I am pro-life.

I am pro-life.

I am pro-life.

I am pro-life.

I am pro-life.

I am pro-life. Abortions are bad.

I am pro-life. Abortions are bad.

Ms. Tenety,

Despite your young and naively idealistic attempt to find middle ground, you don't come anywhere close. Most of this country is supremely tired of "well-meaning" conservative Christian people, who dictate the lives of others rather than living their own. You may have "felt like chiding [your] fellow Catholics," but until you actually do so, you're no different--and your column will keep ringing hollow.

If anything, all your kind has proved over the past seven years is that the road to Hell truly is paved with good intentions.

It's also very odd, given the example of Christ and many of your own theologians.

Norrie wrote:

"I think that today's anti-abortionists, and those who seek the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by our now Catholic Supreme Court, have no idea of what they're wishing for, and no conception of the human misery that will result if they succeed."
_______________

Why is it that every defender of abortion assumes overturning Roe v. Wade would mean that all abortions are again illegal? It would mean no such thing, if for no other reason than people do remember the bad old times. What an overturned Roe v. Wade would mean is that each state would have to decide the issue separately, as should happen in a federalist form of government. Undoubtedly almost all would opt for abortions with some restrictions, some with no restrictions, and few, if any, might choose to forbid it entirely.

Those who fear the reversal of Roe v Wade seem to have insufficient faith in democracy. They want law by fiat when it suits them, but that's not the way democracy is supposed to work.

Norrie wrote:

"I think that today's anti-abortionists, and those who seek the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by our now Catholic Supreme Court, have no idea of what they're wishing for, and no conception of the human misery that will result if they succeed."
_______________

Why is it that every defender of abortion assumes overturning Roe v. Wade would mean that all abortions are again illegal? It would mean no such thing, if for no other reason than people do remember the bad old times. What an overturned Roe v. Wade would mean is that each state would have to decide the issue separately, as should happen in a federalist form of government. Undoubtedly almost all would opt for abortions with some restrictions, some with no restrictions, and few, if any, might choose to forbid it entirely.

Those who fear the reversal of Roe v Wade seem to have insufficient faith in democracy. They want law by fiat when it suits them, but that's not the way democracy is supposed to work.

Dear Joe G.: Who said abortion is killing? That's your opinion. Other religions teach that killing only occurs after birth. Pre-born fetuses are not viewed as living human beings in many religions, especially in the 1st term, when most abortions occur. What gives you the right to impose your narrow viewpoint of the world on everyone else?

The Constitution does not explicitly outlaw abortion. Abortion existed when the framers wrote the Constitution. If you believe in strict constructionism, why don't you accept the fact that the framers of the Constitution didn't want to outlaw abortion?

It is interesting pro-lifers:

#1. want people punished for making what they call bad choices: If your responsible enough to have sex, then you should be responsible enough to accept the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy! I like the word unwanted--means you'd be having an unwanted child! I wonder how many unwanted children are born into this world? How many are abused, ignored, dumped onto the streets, etc.? Would pro-lifers be ok with a law requiring all the millions of women they claim are having abortions to carry their babies to term and give all the unwanted ones up to the federal and state governments to take care of until they can find an adoption for them? And it would be most interesting to see how the governments would handle all the unadoptable kids? I was raised in a catholic orphanage hell hole and never saw anyone rushing to adopt anyone there. I look at all the orphanages here and the same today. no one wants a child for adoption unless they are a cute 2-month-old, or from somewhere in the far east. For instance, angelina jolie adopts black children, but not from the united states. So, being an unwanted child born in this country sucks!

#2. Why should a woman be forced to contend with a pregnancy with the pot-luck theory that someone might adopt her baby?

#3. Great idea, unwanted babies would make great cannon-fodder for our illegal wars. Hey, we have a soldier shortage. Solution: All women with unwanted pregnancies should do their patriotic duties, carry their babies to term and dump them onto the federal government--right on ole bush's lap. build a huge military school complex specializing in raising soldiers from infancy to fight all our battles. We would only do this for all unadoptable babies. This should creat for us millions of future soldiers. No need for the draft or military enlistments. for all u god-fearing people, god should be happy with this "pro-life" idea! Right! are u happy now? great solution for abortion huh? It will just cost us a few god-zillion dollars in taxes time and energy--right?

Worth it don't ya think?

It is my sincere hope that anti-choice Christians start practicing what they preach and start caring for children AFTER they are born! Or, at the very least, fund pre-natal care for women who do not have health insurance.

Also, end the prohibition against contraception. Contraception stops abortion - especially emergency contraception.

Are "pro-lifers" willing to pay extra taxes to ensure that all women have adequate pre-natal care? Are they willing to fund more child care in schools, so that young women who are pregnant can finish their basic education? Are they willing to pay more taxes to fund care for profoundly handicapped kids that otherwise would have been aborted? If they are, great. But all I hear out of them is "don't have an abortion" and you're on you're own to care for the kid afterwards.

Friends:

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't care about lives taken during unjust wars. The Church has said it does many times since the unjust incursion into Iraq began, and I take it's word on it. I also made no statements regarding child molestation.

The question I posed has more to do with the statements of many US Bishops during the last election, i.e. abortion is a greater evil than unjust wars because it is the taking of innocent life. If one ignores the apparent contradiction in this statement, since *all* lives taken unjustly are, by definition, "innocent", and allowing that the Church is unaware that Iraqi infants are among the victims, and even assuming that the Church is making a value judgement based on sheer quantity, it still leaves questions in my mind regarding the theology.

So, again, if it's true that all aborted babies automatically go to heaven, why is abortion a greater evil than an action that unjustly and precipitously ends the lives of adults, before they've had a chance to repent, and which action therefore results in the adults going to hell for all eternity? Is not the disposition of the soul more important than that of the body?

By asking the question, twice, I freely admit my ignorance. If you could enlighten me, instead of pointing out the obvious, I'd appreciate it.

Funny, Friends, how you can call us ignorant fools for bringing up the molestation and child abuse that seems to define your faith nowadays (and by us assuming that all Catholics take part in that), yet you say that all Catholics are Pro-Life from conception to natural death. So you can make an assumption like that simply because you are Catholic? Ignorant fools indeed. Every faith gets it. Kind of like those of your ilk say that atheists are all like Stalin or Hitler. You hit below the belt, we will too.

Roy, NAB and all of the other ignorant fools,

Catholics are not only Pro-Life when it comes to abortion, they are Pro-Life from conception to natural death. They do not ignore the value of every human being be it a fetus, soldier or inmate.
Thank you for being so ignorant as to pointing fingers at the faulty within the church. I am sure that Catholicism is the only faith in which the perversion of a few clouds the goodness of the larger whole. God has nothing to do with molestation, humans do. Free will baby, we all have it.
thanks ms tenety
Great post

Many of these same "Christian" pro-lifers look the other way when their First Commandment is ignored for capital punishment or pre-emptive war. Many oppose contraceptives and are more interested in their self-righteous judgment of others instead of preventing unwanted pregnancy that leads to abortion. There are not pro-life, they are pro their own Christian extremist religious intolerance.

While looking for splinters in other eyes, they ignore the log in their own which includes looking the other way while their clergy molests little boys and denies Christ's table to those they don't accept or agree with politically.

Dear Ms. Tenety:

1) Where were these pro-life protestors when the Catholic Sex Scandal broke? Why didn't we see them protesting on church steps from coast to coast? Do they have no concern for BORN children?
2) Why haven't these pro-lifers demanded that the Catholic Church investigate sexual abuse by priests in third world countries where BORN children have no rights and where the Church has been expanding the fastest?
3) According to the John Jay Reports, almost 40 percent of heterosexual and homosexual Catholic priests are sexually active (by their own admission), and in light of their low conception rates, are using birth control. Why aren't Catholic pro-lifers standing at drug stores harassing Catholic priests who purchase condoms?
4) Like millions of women, I need birth control to treat endometreosis, a debilitating incurable disease that is the number one cause of infertility. We thus preserve our fertility through birth control. How does that make us sinners?
5) Are you aware of the numerous RCC doctrines, such as celibicy, that were established purely for economic reasons? Do you think, by any chance, the RCC condems b.c. because it greatly limits the amount of monies in the baskets every Sunday?
6) 90 percent of American Catholics use b.c. How do you justify these protests against PP which primarily serves to provide gyncological healthcare and b.c.? Is b.c. OK if you're wealthy enough to go to a private ob/gyn?

In short, when will the Catholic laity begin to protest the sins of their religious and their laity and comply with Jesus' order "not point to the speck in your neighbor's eye when you have a log in your own."

Dear Ms. Tenety:

1) Where were these pro-life protestors when the Catholic Sex Scandal broke? Why didn't we see them protesting on church steps from coast to coast? Do they have no concern for BORN children?
2) Why haven't these pro-lifers demanded that the Catholic Church investigate sexual abuse by priests in third world countries where BORN children have no rights and where the Church has been expanding the fastest?
3) According to the John Jay Reports, almost 40 percent of heterosexual and homosexual Catholic priests are sexually active (by their own admission), and in light of their low conception rates, are using birth control. Why aren't Catholic pro-lifers standing at drug stores harassing Catholic priests who purchase condoms?
4) Like millions of women, I need birth control to treat endometreosis, a debilitating incurable disease that is the number one cause of infertility. We thus preserve our fertility through birth control. How does that make us sinners?
5) Are you aware of the numerous RCC doctrines, such as celibicy, that were established purely for economic reasons? Do you think, by any chance, the RCC condems b.c. because it greatly limits the amount of monies in the baskets every Sunday?
6) 90 percent of American Catholics use b.c. How do you justify these protests against PP which primarily serves to provide gyncological healthcare and b.c.? Is b.c. OK if you're wealthy enough to go to a private ob/gyn?

In short, when will the Catholic laity begin to protest the sins of their religious and their laity and comply with Jesus' order "not point to the speck in your neighbor's eye when you have a log in your own."

To Catholics:

Which is the greater evil? A. Causing the death of an innocent fetus who goes directly to heaven? B. Causing the death of an unrepentant, non-combatant Iraqi adult who goes directly to hell?

It never really was about abortion. It's about control.

If you really wanted to reduce abortion, you'd be out there pushing condoms and pushing for quality sex education instead of that joke abstinence.

But in the end, it's really about converting people to christiantiy and accepting "jesus" as your savior.

I like judiasm, they don't push there religion on anyone. They just live there lives and people come to judiasm. If your righteous and moral, then people will come to your side overtime.

Anonymous said:

"Can't you just live and let live."

We were discussing abortion. And that's just what we were advocating.

Bottom line, Ann Coulter sums it up best. Right wingers want to convert us all to their faith.

They can't win the argument, so they'll just "fix" it by changing the laws.

Religion is such a joke. Where was your Catholic god when your preists were raping and molesting those kids. Your Bishops were the pimps, just passing the preist from church to church so they had a fresh crop. That's reality.

The catholic religion is about power and control. You start brainwashing your kids as early as possible. Best way is through fear, "You will Burn in the fires of hell" That'll scare a kid into doing anything.

Oh yeah please be sure to put your 10% into the till before you leave, otherwise you will burn in hell.

And don't forget to make the proper donation after death, don't want to end up in pergatory. That's right, you've been a good little christian your whole life, now it's time to pony up the $$$$'s so you can get into heaven.

Can't you just live and let live.

While we're talking about how pro-lifers want to "control" what people do, let's acknowledge that killing requires a good dose of "controlling" someone.

And if we're going to talk about the enlightened countries overseas, might be interesting to note that most European countries have stricter abortion laws than we do.

Approx. 1 mil abortions per year in the US. 44 mil since Roe v. Wade.

Nothing like a constitutional right that allows one the right to kill another.

Any of you religious zealots read any books other then the bible, such as "Freakonomics." In it, the author shows that through the statistics, the massive drop of in crime that has occurred during the last two decades, can be directly attributed to Roe. v wade. That the easy availability of abortions to those most in need, single woman, low income, poor background, un-educated. Has led to the crime drop. Think how many murders, rapes, crimes, etc... have been avoided.

In the end, your fried Ann Coulter sums it up. The goal of the church is to convert everyone to "christianity" and YOUR way of thinking. How about live and let live.

Since they are losing the overall argument, they figure that changing the laws is the best way to "win". They can't win the argument, so we'll just force people by changing the laws.

