Discussion with a Pro-choice friend

Today on Facebook I received the following message from a friend of mine and I asked her if we could discuss it more as a blog entry here in the Dojo.  She agreed, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic and in order to protect her identity, asked to use a pseudonym for the purpose of online discussion.  I agreed, realizing that due to the actions of some who identify themselves as “pro-life”, but who actually restort to “vigilante justice” tactics, her concern for anonymity is unfortunately not without warrant!  So here is the discussion between me and my friend “Rachel”–who chose that name in order to commemorate all the women who have died during childbirth throughout history (Rachel was the favored wife of Jacob who died giving birth to Jacob’s youngest son Benjamin):

Hi James-Michael,

I hope you’re doing well. You’re one of the few pro-life people I know who genuinely seems to want to have respectful dialogue about controversial, complex issues, so I wanted to pass along this video to see what you think.

http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/12/video-pro-life-activists-crash-narals-holiday-party-for-young-leaders-in-dc/

Honestly, this leaves me feeling so disheartened. I dedicate my life to working for the Church on maternal health in the developing world and expanding access to comprehensive care so that fewer women and children die, and yet I get demonized for supporting safe, legal abortion. And I’m told I’m not a Christian–actually, that I support Satan’s work. I don’t see what good any of this vitriol does for anyone.

Would like to hear your thoughts if you get a chance.

Peace,
Rachel

I responded:

Rachel,

I appreciate you sharing this with me and thank you for feeling like you can approach me to talk about this issue. This is something I greatly value.  I will try to put the issue in a different light in hopes that you will at least see what motivates opponents of abortion and better understand why they act the way they act.

But before I do that I will say that the thing that disturbed me most about the video was the glibness and the attempt at humor/sarcasm used throughout. This is foolish because it belittles and undermines the gravity of the issue and alienates those who they are trying to reach. Demonizing is rarely transformative or helpful in any way.

That being said, I’m afraid your position will always be inexplicable to people like me who see life as beginning in the womb. While your desire to help prevent needless death and promote maternal care, particularly among developing nations, is one I share and one that is admirable, so long as it embraces abortion as a valid option (excluding, for the sake of argument, the ‘hard cases’ where the mother’s life is in danger if she has the child) it will always be opposed, sometimes vehemently.

The reason, from the anti-abortion perspective, is that it seems self-contradictory. In an effort to save lives and promote health, your position advocates taking lives and denying health to the person in the womb. That is the crux of everything.

Imagine someone who works for International Justice Mission going to a country to rescue children who are in forced slavery in brothels. They encounter a representative of a brothel where children are forced to work…but unlike the other horrible brothels in the area, the representative tells IJM workers that they believe brothels should be regulated by the government in order to insure that the girls forced to work them are healthy and have access to medical coverage so that people who frequent the brothel can do so in a way that is safe and legal. After all, people will ALWAYS go to brothels–they have since the beginning of civilization. Therefore, if one truly loves people and values life, one will make sure that the brothel visits are as safe and healthy as possible. The representative tells IJM that while they themselves would never frequent a brothel, who are they to tell someone else that they can’t? And since that culture believes that children forced to work in the brothel aren’t fully human until they reach adulthood, the health of the brothel patrons and the families they will return to after their visits are what really matters.

Do you see why no IJM worker would ever accept the representative’s position as valid? The worker would, rather, do everything they could to free the children from the brothel, no matter how safe and clean it is, even if it upset the patrons or the well-meaning brothel representative.

This is exactly how anti-abortionists see groups like NARAL and those who support them. If the person in the womb really is a person, then any and all arguments for maternal health that involve the ending of the person’s life in the womb are automatically invalid in the eyes of those who see them as fully human. Maternal health that ends the motherhood status by terminating the child is, in the eyes of abortion opponents, not a noble or valid option because it destroys the weaker and more vulnerable person in the interests of the stronger and more dominant one.

I’m not trying to offend or demonize you, Rachel. That’s why I’ve intentionally kept this discussion at the level of position and belief rather than personal integrity or motives. The people in the video do a great disservice to the cause they are devoted to by their methods, their glibness and their demonizing (i.e., by flippantly playing the “satan” card). However, in their eyes, they see their actions as in line with, say, Wilberforce confronting the supporters of colonial slavery in England with the horrors of middle-passage slave ships (if you’ve seen “Amazing Grace” it’s the scene where he has them pass a slave ship by in a boat and has them smell the stench and see the shackles, etc. in order to shock them from their apathy the brutal injustice of it all). In this instance, the protesters were going for shock and making a statement more than honest dialogue or persuasion. In fact, they kinda reminded me of the feminist activist group, the Guerrilla Girls (dunno if you’re familiar with them or not), or the protesters at General Conference who came in and broke the communion cup in order to protest the upholding of orthodox doctrine regarding same-sex sexual ethics.

Anyway, I appreciate you sharing this video with me and I hope my thoughts are at least a little insightful into why those who oppose abortion feel the way they do about groups who share our goal of protecting and empowering women, but who believe that abortion itself is always in direct conflict with this goal. If abortion was removed from the list of valid options for birth control and reproductive rights, many of us would stand arm-in-arm with those like yourself who promote women’s health. Until that happens, however, I’m afraid your position will always be opposed, especially by orthodox and Evangelical Christians.

Thank you for your friendship and openness to discussion. I value it highly!

Blessings,
JM

Rachel responded with the following excellent questions:

Hi JM,

Thanks for taking the time to write back. I appreciate it a lot, especially your respectful tone. Means a lot. Even as someone who is strongly pro-choice, I do see the issue as complex, grey, and difficult to sort out–and certainly value fetal life. Personhood is where we differ. Miscarriage is difficult to discuss publicly but appropriate. We don’t issue death certificates for miscarriages, nor traditionally perform funerals for them. My mom miscarried at six months before she got pregnant with my first brother. She didn’t consider herself a mother until she had my brother two years later. That is anecdotal of course. Actually, I wish as a community we responded better to women and families going through tragedy. It’s certainly tragic loss, but we don’t treat it the same way as the death of a “birthed person” for lack of better language. That’s a whole other conversation though. I do appreciate your brothel comparison.

This is a genuine question: how do you see ending abortions being carried out? I understand on an abstract level what I think you and others who are pro-life want–no more abortions (unless perhaps in the case of the mother’s life being in danger?). But practically, what would that look like? Making abortion illegal? Incarcerating doctors who perform and women who have abortions? Increasing access to family planning? Better sex ed? Better health care? Increased social services for poor women? All of the above? I can’t get behind something that says “Don’t have sex or live with the consequences.” It’s incredibly impractical.

I guess that’s what frustrates me about the stunt from last week–it was meant to terrorize and disrupt, but I don’t see what it did constructively to further their agenda. Honestly, all it did was solidify for most people there that anti-choice activists are religious, misogynistic crazy people. Not very helpful.

Thanks again, JM!

Rachel

I plan on responding to Rachel’s questions as well as to her point about miscarriage demonstrating the difference between pre-born life and post-birth life.  But I wanted to leave her questions open to Dojo readers to consider and offer your own thoughts in response below.

I responded to Rachel on Facebook by saying:

“Rachel,

Your questions are REALLY good ones and ones that many anti-abortionist haven’t thought through too much because they’re energy and thought has all gone into protest and attacking abortion itself or debating and defending their position. I’ve always said that anti-abortion requires more than being simply against abortion…just as abolitionism required more than simply wanting to “free the slaves”! The underlying social/economic/cultural issues must also be dealt with in a responsible manner.”

So…how would you answer Rachel’s questions?

JM

Posted by jm on December 14, 2010.

Categories: Blog, Ministry, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues

198 Responses

1. Hi everyone, Rachel here. Just wanted to add, when I pulled up this page, I thought, “I don’t like pictures of pregnant bellies where the woman’s face can’t be seen.” This points to deeper issues for me. Just an initial comment. Looking forward to conversation on this difficult topic.

   by Rachel on Dec 14, 2010 at 11:27 pm

2. Rachel,
   Thank you for participating in this conversation. I will respond more fully in my next post, but I just wanted to make one point about this particular issue regarding pictures used when discussing abortion. Are you equally opposed to pictures used in abortion discussions where the baby in the womb is not visible? For instance, NARAL’s page does not contain a single image of a person in the womb. A pregnant belly automatically implies a woman is present (while keeping her identity anonymous) while at the same time implying the presence of a developing person within. If anything, it seems that one who favors abortion as a viable option in women’s health would oppose pictures from within the womb where the sole focus is on the baby and the woman is completely absent visually, would they not?

   Anyway, this was just my initial thought to your initial thought and really isn’t at the heart of the discussion. But I just wanted to offer it in response while I had a second.

   BTW, this is one of my most commented-upon blog posts ever! That lets me know that this is a discussion people are very much interested in, as the majority of people in our culture are tired of the impersonal rhetoric and sloganizing of both the pro-choice and pro-life sides!

   by jm on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:46 pm

3. Hi JM,

   My point was, a beheaded pregnant belly communicates that it doesn’t really matter who the woman is. Kind of like when the news does stories on obesity and you get close-ups on people’s stomachs. (I also oppose this.) And kind of like how in Scripture many mothers’ names are not mentioned; just the babies, usually male, they gave birth to.

   As for the fetus-only pictures, the only way to even do this is to enter the woman’s body in the first place. I guess other than cartoons, it’s impossible to show both the mother’s body externally and the fetus internally.

   by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 2:31 pm

4. Hi Rachel,

   You bring a up good point. But anti-choicers have to do this in order to “win” their argument because (in your words) “it really doesn’t matter who the woman is.” To them, the woman doesn’t matter. They believe women are nothing more that walking wombs, and when they engage in activity they deem evil (like sex for enjoyment rather than procreation) then they should be punished by forced childbirth.

   by Jackie on Dec 17, 2010 at 8:56 pm

5. Jackie, I personally don’t know a single opponent of abortion who views women as “nothing more than walking wombs.” This comes across as nothing more than a stereotype that demonizes the opposition in order to avoid the discussion of the actual issue involved.

   by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 9:02 pm

6. jm, I am talking about the issue. I’m specifically referring to the fact that the anti-choice movement focuses solely on the fetus. They rarely speak of the woman, and when they do they usually dehumanize her by calling her a “murderer.” And before you respond that that is wrong, I suggest you read your blog.

   Second, its all wonderful to whine and complain about women and their reproductive choices you deem aberrant, but what exactly is your solution besides making it illegal? Illegal abortion does not make it magically go away. Women still will seek out abortions even in the most oppressive, patriarchal societies.

   Will they be incarcerated? First degree murder or manslaughter? Will they get the death penalty when its applicable?

   Do you support increases in taxes to accommodate the increase in orphanages, public assistance like welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, to help these women? If not, what should they do? Should it be like the 20s when welfare agents just came and took away women’s babies when they couldn’t afford their children or they were not married?

   If a woman dies from complications from a pregnancy she did not want to carry, can her family sue anti-choice organizations for monetary reward? After all, if they didn’t impose their beliefs on her, chances are she would be alive?

   by Jackie on Dec 18, 2010 at 12:01 am

7. Jackie, I invite you to read my latest post where I answer these exact questions which Rachel initially raised.

   I would also encourage you to avoid using the term “anti-choice” just as I would encourage pro-lifers to avoid using the term “pro-abortion.” They are both examples of misleading rhetoric which serve to keep the issue muddy and heated.

   by jm on Dec 18, 2010 at 12:59 am

8. Most people don’t think of miscarriages as losing a child because they’ve been brainwashed with false science that says it’s only a blob inside you. But I know several individuals who acknowledge the miscarriage and have even named the child and remember the child yearly (just as you would the lost of your grandparent, parent, sibling, or child). A miscarriage is still a child that was lost, but a loss that was out of your hands. Abortion is murdering that child before they are born, executing them by punishing them with the death penalty. A woman does not have the right to make a choice for the child inside her. If that child could speak, its choice would be for life. You DO NOT get to choose death for the child inside you simply because it inconveniences you and your selfishness and worship of sex without repercussions. The ONLY choice you have is whether to keep or put up for adoption that child once it is born. How would you like it if a husband gets to choose when and if his wife should live or be put to death whenever she inconveniences him? Or if parents could choose to kill their children anytime they inconvenienced them? Getting mouthy and rebellious? Time to put you in your grave. It amounts to the same thing. Our culture murders children in the womb simply out of convenience. Nothing more. Nothing less. Those are the facts. The primary purpose behind it is because they worship sex as a god. They want to be able to have sex without any repercussions or consequences for their actions. They don’t want to take responsibility for themselves or what they do. Those are also the facts. Our society today is too irresponsible, blaming everything on everyone or everything else instead of taking personal responsibility.
   Why do you punish the child inside you (or inside any woman) with the death penalty for the consequences of YOUR actions? Why should that child be executed because YOU couldn’t keep your legs closed? You sacrifice the innocent in place of the guilty. You blame the child for YOUR doings. If you don’t want the child, carry it to term and put it up for adoption. Then get “fixed” so you never have to worry about it happening ever again. Don’t murder the child simply because it inconveniences you and your selfish lifestyle of chasing after and worshipping inconsequential sex.

   by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 1:53 am

9. Hey “Rachel” and JM. I generally am very laid back and dont like to get involved in arguements or discussions, especially if they are great sweeping issues that dont have a immediate answer, but this is always a topic I feel passionate about. I am particularly hit with the last statement by Rachel in how solutions to ending abortion, specifically “Don’t have sex or live with the consequences.” I dont see how this is impractical. I didnt have sex for 22 years due to this very logic, so I dont understand why it is wrong.

   On a personal note, 50 years ago my grandmother was having a rough pregnancy, and the doctors of the time strongly urged her to have an abortion. She refused, and my mom was born healthy. I have a personal stake here, as I would not exist. I hope you can understand why I am biased on this issue…

   by Aaron Godsey on Dec 15, 2010 at 1:02 am

10. J-M,
    Thank you so very, very much for this articulate and compassionate response to Rachel. I know this is a deeply complex issue, but I often feel like those of us who are deeply pro-life don’t take the time involved to explain, logically and carefully, why we hold this view. Thank you so very much. And in response to Aaron, I, too, have two dear friends whose mothers were strongly urged to abort them because they would “never be normal” and would “never survive.” They are beautiful, normal, healthy adults today because their mothers were strong enough to resist the advice of thier physicians.

    by Amanda H. on Dec 15, 2010 at 1:09 pm

11. “They are beautiful, normal, healthy adults today because their mothers were strong enough to resist the advice of thier physicians.”

    There are also a lot of dead babies and dead mothers because they didn’t take their physicians advice.

    by Jackie on Dec 17, 2010 at 9:04 pm

12. There are also millions upon millions of dead babies because mothers were selfish and self-absorbed with themselves and refused to take responsibility for their own immoral actions. The ONLY choice a woman has is whether to keep the child after it is born, or give it up for adoption after it is born. She DOES NOT get to choose for the child inside her. When you have sex, the inevitable result is a child. Whether it occurs the first time you have sex or the 100th time you have sex. For the majority of women, the inevitable result is pregnancy. If you want to engage in something you have NO RIGHT to until you are married, then you need to “woman up” and take responsibility for the repercussions of your actions. Why do you punish the child inside your womb for YOUR stupidity and rash behaviour? Why do you punish the child inside your womb with the death penalty because you could not act like a lady and wait until a REAL MAN came into your life who would honour you and protect you until you were married before having sex? That is PRECISELY what you are doing when you have an abortion: punishing the child inside you with the death penalty for YOUR actions. Yes, you are a murderer, whether you like it or not. Statistics and facts show that women who have had an abortion, whether they believed it was the right thing to do or not, end up being complete emotional and mental train wrecks down the road. Why? Because despite telling themselves the contrary, their consciences convict them of the fact that what they did was wrong.

    The fact is, if it is a choice between whose life should be saved, the mother’s or the child’s, the child should be of UTMOST importance. That child has not had a chance to live out its life yet. It should be protected. If the mother had an ounce of love, or even knew what love was, she would choose the child’s life over hers EVERY time. The same way a good husband will put his life before his wife’s EVERY time in order to protect her and keep her safe.

    Four Cases:
    Case #1. There’s a traveling preacher and his wife who are living in poverty. They already have fourteen children. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th child. They are very poor and probably will be unable to afford a doctor’s attention. Considering their poverty, the excessive world population, and the number of children they already have, would you recommend she get an abortion?
    Case #2. The grandmother is an alcoholic and the father spends his evenings out drinking in the taverns. His mother has tuberculosis. She has already given birth to four children. The first child is blind, the second child died, the third child is deaf, and the fourth child has tuberculosis. Now the mother is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you recommend an abortion?
    Case #3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and now she is pregnant. Her family lives in extreme poverty; in fact, to survive, they often have to steal food. If you were her parents, would you recommend or require her to have an abortion?
    Case #4. A fifteen year old girl is pregnant. She is not married and lives in a cave in an outback area with very little money or resources. The man she hopes to marry is not the father of the baby. There is no hospital or doctor available. Would you recommend that she get an abortion?

    The Reality:
    Case #1: You would have just aborted the world-famous Methodist preacher John Wesley.
    Case #2: You would have just aborted the great composer Ludwig van Beethoven.
    Case #3: You would have just aborted Ethel Waters, the marvellous black Gospel singer.
    Case #4: You would have just aborted Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world!

    For a woman to go the nine-month pregnancy term and then have the child executed the moment its head comes out of her (known as partial-birth abortion, where the child is “partially” delivered and its skull is punctured and its brains sucked out) is inhumane. Such women should be on the receiving end of a lethal injection for murdering their children in this manner (and so should the doctors responsible for doing such a thing). It would be far better if they delivered the child and it was immediately put up for adoption.

    I would suggest you watch this video: http://www.180movie.com/. Perhaps it will wake something up inside of you.

    by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 1:23 am

13. Thanks for posting this, James-Michael. And thank you for asking the questions, “Rachel”. I love it when I’m given the opportunity to be persuasive on a topic which is close to my heart. 🙂

    Rachel:
    Regarding miscarriages, I actually think that there *should* be funerals for children that die before birth. I am close to someone who lost children in a miscarriage and the pain she feels is as real as that of a mother who loses a newborn. I think that our society does women a disservice when it ignores the reality of loss in the instance of miscarriage. Our society’s omission in the case of miscarriage is no grounds on which to disregard the humanity of the pre-born.

    You bring up the issue of practicalities, which is a good one. A very similar argument was brought up by those in favour of retaining legal slavery in the British Empire. But thankfully, we no longer have legal slavery in the western world. Just because something will require work does not mean that we should avoid it – especially when it is something as important as this. I support abortion being made illegal, except in the instance of saving the life of the mother. I would support incarceration for doctors or nurses who subsequently performed such illegal abortions, and for those who sold abortificants. I think there needs to be better education regarding foetal development, I believe that women should be offered an ultrasound of their baby, and I would love to see the resources currently being allocated to abortion being reallocated to crisis pregnancy centres.

    I think it’s also vital to recognize that the pro-life position is based on the following sound logic:
    1) Taking an innocent human life is wrong (we call it murder).
    2) The pre-born child is scientifically definable as a human life and is as innocent as they come.
    3) Abortion takes the life of a pre-born child.
    4) Abortion takes an innocent human life.
    4) Abortion is therefore wrong.

    As a fellow woman, I would also like to challenge you to seek better things for women. Your commitment to maternal health is commendable. However, did you know that abortion increases the incidence of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies? Did you know that it has been implicated in a dramatically increased incidence of breast cancer? And this is in addition to the psychological damage done to women who have abortions. Abortion is bad for women. Check out Feminists for Life. This organisation believes that women deserve better. I love that.

    Think also of the unborn women. Women’s health begins in the womb. Pre-born women have a right to life too. Surely their right to life is of greater importance than any other right of the mother’s, except her right to life. Did you know that abortion is used by societies that do not value women to eliminate women? Sex selective abortion and female infanticide are common in China and India. Women’s rights are not furthered by offering women the right to kill their own children.

    Thank you for reading. 🙂

    by Mary on Dec 15, 2010 at 1:41 am

14. Mary, I will join you in lifting up miscarriage as loss. I’m not sure, though, after reading your comments that you want to have dialogue with me because your only questions to me about breast cancer, miscarriage, and gender-selection are rhetorical in tone.

    I would still be interested in hearing how you would address eliminating abortions. Women with unintended pregnancies will seek abortions, illegal or legal. So, how do we go about eliminating (or more practically, reducing) unintended pregnancies in the first place?

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:11 am

15. “Rachel”, there is NO such thing as an “unintended” pregnancy. You had sex. You got pregnant. It was intended. Pregnancy is an inevitable result of having sex, whether from the very first time or from your 100th time. It is an inevitable result. Even with your “birth control” methods (99% of them designed to murder the baby), NONE of them are 100% guaranteed to work. In fact, you could be using every single one at the same time, every time you have sex, and if God says you’re getting pregnant, guess what? You’re getting pregnant. If you don’t want to chance a pregnancy, QUIT HAVING SEX! Sex is for MARRIED couples ONLY! You have NO right to steal a gift that belongs to another person. Sex is the best gift you could ever give to your spouse. When you take what DOES NOT belong to you, you are STEALING their gift. That leaves you with NOTHING special to offer them when you finally do marry them, because you’ve given it away to 10 previous people. It is a gift to be enjoyed IN MARRIAGE by MARRIED couples. They give the best gift they could ever give to their significant other. If you’re engaging in sex outside of marriage, you are intending to get pregnant because that is the logical and inevitable result of sex. To say completely stupid things like, “I had no idea I would get pregnant…” Yes, you did. You had sex. “I did not plan to get pregnant…” Yes, you did. You had sex. You can tell yourself all the lies you want, but the truth is that if you did not expect that result, you wouldn’t have been having sex. Protected or otherwise.

    by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 1:33 am

16. Hi all, just got word from a friend that two anti-abortion men allegedly walked into another pro-choice fundraiser tonight, throwing plastic fetuses and fake blood on the people there. This definitely could be a trend here in DC.

    Aaron, I appreciate and value your story. As for the abstinence, I don’t think it’s wrong but impractical. We need only look at the failure of the “ABC” method promoted by the US in HIV/AIDS prevention. Despite many millions of dollars being poured into it, emphasizing abstinence first has not had any effect on reducing HIV infections worldwide, which are on the rise in women. Also, in many parts of the world (and in many abusive relationships here in the US) women do not always have agency when it comes to matters of sex.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 1:47 am

17. Interesting conversation. Abortion has directly affected my family and being a mother and currently pregnant, I have strong feelings about this topic. Someone very close to me has had an abortion and suffered greatly from depression and thoughts of suicide and even attempted suicide because of it. She often has nightmares and sees the baby in her dreams. Definitely a decision she wished she had never made but cannot take back. I believe education is the key. Try to educate women before they get pregnant and also after. Women need to know that an abortion is not a “cure all.” They also need to know that there IS a baby inside of them. They should talk to mothers, talk to women who have had abortions and had to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. I have had a miscarriage but the difference is it was out of my control. Choosing to end my child’s life seems very different to me. The difference between a child dying in a car accident and by Shaken Baby Syndrome (one an accident and one by choice). I agree with Aaron. We have to be taught there are consequences for our actions. Pregnancy is a result of sex. Abortions are so easy to come by that women know if they “accidentally” get pregnant they can just have an abortion. It is sad that this is some woman’s thought process. What is even scarier is that teens are feeling this way too. I hope I am coming at this delicate topic with love not hate. Thanks for the discussion. There is something to be learned from both sides.

    P.S- I heard new baby Hopper’s Heartbeat for the first time today : ) Definitely a life in there!

    by Katie Hopper on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:05 am

18. Hi Katie, congrats and thank you for your comments. My friend and fellow pro-choice activist is pregnant right now with her second child.

    I don’t discount stories of women who have suffered as a result of having an abortion. But, there are stories of other women who felt relief and did not suffer afterward. My aunt is one of them.

    Abortion is not easy to access. 88% of US counties have no abortion providers. In rural areas, it’s 97%. Not to mention lack of insurance coverage. Not to mention restrictive laws in many states that make it even more challenging to access, especially for teens. I have heard of teens using Plan B as birth control, which worries me a lot. That definitely can’t be healthy.

    In the year that I volunteered as a counselor at an abortion clinic, never once did I encounter a woman with a nonchalant attitude about having an abortion procedure. It is not something most, if not all, women do lightly. I just want to clarify that myth.

    Also, someone please, let’s talk about the male involvement in procreation, too. JM? 🙂

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:29 am

19. Are women getting abortions for health reasons? Is it shame? Money? Just wondering.

    by Katie Hopper on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:38 am

20. Of course all of the above but all these reasons seem to be solvable without abortion. Maybe I am missing something.

    by Katie Hopper on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:39 am

21. Do you mean in the time I worked in the clinic? I encountered women who were meth addicts; women who already had 4 or 5 kids; adolescent women (not many of those, actually); women in abusive relationships; immigrant women; pro-life women; women whose husbands had left them. I really can’t break it down to one or even a few reasons. Every situation was unique and complex.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:05 am

22. hmmm…I don’t advocate abortion. I wish Christians would spend more time creating real alternatives to abortion than the protest tactics that are used currently which in my opinion do NOT show the love of our neighbor or our God.
    I think if the energy was put into creating day care services, supporting pregnant women, working for a world where an unwanted pregnancy didn’t derail lives and loving children. There is work being done on this front but not enough. I understand Early Christians were recognized in the Empire for rescuing abandoned infants (ancient abortion) and raising them not for throwing models of dead infants into parties to show how wrong it was. Lets show people a better way!

    by Robin on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:24 am

23. Such work would not only be more loving, but also practical. Thank you for your thoughts.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:45 am

24. Yes, I agree with you Robin but your response begs the question. Even if pro-lifers were the worst misogynists possible who did every thing wrong, how would that change what abortion does to the unborn?

    Admittedly, I’ve never rescued anyone from the genocide in the Sudan, does that mean I can’t speak out against it?

    I appreciate the honesty on these pages and Rachel, I commend you for being willing to listen and discuss the issue. We need more of that. You can see that from Jill’s FB page, I was not too happy either with the men on that video. In fact, everyone in our office condemned them for not only making fools of pro-lifers but for undermining our sound arguments by using faulty ones.

    That being said, I can tell you countless stories where abortion advocates used hate speech, made racist comments (I was told if it was not white, it’s not right by someone who made the same pro-choice arguments as you have here) and even told friends of ours who were adopted that they should have been aborted. One of our volunteers was even killed last year by someone who didn’t like his pro-life activity.

    Here’s a clip from a talk I gave in Canada where this kind of intolerance is evident:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eulKIaVM9DE

    But I don’t blame all abortion advocates for these actions. I don’t dismiss the arguments of other abortion advocates for their actions. And I don’t expect abortion advocates like you to have to apologize for them – you didn’t do this.

    In the same way, as we discuss this issue and I am more than happy to discuss this issue using logic and reason, I hope you don’t hold me and other pro-lifers responsible for the actions of others. Let’s stick to the facts and not have to apologize for things we didn’t do.

    by Canbuhay on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:17 pm

25. I am not saying that people can not voice their belief that abortion is wrong. I’m saying that if the goal is to encourage women to have children and to let these children have a good life there are loving and practical ways for the Church (us) to do this. Throwing plastic fetuses and blood and behaving in hateful ways I would say are very ineffective ways of communicating God’s love and care for his creation.
    As with many of the hot button issues of the day it seems to me that we as Christians are missing the boat because we’ve gotten all caught up in the should dos, must not dos etc but have lost out on the love and caring that Jesus called us to. The more I believe in and experience the love of Jesus in my life the more I want to share that with those around me. If women are having to make hard choices about continuing a pregnancy lets work to give them a real choice. And also lets behave in ways that show women that we don’t only care about them when they are pregnant but that we really will help out with children and loving and raising them too. There is no advantage in preventing abortion and condeming a child to life in poverty and lack of love. (and in worse case scenerios abuse and even death).

    by Robin on Dec 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm

26. Hi Rachel!

    I officially classify myself as an abortion Agnostic. I see many things wrong with both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice positions. Much of the data from both sides is biased and purposefully so.

    I would agree that your point about miscarriages is a good one, but that it isn’t definitive (as so few things in this argument are). Many women do feel that in miscarrying they have “lost the baby” and this is how it is referred to. I don’t think anyone says “Lost the fetus” or what have you. Some women mourn it exactly the same as if they had lost a baby.

