IDEMA: The abortion debate: what is not discussed

There is no more agonizing debate in our society right now than abortion. All the articles and letters to the editor in our West Michigan newspapers are heartfelt, but the following points never seem to be made.
Jul 3, 2013

So, let me add my two cents to this heated debate.

First of all, the terms of the debate are ridiculous. No one is pro-abortion or anti-life. Few would not admit that abortion is a dirty business. Most people would admit that the blood and guts of an abortion are hidden from the public's view.

Moreover, only someone with no knowledge of biology would argue that life is not being ended and a heartbeat stopped. So, let's begin by throwing out of the discussion the simplistic labels of pro-choice and pro-life. Abortions involve choices about life, so let's look at who makes those choices.

My biggest concern with efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade is that a woman's control over her own body will be removed from her and entrusted to the State. The GOP-controlled House recently passed a bill that would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions made for rape and incest. The Senate with its Democrat majority will no doubt defeat this bill. The main issue in this bill is control; i.e., who does the controlling after 20 weeks, the State or a mother?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Roe v. Wade is eventually overthrown by Congress or the Supreme Court. If that happens, will a woman be charged with murder if she goes to the proverbial back alley for an abortion?

The irony is that the GOP is usually against Big Brother in the form of the federal government messing around with our lives. Can you think if a more intrusive way a government could control our lives than controlling our decisions about whether to have a baby?

As an aside, I find it almost comical that the GOP in the House is made up of mostly white males who want to control a woman's choices, and thus her own body.

Another issue not talked about is adoption. People argue that women should have their babies, but if they do not want to keep them, they should give them up for adoption. When I worked as a pastor in Lake Forest, Ill., I found that babies born to blond, blue-eyed teens at the local high school were in high demand and easily adopted. Not true for black babies in the south side of Chicago.

Another issue not talked about is financial assistance for poor mothers who choose to raise their babies or find that their babies are unwanted in the adoption process. The recent farm bill was defeated in large part because of Democrats who did not want to cut food stamps, a feature of the bill. So, we have an effort by some politicians to limit abortion, but who also want to cut assistance to poor mothers. Isn't there a contradiction here? 

Jesus castigated the rich and reached out in his ministry primarily to the poor. Jesus did not criticize the rich for being rich, but for being hard hearted. I wonder what our church-going politicians are hearing from the pulpit, or failing to understand?

My final point concerns our churches. Some denominations — e.g., the Roman Catholic Church — teach that abortion is wrong under all circumstances, even with rape and incest. And then these same churches, or some of them, teach that contraception is wrong. Presumably, a rapist using birth control is committing two sins. Contraception and sex education (which many churches also oppose) cut down the number of unwanted babies, and thus the number of abortions.

To sum up, I am against abortion, unless rape and incest are involved or the mother's life is in danger. That is the Episcopal Church's teaching. But I believe that this should be a woman's choice.

If a rape victim chooses to have a child conceived because of that rape, I applaud her choice and admire her courage. But that choice should be hers, and not Big Brother. Remember that in many instances rapists have rights concerning the child of their crime.

By all means, let's continue as a community to have our debate about abortion. But let's get all the issues on the table, including the staggering number of abortions, the horror of it all, the psychological scars no matter what the choices are, and the fact many people are more concerned about the unborn fetus than the mother and what her circumstances might be.

I have tried to broaden the discussion in this column.

Lastly, a bit more love, sensitivity, respect, empathy and compassion would improve the tenor of the abortion debate.

— By the Rev. Henry Idema, Tribune religion columnist
 

Comments

Vladtheimp

I guess I conclude from this article that the Reverend agrees abortion is the killing of a human being, but that it's O.K. if the killing is at the behest of a woman rather than the state.

I may disagree, but the Reverend also says that " No one is pro-abortion or anti-life." I offer a differing reality http://acahnman.blogspot.com/201...

Mystic Michael

You've proven you're a brave man, Rev, by your willingness to wade chest-deep into this particular crocodile-infested swamp. Your remarks on this topic are among the most nuanced, reasonable and insightful that I've ever encountered. For that reason alone, you should expect to come under heavy fire from the extremists. Yea verily, it hath already begun.