The religious right is all about power and control. You must live your life their way or you will "burn in the fires of hell." It really makes me laugh. Best way to brainwash a kid is through fear.

Where was your "God" when your priests were raping and sexually abusing kids and your bishops were just passing them around from Church to CHurch. Thus to ensure they could inflict the most amount of pain on the most amount of people. THAT'S YOUR RELIGION, DON'T EVER FORGET!!!!!

Oh yeah, please throw 10% into the till or you'll burn forever in hell!!!!! And don't forget to make a nice donation after your death or you'll be stuck in Pergatory. That's right, you live your life like a good Christian, then have to Pay $$$ to get into heaven.

What an absolute joke!

Any of you religious zealots read any books other then the bible, such as "Freakonomics." In it, the author shows that through the statistics, the massive drop of in crime that has occurred during the last two decades, can be directly attributed to Roe. v wade. That the easy availability of abortions to those most in need, single woman, low income, poor background, un-educated. Has led to the crime drop. Think how many murders, rapes, etc... have been avoided.

In the end, your fried Ann Coulter sums it up. The goal of the church is to convert everyone to "christianity" and their way of thinking.

Since they are losing the overall argument, they figure that changing the laws is the best way to "win". They can't win the argument, so we'll just force people by changing the laws.

The religious right is all about power and control. You must live your life their way or you will "burn in the fires of hell." It really makes me laugh. Best way to brainwash a kid is through fear.

Where was your "God" when your priests were raping and sexually abusing kids and your bishops were just passing them around from Church to CHurch. Thus to ensure they could inflict the most amount of pain on the most amount of people. THAT'S YOUR RELIGION, DON'T EVER FORGET!!!!!

Oh yeah, please throw 10% into the till or you'll burn forever in hell!!!!! And don't forget to make a nice donation after your death or you'll be stuck in Pergatory. That's right, you live your life like a good Christian, then have to Pay $$$ to get into heaven.

What an absolute joke!

Any of you religious zealots read any books other then the bible, such as "Freakonomics." In it, the author shows that through the statistics, the massive drop of in crime that has occurred during the last two decades, can be directly attributed to Roe. v wade. That the easy availability of abortions to those most in need, single woman, low income, poor background, un-educated. Has led to the crime drop. Think how many murders, rapes, etc... have been avoided.

In the end, your fried Ann Coulter sums it up. The goal of the church is to convert everyone to "christianity" and their way of thinking.

Since they are losing the overall argument, they figure that changing the laws is the best way to "win". They can't win the argument, so we'll just force people by changing the laws.

The religious right is all about power and control. You must live your life their way or you will "burn in the fires of hell." It really makes me laugh. Best way to brainwash a kid is through fear.

Where was your "God" when your priests were raping and sexually abusing kids and your bishops were just passing them around from Church to CHurch. Thus to ensure they could inflict the most amount of pain on the most amount of people. THAT'S YOUR RELIGION, DON'T EVER FORGET!!!!!

Oh yeah, please throw 10% into the till or you'll burn forever in hell!!!!! And don't forget to make a nice donation after your death or you'll be stuck in Pergatory. That's right, you live your life like a good Christian, then have to Pay $$$ to get into heaven.

What an absolute joke!

Thank you, Mark in Irvine. I could not have said it better.

This is one of many On Faith articles I've read. As religion is a contentious subject, it is of no surprise that it receives the most comments.

As I skim the hundreds of comments each day/week, I am filled with sadness at the divisive nature of religion.

When a person feels passionate about a subject, I suppose they feel compelled to share, to influence.

Yet, sometimes, this zealousness is blinding.

The truth is, none of us really understand, unless we've walked a mile in their shoes.

It's easy to judge. It's easy to spout off our opinion.

What is hard is to listen, to have empathy, and to reach out with love and understanding in a non-judgemental way.

"I strongly suspect that non-procreative sex is a big part of the abortion issue, not necessarily for Catholics but certainly for the vocal minority of Biblical literalists."

BINGO! If this country were really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, birth control information and tools would be available without question in every school in the land, no questions asked. It is the hidden agenda of the religious right to "punish" sexually active people who become pregnant with the "consequences" of their "sin" that prevents universal adoption of the only sensible approach to contraception: wholly unrestricted access. Countries without restrictions on abortion or contraception have the lowest rates of abortion in the world. The phony moralizing of the most vocal members of the anti-abortion crowd is responsible for the high numbers of abortions in this country. If they were serious about saving unborn lives, they would embrace the available measures that would help people avoid unwanted conception. It's not just the decision of the participants in the sex to use or not use contraception that is responsible for unwanted pregnancies: it is the pervasive culture of shame, guilt and squeamishness about matters sexual in this country that trains its citizens not to incorporate contraception into the routine of daily life. This is religious hypocrisy at its finest.

It is sad when people say things like "there is no legitimate, reasonable non-religously-based argument against abortion." A person who says this is saying that without the fear of God people would not do right, or that people who don't believe in God are incapable of love. Do you say these things because you would not do moral acts if you didn't fear God? I doubt it.

I am an atheist. I love my children and I love your children, too. Abortion fills me with grief for the child and for the mother. I do not believe in making it illegal because it is sometimes the least horrible of several impossible choices.

So: I love this column. Hate abortion? Foster a pregnant teenager. Hate abortion? Stop judging unwed mothers. Hate abortion? Teach your boys to walk a mile in another's shoes. In a compassionate society, there would be few reasons to ever end a pregnancy.

ToGo 1960: if there is no punishment, there is no crime. if you don't put the woman in jail, it's legal. are you suggesting a $20 civil citation? a misdemeanor that can't be used to deny employment later, or for any other purpose? then it's legal. no one is talking about encouraging or promiting abortion (at least no one I am listening to) just leaving it on the table for those who cannot find any other path. Roe does not create a right to an abortion, which is why there is no reason the government has to pay for it, nor any private insurer. as noted by others, overturning Roe would accomplish nothing except getting the issue off the federal table (that would be amazingly good) and back to the states, where the issue would not generate the publicity for the zealots that they get now. It's been said that Roe was the worst thing that could happen to liberals and pro choice advocates because it created a federal issue for national elections that would otherwise not have existed and we might not have ever had a moral majority or religious right that mattered.

Some people's religions or religious convictions do not hold abortion to be a sin. By trying to impose your values on them, you are not respecting their religous freedoms.

The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal. Why don't you respect your fellow Americans' right to have an abortion? Is you first allegiance to the United States or to the Catholic Church?

Should the Catholic Church be tax-exempt in the United States if it does not respect the law of the land?

Many women like the protesters you saw in Aurora march right into the clincs and have abortions. Due to patient privacy laws, the clinics cannot "out" them. The next week they are back out on the sidewalk harassing patients who want to exercise their legal right.

Hypocrites to the nth degree!!!!!!!!!

Wiccan: I'm usually on the same page about limiting government power. In fact, I'm not sure I agree that drug use or prostitution should be treated as crimes, though I understand at least some of why they are.

Human life is a more (the most) fundamental matter, and I long for us to be consistent about it.

Our government protects my life by statute. Each unborn child is more worthy and needful of that protection than I.

I find Pro-Lifers inconsistent.

On one hand they Pro-Lifers say protect life, but yet they do not protect children's lives after they are born unwanted.

Bad orphanages, bad foster care in America does not reflect a consistent attitude about children's concerns or chilkdren's lives.

I belive most Pro-Lifers are into the pro-life position, because it is against minorities. Easy form of racism against the poor and the indegent.

I have yet to meet a pro-lifer that is prepared to raise a child from infancy to death, something most unwanted children never experience, yert are forced i nto a world unwanted.

Perhaps the Pro-Lifers can establish a system to care for all the unwanted children that grow up without a family for their entire life, not just the first eighteen years.

Foster care lasts only eighteen years. After age eighteen foster children are thrust into the streets as homeless and indegent adults.

America needs to stop giving lip service to children's rights and actualy respect the children that are here due to their laws of abortion rights.

What about all the unwanted children in America today?

I speak from experience!

Patrick

I find Pro-Lifers inconsistent.

On one hand they Pro-Lifers say protect life, but yet they do not protect children's lives after they are born unwanted.

Bad orphanages, bad foster care in America does not reflect a consistent attitude about children's concerns or chilkdren's lives.

I belive most Pro-Lifers are into the pro-life position, because it is against minorities. Easy form of racism against the poor and the indegent.

I have yet to meet a pro-lifer that is prepared to raise a child from infancy to death, something most unwanted children never experience, yert are forced i nto a world unwanted.

Perhaps the Pro-Lifers can establish a system to care for all the unwanted children that grow up without a family for their entire life, not just the first eighteen years.

Foster care lasts only eighteen years. After age eighteen foster children are thrust into the streets as homeless and indegent adults.

America needs to stop giving lip service to children's rights and actualy respect the children that are here due to their laws of abortion rights.

What about all the unwanted children in America today?

I speak from experience!

Patrick

C.J.'s Mom-

If the "pro-life/anti-choice" people adopted the attitude shown in your last paragraph, I'd be willing to support them. Too often it is not about helping someone in crisis, but more about proving how moral they are. I admire you, ma'am. Blessed Be.

A little over three years ago, I faced an unplanned pregnancy. I went to Planned Parenthood to confirm the pregnancy and made plans for an abortion. I was asked during the mandatory counseling session if I was comfortable with the decision I was making, and at the time I said "yes," but also mentioned that I had never expected to be in that situation, and that I would have made another choice if I thought it was possible. The PP counselor then made an offhand comment that the people on the pro - life side typically give their opinions, but not much practical help to a woman in my situation.

In Virginia, there is a mandatory waiting period between the initital counseling session and the actual abortion...so I went home that night, and called a friend who worked at Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center. My friend is not Catholic, so I got no rosaies chanted at me. She did not tell me lies about fetal development (I was aware of articles written by a group of journalists that had posed as potential clients in Crisis Pregnancy Centers, only to be given misinformation about fetal development, morbidity rates attributable to abortion, and the like). We had a rational discussion about options. I learned about the various resources in my community to help me choose to carry this pregnancy to term, and to parent, if I so choose. I never got judgement or a harangue.

I ultimately decided to cancel the abortion appointment, and carry the child to term. Later in the pregnancy, after I'd assessed my financial situation and worked out a reasonable plan for child care, I decided to parent the child. Here I am, three years later, the mother of a charming two year old son, and now married with a second child on the way. I never used government programs (e.g., WIC, welfare, Medicaid, etc.), and I never used any material support from a church or pro-life organization. What I needed at that time was a calm voice letting me know what supports were out there in the event that I did not choose abortion. I felt then, and still strongly do now, that often abortion is not so much a choice for a young womn, but it is seen as the the only, desperate option. If the public dialogue on abortion were not so polarized in this country, then maybe women in a crisis situation could get the information they need to make a decision that indeed feels like a "choice".

So why recount this story here? Because Elizabeth is right - at a moment in a woman's life when everything feels out of uncontrol and untrustworthy (the birth control has failed, and your boyfriend of a year decides that's the time to say he's just not that into you ), the last thing she needs is lies from either side. She doesn't need religious or poltical platitudes or dehumanizing epithets hurled her way. She needs information and honesty.

Because of my own experience, I now consider myself pro-life, but that does not mean I have joined or support any organization that would harass women entering a clinic or health care providers that work in one. I strive to be like my friend, willing to offer a listening ear, respect, truth, and real material help if necessary to enable a woman who wants to choose life to actually do so.

ToGo1960-

"Wiccan: You didn't ask me, but I don't believe a woman who has a (hypothetical, future) illegal abortion should receive criminal punishment."

If a police officer sees a drug deal being made, he will arrest both the seller and the buyer. If he see a prostitute sucessfully soliciting a john, he will arrest both the seller and the buyer. Why is the case of illegal abortion different?

"But neither do I believe our society should encourage and help abort children."

I can respect that. But my major objection to outlawing abortion is that if you give the government the right to forbid abortions, you have given them the right to compel abortions. I don't believe that the government should have either right.

Ceedant,

I hope the judgment you felt was imputed rather than expressed to you. Most of the pro-life people I know have a heartfelt burden of compassion for those who are facing crisis pregnancies, but I'm sure there are some who extend their mission to the point of speaking harsh words of judgment to an already tortured mother.

