Religion is not the only factor that drives Americans' views on abortion.
Flipphone - "It does not matter if you are a person of Christian faith or
not. Abortion is the taking of an innocent unborn life. And That is
Wrong."Wrong on all three assertions. And repeatedly asserting
it does nothing to make it true, nor does it convince anyone but yourself.
It does not matter if you are a person of Christian faith or not. Abortion is
the taking of an innocent unborn life. And That is Wrong.
What the religious activists don't know or don't tell:-
There are fewer abortions than ever, mostly because there are fewer unwanted
pregnancies due to better access to contraception.- Activists try to
characterize those getting abortions as free wheeling, sexually promiscuous
singles using abortion ads birth control to avoid becoming a parent.In fact, 60% of people who have abortions are already parents.-
The majority of people who get abortions identify as religious:30%
Mainline Protestant or evangelical24% Roman Catholic- Despite
the lies otherwise, NO US abortion laws allow doctors to kill babies after they
are born.- Only 1.4% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later,
usually because of delays caused by the barriers to abortion access created by
activists.In short, religious activists are really not trying to
save lives; they are trying to flex their religious muscles and send
"message bills" so everyone knows "this is a Christian nation!"
- even though it is not!Innocent women and children will be the
victims of this power play.
@Stacey23;Prove it's what "god wants". But first you
need to prove that "god" exists. Good luck. Your comment proves that
the issue really is about religion for you - you're trying to force yours
onto other women.@Susan in VA;Well said.@IJ;Reference what I said to Stacey23;
NoNamesAccepted writes, "Those who are most adamant about not
telling women what to do with their bodies when it comes to elective abortion
are also the strongest advocates of mandatory vaccines, seat belt, and helmet
laws."Indeed. But you didn't say why.Because
people who don't get vaccines depend on the rest of us to pay their medical
bills when they get sick. We either pay directly through higher insurance
premiums, if they're insured, or through higher premiums because the rates
went up because the hospitals lost money caring for them if they didn't
have insurance. And we're not talking about a few hundred in costs-- last
month there was an article about a child with a tetanus infection whose life
cost over a half million to save. As it should be--it wasn't the
kid's fault that the parents refused to vaccinate.Seat belts
and helmets--same thing. You get banged up and we all pay for your
hospitalization and care for your disabled body. We're not a
society who says that if you do something stupid, we're going to let you
bleed to death, or, if you are a quadriplegic with no income, starve. At least,
I am pro-choice simply because I don't think the government should be
controlling it's citizens body. I am no in favor of forced birth any more
than I would be in favor of forced abortion.
@No Names Accepted writes, "Don't try to normalize pre-marital or
homosexual sex, don't push any agenda, and there isn't pushback to
education."Community standards are, by definition, what the
majority of the people in that community actually do--not what they claim they
do. The dominant religion prohibits pre-marital sex, but if the overwhelming
majority of adults in Utah are not virgins at the time of marriage, it's
hard to conclude that pre-marital sex is something other than "normal".
And, like it or not, but abstinence based sex education
inadvertently encourages out-of-wedlock pregnancy. It has a dismal track record
of preventing premarital sex, but worse, when the graduates of this program do
have sex, they are far less likely to use contraceptives than people who had
comprehensive sex ed classes.
Every DN article about abortion includes at least one comment which criticizes
the reason for the choice as "convenience". Ten of my
fourteen children are adopted. Two were minority race babies. The other eight
ranged from three to twelve when they were placed with us. But they were all
beautiful and they made us proud to be their parents.As I write
this, there are over 100 children in Utah alone who are available for adoption.
No, they are not perfect white babies, and most are school age. I have
repeatedly asked DN commenters why they do not adopt one of these children.
Only one, ever replied, and he said that he already had five children and
couldn't afford any more. It seems to me that that is the
perfect definition of "inconvenience".
"American views on abortion are relatively stable. Since 1976, the
percentage of U.S. adults who say abortion should be legal in all circumstances
or illegal in all circumstances has moved only a few percentage points,
according to Gallup." The crux of the difficulties involved in dealing with
abortion stem from exactly this idea -- that there is no viable "middle
ground" in the debate about how, and whether to regulate it. More than
practically any other major moral issue, abortion sharply divides us. Roe v.
