Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > When Human life begins: in reality and legally

Forum Quick Jump

291 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/25/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6)

Okay then lets just let it hang. There is no need for more!
dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/25/2003 4:15 PM (GMT -6)

just found this article on ABCNews. I don't think they specify what precisely is a serious health risk and I seem to recall that evidence had been at one point presented that such was unlikely...

Not Black-and-White
Most Americans Back Health Exception to ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion Ban

Analysis
By Telis Demos

July 24— While most Americans favor banning the procedure known as partial-birth abortion in general, most also say the procedure should be legal if the woman's health is in danger — an exception that's absent from federal legislation working its way to George W. Bush.

Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS Intersearch.

Broadly, 62 percent in this ABCNEWS poll favor banning this form of late-term abortion. But when opponents are asked a follow-up — what if it would prevent a serious threat to the woman's health — the numbers reverse, and six in 10 say it should be legal.

A conference committee is merging measures approved by the House and Senate, both of which would allow the procedure only if necessary to save a woman's life. The House rejected an amendment that would have extended the exemption "to avert serious adverse consequences to her health." Bush has said he'll sign the legislation.

In this poll, just 20 percent of Americans say partial-birth abortion should be legal in all cases. But, when the follow-up is asked, an additional 41 percent say they'd make an exception when the mother's health is at risk - for a total of 61 percent who say it should be legal in that circumstance. One in three say it should be illegal nonetheless.

Uncommon Operation

Several other recent polls have found majority support for a law banning partial-birth abortion (including an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll in January), but without asking about a health-of-the mother exception.

Support for that exception fits previous findings on the abortion issue. While views on abortion vary considerably depending on the circumstances, support for keeping it legal is broadest when the woman's life, or health, are at risk. Partial-birth abortion generates majority opposition in general, but as this poll shows, concern for the woman's health trumps that opposition for many Americans.

Partial-birth abortions are not common. Fewer than two percent of abortions are done after the fifth month, according to a 1999 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control; and a 2000 report by the Guttmacher Institute said that fewer than two-tenths of one percent of abortions are partial-birth abortions.

Views on Partial-Birth Abortion:
In General: To Protect Woman's Health:
Legal-Illegal Legal-Illegal
All 20-62 61-33
Women 18-68 58-37
Men 23-56 64-28
Democrats 27-50 73-20
Republicans 15-76 55-42
Independents 21-60 58-34
Protestant 20-64 60-35
White Evangelican Protestant 12-76 43-53
White Not Evangelical 28-51 76-20
Catholic 11-73 58-39
Other Religion 23-59 63-33
No Religion 31-47 64-23

Ideological, Gender Divide

There are strong religious, ideological and political components to these views. There's also a difference between the sexes: Perhaps surprisingly, women are somewhat more likely than men to say partial-birth abortion should be illegal regardless of the mother's health, 37 percent to 28 percent.

Support for a ban runs highest among evangelical white Protestants, among whom 53 percent say the procedure should be illegal regardless of the woman's health. (That compares to just 20 percent among white Protestants who are not evangelicals.) Still, even among evangelical white Protestants, 43 percent say partial-birth abortion should be legal, at least to protect the mother's health.

Among ideological terms groups, conservatives divide about evenly on the issue — 48 percent say partial-birth abortion should be legal when the woman's health is at risk, 46 percent say it should be illegal. Among moderates and liberals alike, by contrast, about seven in 10 say it should be legal.

In terms of political allegiance, Republicans say the procedure should be legal to protect the mother's health by 55-42 percent, and independents by 58-34 percent. It's a much more lopsided 73-20 percent among Democrats.

Methodology

This ABCNEWS poll was conducted by telephone July 16-20, among a random national sample of 1,027 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/26/2003 5:00 AM (GMT -6)

THERE IS NO "HEALTH" REASON FOR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.

Poles where "respondants" respond with positive emotions to saving a mother (anyone's) are to be expected. But they do not address the moral issue, one iota.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/26/2003 5:09 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
In Colson's story, it becomes commonplace as a way of "harvesting" brain ... about what
the anti-abortionists refer to, erroneously, as a "partial birth abortion.". ...
www.refuseandresist.org/ab/colsonreview.html

Colson's Breakpoint: Partial Birth Abortion Vote
http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/Miscellaneous/Partial+Birth+Abortion+Vote.htm

Lutherans For Life
http://www.lutheransforlife.org/abortion/

Partial-Birth Abortion Myths
http://www.lutheransforlife.org/lifedate/1996/pba_myths.htm

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/26/2003 6:24 AM (GMT -6)

Prof. DLW. Since I obviously do not understand you, let me say what I wonder, and then you can interact with that, if you wish.

I'm wondering if you (assuming that you think partial birth abortions are sin) are trying to politik to effect as few of these as possible.

What I'm wondering, though, is this: HOW DO YOU COMPARE THE VALUE (AN "APPLE") OF LIMITING THESE INFANTICIDES WITH THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUALS IN SOCIETY MAKING A MORAL SHIFT (AN "ORANGE") TO ENVELOP THIS CHANGE IN SOCIETAL CONVENTIONS. (ala 'cognitive dissonance.')

