Laura Bush: Pro-abortion

I think this is relatively common knowledge, but the topic came up last night during Larry King's interview with former First Lady Laura Bush while discussing her new book, Spoken from the Heart...

According to Politics Daily today...

When it comes to gay marriage and abortion rights, Laura Bush says she and former President George W. Bush have simply agreed to disagree. She's for both, he's against them....

Mrs. Bush also said she believes abortion should remain legal - and has held that view for years - and she recalled telling an interviewer on the day her husband took office in 2001 that she did not think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

"This was the very morning my husband was about to be inaugurated," she explained to King. "And I thought, do I really want to start my husband's presidency, you know, suggesting that a Supreme Court rule being overturned? And I said no."

But she said abortion is "important for medical reasons, and other reasons."...

"I understand his [George's] viewpoint," she said. "And he understands mine."

Laura's mother-in-law Barbara is also pro-abortion, contrary to her husband's position. In fact, according to NewLedger.com, "Every First Lady stretching back to Pat Nixon has taken the same position in favor of abortion on demand - despite the fact that opposition to legalized abortion has risen significantly since the early 1990s."

This means every Republican First Lady since abortion was legalized has been pro-abortion, odd.

I wonder why we never see a pro-abortion president with a pro-life wife.

As administrative assistant Kelli emailed, "I think Laura's a nice lady, but... I am glad it was her husband and not her who was president."

[HT: Kelli]


Comments:

I like Laura Bush, but this is really disappointing.

Posted by: lin at May 13, 2010 4:04 PM


Lots of nice people are pro-choice.

:)

Posted by: Hal at May 13, 2010 4:05 PM


Lin, I'm with you. I'm terribly disappointed.

Posted by: army_wife at May 13, 2010 4:07 PM


I watched this interview, I was extremely disappointed to hear her opinions on both gay marriage and abortion.
It completely changed my opinion of her, honestly.

Posted by: Desteny Boodt at May 13, 2010 4:10 PM


I always knew she was pro choice. In her other book she says it. She was a Democrat and only became a R when she met W. So she really is a D. I don't know about Barbara what her deal is.
Nixon was also pro choice in that he thought it was such a personal matter that no govt intervention should occur. But why do we interfere in the case of child abuse? Just different location and size.
But back to Laura always knew she was okay with abortion.

Posted by: Susie at May 13, 2010 4:14 PM


Hal, lots of slave-owners were nice too.

Posted by: Courtnay at May 13, 2010 4:14 PM


Wow, Laura Bush seems like such a sweet lady....this is REALLY REALLY disappointing....and how can she and her husband disagree on such important topics???

Posted by: Malori at May 13, 2010 4:16 PM


This doesn't really surprise me since Laura's husband isn't really pro-life. Sure, he put on a good act in the white house. But, as she said herself, "...He understands (my viewpoint)."
No REAL pro-lifer can understand the pro-choice viewpoint. It is contrary to everything sensible.

Posted by: April at May 13, 2010 4:16 PM


I completely agree with April.

Posted by: Desteny Boodt at May 13, 2010 4:20 PM


Obama Flashback: A Supreme Court Nominee With No Judicial Experience Requires Extreme Scrutiny

'breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/'

"She is going to need to be more forthecoming and the White House is going to need to be more forhtecoming."

Then Senator b.o. commenting on W's nomination of Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS.

Of course liberal/progressive/humanists are held to a completely different standard of scrutiny or no scrutiny at all.

b.o. should have paid attention to the TOTUS and ceased speaking when the text stopped.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 4:29 PM


yes Courtney and not only were alot of slave owners nice, but there were a lot of cultured nice Nazi's too.

if I remember correctly, both the negroes and Jews were deemed nonpersons for a wide variety of criteria including lack of humanity, brain development, eye shape etc....

Posted by: angel at May 13, 2010 4:29 PM



"I wonder why we never see a pro-abortion president with a pro-life wife."

Because pro aborts will not tolerate pro lifers. Pro life folks tolerate pro aborts. Honestly, it is a weakness.

Posted by: hippie at May 13, 2010 4:34 PM


Major disappointment. And I agree, no true pro-lifer can ever understand the pro-abort side of things. One can't accept abortions in some instances and not in others. Either it's ok for women to abort their babies or it's not, and everyone must choose a side, wrong or right. Laura Bush is clearly in the wrong on more than one issue...

Posted by: Laura at May 13, 2010 4:34 PM


I disagree. I think pro-lifers can understand the pro-abortion position and just recognize it as misguided. Obviously pro-lifers who were once pro-choice, including post-abortive women, understand it. That doesn't make them any less pro-life.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 13, 2010 4:37 PM


The issue isn't tolerance re: the Bush's differing viewpoints. I think it falls more along the lines of patient forbearance. Is George supposed to divorce Laura over this?

Her views notwithstanding, we got Roberts and Alito on the bench thanks to Bush 43, and a wise decision in placing the much younger Roberts as Chief Justice over the older Scalia, guaranteeing more conservative leadership at the top much further into the future.

As for Laura, that's a shame. This definitely takes the bloom off the rose.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 13, 2010 4:50 PM


Posted by: Hal at May 13, 2010 4:05 PM

"Lots of nice people are pro-choice."

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

Hal,

You seem to be a pretty pleasant fellow.

I understand Josephe Mengele was regarded as a fine family man amongst his Nazi brethren.

Pappa Joe probably read the children bedtime stories and tucked them in at night then, being the good citizen and public servant that he was, burned the midnite oil to come up with more efficient ways to implement the 'final solution'.

He was a good Nazi soldier, earning two Iron Crosses for bravery.

Mengele held a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Munich.

His surviving victims dubbed him the 'Angel of Death'. Evidently they did not think Mengele was qualified as one of the 'nice people'.

Mengele died a fugitive and desperado and was burried somewhere in South America in grave bearing someone elses name.

If the Jews had apprehended him I am confident he would have died of a stretched and broken neck like his fellow expatriate German Nazi, Adolph Eichmann.

Be careful about the company you keep. It could have deleterious effect on your character.


Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 4:52 PM


'Laura Bush: Pro-abortion'

Harriet Beecher Stowe she is NOT!

W, you have my sympathies.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 4:57 PM


Good for Laura. I'm a Democrat and no fan of her husband but I always thought she seemed like a nice, sensible lady.

Also, to the people here who say they can't even understand the pro-choice position: have you even tried? Because I can understand the anti-choice position: people with a limited, outdated knowledge of science and medicine who have filled their heads up with religious stuff instead. But it's not your beliefs that bother me, it's the fact that you've closed your minds to being educated that makes me sad. I think I speak for most pro-choice people when I say that we'd love to educate you and bring you up to speed so that you could work with us to focus our shared energies on things that are actually productive, like helping people who are already born.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:02 PM


Marissa,
Please explain with valid logic and scientific fact how an unborn, human child is not killed in an abortion?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 5:08 PM


Marissa,

Your comment suggests that unborn fetuses are people, too: "[...] work with us to focus our shared energies on things that are actually productive, like helping people who are already born."

Is that what you intend? Because if so, regardless of any 'anti-choice,' "outdated knowledge of science" or "religious stuff," if a person exists in utero, your entire argument crumbles.

I doubt you'd advocate the intentional killing of innocent human persons. Right?

Choose your words carefully; otherwise, someone might be liable to accuse you of an "outdated" understanding of anthropology.

Posted by: Andrew Haines at May 13, 2010 5:08 PM


OH, and I was prochoice, had an abortion and am now prolife. Been there.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 5:09 PM


One question for you Marrissa.

When your momma was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 5:10 PM


Pretty nice how that works Carla. You were able to exercise your right to choose but you want to take that right away from other women.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:12 PM


Oh wow, yorbroken, you really got me there! *rolls eyes* You guys need some fresh material.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:14 PM


Marrissa,

When you eyes have stopped rolling, just use some simple logic and answer the question.

You can call your mom if you like

or

You can ask a fifth grader.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 5:17 PM


Okay, genius, I'll fill you in on how this aspect of mammalian reproduction works: the fetus growing inside the womb is the same species as its mother. Would you like to know what color the sky is as well?

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:21 PM


Killing my own child was never my right, Marissa.

Another thought,
ever notice the flow of traffic? Does it flow from prochoice to prolife or prolife to prochoice? Hmmm.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 5:22 PM


Except you never killed your own child, Carla, because that's not what abortion is. You must really hate yourself if you keep insisting this. Why do you have this psychological need to continually punish yourself in this way?

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:27 PM


Jeopardy theme is playing in background.

Marrissa is furtively searching for an effective response to such a simple question.

Whoops she just remembered she is going to have an intimate dinner at the White House with b.o. and Elena Kagan.

Tah tah and 'tally ho'.

(This 'ho' predated the coloquial term commonly used among the more verbally liberated among us to refer to women who choose to have sex as often and with as many people as they desire they it in today street parliance it is not always gender specific.)

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 5:27 PM


yor bro ken: was becoming completely unhinged from reality a sudden thing or more of a gradual process for you?

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:29 PM


How you test me to see if I am unhinged as you claim.

I will wager my high school diploma I can establish my sanity and my logic.

How about you?

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 5:39 PM


Except you never killed your own child, Carla, because that's not what abortion is. You must really hate yourself if you keep insisting this. Why do you have this psychological need to continually punish yourself in this way?

Oooh, so now you're an embryologist AND a psychiatrist! Well gee willikers, this here anti-choice country bumpkin sure is impressed.

Go jump in a polluted lake.
http://www.ehd.org/

Posted by: Kelsey at May 13, 2010 5:40 PM


I make no such claims about my typing skills, but we will muddle through together.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 5:42 PM


I'm neither of those things, but it doesn't take one to recognize when somebody is intentionally beating themselves up over some perceived wrong they committed in their past.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:43 PM


So..pro-LIFERS are the ones with 'limited, outdated knowledge of science and medicine' ???
REALLY, Marissa?
Now THAT'S the pot calling the kettle black!

Posted by: Pamela at May 13, 2010 5:43 PM


Terribly disappointing. I agree; my opinion of Laura Bush is changed forever.

As to the point of "understanding" why someone holds a view - that is not *remotely* the same as approval of someone's opinion. For example, I understand the arguments for abortion and homosexual marriage; however, as a point of deepest Christian charity, I do not approve of them.

Posted by: Jennifer at May 13, 2010 5:45 PM


Deepest Christian charity involves denying people civil rights, Jennifer? Glad I'm not in on that, then.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:46 PM


Funny how the one pro-abort commenting on this thread continues to accuse pro-lifers of being closed-minded and uneducated while standing herself without the ability to defend her own position with any authority of evidence whatsoever. And it's the pro-abortion camp that needs the fresh material. The same old arguments all the time with the same old, horribly dated material they continue to believe blindly as it serves their desire to carry out their lives minus those pesky intruders known as children.

And after spending much time contemplating and studying the issue of abortion, I can say without one drop of doubt, with the help of actual facts regarding the issue, that abortion is the act of killing a pre-born human...murderous indeed.

Posted by: Laura at May 13, 2010 5:52 PM


Marissa, I can't tell you how much your posts sadden me.

I'm staunchly pro-life, but I am also agnostic and pro-gay marriage. If you don't like it when the pro-life community makes gross generalizations about the pro "choice" community, I suggest you do the same. Not all of us are religious, and, to be sure, there are some who are pro "choice" who purport to be religious---strangely, abortion advocates have no problem with the so-called religious pro-choice community.

To be sure, it is the pro-life community which is scientifically and intellectually honest and sound, which is what converted me after years of research. The pro "choice" community is really just full of semantics and doublespeak. As I've said, I have never heard a pro "choice" argument that wasn't either a slogan or an excuse. I am pro-life not because I believe in God, but because I can read biology and because it is the only logical and ethical and moral conclusion one can come to. No human being, at any stage, is worth more than any other. An unborn child is not less of a human than a 35 year old woman, and vice versa. There is only one right we all deserve, and that is the right to exist. The pro "choice" community wastes too much time and energy dehumanizing human beings, because it suits them.