    I see part of the fundamental problem as how women are treated in our society. If they carry the baby to term they are seen as a “slut” or “hillbilly” or “lower class”. If they do have an abortion, they are called “immoral”, “murderer”, or so forth. I disapprove of stigmas of all kinds and I think that these labels, from either side, are part of what’s wrong with our society.

    Basically the problem, from either a pro-choice OR a pro-life stance is that men are tragically irresponsible, and that has consequences for any woman that ever has sex is that men’s irresponsibility can result in either having an abortion because the man obviously won’t help raise the child, or being pro-life and keeping it and raising it as a single mother. Both options aren’t great, and both are the result of a patristic society that coddles men and forces women to take the brunt of responsibility (and I say that as a responsible man!).

    As for myself, I am an adopted child, and I believe that I have brought more joy and goodness into this world than harm, and I think the world has become a (slightly) better place by having me in it. I consider life a gift and can and will fight both for adoptive parents and for children (including the unborn) who would want to be adopted. In that way I would favor life, in that I think, on the whole, it makes the world a better place.

    At the same time, I must also acknowledge that there is a difference between sentient and non-sentient life, and that destroying non-sentient life is not terribly morally concerning. Also, the lack of abortion in developing countries is what entraps societies in poverty and misery. The population problems in many developing countries also make a serious case for abortion. As well, much of the objection to abortion is made with emotion and not rationality. There are also extreme circumstances in poverty and in society that may make abortion a necessary evil in unreasonable familial situations.

    One last thing I would point out is the disconnect between the pro-life and pro-choice camps and other issues. Why are conservative pro-lifers, FOR the death penalty and FOR proliferation of guns and AGAINST consumer protections that save lives? Why are “pro-choice” advocates more concerned about preserving the lives of baby seals or chimpanzees, but perfectly willing to destroy (thinking or unthinking) human fetuses? I think there are radical disconnects in people’s brains’ in terms of the issue, which I find very suspicious.

    I personally don’t think that anti-abortion laws are a good way to deal with things. Sexual laws have almost never served a country well, and I don’t think people’s moral behavior is going to be shaped by their passing. I think we need to do for abortion what we have done for drunk driving. In 1980 drunk driving fatalities were at 30,000 a year, and in twenty years we’ve cut that number in half. This societal change occurred because we held men responsible for their actions, and not simply because of laws.

    I would prefer to live in a world not where abortion was illegal, but where it was unnecessary. Because of proper birth control, because of better adoption laws, and because of society holding men accountable for their actions and giving women better options than abortion.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:28 am

27. Chris,

    I agree with you on many points.

    I would like to clarify that in developing countries, abortions happen, usually illegally, and many women die from infection. But it is a lack of family planning (contraceptives) as well as other reproductive health care services–or just health care in general that contributes to overpopulation. There are also serious cultural barriers, such as preference for male children and early marrying age, that contribute to this as well. When a woman marries at 15, she potentially has 30 reproductive years. I’m a big advocate for making family planning accessible to everyone, and for getting men on board, which is critical.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:55 am

28. Hey Rachel.

    I’d like to comment on your first paragraph in your initial reply to JM. You used examples like death certificates and funerals as determining factors of whether or not someone truly died. If my grandmother passed away and the government did not issue a death certificate or a funeral was not held, the fact remains that she died.

    I too feel terrible for all who have suffered a miscarriage. I have never suffered the pain of miscarriage personally, but I know so many who have. I’m fortunate to live in a community where this is discussed and people really do care. I know you said this is a whole different discussion, but I don’t agree. You also said we don’t treat it the same way as the death of a “birthed person”. In general, you’re right, we don’t. However, I have seen it. I’m a music pastor at the Church where JM used to serve as our discipleship pastor. Recently, we had a couple in our church who’s infant died at right around full term. The mother carried the dead child and then gave birth. The family held a funeral for the child they never knew. Casket and all. I will never forget watching the father carry that small casket away. (I’m having a hard time seeing the screen right now through the tears.) You see, this family did not wait for a government official to issue a document in order for their child to truly be considered dead. Our church did not discourage them from having a funeral because it wasn’t customary. Instead, we shared in their grief and saw it fit to have a service. Your right to think that more communities should gather and support those who have had miscarriages. I will say that as a christian, I have never been in a community that didn’t.

    I believe the fundamental thing which will always make it nearly impossible for us to agree is our definition of life or “personhood.” As a Christian, I believe God is the creator of life and therefore the one who decides what life is and what it isn’t. Therefore, it’s not gray.

    I do have one question for you? When do you believe a life ends? I mean scientifically speaking. I personally believe the answer to this may help us all get a bit closer to an agreement about when life begins.

    Thanks for having this conversation with JM and tolerating others to join in. So you know, I think people are out of line for judging whether or not your are a christian. Not really their call. Peace to you.

    by Chris Macedo on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:35 am

29. Hi Chris,

    Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t deny that miscarriage is loss of life. For a wanted pregnancy, a miscarriage is tragic. I honor the language any woman and her partner use to describe that experience, that their baby died or however they name it. I’m grateful for the way that the faith communities you’ve been in have commemorated this loss. I’ve been a church-goer since childhood and have never seen anything like that, which is sad. I’m so, so sorry for the couple in your church, and am grateful for the community of love that surrounds them.

    But, for women who didn’t want to become pregnant and are scared that they are pregnant, a miscarriage can be a welcome relief and she may not speak in these terms. In fact, she may not tell anyone about it at all. Again, I honor the experience of the individual woman.

    My point was to show that as a society and as a church, generally we treat miscarriage differently from death of a birthed person. I’m not judging that as “good” or “bad,” but just making the observation. I don’t think it’s insignificant, nor does it form the basis of my viewpoint.

    I believe there is a difference between life and personhood, and this is where we disagree. I don’t deny that a fertilized egg, a zygote, or a fetus is alive, but I do not accept that it is a person in the way you and I are persons. I’m not a scientist, so I can’t really answer your question about when life ends–but I don’t really think we disagree about when life begins.

    Speaking of personhood, my frustration with many of these discussions is a lack of real attention paid to the individual women who are pregnant. That’s why I don’t like the “beheaded” pregnant belly pictures; it makes it easy to forget about the woman involved. Usually what I hear are sweeping generalizations that abortion is bad for women physically and psychologically, and I know from my experience in the clinic that this is simply untrue for many of the women I encountered and counseled afterward. Again, that’s anecdotal but it’s important to name the spectrum of experience that exists.

    In general, the “pro-choice” side overemphasizes the woman and the “pro-life” side overemphasizes the fetal life. We need to ask and examine the hard questions about both. I’ve tried to speak to the fetal life issue here.

    Thanks for this continued conversation.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:00 pm

30. Rachel,

    As I said prior, I’m glad you are willing to engage in discussion and not just resort to name-calling. As you saw in my video from my talk, I have invited abortion advocates to dialogue with me (which a few did) but many decided to just call me names and judge my character and my talk even before I began my presentation. This happens to us all the time.

    That being said, if I could leave you with a challenge. You said that you parse between human life that begins at fertilization and personhood. Can you elaborate? What constitutes a person and what’s the difference between that and the unborn – is a nine-month old in the womb no different from a zygote?

    That’s an important question to answer if you are working for an abortion advocacy organization that intends to make abortion legal and accessible even in countries that are pro-life. Because if personhood happens before birth, doesn’t that mean your organization is working to legalize the killing of human persons?

    This hits home for me too. I come from the third world country where abortion advocates are working hard to force us to legalize abortion depsite the fact that we are pro-life. Of course abortions still happen – but so does rape and murder and child abuse – but our country takes the stand that we will protect human life.

    http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/legal.html
    (we actually deal with the legal issues of what happens when abortion becomes illegal here too)

    BTW, when I was home, I met pro-life people who work in my birthland – despite the fact that abortion is already illegal there. Why? Because as pro-lifers we oppose abortions whether they are performed legally or illegally. Both kill children and women.

    And really, that’s the heart of the issue: what are the unborn? Why? Because everyone is pro-choice – and anti-choice. I’m pro-choice about what car to drive or whether you should be married or divorced or single. But I would expect you to be anti-choice when it comes to spousal abuse or child pornography. On our site, I talk about how abortion advocates who force countries to legalize abortion are anti-choice to the democratic will of those nations.

    In other words, we’re all pro and anti-choice depending on what’s being chosen. And that’s the key: if abortion doesn’t kill a valuable human being, then I have no reason to be a pro-life advocate. If abortion does kill a valuable human being, I need to do everything I can to save those human beings. Notice too how the “I’m personally opposed” position makes no sense. Abortion advocates often expect pro-lifers to be personally opposed to child-killing but somehow be okay if other people kill children(?!?). That makes no sense:

    http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/truth.html

    I know this is a hard topic to talk about and I know how normally calm people can sound a little off – I have to apologize if I end up doing that too! But as you know, the stakes in this discussion are high and as you’ve seen, we all get our egos bruised and feelings hurt.

    But that’s what honest seekers of truth should expect. It won’t be an easy search yet it is a worthwhile endeavour – because all sides agree that lives are at stake. I do trust your sincerity and hope you can at least approach the suggestions and ideas I give you with an open mind. I promise to do the same.

    by Canbuhay on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:50 pm

31. From YOUR opinion, the beheaded woman matters. However, from a REALISTIC perspective, it does not matter who she is. You see a pregnant belly and you know it is a pregnant woman. It could be your mom, your sister, your cousin, a black woman, a white woman, an oriental woman. The specific individual is NOT important. The belly represents ALL women EVERYWHERE. THAT is the problem with your opinion about the beheaded woman. The specific face of the woman WILL NOT change the reality of the situation. If you knew it was the President’s wife or Arnold Schwarzenegger’s daughter or your sister, it DOES NOT change the reality of the situation. So WHO the beheaded woman is DOES NOT MATTER. The pregnant belly is representative of ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE, of EVERY ethnicity, nationality, etc.

    You think by having her specific face it will draw sympathy and change minds. How would you feel if tomorrow your mother told you that before you were born she had been considering aborting YOU? Some people might say she would have been better off had she done so. How do they know? Perhaps you were the child to be born who would eventually cure cancer. By aborting you, all hope of curing cancer would have went directly down the drain. If you think someone else would have came up with a cure, I suggest you do your history and look at how things began. Multiple people didn’t come up with the same idea. One person came up with the idea and someone else took their idea and came up with something else, maybe even something to better their idea. But the person who bettered it never would have come up with the original idea themselves. How many people started different branches of science and mathematics? One. Others expanded upon it. How many people came up with the plans for flight? Two people sharing individual ideas, contributing together. How many people tried to make flight a reality? Hundreds. Thousands. Only two, working together, the idea belonging only to one of them, thought to treat the propeller as a wing and have it curved. Without that, there would be no flight. The propeller is another “wing”. If a second person could cure cancer, you’d most likely be waiting a really long time for them to show up on the scene.

    You don’t know who or what that person will turn out to be. They are a person in the same respect that you and I are persons, whether you agree or not. They think, they dream, they hear. All proven scientifically. A child who only ever had a song sung to her while she was in the womb, knew the lyrics to that song when she was 2 or 3 years old, having never heard it after birth, and explained to her mother that she had sung it to her when she was in her tummy. Children, inside or outside of the womb, are not stupid. They are little persons just like the rest of us. In fact, if you ever watch them interact with each other, it’s like watching a miniature version of what we do on a grander scale.

    Go to and watch http://www.180movie.com/. If you have a beating heart, that might be the only thing that changes your mind on this issue.

    by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 3:00 am

32. Rachel,

    One versus so many, it seems a little unfair.

    Arguing the starting point of a human life is central to the issue of abortion so its important that relevant arguments are made on both sides. I don’t wish to attack or belittle your argument, but I don’t see how miscarriages are relevant to the question of when life begins/personhood.

    From a pro-life perspective a miscarriage is an untimely death in the same way that a 33 year old mother dying from cancer is an untimely death. We don’t react the same way to the death of an unborn child because the unborn child has not had the opportunity to build emotional connections. The 33 year old has relationships with friends and family that she has invested in and built up over the course of her 33 years. There are a lot of people who will miss her and all those people will mourn her. In the case of an unborn fetus the mother is the only one who has really connected to the child and even then only in an internally physical and emotional way. She is the one who feels the pain of a miscarriage. Everyone else hasn’t really formed any bonds with the child and their grief, in most circumstances, is mild and usually directed towards the grieving mother. But a lack of emotional connection does not make the fetus any more or less alive. Many homeless people die without anyone knowing or caring. They don’t get a funeral. Theirs was still a human life. Value is established by the perception of others and most are unable to see potential value. The unborn child is seen as less valuable than the 33 year old, but value of life has nothing to do with what is and is not life. As you said, the value of a life is another discussion, but I think discussions about the value of a life is where the topic of miscarriage belongs. In the discussion of “personhood” (which I take to mean “when human life begins”) miscarriage (or the end of a life/potential life) isn’t really relevant. If you disagree, I’d love to read about it.

    To answer the question of the practicality of ending abortion, if abortion is ever “ended” the answer is not “Don’t have sex or live with the consequences.” Its, “Don’t get pregnant or live with the consequences.” It is very, very easy to not get pregnant even if you are having sex. I’ve been married for almost ten years and I have two kids both born in the last 26 months, both “planned”. My wife and I didn’t abstain for the first 7 years of our marriage, but we avoided pregnancy with little effort. The vast majority of Americans have only an elementary understanding of the human reproductive process. With a few more hours of education, people could learn to avoid pregnancy and still have sex. Likewise, they could learn to have sex for procreation (which is absolutely another topic). Human reproduction should be a required course in middle-school and I’m not talking about sex-ed. I’m talking about biology. There would be no discussion of whether or not to have sex and no bananas used as ‘how to’ props. In school we all had the 101 course where we learned that sperm meets egg and 9 months later you get a baby. We all need to go on to the 102 course to learn all the different parameters that have to be in place for that sperm to meet that egg and how to know if those parameters are in place just by observing the female body. This wouldn’t completely solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, but it would do more than any other program to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and it is a much more practical field of knowledge than geology, literature, advanced math, advanced science, etc. for most of us. Graduating with the reproductive knowledge of what is currently taught in schools is similar to graduating with the math knowledge that 2+2=4. We need to bump our reproductive knowledge up to at least the level of Algebra.

    Also, the church needs to do a much better job of taking care of orphans/abandoned children. The Bible specifically mentions it as part of our role over and over again. As a previous commenter said, the early church was very good at it, but the modern church has gotten away from the “Pure and genuine religion”. James 1:27 (I hesitate to write that because it doesn’t seem like something practical. How practical is it to get “The Church” to remember its role? I’m preaching to myself as much as anyone else.)

    Practically, the only way for abortion to end is for abortion to be made illegal. The only way for abortion to be made illegal is for the legal system to view a fetus as a human life and therefore view abortion as infanticide. This would mean anyone performing an abortion and any woman getting an abortion would be labeled a murderer. The punishment for these new crimes would not be as harsh as “traditional” murder due to the lack of perceived value of the life taken (which is another discussion).

    by Christian Trotter on Dec 15, 2010 at 9:20 am

33. Christian Trotter, Your having unprotected sex with your wife for seven years and not getting pregnant had NOTHING to do with being “educated”. It had to do with the fact that it was not God’s time for it to happen. God opens and closes wombs as He chooses. I know of the supposed “education” you speak of, and it is a farse, a myth. Research the term “having sex while avoiding pregnancy” and you’ll find out from women EVERYWHERE that they’ve tried having sex prior to, during (YUCK!), and after their period. NOTHING is tried and true. ALL have resulted in women getting pregnant. Sperm can live inside the woman for 2 to 3 days, and in extreme cases up to 5 days. For every story of how to have unprotected sex and not get pregnant, I’ve heard dozens of stories where that fable was followed and it never worked.

    If one is going to insist on using contraceptives, the BEST and ONLY one they should use is a condom (which is not guaranteed to work either). ALL the rest, including birth control pills (made from a pregnant horse’s urine, or used to be), are abortion products.

    By the way, some of these myths have been suggested by physicians. There’s a reason why it’s called “practicing” medicine. Because the physician often doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. He merely tells you what he’s been educated to believe. The problem with education is that you are taught to think and believe as the other person thinks and believes. You can listen to your physician, but you should ALSO do your own research. Physicians ONLY treat the symptoms, they RARELY treat the disease. Should you trust your physician implicitly? Not on your life! But consider their words. They may be right, but they may (and are often) wrong. E.G., if you get a sunburn, physicians will tell you to use sunscreen or sunblock next time. However, most your sunscreens and sunblocks contain cancer causing agents. Funny how in cultures where they don’t use sunblock and the weather is hotter than we experience, they have little to no skin cancer; yet where we use the stuff on a regular basis, we practically have an epidemic of skin cancer. The sun’s rays provide something your body desperate needs, and if you block that, you block what your body needs. If I’m going to get cancer, I’d rather not be contributing to my getting it.

    Your second paragraph was written beautifully, however. Just to let you know.

    by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 3:24 am

34. >I believe the fundamental thing which will always make it nearly impossible for >us to agree is our definition of life or “personhood.” As a Christian, I believe >God is the creator of life and therefore the one who decides what life is and >what it isn’t. Therefore, it’s not gray.

    I think you are co-opting God to be on your side here. I could agree with you that God is the author of life and still not agree with you what constitutes life and when life begins.

    You BELIEVE that God institutes life at conception.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:36 pm

35. Chris,

    It is biology not the Bible that tells us human life begins at fertilization. In fact, anything that reproduces sexually will begin life with the fusion of the male and female gamete. That is by, definition, what sexual reproduction entails.

    That doesn’t prove that human life has value – but science can’t prove that your life, my life or anyone’s life has value either. That will always be a metaphysical claim. Notice however, that just because it is metaphysical, that doesn’t mean we can’t make laws protecting human life. We already make a an arbitrary metaphysical distinction when we say human life should only be protected at birth.

    Here’s more about this from our website (we do take intellectual challenges like this seriously and though I agree with JM that many pro-lifers don’t think through these issues, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a growing intellectual and reasonable backbone for the pro-life movement):

    http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/science.html

    by Canbuhay on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:25 pm

36. >It is biology not the Bible that tells us human life begins at fertilization.

    While that its true, it doesn’t mean that simply because something is human life means that terminating it is immoral. Your skin cells are human life as well, but when you scratch them you don’t hold a funeral for them do you? Of course not. They are just human cells. They don’t think or feel, and thus the morality of scratching them is negligible.

    Equating a zygote (which occurs at fertilization) with a fully grown thinking, pain sensing and emotionally feeling human being is simply factually false. They aren’t the same thing.

    If you could destroy either a zygote or an 11 year old girl, which would you chose? Obviously the zygote, which demonstrates that it doesn’t have the moral weight that an 11 year old girl does. It would be irrational to say that they’re both equal.

    >We already make a an arbitrary metaphysical distinction when we say >human life should only be protected at birth.

    I agree with that, it IS an arbitrary distinction. I don’t believe that someone becomes a person just because they pass through a birth canal. Rather than make arbitrary distinctions, I would err on the side of protecting all life.

    That being said, there is still a categorical difference between a group of cells (a Zygote) that doesn’t think or feel, and a 6 month old fetus does (to some extent). And there’s a difference between a 6 month old fetus and an 11 year old girl. These distinctions make our moral choices different.

    Consider a brain dead patient on life support. And say that there’s another patient, who is not brain dead, who desperately needs that life support to stay alive. You’re a doctor in charge of triage and there’s only one life support system. Are you going to keep alive the patient that’s brain dead, or give the apparatus to the patient who isn’t. Naturally, you’d prefer the non-brain dead patient as having more life value than the other.

    Similarly the life of an 11 year old girl is more valuable than a zygote.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm

37. Chris, would you follow this logic and say that the life of an 11 year old girl is more valuable than that of a 6 month old infant?

    by jm on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:31 pm

38. >It is biology not the Bible that tells us human life begins at fertilization.

    True. But I believe that bible tells me that God created biology.

    by Chris Macedo on Dec 16, 2010 at 12:58 am

39. Hey Chris. The point I’m trying to make is that, it’s not my decision. Meaning I’m not the one who has final authority. I don’t think I was co-opting God. I’m simply arguing that we tend to get no where when all truth is considered relative. My hope is that God would reveal the truth. An “issue” can be gray but I don’t believe God is.

    I know this is a terrible example, but if we lived in a culture where we all mutually agreed that it was okay to steal one anothers belongings, it doesn’t mean that theft is alright with God.

    Your comment assumes that I open the bible to find ways to be justify my beliefs, thoughts and actions. Unfortunately, when I open the bible, I find quite the opposite.

    by Chris Macedo on Dec 16, 2010 at 12:55 am

40. JMS said:

    >Chris, would you follow this logic and say that the life of an 11 year old girl is >more valuable than that of a 6 month old infant?

    Yes, but obviously they are much closer to having the same value, right? The only difference I can discern from my 6 month old nephew is that he has less memory as of yet and cannot use language (though he can still communicate just fine).

    Mr Macedo said:
    >Meaning I’m not the one who has final authority. I don’t think I was >co-opting God. I’m simply arguing that we tend to get no where when all >truth is considered relative.

    I don’t consider truth to be relative. I believe in God’s authority. The question is just that: what is permissible to God? Saying “Listen, I talked to God, and he said X, so it’s not my opinion that I’m putting out there, I’m just following orders.” That’s what I mean by “co-opting” God to be on your side.

    >I know this is a terrible example, but if we lived in a culture where we all >mutually agreed that it was okay to steal one anothers belongings, it >doesn’t mean that theft is alright with God.

    I wholeheartedly agree. And while the bulk of Christianity and Christian culture is Pro-life, that doesn’t prove that is what God wants.

    >Your comment assumes that I open the bible to find ways to be justify my >beliefs, thoughts and actions. Unfortunately, when I open the bible, I find >quite the opposite.

    I would hope so, and I would hope that I would do the same, that is, to follow the teachings of the Bible despite what my culture or personal ideas dictate.

    However, I believe it to be naive to believe that all of Christianity or Christian Culture is so inclined, and I think often the opposite. Christianity as a culture does things all the time that Jesus never would have approved of: everything from holy wars, to blessing the rich, to giant cathedrals, to worship of the Bible as an idol.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 16, 2010 at 4:26 pm

41. Thanks Chris.

    Well it appears that we agree. You said, “I would hope so, and I would hope that I would do the same, that is, to follow the teachings of the bible despite what my culture or personal ideas dictate.”

    I also agree with much of what you said after your “However”. There are many things I suspect that Jesus wouldn’t approve of inside and outside of Christian culture. I still BELIEVE abortion is one of them just like you BELIEVE that he would disapprove of giant cathedrals.

    by Chris Macedo on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:50 am

42. It’s not a belief, Chris, it’s a fact. Life begins at conception. The moment the sperm penetrates the egg and the “spark” happens, life has been created. It is scientifically proven that at 40 days brain waves can be detected and recorded. At 8 weeks, the Fetus (“little one”) has a face, little arms, legs, tiny feet and hands. At 12 weeks, fingers and toes are completely developed with delicate fingerprints.

    78% of abortions occur AFTER brain activity!

    Go to an abortion clinic and watch as they do this stuff. Watch them pull a little human being the size of a quarter out and look at all 10 fingers, all 10 toes, the face with eyes, nose, and mouth. At 8 weeks, the child is the size of a quarter!

    by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 3:36 am

43. […] to debate online. She found a pro-abortion woman to fight with. The pro-abortion woman explains in the post how she supports abortion in her work on “maternal health” in the developing […]

    by Mary takes on a pro-abortion “Christian” woman « Wintery Knight on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:01 pm

44. I am sorry: an unborn foetus is not a person under standard philosophical definitions of personality (which include autonomy and intentionality). Whether we agree that such requirements are necessary (I believe so) or sufficient (I do not) is moot; there they are and we can take the debate using them as a starting point. Using “the foetus is human” card is disingenuous at best; nobody claims that it isn’t. What I would like to see is a reasonable challenge to the philosophical definition of personhood.

    by Jorg on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:14 pm

45. Jorg, by that definition neither is someone who is asleep, in a coma or on life-support.

    by jm on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:18 pm

46. Nice one.

    I have found in my experience that the way these debates usually break down is that the pro-abort side names some criterion that defines personhood, which the unborn lack, and then the pro-life side shows a situation where a born person could lack that criteria.

    For example, if feeling pain is the criteria, if someone is under general anasthesia for a toothache, then it’s OK to kill them. That’s craziness.

    by Wintery Knight on Dec 15, 2010 at 4:33 pm

47. WK, I read the post on your site and was disappointed how you put “Christian” in quotations, made assumptions about my work (my professional work on maternal health is strictly focused on improving maternal health through increasing access to voluntary contraception), and called what part of what I said craziness, even as you criticized my description of how *others* in the room *perceived* the anti-abortion activists who crashed the party I attended as “crazy.” You redacted it purposefully to skew what I respectfully wrote to JM in the first place.

    To me this is where these debates break down–as soon as we start purposefully trying to pick fights–and that is why I generally stay out of them.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm

48. JM,
    I’m sure this just slipped by, but I’d like to point out that Wintery Knight used the term “pro-abort” when referring to a pro-choice activist. As you pointed out to me with my usage of the term “anti-choice,” “They are both examples of misleading rhetoric which serve to keep the issue muddy and heated.” I’m sure you wouldn’t want to encourage double standards on your blog.
    You’re welcome. I got your back.

    by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:39 am

49. JM: Unlike a sleeping person and the other examples you gave, the fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman, residing within the uterus.

    Of course arguments can be made against what I’ve said, i.e. preemies.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:50 pm

50. Of course, Rachel; I agree with that point. I was just attempting to point out that for any criteria one can list which fetuses do not possess, there are examples of persons who likewise do not possess those criteria, yet their personhood is not questioned. For instance, every newborn baby is physiologically dependent on someone–which is why leaving a child to die of exposure is infanticide. The “dependence” argument is often used to cast the person in the womb as a parasitic aggressor by many pro-choice advocates–yet this is never done with newborn infants even though they require every bit as much support and resources in order to remain alive.

    by jm on Dec 15, 2010 at 8:05 pm

51. Rachel, when it comes to determining if something is alive, location isn’t a criteria, nor is dependency. Most pro-abortion people I talk to quit the personhood argument a long time ago because scientifically it’s indefensible. They try to make arguments based on societal implications, which sends them down a slippery slope that eventually leads them to seriously flawed logic.

    Not to dismiss our civil discussion here, but if you don’t agree that a fetus is alive, it’s almost pointless to have a conversation about it since that is the linchpin for why pro-life advocates believe abortion is wrong.

    When it comes to determining life, a matter of two feet — in the womb or outside of it — is irrelevant to making such a determination scientifically. And like JM pointed out, every newborn is dependent upon someone.

    If pro-abortion people would join forces with caring pro-life advocates to focus their efforts on reproductive education and developing viable alternatives for mothers that also protect the lives of babies, maybe we could bring about a real change in our society.

    by Jason on Dec 15, 2010 at 9:51 pm

52. >I was just attempting to point out that for any criteria one can list which >fetuses do not possess, there are examples of persons who likewise do not >possess those criteria, yet their personhood is not questioned.

    I disagree JMS. There are situations where someone’s personhood IS questioned in regards to brain dead states in patients. I would say that a person who is brain dead is analogous to a zygote: neither can think, feel emotionally or physically, and thus their personhood IS in question. There is no consciousness lost in either case, and thus I don’t believe a person is lost when either of them has their physical body destroyed.

    In terms of a coma or being asleep, someone who is asleep is still experiencing a brain state of consciousness, even though they might not remember it.

    Comas are of different types. Some comas involve a completely brain dead state where there will never be consciousness again. Others designate a state where consciousness can be regained and there is still brain activity. Of the second class, some people have vivid memories of dreams while they were in the coma.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm

53. I actually tackle this topic on our site as well.

    The question really boils down to Jorg – what abilities should a being have before they are considered a person? And where do these abilities come from?

    If we know a being has the inherent capacity to develop these abilities simply given time because of the nature of what that being is, shouldn’t that at least give us pause before we kill them? I’m not talking about potential here. We can all have the potential to be concert pianists but something inherent: a child will become an adult given time; an adult becomes a senior given time and only death prevents them from achieving it.

