Pro - Life and GLBT

[Sharone]

Hi, all. I haven't posted in a while, but wanted to find out what folks think of the concept that abortion is violence against children and that, if we continue down the path we are treading as a nation, we will come to the time when people choose to abort babies because they are glbt. It will happen if we don't start having an outcry against the practice of allowing abortions in all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason at all.
I am a member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. We are part of a network of groups called Consistent Life. We believe wholeheartedly that abortion and euthanasia are not compassionate or pro-woman or pro-child. They are violent acts.
So, now that I've OUTED myself as a rabid pro-lifer, what do you all think?
Sharone

[scott snedeker]

From a physician's point of view a pro-life legislation restricts clinical decision-making by uninvolved non health-professionals. This to me seems utterly flawed.

Let's take another medical decision: Heart attacks

Let's say a prominent political figure puts into law that all heart attacks must be treated with the clot-buster medicine. Now some heart attacks are not threatening enough to exceed the risk of using the clot buster. You will end up killing more patients than you save in small heart attacks in elderly patients. The clot buster commonly causes fatal brain hemorrages in the elderly. Clearly politicians have no place in this decision process.

Pregnancy management is an individual case by case decision. I myself have participated in a theraputic abortion in a leukemia patient on chemotherapy. The fetus would have no chance to survive and the mother hemorrage to death if we had not performed the abortion.

I do however strongly feel that elective abortions should have well adhered guidelines with regard to how many weeks, medical condition, and other issues. I believe that this should be standards set by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, with criteria to be met and disciplinary action to those Obstetricians who don't follow the criteria and review by the Board. I myself review other cases by physicians in Internal Medicine.

Education is also key in preventing an endpoint that I also am uncomfortable seeing: late term abortions.

The "morning after pill" for instance (a high dose estrogen) reduces the risk of conception to 1 in 400 if taken within 24 hours after intercourse. If this were generally known and available at the seven-eleven ( in England it is available without a prescription) It would be merely a matter of post coital contraception. "Oops hot date last night! I'd better pick it up on the way to work"

My objection to blanket rules is that they cannot address each circumstance And i suspect come from "knee-jerk" reaction to fear.

[scorpiogirl]

As a feminist I have a bias towards this debate. I am Pro-Choice, not Pro-abortion as some take to calling it. I don't believe in getting an abortion just for the hell of it, but I do feel that it should be there for those that need it. Some women are put in situations out of their control (rape, incest) where the added burden of carrying a child out of that horrible situation can be all the more traumatizing and can cause damage to both the woman and the child. Also medical conditions can make an abortion necessary. Just my two cents.

[tpdncr4christ]

I would never recomend an abortion. I do not agree with abortion. I do not support it, I do not believe it to be the right option in any situation.

However, I don't believe the government has any right to restrict women from such a procedure. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean I have the right to deny it to others. I frown on it, but I will not say its illegal. If it must be done, do it. But don't do it unless you have too... Yeah, that's what I believe. <3

[Zerbie]

Too much grey area. That's why I always come down pro-choice in the end.

Abortion is a horrible thing. But there ARE circumstances where carrying a conceived fetus to term would be even *more* horrible.

I agree with some kind of reasonable restrictions on late term abortions. That should be only if the child, mother, or both are suddenly found to be in life-threatening condition.

Too much goes on though, in the way of rape, incest, and unforeseen circumstances. Life falls short of ideals. 12 year old girls get pregnant by their fathers - force them to carry their own siblings in their womb? Explain to a child that dad is also grandad?

[Pablo Rafael]

Sharone,

I am a strong believer in the idea that all people deserve a chance at life and that abortion takes away the most fundamental right of all - the right to live.

I believe firmly in the idea that each person needs to take responsibility for his/her actions. I am opposed to the idea of abortion as birth control. I do not oppose abortion when it is medically necessary or in the case of rape, etc. In those cases my personal opinion is that it might be the lesser of two evils. What I feel needs to be lessened is the use of abortion as birth control.

Saying this I do not think that making abortion illegal in the United States will happen. What I would like to see are programs to lessen the number of abortions. We need education programs that stress responsibility, abstinance and use of birth control. It is scientifically documented that abstainance-only programs don't work; abstainance and birth control education does. We need programs that support young mothers and encourage adoptions. I get annoyed with politicians that say they are opposed to abortion but do nothing to lessen its use. It is ironic that during the Clinton administration the number of abortions declined significantly while during the Bush administration some statistics suggest an increase.

Also I have to think that the Catholic church (my church) has an illogical position of opposing birth control and abortion at the same time. The ABC approach is a more reasonable approach.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dsdrane]

That's what President Clinton said, and that's what I believe.

