Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Common Ground Abortion Reduction on The Washington Post's Front Page

by Jason Gedeik 11-18-2008 | 6:00pm
Print
100 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Today's front page feature in The Washington Post is a good profile of the religious leaders and partnerships that Sojourners has actively worked with to find common ground on the abortion debate. This coverage was the result of the media teleconference we hosted with Catholics In Alliance, Father Thomas Reese, and Rev. Samuel Rodriguez the week prior to the election.

"We are not compromising our values, but at the same time we are finding a way we can all accomplish our agenda, or at least a piece of our agenda, together," said [Joel] Hunter, pastor of Northland in Longwood, Fla., one of the nation's largest churches, and a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals. "There's got to be a way we can take some of these hot-button issues and cooperate, rather than simply keep fighting and becoming gridlocked in this hostility of the culture wars."

There's also a good quote from Jim at the end helping to convey that people of faith don't need to compromise their moral position on abortion in order to find common ground:

There are certain things that we probably all can support, and then there are other things that we're going to disagree about, and you find common ground on what you can, and then you have a political battle on your other issues.

We'll continue reaching out to both sides of the debate while holding the President-elect accountable to the commitments he made on abortion reduction.

Jason Gedeik is the deputy press secretary for Sojourners.

100 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-18-2008 @ 11:03pm

According to the CDC the number of abortions in the US has been declining in recent years. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the lowest rates of abortions are found in nations that have legal access. The best estimates extrapolate (that one's for you Kevin S : )) that the annual numbers of abortions in the US pre- Roe were much the same as post-Roe. Abortion would then appear to be resistant to political measures and responds to social environment. This is, I believe, is one reason for all the foment and no progress. pro-choice/pro-life side choosing is counterproductive. The solution is most likely coming in the form of a pill much like "The Pill" that started this whole "moral crisis". The crisis is that men can no longer regulate the "place" of women with "natural order" (not unlike the vestiges of racism exhibited upon the election of Sen Obama). The challenge to Christians is to maintain the Spirit of Christ in a compassionate relevant morality.

by: ando

11-18-2008 @ 11:43pm

"According to the CDC the number of abortions in the US has been declining in recent years."

Do you think part of the reason is that laws such as parental notification have made it harder for teenagers just to walk in a clinic with a baby, and walk out without one? Also, adoption tax credits have been passed by Congress, lowering the high cost of adopting children.

"The problem is that, for the last 30 yeas, the abortion issue has been used primarily for the sake of votes. In fact, taking sides has become a cottage industry, with people and organizations making a ton of money on both sides"

And you don't think that is also the case with professors and organizations who are pro-poor, in other words they benefit because there will always be poor people and get major funding by government? Also, where would Planned Parenthood be without major govt. funding?

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 12:50am

"So maybe instead of worrying about abortion laws we might spend that energy loving and caring for the women and children it effects and see what happens."

The problem with this argument is that the people who generally advocate it would not apply it to other issues of injustice. Would you apply it to the death penalty? How about sex slavery? Or racial discrimination? I wouldn't. I'd work to pass laws to show that our society does not tolerate those things. Yes, laws against sex slavery or racial discrimination will never eliminate those things either, but they make a statement about what our society is willing to condone. Laws have meaning beyond the actual legal ramifications.

I'm all for a compromise position, but let's make a true compromise where each side gives a little. By all means let's set up more social programs for poor pregnant women, but let's also restrict access to abortion.

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 11:48pm

I definitely agree that laws will not eliminate evil, but they will lessen the effects of evil on everyone else.

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 1:16am

Well yes your right , it is as close to an analogy that I could think of .
Separate issues completely . You are right .
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with many who believe that
killing what God Created is wrong . Or for the simple fact some people
honestly believe they do have a moral right to kill what is inside of their
bodies or another's . The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living is beside the point of the discussion I was
involved in .

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 11:52pm

Implicit in my call for additional social programs for poor women was public funding for these programs. Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

I'm not sure how better sex ed would help though. Anyone growing up in America today who doesn't know where babies come from or how to prevent conception is living with their head in the sand.

by: erbe

11-19-2008 @ 2:01am

Laws can always be passed to control behavior and that function is useful for a society to function. That's all regulation can accomplish. And while society/government might prohibit killing and punish murderers, society/government cannot do anything about the evil that causes it to occur. Government regulation can only treat the symptoms but can never effect a cure.

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 11:58pm

I actually see some worthy comparisons between the struggle to eliminate slavery and the struggle to eliminate abortion, particularly how the two issues divide the country.

Before the Civil War ultimately decided the issue of slavery, there were three general camps of people. The first were those who stridently defended the institution of slavery as an important and necessary institution (most Southern Democrats in Congress, Calhoun, Clay, etc). They saw it fundamental to the survival of their society and way of life. Blacks are barely human so what does it matter if they are enslaved, they asked. Freeing the slaves would ruin the life I'm used to, they said.

Then there was a broad middle ground of people who weren't in favor of outright abolition, but generally supported some varying degree of restrictions on slavery, but they generally wanted to defuse the issue (I'd put Lincoln into this group). They didn't want the issue to rip the country apart. Then there were the abolitionists (Stowe, F. Douglas, Garrison, and some politicians like Seward and Sumner). For this group, simply repealing fugitive slave laws and restricting slavery to the South was not good enough. Not until all slaves were freed would they rest. To them, any compromise that left slavery legal was not good enough.

A similar situation exists today with abortion. You have the Calhoun-esque people who staunchly defend a "woman's right to choose" and don't even want to acknowledge the inhumanity of abortion. They talk about how constraining it would be for people to take responsibility for their offspring, but give little to no thought to the other human life involved. Then there are those who would like to defuse the potency of the issue. There are those more to the left, like Wallis, who don't dare question Roe vs. Wade but talk about caring for pregnant mothers. They are tired of seeing abortion used against their preferred candidates. Also in the middle there are those on the right who don't want an outright ban on abortion, but would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned and have the matter returned to the legislatures for debate. Abortion wouldn't be banned, but at least the electorate could decide for itself (Most of the time I find myself in this camp). Then there are the modern day abolitionists, who see any compromise as condoning the evil of abortion. To them, accepting legal abortion anywhere is similar to allowing slavery anywhere. It is a stain upon our nation.

This analogy isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. In the 1850s, the vast majority of people outside of the South fell into the middle ground. They found the extremism of the abolitionists grating and disturbing too much of the status quo, but they didn't like the idea of slavery either. In hindsight it's easy to look at the abolitionists of the 19th Century as the ones truly concerned with justice. How will we view the true abolitionists of today 150 years in the future? I hope they'll get a better review than many have given them today.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-19-2008 @ 2:36am

"Do you think part of the reason is that laws such as parental notification have made it harder for teenagers just to walk in a clinic with a baby, and walk out without one? Also, adoption tax credits have been passed by Congress, lowering the high cost of adopting children."
No. This is a good example of villifying the opposition by minimizing the weight of the decision to have an abortion (Do you know of a teenager that casually walks in and out of an abortion clinic? How often do you think that a healthy family experiences your tragic scenario? Are there times when the parents should not be notified?). Adoption is also a much more complex issue than saying that tax credits translate into less abortions. My understanding is that there are many couples willing and ready to adopt infants for reasons other than tax breaks. So, no, I would not connect adoption tax breaks with reduced abortions. Reduced abortions are more related to the economic and educational aspects along with the Church preaching and valuing life.

by: littleroundtop

11-20-2008 @ 12:16am

There is a LOT to be said for fogeydom!

LOL . Well thanks for sticking it out with me also .

Mick

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 12:42am

I have met plenty of well-educated adults who do not know how HIV is transmitted and are either frightened of acquiring the virus from casual contact, or engage in risky behaviors without being aware of the risk.

by: behindthecurtain

11-21-2008 @ 3:02pm

Like I said-

"It seems some are defining sex ed in a limited role."

BTC

by: BlueDeacon

11-19-2008 @ 5:21am

But precisely because so many people -- myself included -- believe that abortion is wrong is why it's so easy to raise outrage, let alone money. To me, it's the same as consistently "playing the race card" and not address the underlying problems in race relations and taking personal responsibility in the process (and there, both sides are guilty as well).