My compliments especially for pointing out the mixed messages, double dealing, and hypocrisy that are so rampant on this matter - from the churches that sear the conscience with their rigid, unrealistic, dogmatic pronouncements, to right-wing politicians who cry "Big Brother!" and "Nanny State!" at the slightest governmental attempts to benefit ordinary people...yet have not the slightest qualm about imposing some of the most personally intrusive policies & procedures imaginable upon our citizens - and by that I mean our female citizens.

This includes not only draconian new bills that would outlaw any & all abortion options in the case of rape, incest, or even when the life of the mother is in danger. It also includes forced transvaginal ultrasound testing - one of the newest arrows in the Far Right's legislative quiver - by which females who seek an abortion must first submit to having a probe physically inserted into their vaginas, for the ostensible purpose of viewing an ultrasound image of the embryo or fetus: a medically unnecessary procedure that could be enforced by law, despite protestations from the woman's physician. Apparently it's all the rage these days in Red states such as Virginia & Texas.

Is abortion indeed a "dirty business"? It is. But such is the stuff of real life, in the real world. In some scenarios, there is no such thing as "the right choice" and "the wrong choice". There are only bad options, and even worse options. Such is the nature of our moral test in this world. At the very least an abortion, when truly necessary or expedient, should always be performed as early as possible during the first trimester, before the spirit has yet entered into the body, before the fetus has become a living soul.

As a man, who am I to tell a 14 year-old girl who has just been raped by her own father than she must either carry the baby to term, or spend the next year in a juvenile detention center? Who am I to dictate to a 40 year-old mother of six children, who just became pregnant because her husband's condom failed, that she must carry the baby to term - despite her doctor's warnings that doing so will kill her?

Enough of church leaders who know nothing of the real world! Enough of politicians who seem to care everything about human beings during their nine months in the womb - then couldn't care less about their welfare for the next 80-90 years of their lives!

If the politicians want to be genuinely useful, let them repeal all the laws that allow a rapist to have child visitation rights. A convicted rapist should never have any legal rights to the product of his crime. Ever.

deuce liti

The problem I have with the abortion debate itself is:

1. False Christians scream it's wrong to take the life of an unborn child and turn around, join the military and kill a grown man, woman, or child.

2. Any woman that cries about the government trying to control her body by saying she can't kill her baby won't cry about prostitution being illegal.

lol125

Mr. Idema, You profess to be a Minister of the word of God and give passages on Jesus and his attitude about the rich when we are actually talking about murdering an innocent child. Jesus said that if you are a stumbling block towards the little ones that it would be better that a mill stone be tied around your neck and be thrown into the lake. Or do you think that killing a child doesn't qualify as a stumbling block? I would assume that as a Minister you would believe that God creates all life? Do you think he makes mistakes in that area? You talk about a woman's choice as opposed to the State making the choice. You mention nothing about the fact that the child has no choice. How about the child's right sir? Do you honestly think that Jesus would think it's OK to kill a child, and that the priority would be what the mother thinks?? You say that nobody is really pro abortion. How about Planned Parenthood?? They make a living at it. How about standing up for the word of God instead of being politically correct? Anyone can do that.

Michael Johnson

Obviously, the entire debate is neither as simple or clear-cut as either side would like it to be. What bothers me is that people attempt to side-step the difficulties by bringing in other areas of the debate. Fundamental to this is the argument as to the rights of the child compared to the rights of the mother to choose. So with that in mind:

1. Carrying to term holds an 80% chance of fatality for the mother. Should she be forced to risk her life and have the child, yes or no?

2. 11 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant. Should she be forced to have the child, yes or no?

These are not isolated or rhetorical examples - they are factual examples based on real-world possibilities. Without evasion or side-stepping the scenarios, how do anti-choice advocates respond to each? Yes or no?

jvc

Sounds like the good reverend is copping out to the extreme feminists. Putting aside the obvious cases of a mother's life being in danger, how can killing an innocent child be justified? Along with Women's Rights come responsibilities, and that includes standing up for the people who can't stand up for themselves.

