Something New in the Abortion Debate

Respectfully, I disagree with the politics in church. People should pray and ask God who they should vote for not listen to a priest give his own opinion on the subject. The issue of abortion rights has evolved into the ascenine. The very people who know that EVEN GOD GIVES US THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE want to take away the rights of women to make choices regarding their bodies. While I am not an advocate for abortion I do understand that we will all stand in judgement for what we do. Does making abortions illegal create alternate problems for this unwanted child?
The love that God has for us is not intrusive but He gives us free will. That is the only way for us to truely love Him. How could we be sons and daughters living in captivity, forced to love God?

When legal rights do not flow from human rights; or when human rights are denied to some persons or; when persons are not considered persons we have conflict.

It's self evident that one experiences 'personhood' in various dimensions: physiological, social, existential, etc. A person's human rights and a person cannot be separated, no matter what dimension of their existence one is referring to.

A person cannot have human rights that are denied to another. Thus an embryonic human and a woman have equal human rights. The constitution should be ammended to reflect this throughout all identifiable dimensions of personhood.

What is it like to live as a homeless immigrant illiterate eight grader in the United States? Well, just take a look at the options such a person has, if they manage to stay alive and out of prison. What humane and rational human being would want their own child or loved one to live out their personhood like that? A humane constitution needs to insure that does not happen for in society as structured there are many who cannot protect their children otherwise.

Of course today's society was not foreseen when the constitution was initially drafted or last ammended. So it needs to be done now even if we don't all agree as to who should be regarded as a person, or what are his and her human rights, or if his or her constitutional rights should flow from their human rights. People were biased and did not agree back then either, but the conflict forced them to further purify the constitution of bias. We all want to be regarded and treated as persons and everyone to some extent knows how it feels when that doesn't happen, so we are obligated to not deny that regard and treatment to anyone else and to constitutionally guarantee the human rights of all persons.

Again, not only in the United States.

enrique- I am not sure how you are tying in the definition of "person" with homelessness. You're talking about the conditions a human lives in, with how a human is defined and I'm not getting the connection. I do agree that talking only about embryos doesn't address the problems people have in life though.

But what we are seeing is one group with a very rigid, uncompromising view on when life begins and what life is, as opposed to a group that views these things differently, or objects to infringing on women's rights, or impacting other constitutional rights for the living. and some just don't want the abortion issue to be the issue they are forced to vote on.

you wrote:"There are immigrants deemed good enough to work but treated as not full fledged persons otherwise. Some of the foregoing even end up on death row."

I think you are confusing human rights with legal rights. You cannot kill an immigrant because he is not specifically defined in the constitution-you cannot kill him because his humanity is defined there. But although his human rights are protected, his legal rights are not, in the sense that he doesn't have the status of an American citizen.

But bear in mind, this is a nation of immigrants and the constitution was drafted out of the history of immigrants escaping persecution in their countries of origin and how to found a country that treats all equally. And still, don't forget, the men who wrote the constitution was still a product of their times. hence the acceptance of slavery, and the treatment of the Native American. those will always be marks of shame.

but the worst thing we can do today is to force meanings into the constitution that will open the door to bias, the restriction of rights, or define a group in such a way as to render them permanently "other", which is what a marriage amendment would do. "the Fourteenth amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.[2]" -wiki

although I am sure it didn't occur to the Founding Fathers to think gays and lesbians would want to marry, the point is, that right to make those decisions are protected by the 14th Amendment. terms were used then as they were commonly understood and most commonly used. to redefine them according to special interests, whether religious or social, will completely negate our entire system of government. For than, what would protect all of us from each of us?

My last comment referred to the US because that is what is being discussed here. Yet it's not only a question for the US.

In its first draft, the US constitution did not adequately define who was a full fledged 'person'. Had it not been ammended, there would not be a black presidential candidate today.

The question of who is a full fledged person has still not been fully addressed and as a result persons are being killed and otherwise victimized, directly and structurally or indirectly. To limit the question to human embryos is to avoid addresssing it wherever prejudices are touched.. There were homeless people before the crisis. There are 50% school drop out rates in a highly sophisticated and competitive culture. There are immigrants deemed good enough to work but treated as not full fledged persons otherwise. Some of the foregoing even end up on death row.

The US needs to look at its constitution again and consider who is a person with depth of sensibility.

Otherwise tomorrow's president, or whoever, will remain a non-person and that is primitive and genocidal.

sparrow4 writes
"Consider how you would enforce a pro-life amendment. Mandatory exams for women? Mandatory examinations of private medical records (only women of course). Pregnancy police?"

This is where the pro-lifers get real quiet.
The WaPo did a piece recently on how this sort of thing used to be handled in Europe, where women crossing borders would be given 'exams' to see if they had undergone an abortion. More to the point, states with an interest in protecting their 'unborn citizens' could do the same to catch women who have 'murdered' their citizens out of state.
Given that a large percentage of pregnancies self-terminate (1/3 I think, but I've been out of the baby making business since the birth of our 3rd in 2002) how can the government determine who has had an abortion and who just had a miscarriage? How can the government track who might be pregnant without mandatory monthly checks? The whole "protecting life from conception" is totally, 100% unworkable, period - at least not in A FREE SOCIETY.

Little Barry Obama, your messiah, takes the most extreme position possible with respect to abortion. He pledged that he would make the abortion industry's full agenda his NUMBER ONE priority.

"The right to privacy does not supercede our rights for life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness. Right to privacy could be a justification for murder, theft, rape, abuse, etc, if done in privacy. This argument doesn't hold water."

that is just a ridiculous argument. The right to privacy means is not the right to "hide" a crime. "The right to privacy include individuals' Constitutional rights against the government. These includes the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.[2]" wiki

That seems pretty clear. what you are trying to do is insert religion into the mix in order to invade privacy. Consider how you would enforce a pro-life amendment. Mandatory exams for women? Mandatory examinations of private medical records (only women of course). Pregnancy police?

kert1 WRITES "The right to privacy does not supercede our rights for life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't life/liberty/etc. part of the declaration of independence, which is in no way a legal document that has anything to do with our laws?

"Right to privacy could be a justification for murder, theft, rape, abuse, etc, if done in privacy. This argument doesn't hold water."

"Right to Privacy" was found in other amendments of the constitution - those that protected the privacy of one's home (no entry without search warrents, no keeping soldiers in your home) and one's papers (government can't go through your things without warrent, etc.) Thats why birth control is legal in every state of the union. The right to legal abortions is an extension of that right. There is no right to murder or steel if it's done in private.

"Creating laws is not the Courts job."

But judging the constitutionality of laws is their job.

The right to privacy does not supercede our rights for life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness. Right to privacy could be a justification for murder, theft, rape, abuse, etc, if done in privacy. This argument doesn't hold water.

I looked up Marbury vs Madison and this is just the first time that a law was challenged as unconstitutional in a young contry. There was precedent from other countries as to this being how laws were reviewed. This ruling just formalized what had previously not been.

Creating laws is not the Courts job. This is just a basic tenet of our government. We have a system of checks and balances, so no branch of government gets too powerful. If Courts create laws they are an Oligarchy and no one can overrule them. No one I have ever talked wants this situation. It would essentially nullify the power of the other 2 branches.

kert1 "I understand the constitution. It also allows laws to be passed. Obviously the Supreme Court is the big battle for abortion."

So basically instead of amending the constitution or getting the country behind your position to change the laws, you want justices to legislate from the bench.

"They originally ruled that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional."

Well, the found in Griswold(sp?) a 'right to privacy', which stopped the states from outlawing the sale of birth control. If you are against the 'right to privacy' than you want the states to return to outlawing birth control, which would lead to......MORE ABORTIONS.

"Being a strict Constitutionalist, I find the ruling appalling and the arguments weak."

What are the arguments for the right to privacy? What were the amendments the justices cited when the found a right to privacy? Why is their argument weak?

"In fact the ruling was mostly based on unknowns that we now know about."

Not really.

"If they change the ruling then the law will be up for vote in most states, as it was before."

So when women crossed state borders they'd possibly be stopped and given mandatory vaginal exams to see if they had crossed state lines to have an abortion. That's the sort of America you want to live in?

"Obviously every law is subject to court approval but the Court should not be creating laws. This would have our founders rolling in their grave."

Marbury vs. Madison, no? Weren't the founders alive when the SCOTUS gave itself the power to revue laws? Not sure you have a leg to stand on.

I understand the constitution. It also allows laws to be passed.

Obviously the Supreme Court is the big battle for abortion. They originally ruled that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional. Being a strict Constitutionalist, I find the ruling appalling and the arguments weak. In fact the ruling was mostly based on unknowns that we now know about.

If they change the ruling then the law will be up for vote in most states, as it was before. Obviously every law is subject to court approval but the Court should not be creating laws. This would have our founders rolling in their grave.

"Can I expect that Obama will work to allow hospitals and healthcare workers to decline to participate in abortions?""

I think anyone who puts their personal beliefs ahead of the care of their patients has no business working in healthcare. Bush wants to pass a law to pull federal funding from any clinic or hospital that does not allow its workers to refuse to perform their duties if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. this is the opposite of pulling funding for religious bias against a patient.

Not only can you be refused healthcare and /or birth control by a provider, now they will be rewarded for it. so much for separation of church and state and i can't wait til the first "christian" healthcare worker decides to let a woman die because she won't give medical care that may adversely affect her fetus. yeah- wait for it. It'll happen.

ggardens3 writes
"Can I expect that Obama will work to allow hospitals and healthcare workers to decline to participate in abortions?"

Don't they have that right already? Are you against those 'abortions' that protect the mother's health and/or life?

"Eliminate public funding for abortions?"
There is no public funding of abortrions as far as I know. It was done away with years ago.

"Support a ban late term abortions?"
We already have a ban on certain types of late term abortions.

Why don't you condider a couple of things:
1) McCain and the Republicans pay lip service to the 'life' cause, but when it comes to abortion they have done nothing to end legal abortion. If somehow McCain wins, he will continue the long standing practice of doing nothing, so there is no difference between McCain and Obama on the issue. Given McCain sees himself as a 'maverick', that he doesn't mind angering the political right, and that his 1st choice for VP was Leiberman, there's no reason to believe that he'd appoint anti-choice folks to the SCOTUS. In short, on abortion there will be no difference in RESULTS between McCain and Obama
2) "Right to Privacy" began in the Griswald(sp) decision, legalizing birth control. To get rid of Roe you also have to get rid of legal birth control. Will a lack of birth control lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions?
3) Where birth control and abortion are illegal in South America, women have MORE abortions than here in the USA.

Hope that's helpful!

"You see, that's the difference. The Church can't impose any laws because it has no temporal power. It has to use the mechanisms in place like any other group or citizen to persuade others that its view is the right one. The ability to do so is constitutionally guaranteed."

Yes - you have the right to free speech. But you still don't get the point. The law you pass has to be within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. It doesn't matter how many people you convince (look at Nazi Germany. A majority was convinced that Jews were evil, and we know what they did.)

Those laws would not be constitutional in this country. Just because you have convinced a majority of people your viewpoint is right and you pass a law to force that viewpoint on others, that law is not constitutional. And that, thank G-d, is why the constitution is so important, and why if you are trying to define a law that won't pass muster- as in trying to keep gays from having exactly the same rights as other Americans- you have to go through hoops to get a constitutional amendment passed.

And the reason that passing a constitutional ammendment to remove the rights of one group, or impose a religious viewpoint is so difficult, is because it is fundamentally wrong and the founding fathers wanted us to be very very very sure that changes we make will not destroy the very document that protects us all.

You aren't simply defining a right to life to a child, you are imposing a set of definitions that are religiously defined for you by your church. My religion allows me to have a differing opinion. Both of our rights to believe as we will is protected. You simply refuse to understand that by imposing your beliefs into law (unconstitutional though it is), you destroy freedom of speech freedom of religion, equality for women and right to privacy. You will practice your religion as you see fit, and deny me the right to practice mine.

I really don't care how you twist and turn with this- you are free to practice your religion. You can choose not to have an abortion. You can even refuse to allow a woman of your faith (and hopefully she is in agreement with you) not to have an abortion after she's been raped. You are not free to tell me I cannot follow the dictates of MY conscience based on my religious beliefs and founded in my constitutional rights.

Constitution, constitution, constitution. Keep repeating that mantra because the day you let your religion break that barrier, is the day this country ceases to exist as a democracy and as a beacon of hope.

Sparrow,
You are right when you say this, " the Church has the no right to impose its particular religious interpretation of "personhood" or "life" or a woman's right to make decisions about her own body". This is absolutely true.

But if the Church can convince enough citizens that it's interpretation of life is correct and that the child's right to life supercedes the mother's right to privacy and convenience, then it becomes law and the government would indeed have the right to impose limitations on abortion.

You see, that's the difference. The Church can't impose any laws because it has no temporal power. It has to use the mechanisms in place like any other group or citizen to persuade others that its view is the right one. The ability to do so is constitutionally guaranteed.