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 3:04pm

"but let's also restrict access to abortion."

You forgot to advocate for "public funding" to alleviate the factors leading to abortion like-

enacting laws for funding better sex education and jobs training.

That "public funding ", budgets are moral documents that can kill quandary.

BTC

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:35am

"Before the Civil War ultimately decided the issue of slavery"There's your first error. The second is to equate the pro-life cause with the side of the oppressed. Most often there are two innocents involved in the pre-abortion scenario and sometimes three. (Mom, dad and baby) A case could be made that those fighting for freedom can be equated with the feminist/pro-choice camp.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 3:11pm

"The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living..."

Then you would be in favor of seriously dissecting the many facets of untold billions in military expenditure that do just that, far beyond the profits, vote pandering and livelihood of the abortion industry?

BTC

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 5:12pm

The CDC's abortion surveillance reports do include some speculation regarding factors that might influence the decline in the number of abortions, but they are very careful not to suggest causal relationships.

"The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate over time might reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies; a shift in the age distribution of women toward the older and less fertile ages; reduced or limited access to abortion services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents (e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods); and changes in contraceptive practices, including increased use of contraceptives (e.g., condoms and, among young women, long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s)

"Although induced abortions usually are performed for women who have unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception, the approximately 4.6 million women who have had intercourse during the preceding 3 months but were not using contraception might be the most at risk for unintended pregnancy. Therefore, a reduction in the number of abortions will require adapting complex strategies aimed at reducing such pregnancies. Insurance coverage of reversible contraception (e.g., vasectomy and tubal ligation) has increased substantially since 1993, although gaps in coverage remain substantial. Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use, including emergency contraception, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and the number of legal induced abortions in the United States."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609...

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 5:24pm

"Then you would be in favor of seriously dissecting the many facets of
untold billions in military expenditure that do just that, far beyond the
profits, vote pandering and livelihood of the abortion industry?"

The military complex and abortion industry are in cohoots with each other ?
Or did you just mis word the ending their ? Anyway I support a strong
military , when we have the right leadership it will less likely have to be
used . But yes of course , the military complex is mis managed . It reminds
me of most government programs , every body is getting a piece limiting the
money that goes to the original purpose .
Public Education reminds me of this also , I figure give the money directly
to the class room and let the folks fight over it after the classroom gets
what is needed . I guess that will never be done , but I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry .

by: PeterfromMI

11-19-2008 @ 5:38pm

"I would rather see Christians ignore the political/governmental approach. Leave that to the politicians and legislators."

Those two groups are not mutually exclusive.

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 5:18am

It seems some are defining sex ed in a limited role I suspect because they object to some of the curricular elements.

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 5:24am

"I was just a Dad . And I did not have your ability to read minds ."

Your fatherly modesty puts me to shame. My ability to read minds has served me well.

BTC

by: littleroundtop

11-20-2008 @ 6:32am

Your fatherly modesty puts me to shame. My ability to read minds has served
me well.

BTC

Ahh , not modesty . And its not what puts you to shame .

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 7:00am

Please do tell me my shame, oh enlightened one, it has escaped my "ability to read minds" for this first time.

May your love for truth vanquish all such "shame" (full) provocateurs.

BTC

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 6:17pm

I believe sex education should be taught to anyone who is old enough to bear or father a child, not just in reference to marriage. Kids are having sex, period, and they need to know the risks involved. Telling them not to do it just isn't working. What do you mean by no standards?

I still don't see where you're getting being told to follow and shut up.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 6:20pm

"The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living..."

You made sure to make your point on the pro fitting and electioneering inherent in the pro-choice world (as I noted). I simply pointed out they are not unique. In fact, the anti-abortionists have made a handsome contribution to the economy (see political lobbies, televangelism, mega churches, 1000's organizations funneling millions to influence public opinion and to change laws.

"The military complex and abortion industry are in cahoots with each other ?"

Never pondered that until now. Maybe you're onto something. Think of it. Both destroy life and obliterate enormous resources and potential. To what end? Maybe pro-choice folk think that fewer, UNWANTED births would mean fewer WANTED recruits for the industrial, military complex. You decide. Frankly, I'm for neither and would try to curtail both.

"Anyway I support a strong
military ,"

Straw Man. *(That ruse for carrying the biggest stick to dominate your perceived enemies is ludicrous if you ever looked at a Defence budget.)

"I figure give the money directly
to the class room and let the folks fight over it after the classroom gets
what is needed ."

Please, don't run for school board chairman, public education would never survive.

"I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry ."

You get my point, you just don't like my extrapolations.

BTC

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 7:50pm

Jean telling kids "not to" never worked I agree . But standards and
cultural norms that were basically universal sure helped . The thing that
always worked for me was when the girl said No .
That is not the case anymore as you pointed out , sex education should is
being taught regardless if you use marriage as the standard . My state
actually refused abstinence only funds . Academia thinks it was a stupid
concept for the most part . I don't know how it was taught , but if I was in
charge , as if , I would have called it GREAT SEX , not abstinence only .
Your belief however is in the majority , at least in academia and I believe
the majority .

So it appears the compromise here is based on what are you compromising
again ? It appears you do not not understand the other side at all that is
being asked to compromise on this issue . Your political beliefs do not
appear to being compromised , no you support government aid to planned
parenthood and such from past comments . This will continue and most likely
grow under this compromise . You support more of a government role in the
areas that are articulated in the news article . I guess the compromise then
is not much for you , or perhaps I am just out of the loop. But if you can
not agree on just sex education being taught with the same information you
support , but just in the context of marriage I don't think your side is
even really considering compromise . You can be taught all the facts in a
math class and the information can be applied to however that student wishes
. Say using the probability of how many times he needs to throw dice to win
in Vegas or whatever . Your world view is just totally different then mine
, I happen to think the kids benefit from fewer sexual experiences , telling
them just no I agree will not work . Hence I use the principle of sex in
marriage as the acceptable norm , not ridicule when that is not observed ,
but not consider it equal to sex in marriage . But Especially when adults
see no difference with teaching sex education out of the confines of
marriage does the standard of marriage make sense . hence I guess I jut
look ignorant to you . I have no problem saying that is wrong . I also
have a problem admitting most likely I led a much more out of bounds life
then you , so I guess from your perspective its who am I to talk .
Sorry I took up your time , but I think I am not explaining it correctly ,
just thought western civilization and its traditions deserved a little say
here .

Take care ,
Mick
I will shut up now . ;0)

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 8:16pm

"The thing that always worked for me was when the girl said No ."

That's a different subject altogether. I'm not talking rape, here, but consensual sex. However, this does bring up the good point that girls (AND boys) need to know that they CAN say no, which calls for, I think, better sex education. I agree about cultural norms, though. Our culture is really messed up when it comes to sex, but that means taking on the entertainment and advertising industries.

"It appears you do not not understand the other side at all that is being asked to compromise on this issue ."

What I don't understand is this sentence. :-) I don't know what comments you're basing your remarks on. I support PP for the OTHER things they do to support parents and parents-to-be, e.g., birth control and fertility assistance. I've never said anything about government aid one way or another. The rest of this paragraph is really contentious, I feel. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I happen to agree with you whole heartedly about kids benefiting from fewer sexual experiences. It's a horrible shame that kids are exposed to adult things so early. However, that having been said, I DON'T think that sex education causes kids to have sex, period. Kids will have sex if they're going to, and until we change our culture, they're going to younger and younger and, for now, they need information. I will go out on a limb here and say that I don't think kids need to know about everything. I wouldn't have wanted to, when I was in school. But they need to know about basic biology, pregnancy, disease, and birth control. And some self-confidence to let them know that they don't HAVE to have sex, but that's a hard nut to crack in high school.

Mick, you are not taking up my time--if I didn't care about this issue I wouldn't answer you. I think we fundamentally agree on what the concern is, we just disagree on the methods for fixing it. This, to me, is what compromise is--not giving stuff up, but opening communication to find common ground.

