Rate of Abortion is highest in countries where it is illegal

I'm in favor of making it illegal as well. I'll agree to do that right now. But I'm merely saying that it's not the one and only issue at the ballot box. Death comes in many forms. The death toll in Iraq was well over 110,000 and the death and injury to our troops, all in the name of a pre-emptive strike, I'm not ok with that. The death penalty, war-adventuring, and deaths from being uninsured, it's all bad stuff. Abortion numbers are far higher, infinitely higher, I'll admit. But our economy, our middle class status, relations with the rest of the world, the rich 1% running it all while paying less taxes than secretaries, so many things bother me from the Right that I have to balance the abortion issue with my country turning into a third world hovel. I hate both options!

If we ban it, and I'm ok with that, arresting women for abortions and trying to enforce it and the huge outcropping of protests and pro-abortion folks will really amount to a prohibition-like era again. Instead of making moonshine in their basements or at speak-easies, people will just restort to underground abortion rings. We need to educate everyone better as Christians and realize that economies where the 1% have all the wealth with no middle class, that's a breeding ground for the despair that gives birth to the abortion mentality.

Joshua G. said:

I just want to clarify that although I strongly disagree with the pragmatic approach of leaving it legal, I do see those with this point of view as true allies in the fight.

What necessarily fundamentally separates is belief in the dangerous myth that right to abort is human right. To be pro-life one must be clear that this is not a human right regardless of what a nation decides is so. It is an affront to God and humanity at the deepest level. So, there are many who agree on me with this even if they take a more pragmatic approach on the legal issue not fighting for the law to stay in place but not seeing it as useful to expend resources and energy there until it is a practical objective. We both agree that abortion is evil and defilement of humanity and that it needs to stop. We both agree that education offered in compassion, nonjudgmentalness and understanding need to be the first line of defense and offense regardless of how the law may or may not change. On that principle, I unite with them in respect and pray for those who have been trained by society to believe that such could even be a human right.

Josh

Click to expand...

I think protesting is important. But responsible and loving protesting. I have come to see that the best kind of protest is that which is held in pray and like a vigil. Society needs to know that there are a still a lot of people that are not going to be quiet about this or else they will believe that it isn't much of an issue anymore. It always needs to remain an issue.

I agree with you that protests are not effective if they are hateful, angry, with shouting and signs of aborted fetuses etc. While such images have changed hearts of those who didn't get what was going on, it doesn't seem to me that the net gain of supporters will be significant. Rather, it will only galvinize the pro-choice movement as violent rhetoric general does.

I also agree that throwing women into prison would be a terrible approach and counterproductive both spiritually, morally and practically unless it is seen in an effort to protect the woman and the human embryo from herself.

While abortion is very similar to child abuse, rape and is in fact killing, the nature of it is completely different and we need to explicitly recognize that if not simply so that the pro-choice side of it recognizes that we are indeed listening to logic.

One fundamental difference is that generally speaking the woman is not doing this out of anger or hatred (except perhaps for herself). She is doing so for several reasons two of which come to mind are that she is scared and desperate trying to solve a real and understandable problem (whereas rape and child abuse are not doing that), and because she has probably been brainwashed like most in our western society into believing that this is a human right of hers-- that this is an option.

Another fundamental difference (and this relates to the issue of how we would deal with enforcement) is that we have no practical way of protecting the human from the perpetrators (the unwitting mother and the abortionist). We can take born children away from their abusers and put a rapist away in prison so that that can't happen again. But there is no clear answer to what we do with a pregnant woman other than working on changing her heart. We can't sterilize (I think I am in a forum where we will all agree on that even if for different reasons) and we could throw her in prison but what does that do for anyone? So, it seems to me that the heavy unmerciful hand of the law needs to fall on the abortionist (PhD or not-- if so, permanent loss of license) and, as well, all harm suffered by the mother he or she must answer for. The softest hand possible I think needs to fall on the mother. Keep it confidential (not in public record), at least for the first offense, lead her to real options, counseling, medical help etc.

It's not simple and there will be cases that the pro-choice side will hold up as their posterchild like they did Ms. Roe. And they may be legitimate... and maybe not.

Right now, as it stands, without abortion being illegal, the state has no recourse to force organizations to think outside of the box. Abortion is an easy out for society (it's just not easy for the mother) and rather than stare a terrible and unthinkable situation in the face most of us (including pro-life people, I believe) would rather just see the problem silently disappear and focus on the hopeful cases.

Josh

StThomasMore said:

Abortion clinics are able to loophole partial birth ban simply by changing the procedure. The only difference now is that the abortionist must kill the baby before he attempts to remove it from the womb. So instead of partially removing the baby and killing it they are able to loophole around it by killing it while its whole body is inside the womb. Dr. Tiller did it for years until he was shot dead

A lot of people thought partial birth abortion meant late term abortions. But it is not. A woman can get an abortion in the US right up to one day before her birthing date.

That's not to say that the partial birth abortion ban wasn't a good thing. It was a very small baby step in the right direction. Sadly the pro-life movement isn't as well funded, backed up and organized like the pro-abortion side is, who have the heavyweights behind them like the ACLU, NARAL, PP, NOW and even the American Medical Association. We on the pro-life side have? what? The National Right to Life Committee and the American Life League? The Catholic Church would have been a great contender if Catholics in the US actually believed its teachings regarding abortion.

Click to expand...

True true.
Catholics think they can have an opposing opinion, and frankly - they just cant.