It does not suit me to say the unborn child deserves to live. I am a rape survivor. I also went through a crisis pregnancy (not from the rape). To say that we are wasting our efforts trying to protect the most defenseless among us and should, instead, focus our energies on children who are "already born" is show astonishing ignorance.

You don't know what we do. You don't know where I volunteer or where I give my money.

And, just for the record, I am pro gay marriage, too.

Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2010 5:53 PM


Marrissa,

I have been reading Carla's posts for over a year now and I have detected any hint of self flatulation on her part.

She is not burdened by guilt or shame.

She can speak openly about her experience because she has been forgiven.

In so doing she hopes she might spare someone else from the pain and the loss she has sufferred.

But if if makes you feel better about yourself to beat her up then I am sure she is willing to let you take your best shot.

But I counsel you to moderate your words, because some day you will have to ask forgiveness for what you have said.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 5:54 PM


What is abortion, Marissa? In your own words of course.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 5:54 PM


I guess when I was in school they didn't teach that murder was a civil right. They did, however, teach that fetus's in a human body were human.

Posted by: Sara at May 13, 2010 5:58 PM


The medical termination of a pregnancy.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:59 PM


Whoops, I repeated myself there, with my pro gay-marriage stance. But I think you get my idea.

It isn't "choice" that's the question. It is the choice to do ....what? The right to choose.....what? The right to choose between carrots and peas? The right to choose to jaywalk? The right to choose to punch someone in the face? Please. I am not anti "choice." If you must say "anti-abortion" then that is at least accurate. "Anti-choice" is just silly.

It's sexy and popular to be for "choice." As long as you don't say what the choice is. But that's fine. The abortion community has the fame, and the money, but, sadly, is built upon lies.

Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2010 5:59 PM


Marissa, is the fetus not alive, not human, or not an organism? Is the fetus not the offspring of his or her mother?

Posted by: Nulono at May 13, 2010 5:59 PM


What's silly about the term "anti-choice", Mary? Do you and others who think the way you do want to make it illegal for women to choose to have abortions? If so, then you're trying to take away that choice. Why is "anti-choice" then not an appropriate description for your beliefs?

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:01 PM


Nulono, let me answer your questions with some of my own: is a freshly planted tomato seed alive? Does it not bear the same genetic characteristics as a tomato plant? Is it not indeed the offspring of a tomato plant? The answers, of course, are obvious, and yet would you consider that tomato seed to be the same thing as a fully grown tomato plant? Of course not, because you recognize the qualitative differences based on growth that we use to distinguish these two things, in the same way that pro-choice people recognize the qualitative differences that distinguish a fetus from a person.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:09 PM


"Because I can understand the anti-choice position: people with a limited, outdated knowledge of science and medicine who have filled their heads up with religious stuff instead."


Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you freaking kidding me? You claim that you "understand" our position and then say this crap? No, sweet heart, you don't understand our position. It has nothign to do with religion. It has to do with the fact that a new, unique human being is killed during abortion and we oppose killing new, unique human beings. It's pretty simple, and also aligns perfectly with scientific knowledge.

Let me be blunt. You do not understand the pro-life position. Not even close.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:13 PM


Oh, of course, Lauren, what was I thinking? The pro-life movement is 99% Christian, its members frequently justify their positions based on concepts from Christian theology, but it actually has "nothing to do with religion."

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:17 PM


Tell me, Marissa, when does a tomato plant become a tomato plant? When I plant the seed in the ground? When the first leaves sprout from the ground? During the time when it grows, but has not yet produced fruit? When it first flowers? When The fruit first begins to grow? When the fruit is harvested? When the plant dies at the end of the season?

Oh wise Marissa, please enlighten me.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:18 PM


Marissa,

I was just speaking with an L&D nurse (20+ years of experience today) and she was telling me one experience about having to assist a doctor with the "demise of a full-term". This doctor had 3 daughters of his own but no sons. When the infant was delivered breech into his hands, he looked down and saw the genitals, right before he was intending to severe the brain stem, thus completing the abortion before the head was delivered. It was a boy.
This seasoned, very professional doctor literally broke down in front of the nurses and the would-be parents. But the parents CHOICE was that they wanted a "perfect" baby, not one with Down's syndrome.
And they were GIVEN a choice. To terminate the life of a baby, who by nature of Down's, would've blessed them with many smiles, laughter, and MUCH affection as well as the opportunity to grown and change into even greater parents. And instead of allowing the child to be born and maybe adopted to parents who would've welcomed the challenge of raising him, they decided to abort because they told the nurse they wouldn't "feel right raising a child with such needs around the normal children" they already had.
That doctor would've given anything to birth that baby and bring it home, just for the joy of having a son! I would've LOVED to have that baby!! I have lost two due miscarriages... Why is it that even my pro-choice friends are saddened by those losses and not by the millions of babies their votes help terminate each year?
Or does it not matter because you don't personally know the women who have to live with the emotional ramifications of their "choice"?

Posted by: DuoMama at May 13, 2010 6:19 PM


"The pro-life movement is 99% Christian."

Source please? Also, point please? Religion is brought into the picture only when discussing the issue with other Christians. The secular, philosophical arguement stands on its own, as does the scientific arguement.

The primary opposition to abortion comes from the fact that it kills a human being. That is not a religious belief, but a scientific fact. Just because a person is religious does not mean that their arguements rest on religion. Face it, science is on our side, despite your snide comments.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:22 PM


DuoMama, Down Syndrome is a terrible, terrible affliction. I think it's extremely disturbing how so many people in your movement have tried to make Down Syndrome into something positive, to be celebrated--there is a very good reason why most fetuses diagnosed with DS are aborted: because it is ultimately for the best.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:25 PM


Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:59 PM


"The medical termination of a pregnancy."

----------------------------------------------------
Marrissa,

Let me help you with that one. You stopped way short of the mark.

From the Revised Code of Washington State dealing with 'abortion'

RCW 9.02.170
Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter:


(2) "Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth.

(3) "Pregnancy" means the reproductive process beginning with the implantation of an embryo.

RCW 70.58.150

"Fetal death," "evidence of life," defined.

A fetal death means any product of conception that shows no evidence of life after complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.

The words "evidence of life" include breathing, beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

If the intent of an abortion is to produce other than a 'live birth', then the motive is to kill the human embryo/fetus which already exhibits 'evidence of life'.


RCW 9A.32.010

Homicide defined.

Homicide is the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another, death occurring at any time, and is either (1) murder, (2) homicide by abuse, (3) manslaughter, (4) excusable homicide, or (5) justifiable homicide.

RCW 9.02.050

Concealing birth.

Every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor

Sometimes the abortionist fails in his attempt to kill the human/embryo fetus in the uterus and the child is born alive. Most of these survivors are set asided to die from exposure. Sometimes the impatient abortionists kills them by the old fashioned methods. A few of these tenacious survivors grow to adulthood.

Please note I did my best to keep Gaia and/or Zeus from intruding into the discussion.


Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 6:26 PM


Oh, Marrissa, back to spew your unenlightened biggotry and slogans, I see.

Let me correctly apply your tomato seed story:

"would you consider that tomato seed to be the same thing as a fully grown tomato plant? Of course not, because you recognize the qualitative differences based on growth that we use to distinguish these two things,"

Marissa, would you consider a child to be the same thing as an adult? Of course not, because you recognize the qualitative differences based on growth that we use to distinguish these two things--AND YET they both are human beings with the right to live.
Would you feel comfortable allowing people to kill a child because it isn't an adult?

Your logic is as flimsy as paper.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 6:29 PM


"there is a very good reason why most fetuses diagnosed with DS are aborted: because it is ultimately for the best."

For whom?

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:31 PM


Completely irrelevant, Scott. You've got it completely backwards. Your analogy attempts to show that qualitative differences of the type I suggested are meaningless--my point was that qualitative differences are the major component in determining that abortion is not murder. Children and adults have the right to live because we as a society have determined that, based on these qualitative characteristics, they are members of society who deserve society's protection. Fetuses are not.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:35 PM


For whomever is making the decision to terminate those pregnancies, Lauren. Women and families who have decided that they do not want to bring a terminally damaged person into the world. Who else?

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:37 PM


I'll let you what Marissa

Give yourself a rest. Go home, do a little research. Talk to people and try to understand their logic. Try to honestly search for the truth. And then come back here when you actually have a good argument--one that can't be easily overturned or doesn't end up justifying slavery, or the Holocaust, or the killing of living, born babies. If you can do that, then please, by all means, come back and post here.

Otherwise you really just need to stop. You sound so sad. So ignorant. So lost. I prayed for you the other night, like I said I would, for direction to your life. And like Dr. Gerard has said,

Get well soon.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 6:38 PM


Marrissa,

Washington State is located on the 'left' coast, not the 'bible belt'.

These statutes were not the product of a bunch of redneck skin head bible thumpers.

There are a lot of the kinder gentler gender serving in the Washington State legislature as well.

Most of the member are 'humanistic libreals'. That would explain the schizophrenic nature of the law in the great northwest.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 6:39 PM


So. Marissa, what quality, exactly, entitles one to protection from being torn apart limb by limb?

Also, please answer my question re: tomatoes. I'm really curious. I have 4 tomato plants in my back yard and one has already started flowering, but the others have not. Does that mean that the 3 without flowers aren't tomato plants? Gosh, I'm confused. I mean, it is a qualitative difference after all...

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:40 PM


Lauren: the whole point with qualitative differences is that there is no absolute way of interpreting them. My opinion, or anyone's opinion, on when your tomato seeds become tomato plants is neither here nor there. Why do you ask questions that you already know the answer to? When does a person become a member of society? At birth.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:43 PM


"Who else?"

Are you blind? The child, Marissa, the child.


Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:43 PM


*sigh*
Need I point out that your tomato plant argument justifies slavery, Marissa?

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 6:47 PM


Need I point out that we're not discussing slavery? By bringing that up you're attempting to undermine what I'm saying by attacking me personally.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:51 PM


Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:35 PM

Children and adults have the right to live because we as a society have determined that, based on these qualitative characteristics, they are members of society who deserve society's protection. Fetuses are not.

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

Marissa,

Foul. You have strayed into the meta physical realm also know as 'religion'.

Please restrict yourself to logic and reason.

I will point out an inherent danger in your false assertion that we as a society have determined that children and adults have a right to live.

First of all we as a society have not reached that concensus or we would not be having this discussion.

Second, seven people appointed for life decreed that they did NOT know when the human embryo/fetus becomes a member of the human family.

Third, If we have reached apoint where we use concensus to determine who is human and who is not then none of us are safe.

You might want to spend a little time mulling that over after you have tired of rolling your eyes.

Some day, if you live long enough (I hope you live a long time) you will live beyond your 'productive years' and someone else will make a qualitative judgement for you as to whether you are still human enough to justify your continued existence.

Recent history is replete with examples.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 6:53 PM


You your opinions are most certainly "here nor there" when they collectively determine that an entire class of people have no rights.

Your argument is that "fetuses have qualitative differences from born humans, but don't ask me what those differences are or what they matter because all that really matters is that society says abortion is legal so it must be ok"

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:54 PM


I'm not attacking you, I'm warning you that if you consistently apply your logic to all human beings, you can justify slavery with your logic. As shown:

According to you,
human=member of society as society defines it.
1800slave=not member of society as society defined it
thus 1800slave=not human

You made this argument yourself the other day.
You should either fess up that you are condoning slavery or you should find a new definition of human that doesn't justify slavery, the Holocaust, or killing any born humans.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 6:54 PM


Marissa-
It's kind of funny because it was the story of a child with Down's that got me on the pro-life path. Back when Reagan was president a couple decided that rather than allowing their son who had Down's to have a surgery that would help him to eat they and the physician denied him the help he needed and left him to die. President Reagan and others tried to intervene but could not remedy the situation. Intelligence is a good thing Marissa but intelligence by itself doesn't amount to much if it's only used to promote self. And that's pretty much what abortion is about it's about self. Intelligence by itself never really impressed me but an individual who has a soul and intelligence and a heart is a good thing.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 13, 2010 6:54 PM


"Need I point out that we're not discussing slavery? By bringing that up you're attempting to undermine what I'm saying by attacking me personally"

No, by bringing up slavery Scott is pointing to another time in which we used qualitative differences to determine that a certain class of humans were "not persons."