Peace,
Jean

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 2:41pm

As I understand it, there is a belief that teaching kids about sex will lead them to engage in premarital sex. There are a number of studies that have found no evidence to support that belief. There are also a number of studies that show that abstinence-only education does not reduce the probability that students will delay sexual debut and that those students who completed an abstinence-only program are just as likely to acquire a sexually-transmitted infection as those who did not.

Some of the other objections I have heard are that informing students about homosexuality 'legitimizes' or 'endorses' homosexuality and/or homosexual acts.

That doesn't seem to be the intention or necessary consequence of sex ed.

The fact of the matter is that adolescents have sex, get pregnant, and acquire sexually-transmitted infections.

These are health issues. They need to be addressed. Having a child or an STI at a young age has life-long consequences.

We can't turn our backs on an issue because we are afraid of what might happen when what is happening has such serious consequences.

If someone has a better idea, please let me know.

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 9:52pm

Sorry about putting words in your mouth . I have been said to do that by
others here . I feel the same way at times , but not with your comments .
But I guess where we will always differ is just like my children , when
teaching them about sex , an important ingredient was a standard of sex in
the confines of marriage . As you have agreed with , the less sexual
relations the better till marriage . Not only for the physical dangers ,
but the emotional as well . This goes towards the esteem issue you also
agree with me on . . But I believe if more people promoted that standard
, their would be less sexual experiences among all of us out of the confines
of marriage . Even adults . With that standard being considered out of
bounds to be taught or even supported as the norm in public education ,
while teaching sex education , well sex education may not increase sexual
experiences , but you can not say it decreases it either . That was my
comment about no by the girl was meant to say , it was a crude joke actually
. But when I was a kid their was a double standard of guys having sex was
cool , girls having sex caused you to have Abad reputation . Still is a
double standard , but the stigma of sexual experiences has lost much of its
ability to lessen sexual activity . I guess the double standard was pathetic
, but at least it was more of a standard that is apparent now .
If we taught kids it was equal to have a grade of C and a grade of A . You
would see less students getting As and Bs . Still some would on their own .
Parents helping them and supporting them . But even parents supporting their
kids with it being re enforced by others is not the same for all kids .
Hopefully you can see at least my point using the illustration with sex
within marriage being reinforced . The same materials being taught , the
same education , but the standards set higher so more will achieve it . No
standard at all , well not sure what will happen . History does not speak
well for cultures where their were no standards . Am I an old fogey or
what ?

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 10:10pm

Well that is good news . Abortions going down . Well I guess some will claim abstinence only education is the reason , others may claim omprehensive sex education is .

Not sure the reason , but its good news . Perhaps we reached the saturation point .

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 10:22pm

I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry ."

You get my point, you just don't like my extrapolations.

'

Well now i understand where you are coming from . I still support a strong military , less likey have to use it which costs more . This has nothing to do with getting rid of waste in the military . Your making no sense .

Actually I ran twice for school board . Lost both times so you can be relieved to know public education has kept its high standards . But seeing almost twenty public education administrators command salaries of over 100,000 dollars in my district while they used books that say in a today's comparison had information about 2001 of only being a space odyssey . Old books with lower paid teachers being asked to do more by educrats on the Federal ,state land local levels with unfunded mandates . So yeah put the money in the class room , let the money flow up instead of down . Of course could not be done , but the message I believe has merit .

The kids books and teachers salaries are on next years agenda still im my district , . Don't worry though , the person who won was a well conceted new comer to our area , actually was a very qualified person ,
. I was just a Dad . And I did not have your ability to read minds .

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 3:16pm

You are correct. It's those curricular elements (religious righters) find doctrinally repulsive that impedes education. The fear of self-awareness and practical information, perhaps has its roots in the Genesis Chap. 1 account of lost innocence.

That's my theological and Psych 101 take on it.

That icky, but magnificent gift of prurient sex that energizes one to procreate from the Judeo/Christian perspective strikes me as more a curse than a gift.

That observation from one (moi) bitten by church and love too many times.

BTC

by: BlueDeacon

11-20-2008 @ 3:36pm

That's not so simple either, because the folks in Appalachia wanted nothing to do with slavery -- they were, for unrelated reasons, deeply resentful of the wealthy landowners who owned slaves that populated the East Coast. I learned recently that North Carolina threatened to secede from the Confederacy over the issue and eastern Tennessee had, basically, a "slavery-free" zone, and recall that West Virginia eventually broke away from Virginia. (However, some of those same people still fought for the Confederacy.) Bottom line, slavery was but a side issue at the beginning of the Civil War. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, many abolitionists, including Lincoln, wanted to send blacks back to Africa, so the core issue of racism wasn't really addressed at that time.

That's why I see very few parallels with the abortion issue. At least in America, virtually no one believes that abortion is a good thing -- the only issue is what to do about it. In my view, the idea of unfettered access is clearly unacceptable, but the primary focus by anti-abortionists on mere legal remedies causes little hope of change because they're under the delusion that if they could just exercise some authority they would make things right.

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 10:30pm

Very good!

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 10:39pm

I really do mostly agree with you, Mick. First of all, I think you right in saying that sex education doesn't decrease kids having sex. And thanks for clarifying what you meant by the girl saying no. If I'm reading it right, in the olden days (in which I grew up, too) boys were prevented from having sex by girls saying no, and girls were prevented by fear of the damage to their reputation. As a pure model, that's not bad; however, there were so many stigmas being flung around that no one had a healthy view of sex. And I think our current culture is just as bad, in the opposite way--you're stigmatized if you DON'T have sex. I would LOVE it if the pendulum would just stop in the middle but as I said, short of shutting down the entire entertainment and advertisement industries, I don't see that happening. I could go on and on about how those industries are undermining our whole civilization, and especially parenting, but that's a rant for another day. Yes, I do see your point, and I'm glad we chewed at this until we got here! I'm sure we'll argue again, but hopefully in a congenial way.

Peace,
Jean

P.S. There is a LOT to be said for fogeydom!

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 11:48pm

I definitely agree that laws will not eliminate evil, but they will lessen the effects of evil on everyone else.

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 11:52pm

Implicit in my call for additional social programs for poor women was public funding for these programs. Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

I'm not sure how better sex ed would help though. Anyone growing up in America today who doesn't know where babies come from or how to prevent conception is living with their head in the sand.

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 11:58pm

I actually see some worthy comparisons between the struggle to eliminate slavery and the struggle to eliminate abortion, particularly how the two issues divide the country.

Before the Civil War ultimately decided the issue of slavery, there were three general camps of people. The first were those who stridently defended the institution of slavery as an important and necessary institution (most Southern Democrats in Congress, Calhoun, Clay, etc). They saw it fundamental to the survival of their society and way of life. Blacks are barely human so what does it matter if they are enslaved, they asked. Freeing the slaves would ruin the life I'm used to, they said.

Then there was a broad middle ground of people who weren't in favor of outright abolition, but generally supported some varying degree of restrictions on slavery, but they generally wanted to defuse the issue (I'd put Lincoln into this group). They didn't want the issue to rip the country apart. Then there were the abolitionists (Stowe, F. Douglas, Garrison, and some politicians like Seward and Sumner). For this group, simply repealing fugitive slave laws and restricting slavery to the South was not good enough. Not until all slaves were freed would they rest. To them, any compromise that left slavery legal was not good enough.

A similar situation exists today with abortion. You have the Calhoun-esque people who staunchly defend a "woman's right to choose" and don't even want to acknowledge the inhumanity of abortion. They talk about how constraining it would be for people to take responsibility for their offspring, but give little to no thought to the other human life involved. Then there are those who would like to defuse the potency of the issue. There are those more to the left, like Wallis, who don't dare question Roe vs. Wade but talk about caring for pregnant mothers. They are tired of seeing abortion used against their preferred candidates. Also in the middle there are those on the right who don't want an outright ban on abortion, but would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned and have the matter returned to the legislatures for debate. Abortion wouldn't be banned, but at least the electorate could decide for itself (Most of the time I find myself in this camp). Then there are the modern day abolitionists, who see any compromise as condoning the evil of abortion. To them, accepting legal abortion anywhere is similar to allowing slavery anywhere. It is a stain upon our nation.