Two responses to previous posts and set of questions.
First, I also think abortion opponents would be against the death penalty if they were consistent logically. Let's not dismiss opposition to abortion or to capital punishment because of such inconsistencies among opponents of one or the other.
Second, I believe it is possible to be a Catholic in good standing while disagreeing with official Church teachings as long as one has thoroughly studied the Church's position, composed a reasoned alternative position, and discussed one's thinking with one's confessor, including following the confessor's recommendations for further considerations. However, I can't see how anyone with a belief in God, let alone an adherent of Catholicism, can find a reasoned path to supporting Roe v. Wade.
Obama seems to me to be superior to McCain on all matters except abortion. I don't want to vote for someone who colludes in supporting the practice of abortion. I don't feel I need to vote to for someone who wants to criminalize abortion. Can someone help me with answering the following (and similar questions):
Can I expect that Obama will work to allow hospitals and healthcare workers to decline to participate in abortions?
Eliminate public funding for abortions?
Support a ban late term abortions?

Yes Kert- but, and this is where you and paulc just don't get it- those laws have to be "constitutional". this is the most basic concept of law in this country. You can try to pass any damn law you please. But if it is not constitutional, it will not be allowed to stand. go back and reread the constitution if you can't remember what that document says.

Forcing your abortion views onto the rest of the population who may or may not believe as you do is unconstitutional. Doesn't matter if you are in the majority or not. You cannot pass a law today to make slavery legal- no matter if your Church and every church across the country voted to pass that law, it is unconstitutional and would be struck down. You cannot pass a law to stone a woman accused of adultery despite it being in the bible). It is unconstitutional.

Let's keep in mind churches have no governmental power. The power they have is to teach what they believe like any other group.

This country is run by the governed, or at least that is what is supposed to happen. We vote laws into affect or have our representatives vote. I think that the main issue pro-life people want is to allow abortion to come to a vote for obvious reasons.

The church has no power to govern and never will. People do have power to change laws through the vote as they feel convicted. That is the way laws will change and that is what I fight for.

No outrage from Christians about the death penalty? Only about abortion. Why?

As posted earlier, Archbishop Gomez of San Antonio has just just released a voting guide for Catholic hispanics. Citing the Catholic Catechism he argues with nuance that is perhaps beyond not few uninformed Catholic consciences. In other words, he doesn't really come out and say he supports the death penalty but rather that it's 'not intrtinsically evil' and that the Catholic Church does not exclude it as a method of protecting society when all else fails.

Except when all else fails? Was that perhaps how Christian Von Wernich, an Argentinean Catholic priest, saw it? Is that how he managed (and still does) to justify participating in numerous executions and tortures in Argentina in the late 60's and 70's when a military junta overthrew the Argentinean government?

The coup president, Videla, a fervent Catholic had close ties with the some of the Catholic clergy. A struggle took place between 'subversives' challenging the coup and the death penalty was applied judicially and extrajudicially. It is claimed that 10 to 30 thousand Argentineans dissapeared. Von Wernich was recently convicted to life in prison although he is still allowed to celebrate the sacraments by the Catholic Church while he awaits a church trial. Videla has also recently been sentenced to life in prison and Argentina has wisely revoked the death penalty (like all european nations).

So why is there no outrage among US Christians about the death penalty? Do they believe that a coup could never happen in the US? Why are Archbishop Gomez and other Chrtistians not outraged that 56% of death row inmates are black or latino? Are blacks and latinos intrinsically evil, but not the death penalty?

Perhaps Archbishop Gomez (Opus Dei) will consider including what happened in Argentina (with Henry Kissinger's blessing) in his 'voting guide' for hispanic consciences. Surely he will agree that this is an issue of which hispanic Catholic consciences should be fully informed about...before voting on abortion only.

Delusional1 writes
"Catholicism does not leave room for those who don't think the church is right on this or that."

Feel free to quote the catechism where it says that Catholics are bound to obey all the judgements of the Pope. From my reading (which was around 2002) one can disagree with the church if one does so throughly examining the judgement in question. If could find my copy I'd look it up, but sadly we've moved since 2002 and I couldn't lay my hands on it.

"Here is the 1st amendment ==> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where does it say the Church has the right to impose its particular religious interpretation of "personhood" or "life" or a woman's right to make decisions about her own body? You just don't get this simple, basic concept. I don't have the same religious beliefs as you, nor the same scientific ideas - yours is determined by your Church, mine is not. by insisting your concepts of life and abortion be made into law, you infringe on my freedom of religion and my rights as a woman.

How hard is this for you to understand? freedom of religion is not just for you, it's for everyone.

Sparrow,
I am afraid that its you that doesn't understand the US constitution. Here is the 1st amendment ==> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Catholic church is not seeking to become the state religion. In this case, it merely wants the rights of the unborn to be protected. As you can see from the above: It has the right to petition the government to that end.

Robster1 writes
"the short answer is that my side lacks political willpower."

Well, they had the WH and both houses of congress. If they didn't have the will power then, when will they ever get it?

"There have been some gains--like the partial birth abortion ban"

However that didn't stop one late term abortion. Now they just kill the baby with an injection and remove it. Nearly 40 years the Pro-life people have supported Republicans on the national level, and your side can't even get a Republican President to speak at your annual rally! Not much payback for all those votes and all that money.

"and other gains at the state level. The Human Life Amendment has not gotten the political attention because the focus is to send it back to the states--and hence appoint conservative justices."

But 7/9 of the SCOTUS are Republican appointees.
(Rest of your post was interesting BTW, and I had nothing to add to it).
I don't think there is a majority out there to end legal abortion - if there was Republicans would have gotten ahead of it. I think Republicans like your votes, hard work and money, but they know that if they outlawed abortion
1) Pro-lifers would look to other issues Democrats could win on
2) The vast majority of Americans would turn on them

I'm not sure it isn't an act of faith to actually embarrass the Church on occassion. The Spirit of prophesy may in fact require that it be done in that matter. It may not be good manners or in keeping with the preferences of the hierarchy - which may actually make it the right course of action to do so since Jesus would never approve at the hubris at the top of His church.

Catholics for Obama still need some help from the top of the ticket.

As a constitutional lawyer, Obama can point out the implications of overturning Roe in such a way as to move the matter back to the states. Doing so would also gut most equal protection precident, which is a conservative goal, but not necessarily a Catholic one.

As a Catholic, Biden can distinguish the difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. Essentially, to be pro-choice is to resist measures which will force women to seek back alley and self-induced abortions. He can also point out that there really is no viable pro-life piece of legislation on the table which would do what the pro-life movement promises (granting rights to the unborn). It is all well and good to debate the rights of the unborn, but it accomplishes nothing without a viable proposal. One need not even justify a pro-choice position unless there is an actual alternative in play.

Congress has it within its power to grant legal status during pregnancy. The states do not - which makes the entire National Right to Life judicial strategy kind of useless for everything but keeping the base radical and Republican.

Last week, Archbisop Wurl gave an interview to National Catholic Reporter and pointed out that prior to Roe, no one went to jail for abortion. There was simply a fine (which effectively closed down abortion services by doctors). In other words, it was not considered murder - it was a gyno-crime. Roe properly stated that gyno-crimes violate privacy between women and their doctors. Fetuses can only be protected if you give them rights.

The dividing line where a pregnancy is considered a person should be considered legislatively and would likely fall between initial viability with assistance (23 weeks) and full viability (30 weeks). The question to consider, especially if one favors a date even earlier, is at what age would you favor providing life insurance coverage for the fetus on a community rated basis where the pool goes from that point to either "natural death" or through childhood. In other words, at what age do you care enough about the child to pay its parents from your higher premiums if it dies?

One million abortions/yr and 19 million cases of STDs/yr. Something is very wrong!!!

paulc-
do you not understand what the constitution and the Bill of rights are about? What separation of Church and state means? What is it that you don't get?

The Church and its adherents have every right to believe what it wants, every right to practice as it wants- but it DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGISLATE FOR EVERYONE ELSE. And if you do get laws passed, they have to withstand the test of CONSTITUTIONALITY.

Now if that is unacceptable to you and your Church, then America is not the country for you.

sparrow,
its fine for you to speak out, that is your right. However, the church has as much right to do so as you do. Stop saying the church should butt out. That is as wrong as someone trying to censor your views. Don't you see that?

Marcedward1, the short answer is that my side lacks political willpower. There have been some gains--like the partial birth abortion ban and other gains at the state level. The Human Life Amendment has not gotten the political attention because the focus is to send it back to the states--and hence appoint conservative justices. We are Federalists! The fact that Roe overturned the laws of 50 states that heavily regulated or outlawed abortion is a testament to the fact that most people were against abortion. Sadly my side tends to succumb and accept judicial defeats and over time will not work to turn the tide as the "great silent majority" we are. That is why I implored America to "wake up"! Can you imagine this country being anything close to 50-50 on gay marriage just 10-15 years ago? But a few court cases have forced gay marriage on a couple of states and the conservatives give up and give in. That is my frustration with conservatives on such issues. We know who the barbarians are.

"The first amendment to the Constitution protects the church from interference by the government. It does not prohibit anyone, including Christian fundamentalists from joining in the debate and offering their opinions and proposed solutions. Get used to Christians in the marketplace and in the public debate."

It also says there shall be no establishment of a state religion. That means you can't legislate a belief in Christ no matter how many Christians there re in this country, because it is unconstitutional.

Your right of free speech is protected. I have no problem with discussion and debate but your attempts to force religion on others is not about discussion or debate. we have fundamental disagreements about how to define life, when it begins and what legal rights a zygote has as opposed to a child or adult. You religion demands one explanation, my religious say another. It's the Constitution that protects all of us from tyranny. You can freely practice what you believe- you have no right to decide what I may practice or believe.

marcedward1

... Catholics may disagree with church teachings and still be Catholic. "Gods laws are written in men's hearts", and Catholicism leaves room for those who don't think the church is right on this or that, as long as you don't try to embarrass the church. Opposition to abortion is not part of the dogma of the church the way the ascension of Mary into Heaven is.
Hope that helps!

********************************************

Catholicism does not leave room for those who don't think the church is right on this or that. The right to life has been taught again and again throughout the 2000 years of the Catholic Church. If you think it is negotiable, you are sadly mistaken.

Please check out this link for a detailed study on the impact various laws and social programs have had on reducing abortions in the U.S.

http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf

I have no affiliation with this group other than being a fellow Catholic.

agapn9 Author Profile Page:

Thank you father Reese for bringing this issue up. As a lay man who was a single parent and has supported pro-life and the democratic party I applaud you. ....
Abortion has gone up under President Bush -

Not according to the Guttmacher Institute's statistics, and they should know because they do so many abortions. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Obama promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, thereby eliminating ALL restrictions on abortion. That's what you get when you vote for the Democrat for President.

Robster1 writes
"It's actually been a tyranny of the minority...via the judiciary. Roe v Wade is the prime example. If abortion is so fundamental and so obviously a personal private "right" then there should be no problem getting majorities in state legislatures to make laws respecting this."

It's up to the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. By your thinking 'seperate but equal' education for blacks and whites is OK, as long as states want it. Here's a question for you - if the Republicans are against legal abortion, why have they not ended legal abortion? Passed a law, amended the constitution - I mean, they haven't even tried!!! If a majority of Americans is against legal abortion, why don't we see the constitution amended to overturn roe? What happened to the "Human Life Amendment"?

To reduce or eliminate abortions, we need to take several steps. First provide education to our children so they don't become parents in their teens or have abortions so they don't disappoint their parents. Second we need to become a pro-family, pro-life society. That means universal health insurance, living wages for parents, longer maternity/paternity leaves, affordable day care and schools that accommodate working parents' schedules.

It's actually been a tyranny of the minority...via the judiciary. Roe v Wade is the prime example. If abortion is so fundamental and so obviously a personal private "right" then there should be no problem getting majorities in state legislatures to make laws respecting this. Ah, but that is exactly what Roe prevents from happening! Very slick, pro-aborters! You get your agenda imposed by a few black-robed ones..like gay marriage now... and claim these are rights. Most people would never agree to the denigration of the moral and social fabric of this country that the radical left seeks. Isn't it funny how these "fundamental" rights have just been discovered in the past generation. This nation seemed to get along just fine for 200+ years with out abortion on demand and sodomite marriage.

Wake up America. The barbarians are at the gates.

sparrow4
Until the day Christian fundamentalists can accept the constitution as the law, and abide by separation of Church and state, i will keep speaking out. If anyone is guilty of running roughshod over others, it's people like you.

*****************************************

The first amendment to the Constitution protects the church from interference by the government. It does not prohibit anyone, including Christian fundamentalists from joining in the debate and offering their opinions and proposed solutions. Get used to Christians in the marketplace and in the public debate.

The reason that there is all of this back-and-forth on abortion is because the American people never had the opportunity to debate, discuss, and decide the issue. Seven judges found a non-existent right to an abortion in the Constitution and took the issue out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives. That is the reason why Roe v Wade should be overturned.

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

paulc- Not so. My response to people who want to impose their religious views on everyone is to push back. You keep overlooking the fact that your religious views are not the only ones that exist.

And more importantly- the law has to stand the test of constitutionality in this country. Majorities can try to get legislation passed but as has been said, the constitution was made to protect the minority from the dictatorship of the majority. (yes, paraphrased).

I find that you insist that your religion dictate for everyone. I don't like fundamantalism in any religion, and certainly not in my own. A Jewsih fundamentalist should be an oxymoron, but sadly I see that it is not in Israel today. that said, at least the Jewish ultra-orthodox speak for Jews, and do not pretend to speak for all people in this country.

Until the day Christian fundamentalists can accept the constitution as the law, and abide by separation of Church and state, i will keep speaking out. If anyone is guilty of running roughshod over others, it's people like you.

