Where do you stand with the Abortion Issue?

Ok. here's my thoughts. I'm a lifelong progressive - pro-choice woman in my early fifties. I'm so sick of this discussion and hoped it would have finally laid to rest in the 90's. Obviously, i was wrong. And here's why I think this issue keeps rearing it's ugly head time and time again in election campaigns where it clearly does not belong.

The reason i think this issue will never go away - is because LIBERALS AND Social Conservatives (and Evangelicals) ALL have been DISHONEST about the honoring of the MISSION Statement embodied in the Declaration of Independence and our Constituion - Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Evangelicals are dishonest when they wave the "Sanctity of Life" Flag - and never INCLUDE Abolishment of Capital Punishment, (which IS STATE SPONSORED MURDER) never include Abolishment of Prison Industrial Complex system, which is all about imprisoning mass population of people of color, mostly African American Males numbering into the MILLIONS (mostly for drugs and petty crime) and which volumes have been written about but IGNORED. Evangelicals never include the crime of WAR fare against other nations - the killing of millions of innocent civilians. So Evangelicals are dishonest when they claim to be fighting for the sanctity of Life - and only become passionate about a Woman's right to choose.

Liberals have been dishonest about the right to choose- when too often, abortion is used to be simply a form of birth control.

Men have been dishonest about this issue when they ignore their own responsibility/role the number of abortions used as birth control, when instead of designating the entire responsibility soley on the shoulders of young women, they never regard it as a burden for their gender to take on as a whole.

I haven't been active in the "Feminist" movement for decades, and I won't pretend to have a clue about what they're thinking or saying these days. I am aware that there are conservative, anti-choice women self identifying as Feminist, and there seems to be a raging debate within the movement, if the anti-choice women fails the Litmus test as Feminists. I think this really the wrong path for traditional feminist to take on. It's time they abandon that mind set, imo.

I think we can have an honest debate whether or not abortions should be state sponsored vis a vis medicare or medicade as a *general rule*. (except in the case of medical emergencies, when the mother's life or health is in jeopardy)

If Liberals would simply recall that is WE who value the sanctity of LIFE and always have, whether it be about matters of war and peace, capital punishment, cvil rights, equality justice, access to healthcare and education, a living wage, affordable housing etc - and that we deplore abortions used as BIRTH CONTROL - we will win the debate and the discussion is over - because it is simply and clearly dishonest for any individual, group, politician, evangelical or political pundit to talk about sanctity of life, enact legislation to repeal Roe vs Wade without talking about all these other matters, most especially capital punishment at the same time or in the same law.

More importantly, we reclaim our own values on "moral issues" and remind the world who the hell we really are, and what we're really about.

For abortions accept for late term or partial birth abortions.

I am against abortions, but also against gvmt interference in a woman's medical decision, except I am in favor of banning abortions in the final trimester unless for reasons of a mother's health. I also favor an abortion tax to minimize abortions early on and to help fund adoption services.

I'm an exception to everyone's rule--a pro-life far-left liberal. Whaaaaa? I know. Here goes:

Pro-life=all life

I'm anti-death penalty
I don't believe in "pulling the plug" on someone (unless requested by that person)
I don't believe in killing animals
I don't believe in killing in war
I don't believe in killng an unborn person, once conceived and growing
I don't believe in actively "killing" anything--hell, I don't even like squashing bugs.

To me, that's pro-life...not just freaking out about women who terminate pregnancies. I think lefties and righties are equally hypocritical on this issue. It's all life, or no life. One isn't more valuable than the next, and one death isn't more justifiable than the next.

Do you eat meat? Not even a pepperoni pizza?

There is a very good solution to the abortion issue--education and birth control!

Provide sex education is school during the puberty years and educate them on birth control and offer free condoms. Teach them about the high cost of child rearing and child care. Teach them that the government will not take care of them, nor will it make your boyfriend marry you if you get pregnant for that reason. We have got to wake-up to the 21st century and leave these old pius beliefs behind and start educating the next generation. Absentance does not work!

I don't support partial birth abortions but do support aborting neo-con and religious right babies.

education and BC are no where near a complete solution.

Many women get pregnant hpoing to get their boyfriend to marry them, and then they abort when it fails.

Many women abort because they can't afford birth (no health care or low wage job).

Sometimes I eat it. But I didn't go out and kill it. And whoever did would have done it anyway because it's a huge industry, so I don't feel I'm a big contributor to that. That being said, I do slip in and out of vegetarianism out of moral issues. But it's hard to keep up because I have to eat "on the run" VERY frequently and sometimes fast food is it. But I really don't think it's right to kill anything that lives and breathes and has a heartbeat, etc. Hmmm. I think this is going to make me go through another vegetarian phase....