    The zygote has the innate ability to develop every thing that you and I do – the only difference is her age – and should we kill people simply because they are younger than us?

    http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/humans.html

    by Canbuhay on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm

54. A newborn baby is socially dependent on others for care but is physically/physiologically independent, but that is different than the physiological dependence of a fetus on the woman, i.e. residing within her. I think that is unique to fetuses; can’t think of another example of human life like that.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm

55. Jason, I never said a fetus wasn’t alive. In fact, I referred to a fetus as “human life” in my last comment.

    I would be thrilled to join efforts with anyone who wants to help women and their families, and prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. Unfortunately, many people I’ve encountered who are pro-life are also *against* increasing access to contraception, sexuality education in schools, expanding health care, and other social services that would help poor women and their families. I think you’ll find that many of those who advocate for keeping abortion legal are also advocates for the issues I mentioned. I certainly am.

    by Rachel on Dec 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm

56. Rachel,

    Yes, the unborn are dependent on their mothers to live – but how does change what they are? Aren’t they simply human beings who are dependent on their mothers to live?

    And don’t we already make laws that remove the choices of parents, particularly mothers, when it comes to caring for their children? This year, a mom and died was charged with not providing the necessities for life because she left her toddler at home who then drank her dad’s medication and died. Those parents, including that mother didn’t have that choice to walk out of the room and abandon her child. If the unborn is a human person, doesn’t that automatically mean that her parents, including her mother, has moral obligations to her – one of them being not to kill her?

    The fact that children are more dependent on parents, doesn’t change our duties to them – in fact they place more duties on us.

    BTW, conjoined twins often consist of one twin being dependent on their sibling. But doctors, even those who separate the twins, say the dependent twin is dependent therefore she’s not a person. Instead, they try to save both.

    Dependency doesn’t make us unhuman it simply makes us dependent humans. And if you can make the argument that we are justified in killing dependent children (even at 9 months of pregnancy) then we should be justified in killing dependent born people too, right?

    by Canbuhay on Dec 16, 2010 at 12:08 am

57. Sorry, Jorg, but an unborn fetus IS a person, regardless of what ANY human philosophy has to say. Human philosophy is nothing but erroneous theories, quite often by unintelligent mad men who can’t seem to face reality. E.G., the philosophy that says I’m not really here but only think I’m here. Only a complete idiot would argue such a philosophy, and only a greater idiot would believe this guy’s philosophy to be true. What human philosophies do or do not say has no bearing on the facts of the issue. So your arguments are moot.

    Yes, people do claim the fetus is not human. For years it was taught that it was nothing but a blob inside you. That it began like a fish and then looked more like a turtle, then a pig, then a cow, etc. I’m sure you’ll still find these bogus made up drawings inside books, even though they were disproven a LONG time ago. The reason so many people see the fetus as having no value whatsoever is because they’ve been brainwashed with the philosophy/religion of evolution.

    Every woman who has an abortion should be forced to look upon the child (whether in pieces or in whole) that she has just had executed. She should not be allowed to walk away without seeing the consequences of her actions, the consequence of her previous actions. If you don’t want the child, put it up for adoption. Don’t give it the death penalty by blaming it for YOUR actions.

    by Rylore on Dec 2, 2012 at 3:50 am

58. Definitions of “personhood” are arbitrarily defined cop-outs to skirt the issue. As JM rightly points out, this leads us to reject the right to life of someone who is asleep.

    Human life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact. When we make arguments for policy affecting Christians and non-christians we are safest with scientific fact. I would also not revert to the “God defines” argument in debate, even though I agree that He does create human life at conception.

    Rachel, I have friends who have had abortions and who still, years later, are traumatised by it. In fact, most of the trauma comes out years later, when the woman has stopped suppressing what she knows and faces the reality of what happened. I think you have the impression that the majority of women are relieved because of your seeing them directly after the abortion. That may be the immediate reaction of many, but the long term consequences for women are devastating.

    I would also like to challenge you on the issue of the “wantedness” of the child determining value. I would disagree. By your reasoning, the most valuable people are the most popular. Movie stars and celebrities are valuable, widows and orphans aren’t, fat kids aren’t, skinny kids aren’t, people of different races to us aren’t. If one is Christian, then one should see the value of people as coming from their being created in the image of God – regardless of age, intellectual ability, attractiveness, gender, skin colour, or “wantedness”.

    I think education can do a lot to prevent unplanned pregnancies. Not “how to” manuals for sex at schools, but logical arguments for chastity (it’s a foolproof way to not get pregnant, after all). The reason why abstinence education seems not to have worked is because it hasn’t been explained for the empowering choice that it is and also because the ABC program sends mixed messages. Usually it’s framed as “abstinence is good, but seeing as we know that’s more than you’re capable of… here’s the deal with condoms.”

    by Mary on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:55 pm

59. Thanks Mary.

    Yes, there is also research indicating that abstinence – no sex partners at all before marriage – results in highly increased probabilties of marital stability. This is true of both sexes, but especially of women, who see a 20% loss of long-term marital stability if she has two or more lifetime sex partners, with the instability increasing steadily as the number of sex partners increases.

    For Christians though, we have to advocate complete chastity before marriage, if there is a marriage. Fornication (sex before marriage) is strictly forbidden in Christianity. Anyone who rejects this moral standard cannot be an authentic Christian.

    I think that what people struggle with today is that they basically want to do anything they want and pretend that sin doesn’t exist, or that sufficient wealth redistribution will fix the consequences of sin, so that people can sin with impunity and never feel bad for acting selfishly. People who have sex before they are married are sinning, and they do it because it sex is FUN. They are willing to kill innocent babies because they want to have FUN, and then avoid taking responsibility for the natural and normal consequences of their own selfishness. But life isn’t about fun. Life is about a relationship with God that respects the moral boundaries he has set out as part of relating to him, and so that we can flourish in the universe he made. Many Christians (and people who pretend to be Christian but are actually postmodern universalist moral relativists) resent the idea that boundaries can actually be GOOD for people, because it helps them to avoid making bad decisions that are costly for them, and costly for society as a whole.

    There are many behaviors that are non-Christian that are being encouraged today by people who think that telling others “it’s wrong” is mean and intolerant. We should not be celebrating unhealthy and immoral behaviors. We should speak out against them, while still valuing other people as being made in the image of God, possessing objective moral value. It does no good to say to a person that “anything goes” and then they get hurt because they believed lies.

    by Wintery Knight on Dec 15, 2010 at 4:48 pm

60. I think the phrase “Authentic Christian” is really tough. “Anyone who rejects this moral standard cannot be an authentic Christian.”…. this is perhaps why I rejected Christianity for so long. I am pretty sure— but not positive that Jesus did not say that. In fact, what is an authentic Christian? I think that Jesus would be the only one to fit that mold. Seems like if we spent a bit more time focusing on the greatest commandment of all we would have a good start. Rather than operating on two sides— if pro-lifers focused a bit more on the mother, and if pro-choicers focused a bit more on the baby…

    I believe that Chris McCauley’s points were really good…

    As far as… simply abstain from sex… well, folks even with the “best conservative upbringing” (See Bristol Palin) it simply is not going to happen.

    And how about this— a step father sexually molests his 13 year old daughter and she gets pregnant…. I hear the everything happens happens for a reason arguement, I hear the adoption arguement… but keep in mind that a pregancy is 40 weeks, she is 13… and perhaps does not have the best support model at home. Remember, the male figure is likely now in jail— which changes the dynamic. My point is… for those of you that are life long (“saved” at 7 years old with mom and dad lovingly watching you get dunked) Christians— it is far easier to say… abstain, save the baby, adopt… Some of the rest of us— well, it is just not the same. I promise.

    I pray that we all can love each other more… that people who do not have a relationship with Jesus will see and feel his love through me/us…and not for any reason feel that they can’t be an “authentic Christian”…

    by Sheila on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:21 pm

61. Mary,
    You said you wanted to challenge Rachel on the issue of “wantedness” determining the value of a child. However, I don’t believe Rachel ever made that argument. I made that argument as part of my reasoning why people do not react as strongly to the death of an unborn child as they do to the loss of a birthed person. I agree with you that from a Kingdom perspective all human life is equally valuable and as Christians we should see things from a Kingdom perspective. “The world” does not, which is why “the world” tends to shrug off miscarriage and abortion. Even if “the world” agreed that life begins at conception, the destruction of that life before it is born would still not be a big deal from a “worldly” perspective. The human understanding of value is determined by perception and perception is different throughout religions, cultures, and within families. God values life equally, Man does not.

    “How-to” manuals for sex have no place in our schools. Some would argue that logical arguments for chastity do not have a place in public schools. Neither, then, would other, “more practical” methods of birth control. For the sake of political correctness and in hopes of actually accomplishing something the vast majority of people can support, I suggest the biology of reproduction be taught more thoroughly. Very few can argue that biology is somehow pro or anti religion/morality/reality/etc. When contraception is taught in schools, Christians and other religious groups are offended. When abstinence is taught in schools, others are offended. When biology is taught in schools, no one seems to be offended. The human reproductive system, especially the female reproductive system, is a biological wonder and thorough knowledge of the reproductive system is extremely helpful in family planning/contraception regardless of marital status. Teaching biology does not suggest it is okay to have sex before/outside of marriage and it does not preach that sex is wrong before/outside of marriage. Biology is an equal opportunity non-offender and has a chance of actually being taught effectively in schools. Churches/parents/private schools should still teach abstinence. Other private organizations will still teach about alternate forms of contraception, but everyone should learn more than just the basics about reproductive biology in the same way that everyone is required to learn more than simple math.

    by Christian Trotter on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm

62. Actually Christian,

    The argument about miscarriages is an argument form wantedness. Because people don’t grieve the unborn, therefore they are not as valuable as those who are grieved.

    And as Mary and others point out, our value is not based on how many people come to our funeral.

    by Canbuhay on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm

63. Canbuhay,

    I completely agree. The point of my comment was that an argument about abortion based on the fact that miscarriages happen is an argument about the wantedness or value of the life that dies. It has nothing to do with whether or not the baby is a human life. Though these posts have evolved into a more general discussion on the topic of abortion, JMS started the discussion asking us how we would respond to Rachel’s comments about miscarriage and the practicality of ending abortions in the USA. She says, “Personhood is where we differ” and then goes on to talk about miscarriage. In the context of their conversation I interpret “personhood” to be achieved once a human life has become a life (she has not contradicted my interpretation). Rachel was arguing that a miscarried fetus was not actually a life because we don’t treat it the same way that we do a birthed person. I was merely pointing out that how we treat a dead person has nothing to do with whether or not they were alive, but is more about how we value that life. So, Canbuhay, we agree completely.

    I also agree with you that, from a Christian perspective, our value is not based on how many people come to our funeral/what others think of us. But from a worldly perspective, individuals have differing values and a pretty good way to determine that value is to see how many people show up when they die. The world placed more value on Ronald Reagan than it did my grandfather. My grandfather was a great man, but he did not inspire an entire country to a moment of silence when he died. Men place differing values on individual human lives (and even groups of human lives) all the time. Its what allows for war, genocide, racism, jingoism, and pretty much all other man vs. man violence and oppression.

    The fact that abortion is allowed to exist despite the fact that a very large number of people consider it to be murder proves the point that man places a lower value on some life (at least life that is unborn). If one million+ air breathing children were being taken by their parents to be put to death every year, we would not stand back and allow that to happen even if the government said it was a legal practice. People who still believed killing a child is murder would do whatever needed to be done to stop the practice. As it is, millions of people believe an abortion is the purposeful destruction of a human life (murder), but most of them are willing to stand by and let it happen. We are either apathetic towards human life in general and would allow most human life to be destroyed as long as it doesn’t really affect us or we do not value unborn life as highly as we value a life that has been born.

    by Christian Trotter on Dec 15, 2010 at 10:56 pm

64. Mary said:

    >Definitions of “personhood” are arbitrarily defined cop-outs to skirt the issue. >As JM rightly points out, this leads us to reject the right to life of someone who >is asleep.

    No, it doesn’t. Someone who is asleep is experiencing a brain state and has brain waves. Someone who is in a brain dead coma or is a zygote does not.

    Destroying someone without a consciousness is radically different than killing something that has a consciousness.

    While physical human life begins at conception, it is not sentient life. That’s the difference, and the difference isn’t “arbitrary”. Something which thinks is morally distinct from something that doesn’t think.

    Would you feel as bad about killing a bug as a person? No. Why? Because a bug has a far lower state of consciousness. It has only rudimentary thinking powers, and no emotions whatsoever. Would you feel worse about killing a bug or a dog? The dog of course, because the dog has emotional feelings and a higher level of consciousness. Would you feel worse about killing a dog or a person? A person of course, because there’s a higher level of consciousness and state of emotions as well as a stronger connection to the society.

    Affording a zygote equal status to a thinking, feeling person is simply irrational. They are categorically different things.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 16, 2010 at 4:47 pm

65. A couple of good academic books on the pro-life position for your readers:

    “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice”
    Francis J. Beckwith
    Cambridge University Press (2007)

    “The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice”
    Christopher Kaczor
    Routledge Annals of Bioethics (2010)

    And for lay people:

    “The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture”
    Scott Klusendorf
    Crossway Books (2009)

    by Wintery Knight on Dec 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm

66. “It does no good to say to a person that “anything goes” and then they get hurt because they believed lies.”
    Thanks, Wintery. I think that’s really helpful.

    Good resources too. I would also recommend “Pro-life answers to pro-choice arguments” by Randy Alcorn.

    by Mary on Dec 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm

67. My niece was “miscarried” at 28 weeks. She breathed on her own for about 4 mins and then died. We had a death certificate and a funeral. I believe that once those cells begin to multiply on impact within the uterus, it is a life. Having said that, I have a very dear friend who went through an abortion because of fear. Fear is the real enemy here. Afraid of what someone will think, someone will say, how society will see us, what it will do to our lives if we have a child out of wedlock or at a young age. I love my friend; I would never make her feel worse for her choice than she did at the time of having to make it. (I didn’t know her that well at the time, or I would have offered to raise the child, myself!) She has since become so much closer to her Savior and has other children now, in her married life. It was a very long road to self-forgiveness, although Christ forgave willingly once she accepted Him.

    As for living a chaste life, it most certainly can be done! Even after one has experienced sex, one can make the decision to not participate in it again until marriage. Yes, it’s difficult; temptation is there. But it’s possible and even, I would argue, probable if one truly lives a Christ-filled life. My heart truly aches for those young pregnant women who feel that they have no other alternative than abortion. You most certainly DO have other options! Your family is not going to ostracize you for your choices and if they do, call me. I will stand with you and not be ashamed. Nor should you be. Do not fear, but have hope. There are many women who would love the opportunity to adopt and raise the child you carry; give them the chance to give that child the love and hope that he/she deserves. PLEASE.

    by Bev. on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:56 pm

68. Rachel,

    You asked how we see ending abortions being carried out. I’d like to acknowledge that making abortion illegal would certainly create and/or increase some very harsh difficulties that we, as a society, would have to address. They may be impractical, but I believe our society would be better off with them than to live with the consequences of legalized abortion -one of those consequences being the diminishment of the sanctity and value of human life.

    If we agree that that it’s okay to take a life before personhood, then the question would become when does one become a person? It may seem reasonable to say that personhood begins at birth, but would it be fair to force that belief on those who don’t believe it begins until later stages of development? Arguments could certainly be made that, for some, keeping their baby would be impractical; or that the baby’s quality of life, in cases such as deformity or disease, is not worth continuing. And then what if we’re wrong, and ‘personhood’ begins at the time of conception (even if it is not fully realized)? Who are we to make these judgments when doing so incorrectly is the difference between killing and murdering?

    You mentioned that most, if not all, women do not take their decisions to abort lightly, and I’m sure that’s true. But how seriously do we, men and women (not to mention girls and boys), think of abortion before we are forced to truly consider it? How many young people think of it as a horrible option, but still a safety net should they ever need it, and thus take a few more chances than they might otherwise? How many guys feel justified in neglecting their duties as a father because the mother of their child chose to give birth when that obviously wasn’t necessary? Women don’t have to feel the full weight of the abortion decision until confronted with it themselves, and men don’t really have to face it at all since society provides it as a completely acceptable option.

    I believe that making abortion illegal would allow society to regain some moral high ground. It would send a message that we respect life, that we are willing to go to great lengths to protect it (including having to deal with the impracticalities), and that we must all deal with the consequences of our actions. It would back up our arguments that fathers must take their share of responsibility for their children.

    I’d also like to second what Chris said: I think people are out of line for judging whether or not you are a Christian.

    by Mark Shannon on Dec 15, 2010 at 8:12 pm

69. Mark, do you think it is possible to be an authentic Christian and to own slaves? Forget about the abortion issue, this is just for the slavery issue.

    by Wintery Knight on Dec 15, 2010 at 8:46 pm

70. Yes, I do. First we must consider those who do not believe that slavery is against God’s law. We all have blind spots and are susceptible to our culture and upbringing. This would certainly be a huge blind spot, but a lot of people honestly and truly believe a lot of way out there things. Better for us to strive to spread enlightenment than to judge their ignorance.

    Now for those christians who are aware that slavery is against God’s law and yet refuse to release their slaves, I’ll agree they have some serious issues that need to be addressed right away. But I would still not be comfortable in judging them as inauthentic. I believe than even “authentic” christians strive and struggle with faults, and some of those faults are more difficult to overcome than others.

    Being a good christian is a constant struggle and so we must always encourage one another. Sometimes that may include pointing out each other’s flaws, but this must always be done with love and without judging one’s authenticity.

    by Mark Shannon on Dec 15, 2010 at 9:52 pm

71. I believe an authentic Christian can be deceived or just plain wrong when it comes to socially accepted forms of oppression.

    Thus, Paul’s letter to Philemon.

    by jm on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:37 pm

72. This is a topic that hits so close to home for me. First, let me start by saying I do NOT agree with so called “Christians” who walk into any abortion facility claiming to kill everyone in there, how does that make them any different than the very people they condemn. They are going to take lives to keep people from taking a baby’s life??
    I am however completely against abortion. I am the mother to two adopted children. A son and a daughter, two beautiful children that have made my life richer and full of more joy than could ever be described with words. My son’s birthmother did try to abort him, interestingly, it didn’t kill him! She was then not able to deal with the thought of him still growing in her and turned to drugs to ease the emotional pain she was enduring with this unwanted pregnancy. When she finally gave birth to this beautiful child, she made the brave and amazing decision to place him for adoption so that her child could have a mother and a father, a stable home and lots of love. Even in her decision to abort her child, GOD still had the final word, and because I believe every life starts at conception and that God creates every life for a purpose, it is my belief that He saved my son’s life, the very life He created.
    My daughter’s birthmother also wanted to abort her, but decided and I quote her “she would no be able to live with herself if she did it. ” So, she also, in what was a very courageous decision, chose to place her child for adoption and my husband and I just got to be blessed to be the couple she chose to raise her unwanted child.
    To even think about the possibility that these two precious children might not have been on this earth is heartbreaking to me. They are bright, smart, wonderful, very real reasons why abortion is not ok. Adoption is a beautiful gift created by God and a much better answer in my humble opinion to an unwanted pregnancy.
    I agree with you about providing more support and understanding to women who have suffered miscarriages or any type of infertility issues. I even once had a ministry in my house for women who had suffered this type of loss because I knew the pain very well. It’s real. It’s a death and a loss to the couples who endure a miscarriage.
    I share this story out of love, so you can understand why I take the stand I do…and that is because of the two joys in my life that are sitting next to me on the couch right now as I type this.

    by Meredith on Dec 15, 2010 at 9:46 pm

73. here’s my 2 cents,
    I was pro-choice through my teenage and young adult years, and even remained pro-choice even for a short time after becoming a Christian. There are a number of things that changed my mind. First, I work in the field of medical physics, and am very well acqauinted with medical imaging, the advancements in the image quality in ultrasound (particularly 4d) are startling. The process of experiencing 2 miscarriages with my wife really opened my eyes in this area. Having access to some of the best ultrasound technology- we were so excited to be able to have “extra” ultrasounds done occassionaly. I remember being amazed at the 5-6 week mark- hearing the heartbeat, and actually SEEING little heart valves pumping. A few weeks later, when that heartbeat went silent, there was no doubt that a LIFE had been lost. My wife and I are both healthcare professionals, and in our world life is determined by that very thing- a heartbeat. In a code (CPR) the whole battle is to get that heartbeat back.

    I am not opposed to birth control, I am for it. In fact, in this country at least, the availability of many various modes of birth control, serves to underscore the travesty of abotion on demand. As a health care professional, I believe abortion is a valid medical procedure ONLY in the instances of themother life being seriously imperilled or a birth defect so SEVERE that the child would be born unviable -that is, unable to live without complete and total medical help mental retardation, Down’s, etc, does not qualify). Ending a life becase it is “inconvenient”, just can never fit with what I believe it is to be a follower of Christ.

    by Jason on Dec 16, 2010 at 3:45 am

74. JM

    as an aside to my earlier post, just wanted to say thanks for starting such a civil discourse on this subject. It is sad that we are losing our ability to discourse in a civil manner over issues people disagree on.

    This issue is a tough for me right now. I came to be a Christian in the Methodist church, spent a few years as a Sunday school teacher, a certified layspeaker, and was even considering leaving a career that I love to attend Seminary. However, the money and effort spent by some of our national leadership on things that seem pro-abortion to me, have really been weighing heavily on my conscious this past year, and we have been struggling with wether we should leave the Methodist church or not. JM, your blog (along with some others, like Shane Rayner’s and GoodNews) give me a glimmer of hope.

    for what it’s worth, thanks

    by Jason on Dec 16, 2010 at 3:58 am

75. Thanks Jason. I appreciate your input and you sharing your story. As with any denomination there are elements within the UMC which I believe actually oppose (albeit unknowingly or well-intentioned on their part) the values of the Kingdom of God which we are called to carry forth. But one of the reasons the denomination experiences such shifts is because those who would be able to change the hearts, minds, and ethos within it often leave. I can’t blame them completely; it’s hard to remain within a system one feels has violated a key tenant of the Gospel. But the legacy started by Wesley, Whitfield, Asbury and Coke is a strong one, and one that can be a tremendous source of goodness if it turns back to God and holds fast to the teaching of the Apostolic orthodox Gospel upon which it was built.

    And the only way that can happen is if conversations such as this are used by God to illuminate our hearts, minds, and views of such often-inflammatory issues by His Holy Spirit and His Church is able to unify in their commitment to take care of ALL humans in need–both inside the womb as well as outside of it.

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 5:51 am

76. I appreciate the tone of this discussion – passionate but generally free of personal attacks. I have a feeling my contribution may test that, but let’s hope not!

    I am someone who recently had an abortion. I am not a teen or a meth addict or someone in a bad relationship. I am happily married, in my early 30s, healthy and financially comfortable. I’m also someone who does not have any desire to become a mother.

    Our usual method of birth control failed. My husband and I cried about it, prayed about it, discussed the various options with my doctor, thought, cried and prayed some more. I have always been pro-choice (my rationale is much in line with what Chris McCauley said earlier in this post), but I never saw myself personally getting an abortion. However, in the end, we decided to terminate the pregnancy. I am now so, so very relieved and grateful for the opportunities still ahead of us. We both know this was the best decision for us as individuals and as a couple. While it may sound strange to some, the experience has bonded us closer – an unexpected after-effect of something quite stressful.

    No argument among pro or anti groups can take away my experience or my absolute confidence that we made the right decision. You’ll have to trust me that I feel at complete peace with God. I feel only love and compassion from Him. I don’t believe God judges me any differently than He would had we kept the baby. You can disagree with that, quote scripture, whatever you like – but actually being in the position, I know what’s in my heart. It’s a matter of faith, just like your own.

    I am so grateful that I live somewhere that emotion-fueled opinions on the topic haven’t limited my access to abortion. I also wanted to say that I am grateful that there are fellow Christians out there like Rachel and Chris McCauley who have argued a pro-choice viewpoint (regarding life, valued life, the differences between zygote and a child, etc.) far better than I could.

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm

77. Katherine, thank you so much for sharing your experience here. You have beautifully illustrated what I said in my last comment–that women are moral agents capable of making sound, moral decisions for themselves. I appreciate your bravery in sharing your story and hope you continue to do so.

    by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm

78. Hi Rachel. Thank you for the kind words. I think the Internet allows a certain amount of “bravery” in this regard – it is easier to share something so personal when I’m allowed a bit of anonymity, so in that sense, I agree with JM that I’m not being particularly brave by contributing my experience to this discussion.

    However, I wouldn’t compare myself to someone who turns children into sex slaves, as JM did later in this discussion (that was a leap, JM, and a cheap one at that).

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:50 pm

79. Katharine, forgive me, but it’s only “cheap” if you view persons in the womb as non-humans. If they are humans (as I believe they are) then abortion is actually worse than forced sex-slavery because unlike human trafficking, abortion victims can never be rescued or escape from the actions of their oppressors. It is, from the perspective of the persons in the womb, truly a ‘final solution’. This is why those of us who value ALL human life will never stop speaking on their behalf or opposing a legal system whereby they are allowed to be destroyed out of convenience or career advancement. These are insufficient reasons to destroy a person in the womb.

    On a separate note, I’m really glad to see so many women speaking up in favor of protecting the unborn. For far too long abortion-rights have been equated with feminism. This has always been misleading–but highly effective–rhetoric. It’s encouraging to see women standing up and saying that supporting abortion-on-demand (i.e. abortion not directly done to save the life or health of the pregnant woman) is unacceptable and should be opposed.

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:00 pm

80. Katherine,
    First, thank you for entering into the discussion. I appreciate you reading and being willing to share your experience. So know that I don’t intend to demonize or belittle you; rather, to challenge honestly and passionately what I believe you to be gravely wrong about. At the risk of offending, this is how your comment sounds to those of us who oppose abortion:

    “I am someone who recently left my newborn in a dumpster. I am not a teen or a meth addict or someone in a bad relationship. I am happily married, in my early 30s, healthy and financially comfortable. I’m also someone who does not have any desire to become a mother.

    Our usual method of birth control failed. My husband and I cried about it, prayed about it, discussed the various options with my doctor, thought, cried and prayed some more. I have always been pro-choice (my rationale is much in line with what Chris McCauley said earlier in this post), but I never saw myself personally leaving my baby in a dumpster. However, in the end, we decided to leave the baby in the dumpster. I am now so, so very relieved and grateful for the opportunities still ahead of us. We both know this was the best decision for us as individuals and as a couple. While it may sound strange to some, the experience has bonded us closer – an unexpected after-effect of something quite stressful.

    No argument among pro or anti groups can take away my experience or my absolute confidence that we made the right decision. You’ll have to trust me that I feel at complete peace with God. I feel only love and compassion from Him. I don’t believe God judges me any differently than He would had we kept the baby. You can disagree with that, quote scripture, whatever you like – but actually being in the position, I know what’s in my heart. It’s a matter of faith, just like your own.

    I am so grateful that I live somewhere that emotion-fueled opinions on the topic haven’t limited freedom to leave my baby in a dumpster. I also wanted to say that I am grateful that there are fellow Christians out there like Rachel and Chris McCauley who have argued a pro-dumpster viewpoint (regarding life, valued life, the differences between zygote and a child, etc.) far better than I could.”

    Rachel, I can’t agree that Katherine’s story is in any way “brave” (though I do appreciate her being willing to face opposition by sharing it) because she plainly stated that this wasn’t an example of a “hard case” (rape, incest, etc.); rather it was an example of convenience and abortion-as-birth-control. Knowing personally the number of couples trying hard to adopt because they cannot have children of their own, it only makes her story sound that much more selfish (again, I’m not trying to be antagonistic for argument’s sake, I’m just saying how this seems from my perspective).

    Katherine, I know many people who’ve committed many sins with a clean conscience; how many people have had affairs because after “praying about it” they “felt a peace from God”? Ask any pastor who’s done counseling and they’ll tell you–too many. I’m afraid that the peace you feel is the peace of someone rationalizing a decision that, forgive me for being blunt, was entirely selfish. A person died so that you and your husband could have “opportunities still ahead” of you. Yet the opportunities you will have came from denying the person God was knitting together in your womb any opportunities at all.

    Yes, Rachel, women are free moral agents…but government’s job is to prevent free moral agents from using their freedom to destroy other free moral agents, is it not? Because free moral agents can choose to commit immoral actions in their own interests against those less powerful, as Katherine’s story illustrates vividly. As someone who values ALL life (including Katherine and her husband’s), the option she and he chose is one that should never have been a legal option in the first place.