Thank you father Reese for bringing this issue up. As a lay man who was a single parent and has supported pro-life and the democratic party I applaud you.
Abortions take place four ways: medical abortions in hospitals, overdose of birth control pills to induce, assorted birth control devices, and RU-486. Hispanics have 3 times as many medical abortions as whites, blacks 5 times as many medical abortions as whites.
If we add up medical and 486 abortions under the current administration abortion has increased 23%.
What is more telling is that the birth rate went down to 1.5 children per couple - population sustainability is around 2.2. Our low birth rate has become a national security issue.
John McCain has offered a 7,000 tax emption per child which is a good idea. I hope Mr. Obama picks up the idea. Its a good first start, so would a plan that pays mothers money to sustain a high level of omega-3/low mercury in their blood stream by taking high grade fish oil which is cheap and could be easily provided.
Abortion has gone up under President Bush - a poor economy plus legalized abortion and community acceptance has led to a low birth rate and an overall abortion rate if we consider all 4 abortion avenues that approaches that of eastern
europe, the highest abortion rate in the world.
Voting for a man who doesn't know anything about the economy and expecting to reduce abortion without overthrowing Roe Vs Wade which McCain has no intention of doing is a failed strategy.

Face it. Obama is toning down his stance on abortion because it is politically the correct thing to do now. Anybody, such as Obama, that thinks that their pregnant teenage daughter should not be "punished with a baby", (or perhps he understands how much his mother was "punished" by having him???) and has voted for partial birth abortion is ANTI-LIFE. What is more important to me than the economy, any war, or helping people get out of self imposed bad decisions is LIFE itself. We have no honorable country without respect for all life. But apparently to many Americans LIFE and honor are not as important as having the right to NOT take responsibility for our own actions. Sad but true. I hope my honesty does not offend any of the pro-abortionists but gets them to use their brains and maybe even their hearts.

Paul C writes
"Dwight Collins was correct in saying that Catholics can not be true to their faith and support abortion."

Actually you are wrong. Catholics may disagree with church teachings and still be Catholic. "Gods laws are written in men's hearts", and Catholicism leaves room for those who don't think the church is right on this or that, as long as you don't try to embarrass the church. Opposition to abortion is not part of the dogma of the church the way the ascension of Mary into Heaven is.
Hope that helps!

Sparrow,
Your response to people with views contrary to your own seems to be to censor them or to exile them. The US is a representative government. If the majority support abortion, it becomes the law of the land, If the majority reject abortion, then that position becomes the law of the land. Advocates of both sides have the right to push their points. Dwight Collins was correct in saying that Catholics can not be true to their faith and support abortion. Catholics represent 25% of the US electorate so by we can not, by ourselves, create any laws. Any law that supports a Catholic viewpoint, would need at least as many non-Catholics to support as Catholics so you can feel comfortable in knowing that any US law will not be driven soley by the Catholic Church. However, Catholics have as much right as anyone else to put forth their opinions and vote their own consciences.

Jan99 writes
"What is the point of being a Roman Catholic if you do not oppose abortion by writing protection for the unborn person into law?"

1) Neither candidate running is proposing "writing protection for the unborn person into law", and if you don't know that you are too stupid to vote.
2) If you can't see any point in being a RC aside from opposition to abortion, you don't know much about the RC church. Have you even read the gospals? Yeah, I didn't think so.

DwightHCollins writes (for about the hundreth time!)
"everyone that supports abortion murder of babies is responsable for the sin of abortion murder of all the babies ever aborted..."

By your reasoning everybody who has voted Republican in the last 2 presidential elections is guilty of the bombing/murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians, including thousands of innocent babies.
See ya in hell!

Yes to reasonableness
yes to separation of church and state
yes to equality for everyone
yes to women's rights
yes to raising our children with hope and peace and love for their fellow man
Yes to saving the earth and its flora & fauna
Yes to audacity
Yes to Hope
NO to McCain/Palin because if I wanted religo-fascists running my government I could go to the hills of Afghanistan to Bin laden, or move to China.

(and dwightcollins- if all Catholics are like you, there are billions of us proud to say, Yes we are not Catholic! In fact I listed 2 other countries that might be better matches for your kind of lifestyle)

Dear Father Reese,

Obama will be elected by a landslide due to the weak economy. Why should he waste time on the abortion issue, an issue which is not very important to him? And why, when you make an assertion that increased spending on benefits will decrease abortion, do you not look at the experience in other countries?

I’ll give you a summary of what happened in Britain. Labour was elected in 1997 during a time when Britain already *had* a national health service. It proceeded to spend a great deal of money of both health and education over the next 11 years. (So heavy has the spending been, that the balance sheet of the gov’t is now quite constrained.) And during that time of unrestricted prosperity and spending on the poor and anti-poverty programmes, what happened to the level of abortion? ABORTION CONTINUED TO RISE INEXORABLY. (Sorry to write in capitals.)

I’m convinced the only way to lower abortion is to limit it. But due to the power of the feminist lobby in Washington, this will never happen. So the abortion lobby will continue to write abortion policy and the numbers will rise.

These are harsh words. But I think it’s better to face what is going to happen.

Yours unhappily (at the prospect of more abortions),

Mary C.

No to socialism. No to on-the-job training. No to radical messiahs. Yes to the only great man running, Sen. John S. McCain. Country first.

a woman is guilty of the sin of baortion murder of her own baby...
a doctor is guilty of the sin of abortion murder of all the babies he aborted...
everyone that supports abortion murder of babies is responsable for the sin of abortion murder of all the babies ever aborted...
if you support abortion, you are not catholic...
that applies to everyone...

"What is the point of being a Roman Catholic if you do not oppose abortion by writing protection for the unborn person into law?"

Hmmmm....could it be because Roman Catholicism is not the law of the land? separation of church and state?

Typical Jesuit priest, attempting to water down the Catholic faith and equivocate on eternal truths. What is the point of being a Roman Catholic if you do not oppose abortion by writing protection for the unborn person into law?

I agree with Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, and Archbishop Chaput and NOT this Rev. Reese.

"You cannot take a vote on the truth." - Pope John Paul II

The Catholic Association of Latino Leaders have reportedly released a 'voting guide' for Hispanics in which Mons. José H. Gómez, S.T.D., Archbishop of San Antonio (founder) argues that that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil.

Hmmm.... spiritually 'guiding hispanics'...to kill?

I am really glad things are changing because you can look at the adoption statistics and find the current anti-abortion methods do not work. The people you elect do not want to help the families of the new baby. There is no health care for most of them and they have to pay more taxes than they can afford. This needs to change to make the need for abortion rare.

You are so wrong in saying that voting for a Democrat will change the landscape. If the treatment of pro life Democrats within the party are any indication, things have never changed for pro life Democrats. The only reason my party put those few statements on the platform was to throw a few crumbs to the pro life Dems to keep them quiet. On the state level, like here in NC, you are practically ostrasized if you are a pro life Democrat. Just go and ask if they will make the platform neutral and you will get a resounding "NO!" You can't even get a resolution passed on the county level. We have been trying for 6 years to get the Choose Life plate in NC and have been prevented by the Democratically controlled legislature. I wish this wasn't true but it is. I will continue to work for reform but I can tell you that the day after the Dems win, they won't remember who we are.

Farnaz2 :
'Tom,You'll have to forgive CCNL. He's been brainwashed by his religion.'

Ironically CCNL persues his/her agenda with the zealotry any Taliban would be impressed with. CCNL is more of a 'true beliver' than most posters (not including spider-whatever).

Tom,

You'll have to forgive CCNL. He's been brainwashed by his religion.

That's really interesting to read, thanks for writing this article. I have a lot of Catholic friends who I think feel stuck, no impaled, on the fence b/c of abortion; perhaps this will be helpful.

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

And some say a growing baby is considered to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

GeonLee writes
"CATHOLICS Who Do Not Listen to Pope and Bishops Are Rejecting JESUS!!!"

One guesses you are a troll trying to make Catholics look stupid, or at least make yourself look stupid. The Pope and the Bishops are not equal to Jesus, so you're full of it.
Game - set - match

It's pretty clear that contemporary American Christianity has defined abortion and anti-gay as the central elements of the faith. Given that I'm shocked that Jesus had nothing specific to say on either issue. This is particularly shocking since abortion was legal under the Roman law in place during his life and gay alliances were commonplace during the time. (And he was definitely under Roman law remember 'Give unto Caesar...) Given this, I wonder why he never had any specific teachings about this and rather spent his time on poverty and justice issues. What possibly could have been going thru his mind?

CATHOLICS Who Support for Pro-Abortion Candidate Is REJECTING JESUS!!!

Thomas Reese IS DISTORTING TRUTH. Obama is 100% in the RATING of NARAL PRO-CHOICE, a STAUNCH PRO-ABORTION SUPPORTER.
Obama is THE MOST EXTREME PRO-ABORTION candidate among ALL DEMOCRAT senators.
Obama, as a Illinois state senator, VOTED four times AGAINST providing immediate medical care to NEW BORN-ALIVE BABIES, letting them DIE. while all other DEMOCART senators VOTED FOR the identical federal bill, BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT.
Obama also supports PARTIAL BIRTH abortion, a GROUSOME BARBARIC procedure without ANASTASIA (one of ABORTION SURVIVORS speaks AGAINST Obama).

Pope and bishops clearly states that aborion MUST ALWAYS BE OPPOSED and is the OVERRIDING ISSUE (NOT ONE of MANY ISSUES). Labeling Archbishop Chaput as 'Meverick' is PATHETIC. I suggest that Reese not IGNORE Pope John Paul II' "The Gospel of Life"

“Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good… It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop…” (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)

Thomas Reese is REJECTING JESUS, by REJECTING POPE and bishops in UNION with him.

Jesus said to His disciples: Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16).

geonlee- take a deep breath and go do some fact checks. don't believe all that desperate republican rhetoric which is basically made of lies, innuendo and and errors. Less hysteria, more facts.

carvalhomp- I do agree. Unfortunately, the birth control argument has taken several twists so that people are now objecting to birth control as "pre-murder." There are pharmacists who feel they have the right to refuse birth control to a woman. Not just the morning after pill, but regular birth control. In essence, every good choice we have to reduce abortions are being put into religious terms that disallow them. You have to wonder- do the religious think a woman is only as good as her womb? Is she to be disenfranchised and reduced to a baby factory? because for the religious right this all fits in with their concept of the roles of men and women.

CATHOLICS Who Do Not Listen to Pope and Bishops Are Rejecting JESUS!!!

Thomas Reese IS DISTORTING TRUTH. Obama is 100% in the RATING of NARAL PRO-CHOICE, a STAUNCH PRO-ABORTION SUPPORTERS.
Obama is THE MOST EXTREME PRO-ABORTION candidate among ALL DEMOCRAT senators.
Obama, as a Illinois state senator, VOTED four times AGAINST providing immediate medical care to NEW BORN-ALIVE BABIES, letting them DIE. while all other DEMOCART senators VOTED FOR the identical federal bill, BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT.
Obama also supports PARTIAL BIRTH abortion, a GROUSOME BARBARIC procedure without ANASTASIA (one of ABORTION SURVIVORS speaks AGAINST Obama).

Pope and bishops clearly states that aborion MUST ALWAYS BE OPPOSED and is the OVERRIDING ISSUE (NOT ONE of MANY ISSUES). Labeling Archbishop Chaput as 'Meverick' is PATHETIC. I suggest that Reese not IGNORE Pope John Paul II' "The Gospel of Life"
“Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good… It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop…” (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)

Thomas Reese is REJECTING JESUS, REJECTING POPE and bishops exercising their authority in UNION with him.

Jesus said to His disciples: Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16).

I like the tone of this article. Unintended pregnancies are indeed the major cause of abortions, which are prevalent among low-income women (potentially easy targets for both unscrupulous politicians and fanatic preachers from different religious sects). Easier access to effective methods of birth control would likely contribute to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies among the poor.

I hope to see an enthusiastic program - much more intense than the anti-abortion crusade that is rebranding as monothematic some religious sects - to adopt dumpster babies and to support children and adolescents abandoned by their families and occasionally subjected to all kinds of exploitation, including sexual, by religious and nonreligious persons. I also hope to see much more light, and much less heat, informing the debate on family planning. G.P. Carvalho

Mary_Cunningham writes
"You're missing a point a demographer would never miss."

Give me credit for posting data over guesses.

"Firstly population over the pre Roe period increased. For illegal abortions pre Roe to outnumber legal abortions post Roe (a crazy notion) in frequency terms would mean that abortions *decreased* once they were legalized."

1) Given that you haven't listed the population increase nor have you listed the increase in estimated abortions, you have nothing to go on. A demographer might have caught that one too.
2) In the USA, Birth Control was legalized nationally in the late 1960s. Greater availability of birth control would logically lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions (just like in South America where birth control and abortion are hard to get, they have MORE abortions).

"Now that REALLY is against all rules of logic."

Well, yeah, if you assume that greater availability of birth control made no difference what so ever, but that wouldn't follow 'rules of logic' either, no?

"(And economics, if a desired good is made cheaper, consumption increases, not decreases.)"

Depends on demand, no?
Have a nice evening!

What makes you think this is new???? "Safe, rare, legal" has been a democratic mantra since the Clinton presidency! This has been Hillary Clinton's stated position since she first took office in the Senate. Where have you been?

