Some of you, upon reading this, will praise Heaven that I finally saw the light. Others of you may think I'm either crazy or apostate. Or both. Heck, if I'd read this post a week ago, I probably would have thought the same thing. Let me try to explain.
Earlier this week I stumbled upon a blog post by a feminist professor. Among other things, she posed the question whether someone (i.e. Palin) can be both a feminist and pro-life. She said she doubted it, since she believes the the fight for abortion rights and "reproductive freedom" is an integral part of the battle for women's rights and equality.
I'm not sure what possessed me, but I decided to comment that being feminist and pro-life seemed perfectly logical to me. After all, the fundamental principle of feminism is that one person or group should not arbitrarily impose its will on another. If you believe that an unborn baby is a person (as I do), perhaps a true feminist should be defending his or her right to life, especially since (unless she was raped) a woman seeking an abortion already made a choice that led to pregnancy, and she is unwilling to accept the consequences of that choice.
All the previous commenters on this post were solidly pro-choice liberals, and though I tried to frame my comment respectfully, I was just sure that sooner or later somebody was going to verbally tar and feather me. As it turned out, I was pleasantly surprised that we all had a respectful, thoughtful conversation about what we believe and why the two sides rarely manage to see eye to eye. Though I still disagree with many of the perceptions pro-choice views are based on, the commenters did repeatedly emphasize something I agree with, and as I’ve reflected on it, it has completely transformed my approach to the abortion debate.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve felt that widespread abortions and our society’s acceptance of them are two of the great horrors of our time. It deeply troubles me that so many women kill their own babies for essentially selfish reasons, especially since those babies only exist because of choices the mothers made. I view abortions as murder of innocents who cannot even defend themselves, and I have always assumed that the logical outgrowth of that belief should be advocacy of laws to label abortion as the crime it is.
While I feel our laws make important statements about what we value and tolerate as a society, the blog commenters pointed out that in the case of abortion, it isn’t quite that simple. They insisted that so many women have come to see abortion as a right and a necessity that if it were made illegal the practice would not stop. It would simply go underground, still killing babies and potentially endangering the mothers with shady, back alley practices. The law might make a statement, but practically speaking it would have little effect.
As I reflected on this, my thoughts turned to the Prohibition movement of the 1800s. In that era, the great moral debate was about liquor and its corrosive effect on individuals and families. In 1919, opponents of alcohol finally saw their dreams realized in the form of a constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol in the U.S. The law was a dismal failure. Public demand for liquor was so strong that the law proved unenforceable; since people couldn’t obtain booze legally, they just found ways to get it illegally. Fourteen years later after its ratification, the prohibition amendment had the dubious honor of being the only amendment in the U.S. constitution that has been repealed.
While I would love to see our country reject abortion, I think pro-life efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade are doomed to the same failure as prohibition. Even if they could obtain such a law or ruling, a generation after Roe the genie is too far out of the bottle and the law would most likely be unenforceable. If people really want to take a stand against abortion, I don’t think fighting for a law or ruling is the effective way to do it.
A year ago—or even a week ago—I never would have imagined I would write the above paragraph. As previously mentioned, I always assumed that if you believed abortion was a pernicious, murderous evil, the only logical course was to fight for a law prohibiting it. When I suddenly questioned that assumption today, I wondered if I had become delusional, or worse: apostate. In search of a little clarity, I went to the LDS Church’s website to see what the General Authorities have to say on the subject. If an anti-abortion proposition was slated for California’s ballot next year, I wondered if our ward would receive a letter from Salt Lake urging us to throw our full weight behind it, as we did with Prop 8.
Lds.org has an index of gospel topics that provides basic information on Church doctrine, with related quotes from Church leaders. I was surprised to find that the “Gambling” entry clearly “encourage[s] Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling,” and the “Same-Gender Attraction” entry declares that “we cannot stand idle if [those with same-gender inclinations] indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation,” yet the “Abortion” entry merely explains why the Church soundly condemns that practice. It declares that we should not encourage or assist others to obtain an abortion, but there is not a word about opposing it in the political sphere. I wonder how many Latter-day Saints assume the Church supports passage of anti-abortion laws, and would be stunned by the suggestion that it doesn’t.