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE ONLY TAKING "APPLES" INTO CONSIDERATION.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/26/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6)

Mark Shields, nationally known columnist and commentator, is the moderator of CNN's The Capital Gang

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/21/column.shields.opinion.tolerant/

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- Do not think that the Bush White House is the only place in Washington with an outbreak of fibbing and self-serving deception.

Consider the case of the Democratic Party and its current party platform, brimming with self-congratulatory language about the party's admirable broadmindedness:

"We also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity as a source of strength, not a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect."

Baloney, B.S. and worse. Seventeen Democratic House members wrote to party chairman Terry McAuliffe asking him only "to add a link to the Democrats for Life of America on the Democratic National Committee website."

The Democratic National Committee has, by actual count, 261 links on its Web site, including ones to such longtime party stalwarts as Easter Seals, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the U.S. Forest Service and the Oneida Indian Organization.

As the pro-life Democratic congressmen wrote in their letter, the DNC's refusal to add a link meant that "members of the Democratic Party who are opposed to abortion and capital punishment are being denied their right to be heard ...."

.McAuliffe wrote to one of the 17, Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Mississippi, on June 24, stating, "I do not think it would be appropriate to use official party resources such as the DNC website on behalf of organizations whose purpose is to reverse the current platform and/or to enact legislation that contradicts that platform."

"Official party resources?" Democrats for Life is not asking for a desk and a phone at party headquarters or even access to the postage meter. All it asks from the Democratic Party (which views "diversity as a source of strength") is to be the 262nd link on its Web site. By the DNC's logic, do the American Association of University Women, The Jerusalem Post and the American Legion -- all of which have their own DNC links -- embrace and endorse every plank in the Democratic platform?

OK. So the Democratic Party is not, as it bills itself, broadminded and tolerant and welcoming of diverse views. But that is far from all. In its uncritical endorsement of unrestricted abortion rights, the Democratic Party brass is out of touch with America.

On June 24, the same day Terry McAuliffe wrote to deny 17 Democratic House members their request for a Web site link, Faye Wattleton, who for 14 years had headed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and who has long been one of the most eloquent advocates for the pro-choice position, was interviewed on CNN by Judy Woodruff. The subject was a national poll of women conducted for the Center for the Advancement of Women, which Wattleton now leads.

To her credit, Faye Wattleton did not try to gloss over the unwelcome results from the survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. "We asked what restrictions would you find acceptable (on abortion), and 51 percent said either no abortions at all or only in the cases of saving the life of the mother or rape and incest."

Protecting legal abortion ranked next-to-last of 12 priorities (ahead only of increasing the number of girls in organized sports) and far behind such options as equal pay and the ability to take time off to care for families.

This confirmed a June 2000 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll that asked: "Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Abortion is murder." The answer: 57 percent of those surveyed said that "abortion is murder," while 36 percent disagreed. Among women, 61 percent judged abortion to be murder.

On Election Day 2000, the Los Angeles Times interviewed 8,218 voters immediately after they cast their ballots, asking, "Which issues, if any, were most important to you in deciding how you would vote for president today?" Behind "moral and ethical values," the economy, Social Security and taxes, was abortion, which 14 percent of the voters named. Among those who named abortion as an important issue (14.7 million, which constituted 14 percent of the total), they voted 58 percent for Republican George W. Bush and 41 percent for Democrat Al Gore.

That translates into an advantage on the abortion issue alone of 2.5 million votes for Bush in an election that Gore won by more than 540,000 votes nationally. It makes you think that it's the Democratic Party that needs a "link" to reality.

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/26/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6)

Radical abortionists are ANTI-choice -- they want to deny taxpayers the choice

quote:
Socrates:

Canadian Abortion Practitioner Sues for Tax-Funded Abortions

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 23, 2003
www.lifenews.com/intl12.html

Fredericton, Canada (LifeNews.com) -- Infamous Canadian abortion practitioner Henry Morgentaler has taken the province of New Brunswick to court to force it to pay for abortions at his abortion facility with public funds.

In papers filed in the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench on July 15, Morgentaler claims the province is discriminating against poor women by refusing to pay for their abortions with taxpayer money.

He claims the province is in violation of the Canada Health Act "which says that abortions should be paid as public service and should be paid by the state and by the provincial health care service and not have to be borne by the women themselves."

New Brunswick currently only pays for abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and only if they are performed in a hospital. Two doctors must certify the abortion is necessary.

New Brunswick Justice Minister Brad Green said the province will not pay for abortions performed at private abortion businesses like Morgentaler's. The Morgentaler abortion facility has been doing abortions since 1994 and has never received payment form the province.

Green said he would defend the lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.

The province has until August 4 to file a response to the lawsuit.

The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Newfoundland provide full Medicare coverage for clinic abortions.

Morgentaler has successfully defended against criminal charges for performing abortions in provinces such as Quebec and Ontario. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down as unconstitutional a section of the Criminal Code under which he had been charged.

He has also previously sued the provinces of Manitoba and Prince Edward Island over public abortion funding.