It's not just teenagers with raging hormones! It's important to remember that there are not two different kinds of women: those who have abortions and those who have babies. Sixty-one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. They are pregnant women who lack protection from workplace discrimination. They are parents and caretakers who lack economic and social supports available to women in virtually every other western industrialized country, like a national health care system and paid maternity leave.

The 'pro-life' Republican party has controlled the presidency for 20 out of the last 28 years and Congress for a majority of that time. Republican appointees represent a majority on the Supreme Court. Despite all of this, Roe vs. Wade remains the law and a majority of people don't understand that overturning that decision WOULD NOT eliminate abortion in this country by any means.

Pro-life Catholics like me are growing increasingly irritated with prelates like Archbishop Chaput who insist that we vote based on what a candidate says and not what the track record of the party the candidate represents might be. We do not like being told, essentially, that we have only one choice (Republican) because of one issue (abortion rights) forever. Any hypocrite who yells 'pro-life' is automatically entitled to my vote? I don't think so. The answer to respecting life issues, and there are many of them, rests on changing hearts, not legislation.

kert1 writes
"Thanks for all the research. I'm not sure why you are getting so giddy about the data, since I think it actually backs up my previous points somewhat."

Not that I was giddy, but your earlier point seemed to be that premarital sex was rare in the pre-sexual-revolution days. Based on the only data presented that is certainly not the case.
Speaking personally, I'd give that more people are engaging in premarital sex now than before, but that could also be because people wait longer to get married.

*snipped part of your post, but mostly agree with it so I didn't see a point of including it*

"Notice that these "advocates" of premarital sex did not mention anything before 1954. I doubt there was any "Age of innocence", but the study even seems to suggest that things were much different before."

Well, they didn't collect data from earlier (not sure why - lots of people born in the 1920s are alive today). Mind you I spent all of 2 minutes searching online, so more exhaustive research (not by me - my kids are nagging me at the moment) might reveal more. Consider that the phrase "Roaring 20's" didn't just refer to the stockmarket - those were wild times.

"The point remains that "cosequence free sex" leads to greater consequences. It's not like I really expect a bunch of people to all the sudden change their practices. People do what they want to do, which is often not prudent. I do hope people keep an open mind and just become the next lemming in the line."

Given your 'handle', one presumes you are male (forgive me if I'm wrong) - try to remember how often you thought about sex when you were a teenager. My wife teaches highschool, and I can tell you the 'young ladies' were a lot less now then they did in the 1970s. If I were a teenaged boy in highschool, I'm not sure I'd notice if the classroom was on fire.

Finally, I agree that sex shouldn't be thought of as consequence free. I have three boys, oldest being 10, and I explained sex and such to him a long time ago. Parents should not rely on the schools to teach that (although I believe most do) and it should be discussed before the kids are old enough to mate, IMO.

pre and POST Roe, population in the US steadily increased.

You need to use frequencies.

Marc,

You're missing a point a demographer would never miss. Firstly population over the pre Roe period increased. For illegal abortions pre Roe to outnumber legal abortions post Roe (a crazy notion) in frequency terms would mean that abortions *decreased* once they were legalized.

Now that REALLY is against all rules of logic. (And economics, if a desired good is made cheaper, consumption increases, not decreases.)

Dr Bill,

In the EU, with abortion capped at 10-12 weeks in most states, we are not so far away from your ideal.

I've been thinking the same thing. Overturning Roe Vs. Wade doesn't actually make abortion illegal so all the money, time, and lip service thrown at this idea is, largely, a waste. People who oppose abortion need to do something much more difficult than voting for someone who claims to share their opinion. They will actually have to influence the women, now predominantly black and hispanic women in their 20's and 30's, who are most likely to have abortions.

Marc,
Thanks for all the research. I'm not sure why you are getting so giddy about the data, since I think it actually backs up my previous points somewhat.

I admit that 1954 seems a little early, and the numbers are probably slightly inflated but I won't disagree with the conclusions. The 50's were when contraception became widely available and thus came the sexual revolution in the 60's.

Notice that these "advocates" of premarital sex did not mention anything before 1954. I doubt there was any "Age of innocence", but the study even seems to suggest that things were much different before.

The point remains that "cosequence free sex" leads to greater consequences. It's not like I really expect a bunch of people to all the sudden change their practices. People do what they want to do, which is often not prudent. I do hope people keep an open mind and just become the next lemming in the line.

Hey Kurt1
More info that Rev Reese blocked regarding sexual habits pre-sexual revolution.
From a report on pre-marital sex:

Results. Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained
until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

Conclusions. Almost all Americans have sex before marrying. These findings argue for education and interventions that provide the skills and information people need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases once they become sexually active, regardless of marital status.

From an MSNBC article regarging a guttmacher study
"NEW YORK - More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

“This is reality-check research,” said the study’s author, Lawrence Finer. “Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades.”"

Seems to me that there was no "Age of innocence" as you and Mary are arguing. People like sex and have sex, period.

Asking whether a woman victimized by rape or incest can abort a 'non-human embryo' is not the same as asking whether she has the right to kill a 'human embryo'.

Why won't pro-choicers clarify whether they believe it's a woman's right to kill an embryo if they were to consider it human?

Don't they agree on an answer?

kert1 writes
"Marc,Those arguments are unsubstanciated"

Like I said, I posted the quotes and original URLs. Call me a liar if you wish, or better yet ask Rev. Reese why these posts were blocked.

Your arguments about estimates pre-roe statistics is confusing at best. It's be clearer if you
1) Posted whatever argument you disagree with
2) Look up their methodology (all studies include methodology)
3) Describe why these methodologys are suspect.

Now I know that many conservatives like to quote the Guttmacher institute because they claim the downward trend in abortion under Clinton continued under Bush, so one hopes you'll accept their word.
From Guttmacher-
Prior to the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, illegal abortion in the United States was common; some 700,000 to 800,000 abortions were estimated to have taken place annually in the 1950s and 1960s. Poor women, mostly young and minority, suffered the health consequences, and maternal mortality rates were high.
From the same article
According to the World Health Organization, about 13% of the 500,000 deaths worldwide from pregnancy-related causes each year are associated with unsafe abortion; in Latin America, the proportion is as high as 21%. In Egypt, abortion-related problems are responsible for about one-fifth of all obstetric and gynecologic admissions
From another Guttmacher article
Abortion was prevalent in the United States long
before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in
Roe v. Wade. One stark indicator, however, was
the death toll. Especially prior to the introduction
of antibiotics in the 1940s, thousands of
American women died (abortion was listed as
the official cause of death for almost 2,700
women in 1930) and many thousands more suffered
serious health complications as a result of
having unsafe, illegal abortions.
from the same article
Where abortion remains illegal and clandestine,
however, women are still paying the ultimate
price. Globally, about 70,000 pregnancy-related
deaths each year are attributable to unsafe abortion

Marc,
Those arguments are unsubstanciated. Why are their less legal abortions than illegal. Here is an actual article and little paragraph with the point.

www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

Pro-abortionists grossly exaggerate the number of illegal abortions and deaths
before Roe vs. Wade. One of the major ongoing lines of defense offered to keep abortionon-
demand legal is to insist that the Roe decision did not result in an increase in abortion:
2
Georgia Right to Life www.grtl.org
that the same number of abortions is now done legally which were formerly done
illegally. Significantly, however, the minute they are asked for data to back up their
charges, in their typical "hit and run" debating style, they rush off to another topic.
An all-too-common example of this mode of attack appeared in an article by Suzanne
Gordon in the April 4, 1989 Washington Post Health Magazine. She stated, "more than
1.2 million women are estimated to have had illegal abortions each year before Roe v.
Wade, and approximately 5,000 died annually as a result." Obviously, no official record
of the number of illegal abortions exists. Pro-abortion public relations firms may make
such estimates of more than 1 million illegal abortions and 5,000 deaths annually. But
anyone who looks at the actual figures of abortions after 1973 and the number of all
pregnancy-related maternal deaths before 1973 would disagree. These statistics prove
that the pro-abortion estimates have no basis in either fact or logic.
During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand
nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, which surveys abortion
providers and compiles abortion statistics). If abortion supporters want to claim that more
than 1.2 million illegal abortions took place before 1973, then they must also explain why
the legalization of abortion caused an immediate drop of more than 450,000 in the
number of abortions!

Well I did some research on the incidence of abortion and pre-marital sex in the pre-roe, pre-Sexual revolution period, and posted it with links. Sadly these posts have not appeared yet. Either Rev. Reese is reviewing these posts before allowing them up, or he's just not allowing evidence to be posted.
From the little I read, pre-sexual revolution there was plenty of premarital sex. Google it yourself. As one would expect Pre-Roe estimates of the numbers of abortion are around 700,000/year - less than after roe but certainly a sizeable number.
In short, there was never any 'golden age' where people weren't engaging in premarital sex and having abortions.

paulc- I don't think I am missing the point so much as questioning what it means. Maybe I can illustrate it better by using Sarah Palin as an example. Her daughter Bristol got pregnant. She was taught abstinence only and as much as I dislike Sarah Palin, it would be difficult for me to believe she never explained to her children about pre-marital sex and responsibility. Yet pregnant Bristol is. with the Palin's doing what you did with your sons, teaching them sex means responsibility, why is Bristol pregnant? And why complain about Obama for wanting to deal with these issues, when it seems to me that Palin has failed in this matter with her own daughter.

And, yes, she is keeping the baby, but where is the outrage about irresponsibility and immorality? Yet women who chose to have sex and use birth control, which is acting responsibly, are being raked over the coals for it.

You said "If a couple becomes sexually active in their freshman year, there is better than a 50% chance that a pregnancy will occur before they graduate, even if a condom is used every time." I'd like to know where the statistic comes from but I also want to point out that birth control is more reliable than condoms.

Your point about birth control and sex is well taken, but what about victims of rape and incest? those pregnancies have nothing to do with how much responsibility a woman takes, or engaging in pre-marital sex. why shouldn't these women have the right to have an abortion under those circumstances? doesn't society owe them justice and real support?

drbill- well, I would put it at 12 weeks but are you so certain the majority of pro-lifers would accept that? My sense is that the majority feel a person ( with the rights of any other person born) is created at the moment of conception. To me, your idea is more acceptable because it is more realistic. The other part of it should include recognition of the fact that for the length of an unwanted pregnancy, it is understood that the rights of the mother have been abrogated and that there has to be some policy (and I don't know what that would be at this point) that redresses the situation. One thing I do know, however, somehow the responsibility of the man mas to be part of the solution.

Sparrow,
you are completely missing my point. I am not trying to disparage women who have sex or let men off the hook. I have three teenaged sons and I make it very clear that sex before marriage is wrong.

Here's the problem. Since the advent of birth control, people have been conditioned to believe that if they use condoms or the pill, that they can have sex without ramifications. This "sexual revolution" has directly led to a 7 fold increase in out of wedlock births, 1.3 million abortions per year and 25% of our teenaged girls having at least one STD. This can not be ignored. The problem with birth control is that it gives a false sense of security. Sure, it reduces the incidents of birth, but it doesn't eliminate it. Sex has always had very real consequences. Before birth control and abortion, people treated sex with much more restraint and respect, knowing full well that if you had sex, chances are you would also have children because there is that direct link. It was only the most reckless that did so.
Now, people have been led to believe that the link between sex and having sex has been broken by the marvels of medical science (the pill, the condom, the IUD, etc). Everywhere in the media, premarital sex is not only condoned but expected, especially if it is "safe sex". In fact, the link has not been broken. If you have sex even with these medical gems, you will still have children, just less frequently. I'll bet you that few if any of the sexually active teenagers understand the probabilities they are dealing with. If a couple becomes sexually active in their freshman year, there is better than a 50% chance that a pregnancy will occur before they graduate, even if a condom is used every time. Does Obama intend to tell everyone that. If so, I applaud him wholeheartedly.

I'm confused by some of the positions. For example:

1. Are some fellow Christians contending that reducing abortions is not a goal worth pursuing, regardless of a candidate's position?

2. Would 'pro-choice' advocates still be willing to kill an embryo if they considered it human?

sparrow4 :

I they proposed a constitutional amendment that protected life from, say, the moment of detectable brain wave or heart activity (6-8 weeks I believe), the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers would accept that. That would also make the definition of the beginning of life the same as the legal definition of death (i.e. cessation of brain wave activity, even if body is kept alive via life-support)

Addiction to pornography is a symptom of the disease, not the cause of it.

I will say, also having experience with statistics and interpretation, is that

1. statistics can be open to interpretation. That's a fact.
2. You can't find data if that data is never reported.
3. You have to understand what the data is really telling you. The assumptions or parameters can badly skew your data.

And if you know anything about the pre Roe vs wade era, you would know secrecy was the order of the day. Same thing for any data survey- it can be skewed. Not to say the statistics given are wrong, I am saying all the data would not appear. After all, what family would answer to a survey, sure, I got my kid an abortion. Here's the doctors name. and there are very few women who I know who couldn't tell you a story about the fear in that era, or the terrible things done to women who wanted abortions.

Glad to be of help. The numbers are crude but they seem to show that abortion itself creates its own demand.

What one can say with some confidence is the while abortion will stay legal and safe (for the mother at least), as things stand now it will never be rare.

Drbill21- glad you don't think so. I hadn't realized you were channeling Seth. Psychic? NOT.