I am Pro-choice as stipulated by Right to Privacy including the right to late term abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. I simply cannot imagine a mother of born children being sacrificed to possibly save the life of a fetus. How would a doctor reconcile allowing this mother to die all while the fetus may or may not survive?

LIFE does not mean all life with regard to abortion...fugus is alive. A blastocyst with no blood, no heartbeat, and only the potential to develop into a human is not a "LIFE" in the sense of a human being. Personhood should not be granted until the fetus is born.

I'm also pro-children's rights which includes pro-social programs for economically disadvantaged children. I find Bush's policies entirely hypocritical. On one hand, he opposes abortion, yet on the other hand he opposes ensuring children have food, clothing, shelter, proper medical care, and an adequate education.

I am also pro birth control education which reduces the number of abortions. The abortion rate has increased under Bush due to his lack of providing education and access to birth control and his cuts in programs that assist mothers in poverty.

The main reason cited by women for having abortions is not having the financial capacity to care for a child.

How can one claim to be concerned about the life of an unborn child yet be apathetic towards born children?

Personally I couldn't do it or should I say my girlfriend couldn't but we don't feel that it's our place to tell anyone else what to do. I couldn't see her going in and doing that unless of course she had god forbid been raped or her/the baby's life was at stake. Again that's my view for myself for anyone else I couldn't care less if they have an abortion or not.

If you eat meat (no matter how little) or wear or use leather, then you empower an animal-killing industry. Period.

However, I understand your POV. I'm just picking on you. :D

I agree totally with ReadyinTX, but also with Sunshine. I was talking the other day about wanting to start the anti-death party. But I also don't eat meat or wear leather and the like. I just love living, and I'm sure other people and animals do to and I want to respect that.

Thanks,
Erin

Well, by driving a car or even riding a bus or using any petroleum-related product, we're all contributing to global warming and the continued profit of oil-richies like the Bush family, which I'm sure we're all "against", but we all do it, don't we??? Must we now boycott all petroleum products? We can't, and even if we did it won't come close to solving the problem, and it doesn't make us as morally irresponsible as people like Bush, does it?

Please, don't pick on me! I stand by and act on my beliefs more than most. And after this election, I need all the warm fuzzies I can get. And eating a piece of killed-three-weeks-ago-by-some-guy does not a murderer make.

If you are morally perfect in every way, feel free to throw another "first stone".

I'd like it regulated, and requiring some rules but not outlawed. There is some civil concerns I'd like to make sure are met but other then that I think it should never be outlawed totally.

I am pro choice. I would rather that there was never a need for even one abortion, but since people continue to be stupid and irresponsible about birth control, there will always be the necessity. (with the exception of course of someone who became pregnant against their will.) I am against late term and partial birth abortions except in the case where the mother's life is in danger. Anyone who knows they are pregnant and willingly waits until after the first trimester is committing an immoral act, IMO. Therefore I am FOR extensive family planning education, especially in areas where there is a pattern and history of teenage pregnancies in the populous.

If I am honest, there ARE a few people I think should be retroactive abortions. :::cough::Karl Rove:::cough.

I am an animal lover and do not hunt or like killing animals. But I love eating meat and lots of it. I also wear leather and like leather products. I would never vote to end the manufacture of animal products, so I am not a hypocrit.

I am not a hypocrit on Global Warming either. I support drilling in ANWR (because Alaskans voted to do it, and I believe in state's rights). My personal pref is that the USA NOT consume all of its own oil until everyone elses is consumed first. The SUV I drive is not efficient as I would like, and I would vote for more efficient SUVs and increased CAFE standards and would be willing to pay more for these products. I also support Nucleal Power because I think it is essential to minimizing Global Warming.

Well, my personal opinion isn't really on there...I'm against it except when it endangers the life of the mother, as a self defense mechanism if you will.

That being said, I'd really perfer see this issue returned to the states. It is mentioned in the Constitution and thus, under the 10th Amendment, it should be a states issue to deal with.

I understand my opinion in general is going to be unpopular on this board...but its also the opinion of all the important women in my life, so I feel I am not unjustified in holding it. I also feel the facts surrounding the procedure of abortion and the development of life support my position. Just my humble two cents.

EDIT: for the record, I'm against the death penality as well...as I presume that well might be the next question asked...

How in the hell is Dubya pro-life when he is for the death penalty and currently has the record of putting the most people to death (I think its 153) in the state of Texas as Governor?????

