We’ve had this in the UK for some time, except the message is that “one in three women will need an abortion at some point in her life”. Of course what constitutes need is a highly subjective concept.

It’s part of a soft marketing message. Research shows that before making major purchases and lifestyle choices people seek validation by looking at the choices of others. The 1 in 3 campaign is designed to validate and endorse the decision to have an abortion by making it seem a commonplace everyday decision of little consequence that many other women have experienced with little or no consequence. “Hey - everybody is doing it, it’s fine! Your neighbour has probably had one and half your friends too. No big deal!”

It’s the concept of need that is of course the most abhorrent. 1 in 3 women are in such dire straits that they need to abort their child? Really? If that is true shouldn’t that tell us something about society, 1 in 3 women will die or suffer unimaginable consequences and suffering if they don’t kill their baby?

We are living in hard times. Maybe they should say that then 1 of every 3 child intended to born in the USA will be aborted.

You are beautiful when you are angry, Simcha. Not to mention spot on. Sharing this BIG time.

Also, the numbers don’t add up with abortion statistics, esp. when you consider that there are repeats.

When I dug into the methodology behind one of these ‘look, everyone’s doing it!’ abortion claims, (can’t remember which one now), they were counting all D&Cs; performed as abortions, and claiming that doctors and hospitals just masked the fact they were aborting.

Um…no.  I have friends who’ve had multiple D&Cs;. It’s a standard procedure for missed miscarriage, polyps, placenta accreta, etc. etc. (It also can cause future fertility problems and too many make it dangerous for you to have more babies, so docs tend to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. Funny that when you do one without a baby, there are a raft of consequences, but if you do it to kill a child it is (as PP assures us) completely safe for the mom!)

Also, it says 22% of pregnancies end in abortion, but 1/3 (33.3333%) of women will have one? Given that some women never get pregnant, and some have more than one abortion, how does that even work? (Are they counting the dead baby girls as women who ‘had an abortion?’)

I’d urge anyone who believes abortion is an issue of women’s rights to spend some time outside an abortion clinic on a Saturday morning.  Particularly if there is someone there with a sign saying something to the effect of “there is help available for you and your baby.”  You will not last the morning without seeing a young woman (looking longingly at the sign) being literally shoved into the clinic by a boyfriend or a (grand)mother.  It’s horrifying.  And you’ll probably see the scene repeated several times in the course of a typical Saturday morning.

Deirdre, REALLY? That infuriates me. I had a D&C for a missed miscarriage in 2006 and it was very much a tragedy for me, as I had not wanted my baby to die - but an ultrasound at a routine prenatal appt showed that s/he had, several weeks prior.
.
Thank you for this, Simcha. I once quoted these stats to a pro-choicer at a protest, and she claimed I was lying. I told her to check out the sources for herself, and I hope she did.

Word, Simcha. Word.

My heart absolutely breaks for women who have been the victims of abortion, and of our society’s attitude that it’s just fine, no big deal. If they buy that tripe it’s probably very confusing to feel regret, anger, depression, etc.

@Deirdre- you point out what so many people ignore: the fuzzy math of the Guttmacher Institute.

JoAnna—yep. WHICH, on the other hand, makes the stats more believable, because 1/3 of my friends and family have definitely had D&Cs; for various health problems. And they always made extra-sure that they weren’t pregnant for them!

And their doctors ALWAYS warned about side affects, kept them at least a few hours for observation, made them stay off their feet for a few days to promote good healing…

I once asked a doctor-friend why a D&C from an OB for polyps has all these warnings and rules, but an abortion at a clinic has no risks, and no restrictions. His reply? “Abortionists don’t follow up with their patients.”

I’m surprised no ‘pro-women’ group has noticed the discrepancy.

If one in three women admitted to substance abuse does that make it ok? Even if disorders are commonplace, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a negative effect.They just have a negative effect on a larger part of society.

Abortion isn’t the right answer for everyone.
But if I were to get pregnant right now, I would choose to have one. If my 15-year old daughter were to get pregnant (although this is unlikely, since I told her I would give her as much Plan B as she wants), I would strongly encourage her to have one, too.

Women like me—we are the one in three, too. And we do all we can, to keep it legal.

Posted by L. on Friday, Sep 28, 2012 8:24 AM (EST):Abortion isn’t the right answer for everyone.”
**
Why not?

L., I am sure you want to do the right thing for your daughter, but your logic strikes me as odd. Wouldn’t it be better to teach your daughter the natural consequences of sex and suggest she just avoid it and focus on her studies and personal growth? Contraceptives are not foolproof and I found as a high school student and later as a high school teacher that the girls who focused on schooling and not on boys (though they had friendships of course) were much more likely to succeed and have a positive self-image than girls who felt they only had value if they “put out.”

Great Job Simcha!  Thank you

I had an abortion in college.  At the time it was an easy decision, and being who I was then, there is no other decision I would have made.  I wasn’t pressured in any way.  I was baptized and became Catholic several years ago, and for a while was very hurt that I had had an abortion, before realizing that God forgave me.  I would of course never do it again.  I want to say that I think my experience of not being pressured and making an easy decision reflects the experience of most women much more than what you write about coercion.  Of course it is terrible that women are forced to have abortions, but I don’t believe that it is common.  I didn’t feel that I was doing anything wrong, just that I was correcting a mistake and turning back time a little. 

I don’t think bringing the discussion about abortion into the open will be entirely bad.  I think that abortion is already normalized in the minds of most people who have one.  I don’t feel that I can talk about my abortion, though perhaps it would be good if I could since I now have a Catholic view of the matter.  I would like to say that one of the great consolations of becoming Catholic was that I can hopefully look forward to someday meeting that baby in heaven.

Kathleen, you ask, “Why not?” It is best to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And sometimes, when one occurs, it is best that the baby be born. Every case is different. I am about as pro-abortion rights as it’s possible to be, and I don’t think abortion should be the default answer to an unwanted pregnancy.
Pittsburgh Mama, it’s up to my daughter whether she “puts out” or not. I “put out” when I was a teenager simply because I wanted to, and my value and self-worth didn’t depend on it. I did concentrate on my studies and personal growth. It is indeed possible to be a normal healthy teenager, and be sexually active—or not, depending on what’s right for a particular individual.

One must always remember to consider the source of gaining statistics, numbers, and the motives that source has for obtaining numbers.  Getting statistics is the impersonal way of presenting a case to those who have money they don’t know what to do with and are manipulated thru their emotions to do charitable acts thru giving financially.  Yet, if each person actually experienced the onsite visual of a woman receiving an abortion, just the visual, would convict any human being that has a conscience of not supporting, especially financially, the outrageous inhumane act of killing an unborn child.  If anyone went and actually spoke to a woman who was about to have an abortion and after the procedure of an abortion then maybe each person would see that there is a personal element in the procedure called an abortion.  It is not like just going to the dentist and pulling a tooth that has been a pain in the side for awhile.  We are talking about and dealing with two lives.  The mother and her emotional and psychological state before and after an abortion and, also, the state of limbo of the unborn child within utero, floating in the amniotic fluid with a Death Stalker about to rob the beating heart of its last beat thru sucking the brain out of the body, while in the mommy.  This is the manipulation of those who have no heart and seek to put the emotional, empathetic side of dealing with life and death of human beings aside to manipulate numbers for self gain. Besides, if those who are involved in the abortion market, think, if there were no abortions there would be no paychecks for those who are involved in the abortion game as their business venture. How shameful when human life, the mothers and, of utmost, the baby’s, is used to supply bread and butter for the belly of murderers.  I challedge anyone to contradict my words of truth for I alone have seen women pre and post abortionns; I have heard the cries of teenagers who have been forced to have abortions because their parents could not endure the shame of their teenage daughters being pregnant; I have seen the aborted “fetuses” thrown into garbage cans; I have been asked to let little live babies who have been aborted and delivered early to let them die in cold storage rooms…...All for mans self gain and the feeding of mans belly of lust and pride.  We all have heard of the days of the Jews and Hilter, the slaudering of Jewish women and children.  We may think that was then and this is now.  It can’t happen in our time, in this year.  Yet, change the name of Jewish, change the locations, change the leaders and man still has the remnants of cold hearts existing in a culture that seeks to promote Death of the most innocent, vulnerable creation, the unborn child….This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me, help us, God.

L, I agree that it is your daughter’s decision to have sex or not. I think it is strange, though, that you have not (apparently) considered telling her that the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases is abstinence. It does not seem to occur to you, either, that sex and babies are by biological reality linked together. And while overall reproduction depends on at least two people having sex, it in no way harms a person to not engage in it. Contraception, however, can fail or have side effects that last years after taking them. Abortion, like any surgical procedure, has risks, and I think there is a compelling philosophical and moral argument (not dependent on religion) that abortion is murder. What makes sex so important that you would rather take health risks and possibly kill an innocent child to have it than simply refrain?

My best friend since childhood is a psychiatrist. She’s Catholic, pro-life, and wonderful in every way. We got to talking when she came for a visit and she was telling me how 90% of her female patients have had an abortion and how much it hurts them and how difficult it is for them to heal when no one will tell them their feelings of regret are justified and normal. She has a mother and daughter she counsels who were not getting along. She said the mother told her daughter, “You just won’t understand these things until you’re a mother,” and the daughter screamed at her “I would be a mother if you didn’t make me have an abortion.” I started crying when I heard that story. I’ve done a few things in my life that I deeply regret, and it hurts terribly to think about them. But no one got killed. I can’t imagine the pain of having had an abortion. I can’t bear the thought.

What sort of message do we send our daughters (and sons too!) when we tell them that it is ok to kill their children?  Do they ever wonder if they might have brothers and sisters that we choose to kill?

L.,
I’m still wondering about your statement: “Abortion isn’t the right answer for everyone.”

Also:“And sometimes, when one occurs, it is best that the baby be born. Every case is different. “
What would make one child more deserving of life than another?

Thank you for this article and information Simcha.  I am saddened about so many women being forced to have abortions along with not being educated on their options.  They are also not given the information about how an abortion with will later impact them physically and emotionally.  Absolutely breaks my heart that abortion is so accepted in this country and that so many people do not see a problem with this horrific act.

Kathleen, I don’t believe every baby has an intrinsic right to life. Any baby unlucky enough to grow inside me certainly doesn’t. However, some mother choose to give their babies life, under all circumstances—I understand this, even though I don’t agree with it. I believe it should be up to the mother, whether the baby inside her lives or dies.
Pittsburgh Mama, my daughter knows where babies come from. I chose (and in fact, I still choose) to have sex despite the health risks and possibility of killing an innocent child, and I think it’s worth it, so of course I understand why others would also choose not to abstain from sex.
I’ve never had a surgical abortion. Contraception, if used diligently and correctly, can be effective in preventing unwanted babies. (I will try to convince my daughter to get an IUD—mine served me well for years—though there are other plenty of other effective options, too.)

L,
Well, I find your logic disturbing, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.
It’s curious you use the word “baby” instead of fetus.That kind of raises red flags about the purpose of your post.

“I don’t believe every baby has an intrinsic right to life. Any baby unlucky enough to grow inside me certainly doesn’t”

How then did your daughter survive to be born?
And where I live, you’re talking about rape-at least statutory-if it involves a 15 year old girl.That’s disturbing to me, too.

I simply don’t believe the “one in three”.
.
I used to see “choice” in action, all the time.  The babes in the blue “volunteer” T shirts would sound the alarm if a woman was talking to us.  They would charge to the public sidewalk and surround her, covering her with their big blue “Keep abortion Legal” signs.  If she had accepted the packet of information that showed her how to get to the crisis pregnancy center, they ripped it out of her hands and tore it up.
.
Anyhow, what if one in three sacrificed to Moloch?

We have commercials for everything under the sun, that don’t need or care about—why are there no ads to illustrate the points that Simcha addresses in this article?

God can draw good from evil.  The most convicted pro-life doctor in our town forever regretted the abortion he has been forced to perform in med school.  He would see a woman in crisis at any time, day or night. He took Medi-Cal on principle.  He also had the heart wrenching experience of having to deliver his own, beautiful, and perfect daughter who died at full term due to infection from the IUD he had inserted into his wife.

Kathleen, I don’t think sex among teenagers is disturbing (unless it’s coerced or with much-older partners, of course).
My daughter, and her brothers, were born in the narrow window in which I was open to life.
I don’t know why you would you object to my use of the word “baby.” Isn’t an embryo a baby?

L - what you are promoting is basically this: self indulgence.  Do what makes you feel good and don’t bother to think about the consequences for yourself or anyone else.  You might say, “So what?”.  I might say, “Take a look at Greece where decades of contraception and abortion have created a situation where they simply do not have enough young people to pay for their generous social systems.”  Greece is on the verge of a demogrphic implosion, which in turn is leading to economic and social implosion.  Greece might be at the front of the learning curve but all the other Eurpoean countries are right behind them with drastically low birth rates.  It appears that the only people in Europe having children are the Muslim immigrants.  Wait until you see what they have to say (and do) about your liberal way of life.  You think Christianity is oppressive?  You haven’t seen anything yet.  Sooner or later, the irresponsibility of your ways will catch up.  Maybe in your life time, or maybe later.  But it will always catch up.  You cannot defeat the natural moral law.

Fridays should be troll free.
@L,did you lack attention from your Mama as a child? Are you foot stamping mad? I hear there’s medication out there to control troll-urge.  I’m going to go back a page and meditate upon “squashy squashy” to remove the troll odor.

L.,
I find your wording odd, i.e.:
“I don’t believe every baby has an intrinsic right to life.”
I’m honestly wondering, does that mean you believe that some babies have a right to life and others do not? In your argument, is there anything beyond the mother’s volition that confers this right?
Thank you for your reply.

JD, I don’t live in the United States. I live in a non-Christian country. I think I am very responsible—I had a few kids, and then stopped. I don’t have problems with people who have big families, nor with people who have none. And if you want to blame Greece’s current debt problems on contraception and abortion instead of on fiscal ineptitude and greedy bankers, go right ahead.

L,
I think your posts are more to test the waters.

I’m not a troll—I’m a regular reader of Simcha’s column, and I am a parishioner at a Catholic church. I am just not pro-life. I don’t believe that anyone’s right to life is absolute. I am not ashamed of my strongly held opinions and I am always willing to share them. I am trying to be civil here, not troll-like. But perhaps I am not succeeding.

Kathleen, I’ve commented on past posts here, so these are familiar waters to me.

No, L. is not a troll - she’s a frequent reader, I think.
L., I know that your point of view is completely consistent (and I know that you understand it’s entirely repugnant to most of us here).  It seems unlikely that we’ll get anywhere by saying “Babies have a right to life” and you saying, “No, I don’t think they do.”  The focus of this post, though, was the women, not their babies.  You didn’t really respond to what I said about their situation, except to say that not everybody is like those thousands of women who were coerced.

