Seeking Common Ground for Abortion Reduction on Roe vs. Wade Anniversary

It's curious to me that when talking about captial punishment, progressives believe it's absolutely wrong and want an immediate stop to it, but when the topic is abortion, they're content just to seek a "reduction".

Well, which is it for you, Jim? The March for Life Day or Celebrate Roe Day? I know you think the consequentialist position is best: reduce the numbers and the whole thing will go away. But it won't because every abortion is a crime, and therefore even one abortion is too many. We don't talk about reducing torture, an intrinsic evil. We talk about eliminating torture. We don't talk about reducing war. We talk about eliminating war. And poverty. And slavery. And violence against women. Why, oh why, Jim do you then prattle on about reducing, not eliminating abortion?

Conversely, it's equally curious to me that when talking about abortion, right-wingers believe it's absolutely wrong and want an immediate stop to it, but when the topic is capital punishment or torture or war, not so much.

There is common ground to be found, if people would be just willing to look for it. I personally am not pro-abortion, but believe it is absolutely silly to refuse to provide age-appopriate reproductive education when claiming to oppose abortion. Other than requiring perfection from all, what do those who oppose reproductive education think is going to happen if young people do not have this important information?

This is a little of an aside but I think it points out the inconsistency of the common ground debate. How can the government promote teaching our children that sexuality is sacred and not promote religion? Shouldn't the govenments approach to sex education be religiously neutral and therefore not make the judgement that sex is sacred.

The churches in my local area , a Uniterian and another liberal church had forums with advocates of Sojourners as part of it . Those two churches at least in my area are diehard advocates for abortion rights to the point where you be ridiculed for a pro life view based on aview you are not respecting a women .
They are very political .

Would it not have been great if President Obama was pro life ! Had a change of heart ! I wonder if he could be re elected as a democrat if he was ? I would love to be part of that campaign regardless.

Julia O opposing reproductive health care is really a myth , Perpertuated by some zealous righties and whole bunch of seculaar lefties . You do realize you could teach everything in a comprehensive sex education class but still promote abstinence till marriage . Which as a Christian or a health official with an open mind I am not sure why you would oppose that , especially if the comprehensive information was being given ? If and when the kids deviate , and they certainly will unfortuantely as most of us can , or least I confess to , the times will be less often and the knowledge of protection will be there . Yes I am a hippocrit .

I guess I might argue for age appropriatness because I am an old fogey and I believe allowing children their time of innocence is not promoting ignorance .

But I am one conservative who totally would advocate for sex education , just not the type that lies to kids and tells them sex outside of marriage is equal to sex inside of marriage . That safe sex is a term with no regard to marriage but just sexual aids and protection. Education that tells you that there is a such thing as SAFE casual sex . Nope , no such thing Not to the body and not to the mind .
I don't see why actually why their is not more agreement on this . All the stuff in the Bible , all the consequences in our culture from sexual relationships outside of marriage

This discussion is a good start and I hope that it continues without the usual exchange of each side distorting the other side's position. Before I started writing this, I visited a couple web sites that discuss abortion and I would encourage others contributing here to do the same. One of the links led me to a site in which the question was addressed "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortion?" (I believe that the original link was the Guttmacher Institute.)

I think that the President's goal of reducing the number of abortions merits our support. I realize that the spectrum of opinions that may be posted here will range from those who would oppose any restriction to those for which only zero abortions would be acceptable. I'm not even sure if we will approach agreement on what birth control methods function by inducing abortion. (Certainly, the site that I visited maintained that virtually all birth control methods included the possibility of abortion.) I hope the dialogue will remain positive.

At my school fifth graders learn about how condoms are used and the important parts of the sexual reproductive system. There is supposed to be discussion on the fact that the only 100 percent reliable method to prevent pregnancies is abstinence, but after all, it is a public school and one doesn't want to mix religion with the public square. Please don't even look for a double standard.

There's a deeper issue than sexuality -- it's how we as people see each other as sex objects or personal possessions. You simply cannot address the abortion issue without addressing the bad relationships between the genders, which is how we need to keep people from having sex inappropriately in the first place. If we learn to respect, nurture and treasure each other we won't want to use someone like that because "I just couldn't do that to her/him."

Julia_O,

You're quite right. As far as capital punishment goes, I don't want an immediate stop to it. Some criminals deserve to die for their crimes. As for torture, I don't know of any sane person who supports that. If, on the other hand, you're referring to water-boarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques", you're right, I don't think we should stop doing that. As for war, I would love to live in a world without war. As long as we live in this world though, some wars will remain necessary and just.

Back to the original topic though, you bet I want an immediate end to abortion (the only exception being when the mother's life is in jeopardy). Now, as a "progressive" (I assume that you are. Am I incorrect?), who's content with a "reduction" in abortion, may I ask how many abortions a year you'd be comfortable with? Ten million? Five million? One million? Those would all be drastic reductions from the current yearly average.

