If we are to win this struggle, we must get all church going people on our side.

Specifically, we cannot continue to allow Black Southern Baptists and Catholics and Hispanic Catholics and Evangelical Protestants to support politicians in the Democratic Party who support the killing of unborn children.

We have to find a way to neutralize voices of falsehood like Doug Kmiec and Matthew25Network who are doing enormous damage to us right now.

Jill,
Lewandowski and I have tried, in vain perhaps, to wake up a certain member of the Obama-is-Prolife crew back in the Kmiec cedes to pope thread.

These identiy groups that M25 is attempting to subvert in all likelihood didn't look to Obama as prolife first. This economic circus took priority, and it just so happened that Obama being "prolife" was gravy. Made it easier to swallow.

If we can connect how abortion negatively affects the economy then it might register. About a year ago a poster here did a fabulous job demonstrating that. Was it Milehi Momma? She doesn't post anymore, but scored big on that point.

Carder, I don't know who that was, but I'll bet Bethany knows. She knows everything... :)

So they bend scripture to fit their beliefs and show intolernace by deleting posts that don't validate their beliefs? I see they teach works salvation. If you announce global poverty and CO2 as people problems, they calim to be virtuous enough to let obama get by with abortion. abortion is wrong regardless how many good works social causes you claim to support.

You know, it really doesn't matter how many ladles of soup you've dished out if you also support a man who is one of the greatest abortion advocates in our nation.

Carder: I'm not sure what Milehi Momma's points were but the other day when I mentioned that the economic downturn might have not happened or maybe been as severe if 50 million more Americans were alive today, Doug assured me that if fact, society was better off, since we have merely eliminated "unwanted" persons who would have been criminals anyway.
Yeah, right...

In typical liberal fashion, he can't acknowledge that 50 million missing Americans just might have some negative impact.

"By seeking common ground, they can make procedure less common...."
-----------------------------------------

Ok...I keep hearing/reading this over and over and(ad infinitum)...

Could somebody tell me what is the "common ground"
these "people" are talking about when it comes to abortion???

It's either the unborn baby lives or it doesn't.

It's whether one chooses to support the ending of the baby's life or not.

It's whether the parents of the unborn choose to take responsibility for their actions or not.

It's a BINARY choice/answer (for the techie people there)...it's a "1"(one) or a "0" (Zero)...and clearly, Obama and his supporters chose ZERO.

I can tell you as a Canadian born and bred in Quebec, Canada's most socialist province, social programs do little to reduce abortion.

Abortion will be reduced when the rights of the unborn are recognized.

When you elect people committed to EXPANDING abortion, you will not reduce abortions. It's pretty darn obvious.

"That's because most abortion clinics are located in urban areas."

You have it backwards, Jill. Low income women don't get abortions because abortion clinics are in urban areas. Abortion clinics have located themselves in urban areas because that is where the demand is. Clinics don't create demand...they meet it.

"Clinics don't create demand...they meet it.

Posted by: Ray at November 24, 2008 3:27 PM"
------------------------------------------

Ok Ray...so if PP doesn't create the demand for abortion, why don't they advocate abstinence education?

"We hope they can do even more, particularly in finding ways to make contraceptives more widely obtainable and in improving sex education.

The premise that making contraceptives more widely available will reduce the number of abortions flawed in many many ways.

1. According to the AGI, 89 percent of reproductive-age women use contraception. To which segment of the population do you plan to push even more contraceptives on? Perhaps preteens?

2. two-thirds (approximately 65%) of unplanned pregnancies were reported by women who stated they were using birth control at the time they conceived.

3. Given the failure rates of various contraceptive methods and the numbers of women who are sexually active: the number of unintended pregnancies is very high.
For example if we assume that the failure rate of the pill is 5%, and that there are 10.4 million women using the pill, this means that for the pill alone, there will be 500,000 unplanned pregnancies. The majority of women on the pill take the pill because they don't want to be pregnant. What then will be the expected action of these 500,000 women when they find out they are pregnant? Since they are not open to having children they will be most likely seeking abortions.