The quality at that time was skin color.

It is not a personal attack on you, but if you find such analogies uncomfortable, perhaps you should examine your belief system.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 6:56 PM


It's truly flabbergasting each time I hear the same, ridiculous arguments from the pro-aborts...And I've heard all of them over and over and over. The willingly blind beliefs and the quasi-justifications are almost too much to witness, and it shows the extent to which the human mind can live in denial of clear truths...

Really, all pro-aborts would do themselves a HUGE favor to take the time and look at the basics of abortion from an objective standpoint: What is abortion really? Can we seriously justify the "termination" of a being that's right on schedule for that state of development in utero, for that state of life? Don't we all develop in the same manner? Why do we claim the power to point at a certain time in human development and determine that human disposable? Are infants ever born pre-term? Why is it acceptable to kill a pre-term human when it's inside the womb, but not a pre-term human when it's outside the womb?

By the way, a baby born weighing as little as 1 pound can successfully survive outside the womb.

Posted by: Laura at May 13, 2010 7:02 PM


"I have been reading Carla's posts for over a year now and I have detected any hint of self

'flatulation'

on her part."

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

Apologies to Carla,

Should have read:

"I have been reading Carla's posts for over a year now and I have

NOT detected

any hint of self-'flagellation' on her part.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 7:05 PM


I find such analogies "uncomfortable" because the only reason he's even mentioning them is to set me up for round 2 of "Marissa is an evil Nazi racist"--this is character defamation, not civil discussion.

I'm not going to wring my hands and worry that my ethical reasoning, which to my mind is completely neutral and a simple reflection of the chaotic nature of reality itself, may somehow allow for atrocities to happen: that would be a fool's game.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 7:09 PM


So in other words, applying consistent ethics and logic is "character defamation."

You don't like being called an "evil Nazi racist" yet you are ok with the fact that your arguments give moral credence to racists and Nazis. It's the name which bothers you, not the fact that Nazis and racists used the exact same logic as you to justify their positions.

And then you say that reality is "chaotic" to make it seem like there is no consistent logic; no consistent truth. That it is impossible to apply logic and reason across time and cultures. That somehow, logic changes with time due to the "chaos" of reality. You are a moral relativist of the Nth degree, have no concept of truth, reason, or morality, and should do the honest thing and remove yourself from this discussion because if you truly believe there is no stable truth or logic, then you have no business saying that you are more right than we are.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 7:15 PM


Bravo, Scott!

I would only add, that Marissa, events in history do not happen as a result of entropy. There are consistent themes, one of them being the dehumanization of other humans based on a given characteristic.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 7:20 PM


Barbara Bush is pro-choice too.

Marissa, Marissa....science is on our side. This isn't the dark ages. We now know about the development of the unborn.

Hey, did you hear the news? The earth isn't flat!

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 13, 2010 7:21 PM


The Games People Play
Joe South 1969

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k0GUDfqmnU

chorus: (twice)
Na na na na na (D)na na na
Na na na na na (A)na na na
I'm talking about (G)you and me yeah(A7) and the games people play (D)

(D)All the games people play now
Every night and every (A)day now
Never meaning what they s(G)ay yeah (A7)
Never saying what they (D)mean
First you wile away your hours
In your ivory (A)towers
Soon you'll be covered up in (G)flowers in the (A7)back of a black limousine

(D)
People walking up to you
Singing glory hallelujah(A)
And they try to sock it to(G) you
(A7) in the name of the lord (D)

CHORUS

Then they teach you how to (D)meditate
Read your horoscope and cheat(A) your fate
And further more to hell (G) with hate (

A7)and they don't give a (D) dah de dah de dah

Turn around and look at what you see
What is happening to you(A) and me
God grant me the (G)serenity yeah(A7) to remember who I am (D)
First you given up your sanity
For your pride and your (A)vanity
Turn your back on humanity(G) yeah'(A7) and you dont give a (D)dah de dah de dahhhh

Oo(G)ho ho (A)Oho ho ho ho (G)Wooho ho Wo ho ho Wo ho ho ho ho (A)
Wou Wou Wou Wou (D)

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 7:22 PM


Marissa,

I challenge you to read a book called "Raising Adam" by a woman named Martha Beck.
She and her husband are a Harvard educated (something like 4 doctorates between the 2 of them!) , very liberal, pro-choice, non-religious family who discovered to their horror (and everyone else's in their community) that they were expecting a Down's baby... and it chronicles their journey, struggles and decision of whether or not to keep their child.
I would challenge you to read it before you claim how "terrible" an affliction Down's is, for the parents and child.

The greatest blessings in the world are not achieved by taking the easy way out of things... I have a strong suspicion that you've never had the opportunity to witness those brave character qualities of tenacity and integrity in (in yourself or those around you) or you wouldn't choose to condemn those WOULD embrace the challenges given them and view it with hope. Please read that book, if nothing else honor the educated view you claim to hold.

One last thought: if you still claim abortion of Down's babies are "for the best" after you read it--then I suggest you write Martha Beck and tell her your view. She may be able to challenge your thinking in the non-religious way you desire, since you obviously seem to dismiss those of us who would base our convictions off of what we believe. Let me know what you think of it.

Posted by: DuoMama at May 13, 2010 7:22 PM


LOL, Ken.

Marissa,
Medical termination of pregnancy....right. I terminated four of my pregnancies by giving birth.

A child is chopped up and sucked out of a mother's womb during an abortion. Surely, you understand that much.

Oh, I love that instead of answering any questions I ask you, you tell me to seek psychological help, or that I hate myself or punishing myself. That part always makes me smile. You adore avoidance I see.
Ever heard of Silent No More? Operation Outcry?
Thousands and thousands of post abortive women and men are speaking out and telling their stories. Telling the truth about abortion. We are a force to be reckoned with. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 7:24 PM


"You don't like being called an "evil Nazi racist" yet you are ok with the fact that your arguments give moral credence to racists and Nazis. It's the name which bothers you, not the fact that Nazis and racists used the exact same logic as you to justify their positions."

And "I'm doing God's will" justifies religious-motivated terrorism. Is it fair for me to label anybody who believes that morality is determined by God an Islamic extremist because they both believe morality comes from God?

"And then you say that reality is "chaotic" to make it seem like there is no consistent logic; no consistent truth. That it is impossible to apply logic and reason across time and cultures. That somehow, logic changes with time due to the "chaos" of reality."

Of course there is a consistent logic. That consistent logic says that "morality" is a man-made concept that differs based on culture, time period, and other factors. Consider the difference between the laws of physics, which are demonstrable anywhere on earth and at any time, with "right and wrong"--even modern, civilized cultures often have massively different ideas of what is moral and immoral. And what's more, "morality" may be defied at will by people. To suggest that something which requires people to voluntarily obey it can be "absolute" in any meaningful sense is ridiculous.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 7:27 PM


*high-five to Carla* ;)

God bless you, Girl! You are being heard and changing lives, even if it's not always evident... Keep it up and know you've got much support and many prayers by me!

Posted by: DuoMama at May 13, 2010 7:28 PM


Thank you DuoMama!! :)

Back on track for just a sec as this thread was originally about Laura Bush......I am disappointed that she is prochoice as well.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 7:33 PM


Marissa, the concept you are supporting is known as "cultural relativism."

It does not stand up to reason. I'm going to quote from the ethical text "How should we live?" Louis P. Pojman

"Ethical relativism-the thesis that moral principles ddervie their validity from dependence on society or individual choice-seeems plausible at first glance, but on close scruiny it presents some severe problems. Subjectivism seems to boil down to anarchistic individualism, an esential denail of the interpersonal feature of the moral point of view,and conventionalism, which does contain an interpersona persepcetive, fails to deal adequately with the problem of the reformer, the question of defining a culture, and the whole entereprise of moral cirticism. It comes perilously close to moral nihilism."

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 7:37 PM


Marissa,
Ok, let me see if I can get inside your head for a minute. Since you think that being human is whatever society at the time says it is AND this doesn't seem to bother you, then if society continues in the direction it is going so that some day, all human beings (read: members of the human species) are considered "human" (read: persons) such that abortion is no longer legal then would you still be just fine and dandy since "society" redefined "humanity" once again? And if society did define "human" (read: person) to include the unborn, would you then agree that it is immoral to kill them?

(I am using your poorly defined terms just for the sake of walking in your shoes. Personally, I would prefer to use the terms "human" to mean a member of the human species and "person" to mean a societal construct, but, hey, since you insist on being imprecise then I guess I will have to also.)

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 7:40 PM


Down Syndrome is a "terrible, terrible affliction"? Have you ever even MET anyone with DS, Marissa? They are some of the happiest, most positive people I know!


BTW.. BIRTH is the 'termination' of a pregnancy. ABORTION is the 'termination' of a BABY.

Posted by: Pamela at May 13, 2010 7:42 PM


Scott,
Being "human" is a matter of genetics. "Human being" is the social construct. I've gone over this before. I liken it to the difference between sex--based on physical characteristics--and gender, which is a social classification. If society somehow trudged backwards into a brave new dark age and decided that abortion goes against its morals, then yes, according to that society's morality, abortion would be "immoral" at that time.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 7:47 PM


And for those of you asking me about DS: yes, I've known people professionally and socially who had children with DS. It's not a situation I'd wish on anyone. Are they "happy"? Who knows? You can't very well get inside their heads. Frontal lobotomy patients apparently were pretty "happy" too, so I don't know how much that is even worth. If you look at the human body as a machine, which is basically what it is, then the mentally damaged are like broken machines--again, I don't think this is a good thing by any conceivable measure.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 7:51 PM


No, Marissa, "human being" is a definition that describes a member of the human species.

"Personhood" is a concept. We've been over this.

Also, you put "immmoral" in scare quotes because you don't actually believe it to be the case.

Marissa, is it immoral for a woman in Iran to have acid thrown in her face because she brought shame on her family by being raped?

Yes or no. Her society supports the action. Who are you to judge? Aren't the people working against such attacks really the immoral ones since they go aginst their societies morals?

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 7:52 PM


Marissa,
But if you're the relativist you think you are, how can you make the values claim that that future society would be a "dark ages" and this one is not? Wouldn't that just be a judgment made from you in this culture onto another culture with neither culture having the moral authority to claim the other one is wrong? (according to your position) If someone were in that future culture and looking back on this one and it's acceptance of abortion and seeing it as a "dark ages" would they be wrong or right? On what do you base such a values claim?

Also, "human" is human being. "person" is a social construct which is acknowledged by the government to have rights, etc. That is the standard language English speakers use. Please stick to it to avoid confusion.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 7:53 PM


"No, Marissa, "human being" is a definition that describes a member of the human species.

"Personhood" is a concept. We've been over this."

You're just squabbling over the names we're using to address variables. I'll stick with my own, thanks.

"Marissa, is it immoral for a woman in Iran to have acid thrown in her face because she brought shame on her family by being raped?

Yes or no. Her society supports the action. Who are you to judge? Aren't the people working against such attacks really the immoral ones since they go aginst their societies morals?"

I'm not judging. Iran is a sovereign country that gets to determine its own laws and morals. I'm not falling into this "gotcha!" trap. If you're asking me if I personally find it appalling, obviously I do, but I'm an American: what business is it of mine to tell Iran what is right and wrong? I wouldn't very well appreciate an Iranian citizen condemning me as immoral because I don't wear traditional Islamic garb.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 7:58 PM


Okay, Scott, you're right: I technically have no standing to call such a society "dark ages" and such a term is my own personal opinion.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:01 PM


Yes, Marissa, we can know that someone with DS is happy just by being around them. We don't need to 'get inside their heads'.
90% of DS babies are aborted because their parents haven't bothered to educate themselves about DS...much like YOU, obviously.


if I were you, Marissa, I'd stop throwing around that phrase "mentally damaged".

Posted by: Pamela at May 13, 2010 8:01 PM


Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 7:09 PM


"I find such analogies "uncomfortable" because the only reason he's even mentioning them is to set me up for round 2 of "Marissa is an evil Nazi racist"--this is character defamation, not civil discussion."

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

Marrissa,

This shows you are capable of following a thread of reasoning and can extrapolate where it's likely conclusion.