Well, that's a very good question! He is not pro-life in any way. I saw a good bumper sticker today:

WAR KILLS UNBORN BABIES

Which of course, it does. So Bush is against elective abortion, but believes in killing innocents (if deemed "necessary") in war, he is pro-death penalty, and his slashing of programs for the poor right here in America have surely contributed to many American deaths via starvation and poor health care. So, Bush is a "pro-life" hypocrite. Many lefties (and I am Left, except on abortion) are anti-killing but slaughtering a creature who has a heartbeat, brainwaves, genitals etc. (about 3rd mo. pregnancy) with a sharp object gives them no pause whatsoever. Again, hypocrisy. War is bad, excecution is bad, abortions are bad. They all take a life. Those lives may be criminal, or threatening, or not fully formed, but they are lives nonetheless. I don't feel quite godly enough to know when it's right or wrong, so I don't support it in general (killing). Nuff said, movin on. This is a tired debate, anyway.

I think that Roe Vs. Wade sets a sensible standard (states cannot interfere in the first trimester, limited rights to interfere in the second trimester, and can outright ban it in the third). Whether this should have been set by the supreme court or rather by congress is another issue.

The current law in Illinois protects the fetus after viability.

As far as "partial birth" abortion, let us remember that this refers to the "dialation and extraction" technique and NOT to how late in the term the abortion occurs.

The AMA says that this technique is rarely necessary, but sometimes is and therefore should be left as an acceptible medical technique.

ps: I voted for the last option but don't really mean it; my wife is "true blue" but her parents were part of the "religious right".

My gosh, I don't see a choice up there that matches my views. Neither I, nor any of my pro choice friends, are "for abortion." There are reasons I would definitely choose to terminate a pregnancy, reasons I definitely would not choose to terminate, and situations in which I'm not sure what my decision would be. It's not my place to judge a woman who has an abortion for a reason I would not, she could (potentially) just as easily judge the reasons I think valid as irresponsible. I personally would choose to terminate a pregnancy if I discovered the fetus had an extra copy of chromosone 16 or 18, because I think it's cruel to force a short and painful life on the resulting child; I would not dare to stand in judgement of the family that would take that pregnancy to term and deal with the heartache of watching that child die.

Routine amniocentisis is done starting in the 2nd trimester (usually 15 - 18 weeks), but the procedure is also done later in pregnancy because a potential risk/problem is discovered. Most women who choose to terminate their pregnancy during the second and third trimesters are women who actually want to be pregnant and have a child, they don't make this decision because they just suddenly don't want to be pregnant or have a child anymore. The choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy in second/third trimester should be made by the woman, her partner and her doctor; this is a medical decision and the government should have better things to do than to interfere in a person's medical decisions.

Im pro-life, pro-choice with limitations...

I keep seeing people talk about teens in the abortion issue, and I admit that is a big part of it, but what about the woman that works beside you that has 2 abortions for birth control, already knows about birth-control, but is just to darn irresponsible or lazy to use it? Those are the woman I worry about.

I also do not believe a teen should be allowed to get an abortion without at least one parental consent unless there are extreme circumstances such as incest. But even in that case someone needs to be asking who got her pregnant and punishing that person.

I dont believe in the death penalty for several reasons, I believe deciding wether someone should live or die is against my own beliefs and feelings, I also think it puts hard core criminals out of thier misery to early and Its proven fact sometimes years later it turns out innocent people have been accused of crimes and found guilty, very unlikely but it does happen. So although its like a million to one chance, its possible someone put to death could turn up innocent years later.

I am not for abortions, but support a woman's right to choose. I believe partial birth abortion should be limited to extreme cases in which the life of the mother is in danger. I also support federally funded planned parenthood programs, birth control education, sex education and programs to support and nurture the needs of poor pregnant mothers.

My body, my right!

Well, anything in utero is by legal definition not a person; moreover, the mother (who is a legal person) has rights. Her rights have to supersede any interests which the fetus may have.

The gov't should not have the power to force a woman to engage in or opt out of any medical procedure which may benefit her in any way (including an economic benefit) simply because a non-person would be harmed. The law places no obligation on anyone to perform a "rescue" or assist them - if you're on a deserted road and you see someone who just got in an accident, you don't have to help. You can drive right on by. If the law imposes no obligation to assist, how can the law impose an obligation to endanger yourself for something that doesn't even have rights?


Moral issues I may have with abortion aside, from a legal perspective I see absolutely no justifiable reason for outlawing it at any point during gestation.

Scott Peterson was just convicted of 2nd degree murder for the deah of his "unborn son" Connor.

I point this out because the state of CA will allow the death penalty to be considered for any crime considered heinous; the murder of his wife, who was obviously expected to deliver a healthy baby boy shortly after the time of her murder would have fit the definition of heinous - and yet he was charged with the death of the "unborn child" any way.

Normally in a case of alleged infanticide, the legally defining difference is not whether the mother planned to go to term and deliver, or even that a baby was delivered and no lonegr in utero; the difference is if the baby took it's first breath.