3. contraceptive researchers throughout the world in study after study have demonstrated that increased availability of contraception has no reducing effect on the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. This also applies to emergency contraception.

4. Alan Guttmacher Institute's "Contraception Counts" from 2006 report shows no positive correlation between better contraceptive access and lower abortion rates.

Ray at November 24, 2008 3:27 PM
----

Looks like your theory will be tested Ray with the PPA moves out to the 'burbs.

"Looks like your theory will be tested Ray with the PPA moves out to the 'burbs."

PP in the suburbs confirms my theory. Low income populations are dispersing and are no longer concentrated in the cities. Groups like PP do a whole lot of market research before they invest in a location.

"Ok Ray...so if PP doesn't create the demand for abortion, why don't they advocate abstinence education?"

In fact, PP advocates and teaches "abstinence plus" - a program that teaches and emphasizes responsible behavior, but also gives teens the contraceptive information that they need, should they decide to be sexually active.

Posted by: carder at November 24, 2008 1:54 PM

If we can connect how abortion negatively affects the economy then it might register. About a year ago a poster here did a fabulous job demonstrating that. Was it Milehi Momma? She doesn't post anymore, but scored big on that point.
-----------------------------------------------------

See Ben Wattenburg, 'The Birth Dearth'
or

Gary North, 'Moses and Pharoah'

yor bro ken

Patricia: I'm not sure what Milehi Momma's points were but the other day when I mentioned that the economic downturn might have not happened or maybe been as severe if 50 million more Americans were alive today, Doug assured me that if fact, society was better off, since we have merely eliminated "unwanted" persons who would have been criminals anyway. Yeah, right...

No, wrong. Patricia, seriously, are you on drugs?

It wasn't about the economic downturn, and you said nothing about the economy on the entire thread. You are either totally confused or willfully just conjuring things up.

The criminal thing was about your beloved hero, Henry Morgentaler.

________________________________________________________

yup, just keep tryin to explain it all away Doug. Anything but abortion. Abortion can't possibly have any serious repercussions for society. Nope, surely not at the rate of 1.5 million per year. You make me sick.

Patricia, what makes you sick is that you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

If you want "serious repercussions" in society, imagine an extra million plus unwanted kids in the system."

you must be bloody stupid, you know that Doug. Honestly, there is no other conclusion I can come to.

Oh come on - you were theorizing about the effect of abortion and I asked a theoretical question about all the extra kids that would result from not having legal abortion.
.....

Where do you get off with the assumption that every one of those 1.5 million kids are unwanted? You'd love to believe that this is true but this is one of the main myths of the proabort movement.

I don't assume that. You're falsely trying to put words in my mouth. Granted that some would be adopted, loved, and be just fine. The fact remains that there are lots of kids in state care and foster care now, and that when you talk about an additional 1.5 million per year, it's going to make a huge difference.
.....

Henry Morgentaler keeps telling himself and anyone who will listen to him, how he singlehandedly reduced crime in Canada by killing off all our unwanted babies. Yeah, right.

I know you don't like the guy, and he may be outspoken at times, but you have to admit that had he done no abortions, some criminals would be in Canada that aren't there now.
.....

Many women have gotten pregnant and not wanted their baby only to give birth and be utterly thrilled with the baby.

And that's totally fine with me. I'm Pro-Choice.
.....

You don't have a leg to stand on - you have no idea what a blessing children are. I pity you.

Nah - you're just bein' a grouch.

Posted by: Patricia at November 24, 2008 3:35 PM

The premise that making contraceptives more widely available will reduce the number of abortions flawed in many many ways.

~~

That's false. You're right that most women already use contraceptives, but more usage still means fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Also, not all women use contraception all the time, and more availability can only help there too.

