Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.
By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Special to CNN
After recently addressing a large secular assembly on issues of moral controversy, I turned and faced a woman who urgently wanted to ask me a question: “Why won’t the abortion issue just go away?”
I knew exactly what she was asking. I often meet abortion rights advocates who honestly thought that the national controversy over abortion would simply melt away within a few years of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.
That was clearly the hope of the Supreme Court majority that signed onto the opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun. In a note he wrote to himself as he drafted the final opinion and looked to its aftermath, Blackmun revealed a rather optimistic assumption: “It will be an unsettled period for a while.”
Surely, he didn’t mean for that “while” to extend four decades.
Sunday marked the 39th anniversary of the decision, and the abortion question is anything but settled. Just look at the crowds gathering in Washington on Monday for the annual March for Life.
In fact, America has been unsettled ever since Roe. Abortion has become a central issue of political conflict, debate and division. If the court had hoped to calm the waters, it failed spectacularly.
As Guido Calabresi, then dean of the Yale Law School, observed, the aftermath of Roe v. Wade produced a “sense of desperate embattlement.” As Calabresi noted, the court’s decision failed to produce a national consensus. Rather, Roe “made it impossible for the opposing views to live with each other.”
Those who thought that the decision of the Supreme Court would settle the issue had reason for that hope. On other controversial questions, the court’s rulings had produced initial furor and outrage, but the nation rather quickly accommodated itself to those decisions. Take integration in public schools.
Not so with abortion.
Why? Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, an ardent defender of abortion rights, at least recognized that the abortion question presents nothing less than a “clash of absolutes.”
Tribe attempted to propose a means of avoiding “pitting these absolutes against one another.” All such efforts have failed, precisely because the competing claims are indeed absolutes.
When abortion-rights advocates and their allies ask why the abortion issue will not just go away, they really mean to ask why, given the stark reality of Roe, the pro-life movement has not dissipated and retreated into the history books.
Here are five reasons why:
First, the radical character of Roe – overthrowing abortion laws in 49 states – galvanized pro-life forces. The judicial imposition of abortion on demand, virtually without restriction until the third trimester, produced both shock and outrage among those who believe that the unborn child has an inalienable right to life.
Within months of Roe, an organized pro-life movement came into shape, looking for any means of limiting and eventually ending the termination of unborn life.
Second, Roe also had the effect, surely unforeseen by the Supreme Court, of bringing millions of evangelical Christians into the fight on behalf of unborn life. Prior to Roe, even many evangelicals believed that abortion was a Roman Catholic issue.
Roe was a legal earthquake that awakened a massive number of evangelicals to the deadly reality of abortion. With remarkable speed, evangelicals soon educated themselves on the issue and then mobilized themselves both politically and culturally.
Third, the death spiral of abortion simply defies adequate calculation. Over a million abortions are performed in America each year. Reports last year indicated that over 40% of all pregnancies in New York end in abortion, a rate that increases to almost 60% of pregnancies among African-American women.
The sheer scale of the death toll sears the pro-life conscience. Young people can now see that millions are missing from their own generation.
Fourth, abortion has proved to be exactly what pro-life activists warned it would be: a deadly threat to human dignity that would target specific populations. Prenatal testing has produced a deadly reality for unborn babies considered less than acceptable by their parents.
The vast majority (90%) of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are now aborted. Sex-selection abortions are legal in the wide-open “right” to abortion declared by the court. Prenatal testing of other characteristics means that parents can now abort a baby that does not meet their specifications and try again.
Fifth, powerful imaging technologies now allow a look inside the womb, a privilege unknown to previous generations. That window has transformed the equation, as millions of parents have seen their unborn children and witnessed the miracle of life.
They have seen the little human form and the actions of the unborn child, sucking its thumb as it nestles within its mother. Millions of siblings have seen the images of their unborn brothers and sisters taped to the refrigerator door.
Those of us who believe that every single unborn child has a right to be born cannot resign from the effort to protect those lives.
The greatest advances made by the pro-life movement have been made among the young, the generation that has known the death toll from Roe v. Wade all their lives. More evidence that the abortion issue will not simply go away.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler Jr.
The bottom line is this: abortion has always been, and it will be for the foreseeable future. There's not a thing you idiots can do to prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy. You are delusional if you believe otherwise. You're completely impotent to do a thing about it if a woman decides she doesn't want to give birth.
It's hilarious that you think you can control such a private, personal decision. I wonder, you idiots, do you think that enacting laws against masturb at ion would stop you from doing it?
>>>"You're completely impotent to do a thing about it if a woman decides she doesn't want to give birth. "
Then, being fair, the man that did not wish for the child to be born should be free from having to pay child support. If the woman, currently, has the right to terminate the baby or to let the baby live, then the man's responsibly for "her" decision should end at that point.
Her body, Her choice, Her financial responsibility.
I agree. The man should not be required to pay a dime IF he was using birth control.
You know, I used to come to these fora thinking I'd find hope and thoughtful discussion. I gave up on that a long time ago. Seeing the posts of hypocrites like HS, Chard, George, and the rest of the f* xkwits here has made me more cynical than ever. Thanks, folks. I see Christianity for the farce it is. Chard, you're to be granted the most credit.
Why the abortion issue won't go away: One side (pro-choice) argues from fact, reason, and an understanding of the natural world; and the other (pro-life) argues from ignorance and blind belief in a fairy tale. Simply put, one side is wrong, one side is right, but the argument will continue because the wrong side lacks the ability to recognize they are wrong.
"For pro-life folk, imagine a country where it was illegal to remove a tumor, even if the tumor might kill the host, because the tumor is its own collection of living cells. (Yes, I know this sounds absurd to you, pro-life folk; that's the whole point). This is why pro-choice folk refuse to back down"
hmm,, except that tumors aren't human. Killing a tumor doesnt deprive it of an existence on this earth as a human being.
Neither does terminating a pregnancy. Prove otherwise.
