Hey...Christian Lefties...A query.

[Perky]

Just a query from the evangeleical Left.


How do each of you walk through the abortion thicket?

I find myseld in a place where I oppose abortion for convenience...I want itto be be safe and rare.

At the same time, I oppose any effort to limits an individual's right to choose.

I rationalize the distinction on the grounds that the Church ought to be judging the Church and not the World. I think the Christian Right is fighting the wrong battle...We ought to be evangelize the lost rather than scaring them away.


Thoughts.

[seabeyond]

1. god gives free will

we too have to do the same.

it has to be the family instilling responsibility and community and church. cannot be government

[lostnfound]

53. Interesting answer. It's one I keep coming back to, also.

But ambiguity is all around.

[childslibrarian]

2. I was a social worker for 16 years

Abortion is very rarely for convenience....
If the Christian right wants to oppose it, they should be willing to pay extra for the many children growing up with a teenage parent living in total poverty...

[Perky]

6. Precisely

We are summoned in Scripture to look after the widows and orphans. What would Jesus do? He would have compasson on the preganant teen ad his dad. He would love them. He would support them. He would offer them meaningful help and salvation (Read the Book of James.


He would not mock them or hate them or pretend the don't exist.

The Lord's shame upon those who beat down the hurting, the poor, the orphan. The Lord's shame upon them... The Lord's mercy on my Brothers in their vain conciets.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

3. I am a devout catholic and have personall experience here

I don't support it,yet would never tell a person they can't to do it. I might try to educate a person about the emotional repurcussions that might be unexpected (it NEVER leaves you) but it is not for a Government to dictate. God loves sinners even as they sin. God gave his ownly begotten son to show his love. There is redemption for anyone. I say each person has a PERSONAL experience with God and he reads the heartts of all. This country gives people the UNALIENABLE right to live their lives. It is for God to speak to the souls of everyone. God judges us by our deeds based on their love. That's my 2 cents

[Catholic Sensation]

8. exactly how i feel

I could NEVER advise someone to get an abortion, but I would be very pissed if the government decided the decision was left to some radical lunatic like Ashcroft or Norquist.

edit: how many ways can I use a derivative of the word decide in the same sentence

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

10. This country was founded to give people the freedom to find God on their t

not on the Government's - seems odd that we have our own King George to tell us how to have a relationship with God.

[Catholic Sensation]

12. well Bush hates Catholics

(otherwise he wouldn't have enjoyed speaking at Bob Jones "University") ergo he wouldn't believe the same as you and I (I'm a devout Catholic, and nothing made me hate Bush more than his speech at that school).

[Perky]

14. If you are a devout Catholic?

Do you follow the Church's teaching on contraception?


Just curious.

[Catholic Sensation]

18. yes

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

19. Honestly

I use contraceptive, and I'll tell you why. I'm engaged to my absolute love. Our Priest - an absolutely amazing Franciscan friar, who is my hero and spiritual inspiration- tells me that as long as we don't have a contraceptive mindset (ie we never want to have children) then it is ok. Not a greenlight to screw like rabbits but to exercise God's love. The fact that we're not married has gotten me into the confessional. For many priests married couple who want to time their children by the use of contraception is acceptible because carnal love for your wife is a gift of God's love. This is not the concervative vatican's stance, however.

[Perky]

35. Hi

It was just your choic of words. The idea of being a devout catholic strikes me as odd...always has.

It supposes more of an inclination to follow the CHurch rather the Jesus.


I would never call myself a Devout Vineyardian. Or a devout protestant...Just a devout Christian.

I* mean no offense... I believe strongly in tradition and I think modern chruches misses some real important lesson from brothers and sister who are part of something that has endured for so long.


I just do not know if that endurance comes from an allegiance to the Church or to Jesus.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

you could..

decide that your decision-making process was decisively dicisive in the way you divided your division of arguments in an undicisively decisive way. if that's your decision.

[A J]

16. As a christian...

I believe in human rights. That also includes the right of the mother.

I am a strong believer in the "violinist argument" where a person wakes after a car crash to find their body used as life-support for someone else. That person has the right to not be connected to the violinist, even if he or she caused the crash.

It is all about human rights, though I don't think fundamentalists understand them.

