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

[JonLanceBarker]

I teach Sunday School, and we do discuss "rompin'". How about you, rhutchin? I think Rompin' Rhutchin sounds alright - you'd probably do a good job teaching middle schoolers!

umm...i was hoping we might avoid that sort of brotherly name-calling here.
sure, let's all jump on rhutchin because he's tired of hearing complaints without solutions.

[Abelard]

Maybe that didn't come out right. Rompin' is the kids term for sex, and I was trying to be playful.

I certainly didn't intend to call Rhutchin a name or be insulting. I was trying to inject a little levity, but I see now my post was less than clear. I truly apologize if it sounded unkind.

Being good with middle schoolers is a compliment in my book. That is who I teach and it's a hard age. Their brains tell them they are grown up, society tells them they are still kiddies, and then they get hormones dumped in on top of everything.

Thanks for pointing that out, Lance. I did a really poor job of communicating what I intended.

[bridgeforsale]

It's a step in the right direction on a very long road. But it would seem to me that abortion is unconstitutional as stated in the Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's my understanding that Pres. Lyndon Johnson used the part "...promote the general welfare..." to justify creating the Welfare System. So, Logically, "...to ourselves and our posterity, ..." is as must part of the constitution as all of the articles and amendments, and therefore carries the same legal weight! All of the verbs In this Preamble are present tense, which denotes the here and now without any exclusions. So, our "posterity", i.e., "the unborn", are being stripped of there constitutional rights which exist -even before they are conceived! I wish that people will take notice of this fact found in a document which is memorized by every school-age child in the nation.

I'm not sure this particular argument would ever win the day.....but I do know that abortion regulation is properly the police power of the individual states (as is all regulation concerning the health & welfare of citizens). To find a privacy right inside the womb must be the most convoluted legal decision in history. However, one should realize that even total victory at the supreme court would only be a beginning. Most states would keep abortion legal (exactly how it is today). Moreover, as we saw pre-Roe banning abortion probably won't cut down on the number of abortions in a dramatic way. I have a mixed opinion on this issue; but I certainly agree Roe was bad law and PBA is horrific. I don't see anything getting done unless Christians are able to reach females who are considering this procedure & offer them a viable alternative. Everything else is just whining & complaining as rhutch said. Who will care for the more than one million orphaned infants every year? I think the ability exists within the Christian community but we keep hoping Uncle Sam will relieve of us of the duty to provide an answer (beyone picketting, shouting, complaining, harrassing, but getting nothing accomplished except hollow legal decisions like this one).

AW

[Glenn P]

I have a mixed opinion on this issue; but I certainly agree Roe was bad law and PBA is horrific. I don't see anything getting done unless Christians are able to reach females who are considering this procedure & offer them a viable alternative. Everything else is just whining & complaining as rhutch said. Who will care for the more than one million orphaned infants every year? I think the ability exists within the Christian community but we keep hoping Uncle Sam will relieve of us of the duty to provide an answer (beyone picketting, shouting, complaining, harrassing, but getting nothing accomplished except hollow legal decisions like this one).

AW

That's ridiculous and immoral. If abortion is wrong because it is unjustifiable homicide, then you're saying that we shouldn't whine about homicide unless we are prepared, ourselves, to help the perpetrator and/or house/care for the victim.

I reject that outright, as would anyone with moral sense after serious reflection - hopefully including you.

[bridgeforsale]

That's ridiculous and immoral. If abortion is wrong because it is unjustifiable homicide, then you're saying that we shouldn't whine about homicide unless we are prepared, ourselves, to help the perpetrator and/or house/care for the victim.

I reject that outright, as would anyone with moral sense after serious reflection - hopefully including you.

Fair enough; actually I do oppose abortion. However, I was merely pointing out the reality. First, legally banning the practice will not solve the problem. Of course we can assume that pro-choice groups exaggerate the number of illegal abortions pre-Roe as pro-life groups probably understate the number. The first anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the U.S. in the 1820's. These laws generally started by targeting dubious vendors who were selling what were essentially "poisons" to terminate a pregnancy. The criminalization movement began in the 1860's. Notwithstanding the inflated numbers of "back-alley abortion" deaths often cited by pro-choice groups (of between 5 - 10,000 per year) the average number of annual deaths due to illegal abortions between 1940 - 1970 was around 1,500 (this tries to account for under-reporting of causation). This was still a high number IMO. The number of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade is assumed to have been between 200,000 and 1.2 million (the disparity is obviously due to the unavailability of any reliable data). However, most unbiased researchers assume it was roughly consistent with the number of abortions we see today (when calculated as a percentage of the population). Therefore, legalization has done little to impact the numbers (remember that "the pill" [progesterone] was available since the 1940's and the diaphragm and condom was available much earlier...although it's wide availability was banned in some states until the landmark decision Griswald v. CT in 1965...however, even after the wide availability of birth control the number of abortions were still consistent with the numbers we see today, as a percentage of the population).

