If you are opposed to abortion, what do you do for the unborn?

[Kathleen in VA]

:iagree: In fact, my kids were just looking at a sonogram video of their new cousin, at 8 weeks gestation, and were marveling at that tiny baby moving around. My dd actually said, "Wow, he's really ALIVE!!!!"

 

There are very few adults who don't know that that fetus is a living human-- many people just don't care.

 

It's not that difficult to figure out, is it? Children can figure it out and I'm sure adults are fully aware as well. I'm not sure it's that they don't care though. I mean, if it weren't a live human being why bother aborting it in the first place? They care about themselves more, that's all.

[babysparkler]

 

It's not that difficult to figure out, is it? Children can figure it out and I'm sure adults are fully aware as well. I'm not sure it's that they don't care though. I mean, if it weren't a live human being why bother aborting it in the first place? They care about themselves more, that's all.

 

:iagree:

[Katrina]

 

You and me both on the multi quote thingy.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean about having no right to make laws about protecting children from abuse if children are the responsibility of their parents. I'm not seeing why it is not right to make laws governing the treatment of children simply because children are the responsibility of their parents.:001_huh:

Well, what I was saying is that of course it's right to makes laws protecting the treatment of kids. But when we make those laws, we are aknowledging that the government has the right to step in and take over the rights of the parents who are breaking those laws. So it's no longer the parents rights, but society's rights and responsibily to make sure those children who are taken away from their parents are being cared for correctly. Just one example to make a point. (extreme example: If I were to step into an abortion clinic tomorrow to have an abortion and the government were to stop me because it was against the law, then technicaly the baby is no longer my responsbility because I was trying to kill it, so it becomes the governments responsibility. Not that this is a good example, I'm just trying to help you see my point of view. I'm better at explaining these things verbally than writing. Sorry.)

 

 

 

The fact that children are the responsibility of their parents means that both unborn and born children should be nurtured, loved and protected by their parents. The law is there to guarantee that they get that nurture, love and protection. If people always did the right thing we wouldn't need laws. People don't, so we do.

 

Well, I guess in a nutshell, I see it as a two seperate issues. First there's the individual issue. I agree, I think my children are my responsibility. To carry them to term, to raise them in a nurturing, stable home. To oversee their education. To provide them with medical care. When it comes to what really should be private, individual responsibilies I do agree with you.

 

But when we start talking about legalities, then we are no longer talking about individual rights. We are talking about what the government says. If the government is going to dictate what I can or can't do, then the government better have some responsibility in the consequences of those laws. We outlaw stealing, and we have a process to deal with people who steal. If the government is going to outlaw abortion, then we can jail every woman who has an abortion, and every doctor who performs them.

 

Now...on a personal level, I would prefer a government to me more proactive and not so much reactive. I think it's better to help prevent a crime than it is to punish a crime. No, we're never going to stop every act of injustice in America. But I would argue that it's better to try. IF the government is going to outlaw abortion, then they should have programs offering help, adoption programs, childcare help, postpartem depression help, whatever.

 

I'm sure many people here are going to start srceaming socialism, and their right. I'd prefer non government options like the many Peek listed to help mothers in need. But we just can't ignore the governments responsibilities when we use the government. (I hope I'm making sense. It sounds right in my head because I understand what I'm trying to say. ;))

 

If we're going to take the responsibility to vote for antiabortion laws, then we also are taking responsibility for voting for those consequences. The consequences can be either good or bad, but we have to own them.

 

Now, as far a charity goes, it is no ones responsibility to perform charitable acts for any person or cause. That's why it's charity, helping someone because we want to, not because we have to.

[Katrina]

 

My ds (now age 4) was a part of a texas-wide television campaign to get the word out about the "Baby Moses" law in Texas... we spent 6 hours in 100 degree heat shooting a public service announcement that has saved over a dozen lives in Texas to date. I wish the tv stations would show this PSA more, but I have only seen it shown when babies have been saved and the news is focusing on it. We give our time, and our finances to save babies. Here is the link to our website (I encourage you to get involved!):

 

http://www.babymosesdallas.org/

 

See, this is great. A not for profit, all volunteer organization, endorsed by the government (monetary donations are tax deductable), and babies lives are being saved. I'd jump on this bandwagon anyday.

[Peek a Boo]

But when we start talking about legalities, then we are no longer talking about individual rights. We are talking about what the government says.

 

This is where differences in worldview and function of gvt comes into play.

I view the gvt's role as one of protecting individual as well as national rights [defense/treaties]. The legalities/ laws are in place to explicitly protect the rights of the individual. Many of our laws reflect that. Whenit comes to abortion on demand, our laws are not reflecting the rights of the unborn human, so we see gvt as falling down on doing its job of protecting individual rights and administering justice.

 

If the government is going to dictate what I can or can't do, then the government better have some responsibility in the consequences of those laws.

We outlaw stealing, and we have a process to deal with people who steal. If the government is going to outlaw abortion, then we can jail every woman who has an abortion, and every doctor who performs them.

 

Absolutely.

This meshes very well w/ my view of the gvt's role limited role: enforcement. enforcing laws.

 

Now...on a personal level, I would prefer a government to me more proactive and not so much reactive. I think it's better to help prevent a crime than it is to punish a crime. No, we're never going to stop every act of injustice in America. But I would argue that it's better to try. IF the government is going to outlaw abortion, then they should have programs offering help, adoption programs, childcare help, postpartem depression help, whatever.

 

I'm sure many people here are going to start srceaming socialism, and their right. I'd prefer non government options like the many Peek listed to help mothers in need. But we just can't ignore the governments responsibilities when we use the government. (I hope I'm making sense. It sounds right in my head because I understand what I'm trying to say. ;))

 

I'm not ignoring gvt's responsibility -- I'm disagreeing w/ your assessment of what the gvt's role/ responsibility IS.

When you get into the role of the gvt providing various services, you start entering the realm of "how best to forcibly acquire and spend other people's money w/o their consent."

 

 

If we're going to take the responsibility to vote for antiabortion laws, then we also are taking responsibility for voting for those consequences. The consequences can be either good or bad, but we have to own them.

Right.

I am willing to support the gvt in enforcing anti-abortion laws if they set up the law the way i want to see it. :D

 

 

Now, as far a charity goes, it is no ones responsibility to perform charitable acts for any person or cause. That's why it's charity, helping someone because we want to, not because we have to.

 

right --but studying our history shows an amazing amount of charitable organizations that have existed long before tax breaks were available. ;)

 

as far as programs offering help, adoption programs, childcare help, postpartem depression help, etc, then it would be more fruitful and protecting on individual rights if the gvt were to cut out being the middle man and give people MORE tax breaks to privately support the preventative/helpful organizations of their choice. That way the gvt isn't using force to accomplish a goal, the opportunity for help is still available, a wide variety of help is available, the gvt doesn't have to worry about taking an official position on which organizations would work best, and the gvt can focus on its job of enforcing the law [which it still can't do very efficiently yet] instead of being a nanny.

[Peek a Boo]

 

See, this is great. A not for profit, all volunteer organization, endorsed by the government (monetary donations are tax deductable), and babies lives are being saved. I'd jump on this bandwagon anyday.

 

clarification:

just because something is a non-profit does not mean it is endorsed by the gvt. In fact, most churches are non-profit, and the gvt is explicitly told to NOT endorse any one religion.

The gvt has merely recognized its monetary status and business structure.

:D

[Ibbygirl]

I agree with Peek and the other poster about how a child can look at a sonogram and see that it is a living baby and yet adults get brainwashed somehow into believing that it is otherwise (wishful thinking perhaps?? I don't know.) Abortion really saddens me greatly, not only for the mothers and their babies, but also for the unintended consequences of it. I remember when I was pregnant with my daughter (my firstborn), I was at the laundromat one day and someone had left a local newspaper on the bench. There was a story in there about a mother who was 8 months pregnant with her first child (a daughter like mine) and who had been hit by a drunk driver. She survived but her (otherwise perfectly healthy) baby did not and the drunk driver got off with a slap on the wrist because the baby was not born yet. This is a travesty of justice IMO to the child and the mother and I believe that it is due to the arguments for abortion rights that "the child is not really alive until they are born", that this guy was able to get away with killing her baby. :( I just cannot fathom or understand how somone can have an extended belly with a child inside kicking and moving that has a heartbeat and is growing and some can say "it's not a baby". :confused: I just don't get it.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I see that quite a few people are concerned and praying for a stranger who is pregnant. Will it end if she decides to keep the baby?

 

Do any of you here in that other thread do anything to help these young mothers and their babies once they are actually born?

My aunt is the ONLY person I have ever met who is staunchly opposed to abortion AND does something for the mothers and their babies AFTER they are born.

 

I ask this question because I have had conversations with people who are opposed to abortions AND financial aid to unwed mothers.

Don't these people NEED foodstamps to keep their kids fed?

Far too often the unborn children are a priority but once they are born they are forgotten.

 

So I wonder if anyone here is like my aunt and puts their money, energy, or time where their mouth is.

 

Not being snarky - just curious to know.

I love my aunt dearly even though I am prochoice.

And I repect her because she works for her cause and doesn't just give voice to it.

She really helps the women who want to keep their babies but see no other choice.

 

I'm not even going to attempt to read all the responses. I'm sure there are super ones, but, I just don't have the time. So I'll just answer for myself!

 

I think you ask a valid question and a really good thought-provoking question. I personally have been and continue to be active in the pro-life movement. I've always thought that if you truly believe in something you will get involved even if it's inconvenient to you personally.

 

So, here's what I've done:

 

--I established and taught abstinence education for our crisis-pregnancy center in my hometown for about 4 years. I spoke in over 12 public schools on a monthly basis and taught over 1200 students a year. It was a very positive program full of information but not scare tactics that sometimes come with this type of thing. We focused mainly on the emotional side of sex outside of marriage with some facts about STDs and pregnancy.

 

--I counselled in our crisis pregnancy center and was active in helping out with their incentive program that allows moms to receive the things they need by earning points for things like attending their prenatal appointments, classes, and counseling sessions, reading books on parenting, and following through on their appointments with social services.

 

--I've fostered babies who are in the process of adoption.

 

--We've had young girls who are pregnant stay with us until they have their own place to stay.

 

--I've worked to help moms get on WIC, food stamps, educational programs, and help with energy assistance and rental assistance.

 

I agree with you that it's not enough always to pray for them, even though I think that's an enormous first step to helping them. We need to be the hands, feet, arms, and listening ears of Jesus to them. They needed me to be non-judgmental but fair. They needed to feel loved and respected. They needed to feel safe. Hopefully, that's what I was able to do for them.

 

It's true that a lot of the pro-life movement is words, but, a LOT of it is actions as well. Our crisis pregnancy center is fully staffed with volunteers and runs on donations. When girls come into it they find a safe place, a haven from their situation, a place that works with them to build a life for them and their child.

[kdeno]

I do not have a sling but I do have an Ergo Carrier and I think I have some cloth dipes I could send you.

 

Please email me :-)

 

Kari

http://www.theamusingredhead.com

[Erica in PA]

 

It's not that difficult to figure out, is it? Children can figure it out and I'm sure adults are fully aware as well. I'm not sure it's that they don't care though. I mean, if it weren't a live human being why bother aborting it in the first place? They care about themselves more, that's all.

 

What I meant was that it's not news to anyone that a fetus is a living human... and that the fact that it *is* doesn't matter much in the decision making to those who make the choice to abort. I didn't mean not caring in the sense of having no emotional reaction, but not caring in the sense that it's not really much of a factor in their decision.

[Carol in Cal.]

I am morally and ethically waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay prolife.

I have made significant personal sacrifices for this belief, that I don't want to go into, but that very possibly cost me a second child that I passionately wanted.

I also coordinate physical and financial support for a local Community Pregnancy Center from 2 churches, donate a lot of stuff there myself, and have encouraged knitters, crocheters, and quilters I know to make brand new layette items to make the mother and baby feel as precious as we know they are as well as making things myself. Also, I have worked on arranging matching funds for another Community Pregnancy Center locally.

I love my relatives who are adopted with the same love as those who are not, and I go out of my way to show it so that they know it very well. I have a cousin, 2 nephews, and 2 second cousins who are adopted, and they know that they are in my forever family, because I have welcomed them and told them so and showed them that over and over.

 

 

And I am legally prochoice until viability, although I think that anyone who wants to have an abortion for any reason except the actual physical life of the mother should be required to view an ultrasound of her baby and then wait 48 hours before going forward. I abhor this choice, but lacking a true social safety net, and believing that bodily integrity is a right of the mother as well as the child, this is where I, personally and with great difficulty, draw that line. I know 4 women who I know have had abortions, and the youngest had hers during the summer between 8th and 9th grade. Her 'lover' was an older guy that seduced her at a party where she was supposed to be chaperoned by her older brother who basically ignored her. She was in a situation that she was not equipped to handle on any level. My understanding is that most teenage pregnancies involve statutory rape as this one did. That doesn't, in and of itself, justify killing a baby, morally, at all--but to me, it does justify leaving that option available in the law, although I don't want anyone to take it.

 

 

I believe that everyone, but especially men, should be more actively encouraged toward abstinence and toward commitment to marriage and to their children. Predatory older men and women, in particular, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and public awareness of statutory rape laws should be increased. Also, taking responsibility for children in general should be encouraged as a matter of policy and ethics.

 

And that is the way I see it, my nuanced view.

 

I am very uncomfortable with pro-choice rhetoric that defines babies as problems rather than blessings, almost like a cancer, but OTOH, am also uncomfortable that we are in a society in which for many people babies actually function as horrendous problems--this should not be so!

 

I am very uncomfortable with pro-life rhetoric that suggests that abortions are 'merely' a convenience, as they are almost always a grievous choice as best as I can tell--perhaps seeming like the lessor of two evils, but often leaving regrets that continue for a very long time. One of the reasons that I work so hard to make abortion less necessary is that I am FOR WOMEN, and I feel very strongly the personal responsibility to demonstrate that as a pro-life Christian, I have compassion on the entirety of the circumstances and do not believe AT ALL that "Life begins at conception and ends at birth."

[swimmermom3]

I'm not even going to attempt to read all the responses. I'm sure there are super ones, but, I just don't have the time. So I'll just answer for myself!

 

I think you ask a valid question and a really good thought-provoking question. I personally have been and continue to be active in the pro-life movement. I've always thought that if you truly believe in something you will get involved even if it's inconvenient to you personally.

 

So, here's what I've done:

 

--I established and taught abstinence education for our crisis-pregnancy center in my hometown for about 4 years. I spoke in over 12 public schools on a monthly basis and taught over 1200 students a year. It was a very positive program full of information but not scare tactics that sometimes come with this type of thing. We focused mainly on the emotional side of sex outside of marriage with some facts about STDs and pregnancy.

 

--I counselled in our crisis pregnancy center and was active in helping out with their incentive program that allows moms to receive the things they need by earning points for things like attending their prenatal appointments, classes, and counseling sessions, reading books on parenting, and following through on their appointments with social services.

 

--I've fostered babies who are in the process of adoption.

 

--We've had young girls who are pregnant stay with us until they have their own place to stay.

 

--I've worked to help moms get on WIC, food stamps, educational programs, and help with energy assistance and rental assistance.

 

I agree with you that it's not enough always to pray for them, even though I think that's an enormous first step to helping them. We need to be the hands, feet, arms, and listening ears of Jesus to them. They needed me to be non-judgmental but fair. They needed to feel loved and respected. They needed to feel safe. Hopefully, that's what I was able to do for them.

 

It's true that a lot of the pro-life movement is words, but, a LOT of it is actions as well. Our crisis pregnancy center is fully staffed with volunteers and runs on donations. When girls come into it they find a safe place, a haven from their situation, a place that works with them to build a life for them and their child.

 

Dayle, thank you for this post. I wish you had given the abstinence education talk at the small Christian high school I attended. We saw all the pictures of fetuses in trash cans. We heard the talk about how God would punish us for immoral choices. Then one young (15) woman stood up and related her family situation. She was one of 7 children and her mother had been pregnant with her 8th. The mother was very ill and her doctor felt it would be life-saving to terminate the pregnancy and they did. My classmate's question to the presenter was should her mother have been allowed to die and leave 7 children motherless.

 

The presenter's response was "Absolutely." He explained that her parents should have had faith in God and if it was her mother's time to die, so be it. I will never forget the look on that man's face as he pronounced the immorality of the girl's parents. He seemed so sure of his belief as he delivered it to a young girl in tears. There was no compassion, no understanding. He was implacable. I know that the repulsion and nausea I felt in response to this presenter were due to my own immaturity but it is a hard image to leave behind. I'm not sure that scare tactics used on young people are always effective.

 

I would support the kind of program you describe in a heartbeat. It focuses on prevention first and then aid with accountability and compassion, not judgment.

 

I'm having a hard time working out what I want to say here. Some posts, like Dayle's leave me feeling hopeful that we can find better answers. However, other posts that hold a barely-contained fury directed at those who stupidly engage in a night of uncontrolled passion and produce a child brings to mind the face of that long-ago presenter. I feel ill and terribly sad.

[Katrina]

 

clarification:

just because something is a non-profit does not mean it is endorsed by the gvt. In fact, most churches are non-profit, and the gvt is explicitly told to NOT endorse any one religion.

The gvt has merely recognized its monetary status and business structure.

:D

 

Well, you're right that endorse isn't the right word here, I'm trying to get other chores done here and typed that pretty quickly. But, collecting taxes or giving tax breaks is still governtment involvement.

[Katrina]

This is where differences in worldview and function of gvt comes into play.

 

You're right, it is a difference of world view, and neither of us are correct or incorrect.

 

Absolutely.

This meshes very well w/ my view of the gvt's role limited role: enforcement. enforcing laws.

 

Well, I expect more from my government. Again, not right or wrong, just how I am.

 

I'm not ignoring gvt's responsibility -- I'm disagreeing w/ your assessment of what the gvt's role/ responsibility IS.

When you get into the role of the gvt providing various services, you start entering the realm of "how best to forcibly acquire and spend other people's money w/o their consent."

 

I was giving examples to prove my point. But I never stated I thought we should raise taxes to pay for these services. I personally think we do better for nonprivate organizations to perform many of these services and offer tax breaks to make it easier to afford them. You're assuming a lot that I didn't say.

 

 

Right.

I am willing to support the gvt in enforcing anti-abortion laws if they set up the law the way i want to see it. :D

 

And theres the crux of it all, isn't it? ;)

 

 

 

right --but studying our history shows an amazing amount of charitable organizations that have existed long before tax breaks were available. ;)

 

No, people were just asking why they have to do anything just because they don't believe in abortion, and I was agreeing with them. Charity is doing something you don't have to, not because of tax breaks.

[muffinmom]

I'd like to point out that the crisis pregnancy center I volunteered for also offers post-abortion counseling...immediately or 20 years later, if necessary. They commit not only to the unborn baby, but to the mother, even if the mother doesn't make the choice they'd like to see. They say they're job is to love their clients WELL.

 

The post-abortion counseling has been, as they put it, "transforming" and "healing" for the women who have participated in it.

[muffinmom]

Putting this out there even though it is very personal and private.

 

I am 35 years old, recently divorced Mother, my youngest child being 8. I obviously know what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it, I also thought the same way the OP did, what do all these pro-life people do for the unborn other than tell others what to do with their bodies.

 

Well I have found out. I am pregnant. It was not planned but a blessing none the less. I was scared, panicked and a little sick over the entire thing in all reality. I called a local CPC because I needed proof of pregnancy to see if I was eligible for medicaid (whole different topic so lets not debate that). The CPC in my small town is wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. I will not need a lot of the material things because I have 9 months to plan and can hopefully find most of what I need through freecycle, friends and garage sales but they are there if I need them. They have provided a great emotional support.

 

The funny thing is the crisis pregnancy center does not get some of the things that would help mothers save money. When filling out the form of what I may need I put cloth diapers, a nursing pillow, a sling and things like that on the list and they said they almost never get those things.

 

It has made me feel better simply knowing they are there none the less.

 

So glad you have found them! Hang in there...

[drama_mama]

:iagree: In fact, my kids were just looking at a sonogram video of their new cousin, at 8 weeks gestation, and were marveling at that tiny baby moving around. My dd actually said, "Wow, he's really ALIVE!!!!"

 

There are very few adults who don't know that that fetus is a living human-- many people just don't care.

 

technology has gotten amazing. When I had my dd 8 years ago her first sonogram looked like a fuzzy alien with a beating heart...lol. The one I had at 7 weeks at the CPC (it is their policy that no woman gets a positive pregnancy test and leaves without a sonogram) you can actually see my babies face. It was incredible.

[Katrina]

 

ok, walk me through this...... you admit that it is ridiculously easy to get information about abortion alternatives, yet simply have not. Yet you base your decision to be pro-choice on having not done any research about the alternatives?

 

I said I would be willing to look at it, but my position is most closely matches Carol in CA. I don't vote just prolife or prochoice, but I'm not going to vote prolife when the attitude seems to be "no abortions and no help either." But you're assuming there's only one side of the argument, and as valid as your side is, the other side (helping the mother) is valid as well.

 

 

I'm not interested in names that may or may not characterize me accurately.

And if someone is going to get more hung up on names they are being called than humans that are being killed for convenience, then that says quite a bit about their credibility.

 

I'm sorry, but have you not watched Fox News and MSNBC? Our whole political media is built around using explosive language and misrespresnting facts to promote their own political agenda. (and both sides are guilty, I know I'm walking a fine line on the no politcs area. But it's not about politics, but about the media.) And if such name calling wasn't effective, then why do people stoop to use them? It speaks to their credibility as well.

 

It's not our discussion skills that are lacking: it's that even a 5yo can look at a picture of a human at 8weeks development and ask what that baby is doing. It's not our discussion skills that are the problem: our objective science has already made it pretty clear what is going on, and people refuse to admit it, acknowledge it, or apply it. It has become ok to eliminate religion and philosophy from science when it comes to evolution, but those same principles are clung to in some incredible "debate" on whether this tiny human is even a human or alive.

 

Well, personaly, I do think we should have ethics and philosophy when it comes to science. But religion? Which religion to choose from? You can't assume your religion is the only valid one to base laws off of. What about religions that believe in reincarnation? Would you help create laws based on things you don't agree with?

 

 

those organizations very often ARE consulted, and many of them are NOT religious.

 

Good! More power to them.

 

You have probably encountered times in the following of your own interested issues where people are either ignored, blackballed, or deliberately discredited. You also know that even tho "we as a nation" discuss those issues quite a bit, but "we as the media" don't make it as public.

 

Yep, I agree. But our nation is a big place, and the media is one of the most prominant vehicles of passing along information.

 

i do think our education system has let us down substantially.

We assume that since we don't follow the specific news of an issue that there ISN't any [per the OP of this thread], and we make extremely important decisions about who we vote for based on a perceived lack of action.

 

Probably. But when people like the OP asks others so she can be enlightened, I don't see why some people seem upset with that either.

 

Well, I think I'm going to bow out now, not over hard feelings or anything, I've just got chores and errands to run and need to get on with life. :)

[Marylou]

Do any of you here in that other thread do anything to help these young mothers and their babies once they are actually born?

 

So I wonder if anyone here is like my aunt and puts their money, energy, or time where their mouth is.

 

 

My husband and I adopt children from a country where abortion is considered the number one form of birth control--http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-124-25.cfm

 

Our charitable giving to others who need help is just that, ours. In fact, as a Christian we are instructed to not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing (giving to the needy). I am not Roman Catholic, but I just saw this on the web . . .

 

Don’t Let Your Left Hand Know What Your Right Hand Is Doing

 

August 2nd, 2008 · 1 Comment

Matthew 6:1-4 (But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

Something I've learned is that trying to do good and not get caught doesn't just act to kill vanity and pride, it is also like fertilizer for the virtue of charity. As I attempt to conceal the good that I do, it becomes easier to assume the same in others. Or at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

taken from http://catholicspitfiregrill.com/2008/08/02/dont-let-your-left-hand-know-what-your-right-hand-is-doing/

 

As far as my mouth goes, I kiss my daughters each day and tell them what wonderful creations of God they are! I also use my mouth to remind them how brave and self-less their birth-mom was to relinquish them to Daddy and me when she might have been sorely tempted to throw them in the trash can before they were born. I also use my mouth to pray for their birth-mother and many others who are in a difficult situation.

 

I use my eyes to examine my life and heart to see if I am doing all I can to help others in need. I don't feel called to look at others and evaluate their deeds of mercy.

 

If your aunt is the only one you know who is walking the walk and not just talking the talk, you need to get out more.

 

Maybe that's why you started this thread; I hope so.

Edited July 21, 2009 by dmmosher

[MamaT]

There are so many good people who do wonderful, charitable acts all the time - and you would never know it. They aren't usually the type of people to tell anyone.

 

Personally, we have helped several young mothers with taking care of their material needs, supplies for the baby, etc. We don't feel it would be right or scriptural to tell people about our charitable giving.

 

We also have adopted twice. Our second daughter's birth mother flew to a larger city to have a late term abortion. She couldn't do it and went straight to our attorney's office and told her that if she could find someone to adopt this baby, she would have her. She called us because all of her other clients wanted white newborns (our daughter is black). We said yes immediately, even though we had a 7 month old baby and a 2yo at the time (plus three other children).

 

I'm sure there are lots of pro-life people who help in lots of ways, they just don't advertise it.

[Ibbygirl]

There are so many good people who do wonderful, charitable acts all the time - and you would never know it. They aren't usually the type of people to tell anyone.

 

Personally, we have helped several young mothers with taking care of their material needs, supplies for the baby, etc. We don't feel it would be right or scriptural to tell people about our charitable giving.

 

We also have adopted twice. Our second daughter's birth mother flew to a larger city to have a late term abortion. She couldn't do it and went straight to our attorney's office and told her that if she could find someone to adopt this baby, she would have her. She called us because all of her other clients wanted white newborns (our daughter is black). We said yes immediately, even though we had a 7 month old baby and a 2yo at the time (plus three other children).

 

I'm sure there are lots of pro-life people who help in lots of ways, they just don't advertise it.

 

 

God bless you MamaT and all the other ladies on here who have adopted these precious babies!! You ladies are so awesome!! And I know for myself I try also to conceal my charitable acts and don't talk about them and I know that there are probably many many others who are silently working and being faithful. It is encouraging to hear the testimonies of you ladies here. I want to give you all a great big HUG and an atta girl!! You ladies rock! :) :grouphug:

[Liz CA]

I find great joy in crocheting little jackets, hats and blankets.

 

This does not directly contribute to anything but if expectant mothers need some clothes, I am glad to provide a little.

 

Crocheting is fun for me and challenges me to learn new stitches and patterns.

[Marylou]

I find great joy in crocheting little jackets, hats and blankets.

 

This does not directly contribute to anything but if expectant mothers need some clothes, I am glad to provide a little.

 

Crocheting is fun for me and challenges me to learn new stitches and patterns.

 

 

I love crocheting, too! Haven't done much of it at all since becoming a mother and homeschooling. Now that's one area where your right hand better know what the left is doing, or you could end up with a three-sleeved jacket or a hat with no opening! Have fun using your talents!

Edited July 21, 2009 by dmmosher

[titianmom]

I think, for instance, that to say you're opposed to abortion but it's okay to gas or kill someone with an injection in prison is kind of hypocitical. Also, killing the enemy probably isn't what Jesus wants us to do, either. He just said to pray for them.

 

But, it's a tough call, sometimes. There are no easy answers. For ex, what if someone broke into my house and my girl was sleeping upstairs and the guy had a knife at my throat and was asking if anyone else was in the house? Technically I'm not suppose to lie, but I also don't want this nut to find out about my daughter upstairs. Legally you can stop someone with physical force if it's a home invasion. I might not be able to kill to protect myself, but I'm also responsible (and Love) my daughter. You see, that's a tough call.

 

And, the government that God places over us has a God-given right and obligation to meet out justice to serious offenders.

 

As far as abortion, I don't disagree that there is a real disconnect in our society. If abortion is wrong, then we're obligated to care for the families. Period. But, as the welfare system has proved over and over, the more support you provide, the more children born into poverty because the mothers know there's someone else to take care of them. So not only do we need to care for the families, you have to have some vehicle in place to try to teach these women some responsibility for their behavior(s)...if nothing else, for the childrens' sake.

 

Now to get back to your question, most churches, including my own, have programs and take up donations to help unwed mothers and babies, especially in my area because it's a poor area of the country. The drop-out rate at the schools is somewhere near 50%. And I don't know of any young moms who've been thrown out of their churches when they ended up in trouble, at least in my area. But it may happen in other places; don't know.

 

But, like I said, it's a tough call all around. I just do what I know God would want me to do and trust Him to make a way so that Good comes out of it in the long run.

 

Kim

 

 

I see that quite a few people are concerned and praying for a stranger who is pregnant. Will it end if she decides to keep the baby?

 

Do any of you here in that other thread do anything to help these young mothers and their babies once they are actually born?

My aunt is the ONLY person I have ever met who is staunchly opposed to abortion AND does something for the mothers and their babies AFTER they are born.

 

I ask this question because I have had conversations with people who are opposed to abortions AND financial aid to unwed mothers.

Don't these people NEED foodstamps to keep their kids fed?

Far too often the unborn children are a priority but once they are born they are forgotten.

 

So I wonder if anyone here is like my aunt and puts their money, energy, or time where their mouth is.

 

Not being snarky - just curious to know.

I love my aunt dearly even though I am prochoice.

And I repect her because she works for her cause and doesn't just give voice to it.

She really helps the women who want to keep their babies but see no other choice.

[Hikin' Mama]

But I usually don't tell others (sometimes not even my hubby) what I am doing.

 

When I was a single pregnant woman, who was opposed to abortion, several people helped me and blessed me in different ways. So no, your aunt is not the only one, just the only one you are aware of.

[Peek a Boo]

I said I would be willing to look at it, but my position is most closely matches Carol in CA. I don't vote just prolife or prochoice, but I'm not going to vote prolife when the attitude seems to be "no abortions and no help either." But you're assuming there's only one side of the argument, and as valid as your side is, the other side (helping the mother) is valid as well.

 

you're assuming that one can't help both the mother AND the child.

 

I'm not going to vote on an issue because of how other people are characterizing it, but because i know it to be right REGARDLESS what other people do or say.

I'm sorry, but have you not watched Fox News and MSNBC? Our whole political media is built around using explosive language and misrespresnting facts to promote their own political agenda. (and both sides are guilty, I know I'm walking a fine line on the no politcs area. But it's not about politics, but about the media.) And if such name calling wasn't effective, then why do people stoop to use them? It speaks to their credibility as well.

that's a small reason i don't watch them much anymore. The biggest reason is because they are short on facts and long on spin. I want more info.

Well, personaly, I do think we should have ethics and philosophy when it comes to science. But religion? Which religion to choose from? You can't assume your religion is the only valid one to base laws off of. What about religions that believe in reincarnation? Would you help create laws based on things you don't agree with?

I'm not arguing this from a religious standpoint. When it comes to passing laws about our country, the Constitution gives us a pretty good outline. I'm arguing it from what science is observing and how ethics/gvt is applying that info. I'm seeing a huge disconnect in human rights.

 

Probably. But when people like the OP asks others so she can be enlightened, I don't see why some people seem upset with that either.

 

 

so --is she enlightened now?

I'm not upset with people asking questions. I'm getting pretty good at noticing when they are bait tho. But i'm game anyway. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

 

You're right, it is a difference of world view, and neither of us are correct or incorrect.

I think I'm spot on :D

 

 

 

Well, I expect more from my government. Again, not right or wrong, just how I am.

 

except that "more from the gvt" is by default "more taxes taken by force from people." I think that's pretty blatantly wrong.

 

 

I'm not ignoring gvt's responsibility -- I'm disagreeing w/ your assessment of what the gvt's role/ responsibility IS.

When you get into the role of the gvt providing various services, you start entering the realm of "how best to forcibly acquire and spend other people's money w/o their consent."

 

I was giving examples to prove my point. But I never stated I thought we should raise taxes to pay for these services. I personally think we do better for nonprivate organizations to perform many of these services and offer tax breaks to make it easier to afford them. You're assuming a lot that I didn't say.

you may not have stated it, but how do you expect the gvt to PROVIDE these services if they can't pay for them?

I do think private organizations can do better, but you DID say that you expect the GVT to be doing "more." Many private non-profit organizations are already pretty much tax FREE. how much "more" can you get w/o the gvt incurring an increased cost?:confused:

 

 

right --but studying our history shows an amazing amount of charitable organizations that have existed long before tax breaks were available. ;)

 

No, people were just asking why they have to do anything just because they don't believe in abortion, and I was agreeing with them. Charity is doing something you don't have to, not because of tax breaks.

 

yes --it was this long history of charitable giving that I fully expect to continue --and thrive-- if gvt protects individual rights by outlawing abortions that deliberately kill the developing human for convenience w/o due process or legal consequence.

[zaichiki]

Many of us (myself anyway) that vote pro-choice might be willing to take a closer look at voting pro-life if we knew there were programs in place that offered help to both the mother and the child with the end goal in mind of helping the mother become a self sufficiant member of this society, regardless if they were offered by the government, private organizations, or charity.

 

Catholic Charities organizations all over this country provide teen parent support and adoption services for young mothers who do not choose abortion. There's probably a Catholic Charities in your area. So take heart: you can consider voting pro-life! There ARE programs in place out there. Catholic Charities is only ONE of the options. :)

[Jugglin'5]

Technically I'm not suppose to lie, but I also don't want this nut to find out about my daughter upstairs.

 

I wouldn't find this to be a tough call at all. God blessed many people in the Bible, women in particular, who lied to save lives. I'd lie about that with no guilty conscience at all.

[Peek a Boo]

I wouldn't find this to be a tough call at all. God blessed many people in the Bible' date=' women in particular, who lied to save lives. [b']I'd lie about that with no guilty conscience at all.[/b]

 

I would too, but it wasn't their lies that caused them to be blessed -- it was their faith.

 

Thankfully, I am not saved by my own works or conscience, for they would surely condemn me.

[sleepymommy]

Why are pro-life and pro-death penalty stances often on the same political side?

 

I'm just asking because I'm curious, not trying to stir the pot. It's something I've wondered about for a long time.

[lionfamily1999]

Why are pro-life and pro-death penalty stances often on the same political side?

 

I'm just asking because I'm curious, not trying to stir the pot. It's something I've wondered about for a long time.

Because there is a difference in taking an innocent life and taking the life of a person that, for all intents and purposes, negated their claims on it.

 

IOW, some might believe that you can become such a danger to society and the people around you that you have negated your right to life.

 

I don't think the death penalty is wrong, but I do not agree to how it is presently used in the US.

 

There are miles of difference between a child and an adult, an innocent and a criminal.

[muffinmom]

There are miles of difference between a child and an adult, an innocent and a criminal.

 

 

:iagree:

[sleepymommy]

Because there is a difference in taking an innocent life and taking the life of a person that, for all intents and purposes, negated their claims on it.

 

IOW, some might believe that you can become such a danger to society and the people around you that you have negated your right to life.

 

I don't think the death penalty is wrong, but I do not agree to how it is presently used in the US.

 

There are miles of difference between a child and an adult, an innocent and a criminal.

 

Fair enough, but why are we humans allowed to make that judgement call over whether someone has negated their right to life?

 

I completely agree, there are huge differences b/w a child and a criminal. What if it's a child criminal?

 

Murder is murder isn't it, no matter what the situation, someone dies and someone else deliberately caused it.

 

Again, just curious. These are things I've wondered for a long time, but I don't know anyone IRL I can discuss these things with.

 

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. When I say I'm pro-choice, I'm not pro-abortion. I just think that it's not my right, nor the gov'ts, to decide on what another feels is the best choice for them. Even it's it's immoral, I feel in the end it's between that person and their God and God's Judgement.

 

However, I don't judge pro-lifer's, again it's their choice to have their own stance. I, personally, could not have an abortion if I were to get pregnant again, even though I really don't plan on having anymore kids.

[babysparkler]

I just think that it's not my right, nor the gov'ts, to decide on what another feels is the best choice for them. Even it's it's immoral, I feel in the end it's between that person and their God and God's Judgement.

 

 

 

So are you saying that if someone kills their born child that they should have no consequences "just because they feel it is the best choice for them"? How is killing an unborn child any different? We don't just kill someone who has the potential to make our lives difficult and leave it up to God as a judgement call.

 

Maybe we should go ahead and legalize murder for all ages... then mabe pro-choicers might see the need for Gov't to step in an "make the choice that is best for the people." I know that is an extreme... but it makes my point on how incredibly rediculous abortion is as an option.

Edited July 21, 2009 by babysparkler

[Kathleen in VA]

So are you saying that if someone kills their born child that they should have no consequences "just because they feel it is the best choice for them"? How is killing an unborn child any different? We don't just kill someone who has the potential to make our lives difficult and leave it up to God as a judgement call.

 

Maybe we should go ahead and legalize murder for all ages... then mabe pro-choicers might see the need for Gov't to step in an "make the choice that is best for the people." I know that is an extreme... but it makes my point on how incredibly rediculous abortion is as an option.

:iagree: I had the same thoughts when I read that post. If we were talking about a 5yo child or an adult, would it be a judgment call between the murderer and God? Just because the human in question is still being formed in its mother's womb does not make it any less human.

[lionfamily1999]

Fair enough, but why are we humans allowed to make that judgement call over whether someone has negated their right to life?

Because, we humans come up with the laws and the systems by which they are upheld. In my opinion, a human being that has no regard for the lives of others negates their own claim on life. We, humans, decide based on the actions of another if they represent an ongoing threat to the people around them. In those cases it's more of a crime to allow that person to continue living (a gift they've already seen fit to end or destroy for others) and continue their actions.

I completely agree, there are huge differences b/w a child and a criminal. What if it's a child criminal?

 

Well, it would depend on when society decides that the child knows the difference between right and wrong and knows (really knows) the consequences for their actions. It used to be 18 was the magic age of adulthood and knowledge, but our society in the US is moving more towards holding younger children accountable for their actions according to adult standards. Whether or not that is right is a matter of debate. Fwiw, I don't think so.

Murder is murder isn't it, no matter what the situation, someone dies and someone else deliberately caused it.

 

As Peek always says, murder is (technically) a legal term. That being said, it all depends on your point of view. A person who has negated their claims to liberty and the persuit of happiness could also negate their claims to life, itself. We remove the other two rights for periods of time, because of the unlawful activities one might participate in. We remove the final one (life) in those states that do, because that person's crimes are so heinous as to make other options unsuitable for the remainder of the population (they're a continued threat).

Again, just curious. These are things I've wondered for a long time, but I don't know anyone IRL I can discuss these things with.

 

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. When I say I'm pro-choice, I'm not pro-abortion. I just think that it's not my right, nor the gov'ts, to decide on what another feels is the best choice for them. Even it's it's immoral, I feel in the end it's between that person and their God and God's Judgement.

 

I understand your pov, but (oh there's always a but, isn't there?) should it be proven scientifically, that the act of abortion is ending a life, would you change your mind? IOW, Peek is not so off base when she compares unborn children to African Americans. Our (people's) ability to let others share our status (as people) is sadly lacking. It takes us FOR.EV.ER to finally accept another, different group to join our peoplehood, iykwIm. There are STILL groups of white people that refuse to acknowledge the peoplehood (sorry for the made up word, but it works ;) ) of other races/colors. Some religious groups deny the peoplehood of those that disagree. We dehumanize each other over the most trivial of reasons, not the least of which is convenience.

 

It was not convenient to say that the slaves were people. It was not convenient to say that Jews were people. It was not convenient to say that women were people (poor empty skulled creatures). It was not and for some IS not convenient to say mentally handicapped people are people. It is not convenient to say that feti are people.

 

The biggest problem I see with all the debate is that it does what it always does. Both sides know they're right and they dig in their heels SO much that the middle ground is kept empty.

However, I don't judge pro-lifer's, again it's their choice to have their own stance. I, personally, could not have an abortion if I were to get pregnant again, even though I really don't plan on having anymore kids.

I try not to judge all pro-choicers, but there are some that are very deliberate in ignoring any evidence or ideals to the contrary, there are some that could very easily say infanticide is not wrong. Those people, that rank the youngest members of our society, or the handicapped, as lower than abused pets sicken me. I'm sure you feel the same about the more vocal, violent and disturbing of the pro-life side.

Edited July 21, 2009 by lionfamily1999
fruedian slip

[Jugglin'5]

I would too, but it wasn't their lies that caused them to be blessed -- it was their faith.

 

Thankfully, I am not saved by my own works or conscience, for they would surely condemn me.

 

My comment made no claims as to the causality of the blessing. From my reading (and almost every interpretation that I've ever read), God viewed them as righteous acts done in faith.

[Marylou]

Murder is murder isn't it, no matter what the situation, someone dies and someone else deliberately caused it.

 

 

 

Why the Simple Right to Abortion is Unjust

 

 

By John Piper January 15, 1990

 

The most popular defense of abortion today is this: without it women are forced to experience great misery and even death, especially in poor countries with limited access to contraceptives. In my conversations with these defenders, the bottom line does not seem to be that the unborn are not human beings or persons. The bottom line is a woman’s right not to be pregnant and not to endanger herself with unsafe abortions. It seems that more and more it is irrelevant that the unborn may be a human being with a right not to be killed.

 

There are at least three generally accepted principles of justice that stand in the way of this reasoning.

 

1. Justice proceeds on the assumption that if one person’s legitimate right must be limited in order to protect another’s legitimate right, the limitation that does the least harm will be the most just. Injustice is not the denial of rights per se. Injustice is the denial of one right to maintain another when the one denied protects a lesser value than the one maintained. Denying rights that protect lesser values for the sake of maintaining rights that protect greater values is what virtually all laws are supposed to do. We are denied the right to drive at 100 miles per hour because the value of life is greater than the value of being on time for an appointment. So it is an act of justice to take away the right to speed.

Except in the rarest cases pregnancy does not threaten as much harm to the mother as abortion does to the child. In fact the harm done to the child is almost always horrific while the harm possible to the mother is much less. Therefore it is a matter of justice to deny the mother the right not to be pregnant at the cost of aborting the child.

 

2. Justice proceeds on the assumption that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it. For example, if I take my fourteen year old son with me to rob a bank and both of us are arrested I should bear a greater penalty than he because of my greater responsibility in the common predicament.

Except in the rarest cases the predicament of pregnancy is owing to free and conscious choices that the mother made in having sexual relations, while the child’s predicament is owing to no choice of his or her own. Therefore in the great majority of the cases it is just to require the mother to bear the weight of her greater responsibility in the predicament and not require the ultimate price of the child who bore no responsibility for the predicament at all.

 

3. Justice proceeds on the assumption that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves. For example, you commit a grave injustice if you threaten suicide in order to coerce someone to commit adultery with you. The threat of women to risk harm to themselves with unsafe abortions, if we will not sanction the legal killing of their children, is an unjust coercion of harm—ultimate harm—onto another person, the unborn child.

 

Conclusion: Since the right of an unborn child to life is greater than the right of a woman to use abortion as a means of birth control, and since the woman’s right to be free from pregnancy is not as great as the unborn’s right to be free from life-threatening violence, therefore, a law that reverses the order of these rights is unjust in the extreme and those who support it have innocent blood on their hands.

 

How then shall we live?

 

Earnestly,

 

Pastor John

 

ETA Of course a "child" (born or unborn) is not a "predicament". John Piper is calling the situation when a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child already alive inside of her "a predicament".

Edited July 21, 2009 by dmmosher

[Kathleen in VA]

Why the Simple Right to Abortion is Unjust

 

 

By John Piper January 15, 1990

 

The most popular defense of abortion today is this: without it women are forced to experience great misery and even death, especially in poor countries with limited access to contraceptives. In my conversations with these defenders, the bottom line does not seem to be that the unborn are not human beings or persons. The bottom line is a woman’s right not to be pregnant and not to endanger herself with unsafe abortions. It seems that more and more it is irrelevant that the unborn may be a human being with a right not to be killed.

 

There are at least three generally accepted principles of justice that stand in the way of this reasoning.

 

1. Justice proceeds on the assumption that if one person’s legitimate right must be limited in order to protect another’s legitimate right, the limitation that does the least harm will be the most just. Injustice is not the denial of rights per se. Injustice is the denial of one right to maintain another when the one denied protects a lesser value than the one maintained. Denying rights that protect lesser values for the sake of maintaining rights that protect greater values is what virtually all laws are supposed to do. We are denied the right to drive at 100 miles per hour because the value of life is greater than the value of being on time for an appointment. So it is an act of justice to take away the right to speed.

Except in the rarest cases pregnancy does not threaten as much harm to the mother as abortion does to the child. In fact the harm done to the child is almost always horrific while the harm possible to the mother is much less. Therefore it is a matter of justice to deny the mother the right not to be pregnant at the cost of aborting the child.

 

2. Justice proceeds on the assumption that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it. For example, if I take my fourteen year old son with me to rob a bank and both of us are arrested I should bear a greater penalty than he because of my greater responsibility in the common predicament.

Except in the rarest cases the predicament of pregnancy is owing to free and conscious choices that the mother made in having sexual relations, while the child’s predicament is owing to no choice of his or her own. Therefore in the great majority of the cases it is just to require the mother to bear the weight of her greater responsibility in the predicament and not require the ultimate price of the child who bore no responsibility for the predicament at all.

 

3. Justice proceeds on the assumption that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves. For example, you commit a grave injustice if you threaten suicide in order to coerce someone to commit adultery with you. The threat of women to risk harm to themselves with unsafe abortions, if we will not sanction the legal killing of their children, is an unjust coercion of harm—ultimate harm—onto another person, the unborn child.

 

Conclusion: Since the right of an unborn child to life is greater than the right of a woman to use abortion as a means of birth control, and since the woman’s right to be free from pregnancy is not as great as the unborn’s right to be free from life-threatening violence, therefore, a law that reverses the order of these rights is unjust in the extreme and those who support it have innocent blood on their hands.

 

How then shall we live?

 

Earnestly,

 

Pastor John

 

ETA Of course a "child" (born or unborn) is not a "predicament". John Piper is calling the situation when a woman doesn't want to give birth to the child already alive inside of her "a predicament".

 

Thank you, Donna!!!! Thank you, John Piper!!!!

[sleepymommy]

Wow, thank you all for your responses. My head is just kind of spinning right now trying to process all of the various insights.

 

I guess just as it is difficult for some to understand how I see a big difference between a fetus and a 5 year old, it is also difficult for me to understand how the death of either is the same.

 

I don't know of any magic number for when I think it would be too late for an abortion. I know I certainly think late term abortions should be illegal.

[sleepymommy]

So are you saying that if someone kills their born child that they should have no consequences "just because they feel it is the best choice for them"? How is killing an unborn child any different? We don't just kill someone who has the potential to make our lives difficult and leave it up to God as a judgement call.

 

Maybe we should go ahead and legalize murder for all ages... then mabe pro-choicers might see the need for Gov't to step in an "make the choice that is best for the people." I know that is an extreme... but it makes my point on how incredibly rediculous abortion is as an option.

 

I can see that it may be difficult to see my POV, and no I don't think legalizing murder would change any pro-choicers stance. It's just confusing to me that it's usually those that would rather the gov't stay out of the personal lives of people then say they want the gov't to "make the choice that is best for the people". That's a generalization, not you personally.

[Peek a Boo]

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. When I say I'm pro-choice, I'm not pro-abortion. I just think that it's not my right, nor the gov'ts, to decide on what another feels is the best choice for them. Even it's it's immoral, I feel in the end it's between that person and their God and God's Judgement.

 

then why are you pro-death penalty? :confused:

[Peek a Boo]

It's just confusing to me that it's usually those that would rather the gov't stay out of the personal lives of people then say they want the gov't to "make the choice that is best for the people". That's a generalization, not you personally.

 

because we see the unborn as "people" even tho they have not been legally defined as a person [hearkening back to the 3/5ths ruling for blacks].

so abortion does NOT "stay out of the personal lives of people" --it kills people for convenience w/o due process or legal consequence.

[Peek a Boo]

... should it be proven scientifically, that the act of abortion is ending a life,

 

 

it has already been proven scientifically.

They have known that for decades.

the only exceptions are when an abortion is "botched" and the fetus is removed alive [esp chemical/saline abortions].

[sleepymommy]

then why are you pro-death penalty? :confused:

 

My reasons for this are biased and personal. Both of my parents were murdered, and the person/persons that violently murdered them are out and about living free and well in society. They could be your neighbors, the roofer that spent a week working at your house, the Best Buy worker that helped you carry the computer to your car, your kids co-worker at a local restaurant...

Edited July 21, 2009 by sleepymommy
trying to get rid of smiley, not sure how it got there

[swimmermom3]

My reasons for this are biased and personal. Both of my parents were murdered, and the person/persons that violently murdered them are out and about living free and well in society. They could be your neighbors, the roofer that spent a week working at your house, the Best Buy worker that helped you carry the computer to your car, your kids co-worker at a local restaurant...

 

Sleepymommy, :grouphug:. I'm sorry. Sometimes it's easy on the boards to forget that there are real people with real and painful experiences that shape their belief systems behind the words on the screen.

[LUV2EDU]

My reasons for this are biased and personal. Both of my parents were murdered, and the person/persons that violently murdered them are out and about living free and well in society. They could be your neighbors, the roofer that spent a week working at your house, the Best Buy worker that helped you carry the computer to your car, your kids co-worker at a local restaurant...

:grouphug::grouphug:

[Peek a Boo]

My reasons for this are biased and personal. Both of my parents were murdered, and the person/persons that violently murdered them are out and about living free and well in society. They could be your neighbors, the roofer that spent a week working at your house, the Best Buy worker that helped you carry the computer to your car, your kids co-worker at a local restaurant...

 

I understand that there are always personal reasons behind our philosophy, but if you are intent on applying your beliefs, then you need to rethink your statements on why you believe one thing should be done because of X, but believe we should NOT do another similar thing because of X.

[lionfamily1999]

Wow, thank you all for your responses. My head is just kind of spinning right now trying to process all of the various insights.

 

I guess just as it is difficult for some to understand how I see a big difference between a fetus and a 5 year old, it is also difficult for me to understand how the death of either is the same.

 

I don't know of any magic number for when I think it would be too late for an abortion. I know I certainly think late term abortions should be illegal.

See, I'm wishy washy as far as the morning after pill and some IUDs are concerned, but abortion is very clear to me, especially at 6 (or in some cases 7/8) weeks, when there is a heart beat.

 

I understand the confusion. I used to waffle too. On one hand, it's wrong, on the other, didn't God give us free will? And so, who are we to take that away? The thing is, we're protecting someone else's life. The right to choice, infringes upon the right to life.

 

You see a big difference between a 5yo and a fetus, but are their lives worth any less because of their age? Is anyone's life worth more or less than another's? In some cases, I'll say yes (see also, the death penalty), that criminal's life is worth LESS than those that they took and those that they may take in the future.

My reasons for this are biased and personal. Both of my parents were murdered, and the person/persons that violently murdered them are out and about living free and well in society. They could be your neighbors, the roofer that spent a week working at your house, the Best Buy worker that helped you carry the computer to your car, your kids co-worker at a local restaurant...

:grouphug: I'm sorry.