Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, cause all those babies are going to be so thankful when they are born into a world that can no longer sustain life.

Sometimes people make me wonder...

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion is not a simple issue. It is also not a govt issue. The Sup Ct. got Roe v Wade wrong. They should have referred to the 10th Amendment granting the States' jurisdiction over this issue. That way the state of Utah could completely ban abortion and Massachusettes could allow it for any reason. The nation is too divided for a "blanket" policy.

I am against abortion as I believe there are many adoptive parents out there who would love to have a child but can't. But abortion is only between the mother, the father (if he cares), and their God.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it okay if abortion is used as a means of birth control as many are doing now? Also, is partial birth abortion okay where they puncture the brain of the baby, cut them up, and suck them out of the Mother? Then should government get involved? I'm just asking?

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who are you asking?

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion as a means of birth control is still between the mother, father, and their God. I believe it is wrong - but Pandora's box is open and people will use the contents as they wish. You speak of partial birth abortions - I have read the number of those that are done is quite tiny and it is done mainly due to complications with the upcoming birth. Such complications can cause the death of the mother. So which life is more important in that instance? Again, the issue is between the mother, father and their God. It is too much beyond human comprehension and intellect to come to an absolute conclusion...only opinions.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone that would like to respond. Just looking for opinions. Abortion is a very controversial subject that will never be settled by government or anyone else. Personally I agree with Pastor Kelly but we have disagreement right within my own family on this.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I take what I consider to be the liberal position on this issue, I’m against murder in any form, whether it be capital punishment or abortion, although I would allow abortion in order to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest reported within some agreed on number of hours. Abortion simply for the sake of convenience or most likely inconvenience would not be allowed if I were King. I can not be convinced that people are responsible enough to get an abortion when they were not even responsible enough to check the calendar, buy a pill, or put a raincoat on your laddie.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on January 14, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are far more crucial issues which actually affect YOU as a human being that should be discussed.

And I'm not just talking about the fact that the leaders running for both parties are knuckleheads and systemic nightmares.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 14, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, please, let's make abortion illegal so women who want one will have to risk their lives by getting an abortion performed by someone who is not a physician, in unsanitary conditions, using methods that would likely kill them.

Please, let's encourage women to try to self-induce an abortion by a hanger, drug overdose, drinking bleach or throwing themselves down the stairs, or any one of the other previously-common home remedies.

Please, let's turn your religious beliefs into law.

Let's force women who are the victims of rape or incest live with the constant visible reminder of the tragic events they survived.

Let's force women to carry children to term, even if it poses a significant health risk to them.

Let's force women to carry and give birth to children with excruciatingly painful diseases or conditions which make them wholly unable to live anything other than a life of pain and suffering.

Let's force women to have children they can't support and are unlikely to ever be adopted (e.g., children with severe disabilities).

Women are going to choose to have an abortion if they really want one, whether they're legal or not. It's incredibly naive to think otherwise. In fact, the approximate number of abortions performed in the U.S. pre-1973 and in the years immediately following the Roe v. Wade decision, stayed about the same.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 15, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess I believe it's a personal decision. I do not think myself so omniscient as to be able to say under what circumstances and to what extent a woman should be able to make choices regarding her own body. Nor do I think myself so righteous as to feel justified in 1) telling a woman that something growing inside her body is not part of her body, or 2) forcing a woman to do something with her body she does not want to do because of by own personal "moral" beliefs.

My comment was more in reference to this article and Pastor Kelly's incredibly wise comment that one should "...make it your top priority not to save the planet, but to save the unborn." This is a prime example of what is wrong with our country today. Don't worry about our planet dying. Don't worry about our soldiers dying. What's really important is what's going on between pregnant women and their doctors and inside the bedrooms of homosexuals. This is where our priorities should lie. After all, it's in the Bible, right? Does the Bible say anything about dependency on foreign oil? Is the word ecology ever even mentioned in the Bible?
Didn't think so.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 15, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion is equally important an issue as the others (environment, war, unqualified lying idiots running for President). It is just perspective. I do not see the environment as being as important as abortion. No, I don't run around littering, polluting, sending unwanted floroucarbons (spelling?) into the air, but I also do not buy into the science as proposed by Algore - science that over the past year has been proven inaccurate in many areas. Basically I don't give us monkeys that much credit to be able to destroy the earth (short of nuclear war). But I digress....at least the current crop of morons for president are not jumping on their soap boxes to spout lofty rhetoric about abortion. It is a states rights issue - not a federal one.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 15, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is indeed a difficult issue, while I believe what I wrote above I also find merit in the opinions by Venti and Elizabeth. I’m conflicted.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 15, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right, thinker. It is just perspective. And the perspective of the apparent current majority of this country simply amazes me.

