protection??

[estesbob]

And I would like to know why you think a law banning abortion would stop abortion? Do you think lives will be saved? Do you think that women who seek abortion will bring their children to term because of the “law”?
You’re on the wrong side of the equation. If the hearts and minds of women are not changed to reject abortion, then there is no law that will prevent them from having abortions.
It’s like head hunting in New Guinea; the law may prohibit head hunting, but you will always find a shrunken head hanging around someone’s neck if you look hard enough (maybe not too hard either).
The notion that a law will change abortion statistics is a fantasy.
A complete waste of time on the part of the pro-life community. Of the one million abortions performed last year, the pro-life community changed not one mind or heart. That says everything you need to know about how the community at large regards abortion.

\Do laws against Murder stop Murder?

Before Roe abortions in this country were aprox 400,000 . Now they are 1.2 million a year-a three fold increase since abortion was forced upon the cuntry. This increase took place within 5 years of its passage Now tell me againn how laws forbidding abotion wont limit the number of abortions?

The “hearts and minds” argumnent is genrerally put forth by those who consistently vote for pro abortion canidates but need to rationalize their support of this abject evil. The arguments you put forth are the exact same ones out forth by the slaveocracyin this country as to why slavery should remain legal. Thankfully the aboliionists did not wait another 100 years for “hearts and minds” to change. We wont either.

 

[estesbob]

"It’s all just a shame that there are pro-life people out there that support partial birth abortion and/or late term abortion “for the sake of the mother’s life.” "

---

I have asked the question before, and I will ask it again: why do you think that banning partial birth abortion saves lives? Why do you think that this decision is a triumph? If you know that the fetus will be killed by another method in any event, why do you even think about this decision as a benefit???
By endorsing this decision you also endorse the alternative method which is utilized in EVERY case, which is disarticulation (dismemberment) and removal of the parts. The end result is the same - death of the fetus. Does it make you feel better that it occurs in utero as opposed to extra utero?
Shame on those who support this decision. It’s a travesty that so few understand what they are endorsing.

The mental mastrubation one must go through to justify abortion while at the sema time denigrateng those who oppose it isa a terrbile thing to behold.

Being I dont have the blood of 50 million dead children on my hands i see nothing to be ashamed about.

 

[psteichen]

Shame on those who support this decision. It’s a travesty that so few understand what they are endorsing.

No one who is pro-life thinks that this is the final step. This is the first step in a long battle. We will only be satisfied when all abortions are banned. But you have to take the first step or you’ll never get to the finish line.

 

[psteichen]

Before Roe abortions in this country were aprox 400,000 . Now they are 1.2 million a year-a three fold increase since abortion was forced upon the cuntry. This increase took place within 5 years of its passage Now tell me againn how laws forbidding abotion wont limit the number of abortions?

I totally agree with your argument, but where did you get the number 1.2 million? I’ve always heard 4 million per year in the United States. Is 1.2 million per year an old number or is this just late term abortions?

 

[estesbob]

I totally agree with your argument, but where did you get the number 1.2 million? I’ve always heard 4 million per year in the United States. Is 1.2 million per year an old number or is this just late term abortions?

1.2 to 1.3 is the current total. It was about 1.5 shortly after Roe. Through the hard \work of lots of people who dont sit on the sidelines and we have been aboue to reduce the number of abortions in the last decade or so.

 

[seekerz]

No one who is pro-life thinks that this is the final step. This is the first step in a long battle. We will only be satisfied when all abortions are banned. But you have to take the first step or you’ll never get to the finish line.

An you think an abortion ban is the finish line?! Educate yourself about the methods of abortion and you’ll realize just how wrong you are to think so?

Realistically, it would take as much of a miracle to get a law passed that effectively bans all abortions without exceptions as it would to get this whole country to turn to God. And that - my friend, is a fact.

 

[estesbob]

An you think an abortion ban is the finish line?! Educate yourself about the methods of abortion and you’ll realize just how wrong you are to think so?