It is precisely because some of us have walked in your shoes that we do everything we can to help at the same time we oppose abortion. 25 years ago, shortly after resuming a relationship with my girlfriend, I learned she'd conceived another man's child. He gave her some money for an abortion, but we chose instead to marry, and I accepted and helped raise that daughter as my own. We've never regretted it.

I share that only to address the notion that pro-lifers could never understand a given set of desperate circumstances. A true Christian never believes themselves superior to another person, no matter what they may have done. And there is a strong ministry within the Church to reach out to those who have had abortions without casting judgment on them.

Swheelock: I am pro-everyone's-life.

Mybodynotyours: An acorn is an oak seed. It becomes an oak seedling, and grows into an oak tree. At any point, its owner may kill it. At what point does the allegedly not-a-person in the womb, which you feel free to kill, become a person whom you may not, and why? Consider when answering: you may not kill the egg of an endangered bird.

Wiccan: You didn't ask me, but I don't believe a woman who has a (hypothetical, future) illegal abortion should receive criminal punishment. But neither do I believe our society should encourage and help abort children.

The reality is that an unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy whatever one's pro life, or pro choice position is...

Read stories of pro-life people who chose abortion, when the unwanted pregancy came knocking at THEIR personal door...

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

BTW, there are Catholics who do support choice...

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

Bottom line is that it is all personal philosophy. I think of pregnancy as a biological process - there's nothing "sacred" about it. If you believe differently, have at it. Just don't impose your belief system on me.

The arrogance of those who would require women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and go through the risk of childbirth, only to keep an unwanted child, or struggle to raise a child she cannot care for properly, or give it away, is eggregious.

These people are control freaks. I can tell you that I did NOT suffer when I had an abortion, and 30 years later it was one of the BEST decisions I have ever made. Other women do NOT speak for me or the many millions of women who do have abortions each and every year, and always will do so until there's 100% sure ways to prevent accidental pregancies, or medical issues for the mother or fetus/child (whatever your belief system).

Elizabeth,
I was touched by your desire to reach across the divide. When birth control failed me (back in the bad old days before we were told that antibiotics can reduce efficacy) I made the heartbreaking choice to have an abortion. When I walked into the clinic, weeping inside, there were protesters. I remember thinking how far removed their world was from mine. I couldn't imagine what it must be like to have enough resources and support to not have to have an abortion...or what it was like to have enough time to protest the pain and suffering of others. I had all I could do to keep the rent paid and family together. I was working two full-time jobs while raising my son and dealing with my husband's illness. I knew in my heart, you'd never walked in my shoes and that you were there to judge me, not help me. The wedge between me and the Catholic faith could not be driven deeper.

"uh glido, if your christian hon, a commandment says though shalt not kill! period."

Which commandment?

The Jewish/Christian one is "Thou shalt not MURDER."

Hebrew makes the same distinction between murder and kill as English.

Joe G.: Isn't it kind of arrogant to say that we shouldn't look to Europe for anything, especially when things such as healthcare and sex education are so much better than ours?

And what's so bad about having a downturn in the population? Isn't it kind of necessary in order to stem the tide of producing and consuming ourselves into oblivion?

What most so-called "pro-lifers" are is not pro-life, but pro-pushing people around. They want to tell people what is moral, or what they can or can't do, and don't care a whit about what the needs of those people are. Instead of standing in front of abortion clinics screaming at women, these people should be finding ways to prevent these women from getting pregnant in the first place, or giving these women a viable option for carrying their babies to term.

What pro-lifers should concern themselves with is reducing the number of abortions, not by law, but by reducing the need for them, either through better contraception use or better economic circumstances. They should stop kidding themselves about so-called "pro-life" politicians, who pay lip service to overturning Roe v. Wade, when in fact, that's exactly the last thing they want to have happen. Why? Because, if it does, then they'll be forced to put their money where their mouths are, and call for bans on abortion, which most voters oppose.

What most so-called "pro-lifers" are is not pro-life, but pro-pushing people around. They want to tell people what is moral, or what they can or can't do, and don't care a whit about what the needs of those people are. Instead of standing in front of abortion clinics screaming at women, these people should be finding ways to prevent these women from getting pregnant in the first place, or giving these women a viable option for carrying their babies to term.

What pro-lifers should concern themselves with is reducing the number of abortions, not by law, but by reducing the need for them, either through better contraception use or better economic circumstances. They should stop kidding themselves about so-called "pro-life" politicians, who pay lip service to overturning Roe v. Wade, when in fact, that's exactly the last thing they want to have happen. Why? Because, if it does, then they'll be forced to put their money where their mouths are, and call for bans on abortion, which most voters oppose.

If I crush an acorn, have I cut down a mighty oak? No, I've crushed an acorn. A fetus is not a baby. It's a fetus. A HUGE difference

If I crush an acorn, have I cut down a mighty oak? No, I've crushed an acorn. A fetus is not a baby. It's a fetus. A HUGE difference

If I crush an acorn, have I cut down a mighty oak? No, I've crushed an acorn. A fetus is not a baby. It's a fetus. A HUGE difference

I really have only one question for "Pro-Lifers": Pro- Whose life?

"Posted on November 2, 2007 12:40

Natural Rights:

When it is, yes, there will be those who break the law. Just as there are people today who murder, molest, rape, steal and destroy. We have to have laws in place to protect our citizens and insure civil society. A society that is full of sinners should not dismantle its laws just because those sinners will break them."

If Roe vs Wade is repealed, what do you recommend be the punishment for women who have or seek abortions?

Excellent column. I am an evangelical, not a Catholic, so I must say I agree however that there is a serious disconnect between anti-birth controla and pro-life.

Having said that, I think the author makes a needed point. Our country was founded on the principles of natural rights. In fact, the very purpose of the Dec of Ind was to 'pursue life'. I believe in a pro-life society yes because I am a Christian, but also because I understand that our Constitution grants us the right to pursue life. How can we excercise that when we can legally never even have the chance?

Since life is a right that is easily found in several parts of the Constitution, Roe v. Wade is bad law. Period. It will be overturned.

When it is, yes, there will be those who break the law. Just as there are people today who murder, molest, rape, steal and destroy. We have to have laws in place to protect our citizens and insure civil society. A society that is full of sinners should not dismantle its laws just because those sinners will break them.

Not sure why we'd look to Europe for almost anything at this point. Sure, their abortion rate is lower, and their birth rates are, too -- must lower than replenishment rates.

A better model would be to teach our youth that sex is best within marriage, and that destroying offspring is an odd vision of freedom.

Success rates with contraception have always depended upon age, education, and type of relationship (for instance, college educated 30 year olds in committed relationships have much higher success rates than teenage girls).

Most would not rationally believe that we're going to "educate" 15 year olds with a few hours of safe driver training and then provide them with the means to drive a lot more, and then hope that injury rates go down.

Instead of encouraging young girls to contracept and get their groove on, we should educate about a different ethic of sex.

This one obviously ain't working.

Elizabeth,

I've never commented on your blog before, so let me begin by commending you for earnestly seeking the Truth, and for looking beyond yourself in a challenging way. I believe God always honors that.

If we really apply the seamless garment concept, we understand that the primary purpose of our faith is not social justice or self-improvement. God is so wondrous (sorry for the lame adjective; all of creation is insufficient to convey God's greatness!) that knowing God (in the full, biblical, intimate relationship sense of the verb) is its own end. However, a hunger for social justice naturally rises up out of an authentic faith, as does personal growth.

Of course, as you point out, faith is not the only source for social consciousness and personal growth. No one I know dismisses the assistance of those who seek to help us on an issue simply because they may not share our faith. Their efforts, too, are welcome and important, and God works through all of us. But suggesting that faithful pro-life people shouldn't apply the power of prayer at the front lines of this battle (and though I use a warlike analogy, this is a battle of love, a battle against an evil, and by no means a battle against people - neither those choosing abortion nor those who may profit from it - per St. Paul) is like suggesting that we should perform vigorous exercise without stoking the body with food.

Nor is prayer an impractical tactic. Having been involved with groups praying outside of our local abortion center, there have been a number of times when the mother or father of an unborn child has approached us and told us that it was our prayerful, peaceful presence there which helped them seek a better answer than to end their baby's life. We're not there screaming slogans or casting condemnation. We're asking for a help greater than any we might bring to bear on our own. We can then direct these (usually young) parents to the practical resources they need (in our case, right across the street), many of which are available through the efforts of the same people who stand and pray.

I'm concerned by your insistence that addressing the abortion issue is more important than witnessing the love of Christ. Yes, our efforts must be tangible and practical; we must address the needs of these parents in crisis. But we must never swallow the worldly perspective that any other aim is what really matters. Finding Jesus' love is precisely the point! Every effort we make is rooted in that or is misdirected. Yes, "When necessary, use words," and sometimes we insist on words when we should be working. But ALWAYS "Preach the Gospel," and too often we're too worried about coming across as some sort of religious nutcase in the process.

You write:

“What does a pregnant young woman need from the community? Condescending prayers from a distance? White crosses stuck into a patch of land? More judgment [real or perceived] from a religious community of which she is likely not a part, one that she probably does not understand? “

Frankly, the most important thing the community could have given her is help to NOT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. How about access to reliable birth control, and education in how and when to use it? Even though abortion is widely available in Northern Europe, their abortion rate is FAR lower than ours, because birth control and sex education are also widely available.

If you are honest about wanting to reduce the number of abortions in this country, then look at the only proven method of doing that: The Northern Europe model.

Actually, for most of its history, the Catholic Church did NOT consider a first trimester abortion to be murder. See http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/abortion.html

Elizabeth,

I've never commented on your blog before, so let me begin by commending you for earnestly seeking the Truth, and for looking beyond yourself in a challenging way. I believe God always honors that.

If we really apply the seamless garment concept, we understand that the primary purpose of our faith is not social justice or self-improvement. God is so wondrous (sorry for the lame adjective; all of creation is insufficient to convey God's greatness!) that knowing God (in the full, biblical, intimate relationship sense of the verb) is its own end. However, a hunger for social justice naturally rises up out of an authentic faith, as does personal growth.

Of course, as you point out, faith is not the only source for social consciousness and personal growth. No one I know dismisses the assistance of those who seek to help us on an issue simply because they may not share our faith. Their efforts, too, are welcome and important, and God works through all of us. But suggesting that faithful pro-life people shouldn't apply the power of prayer at the front lines of this battle (and though I use a warlike analogy, this is a battle of love, a battle against an evil, and by no means a battle against people - neither those choosing abortion nor those who may profit from it - per St. Paul) is like suggesting that we should perform vigorous exercise without stoking the body with food.

Nor is prayer an impractical tactic. Having been involved with groups praying outside of our local abortion center, there have been a number of times when the mother or father of an unborn child has approached us and told us that it was our prayerful, peaceful presence there which helped them seek a better answer than to end their baby's life. We're not there screaming slogans or casting condemnation. We're asking for a help greater than any we might bring to bear on our own. We can then direct these (usually young) parents to the practical resources they need (in our case, right across the street), many of which are available through the efforts of the same people who stand and pray.

I'm concerned by your insistence that addressing the abortion issue is more important than witnessing the love of Christ. Yes, our efforts must be tangible and practical; we must address the needs of these parents in crisis. But we must never swallow the worldly perspective that any other aim is what really matters. Finding Jesus' love is precisely the point! Every effort we make is rooted in that or is misdirected. Yes, "When necessary, use words," and sometimes we insist on words when we should be working. But ALWAYS "Preach the Gospel," and too often we're too worried about coming across as some sort of religious nutcase in the process.

You write:

“What does a pregnant young woman need from the community? Condescending prayers from a distance? White crosses stuck into a patch of land? More judgment [real or perceived] from a religious community of which she is likely not a part, one that she probably does not understand? “

Frankly, the most important thing the community could have given her is help to NOT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. How about access to reliable birth control, and education in how and when to use it? Even though abortion is widely available in Northern Europe, their abortion rate is FAR lower than ours, because birth control and sex education are also widely available.

If you are honest about wanting to reduce the number of abortions in this country, then look at the only proven method of doing that: The Northern Europe model.