[Djinn]

52. just a point

the assumption that ALL women regret their abortions or that they are effected by it forever ..."it NEVER leaves you" is a fallacy, for many women "it" leaves them as they walk out the door of the surgery, religious groups have propogated that one and it generalises something that is not quantifiable anyway

[calimary]

70. I'm a lifelong Catholic. I'm in the "free will" department.

My best friend got pregnant and wasn't married. She said everybody she knew (which, I've discovered, includes MOSTLY conservatives, rednecks, and other rightwingers - she's a rodeo gal) told her to get an abortion. She said I was the ONLY person whose response was "what do YOU want to do?" In saying so, I told her: I'm pro-choice, so that's why I'm asking. It's nobody's business what you do or what you decide. She decided to keep it. I told her, as a pro-choicer, that I fully supported whatever she chose to do about it.

I still feel that way.

Besides, I couldn't agree more with childslibrarian, the social worker, above, who pointed out that those who demand that unwanted babies be born should be the first in line to offer financial support to sustain those babies after their birth. Unfortunately, usually those are the very same Pharisees who are the first to demand cuts in funding for programs that offer such support.

By the way, you can weigh in about this or any other issue, with your congress-critter, for FREE! Note the info in my sig line...

[Rowdyboy]

4. It saddens me, but unless I'm the father, I have no say in the matter

The woman, her partner and the doctor should, ideally make this decision, with the woman having a final veto.

[patricia92243]

5. Abortion was legalized BECAUSE women were aloready having unsafe abortions

Abortions being legal did not CAUSE women to have abortions.

But mainly, I just stay away from the subject.

[Perky]

9. Why do you stay away from the issue?

My point it that unless we confront the Pharisees, the shame of an unwanted pregnancy can never be dealt with in an evangelical way.

[Dob Bole]

7. wow...another evangelical lefty on DU!!!!

Here I was thinking I was the only "born again" guy on here.

I see abortion as the ending, or at the very the least the preventing of, a life. It is a matter of personal choice, but not all choices are legal or right. So it is with abortion; while there are definitely some legitimate reasons for getting one, we should continue to attempt to reduce the amount of unneccessary ones, as was done during the Clinton administration. However, the government is not always very affective at managing this, which is where the social work aspect of the Church comes in.

[DrWeird]

11. Oh, I'm all for abortion for convenience.

Abortions on every corner, I always say. They should have'em in every 7-11 or Starbucks.

And euthanasia. Nobody likes old people. You should be able to drop them off at the dump.

[Perky]

13. And now we know why they call you DRWierd.

N/T

[cmd]

15. Watch it, Doc. I'm old and I'm armed.

Didn't you get the message? I'm a terrorist.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. don't approve of abortion, then don't have one

the reasoning to not have the choice as law, is religious--however, religion, which ever it is, cannot rule over the citizens of the nation who are entitled to freedom and who live in a nation of laws.

Therefore, the choice rule or law, or Roe vs WAde should stand as a beacon of democracy and freedom to all. Once government gets involved in the reproductive life of it's citizens, it is repressive and takes away freedoms.

To do away with abortion, is to subject the state to one certain and particular religious interpretation.

It has resurfaced again under Bush and the neocons. Why on earth do they strive to subjugate women and their sex life to their control and their will?

Answer should be obvious.



I take this article seriously,and it is quite nicely done and accurate as far as I can tell, since I have been following the reconstructionists for the past, at least, ten years.


http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[ninkasi]

23. I agree, Marianne

The only person I have a right to make the decision for is myself. I don't have the right to take away some other woman's ability to make her own decision.

Right now, my 18 year old granddaughter is pregnant. She and the baby's father are not married, and they are still in the process of deciding whether that will change or not. She wants the baby, thought briefly about adoption, then decided to keep it.

The only thing the family is doing at this point is to assure her of our love, and our complete willingness to respect whatever her decision is. We will love this baby, and give her all the support she needs to be a mom. We aren't wealthy, but there are enough of us to help her with whatever she needs help with.

If she had decided that for herself, abortion was the best choice, we would have still been there for her, with love and moral support, even though we would have been sad about the decision.

[Malva Zebrina]

47. sounds fine

There was a time when women were expected to make their mothers and fathers happy with a grandchild. We all want one of them-they are delightful--and they go home too.