I havent heard enough of your political ideology to make any kind of informed judgement as to whether or not you are a 'Nazi', but your attitudes are a bit chauvinistic.

I have had some unsolicited conversations with self professed white supremicist and your rationalizations, though not as emotionally laden, are no less frivolous than theirs.

You are just not happy with the fact that 2+2=4.

You really want a different outcome, but no matter how much you massage the numbers the answer still remains the same.

There are some folks who come here and acknowledge what you will not, perhaps what you can not: Pretnatal children are humans.

But they shrug their shoulders and say, "So what? The pregnant woman's physical autonomy trumps the interests of her child."

When you challenge them to provide the reason they have this 'physical autonomy', they are not egalitarian enough to recognize the 'physical autonomy' of the pre-natal human by the same reasoning.

There is your 'qualitative' bovine scatulation exposed for what it is.


Posted by: yor bro ken at May 13, 2010 8:03 PM


Laura Bush was deceived by the pro-aborts of the 1960's and 70's. I believe her husband would have fought much harder for the rights of the unborn if his wife had been a staunch pro-lifer. I wonder if their daughters are pro-aborts?

Posted by: Janet at May 13, 2010 8:04 PM


Marissa,
Therefore, I suppose I and the others at this blog will be working tirelessly to, in your thinking, change society to make the unborn to "become human" such that it would then be illegal to kill them in an abortion. And when society does change, (and it will), you will have no moral authority to tell us that we are wrong, according to your own values system. Because society will dictate what is right and what is wrong and therefore, you will be wrong. All according to your own ethics system.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 8:06 PM


" If you're asking me if I personally find it appalling, obviously I do, but I'm an American: what business is it of mine to tell Iran what is right and wrong? "

That's a load of crap, Marissa. You are most certainly judging their society and you most certainly have an obligation to intercede on behalf of the victim. Saying "not my problem" is ethical solipisism. We don't exist in a vaccum seperate from the rest of the world. Our world relies on others interceding on behalf of victims.

You certainly have no problem interceding on behalf of the "victims" of unplanned pregnancy.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 8:06 PM


Oh, and according to your relativism, anyone seeking to change society is defacto immoral. So don't you dare challenge the majority because you will be acting immorally by your own standards.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 8:10 PM


Scott: And it's your right to work towards that political end, futile though I suspect it will always be.

Lauren: It's not a matter of "not my problem." I feel for anybody in that position, I really do, but it is absolutely not my place or my responsibility to try and change the way their society works.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:12 PM


Scott: de facto immoral? Not exactly. I think most people would agree that it's reasonable to work towards changing your society. Whether that is "immoral" or not is purely academic.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:15 PM


*exasperatedly*
But Marissa,
How can you justify trying to change anything in your OWN culture then? If our society says it's right, then it's right, correct? So I should never see you protesting a war, trying to allow gays to marry, etc. because society is against it so who are you to do anything to change it?

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 8:15 PM


If society says something is right, then yes, it is right. Part of society getting to determine its own morality for itself is that "right and wrong" can evolve over time and the appropriate avenue for that evolution is members of society agreeing to make those changes for themselves.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:18 PM


Marissa, as Scott pointed out, you can not subscribe to moral relativism and believe that any reformer is acting in a moral fashion.

If you really believe that morality is purely a social construct of any given society you have absolutely no ground to question our actions.

In fact, if Texas seceeded from the union and declared abortion punishable by death, you could not only not condemn their actions, but you must specifically condemn any person working within Texas to change the law.

You don't really believe these things, Marissa. You're biting a lot of bullets to hold on to your point, but it's getting ridiculous.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 8:18 PM


No, Marissa, right and wrong don't change. It was always WRONG to enslave others. American society now recognizes that universal truth, but that does not mean that it was RIGHT to enslave others prior to our realizations.

The countries that continue to enslave others are WRONG.

Under your system we must accept that slavery was right and moral in 1776, that the reformers were immoral and wrong, but that it magically became wrong and immoral when it was ended.

An action is moral or immoral regardless of how it is viewed by society. It is always immoral to kill, despite the fact that there are certain populations who do not reconize this morality.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 8:26 PM


well not only that, Lauren, but if members of a society are free to work to change that society as Marissa says (in contradiction to her own previously stated beliefs) then Marissa should have no problem working to change other societies too. What reason can you give for not working to change other societies if it is ok for you to work to change your own, Marissa? I mean, we all live on this Earth.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 8:26 PM


As I'm scrolling down the comments on the Laura Bush piece, I'm also helping my 5th grader study for a science test. He's studying cells and I literally turn the page in his chapter to this quote as I'm scanning everyone's comments:

"Day 1: A chick begins life as an egg -- a single cell."

Of course, we all know that a HUMAN life doesn't begin until the hospital bracelet goes on. Funny though... can't seem to find any mention of a bracelet in his textbook... hmmmmm.

Posted by: Martha at May 13, 2010 8:31 PM


"An action is moral or immoral regardless of how it is viewed by society. It is always immoral to kill, despite the fact that there are certain populations who do not reconize this morality."

Okay, Lauren. Who, or what, gets to determine what morality is? Why do societies differ from each other in what they consider right and wrong? Why are the laws of physics absolute and identical across time and space but moral laws can be ignored? Why can I choose to murder somebody but I can't choose to not have mass and shape? The entire concept of absolute morality is self-defeating because if it was absolute we would have no need or purpose for laws in the first place.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:33 PM


"If society says something is right, then yes, it is right."

Marissa, would you have supported slavery when our society said it was right?

Also, what do you think about Scott Peterson being convicted of double homicide, that of murdering both his wife AND unborn son, Connor?

Posted by: Wynette in Sacramento at May 13, 2010 8:36 PM


The answer is that there exists both a right and a wrong. There is not an alternative physics. That's why people can do right and they can do wrong, but they can't become an orange.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 8:36 PM


"Marissa, would you have supported slavery when our society said it was right?"

No, I wouldn't, but that's irrelevant. I've already gone over this.

"Also, what do you think about Scott Peterson being convicted of double homicide, that of murdering both his wife AND unborn son, Connor?"

I don't agree with that outcome. There was one murder committed, as far as I'm concerned.

"The answer is that there exists both a right and a wrong."

And the source of right and wrong is what, exactly?

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:43 PM


Percisely, Scott. The nature of free will allows people, and socities, to choose evil.

That does not negate that an absolute right and wrong exists. When it comes to defining "who decides" I am partial to Kant's theory of Categorical Imperitive which, essentially, states that an action is moral if it can be universally applied and does not use humans as means to an end.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 8:44 PM


Marissa, you're beginning to stray more and more from your relativism.

{"Also, what do you think about Scott Peterson being convicted of double homicide, that of murdering both his wife AND unborn son, Connor?"

I don't agree with that outcome. There was one murder committed, as far as I'm concerned.}

But you DO agree that it was RIGHT, correct? Because that is the decision that society came to.

(and if you don't understand the categorical imperative, you can always just stick to the Golden Rule)

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 8:46 PM


Lauren: yet there is no absolute basis for the Categorical Imperative, or anything else, to be the foundation that morality rests on. I again bring up the laws of physics as a point of comparison: they are inherent. They just are. There is no "disobeying" the laws of physics. There is no debating over their existence or their source.

Scott: look, I've already gone over this. Was that decision right? According to society, yes. Once again, this doesn't mean disagreement is impossible.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 8:57 PM


Marissa, I am really trying to understand your reasoning...

"If society says something is right, then yes, it is right" then, why would you have been against the once-socially-acceptable enslavement of fellow human beings and how can you justify your disagreement with the socially and legally acceptable Scott Peterson verdict?

You consider it fine to abort DS fetuses, so do you also support abortion based on the fetus' gender, race, or sexual orientation, presuming that there may soon be a "gay gene" which could be detected in utero?

Posted by: Wynette in Sacramento at May 13, 2010 8:59 PM


To answer your question, I don't believe in restrictions on abortion, no.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 9:02 PM


Marissa, what do you think about abortion as a lethal form of age discrimination?

And, I'm sorry, I missed what you would have done to end slavery, since it would have required you to go against what was once a socially acceptable norm.

Also, I missed how the Peterson verdict could have been wrong from your perspective, since it was/is, after all, the aw. Please explain.

I'm just trying to understand you, but you keep avoiding my questions.

Posted by: Wynette in Sacramento at May 13, 2010 9:19 PM


Marissa, How sad that you actually believe that babies born with Down Syndrome have nothing to offer a family. How foolish and short-sighted you are. You show your ignorance for Truth. As for Christians being pro-life, they were also the abolitionists who turned people's hearts against slavery. Christians do alot more for mankind than atheists!

Posted by: Linda at May 13, 2010 9:20 PM


Marissa, it rests on the idea of objectivism, but gives practical guidelines on how to act when core principles intersect or conflict.

Posted by: Lauren at May 13, 2010 9:22 PM


And the most ignorant comment of the day goes to.....


Except you never killed your own child, Carla, because that's not what abortion is.

Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 5:27 PM


Carla, you know I love you but this comment by Marissa is too much! Ignorance really must be bliss but I have no patience for it...

Posted by: Kristen at May 13, 2010 9:27 PM


Look, its seems as if the basis for Marissa's morality is that abortion is always ok. That is the core foundation. Whatever follows from that, so be it. If any moral system makes abortion immoral, then she is against that moral system. If any moral system makes abortion moral, than she is for that system. Basically, while she is busy bashing people for basing their morality on an objective peg of God, she bases hers on the objective peg of abortion, from which everything else follows.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 9:47 PM


Marissa,
Sorry if you have already answered these questions, as I am new to this thread,

but if you "...don't believe in restrictions on abortion", are you then supportive of abortion even beyond fetal viability, which is now determined to be 21/22 weeks and getting younger all the time as medical technology advances to allow the fetus to survive outside his/her mother's womb?

Would you at least agree that these post-viability babies deserve a chance to live since they are no longer dependent on their mother for survival?

And gain, when exactly does a fetus become a human being?

Posted by: Wynette in Sacramento at May 13, 2010 9:52 PM


She even had to stray from moral relativism to justify her insistence that abortion is always ok. She has no moral basis except abortion. How sad.

Posted by: Scott at May 13, 2010 9:55 PM


Down Syndrome is a terrible, terrible affliction. I think it's extremely disturbing how so many people in your movement have tried to make Down Syndrome into something positive, to be celebrated--there is a very good reason why most fetuses diagnosed with DS are aborted: because it is ultimately for the best.

Marissa, it sounds as if you are poorly informed on Down Syndrome and have limited experience with families and individuals with disabilities such as Down Syndrome. I am speaking as both an individual with developmental disabilities and a professional who provides daily direct care to individuals with a broad range of disabilities and severity, including Down Syndrome.

There are many misconceptions about Down syndrome, which are based on misperceptions, fantasies, sterotypes, and ignorance, which need to be eliminated:

Down Syndrome is not a "terminal illness" like cancer or heart disease, it is a developmental disability. Down syndrome is a genetic condition that causes delays in physical and intellectual development. While there is no cure for Down syndrome, there are many treatments available for the problems associated with Down syndrome. Approximately 40% of the children have congenital heart defects. Some of the heart conditions require surgery while others only require careful monitoring. Children with Down syndrome have a higher incidence of infection, respiratory, vision and hearing problems as well as thyroid and other medical conditions. However, with appropriate medical care most children and adults with Down syndrome can lead healthy lives. The average life expectancy of individuals with Down syndrome is 55 years, with many living into their sixties and seventies.

Also, most people with Down syndrome have only mild to moderate mental retardation. More important than IQ scores is the fact that all individuals with Down syndrome are capable of learning. Most children with Down syndrome in the United States are “mainstreamed” into regular schools. They attend regular classes for some subjects and attend special classes for other subjects and continue to graduate from high school. A large percentage of adults with Down syndrome live semi-independently in assisted living facilities and group homes. Adults with Down syndrome often hold jobs and have romantic relationships. Some high school graduates with Down syndrome participate in post-secondary education. Many adults with Down syndrome are capable of working in the community, but some require a more structured environment.