I should clarify that while I think advocating national anti-abortion laws is an ineffective way to combat abortion, I’m not saying pro-life people should throw our hands up and accept the practice, either. I think if we really want to decrease the number of abortions in our country, we need to decrease the demand for them through education. It encourages me that both presidential candidates regret the existence of abortions and feel the best way to prevent them is not to keep butting heads about Roe, but to educate people so there are fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Though it’s hard to get a clear picture of what kind of education McCain has in mind, Obama has been outspoken in his support for sex education that focuses on abstinence and the sacredness of intimacy, in addition to explanations of contraception. He also supports counseling for pregnant women that would present viable alternatives to abortion. That strikes me as a sensible balance between presenting people with the best and wisest course, and accepting the reality that some will choose not to follow it.
Here's to a day when abortion is no longer debated because there is simply no more demand for it. Even if we never achieve that completely, I'm hopeful that efforts in that direction will bear some fruit. They certainly can't be less productive than 35 years of butting heads has been.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Abortion is the symptom, not the disease. It needs to be fought.
I too have been torn between competing ideologies. A bumper sticker from a few years back (I saw it in CA I think) finally summed up my entire philosophy succinctly. It simply read: "We can do better than abortion."
The issue where we can find joint ground with pro-choice people is in limiting abortions by eliminating unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Criminalizing it in all instances and under all circumstances actually takes it further than the church even wants to go.
And a politician that wants to turn the page on divisiveness, and actually wants to move forward with the overall goal (no unwanted pregnancies) deserves some credit for trying to solve the real problem, instead of cynically using it to manipulate voters and drive wedges further into the citizenry.
Again, abortion, like terrorism, is a symptom, not the actual disease.
Wow! What a really great post. Thanks for being the voice of a moral pragmatist on the discussion board. I am in total agreement with you. The feminist movement really began when there was a critical mass of women saying, "Wait a minute! I want a variety of choices in my life!" One of the main areas where women, historically have had no choice is when it comes to childbearing.
Abortions were being performed in the US, illegally, prior to Roe v. Wade. I think the courts allowed the issue to continue its way up to the highest court because they wanted somebody to find reason in the Constitution to allow for such and stop it as a dangerous, back-alley procedure.
Unfortunately, abortion has become synonymous with "reproductive rights." Women absolutely have a right to say when to have and how many children to have. I agree with n8ma, we can definitely do better. Most women do. I think women purely motivated by selfishness (career women? promiscuious women?) when it comes to childbearing probably ARE using other methods of birth control. Taking the pill or using a condom is way more convenient than ANY form of abortion.
In developing countries they have found the best antidote to overpopulation (in the sense that people are unable to care for their children with limited resources) is education for women. The same can definitely apply here in this country. Sex education is not a "how-to" manual for abortion.
I'm also very wary of allying myself to such a hotbutton issue for conservative Christians. Why? LDS doctrine is different. The church has no official policy on when the spirit enters the body. It may be true that some kind of biological definition of life is applicable at conception (the fertilized egg grows, needs nourishment, responds to its environment, adapts, etc.), human "life" in that sense does not begin until a spirit enters the body. Conservative groups are frustrated that the Mormon political delegation nearly always votes in favor of tigher abortion regulation, but votes against limiting stem-cell research. In fact, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has been a major proponent of stem cell use. (You'd probably be surprised by how many LDS women have IUDs: which allow for the fertilization but not implantion of the egg.)
A few anecdotes to finish here. (I can't wax political on my blog, so I'll do it on yours. :)) When I was 14, my best friend's older sister had an abortion (she is the only person I've ever spoken to personally who had). I hardly even knew what that was and no doubt my parents would have had a cow had they known I was privy to that knowledge. She was married to an abusive man; they had one child and she was working at getting out of the marriage safely without having to flee for her life. She discovered her pregnancy (there were few details about the conception) and knew that there was no way she could let her husband find out about it. Adoption was out of the question, bearing the child would have made her bond to him even tigher and more unbearable.
