FEATURED ARTICLE:Colorado Right To Life Summary of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban

[bigsplit]

I fully take responsibility for my own actions. Bigsplit you are on ignore, I don't have time for such nonsense.

Now, as far as responsibility - each individual takes responsibility for their own actions, but it is a complete non-sequiter to say that others or society has no responsibility. Bigsplit is making the erroneous assumption that responsibility is like a pie that has to be split into pieces. IOW, if society and the government has responsibility that means that mine is less than 100%. It is not. Responsibility doesn't work that way. I can be fully accountable as a moral agent and others can have culpability that doesn't exonerate my own.

Further I never said that I counsel women to that conclusion. I said that women have told me that is their conclusion - big difference, but bigsplit is acting like a tasteless jerk whom I don't expect to try to understand that difference. No bother, I put him on ignore.

Thank you guys for your supportive comments. Fair or not fair, it is a fact of life that say I can slam my sister, but don't let anyone else do it or I will defend her to the end. The same thing goes for my murdered babies, I can speak of them and use my experiences, but how dare YOU bigsplit use them in such a manner. Fair? Maybe not. Reality? Yes. You don't have the right. You see to you, this may be just some intellectual and polemic point. It is not to me. I killed two of my children. That is reality. It is my reality that some day, I will meet these children and have to face to them what I did. There is something in maturity and class that teaches a person what is simply not appropriate to bring up - you need that maturity and class.

I did not bring it up. When one uses their situation to support a particular political view point, they open themselves up for a debate. I am truely sorry when anyone choses to abort a baby, but it is THEIR choice to make. I am sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but again, I am not the one who aborted the children and not the one who opened the debate. The fact is the government is not responsible for the sins of men or women, people choose to sin on their own based upon the liberty God gave to all.. As for you using your babies....well we are all children of God and therefore they are my brothers or sisters....so don't give me that how dare you point.

There is something in maturity that if you open up a subject for debate that is extremely personal such as Dee Dee has done you can expect a response. One cannot use their personal misjudgements to cast stones and hide behind getting their feelings hurt and calling others classless because they get a response. Dee Dee can ignore me and I hate that this conversation has offended her so; but again I did not bring up the subject, she did by blaming the governemnt for her choice. Whatever mechanism she chooses to cope psychologically with her choice is again her choice. As for her fear of confrontation with her children in the afterlife, it is obvious she is tormented to a degree by this. I would remind her that she has a savior and that all have sinned. My concern is that her testamony is weakened by holding government accoutable in any way for her choices. Porn is legalized, it is the governments fault people watch porn. Alcohol is legal, is it the governments fault that people become alcoholics and ruin their lives. Tobacco products are legal, is it the governments fault people smoke. Sex is legal in most forms, is the government responsible for adultery.

No, No, No and No. And the government is not responsible for women choosing to abort either..

[bigsplit]

Bigsplit, now you're making a mistake from the opposite end of the spectrum; being too focused on outlawing abortion is a mistake, but so is villifying the efforts of those who are seeking to outlaw abortion. Abortion is morally wrong, and the laws of our country should reflect that which is morally upright. So, it is quite appropriate to campaign for abortion to be illegal. The best strategy is to do both. We should be pushing for better abortion legislation AND we should be extending Christ's love and compassion to pregnant mothers. The mindset that either of these is "right" and the other "wrong" just promotes infighting, when we should be unified in our approach, because we all want the same thing.

Your attack on Dee Dee is completely unwarranted and inappropriate. I don't believe she has ever said anything to the effect that she does not take responsibility for her actions, and she has very forcefully and convincingly stated that she feels abortion is A Bad Thing ™. Perhaps you have never committed this particular bad act, but I have little doubt you've done some things at some point in your life that were contrary to God's law. I know I certainly have. Given that, is it really appropriate to wield mistakes in someone else's past as broadswords to score debate points? If the person was unrepentent or denied that what they had done was wrong, then admonishment is appropriate (although it should still be done in a gentle and loving manner), but for a sin that has been confessed and forgiven, God doesn't remember it anymore -- why should we?

-Jeff

My attack on Dee Dee was in response to her blaming government for people choosing abortions. I have not condemned her for her actions as I am certain by her responses she is hard enough on herself. I cannot agree with you more that God does not remember anymore when someone confesses to their sins. And I certainly would never have know of Dee Dee's situation unless and until she brought it up. I do feel strongly that the efforts to criminalize abortion are distractions from very significant work that could be done to reduce abortions done for non-medical or rape/incest reasons. I also think that it is flawed to point at the governement because one made a bad choice. Would criminalization of abortion stop some from aborting....I do not know, but probable it would. Will abortion ever be criminalized in the US, I strongly doubt it. Will back alley butchers pop up all over the country if we do.....you betcha. We need to reach people through love and the gospel....not through politics... again, you cannot legislate people to heaven, but Politics can pervert the Church and harden people's hearts to God. The religious right is not doing so much on the abortion front, but they are doing a heck of a job of hardening peoples hearts towards Jesus Christ. This is my judgement is a great tragedy and I confront it everyday so I know it is real, and I apoligize for aiming my frustrations at Dee Dee, perhaps I could have been more tactful.