Chad: Sometimes pregnancies ARE life-threatening to their hosts (the mothers). What then? Kill the mother, idiot?
Chad- Good argument. Sadly, some women do not value that life precious enough to give it a chance.
Chad: Your stupid argument is actually IN FAVOR of pro-choice, which demands that a mother should have the right to terminate if the pregnancy threatens her life! Jeezus, you need to SHUT UP already!
Hey religion dolt...what % of abortions are performed to protect the mother? are you so obtuse to argue for exceptions?
Mark, you cannot impose an absolute ban on abortion because then you deny the (presumed) minority of their chance to abort due to r-ape, threats to the life of the mother, etc. Not every abortion is an act of convenience. End of story.
So, dear, you approve of execution, too? Yeah, i thought so.
Look at you, you bunch of pen!s-wobblers. You will never carry a fetus or anything else for 9 months. You'll be whining when you're asked to change a diaper.
Hypocrites. I doubt most of you are even fathers at all. That would be too much of a blessing for the universe.
You cannot justify killing the unborn because of your faux concern over exceptions.If you don't have the wherewithal to support life then be proactive and get snipped.
Have you undergone a vasectomy, you dweeb? Guess what? They're not foolproof. A colleague of mine and her husband decided they'd finished their family. He got 'snipped' as you so indelicately put it. A year later, she was pregnant. They are both faithful Catholics.
Got a point, ass hole? No bc is 100% effective. And if you're not the one with the uterus, you can s3ck it, you moron.
Stephen Tyler: RIGHT! All women who ever get r-aped or whose lives will ever be threatened by pregnancy should have the super-power of fortune-telling so they will know to cut their tubes ahead of time to prevent an unwanted child from issuing from their wombs. Good call, dolt!
Blistering barnacles; thundering typhoons;
The drag queen is in full swing!
However just so you know I did graduate highschool in the top 15 of my class with a 3.9 and currently have a 3.7 GPA in a university so i cant be entirely stu.pid now can I? everyone makes mistakes
HAHA I am not helping my case at all by putting this in the wrong space, it was supposed to be in my conversation with Tom. Theres another mistake
Looks like you are new to the ways of that drama queen (Tom) ignore it and you will be fine.
Do you really think your GPA gives you special powers? I guess Observer believes so; I don't. Neither does the rest of the universe.
Nope no super powers, just me and hard work and i dont care if you dont care just saying that im not quite as dum.b as you think i am. And thank you observer it really means a lot
GPA is also subjective. It depends on where you earned it. For example, a 3.9 at Harvard is not the same as a 3.9 at a Podunk Community College.
Ur right GPA is subjective based on the classes you take, so ill let u know that I was taking AP classes throughout highschool, which means I had half of my college credits done when I graduated highschool.
OOOH! Gollleeee! I'm just EVER so impressed!!! I never, ever met anyone this smart!!!
Im not trying to brag, I am not a super smart man. But I am not a stupid one either.
Yeah, Runny. That's what my cat says, too.
To him, and to you, I say, prove it. Thus far, I see no evidence that you're anything but.
It just seems so ironic. All the high falutin controversy about abortion vs. choice would not have been there if the people arguing had been aborted, isn't it? I'm so glad my mum chose to give birth to me, even if it meant all the 'torture' and inconveniences that came along. Denying life's dignity in one place is to deny it everywhere. Then where does it end? Give me a good reason then to respect 'You' and listen to 'You', some mother's child.
I completly agree Ben
You idiots are so predictable. Guess what? I'm pro-choice, and I never had nor sought an abortion. I have kids. My mother was pro-choice, too. She had kids. Never had or sought an abortion.
Guess what, you brain-dead idiots: I'm not black, but I am in favor of equal rights.
When you have a thought amongst you, alert the media: it'll be a miracle.
Thanks awfully, Chard! Will wonders never cease? You agree that supporting the right to choose need not equal promoting abortion? Wow! What a coup!
A few months ago I made a suggestion. It was as extreme as it gets.
Everyone, at birth gets non-permanent sterilized. To have a child, you would have to apply to the state. Prove you are mentally and financially capable to care for the child in the near future. Say, seven to ten years post birth of the child. After conception, the man is returned to a state of sterilization and after birth the woman is sterilized. If they want a second child then the process begins again.
Or better, genetic samples are taken, at the appropriate age. The state can then, with more medical advancements, filter out diseases. So that when a couple or a mother that wishes to be a single mom, decides to combine her stored egg with a husband, boyfriend or donors spe'rm, the chances of a healthy and wanted baby increase greatly and the pregnancy due to r'ape argument goes out the window as well. No pregnancy would be considered a mistake.
Yes, its 1984... but with all the cameras everywhere... we really are just delaying the inevitable.
....and yes, good grief this is a joke. With this subject never seeing an end it just makes me wonder how the future will look. Are media such as 1984 and the Matrix, even the Borg, something that one day folks will just throw their hands up and say for the peace of the planet we all just go marching blindly and scarily ..willingly towards? I mean if a guy can walk into a church and shoot a usher who was also an abortion doctor, the fall out I fear might one day be off the scale. I normally try to "run things down the middle", but abortion I can not. It is a child, not a fetus and we can all yell at each other in the face until we are blue... well I can't :) ...but arguments on both sides are just too ingrained.
Not bashing your idea here, Mark, but regulation takes money. Who will pay for this plan? Raise taxes?
And also Tom if I came out as judgemental I am sorry for that is not my intention. It is a sin just like any other. I am a sinner and am no beter or worse than anybody in Gods eyes. But it is my duty as a follower of God to point out what is a sin and what is not according to him. But like I said I fail so much in following his commands and do not believe for one second that I am any better than someone who has an abortion. We are just both sinners
It is my duty as a NON-BELIEVER in your fairy tale of choice to inform you that there is no such thing as SIN. Verily, verily, neither is there a GOD. So quit your whining and live life like you have some balls!
