Get E-Mail Updates

What Makes Liberals and Conservatives Angry? Abortion Reduction

When both the Left and Right begin sharpening their knives, it means you are on to something. This new threat raising the hackles of liberals and conservatives still hunkered down in culture-war bunkers? It's a movement focused on comprehensive strategies to reduce abortions by providing economic supports for vulnerable women and preventing unintended pregnancies. A chorus of critics across the ideological spectrum has lined up to malign these common-ground efforts with all the righteous zeal of those who make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Liberal bloggers slam Catholics and evangelicals working on this approach as radical "anti-choice" hardliners cozying up to the Religious Right. Religious conservatives denounce the effort as a betrayal of faith and question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. The National Right to Life Committee starkly dismisses common ground on abortion as the "burial ground." The Pro-Life Action League mocks it as a "sellout."

While these reactions run the gambit from the predictable to the absurd, they share a scorched-earth rhetorical style and an absolutist devotion to hardened agendas. If politics is the art of the possible, these common-ground naysayers seem more comfortable defending turf and demonizing opponents than seizing a unique political moment when pro-choice and pro-life public officials are finally doing more than exploiting abortion as a "wedge issue" to divide voters and win elections.

Indeed, the time is ripe to end the abortion stalemate. President Barack Obama has made abortion reduction a priority of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In Congress, pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan has joined pro-choice Rep. Rosa DeLauro to co-sponsor the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and Sen. Lincoln Davis introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act, legislation that helps expectant mothers with prenatal health care, nutrition support, and other critical programs. At a time of grave economic crisis, it's more essential than ever that we reject the false divide between social justice and pro-life advocacy. Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line.

Citizens weary of abortion politics as usual are hungry for a breakthrough. A post-election poll conducted by Public Religion Research found that most voters -- including 81% of Catholics and 86% of white evangelicals -- believe elected officials should work across party lines to increase economic support for vulnerable women, expand adoption opportunities, and prevent unintended pregnancies. While these are positive trends, hard work remains. Secular progressives who view access to abortion as a fundamental right and many religious Americans who believe it is a profound threat to the sanctity of life must still reach across bitter divides with courage and humility.

Winning hearts and minds in a democracy demands more than fiats or fist-shaking. As Roman Catholic Bishop Blase Cupich of South Dakota cautioned his fellow bishops at a national meeting, a "prophecy of denunciation quickly wears thin." Religious Americans can maintain a prophetic spirit that speaks truth to power while at the same time engaging in dialogue and responding pragmatically to social and political realities. Those who make an idol of "choice" as the ultimate virtue must recognize that choice without responsibility is a false freedom. In an instant-gratification culture that objectifies women and divorces sex from loving relationships, pro-choice advocates can also acknowledge that cultivating greater reverence for the dignity of sexual intimacy is as important as promoting contraception. It's also a mistake to dismiss all pro-lifers as reactionary fundamentalists aligned with conservative political orthodoxy. This only perpetuates stereotypes, undermines potential alliances, and alienates the majority of religious Americans who recognize that the moral wisdom of faith traditions defies easy political labels. If those on opposing sides of this polarizing issue embrace a spirit of greater humility, compassion, and critical introspection, enemies become potential allies and old assumptions fade away.

Comprehensive efforts to reduce abortions are a cause for hope that the pro-life and pro-choice communities should embrace. After more than three decades of political paralysis and legal gridlock, the time has come to break new ground.

John Gehring is a senior writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Simone Campbell, an attorney and Sister of social service, is the executive director of NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: neuro_nurse

03-26-2009 @ 4:25pm

Okay, I've read Fletcher's book and wrote a report on it in an ethics class, so I don't need to be told what situation ethics is, but I do need for you to explain to me how situation ethics is relevant to my comment.

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 11:05pm

I have a hard time believing that if abortion was made illegal that the abortion rate wouldn't decrease. But that's beside the point.

The point is that there aren't liberal interest groups that "have their knives out" for Christians who are looking to reduce abortion through methods described in the commentary. This isn't the middle ground being proposed between the two extreme positions the authors would like us to believe it is.

by: JacobS

03-25-2009 @ 11:17pm

How does one determine whether prohibition "works?" The issue you cited is probably very similar to the abortion issue. One could make a compelling argument that drug prohibition is responsible for a great deal of violence, especially in border states and cities, but that doesn't answer whether or not it actually prevents people from doing drugs. In all likelihood, people are less likely to use illegal drugs. Even on college campuses, where drug use is supposed to be rampant, I see far fewer people using drugs than drinking, and suspect the illegality and difficulty getting them are the reason for it.

I think we can look at the abortion issue the same way. I wholeheartedly believe that prohibiting abortion would substantially decrease the number of abortions in this country. It's impossible to know how many women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe, but I have yet to see a credible source claim that the number of abortions after Roe was the same as it had been before. It's probable that it would also lead to more women seeking abortions that put themselves in greater danger by obtaining illegal and unsanitary abortions. Under those possible circumstances would prohibition be a success or a failure?

This debate leaves a lot more questions than it answers. The thought of women so desperate to have an abortion that they risk their lives is sadening, but I don't believe it justifies allowing them to continue destroying unborn life. The fact remains that were a nationwide ban on abortion implemented, many people would still have access to abortion. Those with means could travel anywhere in the world to get one, and from my own home its only a 150 mile drive to Canada. As Christians we should all be working to create a culture where abortion is unacceptable, but the law helps to shape culture just as much as the culture helps to shape the law.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 9:05pm

Here's the problem: That kind of rhetoric didn't get abortion banned in the first place. In fact, it was the "liberals" that did back at the turn of the last century in response to sexual exploitation of women that was common in that day. And in fact, there became such an outcry that anti-abortion sentiment represented majority opinion. Times have changed, obviously, and it's clear that simply supporting an exclusive "anti-abortion" mentality just doesn't work.

by: squeaky

03-25-2009 @ 11:40pm

Maybe a better question is "would making abortion illegal stop unplanned pregnancy?"