It was your lack of comment that said so much. And furthermore, there are different stages of human fetal development- you invariably go for the flashpoint issue, but say nothing of why a woman should not have access to a morning after pill? And for the record, I don't agree abortions should be performed as late as is allowed by low now. 15 weeks should be it- if a woman doesn't know before then she's pregnant, she should have been born a boy.

Sparrow4,
Go to a prison and find the prisoners who committed rape. Ask them about pornography and you find near 100% are addicted to it. Pornography is quite powerful. Many resist it's but many cannot. Rape is largely a produt of unfulfilled desires in pornography.

Thanks Mary,
I understand the stats aren't that hard to find, I just don't have the time today. I generally don't spend time proving stuff that is common knowledge but it is nice to have someone back me up.

"supporting women who are forced to bear a child. Of course, if you get rid of a man expectation that he can have selfish sex, you will also reduce rape. That would be great too. Pornography is basically the problem there."

First of all, I love babies,without question. they are not punishments and I know Obamas statements were taken out of context and twisted in meaning. But I have a hard time seeing how you are supporting a woman, in instances of rape, at the same time you are forcing her to have a baby she neither asked for nor did anything to conceive of.

Men who rape care nothing for responsibility- with them, it just does not compute. rapists have a lot of mental and emotional issues that make them unable to relate to normal society, the law or responsibility. Better parenting would reduce instances of rape, but there is something inherent in a rapist's mindset that in some cases you simply have to say they are born twisted.

I don't understand your point about pornography. Millions of youngsters grow up sneaking looks at pornography and still manage to become fine mature family men. Pornography isn't the problem, a person's morals and ethics are. Porn can't drive you to do despicable acts- on you yourself can do that.

"oh, I dunno- I'd like to see more concern for the dignity of the born, myself." take a trip to Walter Reed hospital before you decide whose life is more important, sacred or dignified. since we haven't gotten that right, what's the purposed of worrying about embryos? Just to give them the same kind of dignity we have given to our soldiers? Lack of care, sending them to a frivolous war in the wrong country after the wrong terrorist, lack of concern for their families as they face longer and multiple deployments? that kind of dignity?"

Did I say anything about being opposed to caring for soldiers or supporting frivolous wars? You seems to have bundled pro-lifers into a box with a bunch of other baggage.

All I asking for is that unborn children be at least allowed to LIVE, rather than be dismembered into a bunch of little pieces by some vacuum cleaner. As best as I can tell, we don't treat ANYONE else like that.

But in any case, is your point that if pro-lifers showed the level of concern you would like for those already born then you would suddenly agree to protect the unborn also?

Hmmmm.... didn't think so.

paulc2 writes
"Your attitude toward sex is very dangerous. Sure you enjoyed it, but you were also very lucky."

People make their own luck. My first long term GF (3 years) went on the pill (if you read my post we went to PP together). My 2nd GF was on the pill. As was my 3rd. My 4th I took to PP. It's not luck to plan ahead and have those plans work out.

"While the pill reduces pregnancies to 5% per year on average, (down from 85% with no birthcontrol) that's still 5 girls in an average high school class getting pregnant in a given year. If you started when you were 16 and continued until you were married at 26, you had a 50% chance of getting one of your girlfrieds pregnant, even with the pill."

I disagree. The pill, taken properly has a very high success rate. Failure would mean an egg actually drops, no? So the pill would have to fail and we'd have had to engage in sexual activity at the right time. Believe me, having three kids (all planned, mostly, because the last one was when we *thought* breast feeding prevents pregnancy) I know that when your TRYING to get pregnant it takes a lot of tries.

"Furthermore, the pill does nothing to stop the tramsission of STDs, which now effect 50% of the sexually active. If you use a condom instead, your chances of pregnancy goes up 3X, although your STD rate is down. "

Shouldn't young sexually active people use both the pill and condoms?

"As for studies of sexuality in the 1950s, there may not have been a lot, but there clearly are birth statistics. In 1960, only 5% of births were out of wedlock."

So what does that mean? Lots of "shot gun" weddings? Lots of out-of-state abortions? It's not like they didn't have birth control before the 1960s.

"Since 85% of the sexually active will have a child within a year without birth control, and birth control and abortions were not readily available then, the math says only 6-7% of the girls were sexually active before marriage."

Or they used birth control, or they had abortions - your argument is based on assumptions, and I recall what my English Teachers used to say about what happens when you assume.

"Compare that to now and you see that even with birth control and over 1 Million abortions a year, 37% of births are out of wedlock. Well you might feel the sexual revolution worked for you, it has been a disaster for many and for society as a whole.
Surely you are intelligent enough to understand those statistics.."

You don't have statistics, you have assumptions. Sexual freedom is better than what we had before, which was people pretending that they weren't having sex when they were. Young people now have more sexual freedom than those of us did during the sexual revolution, and they know full well how to avoid pregnancy (birth control, oral sex, etc.) God didn't give us pleasure and than punish us for having pleasure. Our society's problems with sexuality come from conservative ideas about sex that are from the bronze age.

Like I wrote earlier, I don't do demographics any more--don't have the data or time or, really, inclination. But an (ashamedly, admittedly) cursory look makes me fairly comfortable in asserting that in the US (or any other developed country) whilst spending more on the poor is an admirable goal in itself and should be commended, assert that that spending will result in a reduction in abortion is the basest of cynical ploys.

Nowhere in the *developed* world is there a clear connection between increasing or decreasing social benefits and increasing or decreasing levels of in abortion. They seem two different phenomena.

"Likewise, reducing abortion in a sense is a good thing, but in a larger sense, it is not if the reason is not the dignity of the unborn."

oh, I dunno- I'd like to see more concern for the dignity of the born, myself. take a trip to Walter Reed hospital before you decide whose life is more important, sacred or dignified. since we haven't gotten that right, what's the purposed of worrying about embryos? Just to give them the same kind of dignity we have given to our soldiers? Lack of care, sending them to a frivolous war in the wrong country after the wrong terrorist, lack of concern for their families as they face longer and multiple deployments? that kind of dignity?

Kert1

Re: unwanted children from unwanted pregancies pre Roe

Estimating their number is not hard to do, in most demographic analysis you just need to dig out the data, after making a few assumptions. If I were going to do it, which I’m not!—I put aside asking about the prevalence of sexual activity--irrelevant really because I am more interested in the *result* which is unwanted children. Today they are aborted. Previously what happened to them?

I’d be pretty sure that these children would be show up in the adoption statistics.( I’d discount orphanages because historical research shows that most children in these places were not really orphans, orphanages functioned like foster care today. Many parents intended at some point to reclaim their children.)

Then we dig, find the data and convert them into frequencies, ie 1 out of 1000, which is generally how population statistics are conveyed.

Guttmacher looked at adoption petitions and found 175,000 in 1970 of which half were from non-related petitioners (related petitioners would be step parents which was more common in the past than today). Thus in 1970, you could say definitively that there were 85,000 cases of ‘unprotected’ sex resulted in an undesired child. And you could compare that to the number of abortions in, oh, 2000. The population grew from 203.2 million in 1970 to 281.4 million by 2000 so we’ll convert it into frequencies: thus we have 85,000 (adoption)/203,200,000 or 4 per 1000 in 1970 rising to 1,000,000 (abortions)/281,400,000 in 2000 or 36 per 1000 in 2000, up nine fold.

So it looks like your assertion has some legs--it was the availablility of abortion that produced MORE abortion. ABORTION ITSELF is what created and will continue to create the demand for more abortion.

You'd have to take a really *hard * look and try to figure out what was wrong. You’d have to clean it up a LOT! But it doesn’t seem too off.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf (p.16)

Sparrow4,
More babies would be great. They are definitely not punishments, they are the greatest gift. Problem is you need more responsible people, not less babies. Without more babies we will destroy our own race.

I would make men be responsible. Once they people know that they can't get away with sex without consequences, it will force men to be responsible one way or another. Another ramification from the sexual revolution was absentee fathers. The numbers ballooned when men were told they also can have consequences free sex, and that didn't work out. Many just left and forgot about the baby. This was almost unheard of before this time. But again, this is a consequence of the sexual revolution. I say make the men responsible and don't tell them there is any way out.

Rape is really a whole other issue. It take human responsibility to another level. Obviously I am punishing rapists to the fullest extent and supporting women who are forced to bear a child. Of course, if you get rid of a man expectation that he can have selfish sex, you will also reduce rape. That would be great too. Pornography is basically the problem there.

Obama's rhetoric in the debate makes him appear moderate on the subject. However, last year he specifically told Planned Parenthood that the FIRST THING he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would go beyond Roe v Wade and as a matter of federal statute eliminate every court-approved state regulation on abortion including parental notification and waiting periods. In other words, his position on abortion is the most extreme possible.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1RD2-fabA

Furthermore, in a stump speech he specifically referred to a "baby" as a "punishment." This really shows how he doesn't get it. A baby is NEVER a punishment, nor even a tragedy. Regardless of the circumstances, a pregnancy is ALWAYS a blessing.

This issue of reducing abortions versus criminalizing is a little strange. First, I would be curious how low Obama thinks he could reduce the abortion rate from the current 1.3 million/year without criminalizing it.

Does anyone have any idea what would be an "acceptable" number?

Second, can you imagine a discussion 150 years ago that goes something like this:

My friends, I would like to reduce, must not criminalize, slavery by removing the "need" to own slaves. After all there are a lot of slave-owners who economic future will be imperiled if we abolish slavery so I propose policies to relieve the burden on these slave-owners so that they will either free all slaves or reduce the number of slaves.

Now, if the political culture made abolishing slavery impossible, would this be considered progress or not?

I would submit it would not because it fundamentaly does not address the DIGNITY of slaves (i.e. black people). It frames the issue entirely in terms of eliminating the "need" to own slaves, making it an economic, not a moral, problem.

Likewise, reducing abortion in a sense is a good thing, but in a larger sense, it is not if the reason is not the dignity of the unborn. When abortion is viewed as something that is sometimes "needed" or not and the only way to reduce it is to address the "needs", then you never get around to addressing the real issue which is the dignity of human life.

Kert:"You honestly believe that before birth control, people had as much premarital-sex and yet somehow coverred it up and all the consequences (unwed births, STD's, etc)."

what I said was it was far more extensive than you want to believe. don't forget condoms,and other methods of attempts at birth control. What I am also saying is that you can quote statistics but those numbers can only be found if they were reported. No doctor who performed abortions was going to talk about it. there was a huge underground for performing illegal abortions. Add to that, all the teens who married because the woman was already pregnant- you may not see those in your statistics for pre-marital sex. How comparable the numbers are, I never claimed to know- All I said was it was more than you seem to think.

I also disagree that birth control created a bigger problem. sure it doesn't work all the time, neither did the rhythm method. But without birth control today there would be many many more babies.You seem to think that the fact that birth control is not 100% effective (and some are nearly so) is a reason to stop using it and let a woman who dares to want sex before marriage be punished for it. So I also ask you- while you and paulc are making women bear the brunt of this, what are you going to do about the irresponsible men who pressure, manipulate or rape them?

Paul- yes, they do bear the greatest burden, but if you don't add men to the mix, and only address the stats for women, you do lose half the picture.And allow people to forget that they are only seeing half the story. If they don't see the whole problem, they can't come up with a real solution. If men and boys are not held accountable on a similar level as women, they will never be part of the solution. I really wasn't kidding about mandatory vasectomies- we're talking a minor procedure compared to 9 months of severe physical body changes and then at least 18 years of parental, financial and social responsibility.

Women are pressured into sex (but it somehow is always "her" fault), they bear the social onus, they bear the full brunt of the impact of pregnancy. I repeat, however- you don't get pregnant without sperm. Until you deal honestly and fully with real implications of your statistics, they are worse than meaningless- they get used as a weapon in the war on women's rights.

There is so much talk of how a baby is innocent life- and a baby is. But we disagree on when a fertilized egg becomes a baby. You would put a metaphysical implication on a biological process- but you're asking to have it both ways.

You want a fertilized egg to have the same rights as a person already born, and you want "personhood" defined biologically, yet you still want to leave out half the biological process.
and I do understand in cases of carelessness why people should resent using abortion as birth control (I certainly do), and I understand all the arguments about how we have to protect the innocent.

But in cases of rape and incest? Here the woman is innocent- a victim of a crime. but still, her innocence is less important to you than that of a developing mass of cells. So now we have come to this- we are ranking levels of innocence? we should let strangers make decisions of life-changing consequence, allow strangers to dictate how victims are treated and force further physical, mental and emotional suffering on a rape or incest victim who has already been hurt?

Is this the thinking of a free and compassionate society? Is this how we view equality? somehow, I see the words repressive, cold and uncaring, unconstitutional as more apt descriptions.

Sparrow4,
I sometimes wonder how people can raitionalize this stuff, but I guess it's just ignoring the obvious. Now I need to get this straight. You honestly believe that before birth control, people had as much premarital-sex and yet somehow coverred it up and all the consequences (unwed births, STD's, etc).

Let me just point out as clearly as I can this argument. So I would say a conservative number today would be about 75% have premarital sex. Without protection, at least 50% would get pregnant (who even knows about STD's). Now these would either get sent off to who knows where, or get a "coat hanger abortion". So let's say 25% of the girls dissappear at some point and the other 25% have the abortions. The coat hanger abortions would be quite evident, since many would die and many more would be severly injured. Not very easy to cover up. The dissappearing women would also be very hard to cover up. Then you have all these babies that went somewhere (really like to know where). With these numbers we are looking at millions of babies.

