The high social cost of opposing abortion
by Kelli
… [T]here can be little doubt that in today’s United States, the social cost of publicly opposing abortion is significantly higher than the social cost of publicly proclaiming Christ.
In one sense, it’s good that a youth sports league has no problems hanging a church banner on its fence. The church should have a good reputation in the community, but there are two ways to secure a good reputation. The first is to press into the community with so much love and service that they grow to appreciate you despite your “narrow” theology. That’s the Wilberforce way. The second is to remain quietly in the background and not make waves—or do anything to upset the status quo. That’s the far more common way….
There are lots of doors that are closed to Abort73 for the simple fact that we are a single-issue non-profit dedicated to exposing the injustice of abortion. But many of the doors that are closed… are open to the local church — and can be used for great good. The only question is, will we use them? Will the church take advantage of these doors by loving Christ through the active defense of abortion-vulnerable children?
Or will we simply bow to expediency and avoid engagement wherever the cultural cost is highest?
~ Michael Spielman, reacting to a sports league’s rejection of displaying a pro-life banner while accepting an anti-smoking banner for public display, Abort73.com, March 31
[Image via zazzle.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Who said smoking is murder? Or is that just more made up stuff?
Smoking is invariably harmful. Abortion isn’t.
Smoling is also a “choice” though. If we should trust women to make their own fully informed choices without restricting them, why can’t we apply that logic to more than one choice?
I think women should decide when they feel ready to drive a car. After all, driving tests and processing times are much longer and more effort than a measly 24 hour wait. And if course, I trust women to know if doing any drugs is a safe choice for them. Isn’t unfair that we always show them “shock images” of statistical anamolies to scare them? I think any restrictions on drinking and smoking are harming their rights to autonomy. In situations of divorce, they should choose how much property they wish to keep and who gets custody of the children. Men already benefit from the patriarchy, why should they get even MORE privileges?
I also hate campaigns that try to discourage suicide, obesity, eating disorders. If a woman wants to make herself throw up, by all means, let her. After all, she’s not harming anyone else. As for obesity, are you trying to restrict her from having as much food as she wants whenever she wants? If she can afford it, why not? There are laws being proposed to restrict her choices- her digestive rights, if you will- because some people have a personal objection to having so much excess fat they risk death, heart disease, depression and infertility. And then there’s that “think about the children” trope. Why would we ever want to think about the children? Anyways, a woman is informed about death and should be able to make that choice for herself. Just because we have moral or religious objections doesn’t mean we should be involved in her natural ending. Their religious beliefs might tell them they will have a better life on the other side or via reincarnation, or they might think there’s nothing and want that. So really, we are imposing our religious beliefs on others. Even if euthanasia is legalized, that’s only for the terminally ill! That’s like how pro lifers only want abortion legal in situations where the mother’s life is directly and seriously threatened.
The truth is, we restrict- and should restrict- a lot of actions. Not because we don’t trust the people making them. I’m sure most of the people admitted to the hospital for a suicide attempt were quite informed and sincerely believed in their own minds that they were improving the situation for everyone around them by dying. But the desperation and depression of their situation kept them from seeing alternatives. It’s not because we hate people or think we know best. It’s because actions, as harmless as they seem, harm people. Technically, smoking, drinking, suicide, drugs, eating disorders, self harm, over eating, having plastic surgery done, dropping out of school at the elementary or secondary level, doesn’t directly cause harm to other people. Secondhand smoke is a possible risk, but only a handful of people have actually gotten cancer from it. Famalies are tortured over suicides, but once again, according to pro choice logic, other people’s negative feelings do not count as harm.
Then you add all the other restricted choices that MAY harm others: speeding, intoxicated driving, having as much sex as you want with whoever you want- even if consent is a little grey-, not reporting income to the IRS, not taking your child to the hospital or allowing them transfusions and other treatments, using your First Amendement Rights to pick on people, dedicating websites and blogs to encouraging EDs, self harm and suicide.
Whether abortion harms others is disputed. Pro choicers might never believe that fetuses are actual human beings that are worthy enough that you can count their premeditated terminations as harm. But even in situations where harm is not caused to others, restrictions can and should still apply. 24 hour waiting laws- just like the choice to get a tattoo. Parental notification- just like the choice to get an impermanent, non-risky piercing in your ear. Health and safety standards- like the choice to get any other ambulatory surgery. Informed consent- which includes information on the other HUMAN directly affected by this procedure- just like with driving, making sure the person is capable of understanding the scope of what is happening.