Therefore, we can reasonably assume that illegalization will not significantly reduce the number of abortions nationwide (especially these days). Moreover, overturning Roe and sending it back to the states will likely not result in illegalization (at least in the vast majority of states) & a federal law banning abortion would likely fail a federalism challenge. Therefore, a new approach & strategy is IMO required. This is what I was pointing out. I share opposition to abortion but I unlike most who share this view understand that government has rarely served as a solution to social problems.

This is why I favor a realigned approach; focusing on reaching females considering abortion and building an infrastructure that is equipped to provide a real alternative (namely adoption, foster care, and orphanages). So anyone can say what they want about me or the few that share my view; but all I see from the way things are now is: hate, exploitation by politicians, and absolutely nothing being accomplished. My interest is in actually saving these lives, not punishment and not enforcing a subjective moral principal (that runs counter to the separation clause, which I strongly support along with the rest of our constitutional rights). With tens of millions of potential lives lost I would think there's others out there like me who are frustrated with the failed approach of the pro-life movement to date. I'm not calling for abondoning the push to overturn Roe. Rather I'm hoping for a shift of our focus to save these lives that are being lost under our noses. We can still support pro-life politicians; but we can also shift our time & money into productive endevours that will really save lives...I would hope most could agree with this?

This sort of goes to my approach to charity in general. Take the focus of charity to Africa to date. It has been on giving hands outs, not providing a hand up. I saw a program on a wonderful pharmacy franchise in Africa that was started by a frustrated American corporate lawyer. These are the sort of efforts Christians ought to focus their support on. A hand out is fine; but we need to build networks that can provide real long term solutions. How else can we combat for example the spread of Islam in Africa if not by being the living example of mercy that Christ calls us to be (rather than focusing on divisiveness)? We must be a permenant presense in the lives of all people, not just the occassional guy or gal who is handing them food (but then leaving them to the tyranny of Muslim extremists). The same goes for abortion. Do we want our lasting impression in some young girl, who is going through probably the worse part of her life, to be shouts of baby killer and heathen? Or do we want to show her the love of Christ and provide her a REAL alternative? That IMO is the real question.

AW

[Amazing Rando]

It's about being prepared to give of ourselves so that others might live. I think he's got a point. We can't just "whinge" (to use a Socrates word- remember him?) about how much we hate abortion and do nothing else. To be truly faithful to our Christian calling, we need to stand up and give self-sacrificially and in order to promote viable alternatives to women (and men!) who choose life instead of abortion. Christian crisis pregnancy centers, Christian families being more open to the possibility of adoption, and churches being willing to support needy single mothers financially, spiritually, and personally are essential aspects of a faithful Christian response, just as confronting people with the immorality of the abortion industry is. But we've got to be more than just morality police. We've got to be willing to suffer ourselves and, for the sake of the unborn child, bear the burdens of the desperate, needy souls who find themselves contemplating abortion.

[Amazing Rando]

Fair enough; actually I do oppose abortion. However, I was merely pointing out the reality. First, legally banning the practice will not solve the problem. Of course we can assume that pro-choice groups exaggerate the number of illegal abortions pre-Roe as pro-life groups probably understate the number. The first anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the U.S. in the 1820's. These laws generally started by targeting dubious vendors who were selling what were essentially "poisons" to terminate a pregnancy. The criminalization movement began in the 1860's. Notwithstanding the inflated numbers of "back-alley abortion" deaths often cited by pro-choice groups (of between 5 - 10,000 per year) the average number of annual deaths due to illegal abortions between 1940 - 1970 was around 1,500 (this tries to account for under-reporting of causation). This was still a high number IMO. The number of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade is assumed to have been between 200,000 and 1.2 million (the disparity is obviously due to the unavailability of any reliable data). However, most unbiased researchers assume it was roughly consistent with the number of abortions we see today (when calculated as a percentage of the population). Therefore, legalization has done little to impact the numbers (remember that "the pill" [progesterone] was available since the 1940's and the diaphragm and condom was available much earlier...although it's wide availability was banned in some states until the landmark decision Griswald v. CT in 1965...however, even after the wide availability of birth control the number of abortions were still consistent with the numbers we see today, as a percentage of the population).

Therefore, we can reasonably assume that illegalization will not significantly reduce the number of abortions nationwide (especially these days). Moreover, overturning Roe and sending it back to the states will likely not result in illegalization (at least in the vast majority of states) & a federal law banning abortion would likely fail a federalism challenge. Therefore, a new approach & strategy is IMO required. This is what I was pointing out. I share opposition to abortion but I unlike most who share this view understand that government has rarely served as a solution to social problems.

This is why I favor a realigned approach; focusing on reaching females considering abortion and building an infrastructure that is equipped to provide a real alternative (namely adoption, foster care, and orphanages). So anyone can say what they want about me or the few that share my view; but all I see from the way things are now is: hate, exploitation by politicians, and absolutely nothing being accomplished. My interest is in actually saving these lives, not punishment and not enforcing a subjective moral principal (that runs counter to the separation clause, which I strongly support along with the rest of our constitutional rights). With tens of millions of potential lives lost I would think there's others out there like me who are frustrated with the failed approach of the pro-life movement to date.

AW

Particularly on the part about governments rarely serving as a solution to social problems.