Realistically, it would take as much of a miracle to get a law passed that effectively bans all abortions without exceptions as it would to get this whole country to turn to God. And that - my friend, is a fact.

No one is naive enough to beleive we can elminate all abortions. But we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

 

[seekerz]

No one is naive enough to beleive we can elminate all abortions. But we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

Look, no one is saying we shouldn’t push for whatever change is possible. I just don’t think some of us understand what we’re up against and that this battle is first and foremost a spiritual one (not just moral or political). Even if a law were passed, it would just be the beginning of the fight.

The people being naive are the ones who think there is one
particular procedure and one particular pill out there that once banned will greatly decrease the number of abortions. That just isn’t so.

For that matter there is no medical procedure called abortion. The ending of a pregnancy can be brought about in one of a number of ways and it’s impossible to ban them all because they all have legitimate uses (i.e. nothing to do with abortion).

No one is saying laws won’t help, but they’re just the beginning of a real solution.We can’t bury our heads in the sand and be outsmarted by the purveyors of death. They laugh because they understand the complexity of our task and the fact that we don’t.

It’s time to stop relying on emotions, shock tactics and slogans. We need to be armed with the scienctific facts and faith. Do you know how many conservative Christians think it’s worse to abort at 20 weeks than at 6? What does that say about their true allegience to the cause?

Abortion is wrong because life is precious and the power to give or take it belongs to God alone - pure and simple. It’s not about a whether a baby has ten toes or can suck it’s thumb as opposed to a mass of cells that can’t? We need to make sure that all in our ranks understand that and are committed to upholding God’s sovereignity. It’s all about the Supreme Judge and much less about the Supreme Court…

 

[estesbob]

The people being naive are the ones who think there is one
particular procedure and one particular pill out there that once banned will greatly decrease the number of abortions. That just isn’t so.

For that matter there is no medical procedure called abortion. The ending of a pregnancy can be brought about in one of a number of ways and it’s impossible to ban them all because they all have legitimate uses (i.e. nothing to do with abortion).

No one is saying laws won’t help, but they’re just the beginning of a real solution.We can’t bury our heads in the sand and be outsmarted by the purveyors of death. They laugh because they understand the complexity of our task and the fact that we don’t.

…

I dont know of anyone who beleives that. And as far as relying on emotions one does tend to get rather animated when 1.2 million children a year are killed . To be honest i dont know what the point of your posts are other than to lecture those of us who are fighting this battle on how stupid we are. This law was a mjor victory. Those who do not realize this have no grasp of the issue.

 

[psteichen]

It’s all about the Supreme Judge and much less about the Supreme Court…

seekerz: I understand your point about how we need to change the culture, but how do you propose we do this more effectively than changing the legal system to make sinning more difficult? I would be all for your position in this thread if you had a plan that will be more effective.

And please don’t say “just pray”. God hears all of our prayers, sure, but he also expects us to act. Without action He sees that we really don’t care at all and are unwilling to take the difficult steps necessary to effect change.

 

[seekerz]

I dont know of anyone who beleives that. And as far as relying on emotions one does tend to get rather animated when 1.2 million children a year are killed . To be honest i dont know what the point of your posts are other than to lecture those of us who are fighting this battle on how stupid we are. This law was a mjor victory. Those who do not realize this have no grasp of the issue.

I don’t think anyone’s stupid if they fight abortion - we just have to understand exactly and in detail what it is we fight. Any commander will tell you that the battle is won by studying the enemy.

 

[seekerz]

seekerz: I understand your point about how we need to change the culture, but how do you propose we do this more effectively than changing the legal system to make sinning more difficult? I would be all for your position in this thread if you had a plan that will be more effective.

And please don’t say “just pray”. God hears all of our prayers, sure, but he also expects us to act. Without action He sees that we really don’t care at all and are unwilling to take the difficult steps necessary to effect change.

My plan would be to target the people who promote and profit from abortion, in addition to of course, the women who seek it. Evangelization and outreach to my mind is the key.
Of course it wouldn’t hurt to find ways to make the “business” less profitable and not worth the grief; we should feel free to be creative in that regard…

So my answer is not simply to pray, but to lead people to God and make sin unprofitable.