Wade was the Supreme Court's attempt to split the baby (pun not intended)
by protecting a perceived Constitutional right to privacy during the first
trimester but allow states to fully regulate the procedure after that. The
chief strength -- and ironically, the chief weakness -- in that compromise is
that it made neither side happy. But that may also be the single best reason to
suggest that the case was rightly decided.
New to Utah - Provo, UT "Roe has nothing that stipulates if it’s
overturned that all abortion is illegal. It goes back to the states."Seven states have already passed laws to ban abortion if Roe is overturned.
Roe is protecting the choice that you said you prefer -- " rape, incest,
life of the mother". "reasonable protection would most
likely happen."Alabama passed a law without provision for rape. That
is not "most likely" reasonable.
Moderate your reasoning is completely bogus. Roe has nothing that stipulates if
it’s overturned that all abortion is illegal. It goes back to the states.
I don’t see Roe providing any protection. Extreme reasoning like all
abortion will be banned if Roe is overturned simply isn’t true. It would
give more discretion to the states and reasonable protection would most likely
A swing and a miss.
" One of the things I always say to people is that I'm both pro-choice
and pro-life. I think that's not an uncommon position for people who are
liberal people of faith. "Thank You!!!
New to Utah - Provo, UT "I’m pro life and would approve of Roe being
overturned. I also believe there are times that abortion should be available,
like rape, incest, life of the mother."A number of people make
statements like this, not realizing they contradict themselves. If you favor
any exception to abortion, you are pro-choice. Given that choice, you prefer
life. If Roe is overturned, states can completely ban abortion. If you believe
in exceptions like "life of the mother", then the only protection is
This is a thought provoking article. I’m pro life and would approve of Roe
being overturned. I also believe there are times that abortion should be
available, like rape, incest, life of the mother. I have been sickened by
Governor Northam of Virginia and Cuomo of NY who seem to favor infanticide.
Constitutionally I think it should be decided by individual states.
The Abortion debate is known in political circles as a "Wedge Issue." It
is aimed at those who are one-issue voters.
You lost me at “experts “. I love all knowing experts that are
@NoNamesAccepted "You are certainly correct about the latter point.
You are correct in theory about how to do that."Not theory. Practice.
We have data on this. Expanded sex-ed leads to later onset of sexual activity,
more safe-sex practices when they do, and consequently fewer teen pregnancies
and abortions.Abstinence-only education (the kind favored by
conservatives) leads to earlier onset of sexual activity, more risky sex, more
teen pregnancies, and more abortions.This is only controversial as a
partisan matter. The science is pretty conclusive.
I found the “all adults” to be by far the most significant statistic
on the by religion chart.
a_voice_of_reason - Woods Cross, UT---I'm going to limit my
comment to just one issue you brought up for lack of space. You said religious
folks often let ill-defined tenets of their religion drive them to contradictory
political stances including being pro-life, but supporting the death penalty,
gun rights, and opposing social safety nets. I'll explain why those
aren't contradictory to me.---There is no mandate in the
New Testament for a Christian to protect themselves from loss of life. The final
hours of Jesus himself and lives of the Apostles are proof positive that they
did not 'arm up', and in fact, went to their deaths by various
horrible means, without recourse to violence to attempt to avoid death.The believers in the early church also practiced non-violent response to
threats of violence for nearly 300 years.Current Christians use the
smorgasbord approach to the Old Testament. They pick a few laws, given to the
ancient Hebrews, perhaps use a bit of the history of Israel, to form a melange
of rules, but the plain fact is , these are just interpretations, and not
written commandments.Even "Thou shalt not kill", plainly
written, is given a litany of exceptions.
I like the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement that he teaches correct
principles and allows church members to govern themselves.
@BillMcGee:I'm going to limit my comment to just one issue you
brought up for lack of space. You said religious folks often let ill-defined
tenets of their religion drive them to contradictory political stances including
being pro-life, but supporting the death penalty, gun rights, and opposing
social safety nets. I'll explain why those aren't contradictory to
me.I am pro life because I believe in protecting a life that has no
voice or means of protection - like an already born infant. I do not oppose the
death penalty because that is a consequence of decisions made by the individual;
they aren't innocent. While I choose not to own guns, I support reasonable
gun rights because 1) It is an enumerated Constitutional right and 2) I know
many who love guns as a form of recreation. It's a hobby. Though
potentially dangerous, so are alcohol, sports cars, etc. Finally, I believe in a
limited (not absent) safety net because I believe the government is terrible at
administering welfare in a way to promote self-reliance. I already donate
generously to causes that help lift those in need more effectively than the
government. With lower taxes (for welfare) I could do more of this.
A women’s right to privacy ends when the baby she is carrying is able to
survive outside of her womb. At this critical time the baby should now also be
protected by our constitution. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Great article. Made some wonderful, thought-provoking points.Now, I
have to address at least one (probably more comments) that fall along with a
party-line. I'm really tired of being asked, how can a bunch of male
legislators think they should tell women what to do with their bodies.
That's a stupid comment. None of those legislators are trying to outlaw
hairstyles, clothing preferences, or general medical care. Does abortion impact
a woman's body? Absolutely. But, the body they are concerning themselves
with is impacted far more - that is the baby. The baby that is alive inside that
mother's body has no means of protection. If a woman asked a doctor to kill
her 1-month old baby because she didn't want him/her society would go
crazy. Both would be in prison. With abortion, it is accepted and protected.Now, your opinion may differ from mine. I understand that. But
don't make the argument sound like it's a bunch of controlling men
trying to punish women. There are men and women on both sides of this argument.
Pro-choice advocates may see this as a women's rights issue. Pro-life
advocates see it as a human (the babies) rights issue.
The advances in medicine which have made third trimester fetuses viable outside
the womb has change this debate. The conservative right in Alabama is
hurting these babies chances at life by creating legislation that is so
restrictive that reasonable people will disagree with a blanket ban even in
cases of rape or incest. Most reasonable people would agree to restrict
abortion to only those babies that are not viable outside the mothers body. with the exceptions of rape, incest, or the mother’s health/life. This
moderate approach would garner more support and if legislated would quickly
protect thousands of third trimester babies.
Nonames- " Those who are most adamant about not telling women what to do
with their bodies when it comes to elective abortion are also the strongest
advocates of mandatory vaccines, seat belt, and helmet laws.Those
who are most adamant about keeping all abortions legal so as to assure that
victims of rape don't have to carry that pregnancy, are also the most
opposed to women being able to carry a firearm to help prevent rape in the first
place."Not true at all!Try finding other sources for
your alleged "facts".
NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT---For example: Those who are most
adamant about not telling women what to do with their bodies when it comes to
elective abortion are also the strongest advocates of mandatory vaccines, seat
belt, and helmet laws.---These several examples are false
equivalences. In the case of 'vaccines', the issue is not that a
particular child may be susceptible to a disease, but that the child can spread
the disease to others. Unless other women can be either given
abortions by contact with a woman who has recently had one, the similarity
ends.The other examples such as vehicle safety, is to preserver
those who are born from the acts of negligence or other causes of automobile
accidents.As it is one can take a case to civil court and sue
someone who is responsible for an accident, which results in the death of an
fetus, and any damage to the pregnant women herself.Unless there are
additional circumstances, such as alcohol use, or intentional acts of violence,
this situation is just a civil case and not a criminal case.
@Furry1993: " tools to avoid the start of pregnancy...abortion will cease
...."You are certainly correct about the latter point. You are
correct in theory about how to do that. But in practice it doesn't seem to
be working. Fully 48% of all abortions are repeat abortions.We are
told that PP offers more than just abortions. They provide contraceptives,
education, testing, etc. Certainly when a woman shows up to end and unintended,
unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, the good folks at PP provide her with
comprehensive education, with birth control, with condoms. Even still, nearly
one-half of all women who show up for abortions have been there at least once
before. Knowing and doing are clearly two different things.We do not
lack in education. Decades ago my sex ed class in rural, homogenous, highly
religous Utah was very comprehensive. Only when sex ed cross the line into
graphic or presented data in a way hostile to or intended to undermine parental,
community, or church standards was there any demand to limit what was taught.
Respect parental values, don't try to normalize pre-marital or homosexual
sex, don't push any agenda, and there isn't pushback to education.
The most interesting aspect of the abortion debate to me, is how it melds with
other socio-political views and what the total of someone's views reveal
about the underlying principles and the degree to which they are
self-consistent.For example: Those who are most adamant about not
telling women what to do with their bodies when it comes to elective abortion
are also the strongest advocates of mandatory vaccines, seat belt, and helmet
laws.Those who are most adamant about keeping all abortions legal so
as to assure that victims of rape don't have to carry that pregnancy, are
also the most opposed to women being able to carry a firearm to help prevent
rape in the first place.With the notable exception of observant
Catholics, those who favor legalized elective abortions tend to oppose capital
punishment and vice-versa.I suspect and fear that for far too many
on both sides of the abortion (and many other issues) question, the issue has
become a matter of dogmatic political faith rather than the result of carefully
considered application of core values. We might all do well to examine our own
inconsitencies and then honestly try to understand others' point of view.
@InMyOpinion - Roe v Wade is not a law, but a court decision about a law. See
Guido Pescatore's correct explanation.Roe v. Wade was a
landmark 1973 Supreme Court 'decision' that established a woman's
legal right to an abortion. The Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a
woman's right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Furry1993 - MSC, UT---Keep the pregnancies from starting and
abortion will cease to be an issue.---One of the main forced
involved in politicizing the issue has been the Catholic Church. The
church's teachings on matters of birth control, in vitro
fertilization(IVF), and abortion, all are condemned, save for the birth control
methods of rhythm method, and abstinence. The former is the best way to become
parents, the latter, for married couples is not recommended at least for long
periods of time, and of course, given the various scandals, many fail over life
long periods.The Religious Right wants to roll sexual matters back
to the 50s, when women were either forced to carry a pregnancy to term, or
engage in crime.There was one method that seemed to work for some, a
hysterectomy, based on medical considerations other than 'birth
control'.No current law requires that a woman have an abortion,
although when the woman is held to be incompetent by a court process, parent,
guardian or state may take that path.
If we shouldn't have sex with someone without their consent, it also is
true that we shouldn't kill someone else without their consent. Doubly so.
What a totally misleading title, and text. The article even undermines its own
premise.--- From the article.The widening gap between the
parties can be explained, in part, by religion, Williams said. Amid the rise of
the Religious Right, conservative faith leaders successfully convinced
Republican politicians to turn abortion opposition into a rallying point.---Right there, "Faith Leaders have successfully convince the
Republican Politicians...". If that is not a significant religious component
to the political debate, I don't know what is.This is not some
theological concept worked to in some seminary to be promulgated to the
believers of a specific faith, but the influence of religious beliefs on a
political party.Many christian denominations that leave this
question to the woman. But current political groups think that their beliefs in
these matters override an individual's choices in their faith as well as
their practice.The Bible is silent on such topics as abortion. There
is there mention of causing a miscarriage, and the remedy is to pay for damage.
Which is a tort rather than crime. Nothing more is mentioned.For the
Bible life begins at that first breath.
The extreme examples cited to emotionalize the arguments are often just
deflection tactics. The unfortunate truth, as measured by the Guttmacher
Institute, is that over 70% of abortions are for the self-reported reason of
"it is too inconvenient for the mother". We could probably have a
meaningful conversation about exceptions in extreme circumstances, but we first
have to acknowledge that issues surrounding the creation of human life are
serious issues that need to be handled carefully. Certainly abortion should not
be simply "birth control for lazy people who want to escape their
@Stacy23 - "That life might not be what you want right now, but sometimes
it's not what you want that's important. It's what God
wants."Presuming that every pregnancy is the result of a
desirable action is preposterous, but let's follow your logic here for a
second: if a man chooses to rape a woman, that's what God wants, and God
wants her to carry that baby and care for it as a reminder of the trauma she
endured? That does not sound like the God I believe in.@rbwinn -
"Roe v. Wade... was a wrong decision."We have 3 branches of
government. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch
enforces them, and the judicial weighs whether the law adheres to the
Constitution when someone questions that. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the
justices did just that - they looked at a law that was created by the Texas
legislature, decided that it did not conform to the rights guaranteed
individuals in the Constitution, and decided that the law was illegal under the
14th Amendment. You don't have to agree with their decision, and clearly
it is not an issue that is going to die anytime soon, but for the time being,
the Supreme Court has ruled.
This article may miss one element as to why more conservatives are pro-life vs
pro-abortion. A greater percentage of religious people consider
themselves conservatives than liberals and thus identify better with Republican
and conservative values.
I agree the abortion debate is more nuanced than religion and politics. Yet,
when the majority of commenters mention "god" in their comments
it's rather easy to conclude the real source of the anti-abortion angst.
When the US has needed to increase its armed forces in times of
conflict, it has instituted a system of mandatory conscription, aka
"draft". This was last used during the Vietnam war to increase the
number of needed military personnel. I was assigned a lottery number. Since
statistics show that there are far fewer willing persons who desire to adopt
than there are children to be adopted, especially regarding children of color,
and the assumed future condition that this number will increase as a result of
recent anti-abortion legislation, I propose a mandatory "draft" of
adoptive parents. ALL legal couples would be required to submit applications to
state social services using the same criteria as perspective adoptive parents.
When your "number comes up" you report to the hospital to receive your
infant. This system would alleviate the economic burden to government that will
come due to the increase in population.You wouldn't like not
having a choice? How ironic.
Headlines like this are condescending and annoying. You have no idea what I
think or what my background is. Certainly a few of your readers are political
scientists.Don't condescend to your readers. You are not
smarter than all of them.
@Orson: The article correctly quoted the church's handbook of
I believe just about everything has been said on this subject. I commented my 2
cents worth on another article. I have pondered this subject for some time as I
was blessed with 2 disabled children and a normal one. I learned so much from
them. They have all been a blessing in my life. When we leave this earth I
believe we will be met by spirits we knew on earth. Imagine a woman who aborted
a child for whatever reason, and when she goes to the spirit world and is met by
a spirit she doesn't recognize. That spirit then says "why did you not
want to be my mother. I am still waiting for my turn on earth." Just
something to think about. Choices have consequences.
What's really missing here is the lack of understanding what's in the
Constitution saying there shall be no laws made on the basis of religion. In
other words, you can not create laws for religious sakes. Not enough people
realize this or taking about it. Imagone a law created by a religion (or a
partisan party) forcing people to read the Bible on Sundays or they will be
given the death penalty or pay a fine. That's similar to what happening
now. Religion needs to stay out of politics. This is a decision only a woman can
make and with advice from her doctor because without the choice, thousands of
women will die needlessly. We are the managers of our destiny. Not when people
say it is God's will. He already told us to make wise choices. That kind of
ideology is what ruins and kills nations. Laws wanted like this. Roe and Wade is
a wise law which tells people not to put religion into their laws.
Many oppose abortion... but with exceptions. If you believe that there is a
need for 'exceptions' then you're in favor of abortions. You
can't have it both ways.I believe abortion is wrong. I would
like to think I'd never encourage a person to get an abortion, but I
don't know what circumstances I or a loved one might be faced with in the
future. That can be said for all of us. We don't know what the future
holds.Those who want to eliminate abortion as a protected right are
not considering the circumstances another person (woman) might be facing. I
would like that person to have more than one choice when facing that difficult
situation. Yes, some people have a callous attitude towards the
unborn. But again, I'm not that person! They have to live with their
choices and I am forced to live with mine. But having that choice is
EscherEnigma - "@Stacey23: 'It's surprising to me that this is
still a debate after 1776 when the bill of rights [...]'(A)
You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence which, while an
inspiring document and important to American history, is not actually part of
our government."Indeed, and even if we considered the
Declaration of Independence as a legal foundation in any way, it clearly
states:"We hold these truths to be self-evident: ...they [men?]
are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights... Life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness..."Who is the "creator" of
a fetus? The biological mother and the biological father. If they, and
particularly the mother, do not "endow" the fetus with "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness", then the fetus has no legal status as
a "person".Personhood is not a biological event. It is a
social construct about which many humans have many different opinions. YOUR
opinion NEVER has more weight than the opinion of the Mother!Why are
some people so eager to embrace Government overreach, meddling in the personal
freedoms of recognized US citizens, and the invasion of laws into our personal
The main problem with the abortion debate is that it is founded on a court
decision, Roe v. Wade, which, like the Dred Scott decision, was a wrong
decision. In terms of what Roe v. Wade actually means, Norma McCorvey was given
permission to kill a child who had already been born, as long as she paid an
abortion doctor to commit the homicide. Court decisions of this kind are used
to perpetrate atrocities throughout history, including slavery and genocide.
Courts are not legislatures, regardless of however many lawyers say they are.
Court decisions are opinions and apply to the case before the court, not to all
humans on earth. Wrong court decisions should not be used to justify killing
60,000,000 children or enslaving entire populations. The people of a nation are
wrong when they allow it to happen.
"Conservative lawmakers do often credit God with inspiring new regulations,
but they're also pressured by their party to pass such laws."So,
liberal/leftist lawmakers aren't pressured by their party to pass abortion
laws? Give us a break. We may be "wrong" about motivations in abortion
legislation, as the headline patronizingly hammers us over the head with, but we
know enough to understand that is a slanted statement by the writer. In fact,
the gist of the story seems to be: If you knuckleheads just knew more,
you'd be on my side. (Guess which side that is.)
@Stacey23"It's surprising to me that this is still a debate after
1776 when the bill of rights [...]"(A) You're thinking of the
Declaration of Independence which, while an inspiring document and important to
American history, is not actually part of our governmetn.(B) Following the
Revolutionary War, the states organized a government under the Articles of
Confederations. This wouldn't last, leading us to...(C) The
Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1789 after the Articles failed. The
Bill of Rights (aka, the first ten amendments) would be ratified by the states
over the following years.So in summary... you're thinking of
the wrong document, that was written in the wrong decade, that's never been
a part of any American government.And that said..."You
shouldn't get off easy by having a doctor do it for you. It's your sin
to take a life. If you're intent on doing that, you need to do it yourself
and face the consequences."First trimester abortions (the most common
kind) are most often medication abortions. Meaning the woman takes a pill, and
then a few hours later, takes another pill.
Want to drastically reduce or eliminate abortions? Always use a condom. Always.
And as you get a little older give some real thought to getting a vasectomy.
It’s quite painless and very easy. I got mine eleven years ago. Between
using a condom and getting a vasectomy the rate of abortions will fall
drastically. As for the religion side of it. There are numerous
fertility clinics all over America that destroy hundreds of zygotes every day
the same age as those abortions prohibited in Georgia and Alabama. The only
difference between those and the abortions is that one is inside a woman and the
other isn’t. Yet no religion is targeting those clinics.
Nice clickbait headline...
It's surprising to me that this is still a debate after 1776 when the bill
of rights included the words "right to life...". If you kill your baby,
you're taking a life. That life might not be what you want right now, but
sometimes it's not what you want that's important. It's what God
wants. And if you're pregnant, if he took the time to bless
you with a soul to care for, it's your responsibility to follow through.
Even if it's hard. Even if it keeps you from partying with your friends.
Even if it forces you to make tough decisions on whether you should have cable
TV or diapers. Finally, if you want to kill your baby that's up
to you, but like Ned Stark says, 'let him that passes judgement swing the
sword'. You shouldn't get off easy by having a doctor do it for you.
It's your sin to take a life. If you're intent on doing that, you need
to do it yourself and face the consequences.
For an interesting history lesson, read about the Clergy Consultation Service on
Abortion (CSS) formed in May 1967. It was a group of over 2,000 ministers
across the US and Canada who helped women obtain abortions and lobbied to
overturn anti-abortion law."For these clergy, freedom of
religion had to include freedom from those religious groups that sought to place
restrictions on abortions. They publicly challenged restrictive abortion laws
as infringements upon religious freedoms."
This article's reference to the position and action of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is not very accurate. Just two years ago in February
the Ensign carried a strong statement by Elder Cook opposing abortion (A Banquet
of Consequences—The Cumulative Result of All Choices).One of
the reasons that the church doesn't have to always be politically involved
in abortion debates and demonstrations is simply that it's position is so
well known and deeply rooted that Latter-day Saints know that, whatever their
individual views on the issue might be, if they perform or have an abortion,
aside from a few rare exceptions, they will probably be excommunicated. That
pretty well settles the matter for all but the most extreme liberal activists on
the fringes of the Church.