It's important to remember that individuals with Down Syndrome are people too. They enjoy various hobbies and activities and have individual likes and dislikes like you and I. Also, people with Down syndrome experience a full range of emotions such as sadness, anger and happiness & they respond to positive expressions of friendship and they are hurt and upset by inconsiderate behavior, just like everyone else.

It is not only pro-lifers who are seeking to educate the public and bring about awareness about Down Syndrome, but disability rights organizations, care providers, and individuals and their families, so that better treatments can be found, to lend to more education and understanding of the condition, and bring about awareness.

For more information on Down Syndrome and to listen to families and individuals with Down Syndrome share their insight and experiences, please visit:
Room for More: World Down Syndrome Day

CDAC
Offers scientific research, information, education, and suuport to parents and families of children with Down Syndrome as well as awareness and education for the medical professionals and the general public. Written by parents of a child with Down Syndrome.

National Down Syndrome Society
Offers advocacy, outreach, education, and support and resources for families, parents, and medical professionals. Helpline: 1-800-221-4602

SOFT
Support Organization for Families of Trisomy, a nonprofit volunteer organization offering support for parents who have had or are expecting a child with a chromosome disorder and education to families and professionals interested in the care of these children.

Recommended Down Syndrome Sites on the Internet
Compiled by Len Leshin, M.D.

Hidden Treasures: The Trisomy 21 Journey
Parents from all around the world share their stories.

Video: Dreams
Dreams features children and adults who have Down syndrome talking about their dreams and what they're proud of in their lives. This fun and inspirational video made by Scott and Julia Elliott celebrates the work of the National Down Syndrome Society and the larger Down syndrome community.

Posted by: Rachael C. at May 13, 2010 9:58 PM


I have epilepsy Marissa. I guess as one of those 'mentally damaged' folks I might has well have been aborted.

(Except...I'm currently getting my masters in medical science degree. Whoops.)

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 13, 2010 10:05 PM


Marrisa, your idea of logic saddens me. Regardless of what you do or do not believe about God, it is just plain illogical for a species to turn on itself this way. "Live long & prosper" was what Dr. Spock would say, wasn't it? Except that a species will eventually cease to exist when it turns on itself. Abortion is a species turning on itself.

Something greater then ourselves governs all of existence, & that power will reckon with those that would destroy it.

I will prwy for you.

Posted by: Rebecca M. Brooks at May 13, 2010 10:11 PM


Marrisa, your idea of logic saddens me. Regardless of what you do or do not believe about God, it is just plain illogical for a species to turn on itself this way. "Live long & prosper" was what Dr. Spock would say, wasn't it? Except that a species will eventually cease to exist when it turns on itself. Abortion is a species turning on itself.

Something greater then ourselves governs all of existence, & that power will reckon with those that would destroy it.

I will pray for you.

Posted by: Rebecca M. Brooks at May 13, 2010 10:11 PM


Kristen,
It was the winner, I must say! :)
Love you too.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 13, 2010 10:17 PM


Sorry about the multiple posts. Been having trouble with my PC & my PC Master (my husband) is not here with me.

Posted by: Rebecca M. Brooks at May 13, 2010 10:22 PM


Carla is so precious! What a faithful warrior!

The truth is that all of us have been guilty of murder in God's eyes, each one of us who has hated our brother: "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 Jn 3:14–15

We've all been deceived. We've all been guilty before God.

"And you (Ed and Carla) were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."

"But God, (truly, one of the biggest "buts" in the Word of God), being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us (Carla and Ed) alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Eph 2:1–7 NASB

As far as the east is from the west, so far He has removed our transgressions from us.

Our sins and our iniquities He will remember no more.

Glory to His Name!

Posted by: Ed at May 13, 2010 10:46 PM


The following was posted on Facebook tonight in a friend's note about Barbara Bush:

"If a thing is true than it is always true. If a thing is objectively wrong, than it is always wrong, all times and in all places. Facts do not change based upon personal perspectives, emotions or opinions. A sad song may make...one person cry and another not, but a rock is a rock if viewed in your hand or if viewed from space. It never ceases to be a rock unless something or someone alters it or destroys it. We know 2 plus 2 always equals 4. The equation will never yield 5, or 10, or any other answer but 4. Truth, like any fact, is something that can be known. That abortion kills, is just such a fact which never changes."

Amen. "A rock is a rock if viewed in your hand or if viewed from space." And an aborted baby is a dead baby, a dead human being, no matter how you spin it, no matter who thinks they have the right to make it so. "It never ceases to be a rock unless something or someone alters it or destroys it."

My life--your life, Melissa and others--began at the moment my father's sperm united with my mother's egg. Have you ever really thought about how amazing that is? I, you, we grew from THAT! If we can't think of each person conceived as special, unique, and important, then how dare we think of our born selves as special, unique, and important--as being worth more than, say, a tomato? If we think of each other as dispensable in the womb, then we will not consider one another any less dispensable once we are out of it. Which is why some people can't be upset by a woman in Iran having acid thrown in her face! (So much for "helping people who are already born"!)

Posted by: Alice at May 13, 2010 10:50 PM


And anyone else out there, post-abortive Mom or just garden variety sinner, is free to put your name right in there and receive the love, mercy and forgiveness of the Most Wonderful Savior in the world!

Posted by: Ed at May 13, 2010 10:51 PM


Rachael-
Was it you a few days ago who mentioned that Wellbutrin was used in treating add and depression Whoever it was thank you. I knew I was dealing with depression and suspected I was add. Was tested for both and started on Wellbutrin two days ago. Whoever it was again thanks my world which was pretty good before is even better now.

Marissa-
My afflicted son has now decided it's bedtime. His day has consisted of school going to McDonald's and coming back home. In his afflicted state he manages to effect his environment effectively. Though his classification is severe his heart and spirit are very evolved. In his afflicted state he has managed to teach me much more than any enlightened individual ever has. Daniel has a 6th sense that goes beyond humorous when he doesn't like someone and he likes just about everyone he says byeeee repeatedly. It took me awhile before I noticed the pattern. You keep searching Marissa until you find the answers your looking for. Be blessed.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 13, 2010 11:07 PM


Marissa,

Quite a thread you've got going here. There's no convincing you that your reasoning is flawed and that your justifications are illusions. In the beginning of this thread, I was aghast at your comments and your thinking, but the more I've read, the more I feel a severe pity for you. It's heartbreaking, actually, how hardened your heart is and how empty you must be.

I truly hope you have at least one person in your life who would love you for who you are, whether you were whole in body and mind or not. You seem incapable of imagining that an "imperfect" person can be loved and valued and wanted by anyone else.

Your worldviews and your views about human life are frightening and dangerous, frankly, but right now all I can feel for you is pity and sadness, because you do not know what love is.

So before I go, let me tell you. Love is a cross on which the Prince of Peace was hung for your sake. Love is Jesus, and He loves you. It's true.

I'll pray for you tonight.

Posted by: Jennifer at May 13, 2010 11:49 PM


I couldn't stand being married to a woman who thinks that mutilating, burning to death, sucking the brain out of, etc to a small fetus is a good thing for society. Use freaking birth control. Don't invite a little child to a mating party and then kill it for trespassing. Abortion is actually justified based on property laws, i.e. it's her body blah blah blah. But property rights have to be modified so as to protect innocence. You can't invite someone over and then cut their arms, legs, head off. This would be called murder even though it is your property. BTW, I am ok with a woman aborting the child of a rape. But in judging the child to be condemned because it was the result of sin... She better not expect any grace for the wrong she has in her life from what others have done. Basically, she is legally justified to reject and evict what she didn't invite, but she is not choosing love or grace. It is her choice.

Posted by: Dab at May 14, 2010 12:56 AM


"Who, or what, gets to determine what morality is? Why do societies differ from each other in what they consider right and wrong?"

Marissa,

I don't know if this will mean anything to you at all but here goes:
We, humans, did not just happen. This earth, the solar system, planets and stars beyond the farthest fathoms, did not just happen. You can choose to believe it did and you have that right-because we (the creation) were made by God (the Creator) to have free will. [Personally, I think it take a lot more faith to believe in the Evolution than in the Bible but that's another thread for another time.]
Creation must have a Creator, whether you believe in was divine or an accident is, again, your choice. But just go with me for a sec...

The Bible says that "eternity was place in the hearts of men". That means even though humans are given the opportunity to believe what we want, we were meant to commune with God. We have an innate desire within us to know the meaning of this life. This desire was given to us by the Lord Himself, in hopes that our searching and questioning would lead us to Him and His Word, where every doubt can be erased.

The "morality" societies try and hold up is not of their own determination to make laws and govern people in the way they see fit, although it is used (and abused) to that extent. It stems from the desire to know that their lives matter and so do their thoughts, beliefs, etc. Morality comes from people pursuing a conviction they have; and should that conviction become culturally prevalent, it can benefit or harm humanity.

I hope I'm making sense to in some regard as it it late but my point is this: God placed a fervent desire within us to know TRUTH, which is ultimately found in Him. Many countries, cultures, etc have taken that yearning and instead of turning to their Maker, created their own beliefs. That's why societies differ in their beliefs of right and wrong... Instead of looking to the Living God, they choose to ignore Him and create their own interpretation of "morality".

We've been sinful by nature since the moment Adam & Eve chose to find their own beliefs in right and wrong, instead of trusting the very God who made them and walked with them in the Garden daily. They SAW God, first-hand, and still made decisions that broke His heart. So it will be impossible for all people in all the world to agree on the perfect morals because NONE of us our perfect!

But we ARE given a conscience, a soul. And the fact is that the more you choose to pretend you know everything, the more your soul aches for the real Truth. But if you pretend long enough, eventually you can continue living life, without acknowledging your soul, and won't be able to distinguish the difference between the truth and a lie. You'll be forced to decide for yourself and defend it for yourself.

I think you're secretly aching to believe in something you know to be true 100%. I think you might not even recognize how badly you want to know that you were made for a purpose and you don't have to go through life judging right and wrong by your own standards. I have been praying for you and will continue to do so. If you are truly desiring to find real truth, I pray your search will lead you to the One who knit you together in your mother's womb... He exists. And He longs for a relationship with you.

Jeremiah 29:13 says "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart." God does not make Himself a mystery. If you are wanting Truth, He's waiting to show you. I pray He will place people in your life that will make His Truth inescapable to you, and that you will come to know how long, how wide, how deep, and how high His love for you is. It is unlike anything you'll ever know!

Posted by: DuoMama at May 14, 2010 1:27 AM


I am proud of her on these views. An intelligent woman. Roe vs Wade YES Keep government out of our personal affairs. Gay Marriage YES People that love each other and are committed to each other. That is their life. Teach tolerance acceptance and love. I say this is a side of Laura Bush I have not known and am extemely Proud of. Yes, To Laura. Not too happy about her husband or his administration. Our country is paying heavily for the mismanagement thst benefit rich self-center homophob men who care little for our countries well-being. the education of our youth,or the condition of our environment.

Posted by: Valli at May 14, 2010 1:29 AM


Valli, how can you say any of that after reading this entire thread?

How is abortion love? It's not. It's the ultimate destroyer of humanity. It is the ultimate in hate. Nothing says hate more than allowing a woman who is going through a crisis to make a choice that will scar her forever. Nothing says hate more than killing a child.

The government repeatedly invades our private lives. Most recently it decided to keep a record of every Tweet we make, even if it is a direct message between two personal parties, just because it happens to be on a public server. There's a reason direct messaging exists: to keep a conversation private. There's a reason that no one except those who are followers of both parties will intercept a message that specifically indicates that it's to another party. However, the government has decided that all conversations on Twitter are a matter of public record JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SO.

Another matter is that in some states medical marijuana is illegal. I live in California where it's not, and have known that it's helped many people. So why is it legal for New York police to break down the door of a private residence if they smell pot coming from there? There is no reason. It just is. They arrest them in NY even when it was given to them to help with a medical condition. That's invasion of doctor-patient confidentiality on the part of the law, as well.

The law can invade your privacy for any reason it likes. That's just the law, and it's something we have to deal with. They can especially invade our privacy when it is a matter life or death. Abortion has to do with the life of a baby. Sometimes the life of a mother is at stake, and in those cases abortion is allowed in many pro-life countries, including Ireland.