I may sound weird but it’s probably from having experienced this thing from an uncommon angle. Today I was tempted to post a link discussing a common and easily available “alternative” resorted to in some largely Catholic parts of the world where abortion is illegal; then it occurred to me that I shouldn’t plant ideas in the heads of the wrong people and since this board isn’t private…

 

[Rosalinda]

Seekerz stated in post #48[sign] The ending of a pregnancy can be brought about in one of a number of ways and it’s impossible to ban them all because they all have legitimate uses (i.e. nothing to do with abortion).
[/sign]

(highlights mine) Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify this statement further?

 

[seekerz]

Seekerz stated in post #48[sign] The ending of a pregnancy can be brought about in one of a number of ways and it’s impossible to ban them all because they all have legitimate uses (i.e. nothing to do with abortion).
[/sign]

(highlights mine) Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify this statement further?

Okay, I’ll give an example: for heavy bleeding or for a true miscarriage my doctor may choose to do what’s commonly known as a “scraping” of the inside of the womb. This procedure is practically the same as is used for some abortions. Are we going to ban women with those medical conditions from getting treatment for them? Of course not.

What happens in some countries where abortions are more restricted or illegal is that some people are able to get them by being assigned a medical diagnosis such as those mentioned above. The person perfoming the procedure could be part of the problem or could be an innocent pawn if the woman started the process beforehand in simple ways that I’d rather not spell out here.

I read an article online which mentioned a particular company whose product was being to bring about abortions. They were quick to stress that abortion was not the intended use of the product and a comment on that site suggested that the company avoids discussing the issue for fear that pro-lifers would target them.

Does that help clarify things? If not, pm me and I’ll be glad to go into more detail…

 

[mesquite_magic]

It always amazes me that people who support killing our children always just happen to know a woman who wanted to have her child but just HAD to have an abortion(after much agonizing of course) And given her circumstances pro-life e areunfeeling , callous people and those who support killing our children are in reality pro-life!! Given the circumstances described are virtually non-existent either they all know the same woman or we are getting spinned.

Actually, considering how big Catholic families are, it wouldn’t be that rare. My parents have six kids, 23 grandchildren, and 5 great grandchildren, There were 9 children in my mom’s family, not counting her step-sibs. The last time we had a Family Reunion, 200 people showed up. That wasn’t even half.

In my own “small” family of six, one sister had a severly deformed baby and went into labor at around 6 mos. That baby lived for a week. My oldest sister carried a dead baby in her womb. She won’t talk about it, so I’m not sure how far along she was when doctors finally persuaded her to let them induce. My neice carried a precious, very much wanted baby whose kidneys didn’t develop. The doctors convinced her that she should induce labor. she named her baby, held him, and loved him until he died in her arms.Before you make judgements, maybe you should walk a mile, as the saying goes. I wouldn’t wish this decision, yes decision, on anyone.

Women have issues that are incompatable to pregnancy, sometimes. Diabetes can be very dangerous while you’re pregnant. Some women are diagnosed with cancer and their treatments might not be do-able while they are pregnant. It does become a HUGE decision wether to continue the pregnancy. Do you risk agressive chemotherapy and hope it doesn’t hurt the baby? Do you wait until after the baby’s born and hope the cancer doesn’t kill you first? What if you have other children at home? Do you risk them losing their mother? Tough, very tough questions.

Diabetes is on the rise. It appears cancers are too. You might want to consider that before you assume everyone who knows someone is a liar.

Kim

 

[seekerz]

Actually, considering how big Catholic families are, it wouldn’t be that rare. My parents have six kids, 23 grandchildren, and 5 great grandchildren, There were 9 children in my mom’s family, not counting her step-sibs. The last time we had a Family Reunion, 200 people showed up. That wasn’t even half.