Posted by ZaZ (anonymous) on January 15, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To say abortion is as important an issue as war is just silly.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 15, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only way to keep abortion safe is to keep it legal.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You see, Zaz, war is a morally justifiable necessity in order to have the freedoms that we all enjoy. However, the freedom of a woman to choose what happens to her own body is not one of them.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elizabeth - while I agree with your safety concerns, I strongly disagree with the federal govt involvment in the issue. The nation is far too divided on the issue to allow a blanket policy like Roe v Wade. I also do not see where the S.C. had constitutional jurisdiction in the matter. They say they did based upon a weak constitutional connection. In doing so they opened pandora's box. 'nuff said, it is a states rights issue and I hope the S.C. revisits abortion and corrects their mistake of 30 years ago.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thinker, I agree that the analysis in Roe v. Wade stunk. I see abortion as an equal protection issue, which is why I believe it was appropriately decided at the federal level.

The fact that the nation is so divided on the issue is simply another reason WHY it should be decided on a federal level.

Pre-Roe, approximately 2/3 of states had laws banning abortion entirely. Most of those allowed it only for the LIFE of the mother, which is incredibly rare. Abortions for the HEALTH of the mother, which is much more common, were often prohibited.

If abortion is left up to the states, the poor will be the only ones truly affected. Wealthy women will have no problem traveling to a state where abortion is legal. Poor women won't be able to - which will cause them to resort to self-inducement, back-alley abortions, or keeping the baby (or possibly adoption). The latter two will do nothing more than add another child into the system, or put/keep a woman dependent upon welfare or other benefits from the state. If a poor woman decides to travel to another state to get an abortion, she is likely going to have to take off at LEAST two days off from work; time off she probably doesn't have. If it's not paid vacation time, she's likely to come up short on other necessities like rent or food.

I could go on... leaving abortion up to the states will cause so many other problems for both the state and the federal government.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on January 16, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...morally justifiable necessity in order to have the freedoms that we all enjoy."

Venti, turn off the rhetoric. Please.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elizabeth - a question for you: are you for or against abortion? Not federal or state - just in general. As in, if a friend said she was thinking about getting an abortion, how would you answer.

I know there can be many variables here but I am just curious.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm pro-choice. No one is "for abortion," and stating it as such greatly misconstrues the pro-choice philosophy. I believe it's none of the government's business what a woman chooses to do with her body.

No one "likes" abortion. No one wants there to be more abortion. No one is advocating for mandatory abortion or abortion instead of adoption. Personally, I believe that abortion should be used only as a last resort, and that preventing the NEED for abortion should be a top priority by increasing sex education in public schools at a young age, increasing the availability of contraception, etc. Simply making abortion illegal, or even leaving it up to the states doesn't address the need for prevention of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

All that said, to answer your second question, if a friend told me she was thinking about abortion, I would be there for my friend. If a woman's in that place, what she needs is support, not someone to judge her or spout off his or her personal opinions about abortion.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had that question posed to me by a pregnant friend (she was in her early 20's at the time). She asked my opinion and beliefs. I told her this: it is certainly your body to do with as you will. However there is now a little baby growing inside of you and this makes your choices exponentially more difficult. I suggested she give the child up for adoption instead of abortion. I went further and said it is not my place to be God and judge you for whatever path you choose. Assuming knowledge of God's will proves ones absolute ignorance. She was my friend and still is - and she had an abortion. Many months afterward she told me she regretted not having the child. I have another friend who in a similar situation (but about 10 years older) did not even think of abortion. She had the baby and gave him up for adoption. She has said she does not regret her decision. These are the first-hand experiences I have had.