I'm curious Rev. Idema, do you believe in the death penalty? Or are you following the pop culture/psychology beliefs of the day? The Roman Catholic church, about whom you seem to like to get your digs in believes that all human life is sacred...ie, "Thou shall not kill." The commandment doesn't have an addendum stating "unless the mother finds it to be an inconvenience to carry a baby full term."

deuce liti

" mostly white males who want to control a woman's choices, and thus her own body."

Again, I just don't understand if this is a reasoning point why people are not up in arms about a woman's choice to have sex for money. People are debating killing babies, but don't say boo about prostitution. Does this not make sense to anyone else??

" That is the Episcopal Church's teaching. But I believe that this should be a woman's choice."

This is the entire problem with false Christianity.

God inspired the original writers of the Bible (like a boss dictates a letter to a secretary) to record events so that we can read it with the spirit of truth and truly understand our creator.

We understand that God values life. Jesus showed us how to love God and the life he gave us. To follow Christ, to be Christian, means that you love God with your whole heart, mind and body.

Using this principal given to us by God means there is no debate. No issue. No "Church's teaching or stance or personal feelings, etc."

Hasn't anyone wondered why there is almost 100,000 forms of Christianty and only 1 bible?

The Jews rejected God as king when they asked Samuel for a human king because they wanted to be like the rest of the nations. Samuel was deeply sad and God told him, “Listen to the voice of the people as respects all that they say to you; for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. (8)In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you." (1 Samuel 7)

This is what professed Christians are doing now: serving other gods - themselves. People have made themselves their own gods and have established their own teachings/churches. They follow that in the name of God instead of following God.

For a true Christian there is no debate or preference or "personal feeeeelings." This is the sad state of affairs. But as for the rest of you who don't claim to love God the way Jesus showed us God wants to be loved: more power to you!

So yeah, I'd say it's pretty cut and dry.

Lanivan

There are many disturbing aspects to the current tsunami of abortion bills currently being passed - and it is a tsunami with the number of proposals increasing dramatically since 2011 after remaining fairly steady since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Apparently the elected officials realize they are playing with a hot potato, if their methods of passing these bills tells you anything. They pass them with little to no congressional or public debate or input, in the dead of night during lame duck sessions, and bypassing normal routes of passage by twisting and subverting the rules.

They spend time and taxpayer money on these exercises fully knowing many of these bills have been deemed unconstitutional, or have been blocked by the court system. Clearly, they are hoping to flood the legal system with cases in the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, all at taxpayer expense.

Another disturbing aspect is the medically dubious, debunked, or misinformed facts used to justify the passing of these laws, and the shocking attitudes of the mostly men who pass them regarding rape, pregnancy,contraception, and abortion. Some of the most egregious are the claims that abortion causes cancer (totally false), pregnancy rarely occurs during "legitimate rape", pregnancy out of marriage or from rape are the same, pregnancy from rape is part of God's plan, "some girls rape easy", referring to the violent act of rape as "the rape thing", and so on. This ignorance of the facts and shameful attitudes, along with the enthusiasm for punitive measures like transvaginal ultrasound, the complete lack of caring or concern for the child or the mother once the child is born, basically screams out an agenda that has nothing to do with valuing and supporting life, women, or children.

It's important to note that some of these comments were made by Tea Party candidates who were resoundingly defeated in their respective elections.

Roe v. Wade, which stated that the states must allow a woman to obtain an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, originally fell under the right of privacy implicit in the Constitution. In later cases that involved a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy, the ruling fell under the realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter, implicit in the Constitution. More recently, the equal protection clause has been called into play, saying that undue restriction violate a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course and thus to enjoy equal citizenship, also implicit in the Constitution.

When taken in context with the deep and abiding belief in the Constitution as both a guide and a way of life by many of the supporters of bills that infringe on a woman's equality as a citizen, rights to equal protection, and rights to personal liberty from government interference, one must ask: What kind of perverse and hypocritical agenda are they pushing, what are their true motives, or pathologies, driving this agenda, and why do they think that the infringement or outright desecration of the rights of women - who are now in the majority in this country - could be considered good for the country, or uphold the ideals of the Constitution?

Vladtheimp

This is what Democracy looks like! http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/...