Or, look at it this way - if contraceptives would become less available, the abortion rate would go way up. Imagine if there was no contraception at all...

"Lewandowski and I have tried, in vain perhaps, to wake up a certain member of the Obama-is-Prolife crew back in the Kmiec cedes to pope thread."

Definitely in vain. There can be no reasoning with a mindless drone of the pro-abortion movement. They are so deluded that some of them truly believe that they are pro-life!

"Or, look at it this way - if contraceptives would become less available, the abortion rate would go way up"

That is, of course, assuming that removing one factor doesn't change the rest of the equation, which is a mistake often made by pro-aborts when discussing legal abortion vs. illegal abortion.

Remove contraception from the equation. Do you think that without contraception, women would engage in so much risky sexual behavior? I don't think so.

Remove legalized abortion from the equation. Do you think taht without legal abortion, women would feel that they could simply rely on the use of abortion as a form of birth control as they do now? I don't think so.

Without contraception, women would almost certainly take part in less sexual behavior. Without legal abortion, women would also be far more likely to "choose life", since choosing to kill the child would be against the law.

To RSD:

We have Bristol Palin right there to teach us that abstinence education is not exactly 100% effective.

People are going to have sex. Period.

Remove contraception from the equation. Do you think that without contraception, women would engage in so much risky sexual behavior? I don't think so.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 24, 2008 9:27 PM

~

Tom is correct that people are still going to have sex.

"In so much risky sexual behavior"? No, there would be some reduction, but not nearly enough to offset the huge increase in unwanted pregnancies and abortions due to no contraception.

Without contraception, how many abortions per year in the U.S.? Three million? Four? Six? Ten?

Tom, you have no idea if Bristol was taught abstinence only education.

Gov. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, a group that supports birth control use.

Also, half of all women who have an unplanned pregnancy got pregnant during a month in which they used birth control. The average woman can expect to get pregnant twice over the course of her reproductive life if she uses birth control perfectly.

Wild speculation gets us nowhere.

I tried to post a rebuttal on M25 a few weeks ago too but of course it was censored. That whole site stinks of stealing money from morons who drink the pro-choice means fewer abortions kool-aid. M25 has NOTHING scriptural or Christian about it except to wear it as falg-pin to rake in donations from agenda driven liberals.

How many future scientists, doctors, teachers, soldiers, farmers, tradesmen....etc. do we have to kill off to make sure we abort that future criminal? This is how Doug justifies the Canadian abortion guru Morgentaler's evil deeds: "Some criminals would be in Canada that are not there now." Last I looked, no one is born a criminal.

Jerry: Last I looked, no one is born a doctor.

Jerry: Last I looked, no one is born a doctor.

Posted by: Josephine at November 24, 2008 11:47 PM

ah but we will never know what those children could have become will Josephine....
(you are Catholic, right?)

---------------------------------------------

Doug the entire inference of your response was that abortion has saved society from unwanted children who would grow up to be criminals. Period.
And you have shown me what a creep you are: your position is the same as that of doctors seeking out babies with Down Syndrome. In order to "get" those babies with this "affliction" we will obviously have to kill some good babies without it. Likewise to prevent those criminals from being born, we will have certainly kill a few million in the process. You know what Doug. I really just don't have anything to say to you. You were born 50 years too late. You should have been a eugenics doctor in the 1930's in Nazi Germany. You would have made a killing.

Mary II: why as a proabort do you repeatedly ignore scientific studies that demonstrate the wider availability of contraception leads to fewer abortions? Why?
In fact, in each and every country where contraceptives have been legalized and made readily available - abortion legalization has followed due to the dramatic increase in unplanned pregnancies.
Also you failed to address my point that 98% of childbearing-age women are already using some kind of contraception? What will be you next step - to place contraceptives in the municipal water supply?