And if the answer to that is no, which I believe it is, then it seems to me a far better approach to the abortion issue is to deal with the cause of abortion in the first place...which is, for the most part, unplanned pregnancy.

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 12:06am

"this is a common rhetorical ploy used by many Sojo contributors (Wallis chief of all) to position themselves as somehow "beyond" politics"

Yes. Pit Left against Right and claim yourself as "better" or "beyond." Classic "progressive" tactic.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 12:45am

In all likelihood, people are less likely to use illegal drugs. Even on college campuses, where drug use is supposed to be rampant, I see far fewer people using drugs than drinking, and suspect the illegality and difficulty getting them are the reason for it.

Well, part of that has to do with college students hunkering down with their studies, and another part is that they don't often have the disposable income to spend using illegal drugs. That said, in the go-go 1980s cocaine made a serious comeback with white-collar folks in their 20s and 30s who had the money to spend -- however, I doubt that many of them, not to mention their dealers, spent even one night in jail.

Anyway, Tony Campolo once quoted a survey, based on a questionnaire, that noted that the abortion rate in the 1950s was similar to what it is now -- and of course abortion was generally illegal then. In "Beyond Culture Wars," Michael Horton noted that one out of ever six abortions took place on an evangelical woman. (Needless to say, there's a bit of hypocrisy there.)

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 12:49am

I'm not sure that's true. Four years ago on the anniversary of Roe, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton made a pitch for abortion reduction and subsequently got pilloried by pro-choice advocates who felt that she was betraying them. (I remember that because I wrote a letter in response praising that stance while identifying myself as "pro-life.")

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 12:57am

LIbertarians defend the rights of individuals from initiation of force. Last time I checked, an abortion procedure is an initiation of force against another human being.

Prohibition is indeed not the answer to all things, but it is the answer to protecting human life against fraud. Apply your critique consistently, and you will have to say that murder should merely be minimized, not "prohibited."

Yes, the drug war is a prime example of why prohibition doesn't work on everything. But the drug war isn't about initiation of force against another.

by: Eric77

03-26-2009 @ 1:59am

My answer to your question is "absolutely not" which is why I think it's important to work to reduce unplanned pregnancies through many of the ways the authors above suggest.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 2:59am

Try telling that to the victims on the Mex-Us border

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 3:05am

"It's impossible to know how many women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe, but I have yet to see a credible source claim that the number of abortions after Roe was the same as it had been before."
How is it possible to be so sure that outlawing abortion will lead to fewer abortions when it will, by your own admission, become impossible to tell that number going forward?

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 3:50am

"Apply your critique consistently, and you will have to say that murder should merely be minimized, not "prohibited.""

That is indeed the case in the US. Murder is minimized and not outlawed in the form of war, capital punishment, lack of prosecution/enforcement for certain types of murder (usually gang related), etc..
Law is a poor regulator of human behaviors. It works best as an agreement under which secular society agrees to "minimize" behaviors which it deems as toxic. These threats can expand and decrease over time. At this point, abortion has not risen in the American psyche to the level of a threat to it's existence. When economic well being is threatened then we will begin to see tightening legal restrictions. America's God is not the God of the Bible but Mammon. The government is diminutive when compared to the Economic powers controlling policies.

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:02am

situalional ethics at its best and most harmfull

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:04am

Classic "progressive" tactic

Actually the tactic of all those who see themselves above God

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:12am

Your right sin because of prohibition never works .
So lets join em . How sad

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 11:04am

Telling them what?

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 11:06am

I think we agree, here, with a minor exception. there is a prohibition on murder. It's illegal. That doesn't stop people from committing the crime, as you noted by your description of behaviors. Hence a toxic act (murder) should be illegal.

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 11:08am

"part of that has to do with college students hunkering down with their studies"

and people tell me I'm out of touch with reality!

No, seriously, you are in many ways right, I just thought that particular description was a bit humorous. Most college students I know don't "hunker down."

(I wasn't critiquing you, just having some fun!)

by: thinkagain

03-26-2009 @ 1:12pm

Common ground - how disingenuous. Let's see, the Left says, "Let's, of course, keep murder (of the unborn) legal, but we're all into fewer murders of the unborn (though we don't even believe it's murder)." Why reduce abortions if one believes that abortion is neither taking a life, nor is it hurting the mother (and abortion is both the taking of a life and the wounding of the mother's soul - not to mention the physical effects on her body)? For these uncaring folks, there is no sincere reason for wanting fewer abortions -- except to look as if they actually did care for the unborn baby (that "non-person"

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 1:47pm

Considering the costs of a college education plus the soft job market, I would think that college kids are indeed working harder than ever before.

by: neuro_nurse

03-26-2009 @ 4:25pm

Okay, I've read Fletcher's book and wrote a report on it in an ethics class, so I don't need to be told what situation ethics is, but I do need for you to explain to me how situation ethics is relevant to my comment.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 9:05pm

Here's the problem: That kind of rhetoric didn't get abortion banned in the first place. In fact, it was the "liberals" that did back at the turn of the last century in response to sexual exploitation of women that was common in that day. And in fact, there became such an outcry that anti-abortion sentiment represented majority opinion. Times have changed, obviously, and it's clear that simply supporting an exclusive "anti-abortion" mentality just doesn't work.

by: rothgar

03-30-2009 @ 2:50pm

I don't know which Pro-Lifers you are speaking of. The ones I've spoken with are admanant that it must be illegal. Problem is that making abortion illegal will NOT end the practice just condemn women to third class status.

Not only will illegalization even come close to ending abortion, I firmly beleive that within a generation of the Pro-Life movement's success in making Abortion illegal (and I feel you will be successful since you won't stop) the Church will fade into obscurity. At best it'll be a social event like in Revolutionary times or in old-line catholic countries.