Personal convenience is not a reason for something that hinges on another person's life. There are ways around the other things. There are ways for these women to continue education, to continue their career, etc. They just need help and support from those around them. As feminist fore-mother Mattie Brinkerhoff once wrote in The Revolution, "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we can safely assume that there is something wrong in society — so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."

Posted by: Amy at May 14, 2010 5:25 AM


I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARISSA!!!!!!! Please enlighten me, because I don't understand US laws anymore.... I hope you can help me....

You said "Children and adults have the right to live because WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE DETERMINED THAT, based on these qualitative characteristics, they are members of society who deserve society's protection. Fetuses are not.
Posted by: Marissa at May 13, 2010 6:35 PM"

Now tell me WHY, in 38 of the states a person is charged with 2 murders if he/she kills a pregnant woman???? Didn't WE AS A SOCIETY already determined that fetuses have no right to life and protection anyway?

Thank you!

Posted by: Vita at May 14, 2010 6:53 AM


I have just decided that, in the society of my house, it is moral to mutilate my cat. Because it is my house and my society, it is now moral. The government should stay out of my personal affairs and allow me to mutilate my cat as much as I want. My cat, my choice. My cat is my property, so if I want to slice her ears off and stab her eyes out, that's my business and none of you should be able to stop me. Who are you to judge? You just don't understand my culture.

I have reasons for wanting to mutilate my cat. Not that I need any, because mutilating my cat is my right. If the police try to arrest me, I'm going to sue them. Marauder v. Minnesota will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and once they rule that I have a Constitutional right to mutilate my cat, all of you will just have to put up with it.

Posted by: Marauder at May 14, 2010 8:20 AM


I don't understand "post-abortive" women who go on to live happy lives with a husband and children, but talk about how much they wish they hadn't had an abortion. It's one thing to feel guilt. But wishing you'd raised the first baby? Isn't that an admission that you're not happy with what you have now--you know, your existing kids? If you'd had the other baby, your life would have taken a completely different path (probably a much less happy and stable one), and your husband and children wouldn't be part of it.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 10:49 AM


I can speak to that Ashley.

"Happy life" is a rather relative term. I live the life I have with regret and grief over the child that died in an abortion clinic in 1990. I do not feel guilt or shame as Christ hung on the cross to remove that for me. The regret is the consequence of my sin. But we don't have to go there.

I wish my daughter were here today. YES! She would be 19. It is no way is an admission that I am not completely thrilled with the four cherubs I have now and thank God for and the husband that has walked with me for 20 years through abortion recovery! What an amazing blessing my family is to me.

Who is to know what path our lives will or won't take? Do you know that? Do I?
But you are insinuating had I had that little girl that my life would have been unhappy and less stable. Based on what?

Regretting my abortion is an admission of a very WRONG way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. She died. I could have had that child with help and support, I could have put her up for adoption, I could have let her live.

How many post abortive women do you know, Ashley and how hard have you really tired to understand them? I know hundreds and THEY ARE AMAZING! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 14, 2010 10:59 AM


Ashley, I wish I had the children I miscarried. That doesn't mean I don't love the children that are here on Earth, or that I don't have a wonderful life.

I imagine that the feeling is the same for mothers after abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at May 14, 2010 11:03 AM


I'm not denigrating those women at all. And I don't think "it's not a good time and something better might come along" is a very good reason for an abortion. You never know how your life will turn out. But the women who look back and say they wish they had had a different life, I don't understand that.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 11:04 AM


"Ashley, I wish I had the children I miscarried."

I'm assuming the miscarriages were in the same marriage/same man as the born children? That's not as much of a change as saying "I wish I'd had a baby with some other guy"

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 11:13 AM


I don't wish I had a different life. I made a choice that has affected every part of my life when it was presented as a simple medical procedure. I am grateful for what I am given. I accept the path that I am on. I speak out about abortion because the world needs to hear it.

Lauren,
I had two miscarriages and feel the same. I wish they were here with me too.
btw I have been meaning to tell you that your comments are always spot on and I enjoy reading them very much!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 14, 2010 11:15 AM


Ashley, I was not able to have children after my abortion. I was in my 20s then. I am in my 50s now. Had I not had an abortion, I would have had at least one child, and probably more. And yes indeed my life would have been VERY different. It hadn't been so great by the time I had the abortion. When I read stories now of the amazing grace that women have experienced by giving birth to their unplanned child (that is, by not having an abortion), it breaks my heart. As Carla wrote, I know I am forgiven, but I deeply regret my "choice."

I hope you can understand THAT.

Posted by: Alice at May 14, 2010 11:16 AM


I'm assuming the miscarriages were in the same marriage/same man as the born children? That's not as much of a change as saying "I wish I'd had a baby with some other guy"
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 11:13 AM


Huh?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 14, 2010 11:27 AM


Ashley: "But the women who look back and say they wish they had had a different life, I don't understand that."

Here is a simple way to "understand" pretty much any pro-life person feels about abortion. Liken it to taking the life of s slightly older human, a toddler.

So, for example, would you think it odd for a mother to regret murdering her toddler? Let's say that a woman killed her 1 yr old with Down Syndrome to save him from a "miserable life." Would it then be odd for that mother to regret that "choice" years later, despite having moved on to have a normal life with other children? I imagine not, but maybe you have a different definition of regret as others, and you would find this odd.

You see, either you truly do consider ANY regret to be bizarre, or your confusion over this sort of regret (of abortion) arises from your presumption that abortion is not in any way an immoral choice. So basically, you should rephrase your statement to be "I don't understand why people think abortion is wrong." From that point we can have a meaningful conversation.

However, it still doesn't make much sense given the usual societal meaning of regret. Is it possible to ever regret any decision, even one not universally considered to me "wrong", without necessarily wishing a different outcome in your life? Most people would say "of course." For example, I do not regret my life in any way other than that I took several years off from college. I wish that I had continued college instead of taking a hiatus, but this does not mean that I wish my life to be fundamentally different. I only wish that I had as a component of my life a college degree at an earlier point in time.

Hell, here's a simple example. Do you regret not recently winning the lottery? Sure it would change things, but again, not everything NECESSARILY. I sure would be even more happy with my family today if I had won 10 million dollars yesterday, but it does not mean that I want my current life completely erased for the sake of 10 million dollars.

The truth really lies in that you just dislike people who complain about past abortions. You actually have no reasonable motive to be confused by regret. I could be wrong though, maybe you would still think it odd to regret not winning the lottery one day ago. Is that the case?

Posted by: Oliver at May 14, 2010 12:19 PM


You're a long-winded idiot. I said I understood guilt, but if you're saying you wish you'd had a baby that you aborted, you're pretty much wishing your life had taken a totally different direction. It's fine to wish your life had been completely different, I guess, but I think current spouses/children would be hurt.

And for the zillionth time, I will never consider an embryo to have the same worth as a 1-year-old, and you won't convince me otherwise.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 12:31 PM


Ashley,

Have you had an abortion(s)?

Posted by: Praxedes at May 14, 2010 12:41 PM


That's not any of your business.

And I wasn't saying abortion regret doesn't/shouldn't exist. I was making an observation. If you want to respond to my actual comments, go ahead.

I have a job, so I'm out for the rest of the afternoon.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 12:47 PM


Thanks for answering my questions Ashley.

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 14, 2010 12:52 PM


Just thinking out loud for my own benefit (because I get that you don't care, Ashley--although I think if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here arguing): You say "I will never consider an embryo to have the same worth as a 1-year-old." So does that mean when YOU were an embryo (and you were, for several months of your life), you weren't worth as much as you were worth when you were born or as you are now? What is "worth" anyway? It seems to me that POTENTIAL is a huge part of worth, whether one is an embryo or a one-year-old or a fifteen-year-old, or any age. That's why, for example, people buy stocks--because of their potential. That's why farmers plant seeds, because of their potential. As I see it, then, the seed is worth just as much as whatever it will grow into, because without that tomato seed, for example, there would never ever be a tomato.

I could say that you who support the killing of unborn children are worth a lot less than someone who is pro-life, or I could say you have the POTENTIAL to be pro-life. I believe (and hope in and pray for) the latter.

Posted by: Alice at May 14, 2010 12:54 PM


Ashley: "if you're saying you wish you'd had a baby that you aborted"

So you think it is stupid to regret killing a toddler, and wished having not done it?

It's a simple question, even if it is coming from an "idiot."

Follow up question: Do you think it is stupid to wish you had chosen different lottery numbers that would have won?

Posted by: Oliver at May 14, 2010 12:56 PM


Alice, don't bother. Ashley has no substantive reason for viewing an embryo any different from a 1-yr old. It is a feeling. Pro-choicers by and large argue from emotional responses, regardless of rational thought. Witness her response to my post earlier.

Posted by: Oliver at May 14, 2010 1:00 PM


This has been a most enlightening thread to read! Kudos to all of you ladies who have been through abortions speaking out about your experiences and being so kind to those who's ignorance and heartlessness drive them to defend such a lost cause.

As a man, I have the deepest respect for you! There will always be Marrissa's who choose to hold a close minded opinion regardless of how many facts and evidence is presented to them. But your continued gentleness, calm reasoning and love shine brightly. Keep up the great work!

Posted by: bronzebogen at May 14, 2010 1:10 PM


So the prolife movement is 99 percent Christian? Please provide a link to that. There are prolife atheists, agnostics, and pro-life gay folks, too.

As for Down Syndrome, I don't think anyone is saying that it is something to be celebrated. We're just saying yes, they are different, and yes, they will face challenges that most of us don't, but does that mean their lives are not worth living? In my career as a social worker, I have worked with people with Down Syndrome. Many of them can live fairly independently, and even can learn how to take public transportation. Others have jobs, some are even married. The days when people with mental retardation were locked away as "things" to be ashamed of are long, long gone.

Posted by: Phillymiss at May 14, 2010 2:01 PM


Ashley, when I was 18 I gave up a full 4-year scholarship to an excellent private college, to take care of some very important health issues - mine, and then immediately afterwards, my mother's. My life changed dramatically as a result.

I had initially intended to go into library sciences. I now work in professional theater (and I am quite successful - I don't mean like community theater which, while amazing and certainly worthwhile, is rarely an actual career for many people). I met my partner in my current industry and we've been together for four years. I cannot even IMAGINE just how different my life would be if I had made full use of that scholarship - if I hadn't been ill, if my mom hadn't had cancer, if I'd graduated in the expected four years with the expected degree. I'd have had money saved to head to grad school straight from college. I'd probably be a librarian now, living who knows where? dating who knows what other man I might have met? etc.

I LOVE my life. I LOVE what I do. I LOVE the people I see every day. But I do sometimes feel regret and sadness for the things I gave up to get to this amazing place. I am sad for the 18-year old girl who felt as though she was losing everything. I am sad for the 27-year old woman who could have been, and isn't; even with this very happy, very comfortable version of me in her place. I am sad for the people I will never meet and come to love, the places I might never live, the things I might never do.

At the same time, I am happy and grateful for the life I have. These are TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE lives - one in a largely academic career, one in a very hands-on, business-oriented, pragmatic career; one that could have taken me anywhere in the country, and another that essentially chains me for life to one city in particular (fortunately the city I grew up in and love). These lives could not co-exist at all alongside each other - and yet even as I love the life I have, I do occasionally mourn the life I sometimes feel as though I "lost."

Children are not mutually exclusive in this way. Yes, having a child changes lots of things. But regretting or longing for a child that was never born is not even as "nonsensical" as longing for a life path that you chose not to follow. People are complex, emotions are complex. Reality is complex. We can feel more than one thing at the same time. And thank goodness for that - I don't know how we wouldn't all go crazy if we didn't have the joy of our current lives to balance out the regret in our past.

Posted by: Alexandra at May 14, 2010 2:06 PM


Hi Oliver. I agree with you completely that being pro-choice is primarily an emotional rather than a rational position. I agree because I used to hold that position.