.

Let’s imagine this.  What if the body piercing industry put out an ad campaign showing that labial piercing is normal, and used some stats to show that it should be more socially acceptable—and I wrote an article quoting large numbers of women who said that people had dragged them, against, their will, into piercing studios, and that they were suffering emotional and physical harm that was going untreated and unacknowledged—and then that the piercing industry was including those women in their stats to show that piercing is normal and should be accepted without question?  Would your response still be, “Yes, but lots of people DO like piercing?”  Or would you protest that the industry is exploiting the suffering of women in order to legitimize their business?  And would you question why it needs to do that, if piercing is as safe and normal as the industry claims?

.

I understand that many women accept and seek out abortion.  What I don’t understand is how women can turn their backs on other women and girls who are being victimized.

L - yes, the classic response.  Greece’s problems are due to economic problems and “fiscal ineptitude”.  People aren’t having kids because they’re too expensive and the economy is bad.  But what about the USA during the Greate Depression?  There were six kids in a family back then.  The fiscal ineptitude that lead to the bad economy of the 1930’s didn’t stop people from having their families.  These families produced the greatest economic boom in history.  No.  The culprit to all of this is artificial contraception (AC).  People can indulge themselves with little thought of consequences. AC enables promiscuity on a lebvel never before seen.  Within 10 years of birth control pills being introduced, the divorce rate hits 50%.  Seems married people can be promiscous too.  Also, abortion is legalized to get rid of all the unwanted pregnancies - which of course will ultimately occur when the AC inevitably fails (nothing but abstinence is 100%).  Relationships between men and women are so cheapened that cohabitation is common place and the concept of two men marrying becomes plausible.  Entire nations force birth control and sterilization, and abortions on people (China).  It makes no difference whether you are Christian or not.  Societies can ignore the Natural Moral Law to their own peril.  Japan and South Korea are not Christian countries but face the same demographic implosion as Greece and the rest of Europe.  By the way, the USA is right behind them, heading down the same path with the help of our president, who thinks everyone has a “right” to kill an unborn child.

L., I’d be interested on your thoughts re: this article - http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/09/catholic-voting-and-order-of-truths.html
.
I’m curious; why do you believe that human beings should be deprived of human rights only if they are unborn? IOW, why do you believe that not all human beings have the intrinsic right to life?

L, you said: “I don’t believe that anyone’s right to life is absolute.” I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? I will trust Simcha that you are a regular reader and that she understands your views (even if she strongly disagrees), but this is bizarre to me. Of course, we do not get to determine when and where we are born and under what circumstances, and we don’t know how or when we will die, but I don’t see at all how that would give another person the right to determine it for me. Surely, I have more of a “right to life” than another person has a “right to kill,” especially if my presence is simply viewed as an inconvenience. “Oops, one too many people in the DMV line today! Better off the person in front of me so I can be home in time for dinner!” Strange way to go about looking at life.

(And I apologize if I don’t keep up with the conversation from here on out - we’re just heading into the very busy part of the day, and I may not be able to respond to any future comments right away.  I just thought it would be useful to redirect the conversation toward the subject of this particular post:  women who are being exploited by the abortion industry, before, during, and now also after their abortions.

I am just writing this to say that my previous comment was listed under my first name, Silica, but that I am the same person as “pittsburgh mama.” I know there are some commenters who have found it funny playing name games and I thought I might as well own up to my “alias” as soon as I noticed it was there (thanks, auto-fill.)

Ms. Fisher,  I’m sorry for going off topic.  I’m having a tough time staying silent any more when presented with comments are are so utterly against the Catechism.  We have been staying silent too long and this is how we have gotten to the point we are at now.

JD, did you know that the most common form of “contraception” in Japan is abstinence? The birth rate is so low because people just aren’t having much sex. The pill was illegal for decades and is still very uncommon, as are most other forms of AC except for condoms.

Simcha, I don’t doubt that some women have abortions under abusive circumstances. I don’t doubt that some are having them but shouldn’t be having them. I cannot speak for these women, though. I can only speak for myself, and women like me.

When I see the one-in-three statistic, I wish it were more like one in a hundred. I wish every pregnancy were a wanted, healthy one, and that medical resources could be spent on things other than abortion.  If I knew personally of a women who was being coerced into any reproductive option she didn’t choose—whether it was a husband forcing her to use contraception, a family pressuring her into an abortion, or someone actively preventing her from ending an unwanted pregnancy—I would do all I could to help her.

None of us chose to be here. We are all here because of choices made by the people who came before us. I don’t believe in the absolute human rights of unborn people—I believe the woman’s right to control her bodily functions takes precedence over the right to life of anyone growing inside her. And with this, I have to go to bed. It’s 1:30 am in Tokyo, about 3 hours past my bedtime!

L, thanks for the clarification. I still do not understand your position and will admit I find it morally abhorrent, but you have been honest and patient. Many pro-abortion people try very hard to deny that an unborn baby is actually a baby, but you have not done so. Again, I think it strange that you would suggest that a person’s right to “her bodily functions” would include the right to kill an unborn baby, especially since it is (usually) through her chosen actions that a baby even grows there in the first place. No sex, no baby. I guess this makes it all the more clear to me why contraception is just such a bad idea - it distorts that causal relationship significantly.

I don’t know if this will give pro-lifers hope, but I was in art school a few years back and many of the students were much younger than I was. Sometimes we’d talk before class started and abortion came up one day. I said something along the lines of there is no such thing as pro-choice because babies don’t have a choice. Almost all of the students agreed with me. They were almost all pro-life. The pro-choice rhetoric had not made an impact on them at all. They’ve grown up seeing the ultrasound pictures of their little brothers and sisters, they know they could have been aborted themselves. It’s not the same world.

“I believe the woman’s right to control her bodily functions takes precedence over the right to life of anyone growing inside her.”
.
Why do you believe this, given that pregnancy is temporary and death is permanent?
.
I’d encourage you to read the following: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/03/bodily-integrity.html

Holy. cow.

L - Interesting comments regarding Japan.  Based on your comments I did some reading.  Fascinating culture.  Still, they are not heading anywhere good as a nation. No matter what the exact reason is, they are not reproducing.

JD,
I remember reading a while back that oral contraceptives were not sold in Japan for health risk concerns.

L., Re: your ‘rights’ to your bodily functions. Please learn through the Catholic teaching of your Catholic parish which hopefully uses a Catholic Catechism: the ninth gift of the Holy Spirit: self-control.  Saint Paul listed nine godly virtues that constitute the fruit of God’s Spirit—the inward and outward effect of having the gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. They are “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

Runny nose: bodily function
Going to the bathroom: bodily function
Giving birth: bodily function
Walking (bodily function) into an abortion clinic and having the developing baby suctioned out or burned with saline: NOT a bodily function - it is a mentally pondered and/or impulsive decision (a ‘choice’—- an immoral choice/decision) to abort (kill) the baby as it is developing in the womb at whatever stage (blastocyst, embryonic, fetus)

L,
“I don’t believe anyone’s right to life is absolute.” So at any moment someone could be justified in killing you or one of your children. Who should make that decision about your right to life?

Sorry, off topic—
JD When we first moved to SF, bay area, I asked some people where the coolest sushi bar in SF was.  When we got there, I looked around and they were playing “anime”.  There were framed pictures on the wall of prepubescent girls in sailor suit outfits in revealing poses, showing their underwear. My husband and I just looked at each other and said, “seriously?” Hard core “anime” porn is big with Japanese kids, and according to my kids, it has spread here as well.  Virtual sex with cartoon characters…?—Just one more creepy footnote in the culture of ME.  I understand how a secular humanist can sink to such levels, but a Catholic who stares at the most self sacrificial image in the world on Sunday??  Perhaps the explanation is that “L” is a sex worker, and has been desensitized.

Julie ,
Yup.Ultrasound’s made a huge difference.There’s hope.

Anna Lisa, perhaps I am slow on the uptake, but I just cannot understand how anyone exposed to the Catholic Mass and the Catechism of the Catholic Church can hold the opinions rendered by L.  L might be Catholic in only the most casual way.  Receiving the Eucharist while having those beliefs in your heart has got to be a mortal sin.

Julie, great point and the fact that many youger people are pro-life is often the topic of articles on this web site and others.  But the question I have is this: Why doesn’t this translate to the voting booth?

Oh and to L. I find your logic inconsistent. If there is no intrinsic right to life, then there is no intrinsic right to anything. Therefore it shouldn’t matter if women are coerced into having an abortion or doing anything against their will. Men too. Then we can all live in the Darwinian paradise of Lord of the Flies.

JD, If you think that L’s views are extremely unusual among Catholics exposed to the Mass… then I wish I lived where you live.  Here in the D.C. Suburbs, even in a truly amazing parish, I have seen things that show that some Catholics are very vocally pro-choice.  The clearest reactions are usually around the March for Life where the priests who say Mass at our Parish talk about it.

Lets be honest, there is a group of Catholics who have somehow convinced themselves that Social Justice means supporting abortion.

JD - It doesn’t translate to the voting booth because young people don’t vote and aren’t that politically active. Traditionally they have the lowest turnouts. I don’t think we’ll start seeing the effects of it until they are ready to start running for office. It’ll be awhile politically, but I do think change is in the air.

MarylandBill ,
The “OTHER” DC suburbs which belong to the Arlington, VA Catholic diocese tend to be pretty orthodox & pro-life, unless that’s changed recently

MarylandBill, sadly, you’re right.  It’s common to see Catholics in major urban areas support abortion.  Seed that falls on rock doesn’t stand too much of a chance.  I think the only reason they stay Catholic is just family tradition.  They’re cultural catholic more then anything else because they certainly don’t believe in the catechism.

Julie, thank you for your optimistic take on things.  I’m still trying to calm my stomach.  BTW, when I said that “L” might be a sex worker, I don’t want this to be interpreted as an insult.  Jesus took pity on these marginalized women—more so then on the pompous pharisees…

According to various studies 40% to 75% of employees have stolen from their employer at least once.

Why don’t we just get over it, let’s make it easier to steal from our employers.  Let’s make it so we can do it without fuss or shame.  And let’s all feel free to talk about what we stole and how it was OK for us to steal…

Julie ,
And intrinsic rights are given to us by God.When He’s denied, it all falls apart & most anything can be rationalized.

I can only assume that since L doesn’t believe that anyone has an inherent right to life, that if one day, some government executive declared that on the 4th Wednesday of the 7th month it is now legal to kill any one person of [royal] your choosing, then it would be perfectly okay for everyone to go an execute someone else (at least until they got knocked off).  I’m curious, you say you attend a Catholic Church, but how do you square away you’re viewpoint with the Commandment, Thou Shall Not Kill?

I think it is important to realize, one of the reasons that abortion and extra-marital sex is wrong is because our bodies are not, in fact, our own. They are God’s. Consequently, they are vessels in which the Holy Spirit resides. Choosing non-reproductive sex only allows you to use your partner and for your partner to use you, which hurts our dignity. So, the argument over I have the right to control my sexuality or my body or my womb is not one that fits within the Catholic cathechism, because ultimately, I owe complete obedience to God’s plan and His will for my body. Sorry, to continue the debate that is, in fact, tangential to the important points that Simcha made. But, I find that although these are things you believe, L, those arguments are just not ones most of us here can agree with you.

Simcha, Thank you for this article, especially as we are celebrating for 40 days for life.

anna lisa - I’m not sure I would say L’s a sex worker, but I would agree she almost certainly is the victim and survivor of a horrific experience.  I give her credit however for honesty.  I don’t think most pro-choice Catholics are as honest as she.  She understands abortion is the taking of an innocent life.  And I suspect whatever ordeal she’s survived has hardened her to the horror of it.

When Jesus was teaching, the women of ill repute must have hung out at the back of the crowd for a while listening.  They were considered garbage. It was a startling message, but what person, lost to cynicism and regarded as “useful flesh” wouldn’t begin to feel hope that the message might be true?  It probably took some time before their hearts were softened enough to weep at His feet.
“L”, I’m so sorry for whomever or whatever got you to the point of understanding that they are human beings, and babies, and despairing of the fact that their lives are worth fighting for.  It’s good that you spoke up to tell us where you’re at.

Simcha, I think any reasonable person would agree with your point in this article, that no woman or girl should be forced or coerced into having an abortion. It is a choice, a choice that is legal in most situations (and in my opinion should stay that way). Please don’t assume that most pro-choice people advocate forcing pregnant girls into abortion clinics against their will. That is insane. The few examples you give of forced abortions are heartbreaking. But if you’re going to attack the numbers, let’s be realistic. Do you have any data showing what percentage of abortions performed in the US are forced or coerced? Preventing forced abortions is NOT a valid reason to outlaw abortion. My guess, and my hope, is that the kind of examples you site are the exception and not the norm.

Mo, there’s been 54 million abortions since 1973, which is helping us get to the point where Greece is now - on the verge of a demogrphic and economic implosion.  And, still you think abortion is OK?  Can you not see the damage this has done?

I am one of the “1 in 3”. I’d left my first husband at the age of 19 & filed for divorce & then found out I was pregnant by him. NO “abortion alternative” center in the city would offer me a place to live while I was pregnant because I had a one year old daughter & they wouldn’t allow me to bring her with me. My mom took me to a Lutheran minister who said, “You know, it’s only a clump of cells” & so my second daughter died. Saddest of all, everyone in my fam voted for Barak 4 years ago. They totally don’t care about the granddaughter, niece, cousin etc they’ve lost to abortion & they absolutely don’t ever want to be confronted with that uncomfortable fact.

Dear Glenna ,
I’m so sorry.

Mo,
It’s above all a human rights issue.Women are a part of the issue due to biology & biology can often suck for women, but there are 2 individual human lives involved.

Way to get me to cry at work!

Julie [on Friday, Sep 28, 2012 9:21 AM (EST], please tell your friend to tell the girl that “She IS a mother.  She will always hold that baby in her heart.”  That’s what I repeatedly told people after my infant son died.

For L:

“Contraception, if used diligently and correctly, can be effective in preventing unwanted babies. (I will try to convince my daughter to get an IUD—mine served me well for years—though there are other plenty of other effective options, too.)”

Well, before I was Catholic a long time ago, I used an IUD diligently and correctly, and much to my horror, became pregnant!  Unfortunately, I had no one to talk to about my pregnancy.  Not even the doctor gave me any ideas of options/choices.  So regrettably, I had the abortion.

I took the Pill also—so did my cousin & she became pregnant also.

Ultimately, God is the one in control.

Now that I am Catholic since 1999, I don’t quite understand how you can say you are Catholic but not pro-life.  Being Catholic and professing your faith every week requires one to believe in ALL the aspects of the Church.