Ok so lets go live in an anarchy where everyone can do whatever we want! Can I ask you something? How do you make your day to day desicions if you do not have morals? There is right and there is wrong, surely u can agree on that point, for instance the Holocaust was wrong. The point on which we differ is whether we will be judged by a higher power after we die. And if u can please keep the pointless insults out of your comments, I do not care what you think of me but they are not helping this conversation move forward.
"Good" and "Evil" are purely subjective...in the eye of the beholder. If a man goes hiking in the woods and startles a momma bear (and her cubs), that man represents evil (to the momma bear) and she will do whatever she can to defend her cubs. On the other hand, the "bear attack" on the human is viewed as evil by the human. You only see abortion as wrong because your religious belief system has persuaded you to preclude logic with fairy tales. The thought of "killing babies" is merely conditionally reprehensible, as there ARE cases when it is absolutely NOT "evil" (such as after a r-ape). Therefore, abortion cannot be banned.
So if there is no right and wrong how did we deside that we need a judicial system? Should anyone be put in prison as a punishment? If the judge and jury believe that murder is wrong and the murderer thinks that it is right should he be thrown in prison? Also the mother bear example is all about animal instinct protecting her young, it is not the same with humans. For r we not above animal instinces? Finally did you know that of all abortions world wide only one percent are from r.ape victims?
I don't believe in 'sin' and don't give two sh1 ts about your beliefs. They have nothing to do with my rights under the laws of a secular nation. Don't like it? Move to a theocracy. Your religion is not the law and no one is required to adhere to your superset it ions.
The judicial system is NOT based on 'right' or 'wrong'. It's based on preserving the rights and the safety of the individual. Did you people never graduate from high school?! Jesus Christ! Don't you know anything?
And really, why do I even bother to discuss this with an idiot who thinks that morality is the sole basis of law? It's not and never has been in this country.
Our laws aren't based on "morality". They're based on the protection of our individual freedoms and the rights guaranteed to us under the Consti tution!
We aren't allowed to murder someone because a person has a right to life. Not just because murder is "morally wrong."
Why don't you know this already?
But really, why would I bother to discuss this with someone who thinks it's "deside"? I mean, dude. Get a clue. Get a GED. Get an education. You have no business voting if you're this stupid.
Your right it is not the sole basis for the law, there are plenty of laws that have nothing to do with morality. It is about protecting the rights of people. However even there you are saying that it is wrong to inhibit anothers rights, is that objective? Because if as our friend Religion is 4 dolts says right and wrong is subjective. So I guess that it is neither right nor wrong to inhibit anothers rights. As I stated earlier however please keep all insults to yourself for they do nothing to help the conversation.
Haha thank you for pointing out that spelling error, I entirely missed that. well heres the fix * decide. Spelling has never been one of my strong suites ;)
being an uneducated man as u claim me to b, maybe you can help me with this question, where did we get our rights from?
Who decided we should have them? Who decided that they should be protected?
It's "suits", dumbazz. Not "suites". You're as stupid as you look in the mirror.
Have you managed to figure out how "you're" and "your" are different, Runny? I doubt it. Our rights are guaranteed by law, not by morality alone. I suggest you take a class in history. One that goes beyond the HS level. Get back to me when you pass one that's not offered at the local community college.
"Right" and "wrong" are subjective because they are not absolute. Murder IS OK when it is self-defense. I would go on about this but Tom has already made the point. And if you haven't noticed, humans ARE animals.
Ur right im not a pretty man, and Im not the smartest man in the world, but you did not answer the question
Tom u r a funny guy, being a teenager I do appreciate a good insulte. Also I am currently taking politics at a university, not a community college. Also if we are animals then they have the same rights as we do, so im guessing you are a vegetarian then? And I would also like to point out that the idea of rights is subjective too according to your arguments, there is no such thing as truth and everyone should just live life the way they want too. Or everyone has rights including children, quick question when does a fetus become a child?
Ask one that's approaching intelligent. As yet, you've failed to do so. There's no requirement that I lead the blind and dumb to the facts.
Lay off the beer, idiot. You're not smart enough to make sense when you post drunk.
"the idea of rights is subjective too"
Right. That's where "democracy" comes in. But even democracy does not mean that religion should interfere. Otherwise this would be a theocracy.
Ur right I shouldnt post comments while I am drunk, which is why I dont drink. and can u please point out the areas where I am being dum.b, other then the spelling errors, so I can reflect on them.
Do clarify, Runny: did I say animals had the same rights humans do? When did I post any such thing? I'm sure you can cite the post where I did so.
When did I say that my Religion should control the government? I was just asking an intelligent man as yourself how are rights came to be, I was trying to learn what is truly objective and subjective. Since apparently I dont know I need someone to teach
Well, maybe if you learn to write a coherent sentence or a question, I could respond. Alas, you are not capable, as evidenced in your previous posts. Since I actually have a job that requires real work and effort and for which I must arise at an early hour, you're just going to have to suck it up and figure out on your own why women don't give a ripe sh!t what you think about their decisions as regards their own lives and bodies.
Have a nice night, sweet cheeks!
"other then" is a grammatical error (one that is becoming quite widespread in this monkey-see-monkey-do Internet environment.
The word you want is THAN, which is used in comparisons, such as other THAN, rather THAN, older THAN, younger THAN
On the other hand, THEN is used in conditional statements, which usually have an IF in them....such as IF I were not so drunk, THEN I might be able to think more clearly.
Oh, and here's a news flash for you, Runny: I'm a woman.
Well you diddnt, but Religion is 4 dolts did my inference. Humans have rights. According to 4dolts humans are animals. Therefore animals have rights. Just to clarify I do not believe that they have the same rights as humans, I was just pointing out a flaw in his logic.