In my own “small” family of six, one sister had a severly deformed baby and went into labor at around 6 mos. That baby lived for a week. My oldest sister carried a dead baby in her womb. She won’t talk about it, so I’m not sure how far along she was when doctors finally persuaded her to let them induce. My neice carried a precious, very much wanted baby whose kidneys didn’t develop. The doctors convinced her that she should induce labor. she named her baby, held him, and loved him until he died in her arms.Before you make judgements, maybe you should walk a mile, as the saying goes. I wouldn’t wish this decision, yes decision, on anyone.

Women have issues that are incompatable to pregnancy, sometimes. Diabetes can be very dangerous while you’re pregnant. Some women are diagnosed with cancer and their treatments might not be do-able while they are pregnant. It does become a HUGE decision wether to continue the pregnancy. Do you risk agressive chemotherapy and hope it doesn’t hurt the baby? Do you wait until after the baby’s born and hope the cancer doesn’t kill you first? What if you have other children at home? Do you risk them losing their mother? Tough, very tough questions.

Diabetes is on the rise. It appears cancers are too. You might want to consider that before you assume everyone who knows someone is a liar.

Kim

Interesting you should mention cancer because I’ve been reading that the Church allows a woman diagnosed with cancer to have chemo or surgery even if it may result in loss of the pregnancy as a side-effect, provided the intent of the treatment is not to kill the baby. Of course it would have to be a situation where the treatment was necessary and the baby was not developed enough to be delivered.

 

[mesquite_magic]

Interesting you should mention cancer because I’ve been reading that the Church allows a woman diagnosed with cancer to have chemo or surgery even if it may result in loss of the pregnancy as a side-effect, provided the intent of the treatment is not to kill the baby. Of course it would have to be a situation where the treatment was necessary and the baby was not developed enough to be delivered.

And this is what I don’t get.I need to read more about church teaching. This particular one confusing. You can have a treatment that might kill the baby, but you can’t try to save your life by killing the baby.

Kim

 

[psteichen]

And this is what I don’t get.I need to read more about church teaching. This particular one confusing. You can have a treatment that might kill the baby, but you can’t try to save your life by killing the baby.

Kim

mesquite/Kim

It’s actually quite simple. If there is a medical problem with the mother that needs treatment, that is totally okay. What is not okay is purposely killing the baby. If the baby dies as a consequence of necessary treatments, that is sad, but not abortion. If the doctors believe that the woman will die unless the baby comes out, then they may induce labor, or perform a C section, and deliver the baby. Perhaps the baby will die because it is not old enough to survive. This is also sad, but sometimes necessary. But it is not abortion. What the Church forbids is intentionally KILLING the baby, which is NEVER necessary. Some may find it more convenient because then they don’t have to watch their baby die, but that is horribly sinful and selfish.

 

[Rosalinda]

Mesquite Magic,
Sounds like you may well be a cousin of mine as my family is equally large on both sides.

It sounds like you are not familiar with the principle of double effect. This question and answer is from Priests for Life. Hopefully, it will help you clarify your thinking and better understand Church teaching.

Answer: There is more than one medical way of handling an ectopic pregnancy. The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. "Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong.
However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube. Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother’s life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called the Principle of the Double Effect.

Read more questions here:

priestsforlife.org/questions.html

 

[seekerz]

Mesquite Magic,
Sounds like you may well be a cousin of mine as my family is equally large on both sides.

It sounds like you are not familiar with the principle of double effect. This question and answer is from Priests for Life. Hopefully, it will help you clarify your thinking and better understand Church teaching.

Read more questions here:

priestsforlife.org/questions.html

I have to say that though I am familiar with the principle, in some aspects I find it confusing but for different reasons than Mesquite does.

We all know how procreation is viewed in the Church and how interference with the ability to procreate is generally regarded as wrong. So in ectopic pregnancy how is it better to do a procedure that may destroy the woman’s ability to have more children (tube removal) than to do a procedure that saves the tube and her fertility? Whatever treatment she gets, the baby will die; that is also true even if she gets no treatment whatsoever. Really, I have struggled with this one and I just don’t get it.