Prior to and during the Peterson case, I do not recall anyone clearly distinguishing Conor's status from any other fetus (not even stating that Laci was so far in term and using her last pre-natal exam that had she delivered at that time, fetal development was far enough along it would be reasonable to expect a viable birth without use of extreme life support measures). Without the application of these caveats, precedent has been set for granting full legal status of an "unborn child"

so sad you have to live on planet earth. a very caring person wasted here.

everything that survives, kills something.
btw, plants are alive as well (by definition). to imagine a deer or a hamster eating grass... or a fish eating plankton... you're worse than i am.
think of all the semen, alive and dying, millions...
sry..

Against abortions but for the women's right to choose and planned parenthood.

more 'sex and planned parenthood teaching' equals less abortions, less messed up families.

who am i to say an abortion wouldn't in some circumstances be the best solution? and the fair, compassionate and just one?

let's say there's a war on. a woman has 2-3 kids she (they) can barely support, and she happens to get pregnant. would the pregnancy continue, she would have to stop working for some time. the whole family'd be in serious crisis and their survival questionable. what is the righ choice then?

i hope i'll never have to have an abortion but if my life would come to the point where i have to make that decision, then noone has better intelligence on the subject than me, and noone else the right to make that decision but me. my choice, my responsibility, consequences mine to bear, and my dreams to be disturbed.

Well, and many jurisdictions have also allowed recovery for wrongful death actions on the part of a fetus.

I don't necessarily agree with those decisions, but what has to be kept in mind is that in those instances the mother wanted the child. The death of the child was a violation of her will. I don't really know if that's a valid distinction in terms of whether or not the unborn child was a "legal person", but I think that enabling recovery for a wrongful death action is still very distinguishable from forcing the mother to carry the fetus.

It's only distinguishable if it's identified as a particular legal point (and I would support it under those conditions), but there was great talk of using cases like these to make legal precedent for fetal rights. This is a way "pro-lifers" use to get mainstream support for their cause - they use the extreme very loose connection to apply to the routine. Any one who disagrees with their position is labeled by default someone who approves of infanticide. Look how the very rare PBA was used as a tool against mainstream pro-choice moderates.

I believe that the fetus is a human being and thus abortion is wrong except under very limited circumstances, such as the pregnancy endangering the life of the mother or the fetus so severely deformed that after delivery he or she would "live" for a very short, miserable period.

Should the law restrict abortions? This a hard question, but at least in principle I say yes. Assuming a law that can be effectively enforced, I believe that it is just to have laws protecting the life of the fetus, the protection of human life having such a strong moral equity that in most cases it outweighs other equities such as the autonomy of the woman.

But can we have a law that can be effectively enforced? Here the issue becomes more muddled, and depends on the state of society in a way that the abstract weighing of the moral equities does not. I have very serious doubts here. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned then some states would probably pass laws against abortions but others would not. Women would make a lot of out of state trips to get abortions. But even if all states were to outlaw most abortions there would most likely be many illegal abortions. IMO it is unlikely that we would just go back to the 1950's and 1960's (not that there weren't a fair number of illegal abortions then) because abortion is such an industry now, the abortion rate would not go down to what it was before Roe vs. Wade. It may very well be that the wisest thing to do is to wait until public views of abortion change dramatically before broad anti-abortion laws are seriously considered.

IMO the best thing to do now, especially for the Democratic Party, is to promote noncoercive measures to reduce the abortion rate such as promoting birth control, especially among teenagers; financially supportingw-income women and families; and providing support and incentives for adoption of AMERICAN children.

Since when is violation of another's will punishable by death or life in prison? The crime Scott Peterson was convicted of is murder, not violating the will of Laci Peterson. The court in this case rightfully recognized that regardless of a mother's feelings toward her child, this precious baby is a person nonetheless.

True, but depending on how far along the pregnancy, there are actually 2 bodies involved.

Anyone see Sister Joan Chittinger on NOW, PBS over the weekend! Wow! She nailed it for me.
She said the Pro Life bunch are NOT Pro Life. They are Pro Birth. They don't care what happens AFTER birth, and they are so anti-tax they don't have a clue , nor do they seem to care how the children will be educated, fed, or receive health care.
She also said America has to get some serious dialogue going about abortion, not all the righteous blaming going on now.

I think it is time to really confront the Pro Birth bunch and show them up for the hypocrites they are. They want to make sure no child is aborted. Why? They don't appear to love children if they refuse to help take care of them after they are born.

And they are certainly anti- women's rights. They know removing a woman's right to choose won't end abortion. More women will die at the hands of backstreet butchers, but the Christian Wrong don't care, as long as that sexy little sinner is punished and gets what she deserves in their view.

Sister Joan said the Christian Wrong seems to ignore the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes 'blessed are the poor', blessed are those who hunger and search after justice, etc.