Actually, for most of its history, the Catholic Church did NOT consider a first trimester abortion to be murder. See http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/abortion.html

The "just don't have sex" answer to this question is far to simplistic a response. Questions about birth control and abortion are also very relevant for married people and adults -- Catholic and non-Catholic. In 3 and 1/2 years of marriage my Catholic mother had three children. After the third, with the stress of raising and providing for those three children, my mother went to her priest, concerned that another child would put her and my father over the edge. Luckily, her priest gave her a common sense reply -- that the goal is perfection (i.e., not using birth control) and that we can't always achieve it. I'm thankful that priest saw a way to work within the church to protect my family and I'm sorry the church itself hasn't done the same for it's flock as a whole. It's also interesting to me that the conversation between my mother and her priest happened 40 years ago and since then, although the church's position hasn't changed, the majority of Catholics have chosen to ignore this church rule or leave the church. To be pro-life can't simply only be about one kind of life -- in this case whatever potential children my family would have had vs. the lives of the ones that were already here on this earth. And simplistic "don't do it" responses are not suffient to sort through the issue for most people on a daily basis.

Mid-205:
"However-if you feel "mature" enough to have sex, you should be "mature" enough to deal with the outcomes."

Don't you really mean to say that having a baby should be the punishment to those who have sex and get pregnant? Please get off your high horse and stop preaching. You do not have the right to judge anyone. Do you personally know the women who have abortions? Do you know what circumstances led them to that decision? Do you know why I chose to have an abortion over 10 years ago? No, you don't. But, of course you assume that all the women having abortions are just having the time of their lives and having unprotected sex and thinking "Well if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion." This is the typical attitude we see from the anti-abortion side. Women are sluts and therefore must pay for their sin by keeping their baby. And you talk about adoption like it is this amazing thing. You must be getting your information somewhere else about the state of adoption in the United States, because no one is banging down the door of apdoption agencies for babies that are not white. And once a child gets past a certain age, it is even harder to get adopted. And not to mention the cost and legal issues associated with it. The problem is teen/unwanted pregnancy in this country should be treated as a public health issue. The government should be pouring millions of dollars into education and health care for teens and for low income communities. That is what they do in Canada and Europe and their rates of pregnancy and STDs are tremendously lower than in the U.S. The stats are clear--abortions among minorities and low income women are much higher than among white women and those in higher income brackets. Women who have access to health care, birth control, education are much less likely to get pregnant in the first place.

Among the pro-lifers and pro-choicers I've met over the years, almost all of the former have been men and almost all of the latter have been women. In your experience, have you encountered a similar gender divide over this issue?

Mid-205:
"However-if you feel "mature" enough to have sex, you should be "mature" enough to deal with the outcomes."

Don't you really mean to say that having a baby should be the punishment to those who have sex and get pregnant? Please get off your high horse and stop preaching. You do not have the right to judge anyone. Do you personally know the women who have abortions? Do you know what circumstances led them to that decision? Do you know why I chose to have an abortion over 10 years ago? No, you don't. But, of course you assume that all the women having abortions are just having the time of their lives and having unprotected sex and thinking "Well if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion." This is the typical attitude we see from the anti-abortion side. Women are sluts and therefore must pay for their sin by keeping their baby. And you talk about adoption like it is this amazing thing. You must be getting your information somewhere else about the state of adoption in the United States, because no one is banging down the door of apdoption agencies for babies that are not white. And once a child gets past a certain age, it is even harder to get adopted. And not to mention the cost and legal issues associated with it. The problem is teen/unwanted pregnancy in this country should be treated as a public health issue. The government should be pouring millions of dollars into education and health care for teens and for low income communities. That is what they do in Canada and Europe and their rates of pregnancy and STDs are tremendously lower than in the U.S. The stats are clear--abortions among minorities and low income women are much higher than among white women and those in higher income brackets. Women who have access to health care, birth control, education are much less likely to get pregnant in the first place.

Mid-205:
"However-if you feel "mature" enough to have sex, you should be "mature" enough to deal with the outcomes."

Don't you really mean to say that having a baby should be the punishment to those who have sex and get pregnant? Please get off your high horse and stop preaching. You do not have the right to judge anyone. Do you personally know the women who have abortions? Do you know what circumstances led them to that decision? Do you know why I chose to have an abortion over 10 years ago? No, you don't. But, of course you assume that all the women having abortions are just having the time of their lives and having unprotected sex and thinking "Well if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion." This is the typical attitude we see from the anti-abortion side. Women are sluts and therefore must pay for their sin by keeping their baby. And you talk about adoption like it is this amazing thing. You must be getting your information somewhere else about the state of adoption in the United States, because no one is banging down the door of apdoption agencies for babies that are not white. And once a child gets past a certain age, it is even harder to get adopted. And not to mention the cost and legal issues associated with it. The problem is teen/unwanted pregnancy in this country should be treated as a public health issue. The government should be pouring millions of dollars into education and health care for teens and for low income communities. That is what they do in Canada and Europe and their rates of pregnancy and STDs are tremendously lower than in the U.S. The stats are clear--abortions among minorities and low income women are much higher than among white women and those in higher income brackets. Women who have access to health care, birth control, education are much less likely to get pregnant in the first place.

For anyone interested in reading about the history of Catholic perspectives on abortion/contraception, I'd recommend John Noonan's "Contraception". I think it would help to clear up a good number of misunderstandings about the contemporary Catholic view, plus it helps to reinforce the idea that there's never been a totally solid consensus in the Church as to what to do with contraception, etc.

I have to admit, I could never have an abortion. I personally believe the minute that a sperm and egg join, the result is life. I agree with several other posters who said that if you can't handle the potential outcome of a child, then you shouldn't have sex. Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp? Is it the instant gratification focus of this generation? That a couple can't delay that pleasure until they are ready for all of the potential consequences? My parents taught me that if I couldn't handle a consequence, I probably shouldn't take that particular course of action. Yes, sex can be a wonderful thing. When you are young and in "love", kids thinks it's natural and the right thing to do. However, there are still kids out there who believe that sex should be saved for someone special, not the first person you pick up. And those kids aren't the ones being faced with such a horrible choice. Of course you will always have those women that use abortion as birth control and those people that don't think about the possible consequences of their actions; however, if we as a culture value life and morals, we have to teach our children to think before they act. They have to learn that life is precious (and yes, having the death penalty and war going on doesn't jive with that thought--I know) and it's important to THINK. They have learn that there are consequences for actions; there are so many couples out there trying to adopt a baby that can't. It's expensive and complicated and it seems that the only press that foster care or adoptive parents are getting is bad press (the abusive ones). It's important to help everyone realize that there are many wonderful people who would gladly take and raise that child in a great home--unfortunately I think most people today think of abortion as the first and only response. Yes, 9 months is a long time, yes birth is not pleasant. However-if you feel "mature" enough to have sex, you should be "mature" enough to deal with the outcomes.

I have to admit, I could never have an abortion. I personally believe the minute that a sperm and egg join, the result is life. I agree with several other posters who said that if you can't handle the potential outcome of a child, then you shouldn't have sex. Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp? Is it the instant gratification focus of this generation? That a couple can't delay that pleasure until they are ready for all of the potential consequences? My parents taught me that if I couldn't handle a consequence, I probably shouldn't take that particular course of action. Yes, sex can be a wonderful thing. When you are young and in "love", kids thinks it's natural and the right thing to do. However, there are still kids out there who believe that sex should be saved for someone special, not the first person you pick up. And those kids aren't the ones being faced with such a horrible choice. Of course you will always have those women that use abortion as birth control and those people that don't think about the possible consequences of their actions; however, if we as a culture value life and morals, we have to teach our children to think before they act. They have to learn that life is precious (and yes, having the death penalty and war going on doesn't jive with that thought--I know) and it's important to THINK. They have learn that there are consequences for actions; there are so many couples out there trying to adopt a baby that can't. It's expensive and complicated and it seems that the only press that foster care or adoptive parents are getting is bad press (the abusive ones). It's important to help everyone realize that there are many wonderful people who would gladly take and raise that child in a great home--unfortunately I think most people today think of abortion as the first and only response. Yes, 9 months is a long time, yes birth is not pleasant. However-if you feel "mature" enough to have sex, you should be "mature" enough to deal with the outcomes.

"The callers posed as 13 year olds with 22 year-old 'boyfriends.'"

I've been told that the majority of females seeking abortions are underage and are "escorted" to the clinics by older "boyfriends." I don't know if that's true. If it is, why are so many men sexually targeting underage girls, which is not only immoral but illegal? What causes the despicable mindset of the men that Chris Hanson has been interrogating? What can be done to help prevent this kind of mindset? If there were no abortions, this problem of statutory rape would still exist.

Lynn,

You apparently do not believe abortion is wrong. You just don't think you'd ever need one. My question was directed at those who personally believe it is wrong but would not want to impose this belief on others. My hope is that they will examine their thinking. I believe that rape and slavery are wrong and I have no qualms about imposing this belief on others by supporting laws against rape and slavery.

I've seen bumper stickers that say "Against Abortion? Don't Have One" But I haven't seen the "Against Slavery? Don't Own One" or "Against Rape? Don't Commit One" -- at least not yet, but if the embrace of relativism continues, who knows.

For those who say that children who are aborted would have had hard tough lives, and therefore it is ok to abort them -- what you are saying is scary for you could say that many impoverished 2 year olds or 6 year olds who appear to have hard lives ahead of them and who are and will be burdens to their parents and siblings. When something is objectively evil, like abortion, there is no way to make it good by weighing the hypothetical outcomes. For example, abortion doesn't become good because it allows the mother to stay in medical school and save 5 kids or because it means more resources for the dead child's siblings. It is always and everywhere evil to kill an innocent human being.

Please think about this. May God our Father in Heaven send the Holy Spirit to give you His gift of understanding.

Have a good day.

I know that an unborn child is a precious thing of beauty but I believe that every living thing is beautiful (and some rocks and water too...)

But be real. How many of you speaking have been in the horrible position of having an unwanted pregnancy? And who can say that the circumstances were absolutely impossible regardless of the choice they made? Abortion is not a good solution but raising an unwanted child is not a good solution either.

The Catholic Church at least is consistent in their teachings. I don't see the majority of people denying themselves the pleasure of sex except when knowingly procreating, and conversely it seems that the sort of repression that the belief requires seems to promote some cases of closet sexual deviants - a very poor way to love our children.

Has anybody with these vehement beliefs seen the conditions that so many children are raised in, and how they are treated? Granted, these children are wanted, but they need a little more loving. Have some compassion people! Go out and help those who are living. Then we will decrease the need for abortion slowly but surely.

A society in which every mother feels secure and cared for is the only society in which there will be no abortion. Get to work!

"Even if you are totally dependent on others, your humanity is not diminished."

But if I am totally dependent on another's body, I am subject to that person's right to choose, on an ongoing basis, whether or not to share their body with me. A person who needs a liver transplant is still human - but that doesn't mean they can just take another person's liver or part thereof if they don't want to give it. Heck, you can't even take a dead person's liver if they stated during life that they didn't want to give it - and they aren't using it any more!

If I, a full-grown living thinking feeling human being, can't use the body parts of a dead person who isn't using them any more because they didn't want to donate, why can a fetus use the uterus and blood supply of a living, thinking human who doesn't want to share them?

As for those of you who shake your heads at the immorality and Godlessness of those of us who *gasp* have sex for pleasure, ask yourself why your God made us one of the few mammals without an estrus cycle. You talk of "using each other for pleasure" rather than "sharing pleasure with each other," which is a truer image of most loving sex. And yet you have no problem with me using my husband, or him using me, for baby-making purposes, which is every bit as impersonal, probably more so. Using sex as solely a tool for breeding purposes cheapens its sacredness, diminishes our full humanity, and denies us one of the basic aspects of a full human life.

Most arguments against abortion are based on emotional arguments. Read the tactics used by the pro-life groups. They show pictures of fetuses in the womb to tug on the heart-strings, they show bloody pictures of aborted fetuses to enlicit discust and outrage. Most arguments for pro-choice, however, are based on logical arguments. Read The Violinist if you want a good solid understanding of the logical aspects of abortion with all the hype and emotions stripped away. I studied this in an Ethics class awhile back, and it really was an eye-opener for me. It really is a must read for anyone who wants to participate intelligently in this debate.