Last thing: I was in a ward with a woman who had a stillborn. The event, obviously, was highly emotional and she followed through with a formal graveside service and a burial. Sometime later I was with a group of women speculating on how the eternities work when it comes to miscarriages and still borns. A member of the stake presidency who happened to be listening said that he didn't know when the spirit entered the body either, but he did say that a baby born prematurely, even if it dies in an incubator before coming home from the hospital is given a name and blessing and a record in the church, thereby sealing the child to his parents. Stillborns are not officially given a name and a blessing or a church record. If the purpose of our lives is to come and have some kind of experience, it can be quite effectively argued that a stillborn doesn't have this opportunity. However, any mother of stillborn who is a member of the church will likely tell you with all sincerity that they expect to raise that child one day. Of my three kids, there was only one whose presence I felt very powerfully from the time I was just a few weeks along: my #2. I was so convinced he was a girl because of the power of the bond. If his spirit wasn't in his body, then he was at least hanging around our house for months before his birth. It was my easiest birth and my only baby that came right on time. His personality every day tells me that he couldn't wait to get here and start this leg of his journey. My others? No such experience.
I had an acquaintance in high school who got an abortion, and was really troubled by the decision afterward. The commenters on the feminist blog repeatedly expressed frustration that many pro-life people mentally translate pro-choice as "pro-abortion." They insisted that pro-choice people regret the existence of abortions, and say most women they know who get one find it a wrenching decision. While I strongly feel they made the wrong choice, I'm glad they at least don't take it lightly.
As for the Church's position, I suspect its opposition to abortion has little to do with when a spirit enters a body. It probably stems from the fact that we are here to learn to be like our Heavenly Father. If we treat creation like a plaything and fail to value or respect the life created, we are the exact opposite of Him.
wow ... i never thought about it like *that* before, but it totally makes sense.
and just so you know, there is a proposition on the ballot in november regarding abortion. proposition 4 ... involving minors and parent notification.
I found this well-reasoned and in keeping with my own views and the views of my husband. i agree completely, but never thought about the parallel with prohibition.
along this line though i wanted to share part of an email that my bro-in-law sent to me. i know that he wouldn't mind. he wrote this in response to our concern at the massive church involvement in prop 8. he lives in utah:
"I know this is no concern of mine, but WHY isn't anyone making a big deal about Prop 4 on your ballot? I mean a state that allows underage girls to get an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian (with only a 3 day cool off period). Scary stuff that would definitely NOT strengthen the family let alone let a minor make a decision that will change their life forever. Can you imagine the emotional baggage a teenage (would be mom) would have to carry after a decision like that (without her parents to help)?
Here is the text from ballotopedia on California propositions:
The initiative would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.
Proposition 4 represents the third time that California voters will have considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were California Proposition 85 (2006) and California Proposition 73 (2005).
Ed and I have had a lot of discussions about one of your central points--the probable outcome of making abortion illegal. He agrees with you/ those with whom you talked about the prevalence of abortion in our current culture and its probable continuance even if it were illegal. Due to his mom's status as a reporter and relic of the civil rights era, he's even familiar with some of the more gruesome methods used. However, it may be important to remember that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, it would be unlikely that laws against it would pass countrywide. We'd probably end up with a a patchwork of states, thus still allowing some access to it, though inconvenient for many. That limited access might do a lot to prevent back alley abortions, since crossing state lines is relatively simple and inexpensive.
I wish there were a simple happy solution but there isn't--that's why it's a divisive issue. Incidentally, Obama's official stance on abortion is carefully tucked away in a short paragraph far down the virtual page under "Women's issues". He certainly doesn't seem to be calling attention to it. However, I was impressed in general by his site--it seemed designed to inform and educate, not just persuade. McCain's site only wants to preach to the converted--there's not much actual info. His position on abortion is prominently displayed under "Values". Obama supports Roe vs. Wade and advocates sex education and contraceptives. McCain condemns abortion, says he will appoint supreme court judges who will overturn it, and strongly supports adoption.
I wish that I felt comfortable accepting the status quo about abortion--it would clear the way for me to support Obama. However, I do think that making it illegal in some states would have effect. I suspect most women wouldn't want the risk and pain of a back alley abortion and that the danger of its prevalence is exaggerated. Furthermore, who knows what a generation of opposition to abortion would mean to people in another 30 years? Perhaps rendering it illegal in some states would change acceptance of it over time.