    I hope this response doesn’t seem overly-caustic; yet I cannot pretend neutrality when reading stories like Katherine’s. If we were talking about an 11 year old abuse victim or a woman with no access to modern healthcare or someone who’d been raped, my tone and response would me MUCH different, I’m afraid. But Katherine’s story is EXACTLY the kind of abortion-on-demand that I oppose so passionately.

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm

81. I appreciate your honesy in writing what I was thinking JM. As someone who waited a long time to be a mother, as somone who has never been experienced the joy of feeling a child grow in my womb, I can’t even comprehend Katherine’s decision. Place your child for adoption. It IS the best option. Please know that my adopted children are very much “my own” and I wanted them and prayed for them and love them deeply. Carrying a child in your womb does not make you a parent, you can allow the parenting to be done by someone who wants a child. Carrying a child in your womb and allowing it to live it’s life, even if you are not a part of it, now THAT is Christian love. It’s very brave what these young women do when they place their children for adoption. Noble even. Bad things get said about them, but they loved their child enough to allow it to take over their bodies, and then place them lovingly in another person’s arms to raise. It’s quite a sacrifice and one that does not come easy, not without emotional pain and physical pain, and yet, they do it. They face the world pregnant, not able to hide this unwanted child, and yet still choose to give allow it to live! I have looked into the eyes of two very strong women who did this for me….the two most breathtaking moments of my life. It’s the most unselfish act of love I have EVER witnessed. So, like you JM, I will never understand the decision to “put my baby in a dumpster” because it would interfere with my plans. I respect Katherine for sharing her story, but we will never see eye to eye.

    by Meredith on Dec 16, 2010 at 5:26 pm

82. Meredith – I am truly sorry that your dreams of becoming a mother haven’t yet come true. Life sometimes isn’t very fair, is it? I wouldn’t expect you to understand how I feel or my actions because you very much want to be a mother and I do not and never have wanted to be a parent.

    Adoption wasn’t something I was willing to do. I wasn’t going to have our family (especially the “future grandparents”) become excited and then confused and then heartbroken over watching their grandchild grow, only to be taken away despite the fact that my husband and I would be fully capable of keeping it. My career is one where a pregnancy would hugely impact my ability to work. I strongly believe my body is my own domain and with the options available to me, I chose what was best for my life. I respect that you would consider this to be selfish. Perhaps it is. Perhaps its selfish not to want to have children at all. But I’m ok with that.

    If I felt as you do, that abortion is the murder of a child, perhaps adoption would have been on the table, but I simply don’t share your opinion.

    I wish you lots of luck in your future. I have friends dealing with infertility and it is such a sorrow.

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:23 pm

83. First of all, I will never assert that every decision regarding a pregnancy is in and of itself morally good. I will, however, always uphold that the ability to make a decision as a free agent is good. Period.

    Second of all, regarding infertile couples, I reject the idea that any woman is morally obligated to provide children to couples who desire them. This shift in adoption from “finding parents for needy children” to “finding children for needy parents” is just wrong. No doubt adopting a child is a joy for adoptive parents, but at what cost to the woman carrying the pregnancy? What about her pain, her life? The assertions that motherhood is always the best decision, that it is the most selfless thing to do, and that selflessness is always the greatest good are assertions I completely reject.

    Third of all, regarding the role of government, I have to disagree. If the role of government is to protect free agents from being destroyed by other free agents, we would have a ban on war and would not spend a majority of our federal budget on military expenditures. We would not see the lives of young women and men as expendable–on either side of the war. We would ban the death penalty in all states. And, if we can think more broadly about the prevention of “destroying life,” we would ensure all have enough to eat; that everyone has access to quality preventive and emergency health care; that the International Violence Against Women Act is passed; that we do not cut foreign assistance by $4 billion for FY 2011. Instead the public discourse on these issues is dominated by claims of personal responsibility and pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps.

    by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm

84. I reject the idea that any woman is morally obligated to provide children to couples who desire them.

    As do I, Rachel. But once a child is conceived, it then becomes precisely a question of finding parents for the needy child if the parents who conceived the child do not want to raise her. No one should be forced, coerced, or pressured to become pregnant. But once pregnancy occurs, a new life has entered into the equation and issues of convenience or lifestyle preference must take a back seat to the issue of finding a willing parent for the growing person in the womb that has come into existence.

    If the role of government is to protect free agents from being destroyed by other free agents, we would have a ban on war and would not spend a majority of our federal budget on military expenditures.

    Without getting into a separate debate on the nature and justification for military force in the world, it should be noted that the reason war and military exist, according to proponents of the military, IS to protect free moral agents from being destroyed by other free moral agents. It’s just a question of when force is justified in the service of such protection. Of course this is only in theory and in reality, many horrible atrocities are committed by all governments…but that does not negate the original purpose of government–which is to protect the rights and lives of those who are unable to do so for themselves (which, from a human-rights perspective includes the most vulnerable people in society, or as Scripture puts it, the “widow and orphan.”).

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 6:47 pm

85. >Rachel, I can’t agree that Katherine’s story is in any way “brave”

    It certainly was. Sharing something so intimate and personal about yourself, going against the convention in society, and accepting criticism that might come is “brave”.

    >Knowing personally the number of couples trying hard to adopt because they >cannot have children of their own, it only makes her story sound that much >more selfish (again, I’m not trying to be antagonistic for argument’s sake, I’m >just saying how this seems from my perspective).

    And I could just as easily say that your desire for her to take the baby to term, despite personal consequences to herself in order to serve your societal conceptions is “selfish”. Forcing people to conform to your personal standards and ignoring THEIR personal costs is “selfish”.

    Demanding that she go through a pregnancy to serve the needs of adoptive parents is “selfish”.

    Be careful when you throw around words like “selfish”, JMS, they can rebound on you.

    >Katherine, I know many people who’ve committed many sins with a clean >conscience;

    I don’t think Katherine was saying that she was at peace with her sin. I think she was saying that she didn’t think it was a sin at all, JMS.

    >I’m afraid that the peace you feel is the peace of someone rationalizing a >decision that, forgive me for being blunt, was entirely selfish.

    I’m afraid the peace you have JMS, is the peace that comes from condemning an action so as to fit into the Christian society, while being immune to the consequences that your moral demand entails.

    Prove to me that the peace she felt was “rationalization” of evil, and not “realization” that what she was doing was not evil.

    >As someone who values ALL life (including Katherine and her husband’s)

    You mean, as someone who would rather have a pregnancy ruin a family than have an unthinking, unfeeling zygote be terminated, and irrationally insist that a zygote and a human person are exactly the same thing?

    Assuming that all life is equal can cause serious harm to those persons who are alive.

    >But Katherine’s story is EXACTLY the kind of abortion-on-demand that I >oppose so passionately.

    So then, all persons who are married and have sex MUST have children? That’s what you’re saying? If I don’t have children, am I doing something morally wrong? It seems to me that is what you’re saying. Birth control is never perfect because of human error. So what you’re essentially saying is, you are allowed to try to dodge having children with birth control, but if birth control fails, sorry: you have to be a parent and change your lifestyle no matter what to suit that zygote.

    Is that what you’re saying JMS?

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 16, 2010 at 6:06 pm

86. It certainly was. Sharing something so intimate and personal about yourself, going against the convention in society, and accepting criticism that might come is “brave”.

    Then logically, a child brothel owner sharing their experience in operating a brothel in Thailand on an IJM discussion forum would be equally brave, would you agree?

    I don’t think Katherine was saying that she was at peace with her sin. I think she was saying that she didn’t think it was a sin at all, JMS.

    I don’t dispute this. From a pastoral perspective I can testify that almost every person who’s ever “had a peace about” leaving their family for another person has shared a similar sentiment.

    I’m afraid the peace you have JMS, is the peace that comes from condemning an action so as to fit into the Christian society, while being immune to the consequences that your moral demand entails.

    I don’t see how anything I’ve said can be seen as trying to be “immune to the consequences” of anything. This entire discussion is precisely about the consequences of holding to the anti-abortion position. And in fact in my response to Rachel (which I hope to post soon) I will spend a good bit of space doing precisely that.

    2010/12/16 at 6:06 pm | In reply to jm.

    >Rachel, I can’t agree that Katherine’s story is in any way “brave”

    It certainly was. Sharing something so intimate and personal about yourself, going against the convention in society, and accepting criticism that might come is “brave”.

    >Knowing personally the number of couples trying hard to adopt because they >cannot have children of their own, it only makes her story sound that much >more selfish (again, I’m not trying to be antagonistic for argument’s sake, I’m >just saying how this seems from my perspective).

    And I could just as easily say that your desire for her to take the baby to term, despite personal consequences to herself in order to serve your societal conceptions is “selfish”. Forcing people to conform to your personal standards and ignoring THEIR personal costs is “selfish”.

    Demanding that she go through a pregnancy to serve the needs of adoptive parents is “selfish”.

    Be careful when you throw around words like “selfish”, JMS, they can rebound on you.

    >Katherine, I know many people who’ve committed many sins with a clean >conscience;

    I don’t think Katherine was saying that she was at peace with her sin. I think she was saying that she didn’t think it was a sin at all, JMS.

    >I’m afraid that the peace you feel is the peace of someone rationalizing a >decision that, forgive me for being blunt, was entirely selfish.

    I’m afraid the peace you have JMS, is the peace that comes from condemning an action so as to fit into the Christian society, while being immune to the consequences that your moral demand entails.

    Prove to me that the peace she felt was “rationalization” of evil, and not “realization” that what she was doing was not evil.

    From our perspective there may be little difference between the two…from God’s perspective there is a distinct difference.
    “All deeds are right in the sight of the doer,
    but the LORD weighs the heart.” Prov. 21:2

    You mean, as someone who would rather have a pregnancy ruin a family…

    Listen to your language, Chris. Does a pregnancy really “ruin the life” of a family? Is postponing or altering of lifestyle choices on the part of a well-off 30-something couple really “ruin” their life? Honestly? A family in Somalia or Chennai who cannot afford to eat if they have another child or in which the mother may die due to lack of medical facilities if she has the child is one thing. But by her own admission, Katherine and her husband’s story is not in any way like this. To speak of “ruin” in a situation where things would not, in fact, be ruined is to belittle the issue entirely, I believe.

    So then, all persons who are married and have sex MUST have children? That’s what you’re saying? If I don’t have children, am I doing something morally wrong? It seems to me that is what you’re saying.

    This discussion has been free from straw man arguments thus far, Chris. Let’s keep it that way. Of course this is not in any way what I’m saying and I believe you know this. I’m not Catholic, so I have not adherence to any dogma which equates birth control with taking life.

    Birth control is never perfect because of human error. So what you’re essentially saying is, you are allowed to try to dodge having children with birth control, but if birth control fails, sorry: you have to be a parent and change your lifestyle no matter what to suit that zygote. Is that what you’re saying JMS?

    Yes, Chris. That is PRECISELY what I’m saying. Zygote is the first stage in actual distinct human life. Therefore, once new human life has come into existence, one must do whatever one is able to make sure that human life is protected and allowed to continue on in its normal development unharmed. If that involves lifestyle choices having to be altered, at least until the child exits the womb and is given into the care of another who will raise her from there, then that is what is needed. If someone dropped off a baby on your doorstep, would you open the door, look at it, and say “My I can’t be a parent and caring for this child will infringe on my life plans right now” and then shut the door? No. You would put everything else on hold until you were able to get the child into the hands of someone who could care for it. That is precisely what someone who finds themselves with a human life in their womb must likewise do. And as a society, we must all ensure that anyone in that situation has access to all the healthcare and emotional/relational support resources at our disposal so that they never feel that “shutting the door” is their only viable option.

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm

87. When we take this into a global context, it really changes things. Pregnancy is a health risk for many women. For instance, in rural Kenya many women give birth on a yearly basis because fertility is high, contraception is inaccessible, and large family is desired, at the expense of women’s health. Public health experts have determined that waiting three years between births is optimum for both the survival of the woman and the fetus. That means, every time a woman becomes pregnant soon after giving birth, she is putting her life on the line.

    A woman in sub-Saharan Africa has a one in sixteen change of dying during pregnancy or childbirth. This is not a matter of lifestyle change but one of life and death for many of the world’s women. Let’s not forget that.

    by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:45 pm

88. Yes, this is why stories like Katherine’s are so much more disturbing to those of us who value all human life. None of these circumstances are encountered by the vast majority of those who opt for abortions in this country each year. The “hard cases” are the exception rather than the norm. So long as the convenience/lifestyle decision cases are allowed to happen, there is little need to find ways to deal with the “hard cases.” It is precisely the sub-Saharan type cases around the world which magnify the evil of the current abortion-on-demand legality in affluent countries and cultures where 99 out of 100 pregnancies are not a life-and-death issue for the woman who is pregnant.

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 8:32 pm

89. Chris – we are definitely on the same page. Thank you for saying what I’ve been struggling to convey. 🙂

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:52 pm

90. Hi JM,

    I simply don’t view a newborn baby and a 5-week old fetus (which was my case at the time I terminated the pregnancy) as the same thing. In the abortion debate, I think it’s a major sticking point between the different sides – what is life, what is the difference, etc. Frankly, I don’t think we’re ever going to agree there. Because of this, your ‘dumpster baby’ story really doesn’t relate to my experience at all.

    I happen to be a member of a church (United Church of Canada) that some might consider progressive. In their eyes, I’m not considered a sinner for having had an abortion (nor, according to the United Church, would someone be going against the will of God by being gay, for example). If you think my church – which is the second largest Christian church in the country after the Roman Catholic church – is wrong to take those stances, that’s really just your opinion. Since none of us here is God, we can only search our faith and hearts for what He truly thinks of the situation (if He even thinks of the situation at all). You have your opinion and faith, and I have mine, but I am no less a thinking Christian than you are. I speak to and hear God no less than you do.

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:13 pm

91. Katharine,
    Again, to show you how your line of thinking sounds to those of us who value all human life, let me rephrase what you’ve said:

    “I simply don’t view an adult and a newborn baby (which was my case at the time I left mine in the dumpster) as the same thing. In the dumpster debate, I think it’s a major sticking point between the different sides – what is life, what is the difference, etc. Frankly, I don’t think we’re ever going to agree there.”

    Southern slave owners never agreed that black people were fully human. They were wrong.
    Misogynists never agree that women are fully human. They are wrong.
    Likewise and in the same way, those who don’t believe humans in the womb are fully human are wrong.

    The abortion debate cannot be an “agree to disagree” issue anymoreso than the abolition debate could’ve been an “agree to disagree” issue. Whole denominations of churches supported colonial slavery…those denominations were wrong and history judged them so. History will render the same verdict, I hope, to churches that currently embrace abortion as an acceptable means of dealing with an unwanted child.

    by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:46 pm

92. JM – can’t reply directly to your message, so hopefully this works …

    You said:
    Katharine,
    Again, to show you how your line of thinking sounds to those of us who value all human life, let me rephrase what you’ve said:

    “I simply don’t view an adult and a newborn baby ….

    You see, I understand and hear what you’re saying. Rephrasing / twisting my words a million times to create a story of a 2-month old or a 5-month old, or what-have-you is all the same thing. I do not consider a fetus to be the same thing as a newborn or a child or an old person or any other human being. You, however, do think of a zygote and a toddler as the same thing. I comprehend this. Saying the same argument over and over won’t change anyone’s mind. Comparing abortion to something completely different, like slavery, won’t change anyone’s mind (it only detracts from the discussion, frankly).

    If you don’t think “what is a human” is an agree-to-disagree issue and one that has to be resolved – well, frankly, it is resolved. Abortion is legal. My definition of a human being is what doctors, government and my faith agree with. The end. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one – that’s the magic about pro-choice – letting people choose what’s best for their bodies and lives, either way.

    This is probably my last contribution to the topic as I don’t think anyone is gaining anything new from this discussion, rather it’s entrenching people deeper in their original beliefs (myself included!).

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm

93. Comparing abortion to something completely different, like slavery, won’t change anyone’s mind (it only detracts from the discussion, frankly).

    Actually, it’s changed many people’s minds, thankfully. Once people see abortion-on-demand for what it is–a human rights violation on a massive scale–they are then able to see why it is that their support for it, no matter how well-intentioned, is unacceptable and they begin to look for ways to do things that actually help alleviate the suffering and oppression of women who need maternal health access, birth control education and supplies, and legal/societal support.

    If you don’t think “what is a human” is an agree-to-disagree issue and one that has to be resolved – well, frankly, it is resolved. Abortion is legal.

    Hopefully not for long. Legality never determines morality…just ask any Auschwitz survior, Jim Crow victim, or apartheid resident.

    My definition of a human being is what doctors, government and my faith agree with. The end.

    If assertion equaled evidence it would indeed be “the end.” But it does not.

    The medical community and biologists as a whole are pretty unanimous that human life begins at conception. The question, as Chris McCauley’s comments zero in on, is with regard to the specific value of the life in the womb as compared to life outside of the womb. That is the crux of the issue and what it all hinges upon for us as a society.

    Likewise, the Government itself does not unanimously hold that “human being” is limited to those outside the womb…this is why a drunk driver who causes a miscarriage is charged with manslaughter and why judges can order pregnant women not to drink alcohol due to the harm it causes her baby in the womb.

    And regarding your faith, I concede that your faith may allow you to approve of taking human life in the womb for reasons of convenience, but I believe your faith is simply wrong on this point…just as those whose faith led them to conclude that chattel slavery was acceptable because Africans were under the “curse of Ham” was wrong; just as the German church was was wrong in accepting that Jews were a cursed people and should be confined to ghettos and eventually gas chambers; just as Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in believing that “God Hates Fags”; just as radical Hindus who oppose social justice because it disrupts the cycle of karma whereby untouchables are paying for the sins committed in their previous life are wrong…etc. etc.

    If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one – that’s the magic about pro-choice – letting people choose what’s best for their bodies and lives, either way.

    Unless they are in the womb and unable to make that choice for themselves, that is.

    No, I’m afraid there is nothing “magic” about saying “If you don’t believe in ____, don’t commit ____!” In fact, I believe it’s one of the most hollow and condescending slogans used by many who favor abortion rights. There is no other example of intentionally taking a human life where such logic would be accepted. Thus, many of us refuse to accept it when applied to human life in the womb. I don’t want to have (or in my case as a man, enable/encourage/pay for) an abortion…and I don’t want you to have the right to do so either. That is no more intolerant than not wanting to rape women and not wanting anyone to be able to have the right to rape women either. That’s the nature of societal laws and those who oppose human-rights violations. It’s also at the heart of what it means to be a true feminist. Just personally believing that women deserved things like the ability to vote was not enough. The heroes of the early feminist movement demanded that society as a whole adopt their morality…and they were right to do so. Fortunately, they won society over by their tireless efforts and continued passion for dialogue, debate and challenging the status quo. This is what those of us who oppose abortion seek to do as well.

    Lastly, Katharine, I do appreciate you sharing and commenting here. I want to be very clear in stressing that I do not have any ill-will toward you, your husband or the doctor who performed the abortion. I don’t think you are an especially horrible person, nor do I see you as “the enemy” or “one of those people.” However, I believe you were all complicit in an act of evil–despite sincerely believing otherwise. Therefore, what I am about to say is not a personal attack, nor is it meant to belittle you (though you may object or be offended by it) but rather it reflects a sincere desire. I am not speaking to Rachel, Chris or any other person who is pro-choice but open to the possibility that they may be wrong on this issue. I’m speaking to you “entrenched” (to borrow your wording) in your current view:

    If human life does actually begin at conception and the 5-week old human being in your womb was, in fact a human being created in God’s image and being knit together by Him through the amazing process of fertilization and embryonic development that we all experienced, then I pray (and I encourage other readers who feel the same conviction to pray as well) that you are haunted by the silent screams of not just your own aborted child, but the millions of aborted children whose lives have been snuffed out at their most vulnerable state, until you come to realize the immense injustice of abortion-on-demand. Just as the cries of the slaves in his old slave ship compartments rang in the ears of John Newton, who “once was blind” haunted him and led him to eventually “see.” Just as Roe herself was so haunted and eventually came to realize the institutional and societal evils of abortion-on-demand and now is a powerful voice against it, I pray that you likewise will come to see this, be led to the God who truly forgives and restores, and become an advocate to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed.” (Proverbs 31:8 NLT)

    If you would like to post anything else before bowing out of the discussion, I invite you to have the last word before doing so, and then I say go with God and allow the Holy Spirit to do what He will in both our lives.

    Sincerely, respectfully, but passionately,
    JM

    Again, I don’t say this for rhetorical posturing alone; I truly want what’s best for you and your husband. But no one can receive God’s best until they have recognized and turned away from their sin, whatever it may be. My conviction in this matter won’t let me say otherwise.

    by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:34 am

94. JMS said:

    >Then logically, a child brothel owner sharing their experience in operating a >brothel in Thailand on an IJM discussion forum would be equally brave, >would you agree?

    1. Yes. Anyone who is doing something society deems wrong and is willing to step forward, explain their position and take criticism for it is brave.

    2. You are equating something with which we disagree is wrong with something we agree is wrong. We both agree that brothels are wrong. We don’t agree that termination of a zygote is wrong. You are equating brothels to zygote termination, because you believe both are wrong. But I DON’T.

    >I don’t dispute this. From a pastoral perspective I can testify that almost >every person who’s ever “had a peace about” leaving their family for >another person has shared a similar sentiment.

    I don’t assume that because they came to peace about it it’s morally right, anymore that you can assume that coming to peace about it proves it’s morally wrong.

    >I don’t see how anything I’ve said can be seen as trying to be “immune to >the consequences” of anything.

    Because you demand that they live up to your moral opinion and change their lifestyle, yet YOU don’t have to change your lifestyle.

    >From our perspective there may be little difference between the two…from >God’s perspective there is a distinct difference.
    >“All deeds are right in the sight of the doer,
    >but the LORD weighs the heart.” Prov. 21:2

    No, I think there’s a very great difference between the two. I was asking you to prove that it was a sin, and prove that her “coming to peace with it” somehow proves that it’s a sin. It doesn’t, either way.

    >Listen to your language, Chris. Does a pregnancy really “ruin the life” of a >family?

    YES. Let me say that again. YES. Would you like me to say it louder? Would you like me to point to cases where carrying a pregnancy to term caused divorce?

    >Is postponing or altering of lifestyle choices on the part of a well-off >30-something couple really “ruin” their life? Honestly?

    Yep. Especially if they’re not cut out to be a parent.

    >A family in Somalia or Chennai who cannot afford to eat if they have another >child or in which the mother may die due to lack of medical facilities if she >has the child is one thing. But by her own admission, Katherine and her >husband’s story is not in any way like this. To speak of “ruin” in a situation >where things would not, in fact, be ruined is to belittle the issue entirely, I >believe.

    I think you are belittling the effects of an unwanted pregnancy on a married couple. As if they just somehow ‘adapt’ their lifestyle to wanting children, when they DON’T want children, never have and never will. What kind of parent does that produce? I know several married couples who didn’t want kids but had them anyway. The results were not pretty, either for them or for society at large.

    You think that parents will “get over it” or will “adjust” to a new lifestyle. Guess what? They don’t.

    >Yes, Chris. That is PRECISELY what I’m saying. Zygote is the first stage in >actual distinct human life. Therefore, once new human life has come into >existence, one must do whatever one is able to make sure that human life is >protected and allowed to continue on in its normal development unharmed.

    And this is where we disagree. I don’t agree that the Zygote should be afforded equal status to a thinking, feeling person, because a Zygote is not a thinking, feeling person. It has no self awareness or identity, thus no person is being destroyed. It’s just a cell.

    >If that involves lifestyle choices having to be altered, at least until the child >exits the womb and is given into the care of another who will raise her from >there, then that is what is needed.

    I don’t agree. A single cell is not a person and feels no pain, has no sentience, or loss of self when it dies.

    >If someone dropped off a baby on your doorstep, would you open the door, >look at it, and say “My I can’t be a parent and caring for this child will >infringe on my life plans right now” and then shut the door? No.

    But you are equating a human baby with a single cell zygote, and they aren’t the same thing. A zygote is simply unthinking, unfeeling biological material. It’s not a person.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm

95. Katherine:

    I just wanted to point something interesting out about your post. I think that the expectancy with anyone that is married is to have children. There are certain persons (and I include myself and my partner in this) who have no desire to have children and have no calling from God to have children. To us, having children would be nothing but a burden, stress and isn’t what we are cut out for.

    To that end, married couples are supposed to be expected to have sex and if they become pregnant, they are supposed to have the child. If they have an abortion, or give the child up for adoption, they are looked upon with scorn and contempt. In our society, deciding not to have children is simply NOT ALLOWED.

    I would have encouraged you to give your child up for adoption rather than have an abortion, but, ironically, you would be met with even more scorn by society for giving your child up for adoption than having an abortion, and i think there’s something profoundly wrong with that.

    Why is it in our society that we can’t be free to be married and not have children? I can’t tell you how many times my mate has been met with scorn and incredulous questions over her decision not to bear children, even to the point of being called “unchristian” and “selfish” or “immoral” because she doesn’t want to have them. As for me, when I say that I don’t want to have children people think I’m simply irresponsible, selfish or freewheeling and that I’ll eventually “settle down” and want to do it. Nothing could be further from the truth! I simply don’t think it’s my lot in life to be a father!

    Ironically, we have two very close friends who are Catholic. They desperately want to have children and because they’re having in vitro fertilization treatments, they have to keep it secret or else be branded as a murderer by their own church!

    I think at some point, it’s all about people pontificating about subjects they know little about from a personal perspective. And while I would rather you have given your child up for adoption rather than having an abortion, I respect your decision.

    by Chris McCauley on Dec 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm

96. Hi Chris,

    Yes – being married and comfortable and yet not wanting to have a child is often a peculiar position to be in. There is a huge presumption (from parents and in-laws, some friends, some members of our church) that we’ll be having / wanting children – and I understand that, as it’s sort of “the norm” – but it can still be very frustrating. Like you, some people presume not wanting children is a sign of selfishness, immaturity, coldness, etc. Honestly, I kind of don’t care. People are going to judge you one way or the other, and it’s best to just go with what makes you happy, what lets you be a more giving person, and to work on your connection with God.

    And you’re also right – being married, comfortable and giving up a child for adoption is even more “strange” and “judgement-worthy” in our society. I know people here are saying “you should have given it up for adoption!” but if they’re honest, I wonder what thoughts they would have had if they found out a couple they personally knew who would be great parents on paper but were giving up a baby. Be honest. I can almost guarantee you that it wouldn’t be a big gush over the “Christian love” they were showing, but questions of why? What’s wrong with them? What do their parents think? Don’t they like children? Maybe they’ll change their minds? How can she go on knowing she’s given up a son / daughter?

    In the end, we’re all humans, fumbling along as best we can. I’ve rarely met Christians who interpret the Bible in the exact same way or experience God’s presence in the exact same way. Therefore, I don’t expect everyone to understand where I’m coming from in all this – but certainly appreciate the dialogue.

    by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:45 pm

97. I fully respect those who hold pro-life viewpoints and view abortion as murder. I have not refuted the stories, the opinions, the facts, or the theology behind what forms that position. What I cannot and will not support is any local, state, or national legislation in which the government assumes moral agency in the area of reproductive decision-making. For me, this is the central issue–upholding women as moral agents capable of making moral decisions. I have tried my best to answer questions about fetal life, but I feel this discussion is heavily weighted on that and has for the most part avoided the difficult questions regarding women’s agency.

    For those who think making abortion illegal will actually end abortion are mistaken. We need only look back to the days before Roe when thousands of women died due to botched abortions. Now more than 60,000 women die each year because of unsafe abortions in nations where abortion is illegal. I refuse to turn a blind eye to these lives that are lost. Are they not valued? Or because they chose to have an unsafe abortion, it is their own fault that they die?

