Pro-life

[Lamb]

So... since gross immorality will happen, your ethic is to help them in such acts... so that it's as safe as possible.

So... how do we make abortion safe for the baby? How exactly would you propose we do that?



.

This rips at my heartstrings! Indeed. How do we make abortion safe for the baby?

It's a shame doctors cannot simply remove the embryo/fetus safely and then let someone else have him/her. But our medicine is not that advanced yet is what I'm told.

 

[Josiah]

I posted this in a different thread, but it applies here too....


PERSONAL STORY:


When I was in high school (or of that age), I decided not to attend a regular high school (for academic reasons). I took some classes at the Community College (I started there at 14) - "double dipping" (applying credits both to high school and college), and the rest via a large Baptist School home school program. At 16, I completed all the work for high school AND two years of college.

Anyway, the Baptist School required that all students (in class and home schooled) do 40 hours of community service per semester, half of which could be at your church but only half. I did some via my church but most via Boy Scouts (I was still into scouting) and at a local pro-life center
I worked there several Saturdays - more than the hours I needed for school.

This center was not church related, but nearly all the volunteers were Catholics. There were two admins - one Catholic and one Mormon. On the Board were several Protestants but probably half anyway were Catholics. Funding came mostly from Catholic parishes in our diocese but also from several Protestant and LDS churches...and from individuals. My parents among them... my wife and I are monthly contributors... there are fundraisers (we will be attending one soon). In the facility, there are no "pro-life" literature, there is no political activity or endorsements, no bumper stickers. And if the mother REQUESTS info on how to get an abortion, that's provided. THERE for mothers.....

Some of the services offered all 100% free:

+ Ultrasounds (AMAZING how decisions change when the mother sees her baby)
+ Pregnancy tests
+ Referrals, information and help with community, government and religious services (food, medical care, etc.)
+ Referrals, information and help with mental issues and relationship issues (two licensed professionals are also on staff)
+ Professionals to help with relational issues (even to go with the mother to tell her parents and/or the father)
+ Food, formula, clothes (even help with housing, furniture, washing machines)
+ Diapers (by the truck load)
+ Parenting classes
And more.

Now, I was 14-16... and a BOY. So of course, I was not on staff.... not one of the adults who served the mothers (all women, all mothers). In fact, I was purposely kept away from the areas where the mothers would be. I worked with office stuff.... the storeroom.... even helping deliver stuff to homes; I served behind the scenes largely with other teens and guys. But I was THERE because I wanted to help these moms AND their babies. And to help make the choice of birth a viable one.

This was a very life-changing experience for me. For one thing, there was lots of discussion about sex, about sexual relations... at a very formative time in my life. A lot of girl-guy relations stuff (pretty heavy for a boy my age - but very pointed). But I also learned a lot about mothers - especially single teen mothers (it should be noted most of our people were in their 20's and 30's, not teens but a lot of teens too, some my age).

It IS often painful and tragic. And messy. There's not only the irresponsibility ("animals in heat") and immaturity thing always brought up (and not always of teens!) ...but lots of self-esteem issues, lots of power issues, a LOT of problems with family and parents. Often counseling is what they needed most. And a LOT of time, these moms felt very much like victims - of the father (who is likely PUSHING with all he has for her to get an abortion), from parents (often PUSHING with all they have for her to get an abortion).... and "friends" can be very complex and really complicate the whole thing (and often promoting abortion). I heard a lot of crying. There were times those of us behind the scenes did the only thing we could: we stopped and prayed for that mom.

Some think of unmarried teen moms as cute teen cheerleaders who of course are sexually active (and the condom slipped)... or strong girls as in the JUNO movie. I'm sure that happens....but mostly these are victims. Sometimes of themselves and the "life" handed them.... sometimes of "friends" and family... sometimes of boys having to prove something or showing their power or just behaving like bunny rabbits (joined by the girl behaving the same). But SHE is now the mother. And often, they do not want to just make the baby the "scapegoat" for all this, they don't want to punish the baby for this. Adding a victim solves nothing. It's a slogan...but it's often true: Abortion leaves two victims. It leaves her STILL with all the problems she had.... but now with another, she lives with the abortion. One of the major issues for these young moms: How can I deal with my problems, my parents, my friends, this boy.... and not kill my little girl?