It'll take Generations to recover from this success. Generations that will have been effectively denied access to the saving message by the anger generated by this success. I for one do not want to be held to account for all those souls.

by: xfree9

03-27-2009 @ 10:38pm

So let's take an example that wasn't actually a free market with a sound monetary foundation, and use it to beat down an idea that hasn't really been tried since the early 1900s, if before that. Reagan did not give us a truly free market, especially by running deficits and permitting corporate capitalism to run rampant. So your example really only proves that an economy where the politically well-connected are favored doesn't work. Thank you for reminding us free marketers of something we have been preaching on for decades.

Now, since you've proven that the 1980s didn't work, let's talk about the past decade or so. That wasn't a free market, either. It was a mixed economy, where government influence and manipulation of the money supply, the dot-com bubble, and the housing "boom" caused the crash we're dealing with now. Well, gee, a mixed economy doesn't work, either!

There are two types of economic thinkers: those who believe the free market works unless it yields results they don't desire; and those who believe the free market never works except when it yields the results they do desire.

Government programs do not provide capital, because capital cannot be created out of thin air.

by: xfree9

03-27-2009 @ 10:31pm

"Look, I have another idea"

Not your idea. I think God invented the idea of freedom and love your neighbor. The Left tends to believe they can force everyone to love neighbors as long as that neighbor does not possess much in terms of material wealth.

by: xfree9

03-27-2009 @ 10:29pm

"It takes money...to keep a family together."

Could you elaborate? I'd love to hear a more cogent explanation of this. I'm sure money plays a big part in things, but I'm not sure your conclusions hold true in all cases (well, I suppose you would concede that part as true). People will stay married and in love no matter how much money they have; indeed, many more well-off folks who were previously poor often humorously reminisce about how they were happier when they had less. I'm not saying the breakdown of the family is not affected by this, but I would like to hear more from you on this.

by: BillyStrain

03-27-2009 @ 6:48pm

Sadly, Sister marie, I think you're right. While the developments cited in this article give some cause for hope, we've seen (especially from contributions made farther down this list) how many in the pro-life movement still view any cooperation, even as a short-term strategy for progress, as tantamount to heresy or a compromise of principle. How does one reason, let alone cooperate, with that? I fear that any progress made on this issue will have to be independent of both of these factions. Still, let Wallis and others give it a shot....then no one can say they didn't try.

by: BlueDeacon

03-27-2009 @ 1:21pm

In many cases, however, the breakdown of the family is directly due to economic issues; that is definitely the case in the African-American community. It takes money -- hopefully earned by the man of the house -- to keep a family together, and when the father/husband isn't pulling his weight for whatever reason he loses his authority as head of the household.

by: SisterMarie

03-27-2009 @ 11:12am

What is really interesting to me is that this debate is dominated by two opposing religious groups. On the one side you have those who believe that Catholics are heretics who are condemned to the fires of hell and who also maintain that "God doesn't hear the prayer of a Jew."On the other side are those who subscribe to the doctrine that the edicts of a human being are infallible and who have conveniently looked the other way when its clergy have abused young boys.

What both of these opposing groups have in common, however, are their hypocritical view that once the child is born, we can simply ignore the quality of that life or we can simply take that innocent life in wars. They would adopt a set of laws that would ban abortion in every case, outlaw birth control pills, IUDs, patches, prophylactics, etc. To them, there is no such thing as a "middle ground" and compromise is no different than surrender. They have taken over the Republican Party and will employ a "take no prisoners" approach to obtain their goals. Vote our way or we'll deny you communion; it's my way or the highway.

This is not the first time that writers at this site have made an honest attempt at dialogue, and each time it has encountered the stone-walling, no compromise reaction. My advice to Wallis and others is cease further attempts - you're just going to get sh** upon.

by: BlueDeacon

03-27-2009 @ 2:28am

I have another idea that we should all be able to agree on because all we want is to have the abortion rate drop: we abolish all government programs. Unleashing capitalism will create wealth at unprecedented levels, lifting women out of poverty so that they won't need abortions. Why would anyone object to that?

Nonsense. We got a taste of that in the 1980s -- the poverty rate actually increased despite the implementation of "trickle-down economics" because the "capitalists" actually jimmied the system to make sure nothing like that would happen. See, some government programs provided capital for folks to start businesses and others for educational and job-training opportunities, and when that dried up due to complaints about "big government" ... well, you can fill in the rest.

by: squeaky

03-27-2009 @ 1:33am

OFF TOPIC ALERT
Hey everyone--please take a moment and e-mail Giannii Calvert to let him know the comment section on this site is difficult to navigate. I've been conversing with him off and on, but he asked for others to do the same. He isn't seeing the problems we are.

giannii@disqus.com

Thanks

by: TopDawg

03-26-2009 @ 10:31pm

So using the logic I am reading here, we could say the following about drunk driving:

1. It shouldn't be illegal because it will happen anyways
2. The reason for drunk driving is because the poor can't afford cabs so we should instead use our resources on taxpayers paying for cabs for the poor.
3. If you have compassion on someone who is killed from someone who is drunk driving you are just a right wing fanatic who is divisive and has no love for the drunk drivers.
4. As tragic as killing someone from drunk driving, you can't impose your morality on someone who wants to drink and drive. It's their body after all.
5. I wish I had an analogy for a President who claims to want to reduce abortions, but signs legislation that makes it easier and more accessible not only here but abroad. There isn't an anology for that kind of hypocrisy.

by: rothgar

03-30-2009 @ 4:50pm

I don't know which Pro-Lifers you are speaking of. The ones I've spoken with are admanant that it must be illegal. Problem is that making abortion illegal will NOT end the practice just condemn women to third class status.

Not only will illegalization even come close to ending abortion, I firmly beleive that within a generation of the Pro-Life movement's success in making Abortion illegal (and I feel you will be successful since you won't stop) the Church will fade into obscurity. At best it'll be a social event like in Revolutionary times or in old-line catholic countries.