I was mistaken about McCain's views about the environment and energy in my recent comment. He does accept global warming and does advocate conservation. I think his plan is flawed--it focuses on nuclear energy as the solution, advocates offshore drilling, and would have the market correct emissions by allotting emission credits to businesses and allowing them to make a profit by selling those credits to other businesses if they developed clean technology that negated their need for their own credit. Credits would be gradually decreased, thereby supposedly curbing emissions. It's a case of too little, too late, in my opinion. Palin has questioned whether we have caused global warming, does support huge expansion of drilling in Alaska, and hugely exaggerated Alaska's importance in recent television interviews. She said it was responsible for nearly 20% of the U.S.'s energy. Depending on what she meant--energy produced or energy consumed--it's really the source of between 2 1/2 and 4 percent. It is the source of 14 percent of domestically produced oil and some natural gas, but falls short of her claim by a huge margin.
I appreciate the rest of your post especially the examination of what we believe as Latter Day Saints. I do feel we need to do more-- perhaps particularly for those who chose abortion out of ignorance and those who are driven to it because of their personal suffering. I was impressed by Joe Biden's bio and the actions he has taken against domestic violence.
I am haunted by a conversation with my roommate Jin, who was from mainland China. She said that it was hard to find a middle aged woman in China who hadn't had at least one abortion because of the penalties for having more than one child or because they originally conceived a girl. Even if abortion laws never change, I am still grateful to live in a country that only allows abortion instead of forcing it upon women.
Hi Kimberly, my wife Nicole (Phillip's cousin) forwarded me this blog posting and said that I would find it interesting.
Understatement of the year. I find it thoroughly refreshing when I read of other faithful Mormons becoming able separate their religious beliefs and moral foundations from what they deem socially responsible for our state and national citizenry of varied cultures and heritages.
One of the major reasons I ended up NOT voting for Mitt Romney is because he WAS of the same opinion as your blog has stated...until he realized he might lose some conservative Christian votes. He changed his life-long position (which served him well in the liberal state of Massachusetts) and lost my respect in the process. Morality can influence social policy but should not dictate it.
Is it apostate to say that I agree with Roe vs. Wade? Our church leaders clearly state their opposition to abortion and rank it very serious on the Sin-o-Meter...however, can they really call it murder when they have never been able to give a doctrinal position on when the spirit actually enters the body?
Which is essentially why I agree with Roe v. Wade, they disallow abortions based upon when the fetus could live on it's own if it were born. Granted technology is allowing us to help premature babies survive at a higher rate than when the case was decided but at the time, it was fair.
Speaking as an extreme minority (a Mormon voting no on Prop 8), I can relate to your feelings of being an apostate. Can I help it if I find the Prop 4 issue so much more socially critical than if we allow gay marriage? Why are teenage girls able to get abortions without a parent/guardian being notified?
Thanks for a very insightful and well written posting!
In response to Nicole's brother-in-law, I think the reason Prop 4 doesn't have as much widespread support as Prop 8 is that it isn't as cut-and dried as he thinks. If all pregnant teenagers came from families as supportive and loving as his probably is, this bill would be a great idea.
However, girls from such solid families are probably the LEAST likely to become pregnant as teenagers. Many girls who end up in that situation have families who are dysfunctional at best, and abusive at worst. Such parents wouldn't necessarily provide a teen mom with constructive counsel, and informing them of the situation might do the girl more harm than good. She might even take desperate measures to avoid letting them know.
Honestly, I'm still trying to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks of Prop 4. I'd like to research what the effect has been in states where such laws have already been passed. Add that to my to-do list . . .
Cathy, I could be wrong but I think a Supreme Court overruling of Roe v. Wade might make abortion illegal in the entire country. It might depend on how they phrase their ruling, though.
Sometimes it's a little scary how much power those nine unelected people have, if they choose to use it.
Also, Obama supports adoption, too, but it makes sense that McCain would be particularly vocal about it since all his children are adopted.
TJ, I'm glad you found my blog refreshing. To clarify, though, I actually don't separate my beliefs from my political views. On the contrary, I find that the latter are always shaped by the former.
If study and reflection had indicated that my view on abortion really was contrary to the Church's position, I'd assume that God saw the matter more clearly than I did and I would accept His view, doing my best to gain an understanding about why He drew a different conclusion than I originally had. There have been several instances in my life when a doctrine or Church position made no sense to me at first, but I accepted it on faith assuming the matter would become clearer to me as time went on. It always has, though sometimes it took weeks, months, or even years.
As for the Church's stand on abortion, Church leaders don't refer to it as murder or make any claim about when the spirit enters the body. Even the degree of Church discipline for abortion and murder is different. I think the reason the sin is so serious is that it reflects such selfish disregard for life and the power of creation. The ability to create life is a sacred power--a taste of godhood in mortality. If we refuse to respect and value that power and the life it creates, we will not become anything like our Heavenly Father, which is the whole purpose of coming to Earth in the first place.
A few extremely random thoughts:
Doc & Cov 42 says "murder or anything like unto it." Could abortion then fall under this definition? Not murder in the strictest sense, but still a violation of basic principles governing life.
Jesus leaps in the womb in the New Testament, but then he speaks to Nephi in 3 Nephi 1 saying "on the morrow come I into the world." I'm not overly litigious when I parse scripture, but these accounts have so far prevented me from really making any firm conclusions. (And I remember the handbook of instructions saying the church had no official position on when the spirit enters the body.) Oh and we don't count stillborn children as sealed to our families if I recall correctly.
I guess what I'm most interested in is a politician who is genuinely committed to reconciling differences on this issue. Not a politician that uses abortion as a wedge issue ("I will outlaw abortions on my second day in office!" or "I will protect your right to choose to the extent that I will refuse to acknowledge any moral, psychological, or societal consequences of widespread abortions"), just to win a group of people's votes, but someone who, you know, ACTUALLY WANTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. You know, a politician who actually wants to move the country forward on this. And I found some very encouraging ideas from Barack Obama when he was at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College earlier this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-xMjZ5Za4E
He covers poverty, abortion, torture, and a host of other moral issues. Just FYI.
The Church's index entry on abortion quotes a similar verse: Doc & Cov 59:6 forbidding to "kill, nor do anything like unto it."
Again, abortion isn't technically murder (and the Church doesn't discipline it the same way), but the intent and result are similar enough that it is still a grievous sin.
Incidentally, a fetus has a beating heart at about three weeks, before many women are even aware they are pregnant. By two months, the fetus has a nervous system and is moving on its own. Though there is no conclusive evidence when a spirit enters that developing body, I think it's hard to make the argument that a fetus making independent movements generated by its own brain is "part of its mother's body" which she is free to control, or remove. Many women may feel that way, but I think the perception stems more from what they want to be true than from actual fact.
Wow. What a great discussion. I really like your point about WHY abortion is bad, less to do with when the spirit enters the body and more to do with a sacred regard for the creative process. Much to think about.
What I love the most is that this blog post has flushed out a random collection of sincere LDS people looking to reconcile the world we live in with the ideal world we wish to live in. This discussion is civilized, informed and well, uplifiting. We are NOT all alike, but today our differences of opinion and thought processes feels like an asset--as it should be.
I just remembered today that I knew one other girl who had an abortion. It was my first year of teaching middle school. She was a nearly 13 year old 7th grader whose stepfather had sexually abused her. Mom and stepdad were both in prison (mom turned the other way) and she was being raised by a very loving (LDS) aunt and uncle. They were up front with me about the abortion (performed the summer before entering 7th grade) because they wanted help from her teachers in watching for and being aware of certain behaviors she might exibit. Poor little gal--so mature and so immature in other ways. It is hard to argue against the decision made there.
Now ladies, here is my question? What do you think YOU would do if you were raped?
So much to think about, pray about and ponder.
Amen, Christie.
STM, if I were raped I hope I would have the guts to keep the baby, and probably offer him or her for adoption. It's hard for me to imagine justifying an abortion, but then I really can't begin to comprehend how the situation would impact me and my family.
The Lord permits abortion in this context for a reason, and I suspect He, my husband, and I would have some long talks before we decided what to do.
Kimberly- Don't hate me for editing but I thought you might want to know- in your second paragraph you said, "Among other things, she posed the question whether someone (i.e. Palin) can be both a feminist and pro-choice." And I think you meant "can be both a feminist and pro-life." But I could be wrong... sorry! It just might start off your point stronger, because it caught me off guard and I had to reread it...
I'll leave a thought out comment soon... but my kids are calling at the moment- but thanks for a thoughtful, insightful blog.
Great blog BUT I must respond to the what you said in your comment in response to TJ. You said:
"However, girls from such solid families are probably the LEAST likely to become pregnant as teenagers. Many girls who end up in that situation have families who are dysfunctional at best, and abusive at worst. Such parents wouldn't necessarily provide a teen mom with constructive counsel, and informing them of the situation might do the girl more harm than good."
I completely disagree with this. I had a close friend who became pregnant in High School and she had a great family who were extremely supportive, and consequently kept the baby. This is not an isolated case, in my High School experience, every girl that I knew who became pregnant came from good families. The dynamic in young teenagers families is not the same as what your broad statement suggests. While yes, many pregnancies do occur in such "dysfunctional at best, and abusive at worst" homes.
I've seen countless cases of teenager girls from great families who became pregnant. One such was a girl from my stake (yes LDS) who was my good friend and had amazing parents. Another case in point in Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter. From everything I can tell, the home dynamic of the Palin's does not fit your statements here.
While your change in opinion on abortion is refreshing, you really need to review the demographic of WHO is becoming pregnant in today's society. While it was the abusive, destroyed family where teen pregnancies happened in the 70s and 80s. Today's world is totally different. Sex is prevalent and acceptable among all walks of life.
Teen pregnancy is no longer a taboo occurrence where the girl is shipped to a special school to complete her education. They are accepted at normal High Schools and continue on living a life that is completely accepted by faculty and students alike. If anything, teen pregnancies are only growing, and it is among ALL types of girls. To say that it is only among such "abusive" families is very close minded and unaware of the current situation.
BUT, that being said, everything else in your blog is very progressive and spot on. Bravo to your change of opinion. I too agree that it is better to have regulated abortion, than illegal chop-shops for girls who make that decision. It is the socially responsible thing to do, though you may not agree with the decision.
Heidi, thanks for the edit. That is a rather crucial distinction. Consider the error corrected. :)
Scott, I didn't mean to imply that girls from dysfunctional families are the only ones who become pregnant--just that they are more likely to. That is the trend I've observed as a youth leader, but it would be interesting to know the exact statistics about which group (if any) is more at risk.
In any case, you make a good point that teen pregnancy and the choices that lead to it are becoming more widespread, and no demographic has a monopoly on them.
The 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights are the ones that would effectively turn the power for the decision back over to the states if Roe vs Wade were overturned. They specify "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, since abortion is not specified in the Constitution, and since the Supreme Court Justices extrapolated a great deal from the due process clause in approving abortion, it is up to either the states voting individually or the nation voting as a whole to decide whether abortion is legal (or should be). Any decision overturning Roe vs. Wade is likely to be made on the basis that the justices took too much upon themselves when they made the decision for the country. To then have justices pronouncing abortion illegal would invalidate the reasoning that hypothetically allowed it to be overturned.
Several thoughts on birthing a child who is the product of rape or abuse. I cannot presume to decide for others here, but something I know from personal experience is that the feeling of having been victimized or violated can be fought off in part by learning to act for yourself. If the original trauma occurred as result of a situation in which the victim was powerless, making a choice then takes control again. Having that child might actually be part of the healing process (in ideal circumstances). I can understand why that might not work in cases like the one STM mentioned, where the age of the victim and the close relationship of the perpetrator might make the choice to have the child almost impossible, and where living a life approaching normalcy as soon as possible is probably the best course possible.
Sometimes I'm just grateful that I am responsible for my choices and not a legislator. Sometimes I wish I were one but usually I suspect hubris there--a prideful sense that I'd do better than the legislator in question in my mental rantings of the moment.
I'm going to check out that Obama link--haven't the time at the minute, but I will.
wow ... tons of comments since last i checked. what an interesting discussion.
a couple points ... the church is not completely against abortion, and it is ok if (1)rape occured, (2) matters of incest, or (3) the pregnancy is a danger to the mother. i think that is why abortion is such a tricky subject, it's not always so cut and dry. there are sooooo many variables.
also, i agree with scott, most people that i've known who did get preggo as a teenager were from very affluent well adjusted families. (we all have our choices, not just those from abusive/disfunctional families). and i actually dealt with a youth who was in that situation as a yw leader! and i also have a friend who had an abortion as a teenager (forced to by her parents) and thoroughly regrets it (she was a convert) ... it's such a tough subject.
Cathy, those amendments refer to the Constitution - are you sure they apply to Supreme Court rulings? When the Court struck down the "separate but equal" it didn't matter what laws Arkansas had on its books--it had to accept integrated schools (enforced by federal troops) whether it liked them or not.
Similarly, if the Court rules that abortion violates rights of life and liberty, wouldn't abortion be consequently deemed illegal throughout the U.S.? That has certainly been the case with same-gender marriage in CA. When the state's high court decided it should be legal, their word effectively became law for the entire state.
On another subject, Scott and Jodi have both mentioned that a lot of pregnant teens they've known came from solid, well-off families. Did that number equal or exceed the number of pregnancies among girls you knew who were in more difficult situations? I'm not sure if you're implying that the well-off girls got pregnant more, or just pointing out that girls from dysfunctional families aren't the only ones who make mistakes.
If you did see a higher number of pregnancies among girls from solid home situations, could that be because that is the group most similar to your own situation, and therefor the one you'd probably have the most contact with? Most of the statistics I've found online indicate that a teenage girl is much more likely to become pregnant if she is poor and comes from a dysfunctional and/or single parent home.
Hey someone just told me you responded to my comment. I just want to clarify on who I was signifying in my use of pronouns. The first "they" was in reference to the conservative Christian base and the second "they" was regarding our church leaders. Sorry for the confusion.
Secondly, let me ask you this. Now that you have come to your conclusion that a social policy disallowing abortion would prove unsafe and unwise, what would you do if the church "encouraged" you to do all that you possibly could to get the Roe v Wade decision overturned and to make abortion illegal nationwide?
Thirdly, you said, "I actually don't separate my beliefs from my political views. On the contrary, I find that the latter are always shaped by the former." Does that mean that you believe your religious moral code should be the enforceable law upon society?
As a believer in Christ, my politics are influenced by my beliefs but my beliefs do not require me to enforce all-encompassing social policies, based upon my moral code, that should be applied to all. Isn't that the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. I realize that the story is about remaining faithful to God in the face of unjust civil policies (i.e. they were not allowed to pray to their God) but the reverse is true as well. If Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were the king/dictator/ruling majority, making it the law to only be allowed to pray to their God, or abide by their religious code now made civil law, it would be just as wrong...even if their God IS the only true God.
I do not believe God is not a God of compulsion, but a God who allows for free will. And until we as Americans all believe and share the exact same religious beliefs, we must allow for opposing views and not punish those who believe them. Religion cannot rely upon the government to restrict free will but should be actively out seeking to convert those opposers to their spiritual mindset...and then the social policies will take care of themselves.
Just some more food for thought!
I guess my kids were calling for longer than I expected... I realize the discussion is over... but what a great discussion this is... and I too applaud the fact that while many of us share the same basic belief system, we each have ideas and brains and experiences that let us create our own interpretations and understandings, and help us to become responsible, educated citizens with the power to think for ourselves and act of our own free will. In other words, you may have been afriad of being viewed as an apostate but I heard a lot of "Amens" in this discussion. Thanks for pulling us all out of our happy little bubbles and using some of our social awareness, and mental energy. And if you want to start a new discusion, let's talk about feminism has been blown way out of proportion... just a thought. ;)
Hi,
My name is Tia and I am an editor at Opposing Views. I came across your site, liked what I read, and wanted to introduce us because we both write about political issues.
Opposingviews.com is a debate site where experts go head-to-head on a variety of topics. With Election Day approaching, our experts are discussing some of the most interesting and high-profile ballot initiatives from across the U.S. I encourage you to check out those of interest:
I believe you and your visitors will appreciate these debates and might want to weigh in with votes or comments. If you like our site, I would appreciate it if you blog about us or give us a link to the debates. You can create a profile page giving readers information and links to your site. Or, if it is easier, I can do this for you. In the near future we’ll add a blogosphere section to each debate so we can directly feature outside blogs like yours.
Thanks for the time and consideration. Let me know if you have any questions or recommendations for experts or debates.
Tia
www.opposingviews.com
Post a Comment