Lanivan

That's not what democracy looks like - it looks like an image shared with a cynical, cavalier, and callous intent that is disrespectful of the special and unique pain a woman carries with her for a lifetime when losing a baby - whether through a miscarriage, stillbirth, and yes, even an abortion. Perhaps you haven't shared that experience, and I sincerely hope you haven't. I also hope I am incorrect in interpreting your motives for this link.

Vladtheimp

Simply illustrating the point that democracy means state legislators voting to reflect the desires of their constituents. Blue States pass laws permitting gay marriage, expanded health care, more wealth re-distribution. In Red States 92 laws restricting abortion were passed in 2011; last year another 43 such laws were added to the books.

That is democracy, not rabble rousers taking over state capitols or democrat legislators fleeing a state to ensure a quorum will not be reached on bills they don't have a majority to kill.

And that is precisely why pro-abortion folks will not even attempt to amend the Constitution to provide for abortion - they don't have the support of a majority of the American people, so they have to resort to undemocratic means, like judicial decisions.

Lanivan

It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to recognize that the explosion of anti-choice bills in red states since 2011 is a cynical, callous, and cavalier attempt to impose draconian, punitive, and expensive, unnecessary medical procedures on women. Or in the case of personhood laws, thumb their noses at centuries of tradition wherein life begins at the point of viability, not as a zygote, but when brain activity begins. At the time the Constitution was ratified, life or 'persons' was considered to begin at birth.

You seem to be saying all this applied energy is simply democracy at work, a reflection of the will of the majority of citizens in a particular state, and that it's all payback because Roe v. Wade is based on implicit rights, and should have been determined through a Constitutional amendment. Nice and tidy.

But it goes against exhaustive polling of abortion issues for years, which tells a different story. The numbers vary little - the majority of Americans want abortion under certain circumstances, the majority respond negatively to the suggestion of overturning Roe V. Wade, and, most significantly, the majority do not think the issue of abortion is a critical issue facing the country today. http://www.pollingreport.com/abo...

Abortion must be legal because women have the implicit right to make decisions about their own productive systems, and they have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy. The bills currently being passed may be supported by the majority of the population in that state, but it's up in the air if they are supported by the majority of women. And in the case of Mississippi, there are plans to revive the fetal personhood ballot initiative that voters just rejected on the grounds that the voters were "confused". And this in a state that is low man on the totem pole in numbers of healthy babies born, not to mention numbers of children without sufficient food, shelter, or education.

Perhaps these legislators who are pushing agendas on the populace will overplay their hands, and be democratically voted out of office. Now that five members of the SCOTUS have overreached once again in Shelby v Holder, with a ruling that eviscerates a 98-0 renewal of the VRA for another 25 years based on a 15,000 page report documenting the need for that renewal, not to mention Citizens United that declares a corporation is a living thing, I don't hold up much hope for an amendment that would reflect the ideals of the Constitution.

Vladtheimp

More liberal twaddle. At the time the Constitution was ratified, killing your unborn child was unthinkable.

The state laws you rail about: (1) reflect the philosophy of the majority of the citizens of those states (democracy), and (2) do not ban or make abortions illegal, but place reasonable restrictions on them, which is consistent with the beliefs of a majority of the country, based on the link that YOU provided - (support House legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks except rape and incest - 48% approve, 44% disapprove; Always legal - 26% / Sometimes legal - 52% / Always illegal - 20%; Pro-abortion 45% / Pro-Life 48%).

It is especially galling when supporters of this President make the argument that abortion is not important because it is not a critical issue facing the country today - Obama divides the country by specifically focusing on issues that are not critical according to the latest polling - he riles everyone up over abortion and Planned Parenthood, gun control, global warming, amnesty for illegals, etc. which are low priorities for most people, while ignoring or exacerbating the issues that are critical: #1 the Economy in general, #2 Unemployment/Jobs, #3 Dissatisfaction with the Government, #4 Federal Budget Deficit/Federal Debt, #5 Health Care, #6 Ethical/Moral/ Family Decline. http://www.gallup.com/poll/16181...

When you, Obama, and the Liberals start to focus on the issues that are critical to the country, instead of throwing about shiny objects to divide and to energize their base, I will take you seriously - otherwise, it's just politics.

Wingmaster

Well written Vlad and an accurate description of what is going on.

Politics being played while our country is losing its position and respect around the world.

Both parties to blame but the Dems perfecting the game of distraction to get to their end game and remain in power.

Think about it, the party that supposedly is the champion of the people with no voice, no political standing or position.

Seems to describe a fetus does it not!

Vladtheimp

Precisely, and to a lesser extent it is more and more descriptive of men in general and white men in particular.http://www.avoiceformen.com/acti...

Lanivan

Sorry, old chap, you don't get to turn this into a pity party for white men. Not on my watch, anyway. I know, your hero, Rick Perry, is all over Fox News crying over "mob rule" taking over the Capitol (a bunch of angry women) and threatening all those defenseless (but armed, I'm sure) legislators, not to mention besmirching the "decorum" of Texas political hanky-panky. If you are suggesting white men are disadvantaged, deprived, or otherwise disproportionately disabled in a societal sense, especially because of women, I honestly would like to offer my condolences.

In addition, if you are attempting to subliminally message that I am prejudiced against men as a way to bolster your ineffective argument and weaken mine, you couldn't be more off the mark. Since birth (oh heck, let's say since the zygote stage) to the present day, I have been loved, supported, taught, valued, encouraged, and inspired by men, and I hope they could say the same about me.

Vladtheimp

Instead of assuming high dudgeon about a side remark I made to Wing's comment, how about a rational response to my comment at Sun, 07/07/2013 - 1:01pm? Too difficult?

Also too difficult to respond to the facts in the link I provided? (And just to be clear, I equated the discrimination against men with the purported philosophy of the democrats, as Wing alluded to).

Just for you: Here is what a President looks like - http://youtu.be/BJbUXw87j0A

Lanivan

"High dungeon"? LOL. Guess you don't get called out very often.

And I did respond, rationally and without weaseling out of the challenge as some are wont to do, to your 1:01 p.m. comment. Don't get testy just because I don't stay in a straight line. And it was tres facile, btw.

President and Mrs. Bush make a lovely couple, and I wish them all the Best in their retirement. Happy 67th Birthday, Godspeed, and Bottoms Up, Mr. President!

Vladtheimp

High dungeon? Maybe some adult beverages involved? (I imply no criticism)

Didn't see your response; now that I have it was, indeed, tre facile

President and Mrs. Obama make a lovely couple, and I wish them all the Best in their retirement. Godspeed, and Toke Up, Mr. President!

Lanivan

It was a Dark & Stormy night....but the Fourth Fete is now finito, and I'm back to the iced tea. High Dundgeon? LOL! I have learned a new phrase, one which I will use often with those who display intense indignation.

Of course, you are sophisticated enough to acknowledge discrimination is everywhere, against everything, and if you search deep enough, you will find statistics that show even white men are discriminated against. I certainly don't approve of any discrimination, and try not to submit to it when I can. My concern is the degree of discrimination shown by legislators (just so happens they are usually white men - I'd be just as upset if it were Asian women) as they pass their anti-choice proposals through, on the taxpayer's dime, and stealthily, so as to not get the ire up of those whose rights are being trampled on. Especially when polls show citizens do not place abortion in the Top Six issues of most concern, and would prefer to see these legislators concentrate on the economy and jobs.

Speaking of the economy, have you seen the statistics that show that the number of abortions drops dramatically when the economy is good, jobs plentiful, and people have confidence in the future? Another area of Recession Collateral Damage. The catastrophe caused by the Bush Recession can be seen by the increasing rates of abortions, and by suicides by middle-aged men - both responses to the black despair and hopelessness felt when you are without a job, sometimes a home, no health care, no future. This is the callousness I speak of when I express my outrage that these bogus legislators ignore the needs of the people. And you blame Obama for this? Could you be more specific?

The Koch brothers have embarked on another $1 Billion ad campaign against Obamacare - yes, the Affordable Care Act that provides health care options to the working poor, unemployed or underemployed working class, so perhaps abortion rates will go down.

And then there is the economy. Did you see the WSJ list of top business thinkers in the US? Paul Krugman, the liberal, Nobel Peace prize winner economist, NYTimes op-ed writer was voted #1. http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2013...

And I am sincere in my question posed to you regarding state's rights to define personhood.

Vladtheimp

For starters, I see that you have at least one more (10 million plus one) "Blame Bush" in you. In five years a woman could have birthed 5 babies, but all Obama can do is place more obstacles to economic growth in the way of business in homage to his socialist philosophy and agenda.

And if the Blame Bush theme is not enough, bring up the left's democrat boogermen, the Koch brothers. Well played, Lanny, while ignoring the issues, including the polls, which are, after all, including women, who outnumber men but are still magically a "minority" in their sampling.

In typical leftist fashion, you apparently have been dazzled, and think the rest of us should be, by a pop media analysis based on "Google hits, media mentions and academic citations ." Nothing like a scientific consensus to hang your hat on, eh? And based on "media mentions" - how incestuous.

Don't need to spend much time on your so-called question. States are sovereigns in their own right and under their police powers can define things like crimes as they see fit. I really find it hard to understand why this is so perplexing to you when you are awed, overjoyed, and supportive of states overturning centuries of definitions and traditions and defining a union of a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a transsexual and a transgender, and whatever other combination you can imagine, as a "marriage" entitled to all the benefits attendant thereto. Consistency is, I guess, truly the hobgoblin of small minds.

I'd be remiss if I didn't note your false history "At the time the Constitution was ratified, life or 'persons' was considered to begin at birth." I didn't see any citation to that, but even though it is in vogue these days to discriminate against and marginalize Catholics, many of the states that ratified the Constitution were largely Catholic, and under Catholic theology, life begins at conception. And, to your wonderment probably, it is a fact that roughly half of Catholics are women! How perplexing - think of how many more will be thwarting your program when your amnesty bill becomes law . . .

Lanivan

There is so much of 'Bush' to blame. And your fastidious construction of the Obama house of cards has left out of the floor plan the fact that Obama is quite pro-business, and, in fact, saved capitalism by digging us out of the recession plus confronting the biggest threat to the budget deficit - the rising costs of health care.

Now then, aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you support state rights, but are in a lather over the fact that SCOTUS has now turned over the decision about who can love whom to those states? My honest-to-goodness question (I think we have trust issues) was to ascertain how you justify the idea that individual states should have the power to define personhood, willy-nilly, when the Constitution was based on the conventional wisdom that the rights, powers and duties of a person were defined by law, and that personhood in relation to those rights began at birth.

Your legerdemain skills are on focus with the right turn to Catholicism. I found that of 204 delegates involved with the entire Constitution process, only 3 were of the Catholic faith. Not a very good representation of all those Catholic states of which you speak. Significantly, the majority - 88 - were Episcopalian/Anglican, the same denomination Rev Idema represents. Yes! Rev Idema, who so bravely "wades chest deep into this particular crocodile-infested swamp" (MM's always eloquent words), and who has led us to this fun-fest of continual head-butting.

I think Catholic leadership has much to do with any "discriminating and marginalizing of Catholics", what with their history of centuries of discriminating against women, treatment of nuns, and decades of sexual abuse by priests and subsequent cover-up. Since the majority of Hispanic Americans and immigrants are Catholic and would presumably be opposed to abortion, one would think you would be in favor of the bipartisan immigration bill. Oh yes, they do tend to be Democrats (those citizens who can vote), and with the critical need for voter suppression laws and greater government interference into the most basic right of US citizens, all because of the vast amounts of voter fraud, what with the enthusiasm illegal immigrants have to vote and draw attention to their illegal status and harsh penalties if caught, these Catholic people will suffer even more discrimination and will not likely vote Republican any time soon. What a Catch-22 for you far-right extremists! Still with me here?

I don't think you are looking long-term. Consider the prejudice anti-choice legislators are revealing against women who they seem to view as probably voting mostly democrat, when in essence, if you subscribe to that thinking, they are creating a situation where just more future democrats will be born.

Vladtheimp

I think we need to agree to disagree - from my perspective I am once again attempting to nail jello to the wall.

IMHO, your views of Obama as savior of capitalism, getting us out of recession, and being pro-business are nothing short of delusional.

I can find no source for your assertion that personhood begins at birth - see tort law on loss of unborn child noted before. If you are correct about number of Catholics in states at time of Constitution I stand corrected on that comment, but they are still being marginalized and discriminated against in Obamacare, and by those who claim by adhering to their religious tenets they are discriminating against women.

IMHO, the critical issues about the amnesty legislation is that the immigrants will be wards of the state for as long as the eye can see, qualifying for every entitlement we provide to citizens, while eliminating job prospects for those in our society who would be competing against them for low skill jobs.

If Republicans can't persuade people of all stripes that their agenda is best for the people and for the nation, and need to abandon their principles to buy the votes of pro-abortion voters and poor immigrants, then they don't deserve my support.

Fortunately, since democrats are aborting future democrats in record numbers, the Republican party will survive. If it becomes democrat-socialist light, it won't survive for long.

Awaiting the next topic for continuing discussion, particularly if it's one that's germane to what most of the people think is important rather than Obama/democrat shiny divisive objects.

Lanivan

Until then, for you - something I love to play, listen to, and what I feel is germane. Maybe it will be more persuasive than I am.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...

Lanivan

Looks like this is one of those times when we "ponder how we sometimes think alike, but reach different conclusions". As you well know, my point about the ratification of the Constitution is pertinent. Obviously, nothing about abortion (and it certainly wasn't unthinkable at that time, nor any time actually) is 'explicitly or implicitly' stated in the document, but the basic premise of Constitutional rights attaches to persons, with personhood defined by birth.

The key word is "reasonable". Many of the most extreme anti-choice laws are not reasonable, they break precedence with historical thinking, they re-define personhood, especially in a constitutional sense, they contradict medical protocol, and they optherwise unnecessarily infringe on the rights of women. The majority of people do not oppose reasonable abortion laws. But I guess the real test will be the upcoming elections.

Your next paragraph (and a half) is a paragon of prejudicial BS. Your statements are so outside the realm of rational thinking, I must ask: are you - 1.) flailing about and resting on Obama's laurels - again, for the 10 millionth time - to augment your failing argument; 2.) trying to bully your way out of a corner; 3.) pulling pigtails again, for the 10 millionth time?

My vote - all three.

Onedoughboy

Here we are talking about abortion again. Just another political distraction, to keep us from making any progress in this country.

EITHER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR OWN BODY OR YOU DON'T. That's the only choice or side you need to take in this debate. Which will go on forever, and the country will burn to the ground in the background. While your trying to control a women's right to her own body. GOD is our judge, not public opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS

Thank You! for your clear and concise observation and stating it so simply. Because this issue is so simple as you have stated, most commenting are lost in their own ego of a large spaghetti ball mess wound-up so tight and spewing out a tsunami of words in the name of Religion, Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible that makes what they've written just as confusing in the end as they were when they began.

newsblogger

You left out the part where it takes a man and a woman to produce a baby but its only the decision of the woman as to whether or not it lives.

There is also another option for the majority of those who "find themselves pregnant" not due to rape or incest.. Stop having unprotected sex! Yes some babies will still be conceived but the vast majority won't become pregnant if using birth control (or abstinence), thereby making it more affordable for the rest of us who have to pay for this woman's mistake/choice to give birth.

chirho14

We all grasp for self-satisfying options that make us feel better about our lives. That is our flaw. Reading this article immediately reminds me how we all are deviating from Biblical principles to help comfort our worldly concerns. The sad thing about sin is that it is everywhere and dangles its ugly face in unsuspecting places, even Ministers of the Word. God does not make mistakes and every life has a soul. At any level of anatomic development is a creation of God. Are we so wise to feel we can decide what life is because it may or may not make us feel better about our situation? The portion of this article that disturbed me the most was about adoption. What an awful criticism. Just because adoptions don't always work doesn't give credence to take that child's opportunity at a life. The child should have rights and stripping the child of rights through self-fulfilling anatomic analysis is just wrong. Read the Word, don't try to be better than it.

Pages

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.