Runner, you ask the impossible "chicken versus egg" question....which came first? No one can tell, but I am certain that religion is not a prerequisite for building a moral society.....in particular, NOT a Judeo-Christian religion. Native Americans, for instance, had morality in the complete absence of Judeo-Christian influence. Furthermore, it is arguable whether they even had "religion". What is religion? Does it require that precepts be written down? The Natives had spirituality and believed in a Great Spirit, but is that religion? They did not believe in HELL, though they did believe in a Happy Hunting Ground, which is apparently where everyone went after death.
Neither do fetuses, Runner. What part of this do you fail to grasp?
Tom is a woman? Not a bad thing, just a curious choice of screen name. ;)
Runner: Just because I say humans are animals does not mean I equate animal rights with human rights (though certain animals, especially the cute, furry ones we keep as pets, should be treated with respect, and therefore they do have some rights, however different from our own).
My argument right now is not that religion needs to be the absolute morality, my point is that the very fact that we believe that there is morality shows that it is there somewhere. It is like Descarte said "I think therefore I am" My question is where did the idea of morality come from?
Why? Why do any of you think that your religiously based ideas should be the basis for laws in a secular nation? This is NOT and never has been a theocracy. Our laws are meant to protect our freedoms as individuals. Unless my actions endanger your rights or those of any other person, as defined by law, you do not have cause to inhibit them.
Dufus: morality is NOT the basis of law.
Ur not answering my question, I am taking Religion out of the equation. Where did the idea of morality and rights come from?
From multiple sources. The code of Hammurabi, for one.
Why does it matter from whence they came? These are universal ideas, not Biblical or Christian in origin.
What is your point, if you have one other than the one on your head?
My point is that everything must have a beginning, things have to come from somewhere. Matter and energy never come out of nothing according to Newton, and neither do ideas. The idea of morality had to come from somewhere. And if it came from somewhere then it is absolute. Now here on this earth we will never absolutly know what those morals are, we will disagree as we are doing right now but that does not mean that they are not there. From your experiences you have decided that abortion is right and I respect that decision even though we disagree. For as I said before I fail multiple times with morality, its just how it is. I do not judge you, and I ask that you do not judge me on our understandings of morality.
Why? You state this as if it were fact, when it is not. You don't know that morality originated "somewhere" at all. You don't know that the universe originated somewhere, either.
Why do you think it's necessary to find a source for "morality" or even to define what it is for everyone?
Are you so insecure that you need to have an answer for every question? Why?
Runner: I would put it to you that our "morals" have been derived from our collective life experiences. For one example, if you are rude to someone and they are bigger than you, the likely result is that you will get your @$$ beaten. Further escalations might include theft or destruction of your property, murder, or even war. Therefore society (government) compiles laws so as to prevent bad things from happening which should be common sense.....and since "common sense" has to come from somewhere....as I said, it comes from the life experience that you acquire over time....you are not born with it and you do not derive it from some magical, mythical, invisible man-in-the-sky.
Actually I do know that the universe originated somewhere, Einstein discovered that it is constantly growing which means that it has a beginning. If you dont believe me look it up. The reason I keep searching for questions is that is how someone grows. I learn by asking these kind of questions. You can call me insecure and you are right I am. But by asking these questions I have discovered that there is something bigger than I am, and that he takes care of me. And now when I keep asking these questions I learn so much more about him. And I now aim to help other people discover the peace I have found through him. Does that answer your question?
Runny, you're a kid. I doubt you've lived through much of anything. When you have, you might be able to understand others, including women who've been pregnant and desperate. Even then, you aren't qualified to judge or to render your opinion as if it were law.
You just aren't. Neither is Chard. He's just too stupid to know that. I hope you are a bit more intelligent. Even sponges are.
Ur right I am a kid, and I havent had much time in this world. But I do understand desperation, and I am not trying to judge I am sorry if I am coming off that way. I am the worst of sinners, I know guilt and I want to help other people avoid that feeling for it is the worst feeling in the world. And if Chad is an idiot then I am proud to be an idiot with him and holding true to my convictions, as I respect you for holding true to yours.
F!cx off, you hypocrite.
Abortion is a fundamental RIGHT for any woman. It is her body, and she may get rid of any part of it that she wishes to. By definition, a fetus is a parasite from the perspective of the woman it inhabits. She may choose to nurture it or to destroy it. No one else may claim it in any way. This right, like all others, is afforded to individuals of a civilized society by their society. That is all.
A women has the right to kill her children?
Chard, if you have difficulty in grasping the difference, wrest a fetus of 8 weeks from a uterus and keep it alive. Notify the media when you succeed.
No one cares if 'you' disagree, since you aren't the one whose agreement matters in the slightest.
Women don't listen to derps like you, honey. If they did, you wouldn't be desperately seeking attention here.
Chard Tom? looks like im not the only one who misspells things
Ever hear of "Swiss chard", moron? It's a vegetable. Like Chad is.
Chad: So you ARE saying that a woman does NOT have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy that is a result of, say, a R-APE? What if this woman turned out to be your wife (assuming you are a MAN)?
You'd have to have a very liberal definition of "man" to encompass the wonder that is Chard. And you'd need quite an imagination to envision a 'wife' for such a *unique* creature as Chard, if you get my drift.
@ReligionIs4Dolts "So you ARE saying that a woman does NOT have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy that is a result of, say, a R-APE? What if this woman turned out to be your wife (assuming you are a MAN)?"
=>I would never kill a child because I didn't want him/her. If you dont want a child, put him/her up for adoption.
Ever been pregnant, Chard? Given birth? Let me know when you have.
WRONG, CHAD. You cannot force everyone to have an unwanted child just because you think all fetuses should be allowed to live. What about the case when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? Have an answer for that? What if not even a C-section could save the mother's life? What if abortion was the only way to save the mother's life?
@ReligionIs4Dolts "What about the case when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? "
First: abortion performed due to r ape and health reasons of the mother TOTAL less than 5%
Second: The medical profession today makes evaluations balancing the rights of mom and child in problem pregnancies where abortion is not a legal option. Do you think there is no such thing as late term pregnancy issues?
