating power.

As for enforcement, have you read the whole thread? My point is that outlawing abortion may not significantly decrease the practice as one might think because successful enforcement is going to require the cooperation of the medical establishment. Therefore, we need to find ways to enlist that establishment (we can take suggestions from those providing care for women who are themselves already pro-life). If this goal sounds ambitious, ending/decreasing abortion simply using laws is even more so, in my opinion.