Jerry: This is how Doug justifies the Canadian abortion guru Morgentaler's evil deeds: "Some criminals would be in Canada that are not there now." Last I looked, no one is born a criminal.

Oh Jerry. Good grief, that is lame.

Here is what happened.

Patricia said: Henry Morgentaler keeps telling himself and anyone who will listen to him, how he singlehandedly reduced crime in Canada by killing off all our unwanted babies. Yeah, right.

I replied: "I know you don't like the guy, and he may be outspoken at times, but you have to admit that had he done no abortions, some criminals would be in Canada that aren't there now."

Jerry, you may see some justification therein, but I said nothing or the sort.

Nobody said that crime was entirely done away with, all that's there is Morgentaler saying he singlehandledly reduced crime (if Patricia was quoting him accurately).

I didn't say that was good or bad - I just noted that if he hadn't done any abortions, then some of the people that would have resulted from that would have been criminals. It's senseless to think otherwise.

So, yeah, even if it meant one less criminal, what he said is true. If that strikes a chord of "justified" in you, okay - different people will feel different ways about that.

Patricia: Doug the entire inference of your response was that abortion has saved society from unwanted children who would grow up to be criminals. Period.

Baloney. To an extent Morgentaler is correct - that's all I was saying. You claimed to quote him, then said, "Yeah, right." Well, he is right, like it or not,.
.....

And you have shown me what a creep you are: your position is the same as that of doctors seeking out babies with Down Syndrome.

Once again you are being false and trying to put words in my mouth. I am fine with people continuing Downs pregnancies.
......

In order to "get" those babies with this "affliction" we will obviously have to kill some good babies without it. Likewise to prevent those criminals from being born, we will have certainly kill a few million in the process. You know what Doug. I really just don't have anything to say to you.

Again, you're just making that up. Same old Patricia - you use straw men arguments, don't quote what the other person has actually said nor reply to that, but rather to things of your own connjuring, and then you "don't have anything to say..." Heh.

Without contraception, women would almost certainly take part in less sexual behavior.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 24, 2008 9:27 PM

That doesn't sound good at all....

That's because most abortion clinics are located in urban areas.

God, that makes no sense at all, Jill. There are plenty of dirt-poor people outside of urban areas, and plenty of middle- and upper-class people in urban areas.

3/4ths of all women who have an abortion say that they can't afford another child. That's why the abortion rate is higher among low-income people.

The primary solution is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place by encouraging abstinence.

Oh please. Encouraging abstinence doesn't work. Adults like to have sex. It feels good. It makes us happy.

Birth control is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Half of all abortions are caused by the 10% of women who don't use birth control. If we could just get that tiny percentage of women on birth control, we could cut the abortion rate in half.

History has proven the government is no good at doling social care.

Nonsense! Medicare does a fine job of providing health care to senior citizens, social security does a great job of providing for elderly and disabled people, and Medicaid, food stamps and WIC do a fantastic job of keeping poor families well-nourished and healthy. Social services are awesome! They're the reason why I never even considered abortion when I got pregnant. We need more and better social services in this country. We need health care for all from cradle to grave, so everyone can get birth control or have babies if they want. That would be truly pro-life.

"People are going to have sex. Period.

Posted by: tom jayson at November 24, 2008 10:38 PM"
-----------------------------------------------

Tom Jayson..if you really think that abstinence education is just stating "no sex" (the way PP explains it)...then you have no idea what real abstinence education is.

I call this the "pet mentality" education...ie...pets are neutered early upon adoption/ birth in order for them to stop having sex. Since it's against the law to neuter your kids to stop them from having sex...hey, let's give them condoms and BC, instead...they're gonna do it anyway, right???

WRONG. Pets are neutered since they do not have the capacity for reasoning and would be subject to their basic animal instincts.

Humans, on the other hand, are capable of rational thinking and can be reasoned with and have the will to act against basic urges and instincts...

Abstinence education uses this rationale and will to educate young people on the subject of sex and and the intricacies of human relationships within the context of marriage.

