"She, like Bill, want the procedure to be safe for the Mother, legal, and rare"

Rare?  Abortions were at their peak during Bill Clinton's presidency and have dropped steadily during the Bush administrationm.  Still, I wouldn't call over a million abortions a year rare.  And all this time, less than 7% of those abortions are performed for the reasons of rape, incest, or to save the life of a mother.  Safe?  For the mother?  Not really.  It is a cash and carry business with very little regulation, though in recent years more steps have been made to make the woman aware of the risks.  Still, the emotional - and sometimes physical - trauma that many survivors face is not really worth it.  And what about the child?  For every successful abortion there is at least one death.  I do not call that safe.

A woman considering abortion is not just making a choice about her own body.  There are two bodies involved, not one.  From the moment of conception, the baby has it’s own distinct human DNA.  This is a bit redundant, but for clarity’s sake, I say distinct because it matches neither the mother’s nor the father’s DNA completely.  Not only does it have it’s own DNA, it meets the biological criteria for life: it ingests nutrients (eats), processes oxygen (breathes) and grows of it’s own accord.  I have seen people try to argue this last point because it needs to live inside the mother’s womb in order to live and grow.  Just because it needs a special environment in which to thrive that does not mean it is not living or growing of its own accord.  Yes, if a fetus is removed from the necessary environment, it cannot survive.  But if we are weighted down and thrown into the ocean, an environment in which we cannot survive, does that mean we are no longer living human beings while we are still struggling to breathe?  The zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what stage of development the unborn child is in, is not just extra tissue in the uterus, like a malignant tumor that needs to be removed.  It is not just a “potential life”; it is a distinct already living human being.

Just to keep things interesting, I'd like to add that Hillary Clinton is not the first female presidential candidate.  Wouldn't it be interesting to know the opinion of the real first female presidential candidate to run in the United States.  Victoria Woodhull said in 1875,“Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never think of murdering a child before its birth.”

The early feminists would have a real hard time with the “right to choice” argument. Those who began the fight for gender equality in this country and were not given the opportunity to take “liberties” for granted, were opposed to abortion because they knew how it exploited women and treated children the way they did not want to be treated, like property.  Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) learned this lesson the hard way when they found out they were merely pawns in a lawyer’s game.  Both admitted their testimonies during the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton trials were falsified and are now actively fighting against abortion rights, hoping to see the decisions which bear their names overturned. 

Susan B. Anthony, a champion in the Women’s Suffrage Movement called abortion a horrible crime of child murder.She also said in an article in The Revolution, 1869, “Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience for life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who … drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”Elizabeth Cady Stanton, another Suffragist, said in a letter in 1873, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

"Driving abortion underground makes them unsafe, like back in the '50's."

I guess this person, like many others, doesn't realize that abortions were legal in ALL 50 states prior to the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.  In a majority of states it was a legal exception in order to protect the at-risk mother from that state’s criminal abortion laws.In some states the abortion laws were a bit more loose and abortion was legal for other reasons as well.  With the medical advances we have today, the risk to the mother is greatly lowered as compared to back then.  But abortion supporters like to hold up wire hangers to exact an emotional response from people, but most abortions prior to that fateful decision were performed in the woman’s doctor’s office or a hospital.No wire hangers needed.Some women may have resorted to the wire hanger or back-alley abortions, most likely because they were ignorant of their options or afraid of the judgment that would be placed on them if they were found to be pregnant.That would not necessarily be the case today.There are more resources available to a pregnant woman in need of help, and the stigma of an unwed mother has all but disappeared.

As for handing condoms out to kids, is it any wonder that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among teens also increased during Bill Clinton's presidencey? 

This whole issue boils down to doing it God's way, and not doing whatever works for the moment to do away with you moment of inconvenience or pain....I have a friend that had an abortion at age 15.....she was a friend of my oldest daughter's at the time....she went through years of torture and hell because of one act that took less than an hour of her life....it took her years to get over what she had done....went into drugs to get rid of the pain....and finally got right with God, accepted his forgiveness, and moved on with her life....but she never forgot...took years to forgive herself....and as a result for years didn't want any more children at all...finally later in life, she married a man that became a pastor, and they had one child....and are now happy, but she never forgets what she did....