I've marched in Washington for those words, and I'd do it again, if necessary.

David :running:

[pnggrad79]

Perhaps my view is a bit jaded and cynical (something I fight against daily, but am afraid I am losing the battle), however, I am personally pro-life. Personally, if I ever was faced with the choice, I would not choose abortion as a solution to my problem. The flipside of that coin is this-I am a teacher and throughout my 20 years in the classroom, I have seen hundreds of children who parents neglect, abuse or mistreat them. Among those hundreds of children are the parents who are sporadically in jail, on drugs, have alcohol issues, involved in spousal abuse, or who just take a hike on their kids and never see them again. In short, there are some people in this world who should have never had children. In my mind, if you can't feed them, take care of them, aren't going to give a flying flip about them, then DON'T BLESS US WITH YOUR MESS! More times than I care to count, I want to say to some of these parents, "What made you think this was a good idea?" I don't say it, but I would like to.

I am pro-life generally, but there are some people who have no business having children.

Pardon me for my cynical, jaded slant on this.

[novaseeker]

I'm pro-life and pro-choice at the same time when it comes to abortion. That is, while I do think that the choice to have an abortion is, in many cases, a bad choice and a wrong one, nevertheless I don't think it's right for the state to preclude people from making their own choices on this issue. So, for me, when it comes to the state action part of this, I am pro-choice in that I think the state should stay out of these decisions. But given the freedom to make the decision, I am very pro-life, and think that people should generally make the life-giving choice when it comes to abortion choices.

By the way, I also don't view pro-life as being simply about abortion. I am also against the death penalty for similar reasons, and generally opposed to deadly violence for similar reasons. There are many kinds of life out there that need protection, not only unborn life.

[suzer1013]

Ummm -- what Novaseeker (and others) said.

I am anti-abortion, but still cling to a pro-choice stance because I don't believe that anyone, especially government, should be able to control a woman's body or choices in that way. I think abortion is awful, and I do think it is taking a human life, at whatever stage it is done. I have less of a problem with a morning after pill type thing, but I still believe that the embryo is a human life, despite its early stage of development, and should be sacred.

I don't like the term "pro-life" because of what it has come to be associated with (similarly, I sometimes don't want to call myself a Christian). Clinic protests and harassing women at a very fragile and emotionally wrought time, killing doctors and bombing clinics doesn't sit well with me. I feel the "pro-life" movement has made a bad name for itself.

On the other hand, I also know of too many stories and instances of women getting abortions as birth control -- it makes me ill.

What I believe needs to be done is that we all (whether we call ourselves pro-life or pro-choice) need to work on alleviating the REASONS women choose abortion. We need to provide adequate parenting classes in high school, we need to make sure child care is available for mothers (and fathers) who need to work, we need to address poverty and lack of education, we need to provide teenagers with birth control resources should they choose to have sex (I hate, hate, hate the idea of teens having sex, but I know they will go ahead and do it no matter what I think), etc., etc., etc. I wish there were some way we could root out the abuses of the right to have an abortion -- perhaps limit the number of elective abortions (where there is no medically necessary reason). But there is a fine line -- placing limits can also lead to problems. This is not a black and white issue, and I wish both sides would stop treating it as if we can either have unlimited access or no access -- it just isn't that simple.

I don't know the solution, but I do know it is a choice I would never make for myself, and if I knew anyone contemplating it, I would do everything in my power to help that woman choose to keep the baby or give it for adoption.

[Lydia]

On the other hand, I also know of too many stories and instances of women getting abortions as birth control

That's odd - all of the people I've known personally who have had abortions picked that option for reasons like:

1) They had a medical condition that could make carrying to term dangerous (not impossible, of course. But it carried more health risks than they were able to deal with.)

2) Other forms of bc failed unexpectantly,

3) and/or they didn't have the financial or social support necessary to make carrying to term an option in their minds.

Interesting.

I do agree with what others have said about the necessity of more education and support.

I'd like to think that I'd never have an abortion, but I've never been pregnant and desperate (or even just pregnant ;) ). I can't imagine what it's like, especially if one's situation is complicated by an abusive relationship or lack of money or the fear of being "kicked out" of one's family.

[nmwolfboy]

The position that Novaseeker articulated is real close to mine on this issue.

In addition i strongly support reproductive freedom & access to education and birth control. While i am both pro-choice and pro-life, I've taken a stand many times in support of Roe v. Wade, mainly because I've read the testimonies of medical providers who were around both before & after the decision and saw the immediate impact. From what i've read it was routine before RvW to see severly ill and dying women in Emergency Rooms as a result of illegal abortions, but after RvW that dramatically changed. I'd hate to see us return to those earlier days.