It'll take Generations to recover from this success. Generations that will have been effectively denied access to the saving message by the anger generated by this success. I for one do not want to be held to account for all those souls.

by: rothgar

03-30-2009 @ 2:50pm

I don't know which Pro-Lifers you are speaking of. The ones I've spoken with are admanant that it must be illegal. Problem is that making abortion illegal will NOT end the practice just condemn women to third class status.

Not only will illegalization even come close to ending abortion, I firmly beleive that within a generation of the Pro-Life movement's success in making Abortion illegal (and I feel you will be successful since you won't stop) the Church will fade into obscurity. At best it'll be a social event like in Revolutionary times or in old-line catholic countries.

It'll take Generations to recover from this success. Generations that will have been effectively denied access to the saving message by the anger generated by this success. I for one do not want to be held to account for all those souls.

by: xfree9

03-27-2009 @ 10:38pm

So let's take an example that wasn't actually a free market with a sound monetary foundation, and use it to beat down an idea that hasn't really been tried since the early 1900s, if before that. Reagan did not give us a truly free market, especially by running deficits and permitting corporate capitalism to run rampant. So your example really only proves that an economy where the politically well-connected are favored doesn't work. Thank you for reminding us free marketers of something we have been preaching on for decades.

Now, since you've proven that the 1980s didn't work, let's talk about the past decade or so. That wasn't a free market, either. It was a mixed economy, where government influence and manipulation of the money supply, the dot-com bubble, and the housing "boom" caused the crash we're dealing with now. Well, gee, a mixed economy doesn't work, either!

There are two types of economic thinkers: those who believe the free market works unless it yields results they don't desire; and those who believe the free market never works except when it yields the results they do desire.

Government programs do not provide capital, because capital cannot be created out of thin air.

by: xfree9

03-27-2009 @ 10:31pm

"Look, I have another idea"

Not your idea. I think God invented the idea of freedom and love your neighbor. The Left tends to believe they can force everyone to love neighbors as long as that neighbor does not possess much in terms of material wealth.

by: xfree9

03-27-2009 @ 10:29pm

"It takes money...to keep a family together."

Could you elaborate? I'd love to hear a more cogent explanation of this. I'm sure money plays a big part in things, but I'm not sure your conclusions hold true in all cases (well, I suppose you would concede that part as true). People will stay married and in love no matter how much money they have; indeed, many more well-off folks who were previously poor often humorously reminisce about how they were happier when they had less. I'm not saying the breakdown of the family is not affected by this, but I would like to hear more from you on this.

by: BillyStrain

03-27-2009 @ 6:48pm

Sadly, Sister marie, I think you're right. While the developments cited in this article give some cause for hope, we've seen (especially from contributions made farther down this list) how many in the pro-life movement still view any cooperation, even as a short-term strategy for progress, as tantamount to heresy or a compromise of principle. How does one reason, let alone cooperate, with that? I fear that any progress made on this issue will have to be independent of both of these factions. Still, let Wallis and others give it a shot....then no one can say they didn't try.

by: BlueDeacon

03-27-2009 @ 1:21pm

In many cases, however, the breakdown of the family is directly due to economic issues; that is definitely the case in the African-American community. It takes money -- hopefully earned by the man of the house -- to keep a family together, and when the father/husband isn't pulling his weight for whatever reason he loses his authority as head of the household.

by: SisterMarie

03-27-2009 @ 11:12am

What is really interesting to me is that this debate is dominated by two opposing religious groups. On the one side you have those who believe that Catholics are heretics who are condemned to the fires of hell and who also maintain that "God doesn't hear the prayer of a Jew."On the other side are those who subscribe to the doctrine that the edicts of a human being are infallible and who have conveniently looked the other way when its clergy have abused young boys.

What both of these opposing groups have in common, however, are their hypocritical view that once the child is born, we can simply ignore the quality of that life or we can simply take that innocent life in wars. They would adopt a set of laws that would ban abortion in every case, outlaw birth control pills, IUDs, patches, prophylactics, etc. To them, there is no such thing as a "middle ground" and compromise is no different than surrender. They have taken over the Republican Party and will employ a "take no prisoners" approach to obtain their goals. Vote our way or we'll deny you communion; it's my way or the highway.

This is not the first time that writers at this site have made an honest attempt at dialogue, and each time it has encountered the stone-walling, no compromise reaction. My advice to Wallis and others is cease further attempts - you're just going to get sh** upon.

by: BlueDeacon

03-27-2009 @ 2:28am

I have another idea that we should all be able to agree on because all we want is to have the abortion rate drop: we abolish all government programs. Unleashing capitalism will create wealth at unprecedented levels, lifting women out of poverty so that they won't need abortions. Why would anyone object to that?

Nonsense. We got a taste of that in the 1980s -- the poverty rate actually increased despite the implementation of "trickle-down economics" because the "capitalists" actually jimmied the system to make sure nothing like that would happen. See, some government programs provided capital for folks to start businesses and others for educational and job-training opportunities, and when that dried up due to complaints about "big government" ... well, you can fill in the rest.

by: squeaky

03-27-2009 @ 1:33am

OFF TOPIC ALERT
Hey everyone--please take a moment and e-mail Giannii Calvert to let him know the comment section on this site is difficult to navigate. I've been conversing with him off and on, but he asked for others to do the same. He isn't seeing the problems we are.

giannii@disqus.com

Thanks

by: TopDawg

03-26-2009 @ 10:31pm

So using the logic I am reading here, we could say the following about drunk driving:

1. It shouldn't be illegal because it will happen anyways
2. The reason for drunk driving is because the poor can't afford cabs so we should instead use our resources on taxpayers paying for cabs for the poor.
3. If you have compassion on someone who is killed from someone who is drunk driving you are just a right wing fanatic who is divisive and has no love for the drunk drivers.
4. As tragic as killing someone from drunk driving, you can't impose your morality on someone who wants to drink and drive. It's their body after all.
5. I wish I had an analogy for a President who claims to want to reduce abortions, but signs legislation that makes it easier and more accessible not only here but abroad. There isn't an anology for that kind of hypocrisy.