That is something that they don't play up....it seems as though people push abortions on these young girls like "here have a lollipop" it will all be ok....but they don't address the fact that a mother has to live with the emotional trauma of killing her child...this is something that they don't see until it is over.....and the one thing that can fix the problem, they want to take out of the equation.....God is able....God is willing....and God is the answer....and yet.....they want to take God out of everything.....

This country is a mess....and only God can fix it....not liberal thinking, not politics....not Hilary or Obama....not the democratic party....only God....

Wake up America....put God back in.....quit taking him out....We take God out of schools, and the pledge of Allegiance and then we pray and say God help us...and he is wondering...well do you want my help or not...hummmmm....something to ponder...

Have a great day...Irene

I'm going to come back and read all of these comments, when I have more time.  But I wanted to say that I appreciated your thoughtful responses to each of the questions.  I really have a passion for the abortion issue.  I think a lot of people who consider themselves to be "pro-choice" really haven't thought through the issue.  A whole generation of kids has been raised with the notion of abortion being a RIGHT.  But choice is not really the issue, personhood is.  I really believe what the bumpersticker [that I want] says, "Abortion: the perfect foundation on which to build a violent society."

And as a total aside, Dr. Paul (to whom the Republican party said, "No thanks."), said that in his medical career in which he delivered over 4,000 babies, he had never seen a "medically necessary" abortion.

how you justify say, the mass destruction of embryos at fertility clinics,

I would not justify it.  I wouldn't justify their creation either.  They were created for convenience (to save in costs if IVF fails to produce a live birth - we've got plenty more where that came from) just as they were destroyed for convenience (well, I've got my kid, so I don't need another one).  When Man plays God, bad things happen.  I could ask why so many people who produce so many embryos are so selfish that they just have to have their own baby that they can't adopt a child already born, but I believe that question is just as unfair in judgment as the question asked above.

Also curious as to how many unwanted babies pro-lifers have adopted,

Ahh, wish it were that easy.  This person obviously doesn't know the legal and medical obstacles involved.  Legal because the parents who "own" the embryo - as if it were property and not an unfortunate human being - have "rights" to that child, and unless they are willing to allow for adoption, the child sits in a frozen, catatonic state, at the mercy of and controlled by those who would take advantage of their inability to choose for themselves.  Then there is the whole adoption process which takes years of jumping through hoops to get through.  The first medical issue that comes to mind is the body's natural means of ridding itself of foreign organisms.  Because of the way our immune systems are designed, there is great risk to both the adoptive mother willing to carry and the child.  Let's not forget the big financial obstacle.  There are many who would love to adopt but cannot afford it and insurance wouldn't cover such an elective procedure.  Even with these and other obstacles, many pro-life people with the means to do so are adopting and bringing to life the embryos unwanted by others willing to give them up.

Honestly, now, would you risk your life to save either a child from a fire, or a freezer full of fertized human eggs?

This question makes no sense.  When would we be faced with this choice?  How likely would it be for a child to be in a burning building full of frozen embryos?  It's just a ploy to use emotional manipulation to steer away from the question at hand - what choice exactly are woman claiming the right to make?  Once we prove through reason and fact that the child is indeed a living human being, then many, faced with no reasonable arguments in their favor, resort to attempting to use emotionally charged traps instead.

A mother has a miscarriage. Do you espouse that she be investigated for possibly murdering the fetus?

This is a very cruel question.  In four miscarriages, I lost five children before my son was finally born.  The guilt I went through was unbearable at the time of each one.  Of course I questioned myself.  What if I ate differently?  What if I did this instead of that?  What if ... But I have come to terms of peace that it is not my fault.  So now would you bring those feelings of remorse back by saying that if the babies were living human beings then I must be a murderer because my body for some reason unbeknownst to me rejected them?  There are many miscarriages each year.  The number of those miscarriages caused intentionally by the mother would be so miniscule that there would need to be major proof in intentional wrongdoing (like self-inflicted bruises) before anyone could go after a woman who miscarried.