. She will wake up to feed that baby in the middle of the night, or perhaps that baby will be up all night for months on end, with colic or something other, without the help of a partner or the father around to ease the burden. It will be a stress on her and she at times will resent that baby making demands upon her that are beyond human capacity simply because she is exhausted-and , she will have to go to work besides at one point, to support it-alone-that means, after being up all night, possibly, she will have to shower, ignore her own health,go to her job for eight hours, worry over child care payments and sacrifice, alone, for the sake of this baby. This may become a terrible burden. Without a father, the burden is on her or on you, if you are willing to take that responsibility and take her in to your home, or go into hers to take the place of the father in order to support her and the baby.

Some would say that it would irresponsible to bring a child into the world on those conditions. Personally, I would feel it irresponsible, were it me.



But then, I do not subscribe to the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, fallacy. I do not make a judgement on those who do and would hope they would not make a judgement on those who do not

[strategery blunder]

20. I argue against abortion using nonreligious arguments.

For example, it has been the progressive tradition to speak out for the people who have been denied the oppurtunity to speak for themselves. Then what of the fetuses? Although abortion falls under the "controlling your body" argument that pro-choicers like to use, the fetus certainly is not given any choice or influence in the matter (nor could it express this choice even if it had the option to).

Although I personally believe abortion is morally wrong except in cases of when pregnancy would cause major injury to the mother, I usually express my beliefs in nonreligious terms. In most cases, adoption is a perfectly viable alternative, and if it came down to issues of money, I would be more than willing to pay taxes to take care of those children who would have been aborted. Just take it out of the defense budget:)

It is refreshing to know that there are Christian lefties out there!

[Malva Zebrina]

48. good

then you should work to form an adoption chain that would guarantee that all women who are forced to birth a baby, will be able to give that baby to a person willing to adopt it==even if it is black and a crack baby.

Has your church or any organisation that believes as you, that it is morally wrong, begun a concentrated campaign every Sunday to sign up a family willing to adopt these? There should be hundreds of people who are anti choice signing up to adopt these forced preganancied births, in order to save them.

How many have signed up to adopt one of these? Nevermind taxes--little black babies do not get adopted as; readily as little white babies, and the babies to on and on and on in the homes that the tax money pays for.
Except they are the real human beings already born--

[strategery blunder]

49. You mean an adoption chain like a prayer chain?

I personally would be willing to adopt a black crack baby, but right now I am an 18-year-old student and don't have the resources to support one. I do recognize that many people are unable or unwilling to adopt special-needs children (I am unable to at the moment); if every child on the adoption waiting lists was adopted, there would be a lot less need for the Department of Children and Family Services (or whatever the comparable entity is in your state.)

As I recognize that there is a severe shortage of adoptive parents, this is where my comment about willingness to pay higher taxes to support these children comes in. I realize that DCFS (or similar agency) would need much, much, more funding to support the babies that would have been aborted until adoptive parents can be found.

By the way, I will gladly forward your suggestion to my church. I had never thought of that before, but it is a good idea.

[Perky]

62. Your point is extemely important.

The challenge to the Church has to be two fold. You can't on the one hand sream "shame shame" and "sin sin" while on the other not offer to take action to solve real world dilemmas.

Yes why not start adopting these innocent "unwanted" babies? Why not offer in Chistian Love to shelter and protect and nuture unwed mothers to be?

My personal view is that the pro-life movement is neither about the mother, the fetus or the doctot. It is really about the relevancy of our religion in the post-modern world.

Its about power to impact the world around us. The problem is that power expressed through protest or violence or even the ballot box or the 700 Club or SCOTUS is not power at all in the Kingdom of God.

The greates acts of true power comes through humble, selfless acts of personal sacrific, not in the bluster of the Pharisees.

Much of the Christian Right forgets this. If they would respond to this issue as Jesus did... much more would be accomplished on this issue and they would not have the ugly reputation they currently have on this site and in general.

[Malva Zebrina]

66. I don't know why not Perky

I have been wondering this ever since the protesting started, the clinic bombed, the doctors shot and murdered and more threatened to the point where, by the use of violence these anti-choice people can claim they 'shut down clinics/ They also shut out women from pursuing women's healthcare. Clinics were there for other female concerns also.

I know of one organsation that was Christian that was trying to set up an adoption for unwanted babies on the net. It flopped miserably. I know there are some but in no way are the people who are protesting abortion signing up to help the "unborn child" by offering to adopt it. It just is not happening.

I

[Djinn]

54. curious

abortion is morally wrong except in cases of when pregnancy would cause major injury

why? if one beleives (and I don't just for the record) that abortion is killing a human then surely its still killing in a high risk pregnancy? does the fetus STOP being "human" in this case or does it become a case of justifiable homocide?

[strategery blunder]

57. No the fetus does not stop being "human" in any case

But if the mother will die as a result of childbirth, one life gets traded for the other. It's win-lose. Either the mother dies or the fetus/baby dies.

Even worse is the (rare) scenario when childbirth would kill both the mother and fetus, in which case abortion would result in the preservation of life.

I will admit that it is more difficult to justify my lowering of the threshold to "major injury" if I am arguing based upon moral grounds. I don't claim to be an MD, but wouldn't "major injury" sustained during pregnancy tend to be life-threatening, resulting in the possibility of the first scenario above? (Perhaps I should have specified this earlier)

[strategery blunder]

58. also see post #20

[H2O Man]

21. tough issue

Democrats might draw more votes if they had an open discussion on this. I oppose abortions. I want to work towards a society where they are not needed. I want women to control their own bodies. This includes not getting pregnant if they do not want to be pregnant. There are enough birth control methods available that this is an option. If we take the hatred out of the equation, it can be resolved. But many on both sides are filled with hostility. They rely on emotional attacks that have little logic involved.

[Perky]

24. Its not a tought issue at all ultimately.

And its not about using logic as altenative to hatred.


Is about behaving the way Jesus ask us to...its about being a Christian and not a Pharasaical one.

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. Can someone show me

what were Jesus's teachings regarding sex, contraception and abortion? I don't believe he really addressed these issues that often during his life? At least it doesn't seem to come up much in the NT.

If you look at early christians, many groups practiced free love, birth control and some even practiced abortion has an acceptable means of contraception(no thanks, not my cup of tee).

Personally, I do believe that Jesus was probably much more liberal about these issues than most of the organized religions of modern times who claim to know the word of god.

[Perky]

26. Jesus spoke to the issue in part.

"If you look at early christians, many groups practiced free love, birth control and some even practiced abortion has an acceptable means of contraception(no thanks, not my cup of tee)."

Huh?

Jesus talked about sexuality as did Paul.... Paul if fact said it was better to marry then to burn with Passion.

Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery.. Where are you accusers? They left becaue they were guilty themselves. She was caught in the act... Jesus said go and sin no more. He sheds mercy broadly...yet still calls it her actions sinful.

[DoYouEverWonder]

44. That's it?

One reference to Mary Madeline? Doesn't seem to much to build a whole doctrine on regarding human sexuality?

As for the words of Paul, sorry I am not a follower of Paul and I do believe humanity would be better off if Paul had stayed Saul. He was one of the most repressive SOB's that ever lived and most of Paul's teachings have little to do with the way of Jesus.

[incontrovertible]

51. that wasn't Mary Magdalene

That was an unnamed woman, grabbed off the street by the Pharisees and thrown at Jesus's feet in an attempt to rattle him and show him to be either just as goonish and brutal as themselves, or a heretic for defying the Torahic law.

The only work to have ever suggested that the unnamed woman was actually Mary Magdalene was "The Last Temptation of Christ." If it had been Mary Magdalene - a key player in Jesus's life, present at the crucifixion - this point would not have been lost on the Gospel writers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

59. Back in the old days

when I was a kid in Catholic school we were taught that Mary Magdalene was the women that Jesus defended from the stone throwers, when he told everyone, 'may he who is without sin, caste the first stone.' Then later on Magdalene showed up at a house Jesus was having dinner at and washed his feet with her tears and her hair. She went on from there to become one of his most devoted disciples.

Now that may not be exactly what it says in the bible, but that was what was taught to us at school back then. Who knows what the real truth is about Magdalene? However, the idea the Magdalene had been a prostitute goes back a lot further than the novel 'the Last Temptation of Christ' and was taught as truth by the Catholics for centuries.

[incontrovertible]

50. what?

"If you look at early christians, many groups practiced free love"

Which groups? At no point has any valid Christian sect abandoned the Biblical directive of marital monogamy.

The one clear message regarding sexuality from Christ that I recall would be when he told the prostitute to "go and sin no more" after saving her from the crowd that wanted to stone her. He wouldn't condemn her as any guiltier than the mob, but neither did He condone the manner in which she had conducted her life to that point.

Jesus had a real problem with those who presumed their own sins trivial when compared to others. If anyone ever earned His contempt, it was them. A lot of self-righteous people are in for a rude shock come Judgement Day.

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. First of all prostitution

is the exact opposite of free love. So if Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin no more, he wasn't necessarily condemning the act of sex between two people, he more likely was condemning the use of sex for money and the negative lifestyle that usually goes along with someone who obviously has little respect for themselves or anyone else.

In regards to your question, 'Which groups? At no point has any valid Christian sect abandoned the Biblical directive of marital monogamy.'

Who do you consider a 'valid' Christian sect? The Paulines? The Jewish christians and the gnostic christians were not valid sects? And where do you find the biblical directive of marital monogamy? Did Jesus issue this directive? Can you provide the passages that back up your claim.


BTW: When you say, 'A lot of self-righteous people are in for a rude shock come Judgment Day' that's pretty presumptuous of you, don't you think? Remember that part about not judging others?

[Perky]

63. Umm I don't think you answered the questions

what free love Christian sect are you referring to?

There is no reference to the woman caught in adulter being a prostitute. The story of it being Mary Magdalene is now coming under increased scrutiny even within Catholic circles.

He told the woman neither do I condemn you....go and sin no more. Your presumption that this was a reference to stop prostituting herself has to be challenged.

Even if she was a prostitute. it was still sin and he told her to stop. I am not about to surrrender to moralistic relativism and agree that this was merely an issue of admonishment about self worth,

It is far larger than that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

69. I was referring to

incontrovertible's post calling her a prostitute. You are correct, in the bible Jesus refers to the woman has an adulterer. In the bible, adultery is a rather broad term, which would include prostitution. In regards to Mary Magdalene, sorry if I wasn't up to date on the latest version of her story. I prefer to believe that the woman at the tomb had once been a prostitute. To me that would be the ultimate act of forgiveness and isn't that was what Jesus was all about.


In regards to you question about free love Christian sects, please see the following reference. It is well documented that for the first two centuries of early christianity, there were 100's of sects and at least of few of them had some pretty bizarre ideas. However, since the Pauline christians became the dominant group, sexual repression became church doctrine.


http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/gnostic.htm

Unlike Mohammed, unlike the Buddha, there is no reliable body of sayings or teachings of Jesus which represent his own views beyond reasonable doubt. The four gospels are only four out of dozens that were whittled down by the formation of the church canon, and by censorship and physical destruction of rival texts.

With no authoritative statements from Jesus himself, the field lay wide open for a dizzying range of interpretations. The first centuries of Christianity saw a luxuriant flowering of sects which all used the name of Christ, but differed dramatically in their teachings and practice. Many of these sects were known as Gnostic, and offered exotic blends of Christian, Platonic and Zoroastrian ideas.

<snip>

The Gospel of Eve is known only from one or two short quotations from the great heretic-hunter Epiphanius (310/20 - 402), bishop of Salamis. He tells us that it was used by certain Gnostic sects with lurid and bizarre beliefs and sexual practices.

Epiphanius' testimony carries weight, because he admits that he himself fell in among them. He reports that they shared their women in common. They celebrated sexual orgies in which partners were swapped. Coitus interruptus was the normal practice. Semen was collected and offered to the Lord as the body of Christ, before being consumed. The Gnostics also consumed women's menstrual blood.

[Perky]

71. Ya know.....

first of alll I can not imagine a loving Creator that woul allow the Canon to be brought forward that was not in line with the Gosep of CHrist.

The fact that there are litterally 100s of extant copies of the synoptics that were copied dutifully for several geneartions in the first and second century that are verbatim copies. makes it one of the most documentably true works of writing of its time.

The fact that Josephus and other scholars/historians of the day wrote of the Reurrection ought to carry some wewight with even the most skeptical of men.

As to the issue of bizarre sects. You seem perfectly willing to accept the writings of one Bishop, but totally reject the Gospel accounts of four seperate writers who the historical records shows did not collaborate.

It seems clean to me that your interest is in casting aspersions on Christ and his followers rather than objectively looking beyond what you choose to believe.

I would recommend you read the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell or perhaps take in the Alpha Course.

The Alpha Course is signed as a 12 week once a night discussion group to check out the Claims of Christ without being bashed of the head with the Bible. You might be interested. Many church groups put them on and its a way to challenge one another in consturctive rather than confrontational ways

God Bless.

[DoYouEverWonder]

72. Is this what you call evangelize the lost?

Then you accuse me of casting aspersions of Christ? That's a bit judgmental don't you think? Especially considering the fact that you don't even know me, and have obviously misunderstood what I was trying to explain to you.

My original point was that there is little in Jesus's teachings that directly addresses the issue of abortion, or even human sexuality. So if you want to create religious doctrine regarding abortion, you have to do it base it on the words and teachings of people other than Jesus. (You claim to be a follower of Jesus? But you seem to prefer to follow Paul or some guy named McDowell?)

This is not to say abortion is right or wrong, I do believe that is a personal decision based on many factors, personal religious beliefs being one of them. However, the one thing that I don't understand it that if a fetus is so precious then why do 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage? How is it possible that god screws up so bad that 50% of all pregnancies don't make it to term? That's a pretty big failure rate for someone who is omniscient and thinks that human life is so sacred?

Please understand, I am not trying to put you down or to belittle your faith. All I ask is to respect my point of view, you do not have to accept it. As a gnostic christian I would never try to claim that my way was the only way. Each person has to find god in their own way. However, I do believe that god is already in me and I don't need to go through a middle man to know god.


Peace Be With You
DYEW

[Kahuna]

25. You can't legislate morality.

I never thought of it from your point of view. I think the way you state it is probably closer to the right answer. The church should be judging the church. Not the world. I like that.

[Perky]

29. I agree

And that is where the fundies on the right miss it.


Laws do not make us more moral.....Only Jesus and his Holy Spirit can change our hearts.

[arewethereyet]

27. relax, you're safe !

per Judeao/Christian dogma, there is no problem with abortion despite what the Pope thinks. The RCC does not follow the law very precisely at times and plainly makes stuff up at other times.

One kicker, same does not apply to partial birth variety.

Happy ?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

28. Perky - come back to me on post 19

I answered your question. I was wondering what you thought about what I said

[Blue_Chill]

30. Free will

It's that simple to me. I would rather people choose to do what they know is right in their heart then be forced to do what some humans have deemed moral.

[doubleplusgood]

31. two things

I understand the following to be accurate according to religious customs...scholars please correct me:

1. Somewhere in the old testament it mentions a ONLY a monetary fine (shekels ?) for causing injury to a woman such that she loses her pregnancy. If a fetus were a life, then the penalty should be death, right ?

2. I also understand that it was an ancient Jewish belief/tradition that the "soul" entered the body ONLY upon taking the first breath of life outside the womb. (Heard this somewhere or other. Also, that the original word for "soul" is derived from "breath"). If this is so, then a fetus is spiritually equivalent of a cat, or bird or any other non-human & therefore apparently no great sin to have been aborted.

[ecstatic]

32. Abortion is moral, even Biblical

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

[Perky]

38. ARe you actually equatint a miscarriage with

Abortion which is the willful termination of a pregnancy?

Solomon is only making the point that it our lives do not amount to more than obscurity and hunger for something mor fulfilling then in the end game it is better to have not lived at all.

ANd he is completely right. but that is not saying a thing...not one iota about finding peace and blessing and fullfillment no moatter what you staion in life.

[Dob Bole]

33. http://www.democratsforlife.org/

Resource if you are pro-life, which I think you may be.

[rasputin1952]

34. This is a topic that gets tossed out a lot...

and I think it should be part of the discussion we have.

I, for one, would not suggest that a woman get an abortion; as I am not the father, it is none of my business. I would aid where I could, but ultimately, the decision must be made by the mother, the father and the physician.

However, there is something further down, under the radar, and it sex. Since the advent of Birth Control, the RW'ers have been in a snit storm. Has the US become less a moral country since BC was introduced? I don't think so. What goes on in consulting adults homes, is none of my business. I cannot understand why the 'Puritan Patrol' can't understand this.

Now we have RU 286(?), the 'morning after pill'. The RW'ers are against this as well. It PREVENTS pregnancy, yet our moralists in this country insist it is another form of abortion. Anyone with any sense at all, knows that 2 to 4 cells are not a viable life form. By logic then, I deduce that the RW is against sex, not necessarily abortion.

In any case, this is a private matter. It is also a legal matter that can be changed by amending the Constitution, where are the cries for a Constitutional amendment? You will never hear a call for that amendment, this issue is hot button at election time; the RW does not want to do anything that will upset the applecart, this is their bread and butter. Without the constant attention to abortion, the RW would lose a tremendous amount of support.

O8)

[Perky]

36. Actually the RW is not against sex

They are against promiscuity.


The problem is that they fail to work on this in appropriate ways. They are more concerned about sin outside the Church then inside the church...

If they would focus more on the lack of power inside the church then trying to create power outside the church.... the rest would take care of itself.


A City shining on a hill can not be hidden.

[rasputin1952]

64. It comes down to seeing 'sin' in others...

as opposed to finding their own faults, and thereby being able to work on them and correct them. Sex is the easiest item to attack, so it is a focal point. Promiscuity is an issue with CINO's but, hypocrisy seems to have fallen through the cracks. By far, Jesus spoke of hypocrisy more than anything else, but the message seems to have been lost.

There is also a question of understanding and forgiveness that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Condemnation, and telling people they are going to hell, is not really a good way to bring people to Christianity. If one tries to walk the path, others will follow, there is something about good attracting good, just as evil attracts evil.

O8)

[joycep]

39. I am not against abortion if that is the person's choice

I don't think the majority of Republicans are against it either. I think they are playing up to the religious right. I think they know people who have money will always be able to get a safe abortion and they could care less about everyone else.

[rasputin1952]

65. There is truth is what you say...

the GOP has become an entity that worships money, it is the new cure all. All one must do, is look at how the CINO's offer up their cash to those who supposedly teach Jesus' message, in the hopes they will be saved in the future. It goes back to buying your way into Heaven, and that just plain doesn't work. Cash has become the sacrifice of the 'believers'.

Far more could be done by just adhering to the basic principles of what Jesus taught. Help on the local level does far more than enriching a bunch of semi-telegenic pseudo-prophets.

One brings hope by being forgiving and lending a helping hand when needed. One finds salvation through faith alone, it is up to each individual to accept or deny that faith.

O8)

[Selwynn]

37. Well I am not "evangelical,"

But I don't have any problem with supporting a woman's right to make medical decisions about her body in consultation with a medical professional without interference from the state.

Whether or not the choice should be made with a certain ammount of seriousness, council, forthought or reflection are all spiritual questions that are the right of the individual woman to work out without my judgment.

I see nothing about supporting an individual's right to make personal decisions privately that contradicts my spiritual faith. In fact, taking any other stance would severely contradict my perosnal faith.

[liberalpress]

40. First, let me just state...

I'm male, so my right to even an opinion is suspect.

Second, the decision whether or not to have an abortion should be between a woman and her greater power (whatever she understands God to be).

Third, when does life begin? I don't know. God does. He/She and the woman should have this discussion.

My personal beliefs (if they matter here) tell me abortion is wrong, I would never counsel a woman to have one, but go back to my first point. Never will be my decision, who cares what I think.

[rockymountaindem]

41. I'm so happy I found this thread.

In my part of the country, most (not all, but a significant majority, I'd say) of the Christians are the in-your-face Bush* types. This thread is a refreshing change from all that.

[Perky]

42. Thanks for noticing

All I am asking for is an end to the hypocrisy on the Right and that there steps be measured by Jesus CHrist.


You would never see Jesus picketing abortion clinics. You would see him loving the abortionist and his/her clients.


And for that....The right wing would stone him.