I truly believe the abortion issue is a huge red herring for the Christian Wrong. No one likes abortion' it would be wonderful if each child entering the world received all the love and care it needs.

Being Pro-Life makes them look a whole lot better, more Christian if you will, than they are. They don't care about the poor, about a good education or even a truthful education. And we are all so hung up with them on the abortion issue we are letting them quietly go about their nasty business in so many areas of society.
Mostly the Christian Wrong leaders are a miserable bunch of powermad bastards with extreme psychologial problems who aren't having much joy in life and certainly don't want anyone else having any.

Most are also very wealthy. Did you know Fat Falwell's various 'ministries' bring him in an estimated $100 million a year? Most of it probably not taxed because of church status. I wonder how many of his faithful followers know just how big a scam artist Falwell is. And if he doesn't get his fat beak out of interfering in politics, why isn't the IRS coming down hard on Falwell and making him pay taxes?

It's time that porker got off the taxfree gravy train and became truly Pro Life instead of just Pro Birth. Let the government use HIS money to feed and educate the poor.

It is time traditional Christians grew a spine and stopped letting them hijack Jesus and his message of love and tolerance. The Christian Wrong Jesus is not the one I know.

This kind of bias and generalization is exactly what will keep alot of christians against real sincere efforts for abortions. And for your info, alot of pro-life christians are pro-choice, we just are not getting heard because of bias from the pro-abortion side and bias from the extreme pro-life side. As for your comment about pro-birth, until you walk in the other sides shoes dont assume you know where they stand. Either way this issue goes there will be more taxes, so saying they are anti-tax is ridiculous, heck who isnt anti-tax? Also alot of christians think Jerry falwell is an hipocrit, so dont lump all pro-life christians with him.


Also you dont seem to have looked at your math on pro-lifers, your assuming because they support pro-life that they are religious, which if you do the math, its easy enough to see you dont have to be religious to have the belief abortion is wrong.

Also your assumption that all christians

Comments like you just made will only hurt the cause for pro-choice, please dont generalize about christians and dont lump all pro-life people into the same catagory.

Also I just searched on your sister Joan Chittinger, I cant find any reference of her on google, and I also searched pbs. org, which also has no reference of her, so if you dont mind, would please tell me when you watched her, and what show it was, I would be interested in hearing what she has to say myself.

There are other ways to discourage abortion than to make laws banning it. We should make it easier for women to have access to birth control, and certainly at a cheaper price than the monthly prescription for birth control pills. It would seem to me that by now birth control pills should be over-the-counter.
Also, men should be held to accountability, and each state should enforce child support regardless of where the man lives. Once men are forced to pay for their offspring, they will think twice about having unprotected intercourse.
Unplanned pregnancies will happen. Caring organizations, both public and private, should meet these women's needs rather than spending money on legislation. There is a Hope Clinic here and they give every woman who wants one a free sonagram, and no one who has gotten one has had an abortion yet. Free prenatal care and other services can go a long way to reduce the abortion rate.
I think it is a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body. I heard a woman on C-Span last week call in and tell about how in the 60s she almost died because a doctor couldn't terminate her pregnancy even though he wanted to. She was so emotional about it and said she was so glad that no other woman would ever have to go thru that. I do believe that if existing law is reversed, women's lives will be in danger who have complications. Too bad women like this don't often come forward or go public.
Many pro-lifers do not think abortion should be performed for any reason. This extreme position takes emergency health care away from saving women's lives.
If you talk with these people, many who are men, ask them what should be done with the rapists that impregnate women and rape again. I have suggested to them that if the women are forced to bear their children, maybe we should castrate the men like they did in Biblical times. Usually this shuts them up.
If the pro-lifers were seriously concerned for the unborn, they would spend more time on getting the poor prenatal care, having prenatal care standard in every insurance policy instead of an option, sponsoring free ultrasounds and vitamins etc., providing safe houses for these women to live in, reducing toxic emmissions which affect the unborn more than anyone else, making it illegal for any pregnant woman to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, and demanding that hospitals attempt to stop early term labor regardless of whether they can get in touch with a doctor or what he says. There are so many things pro-lifers can do to preserve the well-being of the unborn.
By the way I like the term pro-birth instead of pro-life to describe many of this group of people, although I don't agree with many things that were said by the previous poster. Many people who call themselves pro-life do not support anything else that would preserve women and children's lives. I am a Christian who is against abortion for birth-control but do not consider myself in either group, pro-life or pro-choice, because they do not take a common sense approach to the problem.

Anti-abortion, pro-choice.

I'd love to hear more Dem leaders explicitly say they are against all forms of abortion, but that they would never presume to tell a woman what to do with her body.

When both parties strictly agree on the anti-abortion aspect, that leaves only one party favoring keeping hands off a woman's body. (In short, it's much harder for republicans to defend telling a woman what to do with her body when they don't differ from dems on being anti-abortion.)

Hi there,

Read your posts. I hope this information helps.

The name referred to in the previous post is Sr. Joan Chittister. ..CHITTISTER. I saw her twice this weekend (only part of interview each time) on NOW with Bill Moyers.

The following is an excerpt from the "NOW with Bill Moyers" link on pbs.org.

"Biography
Bill Moyers talks to Sister Joan Chittister, member of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie, PA, a social psychologist with a doctorate from Penn State University, regular columnist for NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, and the author of over 30 books. The conversation focuses on the media's moral responsibility to report accurately on the social, economic and political injustices plaguing our society.

"Joan Chittister has been one of America's key visionary spiritual voices for more than thirty years. Sister Joan, a social psychologist and communications theorist with a doctorate from Penn State University, is a best selling author and well-known international lecturer.
A regular columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, Sister Joan has received 11 honorary degrees and awards (including the Distinguished Alumni Award from Penn State in 2000) and recognition from countless organizations for her work for justice, peace and equality, especially for women — in the Church and in society.

Currently she serves as co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women, a partner organization of the UN, facilitating a worldwide network of women peace builders, particularly in Israel and Palestine. She was a keynote speaker at their October 2002 conference at the Palais des Nations in Geneva..."

...whoa...quite a resume. I found her to be a very dynamic speaker. If ever one could be called a feminist/progressive nun, it is her.

Her stance on the abortion issue is pro-life. However, she refers to many pro-lifers as pro-birth only. She is of the opinion that many pro-life individuals only care about the embryo/fetus before it is born. After that, basically mother and child are on their own. I can't begin to "do Sr. Chittister justice." Read/listen to her yourself.

If you can, catch her on NOW with Bill Moyers. Or buy one of her books. I plan on doing so. I, too, had never heard of her prior to the weekend. By the way, I am pro-choice...yet, I found her fascinating, articulate, forceful, knowledgable, reasoned, yada, yada, yada.

Thanks,

Michelle

Being an older person, I remember back when there was no pro-life legislation. It is my belief that this all came about because the churches were not counselling young people, they were not taking care of them, and there were so many babies to be adopted back years ago that it was a terrrible situation.

When the abortion clinics - came counselling. Much needed counselling. That which the churches purport to administer, but didn't and don't.

Now if this legisltaiton is reversed what I am wondering is are the churches going to take up the slack. Are they going to provide counselling. Will they provide housing for unweld moms. Will they offer financial assistance, etc. etc. etc. Honestly, I doubt it.

I am not for abortion personally at all. I tried to find a reason to defend it and couldn't find a reason that was compelling enough.

I believe there should be provisons for cases of rape, incest, and of course, the life of the mother. I suspect that all cases would still be hard on the mother.

The life of the child is a precious one, so the decision is one that should be made with great care.

Thank you Michelle,

I will definitely look up here and see what she has to say, I always like to hear someone for myself, and make my own opinions based on what I heard with my own ears. I try to keep an open mind and listen to all sides, I just wish more often other people would do the same with out using generalizations and bias.

I am pro-choice. At the same time I can appreciate, understand and respect a pro-life view. No one is really pro abortion. Some people have written in things like "I'm pro-choice, except for partial-birth..." Go to an AMA website. Partial-birth is not a recognized medical term. Third trimester, I believe, is the correct term. Partial-birth was thought up to add a little fire and brimstone. Folks should also check out the data on the CDC (Center for Disease Control) website. If my memory serves me correctly...there are currently between 800,000 - 900,000 abortions performed in the U.S. each year. Less than 1% of all abortions occur during the third trimester (8-9K) ...last resort measures only. Women don't just walk into a doctor's office during the 7th or 8th month and ask for an abortion. The AMA says that most of the time abortion can be avoided to save the mother if her life is in danger. However, the AMA also recognizes that, though rare, there are times when an abortion is the only available option for the mother. Third term abortions are also performed because the fetus is already dead. Rather than force a woman, who is probably devastated at this point, to wait and deliver a dead baby in a few months...well, you get the picture. Also, because of advanced technology, a physician is able to diagnose children with such extreme handicaps as having no or an underdeveloped brain, hydrocephaly, and other profound disabilities. Third trimester abortions may be performed for those reasons as well. The fetus will die within minutes or hours if brought to term.

Some people seem to be pro-choice, yet, appear to want some type of litmus test to be performed..."only in the case of incest/rape". It's difficult enough as it is to get a woman to even report a rape or a young teenage girl to accuse a male family member of incest...remember those stories where the female is not believed...or is made to feel as though she is responsible for the rape/incest. These attitudes still prevail. Also, if she didn't report the crime shortly after the incident (out of fear/denial)...then how does she prove it 2-3 months later, once she realizes she's pregnant. Hard to prove now isn't it? Surely, one isn't suggesting that if "ya can't prove it...then tough ($&*(/". To expect a female to prove that her case rises to the right to have an abortion........I can't even begin to imagine.

Some like the idea of a tax. I don't understand. Is that a tax paid by the female? Approximately 23% or so of abortions performed are on young girls under 15 or 18 years old (I forget which). Sex education for the girls? Convince them that their boyfriends won't marry them? Once again, blame only the female. After all she's the one who got pregnant. Let's also teach the boys that their names will go on the birth certificates and they WILL be held responsible for that child for the next 18 years. Also, too many woman are too poor as it is.....I just don't know...

I realize some women have had more than one abortion. No, it should not be the first line of defense to avoid having a child. However, I truly believe that those cases are the very small exception to the rule. The majority of women should not have to have others determine their futures based on guess-timates. Trust me, for the majority of women who have had abortions...it was not an easy decision.

As I stated earlier, I respect a pro-life stance. However, I do wonder about those individuals who actively work on trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade. How many of these pro-life activists actually open up there homes 24/7 for 9 months to help a young girl during her pregnancy and delivery? How many actually choose to pay for her pre-natal care and other medical costs? How many actually adopt these babies themselves?

Even in the case of "an accident". An outsider does not know the circumstances in a particular woman's life. She shouldn't have to prove anything to outsiders.

There are too many issues involved...too many exceptions, too much fear, too little education (even with us smart folks), too many personal opinions, too much blame, etc. I don't believe a stranger, an outsider with nothing more to contribute to the woman or her embryo/fetus/baby but their activist stance should be able to prevent her from making up her own mind, have control over her own body and DNA. The decision should be hers and based on her own situation. Unless you've walked in her shoes...

Eeek! Before you accuse Another Canadian for Kerry of biased thinking and bad math skills, I’d like to point out that your research skills are surpassed only by your ability to punctuate and compose a sentence.

Sister Joan Chittister has a last name that’s difficult to spell correctly. Searching instead for “Sister Joan” + “pro-birth” would’ve put her all over the Internet for you. Don't give up so easily!

As for what Sister Joan said, I agree with Another Canadian’s assessment. Wow!

The reason so many of us despise the pro-life crowd is that they are such hypocrites. Once they’ve achieved their mission with one woman, they move onto the next woman and forget about the first woman and the new baby. No help of any kind is offered. The taxpayer usually ends up supporting the mother and child. And instead of cherishing all living creatures, pro-lifers seem to have no regard for animal life, only human life. It is the ultimate arrogance to believe we are more deserving than other creatures. We are merely luckier.

Maybe those of you who feel the way you do should work harder to separate yourselves from the rabid right instead of laying all the blame in our laps. We can only form opinions based on what’s out there. A lot of the problem is in the rhetoric. I hear "pro-life" and I expect to see kooks waving signs with photos of aborted fetuses. You say “a lot of pro-life Christians are pro-choice.” But Merriam Webster’s defines “pro-life” as “anti-abortion” and Cambridge calls it “opposed to the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion if she does not want to have a baby.” You guys need to work harder to clarify what it is you’re trying to say.

Sorry for the confusion caused by my spelling: should have been Sister Joan Chittister, and she has written a number of books.

And please don't accuse me of assumptions I did not make. It is possible to be Pro Life and Pro Choice. Using the term Pro Birth as Sister Joan used it is right on, because there seems to be so little care and concern for the quality of life of children once they are born.

Thre is no lack of demonstrations outside women's clinics, but when is the last time you saw a demonstration outside a school that is starved of funding, or outside a food bank saying this should not be happening? That is what needs attention.

Your assumption that everyone is anti-tax is not right. It is the inequality of how those taxes are levied, with tax refunds and breaks for the richest, the heavy tax burden carried by the middle class, and on what those taxes are spent.

When your taxes are spent making war on innocent women and children, at HOME (by eroding the right of a woman to choose )and abroad, at the expense of education, and the health and welfare of others, it is an outright sin.

Many of those same children the Pro Birth want born end up having few choices in life because of poverty. How many of those in the 'volunteer' military are there because they can't find a job that will support a family, can't find another way to receive an education.? African Americans and Hispanics are represented at far greater numbers in the military than they are in the population.
I would bet that some of the poorer 'red' states are also over-represented in the military in the lower ranks.