I know that you are not alone in your thinking, but I pray for you & your daughter and all other cafeteria Catholics that you reconsider your stance.

Sincerely and God bless!

Contrary to what most Americans think, coercion is VERY common here. It comes in many forms, from all sides and can intensify and escalate quickly to abuse, violence or homicide—the # killer of pregnant women. (See http://www.theunchoice.com/whateveryamerican.htm)

In one study of American women who’d had abortions, the majority felt “rushed,” “uncertain,” and most felt “pressured by others” (64%) yet DESPITE this 67% received NO counseling, and most were not fully informed or told of alternatives. (See link above)

Abortions are often expertly coerced, deceptively informed or sold to vulnerable individuals, couples or families, by conflicted, profit-driven business operators. (See “Blood Money” book, Gosnell horrors, etc.) Women are often further rushed or told to “shut up” if they’re scared or ask questions. Schools have bussed kids to clinics w/o their parent’s knowledge or consent. Witnesses report men waiting outside to enforce unwanted abortions. News and police reports show women have been beaten, abused, tortured or killed for resisting. (See Forced Abortion in America report.) 

All of this is human rights abuse and assembly-line medicine, negligence or malpractice at best, ironically dressed up as “choice.”

After abortion, not surprisingly, 65% suffer trauma, many have other physical and emotional scars, and maternal death rates are nearly 4 times higher. Post-abortion suicide risk and rates are also well-documented—a clear and present danger for your own loved ones.

A Godly church and civilized society can and must do better!

I am most distressed that parents are not required to have knowledge of their teenage daughters pregnancy. That is so shocking to me, that I can’t wrap my mind around it. We require 18 to vote, buy a car, sign Allan, get tattooed. Yet something as major as this, requires nothing. No age is too young and no parent to uninformed about their daughter. I’m getting nauseous just thinking about my daughter being in such an extremely emotional situation without her two greatest crusaders on her side against a world of manipulative, and coercive adults.  Tht is sad, so very sad.

I know this is going to sound extreme, but the Nazi death camps are the perfect example of how and why Catholic guards became inured to reason or moral conflict.
Years ago, I remember the shock I felt when I read what a missionary had taken note of and written in his journal.  He was ministering to a newly converted tribe that had practiced cannibalism.  He wrote about a little old grandmother who had converted, and faithfully came to mass, but still expressed a nostalgic longing for the tender meat that could be found on the hands of new infants.
No, I’m not kidding.
“My truth is not your truth”...ugh.

You also need to look at HOW they came up with that “1 in 3” number. If they take a straight average -that is, they compare the ration of the total # of women in America to the total number of abortions, then yes, you might come up with 1 in 3. But that’s as misleading as the “1 out of 2 marriages ends in divorce” -it doesn’t account for REPEAT offenders. A woman who has multiple abortions (Woopie Goldberg brags that she had 7, for example) will skew the statistics -just as a person who gets divorced many times also skews the statistics.

I do not understand why pro-choice people call themselves that, when so many women, after undergoing an abortion, say, “I felt I had no choice.”  Those two things just.do.not.compute.

Reading over my comments last night, I stand by my opinions but think I was too blunt. I usually refrain form commenting, but there was something about the “Who are the “one in three?” title of this post that made me want to say, “Potentially ME, which is why I don’t want abortion to be illegal!”  For the record, I am neither a sex worker nor “victim and survivor of a horrific experience”—I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with the same partner since I was 19 years old. While I attend mass for my own personal reasons, I don’t receive communion and I no longer self-identify as Catholic (or if I do, I am careful add, “...but not devout,” or “dissenting,” to avoid misleading). I believe that I, my daughter and all other women should be able to remove our unwanted babies from our bodies, or ideally, to take measures to prevent them in the first place. Someday, perhaps, it will be possible to remove embyros and gestate them elsewhere and abortion won’t always be fatal to the baby, and the discussion of whether abortion is moral will take another twist. (Also, I do know IUDs fail, which is why I always used mine with other forms of contraception.)

Hey Simcha, my husband just called me to say he’s coming home.  We’re going to go to happy hour at “The Boathouse”.  I can already tell what he’s going to say:  “Where’s the happy?”
happythoughts happythoughts happythoughts
babieslovedbabieslovedbabieslovedsquashysquashysquashybabiesloved…
Please traumatize us only Mon-Thurs.

Funny how they react with delight that it’s so common.  Those numbers horrified me.

But I have a question: is it really one in three women who have abortions, or one in three pregnancies that end in abortion?  Because it could just be that some women get abortions over and over.

In either case, it doesn’t address what percentage of all pregnancies end in abortion.

My 16 yo just read the thread.  He says “Mom, of course she’s a troll, she’s enjoying messing with everybody’s heads.” 
What if Jeffery Dahmer said: “I like dark meat better than white.”
Should we stay polite?

Anna Lisa, I invite you to email me at ltwaronite (at) gmail (dot) com, if this would help in any way to convince you that I am not a troll, and that my intentions are not “messing with everybody’s heads.”

My heart aches! After reading all of the comments it seems clear that we live in times that hyper focused on the individual- my body, my choice, my baby, my God, my church. What if we truly sought out the dignity of every person? In utero and out of utero. America has failed women. America has failed men. America has failed families. America has failed the human person. Consumerism and individualism; war; There has got to be a better way!

I AM one of the ONE in THREE. I was not coerced, I was taught that “it was a lump of tissue” and I willingly believed. I was taught “just get it over with and you will forget about it and it will be ok” and I willingly believed. I SINNED…and he was gone, forever, but then I MET JESUS…and HE touched me, put his finger under my chin, lifted my face up to His, kissed my forehead…and said “YOU ARE FORGIVEN” and I believed and I was loved, once again. Then, the GUILT, the blessed gift of crying for hours in bitter repentance. Finally, realizing that I was a forgive murderer, which made His Gift to me even MORE precious. She who had been forgiven much loves so MUCH! I could feel the blessed Guilt which made me rejoin the human race and the Body of Christ. Finally, He brought me into His One True Church, back Home to where I was born. I will stand one the street corner for five weeks in October holding up my “I regret my abortion” sign. Penance is another grace that My Church offers! Praise You Lord for saving me! I love you Jesus!

It is hard to read those affidavits. It is MALPRACTICE what those abortion clinics—largely Planned Parenthood have done to those women. Planned Parenthood should be held accountable for coercion—these abortions which were coerced should have been stopped by Planned Parenthood because it is against the law to coerce a woman to have an abortion. Clearly, in those affidavits, Planned Parenthood and all the people coercing these women were acting illegally—and that is the point, I think, of the article.
And then to turn around and use these crimes to support abortion statistics is insane because that does not count!

Hopefully, these affidavits are for a class action lawsuit against these abortion agencies who are breaking the law and coercing women who are now scarred for life!

How frightening that this occurs in our country and the pro-choice viewpoint is so prevalent among Catholics.

The Lord is ever forgiving and merciful and turns all to good—so there is always hope and healing. My prayers go out to these women and all who coerced them…God knows the needs in each of these peoples’ hearts—may His Will be done.

@ Alex - I love you!!!
.
You are forgiven. You are precious. You are His!
.
.
.
@ L - if you don’t believe the statistics surrounding coercion, remember in America, workers in Planned Parenthood clinics don’t explain the options to young girls.  They swiftly influence them to the abortion - as soon as they understand they’re pregnant.  They don’t even give them a chance to process it.  Most people would call that coercion.

Thank you Renae and L., in all love, I will pray for your conversion.

Renae, have you ever been a patient at a Planned Parenthood clinic? I have—for many years, they were my main health-care provider. They helped me avoid pregnancy. They also referred a friend of mine in a crisis pregnancy to social services, so that she could give birth to her baby.

It seems L is the polite one here for not calling some of us out on being patronizing and assuming.  I don’t agree with L’s pro-abortion stance, but she has the right to discuss her point of view without being labelled a troll, sex worker, or some sad victim of a horrible experience.

I find it very symbolic, irrespective of any accuracy.

For me, it’s the ‘mark of the beast’, the antithesis of our Faith: the 3 in 1.

There is another important way to look at the statistics.  I have not researched this recently; however, I believe it is still true.  Abortion is defined as a Dialation and Cutterage (DNC).  This is not strictly used for abortion.  I had a miscarriage and had to have a DNC to protect my fertility.  While abortion is rampant and needs to be stopped, I think that the 1 in 3 campaign is misleading, because they are misquoting numbers to make a point.  Perhaps 1/3rd of Women will need to have a DNC, but certainly not all of those are for an abortion.

I must be minus two because not only have I never had an abortion, but never had birth control, never even had sex (I’m a virgin). AND I can count the number of times I’ve had dates on the fingers of one hand.

R, The reverse may also be true. I’ve been a nurse for many yrs & many hospitals don’t want to admit to performing abortions so they’ll categorize 1st trimester ABs as “D&C”. There’s always a way to play with stats.

I don’t believe someone can speak so cavalierly of killing children without having had something go horribly wrong in their background.  Un-traumatized pro-choice people need to believe the fetus (with the separate DNA) is not a human being.

Eileen, I’m sorry I don’t fit comfortably into your world view. I acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, and I still don’t think women should be legally compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. And nothing traumatic happened to me—I was raised in a loving, devout Catholic pro-life family and married my college sweetheart. Not everyone who holds a view you find abhorrent is a traumatized person.

L, what is your position? Is this correct?

You hold that a woman is in control, possesses, her body and the baby is a baby inside the woman.
That the woman ultimately decides whether the baby should live or not because the baby is “a part” of her?
And this is not murder because of the second point?

I’ve heard that logic before: From plantation owners who believed that their slaves were ‘part’ of their holdings. And, legally, they were. Bought & paid for.
  Even though Dred Scott was enshrined in USA law by the Supreme Ct, it still ignored the Dignity of the Human Person who happened to be a slave. That’s the same reason that Roe v Wade will eventually fall & bring all it’s advocates with it.
  God hears the cry of the poor, blessed be the Lord.

L - It’s not that *I* find it abhorrent.  It is objectively abhorrent.  It is a denial of the Social Contract.

Re the “pro-choice Catholic” issue:  I volunteer at a local pregnancy clinic and on the same day spoke to two women, one of whom was not religious at all and believed that her baby was just a blob of tissue that she wanted to carry and would have.  The other described herself as a Christian, said she knew her baby was a human life and was determined to have an abortion.  Unfortunately, this inconsistency is pretty common.  In fact, in my personal experience, there is no difference in attitude toward the unborn based on religious experience.  I don’t understand why and would love to have another person weigh in.
On the subject of coercion and a woman’s “choice:”  I was recently blessed to be present when a woman who was determined to have an abortion saw her child on an ultrasound and changed her mind.  We are told by the pro-abortion faction that it is wrong to ask women to see an ultrasound before she has an abortion but when I recently had a very routine D & C I was forced to hear all my options and all that could go wrong with the procedure, so that I could make an informed choice.  Anyone care to comment on this inconsistency.  And BTW, I guess I, a 49 year old menopausal woman, am now one of the “1 in 3.”  Could someone please turn on the air conditioning for us.

The difference between the slavery comparison is crucial: My body is not a plantation. In fact, this is the crux of the reason why I, too, oppose coerced abortions, even though I have no moral qualms against abortion itself—the woman isn’t being allowed to use her own body as she sees fit. Also, again, for the record, I have never had a surgical abortion, (though I know in my heart I would), and I think abortions are undesirable and worth avoiding. I have been very careful to avoid being in a situation in which I would have one. And “objectively abhorrent” is an oxymoron. One woman’s blessing is another woman’s curse.

“I recognize the humanity, but because <insert criteria> I am entitled to take the life.”

Choices:

1. It’s an unborn child dependent on my body for nutrients.
2. It’s a 3 month old child dependent on my income for nutrients.
3. It’s an unemployed person dependent on my tax dollars for nutrients.
4. It’s a Jew destroying our society.
5. It’s a Christian contradicting my religious beliefs.

Human life is human life. God gave us the right to life, not my mother, not my government.  God is the only one that has the right to take that right away.

Consent to sex equal consents to the risk of pregnancy.  At least that is how the law treats men, and rightfully so.  In my work (family law) I’ve heard many male clients complain that they are ordered to pay child support, when they didn’t want a baby and the women involved could have had abortions instead.  At least one judge was blunt: “then keep your pants zipped up”.  I agree that with that statement, for both men and women.  Yet if a judge had said that to a woman, he would probably end up being reprimanded or fired.

L, your ideas are monstrous.  Several people here have given you sufficient reason to reflect.  If you are not a troll, you are a narcissistic sociopath.  Please look up the symptoms.

Consent to sex does equal consent to the risk of pregnancy, and abortion is one way to manage those risks. Contraception is an even better way.

Anna Lisa, I am all too familiar with narcissistic sociopaths, and I assure you that I am not one, just because I happen to believe very different things than you do about a particular subject.

It is difficult to imagine anything more completely innocent, and completely defenceless, than an unborn child.  Yet is their bodies who are dismembered and unceremoniously dumped into hospital incinerators.  The injustice of the situation is appalling.  Talk about an imposition.

Most young women facing an unexpected pregnancy think of only two choices:  either giving birth to and caring for a baby for 18 to 20 years, or having an abortion.  Sadly, very few consider giving birth to the baby, then giving her or him up for adoption.  Couples unable to have biological children of their own sometimes wait years to adopt a baby.
At the home for women in crisis pregnancy at which I occasionally volunteer, more than 90% of the women giving birth keep their babies. Don’t know how many of the 90% give serious consideration to the possibility of adoption.
TeaPot562

L, I find this interesting as an attempt to understand a very alien POV. I’ve been trying to think of other situations that would parallel your rationale for abortion, to test my understanding of your reasoning. Please correct me if you see a flaw either in my understanding, or in my application.

Your reasoning is that a woman must be allowed full control of her body, and that killing another human is justified in order to maintain that control. Abortion is therefore justified because pregnancy alters a woman’s body, its functions and operation, whether or not she directly (as opposed to indirectly) wills to have those alterations happen.

To find a parallel, we need another situation in which one human being’s bodily control and autonomy is threatened by the very existence of another human being.

This is what I came up with: http://www.twinstuff.com/conjoined.htm
With conjoined twins, one twin often has the bulk of the organ load, which then must support the other twin. The weaker twin depends upon the stronger, and would not be able to live should they be surgically altered. The stronger twin may in fact have better health if rid of the extra energy, blood, etc requirements of the weaker twin.

By your reasoning, it ought to be legal and acceptable for a doctor to agree to perform seperation surgery against the will of one half of a conjoined pair, should the stronger twin express a desire to assert control over his body, which is being ‘used’ as life support by his twin.

(I don’t believe this is legal or considered medically ethical. Contemporary ethical standards require that separation of conjoined twins only be attempted when there is a reasonable hope of survival for both twins, or if both twins would die without separation.)

Have I applied your reasoning correctly?

(I have some questions about control of ones bodily functions too…since there are multiple ways in which others can affect an individuals bodily function, most of which are completely out of an individual’s control. Curious by which principle you have decided that this right to bodily autonomy is absolute and primary)

“Curious by which principle you have decided that this right to bodily autonomy is absolute and primary.”—> It just seems like good common sense to me. It’s MY body, so stay out of it unless I consent, etc. The arguments I’ve heard (“It’s not your body, it’s God’s!” etc.) aren’t very convincing, to a non-religious person. 
And there is nothing perfectly analogous to a pregnancy (I’ve heard organ donation used as an example, but it’s also different. The Siamese twin situation comes close. However, one twin would have to be perfectly inside the body of another and totally dependent upon it, for that comparison to work—and then they wouldn’t be conjoined, but rather parasitic twins.

Can I ask a question, too? If abortion = murder, then by that definition, a woman like me is a potential murderer (perhaps even an actual one, if you include whether years of contraception use might have prevented any embryos from implanting). How should society deal with women who understand abortion as I do, and believe a zygote is a baby, and yet are not pro-life? Should society take away our born children? Should we be subject to routine pregnancy testing, in the interest of protecting any babies we might happen to conceive? I wonder, if any of the “personhood” legislation were to past, what’s in store for women like me, and our families?

Pro-choice politicians here in Canada have suggested that pro-lifers would have to keep pregnant women in jails to prevent them from aborting.  I don’t see that as the case.  Society does not usually incarcerate people for a crime that they might potentially commit in the future tense, except maybe in special circumstances where violence has been threatened.  I see it more as a case of limiting access to abortion services and aiming the punitive measures against those who perform the abortions.  I don’t see any need to take away birth control pills or born children.

Your argument doesn’t make sense. I am 100% on board with pro-life. NFP…the whole deal. But your argument against those who say women who should be able to get abortion without shame and pressure and what not…is to show women who suffer from shame and pressure and what not. Circular argument.

“...except maybe in special circumstances where violence has been threatened.” I think women indifferent to the fate of their embyros might qualify. I remember when I first got my IUD, a prolife women in my mothers’ group at the time told me it was exactly “like strangling a baby in a stroller.” I think she would describe the pill that way, too. People are arrested to leaving children unattended in cars, even on cool days, because of laws to prevent the possibility of harm. If abortion were illegal, and a woman was known to be considering ending a pregnancy, why wouldn’t her family alert the authorities to prevent it?
The examples in the original post about woman coerced into abortions—awful. The examples in comments, about women who had abortions and didn’t grasp what they were doing, or felt as if they had no choice, and regretted it later—also awful. But the women who freely choose abortion…another story. And the ending is still being written.

L -

The law constantly takes into account what is and isn’t practically enforceable. It is not practical to attempt to prevent women from harming their unborn children (anymore than it would be practical to put all parents under 24 hour surveillance to prevent them from potentially harming their children). I think what we as prolifers want is merely to remove all societal approbation and enabling of abortion, to make protection of the weakest among us a societal standard again. After all, abortion has only been acceptable or legal for a very short period of time in western society, and prior to that women were not stalked or their privacy invaded in order to protect the unborn - legal penalties largely fell on those who performed abortions or acted as middle men.

As it happens, I do think bodily integrity and autonomy is very important. I just don’t believe it to be of primary and overweening importance. Any right I desire for myself I have to be willing to grant others, especially the helpless - and to ME, it is self-evident that when two sets of rights are in conflict and cannot both be resolved, the strong should always give way to the weak, so that the least harm possible is done. My right to bodily autonomy doesn’t trump my babies right to bodily integrity - her greater need gives her rights primacy. This at least is a consistent ethic, which I make every effort to live by in more situations than merely this one.

I notice you didn’t actually answer or analyze my analogy at all. Of course there will be differences between the examples, that’s what makes it an analogy, and what makes it useful - the utility of analogy is to clarify what the true principles at play are, by removing as many extraneous particular details as possible while retaining the key issue at play. What I was trying to clarify is if your belief that bodily autonomy justifies murder was at all consistent - whether it is truly a principle you would apply to situations you may never personally be involved in, or whether you only apply it when it benefits you. And if it is not a principle, then I would be curious to know what principles, if any, you do hold.

So, let’s try this again - would you agree that the stronger conjoined twin is justified in seeking to have the weaker, parasitic twin (yes, biologically parasitic, if the weaker twin depends upon the stronger twins digestive system or other organs) surgically removed even if death is a certainly for the weaker twin, and the weaker twin is either unwilling or incapable of giving assent? A yes or no would suffice to begin with.

Kate

Don’t confuse the simple truth with the complexities of enforcement.  We understand that in the case of murder there are sometimes circumstances where people threatening murder can be detained prior to actually committing a crime.  But, it is complex and frequently threats are insufficient for legal action.  That complication doesn’t cause us to argue the that murder is wrong. 

Abortion is murder.  It is wrong.  How we legislate and enforce doesn’t change the inherent evil of taking another life when they place their own desires over the rights of others to live.

You recognize the humanity, but you have come up with a personal justification for ending that life.  In their own minds, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein were all equally “justified” in their judging some lives as undeserving of protection.

Kate, I would have to know more about the circumstances of your bizarre Siamese twin example before I said either yes or no—my answer would be, sometimes, yes, I’d say the stronger twin should be able to seek removal of the weaker one under some circumstances.
You say, “This at least is a consistent ethic, which I make every effort to live by in more situations than merely this one,” but “primacy of preserving my own bodily integrity” is also consistent. When rights are in conflict, it is certainly charitable for the strong to give way to the weak—and for mothers to choose to give their children life—but I don’t believe this should be codified into law. And as I’ve said, and will say again, the best answer to abortion is to avoid the situations in which a woman faces one.

L.,

Greetings and peace be with you.

I would like to reply to your comment:

Posted by L. on Sunday, Sep 30, 2012 1:28 AM (EST):

Can I ask a question, too? If abortion = murder, then by that definition, a woman like me
is a potential murderer (perhaps even an actual one, if you include whether years of
contraception use might have prevented any embryos from implanting). How should society
deal with women who understand abortion as I do, and believe a zygote is a baby, and yet
are not pro-life? Should society take away our born children? Should we be subject to
routine pregnancy testing, in the interest of protecting any babies we might happen to
conceive? I wonder, if any of the “personhood” legislation were to past, what’s in store
for women like me, and our families?

You raise a good point about the practical implications of “personhood” or any similar
legislations given the number of people who have used contraception or obtained an
abortion.

Setting aside this question for a moment, though, it may be good to consider the
assumption made at the beginning of your comment: is abortion = murder?

Using the common definition of “murder” as “the killing of another human being”, I would
argue that abortion is indeed murder since the procedure involves the deliberate
termination of a human life inside of his/her mother’s womb. You’ve mentioned earlier that
the unborn is a “baby” (instead of a simple zygote or “lump of cells”) and you even
“acknowledge the humanity of the unborn”.

Wouldn’t ending the life of a baby, another human being, be considered murder?

What if the baby in question also happens to be a girl or woman like yourself, who will
grow up to have “full control of her bodily functions”?

Are you implying that as long as she is a part of you in your womb, she is simply another
part of your “bodily function” which can be controlled/removed/killed without impunity? Is a person a person
only after he/she has safely escaped from the mercy of his/her mother in the womb?

I look forward to your responses. Thank you.

Longtime lurker here—formerly pro-choice, and now completely not, mostly due to reading Simcha and Jen Fulweiler, and actually *thinking* about what abortion is and means.

Abortion relies on the concept of Otherness. Either “it’s not a person” or “it’s a person, but…” It’s what comes after the “but” that’s so important, and that most pro-choice advocates don’t want to take to a logical conclusion.

- but it’s not viable yet (even as this line slides further and further back)
- but it won’t know what’s happening and it will be over quickly
- but I had a plan for my life that I don’t want to alter
- but I can’t afford one
- but I’m in a terrible situation, etc.

The last is the hardest one to combat, mostly because issues of personhood (such as a woman’s right not to be abused by a partner) have been falsely paired with the “right” to kill another human being. No sane person would argue that you could kill a 3-year-old child, or 3-month-old child, to potentially ease your own suffering, or cast the odds of a better future more firmly in your favor. (Yet.)  The conclusions themselves are so dire, so tacit an acceptance of rhetoric we rightly condemn (regarding slavery, or ethnic cleansing). No one wants to grapple with those issues, or think they apply, merely for the reason that they don’t want to think of themselves as that person, thinking in that way. And so they close their eyes as they step across that line in the sand.

L.,  Thank you so much for your well thought out and honest comments.  I appreciate your willingness to face this issue head on and to state your beliefs without apology.
If I may, I would like to put a question to you.  Do you consider your train of thought the best possible for society in general?  In other words, is the principle of “Any baby unlucky enough to grow inside me certainly doesn’t” have “an intrinsic right to life” as good as it gets?  Would society be hurt or harmed if everyone thought your way?
The reason I ask is that it seems to me that we should always be striving as a people to improve ourselves and move civilization forward rather than simply maintain the status quo or even go backwards.  In fact, as a historian I can say that most of the advancements made throughout the centuries were based on groups of people working together for a common good rather than thinking only of their personal rights and safety.  Within these groups, at least over the past millennium, the strong have acted to protect the weak rather than eliminate them.  Thus, I respectfully submit that your outlook on this subject is actually harmful to society in general and therefore of concern to all.

@L: 

Do you realize that there are now thousands of people praying for you?Confession is good for the soul.  Remember that God loves you.  Obedience to God is what keeps us in contact with reality.

L, I am going to be just as blunt as you have been.  If you think I am being patronizing, fine, I can deal with that, and I bet you’ll be angry for a while and then get over it someday.  I am not a professional and I do not know whether it was nature or nuture that made you this way, but it isn’t right or normal to have such callous disregard that you would, with full knowledge, kill someone if (s)he got in the way of your good life or good time.  (Do you understand why people had a gut reaction to the Casey Anthony case, leaving aside the issue of whether she actually did it or not, which is something we may never know?)  You may think you are simply expressing another perfectly valid viewpoint, but why do you have it?  Consider: if you were different, would you have a different opinion?  Personality disorder - once known as ‘moral insanity’ - didn’t just cross Anna Lisa’s mind, and there are people with it who come from model families, who have jobs and get married.  The majority of them aren’t unintelligent or necessarily criminal, they just lack empathy for those weaker than themselves and see little reason to rein in their impulses unless out of fear of punishment—which is very similar to what you have told us.  Seriously, that’s recognized as an exception to our being social creatures and it horrifies average people for good reasons.  What stops you from killing your born children if they cramp your style?  Do you tell your daughter as coolly as you tell us that her mother would have killed her if she was “unlucky”?  I was going to say that girls who become sexually active in their early to mid teens are more likely to do drugs, drink, and be depressed, but sheesh, why should it matter if she could just as easily be dead.  I will of course pray, but if a number of people saw this and had a red flag go up that something is wrong, maybe something is wrong and you should consider getting to the root of it. *Sigh* Or not…up to you.

L, your friend they referred was in an extreme minority.  If you don’t believe me, look at PP’s annual reports.  If I told you what the ratio was (it was high, stacked against such referrals) you’d swear I was lying, I can’t make this stuff up.
-
“Consent to sex does equal consent to the risk of pregnancy”
Bull crap.  It’s there whether you consent to it or not.  Reality isn’t going to wait around for your consent.

Ray, I’m sorry but just because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t make it a circular argument.  These women were shamed and pressured *to get* abortions.  That’s the whole point.

“Do you tell your daughter as coolly as you tell us that her mother would have killed her if she was “unlucky”?—> Yes, in so many words. I have discussed abortion and contraception with all of my children, and they all know why they will never have any younger siblings (despite their father’s unfulfilled longing for a big family).

Enness, I suggest you read complete sentences before you say, “Bull crap,” because I was actually saying that yes, consent to sex DOES consent to the risk of a pregnancy. Contraception/abortion are my way of managing that risk.

Perhaps “No sane person would argue that you could kill a 3-year-old child, or 3-month-old child,” but the crucial difference is that they are outside their mothers’ bodies, and can be easily taken away. It’s the “inside my body” part that makes a big difference, in my mind (though I realize it doesn’t matter to everyone).

Susan, yes, I do you consider my train of thought the best possible for society in general. It is the responsibility of every individual to manage his/her well-being, and if someone chooses to use their body to nurture the weak, it is a very noble sacrifice. However, I don’t think they should be legally compelled to do so.

It is true what Kate says above, that “legal penalties largely fell on those who performed abortions or acted as middle men.” The women seeking abortions were usually off the hook (so to speak), and many of them were indeed victims themselves. Some of them, though, surely knew what they were doing. If abortion is indeed murder, and if the personhood legislation passes, I don’t see how the government would get around the quandary of women like me, whose pro-abortion rights views as well as use of potentially abortifacient contraception really would become the legal equivalent of letting our toddlers play in the street in heavy traffic. If I ever said, “My daughter is annoying and inconveniencing me, so I am planning to murder her,” then I certainly hope someone would stop me. But if I said, “I am taking measures to prevent embryos from attaching to my uterus,” I would of course NOT want someone to stop me. And yet someone who believes those statements are exactly the same might try.

L., Thank you so much for your honest response.  If I may continue our discussion, then, would you likewise oppose drafting men and women to defend the rights of those too weak to defend themselves?  While we currently have a volunteer army in America, during the Civil War soldiers were drafted to fight to end slavery, that is the strong were forced to act on behalf of the weak.  Likewise, during World War II, soldiers were sent from around the world to save the lives of the Jews being killed in Germany.  Was this wrong?  If in the future, America were threatened by a country that wanted to take away your freedom to choose, would you be comfortable with the men of the nation, who still make up the vast majority of the armed forces, saying simply, “I’ll sit this one out because I will never be pregnant,” or would your want the government to force them to fight on your behalf?

“and if someone chooses to use their body to nurture the weak, it is a very noble sacrifice. However, I don’t think they should be legally compelled to do so.”

And the Nazi’s felt that they should not feel obligated to nurture or tolerate Jews…  You wave off the idea of a 3 mon
Th old vein killed for similar causes because “they are outside their mothers’ bodies, and can be easily taken away” but what happens when everyone decides that someone else’s child is not worth the effort?  You end up with more dead babies than the Nazi’s and Stalin combined took human lives.  It is a human bing, but you are using your ownership of your body as a justification for murder.  Every human is dependent on others for survival, when a society decides that ownership of the means to support life is of greater import than life itself, that is when holocausts occur.  You are on the side if evil, justifying murder I I is more convenient for you than say chastity or NFP or bringing the life into the world and offering it up for adoption for one hat truly understands what love is.