Canadian Abortion Practitioner Sues for Tax-Funded Abortions

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 23, 2003
http://www.lifenews.com/intl12.html

Fredericton, Canada (LifeNews.com) -- Infamous Canadian abortion practitioner Henry Morgentaler has taken the province of New Brunswick to court to force it to pay for abortions at his abortion facility with public funds.

In papers filed in the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench on July 15, Morgentaler claims the province is discriminating against poor women by refusing to pay for their abortions with taxpayer money.

He claims the province is in violation of the Canada Health Act "which says that abortions should be paid as public service and should be paid by the state and by the provincial health care service and not have to be borne by the women themselves."

New Brunswick currently only pays for abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and only if they are performed in a hospital. Two doctors must certify the abortion is necessary.

New Brunswick Justice Minister Brad Green said the province will not pay for abortions performed at private abortion businesses like Morgentaler's. The Morgentaler abortion facility has been doing abortions since 1994 and has never received payment form the province.

Green said he would defend the lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.

The province has until August 4 to file a response to the lawsuit.

The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Newfoundland provide full Medicare coverage for clinic abortions.

Morgentaler has successfully defended against criminal charges for performing abortions in provinces such as Quebec and Ontario. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down as unconstitutional a section of the Criminal Code under which he had been charged.

He has also previously sued the provinces of Manitoba and Prince Edward Island over public abortion funding

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/26/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6)

Mixed Signals -- How We Talk About Unborn Children

by Father Frank Pavone
June 17, 2003

Father Frank Pavone is the co-founder of Priests for Life.

If we want to change the way people think, talk, and act toward unwanted unborn children, we will need to change the way they think, talk, and act about wanted unborn children. Our approach to them either conveys the presence of a person or, well, of something less than a person. Take four simple examples.

First, even the best pro-life people will be heard saying, "I'm expecting a child." But if you are "expecting" someone, that person hasn't arrived yet. Our message is that the unborn child is already here, and is fully a person. A pregnant woman is already a mother who has a child. "I'm carrying a child" is more appropriate, and in counting how many children she has, the child she carries counts as one, not as a "half" or one "on the way."

This leads to the issue of naming the child. A pregnant mother is often asked if she has "picked out a name yet." In the Culture of Life, every person has a name. Delaying the practice of naming until birth only reinforces the idea that we don't have a person there until birth. A name should be chosen and used as soon as one discovers she is pregnant. The practical problem, of course, is not knowing the child's gender right away. I recommend, then, choosing two names. But the key is the timing of the decision. In other words, the names are definitively chosen by the time pregnancy is discovered. They are not just possible names As soon as the gender is known, one of the two will stick.

Another very common practice reinforces the notion that a person exists only at birth. Notice how we celebrate birthdays, but do not celebrate Firstdays. Actually, the Culture of Life should be distinguished by its custom of celebrating the day the person began to exist, which, of course, is nine months prior to one's birthday. True, we do not know the day with exact certitude, but that should not mean we ignore it altogether. We all existed, lived, and grew prior to our birthdays, and the celebration of a "Firstday" nine months before our birthday would send a meaningful message to our culture.

Finally, the sad reality of miscarriage is common. The Culture of Life recognizes that miscarriage is the loss of a child who is a whole person. It is not the loss of a concept or of a possibility, but of an actual child, who has a body. Where possible, of course, baptism is administered, even if conditionally, in case the child may still be alive. Every reasonable effort should be made, furthermore, to take the bodily remains of this child and commit them to the earth by a proper burial. Here we need the generous collaboration of cemeteries and Churches so that this practice becomes more common.

Babies in the womb are real, full persons. These four steps would be good ways to continue to waken our culture to that simple fact.

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/26/2003 11:27 AM (GMT -6)

Abortion has Failed Women: Results of a Thirty Year Experiment on Women

quote:
Socrates:

Results of a Thirty Year Experiment on Women 7/23/2003
By Kathryn Hooks
www.cwfa.org/articles/4321/BLI/dotcommentary/index.htm

Abortion has Failed Women

After a three-decade experiment initiated by Roe v. Wade, the results clearly show that abortion harms women.

America has polarized the abortion debate between the unborn child and the woman, but in reality abortion does not offer the best choice for either. A survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm for Planned Parenthood, showed women primarily choose abortion because of lack of financial resources and lack of emotional support. Abortion appears to these women to be the only choice available. The false notion that abortion provides the best and easiest solution to an unwanted pregnancy deceptively misleads women.

The "Women Deserve Better" campaign supported by Feminists for Life among others claims that abortion has failed to meet the needs of women, and women deserve better than a "quick-fix" that ironically –– and sadly –– leaves women in a more harmful "fix" than previously experienced. Abortion changes a woman's perceived social inconvenience into a health detriment.

In fact, America should be concerned about abortion as a women's health issue.

According to a 1994 report by the Guttmacher Institute 43 percent of women will have an abortion by age 45; therefore the often unreported consequences of abortion affect almost half of the female population. Abortion has failed to offer a physically safe choice for women, and they deserve to know the facts.
[*]The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health stated, "Since 1957, evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer has been observed in 27 of 33 studies world-wide." The International Journal of Cancer reported a higher risk of developing cervical and ovarian cancer after abortion.