Safe, legal & rare.

[Blossom]

Wow, guys, this thread has been a (pleasant) shock. I didn't expect so many here to have views on abortion nearly this close to mine. I am pro-life, and feel the tension between the need for a tiny number of abortions to be performed to save the mother's life and the fact that the vast majority of abortions are a form of birth control. And yes, I do recognize the tragic cases and will continue to consider those in light of my view of life.

What really gets to me is when people call the unborn child a "fetus". What this becomes is the name game--call it a "baby" if you want it, a "fetus" if you don't. This fails to value life because it is, simply, life, and only values life if others value that life. Dangerous--for the aged, the sick, the deformed. Most every culture, I recently heard, believes that murdering another human is wrong--the difference between each culture is who they view as "human". In our culture, one is only alive and human if they are wanted.

[Sharone]

I am surprised too, Blossom.

I will answer a few things I've seen in the responses that I feel need to be addressed, but alas I don't have time to address everyone by name.

First of all, the actual percentage of abortions that are performed for reasons such as rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother is about 2%

That being the case, I really feel that our nation has gotten to the point where abortion is used as a form of birth control. I don't believe most women are cavalier about it or don't care. I just think that many have bought the line that abortion is legal, safe, simple and their "right".
I don't agree, obviously.

I find it fascinating that the pro-choicers have been able to use language over the years since Roe v. Wade that have caught on with the masses to the extent that a lot of women and men use them constantly. Phrases like reproductive choice are used when I speak to others about my pro-life stance. It might seem harsh to some, but I really think there are so many choices in birth control nowadays that personal responsibility HAS to be emphasized more. Abortion is a surgical procedure. There are many women who have been physically maimed or died as a result of "safe, legal" abortion.

Now, I'm not a medical professional and would never claim to be, but I have had friends who had abortions and I've seen the changes in them as a result. I have seen what it does to them. I absolutely feel that women need more education before they make this kind of decision, but there is such a divide between factions that getting both sides of the equation is unlikely. Clinics tell women how their perspective is and that's natural. Pro-life pregnancy centers are going to tell women about the risks and other options and that's natural. In a society that I'd love to see, a woman would get ALL of the information available and then could make an informed decision.

I'd just like to throw this out there for you all. PLAGAL's website has several informative pamphlets in PDF format that really help you understand how this issue affects the GLBT community and all of us at large. If you're interested in reading these, go to www.plagal.org.

I am a lesbian, so this issue doesn't affect me the way it would a bi or hetero woman, but it affects me just the same. I have nieces and nephews and want them to understand the repercussions of their actions.

Also, since many of us have a faith base here, the Bible is pretty clear on the issue of the preciousness of life. (Not clear like they say it's clear about homosexuality!!!! It really speaks to this issue.)

Thanks for all your responses, all. Hope I have given you some things to think about. You certainly have given me some food for thought.

[dsdrane]

But, I'm not gonna do it..wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

I think the purpose of this thread was -- or at least should be -- expressing opinions about the "Pro-Life and GLBT" combo (or lack thereof) to get an idea of what's out there.

What it is quickly becoming is a debate on abortion, something that I'm sure could be carried on in any number of other venues ad nauseum.

I almost got caught up in it...but, folks, I'm walking away.

You Hatfield and McCoys have fun now, y'hear!

David :running:

[Sharone]

Actually, David, if you're still listening, this is about all of that. As a lesbian, I am appauled that, in the not-too-distant future, people would be able to choose to have a baby or not based on it's sexual orientation! It's going to be another way to get rid of us. It probably sounds Orwellian, but when a "gay gene" is found, I know that I know there will be amnio testing to find out if a baby has it before they continue with the pregnancy.
Why aren't more of us speaking out? Because we have decided that a woman's "right to choose" is the same as privacy rights. It's not, in my humble opinion.

[Jamie McDaniel]

I was wondering when we would have a discussion on abortion. I just returned from the store and noticed a bumper sticker which read "You can't be both Catholic and for abortion." It made me think of this thread.

My background as a Southern Baptist shaped my early views. When I was in college, I posted a statement questioning the moral character of anyone who would consider an abortion. Five years later when I first came out, I hesitated to vote for some gay-friendly politicians because of their pro-choice position. However, I have since rethought my own position and also attempted to gauge how deeply the pro-life rhetoric affects those who spent so much time in conservative churches.

I am firmly against the death penalty and I'm also vegetarian. So naturally I'm going to be "pro-life." However, I've been searching for a way to express my feeling that stopping the pregnancy process very early on is not the same thing as killing a baby. So I really like how some of you said you were both pro-life and pro-choice (albeit with an explanation given. Hard to fit on a bumper sticker.) At first I wondered if that was similar doubletalk as some politicians stating "I'm against discrimination and I'm also against gay marriage."