Because conservatives often use it as a moral battering ram and, really, often couldn't care less about "life."

"It's curious to me"

No it isn't. This is a rhetorical dodge. Say what you mean, dawg.

"Because conservatives often use it as a moral battering ram and, really, often couldn't care less about "life.""

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am, as a Christian but a politically progressive one, still seeking an explanation from someone. Is there a Biblical explanation for a belief that life begins before physical birth? No one has ever given me a reason beyond that some Papal figure in the past came up with that concept, and it has been carried forward ever since. Please understand, this is a serious inquiry and not an attempt at sarcasm. Until I am convinced that this is not just the contradiction it seems to me, abortion cannot equate with worse than capital punishment or murder.

yellowbird,
Have you seen a sonogram lately? All the science and technology shows life begins before birth and in the Psalms 39 , I think it is, it talks about life before birth as well as in Jeremiah. Murder is bad. You do agree. right? Murder of any sort esp. of the innocent. Who is more innocent than a preborn person? I really don't understand where you are going with this question or where you are coming from. The Bible also tells many times how worshipers that sacfriced their first born to appease a idol god brought wrath from God. I'm sure God has 45 million reasons(# of abortions since '73) at least to be very upset with our nation. He would be justifed to be wrathful with us just for abortion let alone other things.

Sojos,
Today was Right to Life day. Some Rep. were in Congress trying to defend life and make good laws to reduce abortion etc. Where were their brothers the Democrats? Can you name one that joined them?
The Freedom of Choice Act so misnamed is an act that will do nothing but encourage abortion, take away healthcare givers freedom of conscience to not participate in abortion and delete gains the pro-life movement has made. Apparently Obama backs this bill. I hope you all will take action to stop this bill if you really want to reduced abortion or else it is all nice sounding speech to make oneself feel better. Action speechs much louder than words. Words are nothing without appropriate action.

Yellowbird, Psalm 139 supports a clear reading that God "knows us before He makes us. . ." (paraphrased). Does that help?

No smart remarks, Kevin. That's the political reality.

I am doing a three-part feature on my blog right now about a distinctively Christian response to abortion that is very Biblically-driven. I hope you check it out.
The Psalmist tells us that God knit him together in his mother's womb. But more importantly, we have the example of Christ, who was Jesus and who was called to be the Son of God at his conception. Jesus did not see fit to come to earth in glory, but started his earthly ministry by being "knit together" in the dark and formless void of the womb. And John too begins his witness to Jesus, not at first on the banks of the Jordan crying out, "One that is greater than me is to come," but rather, by leaping in the womb, such that his mother was filled with the Holy Spirit and was able to proclaim to her cousin, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

I went to Mass on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and heard a homily on the "seamless garment" of the pro-life message. The point was essentially that abortion is bad, but so are all these other things like capital punishment, war, poverty, lack of health care. Many of the comments here say something similar. What this argument, or rather, this approach to pro-life issues, fails to recognize is that there is always a prioritizing of work you have to do. Do you think in Germany in the 1930's, it was as important to try and end poverty as it was to close down the Jewish ghettos? No, because there was a clear emergency in that Jews were systematically being exterminated, and all other injustices needed to take a backseat to that one pressing concern. We have such a pressing concern at hand. 1.3 million abortions in this country a year. I too disagree with capital punishment, I too disagree with war, especially the war we are engaged in right now. But the moral injustice of abortion is so grave that it needs to take priority in the heart and minds of people who claim to be pro-life. What the seamless garment approach ends up being is a way to feel good about being pro-life without DOING anything.

From Smokm: "Now, as a "progressive" (I assume that you are. Am I incorrect?), who's content with a "reduction" in abortion, may I ask how many abortions a year you'd be comfortable with?"

Actually, your assumption is wrong. I am pro-life and am uncomfortable with any number of abortions. However, I am willing to admit that both sides of this debate have an obvious double standard. That was my only point. Progressives do not have the market on double standards, as seemed to be your point from your previous post.

It's interesting that you don't believe water-boarding is torture. Strapping or holding a human being (someone we can all agree was created in God's own image, or do they cease to be human beings if our government SAYS they're enemy combatants?) down and applying water to simulate the terrifying sensation of drowing is not torture, huh? Would you like to sign up for a trial of it?

Beyond the indicators that the application of torture rarely offers up any information of value, torture puts our own troops at risk, and most importantly, is morally wrong. If one is willing to apply situational ethics to subjects like torture and capital punishment, then one cannot be surprised when others choose to apply it to issues such as abortion.

Everything is a two-way street.

Can't speak for BlueDeacon, but can tell you that as a "liberal" I regard abortion as like a cancer surgery, I thank God it is available, that doctors are good at it, it is safe and covered by insurance, but I hope never to use it! To this end, I support efforts to reduce cancer, and promote healthy life-style. The tragic reality is that the all or nothing approach, leads people to extremes that must break God's heart. Remember Jesus, speaking about divorce, He affirms that it was never God's intention, (everyone near one knows how painful they can be) but talks about God allowing divorice becuase of sin (the hardness of men's heart). I proudly stand on the side of reducing abortion, recognizing it as a last choice, and acknowledging that some sin -- personal rebellion of immoral life style, the health problems of a fallen world, the economic poverty of a dysfunctional economic situation where greed and selfishness contribute to the poverty caused by laziness and sloth, or rape or incest devestate a family. What a different world, if we attempted to work for a living wage (one earner per family), education that was affordable and health care that is available, day care for single parent homes (for what ever reason they happen), and the positive message of the gift of life.

littleroundtop: "Julia O opposing reproductive health care is really a myth , Perpertuated by some zealous righties and whole bunch of seculaar lefties . You do realize you could teach everything in a comprehensive sex education class but still promote abstinence till marriage . Which as a Christian or a health official with an open mind I am not sure why you would oppose that , especially if the comprehensive information was being given ?"

I would disagree that the opposition of age-appropriate reproductive education is a myth. My husband is an 8th grade teacher, and every year, it's the same old thing: religious right-wingers rallying together to protest the teaching of sex-education to kids of this age (which happens to be around 14, an age when many kids have already experimented with sex). The cornerstone of our district's (sixth largest in our state) approach to sex ed is abstinence, but that is not enough for these people. It has to be ALL abstinence, or nothing.

Well, I am also the mother of three teenaged sons who, to my knowledge, are all still virgins, but I would be an absolute fool to think that none of them would ever make a mistake, despite the fact that they know full well that their father and practiced abstinence until marriage and we've communicated since they were old enough to understand that abstinence is the best practice possible.

What just mystifies me is the argument consistently made by these folks, that the mere provision of reproductive eduation and information would make teens want to engage in sex. I have a newsflash for them: just being teens is what makes them want to have sex.

Julia I am disagreeing with anything you are saying really . I live in a
different area and am speaking to my experience . But I am a right-winger
that your talking about , I think . Did not know I was actually one or was
ever stereotyped that way till this issue came up in my school district . I
opposed sex education in our district in only the materials and methods ,
the objections I raised was countered with what your saying about your
husbands experience . The other side countered with I was promoting
ignorance , where I was only countering curriculum. At the time I was not
political , and a PTA President of a local secondary school . I did not
oppose sex education , I opposed the way it was being taught . Specifically
I raised objections to the point that the method used peer pressure of kids
to past on information .
" originally sex education was taught so kids did not t]learn it from each
other "
The kids had a sex education forum with Planned Parenthood , a Gay
organization for youth, The local Health district, A suicide prevention
volunteer organization and some other organizations . The curriculum was
explicit and was not available to parent review . Anal sex , oral sex , etc.
The law in the state of Washington states parents are legally allowed to
review the materials. . Also a definition of a healthy sexual relationship
in regards to vaginal, oral , and abal sex all had words like respect
associated with it , but no marriage . A relationship was noted , and if I
remember in my youth , a relationship was two days or longer. ;0) But I
was met with the religious right stuff , and many stereotypes in this
regards . The district backed down because you are right , it became a us
against them thing . I was trying to reach common ground like the blog
stated , and hoped perhaps you could see the point I was making . Your
husband is a teacher , God Bless him . I know how crazy parents can be .
But the parents he is objecting to also get some stereotyped by public
education that they are the enemy . An example perhaps is in California ,
the Teachers Union promoted gay marriage . Not to take on that issue , but
I think public education would be better off if Teachers Union stayed out of
those issues , also organized religion . Look how Warren is looked upon
since he made a stand , I would say it compromised his Ministry somewhat ,
and The Teachers Union taking on liberal social issues has done the same in
regards "traditional or conservative " parents trusting them . But this way
there are those who feel like winners and some feel like losers . I had 4
boys and one girl . Sounds like you are a dedicated parent . I made my
share of mistakes , but your right as far as I am concerned , teach them
about sex and preventing pregnancy till ready in a marriage relation. If
they deviate , as the little buggers usually do , hopefully it will not in
the case of sex , or at least as much . The spiritual bonds sex gives with
a partner is always overlooked in sex education , but having sex with
someone builds abond . Adults can't handle it sometimes , I just feel bad
for the kids who don't get the whole truth . To be abstinence only should
be named GREAT SEX . But again my point , you can comprehensive sex
education with abstinence only as the subject matter . Just like you can
teach say a karate class with the theme of never using the knowledge to hurt
someone . The student then makes the decision to deviate from what he or
she has learned .