[*]The L.A. Daily News quoted pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling stating, "I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing around with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is."

[*]Research by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons reported 6 percent of women who have abortions are left sterile. If a woman has an STD during an abortion, her risk for infertility increases. A study by the Journal of Infectious Diseases found 87 percent of women carrying one or more STDs showed no symptoms.

[*]Southern Medical Journal reported that two years after an abortion women have a death rate twice as high as women who continue their pregnancy. Hospital codes only report a present cause of death such as hemorrhage, infection, or ectopic pregnancy not the underlying reason –– abortion –– so many deaths due to abortion go unreported.

[*]The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found abortion can lead to future pregnancy complications such as premature birth, placenta previa, and ectopic pregnancy.
Author Ann Saltenberger quotes medical researchers Margaret and Arthur Wynn, who support abortion-on-demand, acknowledging that "any patient who has had a previous history of abortion should be regarded as a high-risk patient."

Women frequently suffer psychological effects from abortion, which also link to more physical side affects. According to the Department of Education and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, as many as 91 percent of all abortions cause severe psychological problems, both immediate and long-term.

Yet, incredibly, abortion doctors fail to warn and prepare women for the psychological damage of post-abortion syndrome (PAS). PAS creates a psychological dysfunction from the traumatic experience of abortion resulting in intense fear, the feeling of helplessness or being trapped, and loss of control.

[*]The British Medical Journal reported that a woman who experiences an abortion has a suicide risk six times higher than a woman who gives birth to a child. Suicide attempts fall most heavily among teenagers.

[*]A 1994 survey published by the Elliott Institute found that for women who sought counseling after an abortion, the range of problems included: increased drug and alcohol abuse to deaden pain, reoccurring insomnia and nightmares, and eating disorders.

[*]The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported that women with a prior history of abortion are twice as likely to use alcohol, five times more likely to use illicit drugs and ten times more likely to use marijuana during the first pregnancy they carry to term compared to women delivering their first pregnancy.

[*]According to Social Science and Medicine, 30 to 50 percent of women who undergo abortion experience sexual dysfunction that could include increased pain, aversion to sex, or development of a promiscuous life-style.

[*]Journals, including Family Planning Perspectives and Social Science and Medicine, have reported links to post-abortion couples and the increased likelihood of divorce or separation. The difficulty for many post-abortion women to form lasting bonds can develop from a lowered self-esteem, greater distrust of males, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and greater levels of depression, anxiety, and anger.
Since Roe v. Wade, the feminist movement has been so consumed with the abortion issue that many women have made the assumption that to be a feminist and for women's rights, one must be pro-choice, i.e. pro-abortion. Yet, the original leaders of the woman's movement, women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, strongly opposed abortion.

Today, some former pro-abortion women are rejoining the early feminists. Michaelene Jenkins, executive director for Life Resource Network, changed from pro-abortion to pro-life after the horror of her own abortion. Both her boyfriend and her boss advised abortion as the best solution to save her relationship and her career as a dancer. Still unsure of her decision minutes before the procedure, she requested a few more moments to think about it as the doctor entered the room. Immediately the doctor said, "Shut her up" and turned on the loud machine. After the abortion, she ended up leaving her boyfriend and job to escape depression and to break free of the destructive cycle of personal behavior that followed her abortion.

Today Jenkins shares her story to educate women on the true nature of abortion. A national campaign called “Silent No More” has brought thousands of women together to tell their stories about post-abortion suffering. These women defy the public paradigm that women's rights equal abortion as a positive choice for women.

Abortion propaganda tells women they need abortion so that there are no consequences to their behavior and choices. The propaganda tells them that abortion is necessary so that they can remain on an equal level with men. Abortion sends the message that fighting discrimination is more important than a woman's health. Yet, equality gained at the cost of a woman's physical and psychological well being diminishes all women and further blinds them to their own self-destructive behavior and choices. Women deserve better than being told that their career is more important than their child. Women deserve better than being told, "A baby will ruin your life." Women deserve better than the lie that a risky and dangerous surgery offers a solution to their situation.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

Results of a Thirty Year Experiment on Women 7/23/2003
By Kathryn Hooks
www.cwfa.org/articles/4321/BLI/dotcommentary/index.htm

Abortion has Failed Women

After a three-decade experiment initiated by Roe v. Wade, the results clearly show that abortion harms women.

America has polarized the abortion debate between the unborn child and the woman, but in reality abortion does not offer the best choice for either. A survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm for Planned Parenthood, showed women primarily choose abortion because of lack of financial resources and lack of emotional support. Abortion appears to these women to be the only choice available. The false notion that abortion provides the best and easiest solution to an unwanted pregnancy deceptively misleads women.

The "Women Deserve Better" campaign supported by Feminists for Life among others claims that abortion has failed to meet the needs of women, and women deserve better than a "quick-fix" that ironically –– and sadly –– leaves women in a more harmful "fix" than previously experienced. Abortion changes a woman's perceived social inconvenience into a health detriment.

In fact, America should be concerned about abortion as a women's health issue.

According to a 1994 report by the Guttmacher Institute 43 percent of women will have an abortion by age 45; therefore the often unreported consequences of abortion affect almost half of the female population. Abortion has failed to offer a physically safe choice for women, and they deserve to know the facts.
The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health stated, "Since 1957, evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer has been observed in 27 of 33 studies world-wide." The International Journal of Cancer reported a higher risk of developing cervical and ovarian cancer after abortion.

The L.A. Daily News quoted pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling stating, "I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing around with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is."

Research by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons reported 6 percent of women who have abortions are left sterile. If a woman has an STD during an abortion, her risk for infertility increases. A study by the Journal of Infectious Diseases found 87 percent of women carrying one or more STDs showed no symptoms.

Southern Medical Journal reported that two years after an abortion women have a death rate twice as high as women who continue their pregnancy. Hospital codes only report a present cause of death such as hemorrhage, infection, or ectopic pregnancy not the underlying reason –– abortion –– so many deaths due to abortion go unreported.

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found abortion can lead to future pregnancy complications such as premature birth, placenta previa, and ectopic pregnancy.
Author Ann Saltenberger quotes medical researchers Margaret and Arthur Wynn, who support abortion-on-demand, acknowledging that "any patient who has had a previous history of abortion should be regarded as a high-risk patient."

Women frequently suffer psychological effects from abortion, which also link to more physical side affects. According to the Department of Education and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, as many as 91 percent of all abortions cause severe psychological problems, both immediate and long-term.

Yet, incredibly, abortion doctors fail to warn and prepare women for the psychological damage of post-abortion syndrome (PAS). PAS creates a psychological dysfunction from the traumatic experience of abortion resulting in intense fear, the feeling of helplessness or being trapped, and loss of control.

The British Medical Journal reported that a woman who experiences an abortion has a suicide risk six times higher than a woman who gives birth to a child. Suicide attempts fall most heavily among teenagers.

A 1994 survey published by the Elliott Institute found that for women who sought counseling after an abortion, the range of problems included: increased drug and alcohol abuse to deaden pain, reoccurring insomnia and nightmares, and eating disorders.

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported that women with a prior history of abortion are twice as likely to use alcohol, five times more likely to use illicit drugs and ten times more likely to use marijuana during the first pregnancy they carry to term compared to women delivering their first pregnancy.

According to Social Science and Medicine, 30 to 50 percent of women who undergo abortion experience sexual dysfunction that could include increased pain, aversion to sex, or development of a promiscuous life-style.

Journals, including Family Planning Perspectives and Social Science and Medicine, have reported links to post-abortion couples and the increased likelihood of divorce or separation. The difficulty for many post-abortion women to form lasting bonds can develop from a lowered self-esteem, greater distrust of males, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and greater levels of depression, anxiety, and anger.
Since Roe v. Wade, the feminist movement has been so consumed with the abortion issue that many women have made the assumption that to be a feminist and for women's rights, one must be pro-choice, i.e. pro-abortion. Yet, the original leaders of the woman's movement, women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, strongly opposed abortion.

Today, some former pro-abortion women are rejoining the early feminists. Michaelene Jenkins, executive director for Life Resource Network, changed from pro-abortion to pro-life after the horror of her own abortion. Both her boyfriend and her boss advised abortion as the best solution to save her relationship and her career as a dancer. Still unsure of her decision minutes before the procedure, she requested a few more moments to think about it as the doctor entered the room. Immediately the doctor said, "Shut her up" and turned on the loud machine. After the abortion, she ended up leaving her boyfriend and job to escape depression and to break free of the destructive cycle of personal behavior that followed her abortion.

Today Jenkins shares her story to educate women on the true nature of abortion. A national campaign called “Silent No More” has brought thousands of women together to tell their stories about post-abortion suffering. These women defy the public paradigm that women's rights equal abortion as a positive choice for women.

Abortion propaganda tells women they need abortion so that there are no consequences to their behavior and choices. The propaganda tells them that abortion is necessary so that they can remain on an equal level with men. Abortion sends the message that fighting discrimination is more important than a woman's health. Yet, equality gained at the cost of a woman's physical and psychological well being diminishes all women and further blinds them to their own self-destructive behavior and choices. Women deserve better than being told that their career is more important than their child. Women deserve better than being told, "A baby will ruin your life." Women deserve better than the lie that a risky and dangerous surgery offers a solution to their situation.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/27/2003 9:18 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Abortion propaganda tells women they need abortion so that there are no consequences to their behavior and choices. The propaganda tells them that abortion is necessary so that they can remain on an equal level with men. Abortion sends the message that fighting discrimination is more important than a woman's health. Yet, equality gained at the cost of a woman's physical and psychological well being diminishes all women and further blinds them to their own self-destructive behavior and choices. Women deserve better than being told that their career is more important than their child. Women deserve better than being told, "A baby will ruin your life." Women deserve better than the lie that a risky and dangerous surgery offers a solution to their situation.

Keep up the good work, DLW! Cool

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/28/2003 2:53 PM (GMT -6)

I got the following response from one of the articles from a non-Christian friend of mine, who comes from a rather fundamentalistic background.

This article is, um, not very good. Too much straw woman action. My
wife works in women's health, and has a much more nuanced view of
reproductive health and is professionally very interested in an accurate
assessment of risks associated with abortion. I am certain there is
little in this essay that is valid that she is not aware of. Certainly,
women should be informed of risk, and they probably are.

But measuring risk accurately is important. For instance, the suicide
nonsense cited below: are suicidal woman more likely to get abortions?
more likely to engage in unprotected, casual sex as they try to fill
that void caused by depression? Is it the abortion that causes the
depression or the likely fact that the guy who just boinked her has no
interest in seeing her again, much less paying for half the abortion?
This article dishonestly suggests that the suicide rate increases 6 fold
due to abortion. Too bad that such an important question is trivialized
by this propagandist. And regardless of the answer, none of the essay
has any relevance to the question of whether the abortion option should
be taken from women making informed personal health care decisions.

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167

Posted 7/28/2003 4:46 PM (GMT -6)

You asked me to weigh in on this hard topic, DLW, and I'm not sure what I really have to contribute, but we'll see.

The truth is that my opinions on the abortion issue are, like the rest of my political philosophy, intentionally moderate. Political moderates are often unfairly branded as "fencesitters" or "wishy-washy". Nothing could be further from the truth.

That being said, I agree with DLW's concern that abortion has become an extremely polarizing dynamic in today's political atmosphere. I also think that a compromise of some sort is needed.

However, when it comes down to scientific data and determining when life begins or when ensoulment occurs, I could honestly care less. I think it's foolish hairsplitting and ultimately distracts from the real issue of confronting abortion as Christ would. I fully support alternative clinics, such as Crisis Pregnancy Centers, etc. Beyond that, I find picketing absolutely distasteful and so-called "attempts" at legislation fruitless. The best way to fight this epidemic is on a case-by-case basis, through opening more centers, advertising them heavily, and above all else, covering their ministries in prayer.

Abortion is part of the human condition. Outlawing it won't stop it, in fact it will lead to more problems. However, sterile "discussions" on when human life TECHNICALLY starts serve merely as attempts to make it more palatable, whether intentionally or not.

That's enough for now. If anyone wants to discuss political moderation, we can start another thread for that. But I'm afraid this is it as far as my views on dealing with abortion.

I've probably disappointed you, DLW, but I still look forward to interacting with you on other topics.

In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/29/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Blood Washed Heretic

You asked me to weigh in on this hard topic, DLW, and I'm not sure what I really have to contribute, but we'll see.

The truth is that my opinions on the abortion issue are, like the rest of my political philosophy, intentionally moderate. Political moderates are often unfairly branded as "fencesitters" or "wishy-washy". Nothing could be further from the truth.

That being said, I agree with DLW's concern that abortion has become an extremely polarizing dynamic in today's political atmosphere. I also think that a compromise of some sort is needed.

However, when it comes down to scientific data and determining when life begins or when ensoulment occurs, I could honestly care less. I think it's foolish hairsplitting and ultimately distracts from the real issue of confronting abortion as Christ would. I fully support alternative clinics, such as Crisis Pregnancy Centers, etc. Beyond that, I find picketing absolutely distasteful and so-called "attempts" at legislation fruitless. The best way to fight this epidemic is on a case-by-case basis, through opening more centers, advertising them heavily, and above all else, covering their ministries in prayer.

Abortion is part of the human condition. Outlawing it won't stop it, in fact it will lead to more problems. However, sterile "discussions" on when human life TECHNICALLY starts serve merely as attempts to make it more palatable, whether intentionally or not.

That's enough for now. If anyone wants to discuss political moderation, we can start another thread for that. But I'm afraid this is it as far as my views on dealing with abortion.

I've probably disappointed you, DLW, but I still look forward to interacting with you on other topics.

No, thanks for the interaction, BWH.
I tend to allow for more of a limited scope of political activism on the abortion issue. I also tend to view moderates as not really having much passion for political change, but being deal-makers, and maintainers of the status-quo. (Which isn't a terribly bad thing...in all cases.).

For me, I think the abortion issue has been poisoning our politics and that the homosexuality issue is likely to flame up and begin to serve the same purpose. As such, a lot of my writing on the abortion issue has been geared at challenging the views of pro-lifers, providing a new set of arguments one can use against pro-choicers, and challenging the political strategies of prolifers.

I think that changing political strategies is very important for the health of the US' democracy and the collective witness of "Evangelical" Christians to the rest of the US and the rest of the world. Of course, it may hurt our witness to economic conservatives, libertarians as they tend to be, but helping them get more tax-cuts ain't the right way to witness anyways...

dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/30/2003 3:41 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
That being said, I agree with DLW's concern that abortion has become an extremely polarizing dynamic in today's political atmosphere. I also think that a compromise of some sort is needed.

However, when it comes down to scientific data and determining when life begins or when ensoulment occurs, I could honestly care less. I think it's foolish hairsplitting and ultimately distracts from the real issue of confronting abortion as Christ would. I fully support alternative clinics, such as Crisis Pregnancy Centers, etc. Beyond that, I find picketing absolutely distasteful and so-called "attempts" at legislation fruitless. The best way to fight this epidemic is on a case-by-case basis, through opening more centers, advertising them heavily, and above all else, covering their ministries in prayer.