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 4:24pm

I'm all for working to reduce the incidence of abortion. However, can anyone provide an example of a prominent liberal or liberal interest group who has denounced these efforts that the authors of this commentary laud? There aren't any examples in the commentary of the Left "sharpening their knives".

by: SisterMarie

03-25-2009 @ 4:47pm

"While these reactions run the gambit from the predictable to the absurd..."

John and Simone: I think that you meant "gamut" instead of "gambit" .

Gambit - an action or remark calculated to gain an advantage.

Gamut - the complete range or scope of something.

by: jesse3

03-25-2009 @ 4:58pm

"There aren't any examples in the commentary of the Left "sharpening their knives"."
--Of course there aren't--this is a common rhetorical ploy used by many Sojo contributors (Wallis chief of all) to position themselves as somehow "beyond" politics. The fact that there aren't any pro-choice liberals criticizing their efforts should give one pause.

"Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line."
--Except the fact that poor women only have higher abortion rates because they have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. They're actually LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle or upper-income women. This suggests its not as much a problem of helping pregnant women as it is preventing unplanned pregnancy.

I'm sure we'll read many more different variations of this tired, false argument. Prolifers have always supported abortion reduction--ever heard of crisis pregnancy centers? They are just skeptical of the authors' claims that abortion reduction is best achieved through Obama (someone who supports making abortions free here and abroad). They also still believe legal protection of unborn children is a worthwhile, important goal, and that efforts to limit abortion have helped reduce its occurrence (there are indeed data to back this claim). These are the points of disagreement, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

by: neuro_nurse

03-25-2009 @ 5:39pm

"Except the fact that poor women only have higher abortion rates because they have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. They're actually LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle or upper-income women. This suggests its not as much a problem of helping pregnant women as it is preventing unplanned pregnancy."

Despite our occasional disagreements, I completely agree with this statement.

I can't cite my sources off the top of my head, but that is my understanding of this aspect of the issue.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-25-2009 @ 6:37pm

I too am ready to move from the stalemate. Just as I was ready for the new dialogue promised as part of "God's Politics."

But it feels like you make some of the same mistake. Instead of carving out 'abortion reduction' as a transcendent position that legitimately addresses issues of both sides; you carve out 'abortion reduction' as a 'common ground' in opposition to both sides. i.e. You establish the foundation of your position as being the ridiculous, predictable, nonsensical, counterproductive positions of both sides. Because of their amplified voice in the public debate, you calculate the way to advocate most powerfully is to pit your voice against these amplified voices.

There is a difference, and I believe you and Sojo obfuscate the difference because of the attraction of amplifying your voice in broader media by the way you position yourselves. Please be circumspect and do not compromise the promise of what is on your heart to do.

by: nuclearferret

03-25-2009 @ 6:45pm

"President Barack Obama has made abortion reduction a priority of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

While expanding access both in the US and internationally. Acts speak louder than the words on this one.

"...question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. "

How dare they question research sponsored by a pro-abortion rights institute? I think tobacco companies had research demonstrating cigarette smoking was fine, too.

I note, too, you are keen to identify pro-life organizations ("the Right") by name, but the "Left" is simply nameless bloggers.

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

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 4:24pm

I'm all for working to reduce the incidence of abortion. However, can anyone provide an example of a prominent liberal or liberal interest group who has denounced these efforts that the authors of this commentary laud? There aren't any examples in the commentary of the Left "sharpening their knives".

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 4:24pm

I'm all for working to reduce the incidence of abortion. However, can anyone provide an example of a prominent liberal or liberal interest group who has denounced these efforts that the authors of this commentary laud? There aren't any examples in the commentary of the Left "sharpening their knives".

by: SisterMarie

03-25-2009 @ 4:47pm

"While these reactions run the gambit from the predictable to the absurd..."

John and Simone: I think that you meant "gamut" instead of "gambit" .

Gambit - an action or remark calculated to gain an advantage.

Gamut - the complete range or scope of something.

by: SisterMarie

03-25-2009 @ 4:47pm

"While these reactions run the gambit from the predictable to the absurd..."

John and Simone: I think that you meant "gamut" instead of "gambit" .

Gambit - an action or remark calculated to gain an advantage.

Gamut - the complete range or scope of something.

by: jesse3

03-25-2009 @ 4:58pm

"There aren't any examples in the commentary of the Left "sharpening their knives"."
--Of course there aren't--this is a common rhetorical ploy used by many Sojo contributors (Wallis chief of all) to position themselves as somehow "beyond" politics. The fact that there aren't any pro-choice liberals criticizing their efforts should give one pause.

"Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line."
--Except the fact that poor women only have higher abortion rates because they have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. They're actually LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle or upper-income women. This suggests its not as much a problem of helping pregnant women as it is preventing unplanned pregnancy.

I'm sure we'll read many more different variations of this tired, false argument. Prolifers have always supported abortion reduction--ever heard of crisis pregnancy centers? They are just skeptical of the authors' claims that abortion reduction is best achieved through Obama (someone who supports making abortions free here and abroad). They also still believe legal protection of unborn children is a worthwhile, important goal, and that efforts to limit abortion have helped reduce its occurrence (there are indeed data to back this claim). These are the points of disagreement, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

by: jesse3

03-25-2009 @ 4:58pm

"There aren't any examples in the commentary of the Left "sharpening their knives"."
--Of course there aren't--this is a common rhetorical ploy used by many Sojo contributors (Wallis chief of all) to position themselves as somehow "beyond" politics. The fact that there aren't any pro-choice liberals criticizing their efforts should give one pause.

"Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line."
--Except the fact that poor women only have higher abortion rates because they have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. They're actually LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle or upper-income women. This suggests its not as much a problem of helping pregnant women as it is preventing unplanned pregnancy.

I'm sure we'll read many more different variations of this tired, false argument. Prolifers have always supported abortion reduction--ever heard of crisis pregnancy centers? They are just skeptical of the authors' claims that abortion reduction is best achieved through Obama (someone who supports making abortions free here and abroad). They also still believe legal protection of unborn children is a worthwhile, important goal, and that efforts to limit abortion have helped reduce its occurrence (there are indeed data to back this claim). These are the points of disagreement, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

by: neuro_nurse

03-25-2009 @ 5:39pm

"Except the fact that poor women only have higher abortion rates because they have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. They're actually LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle or upper-income women. This suggests its not as much a problem of helping pregnant women as it is preventing unplanned pregnancy."

Despite our occasional disagreements, I completely agree with this statement.

I can't cite my sources off the top of my head, but that is my understanding of this aspect of the issue.

by: neuro_nurse

03-25-2009 @ 5:39pm

"Except the fact that poor women only have higher abortion rates because they have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. They're actually LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle or upper-income women. This suggests its not as much a problem of helping pregnant women as it is preventing unplanned pregnancy."

Despite our occasional disagreements, I completely agree with this statement.

I can't cite my sources off the top of my head, but that is my understanding of this aspect of the issue.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-25-2009 @ 6:37pm

I too am ready to move from the stalemate. Just as I was ready for the new dialogue promised as part of "God's Politics."

But it feels like you make some of the same mistake. Instead of carving out 'abortion reduction' as a transcendent position that legitimately addresses issues of both sides; you carve out 'abortion reduction' as a 'common ground' in opposition to both sides. i.e. You establish the foundation of your position as being the ridiculous, predictable, nonsensical, counterproductive positions of both sides. Because of their amplified voice in the public debate, you calculate the way to advocate most powerfully is to pit your voice against these amplified voices.

There is a difference, and I believe you and Sojo obfuscate the difference because of the attraction of amplifying your voice in broader media by the way you position yourselves. Please be circumspect and do not compromise the promise of what is on your heart to do.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-25-2009 @ 6:37pm

I too am ready to move from the stalemate. Just as I was ready for the new dialogue promised as part of "God's Politics."

But it feels like you make some of the same mistake. Instead of carving out 'abortion reduction' as a transcendent position that legitimately addresses issues of both sides; you carve out 'abortion reduction' as a 'common ground' in opposition to both sides. i.e. You establish the foundation of your position as being the ridiculous, predictable, nonsensical, counterproductive positions of both sides. Because of their amplified voice in the public debate, you calculate the way to advocate most powerfully is to pit your voice against these amplified voices.

There is a difference, and I believe you and Sojo obfuscate the difference because of the attraction of amplifying your voice in broader media by the way you position yourselves. Please be circumspect and do not compromise the promise of what is on your heart to do.

by: nuclearferret

03-25-2009 @ 6:45pm

"President Barack Obama has made abortion reduction a priority of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

While expanding access both in the US and internationally. Acts speak louder than the words on this one.

"...question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. "

How dare they question research sponsored by a pro-abortion rights institute? I think tobacco companies had research demonstrating cigarette smoking was fine, too.

I note, too, you are keen to identify pro-life organizations ("the Right") by name, but the "Left" is simply nameless bloggers.

by: nuclearferret

03-25-2009 @ 6:45pm

"President Barack Obama has made abortion reduction a priority of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

While expanding access both in the US and internationally. Acts speak louder than the words on this one.

"...question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. "

How dare they question research sponsored by a pro-abortion rights institute? I think tobacco companies had research demonstrating cigarette smoking was fine, too.

I note, too, you are keen to identify pro-life organizations ("the Right") by name, but the "Left" is simply nameless bloggers.

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 7:07pm

"I note, too, you are keen to identify pro-life organizations ('the Right') by name, but the 'Left' is simply nameless bloggers."

That's because they can't identify any prominent liberals or liberal organizations to back up their case. The fact is, pro-abortion rights liberals and their interest groups love the idea of making abortion reduction without prohibition (rather than reduction through prohibition) the focus point of Christian advocacy.

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 7:07pm

"I note, too, you are keen to identify pro-life organizations ('the Right') by name, but the 'Left' is simply nameless bloggers."

That's because they can't identify any prominent liberals or liberal organizations to back up their case. The fact is, pro-abortion rights liberals and their interest groups love the idea of making abortion reduction without prohibition (rather than reduction through prohibition) the focus point of Christian advocacy.

by: SisterMarie

03-25-2009 @ 8:23pm

FEDERAL PROPOSAL RECOGNIZES ABORTION TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL PILL
by Katie Walker
Released July 17, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. (17 June 2008)

by: SisterMarie

03-25-2009 @ 8:23pm

FEDERAL PROPOSAL RECOGNIZES ABORTION TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL PILL
by Katie Walker
Released July 17, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. (17 June 2008)

by: Ngchen

03-25-2009 @ 8:57pm

As I've noted previously, there is no contradiction between supporting BOTH abortion reduction and prohibition. And BTW, Lincoln Davis is a Representative, not a Senator.

My guess as to why the "pro-choice" radicals are driven nuts by attempts to reduce abortion is that they're unwilling to face the fact that at least *something* of value is lost when an abortion occurs. This idea of this "something," being worth more than the "parasite" they rail against, is frightening to those who want abortion available as an option at any time, for any reason. And FWIW, I know one such radical who personally declared that w/o abortion "rights," no rights mean anything.

I am willing to make all sorts of concessions (say on sex ed, birth control distribution, and so forth) for a further reduction in the abortion rate.

by: Ngchen

03-25-2009 @ 8:57pm

As I've noted previously, there is no contradiction between supporting BOTH abortion reduction and prohibition. And BTW, Lincoln Davis is a Representative, not a Senator.

My guess as to why the "pro-choice" radicals are driven nuts by attempts to reduce abortion is that they're unwilling to face the fact that at least *something* of value is lost when an abortion occurs. This idea of this "something," being worth more than the "parasite" they rail against, is frightening to those who want abortion available as an option at any time, for any reason. And FWIW, I know one such radical who personally declared that w/o abortion "rights," no rights mean anything.

I am willing to make all sorts of concessions (say on sex ed, birth control distribution, and so forth) for a further reduction in the abortion rate.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-25-2009 @ 10:20pm

That's because reduction through prohibition doesn't work. Witness the drug trade.- Where are those libertarian/free market people when you need them?

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-25-2009 @ 10:20pm

That's because reduction through prohibition doesn't work. Witness the drug trade.- Where are those libertarian/free market people when you need them?

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 11:05pm

I have a hard time believing that if abortion was made illegal that the abortion rate wouldn't decrease. But that's beside the point.

The point is that there aren't liberal interest groups that "have their knives out" for Christians who are looking to reduce abortion through methods described in the commentary. This isn't the middle ground being proposed between the two extreme positions the authors would like us to believe it is.

by: Eric77

03-25-2009 @ 11:05pm

I have a hard time believing that if abortion was made illegal that the abortion rate wouldn't decrease. But that's beside the point.

The point is that there aren't liberal interest groups that "have their knives out" for Christians who are looking to reduce abortion through methods described in the commentary. This isn't the middle ground being proposed between the two extreme positions the authors would like us to believe it is.

by: JacobS

03-25-2009 @ 11:17pm

How does one determine whether prohibition "works?" The issue you cited is probably very similar to the abortion issue. One could make a compelling argument that drug prohibition is responsible for a great deal of violence, especially in border states and cities, but that doesn't answer whether or not it actually prevents people from doing drugs. In all likelihood, people are less likely to use illegal drugs. Even on college campuses, where drug use is supposed to be rampant, I see far fewer people using drugs than drinking, and suspect the illegality and difficulty getting them are the reason for it.

I think we can look at the abortion issue the same way. I wholeheartedly believe that prohibiting abortion would substantially decrease the number of abortions in this country. It's impossible to know how many women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe, but I have yet to see a credible source claim that the number of abortions after Roe was the same as it had been before. It's probable that it would also lead to more women seeking abortions that put themselves in greater danger by obtaining illegal and unsanitary abortions. Under those possible circumstances would prohibition be a success or a failure?

This debate leaves a lot more questions than it answers. The thought of women so desperate to have an abortion that they risk their lives is sadening, but I don't believe it justifies allowing them to continue destroying unborn life. The fact remains that were a nationwide ban on abortion implemented, many people would still have access to abortion. Those with means could travel anywhere in the world to get one, and from my own home its only a 150 mile drive to Canada. As Christians we should all be working to create a culture where abortion is unacceptable, but the law helps to shape culture just as much as the culture helps to shape the law.

by: JacobS

03-25-2009 @ 11:17pm

How does one determine whether prohibition "works?" The issue you cited is probably very similar to the abortion issue. One could make a compelling argument that drug prohibition is responsible for a great deal of violence, especially in border states and cities, but that doesn't answer whether or not it actually prevents people from doing drugs. In all likelihood, people are less likely to use illegal drugs. Even on college campuses, where drug use is supposed to be rampant, I see far fewer people using drugs than drinking, and suspect the illegality and difficulty getting them are the reason for it.

I think we can look at the abortion issue the same way. I wholeheartedly believe that prohibiting abortion would substantially decrease the number of abortions in this country. It's impossible to know how many women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe, but I have yet to see a credible source claim that the number of abortions after Roe was the same as it had been before. It's probable that it would also lead to more women seeking abortions that put themselves in greater danger by obtaining illegal and unsanitary abortions. Under those possible circumstances would prohibition be a success or a failure?

This debate leaves a lot more questions than it answers. The thought of women so desperate to have an abortion that they risk their lives is sadening, but I don't believe it justifies allowing them to continue destroying unborn life. The fact remains that were a nationwide ban on abortion implemented, many people would still have access to abortion. Those with means could travel anywhere in the world to get one, and from my own home its only a 150 mile drive to Canada. As Christians we should all be working to create a culture where abortion is unacceptable, but the law helps to shape culture just as much as the culture helps to shape the law.

by: squeaky

03-25-2009 @ 11:40pm

Maybe a better question is "would making abortion illegal stop unplanned pregnancy?"

And if the answer to that is no, which I believe it is, then it seems to me a far better approach to the abortion issue is to deal with the cause of abortion in the first place...which is, for the most part, unplanned pregnancy.

by: squeaky

03-25-2009 @ 11:40pm

Maybe a better question is "would making abortion illegal stop unplanned pregnancy?"

And if the answer to that is no, which I believe it is, then it seems to me a far better approach to the abortion issue is to deal with the cause of abortion in the first place...which is, for the most part, unplanned pregnancy.

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 12:06am

"this is a common rhetorical ploy used by many Sojo contributors (Wallis chief of all) to position themselves as somehow "beyond" politics"

Yes. Pit Left against Right and claim yourself as "better" or "beyond." Classic "progressive" tactic.

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 12:06am

"this is a common rhetorical ploy used by many Sojo contributors (Wallis chief of all) to position themselves as somehow "beyond" politics"

Yes. Pit Left against Right and claim yourself as "better" or "beyond." Classic "progressive" tactic.

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 12:45am

In all likelihood, people are less likely to use illegal drugs. Even on college campuses, where drug use is supposed to be rampant, I see far fewer people using drugs than drinking, and suspect the illegality and difficulty getting them are the reason for it.