The reason I "bother" is that, as I have said, I did have an abortion and was pro-choice for many years after that. It was only in the couple of years before I went to Rachel's Vineyard and found forgiveness and the beginnings of healing that I would allow anyone to discuss abortion with me--unless of course I knew they agreed with me. Ultimately, however, it was arguing (no, fighting!) with a friend who, I came to know, truly cared about me that opened both my mind and my heart. I shudder to think where, or even if, I would be today if that friend hadn't been so hard on me! I cry even now thinking about it. Oh it hurt, like hell! I said awful things. I withdrew. But he kept showering me with this powerful love and truth until it finally got through to me. If I'd had one person like that in my life when I was pregnant--well, of course I'd be telling a different story today, in many ways.

I have learned to live with my loss and sorrow and regret by being honest about it. Living the lie was not only destroying me but also contributing to the deaths of other babies and the injuring of their mothers. I was finally, gratefully, able to see that! But it took a long, long time. Decades.

I am able to feel peace and joy these days, to live my life with meaning, and hopefully to make a positive difference in others' lives, not because all my lost life didn't and doesn't matter, but because I have experienced reconciliation with God through the power of my confession and His mercy and forgiveness in Christ Jesus. Revelation 21 says, "For God has said, 'Behold, I make all things new. . . . I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.'" Or to paraphrase slightly, "I will be her God and she shall be My daughter." And all we have to do is THIRST!

What "all things new" means for each woman who has had an abortion is particular to that woman--is between her and God. What matters most is that we overcome and find our way home to our places as daughters of God.

Posted by: Alice at May 14, 2010 2:07 PM


Marauder, I would like to mutilate my cat when he runs across my face in the middle of the night while I'm trying to sleep!

As for Laura Bush being pro-abort, I'm not surprised. Most "country club" type Republican women are. I don't like either party; that's why I remain a diehard Independent.

I did hear that Teresa Heinz Kerry was SOMEWHAT prolife, but after she said something that upset the proaborts, she became quiet on the subject.

And Cindy McCain was prolife, perhaps because she suffered a number of miscarriages.

Posted by: Phillymiss at May 14, 2010 2:08 PM


Surely Ashley will listen to such a reasonable post Alexandra. Let's see what happens.

Posted by: Oliver at May 14, 2010 2:16 PM


Rachael-
Was it you a few days ago who mentioned that Wellbutrin was used in treating add and depression Whoever it was thank you. I knew I was dealing with depression and suspected I was add. Was tested for both and started on Wellbutrin two days ago. Whoever it was again thanks my world which was pretty good before is even better now.
Posted by: myrtle miller at May 13, 2010 11:07 PM

Myrtle,
I had to go back and check, but yes, it was me :) I'm glad that you were able to find a treatment that works for you based on your diagnosis :-)

Posted by: Rachael C. at May 14, 2010 2:33 PM


Alice,
So glad to know you! So glad to share this walk with you as a sweet sister in Christ! Love you.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 14, 2010 2:43 PM


Myrtle - Isn't it kind of amazing how fast everything changes once you start medication?

My mother had a miscarriage a couple of months before I was conceived, which means that I was only able to be conceived and born because someone else died. If she told me that she wished she could have had that baby, I wouldn't be offended, because I know how much she loves me and I'd take it to mean, "I wish that it had somehow been possible for me to have had both of you." One statment wouldn't cause me to suddenly question over two decades of love and affection.

My parents tried for six years after I was born to have another baby, but I wouldn't take "I wish we'd been able to have another baby" to mean "I wish we'd been able to have another baby, because you're inadequate and I wish I'd spent some of the time I spent taking care of you taking care of someone else."

Phillymiss: Eek, the cat ran across your face? When I was about three I used to go into my parents' room while they were still asleep early in the morning and step on their heads. (Not on purpose, I was just trying to climb over them.) :D

Posted by: Marauder at May 14, 2010 2:51 PM


Thanks Carla, and thank you for all you do to stand for life on here. I know it can't be easy sometimes with so many ignorant people who can't comprehend your story.

Posted by: Lauren at May 14, 2010 3:51 PM


Ashley, I understand the point you're trying to make. The way I think about it is,

What about a woman who marries an abuser but has two beautiful children by him? She wishes every day that she had not married this creep that beats her. Is that wrong because if she hadn't she wouldn't have her two children now that she adores and that are her sole reasons for living!?

or

in my case, my father died when I was 3 years old. When I was 8 my mother remarried. While my mom loves my step-dad she wishes my dad hadn't died. But if he hadn't died she wouldn't have had the last 22 years of bliss with my step-dad! So because she loves my step-dad is she glad my dad is dead? of course not.

To mourn your aborted child doesn't mean you don't love the children you have now. There is no proof that Carla wouldn't have STILL married her husband and had her four children even if Aubrey had been allowed to be born.

Posted by: Sydney M at May 14, 2010 4:34 PM


Phillymiss, "I would like to mutilate my cat when he runs across my face in the middle of the night while I'm trying to sleep!"

LOL! My husband is relaxing on the couch and just rapped "Cat a*s in my face, cat a*s in my face, looking like a fool with cat a*s on my face!"

Sydney, I have three BEAUTIFUL children with my abusive ex-husband. Do I regret marrying him? YES!!! Do I regret my children? NEVER!!!

Posted by: Praxedes at May 14, 2010 8:09 PM


My cat is rubbing her face against the computer this very second.

Posted by: Marauder at May 14, 2010 8:41 PM


I totally agree with Sydney about loving children that resulted from a regrettable relationship/situation. Life doesn't give us any guarantees, but I've never met a mother who regrets having her child, even if the father is a heinous person. On the flip side, you can try to set up your perfect life, and your perfect scenario can collapse. My sister thought she found the perfect man, and he turned out to be completely messed up and left her for another woman.

In some way, I agree that if you find yourself pregnant in a bad situation, it's okay to accept what God gave you. There's no guarantee something better will come along.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 9:21 PM


Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 9:21 PM

...what?

What the hell are you talking about? The question was whether or not people can regret past actions, such as the killing of another human, without necessarily wishing he/she had a different life. How does your post in ANY way respond to the criticsms tossed your way? Why post again in this thread if you aren't going to reasonably extend the conversation? Just slink away and pretend you didn't say anything like the average "open-minded" pro-choicer.

Posted by: Oliver at May 14, 2010 9:48 PM


Is it possible to be pro-life, but recognize that if we don't have clinics then some women will resort to the horrible back alley abortions of long ago? Or that men who don't want children may harm women when they learn they are pregnant? I think that's where Barbara Bush is coming from. It's where I come from.
I'm an atheist and recognize that abortion is an awful thing, but we can't just wish it away with a law. People break laws based on their personal beliefs all the time. How do we fix the problem outside of the court?
What would you do if you got this law and made abortion criminal? Send the mothers to prison? Fine them? Execute them? Or would they be victims of the doctors, so you send the doctors to prison or execute them? Some pro-lifers have been great at that. Doctor killers become heroes in this crazy battle.
Down syndrome kids (and adults) are awesome - they have good days and bad days like the rest of us. I'd argue that some of them respond with more emotion than Marissa did above, but that might come off as being nasty. I'm OK with being nasty when I need to make a point. Autistic kids are great too.
I'm sure my life has enough evidence of craziness that someone out there would consider me worthy of abortion!
Many of your arguments here are compelling, and I highly encourage you to keep telling your story to discourage abortion. Don't shame people. Offer alternatives.
Food for thought regarding the religious argument, would it not be your God's responsibility to punish those who abort? Certainly the guilt some of you have felt was your God's punishment. Surely the lost opportunity and death of hope is a suitable punishment.
For those of you who had an abortion and have changed, sure you don't blame the law or lack of law for your choice? Is it Barbara Bush's fault?
Don't tell me your child died because of people like her.

Posted by: Tim at May 15, 2010 7:12 PM


"I'm an atheist and recognize that abortion is an awful thing, but we can't just wish it away with a law. People break laws based on their personal beliefs all the time. "

That doesn't mean that we abandon all laws. Using your logic we should just legalize everything since people are going to do it anyways. The problem is that legalization led to a skyrocket in abortions. Legalization gives legitimacy to an action.

Posted by: Lauren at May 15, 2010 9:13 PM


Tim,
God is love. He is forgiveness. Christ hung on the cross for the sins of ALL of us, including my abortion. I am forgiven and set free. Since the guilt and shame was taken by Him, the regret I feel over my abortion is the consequence I have to live with.

He does not sit around in heaven waiting for us to screw up and then whapping us in the head with his sandal as punishment.

Maybe you have no idea what I am talking about, Tim. But maybe you do.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 15, 2010 9:36 PM


Lauren, OK - legalize everything, even murder. Are you telling me you don't murder because it's against the law? Do you really think that poorly of the adults that come from the fetuses you wish to protect? That they only behave if there are laws? I chose not to murder because I respect life. I drank under age many years ago and I've smoked pot - don't regret it. I run stop lights and stop signs occasionally and I speed. I don't care if there are laws against it. I don't steal, not because it's against the law, but because I respect other people's property - because my parents and siblings taught to be that way. Because I try to follow the golden rule.
I'm saying teach. If you need a law to make you comfortable then more power to you I guess. I have no stake in the game - we're not having kids unless it gets past a lot birth control and other "personal" circumstances.
I think abortion sucks, but I think it pretty rotten to want to pursue punishment rather than prevention.
Carla, I'm happy for you. With a name like Paul Timothy perhaps you can imagine what my father had in mind when he named me. I've got believers all around me, but I'm not. Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see evidence that God exists. And if he does exist then I want no part of him.
I know your God forgives, that's why I am asking the question "what good are your laws and punishment?" Is it not a matter between God and His child? Why should anyone who chooses abortion have to answer to anyone on this thread?

Having gone through it, hopefully you have been given the gift of empathy. Imagine a young girl who has been raped by her uncle, brother or father. Even in your God's world it happens. She is terrified, ashamed and probably not believing any God could exist (like me she wonders how an all-knowing, loving god could allow something so awful to happen - and don't give me the it's man straying or it's the devil line - if "God" exists then he is all things including satan. What kind of jerk would "test" "his children", seriously?) A lot of people would easily tell this girl this is one of those times that she should abort. I don't think I would. Even if it were my own sister. I would comfort her, support her and listen. I would tell her that I thought maybe this child will make a difference in the world. Despite how wicked it's conception was, maybe it will make the world a better place. If she said she could not do it, then I would still support her, even if it meant hunting the last corner on earth where she could get an abortion in the safest conditions possible. Even if I had to perform the abortion myself.
What would you do for her? Simply tell her there is some imaginary being that forgives her? And forgives the bastard that raped her? Would you forgive her if she chose to abort?

Posted by: Tim at May 15, 2010 11:48 PM


So you are an Anarchist Tim?

That is perfectly fine with me, honestly. The biggest issue with abortion for me is that currently our country treats abortion, the negligent denial of food and shelter to a young human, at best, and murder of a young child at worst, differently than negligence and/or murder of a slightly older, yet in no significant way different, young human. The ethical inconsitency drives me nuts.

I am curious though, as I have had a couple conversatinos with Anarchists, and as a politically Conservative type, I find the view rather fascinating.

Do you then believe government regulation of the private market is also meaningless, in that people will do what they will do anyways, and that punishment and restriction is only done for the sake of retribution?

Do you feel that standard murder would best be treated with no punishment but only treatment?

Saying murder should be illegal but then making excuses for why abortion should be legal, even if it is essentially murder, is drivel. Saying that murder should ALSO be legal, so therefore abortion should be legal, is a whole other conversation that stems from a completely different idealogical divide.

Posted by: Oliver at May 16, 2010 12:19 AM


"I run stop lights and stop signs occasionally and I speed" BUT "I don't steal, not because it's against the law, but because I respect other people's property."

You will put my life and the life of those I love at risk by driving like an idiot but you won't steal our cars. How reassuring.

I prefer you RESPECT LIFE over property. Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Thanks for yet another great example of the proabort mentality.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 16, 2010 6:32 AM


Praxedes, you're welcome for the different point of view. I don't blaze through stop lights and stop signs like a mad man, but you see in absolutes so I won't argue with you.

Oliver, you actually succeeded in making me see the error of my logic. I see why the inconsistency would drive you nuts. I'll chew on what you said. My problem with inconsistency comes from those who put a President (not the current one obviously) on a pedestal for being pro-life, but they're OK with his illegal war and say oh well when villages are bombed and children die, it's all for the greater good.

As for the market, regulation has done little - people have done what they will always do and the immoral and unethical will continue to find a way around the laws. But maybe you're right, maybe it's the lock on the door that keeps the honest ones honest. So, I'll say I'm with you. We need the law and abortion should be illegal.

Now back to my earlier question: what is the punishment going to be and who are we going to punish?

Posted by: Tim at May 16, 2010 8:17 AM


You're right Chris, I do see in absolutes when it comes to abortion. Abortion is absolutely the murdering of a human. It's not sometimes something else. Is it that you won't argue with me on this issue or that you can't?

In regards to your earlier question: I personally believe that if abortion becomes illegal and a few abortionists are given long term prison sentences, other abortionists will not chance doing quite as many abortions. The abortion rate will drastically drop. You may believe prison is not a deterrant but I believe it is, especially to those who have lived the 'good life.'

Yes, there will always be a black market as there is in other harmful 'choices'. However, I don't think this means we should stop incarcerating the known hitmen/hitwomen among us.

As far as women who want to, attempt to and/or succeed at aborting, I believe court-ordered counseling should be ordered. She needs to be set up with a support system in order that she not continue to make decision that are destructive to self and others. Men have been left out of the abortion 'choice', however, I think the father, if known, should be ordered counseling as well especially if he has pressured/supported abortion because he needs to learn self-control and better decision-making as well.

"but they're OK with his illegal war and say oh well when villages are bombed and children die, it's all for the greater good."

I have never met one prolifer who thinks like this. If they thought like this, they won't really be prolife, would they? Some proaborts would like everyone to believe that the majority of prolifers support war and capital punishment.

Violence begets more violence. And abortion is a violent choice.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 16, 2010 10:52 AM


Tim, Oops forgot to add:

Unless you are an ambulance driver, police officer or dealing with an emergency situation, I also believe speeding and running red lights/stop signs is absolutely wrong as well. It is also pretty arrogant behavior.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 16, 2010 11:01 AM


Tim, historically the rational has been to prosecute the doctors with the assumption of the woman as a second victim. From what I understand, this was largely done so that the woman could testify against the doctor. Sort of the rational behind giving the 2bit mobster a plea bargin in order to bring down the king pin.

Posted by: Lauren at May 16, 2010 2:59 PM


Praxedes, you're right. Solid argument. So in this case I can't argue with you. The threat of prison probably would deter most. It hasn't worked so well in the war on drugs. But I imagine you are probably correct since a doctor has a lot more to lose for breaking the law than the average drug user. As for the war on drugs, one of the ethical inconsistencies that drives me insane is that a man can go to jail for using marijuana, but abortion is legal. I'd much rather it be the other way around.
Now for the petty piece, if I stop at a red light in a small town and wait forever, the light doesn't change and there is no one coming then I'm going. If that makes me arrogant so be it. And I'd say even if you are a police officer or ambulance driver you don't get to blaze through the light unless it's an emergency situation.

Speaking of emergency situations, are you opposed to abortion when the mother's life is at risk? Would the doctor deserve prison if he or she did what he or she thought necessary? If that was the case then a lot of OB/GYN's would probably change careers, they already have enough to worry about.

Posted by: Tim at May 16, 2010 3:21 PM


"Speaking of emergency situations, are you opposed to abortion when the mother's life is at risk? Would the doctor deserve prison if he or she did what he or she thought necessary? If that was the case then a lot of OB/GYN's would probably change careers, they already have enough to worry about."

This has never, and will never be the case. If the mother's life is legitmately at risk, labor can be induced at any point in the pregnancy. If it is before viability, obviously the child will not survive, but the intent is not to kill the child, it's to save the mother's life.

Now, there is a difference between inducing labor at 30 weeks for a medical reason (I've had it done myself) and killing the baby first before inducing labor. There's never a reason for the latter. My son was born at 30 weeks via c-section, was sent to the nicu, and is now a happy, healthy 5 year old.

Posted by: Lauren at May 16, 2010 3:39 PM


I don't understand "post-abortive" women who go on to live happy lives with a husband and children, but talk about how much they wish they hadn't had an abortion. It's one thing to feel guilt. But wishing you'd raised the first baby? Isn't that an admission that you're not happy with what you have now--you know, your existing kids? If you'd had the other baby, your life would have taken a completely different path (probably a much less happy and stable one), and your husband and children wouldn't be part of it.
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 14, 2010 10:49 AM

no. It is still wishing that that baby were alive today and seeing with the clarity that hindsight always brings that maybe there was a way.
It's also recognizing that what she has now is very special and that God loves her (and the rest of us sinners) despite our flaws and mistakes.
People make mistakes and some mistakes cannot be undone in this life.
It's ok to regret but the important point is to also learn and help others maybe not make the same mistake.
That's part of Carla's mission in her life.

Posted by: angel at May 16, 2010 4:29 PM


"Speaking of emergency situations, are you opposed to abortion when the mother's life is at risk? Would the doctor deserve prison if he or she did what he or she thought necessary?
Posted by: Tim at May 16, 2010 3:21 PM"

In emergencies there's always c-section available, or induced labour in late pregnancy, no need to dismember the baby beforehand, as some of the babies are little fighters and survive. Also the suction procedure for early pregnancies that is used for abortions at the moment too (sorry, don't know the actual term), my friend had to have it when her embryo stopped developing and died at 4 weeks. However - it is NOT an abortion, as the baby was already dead of natural reasons. Important note - the instances where the doctors would have to choose between life of a mother and a child are rather rare, the medicine evolved a lot to be able to save both in most cases. I've even seen a documentary about an english lady with an ectopic pregnancy, she was carrying twins and one was growing in her pelvic cavity. The bottom line was - doctors saved the mom and the babies too, however unbelievable it was. Though if they would have found out earlier I'm sure she would have been pressured to abort one baby and have the other one removed surgically, as there's "no hope" for that baby to survive and a huge risk for the mother. Life showed something else :)

Posted by: Vita at May 16, 2010 5:25 PM


sorry, made a mistake the lady was actually expecting triplets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/443373.stm

Posted by: Vita at May 16, 2010 5:36 PM


Vita...I saw that woman on a program on TLC.

Tim...one of my employees was an older lady who got pregnant at 19 in the early 60's. She had no access to abortion. Her father told her he would try to find an abortionist if she wanted (woulda been a lot of work but they could have done it I guess) but she said no. The reason was she didn't want her father to get arrested. She had her son who turned out to be the only child she would ever have. She married the father which ended in divorce a few years later. In her golden years now she struggles financially but her son who went on to own his own business paid her bills, paid her mortgage, bought her a car and comes to visit her daily with his two little children. She has family who cares about her all because she chose life. She often told me that if abortion had been legal she would have gone off to the clinic and never thought twice about it. Then she wouldn't have her beloved son and grandchildren.

If abortion is illegal will some women still try to get them? Yes, maybe. But not 1.2 million like we have now. And probably all of the women who get illegal abortions will be fine like they were pre Roe V. Wade (NARAL founder Dr. Nathanson admitted very few women died from illegal abortion and that they fabricated large numbers to facilitate the legalization of abortion).

i think in the absence of the "quick fix" of abortion women will find solutions that don't require them to kill their babies and they will be healthier physically and emotionally for it.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 16, 2010 11:04 PM


"Imagine a young girl who has been raped by her uncle, brother or father. Even in your God's world it happens. She is terrified, ashamed and probably not believing any God could exist (like me she wonders how an all-knowing, loving god could allow something so awful to happen - and don't give me the it's man straying or it's the devil line - if "God" exists then he is all things including satan. What kind of jerk would "test" "his children", seriously?) A lot of people would easily tell this girl this is one of those times that she should abort. I don't think I would. Even if it were my own sister. I would comfort her, support her and listen. I would tell her that I thought maybe this child will make a difference in the world. Despite how wicked it's conception was, maybe it will make the world a better place. If she said she could not do it, then I would still support her, even if it meant hunting the last corner on earth where she could get an abortion in the safest conditions possible. Even if I had to perform the abortion myself."

Hi Tim,
Rape is a horrific trauma. The word heinous comes to mind. Abortion is a trauma. Abortion does not heal rape. Abortion does not cure rape. Rape needs to be dealt with my caring, concerned, compassionate professionals. A young woman can SURVIVE rape. A child that is killed in abortion does not deserve to die because of the way she was conceived. It is not her fault.
You need to get some education on women who carried their children conceived in rape. Rebecca Kiessling was conceived in rape. Tell her to her face she should have been killed.
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com

I like that you said that you would offer comfort, support and that you would listen. Amen.

Then you wrote one of the most vile things I have read here. EVEN IF I HAD TO PERFORM THE ABORTION MYSELF. WHAT??!! If a woman is that intent on self harm to abort herself or ask you do it CALL 911!! She is in need of immediate psychological help!!

Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2010 9:57 AM


I am continually shocked at how seemingly otherwise intelligent people like Laura Bush take these opinions on with the shallowest and most simplistic reasoning. When it comes to certain issues it's almost "Because that's what I believe".

Posted by: StanO at May 17, 2010 12:10 PM


Carla,

I can’t unwrite what I wrote unfortunately. It was a sad case of running my mouth without truly thinking, trying to make an argument for an extreme case and writing something I regret. It does bring up the important question though of whether or not someone who claims to be “pro-choice” could actually kill a fetus. I thought about what I wrote and realized that I could not do it. I would call for help and hope the help I got was really help.
Thank you and the others for the very enlightened and enligthening responses. I'm humbled and you’ve changed my mind for the better.

Posted by: Tim at May 17, 2010 1:55 PM


Tim, it's so refreshing to read that someone has actually given the arguments presented here some thought instead of responding with tired cliches.

As for the legality, I read once (I've looked for citations, sorry, I'll bring it the day I find it) of a poll of post-abortive women. 96% of the respondents answered "NO" to the question:

Would you have sought an abortion if it were illegal?

I'd say the remaining 4% deserve all the compassion, support and love necessary to overcome whatever obstacles they feel are so insurmountable that they'd still seek an illegal abortion. Legality affects morality.

Posted by: klynn73 at May 17, 2010 2:12 PM


kylnn73,
Totally and completely agree with that and have read similar statistics. I would have never sought one.

Tim,
Hmmm. That seemed too easy. :)

Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2010 3:02 PM


"...you’ve changed my mind for the better." Oh Tim, I cried (literally) after reading that. Those are the sweetest words--even sweeter than "I love you." Wish we were all less afraid to say them. I've said them myself about this very issue.

Just want to make a little comment about being an atheist: I understand very well so many of the honest questions that people raise about God. I've asked them myself at other times in my life. Jesus is reported (in John 14:9, for example) to have said he came to "show" us the Father. When he left, he put that "showing" into our hands. But we don't do a very good job of it much of the time. Because, for one thing, it's scary. I mean, look what happened to Jesus! So it's no wonder that people find it hard to believe.

Anyway, regarding the question about whether it makes a difference whether abortion is legal or not: it made a devastating difference for me. Making it legal made it an option, and an easily available one. It sanctioned abortion in my mind and in the minds of every person who knew I was pregnant and encouraged me to get an abortion. It made it unnecessary for others to offer me the truth and real help, and made it unnecessary for me to seek the truth and real help. It told me a lie that I accepted--and have paid for ever since, while everyone else involved in the deed was set free.

Laws both reflect and reinforce attitudes, and Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton reflect and reinforce a cavalier and callous attitude toward the dignity of the unborn human being, rather than an attitude of awe and respect. Just imagine if our laws took the same attitude toward BORN human beings--but then they have, haven't they, in the past, most notably in laws related to slaves?

"...be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2).

Posted by: Alice at May 17, 2010 3:06 PM


Tim,

A post like your most recent one above is extremly rare to find in comboxes, and it is very refreshing and beautiful. Thank you. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at May 17, 2010 3:13 PM


Paul Timothy,

Even if you don't understand why yet, your Dad knew what he was doing when he named you.

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 17, 2010 3:55 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "w" in the field below: