It comes down to the woman. She decides she is not having a child, she will find a way to abort the pregnancy. Legal or illegal, she will find a way to end the pregnancy. She has a much better chance of surviving the experience if she can get it safely done, and that has a better chance of happening if she can it done legally.

That is why I am pro-choice. It's not something I have any real say about, so I will support whatever the woman decides to do regarding her own pregnancy.

In the 1950s in my 'courting' days as we called the sexual advances of youth in those times I visited my girl friend (now my wife) who was a trainee nurse, minding the dormant operation theatre at night in a Central London Hospital, lest any emergencies occurred. While there, I noted a lidded jar on a shelf with contained liquid and something floating in it. On closer inspection I saw that it was a foetus, fully formed and quite beautiful in its form and fragility.
"What happened here?" I enquired queasily.
"It's the residue of a D & C - a scrape!" she replied matter-of-factly.
"Why – what happened?" I persisted.
"She was admitted complaining of abdominal pains; they diagnosed pregnancy. She's a local fallen frail sister. She was feeling off colour and fainted as she worked her patch."
"Was that grounds for aborting her?" I asked a little tetchily (all abortion was illegal in those days other than in very limited circumstances).
"They didn't abort her!" she snorted. "After the diagnosis had been delivered to her and the doctor departed she grabbed the curtain rail around he bed and jumped up and down until she went into 'spontaneous' abortion. Then they had to do a D & C. She discharged herself a couple of hours later."
"Why did they keep the 'residue'?"
“I asked the gynaecologist and he replied ‘pour encourager les autres’ - what does he mean? “.

I declined to apprise her as I thought it might thwart what I had in mind for later.

I continue to gaze at the jar while the narrative sank in. I had picked it up and placed it back on the shelf and the movement caused the tiny body to move and bob. As it did, one eye appeared to open (probably a change of angle and the light) and one tiny hand rose in apparent supplication. The wink and the wave destroyed the last scintilla of any urge to bring to fruition my prior intentions for the tryst (I'll bet you've never had sex on an operating table or cleaned your bike in a scrub room) and I made my excuses and left.

Like you, I merely report, Gerard. Was ‘the residue’ of the D & C better off in the jar, or left to enter the world fully extant and at the mercy of the circumstances into which it would have been delivered had it gone its full course?

After four of my own children and twelve of theirs I can’t answer that question, either. But as you say, the memory lingers on.

Gerard, Thank you for your searching and heartfelt thoughts on this nettlesome subject.

May I extend and amplify your agony with my own?

Does it really matter so much that we may be aborting Mozarts and Moseses?

I tell you that I was more heartbroken than I would have thought possible after reading the last letter to his mother by a 10-year old supposedly mentally defective German boy (he expressed himself perfectly well) before being killed in the German eugenics program.

Mozart, Moses, yeah, yeah. But even the mostunremembered, forgotten, never thought of, misery-filled, anonymous existence was created in the very image of God.

May God save us all.

My own brush with abortion came after 2 years of marriage. I went to the local Planned Parenthood office to get a pregnancy test with the husband in tow, and we got the news together. We were overjoyed....to the surprise and annoyance of the doctor, who said, "You mean you want to KEEP it?" and we said, yes of course! To which she replied, "That almost never happens. Huh." I didn't realize at the time, but thought naively, that Planned Parenthood meant just that. Planned. Which we did. Parenthood. Which we were entering.
I didn't think about it til much later that perhaps, in the New Speak, it means something quite opposite altogether. Perhaps it was a bad omen for me to have gone there for a test, because I miscarried after my third month (on our 3rd anniversary). In the hospital, after cleaning away the 'debris', the doctor snidely told me to quit moaning, because it wasn't like having a 'real' baby.
So I wonder, Gerard, does performing abortions harden and dehumanize the people who do them?

Ah. I wondered where you were.

I worried that you'd grown indolent in the brightness.

Perhaps all that light made it possible to face the shadows that haunt us all in our later years.

I could wish that regret were not so common a companion.

I've only written one truly fine poem. It was about regret.

We must be gentle with ourselves. As you said - we know so damn little.

____________________________________________

A very thought-provoking piece. When I was young and trying to spread my DNA far and wide, I was strongly in favor of abortion (the self-serving aspect of my progressive attitude didn't escape me even then). Now, many years later, when the subject comes up, I look at my kids and think "Which one could I kill?". I'm grateful that I never made that choice. One of my brothers was a party to two abortions. He has no living children, only that memory...

You are essentially describing a world that is breaking into two adult cultures; one with the experience of children, and one with the experience of themselves.
The adult children are very clever. The adults with children, not so much.

"Keep Your Filthy Laws Off Of My Body!"

That's a cute little bumper sticker...but let's look at that a bit closer.

Ok...where does "Your" body end and the "baby's" begin?

What defines "Your" body? What is unique to "Your" body? How do we tell bodies apart?

Let's turn to Almighty Science: DNA.

Many crimes were solved by identifying exactly whose DNA was found a murder scene. Everybody has their own unique DNA.

A baby in the womb has it's own DNA...completely different from the mother's

Therefore...a baby is separate from "Your" body.

Just something to think about.

My own feeling (If any one gives a rat's ass) is that abortion should not be used a political bludgeon. The decision is hard enough to make without lumping in guilt about letting down "The Struggle" or "Sinning against God".

I do not like abortion. I do not "Support" it, but I will NOT act to "Ban" it.

Individual societies will decide the issue based upon where their current values lie. Our society is right now in a state of flux, thus the friction on this issue.

Short answer...there IS no short answer. I actually dread the day when either side is able to enforce its will with an iron boot.

One of the compelling reasons I started blogging four years ago was a naive belief that by publishing and commenting upon wise, clearly-worded little posts my readers and I would learn by doing a lot of homework. Turns out I didn't have any readers and my homework took me down some very obscure trails.

Your audience is bigger than mine, so FWIW here are a few points I would like to spread.

1. Abortion has been recognized and argued about from antiquity. The original Hippocratic oath even has injunctions against "abortifacients." (In those days the issue had little to do with morality. It was mostly about male property rights. The role of women was perfunctory.)

2. The original Roe decision, now thirty-six years past, was the start of a national debate gone mad, partly because of ignorance, but mostly because legislative remedies at the state level have often failed to meet constitutional requirements at the federal level. This has led to a duke's mixture of state statutes running in all directions.

3. Talk about "overturning" the Roe decision is an expression of lay ignorance. As I understand it, prior to Roe the abortion issue was a state-level concern. The effect of Roe was to raise the issue to the federal level, and to that end the decision was not presented in a cut and dried manner.

4. A variety of arguments and comments, both in for and against, covered a multitude of unanswered questions. It is clear from a quick reading of those remarks that the Supreme Court never countenanced what would happen as the consequence of their decision. It was not Roe, but subsequent cases that have led to large numbers of abortions and what currently passes for "debate".

5. There is a distinction between what is legal and what is moral. The abortion issue is, as you said, one of the "third rails" because most people cannot discipline their thinking enough to keep legal and moral in different boxes. There are a number of moral behaviors that are illegal and an even larger number of immoral behaviors that are legal. (My own view is that abortions -- all abortions -- are immoral. But I am pro-choice because I don't believe that morality can be legislated. My mission as someone who believes that abortion is immoral is to persuade the pregnant mother to be to keep her baby, not compel her to do so by criminalizing abortion.)

6. "The crux of the abortion dispute is, as mentioned above, the question of when human life begins. At this point, we all know the opposing political and religious positions. At some point, human life begins and the fate of the fetus is either at the absolute will of the mother or it is not."

Well said. And that is the very issue that was pointed out in Roe. The word used then that has been lost over time is "viability." Historically, the abortion issue from a legal standpoint has hinged on "quickening" of the fetus. Modern times have concluded that when and if a developing future taxpayer is able to survive outside the womb the state has an identifiable interest in preserving and protecting that life.

I find it interesting that you can write three thousand words on the subject and none of them is the word "viability." That's not a negative criticism, by the way. That's a perfect illustration of why the debate has gone so far awry.

7. National legislation about to be introduced (once again) is not intended to promote killing babies at will. Such legislation at the national level will federalize what was urged by the Roe vs. Wade decision, making it possible for national standards to clarify once and for all what will and will not be the law regarding abortion. Central to those standards (and no doubt all the arguments that will surely ensue) will be a legal definition of "viability." It is after that moment that restrictions on abortion will have legal merit.

8. Although the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester the discussion is hyped by dramatic, heart-rending references to "late-term" abortions which are, in fact, a form of infanticide. When the matter of viability is clearly defined those extreme arguments will no longer seem forceful. The debate will cool but not disappear. States will have to go back to the legal drawing board if they wish to further limit abortions.

Kudos to Mumblix. DNA is the marker of human life. Before the unique DNA exists there is no human life. After conception, the unique DNA signals the existence of a "unique, unified, self-integrating organism" (R.P. George). Thus, the Catholic Church's position is both morally and scientifically correct. But the issue remains how to deal with abortion from a legal perspective in an overwhelmingly secular society.

For good or bad, we live in a hyper-politicized world. The "pregnancy" is a biological process during which the fetus develops the capacity for biologically independent life. Before birth, the relationship between the mother and child during these nine months is the most private of privacy issues. "Viability" is a distraction. At conception, the human being is a unique and identifiable individual for which society, as represented through the mother, has moral and ethical responsibilities.

Thus, we face the must sharply defined conundrum of politics: Why is it not murder to voluntarily end the life of a human being before natural birth? At the same time, how can the State effectively enforce an edict against voluntary abortion in a way in which society would be comfortable with the manner and result of such enforcement, since it constitutes the most intimate of invasions of privacy? To find middle ground here would require an electron microscope.

What's the answer? The best I can manage is that elected officials should speak to the moral and ethical issue to discourage a decision to abort. At the same time no public funds should in any way to budgeted to promote or effect abortions. And, of course, all medical professionals, individuals and institutions, should be allowed to act on their conscience to refuse to participate. However, once the mother decides to abort, the larger "society" is ultimately powerless.

The women I know personally, who had abortions---have continued to suffer from the event, years down the road. Moreover, for each of them something "bad" happened subsequently that was much worse than an unplanned pregnancy and abortion. Some of them call it karma, some call it punishment from God, and some are atheist or agnostic and don't believe in that sort of thing.

But they ALL have concluded that there is a link between having an abortion and the "bad" thing that came later on.

Would the bad thing have occurred anyway? It doesn't matter. What matters is that for each of these women, the effect of the cause continues forever.

As Gerard so eloquently wrote, it is "a hell you carry with you forever. There are no fire escapes." And that's from a man's point of view.

It's the old question, isn't it? At what point does the foetus, though unquestionably alive, become a human being? IMHO; at some point, possibly about a third of the way along, between a single-celled zygote (not human) and a foetus a few days from term (human).

Note that some foetuses, even near-time ones, are not human either - those with massive, lethal defects such as anencephaly. Also note that genuine risk to the life of the mother-to-be changes the issue somewhat. So does the issue of how the foetus was conceived. The result of a rape should IMHO have lesser rights - if only because rape should not be rewarded by continuation of the rapist's genes.

The real problem, of course, is in the middle. On what side of the line does one put an 18-week foetus, or one with severe deformations such as severe spina bifida?

Gerard, you had bring this topic up?

If fetuses were a voting block, I doubt it would be legal. And shouldn't the "greenies" be encouraging people not to let the little "mass of cells" go to waste. Soy-lent Green and all that. Lots of protein! The French love to eat weird shit. We could export them there and make it a "delicacy". After all, it's not like it's a human being or anything.

I do wish Nancy Pelosi had been aborted.

On another note. We in the West can't abort ourselves fast enough, however the Islamists aren't. How long can the West survive?

Ladies, I don't judge you. But I do have my opinion, like it or not. I'm sure I must be violating some international, federal, state, or local law for either having such an opinion, communicating it here, or both.

I hope you all have a long healthy life.

We all know where Mr. Obama stands on this issue, and to reaffirm this position today he signed an Executive Order reinstating federal funding to organizations that perform abortions overseas. Regardless on where one lies on this spectrum, I believe it is fundamentally wrong to use tax payer money to fund this activity. When half the country opposes the practice, how can Mr. O. justify this order?

fwiw: yes: a new and unique life begins at conseption.

or tell ne: what has been "conceived" if it is not a baby?!

An aside:

The injunction against abortive remedies in the Hippocratic Oath had nothing to do with male property rights in antiquity, even if that was an issue raised elsewhere. If that were the case, it would have been followed by all physicians. The Hippocratics promulgated their oath in part to distinguish themselves from other schools of medicine whose members practiced many of the things the Hippocratics foreswore. The Hippocratics appear to have been a distinct and small medical group controlling themselves in accord with Pythagorean doctrine. The Hippocratic Oath was far from generally recognized until long after the coincidence of many aspects of Christian morality, notably the proscription of abortion, and the morality of the Pythagoreans, gave it greater resonance in late antiquity. The interested reader is referred to Ludwig Edelstein's magisterial work on the subject. For the Pythagoreans, the issue was certainly bound up with their understanding of the human soul and its transmigration.

According to Dr. Maureen L. Condic (When does Human Life Begin- Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person) the question of when Human Life begins has been scientifically answered. The question should be rephrased: What is the VALUE of a human life in its various stages.

According to Dr. Maureen L. Condic (When does Human Life Begin- Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person) the question of when Human Life begins has been scientifically answered. The question should be rephrased: What is the VALUE of a human life in its various stages.

According to Dr. Maureen L. Condic (When does Human Life Begin- Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person) the question of when Human Life begins has been scientifically answered. The question should be rephrased: What is the VALUE of a human life in its various stages.

Gerard, as with so many of your pieces, this one really struck a chord. Thank you.
In the mid-80's my significant one twice became pregnant and twice declared that we "were'nt ready". She felt that not only were we not in the right place financially, she wasn't even sure we would stay together. Being the good male-feminist I was, I supported her decision and was there during both of the procedures. At the time I rationalized that "life had not begun yet".
Fast-forward 10 years and I had two beautiful daughters. On a metaphysical level I've heard it said that we do not choose our children but rather, they choose us. A thought that comforted me was that perhaps the "souls" of the first two had not "died" but had simply been denied entry, and that perhaps these "souls" had now returned to us.
Maybe, just maybe, in terms of the soul...?

On another note...Obama's position on embryonic stem cells seems to me will only open a pandoras box. When the black-market discovers the gold rush that is the fetus biz, and when teenage mothers discover that people will pay big......?

On another note...Obama's position on embryonic stem cells seems to me will only open a pandoras box. When the black-market discovers the gold rush that is the fetus biz, and when teenage mothers discover that people will pay big......?

The subculture that allows abortion is self limiting. They will simply not breed enough to self perpetuate.

The subculture that abhors abortion and chooses life will self perpetuate.

The tragedy is the millions of lives lost until they are no longer 'there'.

Had there been "modern" abortion on demand 47 or 48 years ago, would we be talking of a President BH Obama? I bet not.

My two cents worth (Hope I am not straying too far OT): 1) Life begins at concepcion. 2) I believe in God. 3) I believe if I am good I will go to heaven, if I am bad, I will go to Hell. 4)In view of those beliefs, aborting a baby because we 'weren't ready', 'couldn't afford it', or 'inconvenient' are not defenses I would care to make before the Almighty on Judgement Day. BUT... having said all that, is the door open a crack so that abortion is ok? What about the fertilized egg that fails to implant? What about the natural miscarriages? Has anybody ever been to a funeral for a month old naturally aborted foetus? I haven't. If life begins at concepcion and the foetus has a soul, should there not be funerals for the terminated unborn?? By not having funerals for underdeveloped babies, is religion tacitly acknowledging they are not yet human? One wonders if Scripture has anything to say about it?

feeblemind - Quite. Grey area after grey area. Another one; some forms of contraception involve not the prevention of conception but the prevention of implantation; notably IUDs and the "morning-after pill". Is this more or less morally reprehensible than birth-control pills, designed to prevent the maturation of the egg in the first place?

Of course, some of the more extreme religionists would argue that any form of birth control, no matter at which part of the cycle it works, is immoral. How common is that view amongst people who are not devout Catholics?

On the subject of miscarriages; I believe that they are widely thought to be Nature's way of getting rid of a mistake - in other ways preventing the drain on a mother's resources involved in taking any further a pregnancy with a grossly defective (genetically) foetus involved. Some genetic errors are lethal well before birth. Should one mourn such a miscarriage (if that's known to be the reason) or breathe a sigh of relief?

I'm willing to consider arguments against, but I'd like abortion to be illegal. I think all the mental masturbation over "viability" and "ensoulment" misses the larger point. Abortion is soul-killing to individuals and the nations that practice it. Legal abortion is also encouraging self-inflicted racial genocide of blacks in this country. I'm not talking theology here. I mean soul-killing in the most rational, practical sense. Witness the pain in Gerard's piece, the stories of tragic childlessness in the comments and the fact that nearly half of black babies conceived are aborted. Life is full of mishaps, inconveniences and tragedies. How we meet them is what determines our development as human beings. Abortion truncates that process.

Having said that, I'm aware that there would be times when abortion is the moral choice. When the mother's life is truly, imminently in danger (although I know of no reason why a viable baby can't be delivered rather than killed) or perhaps in the case of an impregnated child, I would hope a doctor would perform the abortion on principle, regardless of his legal risk. And I would hope a grand jury would have the wisdom to decide against prosecution in such cases. With all the foolishness on display in this country over the last weeks and months, I realize this is all highly unlikely.

I actually do know of a first trimester miscarriage where the family held a private service. He was a surprise after an (obviously) incomplete vasectomy. They named him Christian and still talk about him with their older children many years later. Gerard, I believe you and I (3 miscarriages), when we are forgiven and perfected will meet these children. That will truly be heaven! God bless and save us.

Fletcher,

My miscarriages were the result of insufficient hormone to stop uterine contractions during pregnancy. It was easily remedied and I was blessed with two daughters. Not all "spontaneous" abortions are the result of a grossly defective fetus. Perhaps not even most. Without genetic testing of "the products of miscarriage" (God, I hate the callousness), we'll never know. I do know one of mine was a son.

Thank you, profoundly. I linked, but the TrackBack link isn't working.

This is my testimony from my private hell.

The first time I came across the idea that abortion was anything other than an abomination was in the Playboy Philosophy. Remember that? Perhaps because my mother was unmarried I didn't care for the extension of that philosophy to abortion. The nub of the Playboy philosophy was that activity between consenting adults should not be subject to to legal constraints. As applying to sexual activity between consenting adults it seems fairly logical but that logic breaks down when applied to abortion for the simple reason that one party (the incipient child) is not consulted. This is why abortionists have been at such pains to trivialize something that is nothing short of miraculous-the regeneration of life- by comparing it to fingernail clippings, appendicitis, or even something monstrous as in the movie Alien, which was a feminist allegory. My uncle had a mixed farm and I remember he had to be watchful when a sow farrowed because sometimes she would eat her offspring. That's pathological in a pig, and it's even more pathological in humans when women actually want to kill their own babies. Has anyone else noticed that people today are more outraged at the killing of baby seals than they are about the killing of human babies in the womb?

The first time I came across the idea that abortion was anything other than an abomination was in the Playboy Philosophy. Remember that? Perhaps because my mother was unmarried I didn't care for the extension of that philosophy to abortion. The nub of the Playboy philosophy was that activity between consenting adults should not be subject to to legal constraints. As applying to sexual activity between consenting adults it seems fairly logical but that logic breaks down when applied to abortion for the simple reason that one party (the incipient child) is not consulted. This is why abortionists have been at such pains to trivialize something that is nothing short of miraculous-the regeneration of life- by comparing it to fingernail clippings, appendicitis, or even something monstrous as in the movie Alien, which was a feminist allegory. My uncle had a mixed farm and I remember he had to be watchful when a sow farrowed because sometimes she would eat her offspring. That's pathological in a pig, and it's even more pathological in humans when women actually want to kill their own babies. Has anyone else noticed that people today are more outraged at the killing of baby seals than they are about the killing of human babies in the womb?

So, is there no answer? Or is the answer precluded by psychological defense mechanisms to difficult to overcome?

Attempting to draw the lines in this debate on biological or technical considerations seems bound to failure. Someday, somewhere, someone will cause a human being to appear who has developed from anonymous sperm and egg cells entirely in-vitro.

Western Chauvinist - if I offended you I apologise, but spontaneous abortion is known to be the result of genetic defect at least some of the time.

A point that I perhaps ought to have made is that anti-abortionists are often in favour of the death penalty - and see no contradiction between those two beliefs. Hmmm...

The point remains that far too many people, on both sides, see the issue in far too binary a fashion. There is definitely a grey area in the middle.

To return to one point I made earlier; is a woman who has a coil fitted procuring an abortion every time it does its job? And if not, why not? I could ask the same question about women who use the "morning-after pill".

"A point that I perhaps ought to have made is that anti-abortionists are often in favour of the death penalty - and see no contradiction between those two beliefs. Hmmm..."

There is no contradiction.

The death penalty is meted to convicted murderers, traitors, and the like, after a fair & public trial, based on the decisions of 12 jurors according to the prevailing standards of the community as expressed in a court of law.

Abortions are carried out by individuals, for their own reasons, on the innocent.

Fletcher,

My point was not about my being personally offended (I wasn't). It was, that while some miscarriages are the result of terrible deformity of the fetus (Nature's remedy in your take), we really don't know what percent of miscarriages fall into this category as few miscarried babies undergo genetic testing. It was one in three in my case and he was normal. [As a side note, I am saddened that we live in a time when dialogue is so hampered by the need to be "sensitive" to everyone's feeling - especially women's feelings. One thing we can all do to improve the world is fight the inclination to take offense!]

And, yes, I agree with Punditarian on the oft-used argument against conservatives who are anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment that the views are contradictory (inconsistent). The rationale for our position is innocence versus guilt.

I suspect this may not impress you Fletcher, but the only law repeated in all five books of the Torah is capital punishment for murder: "If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made" Genesis 9:6. It is in this Age of Obama when we have such moral confusion about playing God (abortion) versus obeying God (capital punishment). And as a Catholic studying the Ten Commandments (actually neglecting my studies to write this), I can verify that some of this confusion exists in Catholicism as well.

I dub this the "Age of Moral Idiocy". I claim no immunity either, but I encourage us all to fight the trend.

Hell, I am not anti-capital punishment by any stretch of the imagination. Apologies, everyone, for the brief derail; but can anyone tell me what the position of the various churches is on the subject of homicide in self-defense? The only one I know for sure is the position of the Quakers. Also, does said position also apply to defending another? (This may have some implications in the case of abortion to save the life of the mother.)

And of course that leads directly to the question of what exactly "self-defense" entails. Is one entitled to pre-empt, for example, assuming that flight is not an option?

Mr Christian, According to many competent authorities, the commandment in the Decalogue is not "Don't kill" but rather "Don't murder." I think it is a perfectly respectable to opinion to hold that the sanctity of the life with which you were endowed by your Creator requires you to defend it. And that homicide in self-defense is not murder at all, not a crime at all, but obedience to God's natural law. And at least to traditional Jewish authority, that does include killing a "pursuer" -- someone who is actively on the way to killing you -- before he kills you. To get back to the subject of abortion, that is why it is permissible to destroy a fetus who threatens its mother's life -- it can be seen as a "pursuer" -- until it becomes an autonomous human being (with the delivery of the head or in the case of a breech, of one-half of the body) -- because at that point it is not permitted to choose one person over another. At least as far as I understand the matter. Your mileage may vary.

Mr Chauvinist, Thank you for reminding us that the execution of murderers is required of all the descendants of Noah. The failure to execute the wanton shedder of human blood and life, should be seen not as a recognition of the sanctity of life, but as a surrender to the murderer's dis-valuation of human life. The abandonment of capital punishment in Western societies has not brought about any noticeable improvements, has it? As in Great Britain, it seems to go along with the abandonment of any sense that self-defense is rational and proper, and hence with a surrender to criminality and barbarism.

Since you asked Fletcher,

The Church's position on killing in self-defense or in defense of innocents is that it is proper and moral. Let's be careful with words though. I equate homicide with murder, which is the killing of an innocent. This is not the same as killing a killer either in self-defense or as capital punishment.

I also believe this leads into the Church's definition of a just war (your pre-emption question):
1) Is the aggressor's damage going to be lasting, grave and certain?
2) Are all other means impractical or ineffective?
3) Are there serious prospects of success?
4) Will the means produce no evils graver than the evil being fought?

I did my homework after our earlier discussion and just so happened to be studying the 5th commandment!

Okay so you put a ban on Abortion. Will women who want to abort won;t go to doctors anymore. They will just take pills herbs and anything else to expile to fetus. Then you haev th ewomen who , will just dump the baby in the trash can. Or you have the women who gaves birth to a gentically messed up babay, then what happens you tax money will pay for the really fucked up babies and you can't prove she did anything wrong because it her word, and inless there are trtaces in the babies blood there is no proff really dangues to try to froce a women to carry a babay.

Okay so you put a ban on Abortion. Will women who want to abort won;t go to doctors anymore. They will just take pills herbs and anything else to expile to fetus. Then you haev th ewomen who , will just dump the baby in the trash can. Or you have the women who gaves birth to a gentically messed up babay, then what happens you tax money will pay for the really fucked up babies and you can't prove she did anything wrong because it her word, and inless there are trtaces in the babies blood there is no proff really dangues to try to froce a women to carry a babay.

Okay so you put a ban on Abortion. Will women who want to abort won;t go to doctors anymore. They will just take pills herbs and anything else to expile to fetus. Then you haev th ewomen who , will just dump the baby in the trash can. Or you have the women who gaves birth to a gentically messed up babay, then what happens you tax money will pay for the really fucked up babies and you can't prove she did anything wrong because it her word, and inless there are trtaces in the babies blood there is no proff really dangues to try to froce a women to carry a babay.

Maria: There have always been women who sought abortions when it was illegal. However, there have also been many women who get an abortion because they were pressured to or thought it was okay.

I know of a case in my family history where one woman didn't get an abortion during WWII (in Mexico) because her sister-in-law shamed her into keeping the baby. That particular child now has seventeen descendants— that's eighteen people who would not exist if abortion had been allowed at the time. One of them is a rocket scientist. One of them is me.

I don't know about you, but looking around and wondering "who's missing?" is a pretty chilling thought. Especially when it's so close to being you.

Mumblix Grumph at January 22, 2009 10:05 PM

"morality cannont be legislated" then why do women go to jail if they are caught taking the life of a newborn?

If the life of an unborn child is no longer sacred, then neither are the lives of any of us. Accepting the main premise of abortion--inconvenience--is accepting the de-sanctification of our own existence. Few realize this. If human life is no longer sacred, if God is not the ultimate and dispassionate arbiter of human existence, to whom can we address our legal and moral appeals in time of trouble--another fallible human being whose morality may be substantially at odds with what we recognize as decent and loving?

It's merely a matter of time until we discover the circumstances under which society is willing to dispose of our own unnecessary lives as well. I'm afraid that time is rapidly approaching.

What did they say back in the day?

The soul, as our teacher Gregory clearly states, originates not from underlying matter, like bodies, but, ineffably and unknowably, from a divinely willed vital inbreathing comprehended only by the soul's Creator himself. The soul arises at conception simultaneously with the body to form one complete human being.

-St Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 42 (7th century, I believe)

This very same man was put on trial unjustly for standing against heresy, and at about 70 was punished for not reversing his position by having his tongue and arm cut off. Thus his title 'Confessor' (but not Martyr.) He died in prison a few years later.

The ultimate inconvenience of the non-abortion position is that one will be persecuted for the worldview it entails, if one accepts and lives that philosophy to its fullness.

(There is a record of Maximus' trial called 'The Trial of Maximus')

To help prove my point:

This from TIMESONLINE (1/30/09)

The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.

The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million."

As a volunteer Korean War vet (entered at age 17) I would no longer go to war for this nation. When it offically murders nearly 50 million innocent pre-borns and eagerly elects a man who aggressively advocates infanticide, while suddenly some lab techies are now going to add to the pillage by messing around with human embryos in a petrie dish before discarding the "wastage," we have become the evildoers of the world. Obama's exporting abortion includs the forced murder of Chinese babies when their mothers don't chose to kill them and with our taxpayer's money. Don't anyone talk to me about separation of church and state. We are at war with God in America -a war we are going to lose.

If life truly begins at conception, or after cell division commences and unique DNA is formed, then by logical progression life must end at the time that the physical body ceases to live. If however, one accepts that life continues in some form and some place after the physical body is no longer alive, then the beginning of life must be before that point of conception, again in some form and some place. God says it thusly, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". Indeed, the pro-abortion side has set the choices as "at birth" or "at conception" and the argument has been refined by scientific insights as to when between those two points life can be viable. God's point of view is that He creates life before the physical body is created and that He sustains it while the body is alive and that there is a destination beyond the physical body at which time life is culminated...but as in most earthly points of view that are in opposition, God's view is left out of the argument (too much is required in the way of faith to consider it acceptable to all sides).

i am against abortion i hate the fact that woman are gonnakill poor little kids that have done nothing to them!!1

This might be the book you read about the concentration camps. I read it as a teenager in the 1950s.
http://www.amazon.com/Scourge-Swastika-Short-History-Crimes/dp/1853674982

At some point medecine will advance to the point where the baby, fetus, zygote or then current term, can be removed from the woman and brought to term artificially.

A great deal will be revealed when that happens as to true motivation and attitudes.

Thanks for re-posting this. Apparently I missed it the first time around, although I can't imagine why. Fine stuff.

You (and some of the respondents here) have glanced off what I consider a major issue here, but I've never seen anybody take it on directly, to wit:

The "It's my body," "I have the right to choose," etc, argument has always struck me as the quintessence of selfishness, and no man to date has had the balls to stand up and scream about it. It's your body, but it's our baby. Her body or not, no woman has the unalloyed right to kill my child - and as you have noted, in most cases a man's perspective is viewed as selfish and almost laughable.

That's a sin, and can only be characterized as brutality.

The extension of this argument is that no one has even begun to assess the damage done to generations of men and boys by this casual throwing away of a new life. It can only be described as yet another in the long list of "feminist" conundrums: Women want men to be sensitive and caring (because we're all such brutes, you know,) and yet if a man has any feelings for his unborn child there's something wrong with him. That right there is pathogenic, and the pathology engendered is on view throughout the modern "culture."

You and many other generous essayists have often expounded on the sorry state of modern young men. What, I wonder, did anybody expect after 40 years of unending assault on all that is the best in manhood?

Whenever I get into debates about abortion with pro-choicers, I always remind them that regardless of what the law is, they may choose what they will do, not because they have the right to choose, but by virtue of being human, they have the ability to choose between good or evil.

Years ago I read a column by William Raspberry in which he reported his own conflict over abortion. As a liberal he felt like he had to support abortion but as a father he was uncomfortable with it. He finally came to the crux of the matter with this," Abortion is either the murder of a child, or it's not."
I'm always confused as to how and why the Federal government can be the least bit confused over the issue. Federal law says that a just laid sea turtle egg is a turtle and you'll go to prison for taking one. I await the day when a human embryo is extended the same legal protection.

Life and then death. Much to be said. The one thing that really stands out to me is the pain and misery that results from abortion regardless of the point of view. UW

Thank you, Gerald, for sharing your story, and for those who have shared in the comments. I had not read this post before, but coincidentally, a couple of days ago I wrote on my blog about helping, when I was 16, a young friend convince her parents that adoption was the answer. God helped me to do that, and I am so sorry there was no one there to help you.

We can only help as far as we know how. My husband says he feels angry and betrayed that he was brainwashed from a young age to believe that as a man he had no right to an opinion on abortion. He now knows better. This was an evil done to boys and men, and stories like yours help redeem others.

We are Christians. As such, we know God is so good, and babies bounce on His knee with delight.
And they have already forgiven you, just as our Father has.

I had an abortion in 1969. I was enjoying the sexual freedom of the day, and he paid half. Now, 40 plus years later, I am a Roman Catholic, for whom abortion is an awful sin. I regret my "choice" immeasurably. I have confessed it, but I still am damaged by it. I am sometimes in doubt of my salvation because of it. On Ash Wednesdays, I cry all day long thinking of my sins. I can't take it back, now. I never told my parents, but they are both with God, now, and know my baby and all my sins. I am SO sorry.

Susan Lee

Susan, "a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench" Jesus himself has forgiven and redeemed you. Know you are forgiven, and so very worth it.

May God bless you with peace of mind, and knowledge of His abundant love for you - you, not some imaginary "perfect" you, but the real you who has come out of the darkness into His light. Jesus rescued all of us, and we're all in His sweet hands with you now.

Second time I've read this great piece. My views on abortion have never found any hard set opinion. While I've never thought it ideal (I vote for preventative birth control), I also don't think first trimester abortion is murder or should be ruled illegal.

Neither God or Jesus had much to say on the matter, so I take the Catholic and Evangelical hardline, bordering on obsessive, point of view with a grain of salt. Those two branches of Christendom should take a break from chunking stones until they clean up their own dirty houses.

Women have been disposing of unwanted pregnancies since time began, this is not some modern, debased cultural phenomena.

Abortion was perfectly legal and widely practiced in America prior to 1820, especially amongst Protestant women.

The founding fathers didn't have a constitutional issue with the private decisions of women or family on this issue and I think governmental involvement today, particularly at state levels, is an egregious violation of our most personal autonomy.

So, no, I don't think abortion is nothing. It should be avoided at all costs with preventative birth control.

I also don't think the state should be crawling into our most sensitive, personal matters to the extent of criminalizing abortion, much less making early stage procedures or the morning after pill more difficult and expensive to procure.

Our current politicized religious zealots fail to take the basic human condition, in all its blind folly, into thoughtful consideration on this issue

The angry, righteous people screaming for more restrictive laws on women blindly ignore their own scriptural and historical Protestant tenants of teology, which consistently sanctioned abortion before first quickening until the late seventies, early eighties. I'm talking about the last decade, not

I don't understand why intelligent people would adopt and shove a mindless, Catholic driven middle finger down our nation's constitutional crux.

You can thank nuthatch Francis Schaeffer for dumbing down the Protestant faith and our current political difficulties with irrational evangelicals in all walks of life.

The man turned a rational, guiding private faith of quiet American influence into an international joke.

While I'm quite sure abortion is not the best choice for any woman, I'm equally sure that the state should tread gently on this delicate matter.

Editorial apologies, I left a few words hanging between here and the interuptive crust of my real life.

I'm talking about the last decade, not...pre-enlightenment or biblical times.

"'the status of an 'individual' [is] established as soon as there is ''consciousness of otherness."
I submit that the 'consciousness of otherness' test occurs when the mother becomes conscious of the 'otherness' living within her. Let us not deceive ourselves. We all do really know the answer.

Beautiful post. Linked here: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-fire-escapes.html

Abortion and its afterbirth

My dear readers!

This is a personal testimony about one of our sons. We had five sons, all wonderful people. As I approach my twilight years, I become increasingly grateful for them and their contributions to life. They have been more than a joy to us, they have become our inspiration, as well. Unfortunately our oldest opted to check out of life at the tender age of 19, but even from this tragedy lilies grew on the rod of sorrow.

This is about our youngest son. When I became pregnant with this child my doctor, who was a personal friend as well, was very concerned. He was so sure I would not make it through the pregnancy because of complications when our fourth son was born (the surgeon told me a few days after our fourth son’s birth, “We almost lost mother and baby”). My doctor told me (this was before Roe v. Wade) that I could have what he called a therapeutic abortion, it was legal, and it was a “choice” that I could make without permanent damage to my conscience.

Well, I made my “choice” and chose to have the baby. This baby is now 44 years old, an awesome presence and delight. He is a son, husband and father, and I can’t imagine him not being a part of our lives. His wife, who we love just as much as we love our son, is a wonderful lady, and they have given us four grandchildren who have given our sunset years more happiness than we could have imagined. I suppose my point is this: faith that God can see us through the tough times definitely pays. This young man and his family are so fine! Had I chosen to delete this blob from my life (which is what the prevailing notion is about that “thing” in mommy’s tummy), just think what we would have missed! How grateful I am that God gave me the faith to carry this baby, and to grant me the PRIVILEGE of being his mother! Perhaps that is what we have forgotten: that to be a mother is to be a part of God’s creative act. And it is indeed a privilege!
Mike's Mom

I am 50 years old. I have no children. I was never pregnant and never had an abortion. When I was young, I support the "pro-choice" people, because I could only think of the inconvenience to me if I should carelessly wind up pregnant. I now thank God I never had an abortion because I do wish now I had children. Had I had an abortion in my youth, I would now be mourning the loss of that child I had so callously aborted, killed.

I am still somewhat in favor of legal abortions. I have read, and seen pictures of the results of illegal abortions. I read about doctors trying to save patients who had had illegal abortions. And I would hate to see back alley ones come back. Having said that, I also think that the idea of "abortion on demand" is problematic. I find it terrible that a troubled women would have to have a painful decision rest with strangers.

What we really need is a while societal resurrection of morality. A return to a time when there was shame about being "easy," when girls (and boys) saved themselves until marriage. And when people valued the miracle of pregnancy and birth. And where people valued life more. What we need is to make the idea of abortion seem abhorrent to the vast majority of people, so that an abortion is not what some one does to deal with an "inconvenience."

Sigh.

Young lady, you have just facebooked (the verb) both PRUFROCKIAN
(the second most famous Armenian since Vardan) and Gedanken-experiment!
I do not think your mother wants to find about your use of words like this.

Gerard,

I commend your willingness to, first, face your own ghosts and, second, to share them with the world. Very brave.

I would like to offer some advice. I deeply believe -- and my own experience and that of others I have known backs this up -- that you will only find peace when you acknowledge the full reality of what you did, i.e., complicity in killing, and then seek and accept God's forgiveness, which He freely, abundantly, extravagantly, unconditionally offers to anyone who sincerely seeks it.

The Silent No More network is not just for post-abortive women, it is also for men who regret lost fatherhood. I heartily recommend you check them out:

http://silentnomoreawareness.org/

I like the helpful information you provide in your articles.
I will bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I'm quite certain I will learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!