You’re right, Jay, NFP and chastity are definitely not for me.

Kate, coincidentally, I was just talking about the draft with a veteran friend of mine who was a U.S. Special Forces officer, and he said he likes the concept of a volunteer army because it was easier for him to command people who enlisted willingly. I suppose in wartime, a draft makes sense for men (and women, too—why should women be exempt?), but I would argue that it should include some kind of system for conscientious objectors. Similarly, doctors who oppose abortion shouldn’t be required to perform them.

L,

You sure like to ignore the arguments made against your position.  I am also beginning to believe you are a troll, otherwise you would defend your position against the logical arguments made.  I’m going to give you one last logical argument, ignore it and I will conclude you are a troll.  Try this:

You rationalize that a born child is a different case from unborn as the child can easily be moved to a new support system.  So, logically we can deduce that you feel court ordered child support is immoral, correct?  After all if the bread-winner of a family decides it is too much of an inconvenience to them, they have the right to their body and the fruits of its labors, and support can easily be found elsewhere, right?  

And, of course, we should eliminate the practice of paternity cases and ordering child support, or we would logically give the man the right to control your body and order an abortion of a child he does not want to support.  Correct? 

I am not a statistician but those 1 in 3 figures seemed scued to me.I worked in maternity and the woman’s health history is part of her chart, eg how many pregnancies, live births, abortions etc. Abortions /miscarriages are grouped together, and I can honestly say i don’t believe i saw one out of three, even including miscarriages.  I know part of the pro-abortion agenda is to make pro -lifers feel self -conscientious about bringing up the subject. Its taboo in many circles, and i cannot help but be aware that when any mention of pro-life topic/ or abortion topic arises that one of the women present may have had one. But certainly not one third.
Now it is entirely possible the statistic is higher if one was to include the unknown abortions by all women taking birth control pills, IUDs, etc. But I would say most women are unaware of this, they don’t seem to understand the abortificient effects.  What is deplorable is the governments denial/ of the harmful effects this all has on women.

L –I’m glad you are on here, and find it noteworthy and encouraging that you are.  I hope that you find yourself among friends even if we do not share your viewpoint.  I just wanted to say to you that my heart really goes out to you because I was once on your side doing what you do.  I do understand your argument of MY body because it was MY argument.  But I’ve learned that being so autonomous, independent and exercising freedom as a license is not good for a person.  It only leads to a downward inward looking spiral and self-serving attitude that is completely unhealthy for ourselves and others around us. And I applaud the efforts of everyone here (and you especially for hearing them out) who wish to impart this knowledge on you as well.  But only God has the power to save us from ourselves.  I pray God send you the opportunity.  Please don’t ever consider stopping going to mass whatever the reason is you go there for.  God is compelling you to be there because He wants you there.  And for your benefit, I do too.

Jay, I don’t get what you’re trying to say, sorry. All of the examples you give are outside my body.
Jennifer, thank you and so many others for your civility. I understand your point of view, too, because it used to mine—I was pro-life, but changed my mind and I now hold the complete opposite view. People told me that when I had children of my own, I would change back, but if anything, my experiences with pregnancy just reinforced my thinking.

Amen Simcha. Your anger is spot on! And just so refreshing in this mediocre debate.
I’ve been volunteer pregnancy counselor for over 7 years. And it absolutely breaks my heart how it is the women who don’t stand up for other women. The absolute cruelty of telling another woman that an abortion is ok, and a routine, quick fix solution to an “unwanted situation” angers me go the core. It sure is a big LIE, and Ms Fisher you call it right!
I don’t know where to begin - read the research, statistics and horror stories of women hurt by abortion. When you get off the phone from a woman who is a rambling mental mess from aborting her twins because everyone told her it was hard. Or listen to the woman who has suffered depression for an abortion performed 15 years ago, and has had tremendous pain raising the 3children she now has because no one believes her when she says it ruined her life. Or the teenager who wants to keep the baby, but her dad is threatening her. I could go on…
So, so-called “pro-choicer”, keep the myth, and keep fooling yourself in thinking you are advancing the feminist cause, and empowering women…keep hitting your head against that hard brick wall and telling yourself it feels good, telling the next woman it doesn’t hurt. Keep lying to sound like you’re “progressive” and “intelligent”. Cause, all you are doing is deceiving your fellow woman, and making big bucks for this monster of an abortion industry.
Keep talking the truth Simcha. God Bless you.

L - Pro-life previously, pro-choice now, I think it is irrelavant for you at this point. As it really seems more like it’s your view of autonomy, independence, and freedom that need tweeking. One can hold pro-life views for completely wrong reasons you know. But if you can get these other things right, you would be pro-life and for the right reasons. You strike me as being intelligent and really having a mind for justice based on your comments. And that is good! But mercy is always greater than justice. And we are only truly happy when we “know” this.

Yes, but one can’t legislate mercy, and I don’t think it’s even wise to try.

Ez,
I think the “big bucks” part is key.

I agree with you 100%, you can not compell mercy through law. Or any virtue like charity either. But, we can not allow certain behaviors to be tolerated either, just becuase we can’t compell people to be merciful towards each other.  Hence the whole purpose of laws in the first place.  If we can not regulate ourselves properly, laws are necessary to compell honest people to at least do the right thing even if they don’t want to.

“Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.”
William Shakespeare

Control of one’s body is not as limited as you view it.  Take the example of a man being forced to pay child support.  Money to pay that is earned through the use of his body.  He is being forced to devote some portion of his bodily freedom to the support of someone he does not desire to support. 

The woman carrying a child in her womb is devoting some portion of her bodily freedom to support a life as well.  A woman doesn’t give up 100% autonomy for 9 months.  Just some autonomy for a 9 month period.  The parent forced to pay child support gives up some autonomy for 18 years.

And, what is crucial to recognize is this:  You are valuing your pleasure, your enjoyment, your freedom over life. 

You aren’t valuing your life over another life.  But your quality of life over another’s right to even live.  That is the height of narcissism that led to the most tragic events in human history.  Slavery, holocaust, Stalin’s USSR, Chairman Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  All the result of placing individual or collective quality of life ahead of the right to life.

You can contemplate bodily freedom only because you have the right to life.  If you don’t have a right to life, there is no discussion of whether you have any measure of bodily freedom.

Place individual bodily freedom ahead of the right to life and you end up giving up bodily freedom too…  Because anyone else can then claim that your existence impedes their right to freely enjoy life…  Or that the taking of your life is necessary to guarantee their quality of life. The Jews put an unjust burden on German society, they had a negative impact on the German quality of life, therefore, the Nazis were justified in taking the lives of those that adversely impacted their perceived quality of life. 

Life itself is of infinitely greater value than quality of life.  Any other model undermines all attempts at freedom and justice.

Keep the proper perspective, that life is the ultimate right that all else must harmonize with that right and you will have the greatest freedom possible.  Though complete freedom is not possible in this life…

In that moment when the moon eclipsed the sun all one could smell was the stink of death.  Three figures hung, naked, bent and still.  Only their hair, matted with blood, stirred in the wind. Mary knelt trembling beneath Her son’s sacred feet. A small drop of blood mixed with water fell upon her grieving head.  If she could have, she would have died with him, to save us.
.
Eve regarded the tree with sensual expectation.  The fruit was comely, undoubtedly, as was the low, calm voice of the serpent, whose scales shone like jewels in the brilliant light of the garden. “Go on”, he intoned smoothly, “...and if you partake of it, you will be like *Him*—no longer subjects…You will be like Gods.”

You know, this thread’s starting to read like a Flannery O’Connor story.

Well then, by all means here’s some O’Connor for you…“At its best our age is an age of searchers and discoverers, and at its worst, an age that has domesticated despair and learned to live with it happily.” ;)

Thanks, Jennifer!

L. You addressed Kate but I think you meant to reply to me.  I guess that just shows how complicated this discussion has gotten. 
If I understand what you said in your comment about the draft, it makes perfect sense that volunteering is preferable. In the world we have now, a volunteer army meets our nation’s needs.  However, if there were not enough volunteers to defend your rights as a woman from the dictates of an extremist Muslim country that would enforce Islamic standards of dress and behavior, would you want the American government to force others to use their bodies and likely lose their lives to defend not the life but simply the rights of the weaker party (you)?  The conscientious objection option would apply only to those who did not believe in fighting at all, not those who simply didn’t want to fight for a particular reason.

Simcha, I apologize for getting so far off the topic you previously raised.  Here is a “hot off the presses” offering to make amends.  Just a few hours ago I opened up the file on a woman who, just over a year ago, was forced to have an abortion by her father.  Even now she is in danger of losing her home if she doesn’t do it again.  I guess we should be thankful that she has the right to choose between the life of her child and her own education or shelter.  Imagine a world in which such a choice didn’t exist.

It might be valuable for people to read the preamble of U S Constitution.  It reads:
*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*
Posterity, as in future generations of Americans as of yet unborn.  How does one “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for “Posterity,” when that “Posterity” is being aborted?  Does one generation owe anything to any other generation? This article makes one wonder about how solid “We the People” really are. 

“...would you want the American government to force others to use their bodies and likely lose their lives to defend not the life but simply the rights of the weaker party (you)?”
No, but I doubt I would have a choice in the matter.
And getting back to law, if I ever lived in a place where contraception & abortion were illegal, I imagine I would have had lots of suspicious “miscarriages.” Women who want to end pregnancies usually find ways to do it, and I believe I would, even if the law weren’t on my side as it is now.

L. Thank you again for your honesty.  I am impressed that you are willing to apply the same standard to others that you apply to yourself.  While I don’t agree with your premise that each person thinking only of herself even to the detriment of everyone around her is the best way to live, I appreciate you willingness to admit it.  Most people would not, especially the millions of Jews and African Americans whose lives and freedom were saved by a government willing to demand the ultimate sacrifice from its citizens.

L if you could answer this question- why do you grant yourself the right to choose if your unborn child lives or dies? I don’t understand this, because that child is a separate entity to you. You don’t own it. You trump it’s rights because it can’t defend itself yet. I wish people would call a spade a spade.
On the otherhand, If you want to remove a kidney, then you have a right to because that kidney belongs to you, it serves you, is part of you (keeps you alive), then you can freely say you do not want it.
But another life…? I don’t understand- you see, I’m 5months pregnant with my third, with surprise baby, at it was never a consideration or option for me, because deep down and instinctively I know it’s not my right. I don’t own my child. I own my organs, I own my thoughts, but how can I own another life- I don’t even own my children. Correct?
If you fall pregnant (because you chose to have intercourse, no matter your circumstance- married, unmarried, young or old), and don’t want the baby, then why not give it to someone that desperately does, instead of giving yourself the liberty to end it’s life. I don’t understand the logic! I don’t think I ever will.

Ez, congratulations. I am truly happy to hear of other people’s good news. And I think I DO “call a spade a spade,” when I refer to embryos/zygotes as babies instead of by their technical description or as something like “clumps of cells” (which I always thought was pretty meaningless—I mean, aren’t we ALL clumps of cells, really?). I said, my rights to my bodily integrity trump its right to life, and it doesn’t get more “call-a-spade-a-spade” than that. Why do I “grant” myself this right? Well, because claiming control over the inside of my body and what I use it for just seems like common sense to me. It seems no less arbitrary than claiming that something growing inside me has an absolute right to life. You say, “deep down and instinctively I know it’s not my right,” but not everyone feels that way. But I think I understand how you feel, and I understand why you don’t understand how I do.

L, why does the temporarily “loss” of bodily integrity trump the permanent state of death for an innocent child? It does not seem logical that a temporary condition entered into by a consensual physical act (99% of the time) should trump a death sentence handed down to a human being innocent of any fault in the situation.
.
Also, the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade actually declined to use bodily integrity as a basis for its decision: “...appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. ... In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.”

See, I DO believe that “the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.” That is in fact a very good summary of what I believe. I do engage in consensual sex, but I am absolutely closed to life and I don’t see this as in any way consenting to a baby, and therefore I have no qualms about doing all I can do reduce the risk of one befalling me—so yes indeed, I would opt for the permanent state of death for an innocent child over the temporary loss of my bodily integrity (and in fact I DO opt for this, if you count my abortifacient contraception as such). Abortion, though, is a last resort if much better preventive measures fail. I never hope to have one. In fact, I think the certitude that I would have one if I got pregnant again makes me extra cautious about preventing a pregnancy. Abortion, for me, is its own deterrent.

Why should your right to bodily integrity trump an innocent child’s right to life, L. - especially when you are freely and consensually engaging in the act that is biologically meant to create babies?
.
It’s like saying that you want to eat anything and everything you want, but you have the right not to digest the food. You want to separate a biological function from its intended purpose but nature doesn’t work that way. IOW, you can’t be “closed to life” while engaging in sex anymore than you can be “closed to digestion” while eating.

JoAnna, I just ate some zero calorie mango jelly things. I tricked my body into thinking I was giving it a little sugar, a little fat, a little sustenance, when in fact all I gave myself was a little pleasure. Non-procreative sex is very similar. It’s not for everyone, but some of us prefer it. Different tastes and all that.
And it’s a circular argument, you know. I will keep insisting that my bodily integrity trumps even an innocent child’s right to life, and some people will keep insisting otherwise. We will never agree on this.

Yes, L, and if you tried to subsist solely on the mango jelly things, you would soon start it.
.
Doesn’t it bother you at all that you cannot articulate logically why your right to bodily integrity trumps an innocent child’s right to life?  You keep insisting that it does, but you cannot explain why. Shouldn’t your belief in your “righ"t to kill a child - to deprive another human being of his or her rights - rest on something a little more definitive?

*start it = starve to death. Stupid phone.

Are we missing another important point?  The social concerns deficit created by aborting 55 million babies.  Think of all the contributions made to human life that were aborted away for whatever reason.  God has a purpose for EVERYONE. Balance the few months in the womb against the years of life.  A no brainer on the scale of life. Let’s give everyone a chance.  Let’s help the women to choose life.

L,

Yesterday you said, “I suppose in wartime, a draft makes sense for men (and women, too—why should women be exempt?), but I would argue that it should include some kind of system for conscientious objectors. Similarly, doctors who oppose abortion shouldn’t be required to perform them.”

So, a soldier is drafted to defend the lives, freedom, or quality of life for those that cannot defend themselves.  They are willing to give their life that you can live better.  You concede that the soldier should be able to file a conscientious objection, if he does not wish to give his life that others might live free, he should be able to object and not put his life on the line.

