Why do people support abortion dispite....?

[kettle]

When you start allowing the government to say what is right and wrong, and give them the power to regulate the conduct of individuals, you risk having them forbid behaviors you hold in high esteem.

That’s exactly what my husband said, too… the “slippery slope” angle. (your name isn’t Stephen is it?! LOL!) But here’s the thing… the government already says what’s right and what’s wrong. The government already regulates the conduct of individuals. We all risk the government forbidding behaviors we each hold in high esteem, and allowing the behaviors we don’t… and the “abortion issue” isn’t going to change that risk one way or the other.

I learned that abortion is just like many other issues; it’s either right, or it’s wrong, and there’s no middle ground. Society puts an awful lot of pressure on individuals to do what is socially acceptable and turn a blind eye to what may or may not be morally acceptable. People become afraid to stand up for what is morally right because they fear societal ridicule… yet the ridicule is coming from a societal source that has become morally inept.

Abortion has become socially acceptable. I don’t believe that the majority of those who find it to be acceptable also find it to be morally correct. In fact, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that I personally believe that MOST people believe that abortion is IMmoral. So why don’t those people just call it how they see it… immoral and downright wrong? Because of that scary slippery slope that already existed before they stood up and said ‘abortion is wrong.’ Saying abortion is wrong and making abortion illegal is not going to make that slippery slope any more slippery or sloped than it already is.

It’s hard shaking society, SirMallard. I know first-hand just how hard it is.

 

[SirMallard]

Kettle,

You make a good point. I do appreciate so many of you offering your insight. I guess what you are saying is to fight for what is right, not worrying about what the government may do. Because it is going to come after us either way. Does Stephen win many discussions with you?

Take care.

 

[mercygate]

Kettle,

You make a good point. I do appreciate so many of you offering your insight. I guess what you are saying is to fight for what is right, not worrying about what the government may do. Because it is going to come after us either way. Does Stephen win many discussions with you?

Take care.

I think kettle’s point goes to the natural law. The natural law trumps the civil law, and holds that a law that violates the natural moral law is not a just law.

In the Nuremburg decisions, the argument that people were just doing what the law required was specifically countered by the statement that when a law “legalizes” what is immoral, it MUST not be obeyed.

 

[SirMallard]

But would you not agree that the freedom to do an immoral act is different from a law requiring that same immoral act?

Legalizing abortion, as the Supreme Court erroneously did, does not reach the level of forcing it on the population, as is done in China. Neither is good. But one was an terrible error of judgement. The other was an act of pure evil.

 

[mercygate]

But would you not agree that the freedom to do an immoral act is different from a law requiring that same immoral act?

Legalizing abortion, as the Supreme Court erroneously did, does not reach the level of forcing it on the population, as is done in China. Neither is good. But one was an terrible error of judgement. The other was an act of pure evil.

Well taken point.

I would counter that a society that legally permits what is morally impermissible is in a peck o’ trouble. Slippery slope from permitting contraception to permitting abortion to demanding abortion.

 

[kettle]

Kettle,

You make a good point. I do appreciate so many of you offering your insight. I guess what you are saying is to fight for what is right, not worrying about what the government may do. Because it is going to come after us either way. Does Stephen win many discussions with you?

Take care.

SirMallard, that’s pretty much what I’m saying. (I tried really hard to leave out the religion aspect of it, because not everyone is of the same religion. I hope I did that ok. )

Stephen wins when I get tired of talking. LOL please note my tongue firmly planted in my cheek

Respectfully,
kettle

 

[bmmckinney]

This is part of my prolife talk. I will let you read and think and post about this:

The Worthland Polling Group reported that in 1980 that 50% of Americans thought that abortion ought to be lawful in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1998 it rose to 61% in the first trimester, by Decemeber of 2003, Gallop polling showed that 66% supported abortion in the first trimester.

This is problematic because 90% of all abortions are preformed in the first 90 days of pregnancy in this country. Interestingly enough increasing numbers of Americans oppose abortion rights in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy.

We are winning the battle on public opinion on where it matters least but losing it where it matters most. The reason for this increase of support for abortion in the first trimester among Americans is that the public simply doesn’t believe that a baby is a baby in the first 90 days. They think the baby is a blob of tissue and so we have to persuade them on the babies humanity, most people believe that abortion in the first trimester is the lesser of two evils and that it is none of their business.
We are losing this battle for a variety of reasons but not least because the other side brilliantly and ingeniously stole the march for life on us in 1973 by framing this issue as a question of choice and unless we can reframe it to force the American people to confront what is being chosen and not simply the idea of choice we are going to continue to lose because we are losing the argument over choice. Americans venerate choice and when you make an argument against choice you are pushing a cement truck uphill but when you force the otherside to defend what’s being chosen, when what’s being chosen is an indefensible act of violence and the people who you are making that argument to are being forced to look at that indefensible act of violence that’s an argument that we can and will win the very same way that 200 years of social reform history indicates that this is the way forward in changing public opinion concerning an injustice before you have any hope of changing public policy.