Obviously these things did happen, but in very small numbers. That's how they were able to hide things. You can't hide something that almost everyone does regularly, and why would you hide it. If everyone does it, you can't really blame anyone.

The numbers don't lie. There is just no way to say a 5%(then) rate versus a 37%(now) rate of out-of-wedlock births point to similar sexual practices.

Can someone back me up on this, so I know everyone hasn't gone crazy.

kert1- you're very wrong about there being much less pre-marital sex. It was more hidden- people didn't speak about it, they sent their daughters away to have the babies, sent them out of the country for abortions or to sympathetic doctors, or worse case scenario, sent them to people with coat hangers. It was a terrible terrible time. You may not have been aware- but it was happening.

Paulc- once again, your statistics are all about the women. statistics are only a small part of the story. For every girl or woman who got pregnant, there is a man responsible. Yet you don't even address this. they get a free pass from you.

Sparrow4:
This was in my post to paganplace:
I wasn't blaming girls for getting pregnant. Boys are obviously equally responsible, but I think you would agree that the girls are the ones that bear the greatest burden if they get pregnant.

This is not about blame. this is about failed social policy..

You know, Mary- you really shouldn't try to take me on. You consistently do to your own detriment. I am insulting? Lessee.....
"my scolding little shrew"
"iman of invection"
"snippy sparrow"
"Lord confound this surly sister,
Bright her brow with blotch and blister;
Cramp her larynx, lung and liver
In her guts a galling give her.
Let her live to earn her dinners
In Mountjoy* with seedy sinners
In this judgement, Lord, don’t tarry
I am your faithful servant"

And this in response to a post that was not even addressed to you. You see, Mary, or Maire- people of your very low level of intelligence do not respond to my points (and I stand by my comments, especially re PaulC) but take offense at the fact that I disagree with them.

first, show me where paulc mentioned anywhere that it takes 2 to tango? Or do you really not know how fertilization occurs? No owrd of a responsibility on the part of the man or boy. What is it you don't get about letting men get away scot free in this? Unless you don't believe that everyone in the human race should take responsibility for their actions?

I realize you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, but most women don't. You also suffer from a problem iwth free speech and freedom of religion. Yet for all your complaints about the non-Catholics who post on catholic blogs - and in fact you complain about disagreeing Catholics who post on them also- if I remember correctly you live across the pond? So , by your lights, why are your posting about what happens here in the States?

And finally regarding my anger at the Himmler comment- only a morally and ethically bankrupt person such as yourself, with no knowledge of history would focus on my reaction and not the comment itself.

Thanks for the doggerel - it so well expresses the sort of "christian" you are. The sheer viciousness of it only illustrates how low you go. I'm hardly worried- I doubt G-d has time to give me cramps or pimples (but you might speak to him about your ugly nature. Maybe he can help :-)

I know you're sitting at the keyboard just squeezing yourself in delight over your attempts at wit (iman of invective- {took you 2 tries to get that right})- well, keep going. You're "half" way there. try again when your IQ hits double digits.

Marc Edward:
Your attitude toward sex is very dangerous. Sure you enjoyed it, but you were also very lucky. While the pill reduces pregnancies to 5% per year on average, (down from 85% with no birthcontrol) that's still 5 girls in an average high school class getting pregnant in a given year. If you started when you were 16 and continued until you were married at 26, you had a 50% chance of getting one of your girlfrieds pregnant, even with the pill. Furthermore, the pill does nothing to stop the tramsission of STDs, which now effect 50% of the sexually active. If you use a condom instead, your chances of pregnancy goes up 3X, although your STD rate is down.

As for studies of sexuality in the 1950s, there may not have been a lot, but there clearly are birth statistics. In 1960, only 5% of births were out of wedlock. Since 85% of the sexually active will have a child within a year without birth control, and birth control and abortions were not readily available then, the math says only 6-7% of the girls were sexually active before marriage. Compare that to now and you see that even with birth control and over 1 Million abortions a year, 37% of births are out of wedlock. Well you might feel the sexual revolution worked for you, it has been a disaster for many and for society as a whole.
Surely you are intelligent enough to understand those statistics..

MARCEDWARD,
No one is saying that people haven't always engaged in pre-marital sex. Of course they have. But before the sexual revolutions is was relatively rare and that is just simple to see. There was no effective way to prevent pregnency besides abstinence, so most people who had sex got pregnant. Since the out-of-wedlock births were much lower than today, we can conclude there was much less pre-marital sex. I can add 2 and 2 and come to a conclusion.

Today almost everyone does it and the consequences are great. No one argues that birth control isn't effective on a case by case basis, the problem is what it advertises. We tell people they can have consequence free sex. We know that contraception is at best 98% effective and even less effective for STD prevention. And that is assuming people do it correctly all the time which almost never happens. So people just do it all the time and it much greater numbers. So now we have a STD's getting out of control and un-web births skyrocketing. On some College campuses I have heard the rate is around 40% for the sexually active. This is a consequence of the sexual revolution. This is also the myth of contraception. There is no such things as consequence free sex.

I am not against contraception all together. It can be helpful in family planning. But you have to understand it will fail at some point and you had better be with someone that isn't going to abandon you. The truth is, most of these foster kids your are concerned about come from unwed mothers and broken relationships. You want to cut down on foster kids, then put values back in sexual relationships. When parents have children responsibly then there will be far less foster kids. You don't fix a sinking ship with a pail, you plug the hole.

No one buys a bullet proof vest and walks around asking people to "shoot me". Sure, the vest will probably work but that isn't what it's meant for. It's a last resort. It's not a replacement for being responsible. That is what contraception should be. No one would accept the failure rate of contraception in anything else this important.

Mary,

Ah yes, feminism and population control. As a Catholic, the latter has always made me edgy. Pop. control and the eugenics movement have always been intertwined and eugenics was unmistakably one of the inspirations of Nazism. The writings of Marie Stopes (here) and Margaret Sangster (there)are--frankly--disgusting.

What is it about the children of the poor and undeserving (eugenicists get to define undeserving) that so frightens their intellectual 'betters?' Sangster would have eliminated poverty by eliminating the poor themselves whilst in the 1930s Marie Stopes, another "pioneer" of birth control, wrote letters to Hitler praising him for his "good" eugenics.

Anyway, if you look at fertility rates in the developed world today--the *last* thing the EU needs is more abortion. Every country is below replacement, countries like Germany, Italy and Spain dangerously so--in Italy at one point the TFR (total fertility rate)dropped below 1! (2 is replacement.) The US similarly is *at* replacement, so the spectre of hordes of poor children overwhelming Am. society is completely false.

That leaves empowerment of females. Well, OK. That seems to draw all the vitriol from feminists here, so it probably would be best not to say anything.

Best

Mary C, thank you for your post.
The "sanctity of life" phrase is from Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian theologian who developed situation ethics in the 1970's. He welcomed Roe as a social advancement in favor of "quality of life."

It is true that the feminists are associated with abortion-on-demand, but then there is the population control movement which is less obvious.

I regret that Senator Obama's abortion position hasn't received the media attention that it deserves, but as an essentially elusive personality, his address to Planned Parenthood helps to flesh out a portrait of the man.

PaulC writes
"Now if we are teaching these girls that sex is safe as long as their partners use a condom, we are doing them a real disservice. Because statistically, it is far from safe"

It is compared to using nothing. Of course wouldn't most of those same girls be on the birth control pill? Back when I was in high school (class of 79) my GF and I took the metrobus to the Springfield PP and got her on the pill. One would guess getting the pill would be easier these days.

kert1 writes
"Just look at the post from PAULC2 below. It gives the statistics. I have seen many that are very similar. Just at your grandparents (or parents). It is very widely known that before the sexual revolution that these types of things were relatively rare."

Again I ask for evidence, because you're the one making the assertion. Studies on sexuality pre-1950s - how many of them were there? Any? I don't think humans suddenly change, that before the 'sexual revolution' people weren't engaging in un-married sex (though I bet they sure lied about it). Certainly the sexual revolution changed things for the better (a point I am happy to argue).
Don't see how I'm being to mean to people in foster care. I just know in my state there are a lot of kids in foster care that nobody wants to adopt. If people want to DO something that would be more effective than arguing online about abortion (which is a tad easier, eh?).

As for birth control 'not working' - it sure worked for me! Everybody I dated pre-marriage used the pill, and it worked graet. Until we wanted kids my wife was on the pill, and it worked. WHen we wanted kids, she went off the pill. Three boys later we decided enuf was enuf and I got snipped, end of story. Birth Control works fine most of the time, which is enough. Lack of birth control doesn't work at all.
Later ya'll

Yes, I think you're right here Mary M. IMHO the problem of American politics is the outsourcing policy to its special interest groups:

*regulatory financial policy to the investment banks (did you know that none other than current Treasure secretary Hank Paulson in his then capacity of CEO of Goldman Sachs along with 4 other inv. banking groups successfully lobbied the SEC to raise their gearing from 20 to 1 to 40 to 1? This was in mid 2004. Four years later 3 or the 5 were either defunct or merged, at *enormous* expence to the US taxpayer).

*Foreign Policy in the Middle East to the Israel lobby. No need to discuss here.

*Energy policy to the oil majors, or the agri-business lobby

*Abortion law to the feminist lobby.

The feminists have succeeded in making the Dems the party of abortion. IMHO Obama will fulfill his promises to them and make abortion fully available. Fr Reese and the rest of the Post's 'Catholic' (?) liberals will try to sprinkle holy water on Obama's acts by saying: "Oh, but by increasing spending on the poor, Obama will EVENTUALLY decrease abortion" but since in other developed societies there is almost NO correlation between anti-poverty programmes and the incidence of abortion, we know abortion will not decrease. If anything it should *increase* during the first two years of an Obama presidency, the coming recession will be a hard one and should last up to 24 months. Hard times equal less births and if you are using abortion to limit births, abortion will rise.

"Sanctity of life"...nice phrase but false. Has been for a long time.

PaganPlace,

I wasn't blaming girls for getting pregnant. Boys are obviously equally responsible, but I think you would agree that the girls are the ones that bear the greatest burden if they get pregnant.

My point is simple: Safe sex is anything but safe. If you have sex, even with birth control, odds are a pregnancy will result. It's just a matter of time. If you have multiple partners, you are also likely to contract an STD, with or without birth control. Sure, birth control will reduce the likelihood, but not enough to make it truly safe. If you start having sex at the beginning of highschool, using a condom every time, there's better than a 50% chance that a pregnancy will occur before you graduate. This needs to be communicated to everyone. Many on this board have mocked abstinence only sex ed, but in fact, that's what we need to impart. There are three concepts that have been propagated by proponents of the sexual revolution that must be disavowed by all:

> All sex has ramification. There is no such thing as recreational sex

> Birth control will not in fact eliminate pregnancy or control STDs. It reduces risk, yes, but does not eliminate them. If you have sex, chances are you will still get pregnant and still get STDs. It might just take a little longer (or not, if you are unlucky)

> If you do get pregnant, you can always get an abortion and everything will be as it was. This is simply not true. There are risks with abortions and most women who have them, also leave with emotional scars because they know, deep down, that they just killed their baby..

I applaud Obama and the Democratic party for wanting to limit abortions. That is good. My question for them, is why do they feel a need to have them at all.. Does the mother's right to privacy or convenience really outweigh the child's right to life? And how can Obama say that he wants to limit abortions on one hand and then support the eliminate of abortion restrictions on the other? Isn't this inconsistent?

Although I am not Roman Catholic, I was an active Episcopalian laywoman when Roe was decided. Because this was also the period of the thalidomide babies and the always-frightening specter of the "back alley," I believe we were secretly relieved when the Episcopal Church recognized the need for legalized abortion.

However, we were of a different generation, and it is important to point out that Roe was welcomed for a variety of reasons including sheer empowerment and population control. Whatever their strengths today, these special-interest groups have been and continue to be associated with the Democratic party, and in the case of the modern Episcopal Church they have had enormous influence.

Senator Obama's address to Planned Parenthood made clear his commitment to not only retain Roe vs. Wade but to expand whatever freedoms are required for women to fulfill their full potential. In this regard, the "sanctity of life" is to be finally put to rest as an "ancient notion" long discredited by American society. It seems to me this is what is at stake for Catholic Democrats.

Q: What's the difference between a pro-choice Democrat and a "pragmatic pro-life Democrat?"

A: The "pragmatic pro-life Democrat" wears a Roman collar while he rips the baby's arms and legs off.

iman of invecTIVE

Hello there, sputtering Sparrow, my scolding little shrew! Still insulting, eh?

How she does slang them!

Paul is misogynist and pathetic.
Our darling sparrow “doesn’t give a rat’s ass” about Jesus & Enrique’s question. (Although Reese;s topic does concern Christian theology). “Just keep out of my way.”
Eli is an “ignorant redneck” for maintaining Obama supports infanticide.

And to see the iman of invection herself getting angered about the Eli’s reference to Himmler (that was OTT, I agree) makes my day!

Anyway, why should Sparrow have all the fun? Boo on you, snippy sparrow! (in time for Halloween):

Lord confound this surly sister,
Bright her brow with blotch and blister;
Cramp her larynx, lung and liver
In her guts a galling give her.
Let her live to earn her dinners
In Mountjoy* with seedy sinners
In this judgement, Lord, don’t tarry
I am your faithful servant

Máire

*Mountjoy was a prison in Dublin. In Irish Máire rhymes with Harry.

paulc- don't you find it odd that you say nothing about the boy's responsibility in this? It takes two people to make a baby- the boy could just as easily say no. But that's not in your program is it? it just points out the truth of the matter- misogyny.In your world only the girls are to blame. Pathetic.

enrique- "To what extent is each politician's economic vision driven by building a culture of life, like Jesus wanted?" I really don't give a rat's ass what Jesus wanted. That's your religion, not mine. I don't care if you practice it so long as you keep your nose out of my business.

EliPeyton:'Obama supports infanticide. The Washington Post tries to whitewash his position. Himmler would applaud, although he might recoil at the thought of infanticide."

Oh honestly, get a grip. Do some factchecking instead of posting like an ignorant redneck. Himmler recoil at infanticide? Did you not get an education? Did you never hear of concentration camps? You know, I'd call you a simple moron but it would be too much of a compliment.

I mean, hey, maybe 'Father Reese' could help sort this out for us...

Somehow I get this wild and heretical impression that if one stays up late enough in America... that somehow some of these politics.... pardon if I'm 'oppressing' you, aren't as considered and wise and rational as some would have us believe.

But, of course, the Church has *never* stooped to meddling in politics or manipulation, has it?

I mean, you're *so* much better than whatever fine denomination taught Spidey how to deal with humanity, right? Best you come crack down on the terribly-licentious and 'sinful' bed I'm about to curl up me weary arthritic bones in. Gods know you wouldn't want to give innocent young kids like Spidey the wrong impression or anything.

Ask any true born-again believer if he would vote for an abortionist, you'd be lucky to get 5 people among a crowd of 10,000.

On the other hand, ask a Catholic crowd. The candidate could even win a landslide if he knows how to sweet talk.

That's Spel with one L! Haha! CAUSE I SEZ! :)

"HYPROCRICY IS THE WORD"

If it *is,* would you please learn to *spel* it before hitting the capslock, never mind deciding that you get to decide what happens in my body?

THE TRUTH IS, where Catholics comprise the majority in a certain state, abortion , gay marriage and liberalism become legal and abound.

HYPROCRICY IS THE WORD. The Vatican is the seat of satan that is why blindness reign among its flock.

For many years that America existed, it is only now, when Catholics increased in number, that this issue is being debated upon.

Finally, a reasonable position on abortion. I am glad to hear the views that I have long espoused and commented on being reinforced by Catholics.

Great news!

By how much does each party project to reduce abortions in the next 4 years?

How many less excutions on death row?

How many less deaths from war worldwide (enemies included)?

How many less deaths from poverty worldwide?

To what degree is each politician measurably committed to a culture of life, worldwide?

To what extent is each politician's economic vision driven by building a culture of life, like Jesus wanted?

Obama supports infanticide. The Washington Post tries to whitewash his position. Himmler would applaud, although he might recoil at the thought of infanticide.

PAGANPLACE,
Actually, I don't think missionaries ever do much with condoms. They have other work to do. Most of the work the US has done in Africa does not have to do with contraceptives and it has been very successful at reducing AIDS transmission. I have never heard of anyone lying about condoms.

I don't believe condoms really work well anyway. Most societies are male dominated and the disease is often spread by rape and prostituion. These are problems that the condoms can't really help but the missionaries are working on.

One other really disturbing revelation has recently occurred. They now understand that AIDS may be largely spread by unclean needles. Turns out most Africans are pretty faithful. Many of the needles are used to give contraceptives that are supposed to make Africans lives better. Turns out the contraceptives have simply spread the problem

"Gisselquist et al urge a new effort to assess the role of medical transmission: “A growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and other medical exposures to contaminated blood as pathways that have not yet been adequately addressed.”(23) The risk of infection with HIV from a contaminated medical injection is one in 30.(24) This risk is 33 times higher than the generally accepted probability of transmission for penile-vaginal sex (about one in 1000).(25)

Where do Africans experience such exposures, which have taken such a toll on African life? Often in family planning programs, where injectable contraceptives such as Depo-Provera, Norplant implantation, and abortion (called “post-abortion care”) by Manual Vacuum Aspirator (MVA) are the order of the day."

The rest is here.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/hiv/dn4442-who-accused-of-huge-hiv-blunder.html

I am all about reducing unwanted pregnacies, abortions, and AIDS. But we need to look what we are doing so we don't do this again.

I'm all in on reducing abortions. But we just need to recognize that if our education methods need to be modified. Think about this true scenario. You have a moderate sized high school (1600 students). There are 200 girls in the Senior class, 50% of whom are sexually active. If all 100 of the sexually active girls' partners use a condom every single time, chances are that 14 of these girls will become pregnant sometime in their senior year (according to FDA data). In addition, 50 of these girls (half of those sexually active) will contract an STD during the year.

Now if we are teaching these girls that sex is safe as long as their partners use a condom, we are doing them a real disservice. Because statistically, it is far from safe. In fact the chance of a girl getting pregnant in any given year when her partner(s) always use condoms is 14% (1 in 7). This is roughly the same odds as killing yourself in Russian Roullette (1 in 6) using a six chamber gun. Who among us would sanction Russian Roullette? Think about that.

There is no such thing as safe sex. Safer sex, yes, but still far from safe. The only real answer is to delay sex until marriage, when you are in a position to responsibly handle the likely outcome of sex: children.

Don't assume that people have to have sex. Even in today's sex driven world, 50% are not sexually active. In the 50's, before birth control or aborttion was readily available, the rate of out of wedlock births was 5%. Since unprotected sex results in pregnancy 85% of the time within one year, it is clear that most people chose not to have sex until they were married. Today, because people are fooled into thinking that birth control eliminates the likelihood of getting pregnant, 37% of all births are out of wedlock (and that's after over 1 Million abortions per year).

How can anyone feel good about this?

I mean, hey. If you want to talk about *fables,* listen up. Our world is in crisis. It will *not* reduce the body count, nor be religiously-tidy if we screw up this civilization thing. This must mature, or we get to clean up the cholera-infested bodies of your failed absolutist head-in-the-sand ideologies.

And when I say *we* I say that like I could live without the medicine I wouldn't have to take if the 'righteous' hadn't made sure no one was 'commie' enough to give me early treatment for something.

NO.

If *we* screw up, the world won't end in a tidy burst of theological wonder.... It'll be *messy.*

So. We grow up.

Or shut up and let the big kids try and fix it.

Pretending there's someone you can keep blaming for the effects of what you *keep insisting on doing* even 'In the name of life' for the *unwanted children you scorn by the millions...

Will not stop the mess you are setting us up for, and have been.

I've literally been saying this since I was seven years old, the *last* time america said, 'Screw reality, let's put James Watt in charge of the interior and insist we can't help it when we make worse and bigger cars!'

Pigpile on the queer kid!

Don't make me call your Jesus.
I'll tell on you.

" zjr78xva Author Profile Page:

"It's a mystery (and not a sacred one) how any thinking person, much less a person of conscience, could vote for Obama."

Ok. Once upon a time, there was this mysterious fabled land called America.... which was dedicated to the proposition to the insane notion that all are equal, and ought to be governed only by the consent of an informed populace...

With fits and starts, all went well in this land, until some bunch of greedy schmoes said, 'Hey, wait a minute, we can't end the world and have Jesus come back like *this!* and then they decided that they needed to hate people different from them and crush the infidel and otherwise do all the things that this wondrous land was built *not* to do....

At this point, if this story is still a mystery to you, go choose your theocracy. We don't have time for your BS, here.

You done used it all.

I also have to take issue with Father Reese's contention that this is the first time democrats have spoken about reducing abortions, and creating programs to help. While it may not have been overt, as anyone knows, the dems are "liberals", or so we have been accused for years. And liberals create all these social programs which the republicans claim "reward" people for being promiscuous and irresponsible. sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So what to make of some of the arguments here that imply even women who use birth control are immoral because birth control is not 100% effective? It really comes down to the power men want to have over women and the women who are complicit. evey argument from these people comes down to women are immoral if they have sex for pleasure (unlike men, who can't get pregnant so they're allowed.)

well, I have a suggestion that could resolved the birth control issue- mandatory (but reversible) vasectomies for every boy beginning at 13. Can be reversed upon a test (post -marriage of course) whereby said young man can prove he is responsible and mature enough to have kids. Somehow, with the shoe on the other foot I doubt any man will sign up for that legislation.

zjr78xva:"It's a mystery (and not a sacred one) how any thinking person, much less a person of conscience, could vote for Obama.'

Nooooo.....actually it's a mystery how anyone could vote for McCain/Palin. Lying, voter suppression, 150,000$ on clothes for her, divisive- oh, and did I mention that Palin cut funding for programs for unwed mothers and signed off on letting the police department charge RAPE VICTIMS for rape kits.

Well, you may not think I have a conscience but at least I'm voting for someone who I know does. Barack Obama.

It's a mystery (and not a sacred one) how any thinking person, much less a person of conscience, could vote for Obama.

I'm sure there are a few, but it's a mystery.

faithfulservant3, you claim as "fact" the following: "Republicans have always failed to pursue the alternative of funding programs to take care of unwanted children".

What evidence have you for this sweeping and inflammatory claim?

"Just at your grandparents (or parents). It is very widely known that before the sexual revolution that these types of things were relatively rare."

Not true, actually, they just weren't *spoken* of.

The only mean to prevent unintended pregnancy allowed by the Catholic Church is total abstinence for the unmarried and abstinence on the unsafe days for married couples. They never work, the Church knows it but they will never change it and allow barrier contraceptive only because the Church want catholic women to get pregnant often on the theory that catholic mothers will raise catholic children and there will be a large number of catholics in this world. As they say:"There is strength in large numbers".

MARKEDWARD,
Just look at the post from PAULC2 below. It gives the statistics. I have seen many that are very similar. Just at your grandparents (or parents). It is very widely known that before the sexual revolution that these types of things were relatively rare. A little commen sense doesn't hurt either.

If you want to contest 'facts' you actually need 'facts' of your own, not outrage.

I am also a little saddened by your callouseness toward foster kids, foster parents, and their unique situation. There is a need for more foster parents but beyond this it is complicated. Many of these kids are in transition from their real parents and need special attention. If you want to encourage good deeds please have a little compassion.

It's like in some parts of Africa: the Church missionaries tell everyone to say *just what you're saying,* 'Condoms don't work and actually make it worse,' ....so, in that kind of ignorance, people just have unprotected sex and fall back on 'urban legends' that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS, rather than spreads it.

Bon appetit.

" kert1

"Paganplace,
You missed the main point of Paulc2's argurment or conveniently forgot it. Birth control is a myth and doesn't work."

Bullfeathers. You claim it 'Doesn't work' cause it *sometimes fails* ...then offer *ignorance and shame* as a substitute.

But what you offer *always fails.*

My partner's straight sibling, newlywed with someone who also 'waited for marriage' to not only try and buy a clue about sex, but figure out that their slightly-different Protestant sects were gonna start screaming hellfire at each other about *the music and decorations.*

No wonder Evangelicals have a fifty percent divorce rate, even with all the threats of eternal punishment...

Ignorance and shame and desperation are *at least three orders of magnitude worse* than the rate of failure of a condom.

Give us a break.

I am so glad to be reading something which is not so "black and white." I know that many people do view this issue, as exactly that--right, wrong, no in-between, but the whole thing really is not that simple. The choices I make for myself are a totally different matter, and it isn't even that some people don't agree with me about the morality of lack thereof of abortion. Most people really don't view it as a morally good thing to do, but the fact is that we are not going to make it go away. People have been doing something to get rid of unwanted babies for a long time. It is a very sad thing, but it is also a true thing. The truth is that many countries in Europe have lower abortion rates than we do, but they also have, throughout Europe, nationalized health care, and the poor get a great deal more help from the government than is the case in our country. Just yesterday a report came out that shows that the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in the U.S. than in country in Europe. Fr. Reese hits the nail on the head when he says that all the other pieces of supporting families fail to make it on the Republican's agenda.

kert1 writes
"Birth control is a myth and doesn't work."

got any evidence of that of did you pull that out of thin air? My guess is the latter.

"Birth control was essentially created to stop unwanted pregnancies. At the time they were pretty rare"

I can only conclude that you have NO idea what you are talking about. Why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously when you just make up 'facts' to back up your opinions?

paulc2 writes
"The true reason people are concerned about abortion is that it takes the life of the innocent."

Personally I think it's because a lot of people are busybodies who like to feel morally superior without actually doing anything.

"Simply saying don't have an abortion if you have a moral objection to it, doesn't satisfy the need to save the children of those people who have no problem killing their own offspring"

Here's an idea - if children are so valuable, go find some kids in foster care (there are a LOT) and adopt as many as you can afford. That's DOING SOMETHING. Trying to use the power of government to take away the rights of others while sitting on your rear end is DOING NOTHING (aside from making yourself feel good). Moreover, neither party is going to end legal abortion. The Republicans have had near endless chances and done NOTHING. The Democrats won't end legal abortion, but at least they are honest about it. Now you have no option, as McCain is going down in flames, and if he was elected HE'D DO NOTHING.