Would you force a young rape victim to carry a resulting prgnancy to term?

First of all, the percentage abortions performed for the reason of rape is so small, this is almost a non-issue.  But because it can and does happen on the rare occasion, I will address it.  Anecdotal studies have found that women who become pregnant during rape and have an abortion are more likely to suffer PTSD and have a higher death rate due to "accidents" and suicide than women in the same situation who carry to term.  The abortion itself is often tramatic for the rape victim because the violence of the abortion acts as a reminder of the incident.  For the woman who decides to have her baby, seeing the life of the child can be, and most often is, a huge part of the healing process. 

Now let's think of this in legal terms.  If a man commits a murder, do the police arrest, convict, and sentence his innocent child to death?  So why would we put the child on death row in this case just because of the evil committed by the man who conceived him?  When people who were conceived through rape were asked if they regretted their mothers' decision to keep them, not one regretted being given the chance to live.  Who can ask the children who weren't given that chance if they regret their mothers' decision?

The only justification I could see in having an abortion is to save the life of the mother from immenant death.

With medical advances, it is very rare that a woman would be faced with this situation.  The only way I would abort would be if I had an ectopic pregnancy.  In this case, the child would not survive either way because it is not latched in the womb before it starts growing.  The woman need not risk her life for a life she cannot save anyway.

Enduring the ostracism of classmates, as she begins to show, or the loss of her comfort zone, if she leaves school to avoid same, potentially ending any scholastic growth? Would Jesus?"

Jesus said, "Let the children come to me."  And to the woman who was caught having extra-marital sex, He said He did not condemn her, but He also said after that, "Go and sin no more."  That's all I will say on that matter. 

As for the other, this goes for anyone who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, not only a rape victim.  There are Crisis Pregnancy Centers full of volunteers who are more than happy to help a woman in this position.  It is not just about saving the baby's life; they are very concerned with caring for the pregnant woman in need.  The Option Line can help direct a young (or older) woman to a local CPC where she can receive help with couseling, education (as in ways to stay in college so she can earn her degree), clothing and any other help she may need.  And since CPC's are non-profit orgnaizations manned mostly by volunteers and funded mostly by donations, it is all for free.  The web site is http://www.pregnancycenters.org/ and the phone number is 1-800-395-HELP.  She need not go through this alone. 

I just wonder if you pro-lifers have really thought beyond your inital knee-jerk reactions.

How is it a knee-jerk reaction to want to protect life?  This nation is founded on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  When women were treated as less than human, was it a knee-jerk reaction to fight for their rights to be treated as equal to men?  When African Americans were treated as slaves, then even when "free" as lesser human beings, was it a knee-jerk reaction for them to fight for their rights?  Babies do not have a voice.  It is not a knee-jerk reaction for others to act on their behalf to fight for their rights.  Or do they not deserve that right because they are dependent humans who need others to speak for them? 

People have choices, but there are consequences, whether large or small, good or ill, to every choice we make.  Choose to have sex or not have sex.  If you choose to have sex, you should first be prepared to take responsilbility for any consequences that may arise.

enjoy the blizzard, maybe a good excuse to stay holed up inside & do nothing all weekend.  as far as your "friend" and the ongoing discussion. I wish you all the best, doesn't sound like this person wants a relevant discussion so much as an in your face, I'm right & you are wrong scenerio, and you are not going to change my mind.  the sad part is this person most likely reasonably believes what he/she believes because it is was taught in just about every public insitution of learning.  it's like a parrot, repaeating over & over what it has been taught yet never understanding what it's saying.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE PROFESSOR'S COMMENTS...........

AND, VIEWS............ABORTION IS NOT WHAT GOD WANTS......IT'S MURDER.

SHARON HOSKINS

Clayman -

Brad - I keep hearing all these great things about Fiddler, but I've never seen it. Sleepy Hollow will probably be our fall show and I think I might try out for that. I think my wife would want me to do something a bit more productive than get thrown out of town. LOL.

Snow Reed - Well said. 1875, eh? There's so much I don't know about history. Very moving poem, btw.