In a perfect world all women would want the baby they carry, but this is far from a perfect world. Abortion simply represents the best choice, the lesser-of-two-evils, for some women and not others. Is it murder? Probably. But so is dropping a 500 pound bomb on an Iraqi village and killing scores of innocent people. Do two wrongs make a right? No. Just to point out that in this society in which we live, sometimes we do indeed justify murder if it part of a "grander scheme", such as stopping global terror. I can think of no "grander scheme" more important than protecting the freedom of choice in the country in which I proudly live.

The phoney idea that cutting some funding from a healthcare program is equivalent to abortion is insane. Its just a pathetic and wobbly ploy to avoid coming to terms with killing an unborn child in the womb so that you may live a more comfortable life. When this latest phoney argument gets shot down, THEN will you start to engage abortion as an issue?

Formerhoya: I can't believe you don't understand the long held Catholic teaching on contraception and sexual ethics. You would think someone with enough intelligence to get into GU could be able to articulate it.

To respond to:

Rich:
May I ask a question to you, and to anyone else who is pro-life personally but pro-choice politically:

Why are you personally against abortion? Why do you believe it is wrong?

-------------------------------------------------
Choosing not to abort is not the same as believing abortion is wrong. The whole point is that abortion is a choice - not an imperative.

I am not in a position where an unexpected pregnancy would harm or perhaps capsize my education, my career, my income, my relationship, the well-being of my other children, my finances, or any other crucial aspect of my life and my future. I have also never been a rape or incest victim. I do have the skill set to parent and the good health to carry a pregnancy to term.

Therefore, I can say with a degree of certainty that I would never find myself in a position of needing or wanting an abortion. I have the freedom to make that choice. Having that freedom doesn't give me the right or the desire to force my personal choices on others who may - or may not - have a different set of circumstances and needs.

So, to be politically pro-choice, but personally willing to carry a pregnancy to term does not imply that abortion is inherently wrong, only that it is not the right choice for me.

Suggested future journalism project for Elizabeth Tenety

Check into Feminists for Life, focusing on the following questions:

1. What is their position on contraception? What are they doing to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies?

2. Do they think that women should ever be free to terminate unwanted pregnancies, for example in cases of rape?

3. Where do they get their funding?

4. What is their relationship with the Catholic church?

As a pro-choice Georgetown alum, just wanted to make a quick note about the big problem with Georgetown's pro-life stance mentioned above. You are talking about a university where condoms are not available (at least, not in 1999-2003, when I was there)whether free from the health clinic or for sale, on campus (students must walk over to a CVS, or elect to not use them at all). When I was there, students could not get prescriptions for the Pill filled at the health clinic, and gynecological services were limited. In addition, the pro-choice group on campus, despite Georgetown's commitment to free speech and expression, is known as H*YAS for Choice - they are not allowed to use an 'official' Georgetown nickname for the group.

It's all well and good to work to prevent the need for abortions by providing better services to pregnant women, but refusing to give them the means to avoid pregnancy just reeks of irresponsibility and medieval mores. If you want to prevent abortions, you need to work to prevent conception. Please don't use Georgetown as a model for anything in this issue, as their policies are - or recently were - anything but.

uh glido, if your christian hon, a commandment says though shalt not kill! period. Not though shalt not kill--unless or otherwise. How about you jesus freaks trying to live jesus' words. by your own bible he was compassionate and never would have been for the death penalty. He was a forgiver and preached forgiveness! And please don't give me the eye for an eye theory supposedly in your bible. That was mentioned only because jesus knew that most punishments of the time were far worse then the crime committed. By his word it seems that any taking of life innocent or otherwise is wrong. He didn't even want us to die for our sins--as he was the one willing to sacrifice himself to save us--if you are a believer! But that is the problem with all you god-fearers! You don't forgive - its all punishment! None of you try to walk the talk. Just keep poring money into the cups of your gay ministers and priests who are the biggest hypocrites.

And as for abortion, there is nothing in the bible mentioning it. As for the church, as mentioned above, why would it encourage the rhythm method to avoid pregnancies if the only reason to have sex is to allow a pregnancy? I suppose your explanation is it would be a punishment for not having safe sex--right?? And therefore woman, suffer and be forced to carry your baby to term--right? Hell of a way to bring a child into the world. I can just see the mother talking to her child later in life--"the only reason you exist is because i was punished by god for practicing unsafe sex. God i wish the rhythm method had worked better--should not have listened to the church--should have used a condom or the pill. Also, by your own god, an unborn is not innocent at all--remember--duhh-they are all born with the original sin!!!!!!!!!hmmmmm--innocent huh??? yea--right!! try again buddy

Uh Bob, Germany didn't attack us first, but thanks for playing.

Also, the death penalty does not call for the taking of innocent life, abortion does. The taking of innocent life is murder. The justified taking of life is not (see self-defense, defense of others in danger of serious bodily injury or death, just war theory).

I don't see any problem with liberals being anti-war, anti-death penalty and pro-choice. I am anti-war, but pro-defense. We only go to war to defend our country after being attacked by another country! Germany and Japan attacked us first for instance. Iraq and the Afgans didn't. Bin-Laden is not Afgan. He did not attack the United States with the blessing of the Taliban. Afganistan was attacked because they refused to turn over Bin-Laden. Non of the 9-11 attackers was Afgan, or Iraqi. They were Saudi and Egyptian, but we did not attack either Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Go Figure!

As for the death penality, Im against it not on moral grounds, but that i don't want to be the mistake in our imperfect, political-driven court system. I don't want my sons, relatives or friends, or anyone else for that matter being the mistake. You can't go ooooopppps, we goofed! Open up the casket and let the poor soul out!

When it comes to abortion, pro-choice is not pro-abortion--period. pro-choice is exactly what it means. I am leaving it up to the mother to make whatever choice she feels necessary and can live with in deciding her pregnancy. Pro-life people would have us all believe that such a decision is easily made without much thought or pain mentally. A woman just wakes up and says "ah, such a great day for an abortion"! But the hard fact are that there is usually much anguish in making such a decision. Then i hear "why don't they just give their babies up for adoption", yupper, wanting the woman to be a baby factory! The pro-lifers try to make it seem so easy to carry a fetus for 9 months. I don't know about women, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any man to do that! Besides, i can just imagine what would happen if as some people say, that millions of babies are aborted each year, these millions of babies were dumped on the federal and state governments to take care of until they are adopted, which most probably wouldn't be. Can u just imagine the cost and the size of the federal department in charge of over-seeing and raising these parentless children. Good luck all

One more point to piggyback on Lynn's post:

When women have better healthcare (although healthcare at all at this point would be a victory) and have educational choices they tend to have a lot fewer children; it's not hard to imagine they would have fewer unwanted pregnancies along the way as well.

The other half of the population should enjoy the aforementioned, especially in what would be the richest country in the world--but those are two other points.

Lynn Palermo:

Wow! Great post!

An added angle on this for me is the concept of the soul. What if, as some suggest, the soul doesn't "stay" with the body until birth?

If this is the case, then Catholics and others wouldn't/shouldn't(?) have a problem with abortion. And until(?) we know I won't presume to tell anyone what to do with their body.

In the meantime, though, I'd like those who subscribe to both 1.abortion is killing and 2.let's kill overseas to explain why life is so precious before birth but so disposable after.

*Please read carefully: I'm not asking those who think all life is sacred to answer; both conditions have to be met (as the President does).

And not to forget Pro Life Bush. Get the babies but don't provide medical care for them. When it comes to medical care for the poor babies whose mother's were encourage to bring them to this world at all every cost, Bush feels the cost is too much. Where are the Pro Life people. Life after birth has no meaning.

I'm all for improving conditions for raising children in this country: health care for all, affordable childcare, easy and affordable access to contraceptives, legislation on paid family leave, paid vacation, and retirement pensions. We are exceptional in not enjoying these benefits, though we live in the richest country in the world. Such benefits might well reduce the number of abortions -- so much the better.

We need to acknowledge that no amount of legislation will ever end abortion. Abortion has always existed and always will.

We need to acknowledge that less legal access to abortion means that more women will die of illegal abortions.

We need to stop equating a fetus with a child. There is no guarantee that a fetus will ever be born.

We need to be honest that carrying a child to term is statistically more dangerous than an abortion.

We need to be honest that there is no guarantee that a child put up for adoption will ever be adopted, especially if it is not blonde-haired/blue-eyed, especially if it has chronic health problems or disabilities.

We need to be honest that not everyone wants to have children, and that not wanting a child should not mean that a woman must remain celibate.

We need to be honest that when women do not want to have a child, forcing them to bear one is not a good idea.

We need to acknowledge that forcing a woman to bear a child does not bode well for the child's formative years.

We need to be honest that a woman is an intelligent being who is capable of making the decision of whether or not to try to carry a pregnancy to term.

And people need to understand that wanting to impose their belief system on everyone else has nothing to do with humility--but has everything to do with arrogance.

I'm all for improving conditions for raising children in this country: health care for all, affordable childcare, easy and affordable access to contraceptives, legislation on paid family leave, paid vacation, and retirement pensions. We are exceptional in not enjoying these benefits, though we live in the richest country in the world. Such benefits might well reduce the number of abortions -- so much the better.

We need to acknowledge that no amount of legislation will ever end abortion. Abortion has always existed and always will.

We need to acknowledge that less legal access to abortion means that more women will die of illegal abortions.

We need to stop equating a fetus with a child. There is no guarantee that a fetus will ever be born.

We need to be honest that carrying a child to term is statistically more dangerous than an abortion.

We need to be honest that there is no guarantee that a child put up for adoption will ever be adopted, especially if it is not blonde-haired/blue-eyed, especially if it has chronic health problems or disabilities.

We need to be honest that not everyone wants to have children, and that not wanting a child should not mean that a woman must remain celibate.

We need to be honest that when women do not want to have a child, forcing them to bear one is not a good idea.

We need to acknowledge that forcing a woman to bear a child does not bode well for the child's formative years.

We need to be honest that a woman is an intelligent being who is capable of making the decision of whether or not to try to carry a pregnancy to term.

And people need to understand that wanting to impose their belief system on everyone else has nothing to do with humility--but has everything to do with arrogance.

Someone posted a defense of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood aborts children--260,000 per year. They can't hide the fact that they are the nation's largest provider of abortion. They like to talk about their other services, but they like to perform abortions.

In their latest report they make no mention of arranging ANY adoptions. (In previous years they had reported paltry numbers.) Of course, there's no money for Planned Parenthood in adoption. In the same report this non-profit, taxpayer-funded organization reported a $50,000,000 profit.

Finally, Planned Parenthood, like most abortion clinics, is happy to cover up rape and incest. There are fathers who raped their daughters, took them for an abortion, and then continued to rape them. Do abortion clinics really care about these girls or the teen girls who are statutorily raped by much older "boyfriends"? Apparently not.

Just go to YouTube, type in Planned Parenthood, and you can listen to tapes of abortion clinic after abortion clinic coaching callers on how to keep statutory rapists out of jail. The callers posed as 13 year olds with 22 year-old "boyfriends." Where most Americans would be shocked and appalled, the clinic staffers didn't even seem phased.

If you're a parent, you should definitely listen to the tapes.

Not one asks if the girl is ok, or if she's being raped. But these clinics want to keep the statutory rapist out of trouble, conceal the rape, and get the girl in to pay for an abortion.

How do these abortion saleswomen--and they are women--live with themselves?

Someone posted a defense of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood aborts children--260,000 per year. They can't hide the fact that they are the nation's largest provider of abortion. They like to talk about their other services, but they like to perform abortions.

In their latest report they make no mention of arranging ANY adoptions. (In previous years they had reported paltry numbers.) Of course, there's no money for Planned Parenthood in adoption. In the same report this non-profit, taxpayer-funded organization reported a $50,000,000 profit.

Finally, Planned Parenthood, like most abortion clinics, is happy to cover up rape and incest. There are fathers who raped their daughters, took them for an abortion, and then continued to rape them. Do abortion clinics really care about these girls or the teen girls who are statutorily raped by much older "boyfriends"? Apparently not.

Just go to YouTube, type in Planned Parenthood, and you can listen to tapes of abortion clinic after abortion clinic coaching callers on how to keep statutory rapists out of jail. The callers posed as 13 year olds with 22 year-old "boyfriends." Where most Americans would be shocked and appalled, the clinic staffers didn't even seem phased.