If she ever chooses to take me off ignore, I apoligize if you think I judged you, and on a certain level, I know that I did. I know you are persuing what you think is right, I just think it is a great mistake. God bless you and I hope you gain the peace of mind to know that God loves you and his grace and love now fill the spirits of your children and they love you unconditionally as well.

God Bless and I will never bring the subject up towards you or your situation again, and will not participate in any abortion subjects where you are active.

[bridgeforsale]

I did not bring it up. When one uses their situation to support a particular political view point, they open themselves up for a debate. I am truely sorry when anyone choses to abort a baby, but it is THEIR choice to make. I am sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but again, I am not the one who aborted the children and not the one who opened the debate. The fact is the government is not responsible for the sins of men or women, people choose to sin on their own based upon the liberty God gave to all.. As for you using your babies....well we are all children of God and therefore they are my brothers or sisters....so don't give me that how dare you point.

There is something in maturity that if you open up a subject for debate that is extremely personal such as Dee Dee has done you can expect a response. One cannot use their personal misjudgements to cast stones and hide behind getting their feelings hurt and calling others classless because they get a response. Dee Dee can ignore me and I hate that this conversation has offended her so; but again I did not bring up the subject, she did by blaming the governemnt for her choice. Whatever mechanism she chooses to cope psychologically with her choice is again her choice. As for her fear of confrontation with her children in the afterlife, it is obvious she is tormented to a degree by this. I would remind her that she has a savior and that all have sinned. My concern is that her testamony is weakened by holding government accoutable in any way for her choices. Porn is legalized, it is the governments fault people watch porn. Alcohol is legal, is it the governments fault that people become alcoholics and ruin their lives. Tobacco products are legal, is it the governments fault people smoke. Sex is legal in most forms, is the government responsible for adultery.

No, No, No and No. And the government is not responsible for women choosing to abort either..

The fact is Dee Dee's point was that there should be accountability towards the individual who has an abortion. She wishes it was illegal (then perhaps we wouldn't have made that choice). Your argument winds up making sort of an ambiguous and subjective presumption that abortion doesn't hurt society (thus it should be an individual choice). What is your basis for government regulation of human conduct? Should drugs be legal (after all one could argue that they only hurt the addict)? What's your standard. If you think the practice of abortion should be left to choice then what do you think a fertilized fetus represents? Do you think it's merely a blob of cells with no value to God? If you think God loves that fetus then how can an independent actor have the right to terminate it?

My position is that the legal arm of this fight has wrongly been the central focus of the pro-life movement (so we agree here), when it should be ancillary to actually saving lives (especially given how unproductive the efforts have been to date). Would I have been willing to get in some girls face and call her a murderer? No, because it's far more likely I would fail in saving the life of the child she's ready to abort. Then we leave the job of providing her love and comfort to the abortionist (we scare the sheep and she runs to the wolves for protection). Moreover, I don't think abortion clinics are good ground to fight the legal battle (this is better done by protests at our congressmen's door and by lawyers). We need to be at the abortionist's door to retrieve the soul that's being led to its slaughter with no voice (in most cases by a misguided young girl). We should do this as Jesus Christ has COMMANDED, with LOVE. Aren't we even suppose to love our enemy? Are we a shining light to all non-Christians of our goodness and love when we show some teenage girl (who is a CHILD herself) a horrific picture of a mutilated fetus?

As for you're remark to Dee Dee; you should think b4 you throw out a statement like that....but since you apologized I'm sure she will forgive you just like Christ forgives us all for anything?

AW

[Abelard]

However, I would be interested in how you generate discussions on sex (e.g., Do you look at David and Bathsheba as a discussion starter?) and what lesson plans you use.

Also, how are the High School teachers plugged into what you are doing?

I don't really tie it into scripture at all. My middle school class is very much "relate your life to Christ" oriented, and not too academic. I basicaly force the topic at some point.

I don't claim any big onsights on this. I mostly hope the kids will be comfortable coming to someone is they feel the need, so I make it a point to get the subject out in the open.

[rhutchin]

No, No, No and No. And the government is not responsible for women choosing to abort either..

It may be that government is responsible for a women choosing abortion. Goverment is any ruling authority. In the classroom, one teacher is able to maintain control of the class while another is not. Something the one teacher does contributes to control while not doing that creates chaos. The teacher influences the students behavior by his/her behavior, attitude, expectations -- who knows.