We existed because unlike Planned Parenthood, we wanted to help BOTH.... not just kill ONE. We held that killing is never a solution... it just leaves one dead and the other more wounded than before. Sure, killing the baby is easy and quick (and generally government funded) but it just leaves things worse.

The "answer" is not so easy as just putting a knife in there and slicing up the baby. Love isn't that easy.... love doesn't do that at all. Truth is, biologically people can reproduce when that's simply not a good thing. Birth Control is quite effective and easy to attain - but that too requires some responsibility and maturity... and abortion is often seen (especially by guys) as preferable to such. Building responsibility and morality and maturity are key too but not so easy! Helping esteem and relationships are critical - but not so easy! Love isn't easy. And it's not accomplished by making the victim the only one here who is entirely innocent. Killing is easy. Killing is not loving.... and solves absolutely nothing and only means we now have one dead and the other even more wounded.



- Josiah




.

 

[ValleyGal]

So... since gross immorality will happen, your ethic is to help them in such acts... so that it's as safe as possible.

So... how do we make abortion safe for the baby? How exactly would you propose we do that?



.

I have already stated that I would NEVER counsel someone to get an abortion, nor would I participate by escorting someone to one. Those I jobs I could never do. I could work in a place like Josiah describes, teaching relationship and life skills, parenting, etc. In fact, that's not much different than the work I currently do. But since women are going to do it anyway, yes, give them a safe way in which to do it. Is that safe for baby? Of course not, but just because I believe it's a baby doesn't mean the government, courts, law, or the mother do. Ethically, my obligation is to my client and to his or her own self-determination and keeping her safe.

Back to discussion on the language. I am a harm reductionist. I am not pro-abortion. I am not anti-abortion. I am pro-life, but that does not capture the nuances to clarify specifically what I stand for.

Now - don't come back and try to suggest that because my ethics are to provide a safe way to perform the abortions women are going to choose whether they are legal or not, that you now think my ethic would provide a safe way for someone to kill someone else who is not an unborn baby. That would truly be ludicrous and inaccurate, because a person who is breathing outside the womb is considered a person, not a non-person by the courts.

 

[Lamb]

For the language of the discussion...the language purposely steers the conversation away from the baby because that life has become a piece of garbage to be thrown away. Literally. The language tells the mothers that they have no hope because of their own situation. So the mothers already feel like trash themselves and now we tell them it's okay to trash their children, because they're worthless too. But it's being said in gentle and even promising hints of hope for their future, but like Josiah said, the decision never betters their situation.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

If the next generation had no children, then the human race would go extinct. That is anti-life. God allows for certain people to remain single, because God has set them aside for that purpose. But that’s not God’s plan for everyone. Unnatural medical technologies like the birth control pill cause widespread immorality. It gives people the ability to indulge in sexual immorality yet not face the consequences. Tubal ligations in married couples encourage families to only have 2 children, which is not multiplication as God commanded Adam and Eve, and Noah’s family as they came off the ark. 3 children minimum is necessary for multiplication. Abraham only had 1 (with Sarah) but that’s because God closed her womb. That’s God’s choice.

 

[Lamb]

If the next generation had no children, then the human race would go extinct. That is anti-life. God allows for certain people to remain single, because God has set them aside for that purpose. But that’s not God’s plan for everyone. Unnatural medical technologies like the birth control pill cause widespread immorality. It gives people the ability to indulge in sexual immorality yet not face the consequences. Tubal ligations in married couples encourage families to only have 2 children, which is not multiplication as God commanded Adam and Eve, and Noah’s family as they came off the ark. 3 children minimum is necessary for multiplication. Abraham only had 1 (with Sarah) but that’s because God closed her womb. That’s God’s choice.