I read in Hauerwas and Willimon's Resident Aliens (I think that's where it was, anyway) about an abortion clinic with hundreds of people outside shouting "Abortion is Murder!" and holding up enormous signs graphically depicting aborted fetuses, haranguing everyone who entered or left the clinic, calling them names, spitting at them, and shoving leaflets with graphically aborted fetuses on it into their faces. That was on one side of the street.

On the other side of the street stood a solitary woman, standing silently and holding up a small sign that read "I will adopt your baby."

It's that second form of protest that strikes me as more faithful to the kingdom and to the paradigm Jesus set for us to emulate.

[Dee Dee Warren]

... bear the burdens of the desperate, needy souls who find themselves contemplating abortion.

Sorry Rando, I hate to come down on you, but that saccharine nonsense does nothing but promote a misty-eyed unreality. Here is the FACT. MOST women (not all) who seek abortion are NOT "desparate needy souls." Get a freakin' grip. SOME are, but MOST are not. MOST are as I was - irresponsible selfish women who simply care about themselves more than the human life they are carrying. That is the reality. Yes, I know it doesn't inspire doe-eyes and tissues, but it is the truth, which is preferable.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Before anyone in this thread dares to say rape is wrong, please demonstrate to me how often you volunteer to take on the burden of a rapists rehabilitation and leave him alone with your daughters.

This really gets me incensed. THESE ARE BABIES THAT ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Therefore, we can reasonably assume that illegalization will not significantly reduce the number of abortions nationwide (especially these days).

And I think that is absolutely unsupportable. It is patently false that legalization does not have an impact on behaviour. I can appeal to vast personal experience in this realm. You can bet your biscuits that I wouldn't have murdered two of my children if it weren't legal. Neither would have multiple family members I know. In fact I would say about of my peer group the number of women I know who have had abortions is staggering - none of these women would have done it illegally.

Legalization is a huge misogynistic lie that is a large part of turning women into murderers of their own children.

[Amazing Rando]

Sorry Rando, I hate to come down on you, but that saccharine nonsense does nothing but promote a misty-eyed unreality. Here is the FACT. MOST women (not all) who seek abortion are NOT "desparate needy souls." Get a freakin' grip. SOME are, but MOST are not. MOST are as I was - irresponsible selfish women who simply care about themselves more than the human life they are carrying. That is the reality. Yes, I know it doesn't inspire doe-eyes and tissues, but it is the truth, which is preferable.

Certainly many do act out of purely selfish motivations with no regard for the life growing inside them. I just hope to promote awareness that the reality is not always so simple as demonizing and condemning the woman (though that does seem appropriate in some cases). While some are as you describe, some are coerced, deceived, bullied, and otherwise forced into corners where they perceive no viable alternative. They are frequently ignored or condemned by the church rather than reached out to.

This really gets me incensed.

Yes, I can tell by your screaming in all caps. Perhaps I should take my leave if it enrages you so much.

THESE ARE BABIES THAT ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED.

Have a good day!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Certainly many do act out of purely selfish motivations with no regard for the life growing inside them. I

Most.

Yes, I can tell by your screaming in all caps. Perhaps I should take my leave if it enrages you so much.

I pity anyone who doesn't think the murder of children by their mothers isn't something to "scream" about. The minute I start talking about this dispassionately or painting things in unrealistic shades of rose, is the day I have lost any heart.

They are frequently ignored or condemned by the church rather than reached out to.

Oh come on. It is so fashionable today to do the Christian self-flaggelation thing, but quite frankly, my experience is that this is false. And really, the lack of rapist programs in the church disturbs me. What about those desparate hurting souls? (that is sarcasm for those impaired in that department). Where were the Nazi outreach programs for those desparate Germans who were put into the untenable situation of having to be forced into killing Jews (more sarcasm for those still impaired after the last sentence)

I am so glad I don't think Christians suck that much.

[lao tzu]

Fair enough; actually I do oppose abortion. However, I was merely pointing out the reality. <snip>

Two out of three ain't good

The above thread is a bit dusty, but I'd appreciate your input if you'd like to try to resurrect it.

As ever, Jesse

[bridgeforsale]

Particularly on the part about governments rarely serving as a solution to social problems.

I read in Hauerwas and Willimon's Resident Aliens (I think that's where it was, anyway) about an abortion clinic with hundreds of people outside shouting "Abortion is Murder!" and holding up enormous signs graphically depicting aborted fetuses, haranguing everyone who entered or left the clinic, calling them names, spitting at them, and shoving leaflets with graphically aborted fetuses on it into their faces. That was on one side of the street.

On the other side of the street stood a solitary woman, standing silently and holding up a small sign that read "I will adopt your baby."

It's that second form of protest that strikes me as more faithful to the kingdom and to the paradigm Jesus set for us to emulate.

That's an excellent example....thanks

AW

[Amazing Rando]

That's an excellent example....thanks

AW

Two books that really helped me come to see this were Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon's Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (see chapter 4 on a more ecclesiological, "church-centered" solution to the abortion issue), and Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (chapter 18 on a way to fight abortion more in line with the cross of Christ). Both are by Methodist pastor/scholars, so I think they might resonate with you.