Well, part of that has to do with college students hunkering down with their studies, and another part is that they don't often have the disposable income to spend using illegal drugs. That said, in the go-go 1980s cocaine made a serious comeback with white-collar folks in their 20s and 30s who had the money to spend -- however, I doubt that many of them, not to mention their dealers, spent even one night in jail.

Anyway, Tony Campolo once quoted a survey, based on a questionnaire, that noted that the abortion rate in the 1950s was similar to what it is now -- and of course abortion was generally illegal then. In "Beyond Culture Wars," Michael Horton noted that one out of ever six abortions took place on an evangelical woman. (Needless to say, there's a bit of hypocrisy there.)

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 12:45am

In all likelihood, people are less likely to use illegal drugs. Even on college campuses, where drug use is supposed to be rampant, I see far fewer people using drugs than drinking, and suspect the illegality and difficulty getting them are the reason for it.

Well, part of that has to do with college students hunkering down with their studies, and another part is that they don't often have the disposable income to spend using illegal drugs. That said, in the go-go 1980s cocaine made a serious comeback with white-collar folks in their 20s and 30s who had the money to spend -- however, I doubt that many of them, not to mention their dealers, spent even one night in jail.

Anyway, Tony Campolo once quoted a survey, based on a questionnaire, that noted that the abortion rate in the 1950s was similar to what it is now -- and of course abortion was generally illegal then. In "Beyond Culture Wars," Michael Horton noted that one out of ever six abortions took place on an evangelical woman. (Needless to say, there's a bit of hypocrisy there.)

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 12:49am

I'm not sure that's true. Four years ago on the anniversary of Roe, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton made a pitch for abortion reduction and subsequently got pilloried by pro-choice advocates who felt that she was betraying them. (I remember that because I wrote a letter in response praising that stance while identifying myself as "pro-life.")

by: BlueDeacon

03-26-2009 @ 12:49am

I'm not sure that's true. Four years ago on the anniversary of Roe, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton made a pitch for abortion reduction and subsequently got pilloried by pro-choice advocates who felt that she was betraying them. (I remember that because I wrote a letter in response praising that stance while identifying myself as "pro-life.")

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 12:57am

LIbertarians defend the rights of individuals from initiation of force. Last time I checked, an abortion procedure is an initiation of force against another human being.

Prohibition is indeed not the answer to all things, but it is the answer to protecting human life against fraud. Apply your critique consistently, and you will have to say that murder should merely be minimized, not "prohibited."

Yes, the drug war is a prime example of why prohibition doesn't work on everything. But the drug war isn't about initiation of force against another.

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 12:57am

LIbertarians defend the rights of individuals from initiation of force. Last time I checked, an abortion procedure is an initiation of force against another human being.

Prohibition is indeed not the answer to all things, but it is the answer to protecting human life against fraud. Apply your critique consistently, and you will have to say that murder should merely be minimized, not "prohibited."

Yes, the drug war is a prime example of why prohibition doesn't work on everything. But the drug war isn't about initiation of force against another.

by: Eric77

03-26-2009 @ 1:59am

My answer to your question is "absolutely not" which is why I think it's important to work to reduce unplanned pregnancies through many of the ways the authors above suggest.

by: Eric77

03-26-2009 @ 1:59am

My answer to your question is "absolutely not" which is why I think it's important to work to reduce unplanned pregnancies through many of the ways the authors above suggest.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 2:59am

Try telling that to the victims on the Mex-Us border

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 2:59am

Try telling that to the victims on the Mex-Us border

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 3:05am

"It's impossible to know how many women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe, but I have yet to see a credible source claim that the number of abortions after Roe was the same as it had been before."
How is it possible to be so sure that outlawing abortion will lead to fewer abortions when it will, by your own admission, become impossible to tell that number going forward?

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 3:05am

"It's impossible to know how many women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe, but I have yet to see a credible source claim that the number of abortions after Roe was the same as it had been before."
How is it possible to be so sure that outlawing abortion will lead to fewer abortions when it will, by your own admission, become impossible to tell that number going forward?

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 3:50am

"Apply your critique consistently, and you will have to say that murder should merely be minimized, not "prohibited.""

That is indeed the case in the US. Murder is minimized and not outlawed in the form of war, capital punishment, lack of prosecution/enforcement for certain types of murder (usually gang related), etc..
Law is a poor regulator of human behaviors. It works best as an agreement under which secular society agrees to "minimize" behaviors which it deems as toxic. These threats can expand and decrease over time. At this point, abortion has not risen in the American psyche to the level of a threat to it's existence. When economic well being is threatened then we will begin to see tightening legal restrictions. America's God is not the God of the Bible but Mammon. The government is diminutive when compared to the Economic powers controlling policies.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-26-2009 @ 3:50am

"Apply your critique consistently, and you will have to say that murder should merely be minimized, not "prohibited.""

That is indeed the case in the US. Murder is minimized and not outlawed in the form of war, capital punishment, lack of prosecution/enforcement for certain types of murder (usually gang related), etc..
Law is a poor regulator of human behaviors. It works best as an agreement under which secular society agrees to "minimize" behaviors which it deems as toxic. These threats can expand and decrease over time. At this point, abortion has not risen in the American psyche to the level of a threat to it's existence. When economic well being is threatened then we will begin to see tightening legal restrictions. America's God is not the God of the Bible but Mammon. The government is diminutive when compared to the Economic powers controlling policies.

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:02am

situalional ethics at its best and most harmfull

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:02am

situalional ethics at its best and most harmfull

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:04am

Classic "progressive" tactic

Actually the tactic of all those who see themselves above God

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:04am

Classic "progressive" tactic

Actually the tactic of all those who see themselves above God

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:12am

Your right sin because of prohibition never works .
So lets join em . How sad

by: 1Grace

03-26-2009 @ 8:12am

Your right sin because of prohibition never works .
So lets join em . How sad

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 11:04am

Telling them what?

by: xfree9

03-26-2009 @ 11:04am

Telling them what?