This analogy isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. In the 1850s, the vast majority of people outside of the South fell into the middle ground. They found the extremism of the abolitionists grating and disturbing too much of the status quo, but they didn't like the idea of slavery either. In hindsight it's easy to look at the abolitionists of the 19th Century as the ones truly concerned with justice. How will we view the true abolitionists of today 150 years in the future? I hope they'll get a better review than many have given them today.

by: littleroundtop

11-20-2008 @ 12:16am

There is a LOT to be said for fogeydom!

LOL . Well thanks for sticking it out with me also .

Mick

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 12:42am

I have met plenty of well-educated adults who do not know how HIV is transmitted and are either frightened of acquiring the virus from casual contact, or engage in risky behaviors without being aware of the risk.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-20-2008 @ 3:35am

"Before the Civil War ultimately decided the issue of slavery"There's your first error. The second is to equate the pro-life cause with the side of the oppressed. Most often there are two innocents involved in the pre-abortion scenario and sometimes three. (Mom, dad and baby) A case could be made that those fighting for freedom can be equated with the feminist/pro-choice camp.

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 5:18am

It seems some are defining sex ed in a limited role I suspect because they object to some of the curricular elements.

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 5:24am

"I was just a Dad . And I did not have your ability to read minds ."

Your fatherly modesty puts me to shame. My ability to read minds has served me well.

BTC

by: littleroundtop

11-20-2008 @ 6:32am

Your fatherly modesty puts me to shame. My ability to read minds has served
me well.

BTC

Ahh , not modesty . And its not what puts you to shame .

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 7:00am

Please do tell me my shame, oh enlightened one, it has escaped my "ability to read minds" for this first time.

May your love for truth vanquish all such "shame" (full) provocateurs.

BTC

by: neuro_nurse

11-20-2008 @ 2:41pm

As I understand it, there is a belief that teaching kids about sex will lead them to engage in premarital sex. There are a number of studies that have found no evidence to support that belief. There are also a number of studies that show that abstinence-only education does not reduce the probability that students will delay sexual debut and that those students who completed an abstinence-only program are just as likely to acquire a sexually-transmitted infection as those who did not.

Some of the other objections I have heard are that informing students about homosexuality 'legitimizes' or 'endorses' homosexuality and/or homosexual acts.

That doesn't seem to be the intention or necessary consequence of sex ed.

The fact of the matter is that adolescents have sex, get pregnant, and acquire sexually-transmitted infections.

These are health issues. They need to be addressed. Having a child or an STI at a young age has life-long consequences.

We can't turn our backs on an issue because we are afraid of what might happen when what is happening has such serious consequences.

If someone has a better idea, please let me know.

by: behindthecurtain

11-20-2008 @ 3:16pm

You are correct. It's those curricular elements (religious righters) find doctrinally repulsive that impedes education. The fear of self-awareness and practical information, perhaps has its roots in the Genesis Chap. 1 account of lost innocence.

That's my theological and Psych 101 take on it.

That icky, but magnificent gift of prurient sex that energizes one to procreate from the Judeo/Christian perspective strikes me as more a curse than a gift.

That observation from one (moi) bitten by church and love too many times.

BTC

by: BlueDeacon

11-20-2008 @ 3:36pm

That's not so simple either, because the folks in Appalachia wanted nothing to do with slavery -- they were, for unrelated reasons, deeply resentful of the wealthy landowners who owned slaves that populated the East Coast. I learned recently that North Carolina threatened to secede from the Confederacy over the issue and eastern Tennessee had, basically, a "slavery-free" zone, and recall that West Virginia eventually broke away from Virginia. (However, some of those same people still fought for the Confederacy.) Bottom line, slavery was but a side issue at the beginning of the Civil War. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, many abolitionists, including Lincoln, wanted to send blacks back to Africa, so the core issue of racism wasn't really addressed at that time.

That's why I see very few parallels with the abortion issue. At least in America, virtually no one believes that abortion is a good thing -- the only issue is what to do about it. In my view, the idea of unfettered access is clearly unacceptable, but the primary focus by anti-abortionists on mere legal remedies causes little hope of change because they're under the delusion that if they could just exercise some authority they would make things right.

by: Eric77

11-21-2008 @ 12:01am

Neuro,
That says nothing about their awareness of how pregnancy occurs and how to prevent conception. I'd wager that every single one of those well-educated people knows how babies are made and how to use at least one form of contraception. It doesn't take a genius to figure out a condom.

by: Eric77

11-21-2008 @ 12:02am

If you're referring to me when you say "some", you're mistaken. I'm just saying that hoping that increased/better sex ed will lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies is wishful thinking. People know how to prevent pregnancy. For some reason or another they choose not apply that knowledge.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: nuclearferret

11-18-2008 @ 7:37pm

Who is ready to stand up for the common ground of saying that simply reducing discrimination is good enough? How about torture? What? Discrimination or torture is intolerable and we can't compromise on a middle ground of settling for reducing the amount of these incidents, while accepting that they are going to happen regardless of their legality?

If Joel Hunter wants to settle for a satisfactory number of abortion deaths as part of consensus, he's welcome to it. But when other Christians choose to settle for a satisfactory amount of evil on other issues, such as the oft-cited capital punishment, then just remember the pragmatism this example aspires to: Not an end to abortion, but an acceptance that there will always be a level of evil in our society, and by allowing that evil to be legal, all of us are accomplice to the act.

by: nuclearferret

11-18-2008 @ 7:37pm

Who is ready to stand up for the common ground of saying that simply reducing discrimination is good enough? How about torture? What? Discrimination or torture is intolerable and we can't compromise on a middle ground of settling for reducing the amount of these incidents, while accepting that they are going to happen regardless of their legality?

If Joel Hunter wants to settle for a satisfactory number of abortion deaths as part of consensus, he's welcome to it. But when other Christians choose to settle for a satisfactory amount of evil on other issues, such as the oft-cited capital punishment, then just remember the pragmatism this example aspires to: Not an end to abortion, but an acceptance that there will always be a level of evil in our society, and by allowing that evil to be legal, all of us are accomplice to the act.

by: squeaky

11-18-2008 @ 7:57pm

Which would you prefer, Nuclearferret? Would you prefer that we reduce the number of abortions? Or would you prefer we continue to fight about it, refuse to find common ground, and never see any resolution--meanwhile, as we fight and argue and name call, babies are dying. Which is preferable? Your stance is one that if not all babies can be saved, then none should be.

A compromise recognizes that no one really sees abortion as good, not even those who are pro-choice. A compromise gets people who otherwise wouldn't consider another viewpoint to the table to start talking. A compromise is a start to reducing the number of abortions to zero. I know you want the whole pie--so would I--but the fact is you aren't going to get it. If you aren't going to get the whole pie, wouldn't you at least like to start with a bite or two?

by: squeaky

11-18-2008 @ 7:57pm

Which would you prefer, Nuclearferret? Would you prefer that we reduce the number of abortions? Or would you prefer we continue to fight about it, refuse to find common ground, and never see any resolution--meanwhile, as we fight and argue and name call, babies are dying. Which is preferable? Your stance is one that if not all babies can be saved, then none should be.

A compromise recognizes that no one really sees abortion as good, not even those who are pro-choice. A compromise gets people who otherwise wouldn't consider another viewpoint to the table to start talking. A compromise is a start to reducing the number of abortions to zero. I know you want the whole pie--so would I--but the fact is you aren't going to get it. If you aren't going to get the whole pie, wouldn't you at least like to start with a bite or two?

by: xfree9

11-18-2008 @ 8:00pm

The effort is admirable, but we (the Church) need to ask ourselves: "What is our end goal?" On the one hand, of course evil will always exist, so let's minimize it. But on the other hand, should we tolerate a compromise with those who don't believe it is evil, but a necessary part of defending "rights"?

I'm becoming more torn on the issue, and I can see good in the arguments of the "Compromisers" (not being pejorative here) and the Hard-core "pro-lifers" (to use a conventional nomenclature). It reminds me of my parents telling me that I can have whatever friends I want, but I should not let the "bad friends" tear down my values, but rather influence them with my own. In a free society, I suppose that works both ways, but I simply cannot refuse to say that someday abortion needs to be illegal, just as rape, incest, polygamy, and other things are.

by: xfree9

11-18-2008 @ 8:00pm

The effort is admirable, but we (the Church) need to ask ourselves: "What is our end goal?" On the one hand, of course evil will always exist, so let's minimize it. But on the other hand, should we tolerate a compromise with those who don't believe it is evil, but a necessary part of defending "rights"?

I'm becoming more torn on the issue, and I can see good in the arguments of the "Compromisers" (not being pejorative here) and the Hard-core "pro-lifers" (to use a conventional nomenclature). It reminds me of my parents telling me that I can have whatever friends I want, but I should not let the "bad friends" tear down my values, but rather influence them with my own. In a free society, I suppose that works both ways, but I simply cannot refuse to say that someday abortion needs to be illegal, just as rape, incest, polygamy, and other things are.

by: littleroundtop

11-18-2008 @ 9:05pm

I always assumed the pro choice crowd always wanted to reduce the number of abortions . Why would any person with any kind of conscience see it as a good thing .

But to call this a compromise is a bit silly , the left took control . Lets hope they reduce abortions , but to expect pro life beliefs to be silenced is like admiting that you have no concept of the disagreement . Of course lets support reducing abortions .

by: littleroundtop

11-18-2008 @ 9:05pm

I always assumed the pro choice crowd always wanted to reduce the number of abortions . Why would any person with any kind of conscience see it as a good thing .

But to call this a compromise is a bit silly , the left took control . Lets hope they reduce abortions , but to expect pro life beliefs to be silenced is like admiting that you have no concept of the disagreement . Of course lets support reducing abortions .

by: JeanM

11-18-2008 @ 9:55pm

I reread the post and didn't find anything in there about silencing anyone. Why would you assume that?

by: JeanM

11-18-2008 @ 9:55pm

I reread the post and didn't find anything in there about silencing anyone. Why would you assume that?

by: littleroundtop

11-18-2008 @ 10:20pm

I assumed that editorial was in regards to uniting around the compromise ?
Then why would anyone assume or believe a compromise was even needed to
reduce abortions ? If legislation reduces abortions , what is the
compromise needed ? But perhaps you are speaking to something else . In
the Constitution slaves were give less then one person in representation ,
this to stop from the south from gaining political clout by using slaves
with no voices , but the compromise allowed the institution of slavery still
to be used for political clout because it counted slaves for the number of
represntatives each state could get . . But the abolitionists still spoke
out against the evil of slavery and supported laws to abolish it . Is
supporting the compromise just that two different beliefs that can come
together for the greater good like forming our Country . Then yes I see ,
but another here on this blog stated to another would he rather just going
on fighting and getting no where . Is sex education to be taught with a
reference to a maried couple , still with comprehensive education if
desired by communities , or does this compromise provide sex education to
continue to be taught with no standards involved . Is the comporomise a
compromise , or is this just telling one side to follow us and be quiet .
What is the pro choice side giving up ?

by: littleroundtop

11-18-2008 @ 10:20pm

I assumed that editorial was in regards to uniting around the compromise ?
Then why would anyone assume or believe a compromise was even needed to
reduce abortions ? If legislation reduces abortions , what is the
compromise needed ? But perhaps you are speaking to something else . In
the Constitution slaves were give less then one person in representation ,
this to stop from the south from gaining political clout by using slaves
with no voices , but the compromise allowed the institution of slavery still
to be used for political clout because it counted slaves for the number of
represntatives each state could get . . But the abolitionists still spoke
out against the evil of slavery and supported laws to abolish it . Is
supporting the compromise just that two different beliefs that can come
together for the greater good like forming our Country . Then yes I see ,
but another here on this blog stated to another would he rather just going
on fighting and getting no where . Is sex education to be taught with a
reference to a maried couple , still with comprehensive education if
desired by communities , or does this compromise provide sex education to
continue to be taught with no standards involved . Is the comporomise a
compromise , or is this just telling one side to follow us and be quiet .
What is the pro choice side giving up ?

by: BlueDeacon

11-18-2008 @ 10:45pm

Equating abortion with slavery is simply bad history. One reason is that many abolitionists, including Lincoln, decided that they needed to send blacks back to Africa because they didn't believe that black and white could live in peace -- and many still believed that blacks were an inferior race. (The nation of LIberia was formed for that purpose.) No such analogy to abortion is appropriate.

The problem is that, for the last 30 yeas, the abortion issue has been used primarily for the sake of votes. In fact, taking sides has become a cottage industry, with people and organizations making a ton of money on both sides (though I would surmise more on the "pro-life" side due to sheer numbers). That being the case, the idea of "compromise" -- which in practice means calling a truce in the war -- is anathema because they live to fight and fight to live and anything less than total victory is unacceptable.

by: BlueDeacon

11-18-2008 @ 10:45pm

Equating abortion with slavery is simply bad history. One reason is that many abolitionists, including Lincoln, decided that they needed to send blacks back to Africa because they didn't believe that black and white could live in peace -- and many still believed that blacks were an inferior race. (The nation of LIberia was formed for that purpose.) No such analogy to abortion is appropriate.

The problem is that, for the last 30 yeas, the abortion issue has been used primarily for the sake of votes. In fact, taking sides has become a cottage industry, with people and organizations making a ton of money on both sides (though I would surmise more on the "pro-life" side due to sheer numbers). That being the case, the idea of "compromise" -- which in practice means calling a truce in the war -- is anathema because they live to fight and fight to live and anything less than total victory is unacceptable.

by: erbe

11-18-2008 @ 10:50pm

"Minimize evil" I wonder how that could be done? I wonder whether Satan can be defeated by politicians passing laws. We could do away with abortion but what else would pop up to take it's place? And if you count sin as anything that is not done in faith, as sin is defined in Hebrews, then abortion must be just a tiny little fraction of the sin in the world. If you could calculate the "net" amount of sin in the world do you think action on the part of mankind could reduce it? The heart of man is desperately wicked and I don't see how any law or regulation can change that. So while we are called to do good, the battle to defeat or minimize evil in the world cannot be accomplished by anything we do. For a believer, it has already been done, but not by anything he did.

by: erbe

11-18-2008 @ 10:50pm

"Minimize evil" I wonder how that could be done? I wonder whether Satan can be defeated by politicians passing laws. We could do away with abortion but what else would pop up to take it's place? And if you count sin as anything that is not done in faith, as sin is defined in Hebrews, then abortion must be just a tiny little fraction of the sin in the world. If you could calculate the "net" amount of sin in the world do you think action on the part of mankind could reduce it? The heart of man is desperately wicked and I don't see how any law or regulation can change that. So while we are called to do good, the battle to defeat or minimize evil in the world cannot be accomplished by anything we do. For a believer, it has already been done, but not by anything he did.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-18-2008 @ 11:03pm

According to the CDC the number of abortions in the US has been declining in recent years. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the lowest rates of abortions are found in nations that have legal access. The best estimates extrapolate (that one's for you Kevin S : )) that the annual numbers of abortions in the US pre- Roe were much the same as post-Roe. Abortion would then appear to be resistant to political measures and responds to social environment. This is, I believe, is one reason for all the foment and no progress. pro-choice/pro-life side choosing is counterproductive. The solution is most likely coming in the form of a pill much like "The Pill" that started this whole "moral crisis". The crisis is that men can no longer regulate the "place" of women with "natural order" (not unlike the vestiges of racism exhibited upon the election of Sen Obama). The challenge to Christians is to maintain the Spirit of Christ in a compassionate relevant morality.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-18-2008 @ 11:03pm

According to the CDC the number of abortions in the US has been declining in recent years. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the lowest rates of abortions are found in nations that have legal access. The best estimates extrapolate (that one's for you Kevin S : )) that the annual numbers of abortions in the US pre- Roe were much the same as post-Roe. Abortion would then appear to be resistant to political measures and responds to social environment. This is, I believe, is one reason for all the foment and no progress. pro-choice/pro-life side choosing is counterproductive. The solution is most likely coming in the form of a pill much like "The Pill" that started this whole "moral crisis". The crisis is that men can no longer regulate the "place" of women with "natural order" (not unlike the vestiges of racism exhibited upon the election of Sen Obama). The challenge to Christians is to maintain the Spirit of Christ in a compassionate relevant morality.

by: ando

11-18-2008 @ 11:43pm

"According to the CDC the number of abortions in the US has been declining in recent years."

Do you think part of the reason is that laws such as parental notification have made it harder for teenagers just to walk in a clinic with a baby, and walk out without one? Also, adoption tax credits have been passed by Congress, lowering the high cost of adopting children.

"The problem is that, for the last 30 yeas, the abortion issue has been used primarily for the sake of votes. In fact, taking sides has become a cottage industry, with people and organizations making a ton of money on both sides"

And you don't think that is also the case with professors and organizations who are pro-poor, in other words they benefit because there will always be poor people and get major funding by government? Also, where would Planned Parenthood be without major govt. funding?

by: ando

11-18-2008 @ 11:43pm

"According to the CDC the number of abortions in the US has been declining in recent years."

Do you think part of the reason is that laws such as parental notification have made it harder for teenagers just to walk in a clinic with a baby, and walk out without one? Also, adoption tax credits have been passed by Congress, lowering the high cost of adopting children.

"The problem is that, for the last 30 yeas, the abortion issue has been used primarily for the sake of votes. In fact, taking sides has become a cottage industry, with people and organizations making a ton of money on both sides"

And you don't think that is also the case with professors and organizations who are pro-poor, in other words they benefit because there will always be poor people and get major funding by government? Also, where would Planned Parenthood be without major govt. funding?

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 12:50am

"So maybe instead of worrying about abortion laws we might spend that energy loving and caring for the women and children it effects and see what happens."

The problem with this argument is that the people who generally advocate it would not apply it to other issues of injustice. Would you apply it to the death penalty? How about sex slavery? Or racial discrimination? I wouldn't. I'd work to pass laws to show that our society does not tolerate those things. Yes, laws against sex slavery or racial discrimination will never eliminate those things either, but they make a statement about what our society is willing to condone. Laws have meaning beyond the actual legal ramifications.

I'm all for a compromise position, but let's make a true compromise where each side gives a little. By all means let's set up more social programs for poor pregnant women, but let's also restrict access to abortion.

by: Eric77

11-19-2008 @ 12:50am

"So maybe instead of worrying about abortion laws we might spend that energy loving and caring for the women and children it effects and see what happens."

The problem with this argument is that the people who generally advocate it would not apply it to other issues of injustice. Would you apply it to the death penalty? How about sex slavery? Or racial discrimination? I wouldn't. I'd work to pass laws to show that our society does not tolerate those things. Yes, laws against sex slavery or racial discrimination will never eliminate those things either, but they make a statement about what our society is willing to condone. Laws have meaning beyond the actual legal ramifications.

I'm all for a compromise position, but let's make a true compromise where each side gives a little. By all means let's set up more social programs for poor pregnant women, but let's also restrict access to abortion.

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 1:16am

Well yes your right , it is as close to an analogy that I could think of .
Separate issues completely . You are right .
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with many who believe that
killing what God Created is wrong . Or for the simple fact some people
honestly believe they do have a moral right to kill what is inside of their
bodies or another's . The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living is beside the point of the discussion I was
involved in .

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 1:16am

Well yes your right , it is as close to an analogy that I could think of .
Separate issues completely . You are right .
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with many who believe that
killing what God Created is wrong . Or for the simple fact some people
honestly believe they do have a moral right to kill what is inside of their
bodies or another's . The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living is beside the point of the discussion I was
involved in .

by: erbe

11-19-2008 @ 2:01am

Laws can always be passed to control behavior and that function is useful for a society to function. That's all regulation can accomplish. And while society/government might prohibit killing and punish murderers, society/government cannot do anything about the evil that causes it to occur. Government regulation can only treat the symptoms but can never effect a cure.

by: erbe

11-19-2008 @ 2:01am

Laws can always be passed to control behavior and that function is useful for a society to function. That's all regulation can accomplish. And while society/government might prohibit killing and punish murderers, society/government cannot do anything about the evil that causes it to occur. Government regulation can only treat the symptoms but can never effect a cure.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-19-2008 @ 2:36am

"Do you think part of the reason is that laws such as parental notification have made it harder for teenagers just to walk in a clinic with a baby, and walk out without one? Also, adoption tax credits have been passed by Congress, lowering the high cost of adopting children."
No. This is a good example of villifying the opposition by minimizing the weight of the decision to have an abortion (Do you know of a teenager that casually walks in and out of an abortion clinic? How often do you think that a healthy family experiences your tragic scenario? Are there times when the parents should not be notified?). Adoption is also a much more complex issue than saying that tax credits translate into less abortions. My understanding is that there are many couples willing and ready to adopt infants for reasons other than tax breaks. So, no, I would not connect adoption tax breaks with reduced abortions. Reduced abortions are more related to the economic and educational aspects along with the Church preaching and valuing life.

by: PASTOR JEFF

11-19-2008 @ 2:36am

"Do you think part of the reason is that laws such as parental notification have made it harder for teenagers just to walk in a clinic with a baby, and walk out without one? Also, adoption tax credits have been passed by Congress, lowering the high cost of adopting children."
No. This is a good example of villifying the opposition by minimizing the weight of the decision to have an abortion (Do you know of a teenager that casually walks in and out of an abortion clinic? How often do you think that a healthy family experiences your tragic scenario? Are there times when the parents should not be notified?). Adoption is also a much more complex issue than saying that tax credits translate into less abortions. My understanding is that there are many couples willing and ready to adopt infants for reasons other than tax breaks. So, no, I would not connect adoption tax breaks with reduced abortions. Reduced abortions are more related to the economic and educational aspects along with the Church preaching and valuing life.

by: BlueDeacon

11-19-2008 @ 5:21am

But precisely because so many people -- myself included -- believe that abortion is wrong is why it's so easy to raise outrage, let alone money. To me, it's the same as consistently "playing the race card" and not address the underlying problems in race relations and taking personal responsibility in the process (and there, both sides are guilty as well).

by: BlueDeacon

11-19-2008 @ 5:21am

But precisely because so many people -- myself included -- believe that abortion is wrong is why it's so easy to raise outrage, let alone money. To me, it's the same as consistently "playing the race card" and not address the underlying problems in race relations and taking personal responsibility in the process (and there, both sides are guilty as well).

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 3:04pm

"but let's also restrict access to abortion."

You forgot to advocate for "public funding" to alleviate the factors leading to abortion like-

enacting laws for funding better sex education and jobs training.

That "public funding ", budgets are moral documents that can kill quandary.

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 3:04pm

"but let's also restrict access to abortion."

You forgot to advocate for "public funding" to alleviate the factors leading to abortion like-

enacting laws for funding better sex education and jobs training.

That "public funding ", budgets are moral documents that can kill quandary.

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 3:11pm

"The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living..."

Then you would be in favor of seriously dissecting the many facets of untold billions in military expenditure that do just that, far beyond the profits, vote pandering and livelihood of the abortion industry?

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 3:11pm

"The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living..."

Then you would be in favor of seriously dissecting the many facets of untold billions in military expenditure that do just that, far beyond the profits, vote pandering and livelihood of the abortion industry?

BTC

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 5:12pm

The CDC's abortion surveillance reports do include some speculation regarding factors that might influence the decline in the number of abortions, but they are very careful not to suggest causal relationships.

"The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate over time might reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies; a shift in the age distribution of women toward the older and less fertile ages; reduced or limited access to abortion services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents (e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods); and changes in contraceptive practices, including increased use of contraceptives (e.g., condoms and, among young women, long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s)

"Although induced abortions usually are performed for women who have unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception, the approximately 4.6 million women who have had intercourse during the preceding 3 months but were not using contraception might be the most at risk for unintended pregnancy. Therefore, a reduction in the number of abortions will require adapting complex strategies aimed at reducing such pregnancies. Insurance coverage of reversible contraception (e.g., vasectomy and tubal ligation) has increased substantially since 1993, although gaps in coverage remain substantial. Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use, including emergency contraception, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and the number of legal induced abortions in the United States."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609...

by: neuro_nurse

11-19-2008 @ 5:12pm

The CDC's abortion surveillance reports do include some speculation regarding factors that might influence the decline in the number of abortions, but they are very careful not to suggest causal relationships.

"The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate over time might reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies; a shift in the age distribution of women toward the older and less fertile ages; reduced or limited access to abortion services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents (e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods); and changes in contraceptive practices, including increased use of contraceptives (e.g., condoms and, among young women, long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s)

"Although induced abortions usually are performed for women who have unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception, the approximately 4.6 million women who have had intercourse during the preceding 3 months but were not using contraception might be the most at risk for unintended pregnancy. Therefore, a reduction in the number of abortions will require adapting complex strategies aimed at reducing such pregnancies. Insurance coverage of reversible contraception (e.g., vasectomy and tubal ligation) has increased substantially since 1993, although gaps in coverage remain substantial. Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use, including emergency contraception, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and the number of legal induced abortions in the United States."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609...

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 5:24pm

"Then you would be in favor of seriously dissecting the many facets of
untold billions in military expenditure that do just that, far beyond the
profits, vote pandering and livelihood of the abortion industry?"

The military complex and abortion industry are in cohoots with each other ?
Or did you just mis word the ending their ? Anyway I support a strong
military , when we have the right leadership it will less likely have to be
used . But yes of course , the military complex is mis managed . It reminds
me of most government programs , every body is getting a piece limiting the
money that goes to the original purpose .
Public Education reminds me of this also , I figure give the money directly
to the class room and let the folks fight over it after the classroom gets
what is needed . I guess that will never be done , but I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry .

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 5:24pm

"Then you would be in favor of seriously dissecting the many facets of
untold billions in military expenditure that do just that, far beyond the
profits, vote pandering and livelihood of the abortion industry?"

The military complex and abortion industry are in cohoots with each other ?
Or did you just mis word the ending their ? Anyway I support a strong
military , when we have the right leadership it will less likely have to be
used . But yes of course , the military complex is mis managed . It reminds
me of most government programs , every body is getting a piece limiting the
money that goes to the original purpose .
Public Education reminds me of this also , I figure give the money directly
to the class room and let the folks fight over it after the classroom gets
what is needed . I guess that will never be done , but I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry .

by: PeterfromMI

11-19-2008 @ 5:38pm

"I would rather see Christians ignore the political/governmental approach. Leave that to the politicians and legislators."

Those two groups are not mutually exclusive.

by: PeterfromMI

11-19-2008 @ 5:38pm

"I would rather see Christians ignore the political/governmental approach. Leave that to the politicians and legislators."

Those two groups are not mutually exclusive.

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 6:17pm

I believe sex education should be taught to anyone who is old enough to bear or father a child, not just in reference to marriage. Kids are having sex, period, and they need to know the risks involved. Telling them not to do it just isn't working. What do you mean by no standards?

I still don't see where you're getting being told to follow and shut up.

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 6:17pm

I believe sex education should be taught to anyone who is old enough to bear or father a child, not just in reference to marriage. Kids are having sex, period, and they need to know the risks involved. Telling them not to do it just isn't working. What do you mean by no standards?

I still don't see where you're getting being told to follow and shut up.

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 6:20pm

"The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living..."

You made sure to make your point on the pro fitting and electioneering inherent in the pro-choice world (as I noted). I simply pointed out they are not unique. In fact, the anti-abortionists have made a handsome contribution to the economy (see political lobbies, televangelism, mega churches, 1000's organizations funneling millions to influence public opinion and to change laws.

"The military complex and abortion industry are in cahoots with each other ?"

Never pondered that until now. Maybe you're onto something. Think of it. Both destroy life and obliterate enormous resources and potential. To what end? Maybe pro-choice folk think that fewer, UNWANTED births would mean fewer WANTED recruits for the industrial, military complex. You decide. Frankly, I'm for neither and would try to curtail both.

"Anyway I support a strong
military ,"

Straw Man. *(That ruse for carrying the biggest stick to dominate your perceived enemies is ludicrous if you ever looked at a Defence budget.)

"I figure give the money directly
to the class room and let the folks fight over it after the classroom gets
what is needed ."

Please, don't run for school board chairman, public education would never survive.

"I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry ."

You get my point, you just don't like my extrapolations.

BTC

by: behindthecurtain

11-19-2008 @ 6:20pm

"The fact people use it for making money , getting
votes , or making a living..."

You made sure to make your point on the pro fitting and electioneering inherent in the pro-choice world (as I noted). I simply pointed out they are not unique. In fact, the anti-abortionists have made a handsome contribution to the economy (see political lobbies, televangelism, mega churches, 1000's organizations funneling millions to influence public opinion and to change laws.

"The military complex and abortion industry are in cahoots with each other ?"

Never pondered that until now. Maybe you're onto something. Think of it. Both destroy life and obliterate enormous resources and potential. To what end? Maybe pro-choice folk think that fewer, UNWANTED births would mean fewer WANTED recruits for the industrial, military complex. You decide. Frankly, I'm for neither and would try to curtail both.

"Anyway I support a strong
military ,"

Straw Man. *(That ruse for carrying the biggest stick to dominate your perceived enemies is ludicrous if you ever looked at a Defence budget.)

"I figure give the money directly
to the class room and let the folks fight over it after the classroom gets
what is needed ."

Please, don't run for school board chairman, public education would never survive.

"I don't get your
point with the military and abortion industry ."

You get my point, you just don't like my extrapolations.

BTC

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 7:50pm

Jean telling kids "not to" never worked I agree . But standards and
cultural norms that were basically universal sure helped . The thing that
always worked for me was when the girl said No .
That is not the case anymore as you pointed out , sex education should is
being taught regardless if you use marriage as the standard . My state
actually refused abstinence only funds . Academia thinks it was a stupid
concept for the most part . I don't know how it was taught , but if I was in
charge , as if , I would have called it GREAT SEX , not abstinence only .
Your belief however is in the majority , at least in academia and I believe
the majority .

So it appears the compromise here is based on what are you compromising
again ? It appears you do not not understand the other side at all that is
being asked to compromise on this issue . Your political beliefs do not
appear to being compromised , no you support government aid to planned
parenthood and such from past comments . This will continue and most likely
grow under this compromise . You support more of a government role in the
areas that are articulated in the news article . I guess the compromise then
is not much for you , or perhaps I am just out of the loop. But if you can
not agree on just sex education being taught with the same information you
support , but just in the context of marriage I don't think your side is
even really considering compromise . You can be taught all the facts in a
math class and the information can be applied to however that student wishes
. Say using the probability of how many times he needs to throw dice to win
in Vegas or whatever . Your world view is just totally different then mine
, I happen to think the kids benefit from fewer sexual experiences , telling
them just no I agree will not work . Hence I use the principle of sex in
marriage as the acceptable norm , not ridicule when that is not observed ,
but not consider it equal to sex in marriage . But Especially when adults
see no difference with teaching sex education out of the confines of
marriage does the standard of marriage make sense . hence I guess I jut
look ignorant to you . I have no problem saying that is wrong . I also
have a problem admitting most likely I led a much more out of bounds life
then you , so I guess from your perspective its who am I to talk .
Sorry I took up your time , but I think I am not explaining it correctly ,
just thought western civilization and its traditions deserved a little say
here .

Take care ,
Mick
I will shut up now . ;0)

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 7:50pm

Jean telling kids "not to" never worked I agree . But standards and
cultural norms that were basically universal sure helped . The thing that
always worked for me was when the girl said No .
That is not the case anymore as you pointed out , sex education should is
being taught regardless if you use marriage as the standard . My state
actually refused abstinence only funds . Academia thinks it was a stupid
concept for the most part . I don't know how it was taught , but if I was in
charge , as if , I would have called it GREAT SEX , not abstinence only .
Your belief however is in the majority , at least in academia and I believe
the majority .

So it appears the compromise here is based on what are you compromising
again ? It appears you do not not understand the other side at all that is
being asked to compromise on this issue . Your political beliefs do not
appear to being compromised , no you support government aid to planned
parenthood and such from past comments . This will continue and most likely
grow under this compromise . You support more of a government role in the
areas that are articulated in the news article . I guess the compromise then
is not much for you , or perhaps I am just out of the loop. But if you can
not agree on just sex education being taught with the same information you
support , but just in the context of marriage I don't think your side is
even really considering compromise . You can be taught all the facts in a
math class and the information can be applied to however that student wishes
. Say using the probability of how many times he needs to throw dice to win
in Vegas or whatever . Your world view is just totally different then mine
, I happen to think the kids benefit from fewer sexual experiences , telling
them just no I agree will not work . Hence I use the principle of sex in
marriage as the acceptable norm , not ridicule when that is not observed ,
but not consider it equal to sex in marriage . But Especially when adults
see no difference with teaching sex education out of the confines of
marriage does the standard of marriage make sense . hence I guess I jut
look ignorant to you . I have no problem saying that is wrong . I also
have a problem admitting most likely I led a much more out of bounds life
then you , so I guess from your perspective its who am I to talk .
Sorry I took up your time , but I think I am not explaining it correctly ,
just thought western civilization and its traditions deserved a little say
here .

Take care ,
Mick
I will shut up now . ;0)

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 8:16pm

"The thing that always worked for me was when the girl said No ."

That's a different subject altogether. I'm not talking rape, here, but consensual sex. However, this does bring up the good point that girls (AND boys) need to know that they CAN say no, which calls for, I think, better sex education. I agree about cultural norms, though. Our culture is really messed up when it comes to sex, but that means taking on the entertainment and advertising industries.

"It appears you do not not understand the other side at all that is being asked to compromise on this issue ."

What I don't understand is this sentence. :-) I don't know what comments you're basing your remarks on. I support PP for the OTHER things they do to support parents and parents-to-be, e.g., birth control and fertility assistance. I've never said anything about government aid one way or another. The rest of this paragraph is really contentious, I feel. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I happen to agree with you whole heartedly about kids benefiting from fewer sexual experiences. It's a horrible shame that kids are exposed to adult things so early. However, that having been said, I DON'T think that sex education causes kids to have sex, period. Kids will have sex if they're going to, and until we change our culture, they're going to younger and younger and, for now, they need information. I will go out on a limb here and say that I don't think kids need to know about everything. I wouldn't have wanted to, when I was in school. But they need to know about basic biology, pregnancy, disease, and birth control. And some self-confidence to let them know that they don't HAVE to have sex, but that's a hard nut to crack in high school.

Mick, you are not taking up my time--if I didn't care about this issue I wouldn't answer you. I think we fundamentally agree on what the concern is, we just disagree on the methods for fixing it. This, to me, is what compromise is--not giving stuff up, but opening communication to find common ground.

Peace,
Jean

by: JeanM

11-19-2008 @ 8:16pm

"The thing that always worked for me was when the girl said No ."

That's a different subject altogether. I'm not talking rape, here, but consensual sex. However, this does bring up the good point that girls (AND boys) need to know that they CAN say no, which calls for, I think, better sex education. I agree about cultural norms, though. Our culture is really messed up when it comes to sex, but that means taking on the entertainment and advertising industries.

"It appears you do not not understand the other side at all that is being asked to compromise on this issue ."

What I don't understand is this sentence. :-) I don't know what comments you're basing your remarks on. I support PP for the OTHER things they do to support parents and parents-to-be, e.g., birth control and fertility assistance. I've never said anything about government aid one way or another. The rest of this paragraph is really contentious, I feel. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I happen to agree with you whole heartedly about kids benefiting from fewer sexual experiences. It's a horrible shame that kids are exposed to adult things so early. However, that having been said, I DON'T think that sex education causes kids to have sex, period. Kids will have sex if they're going to, and until we change our culture, they're going to younger and younger and, for now, they need information. I will go out on a limb here and say that I don't think kids need to know about everything. I wouldn't have wanted to, when I was in school. But they need to know about basic biology, pregnancy, disease, and birth control. And some self-confidence to let them know that they don't HAVE to have sex, but that's a hard nut to crack in high school.

Mick, you are not taking up my time--if I didn't care about this issue I wouldn't answer you. I think we fundamentally agree on what the concern is, we just disagree on the methods for fixing it. This, to me, is what compromise is--not giving stuff up, but opening communication to find common ground.

Peace,
Jean

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 9:52pm

Sorry about putting words in your mouth . I have been said to do that by
others here . I feel the same way at times , but not with your comments .
But I guess where we will always differ is just like my children , when
teaching them about sex , an important ingredient was a standard of sex in
the confines of marriage . As you have agreed with , the less sexual
relations the better till marriage . Not only for the physical dangers ,
but the emotional as well . This goes towards the esteem issue you also
agree with me on . . But I believe if more people promoted that standard
, their would be less sexual experiences among all of us out of the confines
of marriage . Even adults . With that standard being considered out of
bounds to be taught or even supported as the norm in public education ,
while teaching sex education , well sex education may not increase sexual
experiences , but you can not say it decreases it either . That was my
comment about no by the girl was meant to say , it was a crude joke actually
. But when I was a kid their was a double standard of guys having sex was
cool , girls having sex caused you to have Abad reputation . Still is a
double standard , but the stigma of sexual experiences has lost much of its
ability to lessen sexual activity . I guess the double standard was pathetic
, but at least it was more of a standard that is apparent now .
If we taught kids it was equal to have a grade of C and a grade of A . You
would see less students getting As and Bs . Still some would on their own .
Parents helping them and supporting them . But even parents supporting their
kids with it being re enforced by others is not the same for all kids .
Hopefully you can see at least my point using the illustration with sex
within marriage being reinforced . The same materials being taught , the
same education , but the standards set higher so more will achieve it . No
standard at all , well not sure what will happen . History does not speak
well for cultures where their were no standards . Am I an old fogey or
what ?

by: littleroundtop

11-19-2008 @ 9:52pm

Sorry about putting words in your mouth . I have been said to do that by
others here . I feel the same way at times , but not with your comments .
But I guess where we will always differ is just like my children , when
teaching them about sex , an important ingredient was a standard of sex in
the confines of marriage . As you have agreed with , the less sexual
relations the better till marriage . Not only for the physical dangers ,
but the emotional as well . This goes towards the esteem issue you also
agree with me on . . But I believe if more people promoted that standard
, their would be less sexual experiences among all of us out of the confines
of marriage . Even adults . With that standard being considered out of
bounds to be taught or even supported as the norm in public education ,
while teaching sex education , well sex education may not increase sexual
experiences , but you can not say it decreases it either . That was my
comment about no by the girl was meant to say , it was a crude joke actually
. But when I was a kid their was a double standard of guys having sex was
cool , girls having sex caused you to have Abad reputation . Still is a
double standard , but the stigma of sexual experiences has lost much of its
ability to lessen sexual activity . I guess the double standard was pathetic
, but at least it was more of a standard that is apparent now .
If we taught kids it was equal to have a grade of C and a grade of A . You
would see less students getting As and Bs . Still some would on their own .
Parents helping them and supporting them . But even parents supporting their
kids with it being re enforced by others is not the same for all kids .
Hopefully you can see at least my point using the illustration with sex
within marriage being reinforced . The same materials being taught , the
same education , but the standards set higher so more will achieve it . No
standard at all , well not sure what will happen . History does not speak
well for cultures where their were no standards . Am I an old fogey or
what ?