[cally]

43. I'm adamantly pro-choice

The decision should be between a woman, her family, and influenced by her spiritual beliefs. Women have always aborted fetuses and nothing in my spiritual beliefs indicate to me pro-choice is against my religious beliefs.

[southerngirlwriter]

45. I'll be lucky if no one from DU traces down my address and murders me

in my sleep for what I'm about to say, LOL.

I have studied prenatal development and what happens in the womb at length. I am convinced that abortion ends the life of a full human being. It is killing a human being.

However.....

I oppose restrictions on abortion, because there are things worse than killing.

14 year olds bearing their father's, stepfather's, or uncle's children is worse than killing.

Women like Andrea Yates dropping another kid onto this planet one more time so their freeper husbands can feel manly is worse than killing.

Being born to a 20 year old with no education or family support and a boyfriend with a drug habit is worse than dying.

There are things worse than killing; ergo, I oppose restrictions on abortion.

But I cannot square the scientific evidence of babies/fetuses/your preferred term here learning while in the womb -- responding to pieces of music they heard in utero, for example -- and having measurable brain waves long before birth -- with the idea that it isn't a human being.

It's not a shark.

There's also something fundamental here -- God gave me free will over ME, my actions, my body.

If what's under my skin isn't ME, what is??

To answer your question, as a Christian, I am thankful that the souls of aborted babies/fetuses/yourpreferredtermhere go straight to the arms of the Lord. And I do the best I can to help women in crisis.

But I am also intellectually honest.

[lostnfound]

56. Excellent post.

Knowing several people who are Republicans solely because of this issue forces me to think about it quite a bit. I look at the subject a different way almost every day.

Many people want to give it a simple black-and-white answer and get angry if you aren't ready to go along with black or white. Like on the left they will say 'if you don't believe in it, just don't have one'. People on the right will say 'it's murder and it must be illegal'.

But I think that wrestling with issues of morality is essential not only for the individual but for the collective and for collective consciousness. It's a responsibility which each of us must face, each in our own way.

Our task is not necessarily to reach a firm conclusion, but to help bring to light those moral and spiritual issues that keep pushing their way to the surface from the depths of the unconscious.

[Ksec]

46. This is one subject I hate

If we look at this thru neutral eyes abortion is the act of ending a life before its born . I wrestle with this issue quite a bit. A womans right to choose infringes on the babies right to life. I suppose Im one of those who sit on the fence over this. Ive heard all the arguments on both sides and Im still wrestling with it.

Not everyone is gonna agree on every issue. I am a solid Dem that usually keeps his mouth shut when this comes up.

[napi21]

55. God gave us a free will.

I am also a Catholic and would never consider an abortion, but I believe that God gave all of us a free will to do what we believe to be right or wrong. It is not for my government to tell me what that decision should be.

If I make the decision an it is wrong, it won't be anyone but me who will suffer.

It's too band there are so many people who think if we don't believe exactly as they do, the government should punish us. I suspect, even if they told you the truth, they don't believe that! They're just recruiting. That's OK, except not via government rule.

Last I checked, we didn't live in a theocracy.

[JasonDeter]

61. When I talk to republicans regarding this issue I say:

The republicans control the congress. The republicans control the senate. The republicans occupy the White House. The republicans control the Supreme Court. If they wanted to outlaw abortions they could. They don't want to because its a wedge issue.

[trixie]

67. Abortion and the enslavement of women are two different things

If one truly wants to do away with the need for abortion than one must be committed to health care for all children, education for all children and welfare. You can't take the food off of the table and then tell a woman she must have this baby for which she can't support. Education, free birth control etc are the ways to combat abortion.

The enslavement of women's bodies is not the way. Because I have the right to own and control my own body does not mean I will "accidently" do something I am against.

[GreenPartyVoter]

68. I am for it remaining legal but

I too wish it was safe but rare. I am also all for federal funding of halfway houses for pregnant teens, though.

But as hard as some fundies fight for and claim to love fetuses, they can't drop those babies on their heads fast enough once they are born, screaming "Unclean!" and "His mother shoulda kept her legs shut!" and "Food, shelter, vaccines, education? Not with MY tax money, you won't!"

Sadly, this is not at all what the Lord had in mind when he told us to love one another.

I have Scripture and links to progressive Christian sites on my own website if you'd like to read more about this. :)