I've concluded it isn't. I'm sorry, I just have problems accepting that a sperm and an egg does an ensouled human being make, although that was what I was taught, that life begins at conception. I do appreciate the scripture about how God knew us before we were knit in the womb. However we don't look at a string of yarn and call it a quilt.

At the same time, however, I have serious concerns about abortions performed after the first trimester (after a good start at knitting, if you will.) I can't accept that a late-term abortion is the same as any other surgery a woman might undergo.

So for the past several years I've been torn on abortion and I'd like to figure it out. I've also wondered how my being a gay man (I'll never impregnate someone accidentally) potentially affects my thinking on facing an unplanned pregnancy. (I see Sharone discussed this a bit from a lesbian point of view.) And I also want to consider that my being male (I'll never have to host another human being in my own body and have it emerge after nine months) might also affect my view a bit. (I really appreciated Lydia's three reasons from above.)

The "morning after pill" for instance (a high dose estrogen) reduces the risk of conception to 1 in 400 if taken within 24 hours after intercourse. If this were generally known and available at the seven-eleven ( in England it is available without a prescription) It would be merely a matter of post coital contraception. "Oops hot date last night! I'd better pick it up on the way to work"

I'm thinking this, along with sex education and condom machines at schools, would be the best solution to sharply reduce abortions (which we all agree we want to do.) If you disagree or have concerns about this approach, I'd be interested in hearing some reasons. Do we currently not stress the rare part enough of "safe, legal, and rare"?

[dsdrane]

It probably sounds Orwellian, but when a "gay gene" is found, I know that I know there will be amnio testing to find out if a baby has it before they continue with the pregnancy.

And this, my friends, will be the most exquisite dilemma for many if not most of the Right-to-Lifers out there.

Quel ironique, non?

Now I'm really going.

;)

[suzer1013]

Wow, guys, this thread has been a (pleasant) shock. I didn't expect so many here to have views on abortion nearly this close to mine.

Blossom, I imagine you will find that GLBTQ opinions on this issue are as wide-ranging and varied as hetero opinions. :)

Also, regarding the specific question of genetic testing to determine any abortion decision (whether it be to abort a potentially GLBTQ child or otherwise), that smacks a bit too much of eugenics to me and of course personally from a lesbian standpoint is frightening.

I used to feel differently about this issue (used to be 100% abortion on demand), but as I've gotten older and known more women who have had abortions, and their reasons for so doing, I've had to rethink my position. I always assumed abortion would be a last resort for women, but found that was not always true -- among the women I've known who have had abortions, it was almost always a matter of convenience. I also did some research of my own on fetal development, and you'd be surprised how quickly "human" an embryo becomes. Part of this is also colored, to be honest, by my own desire to have a child and that I could never imagine not considering the moment of conception forward as being anything other than "my baby." I probably will never have children of my own (getting a bit old, I'm afraid!), but that doesn't mean the desire is not still there.

I hope my above comments were not taken as too critical of women who have chosen to have an abortion -- many women have abortions for what might be very valid reasons at the time, and I don't wish to heap judgment on anyone (as a lesbian, I've gotten enough of that myself). I just wish that abortion would be, as David and Jamie have iterated, much more "rare" than it is now. In fact, I wish it were almost nonexistently rare, but I know it's not a perfect world. I also think too much emphasis has been placed on the woman's decision, when the man also has (obviously) a huge responsibility in an unplanned pregnancy, too.

[Sharone]

Hi, Jamie.
One thing...the morning after pill has side effects that can be worse than an abortion for the woman! I'm sure our doctor friend could attest to that. Many feel it's the best thing since sliced bread, but as will all medications with powerful hormones, it can be a nightmare instead of a miracle "cure" to unplanned pregnancy.

[Sharone]

Thanks, Suzer. I will mention that the heart of an unborn child starts beating at like 18 days. Way before a woman even knows she's pregnant. No, the baby doesn't "look like" a baby until much later, but to me it's not about the look. It's about being alive. The issue is geography, unfortunately.

[BruceChris]

I have never in my life heard of a gay or lesbian couple with an unintended pregnancy. I have never met anyone who was actually pro-abortion, or who thought that abortions, per se, were a good idea.

There have been many times when I have been tempted to say that we should take everyone who is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice", line them up at gun point, take every penny they have, and spend it all on sex education and birth control. (This offends people, for some reason) -- But it would work.

Science has shown us that somewhere between 20% and 40% of fertilized ovum never will go on to become a full term baby. Does this mean that God is an abortionist? I won't go there. -- But it does give me room to say that no, a fertilized egg is NOT the same thing as a baby.

I believe that ALL women, and ALL MEN should take SERIOUS responsibility for any sex they're involved in, and be able to talk with others about it.

I think it goes without saying that "Safe Sex" automatically includes effective birth control, unless a child is intended. And with that, I will join many of you, and say that yes, I am Pro-Life, and Pro-Choice.

O.K., O.K., End of Rant. But I enjoyed it, and I'll do it again. Bruce Chris

[zimnah]

I, like many others, straddle the fence on this issue...
I knew two girls (not old enough to be termed "women") in high school who aborted their pregnancies, and the angst they suffered was enough for me to thing por"Life was the way to go...except I would rather be damned to the worst hell imaginable than have someone like "W" decide if I should carry a child to term.
I wrote a paper on this for a class a while back on the topic...here goes:

Abortion

The class was forbidden to write about the following topics: abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia, capital punishment, gun control, the legalization of any illicit drug or substance, lowering the drinking age, or eating disorders. This is, we are told, because there isn’t anything new to write about these, or anything new written. In a moment completely lacking in wisdom, I disagreed, believing I had something new to say about abortion. Now I must demonstrate that I do. I am not able to share anything new, per se, but I do have knowledge of some very old wisdom relating to miscarriage that was later expanded to include legalized abortion.
In Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a person until birth. During gestation, the fetus is a part of its mother, though it is admitted to possess certain individual characteristics and status. For the first forty days following conception, it is simply considered “mere fluid” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 3.7 30b). This view is based on a passage in the Bible dealing with a man who was fined for causing a woman to miscarry, but not tried for murder, though a life was indeed lost. We are taught that the fine was paid for the loss of the fetus and injury to the mother.
Most people in Western society know the phrase “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life” (JPS Edition, Exodus 21.24). What does not seem to be widely understood is that this is a formula for reimbursement when an injury is done. Talmudic commentary breaks it down further for us: if a man were crossing over another man’s land, and threw a rock, taking out the eye of the landowner’s slave, then the landowner had to be reimbursed for the work that the slave could no longer perform due to the loss of an eye. The same for a tooth, if the result was that special accommodation had to be made for that person to be fed appropriately. The fine the man paid to the injured woman was ordered according to this same formula.
What, then, is the value of a life? Judaism deals with this question in many different ways. The life of an animal is sacred. A man may not sit down to eat until he has first fed and cared for his animals. Jewish dietary laws, known as Kashruth, demand that any life taken for food must be done humanely, and no blood may be consumed. Judaism also assigns value to quality of life, with guidelines in place ensuring every person, no matter how poor, has an appropriate meal for the Sabbath, or a feast for Passover. We recognize that suicide is a result of an illness, and do not prevent a victim of mental illness from being buried in a Jewish cemetery.
The fact that a fetus is not accorded full status until after birth does not detract from its value as a life. Once a woman conceives, it is much the same as it is for non-Jewish folk, in that the potential for a new life is welcomed and celebrated. There is, however, one significant exception.
If pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life in any way, she is then commanded to abort. Her primary responsibility is to herself and her existing family. Maimonides was willing to use drugs or even surgery to preserve the life of the mother at the cost of her unborn child, a concept considered radical in his time. Further lines of reasoning take into consideration the mother’s psychological state. Abortion is permitted “for such reasons or for the anguish caused to the mother by a child's potential deformity or other problems” (Arakhin 7a). Some authorities, such as Ben Zion Uziel, have permitted abortion when there is indication of deafness. Uziel Weinberg permits it when rubella occurs early in the pregnancy. More recently, Eliezer Waldenberg permits it for Tay Sachs and other serious abnormalities (CCAR Responsa #16 January 1985). Their reasons are logical and, some would argue, even obvious.
While abortion is not permitted in Judaism for adultery, most authorities would allow it for rape or incest. The most recent Responsa writings (contemporary commentaries by rabbinic authorities written to adapt Judaic laws to modern times) deal with the subtleties of psychological state in allowing abortion. While modern medicine has made possible great strides in early detection and diagnosis of abnormalities in a fetus, the same allowances for permissive abortion apply, but for somewhat different reasons. We know that a child born with Down ’s syndrome, for example, has the potential to lead a full and rewarding life. Oftentimes, though, the degree to which the child will be affected by Down’s is not generally known until after birth. Jewish law, in this case, would allow for the mother’s anguish at the possibility of giving birth to a severely handicapped child. These allowances may seem trivial, almost as if they were for the convenience of the mother, but I assure you it is anything but.
I knew, when I conceived my first child from the man who raped me, I had the right to abort. I’m not talking about the legal right, courtesy of Roe v. Wade. I’m talking about the moral right. It is truly devastating to decide whether to give birth to your rapist’s child. I had very little time to decide, as I found out rather late into my first trimester. I was 17, still in high school, and terrified, not to mention traumatized by the rape. The young man who did it was charged, but later fled the country (good thing for him, since I believe to this day my father would have shot him). It was a tumultuous time, and the situation nearly decimated my family with the rage, confusion and pain we all experienced. I admit freely that I almost consented to an abortion, with my mother’s full support. I cancelled the appointment an hour later and decided to give birth. I felt that, as devastated as I was, perhaps some good could come out of my pain. After all, this was a new life.
Looking at my 17 year old son today, I cannot regret the decision that altered my life in ways I can barely conceive. The wonder of him still does not quite erase the violation I suffered. I wholeheartedly agree with the scholars and wise men, both ancient and contemporary, that it was my body. They possessed great wisdom to recognize the potential for anguish beyond their imagining, but they also recognized the need for guidance in the matter of a precious life. Jewish law supported my right to choose in my case. As an observant Jew and as a mother, but especially as a woman, I support life. But life can be messy. Thank G-d Judaism advises and allows for that.

Food for thought. Written 2 September 2005.
--Dawn :love: :love:

[BruceChris]

Dawn, I support your courage and humanity for telling us your story.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Blossom]

I used to feel differently about this issue (used to be 100% abortion on demand), but as I've gotten older and known more women who have had abortions, and their reasons for so doing, I've had to rethink my position. I always assumed abortion would be a last resort for women, but found that was not always true -- among the women I've known who have had abortions, it was almost always a matter of convenience. I also did some research of my own on fetal development, and you'd be surprised how quickly "human" an embryo becomes....

I hope my above comments were not taken as too critical of women who have chosen to have an abortion -- many women have abortions for what might be very valid reasons at the time, and I don't wish to heap judgment on anyone (as a lesbian, I've gotten enough of that myself). I just wish that abortion would be, as David and Jamie have iterated, much more "rare" than it is now. In fact, I wish it were almost nonexistently rare, but I know it's not a perfect world. I also think too much emphasis has been placed on the woman's decision, when the man also has (obviously) a huge responsibility in an unplanned pregnancy, too.

Suzer, your whole post was beautifully stated. Why don't we hear more voices like yours in the media? We only hear extremes, which causes more extreme reactions. And although you are a bit more in the middle of this issue than I am, I would still like to hear these sentiments stated with such grace.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

My favourite organization on this issue is Feminists for Life. They recognize that there are many valid cases for an abortion, but want to reduce, if not eliminate, all other abortions. They had a bunch of essays on all of the questions that most pro-choice people ask, and I found these very resourceful. You can probably google it.

[suzer1013]

Zimnah -- thank you for sharing your personal, and powerful, story. What a difficult decision that must have been -- to try to find the positive in what was a truly awful situation. :pray: :love:

Gregory -- I will check out that organization -- thanks for mentioning it!

Susan

[kara speltz]

I define myself as both pro choice and pro life. I keep hearing about these stories of women who use abortion as a kind of birth control, but truthfully, I've never known any woman who made that choice without a great deal of agony.

I couldn't have children and so I chose to adopt. When my daughter in law(to be) made a choice to abort their first child, my heart broke, but I supported her, because she said knew that given their circumstances at that point they just couldn't have a child. I cried, and cried over that decision, but I did believe that it was up to them to make that choice.

I truly believe that the vast majority of people who call themselves, "pro-life," aren't really pro-life, there simply anti abortion. As I understand it, a life is not really a life until the soul enters the body, and no one has been able to determine that. Certainly, I think it's questionable that it enters the body in the first trimester. But that didn't stop me from feeling a deep sense of loss around the decision to end my grandchild to be's life.

I would put a lot more faith in those anti-abortionists, if I saw them helping out in terms of sustaining financial support to women who can't afford to raise another child AND if I saw them as concerned about the death penality as they are about ending abortion.

I wish there were easy answers to this issue. I wish we lived in a culture that truly honored life, but the American way is far, far from that. It honors money and power, not life. As one of my favorite mentors, Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker Movement (which does honor all life)said, "Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system." It would take a complete reversal of our cultural norms before life was truly honored.

Kara

[Blossom]

I truly believe that the vast majority of people who call themselves, "pro-life," aren't really pro-life, there simply anti abortion. As I understand it, a life is not really a life until the soul enters the body, and no one has been able to determine that.

I can't agree with that. Most pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception (and that the soul is present, as well). None of us know this for sure, of course, especially since the soul is such a mysterious thing. But to make laws on the logic that we don't know when the soul enters the body is a little like playing Russian Roulette.

I would put a lot more faith in those anti-abortionists, if I saw them helping out in terms of sustaining financial support to women who can't afford to raise another child AND if I saw them as concerned about the death penality as they are about ending abortion.

Now, that I CAN agree with! And I believe we are seeing this positive step more and more. I also hope that we are hearing less stories about families and churches that kick out girls because they are pregnant. But back to your point, yes, our faith must produce action for good, not condemnation for evil. And I do stand against the death penalty, as well. Honestly, though, I would put more energy into fighting against abortion (esp. abortion as birth control) because abortion ends many, many more lives that the death penalty--and these are lives that never even had a chance to live. But I agree that the pro-life stance must support all human life to be consistent theologically


I attended a Pro-life event years back when I was a teenager. I'm sure it must have been a nationally planned event, but I only remember that our small town met at the outskirts of town and formed a long line of people holding signs as cars passed by. There were many slogans to choose from, but I remember how my Mom specifically chose a positive slogan for our family to display. Rather than a sign that accused women of murder, we held this sign, "Adoption is the loving option." I'm thankful that I was raised by someone with the sense and grace to know what communicates best and what best shows God's love.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I would put a lot more faith in those anti-abortionists, if I saw them helping out in terms of sustaining financial support to women who can't afford to raise another child AND if I saw them as concerned about the death penality as they are about ending abortion.



That is what Feminists for Life does. That is why they are by far my favourite Pro-Life group. They are also the ONLY pro-life group that works with the Center against Domestic Violence and Child Abuse (I don't know if that is the actual name, but it's along those lines.) They are there to help women with unwanted pregnancies, to show all of the alternatives to abortion, and they don't force anything on the women. They are also very committed to non-violence, which, I think, separates them from other pro-life groups, who are not opposed to the death penalty and war.

[scott snedeker]

Hi, Jamie.
One thing...the morning after pill has side effects that can be worse than an abortion for the woman! I'm sure our doctor friend could attest to that. Many feel it's the best thing since sliced bread, but as will all medications with powerful hormones, it can be a nightmare instead of a miracle "cure" to unplanned pregnancy.

I acknowledge that some risk of thromboembolism is present, and it is not 100% effective; However, conservatively abortons have more than 50 times the complications of "the morning after" pill (It consists of 4 doses of normal estrogen used in birth control taken at one time). If a patient requests more than 1 dose of the morning after pill then I go ahead and prescibe standard birth control to spread the doses out to a daily regimen.

I understand your passion but from the alarmist tone I preceive from your quote I sense that you may be posturing from a bias that could inappropriately prioritize your sensibility. I myself must reflect periodically to avoid similar temptation.

As a physician it is my duty to inform accurately regardless of my personal passion. I must offer the lowest risk option even if it offends my sensibilty. Sometimes patients opt for a higher risk option for reasons that I consider trivial. People are imperfect. So are their decisions and solutions. The challenge is to accept folks for their imperfections.

[beat0it]

This is a very interesting thread--I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the varying opinions from an array of people. This has provided me with a lot to think about--things I have never really considered before. If I were to claim a side I would claim pro-choice for a few different reasons. There are many kids who are put up for adoption but are never adopted. Some people will go to an entirely different continent to get a child before getting a child who is in driving distance for reasons I have a hard time understanding--I have been told a couple of reasons why--but I am not positive there is truth behind them. I can imagine that with abortion being illegal the number of children left without a family would rise. The children without a family are put in foster homes and we all know that not every foster family comes with a loving/safe environment. They are passed from home to home until they reach the age of 18 when they are now supposed to live on their own--still without a family to call on. That is just one reason and a big reason as to why I think abortion needs to be an available procedure. I think it needs to be available in cases when a women may lose her life. There are people who would still have an abortion despite its illegality. I realize that a woman can be harmed during a "safe and legal" abortion but the chances of it going well are less in the case of an illegal abortion. I agree with the people who say that educating people is the key to lowering the number of abortions being done. Some people just need to be informed. If a person wants an abortion they will get an abortion whether its legal or not--so why not keep it safe? Making abortion illegal will not make a person want to have a child anymore.

I know this isn't a thread about whether abortion should be legal or not--but it's how my mind separates it. Pro-life would rather it be illegal and pro-choice want it legal. I'm sure that isn't completely true but it is how my mind separates the two and I felt I needed to express that.

--Lindsey.

[ladyinred]

My personal experience is not to be judgemental about this.. but my personal views are not all or nothing. However, I do view abortion as a means of common birth control practice,should be discouraged, when there are other means of birth control available... I'm not going to go along with ,"Oh well if I get pregnant I can always get an abortion , when other more responsible means of contraception and options are available, but in certain cases, I cannot say whether it is warranted or not because there may be reasons why certain people choose to have abortion and it may be a matter of life and death or a danger to their health if they don't get one.....

[NathanATX]

I define myself as both pro choice and pro life. I keep hearing about these stories of women who use abortion as a kind of birth control, but truthfully, I've never known any woman who made that choice without a great deal of agony.

I couldn't have children and so I chose to adopt. When my daughter in law(to be) made a choice to abort their first child, my heart broke, but I supported her, because she said knew that given their circumstances at that point they just couldn't have a child. I cried, and cried over that decision, but I did believe that it was up to them to make that choice.

I truly believe that the vast majority of people who call themselves, "pro-life," aren't really pro-life, there simply anti abortion. As I understand it, a life is not really a life until the soul enters the body, and no one has been able to determine that. Certainly, I think it's questionable that it enters the body in the first trimester. But that didn't stop me from feeling a deep sense of loss around the decision to end my grandchild to be's life.

I would put a lot more faith in those anti-abortionists, if I saw them helping out in terms of sustaining financial support to women who can't afford to raise another child AND if I saw them as concerned about the death penality as they are about ending abortion.

I wish there were easy answers to this issue. I wish we lived in a culture that truly honored life, but the American way is far, far from that. It honors money and power, not life. As one of my favorite mentors, Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker Movement (which does honor all life)said, "Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system." It would take a complete reversal of our cultural norms before life was truly honored.

Kara

I was going to say the same thing: I'm pro-choice AND pro-life.

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

If people believe that our nation's values need to change, they need to lead by example. They condemn a woman for having an abortion, yet do everything they can to create reasons why a woman might want to have one:

1. Disapproving of contraception
2. Eliminating social welfare benefits
3. Keeping minimum wage below the poverty line
4. Promoting rancid materialism- TV Preachers, Mega-star musicians, etc.
5. Promoting a culture of misogyny and sexism -- even in our churches.
5. (This list could go on and on...)

[revtj]

This is really interesting, I am having almost the exact same conversation on my alum website. I maintain that if christians want to decrease elective abortion then we must address the issues of sex ed, poverty, etc. on the other side of pregnancy instead of attacking a woman who is already pregnant.

It's interesting to me that christians left, right and center could work together to reduce elective abortions if we addressed those issues. But the anti-abortion industry only seems interested in demonizing women and Drs, making them out to be baby-killers who take some kind of sordid pleasure in abortion. They raise millions with that and do little else.

[dsdrane]

Right on, TJ!:agree:

[BronzDragon]

So, now that I've OUTED myself as a rabid pro-lifer, what do you all think?

» Thom says: ☛ That I have two strikes against me. I am a man, and have never been in a position to help make a child. I have a third that informs every counsel I make, as a minister I must share my advice with great care.

Personally, and this is coming from a Satanist here, I feel the child ought to be granted a chance at life, that every life is miraculous, precious, and none are ordinary. Being a man, I cannot imagine what must go on inside the head of the mother when she is faced with options. I also feel abortion ought to be kept legal, because there are factors that doctors are privy to, in which legislators and their masters have no right to be involved.

What I am saying is, I would rather the child be born, but am in no position to impose my will on that of the woman. And as I have never been a father, I would be out of my league when telling a woman what she must or must not do in that corner of her world. As minister, I feel ethically bound to simply help in the decision process, not make it for her. I will be disappointed if she chooses abortion, but my ears and shoulder will remain available to her, whatever her choices.

Finally, I accept you hold your position with far more passion than I do mine. I only ask for justice and mercy in this regard. Can you really know all possible ends?

[honeydoodle]

The problem is that abortion is being made into a matter of a woman's control over her body. An embryo, a fetus, a baby- they are not part of her body. It is a seperate being.

[Alecto]

If a friend were considering it, I'd do my best to listen. And I'd do my best to make sure they knew ALL the options; it's not just about keeping the baby or aborting. That said, as a policy, I literally feel like it's not my place not only as a man, but as a gay man to boot to dictate one way or the other. The argument is all over whether or not the fetus is a new life or not. I think that, given the uncertainty (and the fact that we'll never agree on a definition much less be able to know for sure whether it fits that definition, especially when you bring the soul into it), I'd rather err on the side of caution. BUT, as my brother said, if you don't have an oven, you can't really tell other people how to bake their buns. More importantly, there are OTHER areas, probably with similar numbers (though I haven't checked) where people are dying who are DEFINITELY people. War and hunger both. And...call me callous, but I think it's better to focus energies on these people simply because there's no doubt that they're people and their pain and death is important too.