    We cannot ignore the complex, difficult, and oftentimes tragic realities women face.

    by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 3:46 pm

98. “Second of all, regarding infertile couples, I reject the idea that any woman is morally obligated to provide children to couples who desire them. This shift in adoption from “finding parents for needy children” to “finding children for needy parents” is just wrong. No doubt adopting a child is a joy for adoptive parents, but at what cost to the woman carrying the pregnancy? What about her pain, her life? The assertions that motherhood is always the best decision, that it is the most selfless thing to do, and that selflessness is always the greatest good are assertions I completely reject. ”

    Rachel, I think that you need to understand the process of adoption before making such a statment. There has been no shift in adoption that you speak of. A women with an unwanted pregnancy (note, she is already pregnant or has even already given birth to the child) enters an adoption agency wishing to speak to someone about placing her child. She then begins to receive free counseling througout her prenancy regarding her decision to place her child or not. She then looks through books of profiles of couples WILLING and waiting to adopt a child. She picks out the family she desires for her child….all the while, receiving counseling…..counseling, not someone persuading her one way or the other. Once the child is born, she can still change her mind, then even if she goes through with it and even after the adoptive parents take the child home, the birthmother still has 7 days to change her mind. Plus, my adoptions were open adoptions meaning that my kid’s birthmothers. My daughter’s birthmother sees her on a regular basis, sees her grow and change, but without the burden of being a parent. I have a close relationship with her and can tell you she sees this as a blessing, a gift. She received the counseling she needed after placing her child as well. SO, I assure you, she IS better off than a women who will have an abortion and receive no counseling to handle her emotional pain. I can’t believe that you actually think adoptive parents are walking around coercing people to get pregnant and give them their babies!!! MUCH thought, care and concern is given to the birthmother. Please just understand how the process works before making such a bold statement. Adoptions take place AFTER a women becomes pregnant and decides she does not want it. Those of us who can’t have biological children…..”needy” I believe you called it are certainly NOT in posession of such power as you imply. I “reject” your ideas of what you think happens in an adoption.

    by Meredith on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:58 pm

99. I should have said “the shift in conversation.” I actually had written a more articulate response but then my Internet failed and I lost it. I think you are taking what I am saying too literally here. I didn’t say anyone is physically coercing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and forcing her to choose adoption. I was referring to how I hear adoption spoken about in conversations like this one. How JM used the context of knowing infertile couples to say that what Katharine did was selfish, implying it is selfish to terminate a pregnancy when there are many couples who would adopt the child. Hence, the shift from finding parents for children to finding children for parents.

    I’m happy to hear that in your case things have worked so well. Thank you for sharing with me and with everyone how adoption ideally works out. My comment was not a personal attack, though as something you care about deeply I understand how you could receive it that way. We cannot ignore our own stories in talking about something like this.

    by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 8:09 pm

100. Thanks for understanding my passion…..I did see it as a personal attack and a severe misunderstanding of what adoption is. You called those of us willing to take in a chid and love it, needy. That’s just wrong. That being said, in Katherine’s case, she did not want her child. What is so wrong with finding parents that do? It is still a case of finding parents for an unwanted child. Not finding a child for a parent. How can you have an abortion discussion and not want adoption to come into that discussion?? It’s the obvious choice for someone who has an unwanted pregnancy and does not want to parent. The only other possibility being abortion and a Pro-life supporter would never see that as an option. You have to expect the conversation to take that turn. JM is just making the point that there was no reason to kill that child because someone somewhere out there would find it in their hearts to love a child regardless of biological ties.
     You also can’t deny that a women is going to end up being healthier and emotionally more stable in the couseling she will receive through adoption than having an abortion and receiving nothing to help her handle the emotional turmoil that WILL occur later. If your whole goal is keeping “moral women” safe, why would you send them for abortions? What counseling is provided for women that do this? Enlighten me.

     As far as the central issue being “upholding women as moral agents capable of making a moral decision,” this is the problem with this entire conversation. Pro-life supporters will never consider the choice as moral, so this argument will never end.

     by Meredith on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:50 pm

101. Meredith, you have criticized me for making assumptions about adoption, which I have acknowledged and clarified and have actually learned something from you. Thank you again for sharing. But then you turn around and make sweeping generalizations about women facing unintended pregnancies, that adoption is always the best and even obvious decision. I never said I didn’t want to discuss adoption; I very much agree that it is a good choice for women who choose it, especially with people like you who clearly is a dedicated, fantastic parent.

     You said, “You also can’t deny that a women is going to end up being healthier and emotionally more stable in the couseling she will receive through adoption than having an abortion and receiving nothing to help her handle the emotional turmoil that WILL occur later. If your whole goal is keeping “moral women” safe, why would you send them for abortions? What counseling is provided for women that do this?”

     Yes, in fact, I can. My aunt is an example. Why do you assume there is no counseling for post-abortive women? I know groups on both pro-life and pro-choice sides that provide this. Project Rachel is one. I myself am trained in that very thing and have worked with many women post-abortion who needed support. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice does trainings with clergy to deal with a whole host of reproductive loss issues, including adoption, miscarriage, infertility, etc.

     I have learned from what you have said, and I hope not to make any more sweeping generalizations about things like adoption with which I have limited experience. I would ask that you do the same when it comes to women who have been through abortions, something I have a lot of experience with. Maybe you could learn from me as well.

     Also, separating moral agency from the choice itself is a critical piece when it comes to legality. You have conflated the two in your last comment. There is a difference.

     by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:21 pm

102. JM, I am not a political scientist, but I have to disagree that there is a singular, “original” purpose of government. And I disagree that its central assertion is “to protect the rights and lives of those who are unable to do so for themselves” as you claim. Originally our US Constitution left out many of the most vulnerable in the population, including women and non-white persons. And heck, we *still* have not passed the Equal Rights Amendment! So even to this day women are not granted equal rights under the Constitution!

     by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm

103. Rachel, I should clarify that I wasn’t speaking specifically about the US Government, rather I was speaking about the concept of government in general being charged with protecting its citizens who cannot protect themselves:

     “For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Rom 13:4)

     by jm on Dec 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm

104. @Chris: “I would have encouraged you to give your child up for adoption rather than have an abortion, but, ironically, you would be met with even more scorn by society for giving your child up for adoption than having an abortion, and i think there’s something profoundly wrong with that.”

     This is completely untrue. I don’t any pro-life person who thinks this way. It makes the world of difference to me. I have no problem with people who decide not to have kids and I appreciate it when women who can’t raise a child, or who don’t want to, give that child to someone else. Equating abortion (taking a life already in existence) with birth control (preventing a new life from coming into existence) makes no sense.

     by Mary on Dec 16, 2010 at 8:56 pm

105. >This is completely untrue. I don’t any pro-life person who thinks this way. It >makes the world of difference to me. I have no problem with people who >decide not to have kids and I appreciate it when women who can’t raise a >child, or who don’t want to, give that child to someone else.

     Lip service. While there may be individual persons who are pro life who believe as you do, the Pro-life/conservative society at large would scorn any married individual who gave their child up for adoption. Even if they weren’t pro-life, they would STILL scorn anyone who was married and gave their child up for adoption. It’s like how pro-life advocates claim that no one is going to judge unwed mothers for becoming pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption over having an abortion. Completely false. Everyone judges you for that. Especially in conservative communities that are Pro-life.

     YOU PERSONALLY might not judge, and I know other pro-life people who wouldn’t (including me), but the society at large would treat you as a leper.

     Sorry, you’re not going to be able to convince me otherwise.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:48 pm

106. Rachel, the analogy with rights being denied to women and non-whites is actually very instructive as a pro-life argument. At present, the pre-born are the class of society denied rights. I’m sure you will agree that it was a good thing to extend rights to women and non-whites. Well, now it is time we got our act together and gave the pre-born the right to life which they deserve. Let us fight the injustice instead of accepting it as normal.

     by Mary on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:02 pm

107. @Mary, I see how that is instructive within the pro-life community to use that analogy. When I think of classes of society who are denied rights, I think of immigrants, LGBT people, and people who have to fly as a mode of transportation (ok, kidding on the last one…sort of.)

     by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:11 pm

108. Katharine:
     I am going to be blunt because I think it is necessary to wake you from your self delusion.

     You killed your own child for no better reason than convenience. There is no way that this is acceptable in the eyes of God. Rationalizing it on the basis that you prayed and that it made you feel better does not change the bald fact that your child is dead because you decreed that he or she should die rather than that you be inconvenienced.

     I would strongly urge you to re-examine your actions and, when you have hopefully seen the evil of what you have done, go to God in sincere repentance and beg Him for forgiveness – which He will grant you, if you come to Him in sincerity.

     by Mary on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:10 pm

109. Hi Mary. I never had a child – I had an abortion. You and I will likely never agree on the difference.

     You need not worry about my relationship and standing with God, it is strong. Perhaps its best you focus on your own bond with God, seeing as you’ve decided that you speak on His behalf.

     by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:04 pm

110. Katherine, I am responding to you here because the site is not allowing me to respond above where you commented on my entry. I just want to make it clear to you that I AM a parent. I adopted two children. That is my whole stake in this conversation. My husband and I are raising someone else’s “unwanted” children as our very much wanted and loved children. Life isn’t always fair, but in this case, I see my infertility as a blessing because I now have the two children I believe GOD wanted me to have.

     Your argument of not wanting to have difficutly with family or with your job so you ended your pregnancy instead of placing your child for adoption you realize, does sit well with me. However, since we don’t view a life as beginning at the same point, continuting to argue this would take more energy that I have. :o) I have to go feed my little ones dinner……

     by Meredith on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:32 pm

111. Oops – sorry for that oversight, Meredith. I took your mention of adoption to be hypothetical for some reason (rereading it now and can see you obviously were speaking of your own children).

     Enjoy your little ones. I have dinner to make my husband too, so off I go.

     by Katharine on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:57 pm

112. I mean to type “does NOT sit well with me”
     Sorry for the typo.

     by Meredith on Dec 16, 2010 at 11:10 pm

113. ^ Good job.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:49 pm

114. Katharine: Abortion is taking the life of your child before they have a chance to be born.

     by Mary on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:10 pm

115. ^ But mary, we don’t agree that a zygote equals a child. A child can think, has memory, feels physical pain, and has memory and a sense of self. A Zygote does not.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:53 pm

116. I’ve been trying to figure out why the analogy of slavery and abortion bothers me so much. And then I found my answer in the form of a quote by Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     “[The analogy] is not bulky or awkward, it is just wrong. But to point out the obvious fact that Africans were not “part” of the fight against slavery, but its authors, to again detail how enslaved Africans resisted slavery from the moment they were taken into baracoons, to again show how slaves, themselves, by their own actions, transformed the Civil War into a war of liberation…It is, to be blunt, beneath me.

     This is not a matter of being pro-choice or pro-life. This is a matter of living in a country that is more fascinated with the machinations of Stonewall Jackson, than Sojourner Truth. One reason that black people grimace at invocations of their history to justify the struggle de jure, is because, very often, the invokers really don’t know what the f*** they are talking about. Put bluntly they have no deep knowledge of the black struggle, and are not seeking any. For them, black history is a rhetorical device, employed to pummel their ideological foes, and then promptly discarded for more appropriate instruments.

     I would never argue that history is the property of specific groups. I would not even argue that history is the property of my allies. But I would argue that those who invoke it should regard history–all history–as something more than a rhetorical device. If you’re going to compare abortion and slavery, then, by God, understand that whereas mothers choose every day whether to bring children to term, no slave-master ever chose to have his slave escape. (To say nothing of comparing mothers with slave-masters!! F***, my brain is hurting.)”

     by Rachel on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:45 pm

117. Rachel: I greatly admire the work done by Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King) in opposing abortion. She rightly sees that abortion is oppression in the same vein as slavery. Rights for the pre-born is a civil rights issue too. And there are strong ideological links. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, was a virulent racist and eugenicist who stated that abortion was useful in eliminating black people.

     Your comments on the slavery analogy are interesting because they actually reveal how abortion is even worse than slavery. Slaves could rise up against oppression, but a baby can’t. Slaves could speak out against their own oppression, but pre-born children are too young to be able to do that. Abortion is so evil precisely because it targets the weakest, most defenseless members of society. Not to mention the fact that every successful abortion results in death for the victim. If anything, the horrors of slavery, bad as they were, don’t match the horror of systematic child killing.

     by Mary on Dec 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm

118. Mary, you have missed the point entirely of my posting that quote. And they are not my comments–they are the comments of Ta-Nehisi Coates.

     My point was that one must be very careful making analogies to slavery–and the Holocaust, Hitler, etc.–so as not to belittle, undermine, or use as a rhetorical device the suffering of particular people. I find it amazing that white people are so quick to pull out the slavery card when it’s clear that we have NOT achieved racial justice in the US. Let’s be mindful of that.

     Last week I was at a “peaceful presence” at an abortion protest when a white woman began berating an African-American woman there with me, telling her that abortion was a black genocide and how could she as a black woman be there in support of abortion. She would not relent. I finally turned to her and said, “If this is such a concern of the black community, then why are they not here protesting with you?” She could not answer me, and she left us alone.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:57 am

119. Rachel,
     Just to clarify, in case your question wasn’t rhetorical, there are a number of African American organizations that, while not at that particular rally, would agree with the woman with whom you spoke. Here’s an example of one: http://www.blackgenocide.org/

     I understand your sensitivity to this, however, as it’s really easy to co-opt a culture’s history in order to merely prove a point in a debate. It’s something that shouldn’t be done lightly or flippantly by those outside that culture.

     by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:04 am

120. And I would be much more apt to listen to that particular argumentation if I heard it from communities of color. So far the only ones I’ve heard publicly say this have been white.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:46 am

121. I agree that one must be careful using history to justify/fight against events of the day, but that does not mean history has no relevance. History is often the best way to determine how events of the present will eventually turn out. Its like we’ve read this book before.

     As North Americans when we talk about slavery we tend to talk about African slavery in the southern United States, but the comparison of unborn babies to slaves runs much deeper than the relatively short time period of the oppression of Africans in the continental United States. Slavery has existed pretty much everywhere for most of human existence. Perhaps the reason the analogy bothers you so much, Rachel, is because you are viewing it in terms of African slavery, which is something for which this country is still suffering. The pro-life side probably uses slavery in America as the comparison because people still “feel” the effects of slavery in America.

     A much better analogy, in my mind, is one that compares unborn babies to Roman slaves and the practice of abortion to some of the practices of slavery in Rome. I don’t think many of us are offended by Roman slavery. Rome usually took slaves when conquering an area that did not bow to their power and authority without a fight. Some of these slaves were sent to their death (or possibly freedom) in gladiatorial combat, if they were exceptional fighters, while some were just sent into the arena to be slaughtered or eaten or burned, etc. These slaves, the second group, are the ones who more closely match the unborn. Both parties are powerless to prevent what is about to happen to them. Both are seen as less than human by their oppressors. Neither is granted any rights by the prevailing government. Both are considered property. The obvious difference is that unborn babies don’t know/can’t comprehend the possibilities of what may happen to them while the Roman slave knew his fate.

     I have no idea if any of those slaves from thousands of years ago would approve of me using them in a discussion about abortion, I doubt it considering many cultures of the day would kill air breathing babies if they were not strong enough, but it leaves the emotion of the fairly recent past out of the discussion and adds the extra similarity of certain death. The African slave in the US always had at least a glimmer of hope to escape, until he died.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:09 am

122. More thoughts on why using slavery, the Holocaust, apartheid analogies fail in my mind: abortion is not a *systemic* oppression of a particular people. Not all zygotes or fetuses (or “unborn persons” to use other terminology) are being aborted. Clearly, we are at a birth rate of 2.1 (replacement level) and we have an overpopulation problem in much of the developing world (a fact, not a justification for abortion). In every instance of an unplanned pregnancy, it is an individual woman with a unique situation (I refuse to classify them in terms of “hard” or “easy” cases), making an individual choice. That is why legislation is so problematic; one cannot make such distinctions. Let’s say one puts a caveat for “life of the mother.” Well, how in danger does the life of the mother have to be? What doctor decides?

     JM, you’ve admitted there are hard cases such as a young girl who is a survivor of incest and women in sub-Saharan Africa. I’m certain you would agree there are other hard cases. How do we legislate the myriad situations that could present a “hard case”?

     Basically, I see the lumping of these individual women together to make a point about fetuses as a “social class” as a rhetorical device, and that’s about it.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:38 am

123. Mary, while I disagree with you on other things, I agree with you that abortion has been and can be used as a form of oppression. In my experience, many abortions are performed because the male part of the couple wanted it so as to skirt his own responsibilities. Then he uses his powers of persuasion on the woman to try and convince her. Another thing that I’ve seen happen is for family members who are aware of the pregnancy to urge that the person has an abortion to “save face” for the family. Third, I would say that societal pressure for women to have successful careers in a patristic, work obsessed society pushes women to have abortions.

     And lastly, I’d say that it’s the Pro-Life societies themselves that push women to have abortions. Since conservative Christians (the head of the Pro-Life movement, often) stigmatize pre-marital sex as immoral, and becoming pregnant as stupid and “low class”, they often fuel the very abortions they argue so vehemently against. If you get an abortion, no one has to know that you had sex with anyone before marriage, and the society can perpetrate its own “virginal myth” of its citizens. So many conservative women are pushed towards abortion by the very societies that condemn abortion. Because they condemn sex, abortion is used as a method to cover up sexual activity.

     All of these I see as forms of oppression.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:10 pm

124. Yes, and according to a survey done by Guttmacher, many of the women who obtain abortions are from traditionally pro-life religious traditions: Catholics (31% of abortions), evangelical/”born again” Christians (18% of abortions), etc.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm

125. Rachel, Katherine, anyone else who shares their point-of-view,

     I have a clarifying question for you. Based on what I have read in this discussion, it seems that you do not deny that a fetus is a human life, you just feel that the fetus is more property than individual life until it is no longer existing inside the host. Have I interpreted your position correctly?

     If so, are you okay with allowing/legalizing abortion at any point in the pregnancy as long as the baby is still inside the host? To put it plainly, do you see anything wrong with aborting a fetus that is 38 weeks into the gestational period in cases that are not endangering the life of the host?

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:24 am

126. Christian,

     While within the uterus, the fetus is physiologically (and up until viability, also physically) dependent on the woman’s body, which is indeed her property.

     I knew the late-term abortion question would come up eventually. First, we must acknowledge that abortions after 21 weeks are incredibly rare, constituting about 1% of all procedures. So, this dispels the myth that third-trimester abortions are sought by lots of women who merely wake up one day late in their pregnancy and flippantly say, “Hey, I think I’ll end this pregnancy.” This is simply untrue and does nothing helpful for the pro-life perspective to insist that this is what is happening, not to mention it unfairly undermines women as competent decision-makers. After Dr. Tiller’s murder, I heard some of the stories of women who underwent third-trimester abortions with *wanted* pregnancies but something went tragically wrong with the fetus, and those stories would break your heart.

     Since you have asked a hypothetical question, I will answer with a hypothetical answer. *If* a pregnant woman had access to safe, legal, affordable reproductive health services, including abortion, and had the ability to pay; *if* abortion were not stigmatized and that woman felt comfortable seeking the counsel of her community, faith leaders, and loved ones in making this decision; *if* that woman was not a young girl, mentally disabled, or otherwise unable to understand that she is, in fact, pregnant; and one day late in her pregnancy she simply decided that she did not want to be pregnant anymore, I would most certainly question the morality of that decision. But, theory is not reality, and if one were to insist that what I’ve described above is what actually happens with most third-trimester abortions, it would be nothing short of a lie.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm

127. >While within the uterus, the fetus is physiologically (and up until viability, also >physically) dependent on the woman’s body, which is indeed her property.

     While I have argued on the pro-choice side in much of this argument thus far, I’m still going to argue against this line of thinking which I consider to be bankrupt.

     A fetus isn’t anyone’s property. No human life (thinking or not) is anyone’s property.

     Your body, as a human, is NOT your property. Your life is a gift, and held in common with all other humans in existence.

     Ask yourself this, if your body is your property, is it morally permissible to kill yourself? After all, you “own” your body, so you have the right to kill it, if you want to right? You have the right to abuse it however you want, and destroy it as you see fit, right?

     Nope. Suicide is against the law. Moreover, if someone is suicidal, we break oaths of confidence, and, forcibly if necessary, commit you against your will to an institution. You are not permitted to destroy your body (either legally or morally) and thus it’s improper to say that you OWN your body. You don’t, either legally or morally.

     Thus claims that you “own” a fetus, or that its your “property” fall flat. If you don’t even own your own human life, how can you lay claim to someone else’s?

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:19 pm

128. Chris, that’s fair, but then again, property has never been my central argument either. In reading what you’ve written I agree with you. Body is not property; it something much more sacred.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 pm

129. I’m not suggesting third trimester abortion is common or even that it happens at all. I’m simply trying to figure out your principles on the matter. JMS is very clear that he opposes taking the life of an unborn baby with the exception of cases that endanger the life of the mother. He has justified that exception by saying that no one life can be valued higher than the life of another. I’m not saying his principles are right or wrong or that his reason for the exception makes any sense. But it is very clear where he stands.

     The question is similar in nature to the story about Winston Churchill (I have no idea if it is actually true) asking a woman about her principles. It goes something like this:
     Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
     Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
     Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
     Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
     Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
     Obviously its not a perfect analogy to my question, but the nature of the questions is similar.

     If a fetus is completely dependent on the mother while inside her body, which is her property, and therefore the fetus is her property, at what point in the pregnancy does the fetus cease to be her property? At what point does the fetus become an entity that is morally wrong to kill? It seems to me that based on the rationale that a fetus is the sole property of a woman, an abortion of a fetus is morally acceptable regardless of the stage of pregnancy.

     Again, I’m not trying to ask hypothetical questions. I’m merely trying to understand your principles on the matter.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:32 pm

130. I just read your reply to Chris and you stated that property is not your central argument. Then I have somehow missed your central argument. Could you sum it up for me?

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:35 pm

131. My central principle is this: Women, collectively and individually, are free, moral agents with the capacity and responsibility to make well-informed, moral decisions regarding reproduction, including abortion.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:49 pm

132. But by that logic, aren’t all men and women, collectively and individually, free, moral agents with the capacity and responsibility to make well-informed, moral decisions regarding anything? Why have laws at all?

     by Mark Shannon on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm

133. So to clarify, your central principle allows for a free moral agent to make a well-informed, moral decision to end her pregnancy by killing her fetus at 38 weeks of gestation if she so chooses?

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:17 pm

134. @Mark and Christian, as long as the assumption is made that abortion is always morally wrong–a viewpoint we do not share– my central principle will not satisfy you.

     Christian, please re-read what I said in my earlier response to you.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:31 pm

135. I’m not looking to be satisfied by your principles, merely to understand them. I can disagree with you while understanding your logic and your principles. Do you want me to re-read “My central principle is this: Women, collectively and individually, are free, moral agents with the capacity and responsibility to make well-informed, moral decisions regarding reproduction, including abortion.” or another post? Afte re-reading that response, I’m still unclear on why you are morally opposed to so-called late term abortion, but you are okay with abortion before that time. Men and women are either free to make decisions about abortion or they are not? Or is there some point at which they are free to take those decisions and then a point when that decision is no longer theirs to take? If the latter is true, at what point is it out of their hands and what makes that instant the time at which they no longer have reproductive freedom with regards to abortion?

     You are right. I’m not going to agree with you and I will not be “satisfied” by your answer, whatever it may be, but I’m hoping to gain an intellectual understanding of your viewpoint, not satisfaction. I would be satisfied with an intellectual understanding of your position. It may be there is no intellectual basis for your viewpoint. If so, that is fine. That would make it very easy to understand, but very difficult to argue against/for.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:47 pm

136. First, argumentation was never my initial desire in raising this issue with JM in the first place–the issue being the appropriateness of the behavior of a group of anti-choice activists at a holiday party I attended. It was a private conversation that he asked to make public, and I agreed, not without hesitation. In general, I stay out of these debates, especially online.

     Second, the implication that there may be no intellectual basis to what I have been saying all along is insulting.

     Third, in principle, I do uphold the woman’s reproductive freedom at all times during the pregnancy. That is different than agreeing that every decision made is moral, hence what I said earlier about the “perfect world” scenario that I argue does not exist in reality. In principle, I will uphold the goodness of the *ability* for a woman to make a decision regarding her pregnancy. I am certain I have stated this elsewhere.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:15 pm

137. I didn’t mean to insult you. I was only saying that if you opinions are based on emotion (or some other non-intellectual factor), that is fine. You are entitled to any opinion for any reason. But, if your views are based on something based in something other than intellect, I will not be able to gain any understanding of your basis for having them. If something other than intellect is your primary motivation for your beliefs on abortion, it becomes similar to arguing for/against the existence of God.

     I wish your original private conversation with JM would have remained the sole topic of this discussion. A discussion about specific aspects of an topic is much easier to maintain and argue/discuss effectively. Of course, it is inevitable that any discussion on abortion will lead to a conversation about the overall practice.

     Your third paragraph provided the understanding I was looking for. I believe you are saying that you “feel” late term abortion is morally wrong, but intellectually you are for the legal right of a woman to get a late term abortion. Is that correct?

     If so, at what point does the pregnancy move into a morally grey area? You mentioned 21 weeks in a previous post, but you didn’t specify that as a point of moral opposition to abortion. Also, what defines that line for you? Is there an intellectual reason for the line or an emotional one (or both)?

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm

138. No, that is *not* what I said. I made no sweeping generalizations about third-trimester abortion as “immoral.” I provided a theoretical example in which case I would *question* the morality of the decision made based on external observations–ability to pay, accessibility to services, etc.. But I stand by my original point that I reject the intervention of the government that would restrict a woman’s ability to make decisions regarding her reproduction–and this not only legal or intellectual for me, but also deeply theological.

     I feel your questions aim to box me into some kind of line drawing about in any given pregnancy–regardless of who the woman is or what her circumstances are–the time of the pregnancy at which I would conclude it is an immoral choice. Doing so would go against my core assertion about the individual, personal, and private nature of each woman’s pregnancy, which in my eyes is almost always grey. Do you see the issue for me in answering your question? The best I could do would be to provide theoretical examples as I did before, which would provide only a piecemeal response to your question, and even then I would not stand by them with any absoluteness.

     And, I would like to question your assumption that one can only learn through intellectual reasoning. My coming to hold my views happened in three distinct but simultaneous ways: 1) Researching on the intersections of economic justice and abortion 2) Counseling post-abortive women 3) Volunteering at a reproductive health clinic that provided abortions. It was the combination of the intellectual, the pastoral, and the practical that shaped my views. And even here, I have learned from Meredith who shared mostly about her personal experience with adoption, which forms at least part of her stance of being pro-life.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm

139. Rachel:
     I think that Alveda King counts as a very significant person of colour making that analogy.

     While there are cases which arouse my sympathy a great deal, the only one hard enough to justify abortion is when the mother’s life is in direct danger. This is because human lives are of equal value and the child sadly cannot survive when removed from its mother’s womb. Advances in medical science are thankfully making these cases increasingly rare. Other hard cases are also better served by solutions other than abortion. However, the vast majority of cases, especially in an American context, are more along the lines of what Katharine has related – not a hard case, but a mere matter of inconvenience.

     by Mary on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:37 am

140. Is anyone going to address my zygote distinction? Or just ignore it? I find that pro life people tend to ignore it, when I bring it up, and though I’ve mentioned it six times in this thread, no one has talked about it.

     Zygote: No brain, no consciousness, no memory, no emotions, no sense of self, cannot sense physical pain, no relationship with society.

     Person: Brain, consciousness, memory, emotions, sense of self, senses physical pain, relationship to society.

     Therefore zygote =/= person

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm

141. Chris, my guess is no, and I haven’t read anyone making a distinction here.

     A zygote is alive, human, and with the *potential* for physical independence and personhood. It’s the *potetial* part that no one seems to want to acknowledge.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:17 pm

142. Yeah, I don’t get it. I can see arguing that the fetus thinks, feels, and has emotions at certain stages in a pregnancy. And if that’s true (the jury is still out), then sure. If it thinks, it feels, it has memories, etc. That’s an argument you can make (or attempt to make).

     But a zygote? An unfeeling, unthinking single cell? Come on!

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 3:27 pm

143. Chris,
     You would do well to stop using the term “zygote” in this discussion. A woman can not know if she is even pregnant when she is carrying a zygote. A zygote is the fertilized cells before they have implanted in the uterus. No hormonal changes have yet occurred that will allow a pregnancy to be discovered. In fact, it is reasonable to argue that while in the zygote stage, a pregnancy has not yet occurred. One could argue a life has started, but a pregnancy has not, yet.

     I believe you are writing about an embryo. During embryonic development (before the fetal stage) a heart and brain develop. I will not pretend to know when/if an embryo is capable of feeling. But I do know the foundations of a nervous system are in place and should be able to sense physical stimuli. I have no idea if the embryonic nervous system actual does “feel”, but it provides the ability for the embryo to move, which causes me to think that physical sensations are also felt.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm

144. Oh, and a zygote is not a single cell. An egg is a single cell. A sperm is a single cell. For conception to occur, 2 cells have to join together and form a multi-celled organism. You may view all of these words and distinctions as a matter of semantics. I do not because it points to a much more rooted problem within our society, which I believe leads to the perceived “need” for abortions in this country and the world as a whole.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:11 pm

145. Chris, to clarify, do you oppose abortions that involve a fetus, but not a zygote? Is thinking/feeling the defining criteria for humanity? If so, fine; I can accept that line of argument as logical. But that means that abortions performed after, say, 5 weeks, are performed on thinking/feeling humans, are they not?

     by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm

146. Christian, you cannot fault Chris for trying to make these distinctions. Is a zygote, which is human and alive, that does not implant in the uterus but is expelled through menstruation the “death of a person”? When I raised the issue of miscarriage not being acknowledged publicly, others argued that just because a death is not acknowledged–or even that it happens in isolation, such as the example of a homeless person–does not mean the death has not occurred.

     I really dislike the nit-picky argumentation here, and yet it’s coming from all directions in this discussion.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:48 pm

147. I have no problem with the argument. It is a good one. I just want it to be made from a perspective of informed good science and biology. The distinction between zygote and embryo may seem nit-picky, but in my view it is not. It illustrates the extreme lack of reproductive knowledge shared by the VAST majority of humans in this country/in the world. A lack of knowledge which I believe leads to the perceived need for birth control methods like abortion. Knowing the difference between a zygote and an embryo is irrelevant to this discussion, but it shows the lack of reproductive knowledge that I believe is inexcusable in a country as wealthy and educated as our own. As I have said before, if you know “anything” about human reproduction, it is extremely easy to both have sex and avoid pregnancy.

     If life begins at conception, then the passing of a zygote is the death of a person, but it is a death that is never discovered and, therefore, can not be mourned or even acknowledged. A tree falling in the forest . . . A zygote perceived value is less than an embryo which less than a fetus which is less than an unknown homeless person which less than me and my perceived value is less than the President’s. The perception of value does not determine life and death, nor does the ability to discover that life/death.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:29 pm

148. On this point we can agree–people are incredibly ignorant about sexuality, reproduction, and a whole host of other issues that we should find embarrassing.

     I would not agree, however, that simple knowledge of human reproduction is sufficient for avoiding pregnancy. One must have access to reproductive health services and be free to use them. A person can be educated about sexuality but not have funds to visit a doctor in order to get a prescription for contraception, and then have the ability to pay for that prescription. And one must free of abuse in a relationship because one form of domestic violence is interference with a woman’s contraceptive use. So, it is a bit more complicated than simply being educated, though that is a crucial piece for sure.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm

149. Rachel, that should tell you that it may be more than just “nit-picky argumentation” that is going on…because at the end of the day, any discussion of abortion, the acts of those who oppose abortion or the stories of women who seek abortion all center around what exactly is going on physically and metaphysically when an abortion takes place.

     Most (but not all) who oppose abortion in general do so because they have a clearly defined notion of when human life begins (conception). Most who favor abortion (but not all) do not have a clearly defined notion of when life actually begins. Therefore, the arguments they use are often shifting or imprecise. In the meantime, from the pro-life perspective, hundreds of thousands of human lives are legally destroyed in the wealthiest country in the world. From the perspective of those of us who value all human life, this is more than nit-picking; it is absolutely essential.

     I hope that helps to clarify where many on here are coming from.

     by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm

150. Just to clarify, when I said nit-picky, I was referring to my own comment about zygotes as “death of persons.” I wasn’t referring to others’ comments.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:41 pm

151. Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

     by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:53 pm

152. Also, while ambiguity is difficult for argumentation purposes, I believe it is a strength when it comes to dealing with the reality, which is often imprecise, gray, and complex. It does, however, make for poor messaging and debate. I’ll admit that, hands down.

     by Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:45 pm

153. One must be free from sexual abuse, but one does not need prescription contraception, or even physical barrier contraception, to prevent pregnancy. While contraception is much more practical, it is not necessary if the knowledge is there. My wife and I do not use any physical or chemical contraception. We use the knowledge of her reproductive system to avoid pregnancy. It was not always this way. We did not educate ourselves until we had trouble getting pregnant. When we did educate ourselves, we found just how easily pregnancy can be achieved or avoided with proper knowledge and the practice of that knowledge. Since we educated ourselves, we have tried to get pregnant on 2 of her cycles. We have gotten pregnant on 2 of her cycles. For all the others, we have successfully avoided pregnancy without the use traditional methods of birth control.

     I will be the first to say that the proper knowledge is not the only thing that leads to pregnancy, but the proper knowledge (and practice of that knowledge) is all that is “needed” to prevent pregnancy.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:52 pm

154. […] A few days ago I posted the first part of my discussion with my friend Rachel, a pro-choice advocate who wanted to know what I thought about a recent protest at a NARAL Christmas party.  You can read that initial post here. […]

     by James-Michael Smith's Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Abortion discussion – my response to Rachel on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:47 pm

155. >Chris, to clarify, do you oppose abortions that involve a fetus, but not a >zygote? Is thinking/feeling the defining criteria for humanity? If so, fine; I can >accept that line of argument as logical. But that means that abortions >performed after, say, 5 weeks, are performed on thinking/feeling humans, are >they not?

     I oppose all abortions and destruction of the zygote, but abortion has different moral value at different stages of life. If it was a zygote in a test tube, and I were given the choice (and there were no compelling reasons against), I’d say “yeah, keep it alive”. And if given the choice of whether to smash a bug or not, I would step around it. And whether to cut down a redwood tree or not, I would not. And whether to burn a field or not, I would not.

     I am a living being and I love all life in all of its forms.

     I oppose lying as well. But there’s a difference between lying about how someone’s hair looks, and Bernie Madoff lying about his hedge fund and swindling thousands of people out of their life savings. Both lies are morally wrong, but their wrongness has radically different values.

     If I had to cut down a redwood tree to build a hospital, I would do it. And if I had to smash a bug so that it wouldn’t sting me, I would do it. And so forth.

     This is why I adopt a Catholic approach to sin (venial and mortal) as opposed to a protestant one. Many protestants teach that all sins are equally offensive to God. I don’t agree, and I think that’s an excuse to ignore terrible sins by people in power.

     I morally prefer eating vegetables to eating meat. But eating meat isn’t some sort of terrible sin, it’s just not as good as eating vegetables. Eating meat likewise destroys thinking and emotionally aware animals. Granted, their emotions and thought processes aren’t as advanced as humans, so it’s not tantamount to killing a human. Eating organic vegetables instead of vegetables produced by genetic engineering and the completely corrupt and evil farm companies is better than just eating store bought vegetables. And farming your own vegetables organically in your own garden is better still. (no trucks pollute the earth by carrying vegetables to market, and its inherently more efficient and better for the earth).

     Likewise, the longer the pregnancy process goes on, the more egregious the sin of destroying or killing the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/person. There are different levels and stopgaps along the way.

     I would say that partial birth abortions, where a thinking, physically and emotionally feeling, self aware and nearly independent person is delivered and then scissors are jammed in the back of its head and its brains sucked out is yes, getting pretty darned close to murder. And that’s a lot closer to murder than injecting radiation into a zygote cell and killing it, which is morally far removed from it.

     While as living beings we should have a preference toward life (all life), and a desire to propagate our species (and all species, as a caretaker of God’s creation), termination as a zygote, while morally wrong, is not as morally wrong as snuffing a baby with a pillow, and might not be as wrong as carrying all zygotes to term, both for the parents and the society at large.

     Since as humans we are limited, flawed and non-omnipotent beings, we are often faced with the “lesser of two evils” in terms of moral choices. It’s patently obvious that terminating a zygote is less morally egregious than other consequences that can result from carrying it to term.

     As a Christian and a Martial Artist, you should know this quite well, JMS.
     As a Martial Artist you should know that it may be necessary to kill or maim others as the lesser of two evils between survival of another and survival of yourself. But as a Christian, you know that all killing or maiming is wrong. Why are we living in a world where killing or maiming is necessary for survival?

     Answer: Because of our own terrible sins. WE are the ones that made this terrible world where we must make these terrible moral choices. Killing someone to defend our self is terrible. There must be a better way! We should be a better society. And we are trying to do that, jujitsu is exactly such an effort: we can thwart a deadly opponent without killing them (or sometimes even harming them). We can be better than “kill or be killed”.

     And the exact same thing applies to abortion. I don’t believe any abortion of any kind is 100% free from all moral culpability. We should live in a society free of stigmas, free of financial burdens upon parents, with great systems of adoption, with workplaces that welcome pregnancy, with families that don’t judge us for becoming pregnant and so forth and so on. If we did, there’d be no abortion. Whose fault is it that we don’t live in such a society? Our own, for not following Jesus’ commands, both individually and collectively! If the world was a paradise from us being such good people, the need for abortion would disappear.

     But society being what it is, we are faced with bad moral choices: both are bad, and we try to pick the “less bad” one. Equating a zygote at all stages of life to a fully grown human is simply irrational thinking, and causes people to make bad moral choices, because it’s based on a falsehood: that something unthinking and unfeeling is just as valuable as something that’s thinking and feeling.

     In the end we must weigh the consequences of carrying a baby to term with the consequences of ending its life early. While no choice to end any life is morally perfect (from the smallest bug to a full grown adult), that is mediated by balancing it against those consequences.

     This is why I am an Abortion agnostic, because Pro Choice’s insistence that all abortions are okay is as irrational as a Pro Life’s argument that all abortions are equal to murder.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 8:20 pm

156. ^To Christian (above) you are quite right. The zygote is technically two cells sharing chromosomes. Some medical authors have described this as a single cell, but its kind of silly to do so because it’s dividing the instant it fertilizes.

     I did intend, specifically, the term “zygote”. I was referring to the exact moment of conception as the starting point of life, and where an abortion would be the least egregious.

     You are also quite right to introduce the term embryo and distinguish it from fetus, which is a term that is distinct from “child/person”. Different stages of life call for different moral responses to it.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 17, 2010 at 8:30 pm

157. As an aside, Chris, the book I sent you by Olson deals with the myth that Scripture teaches all sins to be the same in the eyes of God. Many protestants believe it, but it’s not a Biblical doctrine.

     by jm on Dec 17, 2010 at 8:53 pm

158. ^I agree, I’m sorry if I lump all protestants into that camp, I know there are objectors to it. It’s also clear that Jesus reserved his most venomous attacks for those that were hypocritical and forgiveness for those that admitted their sin. It’s also clear that while Jesus condemned all sin, he did so more of certain sins than others.

     by chris on Dec 18, 2010 at 5:36 am

159. I think I now understand your opinions on abortion because I now understand just how much grey there is for you. Its not just that there are some grey areas, it is all grey with the possible exception of the government making a law that forbids a woman from doing what she wants with an entity that is inside her body.

     I wasn’t trying to box you in, I was trying to see wear you stand on the issue. I now realize that you do not take a stand on the issue (aside from the legality of it all), but instead you take a stand on each individual case. If everything is a shade of grey, there are no facts, no truth, no right, no wrong.

     I don’t believe I ever said learning only occurs through intellectual reasoning. I certainly don’t believe that. However, I do find it is always difficult to argue for or against something using anything other than logic or intellect. I can say that I feel/believe/sense/know/etc. something is right/wrong, but if you feel/believe/sense/know/etc. the opposite, our conversation is over unless we can discuss the facts of the situation. You mentioned 3 ways you came to your views. The first deals in fact and logic. The other two are about emotion, feeling, compassion, etc. The second two are no more or less important than the first, but I can’t have a meaningful discussion with you about them. I have not had those life experiences. Those experiences are unique to you and they are perfectly acceptable ways to come to a belief, but you can not expect anyone else to understand those unique experiences. Those experiences are yours alone and only effect your belief system. They shape how you view truth (and I do believe there is such a thing as absolute truth), but the truth is no different than it once was, you just view it differently than you did before those experiences.

     On the other hand, if you share facts about how abortion leads to better economic conditions, better quality of life, more efficient societies, or whatever positive attributes abortion can contribute to mankind, then you are stating facts as evidence that abortion is a good thing for Man. Others would then have to deal with those facts and reevaluate their own position. If you are talking to a person whose beliefs about abortion are purely spiritual in nature, then they will not be convinced no matter what you say because they BELIEVE abortion is wrong. But, if you are speaking to someone who has thought about their pro-life position and why they hold the convictions they do for any other reason than “God says so”, you have a chance of at least making them understand the value of the pro-choice position.

     If you were to start listing the positive things abortion brings to the world, I would simply argue there are better methods of birth control available to mankind (most important of which is knowledge) and that I do not BELIEVE the ends justify the means, but I could be wrong about that. If birth control (for whatever reason, convenience, shame, job status, economic concerns, etc.) is the primary reason for abortion, there are better ways of controlling birth, for women and babies, than the mass killing of unborn life regardless of the significance or perceived value of those lives.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:11 am

160. Again, you clearly misunderstand my position entirely. “The possible exception of the government making a law that forbids a woman from doing what she wants with an entity that is inside her body” is the *very heart* of my viewpoint. It is not a “side issue” or an afterthought. Your quickness to dismiss it as somehow not central to the discussion does not mean that my point is invalid.

     “If everything is a shade of grey, there are no facts, no truth, no right, no wrong.”

     Your desire to speak dualities of straight “right” and “wrong” is understandable. So, here is where I stand on right and wrong: It is *wrong* for anyone other than the woman who is pregnant to make decisions about her reproduction. It is *right* for a women to have the agency to make decisions about her reproduction. There is no gray at all about that. For much of history, women have not had that agency; women’s bodies have been used and abused, and in many parts of the world they still are. As much as I see how you want to get away from this issue, I refuse to budge on it. Do you think it is morally right for anyone but the woman to choose adoption? How about to choose to keep the baby? How about the choice to use contraception? To not use contraception? To have a tubal ligation?

     If you reject entirely that it is a societal good for women to have agency in their reproductive decision-making, then we really have nothing to discuss. I never said that *abortion* is a good for society, but that women’s *agency* is a good for society. I do not understand why I must repeat this over and over again; there is a distinction. If you would like for me to provide examples why it is good for women to have reproductive self-determination, I would be happy to elaborate.

     Also, huge pet peeve, please stop saying “Man” and “mankind” when you are referring to the entire human community, especially when we are discussing an issue that affects women uniquely. Please use inclusive language like “humans” or “people.”

     by Rachel on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:42 pm

161. It is now you who are misunderstanding me. I am not trying to judge what you believe to be right or wrong. I am simply trying to understand it. I did not dismiss your beliefs on the legality of a woman’s right to get an abortion and I do not believe it is a side issue. It is, in fact, the primary issue. However, I did feel I finally grasped a firm understanding that you believe a woman’s legal right to choose what happens inside her body should remain her legal right until the moment the baby is outside of her body. There was no longer any reason to discuss that point as understanding had been achieved.

     I don’t wish to speak in dualities of right and wrong. I wish to speak in a way that we can both understand and effectively communicate. To this point we have been unable to do so. I had been reading your posts from the perspective of right and wrong and it wasn’t until your previous post that I understood just how much grey exists for you (basically everything except for the legal issue). I’m not judging you on that. I’m not saying you should think more like me or think in terms of right and wrong. I was saying that I now feel I can understand your point of view more precisely because I now understand (at least a little) the perspective from which your views were born/are held. I also don’t wish to get away from the issue of legalization. Once we have established how to communicate with one another, I will be happy to re-engage on that topic.

     I promise, I am not and I have not tried to attack you during any of this conversation. I think we (you and I) are having problems understanding one another (at least I have had problems understanding you) because we see the world through entirely different glasses. I think I’ve been able to get a pair of glasses that are more similar to yours over the last few exchanges. That doesn’t mean I see what you see, but it does mean I can see why you think that chair is blue when, through my glasses, it is very clearly red. Our lives have brought us both to this point in time and to our current philosophies about ________. You will never convince me the chair is blue, it is obvious to me that you are seeing it wrongly (and for you I am seeing it wrongly), but its much more helpful for both of us if I can at least see why you think it is blue.

     Of course I do not “reject entirely that it is a societal good for women to have agency in their reproductive decision-making”. That is ridiculous and I have made no claim of anything even remotely close to that. I will also admit that using the word “agency” is confusing to me. I believe you are referring to the definition of agency that goes something like this:
     a means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality
     I have not come across the use of the word in such a way before this conversation and it is difficult for me to understand your exact meaning when using it. I will say that I do “reject entirely” that it is a societal good for women to have sole control of reproductive decision-making once another life has been conceived. Women do most of the work when it comes to reproduction, but they are not the only entity involved. Even if the unborn life has no authority in the matter (and I would argue he or she does), the male contributor should have a high level of authority provided he is aware of the new life and if the male partner is a life mate he should have equal authority with the woman. Also, society at large has some authority in the matter. We can discuss how much and for what reasons in the future.

     Pet peeve noted. I will stop using those words in favor of the words you prefer, although the PCness of it all annoys me. I will do so out of respect for you. I will admit that abortion effects and affects women uniquely, but it also effects the unborn uniquely and it effects society in a unique way. I don’t think you were claiming that women are the only ones effected/affected by abortion, but if you were, that would be a statement I “reject entirely”.

     In all sincerity, I do not wish to anger you, attack you, offend you in any way. If I am doing so, it is because we are not understanding one another, or at least I am not understanding you. I am seeking to understand you and I believe I am gaining that understanding.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 18, 2010 at 7:14 pm

162. I want to thank you for your sincerity in this response. The respectful tone of your comments, and of JM’s and other posters, is very much appreciated and sadly, quite rare in such conversations. I also hope to strive for respect, understanding, and compassion in my responses, and if I have not, I do apologize.

     I do hear, despite the difficulty of having such discussions online, your sincere desire to seek understanding. I fully admit that going into this conversation I felt I had a complete and understanding of the pro-life position and have learned that I was incorrect. There is, I’ve found, quite a spectrum of opinion, which has been enlightening and clarifying.

     While the “PCness” of using inclusive language may be an annoyance to you, to me it is actually a matter of justice and respect for women, so I do appreciate your agreeing to using such language. I think you would agree that language does matter. And as JM requested of Jackie to use the term “pro-life” rather than “anti-choice,” I will also respect that.

     When I say “agency,” I mean the ability of the individual to make decisions independently and freely. Self-determination is also an appropriate definition. Does that clarify?

     by Rachel on Dec 18, 2010 at 7:44 pm

163. I’m glad you can sense my sincerity and I hope we can move forward with the understanding that there is no judgement or condemnation in our posts. We can challenge each other in respectful ways and hopefully we can each come to a deeper knowledge of the other position. A number of times in these 150ish posts, both sides have said something along the lines of, “If your side would stop condemning my side and work with us, we might actually get something done.” I’m unaware of any organizations made up of pro-life and pro-choice advocates working together to make abortion an unnecessary practice, which I think we all agree we would like it to be. Hopefully discussions like this one will spur the two sides into a partnership for the good of all humans. We don’t have to agree to disagree. We can still fight passionately for what we believe in, but it does not have to be with the hate that has become so familiar. We can hash out our differences when necessary, but focus on our similarities when there is progress to be made by working together.

     In our recent back and forth a couple of side discussions have been started but not continued: the legality of abortion and the right of a woman to independently and freely make decisions about her reproduction. I’d like to keep the discussion focused on the issue within the United States for a few reasons. First, I am ignorant on how abortion is practiced, how much it is practiced, for what reasons it is practiced, etc. in other parts of the world. Also, as an American citizen, I can and should influence my own society and government, but I have no right to influence the will of the people in other countries. Finally, the consequences of abortion on the society of the US (good or bad) are the consequences that will immediately effect me.

     I don’t know that we can have a meaningful discussion about the legality of abortion. You believe a woman has the right to destroy another life to avoid inconvenience/economic hardship/any other reason for having an abortion because that life exists inside of her and is, therefore, hers and hers alone to nurture/destroy/abuse by using drugs or alcohol/extract and put in a tube for research/anything she wants. I do not agree with that premise. I believe the separate life has as much right to exist as the woman carrying it and I believe denying that right to the younger individual should be illegal. Obviously we do not agree and I don’t believe anything said in this conversation will change our convictions on the matter. I feel I do understand the logical basis for your beliefs and I hope you understand mine so I don’t see any reason to continue this part of the conversation, although I would be willing to do so if you think there is more to say. Perhaps the legality/illegality of late term abortion is a topic worthy of discussion, but I will let someone else bring it up.

     So that brings us to the question of “agency”. To be clear, I don’t expect anything I say will change your mind and that is not my goal. My goal is understanding. I do not think I answered any of your questions on the matter, so I will. Does a woman have “agency” or the ability to make decisions independently and freely about her reproduction? Of course she does, right up until another life enters into the picture. No woman should ever be forced to have sex, use non-lethal methods of birth control, not use non-lethal birth control, etc. Once another life enters into the equation, the decision is no longer in her hands alone. Now there is a new life who is, unfortunately, unable to speak for itself and has to be left out of the decision making equation. We can argue forever about whether or not the new life thinks, wants to be born, doesn’t want to be born, is oblivious to its own existence, and on and on and on and we will never come up with an answer to that question. So, the new life has 3 entities that can speak for it. The mother, the father, and the society in which it was conceived.

     We agree the mother is part of the equation. Enough said.

     I also believe the father is a part of the equation and in committed relationships he is an equal part. If a woman does not want to carry the baby to full-term and her partner does, what gives her the right to destroy a being that is as much a part of him as it is her? I know your answer, the baby is living inside her, not him. But he can not control that or offer to take the burden. If he wants to have a child of his own flesh and blood, (with current technology) a woman has to carry that child. If a woman chooses to have sex with him, she has to be open to the possibility that she will be the carrier of that child. Its not like she is being duped. If she wants to be sure a pregnancy does not occur, she can avoid having vaginal sex with him during a maximum 7 day window (and more likely a 3-4 day window that is very easy to identify especially if one is trying to achieve or avoid pregnancy). Women hold all the cards when it comes to birth control. If a woman does not want to become pregnant (and she is not in a sexually abusive relationship) she can absolutely make sure she does not become pregnant. Residents of this country should have/do have all the knowledge and resources available to ensure an unwanted pregnancy never occurs.

     For people having sex in non-committed relationships, the male should be held equally as accountable as the woman for a pregnancy. He should be legally required to attend any doctors appointments the woman wants him to attend. He should have to pay 1/2 of the expenses. And he should have a say in what happens to the life that is made up of his genetic contribution.

     Most of us live within a society and as I mentioned earlier, I’m coming at this from the perspective that all parties involved are in the United States. If one does not live in a society, then there are no privileges of living in that society and one is able to take whatever decisions one wishes about anything including abortion, but that is another topic.
     Living within this society causes us to do things we probably wouldn’t do/be able to do if we lived outside society. We wouldn’t pay taxes, we wouldn’t get our food in grocery stores, we wouldn’t drive on roads, we wouldn’t have jobs, we wouldn’t have education systems, and the list goes on. But we do live in this society and we are expected to live under the rules of the society. Currently there are no rules regarding reproduction in the United States and by that I mean we are free to choose whether or not to reproduce and how much to reproduce. But, there is nothing in our current laws that prevents such legislation from being passed. For instance, as the population gets older, the US government could pass a law that all abortions are illegal because they are cutting off the supply of labor, which will reduce ability to take care of the aging population. The commerce clause has been stretched much more severely in the past. I don’t believe the US government would ever force people to conceive, but I could see them forcing women to take their already conceived babies full-term on economic grounds. Furthermore, it is the right of the government to make that law. It is the right of the people to replace the government if they are unhappy with the laws. I would not be for such a law that was passed on those grounds because, once again, the end does not justify the means. I would be for the passage of a law that recognized the independence and value of another life that is growing inside a woman.

     Another crazy example that has never happened (to my knowledge) and will probably never happen goes as follows: a fringe group of militaristic anarchists band together with the goal of creating an army of soldiers. They terminate any pregnancy that results in a female baby to speed up the process of building the troops. Under your legal preferences this would be perfectly acceptable. I don’t think society would view it that way and I’m certain laws would be passed that prevent abortion based solely on the sex of the child. There may already be such a law. Again, if this law does exist or if it ever will exist, society is allowed to create whatever rules it wants to create and we have to abide by them or face the societal consequences.

     The bottom line is that our freedom isn’t really true freedom. We are free in many ways, but society does not allow for absolute freedom. The governing documents of the United States do not explicitly provide for the freedom of reproduction, nor do they give women sole authority in reproductive matters. Even if you are right and women SHOULD have independent authority on matters relating to reproduction, in our society they don’t.

     Finally, within society we are expected to live with the consequences of our decisions in basically all other circumstances. If you are late paying a bill, you have to pay the late fee. If you don’t pay your house payment, your house may be taken from you. If you speed, you may have to pay a ticket. If you drive recklessly, your privilege to drive may be revoked by society. If you smoke, you open yourself up to a greater risk of lung cancer and death. If you eat to much, you open yourself up to a host of health problems including death. If you drink alcohol too much, if you have unprotected sex with diseased individuals, if you . . . .
     Why is sex and pregnancy the one thing that has no consequence? Why should it be? The only answer is, “because no one gets hurt by abortion” which is an argument that I “reject entirely”. The only other thing I can think of that compares to abortion in this way is bankruptcy. If you pile up too much debt, you can eliminate much of the pain of the consequences of your actions by filing bankruptcy. We allow that because “no one gets hurt”. Another argument I “reject entirely”. I argue both of these things are harmful to the individual, to society, and to various third parties.

     If a woman chooses to have vaginal sex during a very short period of time when she is fertile, she has to know she is taking a risk that this one act will cause her life to change, especially if she is not using other forms of birth control. Hopefully, she has informed her partner of the risk as well so they are both aware of the possible consequence of their actions. They are free to take whatever action they want, but they should be prepared to live with the consequence of creating life.

     To answer your questions specifically:
     Do you think it is morally right for anyone but the woman to choose adoption? Yes, if the father wants to care for the child, he should be allowed to do so. If the father wants his baby to survive but neither party wants the responsibility of the child, he should be able to choose life and choose adoption for his child.

     How about to choose to keep the baby? No, if the mother wants to keep the child, she should not be forced to give him/her up with the possible exception of a mother who is mentally/physically/emotionally unable to care for the child. Even then, I would rather the woman be provided with the proper help that would allow her to care for her baby. Unless the man also wants to keep the child and the two parents are unwilling to live together. Then the final say would be given to society to decide the most fit parent.

     Do you think it is morally right for anyone but the woman to choose to use contraception? A woman can use whatever forms of non-lethal contraception she decides and so can a man.

     To not use contraception? Both parties are free to use no contraception, and both parties are free to refuse sex if the other party does not use contraception or for any other reason. Both parties should be willing to live with the consequences of their decisions.

     To have a tubal ligation? In most cases this is the sole decision of the woman with one exception. If a couple is married or partnered by contract and part of their marriage vows or contract explicitly mentions that children are one of the goals of the marriage/partnership, the man should have a say about whether or not she can end all possibilities of pregnancy in the same way that she would have a say in whether or not he could get a vasectomy. If the couple can not agree, then society would have the final say as it would be a matter of contract law and would be in the hands of an arbitrator or court.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 19, 2010 at 9:59 am

164. “You believe a woman has the right to destroy another life to avoid inconvenience/economic hardship/any other reason for having an abortion because that life exists inside of her and is, therefore, hers and hers alone to nurture/destroy/abuse by using drugs or alcohol/extract and put in a tube for research/anything she wants. I do not agree with that premise.”

     Do you really believe this is what I am saying? Surely I have not shown such disrespect for fetal life in this conversation that you would believe this is what I am advocating. I could also unfairly describe your position as supporting legislation for forced pregnancy, even for a young girl who has no understanding of her biology , to disregard her circumstances or the future ramifications of her having a child, to force her to carry that pregnancy to term at any cost. I do not believe forced pregnancy to be at the heart of what you are saying, even if that is a potential (and I would argue, actual) consequence of illegal abortion. Just in the same way, ending fetal life the day before birth for “convenience” is not the heart of my argument, even if it is a potential (and you might argue, actual) consequence of legal abortion.

     We both must acknowledge the weaknesses of our stances. There is no doubt that some abortions are immoral. For pro-choicers to ignore this would be a dismissal of the value of fetal life. And there is no doubt that in some instances, forcing a woman to maintain her pregnancy is immoral. For pro-lifers to ignore this is a detriment to the claim of their being pro-woman.

     Perhaps I have over-emphasized a “single ethic” of the woman’s bodily autonomy. Given I am one of few in this current discussion who supports the legality of abortion, I have felt this dimension to be largely ignored and therefore it has been necessary for me to bring this up again and again. The problem with discussing abortion is no matter one’s view, as soon as you begin to admit limitations to that viewpoint you are seen as yielding to the “other side” when in reality it is more complex.

     My point is, it is not the role of the government to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion. I do believe very much that is the role of faith communities, faith leaders, doctors, families, friends, etc. to help a woman make an informed, moral choice–and at times, even to say in love and truth that abortion in a particular situation is immoral. I know a pro-choice minister who counseled a woman who wanted to have an abortion for sex-selection, and he told her without hesitation that it was morally wrong. Other difficult issues such as mild disabilities also require serious moral reflection.

     Achieving and moving forward with any common ground will require an acknowledgment of both the value of fetal life and the respect for women. But as long as we view ourselves not only on separate sides of the spectrum but in fact on different planes all together, I am afraid we will not make much progress.

     by Rachel on Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm

165. Rachel,
     I’d like to see where our common ground may lay. Do you believe there is ever a case in which the government should have a say in a woman’s actions that affect her pregnancy? For instance, do you agree with current laws which allow judges to order pregnant women to curb their freedom of choice to drink alcohol because of the damage that it does to the human life inside her womb?
     Likewise, do you believe that the government should have the right to prohibit sex-selection abortions?

     If not, it’s hard to see how one can make the case that the government has the right to tell anyone to prohibit anyone from making free moral decisions of any kind…yet it does precisely this with various issues–issues which do not, in contrast to abortion, result in the destruction of any form of human life (i.e. male/female prostitution, hard narcotics usage, speeding/traffic laws, animal cruelty laws, neglect laws, zoning ordinances, etc.)

     This is what I see as most puzzling about your position, honestly. If you value fetal life, and you believe at least some forms of abortion are immoral and destroy such life, why would you oppose legally prohibiting the destruction of life in those cases? Is it for the sake of the priniciple of individual choice trumping all other principals? Or is it fear of a slippery-slope leading to the full recognition of personhood to human life in the womb? Or is it something else that I’m missing?

     by jm on Dec 19, 2010 at 8:50 pm

166. JM,

     Although I am unfamiliar with this law, if I understand it correctly a judge ordering an individual pregnant woman not to drink is different than a law prohibiting all pregnant women from being served alcohol. Would you support the legislation of the latter? Why or why not?

     The problem I have with specifying policy I would or would not support is how it would be carried out. I work in DC and am in lots of policy conversations, so that’s where my brain is. Let’s even discuss current measures such as the Hyde amendment, which prevents federal money to be used for abortions except in the cases of “rape, incest, or life of the mother.” In the cases of the first two, how is that actually determined? Must one have reported the rape to the police, taken the rapist to trial, and won? In which case surely more than 9 months have passed? And remember these are for poor women who probably lack access to quality legal representation, not to mention how in general few women report rape in general.

     So, if a law were to ban sex-selection abortion, how would that be determined? Would there be an ethics committee mandated for each and every woman seeking an abortion procedure? Would she be interrogated? How long would this process take? What if such a process caused a woman not to have the procedure until after the second trimester, making the procedure illegal in many states? I just don’t see how it would work without unfairly hindering the reproductive agency of the woman, which I seek to protect.

     I see our common ground laying in the fact that there are, for many reasons, too many abortions and finding ways to reduce the need for them. Rates of abortion are directly related to rates of unintended pregnancies. Can we begin here? Isn’t it best for women not to be in a position of making these difficult reproductive choices, and best for society when every pregnancy is planned and wanted?

     by Rachel on Dec 19, 2010 at 10:16 pm

167. Absolutely it is. But once abortion comes up, the issue is no longer one of prevention of human life from being created, it’s the protection of all human lives involved and the best way for society to care for those most in need.

     No law is free from all gray areas or interpretation of individual cases, but that doesn’t stop the overall law from being passed. Judges are there to intepret whether or not someone broke the law and to what degree they are guilty in doing so. Personally, I am not one who supports abortion as an option for rape–primarily because it turns the victim into an aggressor and creates another victim in the process. It makes a horrible situation even worse…as any person who was in fact conceived as a result of rape could testify. Of course, not all who oppose abortion agree with this and I would be extremely happy if abortion was outlawed except in cases of rape, incest or life-endangerment of the mother (because it would eliminate 99 out of every 100 abortions practically). So if that were indeed to happen, and a woman became pregnant due to rape, abortion could remain an option under the law for her so long as she was willing to testify that she is seeking to end the life of her child because she was forcibly impregnated. Poor or not, one can report rape without having to wait for a trial of the rapist (as happens when the suspect is never caught). This is where social service agencies and law enforcement agencies would need to work together in order to corroborate the account and provide the necessary legal permission for the human life in the womb to be taken.

     Is this easily accomplished or feasible right now? Probably not, but no wide-scale social justice change is seen as either of these prior to it’s occurring. There are always new problems when a society-wide institution is overturned; but these are worth it in the eyes of those of us who see preservation of innocent human life as being much higher on the scale of ethical axioms than someone’s right to make all decisions concerning their pregancy (which IS a right I uphold…up to the point where a new human life is created and must, therefore, be protected by a just society).

     by jm on Dec 20, 2010 at 12:23 am

168. Rachel,
     At the risk of offending you (and that is not my intent) I absolutely do believe that is what you are saying. Unless I am still misunderstanding your use of the word “agency”, you have made it very clear that you don’t think the government should get involved in a pregnancy at all. Very recently you said, “It is *wrong* for anyone other than the woman who is pregnant to make decisions about her reproduction. It is *right* for a women to have the agency to make decisions about her reproduction. There is no gray at all about that.” In the previous quote you were speaking about the legality of abortion. In the paragraph of mine that you quoted, I was speaking about the legality (not the morality) of abortion. You believe a woman has a legal right to do whatever she wishes for whatever reason to the unborn child within her. I do not believe she should have that legal right. On the issue of legality, we are not just on different sides of the spectrum, but on different planes entirely (unless I am still misunderstanding you, which almost seems likely). We have a greater chance of continuing a meaningful discussion on the moral side of things.

     You said, “I could also unfairly describe your position as supporting legislation for forced pregnancy, even for a young girl who has no understanding of her biology , to disregard her circumstances or the future ramifications of her having a child, to force her to carry that pregnancy to term at any cost.”

     I think you could say that about my views, only I do not think it would be unfair. The term “forced pregnancy” is unfair because I don’t believe a woman should ever be forced to become pregnant, but once she is pregnant, I would like to see laws in place that force her not to destroy the life within her.
     To be a little more fair to my position, I also want to see a massive overhaul of reproductive education in this country and (practically) I think that has to happen at the same time or before any legislation making abortion illegal. I want our kids to learn about their bodies and the biological processes of reproduction before they start having sex. We expect all 10 year olds to know how to do multiplication. We should also expect all 10 year olds (or whatever age is appropriate and effective) to be able to identify the different stages of cervical mucous and what they mean about a woman’s/girl’s ovulation. I do not believe that young girl you mentioned should have “no understanding of her biology.” She should have a great deal of understanding of her own biology. She should have enough understanding that she knows whether or not a sexual encounter today has a chance to lead to pregnancy. She should know exactly what will happen inside her body if she does get pregnant. She should know that if she does get pregnant, she is in it for the next 38 weeks. And he should know all of those things as well. As I have said before, other organizations can teach about contraception and abstinence. But our schools, all of them, should be teaching very thorough human reproductive biology.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 20, 2010 at 5:44 am

169. Rachel:
     I favour facts in these discussions. Emotions are valid and should be acknowledged, but they form a poor basis for decision making. Anything, however heinous, can be “justified” on subjective emotional grounds.

     I do appreciate your concern for maternal health. To that end, I’d like to bring your attention to the fact that legalization of abortion has been bad for maternal health because it increases the incidence of abortions, legal and illegal, and brings with it a higher incidence of maternal fatalities. The post on maternal abortion deaths on this blog is very instructive:
     http://realchoice.blogspot.com/

     by Mary on Dec 18, 2010 at 10:38 am

170. Hi Mary,

     I appreciate you wanting to provide facts and figures, but a blog post without proper citations is not sound research.

     Legalization has not increased the incidence of abortions. Between 1995 and 2003, abortions worldwide fell from 46 million to 42 million, nearly 10%. Between 1990 and 2010, maternal mortality has dropped by 33%. Where did abortion incidence drop the most? In Eastern Europe where abortion is mostly legal and contraceptives are readily available, although incidence of abortion still remains very high there.

     The lowest abortion rates in the world are in Western Europe, where it is legal, and the highest are in Africa, where it is illegal. So, I cannot agree that the legalization of abortion is responsible for increases of abortion when abortion rates are falling. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

     What has had an effect on lowering abortion incidence is the availability of contraceptives, not making abortion illegal.

     by Rachel on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm

171. Ok, here is the further information I promised you. Yes, there are blog posts among these, but they are instructive so I have included them as well. This is why pro-lifers take issue with stats from the pro-choice side:

     See this page from CCBR:
     http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/legal.html

     The video on back alley abortions should be instructive. I’ll forewarn you that it contains visuals of the results of an abortion. But if one thinks abortion should be legal, then it should be something one can watch. If not, one may need to rethink why.

     Also check out this page on their site for a history of women jailed because of having abortions:

     http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/history-punishing.html

     Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist talks about how many illegal abortion deaths there actually were and how NARAL inflated the numbers for propaganda puposes:

     http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

     As for current stats, see this Lancet journal letter on Andrea Mrozek’s blog:

     http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961251-2/fulltext

     Here is how the pro-choice side responded on the issue (which I’m including in the interests of fairness in presenting the debate):
     http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/its-about-abortion-stupid.html

     And again from Andrea:
     http://nbrighttolife.ca/new/?p=487

     The pro-choice side responded again (sorry, I can’t find it – the link I was using expired).

     And again Andrea responded to that piece here:

     http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2010/07/09/truthful-factual-numbers/

     http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/09/todays-letters-gossip-isnt-proof-and-liberals-wrong-on-china-and-history/

     And again the pro-choice side:
     http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/post-letter.html

     Other articles that Andrea and others wrote about the issue are at:
     http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/21/andrea-mrozek-and-rebecca-walberg-the-abortion-distortion.aspx

     Joyce Arthur also wrote about it at:
     http://europeanprochoicenetwork.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/criminalized-abortion-overshadows-good-news-of-reduced-unsafe-abortion-deaths/#more-530

     Another good site is this one, which references a study Chile:
     http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/group/iresisttheantilifeagenda/forum/topics/study-abortion-ban-does-not

     So, to sum it all up, the pro-choice rhetoric of legalized abortions reducing maternal mortalities does not stand up to scrutiny.

     I know that in my South African context infant mortality has risen since abortion was legalized. Add that to the problems I described below and you will see why I just don’t buy the pro-choice rationale.

     Most of all, even if legalized abortion reduced the number of women dying from botched abortions (which it doesn’t, but let’s pretend), that would still not make it an ethical law. We don’t try to make it safer for people to kill their born infants. To do so would be perverse.

     Of course not everyone sees the born and the unborn as morally equivalent when it comes to right to life. That is where we need to revert to the central issue of the humanity of the unborn. This is scientifically defined as occuring at conception.

     We cannot rely on some vague notion of “personhood” which a person may define as occuring whenever they find it convenient. Some commenting here have defined that as when the fetus is conscious and can feel. But who are they to say this is sufficient for personhood? What if someone else requires other things? What of Peter Singer who thinks it’s morally acceptable to “terminate” newborns?

     Meanwhile we play games with life and death. Should we not err on the side of caution in something of this import? Should we not go with the only scientifically sure cut-off point there is? The only cut-off point before which we can be sure we are not committing a terrible offense is conception.

     by Mary on Dec 21, 2010 at 6:13 pm

172. Hi Rachel

     You are right that I need to find proper citations to give you. I’ll try to remember to get them for you later this week. (I’m on mobile at the moment, so it’s cumbersome.)

     Regarding the worldwide drop in abortions, I would say that this is attributable not to abortion legality, but to medical advances that make us more aware of how complex the unborn are so early in life, and as the promises of pro-choice rhetoric lose their lustre when more and more women testify to the damage that has been done to them via abortion.

     Regarding Eastern Europe, the drop in abortion rates can also not be attributed to legalized abortion, but to the fall of the Soviet Union, and the communist government responsible for forced abortions.

     As for the issue of Africa (where I live), the high abortion rate is not because of it being illegal, but because of a number of factors (including lack of access to contraceptives, as you correctly stated). In addition, war torn countries experience many abortions, as rape is used as a weapon of war. And all sorts of unhealthy attitudes to women prevail in some settings, where men feel that they are entitled to any woman they take a fancy to. But there again, abortion plays into the hands of such men. They now no longer feel that they will have to support any children they father. They think that it becomes a woman’s responsibility to abort and “get rid of it”. Hey, it’s legal, so that means it’s fine! If a woman won’t have an abortion, what’s her problem? Women who are poor and ignorant believe the “eminent legal experts” who have decreed that abortion is ok enough to make it legal. They have very little idea of what it actually entails. There is an increased worry over women now using abortion as a replacement for contraception too, so repeat abortions are common. The abortion end feeds back to make the conception end worse. And I would even say that to address the conception end without addressing the abortion end can be short sighted. Saying that abortion is ok leads to more women being pressured into sex to please selfish men.

     Abortion became legal in 1996 in my country, so I have seen the difference. Instead of preventing the illegal abortions it was touted to be preventing, these have proliferated. Now, illegal abortionists put advertisements on lampposts all over the streets, advertising the services of “Dr.Cure” (an actual “name” used) who is contactable via a cellphone number and who offers abortions in addition to “medications” that will return your cheating spouse to you or curses to put on your work enemies. I have been handed adverts for these things at the traffic lights. The overburdened police service are indifferent about this. I’ve taken one such advert to the police station to complain and they thought I was asking them to help me get an abortion! Once I got through to them and told them that what this was advertising was illegal and harmful to women, they looked at me in disbelief and asked what I wanted them to do about it. Long story short, they took down my details, promised to call me back and never did. Abortion is now considered quite acceptable, where it wasn’t before. Even most Christians here are pretty apathetic about it. There is such an attitude of complacency on this issue and it worries me.

     by Mary on Dec 19, 2010 at 12:26 am

173. Thank you very much for sharing about your experiences; I’m guessing you live in South Africa? You are bringing up much broader issues related to women’s rights, which I greatly appreciate and hope to address in my response to JM. The injustices you describe I absolutely join you in condemning, and again, I greatly appreciate you naming them and offering a quite different perspective.

     by Rachel on Dec 19, 2010 at 12:46 am

174. Thanks, Rachel, for your gracious response. Yes, I live in SA.

     by Mary on Dec 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm

175. JMS, Rachel, Chris, Mary, Mark, and all others who have contributed to this discussion with respect, passion, and the desire to understand and be understood,

     This conversation has been enlightening, disheartening, encouraging, saddening, uplifting, boring, exhilarating, and long. It seems to me that, collectively, we have all but exhausted the topic. Recently, there has been talk of finding common ground. I think Rachel was correct in pointing out that our place of common ground is how to prevent the perceived need for abortions in this country. I’m all for continuing the discussion about abortion, but how much more is there to say?

     So, I propose we point this discussion in a direction in which it can actually make a difference for our society. What can we do to prevent the perceived need for abortions in this country? Or if there are other points of common ground, I’d love to discuss those as well. I’m not an activist. I’m a guy that believes one vote does not matter and that not voting is equally as effective as voting (I do vote). I believe one man/woman (by him/herself) can not make a difference on a societal level. However, I do believe that people coming together can accomplish anything. I believe opposing forces who are willing to work together are stronger than any other. It is difficult to cooperate with your “enemy” (terrible word for this as I do not see anyone who merely sees things differently as my enemy), but when people are willing to do so because of the potential good that can be done, great things can happen.

     I’m also a realist. If we are not talking about the emotionally charged topic of abortion, most of the people reading these posts will vacate the area. There is a reason this is JM’s most commented on post. I’m in this conversation for the long haul, whichever direction it takes (I’m that addicted), but I don’t know how much longer it can continue on its current course nor can I understand the benefit of keeping it on its current course.

     I’m also not the keeper of this blog and I have no authority over it. Its just an idea and suggestion.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 20, 2010 at 6:18 am

176. Thank you, CT. I am very much in agreement in terms of where the conversation should go and how it can be more effective. JM, I look forward to hearing what you think about this shift.

     Reducing the (perceived) need for abortion begins with addressing what results in unintended pregnancies to begin with. Although some here have advocated abstinence as the solution, I too am a realist. I see the failures of public school abstinence-only education, which have shown to be mostly ineffective at achieving prolonged abstinence in adolescents. I also realize that not all unintended pregnancies, which constitute about half of all pregnancies, happen outside of committed relationships.

     As a society, we simultaneously suffer from oversexualization and erotophobia. Sex seems to be all we talk about, and yet when it comes to discussing what healthy sexuality is, including what healthy relationships look like, we fail. We focus on the “do”s and “don’t”s but not much on the relational aspects. I have seen this even among Christian friends who abstained from sexual intercourse until marriage, only to find that they knew nothing about what it meant to express sexuality in healthy ways and even continued to feel guilt about their sexual feelings which they’d repressed for so long. There needs to be more partnership in sexuality and reproduction, as you’ve described with your wife and your knowledge of her body and fertility. What underlies that in my mind is mutual, real respect for one another.

     With regard to young adults: in addition to understanding biology, I think all persons need a sense of hope and purpose, and young women in particular need this. Maybe it’s because I was watching 16 & Pregnant last night (not something I normally watch, but since pregnancy was on my mind, I paid attention) and found myself again and again wanting to hit my head against the wall. Not using contraception (or fertility-awareness method or whatever one chooses) is not only a sign of immaturity, but it also signals to me a belief that’s one life, one’s goals, one’s future are not important. They are putting them at *needless* risk. In particular, young women need to know not only about the biological consequences of unprotected sex (let’s not forget STIs), but also they must be empowered to recognize that their sense of worth is not wrapped up in a man’s love or approval. This goes counter to all of the princess-prince-white horse nonsense girls grow up with, and changing the culture will be challenging, but I do believe it is an essential part of addressing many issues, including unintended pregnancies.

     Steve Clapp, president of Christian Community, did a study of youth groups and sexuality education, and found that the young people who did remain abstinent had a number of things in common: one was abstinence education, but they also participated in worship regularly, had adults in their lives who cared for them, and were involved in their communities. I really recommend his book–it’s called “Faith Matters.”

     Hopefully this is a start to the conversation. Obviously I have a lot to say about it. And JM, if you’d like us to move it elsewhere, let us know!

     by Rachel on Dec 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm

177. Rachel, Christian, you guys are absolutely free to discuss this topic in any and all facets here in the Dojo…that’s what I started my blog envisioning happening in the first place! 🙂

     For me, however, the discussion regarding birth control, education and pregnancy prevention is one that I can’t add much of any worth to, because I agree with all of these things and whatever means to increase them I am in favor of.

     Where things come to an impasse though is when an actual pregnancy occurs and a new life is created. At this point, the discussion is no longer about contraception or pregnancy prevention. It is about protection of all life involved and care for the needs of mother and child–by government action if necessary (i.e. legal policies providing for maternal healthcare access, adoption options, post-birth healthcare access…and, from my perspective, prohibition of taking the life in the womb for reasons other than self-defense).

     In other words, it will be impossible for anyone who is genuinely opposed to abortion to support any effort or organization that champions abortion as a “choice” or “women’s rights” issue as part of their foundational mission/objective. It would be like (to borrow from my original metaphor) citizens who wanted to see all child sex-trafficking outlawed being asked to cooperate with brothel advocates who only wanted to see less seedy, unsafe child brothels in society, but not the outlawing of all child brothels by the government. Do you see the dilemma this puts those who oppose it in when they try to find ways to work together with those who fundamentally disagree with them on the very practice being discussed?

     by jm on Dec 20, 2010 at 8:02 pm

178. JM,
     I see your point and agree with it completely. However, as long as both sides only fight with one another, it is unlikely anything will change. I would like to see an organization made up by members of both sides who are willing to put aside the legal/illegal and moral/immoral issues of abortion for the purpose of reducing (and ultimately ending) unwanted conceptions. As I said before, we don’t have to agree to disagree, but we do have to agree to not discuss the areas of the topic where there is passionate disagreement. The organization I would like to see would not champion abortion as a choice or a woman’s right. It would also not call abortion the death of an unwanted child. It would remain silent on the issue completely.

     For example, if Rachel and I were both part of this hybrid organization, we would work together to get better reproductive biology taught in schools and make improvements for society we both agree are necessary and valuable. The issue of abortion would never come up. Also, if Rachel and I were both at a “People for Lowering the Number of Unwanted Pregnancies in the United States of America Regardless of Their Opinions on Abortion” meeting in the afternoon, I could go to a pro-life rally and she could go to a pro-choice rally later that evening. There is no need to forfeit our beliefs on abortion and there is no need for our opinions on abortion to prevent us from making societal improvements that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The fight can be continued on its current fronts, but it can be expanded to another. From a pro-life perspective, fewer dead babies is a good thing regardless of whether or not the lower number comes about from fewer unwanted pregnancies or changing the law to make abortions illegal. From a pro-choice perspective, fewer women having to face unwanted pregnancy is a good thing regardless of whether it comes about as a result of fewer unwanted conceptions or legal abortion.

     To make an analogy to a previous blog post, the issue of abortion is similar to the Israel-Palestine issue in that it is made up of 2 sides who will never see eye-to-eye. It is dissimilar in that there is a win-win solution to the problem. If unwanted conceptions are reduced or completely eliminated, the issue of abortion is not as important or goes away entirely. The legal options become moot. This is not the case for Israel and Palestine. Both sides see a victory for the other side as a loss for their side. When we only focus on the legality/illegality of the issue, we become Israel and Palestine. When we focus on alternative ways to end the practice of abortion/reduce unwanted conceptions, both sides can win and humankind will be better off from virtually all perspectives.

     JM, I believe you do have something to contribute to this part of the conversation, even if its just support or strategic thoughts about what is said.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 20, 2010 at 9:32 pm

179. Abstinence before marriage is great. The only problem I have with the abstinence only approach is that a strong spiritual base is required for it to work. There is a logical side of abstinence. It makes sense to abstain from sex until married to avoid all kinds of possible physical and emotional problems. Unfortunately, when young people find themselves with the opportunity to have sex, the logical understanding of the positive consequences of abstinence goes out the window. For most people (and I mean almost all people, its a neurochemical thing), their brain stops functioning at 100% logical efficiency when it comes to sex.

     Because of that, a spiritual aspect is almost required for it to work. If you have made a promise to God that you will not have sex before marriage, that commitment has a chance to get you through sexual temptation. Unfortunately, most American teens don’t have a spiritual base and for those that do the commitment is usually based more on religion and legalism than it is on maintaining a close relationship with our loving Father. Religion and legalism rarely work in a country built on freedom. I haven’t read “Faith Matters”, but I imagine the author would agree with these last few lines. Abstinence is a terrific idea and I wish we could expect most people to practice it before marriage, but I do not think it is realistic to expect an abstinent lifestyle from most people within our society. We aren’t spiritual enough for it to be accepted by the masses, we aren’t committed enough for it to be accepted by the masses, and we are too oversexed.

     Having said that, abstinence is the best policy. Its a shame not all, or even most, can adhere to the best policy.

     You mentioned that, as a society, we don’t talk about what healthy sexual relationships look like. I’m not certain its a topic relevant to this conversation because I don’t think its something that can be taught without objection. Talking about healthy sexual relationships gets into philosophy and most parents don’t want their kids being taught what to think. It is absolutely something that should be taught in more private settings, but I don’t know its something all kids can be taught. Then again, if the goal of this portion of the conversation is brainstorming ways to help avoid unwanted pregnancy, talking about healthy sexual relationships is totally relevant.

     I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on young women and their sense of self worth. Do you think most teenage girls have sex primarily to please a boy? If so, is there anything that can be done to change this? Having never been a female, I feel especially unqualified to give any opinions on the matter.

     You also mentioned Christian friends who feel sexual guilt even in marriage. Its not directly related to the conversation, but I’d like to hear your views on why that happens, in general. (Obviously each persons case is unique, but what are the primary reasons Christians can suffer from sexual guilt even within marriage?)

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 21, 2010 at 5:29 am

180. Christian Totter, JM, rachel, and et al.

     I too believe that the topic has been largely exhausted, but I think that some common ground has been reached. Considering that we’re talking about pro-choice, and pro-life, that is indeed a serious accomplishment. All parties involved seem to agree that we should avoid social stigmas in regards to pregnancy, life, abortion and so forth and look at these issues rationally rather than with emotion, ad homiems and fallacies.

     I hope that I have been able to contribute, in a skeptical agnostic way, the various problems with both sides of the debate and that there is a moderate position between the two.

     I don’t think anyone can find serious fault with my position on the subject (as no one has mounted a serious critique) but that’s probbably partially because I haven’t taken a hard stance on any of it. I have enjoyed playing the devil’s advocate for both sides.

     As a parting shot, JMS, I would caution you from asserting that women who have become pregnant from rape should have to carry the baby to term. It does not do so for me, but for people on the pro choice side, this engenders FURIOUS rage at pro life people in general. The insistence that not only are you pro life, but that because of your analysis of ethics you would force a raped woman the shame of bearing the child to term and forcing her (by law) to explain to each and every person “Oh, I’m pregnant because I was raped” is inflamatory enough to engender violence from the pro choice side. I have actually witnessed people come to blows on that particular point. I’m not advocating that you abandon that position, just warning you of the consequences of taking such a position.

     It is worthy to note that this particular point is often what causes people to be pro choice, despite the fact that such pregnancies are more rare than a lightning strike. I guess what I’m saying is that by taking such a position, you are sort of convincing people on the pro-choice side that they are right, which is exactly NOT what you want to be doing. It’s an extremely outraging and inflamatory position to take, and if your goal is to have people take a pro choice position seriously and rationally, I don’t think its serving that purpose.

     In any case, I appriciate the discussion, and would welcome anyone to critique my position if they have not already done so. Thank you all.

     by magicbymccauley on Dec 21, 2010 at 6:13 pm

181. Yes, Chris, I’m aware that it is not a popular position. That’s why many who are opposed to abortion allow that exception (and almost every piece of legislation that I’m aware of…correct me if I’m wrong…provides for it). However, I can’t justify ethically condemning human life in the womb to death because of the atrocities of the father. But I realize this is a minuscule issue and one that should not bear on overall abortion legislation or discussion. All good law contains exceptions for hard cases, so gray area in cases such as rape or incest should not detract from the clear cut cases which are the vast majority, I would argue.

     by jm on Dec 21, 2010 at 6:27 pm

182. Chris,
     It is impossible to critique your position because you have no position. You are straddling the fence and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as I know, you have not taken an actual stance on the primary issue. You have stood firm on some side issues. You took a stance on whether or not a fetus is property, whether or not Katharine is brave, and you have taken a stance on how people would react to a married couple giving up a child for adoption. I’ll be happy to critique those positions.

     I agree with your conclusions and your logic on why a fetus is not a woman’s property. I don’t think I could have made the argument any better.

     I agree that Katharine was brave in a certain sense of the word. It took guts to say what she said, in that way she is brave. Its the same kind of brave that allows a guy to jump into the polar bear enclosure at the zoo on a dare. Its much different than the kind of brave that causes a soldier to run into enemy fire to pull his injured buddy out of danger. Its much different than the kind of brave that allows a kid to stand up to a bully or do “the right thing” in a tough situation. I’m not sure what meaning of “brave” you thought she was characterizing.

     I disagree with your assumption that society would scorn a married couple that gives their child up for adoption. Mary did as well and you called her words “lip service.” Your opinion on the matter is also “lip service.” Neither of you know how society at large would react to a married couple giving up a baby for adoption. You called Mary’s assumptions about society lip service but you consider your own assumptions to be truth. Its foolish to think you can speak for anyone other than yourself. I am not familiar with all of society, but the part of society with which I am familiar seems much more likely to see the issue through Mary’s glasses than your own.
     You seem fond of warning others about the language they use as it could come back on them. In this one instance I recommend taking your own advice.