I had a tubal ligation for other health reasons which I won't go into here because it's TMI. Do you remember that Joseph only had 2 children?

 

[tango]

Do you intend to sound a little snarky here, or is it just my reading of this? Of course I'm not saying reality is nothing more than someone believes it to be. Seriously? You would assume I'm saying that? How sad.

The way you said it wasn't a baby in some cases came across as some kind of Schrodinger's Human, in which the clump of cells is some kind of human-not-human hybrid depending on whether the mother believed it to be a baby or not. In fairness the law is bizarre on that front, allowing a woman to destroy that "lifeless clump of cells" if she sees fit while charging a killer with double homicide if he kills that "living clump of cells". I just find it curious to see that line of argument on a site like this.

Our reality as believers is that God gives life, it is sin to deprive someone of their life, and we would hope that non-believers would support life in the same way we do. But secular reality is that a fetus is not "alive" and one day they will face God to answer for their lack of faith.

Secular belief may be that the fetus is not alive. Belief doesn't necessarily make reality.

I have an auntie who had an abortion as a young woman. It was long before abortion was legal, it was not a sterile environment, it was painful and put her life in danger from infection, tearing, etc, as it was not a doctor who performed it. She had no guilt as she did not believe this to be a human life. Thirty years later when she became a believer, the Spirit told her it was sin, she repented, and then she struggled with her conscience, guilt, self-condemnation - until the Lord convicted her of pride, that if God himself would forgive her of abortion, that she was not better than God to not forgive herself (something I also struggle with = perfectionism). The point is, for her, abortion was not "sin" until she placed herself under God's authority rather than man's, and he convicted her that it is indeed sin.

I have friends who aborted their child well into the third trimester. It was the last thing they wanted to do - the baby was very much wanted but medical complications meant that continuing would mean both mother and baby would most likely die.

It's clearly not as simple as "abortion bad, the end". Even among people who are generally opposed to abortion (such as my friends) the choice between a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy and leaving mother and baby to fate isn't one with trivial consequences. I can imagine the decision might have become morally thornier had continuation meant the baby would survive but the mother would not, in which case it's a decision of who to sacrifice rather than choosing between losing one or both. Either way real life situations like this make it difficult to shrug and repeat the "abortion bad" mantra.

No argument there. But I know zero women who use (or have used) that as an excuse. Even those young women my colleague works with don't use it as an excuse. Their excuse is usually that the condom broke. So they were already employing harm reduction methods - yes, preventing pregnancy is a harm reduction method because bringing a baby into the world could cause that baby or other people harm - when they were faced with a pregnancy they tried to prevent to start with.

Even then the reality is that condoms aren't 100% effective and they freely took part in a baby-making activity even if they hoped not to actually make any babies. The underlying problem is the desire to enjoy an activity while refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences.

But this is not a discussion about abortion. It is a discussion about the language: pro-choice, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, harm reductionist, etc. If you are pro-abortion, does it make you pro-choice? Or if you are anti-choice, does it make you anti-abortion or pro-life? Let's stop focusing on abortion itself and focus on the language people use to discuss it, without judgement on those who have chosen or will choose abortion.

If we're talking about language let's also be careful about terms like "without judgment on those". We don't need to stand in judgment over people even if we believe what they are doing is wrong. Part of the problem here is that it's far too easy to look down on people who got themselves into a problem (be it pregnancy or something else) and offer them a solution that's little more than "I wouldn't start from there if I were you". The reality is that people start from here, wherever "here" is for them, because that's the only place they can start.

The problem with much of what is presented as "pro-choice" is that out of three people involved only one gets a choice. The unborn gets no say in the matter and usually the father is excluded from the process as well. If the mother wants the child and the father does not, he is expected to pay child support - he is forced to go along with whatever she wants. If the father wants the child and the mother does not he is still forced to go along with whatever she wants. Perhaps "pro choice" isn't a very good term here because only 1/3 of the affected parties have any choice while the other two are excluded completely.