If you're a parent, you should definitely listen to the tapes.

Not one asks if the girl is ok, or if she's being raped. But these clinics want to keep the statutory rapist out of trouble, conceal the rape, and get the girl in to pay for an abortion.

How do these abortion saleswomen--and they are women--live with themselves?

Praying a rosary in front of an abortion clinic may not be perfect, but it is peaceful and it is a last resort for trying to sway a young woman who is minutes from killing her unborn child.

Protesters in any movement never change minds of the other side, they simply draw attention to the evil going on in Planned Abortionhood.

Good going, Elizabeth.

I myself think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't even be an option. Women deserve a better way. Abortions kill innocent babies and if you don't want to have a child then you shouldn’t get yourself into a bad situation. Have the morals and the decency to wait until you are married so that you won’t even have to think about ending the life of an innocent unborn baby with the use of an abortion. I believe that the Feminists for Life do wonderful works. FFL is a wonderful choice for pregnant college students. I think that if anyone is thinking about having an abortion that they should definitely consider FFL instead because it is a much better idea and way. It also keeps children alive.

I myself think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't even be an option. Women deserve a better way. Abortions kill innocent babies and if you don't want to have a child then you shouldn’t get yourself into a bad situation. Have the morals and the decency to wait until you are married so that you won’t even have to think about ending the life of an innocent unborn baby with the use of an abortion. I believe that the Feminists for Life do wonderful works. FFL is a wonderful choice for pregnant college students. I think that if anyone is thinking about having an abortion that they should definitely consider FFL instead because it is a much better idea and way. It also keeps children alive.

I myself think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't even be an option. Women deserve a better way. Abortions kill innocent babies and if you don't want to have a child then you shouldn’t get yourself into a bad situation. Have the morals and the decency to wait until you are married so that you won’t even have to think about ending the life of an innocent unborn baby with the use of an abortion. I believe that the Feminists for Life do wonderful works. FFL is a wonderful choice for pregnant college students. I think that if anyone is thinking about having an abortion that they should definitely consider FFL instead because it is a much better idea and way. It also keeps children alive.

Rich,

"Is it because you believe the fetus in the womb is (or perhaps might be) a human being?"

It's possible that it is a human being and it's also possible that it isn't. As I said, none of us knows. I would not want to take that chance if the pregnancy was mine, but I have no place to tell someone they should or shouldn't have an abortion. I would probably feel differently if we had absolute proof of your contention.

Because of the unknown I mentioned, this issue cannot be compared to slavery. A much better comparison would be comatose patients kept alive on support after all hope of recovery is gone. So far I've never had a loved one who has been such a patient, and right now I honestly don't know what I would choose if I didn't know my loved one's wishes. I've read that such situations are incredibly traumatic for the families. But no one who has been in that situation can truly understand it on more than an intellectual level, and therefore has no standing to judge the decisions of others who have been there. I suggest the same is true for people with unwanted pregnancies.

Agree that a religious perspective is often the worst place to start with someone who believe that liberty includes the right to kill your offspring.

Yes, I'd advocate a much softer message for those making the long walk into an abortion clinic.

And for those who advocate such an action, I think it's better to start with discussions of human rights. What are rights for? Are they 'for' humans, or to be used against them? When is it 'just' to kill, and a general right to kill the innocent put others at risk?

As for Catholic views on contraception (apologies if this was made earlier), a big problem concerns the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. Doing so enables sex to be used as a tool -- not only to get what we want, but to use sex (and thus the person involved) for our own purposes.

Note that this doesn't even begin to address the other issues with contraception, incl. a selfishness towards our own desires (I'll decide when I want a child), the taking for granted of the mystery of life, and the ultimate need for abortion by a culture that sees contraception as a right.

And Catholics who justify contraception not only participate in scandal, but make it more difficult for Catholics who claim via the right of conscience to be obedient to the Church's teachings (pharmacists, doctors, Catholic employers, etc.).

Agree that a religious perspective is often the worst place to start with someone who believe that liberty includes the right to kill your offspring.

Yes, I'd advocate a much softer message for those making the long walk into an abortion clinic.

And for those who advocate such an action, I think it's better to start with discussions of human rights. What are rights for? Are they 'for' humans, or to be used against them? When is it 'just' to kill, and a general right to kill the innocent put others at risk?

As for Catholic views on contraception (apologies if this was made earlier), a big problem concerns the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. Doing so enables sex to be used as a tool -- not only to get what we want, but to use sex (and thus the person involved) for our own purposes.

Note that this doesn't even begin to address the other issues with contraception, incl. a selfishness towards our own desires (I'll decide when I want a child), the taking for granted of the mystery of life, and the ultimate need for abortion by a culture that sees contraception as a right.

And Catholics who justify contraception not only participate in scandal, but make it more difficult for Catholics who claim via the right of conscience to be obedient to the Church's teachings (pharmacists, doctors, Catholic employers, etc.).

i think that it is wrong to have an abortion. i say well if you dont want the baby then dont have sex, but it really is that girl's choice. nobody knows what it is like to be in that situation unless you were a young girl and you were pregnant. i think that it isnt easy for them and if you know someone that might have an abortion you should really just support and love them because it is not an easy thing to do.

I remember when the "pro-life" people first started appearing thirty years ago. The ones I knew were essentially older people who were at heart very upset that people were having sex and not having to pay for it. I heard that time and again and I came to understand that they weren't really pro "life" but that they were pro "punishment" for girls who fooled around. They don't like contraception, because it lets people have sex and not be punished. They don't really give a rat's ass about those kids. You can see it in the rest of their politics, the way they never support programs for the needy. I give the church some credit for running orphanages and other programs, but I understand that they are just like Jim Jones of the Peoples Church and Jerry Falwell, in that they do those things entirely to propagandize the people that use them. They need the opportunities to indoctrinate people. It is the only way they can keep the church going. And the church is really all about money. They need to keep sex dirty and guilt-inspiring, because without it they got nothing.

They got nothing.

Elizabeth,

Good job! You are playing to a rough house. Christians definitely seem to be in the minority in the "On Faith" section.

I am not Catholic, but I certainly hold that the church's position on birth control is consistent with their other beliefs. While I do not believe birth control is a sin that is not one of my major disagreements with the Catholic church. It is a belief honestly held and reasonably arrived at.

I do suggest that more gets done by Christians for young pregnant women than the church is given credit for. And please remember that honest prayer is not done for political effect, or to communicate to others. Its done ask for God's intercession on our behalf. Its done because we can approach the throne boldly when we are covered in Christ's blood. Its done because it can set in motion things in heaven that have their effect here on earth.

The world deceives itself into thinking it can explain away sin and its consequences, and it hates anybody that reminds them that this is not the case. They love the darkness.

We cannot save everyone, but we can try. Legislating abortion away will not eliminate the problem, but it may substantially reduce its occurence. If it causes them to turn to dark alleys, perhaps that will remind them that it is a dark deed they do.

The real answer is for everyone to hear the good news and accept Jesus as their savior. The vigils at the clinics is part of the solution, but the greatest weapon is God's own Son. If He is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself.

The multiple posts:

I posted once.

I got a WAPO message saying I'd posted too often - try again later.

I immediately posted once more.

Four posts show up!

What is this, o religious WaPo? The multiplication of the posts and fishes?

Isn't the WaPo wonderful?

Rich,

"Isn't life beautiful!"

Or ugly, depending on the circumstances.

Regards and best wishes to you.

Rich,

"Isn't life beautiful!"

Or ugly, depending on the circumstances.

Regards and best wishes to you.

Rich,

"Isn't life beautiful!"

Or ugly, depending on the circumstances.

Regards and best wishes to you.

Norrie,

No, niether you nor I were ever a sperm or an egg. We were both once embryoes. The sperm and egg come together and form someone new with a distinct DNA. The sperm has the DNA of the father and the egg has the DNA of the mother. Neither the sperm nor the egg are human beings. An embryo is a unique new human being.

Isn't life beautiful!

I think it should be the persons choice to have an abortion. i'm not saying it is right but they should be able to decide. i myself would not have an abortion. if i didnt want to have a baby i would give it up for adoption, not kill it. i think the collage for pregnant students is a good idea. the girls will be able to learn, and fit in. there will be people around them who know what they are going through. it will also help the girls finatually.

I think it should be the persons choice to have an abortion. i'm not saying it is right but they should be able to decide. i myself would not have an abortion. if i didnt want to have a baby i would give it up for adoption, not kill it. i think the collage for pregnant students is a good idea. the girls will be able to learn, and fit in. there will be people around them who know what they are going through. it will also help the girls finatually.

Rich,

You wrote:

"It is true that you need not be religious to come to the conclusion that life begins at conception."

Actually, life begins before conception: are not sperm and eggs alive?

A single male ejaculation normally contains between 20,000,000 to 960,000,000 sperm, according to WebMD.

A young man who ejaculates three times a week is sending as many as three trillion sperm, each alive and potentially a living human being, to their deaths every seven days.

What a holocaust!

Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church, condemn, excoriate, and excommunicate God or Nature for causing this wanton destruction of living beings?

Perhaps Pope Benedict should issue a bull on the matter.

I think it should be the persons choice to have an abortion. i'm not saying it is right but they should be able to decide. i myself would not have an abortion. if i didnt want to have a baby i would give it up for adoption, not kill it. i think the collage for pregnant students is a good idea. the girls will be able to learn, and fit in. there will be people around them who know what they are going through. it will also help the girls finatually.

I think it should be a persons choice to have abortion. i'm not say its right but its that person decision. i myself think abortion is wronge and that if you don't want the baby you should just give it up for adoption. i also think the collage for pregnant students is a very good idea. it would help the girls fit in and be surounded by people who know what they are going through. it will also help the girls finantually.

"I formed your inward parts. I knit you in your mother's womb."

I suppose you might have had to do it to get past the censors at the Post, but why bother criticizing right-to-lifers who are protesting at the abortion center? The implication is that - apart from Feminists for Life - there are no non-judgmental and pro-life services offered to women faced with crisis pregnancies. Quite the contrary - there are literally hundreds of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in existence (see www.pregnancycenters.org or www.birthright.org) in the US. These are largely funded by private donations and mostly staffed by unpaid volunteers - from the pro-life movement. The pro-life movement is wide enough to encompass direct assistance to women, political action, prayer, education, or direct action at the site of the killing. Wherever your talents and inclinations lead you - serve there. We are all working to promote respect for the sanctity of human life.

Excellent piece of writing. Everyone so far has ignored your main point that ostentatious showing of religious symbols such as crosses and rosaries can only alienate people; many will evaluate religion as hostile and intruding on one's privacy. I think you are 100% correct. There is something vulgar about it, and as you stated will backfire.

"May I ask a question to you, and to anyone else who is pro-life personally but pro-choice politically:

Why are you personally against abortion? Why do you believe it is wrong?"

There are numerous things I am against personally that I would not want to ban.

I would never want to participate in an 'open' marriage in which my wife and I were 'allowed' to have sex with other consenting adults -- but I in no way am interested in making that illegal.

I have never paddled any of my children and find the practice morally bankrupt -- but I wouldn't want to make it a crime.

Or to put it more in perspective given this blog -- I think most major religions are morally, ethically wrong -- and I would never want to associate myself with them. At the same time, I'm not advocating a law making them illegal.

Excellent piece of writing. Everyone so far has ignored your main point that ostentatious showing of religious symbols such as crosses and rosaries can only alienate people; many will evaluate religion as hostile and intruding on one's privacy. I think you are 100% correct. There is something vulgar about it, and as you stated will backfire.

Excellent piece of writing. Everyone so far has ignored your main point that ostentatious showing of religious symbols such as crosses and rosaries can only alienate people; many will evaluate religion as hostile and intruding on one's privacy. I think you are 100% correct. There is something vulgar about it, and as you stated will backfire.

Excellent piece of writing. Everyone so far has ignored your main point that ostentatious showing of religious symbols such as crosses and rosaries can only alienate people; many will evaluate religion as hostile and intruding on one's privacy. I think you are 100% correct. There is something vulgar about it, and as you stated will backfire.

Actually, the Catholic position on contraception and abortion is not illogical at all.

The Church teaches that you should not have sexual intercourse unless your mind and heart are open to the possibility of new life.

If your mind and heart are not open to new life, you should abstain from sexual relations.