     Unless I have incorrectly interpreted your position, you seem to believe that human life on different levels is unequal. At some points it is worth destroying for purposes other than saving another life. Thinking and feeling are your determining factors for what is truly valuable human life, but you have not given a point in human development when we start thinking and feeling or provided any criteria for what shows evidence of thinking and feeling. You have provided your reasoning for holding such a position and you have logical reasons. I do not agree with some of your conclusions, but I can see how you arrived at them.

     Your primary contributions to this conversation (in my opinion) have shown why this tends to be a confusing and controversial issue for many of us. When you answer a question with “I don’t know”, its very difficult to criticize the answer.

     On a completely separate subject, I don’t see how eating meat is morally “not as good as eating vegetables.” Does that mean that goats are more moral creatures than dogs or cats or bears? Does it mean that a magnolia tree has better morals than a venus fly trap? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim animals have morals and I know I’ve never heard anyone claim plants have morals. I understand the argument that eating meat is not as good as eating vegetables from a health or environmental perspective, but I don’t understand the moral aspect of it all. Perhaps animals eating other animals is not immoral precisely because animals don’t have morals. We do have morals so we should know better. Is that your position?

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18 pm

183. >I agree that Katharine was brave in a certain sense of the word. It took guts >to say what she said, in that way she is brave. Its the same kind of brave that >allows a guy to jump into the polar bear enclosure at the zoo on a dare. Its >much different than the kind of brave that causes a soldier to run into enemy >fire to pull his injured buddy out of danger. Its much different than the kind of >brave that allows a kid to stand up to a bully or do “the right thing” in a tough >situation. I’m not sure what meaning of “brave” you thought she was >characterizing.

     Of course. It is brave in the sense that it is going against societal standards, and doing something that society views as a stigma or morally wrong. It is further admitting to doing such a thing, and then inviting critique and defending a position. In that, it is brave. As humans we are timid fearful creatures that often follow the flock.

     >I agree with your conclusions and your logic on why a fetus is not a >woman’s property. I don’t think I could have made the argument any better.

     Thank you. It is a popular argument in the pro-choice camp, and I disagree with it.

     >I disagree with your assumption that society would scorn a married couple >that gives their child up for adoption. Mary did as well and you called her >words “lip service.” Your opinion on the matter is also “lip service.”

     I didn’t mean that it was personally Mary paying “lip service” but that she was speaking as if society (particularly the pro-life society) would openly embrace married couples giving their child up for adoption. While Mary claims that she would embrace such an idea (and I have no idea whether that’s true or not, I have never met Mary), I know for a fact that the society at large would not. They would see it as immoral and irresponsible to give up a child for adoption when you have the means to raise it, even see that as doing something bad to the child.

     >Neither of you know how society at large would react to a married couple >giving up a baby for adoption

     I do, I’ve experienced it. It isn’t an assumption or a guess. ALL mothers who give up their children are served with societal stigma and reproach, a married, financially stable couple even more so. It messes with society’s desire for a white picket fence and all people and all parents to be the same: that is, to be people that want to have children, and follow a conservative pro-natalist agenda.

     >Unless I have incorrectly interpreted your position, you seem to believe that >human life on different levels is unequal. At some points it is worth >destroying for purposes other than saving another life. Thinking and feeling >are your determining factors for what is truly valuable human life, but you >have not given a point in human development when we start thinking and >feeling or provided any criteria for what shows evidence of thinking and >feeling.

     And I cannot give that point, since science hasn’t advanced to the point where those things can be accurately and precisely determined.

     Unlike the pro-choice position, which assures us that all life not passed through a birth canal is worthless, and the pro-life position, which assumes that unthinking, unfeeling cells are equivalent to thinking feeling human beings, I make no such irrational or foolish claims.

     The more conscious and feeling something is, the more egregious it is to harm it.

     >Your primary contributions to this conversation (in my opinion) have shown >why this tends to be a confusing and controversial issue for many of us. >When you answer a question with “I don’t know”, its very difficult to criticize >the answer.

     I am not simply saying “I don’t know” about every moral question. I am saying that certain moral questions are difficult to determine, and that claiming that all moral decisions are cut and dried is completely foolish and irrational.

     I am saying that while there are moral absolutes, there are moral gray areas and abortion is one such area. I am saying that there are few moral consequences to killing a zygote group of cells, and that there is very much wrong with performing an induced birth and jamming scissors in the back of the head of a screaming baby. These are different things, two ends of a spectrum. To lump both acts together as if they are equivalent would be the same as saying telling a little white lie about someone’s hair is equivalent to perjury in a murder trial.

     Both acts are wrong, but one is much more severe.

     I then went on to say that EVERY act that we do has moral worth, for good or ill. It isn’t as if we go through our lives and every so often some act pops up that requires moral judgment. EVERY act we do is either good or evil (sometimes both) to different degrees.

     >I understand the argument that eating meat is not as good as eating >vegetables from a health or environmental perspective, but I don’t >understand the moral aspect of it all.

     But health and environmental perspectives ARE moral dimensions. Polluting the environment is morally wrong because it causes other living sentient things to suffer. Harming your health is immoral because you are inflicting suffering upon yourself.

     ALL actions have a moral dimension. ALL actions either help or hurt sentient beings on this planet (and perhaps even have consequences on other planets). No action you do is simply neutral.

     Many ethical systems simply come up with a list of rules or regulations: stay off the “bad” actions and everything you are doing is morally right. I reject that notion. ALL actions have moral dimensions. There is always a better or more perfect moral action you could be doing.

     This is particularly relevant because pro-life advocates assert that taking of human life is on the “naughty” list, and thus, it is immoral to perform it at any time for any reason. In our day and age, that thinking is outdated and we’ve moved beyond it. It isn’t as simple as a prohibitive list. All actions have good and bad consequences.

     Furthermore, I would say that both Buddhism and Christianity gives the same answer as I do, and that both were answers to systems of ethics known as “legalism”, that is, using a pre-defined list of things which were prohibited. Christianity and Buddhism were responses to the Legalism of Judaism and Hinduism, and responded instead that there are not simple legalistic answers to moral questions, but that it was the duty of each person to alleviate suffering in all its forms and to propagate love IN ALL actions that one takes.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 28, 2010 at 4:52 am

184. When you say ALL mothers who give children up for adoption are met with societal stigma and reproach, is that a similar societal stigma and reproach that is met by everyone who lives in our society? People have all sorts of reasons for disliking others in society. Very few of those reasons are universally accepted by all of society. ALL mothers in this society may face societal stigma and reproach, but so does any male with long hair. Just because some may judge and reject, it does not mean it is the popular opinion. Your opinions are based on your personal experience. If you are willing to give an opinion on how society will react to a mother who gives her child up for adoption (which is not a scientific conclusion), why can’t you give an opinion on when a fetus becomes a thinking/feeling person?

     I think I get your position on the meat thing now. I think you are saying that because the modern way of obtaining meat is harmful to the environment, that makes it morally worse than eating plants. If a guy goes out and kills a deer with a knife and eats it, that is morally equivalent to eating a plant. Is that right?
     Then again if you are of the belief that eating meat is always an unhealthy option (or less healthy option) then I guess it would always be morally inferior.

     by Christian Trotter on Dec 29, 2010 at 4:55 pm

185. >When you say ALL mothers who give children up for adoption are met with >societal stigma and reproach, is that a similar societal stigma and reproach >that is met by everyone who lives in our society? People have all sorts of >reasons for disliking others in society. Very few of those reasons are >universally accepted by all of society. ALL mothers in this society may face >societal stigma and reproach, but so does any male with long hair. Just >because some may judge and reject, it does not mean it is the popular >opinion.

     It is the popular opinion by society that becoming pregnant and giving up your child for adoption carries a serious social stigma, far more serious than having long hair.

     >Your opinions are based on your personal experience. If you are willing to >give an opinion on how society will react to a mother who gives her child up >for adoption (which is not a scientific conclusion), why can’t you give an >opinion on when a fetus becomes a thinking/feeling person?

     Because I’m unsure when a fetus becomes a thinking/feeling person. I’m not at all unsure that there is a serious social stigma around giving up a child for adoption. I’m 100% certain of that.

     >I think I get your position on the meat thing now. I think you are saying that >because the modern way of obtaining meat is harmful to the environment, >that makes it morally worse than eating plants. If a guy goes out and kills a >deer with a knife and eats it, that is morally equivalent to eating a plant. Is >that right?

     Hunting and eating your own meat is morally preferable to shopping for meat at the grocery store in many, many ways. However, you’re still inflicting pain and suffering on a feeling (somewhat thinking) creature.

     Plants don’t feel pain in any way, and don’t think in any way (that we are aware of, as yet). Hence, eating/killing them is morally preferable.

     If, however, we could eat already deceased plant/animal matter (like a catfish does for example) that would be even more morally superior, and even better for the ecosystem and society.

     by Chris McCauley on Jan 1, 2011 at 1:15 pm

186. I know its not on subject, but your opinions on meat and morality are fascinating to me. Back to a question I asked earlier, are predators less moral than prey animals or are humans the only animals subject to moral distinction concerning diet? Is it more moral to eat beef than octopus because cows are not very intelligent and octopi are smart?

     by Christian Trotter on Jan 2, 2011 at 3:19 am

187. >Yes, Chris, I’m aware that it is not a popular position. That’s why many who >are opposed to abortion allow that exception (and almost every piece of >legislation that I’m aware of…correct me if I’m wrong…provides for it). >However, I can’t justify ethically condemning human life in the womb to >death >because of the atrocities of the father.

     You misunderstand. It isn’t because of the atrocities of the father but because of the suffering of the mother. You’re saying that a woman who is raped MUST carry the child to term, explaining to every person who sees her that the baby was formed from her being raped, and to experience the memory of being raped over and over again. Furthermore, you’re asserting that the rights of unthinking, unfeeling cells, trump the rights of the thinking, feeling mother. Lastly, you’re asserting that she must endure this ordeal because of your (incorrect, in a prochoicer’s mind) opinion about ethics. That SHE must bear the real consequences of your (incorrect) moral judgments.

     >But I realize this is a minuscule issue >and one that should not bear on >overall abortion legislation or discussion. All >good law contains exceptions >for hard cases, so gray area in cases such as >rape or incest should not >detract from the clear cut cases which are the vast >majority, I would argue.

     by Chris McCauley on Dec 28, 2010 at 4:58 am

188. You’re saying that a woman who is raped MUST carry the child to term, explaining to every person who sees her that the baby was formed from her being raped, and to experience the memory of being raped over and over again. Furthermore, you’re asserting that the rights of unthinking, unfeeling cells, trump the rights of the thinking, feeling mother.

     I understand the visceral emotional reaction to this stance and I admit it is a horrible situation. But if it really is a human life on the line then that outweighs any and all emotional distress and shame from a human rights standpoint.

     And the mother doesn’t owe an explanation to anyone, much less “every person who sees her.”

     But again, I understand the reasons why even many pro-lifers don’t accept this position and sympathize with it.

     by jm on Dec 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm

189. I think we also need to realize that the traumatic experience of rape is usually only exacerbated by adding the furtherly traumatic experience of abortion. Once a woman has an abortion, which is offered as some sort of fix in the case of pregnancies from rape, she now has 2 horrific memories instead of one. But it doesn’t fix matters. The real issue is the rape. Abortion doesn’t undo rape. It kills a human being. I have heard the testimonies of women who have felt further violated by the abortion which everyone assured them they should have.

     I really do understand why there is this feeling that an exception needs to be made for rape, and used to think that way myself. However, I came to realize that taking a human life to avoid distress is not ethical even if that distress is for very valid reasons. I also think every woman needs to think through this issue in advance when she is not emotional and is able to think clearly – especially if she lives in a country where she has a higher chance of being raped (I happen to live in such a country). If a woman can give life to the little human inside of her, instead of taking life, this can be a great victory of courage and a refusal to be brought down by the evil perpetrated against her. Apparently, 70% of women who conceive in rape choose to keep the baby, which should tell us something.

     And while I don’t support abortion in the case of rape, I would also be a lot happier if abortion were only allowed in such circumstances (together with saving the mother’s life, which I already agree with ethically) because it would be applied only in a very small percentage of cases.

     by Mary on Dec 31, 2010 at 11:30 am

190. I completely agree with you Mary. Thanks for putting it so well from a woman’s perspective.

     by jm on Dec 31, 2010 at 11:29 pm

191. >I understand the visceral emotional reaction to this stance and I admit it is a >horrible situation. But if it really is a human life on the line then that outweighs >any and all emotional distress and shame from a human rights standpoint.

     She didn’t choose to have sex and she didn’t choose to conceive, JMS. She had that put upon her by a violation of HER human rights.Why should she have to be responsible to a lump of cells, and carry that to term, along with all the consequences, to satisfy your moral claim that this zygote is on par with the life of a full grown woman who was raped?

     And you’re essentially saying that she MUST go through with the pregnancy or she’s a murderer. I think that’s just ridiculous.

     “But if it really is a human life on the line then that outweighs any and all emotional distress”

     This is just completely untrue. Human life being “on the line” does not outweigh the emotional distress of the person who’s life it is, the lives of the family, or society at large. Particularly if that human life is not thinking/feeling in any way.

     The idea that someone should suffer in ANY WAY in ANY AMOUNT physically or emotionally in order to sustain life at all costs is completely foolish.

     What about terminal cancer patients, who must scream in pain every second until they lose their voice, and anguish over every second. Should we ignore their “do not resuscitate” orders, and revive them anyway, so they can suffer and anguish for a few more days before dying?

     What about a brain dead coma patient who is terminal? Should the family have to anguish for months or years on end, mortgage their house, and destroy their lives just so that the human life that lives in that physical shell can stay on a respirator for a few years with no hope of recovery?

     Human life is NOT more important than all other ethical concerns. If that were true, Jesus would have used his powers to preserve his life at all costs, rather than having it be a sacrifice for others. Put simply, there are things more important than life or death.

     >And the mother doesn’t owe an explanation to anyone, much less “every >person who sees her.”

     I grow sick and weary of this Pollyanna attitude towards adoption and pregnancy. Every single person that sees a pregnant woman besets her with questions on when the baby’s due, about the father, and so forth and so on. Not to mention that friends and family will ask questions that demand answers. It’s not as though you can just lie about it or cover it up. When a co worker sees that you’re pregnant, they’ll ask about it, when you are no longer pregnant, they’ll ask about the baby, where it is, if its with the father, and so forth.

     While a woman doesn’t OWE an explanation to anyone, society DEMANDS it of her and judges her for it. You cannot hide a pregnancy forever, and people will pry into it, even strangers and coworkers. This causes intense consequences to friends, family, finances, and in society in general. The Pollyanna pro-life refrain that everyone is going to support a pregnant woman who was raped is nothing but a myth, fabricated by people for the sake of argument, far removed from the harsh, stark reality that waits for any woman who is pregnant outside of societal accepted marriage.

     Being pregnant is not some sort of happy nice time full of rainbows and fuzzy feelings. It is a DANGEROUS MEDICAL ORDEAL, and an EXTREME SOCIAL STIGMA. Saying that a woman who was just violated by a man, must suffer all the more and have her vagina ripped open by his baby, (after HIS violation of her human rights), smacks of a dark ages mentality, where women were seen as mere vessels for men, and their progeny was more important than her survival or any concerns for her at all.

     >I think we also need to realize that the traumatic experience of rape is >usually only exacerbated by adding the furtherly traumatic experience of >abortion.

     And some women feel more violated by a society trying to force them to have the baby.

     >Once a woman has an abortion, which is offered as some sort of fix in the >case of pregnancies from rape, she now has 2 horrific memories instead of >one.

     The experience of childbirth is also horrific. Having one of your orifices distended while you pass a bloody screaming baby through it is not exactly wonderful. Make that double when it’s a baby that you took no part in creating and never wanted. Childbirth is extreme pain.

     >But it doesn’t fix matters. The real issue is the rape. Abortion doesn’t undo >rape.

     No, it undoes the pregnancy, so that the woman doesn’t have to unwillingly bear the child of a rapist.

     >It kills a human being. I have heard the testimonies of women who have felt >further violated by the abortion which everyone assured them they should >have.

     I wouldn’t force a woman either way on that one. It’s their choice.

     by Chris McCauley on Jan 1, 2011 at 2:35 pm

192. I have no desire to weigh in on the rape/abortion issue, but I would like to make sure appropriate arguments are being made.

     “Every single person that sees a pregnant woman besets her with questions on when the baby’s due, about the father, and so forth and so on.”

     As a father of 2, I know this is untrue. Very few people who did not know my wife approached her to question her about her pregnancy. Those who did always asked the same question, “How far along are you?” or the variant, “When are you due?” No one ever asked about the father. No one ever asked about how she came to be pregnant. My wife looks very young and is often mistaken for a teenager. During her first pregnancy, she did get a couple of strange looks from people who probably thought she was a pregnant teenager. None of those people ever approached her or asked her anything.

     People who know her asked her a few more questions relating to the sex of the baby and possible names. No one asked about the conception. Those who know her also know she is married and probably assume I am the father of any children she may be carrying.

     For women who are not married, I imagine those who know her would be curious about the circumstances of the pregnancy. However, I can’t imagine anyone (who is mentally stable) asking any her any questions about it. I have known a few unmarried girls who got pregnant by mistake and I have always known the circumstances of the pregnancy, but not because I asked about it. Best friends and close family typically ask about that kind of thing and then they disseminate that information onto others who also know the unmarried pregnant woman. In fact, I have always known the circumstances of the pregnancy before the woman was even showing because word travels fast. I live in the South and its possible my cultural experiences concerning pregnancy are different from those who live elsewhere, but I can’t imagine anyone accosting a pregnant woman to harass her with questions about the pregnancy, especially if they know the pregnancy is a touchy subject.
     In the South at least, strangers do not pry into pregnancy. Acquaintances don’t pry into pregnancy. Strangers couldn’t possibly care any less about the pregnant woman they just passed. Acquaintances seek out the information from other sources and would never consider asking the pregnant woman directly. That would be one of those things that is “none of your business.” That doesn’t mean people don’t pry into other people’s business, but not directly. I can’t imagine a situation in which a raped pregnant woman would be forced to relive the experience due to people asking questions about the pregnancy. Waking up every morning and being pregnant may bring back the memory, but not the questions of “every single peson who sees” her.

     Its odd to me that you think “every single person who sees a pregnant woman besets her with questions.” I’m wondering how you came to this viewpoint considering how it is so vastly different from my real world experience.

     by Christian Trotter on Jan 2, 2011 at 4:11 am

193. >Its odd to me that you think “every single person who sees a pregnant woman >besets her with questions.” I’m wondering how you came to this viewpoint >considering how it is so vastly different from my real world experience.

     Maybe it’s different up north, I have no idea. In any case, you agree that friends and family beset her with questions. I’m fine if we agree to disagree about strangers.

     by Chris McCauley on Jan 2, 2011 at 1:40 pm

194. I agree that best friends and close family may ask questions concerning the circumstances of a pregnancy. A woman may have five people close enough to her to ask an intimate question like that. They would be the same five people who she would call first to tell them she was engaged. They would be the same five people who would set-up an intervention if she was addicted to something. They are the five people who are close enough and care enough to walk with her through anything. Mothers, sisters, best friends and that’s about it. In this case, they would be the five people she would have already told about the rape and the resulting pregnancy.

     I think we disagree on more than just strangers. I don’t think anyone would bother a pregnant woman with intimate questions. I’m certain a raped pregnant woman would be reminded of the experience by the symptoms of pregnancy, but not by the outside world. Of course, we can agree to disagree about that as well. Who knows, cultural norms may be very different from one area of the country to another.

     by Christian Trotter on Jan 3, 2011 at 7:26 am

195. >I think we disagree on more than just strangers. I don’t think anyone would >bother a pregnant woman with intimate questions.

     I think you are extremely naive about this. Women lose jobs over becoming pregnant. They can lose family members, friends, and so forth over it. It can disrupt or end romantic relationships, disrupt or destroy marriages, and so forth and so on. I think your attitude is very much a Pollyanna one, that it’s not going to seriously impact their social life, their professional life, their friends and family.

     Yes people are going to ask questions. Given insufficient answers, they will draw their own conclusions, gossip about the person, and make decisions based on that. People are very cruel when they percieve someone living outside the social norm.

     As I said, giving up a child to adoption is a social stigma, as is becoming pregnant outside of marriage. It seems that people I talk to about this want to ignore the fact as if it’s negligent or unimportant, as if society doesn’t view them with scorn contempt and ridicule and that they have nothing to fear from society if they decide to carry the pregnancy to term or give the baby up for adoption.

     It’s just an effort by the pro-life people to try and create a false reality where everyone socially accepts unwed mothers. The actual reality in how single mothers are treated by society is brutish and cruel.

     >In this case, they would be the five people she would have already told >about the rape and the resulting pregnancy.

     The thing you are missing is that rape is something that you can tell only a few friends, and pregnancy is something everyone knows and can see.

     by Chris McCauley on Jan 5, 2011 at 6:32 am

196. I don’t think I have made the argument that pregnancy (especially outside of marriage) is socially acceptable. I agree that pregnant women face a lot of social/cultural hardship to go along with the hardships related directly to the pregnancy. I don’t have a Pollyanna view about pregnancy or our society’s view of it.

     The whole point of this part of my argument is to refute these lines:
     “. . . you would force a raped woman . . . (by law) to explain to each and every person “Oh, I’m pregnant because I was raped” . . .” and
     “You’re saying that a woman who is raped MUST carry the child to term, explaining to every person who sees her that the baby was formed from her being raped, and to experience the memory of being raped over and over again.”
     These arguments are ridiculous and provably false. My wife has been pregnant for 17 months of her life and tens of thousands of people saw her while she was obviously pregnant. Once or twice a week a stranger would ask about when she was due or the sex of the baby or a name for the baby. That’s it.

     I have argued that most people will not directly confront a pregnant woman with questions about her pregnancy. You have said on numerous occasions that “every single person” who sees her will approach her with questions about the pregnancy. That is a ridiculous claim. A raped woman who conceives a child a result of the rape (or any other pregnant woman) will not be harassed by “every single person” she passes and be reminded of the unspeakable experience. Yes, people will talk, but not to her. People will judge, but not to her face. I’m not forgetting that pregnancy is impossible to hide. I’m saying you don’t need to hide it. The vast majority of people stay out of your business. I’m sure there are people out there who would confront a woman directly about a pregnancy that resulted from rape. If they found out the conception was a result of rape they would feel like they had to give their opinion about it, but that kind of brash despicableness is extremely rare, at least where I’m from.

     I thought I had made it clear before now that she will be talked about behind her back. She will be reminded of the rape just by being pregnant, but very few people (if any) will see that she is pregnant and ask about how she got pregnant. Very few will ask if she is married. People will ask when the baby is due, about the sex of the child, and possibly about names she is considering. These questions will not remind her of the rape. Being pregnant will remind her of the rape.

     As I have said, I do not wish to engage on the topic of whether or not abortion should be legal for women who conceived as the result of a rape. I would like to see logical and realistic arguments made on each side. Your claims of “every single person” and the like do more harm to your argument than good. Making statements like that make you seem irrational. Much of your contribution to this discussion has been extremely well thought out and very well said. These claims have not.

     As a side note, your opinions of society are more cynical than mine and that is saying something. Our perception of society is based on what we see around us. Obviously your experiences have left you with a bitter taste in your mouth about your fellow man (and woman). There is nothing wrong with that, it is simply your reality. However, I don’t believe things are as bad as you think they are. I believe a woman can get pregnant, carry the baby to term, and give it up for adoption without being scorned by society. Sure, some will judge. Some will reject her. Some will ridicule her. Some will not forgive her. But for the most part we are a forgiving and compassionate society. You may not believe that. Your experience may not allow you to believe that. I won’t try to give facts to support that claim. I won’t try to argue my point-of-view. I’m just glad the sum of my experiences have led me to that point-of-view and I hope you can have more experiences and relationships that let you see that side of humanity as well.

     by Christian Trotter on Jan 7, 2011 at 5:53 am

197. >Yes, people will talk, but not to her. People will judge, but not to her face. I’m >not forgetting that pregnancy is impossible to hide. I’m saying you don’t need >to hide it.

     Let’s read what you wrote right here. You admit that people will talk about her and judge her, and in the same sentence you say that she has no need to hide it?

     >“every single person” who sees her will approach her with questions about >the pregnancy.

     Okay, fair enough, not every single person, and people are more likely to judge her and talk about her behind her back, I can agree with that.

     >She will be reminded of the rape just by being pregnant, but very few >people (if any) will see that she is pregnant and ask about how she got >pregnant.

     Well, I guess that is where we part ways.

     >As a side note, your opinions of society are more cynical than mine and that >is saying something. Our perception of society is based on what we see >around us. Obviously your experiences have left you with a bitter taste in >your mouth about your fellow man (and woman). There is nothing wrong >with that, it is simply your reality.

     Not really, my comments aren’t to denigrate humanity as a whole, but to point out that stigmas are much more pervasive in society than I think you would like to admit, and that these stigmas have more consequences and can be more abusive and intolerant than you realize. I think that people are basically good at heart, but that they are imperfect beings. I think good and evil run through the heart of every person, and of those two aspects I would say that good is stronger.

     However, when it comes to social stigmas and people doing things outside the norm of what is accepted by society, the ugly, prejudiced, judgmental, gossipy, vindictive side of us really comes out. We say to ourselves that we’d never judge people, or treat them differently because of race, sexuality, pregnancy, economic status and so forth and so on, but that’s not what ends up happening, is it?

     Social stigmas are a harsh and cruel reality, and whether its a pregnant teen or a disabled veteran, society looks down on them and treats them differently and that’s a simple fact. it isn’t right, we all know it isn’t right, and every individual person claims they’d never do such a thing, but it’s a phenomenon none the less.

     Women who are pregnant can lose their jobs, lose familial relationships, lose romantic relationships, suffer financial hardship, face prejudice and hatred from friends, be kicked out of church, be ostracized from social circles, be belittled and hurt by governmental policies, have their education be disrupted, face all manner of health risks, and on and on and on.

     In the seventies, when a unmarried woman got pregnant, (and I know this because it happened to my cousin) women were shipped off to an institution where their pregnancy could hidden from their family, friends and society at large. That’s how pervasive and horrific the stigma was just thrity years ago. And to pretend “Hey, carry the baby to term, it’s no big deal, no one’s going to bother you, society will welcome you with open arms!” Is just really, really ignorant. Unwed pregnant mothers face a host of challenges, consequences and prejudices from society at large.

     >However, I don’t believe things are as bad as you think they are. I believe a >woman can get pregnant, carry the baby to term, and give it up for adoption >without being scorned by society.

     And that is where we part ways again. I think that’s just foolish and uninformed.

     >I’m just glad the sum of my experiences have led me to that point-of-view >and I hope you can have more experiences and relationships that let you >see that side of humanity as well.

     Well, I hope that you yourself can have more diverse experiences than simply being married to a woman and having children in the socially accepted way. I hope that you talk to single mothers. I wish you could talk to my cousin and how she was treated as an outcast and frankly as unwanted scum. I wish that you could talk to women who have been fired from work because they got pregnant, or women who have family members that have disowned them because they got pregnant. I wish you could talk to my friend Natasha, who when her mother found out she was pregnant, beat her until she had a miscarriage. Or two other friends I’ve had who were forced to have abortions by family members, because them being pregnant was such a scandal. I’m sorry my friend, I’m as optimistic as the next guy, and I’m described by others as an incurable optimist, but covering up the evil that society perpetrates in the name of social stigmas isn’t optimism, it’s delusion.

     by Chris McCauley on Jan 8, 2011 at 7:52 pm

198. I know that this is eleven years too late, but there are a few things that really set me off, and the conspiracy theories about Margaret Sanger are among them. Mary, Sanger & MLK lauded one another. Rosa Parks was on PP’s Board in the post-Sanger years. Sanger worked with WEB DuBois, and did not tolerate bigotry among her staff. The alleged “human weeds” quote is a fabrication, and “word to go out,” in the context of the 1920s, meant “get the wrong idea.” She didn’t want people thinking that she wanted to exterminate Black people. Her own writings show great sympathy with the women of the Far East. She talked to the KKK Women’s Auxiliary because they asked her to, since their menfolk didn’t want them to know about contraception. She later remarked that it was the weirdest experience of her life.

     She was indeed a eugenicist (who was appalled at the way the Nazi regime used eugenics), but she was no bigot. Quite the opposite, actually.

     by Steve Azerre on Mar 14, 2022 at 9:30 pm

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (required, but never shared)

Web

Δ