The problem with what is presented as "pro life" is that it would often be better described as "pro birth". It's easy to demand that Someone Else who got pregnant carries the child to term and deals with the child for the next 18 years. It takes a lot more commitment to the cause to walk alongside them, help them raise their child and actually put some skin in the game. Demanding that the child be protected until birth and then taking no further interest in their plight isn't a great definition of "pro life".

 

[Joshua1Eight]

I had a tubal ligation for other health reasons which I won't go into here because it's TMI. Do you remember that Joseph only had 2 children?

I’m not saying people shouldn’t do it for health reasons. If a family already had 5 or 6 kids, and they’re getting old, it might be a good idea due to health concerns associated with age.

Did Joseph only have 2 sons? When Jacob adopted them he said Joseph had other sons which would be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance. (Genesis 48:6) If those other sons didn’t exist, why did Jacob mention them?

Besides, if Joseph only had 2 sons, we don’t know if it’s because God closed his wife’s womb, or if his wife chose an unnatural method used by the Egyptians, which is my point.

Rebekah only had 2 sons. But that’s because God closed her womb. It’s God’s choice.

Imagine if David’s mother chose to stop at 7 kids. We wouldn’t have king David. We wouldn’t have Solomon. And we wouldn’t have Psalms and Proverbs. We wouldn’t have the story of David and Goliath.

Imagine if Jacob decided 11 sons is enough. We wouldn’t have Benjamin. And since Paul is a Benjamite, we wouldn’t have Paul. And if we didn’t have Paul, we wouldn’t have most of the New Testament.

 

[Lamb]

I’m not saying people shouldn’t do it for health reasons. If a family already had 5 or 6 kids, and they’re getting old, it might be a good idea due to health concerns associated with age.

Did Joseph only have 2 sons? When Jacob adopted them he said Joseph had other sons which would be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance. (Genesis 48:6) If those other sons didn’t exist, why did Jacob mention them?

Besides, if Joseph only had 2 sons, we don’t know if it’s because God closed his wife’s womb, or if his wife chose an unnatural method used by the Egyptians, which is my point.

Rebekah only had 2 sons. But that’s because God closed her womb. It’s God’s choice.

Imagine if David’s mother chose to stop at 7 kids. We wouldn’t have king David. We wouldn’t have Solomon. And we wouldn’t have Psalms and Proverbs. We wouldn’t have the story of David and Goliath.

Imagine if Jacob decided 11 sons is enough. We wouldn’t have Benjamin. And since Paul is a Benjamite, we wouldn’t have Paul. And if we didn’t have Paul, we wouldn’t have most of the New Testament.

Not everyone's quiver is the same amount. Each child is a blessing from God but that's according to His will and even those who strive to have more children are not always given that blessing from Him.

 

[ValleyGal]

Secular belief may be that the fetus is not alive. Belief doesn't necessarily make reality.

People live according to what they believe. My auntie is a prime example. She did not believe her fetus was a life until after she became a believer and the Spirit convinced her otherwise.

the choice between a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy

Notice the language? When the choice to abort is for a medical purpose, it's a "medical procedure to terminate". But when it's a choice based on belief and law, it's an "abortion."

Perhaps "pro choice" isn't a very good term here because only 1/3 of the affected parties have any choice while the other two are excluded completely.

The problem with what is presented as "pro life" is that it would often be better described as "pro birth".

These are part of why discussion on language is so necessary. Current popular language on the issue is inaccurate, does not allow for anything but black and white thinking, and fails to capture the nuances, the reasons, the belief that underlies the language.

 

[NathanH83]

I agree with what Kaitlin Bennet says in this video about being “anti-abortion” rather than “pro-life”.

I just saw this video this morning, and I agree with it 100%.

 

[Lamb]

People live according to what they believe. My auntie is a prime example. She did not believe her fetus was a life until after she became a believer and the Spirit convinced her otherwise.

Notice the language? When the choice to abort is for a medical purpose, it's a "medical procedure to terminate". But when it's a choice based on belief and law, it's an "abortion."

These are part of why discussion on language is so necessary. Current popular language on the issue is inaccurate, does not allow for anything but black and white thinking, and fails to capture the nuances, the reasons, the belief that underlies the language.

Language can also cover up something evil and make it appear to be less so. Right? The more we can convince the most people that it is okay, the less obscene it becomes over time.

 

[tango]

People live according to what they believe. My auntie is a prime example. She did not believe her fetus was a life until after she became a believer and the Spirit convinced her otherwise.

Well, yes, but at risk of invoking Godwin's Law we could also say that Hitler lived according to what he believed and quite a lot of Jews paid a very heavy price for that. Even then the number of Jews pales into insignificance compared to the number of unborn who have been denied a chance at life since then.

Notice the language? When the choice to abort is for a medical purpose, it's a "medical procedure to terminate". But when it's a choice based on belief and law, it's an "abortion."

Not particularly, I was trying to be neutral, differentiating the pregnancy being terminated by medical procedure and the pregnancy being terminated because the mother died and the baby wasn't viable without her. If you prefer blunter terminology the choice was between "baby dies" and "mother and baby both die". Had the choice been between "baby dies, mother lives" and "mother dies, baby lives" there would probably be people demanding both sides.

These are part of why discussion on language is so necessary. Current popular language on the issue is inaccurate, does not allow for anything but black and white thinking, and fails to capture the nuances, the reasons, the belief that underlies the language.

There's a lot of stuff out there that looks like it's trying to subvert the language. The fact remains that consenting to sex is consenting to a baby making process and much of the problem is a desire to have the fun without the consequences. Making abortion too easy turns it into little more than a form of birth control that can easily turn vulnerable women into victims twice over; making it too difficult leaves people like rape victims and those who would literally not survive carrying a pregnancy to term overly vulnerable.

 

[tango]

I’m not saying people shouldn’t do it for health reasons. If a family already had 5 or 6 kids, and they’re getting old, it might be a good idea due to health concerns associated with age.

Did Joseph only have 2 sons? When Jacob adopted them he said Joseph had other sons which would be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance. (Genesis 48:6) If those other sons didn’t exist, why did Jacob mention them?

Besides, if Joseph only had 2 sons, we don’t know if it’s because God closed his wife’s womb, or if his wife chose an unnatural method used by the Egyptians, which is my point.

Rebekah only had 2 sons. But that’s because God closed her womb. It’s God’s choice.

Imagine if David’s mother chose to stop at 7 kids. We wouldn’t have king David. We wouldn’t have Solomon. And we wouldn’t have Psalms and Proverbs. We wouldn’t have the story of David and Goliath.

Imagine if Jacob decided 11 sons is enough. We wouldn’t have Benjamin. And since Paul is a Benjamite, we wouldn’t have Paul. And if we didn’t have Paul, we wouldn’t have most of the New Testament.

I wouldn't worry too much about things like this. Had Jacob stopped at 11 I'm sure God could have figured something out. Let's not pretend God is some kind of half-witted putz who would have spent however many thousand years wringing his hands, his plans for the New Testament thwarted by Jacob deciding he didn't want any more kids.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

I wouldn't worry too much about things like this. Had Jacob stopped at 11 I'm sure God could have figured something out. Let's not pretend God is some kind of half-witted putz who would have spent however many thousand years wringing his hands, his plans for the New Testament thwarted by Jacob deciding he didn't want any more kids.

Isn’t genocide the equivalent of murder?
Isn’t birth prevention one method of genocide?
Of course you can’t thwart God’s plans. But you can welcome His judgment!

 

[Josiah]

Isn’t genocide the equivalent of murder?

Yes

Isn’t birth prevention one method of genocide?

No. By definition, genocide is KILLING.... Preventing conception kills no one.