It raises the youth's awareness and relationship goals ABOVE the instinctual/ physical level of personal gratification which leads to a more fulfilling and stable married life.

Have you noticed how a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing lately? The name is just about the opposite of the purpose. Matthew25Network is but one example. Look at PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org - Obama apologists both. How about "Catholics for Choice"? Thanks, Jill, for shining a spotlight under the rocks where some of these folks hide!

Excellent point, Crispy. I think in some ways, a lot of ways really, these wolves in sheep's clothing are worse than Planned Parenthood or NARAL. Certainly they don't do as much killing of the body, but groups like CFFC are leading souls into hell, and blaspheming by saying the LORD approves of such wicked acts. God love you.

Patricia says: "Mary II: why as a proabort do you repeatedly ignore scientific studies that demonstrate the wider availability of contraception leads to fewer abortions?"

Why as a communist do you ignore the truth?

Look, I'm not "pro-abortion" anymore than you're a communist.

In fact, whether pro-choice or pro-life, it's obvious that wide availability of contraceptives leads to fewer abortions, so I agree with what you said.

It also makes sense that legal abortion means more abortions. I wouldn't argue otherwise.

Okay, Mary II, first let's "imagine if there was no contraception at all..."

Do you think singles would have more sex or less sex? ... or do you think people are nothing but automatons who fornicate whenever their internal timer goes "ding"?

Do you think as many women would consent to "shacking up" with no commitment on the part of the guy, when there's a very real possibility of pregnancy?

Second, imagine that there's a "perfect" birth control--cheap/free, no side effects, no worry about forgetting a pill, always works as desired.

Do you think that high schoolers will have more sex or less sex?

Do you think that a businessman on a trip out of town will have more or less luck "hooking up"?

Of course, the problem is that there is no perfect birth control, and people tend to get a false sense of "security" about what they're using. See the figures on how many women seeking abortion were using some form of BC.

So, knowing that contraception is imperfect, people are forgetful and make mistakes, guys lie about their vasectomies, etc., I think you'll agree it's obvious that wide availability of contraceptives leads to more abortions.

Crispy, no contraception at all would mean less sex, but not nearly enough less to outweigh the gain in unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Perfect birth control would mean more sex, but of course then there'd be zero abortions from those who used it.

And you're right that there's no perfect birth control. Also, women don't use it all the time nor always in the manner called for. That's why I said, "Also, not all women use contraception all the time, and more availability can only help there too."

For those who don't use it now, taking it away wouldn't change anything. In the meantime, contraceptives do prevent a huge number of unwanted pregnancies, far more in number than would be reduced by having no contraception at all.

I have never understood, and maybe somebody out there can explain to me the intersection between socially conservative moral views (no abortion, abstinence only sex ed, no gay marriage, censoring pornography, etc.) and Any Rand-style economic views (i.e. Jill's comment that "the government is no good at doling social care.") Any fundamentalist review of the Bible, from Jubilee years in the OT to the pooling of funds and spending only what they needed (hmmm sounds faintly Marxist) by the early Apostles to the many, many, many condemnations of the "rich" and extollings to take care of the poor, sick, widowed, etc. would lend any objective viewer to conclude that God (and Jesus) is slightly to the left of Che Guevara economically. Yet somehow anyone who's to the right on social issues is to the right on economic ones as well. I just don't get it.

JohnS, it's not that complicated. There's a difference, a big one, between being forced, under penalty of imprisonment, and voluntarily helping one's neighbor. The Good Samaritan did not, after all, tax the other travelers to pay for the mugging victim. He paid the bill himself. Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical about this topic, and it's far better than my paltry efforts to explain. You can also look up the statistics that folks in "red" states tend to contribute more to charity than those in "blue" states, so it's not just a matter of talking-the-talk.