In the same sense, society (including government) does something to influence members of the society to behave in a certain manner. A Mormon society is generally characterized as a family oriented society. Jews are characterized as highly ethical and moral even if very aggressive in pursuing wealth. Other societies may produce people with a tendency to violence. It seems to me that the government can have a huge effect on the way a society behaves. If governement were to emphasis the importance of life and the value of each individual, and instituted programs to this effect, I think there might be few abortions, if any.

My sense is that government can have a significant impact in creating an abortion mindset within society.

[Dee Dee Warren]

It may be that government is responsible for a women choosing abortion. Goverment is any ruling authority. In the classroom, one teacher is able to maintain control of the class while another is not. Something the one teacher does contributes to control while not doing that creates chaos. The teacher influences the students behavior by his/her behavior, attitude, expectations -- who knows.

In the same sense, society (including government) does something to influence members of the society to behave in a certain manner. A Mormon society is generally characterized as a family oriented society. Jews are characterized as highly ethical and moral even if very aggressive in pursuing wealth. Other societies may produce people with a tendency to violence. It seems to me that the government can have a huge effect on the way a society behaves. If governement were to emphasis the importance of life and the value of each individual, and instituted programs to this effect, I think there might be few abortions, if any.

My sense is that government can have a significant impact in creating an abortion mindset within society.

That is absolutely true. While slavery was legal, there were people who simply grew up in a culture where that was accepted and that influenced a lot of people. Today it would be unthinkable. We are not fundamentally less evil than our forebears. Today, through laws and culture, we teach women that killing their children is an acceptable option. That is a factor in a woman making her decision. When I made my decisions, I was not a Christian, and didn't think anything was wrong with my decision - after all it was legal wasn't it? Most people just seemed to take it in stride. Heck, my mother drove me to the first one. Government is ordained by God to restrain evil. If it fails in that task, it owes responsibility. Throughout the Bible, people are judged corporately as a people through where there leaders lead. Where the leaders and laws go, there the people go.

[bridgeforsale]

First my kudo's to rhutchin & Abelard (I have great respect for teachers). I also agree that government can shape public behavior; if we let it. Take Clinton's misbehavior during his Presidency. Kids everywhere began viewing oral sex as not sex (and not even immoral). Thank's Bill (like teachers such as rhutch & abelard don't have enough to deal with already).

So yes abortion ought to be illegal ... but this doen't change my opinion that the pro-life movement should refocus on saving lives (moreover, the efforts to date on changing the law have them self been ineffective).

[JonLanceBarker]

First my kudo's to rhutchin & Abelard (I have great respect for teachers). I also agree that government can shape public behavior; if we let it. Take Clinton's misbehavior during his Presidency. Kids everywhere began viewing oral sex as not sex (and not even immoral). Thank's Bill (like teachers such as rhutch & abelard don't have enough to deal with already).

So yes abortion ought to be illegal ... but this doen't change my opinion that the pro-life movement should refocus on saving lives (moreover, the efforts to date on changing the law have them self been ineffective).

not that we should stop trying to get in through the front door, but we really ought to redouble our efforts to get in through the back.

[jabr]

I don't see how abortion is unconstitutional. Further, I don't see how first trimester abortions are even morally debatable. And second and third trimester abortions are almost entirely in response to health concerns for the mother.

I really don't understand why people consider this to be a big deal. Perhaps one of you could explain?

[jabr]

Banning D&X means you are condemning some women with non-viable fetuses to death.

Is that really what Jesus would do?

[Glenn P]

Banning D&X means you are condemning some women with non-viable fetuses to death.

Is that really what Jesus would do?

Non viable? I thought we were talking about third trimester. Please explain.

[Glenn P]

I don't see how abortion is unconstitutional. Further, I don't see how first trimester abortions are even morally debatable. And second and third trimester abortions are almost entirely in response to health concerns for the mother.

I really don't understand why people consider this to be a big deal. Perhaps one of you could explain?

The reason most if not all third trimester abortiuons have ANYTHING to do with the mother's health is that ... wait, before I go further - do you actually know when the point of viability is? I shouldn't say any more unless you first know that.

[jabr]

I mean viability in the sense of fetal development -- not modern medical support for pre-mature births (though that is still largely a third trimester ability).

I mean still-borns, severe cranial defects, and that sort of non-viability.

[jabr]

Why do women have to die because they have dead babies in their uterus? That is what you have done. You think it is a moral victory, but good people will die because of you.

[rhutchin]

I don't see how abortion is unconstitutional. Further, I don't see how first trimester abortions are even morally debatable. And second and third trimester abortions are almost entirely in response to health concerns for the mother.

I really don't understand why people consider this to be a big deal. Perhaps one of you could explain?

In your opinion, should a women be able to have a Down's Syndron baby killed while it is still in the womb, after it has been partially, but not fully, delivered from the womb, or after it has been delivered fully from the womb?

Would you consider the purposeful elimination of such a baby as murder under the constitution under either of these three situations.