The abortion doctor is not the one that is in the same position as the solider, the unborn baby is the one sacrificing it’s life that another may live better.  Why doesn’t the unborn child get to object to giving its life that you might live better?  It’s a human being, it should be entitled to the same freedom that allows the solider to object to sacrificing their life… 

Honestly, as you keep restating your position it becomes increasingly apparent that in this area you are callous and unconcerned with anything beyond your personal pleasure.  You acknowledge the life and the humanity, but reserve the right to kill if the alternative may result in a temporary change in your perceived quality of life.  You express that your desires supersede the rights of others to live.  There is a clinical term for those that have extreme egocentricity, placing their own pleasures ahead of the rights of others: psychopath.

These references to the draft are interesting.  I first read the comparison in feminist singer Helen Reddy’s autobiography.  She compared “reproductive laws” to the draft, and said that both are “enslavement”.  I disagree, because draftees were drafted through no fault of their own, and they faced a high risk of death.  “Reproductive laws” in most countries make exceptions to abortion laws for women whose lives are endangered.  Plus, only rape victims can claim they were forcably impregnated.  Everyone else knew full well what risk they were running.

Hello, Just popping in to say that, as long as I have been reading on teh internets (about 5 years now, I think), I have read blogs where L. has commented. She is not a troll.  She has been saying the same thing, word for word practically, about her views on abortion, since the beginning.
.
Kindly, and affectionately, I wonder L., why you still do it? (Hang around these places, and read, and always chime in about abortion, that is…)  But I do not have internet access most of the time right now and am not asking for the purposes of discussion. Just wanted to offer what I could.

I can understand an atheist saying that, although they consider a fetus to be a baby, they still believe they have the right to have an abortion, but I cannot understand a Catholic saying this, because of course a Catholic must know that God has a purpose of every human being. Therefore, even though you have a right to control over your own body, certainly you can’t possibly believe that your body-sovereignty trumps God’s plans? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just can’t fathom it.

Also, with that said, feel free to do whatever you like with your own body… as long as you aren’t imposing on anyone else’s (which, as far a abortion is concerned, you are…) It’s like the end of the ‘Merchant Of Venice,’ where Portia gives Shylock permission to take his pound of flesh… but he isn’t permitted any blood along with it.

The pro-choice position seems to have enshrined in law the old cliche that the woman is always right.  Of course, in the political sphere this approach is also shared by autocrats, and dictators around the world.  If you dispute with hard core pro-choice feminists they will accuse you of disliking a strong woman.  The word strongman is usually associated with the previously mentioned autocrats, and dictators.  Sadly, the pro-choice side of the feminist revolution is as mired in blood as the failed French Revolution was. The HHS mandate fits in perfectly with this mindset.

When asked, “Doesn’t it bother you at all that you cannot articulate logically why your right to bodily integrity trumps an innocent child’s right to life?” The answer is no, because I think have indeed logically articulated it: The right of an individual to remove something/someone unwanted, from inside her body, trump anyone’s right to life—I value autonomy and self-preservation, and place these above the (admittedly charitable) concept of always protecting the weak in all circumstances with no exceptions, as well as their right right to live their full natural lives beginning from conception. I think that’s pretty definitive and makes perfect logical sense, and I hope I never have to live in a society that has these values reversed. If people enjoy calling me a “psychopath” because of it, I will have to live with that somehow (gee, not so tough). And again, while pregnancy is indeed a natural risk of sexual intercourse, there are ways of managing the risk, which also seems like common sense to me.
Hi, Corita! Yes, I do pop up here & there. I feel quite strongly about the subject of abortion/contraception, and whenever people address “pro-aborts,” I often chime in because I feel as if they’re addressing me. (There are a few other unrelated subjects about which I also feel strongly, and I chime in in posts about these, too.)

L, you deem yourself to have the right to remove another life because it is inside you and imposes on your own body. That I understand. But you are the one giving yourself the right to do this, as this other life does not have the ability to defend itself against your assault on it. After all, its completely defenseless.
And since we are calling a spade a spade, let’s not be all rosy and pretend that the way this assault is performed is actually violent, gruesome and deliberate ie. Dismembering this baby to bits and scooping it out, or in some cases sucking it out. I’m sure if it were another life your size and build, you wouldn’t deem yourself the right to perform the same assault. Rest assured, if it could, it would fight back. A cowards act, to pick on someone smaller than you. We teach our children never to do that.
Furthermore, if your argument that this other life is impeding on your body, then hey, why don’t we start killing our living children when they become inconvenient, because their lives also rely on our ability to sustain them.
You said in previous comments that you are a Catholic. Catholics are Christian, and Christians believe in God. God is the author of life. ALL life, those that grow inside of us as well as outside of us. Which brings me full circle- who are you to decide who lives and who doesn’t live. Only God can do that. And aren’t you fortunate he chose to give you life. And thank your mother for not trumping God. God Bless you in your journey.

Just one more thing- this life is not forever. Your quest for self-preservation is very very limited. You too will die one day, as I will, as every other person will.
So looking at your own life and seeing how fortunate you are to have lived, loved, cried and laughed in it, be appreciative you were given it to enjoy. But, don’t do it at the cost of another. We will ALL be judged by the same God at the end of it all, including you L. By the same God who taught us to give up our lives for others, as He did for us. Not to give up the life of another for our own self-purposes. Think about it.

Thanks, Ez, but I do get to decide who lives inside my body or not. The key there is “inside”—location doesn’t matter to you, but it matters a great deal to me, and self-preservation seems like good common sense to me.  Sure, I’m the one “giving” myself the right to do this—and you’re the one “giving” my babies the absolute right to be born under all circumstances. The babies don’t have a choice, either way: None of us chose to be born—we are all here (or not!) because of the choices made by those who came before us.

Ez, all I know is what is in my own heart. I’ve never had an abortion, but I have thought very long and hard about the subject over many years, and I truly believe I would, for reasons stated above—so I can’t honestly call myself pro-life (which is why I stopped doing so, decades ago). Lying about what is in their heart never got anyone into heaven, either.

Im not “giving” your babies the right to be born. You did that when you had sex. Nothing to do with me…haha.
Its all about choices as you said.
By the way, having a baby isn’t like having a disease or an illness, and that rhetoric keeps playing to scare so many women. It’s a baby at the end of the day. You won’t die from it.

You didn’t address God in any of this. Just what YOU would do, and what I would do.
So I’m assuming, that on this topic you chose to ignore the existent and power of Gods creativity. You can only pigeon-hole Him for a limited time, I suppose.
Who cares about labels- pro-life, pro-choice…they are just words. It boils down to the actions at the end of the day.
Sometimes I wish we were hatched out, like eggs. This way, we wouldn’t have women giving lame excuses about impeding on their bodies.
But you are very right. Its your choice to Trump God at the end of the day. You will live with the decision. And be judged for it. As we all will.

No, when I have sex, I certainly do not give any babies the “right” to be born. That’s another thing you claim, but I don’t accept. It’s true I’m unlikely to die from another baby, but nine months of great discomfort followed by major surgery (in my case) is certainly worth avoiding. If God wants to send me a baby, He will figure out some other way—leave one on my doorstep in a bushel basket, maybe? That might work. But the ol’ uterus is closed.

No I don’t claim. God claims. I accept what God claims. Still no mention of God…..?
You are talking to 9months of morning sickness here! Hospitalized with a drip for 2 pregnancies. Emergency Cesarean for one, 4 days of contractions for the other. Yeah, it hurt. Lets see what no.3 has in stall. Man up L!
Let me know if that stalk arrives on your doorstep. You will surely make history.

Stork (pregnancy brain)

Funny, I mentioned God right up there. I somehow just can’t believe that a benevolent supreme being would really curse people with unwanted babies, you know? I consider contraception a true blessing—three c-sections was enough for me. My limit was reached—and that’s “man” enough for me, thanks. (The doc even told me to stop at two, so I pushed my luck, but won’t try it again.) I think comparing pregnancy/childbirth to an illness is pretty apt, but suit yourself. If you like it, go for it—have yourself as many as Simcha. Be the next octo-mom! It’s your choice, and I wholeheartedly support it. But it’s not mine.

Why have you gotten defensive all of a sudden? Humor never hurt anyone. I got that you mentioned God in humor (bushel basket), but I didn’t see you mention him in your “choices”.
I’ll have as many as I think my husband and I are capable of having and raising.  and it won’t be 8! Haha. Not gifted enough. But if Simcha has 8, God bless her. It’s not numbers here. You equate being “pro-life” with large families. My NFP teacher stopped at 3. Don’t generalize.
But please don’t tell me that one human can kill another out of convenience or preservation. There are other ways to preserve yourself, without harming another. Including what’s “inside” you. You actually end up harming yourself L. So that self-preservation thing goes out the window. I’ve counseled too many women with PAS over the years to see how abortion kills a baby, then leaves a woman in a mess. Many years, even decades later. And it’s no coincidence either. It’s not how we were made to act. It’s not what God wanted of us. Which is why it’s not our decision to make. We have free-will sure. But as the saying goes, actions have consequences- “do the crime, do the time”, or something like that…

Yes, God gave me free will and common sense, and I’m using it. I’m actually not being defensive—in fact, I’m trying to take a lighter tone (but perhaps not succeeding?). And no, I don’t necessarily equate being pro-life with large families, but I do equate being pro-choice with supporting the choice of people who want large families. I would also never argue that abortion is the right choice for everyone. I just know in my heart that it would, in some situations, be the right choice for me.

The right choice for you, the worst possible choice for the other human being involved. So, in the end, it comes down to selfishness: “devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.” Well, at least you own it.

If I were going to create a modern day drama which depicts life, with Hell,right beneath the surface, I’d use “L"s android-like personality to depict what happens to humans when they have been left devoid of their humanity by Satan.  Lol even trolls have the excuse that they are pranking others.  Oh, and Satan believes in God, and understands theology better than any mere human—He just lacks love and grimaces coolly when he repeats “Non serviam”. Hell will not be cool and orderly, it will be filled with darkness, despair, and the worm that doesn’t die.

Hi L.,

I’m a newcomer to the combox on this post, but I’ve been following the comments. Can I recommend your read Heather King’s “Poor Baby: A Child of the 60’s Looks Back On Abortion.”

King is, I think, one of the most fascinating Catholic authors of our time. She’s impossible to fit into any box, and yet she’ll be the first to tell you what a relief it is and a challenge to live everyday as a Catholic convert - after 18 noxiously sordid years drowning in no-holds-barred alcoholism, from about age 12 to 30. She is highly paradoxical: sensitive, open, vulnerable, yet keenly intelligent, with more gritty common sense that you can shake a stick at, and prone to swearing. She relishes in the simple and the absurd. She’s self-deprecating and able to appreciate the humor in the absurd, without trying too hard, blatantly without giving up her simplicity and purity of heart.

Not that I’m implying you have some hidden trauma to relate with hers. I know you said earlier your beliefs had nothing to do with trauma. I just find King so interesting and its very hard to summarize her appeal, but it helps to know her background.

*Anyway*, she recently published “Poor Baby”, a mystical reflection on abortion, including her experience having had three prior to her conversion, as well as conversations with other people, and other observations.

I know, I know, a stranger asking you to buy something . . . never fun. But if you’re interested, I think she gets across what many here are trying to say with such breadth of personality and authenticity. There is a mystical depth to Catholicism that goes beyond what we’re able to articulate perfectly. It has a lot to do with what Fr. Ron Rolheiser calls our “moral selves” - the place where we hold what is most cherished, most important to us.

I believe, in fact, that if you or anyone would read Heather King’s “Poor Baby” with an eye to how she expresses herself from that deep place, shaped and illuminated by her Catholicism, you would at least understand how utterly devoid of life it is from a Catholic perspective to hear, “It’s MY body, so stay out of it unless I consent, etc.” Life for us is impossible without relationship - an existential relationship which we do not consent to, but can be grateful for, even in this absurd and crazy world.

Best regards

Eh, sorry about the formatting. Looks terrible.

Thanks, Greg, I’ll look for it.
Anna Lisa, my personality is far from “android-like.” I am fully human, living a more or less normal life. I believe from what (presumably) you said in a comment on another post that you and I are even the same age. And my name, coincidentally, is the second part of your name (and my daughter’s name is the first part). You can hate my opinions—and I understand why—but there really is a person out here.

Lisa, Most pro-abortion people have a certain amount of invincible ignorance.  Your cold blooded approach to killing anyone, anytime in the womb is chilling.  I wonder what your daughter Anna would say if you showed her a picture of a baby that looks like it went through a blender?  How about that one of the decapitated baby, with it’s lower jaw ripped off?  Would she feel proud of her Mom being in favor of that?  I know what my 18-year-old daughter Sophia would say, she’d cringe shudder, hold her stomach and say: “that is completely F-d up”.  Her little sister Charlotte would just cry, and maybe have nightmares.  All of us would agree that God created these little ones with the tenderness of a father that says: “I carved you on the palm of my hand” and who says he has our hairs counted.  Unfortunately, Sophia and I would also reflect on the fact that the Devil is alive and well, seducing God’s children to call “Good—evil, and evil-good”.

L.

The timing on this is funny (this was *just* released) but it seemed relevant considering that it addresses your ‘bodily autonomy’ argument with exactly the same example I used, except that this is a real life case: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/10/new-video-challenges-bodily-autonomy.html

Actually, I started showing all my kids the photos of aborted fetuses on the “Priests for Life” site when they were around 8 years old (daughter is 15 now). I wanted them to fully understand my position on the subject, and answer the question of why they won’t ever have any younger siblings—these subjects came up very often in our house because my kids all went to a Catholic school. So far, my kids all share my opinions.
Interesting video, Kate, but the Siamese twins in it don’t have the same kind of relationship as an unwanted baby and its mother.

High five on the photos Lisa.  I’m sure Herr Kommandant did the same.  I won’t respond to your need for attention even if you show me fetus lamp-shades. Yeah, I’ll still ask God to bust open your petrified soul.

I have no need for attention (or “fetus lamp shades”)—the vast majority of the time, I prefer to keep to myself. If your prayers are meant as part of your condemnation, then they are most unwelcome. Always grateful for sincere ones, though.

It doesn’t matter what I or anyone says to you. You are adamant abortion is ok for you, and more adamant you will cope afterwards. Ive talked to many women with your thinking. They don’t cope after, and their lives are very damaged, as is those around them that love them. Even if your life is at stake “Thou Shall Not Kill”. It’s there in black and white. The rules apply to us all. Even you L. No one is special. Free-will and common sense cannot excuse or change that.

As a God-fearing Christian Catholic, as long as you accept the fact that you will live with everything that decision entails. Our free-will, and our common sense given by God will not be used to mock Him. As long as you know this, then I hope you exercise your common sense and free-will WITH God in your heart.

Melinda Tankard Reist “Giving Sorrow Words”. Melinda had an abortion and regretted it. Her book is a compilation of stories that tell the sorrow of abortion in people’s lives. She is a very outspoken feminist in Australia. She too believed in choice and her body. Boy was she wrong.

I do not believe I am mocking God. I also know several dozen post-abortive women, and yes, I am quite adamant abortion would be okay for me, which is why I stopped hypocritically calling myself “pro-life.” Abortion is like war: It is justifiable killing, but undesirable in and of itself. In addition to photos of abortions, I showed my young children photos of victims of the U.S. firebombings of Japan, to make the point that war and abortion—while justified in some circumstances—are both worth avoiding.

Ok. That’s nice.

L. has replied to everyone in a calm and civil manner. Meanwhile, many of the other commenters have been attacking her, calling her (among other things) a pyschopath, a killer, selfish, and an android. While I do not agree with L.‘s position on abortion, I do commend her for not directing personal attacks at the other commenters. She also brings up a good point about just war and abortion. Why is one ok in many Catholics’ minds, but not the other? They both cause the destruction of innocent lives for the perceived greater good.

Hmmm Megan, Sometimes people lose their right to be engaged as if we were speaking about the weather, when the subject matter is taking a human life without a twinge of conscience. Perhaps you would feel different if it was *your* life at stake, your sisters? Your daughter’s?—
.
“Megan is about to have her life snuffed out!”  Really?  That’s terrible, but look at the perpetrator, she’s so *POLITE* and SERENe as she does it.  Gee, maybe it’s me that has something wrong upstairs, after all, she’s sipping an iced tea with a wry little smile on her face.  Life would be so much *nicer* if I could learn to filter out everything that bothers, or inconveniences me!
.
Why for instance would a White Supremacist go on to an African American site to describe the kind of uppity behavior that deserves a lynching?  A sociopath would do this.  One with an inordinate need for attention.  According to Corita, “L” has been trawling the internet for five years spreading her gospel of good-conscience-killing.
.
Now you go on and learn some tips on how wonderful Cruella DeVille looks after her make over and yoga session.  After all, NICE is a Cardinal virtue.
.
Megan, your perky halo is shiny and my sandals are dusty.

anna lisa, thanks for the snarky response. Hurling insults (even if they’re true) at someone on the internet isn’t going to make that person decide not to kill. Actually, that probably just adds fuel to the fire. Also, I didn’t say anything about having a halo; I expressed disappointment at many of commenters’ responses to L.

The pro-lifer’s goal is to end abortion. It’s a very serious matter. Would standing outside an abortion clinic shouting insults at the women walking in make them have a change of heart? I personally do not think so. You would probably only succeed in making them close their minds and hearts to the pro-life message.

Sorry for the delayed response; I haven’t had much personal computer time this week.
.
L, you said: “I think have indeed logically articulated it: The right of an individual to remove something/someone unwanted, from inside her body, trump anyone’s right to life.” Okay, I understand you feel this way. You’ve yet to logically articulate WHY bodily integrity trumps life itself. The right to life is expressly guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The right to absolute bodily integrity is not. And it’s not logical given that the someone in the body has been, in 99% of cases, placed there by two people who have consensually participated in the biological act that causes such placement. If one wishes to keep one’s bodily integrity intact, it seems that the only solution is to NOT engage in that act—otherwise, conception is a possible outcome. You’ve acknowledged that consent to sex is consent to risk of pregnancy. Why, then, do you feel that murder of a human being is an acceptable response to the consequences of one’s actions? In what other context is it acceptable to deprive an innocent human being of his/her rights, especially when s/he came into existence through no fault of his/her own but by the consensual actions of his/her parents?

Megan, I’ve often prayed in front of abortion facilities, and I have never seen a single pro-lifer shout insults at the women going in/out of the clinics. No pro-lifer or pro-life organization I know condones such behavior. (I have witnessed pro-choicers shout insults and throw things at the prayer warriors, however.)

JoAnna, yes, that was my point. You would not do that in person, so you shouldn’t do it on the internet, either. (I, too, have seen pro-choicers act like that at abortion clinics, which further proves my point.)

JoAnna, regarding this comment: “The right to life is expressly guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.”

If you mean the phrase about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration is wonderful historical document (go see it the National Archives; it worth waiting on line for), but it has no force of law. It was just a letter from the colonists to King George telling his majesty to take a long walk on a short pier, basically.

I’m pretty sure they weren’t talking about embryos, either.

Actually, L., you are mistaken. The Declaration of Independence was enacted by Congress so it is a congressional document and binding as such. It is the moral foundation of the U.S. Constitution and thus part of it. (I have seen it in person, by the way. I could spend WEEKS in DC just visiting the Smithsonians and the National Archives. Maybe someday…)
.
“I’m pretty sure they weren’t talking about embryos, either.”
.
One could make an argument that they weren’t talking about black people, either. Do you think that black people shouldn’t be considered human beings give that they weren’t viewed by the founders as such?

Sorry, that should be “Jon,” not “L.” Apologies!

“According to Corita, “L” has been trawling the internet for five years spreading her gospel of good-conscience-killing.”—. No, I have been regularly reading certain Catholic blogs and websites since around 2005. I read feminist/pro-abortion blohs, too. I am not spreading any gospel, I am merely stating my opinions. I don’t mind strong language directed at me because it’s impossible to state ANY opinion (breastfeeding! circumcision for infant boys! corporal discipline of children!) on the Internet without stirring up the feelings of people who hold an opposite view, so I don’t take any of it personally—but I always appreciate civil dialogue from those who offer it. (I doubt I will ever be able to convince Anna Lisa that I’m not a psychopath, so I will stop trying.)
I don’t base my opinions on the concept of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” set forth in a document (written by slave owners) that has no relation to the country where I currently live.  I base it on what seems like common sense to me, and that is that killing in the interest of self-preservation is justified, hence the war comparison. Again, avoidance is best. I don’t think that consenting to the risk of pregnancy should mean accepting the natural outcome of those risks. I have no desire to avoid sexual intercourse, so I take lots of precautions to avoid conception. And I believe this should be true even for other women with no moral qualms about abortion—unwanted pregnancies are best avoided in the first place.

I have a peripherally related question, that perhaps some of the people commenting here could answer. Do people who practice NFP ever wonder about the children they’re not creating, when they abstain? I ask this because there was night, back in 1998, when my partner and I were on vacation in a remote place and I forgot my contraception. He wanted another baby. I was open to the possibility of having one eventually, but not at that particular time. I was 100% certain that I was at the most fertile point in my cycle and relations would likely give us the baby that one of us desperately wanted—so I sleep in the other bed. Now, some of my Catholic friends say that what I did was not sinful, since it’s never a sin to abstain from sex. Others have told me that my selfish decision to withhold myself from my partner solely to prevent conception was akin to using NFP contaceptively. I don’t wonder if it was a sin or not, but I do wonder about the baby that we didn’t conceive that night. Who would he/she have been? Does anyone else out there wonder about things like this, or is it only me? (Oddly, I never wonder about any of the babies I’ve prevented with contraception, only that one.)

L., I’m afraid I still don’t understand your logic. How does the temporary condition pregnancy supersede the permanent condition of death in terms of a hierarchy of rights? And how can you speak disparagingly about slave owners, when they were using beings that they didn’t even consider to be human as free labor? Your logic in seeing abortion as morally neutral is really no different. Slave owners felt they had the right to utilize non-human beings for their rights of personal and economic gain; you feel you have to right to kill human beings who infringe upon your perceived right of bodily integrity, even though the children who are conceived are done so knowingly (that is, it is known that pregnancy is a potential outcome of sexual intercourse).

As for your question re: NFP, conception is never guaranteed. Sure, I wonder about potential children that may have been conceived sometimes, but I’m comforted by knowing that I’m working with God’s plan for my fertility and not against it. When we abstain, it’s after a process of careful discernment of His will, not a desire to avoid conception for selfish reasons.

I don’t see a “hierarchy of rights.” I happen to think the temporary inconvenience of a pregnancy is less desirable than destroying my own nascent offpsring, and I certainly understand why others who believe differently disagree quite avidly with this opinion. Let me put it this way, JoAnna: I believe the state should not regulate what goes on INSIDE people’s bodies. You think that for the greater good, the state should intervene for the protection of the less developed life inside, instead of permitting a woman to remove him/her. I think it’s charitable for a woman to allow the new life to develop, and always desirable to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place—but I don’t think that anyone should be legally required to keep something/someone inside her body if she doesn’t want it in there. If we cede power to the state to decide how individuals use their bodies, then the state can easily go the other way, as it does in China, and make rules requiring abortion, if it believes this in the greater public good. I think instead of leaving it up to the state, it should be left up to the individual woman to decide.

L., you keep avoiding my question. Please, show me your logical thought process as to why temporary inconvenience of pregnancy trumps the life of an innocent child, one that came into being through your deliberate action and full knowledge of the risk involved. 
.
The first duty of a government is to protect the rights and the lives of its citizens, whether born or unborn. Prior to Roe v Wade, when abortion was illegal in several states, there was not a wide epidemic of the government shackling women to beds to force them to continue pregnancies (in fact, abortion was more often used as a punishment to women, which is why the early feminists considered it so abhorrent), so I can’t say I buy your argument that it would become a problem if the government decides that ALL human beings deserve the right to life, as opposed to living or dying at the whim of their parents.

My logical conclusion: I have no desire to be pregnant. There are actions in which I partake that can cause pregnancy. I take preventive action to avoid conception, and reduce the chances of it as much as possible (this seems responsible to me). If, by a statistical anomaly, I were to get pregnant, anyway, there are means by which I can end the pregnancy—a baby that would be born 8 1/2 months later is consequently not going to be born. I do not see this as “murder”—I see it as justifiable, because it allows me to avoid the inconvenience of a pregnancy that I want to avoid. Other people see it as “murder,” and while I understand their thinking, I don’t agree with it. My position makes PERFECT logical sense to me, and I can’t imagine feeling any differently. I think the “right” of any human to be born does in fact depend on the whims of his or her parents.

Correction—- on the whims of his or her MOTHER. The father doesn’t get a say!

What about slavery? Do you feel it was justified given that slave owners used your logic
.
Boiled down, your selfish desires justify killing another human being. Why? What makes your selfish desires more important that someone else’s life?
.
In what other context is this worldview logical? Does this right of the parent extend through the third trimester? What if the baby is partially born? (say, if the feet and torso are still inside the mother, can she stab the baby with scissors or strangle it if she suddenly decides that she doesn’t want the baby?)

Slavery—outside my body. The crucial condition of self-preservation does not apply.
And yes, I believe that late term abortions should be legal. I had prental testing in all of my full-term pregnancies, and I would have had one myself, under some circumstances. But that crosses the line from self-preservation into euthanasia, in which I (unsurprisingly!) also believe. That’s a separate—but equally contentious—subject.

If human life is so easily disposable, what does location matter? In the slave owners view, black people were no different than horses.  So who are you to tell them they were wrong for acting as they did?
.
Why do your selfish desires justify taking a life?

Also - self-preservation? How so? The vast majority of pregnancies pose no threat whatsoever to the mother’s life.

Self-preservation—not true that pregnancy & childbirth post “no threat whatsoever” to the mother’s life. Childbirth, in my case, involves major surgery, with all the usual risks therein. I choose not to face these risks.
Location is crucial to me. The difference between “outside my body” and “inside my body” is the game-changer for me.
You deal with slave owners by freeing their slaves—how should society deal with the unborn babies of women like me? It’s true, as stated above, that “Prior to Roe v Wade, when abortion was illegal in several states, there was not a wide epidemic of the government shackling women to beds to force them to continue pregnancies.” But thanks to more accurate pregnancy tests, if personhood legislation were to pass, some states might impose restrictions.

This is a circular argument, though—I believe my “selfish desire” justifies taking a life. You don’t. The twain shall never meet. We can agree, though, that such an outcome should be avoided—women like me should avoid getting pregnant.

L., I said *in the vast majority of cases*, pregnancy and childbirth pose no threat to a woman’s life. That is the truth. It’s also the truth that multiple C-sections don’t pose great harm to the majority of women.
.
Here’s where I don’t get your logic. Once a woman has engaged in the act of sex, she’s already chosen to compromise her bodily integrity by risking conception. She has consented to the act that causes conception. Why should she have the right to withdraw that consent once it has already been given, Especially when doing so violates another person’s right to life?

Can you explain why your selfish desires trump some else’s life? Do you believe you have the right to kill other humans if they get in the way of your desires - say, your husband? Your born children? Why or why not?

No, because my born children are now outside my body, as is my husband. They are separate entities. If they get in the way of my desires, I can simply abandon them, if I want to take the selfish route.

Consensual sex does not compromise bodily integrity. And consenting to sex does not mean consenting to every possible natural outcome of sex. I am repeating myself.
Sure, “multiple C-sections don’t pose great harm to the majority of women,” but some of us want to avoid that little “inconvenience” of major abdominal surgery, if we can.

“You can’t put quality of life before SANCTITY of life.” JPII
.
God shows us that life is sacred in many places in the bible, these are a few (there are many others) of the verses referring specifically to the pre-born and infants.
“Your hand made me and fashioned me” (Psalm 119: 73)
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…” (Jeremiah 1: 5)
“People were bringing infants to Jesus…” (Luke 18: 15)
“And how from infancy you have known the Holy Scripture…” (II Timothy 3: 15)
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting the baby leaped in her womb…” (Luke 1: 41)
“As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb, leaped for joy” (Luke 1: 44)
.
The bible also states, “There are six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him; Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD, A heart that plots wicked schemes, feet that are quick to run to evil, The false witness who utters lies, and the one who sows discord among kindred.” (Proverbs 6: 16 – 19)

@Patti, yes, we should also take note of the fact that after the annunciation, Mary went “in haste” to the hill country where, that famous exchange occurs…the baby leaps in Elizabeth’s womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit cries out:  “Who am I, that the mother of my Savior…”
.
The hill country was about three days on foot from Mary’s home.  Jesus is a three day old zygote.
.
@Megan, yes, poor, frightened women should never, ever be yelled at.  After spending hundreds of hours as a sidewalk counselor, I can say that this kind of attitude was never even a temptation.  “L” is not a poor, marginalized woman.  She is comfortable and lacking any scruple.  She repeats the same mantra over and over and over again ad nauseum.  Why? Because she is an activist for the obsession which drives her. She is an activist for genocide.
.
You can talk to her all you want, but know that it feeds into her obsession. This is how a narcissistic sociopath operates. As for me? I will reserve my right not to be “nice” about fully informed genocide,—and shake the dust from my sandals.

BTW, read up on the behavior of sociopaths.  Most *do not* become serial killers rapists etc.  Most learn how to modify their behavior for socially acceptable purposes.  Sociopaths are “thrill seekers”.  They literally “get high” from their deviancy. What most individuals might consider repugnant gives them a rush of endorphins…“yes…you could say that my IUD kills a baby every month…”  The internet is the perfect way for them to indulge in what obsesses/gives them pleasure,anonymously.

Anna Lisa, do you realize, that your line of thinking is similar to what some pro-choicers do? e.g., “The fetus isn’t really human, so it’s okay to kill it.”—> “L. really isn’t really a normal human, she is clearly a sociopath, so it’s okay to say any insulting thing I want to her, not just about her opinions but about her personally, too.”
You say the Internet is the perfect way for us sociopaths to indulge in what obsesses/gives them pleasure, “anonymously,” and yet I have both told you my name, and written my email address here.
(And IUDs don’t kill babies every month. It was originally believed that they prevent implantation, but my doctor said they change the cervical mucus to block the sperm.)

Actually I agree with you Anna-Lisa on this one.  I think the purpose L has continued to repeat the same thing over streams of comments is out of a need or attention. The majority of the points put to her haven’t been rationally addressed, and the person she is dialoguing with hasn’t been satisfied their questions have been answered (and other commenters feel the same- go back up to the comments).

Responses are repetitive and usually about her, as though she was a unique being amongst all with special rules.

I also agree with you Anna-Lisa that It doesn’t make sense, nor is it normal behavior to go onto a pro-life, Catholic blog and tell everyone its okay to kill your unborn cause it’s nuisance (and tell the world you show your kids pictures of dead fetuses and soldiers). I don’t understand why you would do that on this forum- are you trying to convert others thinking? 

Thats why I gave up the dialogue, it was going in an illogical irrational repetitive dead-end circle. No point continuing if you can’t leave that darn circle! I was getting dizzy ...eventually.

I hope you aren’t offended L. I’m sure you will come back with the same mantra.

Ez, I have respectfully answered the questions put to me. I understand that commenters haven’t liked my answers, which doesn’t mean that I haven’t “rationally addressed” them.
I also said WHY I showed my kids photos of abortions and dead civilians (not soldiers)—to make the point that both are horrible and worth avoiding. And I only brought up the photos in the first place because of a taunt from Anna Lisa.
I comment on all kinds of blogs, not just pro-life Catholic ones, because I read all kinds. Only once—really, just ONCE—did I have a “bad experience” in which blog commenters ganged up on me, hurled nothing but insults at me, until I just gave up and went away. The vast majority of the time, including this time, the discourse has stayed mostly civil. I don’t expect to convert others to my thinking, but at the very least, I hope I can show some people—not all, but some—that pro-abortion rights supporters are not sociopaths.

And did you ever notice that people only say, “I hope you aren’t offended,” “No offense, but…” etc., when they are saying things they know are likely to offend the other person?

>And did you ever notice that people only say, “I hope you aren’t >offended,” “No offense, but…” etc., when they are saying things they >know are likely to offend the other person?

LOL, yes.  I always cringe whenever I read or hear those statements. 

This thread is a good read.  You are very patient and articulate, L.  I don’t agree with your conclusions but you debate very well.

Well too bad then, don’t ome on a pro-life, Catholic website. Better you get offended than a baby killed. I hope you realize you have offended many with your opinions.
Maybe it will make you think, that typing reams and reams of comments about “yourself” “your body”, “your, your your everything”, without a flinch of conscience about anyone else is tiresome after a while, particularly on a site you know whose intention is to advocate for the unborn. Or maybe you don’t really care. The attention is too much fun. Attention which I am idiotically still giving you. Thank God for the OFF on the power switch.

L., but what if your husband sued you for child support after your abandonment of your him and your children? If he (or they) were getting in the way of your financial security and happiness, then could you justify killing them?
.
For me, all other rights are derived from the right to life, so it is topmost in any hierarchy of rights. It’s similar to how my right to swing my arms ends at your face, and so on. I’m very pro-choice, but I believe that choice must be made prior to sex, and after that point the child’s right to life trumps the right to bodily integrity, even if major surgery is involved. Major abdominal surgery is not fun nor easy, but it beats killing an innocent child.
.
It’s difficult to analogize because pregnancy is such a unique condition and situation. There is no other like it, although the conjoined twins analogy comes close. I believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions and choices. If you make choices that have the consequence of creating another human being, then you should not directly attack that human being with the express purpose of murdering him/her.
.
Also, my $.02 on why L. comments - the avenging conscience: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/10/laughing-at-dead-babies-and-avenging.html

Believe it or not, Ez, you didn’t offend me. You said above you’re 5 months pregnant with your third baby, a “surprise,” which makes me understand where you’re coming from, and I truly wish you and your family all the best. It is true, though, that if you find my comments so “tiresome,” you shouldn’t have wasted your time reading them.
JoAnna, you keep coming up with examples that are outside my body. Interesting link—it reminded me of some of the dark humor shared by my friend who worked in an emergency room, as well as some of the staff at a nursing home where I used to volunteer. Humor is one method of coping with stress, and isn’t just unique to abortionists, nor the sign of an “avenging conscience.”

“Better you get offended than a baby killed.”—> How would offending me (or anyone) prevent a baby from getting killed?

L., I notice you avoided the question.
.
A child’s location is irrelevant to the fact that s/he is a human being with the right to life. If a child is in your body, 99% of the time it’s because you freely chose to engage in the act that out him/her there, and a responsible adult would not execute a child due to the adult’s poor choices.
.
As to the link, I think the description of the avenging conscience suits your behavior to a T. Not just the humor, but also posting all over the Internet, on Catholic sites especially, trying to justify you POV to other Catholics and seeking their tacit approval and permission to hold the view that it’s perfectly acceptable to kill innocent children. Plus attending Mass even though you do not believe in the teachings of the Church. (thank you, though, for having the respect to refrain from receiving communion.)

You are not in a position to “thank” me for refraining from communion. It’s no concern of yours.

And what question didn’t I answer? Whether I would be justified killing my children if they got in the way of my happiness? I said, no, not when they’re outside my body and don’t affect my bodily integrity in any way. I thought I made that point clear.

I post all over the Internet about circumcision, too. I must feel guilty for what I did/didn’t do to my sons. And breastfeeding in public—my “avenging conscience” must be burning on that one. Don’t even get me started on vaccines or homeschooling.

And believe me, I don’t expect anyone’s “tacit approval” for anything.

Actually, L., as a member of the Catholic faithful, I can absolutely judge your public statements as they apply to Church teaching. It is my concern if the Eucharist is being profaned, but I’m glad you are not doing so.
.
Why is it wrong to kill your born children if they get in the way of your happiness, but acceptable to kill your unborn children (.01 seconds before exiting the birth canal) for the same reason?
.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Yes, you can judge me, but not “thank” me. See a difference?
.
Location matters not to you but is crucial to me. Inside = matter of bodily integrity. Outside = body free, can simply walk away, bodily integrity moot. A mother’s right to bodily integrity trumps her unborn children’s right to life.
.
Methinks the same of you.

Why can I thank you for respecting my faith?
.
You get to make a logical case for why the right to bodily integrity should trump the right to life. You would not have bodily integrity to worry about without the right to life. Nor can you explain how the birth canal magically transforms a valueless and disposable child into a valuable and wanted one.
.
I’m not protesting.

You don’t know why I refrain from communion, or whether it has anything to do with respecting the faith, or abortion (it doesn’t). So your “thanks” is based on an incorrect assumption about matters that don’t concern you.
.
I made my logical case. You just don’t like it. My belief that I can remove something from my body doesn’t square with your belief that the right to life is absolute. It never will.
.
You sure sound as if you’re protesting. But people sound different on the Internet sometimes.

Oh, do you mean that I protested that you thanked me for refraining from communion? Yes, I protested that. I thought that was weird. Do you make assumptions about others too? If you knew one of your fellow parishioners was gay & in a same-sex relationship and you saw them refrain from receiving communion, would you say something like, “Heeeeey sinner, thanks for respecting my faith!”

Yeah, that is what I meant. And yes, I often thank people for respecting my faith even if they don’t agree with it. When and how I do so depends on location, environment, context, etc.
.
You have not made a logical case as to how the right of bodily integrity trumps the right to life. You simply insist that it does because you say so. That’s not logic, that’s obstinacy.

You are assuming respect where perhaps none exists—people have all different reasons for refraining from communion.
My case based on self-preservation of my body makes perfectly logical sense to me. You are just as obstinate as I, that it does not. You are free to disagree, and live your life differently, of course.

You said up thread that you refrained from Communion due to your beliefs against Church teaching. I thanked you for doing so. Should I not believe your own words?
.
When I live my beliefs, no one dies.

I said I do not receive, but I did not say why (and my reasons currently have nothing to do with abortion). Perhaps your thanks are sincere, in which case I am sorry for doubting your motives. It just struck me as someone saying, “Thank you for not smoking!” to someone who had no intention to smoke, just as a passive-aggressive way of letting them know they were not welcome to smoke.
.
I try to avoid killing people, too.

JoAnna, would you ever kill anyone, ever? In self-defense, for example? Say a deranged man is lunging at you with a knife, and you have a weapon and have to think fast, or perish. Or say some evil person has booby-trapped an innocent child with explosives, and this child is about to approach a place where dozens of others are, and there’s no time to warn them - do you shoot the child? Or are you a total pacificist (as some people are) and so you watch the bomb explode instead? These are, of course, VERY extreme examples, and I only ask because most people—not all, certainly, but most—can think of extreme situations in which they might kill someone, even someone innocent (a child, or a mentally ill person who might not even realize he’s a danger) for self-preservation or to save others.

L., I would never do evil so that good may result, which includes murdering an innocent child to further my own interests. Killing the innocent is always evil. Killing in self-defense is not always evil. Read the Catechism sometime, starting at #2263: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263
.
Direct abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html

Yes, I’ve read the Catechism. And I somehow don’t think I would accept a link to a newspaper article as the definitive answer on whether abortion is ever necessary in any circumstances to save the life of the mother. But since I would abort even a healthy pregnancy, it’s irrelevant.
.
You know, in some Catholic countries in central/S. America, I’ve heard (from friends who live there) that even an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is forbidden. Such mothers have to wait in the hospital for their tubes to rupture, because there is chance—a small chance, but a real one—that their babies could dislodge and re-implant in a place where they could develop.

L., please don’t hide behind ignorance. Read the article, which discusses how a symposium of women’s health professionals has determined that direct abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. Do you disbelieve medical professionals, too? Are you the only authority you recognize?
.
It didn’t sound as if you had read the catechism, give that you equate killing in self-defense with murdering an innocent child. Perhaps you should read it again.
.
Regardless of what you’ve heard, Catholic medical professionals can and do treat wen with ectopic pregnancies. If a medical professional claims that he can’t, he is ignorant of Catholic bioethical teaching. http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

*women with

Of course I read the article. It was about a forum in a pro-life country, organized by pro-life activists—while they claimed that participants were not representing pro-life positions, pardon me for claiming they might have had just a wee bit of bias, you know?
“Perhaps you should read it again.” Why? I am thoroughly familiar with it, believe me—I just don’t accept some of it. There is no point in telling me that my opinions are outside Catholic teaching—I know that, and have already admitted this.

Organized by pro-life activists? Really? Are you under the impression that the lucrative pro-life lobby has paid these doctors to lie? Where are you getting that from? Also, if abortion truly was necessary to save women’s lives, wouldn’t Ireland have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world? As it stands, they do not.
.
What you don’t get, L., Is that you were asking me about my beliefs. To know what they are, all you need to do is read the catechism. That alone shows you that I do not equate self-defense against an aggressor with the murder of an innocent child, even if you do.

Ireland is a developed country. Nigeria is also pro-life country, but I doubt anyone would ever want to use it an example of how pro-life regulations bring can down maternal death rates. And why would a pro-life doctor need to be paid to lie? He/she would be happy to support all evidence that supported his/her beliefs, and look askance on all that did not.
.
I asked you beliefs out of curiosity. I think most people would in fact kill in self-defense, or perhaps in a combat situation. I think very few people are absolutely against killing in every circumstance with no exceptions. And I don’t claim (and will never claim) that my own beliefs on killing are aligned in any way with Catholic teaching.

I’m not sure about these statistics.  I think activists like to inflate numbers to strengthen their arguments.  Like with the sexual assault, it seems like some of these studies count every woman who got drunk and had sex as a sexual assault, not what most people what consider by the term.

If we are actually looking to give women a “CHOICE” we would legislate universal early childhood care, we would enforce pay equity, we would provide a better reflection of a living wage for women on maternity leave, communities would support those women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. If we do these things and many others it would actually allow for the playing fields to be evened so that women could truly choose in conscience without a list on impending threats on their livelihood if they are to carry their children to full term and raise them. If we truly want to work towards freedom of choice, let’s work at establishing a society that promotes freedom, where a woman isn’t coerced by fear to end the life of the child growing in her womb.

I think a huge problem is that people don’t know adoption is an option. How many women had an abortion because their parents told them to raise the baby or kill it, and they were 15 and had no way of taking care of their baby?

There are THOUSANDS of married couples on waiting lists to adopt newborn babies. Yes, it is difficult to find homes for older children (people worry about who they’ll end up with and the problems the child may have from previous homes), but many people want to adopt newborn babies. There are even couples on waiting lists to adopt babies who are traditionally aborted, such as Down Syndrome babies.

There are also classes available to help a pregnant girl or woman to not bong with her baby, in order to make the separation easier. These classes are used for surrogate mothers and are very effective. Someone I know ended up getting pregnant with her own baby while she was supposed to be carrying another couple’s child, and she kept forgetting she had a baby, leaving her daughter in the car, etc. Those classes work well.

I’d also like to point out that 70% of women (82% of Irish women) regret their abortions. Does abortion sound like a good thing to you? Many of the women who don’t regret it seem to be part of the crowd that does now know about adoption, or were told that adoption is “too difficult” so they never considered it. Yes, there are women who have serial abortions used when birth control fails, but they are not very common. I also think it’s one thing to say you’d get an abortion, should the circumstance present itself, and something entirely different to actually make the choice to abort and go through with it. Killing one’s child is something one will have to live with for the rest of one’s life. I feel sad for women who had abortions and am glad for outreaches such as Rachel’s Vineyard for post-abortive women.

Hi L, please stop endorsing pro-abortion views when you yourself haven’t gone through that sinful procedure.  Thanks be to God that you have not been given that situation where you have to resort to abortion.  And if you believe that it’s your contraceptive methods that helped you enjoy your non-procreative sex life, think again.  Reflect and meditate on this:  God loves you very much that He chose not to put another soul in your body because He knows you will absolutely terminate it.  And He does not want you to commit such a grave mortal sin.  And that is how much God loves you.  And I’m on God’s side.  I pray that you will never get pregnant as long as you believe that your unborn baby does not have the intrinsic right to be born.  I have a question for you, do you believe that abortion is a mortal sin?

I think Twain put it best:
“There’s lies, damn lies and statistics.”