JohnS, my suggestion is that you try the following experiment: first, visit an office which distributes food stamps. Next, volunteer at your local Loaves and Fishes. Maybe you'll see the difference between government social care, and personal social care.

"ah but we will never know what those children could have become will Josephine....
(you are Catholic, right?)"

My point was, Patricia, that that was the stupidest argument ever. Seriously. Saying they could have been doctors, THAT'S why they shouldn't die? If they were going to grow up to be janitors, then.. that's okay. We don't need more janitors, so we can abort those babies?

You can't use the argument "they could have been doctors" unless you want to get the rebuttal of "they could have been murderers".... don't you understand that? If the only reason you're pro-life is because the babies may one day grow up and become part of a profession that is useful to you.. then your values are ca-razy.

Josephine: The obvious point is that if one accepts that abortion relieves us of an increased welfare burden/criminals etc. no one should forget the reverse of that argument; i.e that abortion also relieves us of many more times the number of good, hard working productive citizens.

Dr. Morgentaler proudly claims his grisly profession somehow reduces the crime rate in Canada. In truth, he has no way to prove that. As one might expect he has puffed himself up with justifications that are the product of self-deception.

Doug: Perhaps you did not buy into Morgentaler's justification when you said approvingly: "You have to admit that had he done no abortions some criminals would be in Canada that aren't there now." I will admit no such thing. No one is born with a tag on them that says "criminal." But it sure sounds like you are convinced that he has reduced crime, and it seems like you are fine with that in the sense that the end (reduced crime) justifies the means (abortion).

Jerry, I'm not Pro-Choice because "criminals will be aborted." I'm for leaving it up to the woman who is the one pregnant, and it's not dependent on any guesses from me about the future.

However, it's silly to presume that among the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that would have resulted from Morgentaler doing no abortions, there would have been zero criminals.

And hey, there would have been soime doctors, lawyers, maybe even some indian chiefs, too. But when it comes to "having reduced crime," well - the answer, whether we are for legal abortion or not - is yes.

Crispy:

We've spent the last 30 years gutting government social services, it's no surprise that the programs and money that remain don't go far enough. My point is you conservatives always bring up with gun to your head argument, the United States government is not Soviet Russia, our constitution begins 'We the People..." and it is we the people that decide (in a way no charity no matter how big could ever do) whether we are going to take care of the "least of these" in our society or let them sink into poverty, drug and alcohol dependency, homelessness, and ultimately death. If Jesus came back today and walked through our inner cities do you think that his biggest complaint would be about the Planned Parenthood center? I really don't think so...

JohnS, yes I do think that Jesus' biggest complaint would be the Planned Parenthood. The killing of 3700 human beings a day is pretty much a trump card.

The government does not do a good job providing for the poor, and increasing government only makes things worse. Welfare is demoralizing and demotivating. Medicaid is subpar and humiliating. Individuals do much more good for their communities than the government could ever hope to do.

We need resources for the poor, but they are so mismanaged right now that they are not doing anyone any good.

The answer isn't to throw money at the poor, but rather give them opportunities to get out of poverty. God tells us that the poor will always be among us and that we are obligated to help them, but disagreeing on the way to best help does not make Republicans "mean" and certianly does not equate them with the people who make a living killing God's children.

Lauren:

I agree with your last statement that the key is giving people opportunities to get out of poverty (although there are disabled people that really need welfare) but we've gone in the opposite direction...shipping lower to moderate-skilled jobs overseas, cutting education funding, abandoning growth management so the few jobs out there are in the suburbs and ex-burbs while the inner cities decline. And the problem is if poor under-educated people don't see how they can make it in the system they won't make a Herculean effort to overcome their surroundings and better themselves, 9 times out of ten they'll say if the system doesn't work for them why conform to it and turn to selling drugs and worse. Republicans don't "disagree" on the best way to help poor and lower-middle class people, they have NO ideas on how to help them (except stuff that objectively and in experience does not work).