Back to Sister Joan. I'm not a Catholic, but I can see how diialogue rather than diatribe with others in the interfaith community who share her deep wisdom and love of others could heal a lot of wounds. Could. But can you imagine Dobson or Falwell sitting down with her, and others, including the gay bishop, and healing the wounds in the interfaith community?

Most of the time would be taken up trying to exclude the gay bishop from the meeting, and the rest of the time would be a diatribe by the likes of Dobson and Falwell trying to establish that only they have a direct line to God.

It would take some brave souls in the evangelical community to oppose the Dobson/Falwell message, and their attempts to erase the line between church and state. They must be out there, and it is time we heard from them.

If they do not speak for the entire evangelical community, it is time we heard it, otherwise how will we ever know?

It is also high time that CNN and others stopped using Falwell and Dobson every time an issue arises. The media needs to paymore attention to the voices of moderation.

I dont think I gave up, I came back to the source and asked for information, and referring to anyone as a rabid right is almost ironic considering what you were touting about christians. As far as what you expect, all I can say is change your expectations then you might see the real picture. As for definitions in a dictionary.... since your so keen on them...

abortion defined by miriam webster 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.

Hmm... uses the word death doesnt it... i would think then in miriam webster terms abortion means death of a fetus or embryo which would be totally against a large majority of pro-abortion claims that the fetus or embry is not a life, after all to have death you have to have life. Sounds like you guys need to work harder on what your saying also.

Dont bother using definitions with me, like in all other things they are only based on opinions of the majority.

You claim we rabid right christains care not for the mothers or the children born from unwanted pregnancies, what about the 100s of places on the net christian sponsored for unwed mothers, adoption services, counceling for pregnant mothers having a unwanted child, counceling and support for teen mothers?

or what about Rev. Charles Loring Brace he is credited with beginning the institution of adoption in the U.S. around 1854 (methodist minister)

We were fighting for unwanted children before either side ever heard of abortion.

Or this agency

http://www.naccfa.org/dire_level/crisis.html (non-profit christian organization)

this place is christian ran and they help the mother and child after the birth.


Im a christian, and Im pro-life, but im also pro-choice along with many more christians. And for anyone to lump all christians in with someone like jerry falwell is kinda like saying all pro-abortionist are like charles manson. Kinda extreme dont you think?

See reply to mad cowboy in the white house for the most part but I will add this...

I was one of those mothers of the children your talking about, at 18 I was wed but what good that was I dont know considering the father was a loser and wouldnt work, 1 pregnancy I was duped into and another i let happen because of my own stupidity. I worked all the way through my pregnancies, and went to school at night (which is the only help I took) to better myself, you try raising 2 kids and a loser huband on less then 10,000 a year income, and being to proud to accept state help. hard isnt the word for it. And I did live in one of those low income red states (TN) actually still live there. And I did not ask anyone for help, I did everything on my own, but I did it, and so can anyone else, so proverty is not a reason its an excuse. Im remarried now and my girls are now 12 and 14 and everday I worry about what would happen to them if they ended up pregnant , and every thought i have about it centers around how i would feel if it were them and what would they and I do. I also think how much I would of lost if I had took the easier way out and had an abortion. Even with all of that I still support pro-choice, but I still have the right to believe in pro-life.

What im trying to say, maybe badly... is that claiming christians dont care what happens to the mothers or the child afterwards is wrong. Alienating christians by calling them extremist will only hurt your cause, there are many of us who support pro-choice and are there in the background pushing for it and trying to change decades of opinions and ingrained thoughts.

Nobody was debating the definition of the term "abortion." Could you please pay closer attention before you fire off your bizarre replies? We're talking about the term "pro-life" and like it or not, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It means that you're against a woman's right to choose. Period. YOU CAN'T BE PRO-LIFE AND PRO CHOICE!

I will repeat what I said earlier: Maybe those of you who feel the way you do should work harder to separate yourselves from the rabid right instead of laying all the blame in our laps.

If you chose to take that personally, that's your problem, lady. It proves you can barely comprehend what you read and should quit trying to persuade others with your BAD BAD writing.

Hi Mad Cowboy,

I admit that I haven't read all of the related posts to your post. So, if I missed the point, my apologies. Regarding your sentence "YOU CAN'T BE PRO-LIFE AND PRO CHOICE" I have to disagree. 1. I am pro-choice. 2. One of my dear friends is Pro-Life. However, she is pro-life in regards to how she lives HER life. Personally, she would not CHOOSE an abortion. However, never would she consider or advocate for the denying another woman of making her own choice.

I think that is what Kerry was trying to convey to the public. I understood it. Apparently, others did not. You can be Pro-Life yourself and still recognize the other person's right to choose. Therefore, you are Pro-choice...you just wouldn't choose it yourself for yourself. But, it is still a choice.

Hope I didn't ramble too much. Long day at work

Sincerely,

Michelle