It is for this reason that the Church continues to teach that sexual intercourse is a gift reserved for a man and woman who are married.

It's all internally consistent - it's just not an easy teaching, so people insist that it is "absurd".

Excellent piece of writing. Everyone so far has ignored your main point that ostentatious showing of religious symbols such as crosses and rosaries can only alienate people; many will evaluate religion as hostile and intruding on one's privacy. I think you are 100% correct. There is something vulgar about it, and as you stated will backfire.

Rickdaddy: as noted by another poster, it is by no means logical to assume that unwanted children are any more likely to be abused than wanted ones. I view abortion as almost always a failure of society to give the mother a better choice, or of the mother to avail herself of one. I don't need to subscribe to any notion of the mother's rights, or decide the question of when life begins, to conclude that abortion is almost always a bad end. That said, I can't see criminalizing it either. I think most mothers to be would avoid abortion on their own were it made feasible.

Tonio,

Yes, thank you, I understand that you would not abort. My question is why?

Is it because you believe the fetus in the womb is (or perhaps might be) a human being?

This seems like a good reason to ban such an act.

This seems like a good reason to get out there and try to help those who are considering committing the ultimate betrayal of killing a child. There is an urgent need in this country to support the infrastructure for helping pregnant mothers in need by financially assisting groups like Project Gabriel. This is the way to help women, not by leading them to the abortionist in some misguided notion that we are protecting them from James Dobson and some fantastical far-right patriarchy.

I am sure that you are personally against slavery and would never own a slave. I also suspect you would not support a right to own slaves, just because others might want to own slaves.

Rich

I love the life isn't worth living more baby's should be aborted approach. There is less abuse (physical, sexual, etc) today than in the past. You hear of it more today because it gets reported, and since it is getting reported offenders are proscecuted and the action is stopped. Does that mean there is nobody out there still that will abuse a child? Of course not, but being abused doesn't mean that your life isn't worth living either. Its nice that you think you can play God and decide that for them. Luckily for you nobody decided that for you.

As for whether it is an unborn child is a life or not most people these days believe that it is. The reason for this is technology now lets you look into the womb and see your unborn child in 3D moving around. Go and witness this and say that it isn't a human being. Saying that it is not doesn't pass the eye ball test. Also for the extreme horrors that took place before abortion was legalized, was that 1.3 million dead women a year? That is how many babies are aborted. That is 3000 per day. It is sad that our society has become so juvenile that children are an inconvience. Its a good thing your parents didn't feel that way about you. As for the rape victims that get pregnant, if you knew more about the biology of getting pregnant you would realize how infrequent this happens. It is estimated that only 200-400 women a year get pregnant from being raped. So please explain the other 2999 per day for me. If you are old enough to have sex you are old enough to be responsible enough for the consequences and to use protection if you don't want to get pregnant.

Rich,

By "personally" I mean that if the choice was mine, I would never abort a pregnancy where I was the father. (Since I'm a man, the decision isn't mine, but that's beside the point.) I cannot make that choice for others. No one knows when life begins, certainly not me, so the issue comes down to individual conscience.

By "politically" I mean that the religious right is using the abortion issue as a proxy in its larger battle against women. Demagogues such as James Dobson openly advocate patriarchy, especially in marriage.

Bubette:
You seem to define being a human being as being independent.

Even if you are totally dependent on others, your humanity is not diminished. When you were a little fetus, you were a human being. And if when you are old you are dependent on someone else to feed you, you will still be a human being.

If today a baby can survive outside the womb at 27 weeks and next year a baby can survive outside the womb at 25 weeks, then your definition of who is deserving of human rights would change. But the only thing really that changed was our medical capabilities. The characteristics of a 25 week old baby would be the same.

Ms. Tenety is brave for posting such viewpoints, especially on a venue such as the Post. Reading through the resulting opinions, I can only be horrified by the evil that has gripped our culture. We have turned a part of our own humanity into nothing more than a slave race, one that is willed or disposed of as it suits us. Indeed, our domesticated pets are given more respect than a nascent human life. History will not judge us kindly for our modern-day holocaust.

speed123: "The Catholic Church is consistent compared to the liberal OR conservatives in this country...

Liberals are against the war and death penalty; however, they support abortion on demand and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of infants per year."

That's utter bovine manure. Liberals do not support the "deaths of hundreds of thousands of infants." That statement is unduly inflammatory and cannot be supported by the facts.

I do not believe a fetus that cannot live outside the uterus is a baby and the government has no legitimate interest in regulating a woman's right to terminate an unplanned pregnancy prior to fetal viability. I think the government has *some* legitimate interest in regulating abortion at the point when the fetus can live outside the womb.

I do *not* think the government has any business in determining which procedure a physician may use in the tragic termination of a late term pregnancy. The only consideration there should be the life and health of the mother. I think the decision of the SCOTUS upholding the ban on intact dilation and extraction is paternalistic and shameful. I do NOT need these men protecting me from "future regret."

Ms. Tenety is brave for posting such viewpoints, especially on a venue such as the Post. Reading through the resulting opinions, I can only be horrified by the evil that has gripped our culture. We have turned a part of our own humanity into nothing more than a slave race, one that is willed or disposed of as it suits us. Indeed, our domesticated pets are given more respect than a nascent human life. History will not judge us kindly for our modern-day holocaust.

Tonio,

May I ask a question to you, and to anyone else who is pro-life personally but pro-choice politically:

Why are you personally against abortion? Why do you believe it is wrong?

Perhaps someone should mention that "having a religion-based view" of abortion does NOT equal "wanting to prohibit abortion on religious grounds." Just as there are atheists who oppose abortion, there are committed believers who don't.

I've heard a number of theologians argue the point that, to put it in bumper sticker language, "You are part of your mom's body until you are no longer part of your mom's body." If I understand it correctly, Orthodox rabbis commonly take the view that life begins at crowning, when the baby's head appears during delivery.

That's even more extreme than my position! I'm an atheist myself, and a reluctant supporter of abortion rights for the reasons other postings have already covered here. For all its faults, I believe Roe v Wade got it basically right: for the first trimester, what your prospective mom does with her uterus is up to her and no one else. For the last third, you're at least potentially a viable baby and deserve to be treated like one. In the middle, there's a muddle, and that's why we have legislatures--to work out issues like that.

RickDaddy,

"But, what about those babies that are being born in the near future whom will be subjected to abuse, neglect, molestation, exploitation, etc. These are many of the babies who are aborted."

I consider myself pro-choice politically and pro-life personally, and I absolutely agree about decreasing the need for abortion. But how did you come up with your conclusion? Are you saying that the psychological issues that lead to many unwanted pregnancies are the same ones that lead to abuse? Or are you saying that people with unwanted children end up abusing them.

I don't understand why more people with unwanted pregnancies don't put up the babies for adoption. Does anyone here understand why?

Perhaps someone should mention that "having a religion-based view" of abortion does NOT equal "wanting to prohibit abortion on religious grounds." Just as there are atheists who oppose abortion, there are committed believers who don't.

I've heard a number of theologians argue the point that, to put it in bumper sticker language, "You are part of your mom's body until you are no longer part of your mom's body." If I understand it correctly, Orthodox rabbis commonly take the view that life begins at crowning, when the baby's head appears during delivery.

That's even more extreme than my position! I'm an atheist myself, and a reluctant supporter of abortion rights for the reasons other postings have already covered here. For all its faults, I believe Roe v Wade got it basically right: for the first trimester, what your prospective mom does with her uterus is up to her and no one else. For the last third, you're at least potentially a viable baby and deserve to be treated like one. In the middle, there's a muddle, and that's why we have legislatures--to work out issues like that.

It is true that you need not be religious to come to the concluesion that life begins at conception. In fact, the Catholic Church does not base its teaching that life begins at conception on divine revelation but on reason.

However, I do believe that people's minds are clouded from seeing what seems so plain: that a person is a person no matter how small. This clouded thinking likely occurs as a result of their separation from God. Therefore, prayer is needed and does help. Pray, pray, pray for a culture of life!

In addition, I think that knowing that the little person in the womb does not only have his or her full and distinct DNA but also a soul may help people value life more. I don't know, I just never seem to run into too many atheist outside the abortion clinic trying to counsel women not to go in.

I must also respond to all those critisizing Catholics for not handing out condems. While using contraception is not as sinful as killing somebody, it is a grave sin. I doubt that it lessens abortion, since studies show that the majority of people receiving abortions were using a contraceptive. If you're having sex outside of marriage, you should stop because you are preventing God's grace from helping you. If you are married and using contraception, stop for the good of your marriage. You are preventing God's grace from working in your marriage.

May God bless you!

It is true that you need not be religious to come to the concluesion that life begins at conception. In fact, the Catholic Church does not base its teaching that life begins at conception on divine revelation but on reason.
However, I do believe that people's minds are clouded from seeing what seems so plain: that a person is a person no matter how small. This clouded thinking likely occurs as a result of their separation from God. Therefore, prayer is needed and does help. Pray, pray, pray for a culture of life!
In addition, I think that knowing that the little person in the womb does not only have his or her full and distinct DNA but also a soul may help people value life more.
I must also respond to all those critisizing Catholics for not handing out condems. While using contraception is not as sinful as killing somebody, it is a grave sin. I doubt that it lessens abortion, since studies show that the majority of people receiving abortions were using a contraceptive. If you're having sex outside of marriage, you should stop because you are preventing God's grace from helping you. If you are married and using contraception, stop for the good of your marriage. You are preventing God's grace from working in your marriage.
May God bless you!

The "seamless garment" is of shabby cloth, not old but cheap, salvaged from disgrace. The Church had no opinion on abortion prior to the compiling of evidence that exposed its indifference at best and suggested its complicity in the Holocaust. The heroic resistance of many Catholics as individuals including some priests notwithstanding, the church hierarchy did NOTHING, not even so little as to protest from within the safety of the Vatican the published Nazi views on human life. Neither did the Church hierarchy express doubts about eugenics that led to mass sterilizations and even the "euthanasia" of those deemed "unfit", which foreshadowed the Holocaust by decades in democracies throughout Christendom. Europeans mostly disdain the Vatican's hollow attempt to reclaim moral ground; after all they built their empire on the deaths of Europeans. Americans are viewed as naive for buying their threadbare "seamless garment".

First off, there are 5 Supreme Court Justices and one of them is Roberts that are Catholic and MOST
Catholics don't even know that fact, Get with the program., Catholics. When Kerry was running for
President rhe distorted Republicans bought out and
duped the Catholic Church into believing they were PROLIFE but remember it was seven men Supreme
Court Justices -all Republican and no women -this was a women's rights issue- that approved Roe vs Wade the decision that approved on demand abortion
for all American WOMEN. Remember that it was Republicans the White House sepulchres-that's what Christ would have called them- that voted "yes" to abortion. Now Giulani is running for President as a Catholic and will the people without knowledge put out bumper stickers that say like they did for Kerry. "You can't be for abortion and be Catholic" Kerry was not for Abortion ( his own words ) but instead upheld it as a representative of the people of the State he represented in Congress. Leave it to President of the National Deception Club- George Bush to mess up Kerry's message to make Kerry look unfaithful to his religion and to his country by ACTUALLY serving in Vietnam. Bush could not pass his flying test even in a switched and protected National Guard unit to fight in Vietnam. George Bush has not fought in any US war as a pilot nor has he won
any war as Commander-in-Chief. Christ put it this way, "Render unto God the things that are God's and
unto Bush what he is due" or "Do not put your trust in any man that will lead you astray."Amen

The Catholic Church is consistent compared to the liberal OR conservatives in this country...

Liberals are against the war and death penalty; however, they support abortion on demand and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of infants per year.

Conservatives (evangelicals) are against abortion; however, they support endless preemptive war in the middle east and the use of the death penalty.

The Catholic Church is against unnecessary war, the death penalty AND abortion.

As for prayers out side of clinics by catholics, the blogger fails to remember that the Church supports orphanages, medical centers, hospitals and outreach to young mothers ....... so your argument only works if you leave out key facts. I understand that you are trying to make a point; however, it is a false one.

PS - check out a movie called Lake of Fire on abortion and VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!

sorry for the mulitple posts....technical difficulties

by the way, there is no legitimate, reasonable non-religously-based argument against abortion. the ones that she cites are absurdly stupid tokens....wow

morality is about human suffering, not terminating babies

focus on the living!! there are so many children suffering RIGHT NOW, and you want to talk about abortion!!! that saves suffering!!