The Catholic Church is NOT guilty of genocide by being the world's largest proponent and teacher of birth control in the world.




.

 

[tango]

Isn’t genocide the equivalent of murder?

Genocide is a form of murder.

Isn’t birth prevention one method of genocide?

Not even close. If you really want to go to silly places like that, how about abstinence? If you want to argue that birth control is a method of genocide you'd have to argue that every person who isn't constantly having sex is equally guilty of genocide.

Of course you can’t thwart God’s plans. But you can welcome His judgment!

I have absolutely no idea what, if any, point you're trying to make here.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I agree with what Kaitlin Bennet says in this video about being “anti-abortion” rather than “pro-life”.

I just saw this video this morning, and I agree with it 100%.

I watched a bit of this, and one comment that stood out (where I stopped to post this...) is where she mentions "being rooted in morals and convictions" as if the morals and convictions one should hold are universal. It's the same type of black-and-white thinking that pro0mpted this thread. In one instance, we have a reporter labelling a person such as myself 'anti-abortion' merely because I am pro-life, then saying we need a "balanced and nuanced discussion". In the same way, we have Ms. Bennet (of whom I'm not familiar) calling for society to be once again "rooted in values and morals"
It appears that the more one holds to a particular view, but uses it as a talking point rather than an element in a balanced discussion, the farther away we will actually get from trying to understand one another.

 

[FredVB]

Bringing safety to babies to be born still is important, God, the Creator, values all life as the Creator of all life. We should have that in focus, yet we don't have a really good effective approach. We can have adoption services and a network more available. We can have counseling more available for the many who would need it, and not have costs stand in the way for any. We can have much much better care for children after birth provided. And with social change really happening that way there can be voice for choosing life and not aborting that would turn more people to that, and lead to abortions diminishing so much abortions can be done away with. There could be so many of positive reasons to have babies born, that much fewer would think of abortion. There should be work in that direction.

 

[Josiah]

Bringing safety to babies to be born still is important, God, the Creator, values all life as the Creator of all life. We should have that in focus, yet we don't have a really good effective approach. We can have adoption services and a network more available. We can have counseling more available for the many who would need it, and not have costs stand in the way for any. We can have much much better care for children after birth provided. And with social change really happening that way there can be voice for choosing life and not aborting that would turn more people to that, and lead to abortions diminishing so much abortions can be done away with. There could be so many of positive reasons to have babies born, that much fewer would think of abortion. There should be work in that direction.

I completely agree....

It's NOT mother vs. baby....it's BOTH/AND. We need to be there for the baby AND her mother.

But the pro-life ethic doesn't depend on that. In the slavery debate, many argued that if Blacks were freed, they'd starve to death and so we'd need MASSIVE spending to keep them alive. Of course, while their liberation DID result in hard times, we found that actually it was the government that HINDERED their recovery, not helped it. Turns out, Blacks were quite capable of being free. There are few countries with laws so radical as here in the USA (just Communist China and North Korea)... in most countries, it's entirely illegal after 12 weeks and resticted before that.... yet the abortion rate is much lower. HERE'S THE DEAL: Americans tend to use abortion as a birth control method. It's typically free.... it doesn't hinder the sex experience (no condom in the way, for example), it's sex at it 's greatest! And if she does get pregnant (which, yeah, is unlikely) a trip to Planned Parenthood kills the result. True is: Where couples RESPONSIVELY and correctly use birth control, abortion is quite rare. No, we don't need a bunch of welfare changes.... couples will need to start using birth control (and doing so effectively). And when this option is eliminated, they will (they won't stop having sex, LOL... but stop using abortion as their preferred birth control method). Other countries show this to be true.

If memory serves, the abortion rate in the US is about half what it once was. PART of this is that we are winning the moral battle, it's increasingly hard for mothers to believe that thier unborn is just a wort or kangaroo or cockroach, nope, it's their BABY in there! And PART of the reason is folks are better using birth control (especially young singles).



.