I honestly don't understand this debate! I am not a proponent of abortion
for myself.... I am really Pro-life.... however, I don't have to live in
another woman's body and life and don't know what drives her
decisions. People are screaming about Freedom of Religion, yet those same
people are trying to force their religious beliefs on others that may not be of
their religion. Many of the legislators are actually pro-birth, not pro-life...
they (seem) passionate about this legislation, yet refuse to pass meaningful
legislation to care for these children once they are born.... not help to feed
them nor provide health care, So at this point, those same women, who's
bodies were regulated are on their own.... no help. This cannot continue! Why
do mostly male legislators think it's OK to tell women what they can do
with their bodies? Why do Religions think it's OK to tell everyone that
they MUST follow their beliefs? What happened to freedom to live one's own
Our daughter is due to give birth to twins in a few weeks. It has been a
difficult pregnancy. I've been over to her house nearly every day to help
clean and do other chores. Other family members, neighbors and friends have
stepped in by providing meals, babysitting her young children, personal
services, acts of kindness, and extraordinary generosity. We yearn for her
well-being and a safe delivery of the babies. We thank everyone who is making
sacrifices to that end.
Religion isn't a real factor on the issue of abortion. The problem is a
lack of religion.The Bible is silent on abortion. Members of the
Jewish faith, for example, generally support a woman's right to choose
because they believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body until it draws
its first breath. In spite of any real biblical support,
Conservative Christian sects have co-opted the issue of abortion and made it
table stakes for their faith largely because they lack a clearly defined
theology. It is always easier to define yourself by identifying what you are
against than what you are for. Strongly held beliefs and doctrines are not
theology.Individuals whose faith revolves around a tiny handful of
issues—abortion, women's rights, or "religious freedom" (for
some current examples)—not only disable their own spiritual development,
but tend to conflate their political views with their religious ones. Religious
people opposed to abortion, for example, also tend to support the death penalty
and gun ownership and oppose social safety nets with the exact same fervor and
conviction, blissfully unaware of the glaring contradiction.Politicians are all too willing to exploit this.
If people understood the plan of salvation that our Heavenly Father has
organized for us they would understand the sanctity of life, the importance of
obedience to His commandments, and would never get themselves in this position;
and abortions would be rare. If they truly comprehended their divine
possibilities they would have their eyes firmly riveted on the glory God has in
store for the faithful and would not stray. However, not being able to see,
every man seeks the instance gratification of this world and sees no need to
reign in the natural man desires, gets in a regrettable position, sees no way
out, and does that which is an abomination before his Maker. Churches need to
teach the truth and let their paritioners govern themselves and not worry that
they might lose some in attendance.
The problem with the argument today is that it is being cast in an all or
nothing light. Personally I oppose abortion as an alternative to birth control.
I also realize that I don't understand every individual's situation,
and I believe that there are legitimate reasons for this procedure, so having an
outright ban on abortions is not the answer either.People are quick
to point out that if guns are banned, people will have them anyhow. It is the
same with abortion - if a woman chooses to get an abortion, she will find a
person or a method to carry it out. Picking and choosing which morality to
legislate seems disingenuous. If individuals truly want to protect the sanctity
of pregnancy, perhaps greater emphasis should be placed on sexual education and
providing options for birth control for those who want it but cannot afford it,
then provide a safe environment for those who need an abortion can receive one.
Something is missing from this story -- the fact that the best way to prevent
abortion is to prevent the CAUSE of abortion -- unwanted pregnancy. That can be
best done by giving men and women the tools to avoid the start of pregnancy (not
just teaching avoidance of sex as the only tool). Start comprehensive
age-appropriate sex education (abstinence-plus, not abstinence-only) starting at
a very young age. Ensuring that men and women have easily obtainable and
low-cost or (better) no-cost contraception are the best ways to start doing
that. Keep the pregnancies from starting and abortion will cease to
be an issue.