It goes without saying that people should be more responsible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. However in this world you need to take a test to drive a car but any idiot can make a baby. Parents need to teach their children well about sex. The schools have some responsibility but not much...and I do not want ANY elementary school teachers telling my daughter about the birds & bees-that's my job as a parent. At that age they are not able to fully grasp the idea and shouldn't be exposed to it in the first place. Let kids stay kids as long as poosible before entering our insane adult world.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why bring God into the discussion in the first place?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elizabeth, after reading your posts for the last few days and considering the issue, I have come to the conclusion (at least for myself) that your position is the correct one. Your arguments were clear, concise and without emotion and in the end compelling.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"She asked my opinion and beliefs." That is why I brought God into the discussion. She asked for it.

As to the broader question of abortion, only atheists or agnostics could claim God is not involved in the notion of ending a life. God states quite clearly "Thou shalt not murder." (perhaps worded differently in various texts but the meaning is still clear). So is a fetus life? Is a zygote life? Following conception, when does "life" begin. This is the heart of the issue. Is abortion murder? Is it wrong? Or is it wrong to allow the mother to die from the birth? These questions could go on forever and there would never be a 100% agreement on them. I maintain abortion is not a govt issue whatsoever and that it is soley between the mother, the father(again, if he cares), and their God.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, chipmunk. I'm flattered. :)

Thinker, you just stated that you think that abortion is not a government issue. It's clear that you believe life begins at conception. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The medical community can't come to a medical conclusion of when life actually "begins." However, the idea that life begins at conception is essentially a religious belief, correct? So, if we ban abortion because it's "ending a life," we are legislating a religious belief, are we not?

The U.S. can't do that. The first amendment specifically forbids it. If a religious argument or reason is the only reason we have for a particular viewpoint, that viewpoint shouldn't, and can't, become a U.S. law.

Posted by BobWilliams (Bob Williams) on January 16, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, in essence, you're saying it's between the Mom, the Apathetic Father and their best imaginary friend.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about Partial-birth abortions, is that not Pro-abortion? Don't tell me that there are not many of them done. Check out Dr. Carhardt in Nebraska, he is the one that went to the Supreme Court so he could continue with the killing of babies. But he is still within the law! That's all that counts.

Posted by liteshine (anonymous) on January 16, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is such a complicated issue. I will share my experiences, and reasons why I personally have a difficult time accepting abortion. I married someone several years my senior. He had been married once before, and had a vasectomy. We wanted to raise a family together, but because of our age difference, would have a difficult time adopting. He had a reversal operation, and it is only by the grace of God that I got pregnant. Our chances of having a child were slim, about 10%. We were blessed with a beautiful baby girl.
When she reached her teen years, she had a definate tendancy to walk on the wild side, and became pregnant at the age of 16. I had 2 members of my family tell me that I should take her to the nearest abortion clinic because she was walking into a disasterous situation. There is no way that I could do that, nor would my daughter even consider it. Another option was adoption, though neither one of us could handle that emotionally. She went through with the pregnancy, and gave birth to a baby boy. I'm very proud of her, AND the father. He stuck right by her, determined to be there for his son. They are married now, and have 2 beautiful children who are so very, very precious to them, and to me!! I can't imagine life without them.
I truly believe that even though it is not what I would have chosen for her at that time in her life, her pregnancy was a miracle. My daughter was on a very rough path, and it totally turned her life around.
Please understand that I am fully aware that things don't always work out this way. I am simply relaying our experience. The point is, that everytime I spend time with my grandson, I thank the Lord that he is here, and shudder when I think of what the alternative could have been.

The pregnancy rate in teenagers is astonishing. I think that because abortions are so easy to obtain, the kids are careless, and view abortion as an easy "fix". It makes me cringe.

In thinking about this issue, I guess I would have to say that if a pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or if there is medical proof that there is a severe problem with the child, I can understand abortion. I can also understand it in the case of rape or incest. Other than that, I simply can't condone it. There are too many loving couples out there who want children.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 17, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry-

There is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." It's a made-up term by radicals in the pro-life movement to create outrage. It's incorrect, and it's offensive.

The correct term for the procedure you describe is Dialation and Extraction. I've read the Cahart case, and it (incorrectly) held that the state can prohibit this particular procedure.

A Dialation & Extraction procedure is the safest procedure to abort a fetus at that stage of pregnancy. Frankly, whether they are rare or fairly common is irrelevant. They are performed when the 20-ish week ultrasound shows that the child has an extreme disability or debilitating disease (Downs' Syndrome, Ancephaly, etc). Those conditions do can't be discovered until that stage of pregnancy.