All that is being debated is extending that existing process from later term to conception.
thats it, there is nothing new here.
IDIOT: "abortion performed due to r ape and health reasons of the mother TOTAL less than 5%"
If you BAN abortion, which is what "pro-life" means, then you PREVENT mothers in these (alleged) 5% of cases from aborting! Why are you incapable of seeing what is wrong with that? What? Kill the (less than 5%) of mothers who should have known before having s&x that their lives would be threatened? Force the r-aped mother to have the child of the MF who forced unwanted s&x on the woman? WHY? Just because they don't make up the "majority" of cases AND OF COURSE to satisfy your irrational desires to fulfill your stupid faith and please your invisible "god"?!
For one thing, abortion, like murder, cannot be declared ABSOLUTELY wrong. What about the case when a woman gets ra-ped? She should not have to be FORCED by the State to give birth to this unwanted mistake.
Furthermore, even though it is rather desp-icable for a woman to just depend on the a-ssurance that she has a choice to have an abortion (in the event she wants to risk having unprotected s-ex and not have to "pay the piper"), it is STILL not the State's right to intervene and tell her she can't have an abortion.
Religion has no place in the affairs of the State.
And in case people don't get the "murder" analogy in the first sentence....think about self-defense!
It's not any less a human life just because it was the result of a violent act.
If it's wrong to take the life of the unborn, it's always wrong. Anything else is simply not consistent.
Prove it's "wrong". You believe it is. I do not. Why should your opinion hold sway when the decision doesn't affect you or anyone else? And don't bother yapping about the "rights' of the fetus. Its rights do not trump those of the woman carrying it. If abortion is wrong for YOU, don't ever, ever have one. Because outside of that, you don't get to determine that what you BELIEVE is morally wrong becomes wrong for everyone else.
It's not the fault of the child that his/her dad rap ed his/her mom.
Certainly he/she doesnt deserve to die for a crime he/she had no part in.
Then stick it up your butt, Chard. No one else is required to do so for your beliefs.
Chad: It is not the fault of the woman who got r-aped to have to give birth to and financially support the unwanted burden. Are you really that STUPID? You should have been born a woman.
Chad: Better yet, you should have been born a Muslim woman. When they get r-aped it is 100% their fault and never the man's. And the women tend to be stoned to death as a result.
@ReligionIs4Dolts }It is not the fault of the woman who got r-aped to have to give birth to and financially support the unwanted burden."
=>agreed, r ape is a horrible crime, but the child shouldn't die for it, the man who did it should be locked up.
Additionally, the r ape argument is always used to obfuscate the real reason that unborn children are killed, namely – convenience.
Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life 16%
Woman can't afford baby now 21%
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 12%
Woman is unready for responsibility 21%
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had se x or is pregnant 1%
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child 11%
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children 8%
Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion 1%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Woman's parents want her to have abortion <1%
Woman was victim of ra pe or inc est 1%
Hey, Chard, do alert the media when YOU ever have to face a single one of these issues. I can hardly wait.
Chad: But the problem arises when you try to apply your ABSOLUTE ban on abortion. When you ABSOLUTELY ban abortion, the 1% (or whatever it is) of fetuses that are a result of r-ape cannot be aborted and these are the ones that SHOULD be aborted. You must see the error in your judgement.
@ReligionIs4Dolts " When you ABSOLUTELY ban abortion, the 1% (or whatever it is) of fetuses that are a result of r-ape cannot be aborted and these are the ones that SHOULD be aborted."
=>we should kill a child just because his/her dad rap ed his/her mom?
no. the child did nothing wrong. he/she does not deserve to die nor should they.
Oh, right. But a woman should have to endure pregnancy and childbirth, even if SHE did nothing wrong.
F&>ck you, Chard.
"the child did nothing wrong"
We have to assume that the woman who was forcefully R-APED also did nothing wrong. What about her? IDIOT?
I wonder if chad will return to try to peddle more of his stupid claims. Christians are such morons. Too bad they're allowed to live.
Chad does totally suck big fat donkey balls!
Eh, he's like dogsh!t on the bottom of your shoe–you can never quite get rid of it and even when it's gone, the smell lingers.
If you've any doubts about The Chard, just read the post above, in which he justifies forcing a woman to give birth against her will.
What we got in here? AAhhhh...TYPICAL atheistic conversation. How civil.
I too am against abortion. It seems to me that the main reason why someone would want to abort a child is because they do not want to claim responsibility for their actions. If someone is unresponsible and has unprotected s.e.x without the means to care for it there are consequences. Of course I could not think of a better consequence then to bring another life into this world. If it truly is impossible for someone to care for a child then put it up for adoption. There are plenty of cases where the parents are able to take care of a child they just do not want to because it makes their life difficult. They should have thought of that before they had s.e.x. In todays society people are looking for the quick and easy way out and abortion is one of those.
I am always confused by this argument, because it truly sounds like people want to use keeping the child as a punishment for se.x. Always seemed strange to me.
Well if it is not a punishment then why abort it? I truly do not feel like it is a punishment, it just is a lot of work. Its like having a job you put in a lot of work, there is a lot of frustration but it is a good thing not a punishment.
I do not see having a child as a punishment but obviously those who have abortions do, because why would someone want to turn down a gift that can bring so much joy into your life?
I said nothing about you saying that it is a punishment. I merely stated that that is what it sounds like.
"If someone is unresponsible and has unprotected s.e.x without the means to care for it there are consequences. Of course I could not think of a better consequence then to bring another life into this world."
This is what leads me to that thoght.
I lean toward a pro-choice viewpoint, but only to a certain extent. There are some cases in which women do not think of the consequences of actions, but this is merely human nature sometimes. There are times, however, where the lack of precautions can stem from the lack of education on the subject of se.x in general or the lack of readily available contraceptives to specific age groups or whatnot. In these cases it may be appropriate for, say, a teenage girl who made a mistake one night and was not fully informed by either her parents (due to their beliefs or whatever), or, as happens more often than people would like to admit, was coerced into it, to have the option of abortion available.
You don't see much, Runner. You have no idea why a woman chooses to end a pregnancy. You cannot know another person's life. Stop attempting to, and let them live their lives as they choose. If you are so keen on babies, have one yourself. Adopt one. You don't have a right to judge a woman who is making a difficult choice unless you have been, or could be, in her shoes.
Oh, and "a lot of work"? What do you say to a kid of 16 or 18, who is pregnant and unprepared for parenthood? A "lot of work"? How about the end of possibilities for any kind of life at all? Girls who keep their babies and attempt to raise them as single parents, are almost always doomed to lives of poverty. It's not just "a lot of work". And what of the kids they try to parent? How prepared is a child to raise a child? Do you REALLY think a high school grad or dropout is going to raise a kid who'll value education? Be prepared for school?
Did I say she had to keep the child after it was born? No she could give it up for adoption. I also find it interesting that in todays society being 18 is now considered being a child still, just 200 years ago people were raising children at the age of 14 or 15. It is societies fault that the 18 year old mother has to drop out of highschool and give up a career, not the childs.
Have you ever been pregnant? If not, then S T F U.
Why the abortion issue won't go away? The stupidity of Pill and/or condom users and uneducuated political leaders!!!
Only for the "newbies":
Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!
What BO can do to at least lift part of the Immoral Majority leader label? (see below for a definition of the Immoral Majority)
He says abortions should be "safe, legal and rare" but says nothing about the basic tenet of proper human conduct i.e. Thou Shalt Not Kill. And where is BO's sense of indignation that abortions are not rare and that these acts of horror demean the Golden Rule considering that he says he is a Christian. And where is his sense of indignation that women who use the Pill do not use it properly resulting in an failure rate of 8.7% as per the Guttmacher Inst-itute statistics. Using these and other Guttmacher Inst-itute data, this failure of women to use the Pill properly results in ~1,000,000 unplanned pregnancies every year. And the annual abortion rate in the USA is?? ~1,000,000 as per the CDC.
And do males use condoms properly? No, as said failure rate for this birth "control" method is 17.4%!! Again using Guttmacher data, said failure rate results in another ~1,000,000 unplanned pregnancies every year.
Bottom line: BO is still not aware of the basics of birth control and still remains the leader of the Immoral Majority and will remain so until he becomes a true Christian and one who respects and protects human life in all its forms and who at least emphasizes the proper use of birth control methods!!!
The "Immoral Majority" you ask?
The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million "IM" voters in 2012.
2008 Presidential popular vote results:
69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM.
The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the Pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
(35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).
o Conclusion: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.
first I want to tell you that I'm a foster parent and I'm in the process of trying to adopt the foster child I have raised for the past year. We were one of the fortunate families whose foster child was actually relinquished by his unfit parents to be eligible for adoption. Many, many more potential adoptive families wait months and years and may never have a child to adopt. Second I also want to tell you that there was a case of date rap3 in my family and that child was raised as an equally loved and accepted member of our family. So I have some knowledge of the situations you speak of. I suggest that the young girl did have options other than abortion or raising another unwanted child. Many families would love to take that child and care for it as their own. Less than 2% of unwed mothers choose adoption. They would rather abort their own child than let another capable family raise it. It is truly insanity. How a human life could be considered so worthless as to kill it rather than allow someone else to care for and love the child is beyond my comprehension.
You claim to be a foster parent, but I don't buy it. Not if you are claiming that there aren't enough kid's out there to adopt, because you would have to be either blind or stupid to believe that. Now there may not be a large supply of newborn infants which are what most adoptive parents want and they may have to wait 2 years for the child of their dreams, but if any parents out there have a safe caring home to share with some orphaned children you do not have to wait 2 years, so don't sell your lies here.
Personally I think we would be a much healthier society if birth control were mandatory and you had to apply for a license to have children. Then maybe people would take it more seriously and we wouldnt have these religious nuts having 5, 10 or even 20 children like the Duggers that the rest of society has to support through our tax dollars.
Again, if your Church is telling you abortion is bad because we need more children born into the foster care system so that baren parents will have a larger selection to choose from, and you believe them, YOU ARE SICK!! Get help right away and stop going to that evil place where they tell you lies and steal your money while molesting your children.
Yes, Bombed, I really am a foster parent. I have a foster son that I am hoping someday to adopt. We have had six or seven kids through our home in the past two years and only one that was even remotely eligilble for adoption. If you read my comment to Sean, I agree that it is harder to find permanant adoptive homes for kids over ten because by that time they have been in the system for many years and have acquired many behavior issues that make them hard to place. Would you consider risking the safety of your own biological children by adopting a violent teenager? It is sad but true.
Another thing Bombed. It is not easy to become licensed by the state to become eligible to foster or adopt. Our state requires a 30 hour training course that spans ten weeks. Several months of background checks, home inspections, references from everybody that ever knew you. It took almost a year for my husband and I to get cleared to get in the foster to adopt system. It's not like "oh, we have an orphan here, let's find a nice family who will take him". Sorry, that is just not reality. It doesn't happen that way. Many families go through the licensing process and wait months for a match with an adoptable child.
And to your comment that "if your Church is telling you abortion is bad because we need more children born into the foster care system so that baren parents will have a larger selection to choose from, and you believe them, YOU ARE SICK!! " Well that's just crazy. What in any of my comments would have led you to believe that?
Bombed- I suggest you do some reading on foster care and adoption before you start calling people liars.
"we need more children born into the foster care system so that baren parents will have a larger selection to choose from, and you believe them, YOU ARE SICK!! " Well that's just crazy. What in any of my comments would have led you to believe that?"
This comment from below implies just that.
"Many are waiting but few women (less than 2%) give their children up for adoption. Abortion is much quicker and easier to do."
Did I miss your point? Were you not saying that if only more women who chose abortion decided to choose adoption instead then the "many" who are waiting can have their child? Would that not be a "larger selection" to choose from?
It's not about "larger selection". It's about saving human life and allowing families who want to adopt have a chance. Do you honestly think people who think abortion is killing are just nutjobs? Thanks for the stereotype.
" they may have to wait 2 years for the child of their dreams, but if any parents out there have a safe caring home to share with some orphaned children you do not have to wait 2 year"
Bull... there is so much red tape to the process that the Average time to find an adoption is close to 24 months... after you have been approved.... you have never been part of the process.
Why are they waiting for the "child of their dreams"? I'm guessing that would mean a perfect, white infant. Guess what? You don't get to choose to have the "child of your dreams", you hypocrites. Take what's available-that's what real parents do. Why should it matter whether the child's non-white, physically or mentally challenged? Why should YOU be able to choose what you want if you won't allow those who bear the burden of pregnancy the same right, you phony jerks?
The poster who used the phrase "the child of their dreams" was not among those who were advocating for adoption. It came from Anatomically Bombed who questioned my sincerity as a foster parent seeking adoption. As far as waiting for the perfect white infant to come along. Well, I'm sorry to say that isn't how it works. When a child is removed from his/her parents' home by the police, foster homes like ours get calls at all hours of the day or night by the foster care agency asking if we can take in a child. We are told how old the child is but we have no idea what the child's race or even name is at that point. We are just asked if we have room and are able to care for the child. Often we only have a few minutes to a few hours to make arrangements to accept the child in need of care. When the child I currently foster needed a home, I had two hours to call all over town to find a daycare facility with an opening who would accept state custody children before I could say I would take him. I had about two hours to do this. He has been with us almost a year now.
Don't troll these boards looking for a place to cast quick judgement on people you don't know or have any information on.
Because people can't accept that there is no such thing as ghosts and in a few thousand days (if your are lucky) everything that is you will cease to exist.
It's unnatural. It's an evil horrible thing to kill babies. Pro-life humanity will never go away simply because it is against human nature.
If it is indeed human nature then it would be less of an issue for the "pro-life" agenda to be implemented.
The abortion issue would go away very quickly if the evangelicals who protest so very loudly would shut up and adopt instead. And the reason it won't go away is because evangelicals believe women are 2nd class citizens and incapable of making any decisions for themselves.
You must be seriously uneducated to even say that. It shows that you know nothing of religion and are ignorant of God. Men and WOMEN fight for life. You murder innocent children and call it your right. When does that child get to vote???Oh wait it doesn't you have taken its right to vote away by KILLING it!
Yes, Hypatia. We would love to adopt. Many are waiting but few women (less than 2%) give their children up for adoption. Abortion is much quicker and easier to do. Unfortuately, the rhetoric has told women that it's not really a baby until it can live outside the womb. It's really sad because many more families would be completed if adoption was seriously considered as an option.
@Zippygirl: So you're only willing to accept a "fresh" one? Not interested in a pefectly good, used model that's sitting in a dealer's lot somewhere?
Actually Sean, the child that I foster and am trying to adopt was removed from a neglectful home because his mother was unable to care for him. So the answer is, yes, people do adopt "used" kids too. Not just newborns. I do agree it is harder to find adoptive homes for older kids. By the time kids have been in and out of biological family homes, foster care, bounced around aunts, uncles and grandparents, they ofter have behavior issues and are difficult to place. If children are removed and placed in permanant adoptive homes more quickly, there would be less disruption and turmoil in these kids lives.
"It's really sad because many more families would be completed if adoption was seriously considered as an option."
What's sad is that you are correct, but not in the way you meant that comment. Many more families would be completed if adoption was seriously considered as an option, an option for the family wanting a child, not for the teen mom who is unable to care for a child. If more people would adopt we would not have the major problems with to many orphans and overcrowded foster care system. If you really loved children as much as you claim then do something about the real problem which isn't Planned Parenthood or abortion providers. It's ignorance and hate promoted by evil organizations aka organized religion. Everyone should be for birth control, for s e x education and for a mothers right to choose not to bring another child into the world with little to no ability to care for that child. Anyone who fights that basic common sense in the name of an invisible deity is just plain stupid.
How much do you really know about the foster care system? I can tell you from experience, there are practically NO orphans in the system. That's just a myth. The kids in foster care are there not because they are unwanted, very few biological parents volunteer to relinquish their parental rights. In fact, they fight in court for years to get their kids back. In reality, the kids in foster care are there because of neglect and abuse. They get taken in and out of their parent's homes again and again and placed in foster care while their parents get cleaned up from drugs, alcohol, etc or go through the hoops of parenting classes, jail, whatever to regain custody. Usually within two years the kids are taken away again and the process starts over. The foster care system is overcrowded because the biological parents are given chance after chance after chance to "earn" the custody of their own kids back. Only in extreme cases are the rights eventually terminated by the courts and the kids are put up for adoption. In my state, it takes at the minimum two years before the termination of parental rights even begins. It can take another two years to finalize and adoption.
"The foster care system is overcrowded because the biological parents are given chance after chance after chance to "earn" the custody of their own kids back. Only in extreme cases are the rights eventually terminated by the courts and the kids are put up for adoption."
I do understand why it's overcrowded, but do you really think those problems with the biological parents will somehow magicly disapear if we ban abortion and force these women to give birth? What you suggest would only put more strain on an already broken system. And maybe in your State it's a two year wait but here in California there are children waiting to be adopted, though I can say that there is still a year or more process of vetting the adoptive parents to make sure they are not just using the kids as a means of financial support while locking them in a basement. The point is, the debate you raise is valid but should be more about reforming the system, not breaking it further by banning abortion.
Bombed-No I don't think anything will "magically disappear". I'm not Pollyanna out here. I do, however think abortion is killing and I do support foster care and adoption. I know there are no easy answers. However, I do know that the waiting list for newborns is several miles long. Even for children under ten. My husband and I have put our home study in for four or five kids now and have not been selected as the adoptive home. One little girl, a four-year-old had 45 other families besides us apply to adopt her. So my answer is yes, there are people out there that want kids, Yes, we need to improve education to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and yes, we need to encourage women to consider adoption over abortion.
Why should a woman who doesn't want to have a baby provide incubation services for people like Zippygirl? If a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant or to give birth, there is no reason that she should do so. Just because you want to adopt is not reason for a woman to produce progeny for you.
why cant you all mind your own business. What business is it of the government or yours if a woman decides not to have a baby? Its not your freaking problem. How about focusing on stopping the foreclosure of your home, getting out debt, helping your children eat healthy. If everyone would stop stigmatizing and being so damn nosy, judgemental, and gossipy we would all be a lot better off. IF you think abortion is wrong, dont have one and counsel your loved ones accordingly.
So if you found out about some people group in the south pacific that had child sacrifice, because anyone under 10 isn't actually a person to them, your position is to leave them be? I don't say this to try to guilt-trip you, but to just give you the perspective of pro-life folk.
I absolutely see your point, which is why it's such a difficult issue to reconcile the opposing views.
DaveMKE, I think you have a good illustration. Another one would be what if a nation wanted to get rid of all the Jewish people (for the sake of argument). Would it be ok to say hey its their country let them kill who they want...why do we need to be so nosy and think that we always know what's best for everyone else.
You say to counsel our loved ones to not have an abortion. Well, if Christians are to follow the teachings of Jesus, everyone is to be loved by us; therefore, we feel it to be necessary to counsel everyone not to end a human life.
Counsel away but don't think to legislate your morality. That goes beyond counseling.
There was a time when I was a staunch right-to-lifer. I protested abortion clinics. I called women who had abortions murderers. I passed out tracts with horrific pictures of purported abortions (later discovered to be staged/false) to anyone I could.
Of course, as my beliefs changed, you would think my stand on abortion would change. But it didn't. Not for a long time after I had walked away from Christianity. It took the story of a young woman who was 16, pregnant for the second time. Her first son had been born the year before with birth defects and a number of health issues. He required round the clock care. The baby and the new pregnancy were both the result of inc.est. She had two brothers, one of whom had legal custody of her, who ra.ped her repeatedly from the time she was thirteen on.
At the time I met her, she wasn't sure who the father of the child inside her was, because her brothers had punished her for trying to refuse to have s.ex with them by "giving" her to three or four of their friends. She had finally gotten up the nerve to take her son and run and she was living in a shelter. She was desperate to have an abortion, desperate to not have to bring another child into the world that she knew, knowing that there was a chance they would find her and drag her back, or that they would kill her...or worse. She cried continually, she hated herself, she hated the constant remind her of what was done to her.
I can not fathom what she must have felt like. But I know the fear, the anger, the disgust inside her....I saw it in her eyes as she begged for someone to help her.
Now, as I've matured and thought through all of the arguments, I've come to the conclusion that abortion is a necessary thing. A woman MUST be permitted to choose to allow her body to be used or to chose to not allow her body to be used. This is ever MORE true when the pregnancy is the result of r.ape or inc.est.
IF " I called women who had abortions murderers." and had no grace.
Then you strayed away longer then you consciously knew you walked away.
Then a very tragic story
Then " A woman MUST be permitted to choose" to kill to get even to those who wronged her?
It was not meant as logical argument. It was a statement. I believed one thing. Even when the reason for that belief changed my belief didn't for a long time. Then I met people who had different beliefs. Then I thought about it more. And more. And more.
Over the course of time, my beliefs changed. In part due to stories like the one I related. In part because the core of who I am had changed. In part because I became convinced, due to personal experience that it is the right thing to do.
I do not believe that abortion is ever a first choice. It isn't something to take lightly. However, I also do not believe that it is MY choice, unless the pregnancy in question is my own. I have many, many reasons for that belief.
What I do believe is that we need to make education our priority. We need to provide reasonably priced healthcare. We need to provide access to reasonably priced contraceptives. These things must be available to anyone regardless of age, income or location. We must do our best to make prevent unwanted pregnancy first. However, we must also maintain safe and legal abortion until the day comes when we can guarantee that no woman will ever conceive without it being her choice to do so.
Wise words. Most cannot conceive of another viewpoint beyond their own until they have been in the situation, or have someone close be in the situation. Education and availability of contraceptives are the only viable solution for us as a people.
Your making no sense. It seems like your trying to use a logic formula but failed quite spectacularly.
That was funny.... if myweight got it and responded and you did not, why is it my post that failed?
Perhaps I'm just more used to logical arguments in a more set format? Either way your post seemed more like a random assortment of statements rather than a linear thought. I will ammend what I said by saying that it did not make a lot of sense to me.
I think this is a good post, but the reason aborion won't cease being a hot-button issue is the simple conflict of absolutes the author mentioned.
Pro-life folk honestly believe that the fetus growing in the womb is a real, unique, human life, and the idea of killing a baby is totally appalling. For pro-choice folk, imagine if a country had a law allowing you to kill your child before he or she turns 6 months old if you decide you don't want him or her. (Yes, I know this sounds absurd to you, pro-choice folk; that's the whole point.) This is why pro-life folk refuse to let it go.
Pro-choice folk honestly believe that the fetus is nothing more than a part of the woman's body. It is an incomplete collection of cells entirely dependent on the woman for existence. For pro-life folk, imagine a country where it was illegal to remove a tumor, even if the tumor might kill the host, because the tumor is its own collection of living cells. (Yes, I know this sounds absurd to you, pro-life folk; that's the whole point). This is why pro-choice folk refuse to back down.
What's the solution? Shoot, you got me. I'm pro-life, but I understand where pro-choice folk are coming from. I really don't think the answer involves violence, but I'm confident spewing hate on a CNN comment page is important :) (Oh hush, that was directed at both sides.)
That's is a remarkable reasonable post. It is also worth noting that very few people are "pro-abortion" either...
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.