Thoughtful argument. I feel that you clearly can empathize with women to some extent. Although I am a militant atheist, I delight in reading quasi-compassionate posts from quasi-compassionate individuals such as yourself. I dont mean that in a sarcastic way.

However, where is your empathy for babies that are born into homes that you wouldnt want your worst enemy being born into?
Yes, abortion shouldnt be used as birth control (thats what birth control is for!). Its too expensive anyways. And yes, you are right that in the long-term we want to cut down the need for abortions.
But, what about those babies that are being born in the near future whom will be subjected to abuse, neglect, molestation, exploitation, etc. These are many of the babies who are aborted. And many more should be.
Let me explicate this view a bit. I have witnessed first hand children who live with sexually abusive parent(s) (usually its just one parent) and parents' partners, extremely neglectful partents, physically abusive parents, non-existent parents, and the multitude of parents who are really just children themselves.

NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TORMENT THAT MILLIONS OF CHILDREN HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY DAY. IF MORE BABIES WERE ABORTED, IT WOULD SAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMAN SUFFERING.

That is why I support abortion......

but again i agree that a long-term solution involves decreasing the need for abortion

Thoughtful argument. I feel that you clearly can empathize with women to some extent. Although I am a militant atheist, I delight in reading quasi-compassionate posts from quasi-compassionate individuals such as yourself. I dont mean that in a sarcastic way.

However, where is your empathy for babies that are born into homes that you wouldnt want your worst enemy being born into?
Yes, abortion shouldnt be used as birth control (thats what birth control is for!). Its too expensive anyways. And yes, you are right that in the long-term we want to cut down the need for abortions.
But, what about those babies that are being born in the near future whom will be subjected to abuse, neglect, molestation, exploitation, etc. These are many of the babies who are aborted. And many more should be.
Let me explicate this view a bit. I have witnessed first hand children who live with sexually abusive parent(s) (usually its just one parent) and parents' partners, extremely neglectful partents, physically abusive parents, non-existent parents, and the multitude of parents who are really just children themselves.

NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TORMENT THAT MILLIONS OF CHILDREN HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY DAY. IF MORE BABIES WERE ABORTED, IT WOULD SAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMAN SUFFERING.

That is why I support abortion......

but again i agree that a long-term solution involves decreasing the need for abortion

Thoughtful argument. I feel that you clearly can empathize with women to some extent. Although I am a militant atheist, I delight in reading quasi-compassionate posts from quasi-compassionate individuals such as yourself. I dont mean that in a sarcastic way.

However, where is your empathy for babies that are born into homes that you wouldnt want your worst enemy being born into?
Yes, abortion shouldnt be used as birth control (thats what birth control is for!). Its too expensive anyways. And yes, you are right that in the long-term we want to cut down the need for abortions.
But, what about those babies that are being born in the near future whom will be subjected to abuse, neglect, molestation, exploitation, etc. These are many of the babies who are aborted. And many more should be.
Let me explicate this view a bit. I have witnessed first hand children who live with sexually abusive parent(s) (usually its just one parent) and parents' partners, extremely neglectful partents, physically abusive parents, non-existent parents, and the multitude of parents who are really just children themselves.

NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TORMENT THAT MILLIONS OF CHILDREN HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY DAY. IF MORE BABIES WERE ABORTED, IT WOULD SAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMAN SUFFERING.

That is why I support abortion......

but again i agree that a long-term solution involves decreasing the need for abortion

Thoughtful argument. I feel that you clearly can empathize with women to some extent. Although I am a militant atheist, I delight in reading quasi-compassionate posts from quasi-compassionate individuals such as yourself. I dont mean that in a sarcastic way.

However, where is your empathy for babies that are born into homes that you wouldnt want your worst enemy being born into?
Yes, abortion shouldnt be used as birth control (thats what birth control is for!). Its too expensive anyways. And yes, you are right that in the long-term we want to cut down the need for abortions.
But, what about those babies that are being born in the near future whom will be subjected to abuse, neglect, molestation, exploitation, etc. These are many of the babies who are aborted. And many more should be.
Let me explicate this view a bit. I have witnessed first hand children who live with sexually abusive parent(s) (usually its just one parent) and parents' partners, extremely neglectful partents, physically abusive parents, non-existent parents, and the multitude of parents who are really just children themselves.

NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TORMENT THAT MILLIONS OF CHILDREN HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY DAY. IF MORE BABIES WERE ABORTED, IT WOULD SAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF HUMAN SUFFERING.

That is why I support abortion......

but again i agree that a long-term solution involves decreasing the need for abortion

random points. as George Will noted, the pro life crowd ignorantly thinks that overturning Roe would accomplish anything. It would return the issue to the states, where any number would allow most abortions, but then the death rate from the additional travel would offset the reduced abortions in the states that banned it, if any.

The Catholic position on birth control is absurd. They claim that it's immoral to engage in the act without the possibility of conception, yet approve the rhythm method which uses calendars and thermometers (how natural can you get) to determine when it's not possible to conceive, then tell us there's no contradiction.

so what's the answer? we aren't going to execute doctors or women who get abortions no matter what the law is. so maybe the pro life crowd could get off their high horses and have their preachers preach that pregnant teens should be accepted without shame, supported, given aid to make it possible to earn a living and support a child, maybe the government could do the same, etc. in other words, anything but what they are doing now.

From their name; "Pro-LIfe", one would have to conclude that they are anti-death penalty, anti-offensive war. Did the Catholic church hold such a "Pro-LIfe" belief during the terrible crusades and during the inquisition? When did they, and the others of their ilk decide that only abortion was really murder? I believe that it is, but only one of modern man's acts of murder.

Reasons for unplanned pregnancies: Lack of availability, lack of education, condom breaking, rape, birth control pill/ring/patch/shot failure, heat-of-the-moment stupidity, etc.

Education and birth control result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, and access to legal abortion covers the accidents/violence without threatening the lives of women with illegal abortions. It's all rather simple, and would make quality of life better for all.

Did you know that the law had to step in so that a Catholic hospital in CT would give emergency contraception to rape victims? They then tried to justify how it fits into the whole "seamless garment" on life. Much like Mormons deciding polygamy doesn't fit their religion after it was deemed illegal. Both instances reveal that the previous stance was not based in logic or ethics.

Reasons for unplanned pregnancies: Lack of availability, lack of education, condom breaking, rape, birth control pill/ring/patch/shot failure, heat-of-the-moment stupidity, etc.

Education and birth control result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, and access to legal abortion covers the accidents/violence without threatening the lives of women with illegal abortions. It's all rather simple, and would make quality of life better for all.

Did you know that the law had to step in so that a Catholic hospital in CT would give emergency contraception to rape victims? They then tried to justify how it fits into the whole "seamless garment" on life. Much like Mormons deciding polygamy doesn't fit their religion after it was deemed illegal.

Why are the majority of executions performed and least assistance to the poor provided in the so called "pro-life" part of the country ?

Dumb question - why are there so many unplanned pregnancies in the first place? I don't understand why someone who didn't wish to conceive would deliberately choose not to use birth control. I suspect that lack of availability and lack of education are part of the answer.

My father and I talked on Sunday about abortion. He said that all life is sacred and it is murder to kill an unborn child. I asked him what the punishment should be and he replied "Death penalty". So much for sanctity of life.

As others have noted, the Catholic position is illogical. If they do not want abortions, they must support access to birth control. How many of the anti-choice crowd support universal health care? That also might lead to some women choosing to go through with their pregnancies rather than not.

If you have done any research, you might find that the largely Catholic country of Nicaragua recently banned abortions in all cases. Women have died in droves from having illegal abortions (because guess what? Sometimes people accidentally get pregnant and don't want to carry around an unwanted fetus for 9 months! Really, it's not as easy as it seems in your privileged, white perspective! We don't all have the feeling that premarital sex is wrong!). In many cases, it's because the pregnancy will cause them much suffering. Endometric pregnancies, for example, could not be aborted. Do you honestly feel in your gut that a woman should take a pregnancy that is the result of a rape to term?

All these "fetuses" aren't lives unto themselves, they are an imposition onto the life of an already living, breathing woman's life. It is her decision whether or not she wishes to sustain it.

And I hope you know that Planned Parenthood doesn't just perform abortions. They give birth control to people with or without insurance at a low cost, they perform STD tests and regular gynocological exams, they test for and treat UTIs and Yeast infections, and they also do regular pre-natal care! Really, what Planned Parenthood does is help women to be in control, well-informed, and healthy. Your anti-choice convictions are rooted in Catholocism, so don't act like there are logic-based reasons to control women.

Excellent post. I enjoyed your statement, "I worry that some pro-life Christians are more concerned with their religious convictions than pragmatically dealing with the details. This is not about being right, it is about being helpful."
I believes this statement applies to more issues than abortion. The same could be said about their stance on gays, the role of religion in American politics, etc.

While I respect the Catholic "seamless garment" stance on life ethics, I see the Catholic prohibition on contraception as contributing to the problem of abortion. It's illogical for anyone who opposes abortion to also oppose methods for prevent unwanted pregnancies. There is nothing immoral about sex that doesn't lead to procreation. I strongly suspect that non-procreative sex is a big part of the abortion issue, not necessarily for Catholics but certainly for the vocal minority of Biblical literalists. The latter group wrongly lumps abortion with homosexuality and masturbation and contraception. There is no reason to consider those three things as sinful since they do not cause harm.

Norrie-

Excellent post (as always). I remember reading an article about someone asking those who are anti-choice this: If abortion becomes illegal, what punishment should be levied upon the women who seek or have abortions? Seems he didn't get any answers.

Norrie Hoyt, your commentary to Elizabeth was right on target. Time magazine ran an article recently about abortion world-wide. Making the procedure illegal has done very little in reducing the number of abortions, and done immense damage to the women who need to have them done anyway. No woman seeks an abortion for the fun of it, or out of desire to kill a newly-formed, possibly viable human being.

Those people who want to ban abortions without providing viable, desireable, and attainable alternatives for woman and children in place of abortion are showing by their actions that they want to cause women intense pain, physical and mental suffering, and lingering death.

Rafael,

Elizabeth is a columnist, not a reporter. She's telling us how she thinks and feels about things, not undertaking a simply factual report of what she's observed.

Elizabeth,

I grew up in a time when abortion was illegal everywhere in the United States. I remember the horrors that resulted from that legal regime.

Then Roe vs. Wade came along.

I concluded at the time that while the process of abortion causes much human suffering, the total of human suffering is significantly greater where abortion is prohibited. I haven't changed my mind since.

I think that today's anti-abortionists, and those who seek the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by our now Catholic Supreme Court, have no idea of what they're wishing for, and no conception of the human misery that will result if they succeed.

You do not sound appropriatelly dispassionate about a topic you are covering as a journalist. It seems unlikely that your reporting will be unbiased, as you have in mind goals that you would like to see achieved rather than providing as objective a reporting of events as possible.

You are also a bit contradictory, quoting a "seamless" garment on life ethics as your motivation for being a Catholic while at the same time pointing out the real-world complications, which are the seams, that Catholics should pay attention to.

You can believe all the things you do without being a Catholic. Perhaps the point is to offer compassion, which turns out to be easier for many humanists than for Catholics because of the lack of need to avoid such contradictions.

I agree that this problem cannot be solved through legislation and that being opposed to both birth control and abortion poses a unique viewpoint, but Catholics don't need to deal with birth control when addressing the preservation of life. Some Catholics might be naive enough to say that all sins are created equal, but that is not true. The sin of using birth control is in no way on par with killing an innocent life. Catholic groups dealing with an abortion should not concern themselves with how the pregnancy occurred, but instead should provide other options for women, just as FFL does.

The problem with abortion is that it cannot be eliminated through legislation. The (relative) simplicity of the procedure will always keep so-called "back alley" abortion available as an option to women.

This is where the religious paths fail in many instances. For a religious group (such as Catholics, as well as many others) to vehemently oppose abortion and contraception concurrently perpetuates the demand for (and thus the supply of) abortion.

Increasing both ease of obtaining and education about contraception to our society as a whole would greatly reduce the number of abortions needed.