Aborttion is always harmful to the developing human in his mother’s womb.
People who think other people are disposable are the ones who are sick. Get well soon.
Don’t feed the troll.
ElizabethG.
So is smoking. Drinking. Heavy drug use. Roller coasters. Saunas. Hot tubs.
What the world are prenatal vitamins for? A clump of cells?
:)
“Don’t feed the troll.”
Thanks for attending to this matter in my absence. :)
People who think other people are disposable are the ones who are sick. Get well soon. – a message for the republican party eh.
I have been analyzing Reality’s disorder. He has stated enough strange things that a diagnosis is available.
Reality believes that, if we assert that every human person has a natural right to life, then we are bestowing rights on the child that are greater than the rights of the mother.
There are several ways to point out that this is a sick way of thinking, but I will resist the temptation to list. I will give the main deficiency in Reality’s head:
Reality has no awareness that every human person has natural duties that make possible our natural rights. Capable adults have a natural duty to care for their children, as well as their elderly parents. This is the way of human nature — When we are young, our parents care for us. When we are adults, we care for our elderly parents as well as our own children. When we are old, our adult children care for us.
This is all very just, as each person receives care when he needs it and gives care when he is able.
Reality’s ethic is to shirk his natural duty of care by killing the young and the old who are inconvenient to him. As a societal ethic, this is injustice. As a person ethic, this is insanity. Half of reality is missing from their view.
Gee, how very scientific. Wanna cite the DSM bits that cover that? Or any real science from anywhere?
There are several ways to point out that this is a sick way of thinking, but I will resist the temptation to list. – oh go on, surpirise me. Or would listing ‘several’ be mission impossible?
Reality’s ethic is to shirk his natural duty of care by killing the young and the old who are inconvenient to him. – well that’s not true for a start.
Half of reality is missing from their view. – projecting much?
I avoid talking to Reality. He does not learn. If anyone is interested in talking about him, I will expand my listing of disordered ideas in his head.
I do not recommend this discussion. Let us not tempt the moderators into action.
Hang the banners including the anti-abortion. And if they put a banner up that says Planned Parenthood then put a banner next to it that says Kills Babies.
What exactly is the diagnosis you’ve come up with? What is the applicable term? All I see so far is Del’s opinion. no diagnosis.
I spend my life learning, it’s a journey without end. Moving forward. I find this preferable to the futility of striving to live at some imaginary fixed point in the past and blocking out the advancing world.
I will expand my listing of disordered ideas in his head…..I do not recommend this discussion. – you’ve ‘resisted temptation’ twice now, is that because you can’t deliver?
Let us not tempt the moderators into action – you realise that’s an admission that you can’t come up with anything rational or evidential rather than just inane insults don’t you?
They’ve already said no truthseeker. Are you proposing to break the law?
And if they did allow both anti-choice and PP banners then your little add on would certainly not be accepted.
Sounds like you are denying reality again Reality. With regard to the babies themselves, are you claiming that children in the womb are somehow different than children outside the womb?
Exactly which reality is that truthseeker, please elaborate.
There are differences between fetuses and infants. I thought you would have known that.
You appear to have missed the point anyway.
?????
There is no essential difference between a fetus and an infant. Both are human persons, immature in mind and body, and wholly dependent upon adults for their survival.
We do celebrate the birth of a child as a necessary and tremendous “rite of passage.” But nothing changes in the nature of the child, and very little changes for the mother. She who was carried by her mother’s pelvis is now carried in her mother’s arms. She who was fed by her mother’s blood and is now fed by her mother’s milk.
To talk of the “difference” between a fetus and a newborn is the same as talking about the “differences” that will happen when she passes through puberty and menopause. It is one person, developing through a natural lifetime.
The biggest “difference” in a woman’s life is the one that happens when she has a child of her own. (And this difference is scary, and so some women kill their children to avoid it. That’s what this is all about.)
There is no essential difference between a fetus and an infant – maybe you should revisit some medical science information. There are quite essential differences.
But nothing changes in the nature of the child, and very little changes for the mother. – ?!?!? yep, you seriously need to.
To talk of the “difference” between a fetus and a newborn is the same as talking about the “differences” that will happen when she passes through puberty and menopause. – so you do recognise that there are differences.
The biggest “difference” in a woman’s life is the one that happens when she has a child of her own. – who are you to say what constitutes the biggest difference in a womans life?
(And this difference is scary, and so some women kill their children to avoid it. That’s what this is all about.) – from everything we read I don’t think that ‘scary’ is a major driver.