Who are we to judge a woman (or family) that chooses to abort a fetus with such a condition. Perhaps she doesn't have the financial or physical capabilities to raise and care for such a child. Perhaps she doesn't want to give birth to a child that will live a maximum of 4 hours - all of which will be excruciatingly painful.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, as I know this is an issue most will never change their mind on, but can you at least understand that you are looking at the issue in very black-and-white terms when it's just not that simple.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 17, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Elizabeth - I maintain abortion is not a govt issue whatsoever and that it is soley between the mother, the father(again, if he cares), and their God. The Constitution does not have jurisdiction over abortion except within the 10th amendment giving rights to the States. Scientifically, a cell is life. Many single celled organisims exist. So scientifically the early human cell (after conception) is life. The argument comes in where you debate can that life exist outside of the mothers womb - which of course it can't....or can it? Test-tube babies are created and implanted in the mother....I'm splitting hairs here and they can be split almost indefinitely. The relgious side to the abortion argument is even larger and I won't get into it here.

Your connection with the 1st amendment is incorrect from a legal ground. If I were to absorb religion into things I could make most laws illegal (per the 1st amendment establishment clause), as they can often be traced to biblical/religious roots. Theft and murder are in the 10 commandments so they shouldn't be part of US law as the 1st amendment fobids the federal establishment of religion? NO - and I know you didn't mean to go to that extreme but it can easily be done.

As far as I am concerned no govt has a thing to say about abortion - it has nothing to do with govt. However this nation is way too divided on the issue from the east coast to the west coast. To try and appease most people, it should be left up to the states to decide its legality. I hear what you say about poor people being left out due to the fact they may have to travel for an abortion. That can't be helped. People who have the means travel great distances to get to the MAYO climnic in Rochester for top medical treatment - obviously poor people can't afford it. So should we build clinics everywhere - or nowhere - to accomodate them? No. Let the people of the several states decide for themselves on this issue.

On a brighter note a recent study showed abortions in 2007 were at an all time low. Apparently people are getting a bit of responsibility in them when it comes to sex.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 17, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

correction- abortion dropped to its lowest level in decades...not an all-time low

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 17, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thinker - to further clarify your statement, abortion is at its lowest since 1974 (the year after Roe v. Wade).

Also, my statement regarding the first amendment is not correct. Murder and theft are not illegal specifically BECAUSE the bible says they're wrong. For what it's worth, they were a part of the code of Hammurabi as well, which significantly pre-dates the bible.

When dealing with abortion, making it illegal because a fetus is a life actually IS a religious belief. Hence, the difference.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 17, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elizabeth...a fetus is a life. That is not religious but scientific. Religion rears its' head when you speak of the unborn childs soul - if there is one. But it would boil down to murder, wouldn't it? In many states if someone murders a pregnant woman they can be charged with a double homicide - Scott Peterson comes to mind. So if the state says killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide - yet it allows abortion...it's a bit of a double standard. Borders on hypocritical. Yes, there are various stages of fetal developement which contribute to whether or not a double homicide can take place. I believe the woman must be in her 3rd trimester - maybe even late in the 3rd trimester - before the charges can be made. But really it is just semantics.

Abortion is certainly more important to the very religious than it is to the nonreligious. Either side can care - that's not the point. And you don't have to be religious to be concerned. I think I am very mainstream in believing abortion should be legal in 3 instances: rape, incest, and harm/death to the mother. Other than those traumatic situations, I am against abortion. I think adoption is a better alternative. But I shall reiterate and say the govt has no jurisdiction over the matter - it is far too personal. If they stayed out of it (as the SC should have done in Roe v Wade) things would have been better. Tough issue with no absolute clear answers.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on January 17, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really hate to drag this out any further, but will you please point to a credible scientific study that actually determines that a fetus is a life? Last I checked, there's no medical consensus. When life actually begins is nothing more than an opinion.

By the way, by saying that you believe the government should stay out of it, you're referring to the federal government, correct? By simply saying "government" you're implying that you think the state should stay out of it too, which is completely contradictory to your "it's a state's issue" argument.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on January 21, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Due to the diversity of the USA, the range of opinions on the matter, and the lack of a need for an even more overbearing Big Brother, the States should decide the legality of abortion.

Wow...a fetus is not life? You've lost me.....what is it then?