Abortion is part of the human condition. Outlawing it won't stop it, in fact it will lead to more problems. However, sterile "discussions" on when human life TECHNICALLY starts serve merely as attempts to make it more palatable, whether intentionally or not.

QUESTIONS:

1a. What sort of compromise are you looking for, BWH?

1b. What sort of compromise are you looking for, DLW?

2. As to, "when ensoulment occurs...ultimately distracts from the real issue of confronting abortion as Christ would," then HOW would Christ confront abortion? (Some details, or some not-too general comments?)

3. I agree on the alternate centers, if that means adoption and not abortion. (The various names centers are called by get me confused by their vagueness.) I agree on the prayer. So what "compromises?"

4. Please comment on this: "sterile 'discussions' on when human life TECHNICALLY starts serve merely as attempts to make it more palatable, whether intentionally or not." Can you describe what you mean by "make palatable?" Does this mean that the offensiveness is explained away (as with PBA) or that people get numb from over exposure?

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/30/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
QUESTIONS:
1b. What sort of compromise are you looking for, DLW?

I think we need to learn from the political lay of the land what is and isn't feasible. I believe that if we could get the constitutional amendment passed then we could outlaw most abortions that take place after the 20th week of pregnancy in the near future, given current public beliefs.

Then we could focus on other measures meant to discourage abortions as mentioned above and try to encourage others to reflect on when human life begins.

Unlike BWH, I think such deliberation may actually discourage abortions or encourage people who don't want to have children immediately to use the morning after pill or methods that are abortafacient during the first month of pregancy.

quote:
2. As to, "when ensoulment occurs...ultimately distracts from the real issue of confronting abortion as Christ would," then HOW would Christ confront abortion? (Some details, or some not-too general comments?)

I posted how I dealt with my Mexican friend who shared with me that him and his ex-girlfriend had had an abortion in the Reilly and Singer link in the Reconciliation forum. I think I emulate Christ there in trying to show love to him.

quote:
3. I agree on the alternate centers, if that means adoption and not abortion. (The various names centers are called by get me confused by their vagueness.) I agree on the prayer. So what "compromises?"

Compromises entail recognizing the limitations of political activism and the greater importance of changing hearts about abortion. If Roe-V-Wade were reversed and at the state-levels, almost all abortions made illegal, there still would be people committing acts of civil disobedience and performing abortions and the media would be eating up any possible case where some woman suffers from such an operation as part of a counter-political activism to reinstate the the legal right to an abortion.

Successful Political Activism requires considering the likely reactions of your opponents and taking them into account in your decisions of what political goals to aim for.

quote:
4. Please comment on this: "sterile 'discussions' on when human life TECHNICALLY starts serve merely as attempts to make it more palatable, whether intentionally or not." Can you describe what you mean by "make palatable?" Does this mean that the offensiveness is explained away (as with PBA) or that people get numb from over exposure?

I think that such a discussion, if it made a good portion of USAmericans and people around the world observe and deliberate on the process of fetal development, would be more likely to discourage abortions than make them more palatable, especially in the later trimester, and to some extent in the middle trimester and after the first month of pregnancy.

dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/30/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6)

I also think that if we can offer up compromises that will be more palatable to the pro-choice activists that then we can win more bipartisan support for the changes, which will increase their likelihood of passing.

One can especially win support if the compromises will defuse the issue as an election-year issue.

dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/31/2003 9:58 AM (GMT -6)

Dave, this post will be pointed and serious.
Don't feel rushed to respond right away.
================================

quote:
Originally posted by DLW

quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:
Originally posted by DLW

On the other hand,

I still think it begs the question of when ensoulment occurs.
One could have the HS create the zygote and then the Word ensouling it shortly after...[:X]
dlw

THAT drifts into heresy. And well documented heresies at that.

Show me the heresy????

quote:

Again, what is your motive for trying to change theology? Just to fit the fashion philosophies of the day? If so, what will be the theology after that?

Um, Theology does change over time. Consider what we consider the Imago-Dei to mean. That has changed considerably over time and does lie at the heart of when we understand human life to begin.

dlw

Dave, you asked: Show me the heresy????

There are two. First, that humans are ensouled after their bodies are formed. That was what Origin was condemned for (details follow). Second, that there was a Jesus before their was the Incarnate Word.(details follow).

These are not light-weight heresies.

But the QUESTIONS that are begged, even before I bring up the details from the other thread ( http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2342 ) are these:

1. WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR TRYING TO AVOID CALLING A ONE CELLED HUMAN A PERSON? WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION?

2. WHAT ARE YOUR RATIONALS FOR DOING SO. THAT MEANS, WHAT IS THERE THAT SAYS THAT "'NOW' ITS NOT, AND 'NOW' IT IS." WHAT RATIONALE DO YOU HAVE TO CLAIM THAT GOD FIRST CREATES A NON-PERSON AND THEN STEPS IN LATER AND CREATES A PERSON.

BUT THE MATTER OF MOTIVE HAS TO COME FIRST. ELSE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUSPECT!!!