So if you want, keep posting while abortion continues and kids rot in foster care, but your moral position is hollow.

Paganplace,

The problem with birth control is the expectations people have with it. They think that if thye use birth control, there will be no consequences. That is very far from the truth.
in fact, as you can see from this FDA study: http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html, 5% of the women on the pill will get pregnant in any given year, 14% of those using Condoms and 20% of those using IUDs. Unprotected sex will result in pregnancy 85% of the time, so obviously that is higher.

Nevertheless, in an average high school class of 30 students with 50% females of which 50% are sexually active and their partners always use condoms, you can expect one pregnancy per year. Further, if a girls starts having sex at 15, even if her partner(s) always used condomes, the odds are she would have at least one pregancy by the time she graduated college. This is a catastrophic problem. More education about the use of condoms will not fix this problem. This is as good as it gets. The fact of the matter is, having sex (protected or not) has extreme consequences.

Planned parenthood /NARAL and others like them have done a great disservice to women because they have led them to beleive that they can have recreational sex with impunity. The results have been anything but... Until we can convince the masses that sex really does lead to childbirth, this will not change.. Using abortion as a means to "fix" this problem is amoral...

All life is sacred at all times in the kingdom of God since the cross.

Those Democrats who ignore the fact that abortion is the taking of a human life are hypoctites. As are the Republicans who support the death penalty.

That conservatives have for so long sought to criminalize abortion shows a lack of compassion (heartlessness really). The focus should be on a constitutional amendment that establishes the principle without seeking to send people to jail.

In the meantime there are clearly many common sense solutions; including making adoptions easier, anti-poverty efforts, and and making healthcare more accessible, that both parties should be agreeing to.

The fact that Republicans have always failed to pursue the alternative of funding programs to take care of unwanted children born of mothers who opt out of abortions shows their complete myopia on this issue.

The fact that the leaders of both parties refuse to come together to pass common sense legislation to address these achievable goals that are short of the ultimate issue demonstrates that there is true evil on both sides. Godly people would have comnpromised long before now.

Are the Dems really emphasizing the "rare" part of "safe, legal, and rare"? This article in Slate says the opposite - they removed that language to try to reclaim the moral high ground by identifying women's equality with access to abortion:

http://www.slate.com/id/2197363/

Moreover, Obama promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act ASAP. That law would invalidate nearly all state restrictions on abortion, including those SCOTUS has ruled aren't an undue burden, and would likely lead to an increase in abortion rates ... at least until the promised social programs get under way.

Oh, and let me guess which programs will be deprioritized because of the economy....

Paganplace,
You missed the main point of Paulc2's argurment or conveniently forgot it. Birth control is a myth and doesn't work.

Birth control was essentially created to stop unwanted pregnancies. At the time they were pretty rare and the claim was they would be nearly non-existant. What actually happened was the sexual revolution and since then, consequences of promiscuity have greatly risen. Instead of a small problem, it is a huge problem.

This is the great lie of birth control. It has created a bigger problem. Now everyone is told they can have consequence free sex. But this just makes people more brazen. Because they don't think there are consequences, so many people are promiscuous that the problem has exploded and yet we are still told birth control is the answer. The problem is you can't tell people to be a little responsible and expect better results. They will just keep up the same behaviours until there is a price to pay.

I'm not completely against birth control but I am against it as a substitute for morality and responsibility. There are no substitutes. I understand that it is somewhat impracticle to preach this now but it would work. If people want to engage in risky behaviours then the have the right. But let them bear the responsibility. When a bunch of people end up with STD's and unwanted children, they will learn quick. It worked before 1960 and it will still work. That is the only way to reduce unwanted pregnacies.

" paulc2

"Paganplace:
"The true reason people are concerned about abortion is that it takes the life of the innocent. Simply saying don't have an abortion if you have a moral objection to it, doesn't satisfy the need to save the children of those people who have no problem killing their own offspring."

The unborn are not 'offspring' by definition.

And the 'need' to control others' bodies is not a 'need,' ...it is in fact trying to substitute fear of punishment for actually dealing with the real and practical issues involved in *truly* respecting life.

It makes Christians *feel* righteous while having the opposite effect intended and in fact making more unwanted pregnancies and more-desperate mothers.

Not the way. Not with government, anyway. Your moralistic efforts would be far better spent making sure that the brass tacks of unwanted pregnancy aren't so ruthless, rather than letting greedy Republicans string you along election after election promising that this time, really, they're going to render moot the only wedge issue keeping them in power.

Seriously.

Humans are involved, here.

"While I agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies would mitigate the need for abortion, having access to birth control doesn't do it. Birth control is dangerous in that it is not 100% effective but that people treat it as though it were. "

It's a whole lot more effective than saying, 'Since it's not 100 percent certain, it is not absolute like God, therefore worthless to even talk about, so, stick a cork in your sex drive until you get drunk, desperate, or coerced enough to do the irresponsible.'

I've always been of the opinion that we should respect the wishes of those who do not desire to have abortions.

Hence, I'd rather not have them made mandatory, if that can be avoided. On the other hand, if anti-choicers (aka anti-lifers) continue to thrust their filthy fingers into women's wombs, there may be nothing for it. We who are pro-choice may need to push for mandatory abortions.

Paganplace:
The true reason people are concerned about abortion is that it takes the life of the innocent. Simply saying don't have an abortion if you have a moral objection to it, doesn't satisfy the need to save the children of those people who have no problem killing their own offspring.

While I agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies would mitigate the need for abortion, having access to birth control doesn't do it. Birth control is dangerous in that it is not 100% effective but that people treat it as though it were. Therefore, lots of people have unwanted pregnancies, despite taking what they think are the necessary precautions. 98% effectiveness, still yields a lot of pregnancies. Since 1960, (before birth control and abortion were readily available), the % of children born out of wedlock was 5%. That suggests a very high level of abstinence in unmarried people.. Now, even with abortion and readily available birth control, the rate is 37%. In addition, 25% of teen age girls now have STDs. I would say the sexual revolution is an unmittigated social failure that more eduction about birth control will not solve.

"First, the Democratic Party is now not just using pro-choice language; it is also acknowledging the need to do something to reduce the number of abortions."

That's *new?*

Where you been?

'Abortion' may be a moral issue for many or most people. *Public policies about sex and reproduction* are not a referendum on whose personal moralism is more popular and to be enforced blindly by state power as a surrogate for any church's authority.

The most pro-choice policies in the world don't impose abortions on anyone.

Contrary to constant slander from the churches, the 'pro choice' position has never been 'pro-abortion,' ....or claiming that it can't be a 'moral decision.'

In fact, if you believe it *is* a moral issue, why make it a *criminal* one when moralities clearly differ?

Conservatives always want the 'right to choose' whether or not to shoot someone, but this isn't borne out when it comes to someone else making their *own* moral choices about sexuality and reproduction, and the future of their families.

The issue of abortion as a government matter has never been about 'Which Is Morally Right,' ....it's always been about, 'What can and should government do?'

A punitive attitude toward abortion, and a more extremist attitude about denying necessary sex education has never *reduced* abortions, only *punished* them.

Too often taken the choice to carry a child to term *away* from women who suffer under these circumstances.

If you don't like abortion, and who does, let's use government for what it's *good for,* and not to try and be in loco parentis for religious ideologies that simply don't *work* for most people.

Let's reduce unwanted pregnancies, let's support mothers and children, ...let's make sure everyone's aware of what all this entails, even, instead of continuing to expect that treating sex as bad without unrestrained and church-sanctioned over-reproduction is somehow going to magically fix everything.

Then the choice about abortion *can* be a truly moral one, without coercion.

Bob2Davis,
You might want to check out a local church. I'd say people generally give way more than 10 minutes a week. Every heard of Pregnacy Care Centers, Orphanages, and Hospitals. There is a load of these out there and many are associated with Churches. I know missionaries that have given their lives to help poor people both home and abroad. There is more that can be done but this is always the case. You are not going to convince to many knowlegable people with your argument.

Social ills are around because of the choices people make, not because people don't donate enough (time, money, etc.). Don't try to blame the world's ills on people who are trying. Ultimately bad things will only stop happening when all individuals choose to make them stop.

By the way, babies are alive. Not sure if you have children or not but you might want to take a look. Jesus is concerned with life through all stages, not just the ones you like.

With all due respect, I have a hard time with the church's views on sexuality. There is so much more to sexuality than procreation. Birth control, in conjunction with good sex education (including self respect and committed relationships) works. Look at the Dutch Model: Netherlands has the lowest teen pregnancy, and lowest abortion rates. Lowering unwanted pregnancy rates is the most effective way to lessen abortion rates.

Unfortunately it requires some folks to realize that while hard line ideologies look good on paper, they rarely work in the "real world"

If pro-lifers would spend just 10 minutes per week helping the living, many social ills would fade away. The unborn should never take preference over the suffering of the living. I think that your Jesus would agree wholeheartedly. Certainly, celibate Jesuit priests and bishops (mostly gay men) should be absolutely the last people to tell a woman what she should do with her body. If the catholic church actually cared about people they would give their money to the poor and hungry and make sure that all had a place to live and proper medical care. But no, the pope needs a summer castle and expensive gowns to wear!

``````

Second source on EU abortion limits: bbc news/world/europe/Europe's abortion rules.

(add www)tinyurl.com/67ddfn

My enormous respect for Fr. Reese only compounds my anguish at his carelessness. I call upon him to retract or correct the false and preposterous assertion that "Republicans oppose programs 'addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.'"

I think the position put forth by Rev. Reese and others is pathetic. It is just a smokescreen and won't protect anyone.

All groups are willing to reduce abortions but the question is how. There are already tons of programs to help unwanted children but people still get abortions anyway. They basically want mothers who don't want children to get free services and free money. This may work some they need personal responsibility. That is the only way to guarentee the welfare of the child. There are plenty of chartitees that will help and they can give up the child for adoption. There are many parents that wait years for children and many more who go oversees. Don't tell me their aren't options for unwanted children. The truth is that people are hard hearted and don't care.

Birth control doesn't help either. It has just increased unwanted pregnacies. You can't convince irresposible people to always do things a little more responsibly. These people will always make poor choices untill they become responsible.

The only way to really reduce abortions is to ban them. I know this may still take awhile but Roe vs Wade needs to go. It will certainly reduce abortions if they are illegal certain places. Plus it will allow for national legislation to ban abortions. It will take some time but so does everything. Should we have just kept slavery around because it was complicated to remove it? I can't stand people who come up with these arguments.

We all know what the stipulations about the health of the mother means. It means that any reason a mother comes up with, permits her to get an abortion. We really need to drop this arguement since there is no proof late term abortions will ever help the health of the mother.

Can I patent Mary Cunningham? One M Cunningham for abortion choice, one (yours truly)decidedly not--and I have the scars to prove it!

Abortion should be drastically limited in the US, as it has been in most countries of the EU, with *NO* effect on the overall birth rate (they’re all much lower than in the US) or on much of anything really. Contraception is freely available and availed of. Vital statistics of teenage pregnancy, drunkedness, drugs, whether children live in two parent families &tc. are better in the (ex) Catholic south than in the (ex) Protestant north. On these matters Britain is about the worst, Italy the best. Abortion has had no impact, either way. Since it has almost no impact on vital statistics, and it could never be construed as a moral act, why keep it ?

Anyway here is some information about abortion limits:

Illegal
Ireland*
Malta

*See my discussion with Shell08 in Prof S-A's blog on Irishwomen having abortions in neighbouring countries.

10 weeks
France
Portugal
Slovenia

12 weeks
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Lux
Poland
Slovakia
Spain

14 weeks
Romania

18 weeks
Sweden

24 weeks or above
Cyprus
Great Britain
Latvia
Lithuania
The Netherlands

Source: (add www)un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007AbortionPolicies_wallchart.htm

The US is in the category of 24 weeks or above, and I don’t see much changing that, nor do I see much correlation between heavy gov’t spending on anti-poverty programmes and declining abortion rates. In Britain the abortion rate has been rising unrelentingly *despite* sharply increasing gov’t spending on anti-poverty programmes. OTOH Ireland managed to get rich * without* much abortion, and the increase has been fairly distributed amongst all social groups.

Anyway, frankly folks, I’ve had it. Obama is going to win, the American economy is bad. Nothing much will happen with the level of abortion. But arguing so is too much sound and fury for me.

"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air;
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep."

Maybe Thomas Reese should read this

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

As the discussion of life issues "progresses", we have Thomas Reese labeling Archbishop Chaput as a 'maverick' bishop for sticking to his position that abortion is so heinous and so widespread that it is overwhelmingly predominant among the issues. This is an obvious attempt to marginalize a bishop who is strongly pro-life. What evidence do we have that Obama will do anything to reduce abortions? He told Planned Parenthood on July 9th that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), thus eliminating all restrictions on abortion. He said he would not yield on defending a woman's right to abortion. This is the only issue in which he has not flip flopped in some way. Those who are beguiled by his rhetoric are foolish.

BTW, how about giving some evidence to support your statement that "Republicans oppose programs "addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.""

I agree wholeheartedly that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, pro life spokesmen should support Sen. Obama, whose program includes expanded access to affordable health care, and, hence, to reliable birth control.

Oddly enough, I didn't read anything about birth control in the article. Why would that be?

Incoming flamewar in 5...4...3...2...1...

Flame on!