The LA Times had a good article on men and the aftermath of abortions.
One of the major lies of the abortion movement is that there is nothing to feel guilty about, because abortion isn’t immoral. But even if you repeat it over and over, deep down people know there is something wrong with it.
Pro-choicers may claim that people feel guilty because others make them feel guilty. There could be an element of truth to that. But abortion is legal and 90% of the media are strongly pro-choice, so why would the “minority” view have such an impact? Pro-choicers try to claim we are anti-women. I suppose that could make me feel guilty, but I know what a joke that attack is. I also don’t feel guilty about eating meat, regardless of what PETA says.
Typically, people feel guilty because the are guilty. Rationalize all you like, but you can’t run away from it.Consider how great works of literature explored this theme (e.g., Macbeth, Crime and Punishment, The Tell-tale Heart).
The good news is that there is forgiveness and healing in Jesus. One of the most important things that pro-life groups and pregnancy centers do is offer post-abortion trauma counseling. It is a shame that more churches don’t offer it. They tend to be at the extremes of pretending it isn’t a sin (so who would need counseling for it?) and thinking it is an unforgivable sin. Both are lies.
If you need help, I encourage you to search for “post abortion trauma” on the web, or contact your local crisis pregnancy center. Here’s one site to get you started – Healing Hearts.
The inquisition and the crusades baggage has gotten churches scared. We’re too scared to offend people and call things sin.
Sin is not the problem. Pretending there’s no sin is.
I remember when the church would withhold communion from those members it deemed “too proud” to ask for forgiveness.
Perhaps we should preach more from Luke 15:11-40.
Why would PETA try to make you feel guilty about eating meat? I always thought PETA stood for “People for the Eating of Tasty Animals” :>)
As far as guilt goes – my Mother’s (now deceased) philosophy was, “Give guilt – the gift that keeps on working”. Took me a lot of years to get past that. But I finally did thanks to a great wife.
Have a great day.
You should check out these links Neil
http://townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2008/01/17/the_cost_of_roe_at_35
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/Jan16/1651.html
Also please check out this, or write up a post with different places to check into:
http://www.healinghearts.org/index.php
i personally took this bible study and it was amazing.
(for men, too)
Thanks, I added that link to the post!
Hi Neil,
Good post. I think wherever there is sin, no matter what the sin, there are always opportunities for forgiveness and compassion. Sometimes the most compassionate thing we an do is help the person see sin for what it is, in a loving way. Yes, the church has probably dropped the ball on a lot of this, but just the existence of Pregnancy Care Centers shows that there is a conscience effort to reverse that trend.
Blessings
If you give me a valid reason why you had your abortion, by all means I’m cool. Kill a baby because you are a slut, didn’t want to play safe sex because real sex felt better, or that it was “all a mistake and I don’t want to live with the consequences”…eh, no, that’s BS to me. I am one of those rare ones who think if you get raped or incested, keep the child to term and give him/her up for abortion afterwards. Women do have the right to control their bodies, but they have no right to deciding whether a fetus should live or die. When the fetus becomes a rational adult, let that person decide then to commit suicide or not.
The Doctor is healthy
The Anaesthetist is healthy
The Nurse is healthy
The Father is healthy
The Mother is healthy
The Foetus is healthy
What then is sick ?
If women have a right to control their bodies, as you say, and the fetus is a part of their body, then should they not thus have control over it?
I understand not aborting fetuses that are very close to reaching maturity and birth, but especially in the early stages; they are nothing but an incomplete compilation of cells. Perhaps it will eventually become a child, but eventuality is not a good basis on which to force people into a decision that is not theirs.
And this is especially true in rape situations. Why should a woman have to suffer carrying the child of someone who assaulted them? Just imagine the emotional and physiological trauma this would induce. Despicable.
Hi Chris (TM),
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Pregnancy due to rape certainly increases the psychological complexity of the situation, but the question of whether it is moral to destroy the unborn is unchanged. Please consider some other factors regarding emotional trauma outlined here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/the-hard-cases/ .
Other than rape, I don’t follow your 2nd paragraph about the decision not being their own.
I don’t feel bad eating meat, regardless of what PETA says. I also wouldn’t feel bad getting an abortion, regardless of what you say.
An animal does not equal a person.
A fetus does not equal a person.
Your metaphor? Teh fail.
And Chris had some pretty bad wording there, but I think what she or he is trying to say is that a fetus is simply the POSSIBILITY of a child, not a child itself. And is the possibility of that child worth taking what little control women have over their bodies?
After all, every date I go on has the POSSIBILITY of a child, if only I jumped into bed and forgot to take my Pill.
Hi Zombie,
Thanks for stopping by.
If it is a possibility of a child, then have a possible abortion. Seriously, I encourage you to check out some 4-D ultrasounds.
I’m all for women controlling their bodies, provided it doesn’t involve another human being getting destroyed. Also, over 50% of abortions destroy females. What about their control over their bodies?
Re. forgetting the pill – yes, actions have consequences.
The fetus in question is a human fetus, which becomes a human baby, and a human toddler, etc. (provided that no one kills her).
It pains me to continually hear people try to put over the lame notion that a fetus is somehow not simply a person at an earlier stage of development. Denying reality is both desperation and an indictment of your own character.
Marshall Art and Neil,
How early do you go? Fertilized egg? Why not just outlaw menstruation then?
Neil said: Conception is the obvious starting point.
Jersey, so you think a raped woman should be forced to give birth?
Neil,
There is intense pressure on women not to have abortions. The idea that the media and society encourage or even condone abortions is a myth.
Neil said: Women are often looked down upon more for giving babies up for adoption than having an abortion. They get pressure from all sorts of places – husbands/boyfriends, parents, society.
zombie z,
The point about the possibility of a child is a good one. Given some of the comments in this thread, one could argue refusing to have sex halts the possibility of a child, does it not? One could go down some ugly logical paths with that statement, and the idea that the mere possibility of a child is enough to remove a woman’s agency allows for it.
This is part of why the anti-choice movement has been so effectively dubbed anti-women.
Neil said: Actually, it is the logical error of the “possibility” argument that would lead down your ugly paths. See the picture above? That isn’t a possibility, that is a human being – unique DNA, 46 chromosomes, beating heart, brain activity, etc. It takes great imagination to say it is just a “possibility.” strong>
This is a quote from the article
“When men are widely recognized as victims, Rue said, “that will change society.” ”
It shouldn’t be depend on the wants of men. That’s why it should be an option for woman. So it’s not dependant on someone else to choose what’s best for someone elses body. It has the effect of encroaching on our larger ability to choose what we do with our own bodies.
“So it’s not dependant on someone else to choose what’s best for someone elses body. ”
That’s the thing for us pro-lifers. Don’t women do this when they choose what to do with the fetus’s body?
“in this thread, one could argue refusing to have sex halts the possibility of a child, does it not? One could go down some ugly logical paths with that statement, and the idea that the mere possibility of a child is enough to remove a woman’s agency allows for it.”
This is something I’ve seen a few times. A pro-choicer argues that pro-lifers draw an arbitrary life between life and non-life, then they draw their own arbitrary line.
There are several good and bad places to draw the line.
1. The very beginning, egg/sperm.
2. conception
3. heart-beat
4. brain activity
5. any part of the body outside the woman
6. head outside the woman.
1. The problem with #1, as you point out, leads down a dangerous road. Plus, sperm and eggs are much like skin cells. We don’t cry when I kill skin cells through shaving, etc…
3 and 4 actually seem somewhat reasonable, but I know very few pro-choicers who actually draw the line here. They typically go all the way to 5 or 6.
But I feel like 5 or 6 is simply splitting hairs. The fact that something magical happens once certain body parts our outside the womb during birth, I have a hard time believing that.
I am most comfortable with #2, simply because everything is inevitable at that point. All the genetics are in place, and the natural course of things is to develop more and more.
A embryo/fetus is significantly different than a sperm. Not quantitatively, qualitatively. Chemical reactions alter things, in the same way that the reaction between egg and sperm does.
Look, I know I’m not going to convince any pro-choicers to become pro-lifers. I just don’t like it when pro-choicers use bad biology in their arguments.
Okay, one more comment then I’m out.
“It has the effect of encroaching on our larger ability to choose what we do with our own bodies.”
I don’t know your political persuasion, other than being pro-choice. One thing I’ve noticed with many liberals/pro-choicers is that abortion is typically the only choice people believe in.
Do you believe someone has the right to ingest trans-fat foods?
Do you believe someone has the right to work at a job and not be forced to do something against their conscience? i.e. a doctor not being forced to do an abortion, a hotel manager not being forced to show porn at their hotel?
Do you believe someone has the freedom to use a drug if it has the potential to save their life, even if not approved by the FDA?
Do you believe someone has the right to invest their money however they see fit for retirement?
Do you believe someone should have the choice of where their kids go to school?
Do you believe someone should have the choice of who their roommate is?
My point is to not get into a contest of who is more consistent or believes in more freedom or whatever or to show off how cool I am.
My point is this: you believe that outlawing abortion leads to less choice and freedom, that there is some great compromise between the two. I beg to differ. A society that protects the unborn is fully compatible with freedom, and I argue that you cannot have one without the other.
Madmong said “It shouldn’t be depend on the wants of men. That’s why it should be an option for woman”
I’ve asked this question before, but I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer.
If women have all the choices, who has the responsibility? If a couple conceive and the man wants the woman to have an abortion, is he responsible for child support? If he doesn’t want her to have an abortion, can she still choose it?
The pro-life position is consistent: once sperm hits egg, both parents are responsible.
The pro-choice position is inconsistent: the woman may decide to opt-out of parenting, although the man may not.
Despite this, you somehow need to account for the fact that the biological burdens are not distributed equitably. In some ways, it makes sense to give the woman a right that a man does not have, by virtue of her having a burden he does not have. They are not similarly-situated during pregnancy, so they may have different rights.
One could also argue that the position about letting a man decide also could be used to prevent her from obtaining an abortion that would save her life or her health (prevent paralysis or brain damage, for example – the type of health issues that involve permanent, debilitating damage).
IMHO, the correct solution is to mandate that the man be jointly and severally liable for all costs of pregnancy (prenatal care, labour and delivery, post-natal check-ups for both mom and baby), because, after all, it’s his kid, too. The biological inequity should not work to his advantage, doubly; nor should we rectify it by placing the harm on a third party (the growing child).
There is nothing arbitrary about conception, that is, fertilization, being the first stage of a new person. It’s biologically a fact. At the moment sperm and egg are joined, a new person exists and begins to take that long journey to Wii bowling at the retirement village. Neither the sperm, nor the egg, can take that journey alone. A sperm cell or ovum is all they will ever be unless they get together.
Chance. In regard to your statement
———————————————————————–
That’s the thing for us pro-lifers. Don’t women do this when they choose what to do with the fetus’s body?
———————————————————————–
Yeah but it is part of her body, not mine.
In regard to your list of questions I can answer that there is also a litany of contradictions in the Christian faith. No matter what emphasis. And that’s something that is supposed to be nearly 100% infallible.
In some states the legislator and some politcal Christian factions wants to ban abortion under all circumstances, including when the mothers’ life is at stake. Raising the chances both will die. That’s the other end of the argument.
No matter how you look at it the situation is messy. I want people to be responsible for their choices, as much as possible. There are enough questions that all option should be open.
Hi Madmonq,
I’m not sure of the relevance of alleged contradictions of the Christian faith. Even though I’m Christian, I argue against abortion on secular reasoning.
What legislators don’t want an exception for the life of the woman? That’s news to me, and even if true they are certainly in a tiny minority.
I don’t see how your conclusion follows from your reasoning. You seem to be saying that there are some complicated issues, so let’s leave abortion legal with virtually no restrictions. We could easily argue the other way.
Yes, abortion is psychologically complex, but it isn’t morally complex. If it kills an innocent human being – and it does – then it is immoral and should be against the law (except to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).
Hi madmonq,
“In regard to your list of questions I can answer that there is also a litany of contradictions in the Christian faith.”
I wasn’t attempting to point out any contradictions. Sometimes I do that out of an impure motive, but I know there are things I believe that may appear to be contradictions to others.
My point was that pro-lifers are not necessarily anti-freedom. Even somebody who is for the maximum amount of freedom (not necessarily myself) can be pro-life and not be inconsistent. There are many libertarians who are pro-life. The question doesn’t hinder on “rights” in my opinion, but on the personhood of the fetus.
I always have a problem with the word “choice”. For me personally, “choice” ends at the moment of conception.
That’s probably why I’m conflicted over the issue of rape. There was no choice involved.
I also believe that abortion is simply treating a symptom. The disease is still running rampant.
“I also believe that abortion is simply treating a symptom. The disease is still running rampant.”
I agree with that.
Good comments.
Ditto Randy.
I’m actually going to disagree with the factual basis of that statement. Can you point to a single state with that law on the books, either as a “trigger law” (if Roe is overruled, this law will take effect), a law designed to challenge Roe, or as one left on the books but unenforceable due to Roe?
I’ll bet big money that you can’t find such a law in the United States.
If I’m understanding most of you correctly, you regard a fetus as a seperate being. It literally is and isn’t. This defies almost all of our usual measurements. Under the best of circumstances most things have enough of a black/white quality to draw clear conclusions. Even then it can backfire.
Only one person involved is able to capable to be fully physically and emotional mature enough (whether they actually are or not) to make the best decision. Given I am unable to be a woman and pregnant I will never be in this situation to fully understand. So I’d hope in this very specific and unique situation, they’d have access to options. Not someone telling me they know for a fact, something largely based on faith. It’s an ugly situation.
How does that translate into the moral right to make it?
If you need a kidney transplant and your twin is in a persistent vegetative state, only one person is able to make the decision about whether or not to pull the plug on him and harvest his organs. That doesn’t mean you have the moral right to do it.
Beyond the fact that being capable of making a decision does not mean it is the right one (obviously – there is such a thing as making the wrong decision, or using power for evil purposes), some of us don’t view abortion as a valid decision to make.
Last, flip it around: between the fetus and the woman, only one of them had the capability to prevent this situation – the woman could have used better birth control, redundant birth control, or abstained until ready to be pregnant. Why on earth the person who had the capability to prevent the situation ought to be allowed to harm the one who had not ability to prevent it is beyond me.
“Only one person involved is able to capable to be fully physically and emotional mature enough (whether they actually are or not) to make the best decision.”
Best decision for who? I would say the best decision for the fetus is to let him/her live. If you say it is better for the fetus to die than live unwanted, be in a poor family,etc… that gets into dangerous territory because those same circumstances could surround someone already born.
Theo,
What is “redundant” birth control? I’m not familiar with that term. I’ll hang up and wait for your answer.
Sorry, redundant methods. The pill – plus a condom. Natural family planning – plus a condom.
Basically, the more methods you use, the less likely you are to get pregnant. Many women assume, “Okay, I’m on the Pill, I won’t get pregnant.” Well, in real life, even middle-aged married women get pregnant – one in thirty every year, in fact, and they are the BEST demographic.
Most women who abort were using birth control inconsistently or had a birth control failure. PP (or other “comprehensive sex ed” types) don’t tell women – and men! – how unreliable birth control is, and how one method is a quick route to parenthood.
Thanks Neil. I’m not sure if you noticed but Albert Mohler recently had a great article on this subject:
“We Had Abortions . . . . I’ve Had Abortions” — A New Voice in the Abortion Debate
http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1078
tr
To theobromophile
I think you are right about seperate twins, but I never said mentioned twins. I mentioned 2 people joined together. They are literally the same flesh. How do you account for a situation where they are literally the same person? If they were conjoined twins I guess they’d talk about it. If one were capable, the other was in a coma, how are you going to tell someone what to do with their own body? It makes me uncomfortable too, but the situation is unique and the decision, not mine to make.
We make decisions all the time. That means we make mistakes all the time. If that mistake(intentional or unintentional) is sin and all sin leads to death (all non-Christians are going to the same hell, me included) then we all sin constantly. Equal to death. Whether we mean to or not. But the point is, good choice or bad, it’s not mine or yours to make.
to sadastronaut
Best decision for who? I would say the best decision for the fetus is to let him/her live. If you say it is better for the fetus to die than live unwanted, be in a poor family,etc… that gets into dangerous territory because those same circumstances could surround someone already born.
See the previous weird but unforturnately possible scenario. I never intimated anything about poverty etc. I expect people to make the best decision possible. We don’t, but that’s not a bad expectation to have, either.
So you don’t think there should be laws against murder?
I think the Bible actually has a few things to say about that. Secularists have a few things to say about that. In fact, no society has managed to live without criminalising aggression against another person.
Speak in platitudes all you want, but it isn’t my decision to make whether or not another woman aborts – it simply is not a valid decision.
RE: Murder laws or the lack thereof
That’s not what I said. I didn’t advocate murder, I said the situation is unique, to say the least. None of what I said was meant to be trite.
And the Bible says murder is wrong unless it says it’s not. It’s like sometimes (except when it’s not)
Hi Madmonq – The Bible is clear that killing an innocent human being (i.e., murder) is wrong.
If you were a member of the Israelite community ~3,000 years ago and God asked you to clear out the evil Canaanites from the promised land, that would have given you license to kill, so to speak. But those folks weren’t innocent, either (that is typically the example people point to when they try to say the Bible is not clear on the life topic).
But I don’t even use the Bible when debating non-Christians on the pro-life issue. Abortion kills an innocent human being, so it is immoral by definition.
I do have to say I think this is one of the more civil abortion debates we’ve had. Not that it is always the pro-choice side that is uncivil, but I think it helps a great deal that Madmonq has been quite rational and isn’t resorting to emotionally charged arguments, and he (I think) isn’t calling people bleeping dense.
Good points, Chance, and thank to Maqmonq for that.
I have noted on other sites, such as Feministe, where Theobromophile and I made some new friends, the attacks are part of the main argument. Pro-choicers often lead with or assume the argument that we are anti-women, want to control them, etc. I think it is important for pro-lifers not to take that approach and assume the motives of pro-choicers. Maybe they do it out of rebellion to God, or maybe they are misinformed. Either way, I’d rather focus on the arguments themselves.
I apologize in advance. But you left out when God does it.
Madmonq – I don’t follow what you mean by that.
“But you left out when God does it.”
Are you referring to miscarriages? If so, concerning God, that is a deeper theological question. God has rights that we do not have. He has the power of life and death, and he has every right to create/destroy life. You may think this is unfair, but this is a question for another time….
Also, let’s look at the situation when young children get sick and die. Does the fact that this happens justify the killing of young children? The same with the unborn. The fact that some get sick and die provides no justification for killing others.
Without branching off onto another discussion, the post following yours Mr Neal sort of proves my larger point.
God has rights we do not have? For all practical consideration this translates into “Thus saith the Lard. Do as I say, not as I do.” So be it. It’s a game we’ve played with ourselves for centuries
We can only make the best choices we can. The only consistant factor is that choices have to be made. Hopefully good ones. WIth or without a god that is true. I can only hope that we all work toward making good decisions. We might want more, but that’s may be the best we can actually get from each other.
In the meantime us humans need all options in order to figure out what’s best. For someone in a civil situation that might mean ugly choices. Sometimes those are for the better in the long run. Like “I’m glad (A) happened because that led me to (B).” See what I mean? The only way we’ll know is by having options to choose from.
P.S. I’ve tried to be civil. Thanks.
Neil said: God asked you to clear out the evil Canaanites from the promised land
Neil, you’ve mentioned this a couple of times. What were the caananites doing which made them so evil? Happy to get this via email, as it’s not relevant to the topic.
Neil said: Hi Havok – good question – Leviticus 18 has a nice list – http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2018&version=31 . Note the context by reading the beginning and the end.
Neil said: But I don’t even use the Bible when debating non-Christians on the pro-life issue. Abortion kills an innocent human being, so it is immoral by definition.
According to the bible, aren’t we all supposed to be tainted with original sin?
Wouldn’t that mean that the fetus is not innocent?
Neil said: I hope you are just being cute there. The concept of original sin doesn’t mean that you can kill anyone at any time because they aren’t completely “innocent.” If you applied that reasoning to those outside the womb it means we’d all be fair game, even if we hadn’t committed a capital crime.
Yeah, was being a little facetious
Just seemed a little hypocritical to be calling the embryo “innocent” when that isn’t quite what you believe.
Pingback: Timing is everything « 4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters
Pingback: Planned Parenthood gets caught covering up statutory rape … again « 4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters
Pingback: I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice « Eternity Matters