BECAUSE, IF YOU ARE JUST RE-DEFINING THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN PERSON SO AS TO MAKE A WHOLE CLASS OF IMAGE-BEARING PERSONS AVAILABLE FOR EARLY DEATHS, SO AS TO DEFINE THEM AS A SECOND-CLASS EVIL INSTEAD OF A FIRST-CLASS EVIL, THEN I WANT TO SEE YOU SAY SO RIGHT UP FRONT.

THIS THREAD IS NOT JUST AOBUT "ORDER;" AND MY POST IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF "WHEN." THESE TWO ARE TOGETHER HERE. AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. AND I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU DEFINE ANY ABORTION AS AN EVIL OF A SORT -- AND AN EVIDENCE OF SIN SPREAD BY THE FALL. BUT AREN'T YOU THEN SELLING AWAY THE BIRTHRIGHT OF THOSE TOO POWERLESS TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THOSE WHO NEED YOUR PROTECTION?

GIVE IT SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.

PotOnWheel

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/31/2003 10:17 AM (GMT -6)

I'm pickin' up on Al n reservin' this space.
dlw

Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/31/2003 10:18 AM (GMT -6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/31/2003 10:30 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by DLW

I'm pickin' up on Al n reservin' this space.
dlw

Good idea.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/31/2003 11:18 AM (GMT -6)

Psalm 139 www.botticellisvision.com/st%20francis%20web%20site/Psalm%20139.htm

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/31/2003 11:24 AM (GMT -6)

You know you're scaring off everybody else at these links?
Evil

Oh my God, I might get into a barn-burner hay-fight with Pow if I post there... Cool

dlw

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/31/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by DLW

You know you're scaring off everybody else at these links?

Oh my God, I might get into a barn-burner hay-fight with Pow if I post there...
dlw

Dave, I don't see evidence that YOU, yourself have spent time with the question I asked. And until YOU do, it is plenty fair to ask you to dwell on it.

quote:
Dave, you asked: Show me the heresy????

There are two. First, that humans are ensouled after their bodies are formed. That was what Origin was condemned for (details follow). Second, that there was a Jesus before their was the Incarnate Word.(details follow).

These are not light-weight heresies.

But the QUESTIONS that are begged, even before I bring up the details from the other thread ( http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2342 ) are these:

1. WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR TRYING TO AVOID CALLING A ONE CELLED HUMAN A PERSON? WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION?

2. WHAT ARE YOUR RATIONALS FOR DOING SO. THAT MEANS, WHAT IS THERE THAT SAYS THAT "'NOW' ITS NOT, AND 'NOW' IT IS." WHAT RATIONALE DO YOU HAVE TO CLAIM THAT GOD FIRST CREATES A NON-PERSON AND THEN STEPS IN LATER AND CREATES A PERSON.

BUT THE MATTER OF MOTIVE HAS TO COME FIRST. ELSE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUSPECT!!!

BECAUSE, IF YOU ARE JUST RE-DEFINING THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN PERSON SO AS TO MAKE A WHOLE CLASS OF IMAGE-BEARING PERSONS AVAILABLE FOR EARLY DEATHS, SO AS TO DEFINE THEM AS A SECOND-CLASS EVIL INSTEAD OF A FIRST-CLASS EVIL, THEN I WANT TO SEE YOU SAY SO RIGHT UP FRONT.

THIS THREAD IS NOT JUST AOBUT "ORDER;" AND MY POST IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF "WHEN." THESE TWO ARE TOGETHER HERE. AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. AND I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU DEFINE ANY ABORTION AS AN EVIL OF A SORT -- AND AN EVIDENCE OF SIN SPREAD BY THE FALL. BUT AREN'T YOU THEN SELLING AWAY THE BIRTHRIGHT OF THOSE TOO POWERLESS TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THOSE WHO NEED YOUR PROTECTION?

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/31/2003 12:18 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by DLW

I also think that if we can offer up compromises that will be more palatable to the pro-choice activists that then we can win more bipartisan support for the changes, which will increase their likelihood of passing.

One can especially win support if the compromises will defuse the issue as an election-year issue.

dlw

Its fine for you to say "compromises" here. But WHAT compromise, and in which electoral race. Is this anything besides an abstraction? Will this just be one of many campaign promised? (Forgive my skepticism, but I live in Illinois.)

What of it?

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/31/2003 1:08 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

[quote]Originally posted by DLW

I also think that if we can offer up compromises that will be more palatable to the pro-choice activists that then we can win more bipartisan support for the changes, which will increase their likelihood of passing.

One can especially win support if the compromises will defuse the issue as an election-year issue.

dlw

The compromise is that we agree, pro-life and pro-choice, to pass a constitutional amendment allowing referendums that will redefine the legal definition of when human life begins. However, since these referendums will require a more than 50% majority, that guarantees to pro-choicers that it is unlikely that all abortions at all stages of pregnancy will be made illegal.

If we can agree on the legitimacy of the gradualist, referendum-based approach then that will effectively remove the abortion issue as an election-year issue. So you won't have as many Evangelical Christians voting Republican because their candidate is supposedly pro-life. Instead, they will likely be voting Republican because their candidate is supposedly pro-heterosexual-marriages-only.
Dead

dlw

291 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual