Thank you and Welcome Back!
You have been greatly missed.

Welcome back, Jennifer! You’ve been sorely missed in these parts!  And once more, thank you for this beautifully and lucidly thought-out essay on this difficult topic.  Thank you.

Wonderful article.So glad you are back.We’ve been praying for you & your family.

Beautiful! And, succinctly describes what we are up against. The Father of Lies has unleashed a whopper, and many in our midst have fallen for it. We just pray that the scales will be removed from their eyes soon!

God bless you for coming to this conclusion, and for explaining it so well!  I hope and pray that some other pro-choicers who are so not because they’re bad, but out of a misguided sense of love, might read this and at least rethink their positions, if they’re not totally convinced right away.

I used to be pro-choice too but not so strongly—I didn’t know enough about it, and I was more turned off by the hypocrisy of some so-called “pro-lifers” who supported killing abortion doctors and bombing abortion clinics than I was really thinking about the issue in its own right.

There are many beliefs that we might hold strongly until we’re faced with the nonsensical inconsistencies that are required in order to believe in them, and I’m no stranger to those.  It was hard for me to realize it’s possible to be pro-gay people without supporting the redefinition of marriage, for example, or that “transsexuals” need therapy rather than surgery, or to conclude that things like absolute monarchy and patriarchy were good things.  And it isn’t easy, because of centuries of propaganda telling us otherwise, such that those who still believe the norms of the Middle Ages are few and ridiculed (and actively opposed), when they aren’t outright ignored.

Brava to you!

Thank you for writing such an eloquent piece.  I’ll be printing and saving this for sharing with my older children now and younger children later…not to mention anyone else who says they are conflicted about where they stand.
-
On a different point, I was struck through the heart with the phrase -  “not making women slaves to their bodies.”
I laughed out loud and not in a funny way as I am a ‘slave to my body’ each and every day due to multiple sclerosis.
-
I would prefer to do so much more than I do - run fast, sleep better, awake without pain BUT my body has trapped me with MS.  And I can’t do anything about it, I am a slave whose day is determined by what my body is going to chose or rather not chose to do.
-
And aren’t we all?  Don’t our bodies determine what we can and can’t do?  A smaller person will find slam-dunking a basketball harder than someone over 6 ft. tall.  And anyone struck with a long term physical disability has dreams of what they once could do until their illness or accident enslaved them to a different life.
-
And, once my enslavement began I had to choose (and do every day) wether to complain about it or not.  Would I strive to glorify God through my physical struggles or blame Him?  Needless to say, I’m trying to make Him proud of this daughter of His every day.
-
I realize this is a tangent off your wonderfully written piece but I just wanted to point out that it brought me to a level of contemplation I was not expecting.  Thank you!

Very well written and great read.  Let us also not forget that there is another victim in this lie.  Many women come to realize after being talked into an abortion for whatever reason that they wish they could un-do what they did.  Unfortunately they cannot, and become a victim too in many cases.  God wants to heal them from their hurt and loves them just the same.  I was pro-choice until my freshman year in High School when I sat sobbing in a Child Development class after reading the poem - a Diary of an Unborn Child! God Bless You for such an elegant article in explaining a wonderful transition from a lie to love.

It seems like the author does not completely understand Catholic teaching on family planning.

“The Catholic position is that new human life is always a good thing. They said that it’s fine to attempt to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, but warned that if we go so far as to adopt a “contraceptive mentality,” feeling entitled to the pleasure of sex while loathing (and perhaps trying to forget all about) its life-giving properties, we not only disrespect this most sacred of acts, but we begin to see new life as the enemy.”

This is not quite the Catholic position.

Human life is always a good thing. But the Catholic position is not “pursue unless you have serious reasons”. The Catholic position is that married couples should make decisions to achieve or avoid based on “responsible parenthood”. Responsible parenthood could mean pursuing or avoiding pregnancy. (See Humanae Vitae 10) The couple is to discern family size balancing prudence and generosity. Avoiding pregnancy should be done for “just” reasons, not selfish ones. This is why the Church doesn’t “make a list”.

Second, the author completely misunderstands the meaning of “contraceptive mentality”. The contraceptive mentality is not a mentality about the pleasure of sex, it is a mentality about children—that fewer are better. JPII warned society (not couples) of viewing NFP as just another form of birth control because it is so much more than that, whether the couple is avoiding pregnancy or not.

NFP cannot be used with a contraceptive mentality because it is not contraception. With a selfish mentality, perhaps, but never with a contraceptive one. The two are completely different.

I have seen couples misunderstand this and do very psychologically, relationally, and physically unhealthy things thinking the Church was pushing them to “pursue new life” when perhaps they really needed to be learning self-control.

I am happy to see that you are “back on your feet” so to speak.

Because I can’t edit my previous response, just to clarify…

The problem with “pursue unless you have serious reasons” is that it oversimplifies the discernment process. It puts the emphasis on the reasons, not on the call to responsible parenthood and discernment of living the marriage vocation.

The contraceptive mentality is that fewer children are good and that we should use any means necessary to prevent them.

NFP uses self-awareness, self-control, and self-sacrifice to prevent pregnancy.  This is WHY it society should not look at NFP as just another method of contraception. It is an entire way of living.

Bless you for having the humility to change your position on this tragic issue.

Great article, but you have one thing backwards.  It was not the contraceptive mentality that ushered in sexual promiscuity.  Rather, it was the sexual revolution that made the need for a contraceptive mentality to be the only plausible societal response to lots of people having sex all the time with whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

You are quite correct to have written IT ALL BEGINS WITH SEX.

This is why Humanae Vitae was not be accepted.  In view of the facts on the ground, it wasn’t ‘rational.’

This is why the Pope calling for sex to be within marriage is seen to be contributing to ‘a culture of rape.’  We must accept that sex happens, whenever and wherever people want it, and that this is how things SHOULD be.

The cost of 50 million abortions a year throughout the world [World Health Organization estimate] because of the need to accept the sexual revolution is foreseeable; regrettable perhaps, but the price we must pay for sexual freedom.  Freedom of the person.  As your husband said, not the ‘other person.’

James,
I’m sure you’re aware of this, too, but NFP is also a method to plan conceptions.

James, nowhere does Jennifer say “pursue unless you have serious reasons,” and I do not infer that phrase from what you quoted.  Having sex while the wife is fertile could simply mean that you are open to whatever God desires at that time and are wanting to experience the bonding of the marital embrace.  It does not, out of necessity, mean you are ‘pursuing’ pregnancy.

Also, your accusation that Jennifer completely misunderstands the ‘contraceptive mentality’ is based on a specific, personally-determined understanding you have adopted of something that is more general and abstract.  For example, the claim can also be made that the ‘contraceptive mentality’ is one that believes we should have total control over how many children we have, whether a lot of none.  A close friend of mine has 6 children but also uses contraception between pregnancies until they decide they want to have another one.  They do not hold the view that fewer children are better, and yet their mentality is contraceptive because it supports the idea that you have the right to prevent pregnancy (when you want to) by any means necessary.

Lastly, as Kathleen mentioned, do not forget that NFP can also be used to achieve pregnancy, not just avoid it.

From what you wrote, I believe you have a good heart and I am not trying to attack you, but felt called to respond because your comment came off (perhaps unintentionally, and perhaps only to me) as unjustly attacking and condescending towards Jennifer.

The Romans wouldn’t have used the word “fetus,” for “fetus” is the Latin word for “small child.” Not many people know that today, therefore it is easier to use it as a dehumanizing word.

This is perfect! I’m speaking about abortion to our youth group tonight, and this was exactly what I needed to wrap up my thoughts. Thank you!

Of course, NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy. I’m well aware of this.

I am also aware that NFP is 99.6% effective at preventing pregnancy under perfect use. If you are looking for total control of the number of children you have, NFP is as good of a tool for this as any contraceptive.

But the Church teaches that NFP is licit and contraception is not.

But even NFP for the most selfish reasons is not contraceptive. The couple is not saying “by any means necessary”, but pregnancy prevention through self-discipline and self-control. It does not subvert the natural process, but cooperates with it. It meets the objective criteria of morality.

Perhaps Jennifer poorly worded her statement, but I read it as couples should only avoid pregnancy for serious reasons and if they enjoyed sex for pleasure without wanting pregnancy, they had a contraceptive mentality.

There was no mention of responsible parenthood at all.

This misunderstanding is common and couples really get hurt by it.

...and I just noticed that this is a repost of a column written several years ago.

So, my issue is not with the author personally, but with the way the column is written and how it can easily be misunderstood.

Does anybody know why, when I click on the comments section, “the-enemy-of-sex” gets added to the address?

Welcome back…hope all is well

Wonderful post…ironically parallels my thought development almost 30 years ago..as an “agnostic” on the issues of contraception that found himself married to a virtuous woman that was already where you you are know. I came around because I wanted to know why we were living that “archaic” way and found the beautiful and rich “logic” of the Church’s wisdom on this. Never looked back again.

Welcome back…hope all is well. Wonderful post…ironically parallels my thought development almost 30 years ago..as an “agnostic” on the issues of contraception that found himself married to a virtuous woman that was already where you you are know. I came around because I wanted to know why we were living that “archaic” way and found the beautiful and rich “logic” of the Church’s wisdom on this. Never looked back again.

Jennifer - Thank you for this, as always. I can so relate to this - I come from a secular background, and am a new Catholic, and everything you write resonates with me!

Im so pleased you are feeling better!

Its always very enlightening to know how people with views diametrically oppossed to your own re abortion justification, frame their arguments.To dehumanise people unfortunately is always with us and we do it all the time for instance when we swear at people(justifiably we think) coupled with rude hand jestures.Yes they deserve it but do ‘we see ourselves as others see us’ to quote Robbie Burns the famous Scots poet.Ultimately the argument comes down to two criteria :selfless or selfish.We are alive today because the former overcame the latter and on the last day we will be judged on this basis:love versus hatred .The Sacred Heart of Jesus is Absolute Love,Absolute Selflessness and is our aim too but sinful nature deflects our path -but ‘before the Judgement Seat each man must render an account of his/her own life re the above bench marks.Which way will the balence move?We live in hope because we believe in God Who is our Absolute Hope ie without God there is no Hope only temporary survival of the fittest which is ultimately futile anyway !!

That is so powerful!  What a wonderful article/post. 

welcome back :-) Hope you are feeling better.
Beautiful article. I just keep praying that all those babies that have died from abortion are fervently praying for the conversion of hearts all over the world. So much healing is needed.

Great article, but many commentators missed an important distinction. Jennifer said: “They said that it’s fine to attempt to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons…” Many commentators used the phrase “prevent pregnancy”. There is a great difference between the two and it has to do with intent and ultimate results. Preventing pregnancy implies that a pregnancy will likely happen if we don’t do anything to stop it, that we intend to stop something that would likely naturally occur if left alone. Avoiding pregnancy implies that we simply choose not to do something that might result in pregnancy; nature continues on its course. Choosing not to have relations is guaranteed not to cause pregnancy.

Thank you for your honesty Jennifer.  I must say I am guilty of having all of these former beliefs and looking back am appalled I ever believed any of this.  So thankful to now see the truth and have the ability to raise my kids with this thinking!

Great post. I so need to see how people can be on the other side of this issue and not be thoroughly evil. Like Abby Johnson’s story, yours makes me aware that many “pro-choice” people really think they are on the right side morally.

I grew up about a decade ahead of you. It seems that the culture changed drastically in that time. I knew a lot of chaste people at my public high school, even among those who were non-religious. I didn’t realize until now what a distorted view of sex and marriage young people were getting. I have 6 younger siblings, so babies were always part of the picture for me!

http://contemplativehomeschool.wordpress.com
Faith-based education, Carmelite spirituality

Can’t add not a single comma to this excellent article.
She expressed my feelings well, although I never had any doubts
that killing an ‘inconvenient fetus’ was exactly that, a killing!

Dear Jennifer…In all our years as an evangelist in the Pro-Life movement, we’ve never read a more heartfelt and poignant personal conversion testimony.  Well done!  You can be sure that we will use it as a foundational element in teaching future evangelists.  Praise God!

Jennifer - I believe God has uniquely gifted you to speak truth in our culture. I love this, and plan to link to it on my blog.

Jennifer hit the nail on the head when she wrote, “It all begins with sex”.  What she may not realize is that she eloquently confirmed the prophetic truths of Pope Paul IV’s “Humane Vitae”, in which he predicted that accepting a contraceptive mindset would lead to the normalization of a host of evils, including dehumanizing the unborn and the degradation of women.  Excellent article, Jennifer.

Wow! What an extraordinary article! I have been pro-life all of my own life, but never could explain the deep roots of my beliefs. Thank you for putting into words, the truth about abortion, in such a way that only people who insist on lying to themselves could ignore and set aside. It would be be well to publish this in newspapers around the world. God bless you for your efforts toward saving His children.

This is such a great article. Your comments about how our society views sex really struck me. Every time I’ve become pregnant it has taken me a week or two (basically until I get to hear the excitement of close friends a family) to get over a completely unreasonable feeling of fear, apprehension, and almost shame. The idea that pregnancy and children are a bad thing, or at least a less-than-ideal, has been so drummed into me that it is hard to completely shake the feeling that something illicit has occurred each time I’ve become pregnant, even tho’ I am married. By dehumanizing babies in the womb we are losing so much respect and love for children as a whole. When children are only welcome when the rest of our lives are perfect they become more of an accessory to the illusion of perfection which we try to create, rather than the fact that they are wonderful little people in their own rights.

At some point, when I was younger, I thought that somehow in this era of modernity, science and rationality that all brutality and barbarism was banished or be in its way to be banished forever.

Well, brutality and barbarism are alive and well as always have been. In this piece Jennifer has shown how this can happen today.

You have hit the root of the problem…the cultural belief that everyone has a “right” to sex and “only those with hangups” are not having sex.  This is the theme song of our materialistic society, which reaps billions of dollars from manipulating and marketing to our baser instincts.  Ranting about the crime of abortion without touching on the first cause of an “unwanted” pregnancy is futile.

Trusting in God’s Wisdom, Goodness, and Mercy

There once was a man who proclaimed he did not believe in God.  “God could never love anyone and if he existed, I would insist that he prove it to me”, he often proclaimed to friends.  “God takes lives all the time and the poor and down-trodden are first on the menu”, he would say further. Even though the man was often kind to people all throughout his life, he believed that one should live life to the fullest in every way. He also believed strongly that a woman had every right to an abortion, and if she chose to do so, it was her business only.
One day the man found himself in front of an abortion clinic watching women walk in as protestors were praying and begging the pregnant women not to go in the clinic.  A woman who was protesting began talking loudly to a young pregnant woman who was walking into the clinic. This immediately enraged the man and he began yelling at and cursing the woman who was protesting and others began to join in.
The young woman walking into the clinic became scared and upset at both the woman protesting and the man, and immediately turned and ran away from the clinic. This enraged the man and others even more and they escalated their yelling and insults toward the woman protestor. The woman protestor cried and left the scene.
Many, many years later the man was in a serious car accident and was thrown from the car. As he lay dying, many people consoled him as an ambulance rushed to the scene. A young priest who had also been called to the scene began to perform last rites. The man, although in terrible pain and very terrified, gruffly said to the priest, “Don’t waste your breath with that prayer, Father, I’m not a Catholic and even if I was, God has never gone out of his way to help me – take a good look”.
The priest gently smiled at the man and stopped saying the last rites. After a few seconds, the priest began to softly recite the Divine Chaplet of Mercy. “For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and the whole world”, he recited over and over. The man peacefully passed into darkness.

Suddenly, a great light engulfed the man along with great love. The man was more afraid than ever as he knew he was in the presence of God. He asked what was happening and who it was that he was speaking to. He asked this because he could only see one form but felt there were others in the area as well.
“I am Jesus, Son of the Living God, and you have been born to a new life. We are here to judge your life on earth”. Immediately, as in a video, the man began to see his entire life in review.  The good and the bad.
Many times when he helped the poor; other times when he freely partook in sins of the flesh. Many times when he helped the elderly, and other times when he intentionally hurt people. The life review seemed to stop as quickly as it had started and the man felt ashamed.

Quickly, however, the man recovered, and recalled what he had said to friends during his life. “What chance did I have when my creator never showed any effort to reach out to me with love?” “Why did you not even try a little to help save me from myself?”

The Lord looked lovingly at the man and played back the life scene in front of the abortion clinic. The man was mortified as he watched himself become enraged.  He was overcome with resign and asked the Lord what happened to the woman protestor who had left the scene those many years ago.
The Lord responded, “She was called to me a few days later, she had accomplished her mission”.
“And what of the woman that decided not to have an abortion that day?” he asked.

“She bore a healthy son and passed to me after childbirth, she had accomplished her mission”.
The man looked down and felt very sad. He slowly looked up and softly said to the Lord, “I wish I would have met her son; that I could know what he looks like and see how he turned out in life”. But, I never did, and yet you show me these images anyway.”  Lord, can you not show me one instance in my life where you went out of your way even a little bit to show the extent of your love for me”?
“You met her son at the twilight of your life”, said the Lord, “He will be joining us soon – he has accomplished his mission”. “Come, let us go to heaven”.

The man felt happy, relieved, and curious all at once, and felt compelled to ask Jesus two final questions. “Who was this woman’s son and what was his mission?” asked the man.
“He was a simple priest who believed in God’s Mercy, and you were his mission”, responded three voices.

-  Jesus to St. Faustina – Divine Mercy in My Soul - Diary, 1541
“It pleases Me to grant everything souls ask of Me by saying the chaplet. When hardened sinners say it, I will fill their souls with peace, and the hour of their death will be a happy one. Write this for the benefit of distressed souls; when a soul sees and realizes the gravity of its sins, when the whole abyss of the misery into which it immersed itself is displayed before its eyes, let it not despair, but with trust let it throw itself into the arms of My mercy, as a child into the arms of its beloved mother. Tell them no soul that has called upon My Mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul that has placed its trust in My Goodness.

Write that when they say this chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My Father and the dying person, not as the Just Judge but as the Merciful Savior”.

Pro choice lobby not only completely disconnects sex from the concept of creating life(to quote Jennifer) but they are similarly disconnected from the transcendental truth of our humanity.Benedict XVI recently stated -‘once an objective and transcendent truth is ignored,dialogue becomes impossible and violence becomes the the ultimate rule’
Immanuel Kants (Critque of Pure Reasoning) ‘Two things fill me with wonder
,the Starry Heavens above me and the Moral Code within me’.The Ten Commandments are the key transcendental side of our nature which secularists today dismiss outright,witness the recent finacial debacle in World Markets
As Jennifer said-‘evil works by getting good people to believe in lies’.This unfortunately happens when there is a lack Gods Grace into our Souls either through a lack of prayer or reception of the Sacraments(Holy Communion for instance).

        Immaculate Heart of Mary.
By following her,you will not go astray,
By praying to her you will not despair,
By thinking of her you will not make a mistake,
Supportd by her you will not fail,
Under her protection you will no longer be afraid,
Guided by her,you will never grow weary,Having her benevolence,you are assured of salvation..(St.Bernard)

Show unto to us the fruites of Thy Womb, Jesus

I find it a bit disgusting that you mislead people in this article into thinking that it’s common for late term or partial birth abortions to be performed. The overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester and while I don’t wish to agree or disagree with the rest of your post, it seems to me as though you’re using scare tactics to try and shock people into to agreeing with your position.

Even one abortion, late term or first trimester, is one too many.  What’s disgusting is that this practice occurs, not that the author is discussing it.

I think the “About Sex” problem is the proud mother of the twin problems of marriage and abortion.  However, the degradation of friendship (read: Love) is the pappa. If we even treat our friends like things, what’s to stop us from treating inconvenient fetuses like garbage?  They are easier to de-personify, after all… they don’t complain. That comes later, and you don’t want _that_.

One of the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not kill.
Abortion is murder - pure and simple.

To those who legalize, defend, conduct, or have abortions - Repent or you will go to hell when you die. If this rubs you the wrong way then your conscience and you personnally are in serious trouble

hell3.weebly.com

“To those who legalize, defend, conduct, or have abortions - Repent or you will go to hell when you die.”

It’s kind of ridiculous to go through life with an attitude like that. Jennifer’s article was well thought out and somewhat convincing. I still am pro-choice but at least I can agree with some of what she said. But your remark is just a superstitious scare tactic. Do you think that a Supreme Court judge would listen to your reasoning?  Be serious.

“Even one abortion, late term or first trimester, is one too many.”
So what?  Ban all abortions?  Shirley, you jest.  No wait.  You don’t jest.  Well, fortunately, the US law does not go that far yet.

Let’s see, Science tells us:
Human Life begins at conception
Our unique human DNA is formed within hours of conception
Our human heart can be detected in about 18 days, it is beating, we can measure it
Defining human life as something other than a “person” has always brought us such noble institutions.  Most are responsible for great evil, such as slavery, the Nazi death chambers, atrocities around the world, and over 55,000,000 human beings ripped from their mothers womb right here in the land of the free.
The child in the womb has rights when we “choose” to recognize them. They have the right to inherit property and holdings.  Consider, a pregnant woman can be on her way to the abortion clinic.  She is involved in an accident, and the baby dies.  The child had no rights if she had made it to the clinic, but the very same child has rights when killed in the accident.  The mother “chose” to kill the child, but the driver can be tried for vehicular manslaughter or even murder. Is this equal protection under the law?

Yes -but Earl Thompson that one abortion could have been you but fortunately at your birth more people wanted you in the world than out of it.Fortunately for you,your pro choice lobby was in the minority:what-one more mouth to feed!‘He jest at scars that never felt a wound’(Romeo and Juliet)but you jest at abortions that never felt a wound…..of abortion.Dandy for you and somewhat selfish.

“but Earl Thompson that one abortion could have been you”
Well, illegal abortions were/are very dangerous.  And, of course, I had two married parents who wanted me.  The “it could have been you” non-argument is very stupid.

What’s stupid is your failure to see the irony of your own words.  John specifically said that it’s fortunate that at your birth people wanted you in the world.  So pointing out to him that your parents were married and wanted you is redundant (but I realize that you are the king of redundancy).  And FYI:  any abortion, legal or illegal, is dangerous because it ends at least one life.  So you somehow think that you had two parents, who were married, and wanted you, give you a privilege that others don’t deserve?  How arrogant.  People on this thread are thankful that you’re alive, despite how ignorant and annoying you are.  Yet you can’t extend that common courtesy to someone who is not fortunate enough to be wanted.  Just throw them away.  Nice attitude.  Yet another advertisement against atheism.

Earl: ‘do not put your Trust in the Princes of this World in whom there is no salvation’(Psalm146-3)Sooner or later you will become dissatisfied,disillusioned,cynical because they all fail to answer the questions (1)Who am I;(2)Why am I here;(3)Where am I going.
Our ultimate Hope is in God;without God there is no Hope, only despair.“When the going gets rough,the tough get going” -but only because they have Hope in their Hearts.Abortion is basically a case of the ‘tough giving up’.When immigrants disembarked from Ellis Island they had Hope in their Hearts and I suggest to you ‘put some of their Hope for the future back into your own heart.In God we Trust-not Bankers or Abortionists(yet) but who knows what the future may bring-then God help us ALL!!

“People on this thread are thankful that you’re alive, despite how ignorant and annoying you are.”

Are you two still going at it?  Good to see that Jennifer is back writing again.

Thank you so much for these important words! I went through a similar process of change in my opinions over quite a long period of time-and I, too, became a Catholic largely as a result of this process. I recognized so much of my thoughts in what you said, and I only wish every person who considers themselves “pro-choice” would read and reflect on your message.

This is an absolutely inspired article.  Grisly and painful at times.  However, it nails the root of the problem perfectly.  We must care how and when babies are conceived.  We must be willing, with joy, to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity.  It is in society’s best interest that we care more about potential and real life, than fleeting moments of physical pleasure.

Anyone who searches through these issues with sincerity would also be deeply impacted by this powerful talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5PBqxwlfHI

“Obviously, none of us pro-choice folks were in favor of killing babies; to imply otherwise, in my mind, was an insult to the babies throughout history who actually were killed by their insane societies.”

I think that was a justifiable argument and still is. This seems especially true for early stage abortions and the morning after pill for which it is doubtful that it actually aborts a fertilized egg as opposed to preventing the fertilization, which is really splitting hairs anyway.

Well -why not go for Gold in your quest for Truth.No argument for taking human life is justifiable in that from the moment of conception we all exist in Gods Love.‘Man is a Being who within his heart beats a thirst for the Infinite,a thirst for the Truth’(BenedictXV1).Why not ‘up your game’and Go for Gold.Abortion is terminal-Love is Infinite.
    Time is
    Too slow for those who wait,
    Too swift for those who fear,
    Too long for those who grieve,
    Too short for those who rejoice,
    But for those who love - Time is eternity
    (HENRY VAN DYKE)

“No argument for taking
human life is justifiable in that from the moment of conception we all exist
in Gods Love.”

What about atheists who don’t believe that statement?  Should they be prohibited from having an abortion?  What justification is there for taking away that freedom of choice?  “From the moment of conception” seems a bit extreme.  I would say that that borders on superstition.

No one in a Democracy has total Freedom of Choice (or Pro Choice);we must abide by the ‘laws of the Land’ and in the USA ‘laws of the State’.We restrict our freedoms to establish a Rule of Law as written out by the Constitution.The alternative is anarchy where everyone can do what they want.God Help us(sorry about that !)
Richard Dawkins,the famous Atheist ‘does not believe in anything’ either;he deals in facts.But the only factual thing in Quantum Physics is Uncertainty.Position and momentum of an electron are not simultaneosly known ie factual(much to Einsteins non acceptance of it).Life as you know is uncertain;life is more than factual ‘There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy’(Hamlet)There is a spirtual side alien to atheism
We all have a start point and there will certainly be a end point -is death superstitious too.In some respects maybe if your into Ghost Stories.Remember too ,the Universe initiated from the BIG BANG-thats not suspicious more like scientific -can something come from nothing?God knows

“we must abide by the ‘laws of the Land’”

That’s good because those laws do not tell a woman that the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus that she is carrying is loved by God “from the moment of conception” and therefore she must carry it in her body for nine months and give birth to it whether she wants a child or not.  For the love of God, she must have her life ruined or at least drastically changed because of a bad decision or no decision at all on her part.

Re :..“therefore she must carry IT in her body”.IT happens to be a child and as such is part of the pregnant mothers body-it is not something apart as both are ONE sharing the same bodily sustenance.When then did you change from an IT to a fully functioning baby.Interesting to know at some time in your life you were merely an IT, a conviction I do not share
    Immaculate Heart of Mary.
By following her,you will not go astray,
By praying to her you will not despair,
By thinking of her you will not make a mistake,
Supportd by her you will not fail,
Under her protection you will no longer be afraid,
Guided by her,you will never grow weary,Having her benevolence,you are assured of salvation..(St.Bernard)

Show unto to us the fruites of Thy Womb, Jesus
Yes Bill -we all make mistakes,but ‘loving God is not one of them’.Quite the opposite,the more we drift from God ,the more mistakes we make re atheistic Cold War Communism-what a prolonged God redundant saga that one was.
An abortion is a mistake; there are two victims mother and child.
Who said child birth was easy? Is going to work at 05,00 hrs easy?Is looking for a job easy when your unemployed?Life gets Tough so we give up !Is this what made the USA a great Nation? Why not opt then for a Nation of Glory without HOPE (a contradiction in terms)Life is tough sometimes for us all,male and female,young and old -get use to it.I’m sure you have but your points of view seem to dismiss ‘the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ as avoidable when we all know they are not.

I’m sorry, John. I am no longer moved by pious words.  Let’s stay focused.  I said I was OK with everyone abiding by the laws of the land. What a woman chooses to do with her body is no one’s business but her own. Instead of worrying about something that hasn’t even developed into anything yet, let’s focus on the mother. Does she or does she not want the child?  If she doesn’t, no one should force her to carry and give birth to him or her.  Your reasoning against this is based on superstition.  I’m sorry I don’t accept your pious views to the contrary.  Forgive me if this saddens you, but I have had 60 years of religion and don’t need it anymore.

@Bill. Abiding by the law of the land? There is such thing as an unjust law and people of conscience are obliged to oppose it and fight it wherever and whenever possible. By the same reasoning of abiding to the law, the WWII Holocaust was legal, since the Nazi state made it legal to kill entire classes of people and I’m afraid Roe vs Wade falls in this category.

A woman choosing what to do with her own body? is not one single body anymore as soon as the woman is pregnant, but two. If we want to focus on the mother, then the child is an inextricable part of her. Is her child that makes her a mother in the first place.

Something that hasn’t even developed into anything yet? the unborn is a miracle growing and forming and a prodigious rate. You and me and everyone else started this way.

Man! this is only the beginning. You urgently need to inform your conscience. Obviously you don’t see it now, but I pray that you see it before is too late. Not scare tactics, I just feel obliged to say this as a Christian. A Catholic Christian, by the way.

Robert,

This is a great country and will be just fine as long as people abide by its laws. Whenever I say that people point at how the Germans were abiding by their laws, as if there is any comparison of our government to the Third Reich.

Forty years ago, my girlfriend had an abortion. We both went on to marry other people and life goes on. Nothing you have said changes my views on the matter. A ten week old fetus has not experienced life or formed any concepts of what life is. I would be very upset if I found out that anyone judged my ex and made her feel bad about what she had done. We don’t need useless guilt trips.  I was not ready to support a family and people like you would have had any right to ruin my life or hers.

@ Bill -sorry to hear about you and your ex-girlfriend having an abortion.However your child is presently in a better place than we are ,being in the presence of Gods infinite Love.He or she is waiting to greet you again when your life here comes to a finish.I would urge you for the sake of your child to at least make an effort to attend Mass   once in the year. Your child is waiting to greet you again in Heaven -for her/his sake do not dissapoint their wait to greet you.Do not close the door completely on their love for you.You owe them that.Should you do this God in His Divine Mercy will allow your Child to connect with you in a way that surpasses our understanding.‘Without God, Man can not;with God,God will not (refuse your request)‘St.Augustine. All the best for the Future.With God there is always a future.

Thank you, John, I appreciate your kind words. But I must tell you that I have a different outlook on the situation. Before we were conceived, we were nothing. When we die, we will be nothing. A 10 week old fetus never really came to anything. It was nothing until it was conceived. It returned to nothing when it was aborted. It experienced a brief existence in the womb during which time it never really had a developed brain or the realization as to whether or not something good or bad was happening to it. It had no intelligence to speak of. (I only use the term “it” to be gender neutral not to mean that it wasn’t a he or a she.). If pro-life people would understand this, maybe they would lean more heavily toward the rights of the woman. I’m not going to meet anyone when I get to heaven because I am not going to heaven. I am going back to what I was before I was born, nothing. If the belief in heaven and hell helps you get through life, then I will not try to convince you otherwise. But it would be nice if the pro-lifers understood this simple concept.

Bill S., it’s interesting because I’m thinking with the same logical system as you, but with opposite variables.  I’m thinking that if pro-abortionists realized the simple fact that there is a God, our divine Father, who created our spirits and sent us to Earth in order to receive a body from our earthly parents with the divine destiny of returning to His presence after this life (if we have proved ourselves worthy through faithful adherence to His laws and principles), then they would feel a greater sense of urgency to protect the creation of life.  Our time here matters. Even if it is briefly in the womb.  To cut a life short is to deny that person their one and only mortal experience, wherein they can learn and choose and act for themselves to become something good and noble and qualified for eternal joy.  Because I also believe in Jesus Christ, then I know that his atonement made in the Garden of Gethsemane, his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the tomb, can save the innocent souls of children, wash us accountable older folks clean if we repent, and that all can be resurrected as he was.  Then we stand before God and are judged of our works.  Knowing about consequences that reach into eternity is what changes my behavior today. 

It is simply improvable to say that fetuses don’t have any sense of any kind.  And certainly he/she feels pain when stabbed with a syringe to death or dismembered by a curette.  The unfeeling people are the ones who don’t care that these procedures are happening and who don’t care to change their lifestyle in order to save a life by preventing circumstances where the decision to abort could even happening.

“I’m thinking that if pro-abortionists
realized the simple fact that there is a God, our divine Father, who created
our spirits and sent us to Earth in order to receive a body from our earthly
parents with the divine destiny of returning to His presence after this life
(if we have proved ourselves worthy through faithful adherence to His laws
and principles), then they would feel a greater sense of urgency to protect
the creation of life.”

The key word in what you said is “fact”. Your fact is fiction to me. All of it. We are who we are thanks to millions of years of evolution and the development of our brains during our lifetime. There are no deities and no spirits involved. Now can you see why it is wrong to deny women the right to choose for themselves?

Well, you believe that you are stating facts as well; that there is no deity and we don’t have eternal souls.  Which is my point.  We both believe we are right.  We might even be able to say that we both “know with conviction” that we are right.  Oh well.  I see where you are coming from and can see why you would support abortion.  Perhaps now that you see where I am coming from you can see why I would not.

I can confidently say that women’s choices are in fully tact and do powerfully exist in the pro-life camp.  But, where do they start?  Pro-abortionist viewpoint likes to make it seem like they begin after conception.  I am pro-choose-life and I say they begin before dating.  A woman’s choice begins in her girlhood; who will she become, how and at what expense.  A girl chooses who to date and what to do when dating.  Don’t date dorks, jerks, or bullies, is the beginning of my advice to young women.  Have the power and voice to say “no” when you don’t want to have sex but your boyfriend does.  And DUMP him if he won’t accept your answer.  Look to date young men who have the same goals and values (they do exist!).  Don’t treat sex casually, engaging with whomever and whenever.  Reserve sex (the very way that babies are made) for marriage (AFTER you’ve had fun dating and getting to know young men with good character and you’ve found your perfect match and joyfully bound yourselves to one another) when if a baby comes without intending to, it will be a much more manageable crisis than if the mother is young, undereducated, and single.

What would you choose to do in order to save a life? 

Would you run to push a friend out of the path of a speeding car?  Dive into a burning building to save your mother?  Donate a kidney to save your brother?  Tackle a gunman in a shopping center?  Those are pretty drastic.  How about give blood to an anonymous recipient?  That’s easy.  But, with almost 1 in 3 women having abortions—and over 53,000,000 babies having been aborted since 1973—doing something so undramatic as practicing abstinence until marriage (which also strengthens the marriage and enriches the lives of children later welcomed to it) could actually save a life.  It sounds like the safest, easiest, most unselfish, thought-filled, “choosingest” thing to do.  We can make our choices, but the consequences inevitably follow.  Self-control must be valued higher than momentary pleasure.  Our choices must include a careful examination at every possible consequence.  Terminating someone else’s LIFE because it is an inconvenient consequence of our own choices sounds criminal to me, and I just cannot support it. Especially when it is avoidable. The other problem is that sex in dating has become so normative people can’t even comprehend the idea of abstinence until marriage.  It seems impossible.  Which sounds like depowerment to me.  The message to our youth is that their sex drive is more powerful than their ability to think and they are victims to it.  That limits their choicemaking and places them in a smaller, more vulnerable mindset.

Michelle,

You seem like a good Catholic woman. So I am not surprised that you think abstinence is good but you allow no consideration of contraception.  So not only should a woman be forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, she should not take the pill or require her partner to use a condom.  If she is raped, she should not take a morning after pill and they should not be made available at Catholic hospitals or in the medical services at Catholic colleges. A married woman who doesn’t want any more kids must use natural family planning or not have sex at all much to her husbands dismay.  Does it surprise you that the people running this country pay very little attention to people like you. Maybe they know something about human nature that you don’t know.

Michelle,

Please excuse me for my rant about contraception. I had no right to assume that you are against it just because you didn’t mention it in your post.  Of course, if you are a great Catholic woman, then it stands to reason that you are against it. The only reason why I am so motivated about these topics is because of my personal experience with both. For almost my whole life, I have used condoms when having sex. For the few times that I didn’t, I have experienced a sexually-transmitted disease, an unwanted pregnancy, an abortion, a yeast infection and then finally something good, two planned children.  Yes, I admit that, other than the procreation, the others were caused by promiscuity.  I know you must think that is terrible, but to be realistic, things are even worse today (not for me, but for the world in general). By natural selection, we have been hardwired to have sex early and often. We can choose to ignore natural selection, and we do so all the time. But the world is not disciplined enough for sexual abstinence. Look at the priests with their attempts at celibacy. Anyway, all I wanted to do was apologize.

I did not dictation the word “great” into my iPhone. The correct word is “good”.  You may also be a great Catholic woman, but I didn’t mean to sound sarcastic.

Thank you so much.  No offense taken.  Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I am a “good/great Mormon woman”—shoot, there goes my cover, haha—and so we allow the use of contraceptives as far as sex continues to be within marriage, but couples are encouraged to use thought and prayer (guidance from God) to decide when to invite children and when to prevent pregnancy. And in the cases of rape and incest or the mother’s safety, abortion will not cause them to lose their membership, although it is also very strongly advised that the victim consider all the options and include seeking God’s will in the decision-making process.  We also do not hold our church leadership to a celibacy requirement.  We want all to enjoy the blessings of marriage and children.

In my case, I chose abstinence because I accepted my parents’ teachings as wise and important, I sincerely wanted to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, I wanted to avoid all the tragic potential consequences that you mentioned, and I wanted to be married in an LDS temple so that my family could be sealed together for time and all eternity (sexual purity is a requirement).  As far as contraceptives go, I used my own brain (and maybe some divine inspiration and warning) to also decide that I didn’t want to use any contraceptive that altered the natural balance of hormones in my body.  So, we use condoms but only during the fertile phase of my cycle (I charted my cycle for 18 months to figure out how my body works—our bodies are amazing).  That way we have invited 4 children into our family over the space of 9 years.  They are such beautiful people and I love them so much.

It amazes me that by the time they were each a 4-celled cluster, it was already determined that two would be blue-eyed and two would be brown-eyed, 3 of the 4 are left-handed, the youngest has more hair at 1 year old than 2 of the others had by age 2, and their skin tones are all slightly different because of my mixed-race background.  It is already set for them to become eventual adults, they are fully human, though in the beginning stages of development. We are not fully developed at birth, either. With adolescence bound to come around 11-14 years later, when an intense transformation takes place, we can see that our development continues after birth.

I’m sorry for all that you’ve been through. It is tragic.  But I’m not surprised by your story because it is so common.  Any individual who was armed with enough reason, motivation, empowerment, and information could choose to abstain until marriage.  We all have the power to do anything that is good.  But, like you alluded to, this world is full of the opposite message.  Music, TV programming and movies are all so saturated with “do what you want” and sexually explicit messages that our youth who aren’t well armed to withstand it and aren’t taught to avoid it, will eventually buckle.  It all begins with what behaviors parents are willing to model for their children (we don’t own a TV, and my husband and I are very selective of what we watch on our own as well as what we offer to our kids) and what they teach them directly (we already talk about proper behavior when dating, no kissing girls until after their Mormon missions! haha).  I know that my children might still either falter or fully rebel, but I want them to be fully informed so that their choices are completely their own and not what they parrot from mainstream, generic propaganda.

Wow. What a great response. In my whole life, I don’t think I have ever talked to or spoken to a Mormon. How interesting. I call myself an atheist, but I do believe in an intelligence that some would attribute to God. Although I don’t believe, I do attend Catholic Church and participate in all of its social activities. I detest the Catholic Church’s stand on contraception. They don’t want abortion but they won’t allow contraception. To me, all of the major religions had dubious beginnings. But they morals and disciplines that they instill make them useful for developing children into good standing adults. If that is all they do, that is more than enough.  It was nice talking to you.

Well, I’m happy to be part of your first conversation with a Mormon.  You are person of immense worth and concern to God.  He wants you to be happy, as He does all of His children.  The best thing is to learn from our victories and our mistakes, carefully inspect every message that is thrown at us, treat everyone with love and consideration, and go forward with confidence that we are doing our best.  Nice talking with you, as well.

“any abortion, legal or illegal, is dangerous because it ends at least one life.”
You are not using the word “dangerous” properly.  Your sentence is silly.
“So you somehow think that you had two parents, who were married, and wanted you, give you a privilege that others don’t deserve?”
What “privilege”?  You are misusing another word.
“Yet you can’t extend that common courtesy to someone who is not fortunate enough to be wanted.”
What “common courtesy”?  Your sentences don’t make a lick of sense.  Apparently words mean different things to you than to me.

“they all fail to answer the questions (1)Who am I;(2)Why am I here;(3)Where am I going.”
Hilarious.  It appears that you claim to have answers to those questions.  How do you know that your answers are correct?  What if you are wrong?  Then you have wasted a lot of time and energy pursuing a delusion?  That is the point of “faith” - provide answers without any evidence.  Pure assertion.  Mormonism?  Golden plates? How ridiculous!  But no more so than any other religion?  And on that basis, all religions must try to control the morality of others.

“I’m thinking that if pro-abortionists realized the simple fact that there is a God”
That’s not a “simple fact”!  It seems to be a rather contentious issue.  After all, you have no evidence.  And there are a thousand different religions.  Do they all have the same “god”?  Different ones?  Why do different religions have different requirements for being “good”?  It would seem that your assert that “there is a god” has no real basis in reality.  Perhaps it is simply a wishful-thinking opinion.

Earl: the best example of wishful thinking is your fantasy that you actually have enough command of the English language to determine when someone is misusing a word (and ignoring your own gross overuse of the word “hilarious”, among others).

Earl, unfortunately you completely missed my point.  Read the comment with this timestamp: Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 9:40 AM (EST).  He was making statements as fact, which is also what you are doing, and I was pointing out that I could do the same from my perspective, and explaining that what we consider fact shapes what we condone/condemn in society. I can also provide a different perspective on faith, if you’d like, because, to me, faith is absolutely based on evidence gained by experience, which leads to confidence and belief. No such thing as “blind faith,” in my opinion.

Hi Michelle. Good to see you are still out there. I was a believer for most of my life. Then I did some serious research and now, I know longer believe. But one would have to be blind not to see the good things that have come from belief in God and in Jesus. My research has not led me to a more fulfilling life but it has led me to an understanding that is different from that of the believer. 

I believe that Earl, knowing that the truth is on his side, likes to toy with believers and finds amusement in trying to make believers look stupid in front of their peers. I am not as sadistic as that but I do enjoy discussions with believers because it helps me rationalize my own belief that there really is no supernatural anything. The down side is that I see most believers as genuinely good people who take no pleasure in offending anyone. Like, even though I know that Joseph Smith was a fraud, I see the Mormons as successful and well disciplined compared to people like myself and probably Earl. I think that sometimes neither of us can find anything better to do.

I don’t know where this is going. I am just single thumbing my iPhone and trying to think of the next thing to say. I guess that’s all I have to say about that. (Ok Forrest Gump).  You should check out Jennifer’s more recent articles and the comments they have evoked.

Truth is not on Earl’s side, and Earl doesn’t come close to making believers look stupid.  He does, however, bring his own intelligence into question by the way he writes, and by the way he pursues his own amusement.

Claire, I didn’t mean to imply that he succeeds in making anyone look stupid, only that he tries.

I knew what you meant.  Thanks Bill.

“explaining that what we consider fact shapes what we condone/condemn in society.”
Fine.  And, of course, everyone certainly claims that their “facts” are based on “reality”.  And when opinions about reality are in conflict, why should a religious person conclude “I’m right because my interpretation of what my god says “automatically guarantees” that I’m right”?

“faith is absolutely based on evidence gained by experience”
Easy words.  Be specific and then I can laugh.

“Truth is not on Earl’s side”
Well, try “reality is on Earl’s side”?
“the best example of wishful thinking is your fantasy ...”
Hilarious.  You’re wasting your time writing such nonsense.

Earl, time-wasting and nonsense are your specialty.  It’s pretty hypocritical of you to project that onto anyone else.  And if truth is not on your side (which it’s not), then reality certainly isn’t either.

It’s poor science to claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.  If you’ve never had an experience where you knew God was real and aware of you and healing you or something of that nature, then you assume that you never will, and that it can’t happen and that He doesn’t exist.  Well, you gave up on the experiment too soon.  I have undeniably felt His presence in my life and been able to conclude through my own experiences that He is real and has a great purpose for our lives.  And I have full confidence that I will continue to feel in my heart and know in my mind that these things are True and Real.  The byproduct is joy!

That’s a great way to feel, Michelle. I admire you for your faith but I just don’t buy it.

“It’s poor science to claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.”
Hilarious.  UFOs?  Bigfoot?  Unicorns?  The Loch Ness monster?  It’s perfectly fine to claim that after all this time, the absence of evidence is certainly evidence for absence.
“If you’ve never had an experience where you knew God was real”
Hilarious.  If you’ve never had a delusion or revelation or dream or ???, then you’re not a human.  So what?  That’s not evidence.
“I have undeniably felt His presence in my life”
Write a book about seeing a god during a near death experience and become a millionaire by selling it to gullible believers!  Hilarious.
“know in my mind ...”
Well I’m certainly glad that ESP is nonsense and I can’t read your deluded mind!

Michelle, you’ll quickly learn that “hilarious” is Earl’s favorite word.  Don’t expect a lot of variety or insight from his posts.

What’s hilarious is believing abortion is rational:
Within hours of conception the baby’s unique human DNA has been formed. We can scientifically measure it.
In less than 3 weeks the baby has a heartbeat we can measure and monitor. The scientific evidence of this unique human life developing along the same life cycle that makes each of us human is overwhelming as the baby develops further.
Thinking that it isn’t human DNA, a human heart, and must be something else is only rationalizing the irrational to justify the taking of human life.

Exactly, ChrisW.  If only the massive Anti-Bullying campaign spreading across America included the unwanted in-utero infants among us.  It’s astounding that an estimated 90% of Downs syndrome babies are being aborted, for instance.

Bill, I continue to appreciate your dignity while disagreeing. That’s a display of tolerance.

Thank you Michelle. I might argue against you. But what you say does sink in even if I dispute it. As for the last two posts by Chris W and yourself, it is a scientific fact that the fertilized egg has all the DNA to form us from the moment of our conception. Would this be enough reason for a woman to absolutely be required against her will to assume the responsibility of carrying, giving birth to and raising this human being?  And what about Downs Syndrome or a foreseeable birth defect?  Now we are asking or demanding even more selflessness on her part. Shouldn’t a woman deserve the credit to accept or the right to reject something that will have a major impact on her life?  The opinion that she has no right to terminate a life before it even begins has to be weighed against demanding that she make a sacrifice that she may not be willing or able to make. Just the fact that she might not want to pass on the genes of a ne’r do well ex could be enough reason to terminate a pregnancy before it gets too far.

Even you can see Bill that the use and tense of words have meaning. My comment was the DNA ‘has been formed’.  Past tense, and it exists. Your comment the woman’s egg has all the potential to for DNA.  Future tense, and a possible outcome. Completely different conditions and yet you speak of them as if they are same.
You also make many other assumptions to rationalize your position.  1st, you assume a baby has no rights or a mothers right is superior to a baby’s rights. 2nd you are solely dictating that Down’s Syndrome children and people born with birth defects are lives that are not worth living. 
You are really posting on the wrong blog… most of us here are seeking God, you on the other hand are God.

Chris W.
This is what I said: “it is a scientific fact that the fertilized egg has all the DNA to form us from the moment of our conception.”  That is obviously not what you said that I said. As far as the rest of my post, I was merely defending a woman’s right to choose. A right that people of your ilk are all to willing to take away but will never be taken away in a free society. Sorry. But it looks like you’re on the outside looking in.

Chris W:  I don’t agree with Bill’s views on abortion (or on God, for that matter), but I still think he has the right to be here.  Unlike the trolls who come here to play games, Bill is honest about where he’s coming from, and respectful in his tone.

Thank you Claire. As you know, I do not advocate abortion as much as I do the right of a woman to decide for herself whether or not to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. You also know that I have personal experience in the matter and I don’t need people like Chris W judging me or anyone else on the matter.

Discerning something as basic as a right to life vs. a right to choose is fairly termed right or wrong.  Pretty basic concepts.  A right for one to “choose” should never supersede someones basic and essential right to life. 
It is not a judgment for without the essential right to simply exist, no other right has any true meaning.

You’re not the woman making the decision and you have no involvement. It’s the woman’s call. Not yours or anyone else’s.  Period. You really don’t see that, do you. .

... and that makes the woman the sole arbiter of someones right to even exist.

I get tired of reading responses saying I’m not a woman or not the woman making the decision, as if I surrendered my right to think and reason because I have testicles.  You don’t have to be a woman to understand it is a unique human life in the womb beginning at conception, and progressing on its own life cycle from then on.
My apologies, but surrendering a simple and basic truth is not something I choose to do.
Will keep you all in prayer…

“Discerning something as basic as a right to life vs. a right to choose is fairly termed right or wrong.”
And who gets to decide what is “right” and what is “wrong”?  You?  The Pope?  Catholics?  I don’t think so.
“A right for one to “choose” should never supersede someones [sic] basic and essential right to life.”
That is your opinion.  I assume you can vote.  Please do so.  Then complain when the vote does not go your way.
Now explain your use of “someone’s”.  Who gets to decide when there really is a “someone”?  You?  The Pope? Catholics?  I don’t think so.
“it is a unique human life in the womb”
Yes, but who decides if it’s a “someone” or a “group of cells”?
“surrendering a simple and basic truth”
You are entitled to your opinion.  Now go out there and make abortion illegal and observe the results.  Oops.  Undesirable results.  That’s too bad.
Religion knows it has the “truth” and the right to control everyone else?  I don’t think so.  Not in this country.  Try an Islamic country.

Posted by ChrisW on Sunday, Mar 10, 2013 12:16 PM (EDT):
“... and that makes the woman the sole arbiter of someones right to even exist.”

Yes, Chris, it does. If it didn’t, then abortion would be illegal. Thanks for your prayers.

Now you’re confusing morals and law. 
If something is legal; it must therefor be O.K. That attitude worked well for slave owners for thousands of years. but it was never morally justified.

My only concern is that abortion be kept legal. I’m not going to argue morality with the Catholic Church. Its morality doesn’t work for me and for many others. Catholics are welcome to adopt morals that are more stringent than the laws of the land but I have all I can do to comply with the latter. I don’t feel the need to burden myself with the former and neither should others in this free country.

If a woman chooses to have sex (let’s set rape aside for a moment) with a man and becomes pregnant, yes, definitely she should be held responsible for carrying that baby to term and then placing him/her for adoption if raising the child is too much.  Her choices are inseparably connected to the natural consequences of them.  She is accountable to that tiny being that she has co-created with her equally accountable partner.

I will never support eugenics. It terminates precious innocent lives, warps our sense of human worth and destroys altruism.  It devalues the woman, herself, implying that she is incapable of raising a child with special needs or coping with challenges that she has brought upon herself.  Pregnancy is only 9 months after all.  While, yes, that will come with special difficulties, raising any child has difficulties and expenses. If any child contracts a debilitating illness or injury later on, is that child’s intrinsic worth suddenly snuffed out?  Mothers and fathers of special needs or chronically ill children experience profound lessons in compassion, empathy, and selflessness as they care for their children.  Some may be resentful all along the way, and that is to their loss, but to raise a child with special needs is seen as an honor to those who let it shape them into better human beings.

Science has no conscience.  Science, in and of itself, doesn’t care about ethics.  But, since we are human beings, capable of ethical thought and compassion, it is a requirement that we behave better than a mere wild animal.  We should not abandon our young, destroy them in or outside of the womb, we must make careful choices about how we use our bodies and in choosing a lifelong companion, and we must absolutely learn to rise up to the occasion, doing everything in our power to right our wrongs.  Abortion is a wrong making a wrong even worse and we degenerate instead of improve.  Some pro-abortionists are going so far as to feel like they need to protect abortion’s rights, not the woman’s, as if it were a being or person, while lending absolutely nothing to the fetus (Latin for ‘child’) that meets the requirements of a living creature.  Our whole society is in danger of becoming “morally schizophrenic;” embracing unnatural (anti-evolutionary, even) destruction of our offspring, yet applauding sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility.

Michelle,

I am behind you all the way if all that you have said in your post is written for the purpose of perhaps guiding a pregnant woman away from abortion and toward carrying out the pregnancy and giving birth whether she decides to raise the child herself or give it up for adoption.  What I would be against would be the forcing of said guidance onto her by making abortion illegal. To me, that would be a serious infringement upon her civil liberties.

So I am not arguing as to whether or not a woman should have an abortion or not, only for her right to decide for herself. People who would take that right away are way out of line.

Bill, which is where we come to an impasse.  I believe (strongly) that a woman does not have a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy because it involves another human being’s body and inalienable right to life.  Experiencing consequences is of utmost importance.  Without consequences, we have very little motivation to make better choices. If we get away with something, over and over, we become totally desensitized to any conscience we may have struggled with in the beginning.

I don’t think that making abortion illegal will make abortion go away.  Certainly not.  And as a Mormon, I do give a tiny bit of leeway in cases of rape and the mother’s life is in jeopardy.  But absolutely it appears that abortion rates are as horrendously high as they are because it is so accessible and so on-demand.  My position is that we need to increase our attitude of responsibility about how we use our bodies, that we as a nation need to develop a sense of moral responsibility to protect life even at the cost of waiting until marriage to have sex (which is really no big deal).  I’m always more interested in the preventative than in the clean-up. 

Our culture is so saturated in sexual entertainment and advertising that I feel almost no hope for the pro-life movement in the end; small victories certainly, but we will continue to lose in the end.  We will never stop having women finding themselves pregnant and unmarried and turning to abortion to avoid the natural consequences.  And we will continue to see men completely cut out of the equation as if the woman is the only one responsible from beginning to end, perpetuating a hypocrisy of the ages.  This world will continue to degenerate, as prophesied, until Christ comes again.  “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold” (Matthew 24:12).  We are losing our love and awe for the developing human.

But, I won’t dirty my hands by being silent.

No Bill, we’re not way out of line.  Anyone who thinks that it should be legal to take the lives of defenseless babies is out of line.

Claire,

You have your own opinion as to the rights of the child superseding the rights of the mother. You would require a woman to give birth against her will. You would want us to be like Ireland, which seemingly cannot pass or amend a law without the approval of the Catholic Church. That is a horrible way to live and people in this country would never tolerate it.

Bill,
Morality is not something owned by Catholics or religion for that matter. They have historically been the foundation of societies morals and law.  Law can and often is unjust when it deviates from morals.
I have not made statements based solely on religious principals, in fact, my statements have been from reason and science. It is the science of biology that defines the human life cycle as beginning at conception.  Science which identifies the unique human DNA the child in the womb has formed within hours of conception. It is science which measures and gives us the ability to hear the baby’s heart beat in about 21 days after conception.  To think this unique human life, perfectly developed for its stage along the human life cycle, is somehow less than human is astounding to me. Abortion by its very definition, Merriam-Webster’s on-line, states abortion is; “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus”  Abortion ALWAYS ends in the death of a unique individual. Calling it a choice and a “right” is the ultimate denial of the essential right to exist.

“Science which identifies the unique human DNA the child in the womb has formed within hours of conception.”

So what?  That doesn’t mean anything if the mother does not want the child.

“It is science which measures and gives us the ability to hear the baby’s heart beat in about 21 days after conception.”

Again. So what?  That doesn’t mean anything if the mother does not want the child.

“Abortion ALWAYS ends in the death of a unique individual.”

Again. So what?  That doesn’t mean anything if the mother does not want the child.

Chris. You have to learn to respect the wishes of the mother. The loss of a baby affects the mother more than anyone else. It is no loss to anyone else unless the father wants the child and the mother does not, in which case it is still the mother’s call.

Really Bill? Human life… so what… You might as well say, your life… so what, do you not see where your reasoning leads?
Life only has value if the mother wants the child? It is not reasonable to conclude that a human life only has value if one person in the entire universe determines it does.
If reason fails then I can only conclude you’re position is unreasonable.

I will pray for you, but further discussion is fruitless.

Understood. Bottom line: in this country, no one can force a woman to give birth to a child that she doesn’t want. I wouldn’t want it to be any other way.

“If reason fails then I can only conclude you’re [sic] position is unreasonable.”
Roe vs Wade was 40 years ago.  It is your right to continue to try to get it reversed.  Until you do, you may claim your opinion is “reasonable”, but others may point out that the prohibition of abortion would be a “disaster” in their opinion.

State of Texas loses appeal on abortion provider case in 5th Circuit Court: http://louisianarecord.com/news/249763-state-of-texas-loses-appeal-on-abortion-provider-case-in-5th-circuit-court

I’d like to propose a hypothetical situation. Let’s say you go out and treat yourself to a nice steak dinner. Problem is, the steak was under-cooked and now you have a tapeworm. If we apply this article’s logic about the consequences of sex,the conclusion I reach is that you should have foreseen this outcome and not eaten the steak unless you were prepared to accept these circumstances. Now I can already hear you: “how could you possibly compare an intestinal parasite to a human fetus?” I only compare the two because I’m sure even the most adamant pro-lifer would not hesitate to kill that tapeworm dead, but isn’t that the same distinction of what lifeforms deserve to live that pro-choice advocates are demonized for? Sure it’s easy to be pro-life when the life in question is a cute cuddly baby, but the disgusting parasitic worm is just as dependent on the host as the baby is, but nobody is legislating for its rights. I suppose my point is that people present the argument that all life is precious without realizing the overwhelming amount of life we all disregard on a daily basis.

The “argument” is that all human life is precious.  Disregarding the life of a tapeworm and disregarding the life of a human baby are two different things.

That’s my point exactly, deciding whether a human deserves to live is somehow worse than deciding whether another species deserves to live. Is it not hypocritical to say that no one has the right to judge a human’s worth but have no problem with condemning other forms of life?

No, I don’t think it’s hypocritical.  That’s why there are laws against murdering humans, but no laws against murdering flies.

With good reason, otherwise just about every human alive would be in prison.  But it seems the prolife argument hinges on the assumption that human life is more significant than other life. My question is why is it wrong to judge the worth of human life when judging the worth of nonhuman life is perfectly acceptable?

Maybe you should pose that question to all the nations that have laws which protect human life but not the lives of flies.

I feel like you’re fixated on the thing about the flies. I’m not arguing for the protection of flies, I’m just trying to understand where the distinction between one lump of genetic material versus another comes from.

What I’m fixated on is your ridiculous analogy.  An embryo is not just a lump of genetic material.  It is a human being.  The lives of members of the human species have historically been protected by laws, because it is universally understood that the lives of the human species are a step or two above that of the fly, flea, cockroach, cow, etc.

I would argue that that concept is not universally accepted, what about in India where a cow’s life is considered to be more sacred than a human’s?

If not universally, it is certainly widespread.  And it is certainly a concept that is accepted here in America.