Irene - It is really great to hear from you. I've never liked lollypops anyway.

Laura - Thanks.

Housewife - Dr. Paul is an interesting character. I agree with some of his positions, but on some things I think he's out to lunch or otherwise just plain dangerous. That said, on the abortion issue I would agree with him.

Scott - I enjoyed your answers, too.

Carrie - Yes, I cannot help but think of that passage about Molech whenever this subject comes up.

Lisa - We didn't get out much. I can't blame this person for feeling right. I feel right, after all.

Sharon - Thanks.

Alluveal - You're absolutely right. You don't need to be a Christian to believe abortion is the murder of a human life.

Gideon - We had a total of 10.4 inches of snow officially. It is mostly melted already today and supposed to be 60 before the end of the week.

Victoria Woodhull campaigned in 1872 with Frederick Douglass (a former slave) on the Equal Rights Party ticket as her running mate (though he didn't know about the nomination and never acknowledged it afterward).  But there were many obstacles in her way, one major one being that women were not allowed to vote in many states, including her own state of New York, until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920.  At the time, it was even questioned if women were considered citizens of the US.

A big concern with Mrs. Woodhull is that while she did not advocate abortion, she had some similar philosophies to Margaret Sanger in regard to free *love* being the ultimate freedom for a woman - marriage was considered by her to be a form of slavery for women - and promoting the betterment of the white race through a woman's choice to select the fittest suitor.  There was a bent toward white supremecy in her speech that later feminists built and expanded on.  .

If I had to choose a hero in the feminist movement, Susan B. Anthony wins hands down.  Many in her local area had suggested in 1865 that she run for vice president with Frederick Douglass as the presidential candidate, but that never came to be.  There were other women since then who vied for president or vp.  The first woman to appear on a presidential ballot printed by the government (the government did not print the ballots in Mrs. Woodhull's time) was Charlene Mitchell in 1968, and the first woman to receive an electoral vote was Tonie Nathan, who ran for vp on the Libertarian ticket in 1972. 

BTW, Susan B. Anthony voted for Ulysses Grant in 1872. 

 You misunderstand me. Your point was exactly mine, that the government has no business in your womb. I feel for you, as my mother also had two miscarriages.

@a bruised reed - Like many on your side of the issue, you pretend that a zygote is a Child. It just isn't a child...yet. a potential child? Yes, so are the millions of sperm and eggs that never get fertilized. And the dogs that get gassed in pounds every day.

Also, by your words, you imply that you  would not allow a 13-year old girl to have an abortion, even if her brother impregnated her. Who is being cruel here? Who is being unreasonable? Fetuses have no feelings for the first thousand cell divisions, at least, no more feeling than an amoeba that shrinks from a heat source.

And Scott, using characters from the Bible to make your argument does not carry much weight with an atheist such as myself.  Studies have shown that unwanted pregnancies lead mainly to unwanted, resented children. And they grow up, and get featured on an episode of Maury Povich's show.  Or Jerry Springer. As I also say to PETA, pick your battles a little more carefully. I am much more distressed over the babies being bayoneted by truly evil men in Darfur, than in denying the morning-after pill to women. Baby = blastocyte. Sorry, it doesn't add up.

 It is obvious that neither of us will change the other's mind. I have stated my views; you all have stated yours. No hard feelings. I hope to find some common ground on some subjects, and I invite you all to visit and comment on my site.

"Like many on your side of the issue, you pretend that a zygote is a Child. It just isn't a child...yet. a potential child? Yes, so are the millions of sperm and eggs that never get fertilized. And the dogs that get gassed in pounds every day."

Dear MelFamy,

I am sorry sir, but this is where you are scientifically mistaken.  An egg or sperm carries within it only the DNA of the person whose body created it, and is therefore a part of the body which made it.  Thus the expulsion of a sperm cell or an egg is no more morally questionable than shedding dead skin cells.  A zygote, on the other hand, has it's own unique set of DNA, distinct from the parents.  The DNA matches only that of a human being, not an amoeba or any other living organism.  Zygote is merely a term for a particular stage in a human being's life-cycle.  Adult is another term for a stage in the human life-cycle.  How about Geriatric?  A zygote is not less human just because it is at an earlier stage of life.  To say it is lesser is no different than saying someone is a lesser human being because they are too old or physically incapable to live without assistance. 

Most women are past this point when they realize they are pregnant.  By that time, the baby already has a heart beat and brain waves.  Before the second monthis up, all the organs and limbs are in place.  Have you ever seen a sonogram of a pregnant woman?  Have you ever seen that little "potential" life get woken up by the doctor and jerk his little arms up and get all animated as if to say, "Hey, I was sleeping here!" ... at 10 weeks gestation?

You are not just addressing a woman who has miscarried (my first when I was 17), but you are also addressing a woman who has been sexually tortured by her ex-husband (can't call it rape because we were married).  One of those miscarriages was his child.  Forget that I'm most likely better off not having a child to connect me to him, I stll had to live with the regret of losing that child and finally come to peace.  I understand the pain involved more than you can ever imagine.

I once went with my sister's friend when she had an abortion.  It was her second of three that I know of.  After all three, she had to go on suicide watch, but no one ever put 2 and 2 together.  Her next child was put up for adoption.  She got to hold her daughter after she was born and was able to say goodbye.  It was the first "loss" of a child with which she felt peace.  I have seen in other friends the agony an elective abortion can cause. 

To force an abortion on a 13 year old girl who is already emotionally wounded from the ordeal would be more cruel than to offer her love and counseling and to encourage her to offer her child the chance at life, even if it meant that child would be raised by someone else.  An abortion would add insult to injury, for then she would not only feel the shame of her predicament, but the knowledge that she snuffed out the life inside her, the innocent who was dependent on her, would follow her to her grave.  Not only could it add insult, but it could also add even greater injury in one so young.  There is a greater risk of infertility in women who have had elective abortions, the risk being even greater for younger patients.  Besides, you talk as if this is what abortion is meant for.  Less than 7% of over a million abortions a year are due to rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother.  So how many for the sake of convenience or a loose lifestyle?  I'll let you do the math.

But I must thank you for clearing up one thing for me.  I never realized that a dog in the pound was a potential child.  Whew.  I'm so glad I took in all those rescues.

Ouch! You were right about the sarcasm. I will keep this short, and address two points:

I would NEVER force anyone to have an abortion. I am pro-CHOICE, remember?

If I said or implied that a dog was a child, that was me being sarcastic. I was talking about soul, the existence of which I have my doubts. But assuming its existence, my dogs have them, too. As do mother seals who try to comfort their dead and dying babies after some Canuck* has skinned them alive.  (I recognize that they are selling furs to provide for their families; it just makes me sick to see such senseless slaughter so rich ladies can show off.)  I have had the extreme good fortune to have interacted with dolphins in the wild, and no one can tell me that a dolphin is less a creature than you or I (Come to think of it, I should write about that someday soon). To be fair, no one in here has said that humans are the only creatures with a soul, and please don't dash my good will towards you all by coming forth now!

It may surprise you to know that I hurt to think about the abortion of a fetus, after it has started to take human form. It is not easy to defend. But still, the rights of the Mother-to-be are of tantamount importance. Legislating her rights out of existence due to religious beliefs is the province of the Taliban(there I go again!). The ramifications of equating a day-old fertilized egg with you or I are a legalistic nightmare. Will women have to keep a record of their menstrual cycle, so that they cannot induce abortion without the government's knowledge? Again, each and every miscarriage would be considered a human death, with subsequent police reports and unwanted public notice in the newspaper.

Someone said earlier that I was engaging in "I'm right, you're wrong" scenerio(sic). Well, that is the definition of debate, is it not? This has been invigorating, and my main purpose has been to keep me awake on long nights at the wheel. My minor purpose has been to make sure that at least some of you are exposed to other points of view from time to time.

Bruised reed, it was a pleasure to hear from you. Feel free to e-mail me anytime, especially with such encouraging comments.

* If any of  the readers are Canadian, and are insulted by my use of the term "canuck", get over it, eh?

Dear MelFamy,

I agree that humans are not the only ones with souls.  As a religious nut, I can attest that the Lord has given souls to all living things, including all plants and animals (even if the English translations of the Bible do not make this clear, it is in the original Hebrew).  And as a religious nut, I believe that humans were placed above other living things to be caretakers, not destroyers.  As fallen souls, we have done a pitiful job - at best - of fulfilling our duty to care for the other souls of this good earth.  I am truly sorry for this.

But I do believe that I showed that this is not just a religious debate.  Scientific evidence is on the side of those who wish to protect the life of the child, even if they do not believe in God.  Based on that evidence, I believe that it is those, who advocate abortion as a viable option for family planning, who let philosophical argument get in the way of reason.  I think your example of menstrual cycles and miscarriages is extreme, but I can understand your concern.  I have read Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World, and the reality of them is uncanny.  But fear of the unknown future will not deter me from seeing what is right in front of my face now. 

You say you would never force anyone to have an abortion, but that 13 year old girl in your example would most likely be emotionally manipulated into it.  She may not be dragged kicking and screaming (that comes during the abortion), but it is still a form of coersion.  I think many who advocate abortion as "women's rights" either really don't know what abortion does to a woman both physically and emotionally, or do know and are trying to rationalize it in a vain attempt to relieve themselves from the guilt of their involvement.  If someone truly loves a woman, that person would never encourage her to get an abortion.

You say that abortion of a fetus who has already taken human form is hard to defend.  That is why I raised the point that they are fully formed before 2 months gestation, before most women realize they are pregnant.  Even before they miss a period, the baby would already have a working heart beat and brain waves.  Even without religion, you have placed yourself in a moral quagmire to defend something that you cannot, in your heart, truly defend.  My heart goes out to you, even as I know I cannot change your mind - I have admitted as much in my poem above (don't know what happened to the lines after I submitted that comment - grrr).

Thank you for your generosity in this debate.

Coercion works both ways, I must add. I have been in abortion clinics, and no one was there under duress. The staff was kind and considerate, and I hardly felt any pain.

Sorry, couldn't resist that.

As an atheist nut, I appreciate your concern for the environment, and the ubiquity of souls. I draw the line, however, at plants. I feel enough guilt eating a hamburger, thank you.

Speaking of dogs and souls; by sad coincidence Sassy, our Pomeranian, died yesterday. I just posted a memoriam on my site.

And by the way, Lance, thanks for hosting such an honest and open forum. Had I been exposed to Christians of such fine qualities as yours and your friends before my opinions and arteries hardened, who knows?

MelFamy - I too appreciate your honesty and candor, as well as good will. I don't mind disagreement in the least. I value clarity very highly. This is a subject that often leads to meaningless spite filled fights, not the kind of dialog we have enjoyed here. Of course we don't agree, that's obvious, but we can discuss things without the vitriol so common to many on both sides of this debate. Also, I wanted to note, I had to chuckle about the comments go back and forth about people being so certain of their positions. Of course we all are, or we wouldn't hold those positions. Thank you for being honest about that. As a person who carries the label "Christian" I am well aware of the hypocricy of those who carry that label. While I often find anger in the non-Christian arena, I also tend to find a lot of honesty - sometimes more honesty. That really annoys me. Bottom line, thank you for the dialog. If you care to continue the conversation with bruised reed (snowberry) you are by all means welcome, however I'm done with the topic for now I think. God bless you.

Snowberry - Thanks for your civility as well. I know this is not an easy conversation to have and you've shared a lot more than I could comment on. Of course I agree with you. Even so, I wanted to also share my appreciation of your candor and good will in the way you addressed MelFamy. I realize that this topic hits very close to home for you and you've revealed a lot more about yourself than you usually would in such a public forum as this. I know you did so with the earnest intention of being both clear and accurate as well as communicating what is on your heart. This says a lot about your character and is a very large part of why you are such a dear friend. Your technical knowledge, not to mention personal experience on this subject, leaves me feeling that I should quietly assume my position in as a student and allow the dialog to unfold as it will. I don't mind at all if you two continue the dialog here, though I don't feel I have anything further to add at this time. God bless you.